ML20076C671
| ML20076C671 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Midland |
| Issue date: | 08/17/1983 |
| From: | Steptoe P CONSUMERS ENERGY CO. (FORMERLY CONSUMERS POWER CO.), ISHAM, LINCOLN & BEALE |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OL, ISSUANCES-OM, NUDOCS 8308230132 | |
| Download: ML20076C671 (380) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:~ i .\ Auguot 17, 1983 B0CKETED UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 13 AE 22 A9:57 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSIN_G_ BOARD 50C$TYbGYS?RvNl~ BRANCH In the Matter of ) Docket Nos. 50-329-OM
) 50-330-OM CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY ) 50-329-OL
) 50-330-OL (Midland Plant, Units 1 )
and 2) ) APPLICANT'S RESPONSE TO MOTIONS OF INTERVENORS MARY SINCLAIR AND BARBARA STAMIRIS WITH RESPECT TO DOW LAWSUIT I. Introduction On July 14, 1983 the Dcw Chemical Company ("Dow") filed a Complaint in the Circuit Court for the County of Midland against Consumers Power Company (" Consumers" or
" Applicant"). The Complaint, which has been served by Applicant on the Licensing Board and on the parties, requested a declaratory judgment that all Dow's obligations under its June 21, 1978 General Agreement with Consumers for the sale of process steam to Dow from Applicant's Midland Plant are discharged and cancelled. Dov also seeks $60,000,000 in damages. The Complaint alleges, as grounds for relief, that Consumers made various misrepresentations and nondisclosures to Dow, particularly with respect to cost and schedule for DR DOC OO 29 O PDR -1~
completing the Midland Plant and supplying process steam to Dow.1! On July 28, 1983, Ms. Mary Sinclair made an oral motion (Tr . 18341-45), followed by distribution of a substantially identical written motion. Ms. Sinclair rehearses some of the allegations in Dow's Complaint and then requests the Licensing Board to hold open the record in both the OM and OL phases of this NRC licensing proceeding until the Dow litigation is concluded. Also on July 28, 1983 Ms. Barbara Stamiris, by her counsel, made an oral motion concerning the Dow lawsuit (Tr. 19358-19365), which was subsequently reduced to writing and served on August 8, 1983. Ms. Barbara Stamiris' pleading dated August 5, 1983 is a " motion to litigate" three issues, based on "new evidence" in the form of allegations in the Dow Complaint. These three so-called "Dow issues" which Ms. Stamiris wishes to litigate in this proceeding are: 1 The Dow Complaint as. originally filed was dismissed by the Circuit Court sua sponte on July 15, 1983 because it appeared to the Court to have been " prepared for use as a press handout rather than a notice pleading provided in the court rules." On July 18, 1983 Dow filed a First Amended Complaint which is less detailed. Ms. Sinclair's July 28, 1983 motion and Ms. Stamiris' August 8, 1983 Motion refer throughout to the initial Dow Complaint, and we will follow suit, except where necessary to point out important differences between the two Dow pleadings. The title of the Dow lawsuit is Dow Chemical Company v. Consumers Power Company, File No. 83-002232-CK-D. F
- 1) Whether Consumers Power Company misrepresented its time schedule for completing the Midland plants to the NRC, including the NRC staff and this Licensing Board. (D ?w Complaint, is 20, 37, 39-48)
- 2) Whether Consumers Power Company used and relied on U.S. Testing test results to fulfill NRC regulatory requirements while knowing that these test results were invalid. (Dow Complaint is 24, 35)
- 3) Whether Consumers Power Company knowingly represented to the NRC that the single test boring taken near the diesel generator building demonstrated that unmixed cohesive fill had been used as a foundation for safety related structures at the site even though this test boring, according to Dow, actually indicated that random fill had been improperly used in these areas. (Dow Complaint 1 27)
Ms. Stamiris also requests immediate reopening of discovery on these three issues, in particular to secure documents supplied by Applicant to Dow prior to the lawsuit and referred to in paragraph 56 of the Dow Complaint. Ms. Stamiris believes these documents should also have been supplied to her by Applicant in response to her discovery requests in this proceeding. Applicant has decided to make available to Intervenors at-its Midland Service Center next week all of the documents provided to Dow and referred to in paragraph 56 of the Dow Complaint. (There are four boxes of such documents. Hereinafter, these are referred to as "the Dow documents"). We believe this is a sufficient response to Ms. Stamiris' August 8, 1983 Motion, insofar as it applies to reopening
discovery.dl With respect to Ms. Stamiris' request to litigate the three "Dow issues," and Ms. Sinclair's motion to indefinitely defer closing the record in this proceeding, Applicant proposes that the Licensing Board defer any decision for about 30 days to allow intervenors (and the Staff, if it chooses) an opportunity to review these documents and then, if appropriate, re.new or supplement their motions in the documents.dI It seems unreasonable for the Licensing Board to defer indefinitely closing the record in this proceeding or to admit the "Dow issues" for litigation, either of which actions would have a profound effect on the future course of this proceeding, on the basis of speculation about what the Dow documents may show. This is especially true since the speculation contained in the motions is necessarily based on Intervenors' second-hand interpretation of Dow's characterization of documents, some of which neither they nor the Board have ever seen.
-2/ For reasons stated in Part IV of this Response, Applicant does not agree that any of the Dow documents which were not provided'to Ms. Stamiris in response to her discovery requests in this proceeding should have been provided.
SI Applicant of course will not make any objection on the ground of timeliness to such a renewed motion made within the time limits to be established by the Board, assuming the motion is truly based on new information in the Dow documents. I
4 In light of the foregoing, any further response by . 9 Applicant could be viewed as premature or unnecessary. Nevertheless, following the Appeal Board's recent admonition to respondents,'in Part II of this Response Applicant addresses Ms. Sinclair's motion to hold open the record
- indefinitely in this proceeding. In Part III below we address the merits of Ms. Stamiris' motion to reopen the record, while in Part IV we address Ms. Stamiris' assertion that the Dow e documents should have been provided to her in response to her
} discovery requests. See Public Service Company of New i Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-734, NRC (slip op. at pp. 4-5, n.4), July 19, 1983). II. Ms. Sinclair's Motion to Hold Open the Record in This Proceeding Indefinitely Is Unreasonable. 4 Whatever the nierits of the Dow litigation, the relief requested by Sinclair, namely to hold open the records of both the OM and the OL phases of this proceeding until the l Dow-Consumers litigation is concluded, is overbroad. There is no new evidence in the Dow Complaint which must be heard prior I to reaching a decision in-the OM portion of this case as the more detailed response to the Stamiris motion will demonstrate. Ms. Sinclair argues in support of her requert (Tr. 19341-19342) that the superior resources of Dow and its law firm might bring to light discovery material not heretofore available to Intervenors. This assertion amounts to no more than sheer speculation on her part. 4 4 m ce r , , .,r+ 4 m - ~ , ,. 3 ----~-,----,.-,-4vg - , -,,...mwww_.wv,.--v+.~.r+---r-m-.--v,e ---9 ,-y, -, ,
- The Dow litigation basically focuses on (1) the proper interpretation of the termination provisions of the Dow-Consumers General Agreement, and (2) whether there existed such nondisclosures and misrepresentations on Consumers' part with respect to Dow as to excuse Dow's withdrawal without any termination payments and to create an obligation on Consumers' part to pay damages to Dow. There is a large sum of money at stake in this litigation, and it may drag on for years in phases where no conclusions useful to this Board could be reached - - - or the case could settle fairly expeditiously depending on events as yet unknown. Anyone who has been involved in conducting such cases knows that their progress and outcome are capricious at best. To tie the OM proceeding to the conclusion of the Dow litigation has absolutely no logical foundation and should be rejected out of hand.
With respect to Ms. Sinclair's request to hold open the record of the OL proceeding, it is obvious that the issuance of operating license in this case is not imminent. If Ms. Sinclair can in the future demonstrate, based on substantial evidence (as opposed to mere allegations), that there is an important question relevant to Applicant's qualifications to receive an NRC operating license, this question could be brought to the Licensing Board's attention by proposing a new OL contention with specificity and basis as called for in the NRC's Rules of Practice. But at the present time this is a speculat.ive possibility which does not justify total paralysis of this proceeding. III. Ms. Stamiris' Motion to Litigate Issues Raised By Dow Lawsuit Should Not Be Granted Although Ms. Stamiris' August 8, 1983 Motion purports to invoke this Licensing Board's " broad inherent authority to shape the course of the proceedings over which (licensing boards] preside," it is in substance a combination of a motion to reopen the record to receive "new evidence" with respect to two issues which have already been litigated, and a motion to add a new contention (Applicant's alleged misrepresentations concerning scheduling). As the Appeal Board in Detroit Edison Company, (Enrico Fermi Atomic Power Plant, Unit 2), ALAB-730, 17 NRC (June 2, 1983) summarized, to justify reopening the record of a proceeding, a party must show that the matter it wishes to have considered is (1) timely presented, (2) addressed to a significant issue, and (3) susceptible of altering the result previously reached. In the context of a motion to reopen the record, a Licensing Board may take into account affidavits and other evidentiary material as if ruling on a motion for summary disposition. Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation (Vermont Yankee Station) ALAB-138, 6 AEC 520, 523-24 (1973). A party seeking to add a new contention after the close of the record must satisfy the specificity and basis requirements in 10 CFR S 2.714(d), the standards for filing a late filed contention set
forth in 10 CFR S 2.714 (a) (1) , as well as the standards summarized in Fermi. See Pacific Gas and Electric Co. (Diablo Canyon, Units 1 and 2), CLI-82-39, (slip opinion at 4) (December 23, 1982), citing Pacific Gas & Electric Co. (Diablo Canyon, Units 1 and 2) CLI-81-5, 13 NRC 361, 364 (1981). In Applicant's view, the two "Dow issues" which allege that Applicant knowingly used invalid U.S. Testing test results, and knowingly misrepresented the results of the 1977 test boring performed near the DGB, are within the scope of Ms. Stamiris' OM Contentions but present no new evidence. As stated in Part (C) below, the allegation that Applicant misrepresented its construction schedule to the NRC is a new issue and Ms. Stamiris has not met the requirements referred to in Diablo Canyon, CLI-82-39, supra. Each of the Dow issues is discussed below. Applicant has reviewed the Dow documents, as well as the record in this proceeding, and in some cases where we believe we have found the specific document referred to in a paragraph of the Dow Complaint invoked by Ms. Stamiris, we have included it. It is convenient to address the three "Dow issues" in reverse order. (A) Whether Consumers Power Company knowingly represented to the NRC that the single test boring taken near the diesel generator building demonstrated that unmixed cohesive fill had been used as a foundation for safety-related structures at the site, even though this test boring actually indicated that random fill had been improperly used on these areas. (Dow Complaint, 3 27) Although Ms. Stamiris relies on para' graph 27 of the Dow Complaint, that paragraph when read carefully does not contain any information which is new or unfamiliar to this Board. It states:
- 27. To examine the entire safety-related portion of the site, Consumers Power conducted only one test boring. As a matter of prudent engineering practice, a single boring was insufficient to determine the safety of fill over the complete site. Contrary to representations in the Safety Analysis Reports submitted to the NRC that unmixed cohesive fill had been used in safety-related areas, this single test demonstrated that Consumers Power had improperly used random fill consisting of mixed clay, and other materials with varying properties. Consumers Power's representations that unmixed cohesive fill had been used in the AI In some cases we have not found among the four boxes of Dow documents any document corresponding to what Ms.
Stamiris speculates must exist based on her reading of the Dow Complaint. Obviously different people may interpret documents in different ways. Since we are providing all the Dow documents to Intervenors, and upon request, we will make them available to the NRC Staff, the other parties are free to present to the Board the results of their own review and interpretations of these documents. safety area were later determined by NRC officials to be material false statements. In this case, it is no secret that the NRC Staff has concluded that a material false statement was made in the FSAR. For purposes of this proceeding, Applicant has agreed not to contest that issue, and the NRC Staff has agreed that this material false statement was not made intentionally. See Joint Ex 6; Hood, NRC Staff prepared testimony in response to Stamiris' Contention No. 1 at pp. 5-7, following Tr. 1560. Nor is there any mystery about the boring log referred to in the Dow Complaint. The boring log itself was introduced into evidence two years ago by Ms. Stamiris as, Stamiris Ex. 19. Tr. 4339. It was the subject of prolonged cross-examination by Ms. Stamiris. See Tr. 3437-3441, 3589-3638. As indicated in 1 27 of the Dow Complaint, Stamiris Ex. 19 shows heterogeneous materials (the expert witnesses in this proceeding preferred the term
" heterogeneous" rather than " random" to describe the Midland fill, see Applicant's Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law on Remedial Soils Issues dated August 5, 1983 at 1 205). However, Mr. Kane testified that based on the blow counts, Stamiris Ex. 19 indicates competent soil. Tr.
3618-3619. See also Keeley, prepared testimony at p. 5, following Tr. 1163. Ms. Stamiris' August 8, 1973 Motion alleges, contrary to Mr. Kane's and Mr. Keeley's testimony, that this
1977 soil boring near the DGB "showed site-wide problems" (at pp. 5-11). No such statement appears in the Dow Complaint; perhaps Intervenor Stamiris infers this from the statement in paragraph 27 that the boring " demonstrated that Consumers Power had improperly used random fill. . ." But it is not clear whether the word " improper" as used by Dow in paragraph 27 (and also in paragraph 24) reflects a legal or technical judgment. Is Dow claiming that the use of heterogeneous fill was " improper" becr.use it was inconsistent with the FSAR, or because it would necessarily lead to soils problems? There is no indication that the person who verified the Dow Complaint is competent to venture a technical opinion on the subject. We note that Mr. Kane is on record as stating that heterogeneous soil would be as acceptable as homogenous so long as it was adequately compacted.E! Ms. Stamiris' August 8, 1973 Motion also erroneously relies on paragraph 27 of the Dow Complaint for the assertion that " Consumers knowingly represented to the NRC that the single test boring taken near the diesel generator building E! Kane, Tr. 4427. See also Hood, Tr. 4426-4427. This conclusion is also implicit in the testimony of Dr. Peck and Dr. Hendron concerning the efficacy of the DGB surcharge, since the surcharge did not alter the heterogenerous composition of the materials in the fill, although it did have an " homogenizing effect" on their properties. See Applicant's Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Concerning Remedial Soils Issues, at 3 135.
- 11 --
demonstrated that unmixed cohesive fill had been used. . . ." (at p. 2) In fact, the evidence in this proceeding shows that no representations at all were made to the NRC about the 1977 Administration Building grade beam failure, and the subsequent boring in the DGB area, until December 1978, after discovery of the DGB settlement problem. See Gallagher, NRC Staff prepared testing in response to Stamiris Contention No. 1 at
- p. 13, following Tr. 1566; Gallagher, NRC Staff Testimony with respect to Stamiris Contention No. 3, Attachment 2 (I & E Inspection Report 78-20) at p. 22, following Tr. 1754; Tr.
2336-2338. It is obvious from a careful reading of paragraph 27 of the Dow Complaint that the " representations" referred to are the statement about plant fill in the FSAR which are cited as material false statements in the December, 6, 1979 Modification Order. There is nothing in the Dow Complaint which charges that a misrepresentation (knowing or otherwise) was made to the Staff specifically about the results of the 1977 boring near the diesel generator building. Certainly the NRC Staff has never made any such claim. Intervenor apparently concludes, based on her reading of the Dow Complaint (and perhaps Dow meant to imply this), that since the 1977 boring near the DGB " demonstrated . . . random fill," Applicant must have known that the statements in the FSAR that only clay and controlled, compacted cohesive fill had been used at the plant site were false. However, the evidence in this proceeding shows that
l l l Bechtel's construction specifications called for the use of
" random" fill - thus finding such fill with high blow counts in the 1977 boring near the DGB would not'have been news to anyone at the' site, nor would it have alerted them to site-wide soil problems. See Gallagher, Tr. 1814-1815; Gallagher, NRC Testimony With Respect to Intervenor Stamiris Contention No. 3, Attachment 2, p. 6, following Tr. 1754. In short, the fact that 1977 boring log shows heterogeneous soils
'at the DGB has no significance because neither Applicant nor the NRC Staff has ever claimed that the placement of heterogeneous soils at the Midland site was unintentional.
What was unintentional was the failure to achieve adequate compaction, and the failure of the FSAR to accurately reflect
'l what was done.
It is apparent that Intervenor Stamiris has not satisfied the standards for reopening the record with respect to this issue. The Dow Complaint contains no new information; i it merely refers to a boring log which Intervenor Stamiris i herself placed in evidence more than two years ago. The NRC Staff has testified that, contrary to Ms. Stamiris' assertion, that boring does not indicate a soils problem. Therefore, there is no basis for the charge that Applicant made a knowing
.ni srepresent ati on to the NRC.
(B) Whether Consumers used and relied on U.S. i Testin'g test results to fulfill NRC regulatory requirements while knowing that these test i results were invalid (See Dow Complaint, is 24, 35) i' w-,- , --,--wg. --. -,,--,e - - , .- ~- ----m---- .,,a - emo a w----x- ,.----,,,-w-o-e-
- - - ~ - , ~ , - - - + - , - . - -
l We have found nothing in the Dow documents which supports Dow's assertion in paragraph 24 of the Complaint that Consumers Power Company proceeded with the placement of the fill " knowing . . . that false or misleading test results were being relied upon to certify the fill as meeting standards of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission." On its face, this allegation is absurd, since it postulates that Applicant would intentionally act contrary to its own interest by relying on test results known to be inaccurate. Indeed, in Dow's First Amended Complaint at 112, this statement is significantly l altered, to read: l On information and belief, Consumers Power knew or Eould have known prior to execution of the 1978 ~ General Agreement that it would be unable to place the Midland Nuclear Facility is commercial operation for process steam service by March 1, 1982 for l l several reasons, including that: (d) false or misleading test results were being relied upon certify the fill as meeting standards of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ("NRC"). An allegation made "upon information and belief" about what Consumers " knew or should have known," does not provide "new evidence" justifying the record on management attitude issues in this proceeding. Such an allegation amounts to nothing more than what Dow hopes to prove. The allegation in paragraph 35 of the Dow Complaint, which is also relied upon by Intervenors, has even less substance. Paragraph 35 states: b
- 35. Following the August 23, 1978 suspension of construction, Consumers Power conducted another investigation which confirmed that there had been systematic and gross negligence in the placement and compaction of fill underlying the entire site. The investigation concluded that essentially all moisture and density tests conducted during the placement and compaction of the fill had been improperly performed. As later summarized in July 1979 report prepared by Bechtel, "there is no rational means of determining which test results are valid and which are not."
There is nothing new in this paragraph. Contrary to Ms. Stamiris' assertion, Dow does not allege in this paragraph that " Consumers knowingly used false test reports" (.M s . , Stamiris' August 8, 1983 Motion at p. 5) . Paragraph 35 obviously refers to investigation of U.S. Testing performed after discovery of the DGB settlement problem. This is confirmed by a review of the July 1979 Bechtel report referred to in paragraph 35 of the Dow Complaint. Ms. Stamiris mistakenly asserted that Applicant had withheld that report from her.5 ' In fact, she herself introduced it into evidence as Stamiris Ex. 3 Attachment 11. 5! See Bernebei and Stamiris, Tr. 19360-19363, 19367-19369. On August 12, 1983, Ms. Stamiris by her counsel filed a
" Notice of Correction to Intervenor's Motion to Litigate Issues Raised by Dow Suit," indicating that she had in fact received a July 1979 Bechtel report (on scheduling) referred to in paragraph 37 of the Dow Complaint. We are not sure whether Ms. Stamiris really meant to refer to the July 1979 Bechtel Report on U.S. Testing referred to in the text above and in paragraph 35 of the Dow Complaint.
The July 1979 Bechtel Report, from which Dow selectively quotes, states at p. 6: In summary, there are five major faults contained in the Midland Compacte Fill Density Test Reports as follows:
- 1. erroneous field density test data.
- 2. incorrect soil identification
- 3. incorrect (or questionable) laboratory test data.
- 4. calculation errors
- 5. improper or incomplete clearing of " failed" tests.
Items 4 and 5 represent existing faults in the data which could be corrected. However, as a result of items 1 through 3, there is no rational means of determining which test results are valid and which are not. Since more than one half of the test results for relative density and percent compaction fall outside the possible theoretical comparison limits, it must be concluded that these test results are suspect and should not be used alone for acceptance of plant area fill. Therefore, other means of testing have been established and employed to determine if the fill in any given area is acceptable. The last two sentences clearly contradict the suggestion that there was knowing use by the Consumers of invalid test results. Again, there is no "new evidence" which justifies reopening the record on this issue.1/ Ms. Stamiris -7/ There is of course a great deal of information in the record in addition to the July 1979 Bechtel Report which describes the problems with U.S. Testing's activities during fill placement. See, for example, Applicant's Responses to NRC 10 CFR S 50.54 (f) Questions Regarding Plant Fill, response to Question 1 at App. I, pp. 1-13 to 1-18 and response to Question 23 at pp. 23-26 to 23-31. (cont. on next page)
motion is not timely, not addressed to a significant issue, and not capable of altering the result in this proceeding. See Fermi, supra, ALAB-730, 17 NRC (June 2, 1983). (C) Whether Consumers misrepresented its time schedule for completion of the Midland plants to the NRC, including the NRC Staff and this Licensing Board. (See Dow Complaint is 20, 37, 39-48) The first thing for the Licensing Board to bear in mind in addressing this issue is that the corresponding allegations in Dow's First Amended Complaint have been denied as untrue in Consumers Power Company's Answer and Affirmative Defenses to First Amended Complaint. Dow's allegations, verified as being true or "on information and belief" as being true, are only unproved allegations. A second important point to recogniza is that while applicants have an absolute duty to make accurate statements to the NRC on all matters, their affirmative obligation to volunteer information with respect to their construction schedules is limited. Applicant's schedule has never been a matter in controversy in this proceeding. See, e.g., Tr. (fn. 7 continued) These were received into evidence as Attachments 9 and 14, respectively to Stamiris Ex. 3. See also the NRC inspection reports 78-20, 80-32 and 80-33 attached to NRC Staff Testimony with respect to Stamiris Contention 3, following Tr. 1754; Gallagher, Tr. 2438-2439. -8/ This pleading, dated August 5, 1983, was served on all parties in this proceeding on August 11, 1983. i _8767-8768. As Chairman Bechhoefer himself stated, when asked , by Ms. Stamiris whether Applicant had a continuous obligation to provide the Board and the public with whatever was its current best estimate for a construction completion date (Tr. 9885): I don't think there is any specific obligation. I think they have an obligation to tell us as much as they know so that we can set schedules, but -- they have an obligation to tell the Staff what it needs to know so that the Staff may pace its review. I don't think there's any definite obligation to come in and provide either the Board of the Staff with definite information every time it develops except to the extent it affects our hearings or the Staff's review. A review of the record in this proceeding shows that Applicant has given the Licensing Board accurate information about Applicants' target fuel load schedule. There is no "new evidence" in the Dow Complaint which provides a basis for Ms. Stamiris' assertion that Applicant lied to the Board about its construction schedule. Dow Complaint, 1 20: Applicant's uncontradicted, sworn testimony in this- proceeding is that unusual settlement of the DGB was discovered in July, 1978, one month after execution of the General Agreement.A! Moreover, Dow's First Amended Complaint makes a significant change in this E/ See, e.g. Keeley, prepared testimony following Tr. 1163. E -
allegation. Dow now alleges at S 12 in the First Amended Complaint, only "on information and belief" that CPCO " knew or should have known" of the soil problems prior to execution of the General Agreement. It is reasonable to assume that this allegation is based not on "new evidence," but on Dow's interpretation of the record in this proceeding concerning pre-1979 soils quality assurance implementation and the Administration Building grade beam incident. Dow Complaint, 1 37: Applicant advised the Licensing Board on the record of these schedule delays. See the following documents, which are attached to this Response: (Attachment 1) 6/20/79 letter from Michael I. Miller to Licensing Board, with attached Motion (announcing eight month delay ; in Unit 2 target fuel load date from November 1980 to June 1981 and that there would be ggjchange in Unit 1 fuel load date; - also noting that "The achievability of these target fuel dates will be further evaluated (in 1979].") (Attachment 2) 7/10/79 letter from Michael I. Miller to Licensing Board (advising Licensing Board o.f corresponding 1S Paragraph 37 indicates that Bechtel had recommended a five month delay for Unit 1 (the second unit to be completed). This schedule delay was not accepted by Applicant. See Attachment 7 hereto at,
" History / Background-F/C #4 to F/C #6," p 3.Bechtel's recommendation with respect to Unit 1 was apparently not communicated to the Licensing Board, nor was there any need to do so, among other reasons because the NRC paces its review based on the target fuel load date of the first unit to be completed, in this case, Midland Unit 2.
adjustments to commercial operation dates.)
, (Attachment 3) 11/26/79 letter from Michael I.
Miller to Licensing Board (advising Licensing Board, based on preliminary informatitn from Bechtel, that " fuel loading in Unit 2 could be delayed until some date in 1983").
-The last sentence of paragraph 37 of the Dow Complaint does not appear to refer to a specific document.
The reference may be to the December 6, 1979 Modification Order (see the discussion of the December 6, 1979 Modification Order which follows in paragraphs 38 and 39 of the Dow Complaint). Dow Complaint, 1s 38-39: There is no "new evidence" in these paragraphs. Dow Complaint, 3 40: Applicant advised the Licensing Board of Bechtel's Forecast 6 in the following letter: (Attachment 4) 2/8/80 letter from Martha E. Gibbs to Licensing Board (advising that Bechtel's projected fuel load date for Unit 2 was now April 1984 with commercial operation in September, 1984. Ms. Gibbs' letter also stated that Bechtel's projected fuel load date for Unit 1 was September, 1984, with commercial operation dates of March, 1985 (electric) and May, 1985 (steam). Ms. Gibbs' letter also advised the Board that Applicant had not yet adopted these dates.) Dow Complaint, is 41 and 42: The Licensing Board should examine carefully the following documents: (Attachment 5) 3/27/80 letter from Martha E. Gibbs
1 1 1 to Licensing Board (advising the Licensing Board of the results of the March 5, 1980 CPCo board of directors meeting, and reemphasizing that Bechtel's projected schedule not to be considered firm). (Attachment 6) " Midland Alternatives Study" presented to CPCo's board of directors at the March 5, 1980 meeting. As far as we can determine this has not been produced in this case, nor is it one of the Dow documents. However, it was produced pursuant to discovery in a Michigan Public Service Commission case, which may be where Dow obtained it. Nothing in this document suggests any plan to mislead or defraud Dow, the NRC, or anyone else. (Attachment 7) 5/5/80 K. R. Kline/D. G. Randolph memo. The language Dow quotes appears in the introduction at p. 2. Note that the cover indicates that its reflects Applicant's initial (January - March, 1980) look at Bechtel's Forecast 6, that it was not presented to the board of directors for approval, and that " events are currently underway" including a schedule re in changes.yjpw, which could result Dow Complaint, 1s 43 and 44: See the following 11/ The May 5, 1980 Kline/Randolph memo represents the preliminary conclusions of employees who were not the corporate decision-makers. As such, it is not something which was required to be disclosed to the NRC especially since Applicant had already fully advised the Board about Bechtel's Forecast 6, and also advised the Board that Applicant was reviewing that schedule. See Consumers Power Company (Midland Plant, Units 1 and), ALAB-691, 16 NRC 897, 912 (1982). Note that there is virtually no discussion of soils issues in this document: TMI issues, not soils, were at that time thought to be controlling the schedule. See Howell, Tr. 2857. f
documents, which Dow appears to be referring to: (Attachment 8) 7/31/80: Mollenkopf memo, (documenting June 25, 1980 CPCo/Bechtel executive management meeting). (Attachment 9) 7/16/80: Rutgers letter (notes of the July 10, 1980 Midland Project Management Team meeting). These documents do not support the sinister conclusions drawn by Dow. For example, the July 10, 1980 meeting notes state (at p. 2) that: Forecasts will reflect work-around plans to achieve the current project schedule. Correspondence between Bechtel and Consumers Power Company and items for publicconsumptionwilll{gyfuelloaddatesinthe current project schedule Note that the Dow Complaint only quotes part of the sentence. , If anything, the July 10, 1980 meeting notes show Applicant's intent to have a single consistent schedule for internal communications as well as for public consumption. The Licensing Board was advised of the conclusion of the June 25, 1980 Executive Management Meeting. The Board was 12/ - The July 10, 1980 meeting notes define " current project schedule" to be "the project schedule to be used for planning, scheduling, and measurement of performance at client direction, i.e. July 31, 1983 Unit 2' fuel load." The meeting notes also define the term " forecast" and state that " Forecasting of schedule activities is an ongoing schedule monitoring and control process which indicates the responsible team member's evaluation of activity scope, duration', and time-of-accomplishment. " } I 4
.-v-~,-,--,.,r--- ,r.-r,,, - , - ,v ,,-w-.+,,,,, .,.. ,,,-,,,,,, - ,- - -
y----,_,,,.--,,,,,....-.~.....,er..,-%,+...+,w 3-.- -,--y i.-- . . -,,--- - . ,-.-
told that the dates proposed in the Bechtel Forecast 6 had been modified in the following correspondence: (Attachment 10) 7/22/80: letter from Martha. E. Gibbs to Licensing Board (new commercial operation dates corresponding to July 1983 Unit 2 target fuel load date). In addition, in this proceeding Ms. Stamiris cross-examined both Mr. Howell and Mr. Cook concerning the events in 1979 and 1980 leading to the reorganization of Consumers' Midland project team and the establishment of a new project schedule. It is clear from the transcript that Ms. Stamiris was thoroughly familiar (due to newspaper reports) with Bechtel's Forecast 6, Consumers' decision to try to beat Bechtel's completion dates, and the implications for the General Agreement with Dow. See Tr. 1717-1726, Tr. 2847-2858. Dow Complaint, 3s 45-48: Jim Cook told this Licensing Board in March, 1981 that Applicant construction schedule (Unit 2 fuel load July, 1983) could not be met unless the soils issues were resolved in 1981. In addition, the possibility was also mentioned that Applicant might not be able to supply process steam to Dow by December 31, 1984 in accordance with the General Agreement. See affidavit of James W. Cook dated March 16, 1981, attached to " Applicant's Motion to Defer Consideration of Seismic Issues Until the Operating Licensing Proceeding," dated March 19, 1981 (Attachment 11). On March 23, 1981 Mr. Cook wrote a letter to Mr. Denton, served on the Licensing Board and all parties, indicating the possible adverse schedule impact of soils remedial work and the need for prompt NRC Staff concurrence for certain activities. (Attachment 12). On April 10, 1981 Mr. Brunner sent Ms. Stamiris a detailed schedule for soils activities in response to her discovery request. (Attachment 13). This document clearly shows the need to begin work on certain soils remedial activities i$ May 1981. On November 9, 1982 Applicant publicly announced that delays in the soils remedial work would impact completion of the project to some extent, although no new schedule could be established until some experience with underpinning work could be gained. (Attachment 14). This press release seems to contradict the assertion in the first sentence of paragraph 46 of Dow's Complaint. On November 16, 1982 Mr. Miller told the Licensing Board that it was " impossible" to. meet the July, 1983 Unit 2 fuel load date, that that schedule had been delayed by "some months," and that no new target fuel load date would be ready until the end of the first quarter of 1983. See Tr. 8758-8782. Further discussion of this matter occurred on November 19, 1982, (Tr. 9556-9565), November 22, 1982 (TR 9875-9889) , December 10, 1982 (Tr. 11014-11017 ) , and 1
l March 11, 1983 (Tr. 12974-12986).11/ The Licensing Board granted Applicant's request not to require Applicant to prepare a new schedule with a new fuel load date prior to April, 1983. Finally, on April 13, 1983, the Licensing Board was informed of the new schedule by a letter from Mr. Brunner (Attachment 15). Quite apart from Applicant's own estimates concerning its construction schedule, the Licensing Board has periodically received independent estimates from the NRC Staff.11/ The Staff's case load forecast panel, which prepares these estimates, is comprised of experts who form their own independent conclusions the basis of data provided by the utility and their own extensive experience.11/ Thus based on a review of the record it is clear that Applicant has made no misrepresentatives to the Licensing IS! See also letter dated March 15, 1983 from P. Steptoe, enclosing transcript of Selby Radio interview. 14/ See, e.g. R. Hoefling letter dated 5.31.79; E. Olmstead letter dated 10/9/79; Hood memo dated 9/16/80 entitled " Summary of August 25, 1980 Meeting on Licensing Status of the Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2." IE See Hood, Tr. 19352-19356. While the NRC Staff initially supported Ms. Stamiris' motion insofar as it seeks to litigate scheduling matters, we hope after reviewing the record they will reconsider. In any event, the NRC Staff has not itself charged Applicant with making any material false statements to the NRC Staff. The Staff has merely stated that if the allegations in Dow's Complaint were true, it would be a very serious matter. See Tr. 19351-19352.
Board or to the NRC Staff concerning Applicant's construction schedule. The allegations in Dow's Complaint that Applicant had a "true schedule" for the Midland Plant which was kept from Dow (and by Ms. Stamiris' inference, from the NRC) are nothing but allegations, made in a Complaint verified "on information and belief." Such allegations, if made by an intervenor in an NRC proceeding, would not satisfy the Commission's requirements for contentions without more specificity and basis. They cannot be bootstrapped into an evidentiary issue in this case simply because they have been made in a pleading in another forum. We come at last to the application of the NRC's legal requirements to Ms. Stamiris motion. Ms. Stamiris seeks to evade the application of any legal requirements to this new matter by characterizing the issue of whether Applicant lied to the NRC about its schedule as merely another evidentiary issue within the scope of the Stamiris " management attitude" contentions. But when the Licensing Board accepted Ms. Stamiris management attitude contentions it stated: {W]e note that the contentions are to be understood as limited to the resolution of the soil settlement issues, to the implementation of the QA/QC program with respect to the resolution of such issues, and to factors which could be said to bear upon the Applicant's managerial attitude in resolving such issues. It is difficult to understand what this limitation means if it does not exclude an evidentiary presentation on the issue of whether Applicant had a secret, less rigorous schedule for
- - - - , - - - , , = , , , , - - - - - - , a- ,- -
g--
completing the plant than the one it told to the NRC. 5! Counsel for Ms. Stamiris claims that any suggestion that Applicant misled the NRC as to any matter raises an important health and safety issue within the scope of Ms. Stamiris' management attitude contentions. But this is inconsistent with Ms. Stamiris' own interpretation of her management attitude contentions Ms. Stamiris has stated that whether the material false statement listed in the December 6, 1979 Modification Order was intentional or unintentional "is not terribly important to my position regarding management attitude. . . . See Tr. 11323, 11327-11328. The purposes of the Commission's rules on basis and specificity, late-filed contentions, and reopening the record are defeated if contentions, once admitted, are stretched beyond their original meaning to accommodate any new issue which arises during the course of the proceeding. 16/ - Dow's Complaint alleges that Applicant manufactured a false schedule to deceive Dow because Applicant knew it could not complete the plant in time to meet the deadline in the General Agreement. Stamiris OM Contention 2 alleges the converse, that Applicant pushed too hard to complete the plant because of " financial and time schedule pressures." Similarly, Intervenor's proposed new issue does not fall within the express terms of Stamiris OM Contention 1, which alleges that Applicant's
" statements and responses to NRC regarding soil settlement issues reflect a less than complete and candid dedication to providing information relevant to health and safety standards with respect to resolving the soil settlement problems."
Treating the scheduling issue as a new contention, it is clear that Ms. Stamiris~has not satisfied the minimal requirements of 10 CFR S 2.714 concerning basis and specificity. At a minimum, before this Board plunges into an exhausting (and duplicative) analysis of thousands of pages of cost and schedule data compiled by Consumers and Bechtel over a five year period, Intervenors should at least be required to allege which specific representations Applicant made to this Licensing Board concerning scheduling were untrue, and why. And Intervenors ought to back up that accusation with something more substantial than allegations made in a complaint. Further, Ms. Stamiris has not met the standards for reopening the record summarized in Fermi, supra ALAB-730, 17 NRC (June 2, 1983). In particular Ms. Stamiris has not shown, any more than Ms. Sinclair has, why this issue must be litigated prior to issuance of Partial Initial Decisions in the OM proceeding. Indeed, neither Ms. Stamiris nor Ms. Sinclair has shown that the facts behind their allegations are so significant that the issue must be litigated in the OL proceeding. An applicant's character and integrity are relevant to issuance of an operating license, but it would be unreasonable and unfair to Consumers to embark on an exhaustive investigation into that subject without more substantial evidence that some intentional misrepresentation has been made to the NRC concerning scheduling. We believe that the record demonstrates just the opposite, that the representations' Consumers made to this Licensing Board concerning its schedule and the potential for delays were accurate. IV. Applicant Satisfied Its Discovery Obligations To Ms. Stamiris Ms. Stamiris speculates that the documents supplied to Dow may' fall under one or more of a number of discovery requests submitted by Ms. Stamiris in the 1980-19,81 time frame. The requests in question are listed at p. 10 of her August 8, 1983 motion. They_ include discovery requests numbers.2a, 5, and 2 from Ms. Stamiris' December 4, 1980 request; discovery request numbers 2 and 5 from Ms. Stamiris' January 14, 1981 request; and interrogatory 3 from Ms. Stamiris' March 27, 1981 request. The following discusses each of these requests.. Applicant does not agree that any of
~~
the Dow documents which have not previously provided to Ms. Stamiris sh'ould have been provided to in response so her discovery requests in this proceeding. Interrogatory #3,, March 27, 1981 request and Request #5, December 4, 1980) C' ; - s 17/ Interrogatory #3: Were any corrective actions recommended as a result of the Administration ~ Building settlement problems? If so, please describe. Request #5: Discussion of all options ever considered (whether formal or informal, tentative or complete) for correction of the Administration Building settlement.
._ 29 -
1
/
1 Applicant does not believe than an interrogatory (e.g. interrogatory 3 of March 27, 1982 request) could reasonably be interpreted as calling for a production of documents. Moreover, our review of the Dow documents turned up no reference to corrective actions for the administration building, so that the completeness of the interrogatory response is not. called into question. Similarly, we could find no references even arguably falling under December 4, 1980 discovery request #5 (relating to options for correcting the Administration Building settlement) . In any event, corrective actions for the Administration Building settlement were described in an interrogatory response provided under sworn affidavit by a Bechtel employee. The Dow documents contain no new information regarding that subject. January 14, Discovery Request #2 1El This request was interpreted as calling for QA/QC audit reports on soils settlement matters, other than those turned over to NRC. None of the Dow documents constitute QA/QC audit reports on soils settlement matters. December 4, 1980 Interrogatory #2a (relating to differing consultant opinion).^1' 18/ Discovery Request 2: Were any audits conducted covering soil settlement matters (including QA/QC aspects) which have not been presented to the NRC. If so, provide these findings. 19/ Interrogatory 2 (a) : Did your consultants ever differ in their recommendations on soil settlement
We have found nothing in the Dow documents reflecting in any way upon differing consultants' opinions. In addition, we find it difficult to imagine how a discovery request not asking that documents be produced can now be interpreted as calling for production. Discovery Request #5, January 14, 1981 Request S! The Bechtel report on the cause of the administration building settlement, entitled " Failure of Grade Beam 0.4 line, Administration Building," was provided to Mrs. Stamiris in discovery. We can find no document relating to this subject among those turned over to Dow. Discovery Request #221/ The language of Stamiris discovery request #2 is confusing. Applicant took the request as asking for schedules of the soils remedial work which would show the impact, if any, of soils on the overall project schedule. Similarly, we matters (including tentative opinions)? 3 22/ Discovery Request #5: Provide the Bechtel reports as to the cause of the Administration Building settlament and whether it was an isolated problem, or any other reports commencing procedural changes stemming from this event. 21/ Discovery Request #2: "Any cost or schedule impact data or projections made since those submitted in response to 50.54f questions 21 and 22 regarding soil settlement matters. E - . - - . . _. -_. _- _ .. . -
understood the request as calling for a breakdown of soils costs, updated since the 50.54 (f) responses referenced. Applicant provided this information. It turned over a schedule showing all planned remedial activities, broken down into steps, on a time line extending to plant start-up. (See Attachment 13). Regarding costs, Applicant supplied a breakdown of all remedial fix-related costs consistent with Bechtel's trending program. Mrs. Stamiris indicated she was satisfied with the scope of the response.21/ In short, Applicant placed a reasonable interpretation on the request, determined that it was satisfactory, and turned the documents over. Moreover, there was no obligation to update discovery on cost and schedule matters under 10 CFR 2.740 (e) (2) . That section establishes a duty to update discovery responses only when a party learns that a response was incorrect when made or when "he knows that the response though correct when made is no longer true and the circumstances are such that a failure to amend the response is in substance a knowing concealment." 21/ See Stamiris March 23, 1981 pleading. Applicant recognizes that such a statement from Ms. Stamiris does not relieve it of any obligation to supply accurate information. The reference does, however, indicate her interpretation of the scope of the request as not requiring production of all documents in Applicant's possession dealing with cost and schedule. The schedule for remedial activities provided to Mrs. Stamiris (Attachment 13) showed in graphic detail the timing of planned remedial work. It was certainly no secret as 1982 wore on that almost all, if not all, of the items in the schedule for remedial activities had slipped well past their start dates. Such a conclusion was obvious from comparison of the schedule for remedial activities with information provided to the intervenors in the hearing process and routine correspondence concerning work approved by the NRC. $! Mrs. Stamiris was aware, or should have been, of the timing of NRC approval of specific tasks under the work authorization program. Certainly, nothing in the schedule for remedial activities or the others provided to Mrs. Stamiris in April 1981 was subject to misinterpretation. Similarly, the cost data provided to Mrs. Stamiris, while subject to some dispute among the parties at the time, was true and accurate when given. Since then, soils costs have greatly escalated. Mrs. Stamiris knew that- the designs for the auxiliary building and SWPS underpinning work were being upgraded, a principal cause of this escalation. In a letter, July 1, 1981, from Mr. Brunner to Ms. Stamiris, 21/ Mrs. Stamiris was on the service list for correspondence between NRC and CPCo relating to NRC concurrence on planned work. In addition, NRC and Region kept the Board and parties well advised of work on progress through the pendency of the soils hearings. Applicant updated cost data originally given to Mrs. Stamiris. This update did not reflect the heightened cost of the underpinning work (as Mr. Brunner's letter took great pains to make clear). When the new underpinning costs were established, in January 1982, they were publicly announced and sent by Ms. Bloom to the Licensing Board and all parties by letter dated January 8, 1982. Further cost increases were included in the April 1983 press release which was also served on all parties (Attachment 15). Although the relevancy of cost increases to these proceedings might fairly be questioned,24/ Applicant, in fact, was very straightforward with Mrs. Stamiris on cost matters. We do not believe that there is any new information which raises a question of knowing concealment in relation to the documents originally supplied. V. Conclusion For the reasons stated, Applicant respectfully requests that this Licensing Board defer making any decision on Ms. Stamiris' and Ms. Sinclair's motions for a period of approximately 30 days, following which period Intervenors should be given the opportunity to re-file their motions based 21/ The Board itself questioned the relevancy of a cost increase reflecting a more conservative design. In that respect, it is noteworthy that Ms. Stamiris never introduced into evidence, or even marked as an exhibit, i any of the cost or schedule data provided to her by the Applicant. l
on their review of the Dow documents. Any such renewed motions should specifically address the requirements applicable to motions to reopen the record and late-filed contention established in the NRC's Rules of Practice and case law. If the Board intends to grant Ms. Sinclair's or Ms. Stamiris' motion, we ask that it refer its ruling to the Appeal Board pursuant to 10 CFR S 2.730 (f) . Respee ully submiAted, I
; /~k
, \ f
'\ \% '.' u. .k . ./ (n mi.%Q Philip P. Steptoe i ISHAM, LINCOLN & BEALE Three First National Plaza Chicago, Illinois 60602 i
August 17, 1983 4 h I
1 l i UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of )
) Docket Nos. 50-329-OM CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY ) 50-330-OM
) 50-329-OL (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2 ) 50-330-OL CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Philip P. Steptoe, hereby certify that I have this 17th day of August, 1983 caused to be served by first class mail postage prepaid (except where hand delivery on August 18th is indicated) Applicant's Response To Motions Of Intervenors Mary Sinclair and Barbara Stamiris With Respect To Dow Lawsuit upon the persons listed in the attached service list.
nf { i jl L
'(
M 1( ksW W' PhilipP{Steptbd J
SERVICE LIST - Frank J. Kelley, Esq. Atomic Safety & Licensing Attorney General of the Appeal Panel State of Michigan U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm. Carole Steinberg, Esq. Washington, D.C. 20555 Assistant Attorney General Environmental Protection Div. Mr. C. R. Stephens 720 Law Building Chief, Docketing & Services Lansing, Michigan 48913 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm. Office of the Secretary Cherry & Flynn Washington, D.C. 20555 Suite 3700 3 First National Plaza Ms. Mary Sinclair Chicago, Illinois 60602 5711 Summerset Street Midland, Michigan 48640 Mr. Wendell H. Marshall 4625 S. Saginaw Road
- William D. Paton, Esq.
Midland, Michigan 48640 Michael N. Wilcove, Esq. Nathene Wright, Esq.
- Charles Bechhoefer, Esq. Counsel for the NRC Staff Atomic Safety & Licensing U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm.
Board Panel Washington, D.C. 20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm. Washington, D.C. 20555 Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Panel Dr. Frederick P. Cowan U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm. 6152 N. Verde Trail Washington, D.C. 20555 Apt. B-125 Boca Raton, Florida 33433 Barbara Stamiris 5795 North River Road Mr. D. F. Judd Route 3 Babcock & Wilcox Freeland, Michigan 48623 P. O. Box 1260 Lynchburg, Virginia 24505 *Dr. Jerry Harbour Atomic Safety & Licensing James E. Brunner, Esq, Board Panel Consumers Power Company U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm. 212 West Michigan 49201 Washington, D.C. 20555 Jackson, Michigan 49201 3 Steve Gadler Lynne Bernabei 2120 Carter Avenue Thomas Devine St. Paul, Minnesota 55108 Louis Clark Government Accountability Project At The Institute For Policy Studies 1901 Q Street, NW Washington, D.C. 20009
- Delivered by hand August 18, 1983 .
I
l ATTACHMENT 1 .. To Applicant's 8/17/83 Response
l~ , L_ (a \ \ .. l I M ISHAM, LINCOLN & BEALE Gs 1 COUNSELORS AT LAW wAsMiNoToN oFricg* E owano s. asMaw. iera.isoa moeEn? Y uNeo6N sera.ses* ao s o nyt.= sTR E ET, N.W. h w.Luasa o STALE, tees. seas oNE FIRST NATsoN AL PLA2A WA s M s NG TON. D. C. 2 0 03 6 203 e33 973o roRTv-s CCoND FLOOR Associates eMa=6Es A eaNE oavio s.aosso CHIC AGo,lLLINots 6o603 LawnENcE s. aottsoN EowAmo w. Ma6stmoM c EAN A. E s u No coNALo E. vAciN otoFFmp A. AmoEnsoN MuoM n. MecoMe s. sm. wituAM w cammow somn 6. MecAusLANo sta-7ee-7soo TcLtx: 2.sase MaaaaaEv e.sanTEn wituaw s. Me = Av. s n. retoEmica n. cAnsoN LAun McE o. 6Assiv EuoENE M. eEmNsTEiN PAut M. MunPwv nicMano a. FEnousoN noegnT A.vo6LEs ALAN P a:E L Awsn e oLENN E. NELSON sicMamo e, oo Lvit c.RSCMAM o JoM NsoN "' socEn? E.cooNiN s ECP ""Ai o o s R oV RvAN EILEEN sTRANo oEnALo oENRY 0.o. M NoE" o osTERLAN O.usaev coLsoN.m STEVEN m.scMarEn KostaT wooo f utus somn w.aowE CLARM EvaN FREoERI ecMano ck cuoaMv' Eo Egg ,,g,s o,o ,owns
,,, ,,,, ,, ,C E. sc,,ogog C M M E,T E R Pau6 F .a m u r 's" EtCMamo E. PowELL ooMALo e. MILLINER aceEnT L.EsTEP omvso M. sPEcTom A. o AN8E L FELoM AN Davao s. FesCMER sovo s. sPmimogn Ro e E RT W. RLEIN M AN M ARv L. FITCM oAvio M, sTAML FMILIP F. Pu RCELL TERNv F. MonsTI JAMES A. FLETCHER PMaup P sTEProt.T CMAmoN L. Itesso RoeERT M. wMEELEA ANNE W. Fnastm Jom n ONO PAMELA e. sTmoeEL sosEPN oaLLo* MAmTMa E. oleos wtLuAM R suRiaNo MICM AEL L MILLER REvmaLoo R oLovEq STEVEN R.olLFCRo PaTRiCI A M. s WE EN Ev ooNALo s. McLACMLaN Ros E RT M. LoE F FLEm. MsCMaE L s. GALL R.CMano e. TMit s ALEmaNoEm NEMMEvte PAUL C. LEM etsas sowe4 w. TmE ECE or coumsEL JAMES R. LooMAN RoNALo 0. 2 AM AMIN song g, gop,g,4 June 20, 1979 Ivan W. Smith, Esq. Mr. Lester Kornblith, Jr.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 Dr. Frederick P. Cowan 6152 N. Verde Trail ) . Apt. B-125 Boca Raton, Florida 33433 Re: Consumers Power Company (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2) Docket Nos. 50-329, 50-330 Gentlemen: By letter dated May 21, 1979, you were informed by NRC Staff Counsel of a change in the estimated construction completion dates for Midland Unit 2. November 1981 was estimated by the NRC Staff as the date on which construction for Unit 2 would be complete. That date was set without consultation with Consumers Power Company and was not based on any new information or data supplied by the Company. Consumers Power Company does not agree with the NRC Staff estimate. However, Consumers Power Company has now completed a review of the Midland project schedule and has decided that an interim adjustment to the Unit 2 target fuel load date should be made at this time, with no change in the existing Unit 1 target fuel load date. This review was undertaken in accordance with the Company's pre-existing schedule for such assessments. The review resulted in a decision to delay the Unit 2 target fuel load date from November 1980 to June 1981, uith the Unit 1 target fuel load date remaining November ) 1981.
Messrs. Smith and Kornblith, and Dr. Cowan page 2
-I June 20, 1979 The assessment included a study performed by the Company's architect-constructor which considered the latest known project design and procurement requirements; construction completion status; schedule uncertainties, e.g., diesel generator building settlement; and a re-vised pre-fuel load testing logic.
The revised testing logic involves completing all construc-tion, preoperational testing and hot functional testing for both units prior to loading fuel in Unit 2. It was concluded that this approach provides a more efficient means to perform the remaining construction and testing work on Unit 2 and will mitigate the impact of security requirements and operational and testing activitics on Unit 1 when Unit 2 is in operation. In addition, it will help accommodate exist-ing construction and licensing delays. The above adjustment to the Unit 2 fuel load date will be used by Bechtel, the Company's architect-constructor, for the develop-ment of a detailed work plan and cost estimate. Upon the receipt of this document in August, 1979, the achievability of these fuel load dates will be further evaluated considering the unresolved licensing issues, the suspension of licensing review activities by the NRC Staff
)
4 and the impact of Three Mile Island. We have filed with the Licensing Board today a motion to revise the prehearing and hearing schedules for the environmental portion of this proceeding. This motion contemplates separate envi-ronmental and safety hearings and sets intervals for prehearing proce-dures for the environmental issues which correspond to those estab-lished by the Board's February 23, 1979 order. The extended NRC Staff review of the health and safety issues following the Three Mile Island accident makes it premature to. discuss a precise schedule for the hearing of those issues. It is the Company's expectation, however, that certain safety issues, e.g., the diesel generator building set-tlement, are both sufficiently complex and so totally unrelated to matters arising out of the Three Mile Island accident that an NRC Staff licensing position will be separately established, discovery proceed and separate hearings be conducted on such issues. Very truly yours, L(i Michael I. Miller MIM bc cc: Service List
N UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before ti1 Atomic Safety And Licensing Board
)
In the Matter of )
)
CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY ) Docket Nos. 50-329
) 50-330 (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2) )
)
MOTION OF CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY TO ESTABLISH SCHEDULE
- 1. On February 23, 1979, this Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (" Licensing Board") issued a Special Prehear-ing Conference Order in the above-captioned proceeding which,
) ..
among other things, established a schedule for the conduct of the operating license proceeding for the Midland Plant based on certain assumed dates for issuance of Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the "NRC" or the " Commission") Staff documents. At that time, the scheduled issuance dates for the NRC Staff documents were as follows: DES - February 9, 1979 SER - May 1, 1979 FES - June 27, 1979 SER Supp - August 1, 1979 The Order provided that "A determination by the Board as to whether or not environmental and health and safety matters will be heard at separate hearings will abide further prog-ress in issuance of the Staff documents."
. , - . - , , ,,,-.__,_-...,.m_ ..,-._..__.-,.,m., ,.,y. . , , ,, . , . , _ , . , , _ , , . _ . , - . . , _. . . _ , , . , ,__m.y3.p-_.., , - r,.__,,,-,...,
1 5
- 2. As a result of the Three Mile Island accident, the NRC Staff has reallocated its resources so as to defer most licensing review of the Midland Plant application, which in turn will defer issuance of the foregoing documents to dates that have not yet been established. Deferral of the review process was also based on an NRC Staff estimate that construction of Unit 2 of the Midland Plant (i.e., the first unit to come on line) would not be completed until November, 1981. The NRC Staff advised the Licensing Board of this es-timate by letter dated May 21, 1979. That estimate was made without consultation with Consumers Power Company (" Consumers Power" or " Applicant") and was not based on any new informa-
.) , tion or data supplied by Applicant. Applicant does not agree with the NRC Staff estimate. However, as Consumers Power is advising the Licensing Board and the parties by letter of today's date, Applicant has revised its project schedule so as to delay its Unit 2 target fuel load date from November 1980, to June 1981. The Unit 1 target fuel load date re-mains November, 1981.
- 3. The NRC Staff has advised Consumers Power that, notwithstanding the announced licensing review deferral of the Midland Plant, the DES is expected to be issued in September or October, 1979. Also, NRC Staff work on the diesel generator building settlement issue is proceeding and the NRC Staff should be able to make a safety analysis of
__ . . _ 3. ~ . . - - , - . . . . , . , ,y_y , _ . _ , _ , - . _ . ,m ,y _. ., y,,__ _ . - - , ,
T that issue in the same approximate time frame now contem-plated for issuance of the DES.
- 4. Accordingly, Applicant believes that separate hearings should be held on environmental and radiological health and safety matters, a possibility which the Licensing Board recognized in its Order. A proposed schedule for en-
~ vironmental issues and the diesel generator building settle-ment issue is attached. The schedule also proposes that a prehearing conference be held on October 23, 1979, to estab-lish a schedule for the remaining issues to be tried.
- 5. It is clearly within a Licensing Board's power to regulate the course of a hearing and to consider a partic-
]) . ular issue or issues separately from, and prior to, other issues. Potomac Electric Power Company (Douglas Point Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-277, 1 NRC 539 (1975); 10 C .F .R. . S2. 718 (e) ; 10 C.F.R. Part 2, Appendix A, par. I (c) . As the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board stated in Douglas Point, the principal factors to be considered by the Licensing Board in deciding whether hear-ings on specific issues are appropriate are: (1) the degree of likelihood that any early findings on the issue (s) would retain their validity; (2) the advantage, if any, to the public interest and to the litigants in having an early, if not necessarily conclusive, resolution of the issues (s) ; and (3) the extent to which the hearing of the issue (s) at an
- j)
- , , - .-- - . ...--------ey-, .------.--% .- , , - - . - - - , . . - . _ . - - - - - - , _ , - - - - .
~
early stage would, particularly if the issue (s) were later reopened because of supervening developments, occasion prej-udice to one or more of the litigants. 1 NRC at 547.
- 6. Early resolution of environmental issues and the diesel generator building settlement issue would enhance the possibility that licensing review and hearings will be completed by the time Unit 2 is ready for fuel loading. If those portions of the licensing process are not completed and fuel loading is delayed, a significant increase in inter-est charges and other costs to Consumers Power and its rate-payers would result. In addition, the delay would adversely
'1 affect The Dow Chemical Company which has an urgent need for the process steam to be supplied from the Midland Plant co-generation facility. Finally, resolution of these issues at an early stage would better enable Applicant to make any modifications to the nuclear plant required as a result of the Licensing Board's findings. ! 7. For the reasons set forth above, Applicant re-quests that the Licensing Board adopt the attached schedule for further proceedings in this matter, and modify the February 23, 1979 Special Prehearing Conference Order accord- ! ingly, i Respectfully submitted, I hO . I 6Y~ t, Mk-Michael I. Miller - i
\'sf f j>')
I i M C OIM ISHAM, LINCOLN 1 BEALE One First National Plaza - 4200 . i _ Chicago, Illinois 60603 312/558-7500 June 20,_ 1979 _ _ ,___ _ _ _ _ , _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ , _ _ _
5 ' APPLICANT'S PROPOSED SCHEDULE 2/23/79 Special Prehearing Conference Order. Dis-covery begins. 9/03/79 Issuance of partial SER on diesel generator building settlement. 9/03/79 Issuance of DES. 10/23/79 Prehearing conference. 12/03/79 Discovery related to Environmental and diesel generator building settlement issues ends. 12/14/79 Restatement of contentions due. 12/24/79 Responses to restatement of contentions, if necessary, due. 2/01/80 Issuance of FES.
- s. 2/18/80 Supplemental environmental discovery request due.
3/07/80 Supplemental environmental discovery, if re- . quested, ends. . q 3/17/80 Restatement of contentions due. 3/27/80 Responses to restatement of contentions, if necessary, due. 4/07/80 Deadline for filing motions for summary disposition. 5/02/80 Answers to motions for summary disposition due. 5/09/80 Prehearing conference. 5/30/80 Deadline for filing written testimony. 6/17/80 Hearings begin.
- , - -m .- , . . , - - . ~ . -..-n -- -- , n. , ?,.n,v ., , . ,-n- ,p y-. .- -
,,.,m7,e.,~. ,, ., - - - . ~ , - ,,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Lefore the Atomic Safety And Licensing Board
)
In the Matter of )
)
CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY ) Docket.Nos. 50-329
) 50-330 (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2) )
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the attached
" MOTION OF CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY TO ESTABLISH SCHEDULE" in the above-captioned proceeding have been served upon the following parties by United States Mail, first-class postage prepaid, this 20th day of June, 1979:
Ivan W. Smith, Esq. Ms. Mary Sinclair Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 5711 Summerset Street U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comn. Midland, Michigan 48640 l Washington, D.C. 20555 Colleen P. Woodhead, Esq. Mr. Lester Kornblith, Jr. Counsel for the NRC Staff Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comn. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comn. Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555
- Atomic Safety and Licensing l
Dr. Frederick P. Cowan Board Panel Ap.t. B-125 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comn. 6152 North Verde Trail Washington, D.C. 20555 l Boca Raton, Florida 33433 I b
,,,,_ , we - ------ - - - - - - g -r,e- - <,
s Atomic Safety and Licensing Frank J. Kelly, Esq. Appeal Panel Attorney General of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comn. State of Michigan Washington, D.C. 20555 Stewart H. Freeman, Esq. Assistant Attorney General Gregory T. Taylor, Esq.
- Myron M. Cherry, Esq. Assistant Attorney General 1 IBM Plaza - 4501 Environmental Protection Div.
Chicago, Illinois 60611 720 Law Building Lansing, Michigan 48913 Mr. C. R. Stephens Chief, Docketing and Service Mr. Wendell H. Marshall Section 4645 South Saginaw Road Midland, Michigan 48640 Office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comn. Washington, D.C.' 20555 Grant J. Merritt, Esq. Thompson, Nielsen, Klaverkamp & James 4444 IDS Center Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 ~)
]1 r- <]1 I N % b~~- Oth (
J Martha E. Gibbs One of the Attorneys for CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY ISEAM, LINCOLN & BEALE One First National Plaza - 4200 Chicago, Illinois 60603 312/786-7500 June 20, 1979 h
ATTACHMENT 2 To Applicant's 8/17/83 Response
V 1 L* se _ l l ISHAM. LINCOLN & BEALE COUNSELORS AT LAW ON E FIRST NATION AL RLAZ A FORiv-SECONO FLOCR CHICAGO. tLLINonS 60603 TE LC RMONE 312
- SS8* 7SC O TELCE:2-S288 -
wASMINOTON OFFICC
, 10 $ O 171". ST R C E T, N w .
SCvCNtw FLOOR July 10, 1979 ";",IU; ,7;'O
} O Ivan W. Smith, Esq. Mr. Lester Kornblith, Jr.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 Dr. Frederick P. Cowan 6152 N. Verde Trail Apt. B-125 Boca Raton, Florida 33433 Re: Consumers Power Company (Midla'nd Plant, Units 1 and 2) (. Docket Nos. 50-329, 50-330 - Gentlemen: As counsel for Consumers Power Company in the above-cap-tioned matter, we advised you by letter dated June 20, 1979, of the Company's revised fuel load schedule for the Midland Plant. The Unit 2 target. fuel load date is June 1981, and the Unit 1 target fuel load date is November 1931. The Company has now completed its evaluation of the duration between fuel loading and commercial operation, and has concluded that the target date for commercial operation of Unit 2 is November 1981 and the corresponding date for Unit 1 is April 1982. The target dates for commercial operation were previously March 1981 and March 1982, respectively. Very truly yours,
- '?
Michael I. Miller i MIM-bc cc: Service List L , i ..
-- . , - , . - . - - - - , ,.,-.w,,, - - , . - - - - - - . ,--e -
i l r ATTACHMENT 3 To Applicant's 8/17/83 Response 1
* - 7 .
*, . . 5[k $ .c M %.:.:.'.- . . .
4 ..a .V t,.ly;.2.1 % ..
- s. .
r ; .
.-~; , . c
- g. 9 .. , ,y ; , e u.
- q. _
o . t '..
- y. . .~
. .~
, y , -;.
- mv .
~
- c.
;ch
, ;.g 3 ..
, ; y , ;;g.p.. . . p.a.
- h. i
. . ;z . .. ..,., r. < . ; M. '
- . . .sc . g,a: . .;; p,.,. m v..g 9 . ; u.; *
. _ . .;:.r.
e,
.,s
- o.
,...c. . . . ., ., t .
y
.~.
c . . p, c.:,,.
.,..a t., y,.
w,....e.
. >(. ;e,,., ; ,.,y.
. ;p.a.. .-
.: ;.. p: . ;.
- s. , . . . .
, ~
y y4. . -
~O. t.; .. . . . r. . > ., . . .. .w.s ,.w,.
x
. . . .. m.'.
,. t .,: g,. .. ,. o. . . ,
- , , . .. 9, .m. . s.,p, ,. %. . .u. , .
1
... . , .,7.2.
- u. t-
. c .
. 7, a.,., ,~. ;. ,
'p.
-l.lA.. . . November'26, 1979" .N Z TN, w :. . ' ~ . t. f.u%, .n., c4.. .. :.....:. tp. .M. *.
. .q, . . . . w. c - ..q -
.s* ...,:M?.. .
's- ' g. 4 . - ' y. . .~. . . .5.. . , ., ..
1 ' -* r. i
, M' g:,. ..,
o ,. ,
. p.yrg,.c..( . g. ; .,. ., ,g. 9 3. .)E' ,. ;,:; ,
. .r f Ivan W. Smith, Esq. c
, 'Mr. L' ester Kornblith,'Jr. M C W
. F*J f $",..z. 'g Atomic Safety and Licensing Board ' ~ Atomic Safety and Licensin
., . ) $'
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Coenissio:
' .(.9.%;,7 [ . Washington, ;D.C. 20555
.<.~.p, .y.s.o:t. Washington D. C. {2 ..,05 . ,.;w .a5 -5,,$: ,w n..g, 8 o
...4,..
..g.
.u. . . s. :.,.p
..o. r ~;.; w . : ...r . ,,x, . m v, . . . , L. j, ,
.-.r. u
- .g Dr. Frederick P . CowanM.,..
. D.% A,. :
t . ;. p. 3.v{%..
'c@. 'p @'@.)y,a. .. . r
?
?6152 H. Verde Tra11' - .. < 4 $$lW.t. :M.n'y/,Wl0.c:$
hDMi.
.V
- '.9.C,, W.Q (,.).p.W4M,'.:
M96'yMf.i. . y/@t Apt. B .12 5.. u L.ygigOf;@M'.m
.e.g. -
'm.; .R: EM '.'r tm.o.. .grf;ng . ' .;p%,w:.W..::#.*p ;}l. s.?l:q..G'.9fd;w,.b..m?i;'.%..-3.w.:
.e. < ;.;. p:e -
;y ; *i :.C..m%4.V:: 3o <
m w%:. ,y .. f. w w w:. .f. ; !
.e. a.
Doca - . .
'r.fc~. ,
"Flori.da.:.33433.x ,V.? %. J:.J.v FRaton. s t'd v.~a@q.
s.@ 4.:.,p;ry, pl y, . ' % ul' .. b
~
b Consumers Power Company,y,$.*J
+N$'[h.g.j'.f;NMMN?$ggf
. dgg $pf!T/r %Rf, ?.7.,pM;',Q. y.N'g Re :[$. (Midland Plant, Units 1 and,2,). i. Q .ksg'[f.$ .r QM.PC 50-329, 50-330 m DF.'g@
.r.:Wb .. C.ih NCh'. & '~'bd BGentlemen_:',@. }
.W9 ? g.. ..: .. ' , . . . h.MN D'N." ,
.y 3y;q. ?.%&,:Q'Q,Q.[;R'&y$.y,Dochet Q.: , :.
y g . ;4.3}.. y .;;g:yy .
- g n.g.;.9 Ho 9f, u :;.r= ,. 6. :.. ::.;.;,.w:;.y;?p. .%.
.s. .,y;.gg,.k-
., _ a u.y.
2 ..s , 4j Pv..f.tm,,,;- 3; t.f, j %.....:. :... 3 o . ..~w9<. Tir-a '!g.
~
, - 1 >'%: . < t..~..b m 2.. .: .;
By' letter dated' June . 20, 1979, I advised you on'?- W,h.; . u
' i c., . . rv.4; .Z-
, y' t M... %: behalf,of Consumers' Power Company that a$then' completed.' ?[ietYh .: ?y .
djc 'Md"R9.et.reviewof.theMidlandProje E W %.%. gl'ft'Loadin'g DateEfrom November, 198.0',-to June', MIRG
.6
$ ;;r 1981.1No chan6b W 6E';iLoa' $$$ *di
.[.ff.,.,,hi[g r was estimated'.in.the.
. i@i,% ^'WM: .
.~ k "'6 ;e >e
' b ? Unit q >' % r:s 1 w # Target.
- e. C . x ." :9. .W >-
Fuel; W W:W4
)rM' fs.
.?,E. ~ November, Q. C19 81. G.* -f Y'"-
0- b' + - - - II " ':
-f:
TC% ?M.Q:/s A d>:::^M> .
.i.' ' 2b '%.h'f'v .'lj,y:. ~Q:.Mf"-jfk. ' " " .'
r@ JN[W;g@k?iphi@[M.Cpk.'.:::!%,*.l:.' J.Z"A:",I,..Following that letiter, ' Consumers' Power ,Coidy)any h%ik.M. if 5 p i
ffyp.yh{j,[un,dertook s. < Nuclear Powoir ;alfurther Plant' to review take"lac' of count the schedule" ~of :the resolution of the Midland 'of ' ',$f., Ytg:'f D'Q'".e: .JE }-f;E M.:
l3 % $~3$Q.; e Q @W; review activities by the staff'of the Nuclear Rh4, unresolved gulatory licensing . , 'hi:Q .;.issues .' Y '
.T.id,[':QN.p
[ g;jf2/4,@;.Q: Plant Commission accident. andConsumers the effectsPower of theCompany Three Mile has Island now received Nuclear b4 5 #-'. %' " .f. . v.pp542.."?'. preliminary information fromfBechtel Power' Corporation,-the %, ,,.N E JrM.H' 'f. .;v
@L'n..,'.k,f.. i.>.E 2. coul.d .s. be%..Y.t. .. delayed ito company's sone date .in 1983. .. Both Consumers .M. bh. .that architect-constructor, hpff yf. .:-l Power .
Company and Bechtel are' conducting. . ,further evaluations .! @ Sic '.- j,y@N,.S1 k, J.ptTf. of - this additional delay in the fuel 'loadin'g date. fVIt. ' is"q.M Y)k.p
- . q, p%~.. ,/.ft": 'will be @ji..; completedexpected
. :- 3 'in' .the first quarter
.. ,. n. .. . .u; that of 1980 .+
a definitive 7.:v.;;"gFX4C.];..S.Q y.79p eri . revised ,f
- f. v N b . p;g.F .
g -p..p.q .n. p. . v.:t: p,. ,- . .. L: .n v:.\.. g: . -
,. k m..a
. . ? 3,;;;r..
.. + . . >. . n w
;;.a.:. 7 3 :i, m . rw. ~4; w.%y -
. c.
y 4,,. .y...*, .m . . y .
. ,,. . ..o... ' Sincerely W , y m
- @%.q"7.f$..lv.;.Wl',,;~ *s.
- ; .s ~ ;;<
*. ..r!u .,.., .s :.yrf; . ;. r- r..:sn, w?J .v...
't a
..;.,,r .,. y' . . . :r.
.r .%
) . .? .,. .: _
.-n *
- p~ s..
. , .; n;. , ..
..... . .. . y;y. r . ; ;: v<
. x.: . + > . , i. >. ,. . .. m..* -
. ~ :
.a n m
. , 9 J
.r.
.'.r
.
- v
~ 3..:..
f.. )~
~ ..
.><e. s r.
..%;'..p, A.%v..ig . .w .
s a -
.. % y?. i , :. 4. '- ; 'fip sy* l.';.
W,u.*J u .. lQ?&.W' ,:g%.1 ' g; ;"%.c.. .J/% .
.lfdQ.f4 W. '" :. s,.. i*?.L'". &. w ,.
rs,',.,; .M;p -
- j k, .n;i.f. ,. ".'~ Q;. ,,,y ; o'. , , ...&..
;;, .3, L. ..,. A . . .p
. . _ ~
. X. .
$'N."[b'[y$',M:.~ b, . . ,T jW-hi$t,
- . ,W. ,;. .?.'.;.
. . . .s.. . ....
- ,',f fQ. } d'$3 , 7?fi M.[.'.
<. v >
- a. . u. ....a .<.. ...<,:,., . .. c ..
,3:. y ,. . . . . . . , , . . e r ,,. -
. u .. .' ..
; Mich a el' ,*.fs,+" 'IU,,.,6..~r: s7.', ',? z2.'? Mil d
i 4 p,j.ag*1er (!
';.'Q.Y.p;:p3
- x ,fgr - 3 *}': ' ' N*..
- Q,; E *lYr; .ry '% !l'l l ;j;>3 .*. fs . s '. $;yol.-
'~
'l-.~
. f..,.'.r
}th- a,
.L & ..*;f... y '?f*;'.;jshiT ;
~,.::,n1n.1m c .i.,yi. " . ' - : :- .<
- ~ a . ... ., .c. ~
a; p.s *n*x ".s. 9,+o M:. ',.: < '.r- .^,r..'.' o.. . f. 2 .
.> s '.; ' *
..~
w.. . .- . va . A. .
.. :,M' .a ... : . '. . s..v.. v' t . r " y s;,=. -
- : . 7. - '
-r ,
- ~ v. .. ::;.
M .a., ja Tf,y/ ' -*-./ ,Jg -/ Q , 7
\ - pl . g cc : ';. Service List * - Q f ,y. . .[, %.Q;p,.. .'.,D.);f, @,gy.S .1(,
- Gy.. .., <. .' r.-
?:7 ,+ .%;y p ,.h . . ,. + : k. -
. d:
.yh. :: . m _
~; -g ? y-
.,c..* .,
c .., sm' .;. ...- .zq:p. . '* .
.:.~. .nd.,
,.3..
- . n.').:5,, ,.. ;->..g;
,_.c ..h,y';i g. ,
Q. .,:.p:Ny . a. ;- ' A,., s.o. J. . . ,.. . y.;f;y:g .; ~ e.
.(k
,j, a.se y, .g.
. , ,g., , .
q. {
I 1 i ( l l l l ATTACHMENT 4 To Applicant's 8/17/83 Response
- . _ _ - - - _ _ . . - . - - - . . - . , . . - _ _ . . _ _ . - - . . . ~ - _ _ . - .
r
- b. L N **
ISHAM, LINCOLN & BEALE , COUNSELORS AT LAW ONC FtRST NAf TONAL PLAZ A FORTY SCCONO FLOOR CM8CAGO. f LLINots 6 0603 TELEPMOHC 382 $158-7500 TELEX:2-S288 WASHINOTON OFFICE IC SO 17'.P Sf A C ET. N . W. SEvCNTH FLOO A wA S M e NG TON, O. C. 2 O O 3 e February 8, 1980 * '~**'~* Marshall E. Miller, Esq. Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Ivan W. Smith, Esq. Chairman. Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555
^) Re: Consumers Power Company (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2)
Docket Nos. 50-329, 50-330 Gentlemen: As counsel for Consumers Power Company in the pending construction permit and operating license pro-ceedings for the Midland Plant, we are informing the Licensing Boards and the parties of a revised schedule and cost estimate for the nuclear facility based upon updated information which the Company has recently received from its
, architect-constructor, Bechtel Power Corporation.
Bechtel's projected fuel load date for Unit 2 is now April, 1984; the corresponding date for Unit 1 is September, 1984. Given this schedule, Consumers Power estimates that the commercial operation dates for the Midland Plant will be September, 1984 for Unit 2, March, 1985 for Unit 1 (electric) and May, 1985 for Unit 1 (steam). Last november, the Ccmpany had announced that the previcusly pro-jected fuel load dates of June, 1981 for Unit 2 and November, 1981 for Unit 1 would be subject to further delay. Based upon the revised fuel load dates, Bechtel
-g has made a new estimate of contractor costs. Consumers
-) Power has completed a preliminary review of this data and
l}.. Marshall E. Miller, Esq. "N Ivan W. Smith, Esq. Washington,.D.C. 20555 February 8, 1980 Page Two now estimates that the total cost of the Midland Plant will be approximately $3.1 billion. The previous estimate of the project's total cost, made in 1976, was $1.67 billion. The Company has not yet adopted the Bechtel report, and is currently performing a review of Bechtel's cost and schedule assumptions, the Company's costs other than contractor costs, licensing assumptions, and alternative courses of action. The Licensing Boards and the parties will be advised of the results of this review. Very truly yours, p . Martha E. Gi s de* MEG:cem 'h ' cc: Service List a e d o
ATTACHMENT 5 To Applicant's 8/17/83 Response
I w ISHAM. LINCOLN & BEALE COUNSCLORS AT LAW ON C rs R$t N ATsO N AL *L AZ A FORTv SCCONo rLOOp CMaC AGO. iLLINos S 60603 - TELEPHONE 312 558 7500 TELCa;2 52ee - waSMINGTON OFFICC
"^""''"~
March 27, 1980 "' ' Set Sw 52. WA SMING*0N. D_ C. 2 00 36 202-833 9730 Marshall E. Miller, Esq. , Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Ivan W. Smith, Esq. Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20055 Re: Consumers Power Company (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2) Docket Nos. 50-329, 50-330 Gentlemen: . This letter is intended to follow-up on my letter of February 8, 1980, which informed the Atomic Safety and Licensing Boards and the parties to the Midland Plant construction permit and operating license proceedings of a new cost and construction schedule for the nuclear project. After further review, the board of directors of Consumers Power Company has authorized the management of the Company to continue with the construction of the two-unit Midland Plant. At this time, neither the $3.1 billion cost estimate nor the revised construction schedule is considered to be ~ firm because of the many uncertainties, chiefly in the area of regulatory requirements, which could affect the cost and construction schedule of the nuclear plant. The company will continue to review developments in these areas, and the licensing boards and the parties will be advised of any significant changes.
~ Very truly yours, (h
Martha E. Gibbs ( MEG:cem cc: Service List -[ ..
- r
( s e-d' b e , % ATTACHMsMT_6 To Applicant's 8/17/83 Response m e N , , _ , . , L - + - , ---, , , - - , - - w-- --- -
~-E - "' ' - - 4 d # " ^' " ~ ~'^~ ^ ~~~ *~~
i
. 1 ,: ~ .. .
1 MIDIAND ALTERNAT1VES ST'JDY l i A Compilation of Materials Presented To The Board of Directors Consumers Power Coctpany March 5, 1980 y w,-- ,~,,,. -w yw ,, =
-.wr- - -- ----- -. ,---,w,-,---c-,t+---e- - - , - - - -+-.,m- ,,,-nc3--. ---- -e -- T ---,- ---wr ue ,- ,,e
,' s # 8
)
MIDLAND ALTERNATIVE STUDY TABLE OF Corrn:.m5 TITLE PAGE
'J" LBLE OF CONTENTS CASE INDEX DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES CASE SUNMARIIS COMPARISON OF CASES MAJOR UNCERTAINTIIS PLANNING MODEL MANAGEMENT REPORTS
- - - -m. - - - - - -yn w: y y-p -,ee ---m--a .--,, .,- -- -, e----e7m .e % s--r" y- 3 , ---,we
- e a
f F a 6 m tri o 3 %. w Z 4 -I -
~ -
4 O-T Z LS . C-N e G 6 e s 9 e
, . . , , - - - . , , . , - , , . . . . , . . ,., .n.,n., . , , - . . . - , ,, , . - . -. . . - . . -- ,, . . , , , . , . . - . - - . . , , - . , . . - - . _ . , - ,
**CCNFIDE:TIIAL - PRIL2CNARY**
STUDY OF MIDLAND ALTERNATIVES Index of Cases February 29, 1980 , Alternative 1 - Co=;1ete Midland Units in 198h and 1985 Case 1A - Bechtel Midland FC #6 - Dov Stays In Case 13 - Bechtel Midland FC #6 - Dov Ter=inates on h/1/80 Case 1C - Consu=ers Power Co=pany Revised Midland Esti= ate (Including Analysis of NRC Action Plan) Case 1D - Case 1A With Reducsd Construction Budget Alternative 2 - Cancel Midland Units on h/1/80 Case 2A - Cancel Midland Units on h/1/80; Stockholder Sears ;osts of Cancellation Case 23 - Cancel Midland Units on h/1/80; Customer Sears Cests of Cancellation Case 2C - Cancel Midland Units on h/1/80; Stockholder and Customer Share Costs of Cancellation Alternative 3 - Convert Midland to 950 W Coal Unit bv 1987 A'ternative h - Delay or Partial Cancellation Case hA - Delay Midland Units 2 Years Case L3 - Delay Midland Unit 1 by 2 Years ' a e e b e. ee
**CCNFIDE:T!!AL - P3 m MINARY**
MIDLAND ALTERNATr.T.S S"UDY DESCRI?" ION OF ALTE=.UATTIES In light of the new 3echtel cort estimate and schedule, a number of alternatives are being studied as part of a review of the Midland project. The alternatives studied were necessarily limited to those that vere felt to be the most realistic. Each alternative has been =odeled by using the Company's planning model and defining a specific set of assumptions for each scenario. Four general types of alternatives have been identified, and within each general category several specific scenarios have been studied. The following is a definition of each general alternative category and a synoposis of each specific case investigated: A1TERNATIVE 1 - CCMF 2 TE MIDLAND UNITS The first broad category of alternatives assumes that the Midland project vill be pursued to completion on essentially the current schedule as defined by the new 3echtel forecast. Four subcases have been defined within this general category. These are: . Case 1-A: Co=clete Project ?er Bechtel Forecast This case utilizes the new 3echtel cost and schedule, $31 billion total project cost with completion in 198h-85 A cemplete set of current corporate assumptions were developed for this case, and all other cases utilize this data set for those parameters which remain constant from one case to another. Case 1-3: Comelete Drej ect , Dov *Jithdre.vs This case is identical to Case 1-A, (i.e. , $3.1 billion project cost and 198h-85 cor.31etion dates) with the exception that Dow withdraws fro = project. Dov's liability for withdraval is according to the ter=s of the current contract. It is also assumed that Unit 1 is upgraded to produce additional electrical generation by adding another low-pressure turbine and associated facilities. Case 1-C: Comelete Project, Per Revised Forecast. This case is identical with Case 1-A except that it includes the Cc=pany's review of the 3echtel estimate and also incorporates..an analysis of the i= pact on the project of those ite=s in the NRC action plan which are considerei to have a high probability of becoming a re6ulatoq requirement.
._ _ _ _ _ - . _ = . _ . _ _ _ . . .. ..
2 Case 1-D: Co=nlete p-oject, Reduced Construction Budget This case is also identical with Case 1-A except that it assumes that the Company must reduce its overall construction budget by roughly $100 tillion per year for the next five years. This assu=ption was made to dete. ine the effect of a reduced construction budget on financing requirements and coverage ratios. ALTEm.'IATIVE 2 - CA'!CEL THE MIDLAUD UNI"'S This general category of alternatives examines the i= pact on the Company and its customers if the entire Midland project is abardoned. The variation within this category is based on the consequences to the Company and its customers depending on who bears the cost of cancellation.
~ Case 2-A: Cancel the Midland Units - Stockholders Assume the Cost If the entire project is cancelled and the stockholders abscrb 100'. of the loss, this scenario explores whether the Company can survive at all as a company; and if it does survive, hov long it will take to recover enough financial stability to again provide the desired utility services to its customers. In this case no construction of new generating plants to replace Midland is conte = plated to begin until the late 1980's. Some periods of service interruption and the resulting unserved load are anticipated, particularly under the assumption of li=ited availability of exte.~ ally purchased power.
Case 2-B: Cancel Midland Units - Customers Assume Cost This case differs from Case 2-A in that the ratepayer assu=es the cos-of abandoning the electric portion of the Midland units. The write-off is amortized over a twenty year period. As a result, the Co=pany atte= pts to build fossil-fired replace =ent capacity for the Midland units at a separate site on an expedited schedule. (Two 650 Mw(e) units, 1987 start-up.) Case 2-C: Cancel Midland Units - Stockholders and Customers Share Cest This case is a hybrid between Case 2-A and 2-B, and it is assu=ed that l the stockholder is required to bear one half of the abandonment cost of the electric portien of the project. As a result, the replace =ent of the Midland generating capacity is delayed based on the ability of the Co=pa::y, under the locs assumptions, to be able to undertake a nev =ajor construction project in the short term. i I l _ _
3 ALTEENATIVE 3 - CCUVERT MIDLAND TO A COAL UNIT Alternative 3 enn be categorized as the abandement of the nuclear project with the mini =u= total vrite-off. This is acco=plished by utilizing the Unit 2 turbine plant and other applicable facilities as part of a 950 Mw(e) coal-fired unit on the Mi?. land site. Another 350 MW(e) of generating capacity is assu=ed to be built elsewhere te offset the lost Midland nuclear plant output. The estimated unusable investment at Midland is $770 =1111on in this case co= pared to the $1.3 billion sunk cost in the Alte'rnative 2 scenarios. The conversion is assuned to be ec=pleted by 1987 if this project proceeds under extrenely favorable conditions. Ecvever, there is censiderable uncertainty regarding the enviromental licensing requirements of this option; and, under this scenario, Dov's future plans and activities vill have a direct bearing on the environ = ental acceptability of this alternative. 4 AL*ERNATIVE h - DELAY OR PARTIAL CANCILLATICN This general category enco= passes possible delays of one or both units and the possible cancellation of a single Midland unit while completing the other. No partial cancellation. case was developed as no incremental benefit could be identified for this scenario. Case h-A: Delay Both Midland Units 'No Years Based on a continuation of current regulatory uncertainties and en the pctential need to reduce short ter: financing requirenents or both, the two Midland units are assumed delayed for two years. The delay occurs ever the next two years and results in a short term budget reduction but an increased total project cost. Other assu=ptions are identical to Case 1-A. Case h-3: Delay Midland Unit 1 by Two Years This case is identical to Case h-A with the exception that only Unit 1 is delayed while Unit 2 is ec=pleted on the current schedule. Dov is assumed to continue their participation in the project. 2/29/80
--e -- - - - , - - - ,, -,-w n ,-- c- ---,-n, .. -- - ,
S e e a r. w C h N b_ W N T
, p w.
e S e e
** CONFIDE::TIAL - FRELIMINARY**
Midland Altenatives Study l Case 1A: Bechtel Midland FC #6 - Dov Stays In Major Assu=utiens:
- Co=plete Midland Units in 198h and 1985 at cost of $31 billion per Seehtel Forecast #6.
- Continue recent rate treatment, with about 85% of required rste relief being granted 18 months after filing.
- Next unit: 1993 800 MW fossil, older units are =aintained and not retired.
- Palisades assumed out of service for two years starting in August.1987, for steam generator repair or replacement.
- CP Co credit rating down. (Assume 333)
- Interest rates and inflation rates high. (Over the period, LT interest rates = 1h5 - 11.5%; CPI growth rate = 11 5% - 75.)
- Moderate electric sales growth (2.75%/ year).
- Fuel costs up. (011: $30/33L in 1980, lov-S coal $h0/ ton or higher .)
All fuel costs escalated at 2 - 5% real costs plus inflation.
- Plateau supplies 50% of CP Co uraniu= require =ents.
Si nificant Results:
- Financial perfor=ance =arginally acceptable, but vell below the 1979 Base Case. (Exa=ple: 1986 EPS: $3.76 vs $6.16). ROE does not approach authorized return until after Midland is in service.
- Financeability =arginal (1980-198h average year-end indenture coverage : 2.1; 80-8h average in the 1979 Ease Case = 3.7).
- Dividend constant at $2.36 through 1985, 6% growth per year thereafter.
- 1985 electric customer rate up 1h% from the 1979 Base case (8.74 vs 7.84).
- **CONFIDEKIAL - PRELIMINARY **
Midland Alternatives Study Case 1A Sensitivities Case 1D: Complete Project, Reduced Construction Budget
- $100 million annual construction budget reduction until Midland is ec=pleted provides better results, but still inferior to those in the 1979 Base Case.
- (EG 1980-8h indenture coverage = 2.2, 1986 EPS = $h.27.)
- A specific sechanism to obtain a yearly $100 million construction budget reduction was not assumed. Preli=inary investigation indicates that significant change in some of the Company's policies and pructices vill be required to achieve this level of reduced investment.
Case 1C: Cc=plete Project, CP Co Review of Schedule and NRC Regulator / Outlook (Preli=inar/)
- Based en the initial review of the 3echtel forecast and the current status of industry efforts to clarify the post-DE regulatory situation, it was assumed that six months i=provement in the schedule was possible. Based on this assumption, the Midland investment is reduced by $150 =1111cn and the related corporate results are i= proved slightly.
I I 4 9 4
-- , - . . - ., - _ , . - - . . , - - - ,,e - , _ . _ - __ - .,m
**C0!IFIDE:TIIAL - PRELIMINARY **
I Midland Alternatives Study l Case 13: 3echtel Midland FC #6 - Dov Terminates on h/1/80 Ma.$cr Assu=ntions: (Same as lA except)
- CP Ce receives $185 =illien fro: Dow in 1980 for the Dow portion of the stea=
Costs.
. The stockholder bears the cost of the unusable CP stea= invest =ent.
- Any relicensing due to the Dov te:::ination does not delay the project.
- CP Co is assumed'to make a turbine =odification to utilize the steam for increcental electric generation. The cost is about $2h0 million, and.the net gain is about 200 MW.
Sienifiesnt Results
- The Co=pany's financial perfor:ance, while still belev the 1979 3ase Case, is better than in Cas'e 1A. (1986 EPS = $h.15 vs $3 76 in case 1A; financeability better than Case 'lA. )
-- . - - - , .- ,w-, -,---, - -, ..- -v-- , -,---e-r- -,--. ----y- -
**CCUFIDENTIAL - PFILIMINARY3#
Midland Alternatires Study case 2A: Cancel Midland Units on h/1/80; Stockholder Hears Ccst of Cance11stien Major Assu=ttions: (Sa=e as 1A except)
- The set amount of the write off is about $1.1 billion en a book plant basis and about $860 million on a tax plant basis.
- CP Co receives $185 million from Dow in 1980 for the Dov portion of the steam costs.
- It is assumed that during the initial years of the crisis, the MPSC would maintain the current rate structure and utilize a target capital structure for rat -aH ng.
- The construction budget is slashed to $25 =illion in 1981 and 1982 and alleved to grow slowly in subsequent years. Operating budgets are also drastically reduced for the first two years.
- It is assumed that adequate econe=y and emergency Purchase and Interchange Power (PLI) is available in future years to enable CP Co to =eet the potential load forecast.
- Ho external financing is aesumed for five years.
- It is assu=ed t' hat UCMECO and Plateau are sold for $135 =1111cn and $3h million, respectively.
- The Midland nuclear fuel lease and fuel service centract vill be ter=inated with a 1980 cost of about $23 =illion.
Sirnificant Results:
- CP Co would experience extre=e financial hardship, and whether the Cc=pany survives in its current for= is speculative.
- Dividends are o=itted through 198h and recover to only $1.82 by 1993.
- he first new plant that can be atte=pted to make up for the loss of the Midland units is a 1993 800 .W fossil unit.
- System generating plant reserves become extremely poor (negative in 1988) and negative days (another =easure of reliability of service) increase significantly by the late 1980's.
- PLI becomes h0% or = ore of sendout frc= 1987 on. .
- The stock price re=ains very lov, and shares outstanding and espitalization are minimized.
Sensitivity: Case 2AA: Case 2A With Limited P&I If P&I is not available in the late 1980's for such reasons as other nuclear plants under construction are not ec=pleted, then the Michigan pool vill have to operate essentially as an isolated syste=. Electric sales under these assu=ptions are interrupted by as =uch as h5 in *uture years and the 1993 custe=er rate beco=es 18.2d rather than the 13.74 experienced in Case 2A. .
**CCHFIDETIIAL - PRC'il'IARY**
Midland Alternatives Study Case 23: Cancel Midland Units on h/1/80; Customer Bears Cost of Cancellation Major Assumrtions: (Sa=e as 2A except) The electric investment is assumed to be written off in 1980 and a=ortized over 20 years, beginning in 1981. CP Co is assumed to earn on the una=crtized balance of the Midland electric investment. The treatment of the tax loss en the electric invest =ent is nor=alized over
, the period of the a=ortication.
The shareholder absorbs the stes= vrite off in 1980. CP Co is assumed to receive $185 million fro = Dov in 1980 for the Dov portien of the stea= costs. It is assu=ed that two 650 IN c~oal units vill be ec=pleted at another site by 1987 to replace the Midland units. Subsidiaries are not sold. Sirnificant Results: CP Co is able, in this case, to pro =ptly build replace =ent capacity. 1980 rate increase of about shgo =illion (over $200 million higher than Cases 1A or 2A) is required in this case. The electric custe=er rate increases by 12 - 8% in the short ter= and a ulti=ately is only slightly higher than rates projected in Case 1A. The Co=pany's financial perfor=ance under these assu=ptiens is satisfactcry. l
~ __ ___ _ _ _ _ _ -_ -_
**CONFIDEN"'IAL - PRELIMINAR!** j i
Midland Alternatives Study ' Case 2C: Cancel Midland Units on h/1/80; Stcekholder and Custcmer Share Corts of Cancellation Major Assu=;tions: (Same as 23 except) It is assu=ed that the stockhcider and the custe=er split the cancellatica cost equally. The portion assigned to the ratepayer is acertized ever 20 years. The tax treatment of the loss assigned to the ratepayer is normalized and that assigned to the stockholder is flowed through.. The shareholder absorbs the stea= vrite off in 1980. CP Co is assumed to receive $185 million frem Dov in 1980 fer the Der-portion of the steam costs.
- It is assumed that adequate e;cncey and emergency Purchase and Interchange '
power 'is available in future years to enable CP Ce to neet the potential load forecast. ' The consthuction program vill be largely a function of a5111ty te finance. Significant Results Dividends are cut to $1.h7 in 1981 to reflect reduced equity and then increase at 5', per year thereafter. 1980 rate increase of about $350 million (about $85 =1111en higher than Case 1A or 2A) is required in this case. The 1987 units are delayed to 1989 and 1991 based en ability to finance. Earnings re=ain icv throughout the period. (1985 EPs = S1,72 vs $2 79. in case 1A1 Reserves drop very Icv in the 1987-89 period and negative days rise to
" triple digits" in 1988 and 1989 e - e -, - ---,4 4,,- -n,,-,,~-,, , n + , - - - - - - , -
n -- - w , , - - - --- .n , ,
1
**CONFIDECIAL - PRU.IMINARY**
Midland Alternatives Study Case 3A: Convert Midland to 950 W Coal Unit by 1987 Major Assunrtions: (Same as 23 except)
- Unit 1 is assumed to be cancelled, while Unit 2 and con =on facilities are converted to a 950 W coal unit.
- The customer is assumed to bear the cost of the unusable portion of the nuclear project, amortised over 20 years. (Usable po tion: $530 million.)
- The unusable steam investment is assu=ed to be written off to the stockholder.
- It is assumed that Dow cooperates in reducing SO, and particulate emissions
- to provide CP Co with a reasonable chance of obtKining environ = ental per:-its.
- It is assuned that CP Co acquires an additional 350 MW of capacity by 1987 through half ownership of a 700 W fossil unit.
Sirnificant Results:
- The financial results are satisfactory. (Lovest post 1980 indenture coverage -
2.h.)
- A 1980 rate increase of about $320 million is required in this case.
- The customer costs are slightly higher than in Case 1A.
- The risks of this case are not as well defined as are the risks of Case 1A, because the analysis supporting the basic premises has not yet been conducted in nearly as much depth.
en y n- s m ,e -,. --,, +yg--m-.- - - - , - - - , - <-w, mp -- -, e , s - . ------
(. . l l
**CCNT!DCCIAL - PRIIa~.M. INARY**
Midland Alternatives Study case hA: Delay Midland Units 2 Years Major Assu=ntions: (Same as 1A except)
- It is assumed that both Midland units are delayed two years.
- Dow does not terminate the steam contract.
Sienificant Results:
- The financing problems are not cured; they are delayed for two to three years. 1985 becomes the worst year (indenture coverage = 196).
- The Midland investment required to complete the project rises from
$3.1 billion to $3.75 billion.
Sensitivity: Case hB: Delay Midland Unit 1 by 2 Years
- If Unit #1 is delayed two years while Unit #2 continues on the current Bechtel schedule, the financing problem is less severe than in Case 1A, but still potentially a serious constraint. The 1983 indenture coverage presents 'a single year of considerable difficulty in financing capability.
The other low coverage years are slightly less difficult than the other Midland scenarios. Delaying the single unit increases the total project co .t to $3.4 billion. l i
**CCN'IDEr'AL I - PRILDf! NARY ** l
~
Midland Alternatives Study i ME'"HCDOLOGY DELOYED
- 1. Define major alternatives.
- 2. Define specific cases / scenarios.
- 3. Define assu=p: ion set for each scenario.
- h. Iterate with Manage =ent.
5 Analyze scenarios using CP Planning Model.
- 6. Review preliminary results against assu=ptions; iterate as required.
Note: The current status of the analysis has only reached the point of having the computer run for each case verified against its assu=ption set. Iteration with top =anage-
=ent has not been carried to the point of policy closure on each scenario. However, this is a refine-
=ent and does not i= pact the general trends established by the current analysis.
e O ww . 4- . - . , , - , , . , , 3 - -- - - - . - - - - - - - - - - - ,. w-,, , ----.. r-.-,-.-- .--
y-- ---r-e G O m M A
>N 2
D
- C 2:
O r3 C CO O e
t 1 MIDLAND ALTERNATIVES STUDY l AREAS OF COMPARISON CUSTOMER-RELATED
- 1. CUSTOMER COSTS: Electric rate, rate increase
- 2. QUALITY OF SERVICE: % reserves, % P & i, negative days SHAREHOLDER-RELATED
- 3. FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE: Earnings, return, dividends, '
stock price, common equity
- 4. FINANCING CAPABILITY: Coverage, external financ-f
! ing, shares issued l i
- 5. UNCERTAINTIES & RISKS i
S l
- l EARN NGS PER SHARE NON - MIDLAND CASES -
MIDLAND CASES 0.5 , 8.5 a' o s'
,' ,o' 6 ,- 6- j e o s
I O ,s' o IAI 5.5 -- --
/ 5.5 -
o' l ' / I 5_._ , / 5_
,/ N ~ a'j l
M l 's ,,o' ' g ,I
- a'
/
?
-' 4,8 ;
K13 4,s -- l/
/
O.
;\
, m l ', 1- -l f.f' t- / l f,. '- i Z . l ,, .. N'
~
! 3.5 -
' ' '^/ 3.5 - - - 17' y -l\,i
.- .v - / \;
/ }'
g l 3-
.. ,6 \
3- 7 %.- 2.5 - - - 2.5 - l 3-3 ISH6 ISOS jW 1932 1931 1986 1968 1990 1992 ISS$ 1980 1982 1981 1900 1982 1981 i YEAR OF STUDY
a 8 i-\ e'.! s
\ n 8
; e -
i. w. E s , c . g,,, >
, ~-
g , , Imid Nh N E !> N sh,> nI a S E Q:9. S y .- ! s O - 2 g E .s N
- E5y M :
/d(.: 4'4 ' m
=,llp - -
g,,, . _ .?: .. ._ -
=
! Edd . . . . . ._
's g -
,s u e
g
/~N ,.g -
?
s
"'*** ~~%__. . ,- j ~
~ 8
_.L., ., =. - .-; ; N
. . C m .
I D e vs
- : c -
n _ e A11003 No NM0133 , I
e E N s
\\s\%
\
s, s . N g
~
E s s ,
\ \ \. i _
R
\. i x. ,. .
i
\_ ss ., g
*3
\ m
. g \_
>= \
s i i
" \ \\. \
D '
\
E
- c. \ \'. \ \
. i 3 g
. Mil \ \ i, i, g
\ 1 s u.
M '
\\.sx \
- O
=
o -\. - i ,
~ -4 5 Ns'. ~. \.
E e
\x.,
\ss
\ '
o W 1 = v \\ n\- a ' g N s\\ x ,: s '
\. \ \, \, -
\\ 's a a
S S S. 8 S S,. n u . o00$ ninO3 NOWWO3
,.y------_,,,_.,,.---.---y- -
- . - - , _ - . . , _ _ - _ _ % .,,-7_ . - - - _ , - - - _ , _ , - , - - - _ , . , , . - _ , . _ _ . ,
l l nuf IFF euf p 7-s i
~
g yg 4N. E .\E% s N ' N' - l "P - 51 x
- x _!
- g 3: I E .#
- l. 4 U
I eC a
\
!- -k d g
/ '
x%g ar 1#( E aO mma e..
' /?J
,, V ,, 5 c;
A
//,/, . aQ
/
.\, '-
j 3 , g 4 M mors k '. N/ / / yE, : yem . . 4.. f
- C M P l N
> / /
, g
! E / / /l.,'- 5 3llg a s a' aaana.iiii MF I d 000,00O$ GNICNANIF LANRETXE M - RF 1
M W alC v / / *
=
//
Clh ~ E % g , N -
,,,a NN \ N g i
/
\
\
g m l t g l -
\ \
N ., g a g' 3 '# gi -! >.
@ l / a $
g / N *g
'..,,,,,f,f
.- ~.. g u.
g .- eO y, ..
...- 7.. i
/ , <
a
~ -;
g % ' ~~. g
,,, .. ~ _,
N ' . , x .. , t ( \ 'i s lNN nGm / 3 Ya - mumm Y f. ',,91 4 i s 1
/,
g l
/#; /
umE d R 4 E aaa3 R R 8
- 8 aR l E 000'000$ ON13NYNid 1VNt!!1X3 w=a l ..
>=
w I M W L_ -
S . l l
\
m j
**. k
, \x- N N %
'N Nh.,
's a NN',
\ s N . N,h, i\ .
t4' k
- e
\ '
s i - pum t
'#s M..s. (,
( ss
'N X
p o M = = - - = i !i2 4 4 W ~~ a
=
4
=
9
= = = s s s s s e vi 6
O M * . 8 5 as gams QQ .,, '- ,,' v q %.
. 3
>5 m
,,,,3 i l - E g ,,
s, - E il \g. J '. , - p ' c4 . D. \ . s't m 8
-r-
' y, s l
',,,~..N s,
': .. g
- s s .m O = W Q @ Q E, s E, e e a g g g
- E! s s s s e
= = = = = s HMN/$ 21VM 31313313 l
1 at o N - N s,' 2 N s
~
s
~
/
i I E inuss N.
,/
4 :N m y - Oms i 'oe i . M
~
V s.$~0 $ EmW /
# ,. / o
> ~_,, x , s .._ /
.7 g m a
sa
/ eo M / , a e<
m N
'"r r
> x / .W 8
cc m : M m --
~
\ / x a N x a s a = a n e s - - ; IN3333d =XY3d 35AO S3A3353M
- - ., --.,e- _ _ _ - _ _ . - - _ _ . , - - -. --. - , - - . - . - . _ , , - - . - _ _ . _ _ ,
O . O w s
's
, /,' b. ~
g
\ *:
m
' sN _
g 4 ,
\
\\.
g , s ' ss !
)l -
Q , y . y
% /!
9,'@ fp' / sumi N s 4 N 'N o n
- g
> N ,N r./
a 5" N i s o D x t 5 o \ , / - B
=
EFF \ / s
/
== g 4=
p -
/ E O \
m x = 6 g / 8
/ * *
..g
=
E E E E 5 8 8 888 RAEY REP SYAD YTICAPAC EVITAGEN
+ .
4 i MIDLAND ALTERNATIVES STUDY RELATIVE COMPARISON AMO,NG ALTERNATIVES . t a CUSTOMER QUALITY OF FINAf4CIAL FINANCING UNCERTAINTY COST SERVICE PERFORM. CAPABILITY CASE 1-A AVG GOOD AVG BAD AVG ,. ' , , , 1 ; f , CASE 1-B ' AVG + BEST GOOD GOOD' BAD \ , CASE l-D AVG +s , idOOD
. ?
. GOOD . AVG' BAD . ,'
L
)'
BEST W WORST WORST WORST GOOD O CASE 2-A WORST, ; ; ;a l r - . , CASE 2-D BAD - AVG . BEST BEST BAD i . ! CASE 2-C AVG ' BAD BAD AVG AVG '
.t' f I i AVG' GOOD l,- GOOD
, CASE 3 A AVG ' WORST i , . + l l CASE 4-A AVG- AVG AVG BAD GOOD r _: 1 , CASE 4-B i ' ' AVG, GOOD AVG ' AVG AVG I 1
/
a $ g G S 9 C
- 3 C
2 O a 2 4 w M bi
** CONFIDE:!TIAL - PRELDENARY**
MIDLM*D AL*'IENA"'!7ES S"UDY DISCUSSICN OF M/b'OR UNCER"'AINT!IS The analysis of the Midland siternatives was constrained by the amount of time available. However, it was important to ec=plete the initial phase of this study promptly because any inordinate delay to prepare detailed inalyses could result in a decisien by inaction and, thus preclude certain of the options. Accordingly, to expedite the study, the alternatives were analy:ed only as specific scenarios using single-valued assu=ptions. It is clear that censiderable uncertainty exists in the results of these studies. While certain of the assu=p-tions have been varied in the scenarios and,as such, represent a sensitivity analysis, no effort was undertaken to develop actual pro,babilities for the major uncertainties in each alternative category. The purpose of this discussion is to briefly identify, in a qualitative fashien, some of the major uncertainties associated with each of the alternatives inves-tigated. Rather than discuss the uncertainty in Alternative k - Delay and Partial Cancellation, separately, the potential for delay has been incorporated in the discussion of each of the other three alternatives. The i= pact frem the occurrence of some of the more favorable or less favorable assumptions vill be obvicus, while the impact of others vould require additional analysis to define. As a result, the choices and trade-offs among the various possible cuteemes and the potential risks involved must be weighed based on incomplete information, but this is the reality faced by all decision makers. AL" TRNA"'IVE 1 - CCMpLETE MIDLAND The major uncertainties for Alternative 1 ;an be organized into five general groupings: (1) potential delay; (2) Dow participaticn; (3) ecst and schedule to complete; (h) regulatory treat =ent; and (5) plant availability and useful lifetime. Potential Delay . The category, Potential Delay, as used here relates to the uncertainty of whether and when a decision might be =ade, for any reasen, to delay work oc >
- e#
EO 9
2 the plant prior to its completien. Delays.that may be experienced as the project proceeds due to external factors rather than. conscious decisions are not included in this definition, but are included in other uncertainties. With the project as far along as it nov is, any delay whether planned or unplanned will be the single biggest cause of increased total project cost. Dov Particitation The potential of Dov vithdrawing frem the project for any reason has obvious implicaticas on the outcome of this alternative. However, there is a poten-t1al to modify the cogeneration unit for a modest additional investment and thereby derive additional generation at a very attractive incremental cost. This cption reduces the difference between the Dov in and Dev out scenarios. However, the Dev eut scenario is clearly sensitive to any change in the timing of the receipt of the Dov vithdrawal payments. Cost and Schedule to Complete Because the project completion date is now four to five years in the future rather than two years off, the uncertainty associated with ecepleting the remaining work with ths to-go cost and schedule estimate has clearly increased. One of the major reasons for that increased uncertainty is future NRC acticus.
~
The resolution of the NRC action plan, this year's focus of new regulatory requirements, could have a consideratle impact on the project. "he timely completion of and requirements from the NRC's review of the Company's operating license application is another area of uncertainty. In addition, it is probable that there may be censiderable adverse impact on the project's completion due to the unrelenting and effective intervenor participation in the license hearing. Underlying all of these factors is also a consideration of what will be the ultimate national policy on nuclear power. The national policy question could sving the outcome of this alternative in either a favorable or unfavorable direction. Regulator */ Treatment 3ecause of the large capital cost of this project, the regulatcry treatment of that capital cost, once the plant has been completed, has a significant
3 impact on the outcome on this alternative. Any lag by the MPSC in the recog-nition of this investment in the Company's rates vill, of course, have a detrimental impact on the Company's performance in the years surrounding the completion of the project In addition, failure to receive full recognition in the rate base for the total investment will have a continuing adverse effect.
' 3ecause of the large financial requirements to complete the project over the next five years, there are also possibilities for regulatory actions related to the project which could either favorably or unfavorably i= pact the Co=pany's perfor=ance during the completion period.
Plant Availability and Useful lifetime The long-term effects that evolve from this alternative include potential future investments to meet continuing NRC requirements that are backfitted after plant operation begins. This type of requirement, plus the specific performance of the plant equipment, fuel and operating personnel vill ulti=ately determine the availability of the plant. In addition, based en the above consi-derations plus the resolution of a national policy on nuclear power and other current issues such as vaste disposal, there is some uncertainty surrounding the plant's ultimate lifetime. AL"'ERNATIVE 2 - CANCEL THE PROJECT The major cctegories of uncertainty associated with the alternative of cancelling the project are: (1) timing; (2) regulatory treatment; (3) cost and schedule to replace the Midland espacity; (k) interi= operating concerns; and (5) replace-mont plant availability and operating costs. Timing A decision to c.bandon a project of this size cannot and should not be =ade overnight. "'herefore, the actual time it takes to reach that decision vill i have a significant impact on the overall outcome of this alternative. If constru'etion continues or even if it is suspended while additional studies and discussions proceed, the ultimate cost of the cancellation vill be directly relcted to when the actual decision occurs. _ , - . _ , _ , - . , - _ _w , , -_ % y _. _ _ . . - , - _ - . , .
h 4 Regulatory Treatment l As explored in the Alternative 2 scenarios that have been constructed, there are considerable differences between how a cancellation would possibly be i treated. This already major uncertainty would have an even greater effect on a cancellation decision because of the obvious potential for regulatory [ delay in deciding how the regulatory treatment vould,be handled under these
- circumstances. The financial results as computed would change drastically;
- and, in fact, corporate bankruptcy would be inevitable if there vere any sig-nificant delay in establishing and implementing a regulatory policy with regard to the. cancellation. Not only are the consideraticus critical with respect to how the loss vould be directly treated, but also unfavorable treatment of the Company's other rate matters could make it impossible for the Company to
' be able to survive a cancellation decision. There is also censiderable poten-tial for the Attorney General and other rate case intervencrs to disagree with and delay any'MPSC decision.
Cost and Schedule to Replace the Midland Capacity The scenarios for the various cancellation assu=ptions are aimed at trying to restore the Company's ability to provide normal service according to its l charter at the earliest possible time. This recovery, of course, varied sig- - nificantly based on how difficult the Company's financial situation va: projected to be. However, there are clearly uncertainties associated with the environ-mental licensing schedule of a new coal plant, new financing in the wake of a Midland abandonment, and the general cost and schedule uncertainty of building any major new generating facilities that vill potentially affect the outcomes for this alternative. Interim Operating Concerns In certain of the cancellation scenaries, there are periods of significant deterioration in the Company's ability to provide the required service. Whether or not there vould be adequate amounts of electric energy to be purchased
- ecenomically or at all through the Ccmpany's transmission interties in these .. periods is speculative. This concept is reinforced when one considers that
5
=any of the problems plaguing the_ Midland nuclear project are not unique to Consumers Pover, but affect all of our neighboring electric utilities to some degree. If, in the cancellation scenarios, adequate replace =ent energy cannot be obtained through external purchase, there vill certainly be significant increases in the customer cost of the energy that is available and a potential for sc=e limited percentage of unserved load and customer service interruptions.
Another obvious uncertainty is future lead growth. While load forecasts have been declining over the past few years any reversal of that trend would clearly exacerbate the potential customer i= pacts associated with this alternative. Replae=ent plant Availability and Operstine Costs While many of the problems related to th Midland project can be traced to one facet or another of NRC policy and procedures, the regulatory difficulties with coal-fired plants have also been increasing. The required uses of scrubbers at high sfficiency for SO 2re: val has the potential to adversely i= pact tne availability of future coal-fired facilities. In addition, the uncertainties associated with future coal costs may well have a significant i= pact on the custc=er cost cutcones in this alternative. ALTERNA" TIE 3 - CCNVIRT MDLAND TO A COAL UN!T The =ajor uncertainties associated with this alternative are generally si=ila-to and a ec=bination of those fro = Alternative 1. For Alternative 3, the uncertainty categories are: (1) timing; (2) environ = ental licensing; (3) cost and schedule to convert; (h) regulatory treat =ent; and (5) operating concerns. Timing Similar considerations, as discussed for Alternative 2, also apply here. How long vill it take to decide to undertake the conversion? Will construe-tion on the nuclear unit continue or vill the project be suspended prior,to ) the decision to convert? ) i
l l l l 6 l Environmental iteensing The question here is whether or not an environmental license can be obtained to burn coal at the Midland site. Will there be significant, additional costs incurred to offset other pollution sources in the area in order to ultimately obtain a license to build a coal-fired plant at Midland? What vill be the relationship vith Dow in this scenario, and with the intervenors old and nevt Cost and Schedule to Conve-t Assuming that the licensing outcome is ultimately fa.verable, there is still significant uncertainty associated with the time required to obtain the environ-mental per=its. There is also uncertainty associated with the current level of knowledge of the cost and schedule to accomplish the conversion. It is risky I to compare information on the detail level of the Bechtel Forecast #6 for the nuclear project with the much less detailed infernation available concern-
! ing the actual ecst and schedule of undertaking the conversion associated with this alternative. .
Regulatory Treatment. Even though this alternative has a significantly smaller write off than the full cancellation scenario, the same regulatory uncertainty described for Alternative 2 applies to both the treatme',t of the unusable portion of the original project and the additional regulatory policy toward the Ccmpany during the period after the decision has been =ade to convert. Orerating Ceneerns Similar to the uncertainties discussed for Alternative 2, there are uncertainties associated with the ability of the Ccmpany to provide adequate service during the interim period after the decision to convert has been made. There are also uncertainties associated with future EPA requirements and scrubber per-formance and uncertainties associated with future coal cost and availability and load growth.
-.--..-,_y c-- . - - -.,.--.y.
m.,- - ,, , , - - - - - - - , . , . , _ , - , , . . , . , , m .p _m ,-. , - - _y- e,_ _ _ r-,
O e a S 4 4 29~ O h w = w a m.
~ =
m O
~
=
d M
= , - -
>3 C1 D
CAss 1A a eeses a;.e j.. =e a _i a
= a : s~_-
~
a - a e n ~ z- ;- a: ; . c. _-
- ; e~ ; _e -
_s . e~_~ a .j,aes s.-~s ae=ae- eae e a~ ;
~
a -
--.a
- a a ~
n~_ ; .s, - s. a a ,_- 5
.~g ;g ge : ;~a: aaa a s s~._
a s e. n. , s :n, ; s - a~ s
.. 1 ; a s a -
l ag s a
-.e asaa ;eaaa ; s : 9 . .
. . g e x- a- a ~ga . s. - :. a s = a a e~ ; .e Ex.s-4 ~ _ - .
_E a a an.. a I g :.e :- I. :a as ; a x - -
- - . ~ s...a aesa4 x e- - : a a~ s _e g
g a . a. g ;. ~e - _ - - a : : n-- l g..-a as=gs : a 5 . ggs = ;Ei; ;: 3 ~ g3
.~
a - g ggg- *e : '
~
d ii
25s5.
-~
inn,i
=n:
ii=ia
- i =, 2a 5s:i % i i '
- ~
i - ~ = =
.a asaaa a e s~~_
k
-p 'g.
a - E, ~a _4g eisaa
- a~ =a.a%2 a2 a, m . -
4 : e c a a- 4 _ _4 gg_ e
~
i_ n. ii3.ia 3 i n g i. i. -s iRaia s %. *. 2 n. . I\g --. n_ - a
~ ~ - ~ _ ~ ~ _ _
e s...g a;=;e
- a.;eas;aa = *n..
s a a. a aa
~-~
s ;- a: s~nna:n ~
~
. a a- a _a _
e
*n,.
.- s--_g ae gs ss a gaagae -
a
=
a a gg l I,g*ga - agig
- a a: i3 3s
*n.-
s~_~s ss: 2 e aa_gga a ge e .s ly ;a
-~
_z~ a g ~a - s a- - asa. --
- _a: a a a_ _a i--~i ia5 ii t i n_ i i. =- i x i. i a i % % ; ~_ -.
'l, _
a n
~ n. .: : - - ~ , ~ ~
= G n- i_ n - n i i aMii i. n i:i. i_ ~~ g _i i i
~ - %
~ ~ ~_ n~
g
-~
a== - ~ ~
== =
c- g - - . I. : s. e= g e I - . ^ I.
__4 9_cw ., i 3_ 4 {:
- E a !_ !_e s.
I :4 I. I =g) I
= g- *2 3 3
l- !a u Vne E = a li 5 i s a . i I uIn8
.s EEg5g=l M ga I!
w a y: e a g aw a- . =. 1a ==s II: a 1 c e u v n<= g a e si - n r . =E : 3 = a*3 e=a d a c _ 0 = 3 = Eg
- 5 is. dsw=s.
6
, -g es
! ** 3 su" ai I
- 2 S 2
- i. 3a ame <
$S $3 = 18' 3
- S s u 2 -
d I c x 8sD a$ W
= -
5gs B l= @= 8 3 3 ,s 3: E 5
."g =
_s58gi sa
-5 38 v32.11i n as!! ==a== == = ; = c.
e- - ~ ~ -- - - - -s== ==c : =
.,,a w ,- - 1 - - - - -
P. I CASta leID .1) (TMBOEIRS Buta 15 YMit 81Utg eseagggggggggg,.gqq1,gny,merf Deras.TS***
~
e2/27/08.17.M.48, susescewwr seempT' - 18887 5 AS EFEIFIID 1908 IMI 1982 1983 1984 19e5 1906 1987 19ee 19e9 1990 1991 1992 1993
- M HtET I lift'. SMJ3 CKwrts RATS,Mste) 3.6 2.4 5.7 2.0 2.0 2.8 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2 CAS SAIES GKWitt mit (t) 2.9 .6 2.2 .7 -2.4 .0 .e .2 .2 .2 .5 .4 .5 .5 rtKTRIC 31UIN. E3KTRIC SfM10UT.K(Ge4 30840. 30770. 32518. 33518. 34218. 35148. 36168. 3714e. 30228. 30018, 3*438. 40568. 48740. 42968.
4 P Alt i A8 6 0F 88 spet1Ur 20.0 14.1 21.2 26.1 21.5 16.5 19.9 23.0 31.4 26.6 26.4 30.5 20.4 31.3 5 fut Me est Garr, K ($/9eet) 22.1 24.0 30.6 30.3 31.4 32.2 35.0 39.4 45.3 44.0 . 45.4 54.4 57.5 56.2 6 Pfst1HS OtEn PrAst, #6 tel 26.4 29.2 22.2 22.1 22.4 42.3 42.1 30.0 23.8 24.3 32.3 20.5 24.5 32.5 7 NtrATIVr. CAPACITT t*VS Ita 73 65. 53. 18. 30. 25. 6. 12. 28. 40. 39. 17. 27. 42. 19. CAS e 1 URAL CAS stMaur (BCF3 354. 352. 368. 362. 354. M7. 368. Ms. 361. M2. 364. MS. M7. M9. 9 IwatICID CAS Vttlet (BCr) 8. 8. e. S. 35. 78. 78. M. 70. 70. 78. 78. 70. 78. 9 le OEr or CAS a]ID ($/KY) 2.04 2.98 3.47 4.00 5.33 6.48 7.48 e.34 9.31 18.35 11.40 32.71 14.11 15.66 Il EM)ING S105UCE 19A43flopf (BCr) 80. 09. el. 78. 65. 70. 76. 90. 96, 92. 82. 79. 74. 69. 12 terlinsTATE 1UsesiME WL. (scri 72. 76. 50. 8. 8. 8. S. 5. e. S. 5. 8. 5. e. i FIPmHCIAL
- 13 It4DrtilPE GNEMGE DATIO 2.17 2.24 2.24 2.16 2.2e 2.79 3.13 3.20 3.48 3.30 3.41 3.25 3.82 3.17 r
14 DTEJeeL FIIsedCleE3 ($800,088) 472. 589. 456. 420 . 317. IM. -48. 79. 59. 173. 249. 461. 604. 419. 15 CAP suo Ex? riemetto it) 75.5 03.3 72.7 72.s 62.2 26.e -12.0 16.1 11.5 24.4 28.0 45.3 58.8 48.1 16 EtArrWIC stvrtes:S ($e88,088) 1370. 1610. 2002. 2124. 2351. 2006. 3273. 3547. 3929. 3997. 42M. 4632. 5161. 5551. If ElfristC GisitDER DAtt ($/1n4ll .8 49 .857 .867 .069 .575 .009. .990 .104 .Ill .llt .II6 .523 .1 34 .339 le CAS PtvtM G ($800,0883 1886. 13M. 1572. 1834. 2292. 2737. 3169. 3531. 3945. 4M9. 4e68. 5373. SMS. 6594. 19 CAS QistisetJt RAtt ($/MLTI 2.98 3.90 4.49 5.20 6.66 7.09 9.06 18.07 II.23 12.42 13.75 15.13 16.72 10.45 28 CAPI 1*I. #2rtM)I1taatS($ses,see) 640. 648. 670. 695. 576. 400. 422. 379. 459. 683. 453. ISSI. 1209. 1814. 28 IJ:AstD MUEAR fut1($e88,eeel 114. 44. 30. 31. 22. 15. 57. 79. 104. 75. 181. 103. 162. 130. j 22 CLN Man Tl@HS JDIlfr048076 HIP 58. 5. 9. 6. 1. I. 1. I. 1. 1. 1. 1. 8. 8. ($488,980-tor IPCIAE8D Ain1 vel , 23 itIIRL PATr: ItCitEASE ($800,000) 265. 76. 151. 185. 426. 3e6. 165. 98. 137. IM. 213. 148. 228. 400. EAle#Ir m fra piAnts 24 FruM OltRATIflaS ($1 4.91 3.12 3.23 3.42 3.55 3.62 4.I5 4.4e 4.06 4.79 5.17 5.57 5.93 6.15 25 AJ1Tp DTaNwa>Irmer 11tsels) 1 O 26 civits3as Prm SIApt ($1 2. M 2. M 2.36 2. M 2. M 2. M 2.50 2.64 2.02 3.02 3.24 3.46 3.78 3.96 > in 27 Cams UND.leCE OF DIViteJe 2.3 1.7 3.9 1.0 1.9 2.7 3.3 2.6 2.7 2.s 2.9 2.5 2.5 2.5 N 28 pctisse tes EUulTY (tl 18.0 18.6 12.2 13.0 13.2 12.9 14.1 14.5 14.0 13.0 14.2 14.6 14.7 14.5 29 2 ..c,U,e. m , m 9 2.4 8.8 it.3 i,.e is.9 il.9 it.i i7.0 i9.. i9.4 i,.6 i,.i 19.2 it.3
\
1 1 I CASE IC s~.- g a - j a eg~ a es: x~ ; e4 - a g3 g, _ a E. a =_ g e _ a s
; a~ ; ; _ _
s.- a as=;a sa - a s e~. a~ ; _e
~
a -
= a
- - g2 -
x-a- a: j f,,. s, ; E_ =a s c ; _
;e gs : a . ; :: e: .: a .: s : s: , .
g a~ se a - I.-.: . ; - s xa - a : a,,. :. - a,,. s - - s = = a - g...a a ae : -
; .: .: a ; e : m..
f a -
.x.x s - - x2 - a Esa:=. , s. .: s= -
a a a~ a _e _ _ s -
- s--.a agsas : a ,,. asa~a s .: ; ~
.a ~;e g
4 - gga g ~ x _e - a= _
- s, - x. a. : - : ;
3- . n.- Q g a - g-. g ggg a agnis a e sa =ag- i, :s ;gg: ; ; ;s a i e a~ g g hE 9 't I *. ": . d jg5id E g . g E d E. jdJ g 5 3
~
29 . a =s== - -
-= x -
s - 5: . - a * . . g. - -
.a ea s a-2 a : a
=
g;saaa es: - i
- a 5 9 a e_a a
n _f _ .: e , xx a =. m. - a 3- *
's A3-:
i.~: ai: -i a I lf g==~ J
- - i
==
P a
- E i m. i i i s i i
- a -
- - - - ~
gl* E *e d d. s-- 2 x' i - 5
- ss
>* za.g*"assaa d : .d . - .
- d *
~ g a
" d ~
d I, e,__g gs g * . . . c g a - gg4e a, e a sjgmgg;zg2
- a. .gs- - ; _ a a es e~_~s ss: a82 -
ga: 2 ge a s as.-
-3 g sa g ,a, ga- - x agg a , =4
_ . _: a: c a a a_ a _ j y _ ,
.. s.. ; -n -
a a ese; s a - ae.aggs;ae . ._ .; - e a a - a_ a
~ .
y_ a ,- c
,- a = a. 2_
aeaga = a ,,. a - a ; s =8 -.
. . s. .;
- s a -
as2 :g 5 :4 _ a s =a j = a a-aa _3 aa ,= g a- - ; _
~
~ ~ ~ -
~-~_s~ ~
- : ~
~
s
$_ $. W cs ~$. $. !. _O 8
E 8
$. k $. I . I.
~ 'f~
a
$ " 8 E E E.
e W- .
- a. 2
- a a-
-c. a .$ I' *5 3 2 -
s g y $ g I. . - B g -
-3 E 9 5 g i g.3 g 7..
_o ~
. e.
s
. l ev g, n,ana i _i=$_c, - e sg ,2, E s 1,* =. . s. sc, 3
.,{
u
.lag a._s a 2 .g 3 -
m 8 sa a> pg # g,s c 5 5
- s3s, E
a E as3 e3 -,3ga s
]: 3 , =
... 3:. m.
ag o i js. , , s4 e
! ! gsip . s s:ssi!!!=gli'5.g.l g .
g .a u is !!ill .!wi
-~ - . - . - . ===
ll = = c==2 ea== =
!al
- s 4 : =.
1 l 1 i . . , . _
t e CtmenetENI PtM1t 15 YtAm Sue.7 ***tINritM3frIAle-PittilNigmpY pt25115ees F. I GSta M1.3 .33 00eshCEN3rr steeNT - 1e8178 AS SetCtrirD 02/28/08.14.M.39. 1998 1991 1992 1993 1980 1998 3902 1983 1984 1985 1906 IM7 190s 1989 MMsET 2.0 2.8 2.0 2.0 2.8 2.0 2.8 2.8 1.4 2.4 5.7 2.0 2.8 2.0 a 112C. SNES Gwrti stant.Mit9)
.8 .2 .2 .2 .5 .4 .5 .5 (t) 2.9 .6 2.2 .7 -2.4 .e 2 CAS sal 28 Goms MATE E12CTmIC 3 tirrAs. EarCT3fC SrMunfr,1Closel 3sl48. 38778. 32518. 31518. 34218. 35368.' MISS. 37140, 30228. 3 eels. 394M. 48568. 41740. 42968.
22.2 25.9 34.8 29.6 29.2 33.3 33.9 33.0 20.8 14.1 28.2 26.1 21.0 ,15.9 4 P Me I AS t or MB 10 Mar 31.1 41.5 48.8 46.0 48.3 53.4 61.1 59.5 5 fvt1 Ne est (D6t,1C ($Aeell 22.5 24.8 29.1 38.3 31.3 31.9 34.4 20.3 20.8 20.9 25.2 21.7 29.7 29.2 . 22.2 72.5 22.4 42.3 38.4 6 past3Vt3 (WEp PEAS, MB (t) 16.4
- 37. 23. 10. 29. 4e. 23.
- 65. S t. 78. 30. 25. 6. 7. 15.
7 BetrATIVE OPACITT EIAYS PER Yn CAS 368. Ms. Mt . 362. M4. MS. M7. M9. 154, 352. 368. M2. 354. 357. 5 8 ttFrAL GAS StMrlift tecri
- 70. 79. 70. 70. 70. 78. 70. 78.
- 8. 5. 35. 70.
9 FIG 11CID GAS W18498 (scri 9. 5. I 7.48 8.34 9.31 10.35 II.40 12.11 14.11 15.H 2.04 2.91 3.47 4.00 5.33 6.48 18 U1ST or CAS SMD ($AtCri ,i
- 90. 96. 92. 82. 79. 74. 69.
- 88. 39. St. 70. 65. 70. 76.
ll EletNG sit 0UCE INVf3fl0EEF (scra
- 8. 8. 8. 8. 8. 8. 8. 8.
- 72. 74. 58. 8. 8. 8.
12 lit:1*STA12 uneenal vos (scri
- TimHCI AL 3.52 3.58 3.43 3.43 3.21 3.01 3.19 l 2.30 2.10 2.20 2.12 2.26 2.70 3.28 13 IsaurIUpt GNElv2 IRTIO 299. 294. 581. 633. 439.
541. 457. 390. 341. 221, 31. -182. 101. let. le FrTIM4AL FlmHCING ($e00,e881 19.e 29.7 32.9 49.4 53.5 42.1 87.1 72.9 72.8 58.3 0.3 -54.s 28.4 15 CAP pty rXT ril&DCED (t) 188.8 3597. 390s. 4e45. 42ms. 4783. 5285. 5666. 1370. 1615. 1987. 2091. 23e5. 270s. 3389. 16 EIKTRIC pavizam;S ($ses, peel
.309 .199 .313 .321 .333 .lM
.049 .956 .964 .e6e .973 . set .995 .let
' 17 EIJX'rpic OISRMER BATE ($/ktell 3585. 3915. 4337. 4029. 5341. 5938. 6568. 18e6. 1330. 1571. 1831. 2203. 2723. 3149. 18 CAS f*vfMits ($ese,Seel 9.08 Is.se 11.15 12.33 13.66 15.85 16.64 le.H ($AqCF) 2.91 3.98 4.49 5.19 6.63 7.85 19 GAS Cusionts futs 459. 683. 851. 1951. 1299. 1884. 574. 591. 600. 457 255. 292. M 2. 20 CAPITAL rJIfzajt1UDES($800,0eal 562.
- 79. 104. 75. 108. 103. 162. 138.
184. 44. 38. 31. 22. 45. 57. 21 IIASED 14tuAm FUEL ($80s.seel
- 1. 1. I. I. I. 8. 8.
S. 9. 4. B. 1. 1. 22 QM fee TRANS .Mirr pe4f*!NIIP 58. (4#se,00e4Ur int 1JEWD AIEWE) 121. 130. 224. 158 . Mt. 499.
- 67. 138. se. 413. 294. IM. 15.
23 ttffAR. RATE IDCptASE ($e00,000) 263. FMNitCS Pf11 $llAPEg 4.66 4.95 4.01 5.28 5.54 6.03 6.34 3.13 3.26 3.58 3.e6 3.21 ' 4.27 + 24 EKH ortimTlats ($) 3.05 25 AftEn EXTpMMOINANT 111MS($1 ~ ] 2.50 2.64 2. 2 3. 2 3.2. 3.46 3.7e i. ,6
- 2. M 2.M 2.M 2.M 2. M 2.M O 26 DtylteMS PER fumle i$i >
3.4 2.6 2.6 2.8 2.9 2.5 2.5 2.5 En 1.8 1.4 1.8 1.6 1.7 2.6 27 car 4l GNt:p/CE OF Otvlte'e M 14.9 14.9 . 13.7 14.2 14.3 14.0 14.7 l 11.0 12.5 13.3 13.4 11.4 14.5 28 pritses as futitTT (61 13.2 19.I 19.4 19.6 19.5 19.2 19.3 17.3 17.8 18.9 13.9 10.1 17.0 291tirAs.'semsee to sitmostea 6 2.4 8.5
\
~ ~ - .
I
CASE 2A
. . . . . . . . . .g . * . . . .
9 4 .*~ *. R *e. 0 :- S
~
.~
e a - 3 $ * *.
~ e 2
7 e e
=8 . $ * =. -
e S n - -
. e d . e e 4 4 4 :
- d 3
- e a 3 4 0
- 4 a 4 3 n j 4 *
- 4 f4 2 * " 4-
- 4 E J. e e
4 : G 4 J . *
~4
- -4
, y .
- 9 i a
g: :9 *- . I (dEd* ~ I. d *.
~
s: d b d: - E. ffJ j E, y}. e, e s
.~..... .
~. /~ 5 9 * . 9 e. 5 :- *R
- _'. 2
- I. E 9 : : 2. ..*.r 2 R
~
3 ~ R. ~ ~ . -. - - g g . . - e . . - - - e . 3 . ~ . . o y a o - ~
.e . . .
~ - . ~
3 J n~ - . --. . - ~
- . e. - a gSg 4
- g 4 4. 4 - *
- d
- 4 K 4e 3 -
=
4 3 4 4
- d e-m 3 *"
. ~ fn n e i a4 ; J d 2 a e d 7 3 .j J5 G4 4" J C e e n .8 4 *
~. .J 4 i 2 * "
4
- 4 A 4e - - -
- 4 J J d
l ,ee 4 C
- d a J 5 52 . ~
4 - d o e .
- s. e a4 J
i & xd f& 8 x;: 4 4 e i j.=sE - 4 R ao a e M.-s g g-.*~. 2L E R e.
. ~
~r g .
*a g
. . g
- d 2 3 4 J
- J
-D2 4
- 4 J. -J 4 -
4.' 4 - . -J
- ~ ~ ~ ~
e5- e- .... kl# . .
~ o " . . o" R .
- . ~ - ~
...... - g e - .
YE 4
- 2 g C R
- .- ~ ~
* ; J 4 aC 9 : 4 ;
n ~ ~ 4 : " d
~
g --
. . . . . . . o a
$l gag o n . .
gfff" A e
- e 4 T g
3J R e ~ ~ -
~
4 o 4
. e J
4 j - J f, 3 . f hg- g . .
~ . .
= 8 ; - . . . . . . .....
8 -
~ -3a .-3 m - - m-,-R - 9 e g. ~ c g g ~ A ~R
. E e M
~ o -
; ~
=Eg -
W . . . . . . . c . . . ..... . E ~
*. " 2 * * "
2 3 * * . E S - 3 *
- 8 3e .* C N *
- o .
- e E.
o g
; y e a g - . ~
a ~ ~ a ; - - 8
. . d - o - 4 4 4 -
i a K fa 4 yf8 f4 4 4 2 8 ' e* - 4 i : 4 4 2** A 4 *
- 4 - J 3 .- 4 ./ 4 .
/a c X- R - ~ ~ -
1 I
. . . .. . ~. . e.
o . - . , . o a -
- - . - - .. , ~ ~ .
; 4 : ,s n;* -
s 4 - - 4 i a=g I . 4,. . .3 .
= 4a- -
= -a a. i I
- R . 1
--g*
p 6
.-m. .. .- - .
$gd 4p dW $. * $. s-I $. #p* 8. I yI $.
~~ ~
O 3 W. i , E O o 8
- 8 8 a
5 S 0 en J -
- E o
= 1n-a e a8' El :g e -
3 E
, 5* .5 5
a f w - E d
- 4. ca g u I a I.g u 3a E os m *3 Eo a a u e B gg ! E w g5 j aE
- g1 :- -A3l l gE8e asf3 og up a;st a 5 e a- g
= 5;53 ,* , =*
5* " e 's C 58 gg ls
!a 5
Gs8 33 3 5cljIr!a, Id 6 s u ea
* . = -
I v2 eg gfEpg e i s 38 g !- E o a s s a = 3 . i g s. - a B v . 5 g a
-&a j kg c 3 6 @a o j :
A RE o33 d E6 Sd 2 33:5 4 m =aRbc5sbE l S ,
. $ 23 s C a 2 3 = 5 5 e- 5 i E e.
~~ ~ .~ -~ .
.. -~ ~.e .- . . o -- ~~.<.~..o -~ - .e \
3' 6 - - - - - - ---~~~ ~ - i 4
i UNEisqESS PGEP 15 TEAR slurE ***cwloptrlAl,--reelasslesuir at as.Tssee P. 1 CASE: MID .2e 83/s4/88. 83.pl.M. sesystwaar asequer - teelts As srECirles 1986 1987 1988 , 1999 1998 1991 1992 1993 1988 SMI 1982 1983 1984 1995 , NWetET 2.0 2.0 2.8 2.0 2.8 2.0 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 1 Elst. SAIES QuwIn mats, pelt) 1.6 2.4 5.7 2.8 .
.7 -2.4 .8 .2 .2 .2 .5 .4 .5 .5 2 CAS SAIEJ Qutwm matt (t) 2.9 .6 2.2 4 87a"TFIC 31 Ural.11JCIFIC SEMGer,1C(Gea) 30148. 187 w . 32510. 31518. 34218. 35168. MI68. 37148. 38220. 30818. 39458. 48548. 41748. 42968.
M.7 29.4 34.4 32.5 32.1 32.1 27.5 31.s 31.9 33.8 4 F Ne I AS 6 OF 96 SDEJOUr 20.8 I4.1 21.2 M.) 33.7 38.8 44.6 48.1 52.4 54.1 53.2 58.5 65.3 65.6 511El. NED F51 Gkrr,1C ($/1941) 22.1 24.s 28.1 38.3 22.5 22.4 19.5 16.2 34.6 w.5 23.0 29.1 25.8 21.5 29.6 6 PE2ENVEs o#En PENT, as (t) 16.4 29.2 22.2
- 34. 46. 68. 20. 27. 18. 13. 21, 31. 18.
7 NtOATIVE CAPACITV IMS ftp YR 65. 53. 78. 30. GAS M4. M2. 354. 357. 368. 368. M!. M2. M4. MS. M7. 369. 81UrAf. GS SENInfr (rCr) 354. 352.
- s. s. s. 35. 7s. is. 78. w. 7e. w. w. w.
9 murm cAs vouse (scr) s. is. ' e 2.04 2.91 3.47 4.00 5.33 6.40 7.48 8.34 9.11 's.35 II.48 12.71 14.11 15.66 le outrr or CAs sota ($/ICr)
- 78. 65. 78. 76. 98. 96. 92. 82. 79. 74. 69.
11 pelec Erf0Ivos Isaint!Ostr (scri St. 89 St.
- 58. 5. S. S. 3. S. 8. S. 8. 8. 8. 8.
- 12 terrfstrrAlt 1UIWE!ME vot (BCr) 72. 76'.
VINNCEAL 3.10 2.95 3.81 2.88 2.73 2.88 13 Ilsprlijpt (TNENCE RAtto 2.38 3.05 4.98 4.!! 3.49 2.64 2.46 2.79 334. SIS. 643. 3M. 187. 254. 276. 409. 616. 418. 4 14 EX1Dedi. riteNCING ($388,808) 211. -le. -120. -0. 58.8 02.4 79.4 62.1 28.5 35.6 31.5 49.6 53.2 48.1 15 CAP IdQ EXT rllSNCID (t) 49.0 - 2.9 -34.4 -8.0 4 2966. 2205. 2483. M75. 3842. 3507. 3994 4847. 4298. 4696. 5241. MM. 36 E8ECTplC MVDGES ($888.908) 5379. 1839.
.878 .076 .303 .594 .182 .313 .315 .lle .325 .IM .I43 17 ELECTRIC OtpluqEn 1815 ($/ imell .e49 .N4 .N9 2292. 2737. 3169. 3531. 3945. 4 MS. 4068. 5178. 5968. 6595.
leoss M.vp4ES ($800,088) 3006. 1330. 1572. 1834. i 6.66 7.09 9.N 10.07 11.23 12.43 13.75 15.13 14.72 14.41 19 CAS OtS10MER RATE ($/l(7) 2.91 3.90 4.49 5.20 4 405, 630. 9M. 9M. 554. 478. 6M. 888. 3815. 1257. 1806. 20 CAPITAE. f2892011UMs($800.000) 304. 2M. M9.
- 16. 9. s. 32. II. M. 68. 52. 55.
23 IEASrD laK1EAA SUE 1.($800,088) 47. 3. 23. 5. 17.
- 9. 6. 1. 1. 1. 1. 3. 3. 3. 8. 8.
22 Q30 M3D 114N48 Joltar (644tMHIP 58. S. I. ($sse.ses-4afr INL11AfD ADOWE)
- 99. 109. 466. 98. 129. 212. 152. 218. 409.
231UrAI. PATE IN[WAfE ($888.908) 497 13. 54. 69. 187. eAwaltos FEp EntADEs 5.14 5.57 6.99 6.42 2.32 3.94 3.25 3.52 4.M 3.72 3.85 4.41 5.89 4.79 24 FN M (EfftPTius ($) 25 Af' Int EXTNOflDIMMir ITt36($) -9.04
- 2. M 2. M 2.40 2.68 2.73 2.07 3.81 3.16 3.32 3.49 l
M nivlielas Itst sitAPE ($) 2. M 2.M 2.M 2. M (~3 I 27 casi UNEascE tr olvitne 2.9 3.e 4.4 4.1 1.3 2.5 2.4 2.5 2.9 2.9 3.1 2.0 2.s 2.9 h 14.2 12.7 13.1 14.5 15.5 14.8 14.2 14.6 15.s 14.0 28 pt11M4 (M fpulTY 0.0 15.4 12.2 12.0 lt) N3 10.9 13.9 17.2 16.9 17.I 87.2 84.9 17.3 17.8 37.2 y 291 urn. pcHeat 10 SitIVIInfits t 2.4 0.0 17.3 17.0 J
\
i
- I e
(t. sea 9eati ette.se ah nAss testar *Mteestartaa,-tieJ.amesews teaAst.ne** .' F. I Oue;s rad .I fuesu2sitser asemar - lastts As settersen 1991 1992 1993 3 83/04/30. 84.45.35. 1982 1983 1984 1995 1986 4907 1900 1999 1990 . 1900 1981 einesET 2.5 2.5 2.0 . 2.0 2.8 2.0 2.0 2.0 I EIJC SAIJ3 Outtml amIE,pell) 1.6 2.4 5.7 2.0 2.8 2.8
.8 .2 .2 .2 .5 .4 .5 .5 (6) 2.9 .6 2.2 .7 -2.4 .8 2 CAS Imtss Cuo me amts ElacTpIC
. 310rAE. ERJCTpIC Saemr,1C(Geel 38148. 38778. 32510. 3Mle. 34216. 35168. MI68. 37140. 30220. 30018. 39438. 48568. 41740. 42968.
39.0 45.5 30.7 36.8 35.9 33.7 34.5 28.8 14.!* 21.2 M.! 26.7 29.4 34.4 4PNsDIA5%OrfW M 66.1 44.6 51.9 62.6 59.0 50.9 61.5 67.2 22.1 24.0 20.1 30.3 33.7 38.8 5 FUEL NED 761 G)Sr,1C ($/1040)
.7 18.6 10.0 25.8 21.5 29.6 29.2 22.2 22.1 22.4 19.5
- 16.2 12.8 6 RESrpVES Ofra FEAlt, #5 (t) 16.4
- 97. 169. les. 68. 25. 33. 10.
- 65. 53. M. 30. 34. 46. 68.
7 setEATivs ChrAC11T enfs psa Yn CAS 368. 368. Mt. 362. M4. 365. M7. 3E9. 354. 352. 368. M2. 354. 357. J S 10 tat. CAs sesamr (scrl
- 70. 70. M. M. M. M. 19.
- 8. S. 8. 8. 35. 70." 79. e 9 FKNILK18 Ch8 401104 (GCF) 7.48 8.34 9.35 14.35 11.48 12.71 14.11 IS 66 2.e4 2.91 3.47 4.se 5.33 6.44 le Cost or Gh5 SDID ($/DCF) 9e. 96. 92. e2. 79. 74. 69.
es. e9. ei. is. 65. 7s. M. 11 Em> m siansce liammar (scri [ 72. M. 50. S. S. 8. 5. S. 8. 9. 8. S. S. S. 12 IeritstSTAtt 1coseAat tot (scr1 P, a ,,
- FleseCIAE. 2.47 2.27 2.33 2.40 2.37 2.40 2.63 2.98 2.92 3.28 3.37 3.58 3.12 2.82 .
13 laevirtunt UNEnnGE mmrIO 414. 113. 109. 600. 640. 549. 624. 4M. 215. 52. -88. -117. 35. 427. 14 Ertinoms. FilmestleG (6000,888) 88.4 79.1 70.6 56.5 54.2 53.7 42.5 49.2 I4.8 -23.2 -36.5 0.9 70.0 59.8 15 cal' peu ENT riteescap (tl 3912. 40 M. 4149. 4685. 5253. 5694. 3991. 2149. 2345. 2614. 2946. 3334. 16 ElfrI1 TIC NNDelES ($000,000) 13M. 1729. #
.500 .997 .111 .312 .319 .I25 .lM .143
.049 .H8 .H7 .379 .374 .001 17 EIJCrpIC omrieen RATE ($/Imot)
.7513. 3945. 4 MS. 4068. 5370. 5959. 4595.
1886. 13M. 1572. 1834. 2292. 2737. 3169. le GAS ptMpass ($800,000) f 7.09 9.06 10.97 II.23 12.42 13.75 15.13 16.72 18.41 2.9I- 3.98 4.49 5.20 6.66 19 cas as1ues ante ($/DCrl SM. 946. lele. 1885. 1968. 1257. 2005. 392. 283. 262. 29d. 346. 490. 693. 20 CAPITAE. tappettuess(Stes,Geel .I 76. 68. 52. 55. 1
- 23. 5. 17. 14. 9. S. 32. II.
21 IEASED NuttJ:AH FUEL ($800,000) 47. 5. l 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. S. S.
- 50. S. 9. 6. 1. 3. 1.
22 0D0 see Tafees .10teer peatsetIP (SeOS,taeasor IK1Jeto AsuvEl 109. 487. 202. 223. 300. ete. 301. 44. 08. 70. 187. 84. 144. lie. 23 IUPAI. Brit laCptA1B (8088,000) t 8 espealtKE KR Sillutts 3.66 3.M 3.50 3.97 3.75 4.14 4.60 j 2.41 .3.83 4.k2 3. M 3.64 3.37 3.62 24 FMIN OttpATl438 ($1 25 Al'Its E211Ucettener 11tseS($1 -7.99 l
!.07 I.96 2.06 2.36 2.27 2.39 2.58 2.63
' '26 DIVIsnas een emps ($1 2.M 1.47 I.h4 1.62 1.70 1.M o 2.8 2.9 2.9 3>
5.8 4.7 2.6 3.3 2.5 2.5 2.4 s.2 En 27 CA38 (UWElW.r or Divitase 2.9 4.8 59 14.1 Til 13.9 11.7 13.8 12.5 13.6 12.4 13.3 28.8 14.6 14.9 13.3 24 PE1upes os ruusTY (t) 10.8 21.4' 16.6 16.4 19.9 13.2 16.5 36.3 16.5 i
-38.9 12.6 22. 17.8 24.7 19.4 22.2
! 2910rAR. Irfugel 10 eKoetMIER 9
\
l j . . . . .
~ --- _ ___
5 . i - ' (IHRe9Se pot.R 15 Trap S1gr esaggrgggyrgag,.pprLipiledt SESaLTS**e P. I CASES MED .34
- pesampeafr SMmer -- tastis me erectries S3/04/se. 82.52.M. 1982 1983 1904 1905 1906 19e7 196e 1989 1998 1998 8992 1993 190s 19el
- , - , , 2.8 2.s 2.0 , 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.s 2."8 104C. SAIJs ua0bml MTS.8S(l) 1.6 2.4 5.7 ,
-2.4 .8 .8 .2 .2 .2 .5 .4 .5 .5 2 GAS SAtal Goeru MTE (6) 2.9 .6 2.2 .7 traCTRIC
' 310rAI. ILeLTitIC seeDirr.1C(Geel 38348. 387M. 32518. 33518. 34218. 35168. MI68. 3734s. 302Js. 30018. 39438. 49568. 41748. 42968.
29.4^ 34.4 33.3 32.9 32.8 28.8 31.7 32.3 34.9
- 4 P Ase i AS 4 or Me este0Ur 2s.3 14.3 28.2 26.1 26.7 44.6 40.0 53.2 54.6 54.3 59.1 66.6 66.8 5 EUEI. 20 pst GleT,1C ($Ames) 22.1 24.0 28.5 30.3 33.1 M.e i
22.4 19.5 16.2 34.6 20.5 28.8 29.1 25.0 21.5 29,5 6 atstyvEs cura PEM, as (6) 16.f 29.2 22.2 .22.5 M. 68. 28. 27. 10. 33. 23. 33, 30.
- 65. 53. M. 38. 34.
7 94GATIVE CAPM'ITV MYS rest Ya ras 368. 360. Mt. M2. M4. M5. M7. M9. e torni. CAs saxopr (scr) 354. 352. 368. M2. 354. 357. M. M. M. M. 70. M. M. M. M. 9 giuWUCFD CAS 40taat (eCyl s. 8. S. S. 35. 9 7.40 0.M 9.38 18.35 13.40 12.71 14.18 15.66 i 2.84 2.9% 3.47 4.00 5.33 4.48 le GEr & Ghe euta ($/Mcr) 1' 65. 78. M. 98. M. 92. e2. 79. 74. 69. 7 !! INillC of0REE INWEBfl0pr (eG) es. 09. el. 78. I S. S. S. 8. 8. . 9. 8. 8. 8. 8. 12 !stitysrATE tugeeWG tot Escr) 72. 76. 50. 8. rieseCIAA. 2.40 2.33 2.61 3.04 2.93 3.00 2.87 2.72 2.e5 13 It4Alflus3 GNENm DATIO 2.30 3.89 3.34 3.21 2.98 . 1 4 392. IM. 253. 2M. 493. 623. 423. 225. 120. 27. 3M. MS. TM. 566. 14 FXTueeAI. FileWCitG ($800.088) 4 M.9 ' 72.4 66.5 25.6 35.3 33.3 49.0 53.8 43.3 (t) 58.3 35.8 742 23.7 58.7 IS car leQ EXT FINAfdCID s 3009. He4. 4817. 4168. 4331. 4735. 5297. 5738. 1370. IM2. 1940. 2132. 2346. 2632. , 16 42Ecr9fC REVDans ($8e8.000)
.998 .382 .334 .lM .389 .326 .337 .344
.M9 .374 . set 17 EtJrretc Uniweest m1E ($/IMil .e49 .868 .89 2752. sle4. 3547. 3966. 4394. 4ee4. 5395. 59el. 6612.
le me semans (Sess.seen ieM. 33M. n9(. le4s. am. i 36.M 5.24 6.M 7.93 9.le 18.12 11.29 12.40 13.e2 15.M le.M 19 CAS Q18HPen m1s ($/MCr3 2.91 3.92 4.
; 4806.
e68. 558. 4M. 606. 800. 1815. 1257. 28 CAPITAI. EXpeet10poB($800.000) 443. 330. 343 g 466. 633. ell. M. 9. 8. 32. II. M. 60. 52. 55.
- 5. 37.
1 21 IEASED tartEAD rurt.(tees.Seel 47. 8. 23.
- 3. 1. 3. 1. I. 1. 3. 8. S.
I 22 G34 AND THABIS JDifer 088FSSelle 58. 8. 9. 6. I.
; ism.MS..or i.auen Mi=>
105. 495. 112. 132. 200. 152. 199. 407. 354. 69. 90. 79. 129. 115. j 231orat. DATE INC3 RASE ($808.888) I ENNItas ITA StMEs 3.47 3.M 4.99 4.M 4.65 4.97 5.M 5.00 6.M ($) 2.70 3.41 2.61 3.53 3.se i 24 r <H 06tHATHais 25 AITim ErramselnMer ITee(81 3.01 2.M 2.40 2.68 2.73 2.87 3.04 3.36 3.32 3.49 ($1 2.M 2.M 2.M 2.M 2. M C's j 26 DivitW M 8 res stAIE > 1.6 2.e 1.9 2.5 2.0 3.8 2.6 2.7 2.7 2.9 2.0 3.5 3.3 2.7 Un 27 Carat GNENGs or Divtrate N 12.3 13.3 13.9 15.4 I4.I 14.4 14.6 15.8 14.7 W 18.3 12.8 9.e 13.0 13.5 I l 2e RERNW G4 ICUITT 29 iorm, menne io enne== i 2.4 0.3 17.3 17.0 le.9 13.9 17.2 16.9 17.1 17.2 - 16.9 17.1 17.3 17.2 $
\
1 I i
CASE 4A 1 I 4 : j J J d 4 : . - a
~
j
~
**"d x: :
E
* $8 =
$d 4 . gii .
~4 = = = a a -
a e 8 4 " i j d a : E _ .
~
** $***i j i 9i4 -
- i. *= x$ E. : 4 _
_ = a a - a _ _e e g * .;g . a_ g _. _. . . . . _ g d :.eg -
.. ...J .- - - . 3 .;t .- a_ =_ . _ = a e- ; e
- e. . _ _
e. a: e= a * - 2 2 = = , . . g.. e 4 1: 4 a4
- g a ~ g :. : .:- 4 :
; a- ; _ e_
g a a e. 4- 2_. z - a ; 2 ; = = t . .
-g
- E 4 -
.4 2 e :
4 xai :4 a- -4 _ :a e.1:
- a- -. I. :a _
= ; a; e _ _
ae__
. _I a -
g-
,a a za a
a j e= ga : aa, 4 - e .: s _: : a: ej2 E a a _: .e_ a s- ; z-i8 E- - n innni ii;id
- iniii3 =z- i i a i 9
- - ==
- =x: x - :
g.:.: - 2,- 8 i eIIi8 a- i i a
- 8 8
-- it -,i i i id - - -
i g=== - : i EE_
; e a a a a
- a. e-g.. a 4- : 4 - 4.: ;
l , g-4 - e4 e-4
; 2 :
g
- a: - a = -
a a 4_ _a
, , _ _ _=
- e 4 3 2 . .
I g 4 4 : 4 - % a 4
.J
- j a" :
a
- a 4 :
4 I'j*a: e-
= J
~
E J a- J
= a 4 a_ 4_
, .J - -
. E_ = a . gg; za ; 4 = an..
!s 4 -
4 - -- x.; ga= e a ae: 4; 4-x 4 x4 -. a: - - a aa e -_ _ g g .
= j 4. Ea a a
- 4 4 : ** .-
1, g - - a4 4 . _ =
- J. J. 4 j- I*4 :
a
- 4 j 4 . _
*I
_4 : I : 4 a" _4 4 g _ g
= 4 . e i agJ d -
S 2 - . I . . J _ . ~ a 4 4 : eJ* -
- 4 .
- I a 4 -
4 J e* 2 4 a 2 J- _3 - _4 l g 4 t 2, J_ - -
. . . .-g ~
a 4 4 3 .4 a : : : : s 2 : 2 4 fega. 4.
- : a - a : , =
- s. 3_ y~ . .
_ - - ~ I e ee - - - - e- -
== = - .
=
ye* e e= a xvvE I- 1 I I v I _y s
-8i. I 2
a a e g
. =
g - sI i e[ - I as3e
- g. 1 I .
g,. - ,ae i.
.5: e E
- =
na l . av==v n 8 E_ m- a-av ! g=1, =i- .! a ) E. l 8 : : I g a-. g i .Ev s*j 8 I g
-=I..
r e ! :I,-y1l o e ai i
. s- E : - - 8 E=ag a- !5 g-[aessiv ,8 ale
-8 3 g =. 3 =.g
.e au g=. .
a g 5=ss.:s _se x.=s 8 -
- e 3;r aa 8 a-a a --
-ee:
3 ~:. . s . . =. : -ea .a _:
. . .1
. - ,r
..=m- :. a a . a ==
g _= s-
.a
_~
.E
.=ca .-...--
m : __ _ ._ ._ . - - -M a M
= -n n .
M M# e e e 0 e f
- a w'Wt- --v- -
-,r w-pw-- -----eew-----r - - - - - - + - - - - - -
st s CASE 43
.a sa .:: ge 2 : ;2 e a s sn-g a -
I.gge- : isie 2 a - g;4
=. = 3 a a a_ a_
- a. ; : = ,
g :; ; e asgI: e:2 g4 4 . . a - g..-g - a x : --
. = :: a a ~
a _ _e
- _ x .:2.
a :. sn._ i_ a
- iii 4
~
a i :i i e se -g _i :g=4 x =5iE* :222 = ^ ^~ii g : : , . .
.- g.. 4 ;i: a 4 : a.g=e: 2 4 2 ; a - gg g 4 -
,3ggg- x 3- a ai: : 5g: : .
- a.e: 4 : a a 2 a : , ..
- . . 4 . . . a a g
- 4_-a4 a =;= . a:
- : ; a ~ ;e g
a - g.4 2 g- . l g...e ai =g4 s4 - a: a: ea 2 - 4 = at._ a- ; a
.I
. 4 -
a.4 ;
- - a e a -a I: - 2_ _ _
a 8 i: i!i;ide 8 42e-:. lE_- e .:1_ i
= : : x essi ii4id - ~ - : x ==
i
~ - -
; i -
iIi8--- i i e i E 8 2:: ::
$'I
~
i : : : i g :: : : i i8- i d - ~ a g. 3 4 . g
. 3. .:
g i:i :
.- g...4
_ .: .ga.- .
= g :4 - 4 .4 a: ; . : a.1
- 2 . a a ~ ._: a_
y .: ,
,,,i l . .
- 4 . . .a j a : a -
a e : 2 . a: a. a : a, a e e. ; I ~a 2 5 a s aa e II1 a a, =, .2. 2 a. - - . -
. [_ 2 2 a :: : . .-
Bs . . 4 _ . _ g .: 4 ;s4- 4 : a - 4 : g g 3.gae.a: -
- a .: es gg a -
gggg a [a g .. 4 - _ - g 4 : a - 2 g 4 a.4 a ga: ; Eg4 g _ a. a e _.: . .: e.a
- a. a 2 a .
I - lg _
.: ,- g
_; .; . eg-a4 : aa-
= .: -
.: : a _- _- a :
a: g: a ;- e a a ae.. n 2_ 4 c
.. g...a 4 sea -
= . 4
=
g 1_ 4 : = aag a
=
a a2 a g 2 a _ g a. ;-
= a 4 _
g.-= g g g g g -i iss2 ssI s : g=. gigsg ! - ~ ~
=
=
Ix .- .~ . -
!- l
. .~. -
i=i s- I a : e= t . = . ; 5e8
~
n
.i 8 .
- a s g)!! :
i - g. - = g e [ v. 'v .
-l8 [, =1 3-av3ga.l s- a v . g ngneE .
.4 tI l
;a u8 e x m::s ! :: ,a f, 5 e *s _.i -v 31::: . _ I * ::8] -
, gas: s.g g =a .
-8 I- -g.--srss. s s g g = y a *=:
- 8 18s :e s :
a n ,8a8 e, Ea8 : ga : e
. a.: _s 8=. I ,s ga s s*8 -
- 5. ,e: n!e:: sa n s .s -
.. s.=.=e. . . .. -
1llw e.a s le a .a v. .I_ c. .,. s. u . . z. a ao ..:m. l , u . _ =_ .
- .H. a. .a .r -
a== = :: : : : :- (s e- -- --- - --: : = = : : : : : : 1 M
-.m.y_...,,y.rr g ,----.-,y_._. , - - - , _ . , , - , ,
i ATTACHMENT 7 To Applicant's 8/17/83 Response
S10sevell, F-26-3363 RC3au=an, ?-1k k12 DEM111er, Midland To J'4 Cook, F-lh-113A TJSu111 van, P-24-62hA ARMo11enkopf, ?-13-107A GSKeeley, P-1k-1133 '4R31rd, JSC-216B JFD:nnelly, F-13-112 A
. _ , Fo IGKline/DCRandolph, F-1kh22 d h' May 5, 1980 D ~#
CMSUm3T3 carc PG)'f87 suescer MIDLAND PROJILT Company FCRECAST NO 6 REVIr4 RE?CET 71't: 0152.1 UFI: 53*01 Sr3IA1: 876h lllj' ;',y, , cc TCCooke, Midland . ADSarkar, P-13-318 The attached report is the result of the CFCo review called for in KRKline's Jr.nuary 15,1980 .~.e:crandu=, Serial 8211 and p:cvides the detail for the total Project Estimate of $3.1 billion which was announced publicly Januar/ 28, 1980 and discu.esed with the Board of Directors on March 5,1980. Although che estimate was not presented to the Board for approval and events are currently under way (ie, the prorosed revision of ATJEC rates, the Scope of Work studies, and the schedule review) which may change some of the basis for the 53.1 billien estimate, va are issuing this document as a base fres
._ vhich the expected changes may be measured.
This repert replaces the preli=inarf copy previcusly distributed to Messrs Hevell. Cook, Keeley, Ec:u=an and Sarke. Because t.se report makes fregent references t: Bochtal's Fro. ject' Cost and Schedule Report, F/C #6 dated January 1980, ve are forwarding a copy to the abcve addresses not previeusly assi6ned one. (Messrs Sullitan and 31rd) . No distribution of the CPCo F/C #6 Review Repcrt 1: b eig sa:!e cutside of the,C =pany.
- Flease direct your questions to DGRandolph on 82081.
l. I 9 t .
S M
.e m"'T w
m 9 5
=
Ce m one C 2 e
z_ .
- troduction The purpcse of the following report is to document review of the 3echtel Project Cost and Schedule Forecast e6 Report that was presented to Consu=ers Power Janua:y 2k,1950 and deter =ine if,this forecast should be used for 1
budgeting and to prepare a Total Project Budget Esti= ate (including all CPCo direct and indirect costs) based on the forecast scope and schedule. A Forecast Review Tea = vas assembled frc= me=bers of the Project 's heme office staff, field office staff, testing staff and PE&C Control and Administrative Services. (See K R Eline's me=o dated January 15, 1980 Serial S211 and D o Randelph's me=o dated January 18, 1980 Serial 8238 for specific assign =ents.) 3 The review tes= findi Es were asse= bled together into this report consisting of a Eistory/3ackground Section, Schedule Review, Estimate Review, Reconciliation and Attachmente. Included with each review sectics is the reviewer's reccc=enda-tion as to the acceptability of the 3echtel esti= ate. Tais report is based on 3echtel's recommended fuel load dates of April 19Sk for Unit II and Septa =ber 198k for Unit I and assumes commercial operation vill be September 196k and March 1985 for Units II and I, respectively. All i l costs have been provided on this basis, including the 3erhtel estimate, CPCo l directs and the overhead calculations. The cost review approach was to concentrate on to-go costs. ("he to-date cuteff for most 3echtel areas is through Nove=ber 1979 Each to-go cost is identified as to date.) Bechtel's estimate review tools (FCCUS, labor and material / subcontract worksheets) and each section of the Forecast Report was analyzed and discussed separately in the Estimate Review Section. Each CPCo department manager who charges costs to the Project was contacted and asked to supply an estimate of their charges, based on the proposed schedule. And the associated Project overhead t i I ! i l
k a costs vere calculated " cased on all the above direct costs and schedule. The conclusion and recca:=endation of this report is that even though we taka inor exception to various sections of the estimate as presented, ve Fen *rS117 a6ree with 3echtel both on schedule and cost, and are recer: mending a total l project estimate based en the pre =ise. l
'l 1
4 9 ] 1 i
4 e C w C r. O-E, b 1 l a e e E4 l 1 l 1
Cable of Contents Pace Ir.treduction i Table of Contents 1 l Eistory/ background Schecule Review Isti= ate Review Cost Su w / 1 Consumers Power Major Purchase Orders 2-3 Late Changes 3 Escalation 3L Sechtel Direct Material & Equipment h-6 Dechtel Direct Subcontract 7 3echtel Direct Manual Labor 8-9 hechtel Distributable Manual Labor 9 - 11 3echtel Non-Manual Field Iabo- ' - 12 Sechtel Distributable Material & Subcontract 12 - 13 Ecce Office Engineering 13 - 1h Other Home Office ik - 15 3echtel Fee 16 3echtel Contingency 16 - 17 Consumers Power Directs 17 - 16 Consumers Power Overheads 18 - 19 Consumers Power Miscellaneous Work Orders 20 Forecast #1 to #6 Comparison l l Cost Summary . 1 l CPCo Major Purchase Orders 2h Gumf of 3echtel Cost Changes 5 I. Changes Due to Scope A. Schedule Extension 6
- 3. Non-Licensing Scope Changes 6-T C. Licensing Non-TMI 7-6 D. Licensing TMI Primary 6-9 E. Licensing TMI Secondary 10 II. Changes Due to Other (Non-Scope)
A. Schedule Extension 11
- 3. Quantity Related 11 C. a
- bor Related 11 - 12 D. Pricing 12 E. Other 12
-- w - - -- w - , - - p---e
1 2 l l Pa e 111. Centingency ar.d A11ovances 12 - 13 Censu=ers Pever Direct Costs 3u==ary of Changes 1L A. Project Evolution 15
- 3. Regulatory Require =ents 15 - 17 C. Schedule Extension and Other 17 Consu=ers Power Overhead Cos .s Su-r t of Changes 15 Explanation of Changes lo P.isce13aneous Work Orders 20 Attach =ents
- 1. Contingency A=alysis
- 2. Iscalation Analysis
- 3. To-Go Direct Pa ual Manhour Analysis
- h. Direct Manual Fanheur F/C #k to #6 Comparise:
5 Direct Subcontract F/C #h to #6 Comparison
- 6. Distributable Manual Labor Analysis
- 7. Non-Manual Labor Analysis
- 8. Distributable Subcontract F/C #k to #6 Cc=parisen 9 Productivity Decline Analysis .
- 10. CPCo Direct Cost Isti=ates
- 11. Analysis of 3echtel Engineering & Licensing
- 12. Milestone Schedule for Licensing Activities
- 13. Field Response to Forecast Reviev l
1h. Small Pipe and Hanger Reviev
- 15. Electrical Review
- 16. Ma:pover Availability 17 Field's Schedule Analysis
- 16. Scope Trends F/C #1 to #6 l 19. Other Trends F/C #1 to #6
- 20. QA Comments on Forecast
- 21. PCAS Me=o on AF'JDC l 22. Deleted l
, 23. Increased Testing Require =ents 1 2k. Bechtel F/C #h to #6 Coe:parison 25 Ccatingency Changes
- 26. F/C #1 to #6 Allowance Changes l
l r -- . , -- - , , ,_ - - -
=
b d w M D
=
Q M C
=
8 2 O
---=
c , '_ 4
- s a
m 1
% % p_ _
*s 'a=_
_- s s s .
*,, '.w. ,
,s v , .
's .
. ~
v-a..- . v. . f 3 , . . . . . ~- a .. , e. r,w . . r. .a... s.
- , ,. s s%
' . w.. , ,
"se purpose of this text is< to provide' ais.c ary cf q.r,e cost and schedule
- n. -
. s.
develo;s:ents which have occurred since ~ ' the-las . ii'-depth review of the cen-u .
'(
tractor's forecast by a Consumers "RE. iew Tes=. N -
~x e
In March 1978, the'?/C #L Reviev Tean Repert was presented to censumers ' Managenent with a recc::: ended total project cost of $1.6 billict and schedule c:=pletion dates targeted for: Fuel leai C:=nereial 0:eretion Unit 2 Nove ber,1980 March 1981 Unit 1 Noveber 1931 March 1982 This recc==endation was reviewed by Management and in May 1978 a decisien was
=ade not to revise the total Frej ect cost from $1.67 billion to $1.8 billien even though the possibility existed that the final total cost may be in excess of the $1.67 billien budgeted. It was believed that the $1.67 billion budget was a possible goal s=d that the budget figure should be retained and the Board of Directors and The Dov Chemical Company was advised of this conclusion and the reasoning behind it.
In late June 1976, Bechtel presented F/C #5 to Consumers. This ferecast een-tained cost changes frc= F/C #h at the 3echtel level of $26 =1111cn above-the-line and $72 million additional belev-the-line allovances of which $60 =illion was included for a potential schedule delay in Unit 2 target fuel load of three
=cuths to February 1981. This ;otential schedule delay recognized that the existing F/C #h sehet:le contingene'/ of three months prior to fuel lead would j
probably be utilized due to slippages in design releases for s=all piping and
-~ ,
I l 2 electrical rscevay and cabling, plus the additic a1 schedule impact of Ocasu=ers ' Preli=inar/ festing Progrs= ce the insta11atic: cf bulk =aterials due to syste= tu= overs a d plant energi:stica earlier than 3echtel had previously anticipated. I= addition to the above, a partial labor verk stop; age at the site during May and June 1978 was impeting pregress. Because of the above, Cc=su=ers did =ot perfom an in-depth review of F/C #5 and directed 3echtel on June 30, 1978 to perfo= a schet:le study to dete=ine if the existing (November 1980 and November 1981) fuel lead dates vere realistic and attainable, er if new fuel lead dates should be established. 1 cluded in the scope of this study was the preli=inary Consumers' testing require =ents, the plant energi:stic: point as recence=ded by 3echtel, schedule continge=ey for testing and Bechtel IPC work and consideratic=s of 10 FSAR licensing issues u i the NRC's timely res;cuse to licensi=g issues. 3echtel presented the schedule study dated July 27, 1975 which showed that alter: ate fuel lead dates (Case 3 cf study) would be more realistic and attain-t l able but reecz= ended no change to the fuel load dates at this time. Consumers l l reviewed this study which sho-Jed a potential of 2 to 10 =enths sli; in Unit 2 fuel load and a O to 5 months slip in Unit 1 fuel lead and a decisic: vas made on August 22, 1978 that =o modification to the existing target fuel lead dates of Nove=ber 1980 and 1981 should be made. Our decision was based on the ratio-
= ale that too =any uncertainties existed to make a decision to modify the fuel load dates at that time and until better definiticus are obtained regarding these uncertainties, Forecast #6 preparatice sho.:1d be delayed.
1
- - - - . - _~ - - - - .-__ _ . _ . _ . - _ - . . - - - - - =_.
I: Dece=ber 1978, Consu=ers requested 3echtel te perfor= another study (pre-Forecast #6 Schedule Assess =ent) to detewd e the schedule to be used for the develo;=ent of Forecast #6. This assess =ent included the latest known FToj ect regirements including settle =ent, reevaluation of the schedule unce-tainties identified is the previous study, the updated Consu=ers ' Oestirs Repire=ents (Revisic: 6), and 25 ISAR licensing issues which were ec sidered as bei=g required cut of h6 new licensing issues. 3echtel presented their 'new schedule assessment study to Consumers en April L, 1979 vhich concluded that a = ore probable fael lead date for Unit 2 vould be July 1981 (slip of 8 =enths) and Unit 1 fuel load date s51culd be no earlier tha: April 1982 (slip of 5 =enths) . Consumers evaluated this study and eencluded i: May 1979 that an interim adjust =ent should be made to the Unit 2 fuel load date and no change shculd be nade in the existing Unit 1 fael load date. This i=- teri: adjust =e=t in the Unit 2 fuel load frc= November 1980 to June 1981 was necessitated by the bulk materials quantity increases identified in the study, the i=ptet of these quantities c= the installation rates and the pote=*ial delays in syste= tumovers by 3echtel for preop testing, and the i=plementatics of a revised testing logic -(Revision 8) developed by Consu=ers.' Mio. It was also recogniced at this ti=e that the interi= fael lead adjustment did =ct in-ccrperate the outstanding FSAR licensing issues and their effect en the schedule. Consu=ers a.lso directed Bechtel at this time to use this revised fael lead schedule and new testing logic and to begin preparation of Forecast #6 detailed planning and scheduling work. A rough esti= ate of the total project ecst ex-pesure was =ade by Consu=ers ' M:0 and a figure of $1.975 billic: ras reported in
- the June 1979 Cost Ee
- c-t.
- i. -
Forecast #6 prepara.t:.cn verk centinued by Bechtel and on July 25, 1979 3echtel advised Censumers that ;rel1=inary findings evolving frc= F/C #6 indicated a ; large increase in bulk electrical pantities and it beca=e evident that the bulk =aterial installation rstes necessary to meet the required Revision S system turnover dates were unattainable and the target fuel lead date of June 1981 for Unit 2 could not be met. Folleving a Censu=ers/3echtel Senic: Management Meeting at the site on July 30, 1979, a decision was =ade by Consumers en August 6 to sto; verk on the preparation of F/C #6 until =cre achievable fuel load dates could be established factoring i;1 the new quantities and the previous and additional URC licensing changes relating to open SER li-
~
censing issues and design' =odifications resulting frc= our CC-2 Nuclear Safety Task Tcree Reviev. During the period frc= late August through October 1979, Consu=ers provided 3echtel definition and directicn to incorporate into the Project's sec;e h9 SIR open ite=s/NSTF licensing issues out o'f the 56 issues identified for evaluating new fuel load dates. Bechtel then presented a draft schedule in-t I cer; orating h5 of the 56 licensing issues, revised quantities, and other kncvn j Project requirenents to Consu=ers en November 16, 1979. A decision was =ade in this presentation =eeting to use for the preparation of Forecast #6 a Unit 2 hel lead date of July 1983 with Unit i fael load to follev by five =onths. !J sc , at this ti=e a rough interd= esti= ate of $2.6 billion was reviewed with =anagenent.
. This interi= esti= ate until the issuance of F/C 16 vas prepared by Midland PMO and was based on the July 1983 fuel lead date, existing cost trends and no other i cost infor=ation was reqcested frc= other Consu=ers ' departments.
l l * \
~ ..
~
~'
- . _ . _ . . , . _ _ . _ , . , _ . _ , . . . . ~.**..m., .,, , , , _ _ _ _ . , , -
..__-.....,_,..,_.m. _ . - _ , _ - -, . - , . - _
l c Since nove=ber 1979, additiene.1 licensing issues such as HU?.IG-0660 Draft Action Plan surfaced with additional regaire=en s to be incorporated into the Project 's scope c.nd the =:=ber of licensing issues increased frc= 56 to 161 and the Forecast #6 issued in Jaraa / included 153 ite=s of the 161 issues identified. 4 V 4 w e nem a W v --an- P m a - - ,--- - y--y., .,% _ , ,_ppp .- y _,e g, ,c _m .,,., , _ , , , , , _ ,m _ _
,_y, ,,_ ,_ _ _ , _ , . . .
C1 O R E E s< H F. C
I i 1 l 1 e eC.%/J w fL L .1-._ b 1h . Feriav Arrreach The sta:.dard approach of reviewing on a detailed basis to-date progress vs plan and to-go work vs plan was not used in this forecast because details of the Forecast no 6 pla: have not been developed. Forecast no 6 Schedule as presented =ust be considered a conceptual Mile-stone S---= ~/ Schedule with details of engineering, _trocure=ent , constr.tetion and testing activities yet to be finalised and integrated into an overall or ec.:posite Proj ect Plan. This integration verk is expected to be co=pleted at the detailed level i= the schedule hierarchy in May or June 1980. At present, the schei.tle integration exists at milestones for engineering, constr;ction and testing at the two alpha syste: turnover designator level. The F/C No 6 Schedule Reviev consisted primarily of looking at thee fa=ily of curves developed for bulk =aterials, the match point (TOT, wire and cable) where testing verk is kicked off at a sustained turnover rate proceeding to Fuel Load, r and the ability of 3echtel to =aintain bulk =a.terial instal 19 tion rates based on the existing proble=s/ restraints and the lack of sufficient design backlog. Schedule Basis No disc Assien vill be presented on the Project's scope, quantities and basis used to prepare F/C No 6 Schedule since the above info:=ation is well docu=ented c Pages 3-1.1 thr:nagh 3-12.9 of the Forecast. Also, Cc su=ers P'O and the NS?F has been verking with 3echtel since July 1979 to .stablish the schedule basis and in Hove =ber 1979 a Consumers decision was =ade to ,troceed and develop F/C 50 6 on this basis. l l
e. During the period of July 1979 through Dece=ber 1979 approxi=ately 153 li-censing ite=s/ issues have been added to the verk scope of the Project asso-cisted with H?.C Licensing Require =ents. Sese ite=s are identified on
?t_ges C-1.2 through C-1.20 of the Forecast. In addition to these licensing ice =s included in the Project's scope, Consu=ers FMO has prepared a five-page list of =ajor licensing / design ite=s which are excluded frc= F/C No 6 and which could have significant i= pact en the Forecast Cost and Schedule if i=ple- =ented. *his exclusien list is included as Attach =ent 11 to the Forecast Review Repert.
It is i=portant to understand that the additional verk scope added te the Forecast No 6 Plan due to licensing requirements, eithe- =andated by the NEC, or anticipated by CP Co as necessar-/ to obtain an Operating License, is cc be ec sidered at best, soft er su'bj ect to substantial change as the HRC require =ents develop and design evolves towards co=pletion and is released for p-Ocurement and construction. . . l Feview Findines i A. Ingineering Plan and Schedule Consumers Midland Project Engineer and Proj ect Cc= trol Supervisor have re-viewed and discussed with Sechtel their revised engineering planning and centrol s'/sta= and the Re=aining Work Schedule (approxi=ately h,00C activities when co=pleted). Page 3-11.1 et the Forecast provides, Eechtel's engineering man-hour esti= ate for to-go design and support activities . "'his esti= ate is based on the de-fined scope at the ?crecast cutoff and does =0; provide any allowance for excluded ite=s such as shev: in At .act=ent 11. "he significant u;;;rade in engineering plac:.ing tods which 3echtel has recently ce=pleted (includir.-
3 the Remaining Werk Schedule) has pe=itted the= to more accurately esti= ate to-go engineering. "he nev 3echtel Project tea = has taken considerable effort te fully define and plan all future work which is included in the current scope. As a result of this effort, and the new planning tools, the Forecast No 6 engineering estimate should cicurately predict the re=aining engineering work. Also, frc= a schedule viewpoint 3echtel has completed a major upgrade relative to factoring licensing requirements into their engi-neering verk plans. This should increase their ability to accurately esti= ate engineering / procure =ent schedules. However, the lack of specific post-TIC-2 UEC Design Criteria coupled with the current unavailability of NRC Staff personnel to review the Midland Design and resolve licensing issues makes it extre=ely difficult to plan future engineering activities with a high degree of certainty.
- 3. Licensing Activity Plan and Schedule Consumers' FMO has pre;mred a Milestone Licensing Seliedule to be used for Forecast No 6. This schedule is shown in Attach =ent 12. Sechtel is pre-paring Licensing Mini-Schedules to co= ply with these Milestones for approxi-
=ately 200 licensing ite=s/ issues and to-date approximately 100 of the ite=s/
issues have been scheduled. The Licensing Schedule shown on Page A L of the Forecast was provided to Bechtel by Consumers' PMO vith ccnfidence levels on the various steps based on the current licensing situation within the NRC. It is considered to be as accurate as possible given the highly uncertain licensing world which exists today. As shevn on Page A-3, Bechtel's Schedule probability analysis (using CP Co input) shows a 50') confidence level of obtaining an operating license by Februar /1981. which is considered adequate to support the engi-neering/ procure =ent schedule.
L C. Construction Sulk Material Schedule The folleving smrises our review of the two apnarent critical construction areas of the F 0 ject and the potential i= pet en the Test Schehle: Due to several reasons including scope changes frc= new regulstery regaire-
=ents, difficulties arising fro = physical space li=itations, and revised esti=ates of bulk quantities engineering is critical to constraction !cr these items. Special progrs=s have been developed by 3echtel to expe'dite engineering, however, continued management attention, ;rc=p: decision =ahing and fh11:ation of licensing requirements vill be necessary to =ini=1:e engineering i= pact. Consumers is assisting 3echtel in these prograss.
- 1. S=all Fine /Eangers (See Attacument ik For Details)
Our Field Mechanical group's evaluation concluded that the installation rates for small pipe / hangers proj ected in F/C No 6 are ver/ optimistin based on experience to date. These curves (rates) were established fer the draft schedule review and supported a Unit No 2 Fuel Lead Date of July 1983 Bechtel subsequently concluded that the July 1983 date was not achievable and based en mil pipe / hangers elone ve concur with that cenclusion.
- 2. Ceetrical Bulks (See Attachment 15 For Further Details) 3echtel's draft schehle (Unit No 2 Fuel Lead of fuly 1983) indicated a
=atch point of 705 vire and cable at the tumover of ec=penent cooling vater which " kicks eff" a sustained turnover effort of pri=ary systecs with all turnovers ec=plete prier to Unit No 2 Fuel Lead. This percentage is nere reasonable than previous indications that the match point shculd be at apprcx1=ately 605 wire and cable. Eevever, we vere still concerned o
M S y..-.,e .--, - , - - . . - -. . . - ~ . - . -my*- - . ye.,-4 ,-- , - --w - - , - -,-_-- ..-, .., , , - - - - + ~ - . - - - -
5 about the la ge pantity of vi e and cable to be ec=;1eted during the sus-tained syste turnover effort (30f,of 9.h =illic: feet in a;;rcri=ately 1S months). Cc=segen:17, ve felt that, based on electrical gantities, the Fuel load Date of July 1983 was optimistic. Also, looking at the fa=ily cf cu:ves developed in support of the July 1963 Unit No 2 Fuel lead shows vire and cable inst =" atic: at 335 vith ec=duit i=stallation at 605'. 3echtel has i=dicated in the past that the desirable relaticsship to ensure ; eper fill and =ini= ice reverk, shculd be 60% ec=ccit egal to 10% vire and cable. Moving the vire and cable curve apprcxi=ately four months achieves this relaticeship which i= tur reflects a November 1963 U=it No 2 Fuel Load. Although this is rather si=;11stic, it supports 3echtel's latest thcushts on probal:le Fuel lead Dates. . Based o the above two areas alone, we feel that using a U=it No 2 Fuel Load Date of November 1983 for establishing IPC targets (per 3echtel's recommendation) is as aggressive a plan that can be realis-tics 117 pursued. Further, that when all the included Licensing Ites are evaluated and incer; crated isto the ;1an, the Nove=ber 1963 date vill appear opt 1=istic. D. Consumers Test Schedule The cur ent systa= turnover requirements (Rev 9) reflect a similar curve to the Rev 8 curve (Rev 8 used for F/C Fo 6 develo;=ent) relative to Fuel i I Lead Dat ec . Although the segence is sc=ewhat different, the =ajor syste=s line up closely to the Rev 8 logic and we are confident that ne siznificts; i= pact on the post-F/C No 6 Schedule integ ation vill result. Ecvever, Oct l l e w +- ,. _- --.---v. - - , . - - -.-[,, . . - . - , , . -----v-,E --.e_,-, ...,. .-- y.-- , ,,-,--,-,,y-- -.-.,w --,,-m,rr e e r .yeg
e i=cluded in the cur est Test Schedule (nor 1: previcus issues) is a Pall-blev flush progra= vhich has recently been rs=cved frc= the ccustructics scope and added to the Test F ogrs= Scope. Si=ce details for the flush progra= vere not available, it is CP Co's belief that the ti=e for flushing in the construction schedule was inadegaate. The i= pact cf the flush I program, if a=y, vill be deter =ined as the individual Test Ingineers evaluate their specific areas of responsibility. Also excluded is any schedule allowance for changes in M Progra= and Policy. 4 I. Craft Na= power Availability Detailed Forecast No 6 =ampower curves provided are based on a November 1979 Draft Schedule, and do not reflect the recon =e=ded Fuel Icad dates in 198h, Revised Forecast No 6 infor=atic: on individual craft =anpover vill =ct be available u=til the end of Feb:uary 1980. It is not expected that these revised curves vill indicate acy substa tial changes in =an;cver levels. The folleving ce==ents, therefore, are based on the Forecast No 6 curves origi= ally provided. Peak Mantover Forecast 5 Forecast 6 Pipefitters 1,020 703 (3ased c: Nov 1979 Schedule) i i Ilectricians 575 575 (3ased on Nov 1979 Schedule) Total Field Manual 2,550 2,000 (3ased on 198h Dates) Since the peak manpower levels are the sa=e for electricians and lever for I i the pipefitters, it is our c;i=ic: that =a:pover needs ca probably be met withcut any great difficulty. Bechtel vill probably ecuti=ue to su;;lement j the domestic verk forces with manpover frc= Canada, as has been dc=e in the l . i ! I I
. 1
past. We should ask Const:-action Sertices to =ccitor ec=structica verk in Canada to make sure that we learn of i= creased activity which could reduce the availability of =anpove- for our use at Midland. l Review Co:clusic: 3ecause of the above e *-4-a' engineering /ccustractic: areas of "= pipe / hangers and electrical bulks, the evolution of. included Licensing Itecs a d potential exposures which may be incorporated frc= the exclusion list, and the potential i= pact of the Rev 9 Test P_mg e=, we feel that a Fuel Load Date for Unit No 2 of Neve=ber lo83 is very opti=istic. Although we are unable to quantitatively evaluate / support an additional five months to April 198h (3echtel's most probable Unit No 2 Fuel Load Date) a duration of this magnitude is certainly in the range considered appropriate at this time. With the many unk=cvns, we ec= sider Bechtel's recc=mendations (ie, EPC targets based on Unit No 2 Fuel Load of November 1983 and budget based on Unit No 2 Fuel Load of April 198h) to be acceptable for current planning and ree-end that Project targets be established accordingly. 6 S y + - ,m- --
A ( e 1 l l V) Et e P: ll: M l
< l
% l M '
5
- __ - - , -- , ~ , - --.
1 [E2LA. O PROJEC"' Ferecast ac Reviev (1,000's) TenovinC is a review and reecrmsendation bv Major Category of what is contained in the Current Forecast. ("'he preli=inary esti:nate is included for ec=parison.) Review Tean Preliminary F/C #6 Reecz::=endatien Catererv 1/26/80 rer F/C #6 ' Huclear 3 team Supply Syste= $ H8,000 $ n 8,000 "trbine/ Generator Sk,kOO Sk,kOO Process Steam Evaporator 17,100 17.100 Subtotal CPCo Furnished Equipment (1) $ 189,500 $ 189,500 3echtel: Direct Material & Equipment $ 250,876 $ 285,389 Direct Subcontract 122,562 1kS,25h Direct Manual Labor 3k7,31k 363,255 Distributable Manual Labor 127,761 139,660 Non-Manual Field Laber 123,615 136,279 Distributable Mt1 & S/C 126,823 1kl,032 Eeme Office Engineering 170,528 179,806 Other Ec=e Office 86,638 96,308 Fee 15,235 15,235 Contingency 80,000 89,701 Late Adjustment & Rounding 1h3,1k8 (k19) (2) l Subtotal Sechtel $1,59k,500 $1,59k,500 CPCo Directs $ 253,800 $ 232,000 CPCo Overheads: General & A hinistrative ' k3,000 k3,000 Property Taxes 67,800 67,800 % Miscellaneous Overheads 5,000 5,000
/JUDC 921,000 918,300 Subtotal Overheads $1,036,800 $1,03k,100 Miscenaneous Work Orders $ 26,600 $ 25,000 Rounding (1,200) 2k,900 Total Project $3,100,000 $3,100,000 (1) Except for chiners which are included in Sechtel's equipment number.
(2) Late adjustme::ts have been spread to the other Bechtel areas.
-m -- ' mI .,yi- .y-. yw rm--e +4. - *.e>+=---~w--v- ' - = - '" '- +--y ' ~ - ' =
a 2 1 384T Nuclear Steam Sur:1v Syste= - CPCc Furnished (1118,000). (1,000's) The current esti= ate reflects all approved centract change orders through
#13 including the time and =aterial Change Order #10 and a.11ovances for future change orders.
Fir = price contract and change orders through #13: $103,253 Change Order #10 (FSAR preparation and NS'5 support): 7,h53 Allowances for future change orders, schedule extension (at h,000) and rounding: 7.29h Total $118,000 Costs paid to date are $106,53h vith to-go costs of $11,h66. G *urbine Ge=erater_ - CPCo Furnished ($5k,h00) *
"his estimate includes all fim price contract and change orders for both units, plus actual payments (essentially complete) for offsite storage, freight, handling and storage insurance. In addition, there is an allowance for the Compsny's exposure to payment for repair costs to the Unit II rotor, which was damaged against the rafi m ad is unsuccessful.
Firm price contract: $50.hh3 Storage, freight, insurance, ete: 1.h57 Allowance for non-insured damage repair: 2,500 Total $5h,hCO Costs paid to date are $51,900 vith to-go costs of $2,500. Process Steam Evawrator - CPCo Furnished ($17,100) This estimate includes the firm price contract and change orders through Change l Order #11, plus actual payments for escalation and freight (as per contract) and an allevance for future engineering se.mrices. w,---w e w w- e-w--ve , g y a *==--**-r-*~ -- - v'w-w'<- --eww--re-* * - - * - -we----w rm
3 Process Stesh Evaporator Continued (1,000's) Fi= ; rice contract: $12,60h Escalatien en co=ponents: 3.960 Freight: h63 Allovance for future services: 73 Tota 1 $17.100 l l Late Chances The following pages =ake frequent references to late changes. The Eechtel estimate as presented on 1/2h/80 contained a category esiled late adjust =ents valued at $150,537 Subsequently, it has been allocated to material, sub-contract, labor, etc and each following section vill point out how much has been included for late changes. To further the understanding of what is meant, below is a summary level description of the items added to the Bechtel estimate between their August 1979 forecast cutoff and their presentation in . January 1980: A. Schedule related costs due to moving the fuel load dates by 9 l months: $ 93,000 1
- 3. Various licensing and T.*C related scope change type 4.tems: 36,382 C. Late change to CPCo r.ajor equipment estimates: 8,h00 D. Non-scope additions for variations within the estimate scope: 10,755 Total $150.537 Some of the above is already reflected in the quantities and nachours for individual areas. Others are added on as above-the-line allowances until quantities can be developed.
Escalation Each of the fellowing 3echtel categories contain built in escalation. As a OO
- _ , . , - - - - - ,$_, - ..., - _ - , ,__ .,,_,,__e_ - . _ - - , _ - , _ _ _ . . . . - , . _ _ _ - . ,,y , ,., -__._ ,,y__me , _ . . , - _y . , , _ . _ -,.,,c _...,.
L Escalatic: Continued (1,000's ) part of the review tes=, PCAS perfor=ed the folleving analysis of 3echtel's escalation assu=ptions: The escalation for Forecast #6 vas deter =ined by Bechtel using project centroids and calculated frc= the report cutoff date (Septe=ber 30,1979) to the various centroid dates for each category. The escalatic: is not shov separately, but integrated into the costs. The rates used by Bechtel are 9% for 198C and 8% for 1981 and beyond. In order to analy e the escalation, several assu=ptions vere made. The composite co=pletion date of July 198k vas chosen since 3echtel does not show costs for each unit separately. "'he ti=e to ec=pletics is 58 =enths frc= cutoff. The centroid of the period is 39 =enths or 2/3 the ti=e to co=pletion. The esti=ated centroid date is Ja=uary 1983 for calculating escalation. The to-go costs including ec=tingency frc= the forecast is
$8k3,000. Using 3echtel escalation rates and back calculating to the cutoff date, ve obtain a cost of $698,k61. Using the C?Co corporate rates of 9.75%
for 1979, 8.5% for 1980 and 1981, and 7.5% for 1982 and calculating the escalation, we obtain a cost of $831,975 to go. This is $11,000 less than Bechtel's predicted costs. The cost difference of $11,000 is not significant especially in light of the difficulty in predicting future escalation. Therefore, we recom=end accepting the use of 3echtel's escalation rates for Forecast #6. i Bechtel Direct Material & Eeui,:=ent ($285,389) Of the above estimate, $185,141 was spe=t through Nove=ber 1979 To go is
$100,2k8.
- m - - - - -
- y-y -- -- y- yy- r--
5 3echtel Direct Material & Ecui :=ent Cc:tinued (1,000's) Major Equipment: Com=it=ents have been made for all r.ajor equip =ent so pricing is per purchase order, with some =iner allowances for some expected cha:Ees, tests and reanalysis. Condenser & Auxiliary & 2,259 Feedvater Heaters 2,796 Main Feedvater Pumps & Drives 3,798
~ Main '"ransformers 2,683 Centrol Room Equipment 1,Cho l Diesel Generators 7,703 Chillers 1.h30
$21,739 Other Direct Equipment and Bulk Materiels:
Approximately 90% of this area has been committed for and pricing is based on the purchase order values. ':'he concrete, civil, mechanical and piping areas have been nearly 100% engineered (except for late changes). However, the electrical equipment and bulh and the instrumentation areas have the greatest exposure for lach of engineering and late changes. Concrete Materials (Rebe.r, Formvorh, Ete) $ 29,936 Civil / Structural / Architectural h3,290 Mechanical Equipnent 26,hh9 Piping & Valves 76,717 Instrumentation 27,167 Electrical Equipment 11,920 Electrical Bulks 16.516
$231,997
c 3echtel tirect Material & Ecuiment Continued (1,000's) Equipment and Naterial Late Change: 3echtel's late allovances for ite=s developed after F/C #6 cutoff dates to cover includec licensing and other cen-licensing changes. In the direct material and equipment category, late changes have the greatest exposure due to the unce-tainty of design and regulatory require =ents. Late Change Esti= ate: $31,653 (all to go). l l I l l f I 1 l
,_ l
l Bach'tel Oirset Subecetract ($1h8,25h) (1.000's) 7 3echtel's direct subcontracts are as follows: Amount Stent To Date(1) To-Oc Cests Hu: lear Painting $ 1,178 $ 1,078 2 100 Field Erected Tanks (C-18 only) 2,203 1,702 50:. Turbine 3uilding Structural Steel 3,6h8 3,6h8 0 Riverfront Structures 2,178 2,178 0 Plant Foundations, Cooling Mnd & Dikes 12,750 12,750 0 Concrete Supply 8,870 8,206 66h Tuel Pool Liner Plate 1,772 1,772 0 NSS3 Erection 26,000 16,h25 9,575 Cooling Tovers 1,737 L57 1,280 HVAC-Equip =ent, Instr & Ductverk 20,075 8,850 11,225 Carbon Dioxide Fire Protection 1,183 0 1,183 Insulation Outside Containment 10,33h 1,178 9,156 Insulation Inside Containment 2,95h 0 2,95h Turbine Generator Erection 6,7h6 2,972 3,77h Condensor Erection 1,63h 1,h73 161 l Clearing & Grading 3,k13 3,k13 0 1 USS Eeavy Lift Rigging 1,263 1,263 0 l Installation of 31ovdown Str 1,000 0 1,000 Underpinning 2.850 0 2.850 Peabody Pipe 1,3h7 1,0kk 303 Others (2) 9.h27 9,258 16o Total (Excluding Late Changes) $122,562 $77,667 $hh,895 Subcontract pricing is based primarily on centract terns (approximately 87% of the above has been committed). In addition to the $hh,895 shovn as to-go ecsts is
$25,692 for late changes which vere added to cover principally subcontract extensicc and some late added ite=s.
(1) Through January 1980 (2) 31 Subcontracts Under $1,000 - Mostly Complete
3 3echtel Direct Manual Labor ($363.255) Bechtel's direct ma=ual labor costs through Nove=ber 1979 vere $1SC,721 for 10,953 =anheurs (or $16.50 per hour) . They are forecasting 6,96k manhours to go at a cost of $1h2,065 (or $20.3h per E) exclu:iing late adjustments.
"'his estimate is based on F/C #6 quantities and unit rates. The vage rates are based on the agreements in effect as of August 1979 vith escalation assumed to be 9% per year for 1930 and 8% per year for 1981 and after. Allowances have been made for foreman's pay, verkmen's compensation. FICA, une=ployment insurance, fringe benefits an:1 casual overti=e at 5%.
In addition to the to-go costs mentioned above, the total direct =anual labor estimate includes $21,657 in labor allowance 3 fr 2hiftverk, productivity decline, and the overtime and recruiting allevance. The overtime ^ allovance is to attract critical crafts ed is above the 55 casual overtime included in the base rnte. Adding this $21,657 allevance to the to-go estimate raises the to-go manhet.tr Cost tC $23.kk per hour. Also included in the $363.255 estimate for direct manual labor is $18,812 for late adjustments. This is for verk added afte$ the August 1979 forecast cutoff for licensing. TE, etc and vill be a direct adder to the to-go machours. Late change meshours are estimated at khk.
~
Summary: Manhours Dollars To Date (Thru 10/70) 11,151 E $185,116 To-Go Base Labor 6,761 137,670
- To-Go Labor Allowance hc4uded.- - 21,657 Above To-Go Late Adjustments Lkh 18.812 1
Total 18,356 E $363,255 i l
, , _ _ . , . . '**_.-,-.-,._-,.J~.^.,__ .
-._..,.,_-_.__....,m.. . , - , _ .
, , , . ~ , _ . .
9 3echtel Direct Manual Labc_r Co=tinued (1,000's) - Our F/C #6 review tet: studied the 3echtel -kour esti= ate frc= several angles. Attached as Attach =ent 3 is an ana'ysis of to-go =anheurs after Dece=ber 1979 The study looks at the ik Category /Coc=edities that have at least 100 manheurs to go. This method picks up 85% of all the to-go direct mamual manheurs. In su=ma y, the report reco= mends acceptance of the 3echtel direct manual labor estimate, recognizing that the labor allowances and late changes provide $ho,000 in contingency to meet the additions that are expected. Bechtel Distributable Manual Labor ($139,660) This estisste includes the spe=t to-date portion of $55,621 through Nove=ber 1979 for 3,770 machours (at a cost of $1k.75 per ME). The to-go portion is
$63,068 for 3,n3 manhours (at a cost of $20.26 per ME) excluding late adjust =ents.
The basis of the esti= ate is a forecast of to-go work in support of const:uction and the schedule duration. ':te vage rate and adders are the same as for direct . nanual labor, The abcve estimate includes $9,759 for labor allevances to cover shiftvork, overtime above 55 casual and productivity decline. With this allowance,added to the to-go estimate, the to-go average hourly rate increases to $23.39 per hour. Late changes in the a=ount of $11,212 have been included in this area to cover added distributable manual labor due to the items added to the forecast after the cutoff fate. An estimate of h60 - hours is included for late adjustments.
- - , - - - w- . - ,-- - --? , . , . - , - . , , - - - - , - - - - - - , -."*.,.,-l- ~e,- ,--,,,n---
10 3echtel Distributable Manual Labor Continued (1,000's) Summary: Machours Dollars To Date (Thru n/79) 3,7 0 ME 3 55,621 To-Go 3ase Labor 3,n3 63,068 To-Go Labor Allowance Included 9,759 Above Late Changes h60 11.212 9 Total 7,3k3 NE $139,660 Following is a discussion of some of the detail of 3echtel's distributable manual labor. 91 - Construction Facilities. The total F/C #6 estimate for constructicn facilities is 1,636 manhours. Expended to date through 1979 is 1,121 manhours leaving 515 machours to go.
*his account is construction, maintenance and remova.1 cf temporary facilities including buildings, roads, laydown areas, fences and utilities. During 1979, 213 manheurs were expended in this effort.
If 1979 is a typical year, the to-go manhours may be inadequate. 92 - Construction Services. Total estimate = h,858 manhcrs. Expended through 1979 = 2,768 manheurs leaving 2,090 to go. This account is for cleanup, scaffolding, material handling, varehousing, tool handling and equipment maintenance. 738 manhours vere expended during 1979 Again, the to-go estimate may be light. 95 - Startup Manual Labor. Included in 3echtel's F/C #6 estimate is 500 =anuai labor =anhours to assist CPCo in startup and testing activities. '"he Deceber 4
~ - - - - - - , - , , , - - - , - - - . , -
--------,,,,-y -
, -, ,- ,--,--,----,ee- ,-na, - - - . ,,v- ,----s, - , - , ,, , - , -
e
i 11 3echtel DistribItable Manual Labor Cc=ti::ued (1,000's) 1979 FOCUS Report indicated apprcximately ho have been expended to date. The above esti= ate has been divided into several areas: Manual startup support (321), temporary startup verk around (107) and othe- (including pipe inspection and electrical tests) (72). On the whole, Bechtel's distributable nanual labcr esti= ate =ay be lov. Eevever, due to labor allowances, the contingency and the allevances for late changar, ve do not reco= mend any change. Bechtel Non-Manual yield Labor ($136,279) The Bechtel ncn-manual field labor estir. ate is based on holding the current level of apprcximately 600 people through 1982 and then reducing the staff over the next several months. Manhours expended to date are k,72h at a cost of $52,3H ($n.07 per hour). To-go manhours are estimated at h,090 (without late changes) at a cost of $71,30k (or $17.h3 per hour). The vage rate is based on the current rate escalated at 9% for 1980 and 8% for 1981 and beyond. In addition to the above, $2,18k is included for labor allowances for shiftvork, productivity decline and overtime beyond the 5% casual overtina facter. When this allowance is added to the to-go estimste, the to-go hourly rate is $17 96.
- Late changes in the amount of $10.k80 have been added to cover non-nanual field labor in completing the late change work. 530 manheurs are associated with this addition.
Summary: Manhours Dollars
- Cost To Date (Thru n/79) h,72k ME $ 52,3n To-Go Base Labor h,090 71,30k To-Go Labor Allevance Included 2,18h Above Late Changes 530 10.h80 Total 9,3kh ME $136,279
12 Bechtel Nen-Manual Field Laber Centinued (1,000's) Following is a discussion of some of the estimate detail. Non-Manual Field Engineers:
':'his is the largest single account with an estimate of 5,690 nanhours, 2,500 of which has been spent to date leaving 3,190 manheurs to go.
Administration: Sis area is next largest with an estimate of 1,312 en9Murs, 9L3 of which has been expended to date leaving 369 to go. Supervisien: F/C #6 estimate is 836 manhours; h29 has been expended to date leaving LOS to go. Remaining Areas (Safety / Medical, Procurement and Survey): F/C [6 estimate of 867 manhours, kTS has been expended to date leaving 369 to go. We recommend acceptance of the non-manual field labor estimate as is. I 1 l l Bechtel Distributable Materik1 and Subcontract ($1kl.032) l Distributable Materials: Included in the $1hl,032 estimate above is $90,93h for distributable materials.
$58,k00 of this has been spent through Nove=ber 1979 Of the $32,53h to go, $11,367 is for late changes.
Distributable material is construction tools and equipment, expendable supplies and services. he estimate is based en direct labor. A factor of 26% has been deter =ined by historical job experience. m , w -- - , , - ww v _9--. w _.--y - ,w-,- - ,- , --,- - . - - , _ ,9,.#-,----, -,# -, ---- ,.._, , ,m -w-.
l i 13 3echtel Distributable Material and Subeentract Centinued (1.000's) Distributable Subcontracts: Included in the $1k1,032 estimate above is $50,098 for distributable subcontracts.
$13,689 has been spent through November 1979 and of the $36,kO9 to go, $2,8k2 is for late changes.
Of the $50,098 estimate, $25,000 is for job shop designers of small pipe and hangers. Distributable subcontracts include temporary construction facilities, miscellaneous construction services, construction equipment and tools and field office costs. We recommend acceptance of Bechtel's distributable material and subcontract estimate. Home office F.intineerinst ($179.806) The above estimate includes the cost to date through Novenber 1979 of $90,Lic. The $89,396 to-go costs include $8,560 for late changes. The to-go estimate includes 2,305 base manheurs and 228 late change manhours. The to-go estimated cost per manheur is $3k.76 (without late changes). This is based on actual cost experience for June to November 1979, plus escalation (9% for 1980 and 8% thereafter) and includes the 75% burden. l The manpover curve for home office engineering calls for a buildup to kOO people to be held until mid-1982. A steep tail off drops the level to 250 by mid-1983 j and concludes in mid-1985. l 3echtel's to-go estimate of engineering requirements is based en the defined scope (which includes anticipated licensing and "'MI-2 related ite=s) . It does not provide l l
IL He=e Office Enrineerine Continued (1,000's) any allowance for the excluded ite=s such as listed in Exhibit 11. The 3echtel F/C #6 estimate of engineering =a= hours reflects a sig=ificant upgrade in engineering planning tools which has per=itted a scre accurate estisate of to-go engineering. This includes factoring in licensing requirements. 'Je reco= mend acce p tance of 3echtel's engineering estinate for the F/C #6 scope. It =ust be recognized however that due to the lack of 3RC design criteria relative to TMI-2, and the inability to resolve issues due to the NRC licensing " pause", a precise engineering estimate is not possible. Other Home Office ($96.308) The above estimate includes the cost to date through Novenber 1979 of $37.h53. The $58,977 to-go costs include $9,670 for late changes. ne to-go estimate includes 1,552 base manhours and 258 manhours for late changes. S e to-go ecst per manhour (without late changes) is $31.77. B is is based on recent payroll experience plus escalation (95 in 1980, 8% thereafter) and includes the 755 burden. Se mampower curve for other home office calls for a buildup to approximately 2h0 people by =1d-1980 and a progressive reduction in " crees to 125 by mid-1983 i and a drop to O by mid-1985 The category of other home office includes the following: w
-- , , , . . - q ,, , - , -
._3_- ..,,. . - ._ y - -.-,--._,.e..,, , ._-,,y,,gy,p...-,y -
-,,,.._-..m.+.%y,,,,,-, m__. , ,. . ,
15 1 Other Home Office Continued (1,000's) l To-Date To-Date To-Go To-Go Tr.tal Descri; tion Manheurs Cost Manheurs Cost Isti= ate Administrative Services 558 E $ 7,503 609 E $11,9h8 $19,h51 Division services 306 5,929 2h5 7,93h 13,863 Procurement kh6 9,865 21h 6,86k 16,729 Quality Assurance 128 3,3hh 16h 7,160 10,50h Other Divisional k3 2,35h kk - 2,h20 k,77h Startup 26 765 132 6,088 6,853 Construction Management 159 k,381 76 3,9h7 8,328 General Services 82 3,910 68 2,9k6 6,136 Late Changes 0 0 258 9.670 9.6ic Total 1,7h8 m $37,331 1,810 E $58,977 $96,308 The above estimates are based on the expected durations of the necessary services to support engineering and construction for the identified secpe of vort. We ' recommend aceeptance.
--- - ---. ,e , , , , - ,,n--+-- , - - - . ,- - - - - - - ,- -- -,-,--
16 3echtel Fee ($15,235) (1~,000's)
*he contract fee presently agreed upen by 3echtel and CPCo is $10,000. Sechtel has identified the following areas as~ potential fee bearing and included an amount in the forecast for them:
Basis For Fee _ Base Estimate Estimated Fee SCO #91-Critical Craft Recruitment & Overtime $ 29,160 $ 289 , SCO #117-Electrical (Seis=ic Restraints, Etc) 22,170 220 Trend #527-F/C #6 Schedule Extension ih6,k50 1 h50 SCO #233-Licensing Issues 73,hoo 726 Manual Startup Personnel en Unit Price 12.950 130 Resident Engineers on Te=perary Assign-ment at Field 3,957 2.k20* Total $288,087 $5,235
' Includes burden as well as fee. "he 3echtel fee is a negotiated item and is only changed by a contract change order. We have included the above figures to indicate our total exposure.
However, only $10,000 is an approved expenditure at this time. Seehtel Continrenev ($89,701) Sechtel develops a contingency estimate by looking at the to-go portion of each categor-/ of verk and assigning a risk factor. The greater the risk, the greater the factor. 'On a summary basis, here are some of their assumptions: e
17 3echtel Centineenev Centinued (1,00C's) Area To-Go Cest' % Centingenev C0ntinrenev Ancunt Direct Materials $ h0,000 5% $ 2,000 Instr.unentation 20,000 105 2,000 Direct Subcontracts 52,000 20% 10,h00 Manuul Labor 205,000 15% 30,700 Non-Manual Labor 71,000 5% 3,600 Distributable }hterial kl,000 5% 2,100 Distributable Subcontract 12,000 20% 2,h00 Engineering is Home Office 9k,000 30% 28,200 Late Changes 73,000 Included 10.000 Subtotal $91,h00 Rounding (1,L00) Total $90,000**
'Q2ese are based on an August 1979 cutoff.
**A later study shows Bechtel contingency as $89,701.
Our Control Services Department has reviewed 3echtel's contingency reco:mnendation i and suggested variations within the individual areas. However, they arrive at the same total bottom line and consequently recommend no change to the 3echtel-contingency. (See Attachment 1. ) Consu=ers Pever Directs ($232,000) This estimate is made up of over 60 separate areas where Consumers Power wages or costs are charged to the Project. An estimate for each area was provided by the appropriate department head. A summary of those estimates follows:
IS Censumers Power Directs Continued (1,000's) Spent To Istimate Date (12/79) To-Go Cests PE&C Wa6es & Expenses (Less Testing) $ 35,765 $13,252 $ 22,516 FI&C Testing (With Cc= tract Personnel) h3,200 3,20L 39,996 Nuclear Operations Testing 16,690 36S 18,322 Iiuclear Operations Wages & Expenses k2,k52 6,190 3h,262 Purchases of Materials & Equipment 39,157 5,3C5 33,552 Contracts for Services (Less Testing) 23,260 5,23h 18,026 Ocestruction Utilities 11,370 2,9k3 6,k27 Other (Pit Acet, Lab, Pensions, Ete) 18,175 h,833 13,3k2 Rounding (72) 0 (72) Total ,
$232,000 $L3,329 $185,671 "ne above estimates were based on the fuel load schedule for Unit Il of April 198k. A =cre detailed report is available in Attachment 10.
Censumers Power Overheads ($1,03h,100) General & Administrative: ($h3,000) Company departments that provide general services to all areas of construction charge to an overhead account and these charges are spread to ecestructice en the basis of direct expenditures. Examples of G&A Departments are Corporate Legal, Purchasing, Corporate Accounting, etc. In future years when Midland is i the c=1y =ajor construction project underway, it is expected Midland vill have to abscrb a greater share of G&A. Of the $h3,000 estimated above, $1h,706 has been spent through December 31, 1979 The to-go estimate is by Midland PMo and is based on an analysis of recent years experience and expected future costs. Property Taxes: ($67,800) A property tax is paid to the Midland area taxing authorities based en the verk cc=pleted at the end of a taxable year. Construction verk in progress is taxed
19 Consu=ers Pwer Overheads Centinued (1,000's) at approximately 25% of the ccustructed value. Exec:ptions have been granted for pollution control equipment and exceptions are usually =ade for materials stored on site but not to be used in the current yes , and for materials paid for but not on site. '"he to-go estimate is based on the expected expenditures for direct costs fer the project duration. Costs to date through 1979 are
$13,216. The to-go esti= ate is $5h,58k.
Miscella=eous Overheads: ($5,000) This area includes insurance and the direct payment of sales and use taxes. It is based on recent experience, the expected direct expenditures and the schedule duration. $1,013 has been booked through 1979 To-go costs are
$3,982.
AFUDC: ($918,300) To-go ANDC assumes the current rate of 8.55 vill hold to the end of the project. This booked cost is to capitalize the weighted average expense for interest on borrowed funds, bonds, etc. $228,19h has been booked through 1979 The to-go cost is based on AWDC at 8.55 per year on the invested base to the end of the project, and on the cash flow of the expected to-go expendi-tures spread over the remainder of the project. It is anticipated in fature years that the AFUDC rate may increase. If it does, there vill be a corres-ponding increase in AFUDC costs. AFUDC Summary: ANDC To Date $228,19h AFL'DC on Invested Base (Thru 1979) h29,96h l AFUDC cn To-Go Costs 260.1h2 l Total $918,300 4
1 i l 1 l 2C Consu=ers ?crer !/iscellaneous vlork Orders (%5,000) (*.,000's) Spare Par.s: ($k,0CO) This esti= ate, provided by the Midland Pla.t Operation's Staff, is for capitalized e=ergency equipment being purchased on CPCo purchase orders. There are no to-date costs for this area. Land: ($5,553) This esti= ate is for the purchase of property for the plant and cooling pond. All purchasea are ec=plete. The cost to date is $h,623 ($1.k15 of which is AFLOC) and the to-go costs, $1,260, are for AFUDC. Licensing: ($lk,758)
*his esti= ate covers the cost of the construction and operating licences and the outside legal expenses involved in their procurement. $7,h79 has been booked through 1979 ($1,781 of which is AFUDC). To-go costs include the operating license, future legal expenses and to-go overheads. *he to-go esti= ate is $7,279 (including $3,375 for AFUDC).
Other Work Orders - 3ullock-Dov Line & R&D ($kOO) Special verk orders were opened to collect costs for the te=porary construction power lines and some R&D activities (fogging studies) . $329 has been spent to date. Future costs vill be for removal of the tempora / line. Roundine (-$hl) Rounding re= oves $hl from miscellaneous verk orders. l ___ , ,,, ,w -+ m --v- *--~-W' * " " ' " ' '
21
}CDLA2D PROJEC" F/C #6 Expenditures
($1,000's) Total Project ATLOO'
*c_tal Less An DC, "hrough 1979 $1,263,L5L
$231.Lo7 !1,032,0L7 1980 370,000 90,905 271.095 1981 k00,000 122.L39 277.561 1982 L25,000 1LL,875 230.125 1983 350,000 165,3L6 ISL,65L 195L 250,000
]
1L7,221- . 102,779 1965 L1.5L6 - 15.252 26.2 3
$3,100,000 $925,LLS c: -"!2.17L ,555 ' Includes AR0, C in Werk Orders 7C20. 7022 and 7029 DOP.
3/L/E0
l i i W t* i 1 C O O
>~
~
Oe z I h m. 4 O o w b
- - , , , ~ -- -y,_.,----- - , _me.,,-., , , , , , ,__,v_.
l (1,000's) Midland Project F/C !! to #6 Cc=;, arisen Sunna: r Descri : tion F/C #6 F/C #1 Variance - c r. -
~..
NSS .( $ 118,000 $ 108,k00 $ 9,600 94 T/G .,
." y' . ,' ', .
5k,k00 52,k00 2,000 5c PSE ' 17.100 15.500 1.600 ": ST CPCo Furnished $ 189,500 $ 176,300 $ 13,200 'd 3echtel Equipraent & Material $ 285,389 $ 200 920 $ Sk,k69 .- Direct Subcentract ik8,254 83,779 6k k75 Tr - Direct Manual Labor 363,255- 213,50k' 1L9,751 - Dist Manual Labor - 139,660 k9,028' 90,632 : Non-Manual Field Labcr 136,279 53,k35' 82,8kk t i '. t Distr Material & Subcontract -1kl.032- 53,hk6 87,586 - - Ec=e Office Engineering 179,806 59,7kB 120,058 4 Other Ec=e Office 96,305 30,850 65,k38 c- - Fee 15,235 10,000 5,235 ' Contingency 89,701 76,000 13,701 :: J Allowances 0 116,000 (116,000) - Rounding (hig) (10) (hoo) - ST 3echtel $1,59k,500 $ 9k6,700 $ 6k7,800 e" CPCo Directs $ 232,000 $ 61,000 $ 171,000 W CPCo Overheads G&A $ k3.000 1 23,hoo $ 19,600 0-Property Taxes 67,800 38,800 29,000 23.7 Miscellaneous Overheads 5,000 2,200 2,800 1: 1 AFUDC 918,300 kO3,000 515.300 :. ST Overheads $1,03L,100 $ k67,k00 $ 566,700 :: ' - Miscellaneous Work Orders $ 25,000 $ 18,600 $ 6,k00 W Rounding 2k,900 0 2k.900 - Total
$3,100,000 $1,670,000 $1,L30,000 ET 4
' Labor allevances have been spread on same basis as F/C #6.
, s ., - . -
~
r , , *,,,).=.,,,' $ . < ,3. ( * **
.h' Ib - - -' "
.c e ,,%"
Eecenciliatien of 3&4 :;35 Estimate - F/C #1 tc #c .. -' b.
/*
Esti= ate as of F/C #1 $108, LOC A11cvances for potential secpe changes included in F/C #1 (7.61L) Fir = price ccatract as of F/C #1 (thru CCD #9) $1C0,786 Changes Since F/C #1 F/C #1 !iet A. CCO's #11, 12 & 13: F/C #6 Est A11cvance Addition c c, hardware and service changes all under Sh00 each. $ 2,h67 $2,L67 $ C
- 3. CCO's #10 & lb Ti=e and =aterial agree = et to sup;cr FSAR preparation and questions and 'is 7 sup;cr and i=ple=entation. 7,k;3 1,000 5,653 C. A11cvance for future changes.
(Adced hardware ite=s, $h,000 for the 19Sk/1985 schedule entensien and rounding. ) 7.29k 3,3L7 3.9L7
$17,21L $7,61L $9,6C0 Recap: F/C #1 fir = price estimate $100,766 Changes since F/d #1 17,21h
$118,000 -
r
-~~
(1/1/60'; ( Spen to date:
-. - 9 On fir = price contract $103,253 On CCO's #10 & Ik 3,281 Total $106,534 l
. ... s t-gv .,s/ .
3 CI trhine Generater Centract F/C #1 estinste: - Unit II Cc tract $29,067 U=it I Cc tract 21,3E6 Total Centract (Fim Price) 50,L53 idlovances for offsite storage and change orders 1.9L7 Total 552,h00 Change orders processed since F/C #1: Unit II: C00's 1 thru k =ade =inor hardvare changes,, alleved for separate ship =ent of the M5R, updated price lists and removed freight pay =ents. Het = (265) F/C #6 - ST Unit II $25,782 Unit I: CCO #1. Made =inc= . hardware changes , allowed for separate shi;=ent of the _M5R, updated price lists and re=cved freight pay =ents. Net = (1 51) F/C #6 - ST Unit I $21,235 Actual cost of offsite storage handling, freight, insurance, etc (thru 1/1/80) 1,883 Total contract (fir = price) at F/C #6 51,900 Allowance for co=pany exposure for cost beycnd insurance coverage if clai= to recover da= ages for Unit II rotor da=nge is unsuccessful. 2,500 Total F/C #6 Isti= ate $5h,k00 l l I
(1,000's) L Recenciliation of Process Stea= Ivaporator Isti= ate F/C #1 to #6 Descrittien F/C #1 Actual Cost Variance Fir = Price Centract $12,328 (Rev 3) $12,60h (Rev 11) $ 276 Iscalation 2,333 3,960 1,ca7 Freight 500 h63 (27) Design Allowance 339 0 (339) Total $15,500 $17,c27 $1,527 Total Paid To Date $17,C27 Allowance for Future Vendor Engineering 73 Services Total F/C #6 Isti= ate $17,100 This increase is all due to evolutien of the existing require =ents. Our expcsure for the purchase order escalation was understated in F/C #1. 6 e -,- - - - , - - , - - - , , , - - - - , .---,.---e.- r- , --, - - , . - -
5 i l Su= nary cf 3echtel Cest Chances F/C #1 to #6 Millions F/C #1 = 3 9h6.7 F/C #6 = 1,59h.5 Change $ 6k7.S I. Change Due to Scope (See Attach =ent 18) A. Schedule Extensic $1h6.5
- 3. Non-Licensing Scope Changes 109 5 C. Licensing - Non-TMI 120.7 D. Licensing "MI Primary 24.0 E. Licensing - TMI Secondary 15.3
$k16.0 II. Change Due to Other (Non-Scope) (See Attach =ent 19)
A. Schedule Extension $1k5.0
- 3. Quantity Related 172.1 C. Labor Related 90.h
! D. Pricing 17.2 E. Othe- (12.1)
' ~
$k12.6 III. Contingency and Allevances A. Contingency Used for "Other" (See Attaciment 25) $(65.7)
- 3. Allowances Applied to Scope (See Attach =ent 26) (116.0)
C. Rounding or Closing Nu=ber 0.9 Total Change $C.7.8 i
6 1.xtlanatien of bechcel Cost Chan: es I. Changes Due to Scope (See Attachment 16) A. Schedule Frtension $1h6.5 =i n ion This estimate includes au costs (engineering, labor, =aterial and sub-contracts, verranty extensions, etc) associated with all the scope additions. It has been deter =ined that approxi=ately 16 =enths delay can be attributed to scope changes. See Sechtel's F/C #6, PaSes C-25.1 to 25.6 and 3-22.1.
- 3. ; ion-Licensing Scope Changes $109.5 =illion This change category includes additions to the Project secpe to maintain schedule and to i= prove reliability, maintainability or efficiency. Over 130 items has been included in this category since the issuance of F/C
#1 in 1976. For details of these iter:s see Attach =ent 13. Large indivi-dual ite=s over $2.0 =1111on are:
Millicas Allowance for overti=e and recruiting $ 30.0 Electrical bulk and equipment additions 13.S bechtel startup services (manual and non-=anual) 11.3 Engineering and hc=e o'fice esti= ate 11.1 Solid radvaste building expa=sion 59 HSS erection subcontract 5.7 Process stea= supply and return - bridge, ete 2.5 Modify piping and instrumentation 2.0 Pond blevdevn syste= 2.0 Cooling tever deletion (2.6) M Regulater-y Guide reesti= ate (2.0)
O Ner.-licensing items frc= Trend LETC, including: Reactor a=cher stud failure, rs=cval of tritiu= frc= cc densate, vet layup of the stea= generators, Calex !! for the condenser de=ineralicer syste=, legging er recording generator te=peratures, CRDM correlatics, sodiu= study-feedvater and drain =odifications, evaporator relief capacity, and engineering and HO for this category. 5.3 Octal Scope Ucn-Licensing Ixa=ples $6k.S C. Licensing - 3c: OC-2 Changes $120.7 =illic:
'" hose additions er modificatic s which resulted frc= licensing co==it=e=ts which in the judg=ent cf 3echtel or Ccusumers vill be necessary to obtain an operating license regariless of the OC accident and the prese=t regu-latory environment.
This category includes Sh separate trend ite=s since f/C #1. An incividual listing is available in Attach =ent 18. By vay of exa=ple ci sc=e of the changes included in this category, below are several ite=s with a value l of over $2 million each: Millices Ilectrical seis=ic supports (net) $ 35 2 4A/4C implementation and EQ-TCP-1 (=et) 15.5 Instru=entatics additions due to licensing, seis=ic require-
=ents, hacardous gas monitoring and accide=t instru=entation 13.L
' dire and cable due to TV security, P/A and s=oke dt.tectics syste=s h8 Diesel generator r4 increase 23 Ingineering due to the first 37 ite=s en the licensing list (See ! CIA Section C-1.1 of 3echtel F/C #6.) 15.3
- - - - - , , - - - - - , , - - - - . , - - - . - - , , , ,-ne--,-,, ,w - ' . * *'"- .,m,-, t.---m, , ,r.- - - - - - - , ,,-n.--n,e+,-- , , - - -
6 Ite=s fro: Trend L270 censidered to be licensing, including engineering and hc=e office for this categerf and the fellevi=g ite=s frc= the Master Licensing List of Activities (M;LA): 2k.6 21 - Core flood syste= 30 - IGL isolation 36 - E;0-2 less-cf-pcVer incident he - bolt and baseplate desig 69 - S-= break ECCS a:e ysis TL - Passive failures after LOCA (=ev co=cern) 107 - Fuel transfer tube shielding Total Licensing lica-TC Exa=ples Sill.c D. Licensing - SC Pri=ary Effects $2h.0 =illic: , These are the require =ents and recc==endatic=s included in the URO Lessons i { l Learned Task Force Report and Short Ter= Recon:cendations (.'iUREG-0576) and the Long Ter= Lessons Learned Reperts which in the judg=ent of 3echtel or Consumers vill be required prior to obtaining an operating license in the present regulatory enviro ==ent. (See Attach =ent 16. )
'"he DC Pri=ar/ Effects on Bechtel which have been esti=ated to cost
$2k.0 =illic: is =ade up of the folleving:
ICLA (1) Ite= Descrittic: 66 Pressurizer heaters upgrade 102 Process and radiological monitori g syste= 201 E=ergency power supply for PORV block valve 203 Relief and safety valve testing 2Ch PORY and safety valve position indicatic
9
,_.. ,,3
(., c-Ite= Descri-tien 205 Inadequate core cooling analysis of existing design - develop procedures 206 Instru=entation for inadequate cere cooling - subeccling
=eter 2C7 Instrumentation fcr inadequate core cooling - reactor water level instr ==entation design 211 Diverse contai==ent 1sclatics 21k Review procedures and base for recc=tiner use 215 Syste= integrity for high radioactivity leak reduction outside contain=ent 215-6 Liquid radvaste processing 215-6 Gaseous radvaste processing 216 Syste= integrity for high radioactivity - preventive maintenance progra=
217 Plant shi=J. ding review 219 Auxiliary feedvater flov indicater 220 Post-accident sa=pling 221 Improved iodine instrumentation 222 Containment pressure =ocitoring 223 Centain=ent vater level monitoring 22k Contain=ent Fydrogen =enitering 225 RC3 venting t 1 l 22o- Transient and accident analysis - s=all LCCA 227 Transient and accident analysis - natural circulation 1 (1) Master Licensing Lis' ' i
.e 1
1 I. Licensing - CC 3e:0 dary Iffects $15.3 =illic: I l Sis change is for those ope: Licensing issues and industry generi: issues which prior to the CC-2 accident =ay have been unnecessary or included after fuel lead ' cut now in the jud 6 =ent of Bechtel er Consu=ers vill have te be resolved and incorporated prior to obtaining an operating license in the present regulatcry envirc:=ent. (See Attachment 13.)
'"he DC Seccedary Iffects c 3echtel which have been esti=ated to cost
$15.3 =1111c is made up of the folleving: ( Se nu=ber refers to the List of Licensing and Other Ite=s Included or Ix=1ude.1 - 3echtel F/C M Pa;e C-1.)
7 - At=ospherie du=p va.1ve 16 - Instru=ents to fc11ov the course of an accident 25 - nia letdev valves ku - IIydrogen evolutic: k9 - AW 1evel centrol 51 - Cold shutiov: 53 - overpressure protection at lov te=ps 77 - IST pumproem filtratic: 81 - Area radiation and airborne =enitoring informatic: 12k - AW syste= configuration suction piping 125 - AF'.i syste: ec figuratic: discharge piping 125a- AFW syste= configuration - cur.ber of pu=ps 126 - Maintenance of post-shutdown Chapter 15 events 127 - Syste= interacticus 125 - Pla=t status indicatic: 129 - Shutdov reactivity capability 131 - Safety grade equip =ent auxiliaries 1c7 - Replace =ent of plant ec=puter 171 - Revisic: cf ec tai =ent te=perature =easure=ent syste.
11 . Ex lanation of 3echtel Cost Changes I. Changes Due To Cther (Non-Scope) (See Attachnen 19) A. Schedule Extension 3145.0 "*"*on This estimate includes au costs (Engineering, labor material and subcentreets, warranry extensions, etc) associated with all the "other" additicns. It has been detemined that approximately 18 months delay can be attributed to "Other" changes. See 3echtel's F/C # book - pages C-22.1 to 22.6 and 3-22.1.
- 3. Quantity Changes $172.1 min ics This enange categ ::y consists of approximately 40 items that identified changes in quantities due to non-scope since F/C y1 and the development ofF/Cf6 quantities. Examples of these changes are: Trends y422 and 6423 - added costs for electrical bulk quantities identified during the .
F/C 56 quantity development. (See Bechtel F/C !6, pages C 6.1 to 6.8 for a cable reconciliation) - $41.1 million. Trend kkk small pipe quantity development - $16.h million. Better definition of equipment and pipe insulation requirements - 43.5 minion. For a fun listing of the quantity changes, see Attachment 19 C. Labor Related Changes $90.h million Labor related changes are revised estimates of labor costs within the identified scope. Since F/C #1, re-evaluation of approximately 30 such l items has taken place. Examples of these changes are: Trend 251 - additional labor costs due to the late delivery of hangers =
$11.5 minion. (Dou'ble handling, increased congestion, etc. )
Ferecast #2 re-evaluaticn cf the shiftverk allevance - 35.0 million Forecast #3 re-evaluation of distributable later - st.7 =illion
, - - - - - . , -,_.--.-r.- ---,-.,,_-.,.,.-,.--..,-,-7 n.-, - - ,-
'12 For a ecmplete listing of the labor related changes, see Attach =ent 19 D. Fricing Related Changes $17.2 minien As the project evolves, pricing infomatica is updated to reflect actual
, bid prices in place of the estimated and wage rates are updated to re-flect the current escalation factors. Since Forecast yl, approxima+ely 30 items have been reccrded as influencing pricing. Scme examples are as fonovs: Trend p470 - Renegotinion of the Zack grAC subcontract from unit price to cost plus - $8.8 million. Trend #418B - Radiation monitoring equipment re-evaluation .to reflect bid vs estimated pricing - $4.3 millien. Forecast y2 updating bid quotations vs estimated pricing - $h.O million. For a complete listing of the pricing related changes, see Attachment 19 E. Other Changes $12.1 million credit Other changes are non-scope changes which do not fit into the above categories of labor, pricing and quantities. There are about 40 such itemsidentifiedsinceF/Cfl. Some examples of the other changes are as follows: Trend pk36 "lant fill investigation and corrective actions - $15 2' millien. Trends h63 and 463A - Added costs for use of subcontract designers for saan pipe and hanger detailing. - $20.2 million. Re-evaluation of distributable costs for forecasts k and 5 - $20.4 minion. F/C #4 eng:.neering anovance - $10.0 million. Reevaluatien of previous trends as part of F/C #6 development ($88.1) See Attachment 19 for a listing of the "Other" changes. III. Changes Due to Contingency and An ovances i A. Centingency $65.7 Credit j Forecast il provided $76 =inica as a contingency to cover the uncertain-ties within the identified secpe. Subsequent forecasts used $65 7 to
13
~
cover added "other" ite=s. At the sane time, other ccntingencies were added, as felt necessary to cover newly identified scope and to go uncertainties. Attachment 25 shows a by Forecast progression of contingency development.
- 3. Allowances $116.0 Credit Bechtels Forecast #1 provided $116.0 =inien for "Below-the-line" ite=s which were outside the project scope plan but felt to have a high like-lihood of becoming part of the scope. Since Forecast yl, some of the allowances were incorpersted into the project, some were deleted as unneeded, and some new ones were added.
A new policy begun with F/c !6 is to not include "below-the-line" allowances but to incorporate an such items into the "above-the-line" scope plan. As a result, the net total of anowances used during the F/C #1 to 6 period is $n6.0 minion, leavin6 a balance of $0. See Attachment 26 for a listing of Forecast 1-5 allowances and their disposition. i
.--%- ---~[ ,, ..,-.----,-I*- _ . - , . - . - ._ 7_.,- - - - * *$ . # ,y," " * ",,,
1 Consumers Power Directs Summary of CosL Clianges Iilllions Explanat. ion of Clianfas_, , ,_ ,,, F/C #1 to #6 _ Project flegulatory Schedule Description F/C #1 F/C #6 Cliance Evolution llequi resaents and Ollier Total
! 1. l'Ef C Wages & Expenses $15 7 $ 35.8 $ 20.1 $59 0
$ $11s.2 $ 20.1
- 2. l'Ef.C Tenting Is.8 3:3.2 38. le 19 9 79 10.6 38. la
- 3. Nuclear operation's Testing 0 18.7 18.7 6.2 5.1 7. la 18.7 Is . Huclear Operation's Wages & Expenses 2 3 . 34 1:2.3s 19 0 (7.5) 15 0 11 5 19 0 4
- 5 Purchases of Haterial & Equipment 3.2 39.1 35 9 8.7 0 27.2 35 9
- 6. Contracts for Services 3. le 23.3 19.9 7.2 12.0 7 19 9 7 Construction Utilities Is. 3 11. ls 7.1 (.8) 0 79 7.1
- 8. Ollier & ilounding 6.2 18.1 11 9 la . 8 0 7.], .___1L 9.
$61.0 $232.0 $171.0 $l ils .le $lso.O $86.6 $171.0 4
l l Note: Mee Attacliment 10 for a complete listing or all CPCo Direct Estimates. . y i
.e Ixplanatics of Changes to Consu=ers Pever Direct Costs: 1171.C =illic:
3etween F/C #1 and c, the estimated cost of the vages, expenses and direct purchases by CPCo personnel for the Midland Project grev by nearly 3CC%. *he ressc:s for this increase are project evolutic=, new regulatcry require =ents , and the various i= pacts of the schedule extension. A. Project Ivolutic: $hk.h =illic: This Shk.h c.illion represents the change in the CPCo direct esti= ate between F/C #1 (June of 1976) a d F/C #h (March of 1978). We have assu=ed that all of the change is due to CPCo persennel recognizing what vill be necessary to suppor , the Project. The largest single increase, $19.9 'lic=, was for PI&C Testing. "he Testing perso:cel, through ec=sultatice with other recently started up nuclear plants, and a detailed review of the necessary tests i I l arrived at the new estimate. The same type of thing occurred with the other depart =ents. (Huelear Operation vages show a decrease because of a redistri-bution of their esti= ate between training, startup and the purchase of
=aterials.)
- 3. Regulatory Requirements $k0.0 millic Changes in the various regulatory requirements between F/C #1 and 6 have resulted in increases to the CPCo direct estimate. We have identified four i specific areas for the purposes of this reconciliation. We suspect there are others, but we are unable to specifically identify the= at this time.
- 1. "he Huclea- Operations department estimates a total staffing require-
=ent of 550 people. We have assumed that 250 of these people are to meet added regulatory requirements.
l The 250 added operating' people are for:
- a. Mainte=ance - Keeping the plant safe and achieving the reliability t
i Scal established by the MPSC. The syste=s added by other regulator-/ i
. equire=ents result in a greater =aintenance responsibility, l
l l l l l l _ ..-...-., - -, -__, .- -..
16
- b. Added operators are necessa:y due to the continuous training mcde,
- c. A Nuclear records management system adds to manpower responsibilities,
- d. Added stere-room facilities and manning is necessary to support the increased scope.
If we assume a two year training period, the added costs to the Project Work C: der are estimated to be $15.0 millien.
- 2. New regulations since F/C 51 require a force of treined a:ned guards fro = the time nuclear fuel is on site. CPCo security and Nuclear Oper-ations have projected 150 people for this purpose. After including a training period, the estimated cost over the guard service previously anticipated is $10.0 million.
3 The growth in the testing requirement beyond the F/C ph estimate is partially attributable to increased regulatory requirements. This is due primarily to the added testing that vill be necessary on the systems added by regulatozy requirements. Also, recent regulatory requirements add tests on existing systems. Attachment 23 lists 20 examples of where i testing requirements have been added. l The manpower level for PErsC testing has grown from a F/C #h peak of 75 (CP0o employees and contract personnel) to a F/C !6 peak of 87 people. The peak year shifts from 1980 under F/c pk to 1983/84 in F/C E6. The added testing costs due to regulatory requirements is estimated to be $13.o million,
- k. The Nuclear Safety Task Force (NSTF) was established to study the regulatory climate in the wake of DC-2 and make reconsnendations for changes. The CPCo personnel on the NSTF are all from departments normally charging time to Midland, so their cost is not considered
- %- ,,.-n.-, m ,g--. .--,--*-e.--m--- ., ,,,.y ,,,, , . . ,-,y,,,.,w.,.,. p , ,c-s v. --
,,.,-9 , , , . - - , - , . , , , . ,,r9-, w ..--e. e- ,em-y,wgi ,,
17 additive. Hoverer, the $2.0 =illion forecast by the NS*F for outside consultants and centractor assistance to their verk is censidered c be a regulatory cost. C. Schedule Extension and Other Costs $66.6 Schedcle: The change in cocznercial operation dates from March 1960 and March 1981 to September 198k and March 1985 (a change in the midpoint between units of 39 =enths) has had many impacts on the Censumers Pcver Direct esti:nate of cost. .
- 1. Many of the management, administrative and support areas vill be on the job for a longer time period.
- 2. Ncelear Operations and testing vill be charging their time and expenses to the Plant Work Order for a icnger time period.
3 The peaks for startup and nuclear operations buildup vill occur later resulting in escalated costs. 4 Plans for personnel recruitment and training are being disrupted, adding to overall costs. Other: In addition to the schedule effects since F/C #4, there are some "other" reasons for cost increases not isolated in any. of the specific categories. Included are:
- 1. CPCo personnel on loan to Bechtel Engineering.
- 2. Special consultanting contracts to assist engineering.
3 Transfer of temporary heating fuel supply from Bechtel to CPCo secpe.
- h. . Transfer of shop equipment purchase from Bechtel to CPCo scope.
-. .___,_m . , - _ _ - . _ _. ,_
, , _ , _ _ , _ . - _ . . _ . - _ _ . _ . , _ ~ . , . , . . , _ . . _ , _ , - , . _ . _ . . , _ _ . _ _r _.
13 Censumers Power Overheads Su==a.f of Cost Changes Millions Description F/C #1 F/C #6 Change G&A $ 23.h $ 33.0 $ 19.6 Property Taxes 38.8 67.8 29.0 Misc Other Overheads 2.2 50 2.6 AFUDC h03.0 918.3 515.3
$h67.h $1,03h.:. $566.7 t
m l
- . _ . - . - . . . .-.-2---.--=. .- . . - . - - - .-. . - . . - = . . _ . . . - - . . - . - _ - . - - _
l l l (1,000's)
-:r l
l l F.xtlanatice of Changas to Censu=ers ?cuer Overhead ~Acccunts : $566.7 =illien "he change in overheads was caused by the added capital costs and the increased schedule duration. Below is a descriptien of the analysis performed to dete.~ine the effects of each. A. Change due to added capital costs.
- 1. AFT.TDC. "he increase in the base on which AMDC is applied increased by
$8S2 minion between F/C #1.and #6. Based on the expected cash flev, the added ANDC on the increased costs is estimated to be $215.2 =illion.
- 2. Taxes and Insurance. Added capital costs vill increase the project's property tax expense and insurance payments by an estimated $10'.8 = inion.
- 3. Change due to increased schedule duration.
- 1. AWDC. The investnent in the plant through 1979 vill be carried for a longer period of time. Based en the change in schedule, the added ecsts for the invested base and to-go F/C #1 costs is $300.1 million.
- 2. Taxes and Insurance. The revised schedule increases the project's responsibility to provide construction insurance and pay the preperty taxes. This estimate is $21.0 million.
3 The project's share of the annual corporate G&A expense vill be charged over a longer period of time. This cost is estimated to be $19.6 million.
.--._n - - - = . . - - - . - _ . - - _ - _ _ , . .-
20 Miscellaneous Werk Orders M1111cns Des cri : tion F/C #1 F/C #6 Chance Spare Parts - 7022 $ h.0 $ h.0 3 0 Land - 7023 50 5.9 9 3-D line - 7025 .2 .2 0 Licensins - 7029 91 14.7 5. 6 Flectric R&D - 5472 3 .2 (.1)
. $16.6 $25.0 $6.h Exnlanatien of Changes to Miscellaneous Work Orders A. Land. The land work order increased due to AFUDC being charged for a greater period of time. The capital expenses were essentially completed by 197k. However, the work order vill centinue to accumulate A7"C0 until the project is co=nerciali:ed.
- 3. licensing. The $5.6 =1111cn change is due to: 1) added outside legal support necessarf to assist CPCo in the various actions of =eeting lav-suits, answering hearing requests and interpreting !iRC requirements; 2) an unexpected $1.25 million pay =ent was =ade to cover the intervencr's legal expenses in the Anti-Trust Suit; and, 3) added AFUDC charges due to carrfing this work in the base for a 1 cager period of ti=e.
A C. R&D. This esti=r.te was adjusted to reflect actual expenses. :;o future charges are expected.
e 4 P a e D 0 4 m N. 6 0 e
..--, ,- --.. , _ - , , r , .. , . . _ , _ _ , , , ,,._y-,e n,,,,.-----,e . - , , , , - . , , , - -, - -.,,w_, , ,, , . ,--.,--,.--nr,, ey ,,- - - ---
n". .aC ~.:' r .~: '. . .:. l l
!CDLA!!D I;UO12AR plt':7 UI:ITS 1&2 FORECAST 6 RE'.'!IV Contincener Ansivsis Rechtel': contingency e:ti= ate is based en proj ected to-go cocts for the various categories identified belev:
_ Dollars Are In Millions Costc Bechtel's % Bechtel's CPCo Item To-Go Centinrener Centineener Reec- endaticq Direct Equipment and Material excluding I&C $ ho , 5; $2 $h I&C - Material 20 10 2 2 Direct Subcontracts 52 20 10.h 7.8 Bechtel-Manual Later 205 15 30.7 30.7 Manual Labor A11cvances 3h - - - . Be atel-:;u m ual LsLor 71 5 3.6 7.0 I Distributables Material kl 5 2.1 h.2 Distributchles Subcontract 12 20 2.k 1.2 Engineering and Other H.O. 9k 30 28.2 18.8 Allowances for Engineering 36 - - - Subtetal $605 13 5; $ 81. h. $75 9 late Adjuctments 150 - 10.0 15.0 Total $755 12. 6 $91.h $ 90 9 The perecnt of direct ec:t allocated for continsency for each category was based on risk invcived. Sechtel used 55 for low risk, 10% for ..ediu= risk and 15-205 on hi;h rick ite=0. Encineering and other he:ne offiec cost had a 300 contingency. Within the given . espe of verh, ve scree vitt. Ecchtc1': Opprecch. licuever, in an::Ly:inG the ecutingencies by category, we offer the fc13oving con =ents:
2 A 5% c:ntingen:y on to-go costs of direct ecuipment and =aterial excludinc ILC see=s lov. Our recom=endation is to use 10% contingency for this category. We agree with the contingency for Instrumentation and control material. We do not agree with Bechtel's rationale of using 20% contingency on Direct Subcontract coste, when they are using only 15% en manual labor. Our recem=endation vill be to use 15% for this category. We reviewed 3echtel's unit manheur esti=ste en to-go ite=s. In the =ajerity of accounts , they have used higher unit manheurs en to-go costs than they have used en to-date ecsts. Considering this fact, ve believe that 15% continsency ought to be adequate to cover the unknowns. 3echtel's non=anual and distributable =aterial categories are time dependent ite=s. We have approxi=ately 5 years to go en the job. Keeping the uncertainties during these 5 years in mind, we rece==end that the contingencies for these two ite=s be increased to 10 percent. As in the case of subcontract costs, we feel that co'ntingency on subcontract distributables is high and should be lowered to 15%. 30% centingency en any ite= seems extremely high. We reecgnize the uncertanties in this area, but at the sa=e ti=e we feel that sc=e of these uncertainties have been included in the estimate. A 20% contingency vill be more appropriate for this catescry. 3echtel has allowed $10 million as contingency on late adjustments. We reco==end that this be increased to $15 =illica, which is 10% of the esti=ated cost of $150 =illion. Overall, we ree ==end a total contingency of $90 9 =illion as opposed to 3echtel's
$91.L =1111on. In essence, we have =ade some changes within each category but our total contingency cost is approxinctely the same as Bechtel's. lience, we reecm=end that we accept Bechtel's reco==endation of a total conting ney cost of $90 million for this project.
3 In this analysis, we have not tried to include contissency for an/ er -he excluded , items or future scope changes. These items need to be addressed in a separate C foru=, and should be included as Cwner's contingency, if required. Our analy:i vas restricted to Sechtel's contingency only.
,1 4
?
PCAS/ ADS 2/19/80
l 1 1
.-.__c.
n . .n _.w . a i i CLAIC I~d7IA?. E.1T UNITS 1&2 FOP 20AST 6 ESOALATICU AKA1YSIS I The escalatics for Forecast 6 was deter =ined by Bechtel using project centreids and calculated frc: the re;crt euteff date (September 30, 1979) te the various centreid dates for each categerf. The escalatics is not shown separately, but integrated into the ecsts. "he rates used by Bechtel are 9% for 1980 a:d 65 for 1981 and beyond. In order to analyse the escalatics, several assu=pticas were made. "he ce=posite ec=pletion date of July,198h was chosen s1=ce 3echtel does =ct show costs for each unit separately. The ti=e to ec=pletion is 58 =caths frc= cutoff. The centroid of this period is 39 months or 2/3 the time to ec=pletics. *he esti=ated centroid date is Ja=uary, 1983 for calculating escalatics. The go-go costs in-cluding ec=tingency frc= the Forecast is $8L3,000,000. Using 3echtel escalatic rates and back calculating to the cutoff date, ve obtain a cost of $698,L61,000. Using the CPCo corpora.e rates of 9.75% for 1979, 8.5% for 1980 and 81, and 7 5% for 1982 a:d calculating the escala.ics, ve obtain a ecs: of $831,975,000 to go. This is $" ~'mo: less when ec= pared to Sechtel predicted costs. The cost difference of $11 =illic: is =ct significant especially in light of the difficulty in predicting future escalation. Therefore, we recc==end accepting
+he use of 3echtel escala.ic rates for Forecast 6.
I 1 i P AS/03: 2/19/e3 l
A TACE? C T 3 l 1 l Direct Manual Manhours (1,000's) To Date Thr.: Catacerv/Connodity Total December 1979 To Gc 59 Miscellaneous Piping Operations 2,551 1,339 1,212 84 Wire & Cable 1,052 210 842 55 Sr.111 Pipe 1,291 k95 796 82 Conduit & Support 1,339 578 761 61 Mechanical Instru=entatics 717 91 626 85 connections 336 51 285 22 Miscenanecus Iron & Steel kh1 237 20h 25 Architectural Features & Finishes 580 39h 186 51 Irect Large Pipe 907 724 183 56 Non-Process Pipe 27h 118 156 , 87 Miscenaneous Electrical Operations 286 162 12k 81 Electrical Tray & Gutter k83 363 120 52 Weld Large Pipe h30 312 n8 62 Electrical Instrumentation 138 36 102 Subtotal 10,625 5,no 5,715 Other Areas _ 7.087 6,0h1 1.0h6 Total 17,912 n ,151 6,761 DGE 2/18/80 1 1 i
l Direct Manual Manhours ; To Go Analysis ' (1,000*s) To Go To Go Area Manhours' Ware Rate To Go Cost 59 Miscenaneous Piping Operations 1,212 ME $20.k3 $ 2k,767 8h Wire & cable 8k2 2c.15 16,966 55 small Pipe 796 20.L3 16,262 82 conduit & support 761 20.15 15,33h 61 Mechanical Instrumentation 626 20 93 13,102 85 Connections 285 20.15 5,7h3 22 Miscellaneous Iron & Steel 20k 20.0S h,096 25 Architectural Features & Finishes 186 20.08 3,735 51 Erect Large Pipe 183 20.43 3,739 56 Non-Process small Pipe 156 20.k3 3,187 87 l'iscellaneous Electrical Operations 124 20.15 2,h99 81 Electrical '" ray & Gutter 120 20.15 2,h18 52 Weld Large Pipe 118 20.k3 2,k11 62 Electrical Instrumentation 102 20.93 2.135 subtotal 5,715 ME $20.37 $116,39h 9 Other Areas 1,0h6 ME 20.3h 21.276 l Total 6,761 ME $20.36 $137,670
'Arter 12/26/79
- DGR 2/18/80
Manual Machours Tc Go A=alysis (1.CCO's) 59 - Miscella: ecus piping operations. Total esti= ate = 2,551 E . Expended to date through December 1979 is 1,339 E. To go E are 1,212.
"'his accou=t is for 3echtel supplied piping 21/2" and over and includes:
hangers and supports, line testing, penetrations, scaffolding and remote manual valve operaters. plus, the scaffolding for em11 piping and vender supplied piping. The ratio of the manhours booked to this Miscellaneous Operatien's Account to all the other piping accounts during 1979 was .507, ( .507 m to =iscellaneous operations for every E in the other piping accounts). The to go ratio is .97. The increase over actual experience is due to expected installation of hangers (replacing tempora y with per=anent) and future coughed work areas as spaces fill up vith completed work. Sh - Wire and Cable. Total estimate is 1,052 manhours. Expe=ded to date through December 1979 is 210 E. To go-is 8h2 E. l This account is for scheduled power and control cables listed in the circuit l ! schedule. It includes handling, pulling, testing and togging, [ Combining all areas together 2k% of the F/C #6-quantity has been installed to 1 date at a combined unit rate of .082 NE/U. The F/C #6 unit rate is .112 ME/2. (To go UR is .122). Although the to go unit rate is significantly higher than that experienced o date, we cone.u with 3echtel's esti= ate after taking into consideration the continui=g problems of increasing congestion, redesie, and late added ite=s. l
Manuel Marheurs To Go Analysis (lo000's) 2 55 - S=all Pipe. Tetal esti= ate is 1,291 -a +=urs. To date =anheurs
. I through Dece=ber 1979 have bee: h95 vith 796 to go.
7:e small pipe account is for 2" and under 3echtel supplied pipe, including obtaining, cutti=g, threading, velding and installation. Of the over 300 LF of small pipe, 2h0 or 8C% has been designed to date. However, only 21% cf the "q" and hanger critical s=all pipe supports have been designed. So=e of the experience to date is as fo11cvs:
-Auxilia y Building s=all pipe 36 Lf out of 80 total Lf cr 38% has been installed at an average unit rate of 5.319 E per Lf. The to go esti= ate is 9 172 ME per Lf.
-Unit I and II Turbine Building small pipe 35 Lt out of 77 has been installed at an average UR of 2.5 HE per Lt. The to go estimate is 5.15 E per Lf.
"'he current trend ferecast report frc= FOC1'S is indicating a current rate even higher than F/C #6. Therefore, ve believe this estimate should be accepted as is.
82 - Conduit and Support. Total estimate 1,338 =acheurs. To date expended through Dece=ber 1979 is 578 E leaving 760 E to go. This account is for scheduled power and control conduit and supports including handling fro = storage, installing, cc ecting and tagging of conduit, fittings, hangers and pull boxes. 59% of the 555 Lf of exposed =etalie conduit has been designed to date.
'"his account is split into 100 separate areas. Bechtel's FOC"S report indicates physical ec=pletion is Th%. However, culy h3% of the manheurs were expended through the same peried, indicati g they expect ec=pletic: of the last 26% to be e.: a higher rate.
I 1 l Manaal !'.anheurs To Go Analysis (1.000's) 3 l l With expected design changes and rework of existing installations, we cencur vith 3echtel's esti= ate. 61 - Mechanical Instrmentation (Pneusatic). A total of 717 manhours have been esti=ated for this account. 91 have been spe=t to date, leaving 626 to go. This account is for verk associated with mechnaical instrments (as opposed to electrical instr =ents) and includes panel boards, local mounting, piping, tubing, valves, racks, frc= air manifold to the instrment. On a manhour basis, this verk is only 125 complete as of Dece=ber 1979 A quantity analysis for instrmentation was not performed specifically for this forecast but is based en one perfor=ed in early 1979 Since many of the late licensing and TMI related changes involve instrumentation, a reestimate and quantity develop: tent for this area vill be undertaken 1:; the near future. Therefere, we recemmend Bechtel's estimate be accepted as is. 85.- Connections. Total estimate = 336 NE. Expe=ded to date = 51 ME. To go manhours are 285. This account is for power and control vire and, cable connections listed in the circuit schedule. "he unit of measurement is -each con =ection. "he quantity was developed from cable development and to date experience. 59% of the connections havek been designed to date. However, only 155 of the F/C 6 manheurs have bee: expended to date. Summarizing all co=nections together, 57 each out of 375 each (or 15%) have been completed. *he unit rate experienced to date has been .735 ME per Lf. *he F/C #6 unit rate is.897 ME per Lf ( .926 c a to go basis) . This quantity is subject to sc=e variatio as late changes are made. We recc=nend accepting this estimate. M OO l
Manual P.anheurs *c Go Analysis (1,CCO's) L 22 - Miscellaneous Iro and Steel. Octal esti=ated E = LL1. Expended to date = 237 E , leaving 20h to go. This acccunt is for structural type =etals not included in the structural steel account, including stairvsys, access platfor=s, grating, hatch covers , handrail and toeplates, pipe restraints and other. This verk has been divided into 50 different areas spread throughout the esti= ate and is approxi=ately 50% ec=plete. To go unit rates fall closely into line with to date work. However, the trend report is indicating an overrun in this area. We recon::end acceptance. 25 - Architectural Features and Finishes. Total E = 580. Expended to date = 394 E , leaving 166 to go.
"his account is for siding, valis, roofing, =aso=ry work, interior finishes, decrs, painting and fireproofing.
The verk in this area is 78% co=plete. Current verk (per FOCUS) is ru==ing belev the estimate. We reccc: mend acceptance. ! 51 - Erect large pipe. Total estimate is 907 E . 725 E have been expe=ded to date, leaving 182 E to go.
*his account is to erect, line up and tack veld 2 1/2" and over 3echtel supplied steel pipe. Design of large pipe is 99% complete. *his work is divided into 130 separate work areas and is about 87% complete. To go unit rates are generally higher than those experie=ced to date. However, with expected future design changes and ec:gested work areas, this is to be expected. We recom=end acceptance.
56 - Non-Process S=all Pipe. *otal esti= ate = 27h E. Expended to date is 116 E. To go is 156. l
l l Manual Machours To Go Analysis (1,00C's) 5 This is a new account established after F/C #L. The verk is nov considere:i to be 66% ce=plete.
"ne largest si=ple area is " install HVAC = mM pipe." Co=bining all areas together including the turbine buildings, auxiliary building, etc. The total quantity is k0 Lf.
23 Lt (or 58%) has been installed to date. "'he unit rate experienced to date has been 2 96 E per Lf. n e F/C #6 to go unit rate is B.37 E/Lf. The to go unit rate appears to be excessive. BT - Miscellaneous Electrical Operations. Total estimate is 266 E. To date expended is 163 E. To go E are 123 E. This u: count is for scaffolding, etc related to electrical work. Over the past year, the ratio of this account to the total electrical area has been .19h E miseenaneous electrical operations for each electrical E. Se to go ratio is o=1y .05. nerefore, we reco==end acceptance. . 81 - Electrical Tray and Cutter. Total estimated =acheurs are k83. Expended to date has been 363 E leaving 120 to go.
"'his account is for cable tray and gutters frem storage, through prefabrication, installation, labeling, hangers, seismic supports and fireproofing.
On a quantity basis, this account is nearing completion. 85% of the total cable tray quantity has been designed. A look at the largest area, the auxilia:/ building reveals the following:
-Auxiliary building cable tray and fittings 21 Lf out of 25 Lf or Sh% is installed.
The to date UR is 2.h59 E per Lf, but the to go is 6.890 for an overall forecast of 3.162.
/
i l Manual Manheurs To Go Analysis (1,000's) 6 Revork and design changes on already ec=pleted verk vill be expensive due to li=1ted work space. 3ased en the nearness to ec=pletien of this area, we recom=end accepta=ce. 52 Weld Large Pipe. This account has total esti=ated manhours of L30. To date E are 313 E, leaving 117 E to go. Included here are manhours for preheat and production velding of 2 1/2" and over Bechtel supplied steel piping. The accounting for the work has been divided into 130 separate e.reas. FOC'.'5 lists the area as 80% complete. Generally, the Forecast 6 unit rates are higher than the to-date unit rates. *his reflects the lover productivity due to congested areas on finished work, and the rework being experienced which adds to manhours but contributed no quantity. We recom=end acceptance. 62 - Electrical Instraentation (Electronic). "he total estimated manhours are 138. To date E have been 36, leaving 102 to go. t l l Electrical instrumentation is defined as the work associated with installing electronic instruments includir4 panel boards, connections, etc. FOCUS lists this area as 25% complete. 70 E of the above 102 to go E are in the auxiliary building to provide panels, racks, etc for 760 field mounted instraents. As with the pneumatic instraents, many of the late change licensing"and "MI additions involve instraentation. Therefore, ve recommend acceptance of the Bechtel estimate for this area.
--p- , - - . - - - , - - , . , , _ - -_v--- --y-.y --, ---7 -.-,_
,m_.. --
AWAC:-2C ' l (1,0CO's) Dire : Manual I4bor l F/C k to 6 Reconciliation Sumena:y Reason Area Change Quantity Unit Rates E Forw ork 43 ME h3 ME o IE 13 Resteel , 98 62 36 15 Structural Concrete 106 81 25 22 Mis: Iron & Steel 102 (k6) 1h8 25 Arch Features & Finishes 323 323 0 26 F.srthvork/Ba chfill 182 162 2C 29 Other Civil 105 105 0 kl T/GErectica (133) (133) 0 48 Misc Mechanical Eqpt h9 0 kg 51 Irection er large pipe 216 76 1ho 52 Weld large pipe 94 9h 0 55 S:nall pipe kk9 2k2 207 i 56 Non Process Small Pipe 274 274 0 l l 59 Mise Piping Operations 1,247 848 399 i 61 Mechanicai Instru kTO kTO O 62 Ilectrical Instru (82) (82) 0 81 Cable Trey & Gutter 22h 224 0 82 Conduit & Supports 685 694 (10) 83 Unscheduled Cenduit (110) (110) 0 84 wire & Cable k92 433 59 85 Connections ikk 132 12 87 Mise Ele: Oper 186 186 0 Subtotal 5,16h IG k,078 15 1,086 ME Other Changes LO3 Total Change 5,567 Mi
A" Ame.T 5 CI.'lC;;3 DIRECT SU3 CONTRACTS Sumary Sheet Account # Descriotion F/C #4 F/C 46 Variance : 1.0 Reactor & Auxiliaries Unit 1 $ 10. 6 $ 14.2 $ 3.6 Unit 2 11.0 14.1 3.1 Comon 1.0 1.1 .1 Item Totai 22.6 29.4 6.8 l 2.0 Turbine Generator Unit 1 --
. }: 4. &; . 3.7 .. -
Unit - - " " - ~ ~ '"~'"
;-- -'-M
~X -" -
--JP
+-
- 3. 3 -
-'
- 0-
-- ~ ' ' ~
Comon - -
~
Item Tbtal ,
. 6. . 7.6.-
. 7.0 .
3.0 Process Mach Eqpipment . _ . . .. . . Unit 1 -
.5 -- -
.G (.2) -
~
.).,4 .'
Unit 2, ,. . .:. - . .n .v . .-- I.C - - - . Common -
. 4. O'-
G. 3 - 2.3 - Item Total 6.2 8.3 2.1 5.0 civil & Structural Unit 1 6.6 6.8 .2 . Unit 2 7.7 7.9 .2 Common 23.0 30.8 7.8 l, Item Total 37.3 45.5 8.2 6.0 Process Piping & Instr Unit 1 3.4 1.1 (2.3)
. Unit 2 3.4 1.1 (2.3)
Comon 4.0 7.8 3.8 Item Total 10.8 10.0 (.8) 7.0 Yardwork & Misc
. Unit 1 Unit 2 Common 18.1 21.5 3.4 Item Total 18.1 21.5 3.4 ,
All Accounts Total $95.6 $122.5 $26.7
'.ste Changes C0 0257 $25.7 TT SS n- go w- - - -, --,e,,,- - - - , , -
4e -w-,- v ur - -.>- "- -"v ^ > - * ' ' - ----------+---w-e v=-e-
1 DIFICT >*ANUAL LABOR (MAN-HOUR A% LYSIS) l The method used to analyze this area was to compare F/C(/4 input data taken from FOCUS Report #299, Week Ending 10/2/77 and F/C#6 L&bor Forecast Worksheets dated 1/8/80. The total man-hours do not exactly agree with the man-hours shown in either forecast, but are close enough to represent where and why changes occurred between the two forecasts. This method utilizes the category / commodity capability of the FOCUS reporting system and goes in steps from summaries at the highest level to details at the lowest level. A description of what the review turned up follows: TOTAL DIRECT MAN-HOURS (x 1.000) UNIT / TOTAL F/C#4 F/C#6 variance Unic I 2,847 ME 3,265 MH 418 ME i Unit II 3,222 NE 3,591 ME 369 ME Common 6,276 ME 11.056 MH 4,780 MH I l TOTAL 12,345 ME , 17,912 ME 5,567 MH To date M.H. = Through August 1979 T ;L 6 -
// ?-
% v .. e -
UNIT / FACILITY F/C#4 F/C #6 Variance Unit I Turbine 899 Ed 1,265 Ed 376 E Containment 1,524 1,967 443 Cire Watar 20 22 2 Unallocated 413 11 (402) Unit II Turbine 1,179 1,479 300 Containment 1,601 2,066 465 Cire Water 29 31 2 Unallocated 415 14 (401) Ccamon Auxiliary Bldg 3,493 5,969 2,476 Process Steam Evap Bldg 500 1,044 544 Diesel Generator Bldg 230 373 143 Administration Bldg 104 124 20 Cire Water Facility 442 543 101 Dov Structure 0 191 191 Yard Area 748 947 199 Unallocated 758 1,866 1,108 TOTAL 12,345 E 17,912 MR 5,567 E
- ~ '~& ;? - /!- ! .
CATEGORY / TOTAL F/C#4 F/C#6 Variance
- 1. Concrete 3,410 E 3,715 s 305 MH l
- 2. Civil 1,542 2,539 997
- 3. Reactor Related 61 66 5
- 4. Mechanical Equipment 454 424 (30)
- 5. Piping 3,878 6,132 2,254
- 6. Instrument & Controls 467 855 388
- 7. Electrical Equipment 297 352 55
- 8. Electrical Bulk 2,236 3,829 1,593 TOTAL 12,345 MH 17,912 ME 5,567 ME The Bechtel FOCUS Report breaks the Category / Commodity Report into 58 line items for Direct Manual Labor. We have looked at 23 of these items repre-senting 84% of total man-hours and 97% of F/C#6 Variance. Following are our comments on each section reviewed.
l
, rb h=l!= f)
1 Dece:nber=Through 12/23/79
#11 Formwork F/C#4 - 1,081,836 MH's, F/C#6 - 1,124,494 MH's, Variance = 42,568 ME's To Date 1,029,516 Dec 79 1,ch7,ok8 To Go 94,970 77,44o The entire increase can be ctcributed to quantity increases over F/C#4.
Of those accounts reviewed, significant quantity increases were noted in many areas, but due to unit rate reductions the total impact was substantially reduced. If it had not been for an additional 54,437 MH's added to cover Fornwork in the Dov Structure, we would have actually realized an overall reduction of forecasted man-hours in this line item. Recommendation: Accept as is I ( i i . l i l 7 :h l - ! / - h.' 1 l _ - _ - .-,m-- ,~.- ,.-- - _ - - - , _ _ - - - - - , , , , - - - . . . , , - - - - , - - - - - - - - - - -
2
#13 Reinforcing Steel:
F/C(/4 - 1,094,496 E's, F/C#6 - 1,192,795 m's, Variance = 98,299 E 's To Date 1.16h 783 De 1.175.194 Tc Go 2o,01o 17,ool In general, approximately 63% of the total represents quantity increases with the remaining 27*. attributed to unit rate increases. Areas having the most impact because of quantity increases are: Wall & Column Rebar - 35,056 E 's, Wall & Column Cadwelds - 8,021 E 's and Rebar Prefabrication - 9,120 E's. Man-hour increases due to unit rate adjustments accounted for approximately 27% of the total. Those areas representing unit rate changes are: Slab Rebar - 19,474 E's and Dome Rebar - 19,582 E's. Considering that total rebar installation is about 99 complete, we feel that the revised numbers are acceptable. Recommendation: Accept as is
~4 .,
- e'. //. ?'
e _ _ _ __ __ , - - - --,---w e-- " - * ' ' ' ' * '
3 415 Structural Concrete: - F/C#4 - 564,539 E's, F/C#6 - 670,668 MI's, Vnriance = 106,129 E 's To Date 631,3h9 Dec 6h9,L86 To Go 39,319 21,102 Approximately 76% of the total represents unit rate increases with the remaining 24: reflected in quantity increases. Our review revealed that over 50% of all accounts showed increases in unit races. The two most significant were: Wall & Column - 63,536 E 's and Weather Protection up 10,588 E's. Quantity related increases can be attributed to various areas with the most sig-nificant being Duet Bank - 7,689 E's, Slabs - 4,576 E's, Curbs - 4,850 E's and Dow Structure up 2,355 M 's. In general, we feel the changes are representative of present experience. Recommendation: Accept as is m p S. T :.L ;-n- t:
. a k'
s'
#21 Structural Steel:
F/C#4 - 291,588 Mi's , F/Cd6 - 511,423 32's, Variance = 219,835 12's To Date klk.331 Dec h26,h86 To Go 7W c2,^37 Approximately 52% of the above enange can be identified to quantity increases, the remaining 48% reflected in unit rate increases. Quantity increases repre-sented man-hours not included in F/C#4 for Radiation Shielding and Miscellaneous Other Structural Steel. Unit rate increases involved Structural Steel Fra=ing in the Contahments, Turbine Buildings and the Auxiliary Building. la general, with Structural Steel only 88% complete and presently trending at F/C#6 levels, it is our opinion that additional man-hours will be needed in the future. Recommendation: Accept as is but expect increases in the future
- .: X -t:- N
5
#22 Miscellaneous Iron & Steel:
F/C#4 - 338,713 F.d's, F/C#6 - 440,998 :9.'s, variance = 102,235 12's To Date 166,617 Dec 237,17h To Go 25u,3o1 203,c2a in general,100% of the total can be attributed to unit rate increases. A closer look reveals that actual unit race related increases amounted to 147,635 E's only to be offset by quantity decreases totaling 48,877 E 's, leaving a net change of 102,285 E's. The most significant items identified with unit rate increases are Pipe Restraints - 35,853 E's, Hand Rails & Toe Plates - 27,689 E's, Access Platform Support Steel - 26,774 MH's and Support Steel Platforms and Stairs - 25,030 ME's. Quantity changes reflected increases being offset by decreases for a net reduction of 48,877 MH's. The most significant quantity related changes are Pipe Restraints down 132,221 MH's and various other items not included in F/C64 adding 42,280 ME's. Overall, with only 57% of the total Miscellaneous iron & Steel installed and presently trending over F/C#6 at 15", we can expect increases in future forecasts to more accurately reflect current performance. Recommendation: Accept as is, but expect future increases in this area. o
=8 M,
_ ; .. ~ ~ < - -
-- - , , - -,,n-- . . - , , , - + . - - . - . - - - - , , , . , - - - - --.,,.v. -n- - - - - - - - ~ - , -
6 f/25 Arch Feat & Finish: F/C(24 - 257,204 E's, F/C#6 - 580,278 ME's, Variance = 323,074 MH's To Dete 359,hil Dec 39h.200 To Go 22G,co7 ico,07c Our review of this accoant has revealea that significant changes have taken place due to both quantity and unit rate changes, with quantity increases having the most impa c t on the overall increase. Major items impacting this increase are, "New Areas" not previously forecasted - 144,400 MH's, Structural & Miscellaneous Steel Painting - 147,600 MH's, Doors / Frames / Hardware - 48,125 MH's and Shield / Load Bearing Walls - 20,174 MB's. In general, with approximately 79% of the work complete in this area and a present trend of 6: under forecast, it is felt that the unit rates are reasonable and representative of what can be expected through completion. Recommendation: Accept as is t
?- ~ .
T u- ;) . 2- /3- FO - - w - .m g -- . ,%,
-w_.. .--,_.-.----.__.m-.-__- - _,
,,y7..p -9 y-, ,, - , . y -, , - - _ _ - _ ,
7
#26 Eartwk/ Dred /Dewat:
F/0#4 - 152,851 E's, F/C#6 - 335,366 E 's, Variance = 182,515 MH's To Date 223,9h0 Dec 250,oL9 To Go 111,*0o c",717 Approximately 89% of the total represents quantity increases with the remaining 11% reflected in unit rate changes. Areas having the most impact because of quantity increases are: Permanent Plant Dewatering - 61,500 E's, Other Yard Earthwork - 35,357 E 's, Storm & Sanitary Sewer - 17,300 MH's, Backfill - 18,982 MH's, Earthwork (Dow Struc) - 13,780 E's, and Ductbank & Manholes - 12,315 E's. Unic race increases can be identified in two areas: Ductbank & Manholes - 18,025 E's and Plant Area Fill - 5,917 MH's. Recommendation: Accept as is, but expect future increases. l l
.( o I J J~ +-/ :, - 70 l l
o
#29 Other Civil:
F/C#4 - 2,873 IS's, F/C86 - 108,182 13's, Variance - 105,309 E's To Date 6,865 Dec 80,996 To Go 101,317 27,1co The entire increase is'directly related to quantities not forecasted previously. Those items impacting this increase are: Diesel-Generator Settlement - 80,000 E 's, Settlement Other Areas - 16,400 E 's and Aux Building Underpinning - 9,600 E's. Recomendation: Accept as is, but expect future increases e i
, , - - - - ,-- -- -- ,, ,~r - , ,-, - ,, - , , , , , , , , , - ,
9
#41 Turbine Generator Eraction:
F/C #4 - 148,170 MH's, F/C#5 - 13,601 ME's, Variance = (132,369 MH's) To Date 5.732 Dec 7.916 To Go Eco9 @ Work to be performed by suocontractor, requiring a reduction to Bechtel Force' Accounts. t e O Y e e A m \ J <. & - /;q - 70 l '
I c 10
#48 Mise Meeh Eqpt:
F/C#4 - 80,439 MH's, F/C#6 - 129,27319:'1, Variance - 48,834 MH's To Date 67,811 Dec 73,826 To Go ol,ac2 53,as7 Of those accounts reviewed, unit rate increases impacted the total change to the greatest extent. One account, Eqpt Stor & Maint reflected an increase of 28,540 MH's while various other accounts showed increases, but of a significantly lesser amount. Recommen'.ation: Accept as is but expect future increases a #
's F,
*s *
\'
V Y
/ ,1 v, -
4 as J J <S- 2-13 -?C b > -
r 4 11
#51 Erection Large Pioe:
F/C#4 - 691,304 E 's, F/C#5 - 907,423 E's, variance = 216,119 's!'s To Date 666.928 Dec 72h.667 To Go 240,495 1c2,55o , our analysis of this line item has identified approximately 98: of the total i variance between forecasts, with 65: being productivity related and 35 quantity related. This increase, by facility, can be identified in the following manner: Aux Bldg up 141,200 E's, Dow Structure up 29,241 E 's, Turbine #1 up 18,529 E's, Containment #2 up 18,053, Evap 31dg up 16,440 E's, Yard Area down 38,829 E's and the remainder spread over the other facilities. A closer look at the individual accounts reflecting unit rate increases reveals that 2 -4 Piping up 74,881 E 's, 6-8 Piping up 37,586 E's, 10-14 Piping up 19,731 E's, 16-18 Piping up 12,176 E's and the remainder spread over the 20 & Greater Piping. Quantity related increases are as follows: 2h-4 Piping up 39,670 E's, 10-14 Piping up 12,911 E 's, 16-18 Piping up 11,263 E 's, 30 & Over up 10,432 E's and 6-8 Piping up 9,112 E 's. i In conclusion, with Erection of Large Pipe approximately 87 complete and l trending a 2% overrun at this time, we feel that the impact of design changes and congested work areas will continue to escalate the cost in this area. I i Recommendation: Accept as is, but expect future increases l I l l i l { l-
- , - - . ., .- = , . - ,, _ - _- - ,.__ - - . , . . - - . . _ . - - , . . , - , - , - - . . - . , , _ , - . -- -
12
#52 Welds Larne Pice:
F/Cir4 - 336,306 E's, F/C#6 - 430,357 E's, varictuce 04,051 E's To Date 273,513 Dec 312.757 To Go 150,044 117,000 Our analysis of this area has identified approximately co% of the total variance, with the total change being quantity related. This increase, by facility, can be broken down in the following manner: Aux Bldg up 37,575 E 's, Evap Bldg up 15,145 E's, Turbine #1 up 13,995 E's, Dow Structure up 12,049 E's, Containment #2 up 11,371 E 's, Containment #1 up 8,602 E 's and the remainder spread over the facilities. Individual accounts reflecting quantity increases are: 2 -4 Welds up'42,985 E 's, 6-8 Welds up 26,207 E's,10-14 Welds up 14,504 E's,16-18 Welds up 9,853 E's and the remainder spread over 20 & Larger Piping.
~
In conclusion, with Welds approximately 82: complete and trending at 4% over forecast, we feel that the impact of '.asign changes and congested work areas will continue to escalate future cost. Recommendation: l Accept as is but expect future ' increases l l l l 1 l l l i I TI- 5-/370 l l l
~
13 1 55 Small Pine: F/C#4 - S41,760 E's, F/Cf 6 - 1.290,811 E's, 7 ::'. luce = 40,151 ' H's To Date 365,530 Dec h95.266 To Go 925,201 795,545 Our analysis of this area has icentified approximately 982 of the total variance. l with approximately 54 being quantity related and 46% productivity or unit rate re related. By facility, the man-hour increases were distributed in the following manner: Aux Bldg up 238,664 MH's, Evap Bldg up 71,076 MH's, Turbine #2 up 60,345 MH's, Turbine #1 up 35,925 MH's, Containment #2 up 19,941 MH's, Yard Area up 11,046 MH's, Containment #1 up 7,883 MH's, Diesel Generator Bldg up 2,031 MH's and the Circulating Water Facility showing a reduction of 5,389 MH's. Quantity increases were impacted the most by 2-CS All Sched up 81,509 MH's and-2-SS S10-40 up 176,044 MH's. Unit Rate or productivity increases were a result of 2-CS All Sched up 86,327 ME's, 2-SS S10-40 up 89,611 MH's and 2-SS S80-160 up 24,391 MH's. *
- In conclusion, with Small Pipe approximately 53% complete and trending about 7%
under forecast, we feel that the current forecast is reasonable but extremely vulnerable to design changes requiring continuous revision work. t Reconnendation: Accept'as is, realizing that the potential for further increases are very realistic. 7 Th -t2-i.>
lh i'56 Non Process Small Pice: F/C#4 - 0 Mi's, 7/C45 - 272,537 23's, variance = 273,650 MH's To Date LOO.h00 Dec 118.001 To Go 173,250 155,o49 This increase represents a major shift of all Non-Process Small Pipe from the uriginal Non-Process Piping Account. Recommendation: Accept as is i n e O am A
.~/;m r ) , n . '
15
#59 Miscellaneous Picine Ooerations:
F/C#4 - 1,304,184 M':'s 7.':J: - 2 337,003 T.:'s , variance = 1. 2a : . ?'". 1:'s To De e 1,177,589 Dec 1,338,608
'To Go 1,373,31o 1,212,297 Based on our anilysis, we nave cetermined that approximately 68% of the total increase is productivity related and 32 is quantity related. This increase, by facility, can be broken down in the following manner: Aux Bldg up 561,771 MH's, Turbine #1 up 171,162 MH's, Turbine #2 up 131,258 MH's, Dow Structure up 113,941 ME's, Containment #2 up 106,548 MH's, Evap Bldg up 84,960 ME's and the balance spread over the remaining facilities.
Individual accounts reflecting unit rate increases are: Hangers & Supports up 493,373 MH's, Pipe Scaffolding up 125,417 MH's, Miscellaneous Labor Operations up 116,153 ME's, Line Testing up 77,218 MH's and the balance to Flued Heat Installation. Quantity increases were identified in the following areas: Pipe Scaffolding up 186,973 ME's, Miscellaneous Labor Operations up 163,675 MH's and Hangers & Supports up 70,167 MH's. I 1 1 1 In conclusion, with Miscellaneous Piping Operations reported at 64% complete and presently trending 1% over F/C#6, it is apparent that significant overruns are f orthcoming. Design changes, hangers and support placement problems and piping revision work all compound the overall problem in. identifying future cost. Recommendation: Accept as is, but expect future increases f" ,9 'l - # u- h
16
#61 Mechanical Instrumentation:
i F/C#4 - 246,923 MH's, F/C#6 - 716,883 ME's, variance = 469,960 MH's To Date 65.h69 Dec 91.042 To Go c51,71* c25,c41 Our analysis of this area 'has revealed t;2at the entire increr.se can be attributed to major quantity increases. These increases, approximately 52" over F/C#4, would have been significantly larger, but unit rate reductions on various items reduced , the total by around 370,000 MH's. Itama showing the most significant quantity increases are: Seismic Racks up
- 339,600 ME's, Standard Racks & Supports up 165,500 MH's, SS Single Tube Weld up i
111,749 MH's, Seismic Tube Track up 92,878 MH's and Leakchase Tube up 50,123 MH's. In conclusion, with only 19% of the forecasted quantities installed, we do not feel Bechtel has had enough exposure in this area to arrive at any firm projections at this time. Based on past perfor: nance, we feel that future adjustments are forthcoming as the scope of work is more accurately defined. ! Recommendation: Accept as is
)
)
I
=*
g f- tf- r2 l 7~a'~ h- ;
~
17
#62 Electrical Instrumentation:
F/C#4 - 220,060 MH's, F/C#6 - 138.521 ME's Variance = (81,539 MH's)
, To Date 30.980 Dec 36,138 l To Go 107,5*1 1C2,3o3 Major reason for the reduction of man-hours in this area is due to the transfering of man-hours into the Mechanical Instrumentation Accounts. l l
Recommendation: Accept as is i
- 34 1-15-i:
16
#f 81 Cable Trav & Gutt:
F/C#4 - 259,364 ME's. /L ' - 4:2 .'30 '!H's, Variance = 222.516 MH's To Date 335,557 Dec 363,261 To Go 147,423 119,719 Quantity increases account for 100* of the total change in this area. Those items having the greatest impact are: Seismic Tray Hangers up 143,331 MH's, Wireway (not previously forecasted) up 61,200 MH's and Cable Tray and Fittings up 29,579 MH's. Presently this line item is reported as being 97* complete and trending at 1" under forecast, but we are of the opinion that additional quantities / man-hours will be needed to meet the revised cable requirements. Further, it should be noted that the cost for any additional tray or revision work will be extremely expensive because of the limited space available. Recommendation: Accept as is, but expect future increases l t -
- ~ -
e - la_- _; t .
I 19 I
#82 Conduit & Supports:
F/C#4 - 652,850 MH's, F/CJ6 - 1,337,951 MH's, Variance = 685,101 MH's To Date h88,3hh Dec 578.h95 To Go e49,coi 759,45o Approximately 99% of the total variauce nas been identified through our review of this line item. Unit rate reductions reflected a 10,000 MH decrease only to be offset by quantity increases requiring an additional 694,000 MH's for a net increase of approximately 684,000 MH's. Individual accounts having the most impact on the overall increase are: Seismic Conduit Hangers up 295,200 MH's, Rigid Metal Conduit up 146,472 MH's, Rigid Metal Cond Ib-? up 90,623 ME's, Metal Pull Boxes 12 & Larger up 86,968 ME's, Rigid Metal Conduit 1 & Under up 68,370 ME's and the remainder spread over various other account's. In conclusion, with Bechtel reporting 76%. complete and a 2: trend underrun, we feel that potential cost overruns are probable. Our reasons for this conclusion are as follows:
- 1) Increased Wire & Cable projectdion
- 2) Design Changes
- 3) Rework of existing installations.
Recommendations: Accept as is, but expect future increases i " "'" r e a ~ '- . - /C~. p 1
2C
#83 Unscheduled Conduit:
F/C#4 - 306,091 E's, F/C#6 - 195,915 2's, variance = (110,176 E's) To Date 9h,945 Dec 101,669 To Go 100,970 94,24o Overall, quantity reductions in most every account was the main reason that man-hours decreased in this area. Lighting, Communications and Plant Security Conduit are three items having the most impact, with Plant Security Conduit accounting for approximately 45,000 E 's of the overall reduction. Further, it should be noted that this reduction actually represents a transfer of man-hours to the 9Z or Unallocated area. Reconnendation: Accept as is. 4
,b w w e 6, ,b g %
e _ _ , _ _ , . _ , , * '- ~
"" ~
l 21
#84 Wire & Cable: _
l F/C#4 - 559,432 MH's, F/C#6 - 1,051,750 E's, Variance = 492,318 ME's l Approximately 88% of the total variance is quantity related and 12 unit rate related. The majority of the changes due to quantity increases were reflected in the following areas: Special Wire-Ther:noccuple up 250,204 MH's, Wire & Cable 600/1000V MC&T #6 and Larger up 40,040 MH's. One area, Wire & Cable MC&T #6 and Larger accounted for 58,960 ME's of the total increase due to unit rates. In summary, we are in agreement with the unit rate increase identified above, but have some reservations on the extent of additional quantities included in this forecast. Reconnendation: Accept as is, but we could experience some reduction in quantities and also some improvement in unit rates through more efficient work operations. l l l .. ..
~-
, T - k. s -
^
.;o -g.
t
l 22 l l
#85 Connections:
F/C#4 - 192,585 E's, F/C#6 - 336,444 E's, Variance = 143,859 E's l Of the total increase, approximately 92 is quantity related, with the remaining 8: representing unit rate increases. Quantity increases were made up of changes in the f ollowing areas: Instrumentation Wire Connections up 142,961 E's, 600V #8 & Smaller up 123,450 E 's and 60'0/1000V Connections down 115,200 E's. One area, 600V #6 & Larger reflected a significant unit increase accounting for an additional 21,167 E 's. In summary, we are not alarmed at the increases identified in this area, but based on the extent of Electrical Design to date and only 26* of the forecasted quantities installed, we feel the potential for future adjustments are very probable. Recommendation: ( Accept as is, but expect adjustments in future forecasts. 1 i Depending on the magnitude of Wire & Cable needed, this
.could go either direction.
I 2 35h :-i% 20 k l l l
, _-._ . .-. - = _ . _ - - -
..?-..
~
23
#87 Miscellaneous Electrical Operations:
F/C#4 - 100,000 MH's, F/C#6 - 286,447 MH's, Variance = 186,447 MH's Originally, this account was based on a percent of total project conpletion, but due to the problems of tracking man-hours in this manner, it was decided to remove this account from the Unallocated Category and open accounts for i each facility. With this change, man-hours are now based on the total direct electrical man-hours for each facility. In conclusion, we are in agreement with this change and feel that through the improved capabilities of monitoring these man-hours, better control should be madntained in the long run. Recommendation: Accept as is, but expect the same type of changes in this area as are experienced in the other electrical accounts. l l l l l
. . . _ . - _ . - . ~ . , _ . . - . _ . . _ - - _ . _ , . . . _ , . , , _ . - , . _ . . _ . . _ , . - . _ _ , _ _ . _ . _ - _ _ _ _
l ACCOUNT 1.0 REACTOR AND AUXILIARIES
- The major portion of the $6.8 Million subcontract. cost increase projection in this account is attributable to the NSSS Erection Subcontract. This subcontract increased from a $19.5 Million projection in Forecast #4 to its current figure of $26 Million.
This $6.8 Million increase is comprised of many major work items not included in
~~
B&W's original scope and now-becoming r tently enough 'da**ned. for preparation of . ~~. .*~ -
.._...7..-..--. . . . . . - _ -- ._
~
price estimatess -' "' - - ~- " '
~
. -~y -
.. .-..- . -;_ l-i-i I) Addition to .B&L'*s scohe'of~ tE'J.uel'TransfatSystes.i .
~
~.'"2. M
_ _ _ _ , .~_... - - - , __, ,_. 3 - g--
- 2) Pricing estimates 'on.-Eangers, Supports,' Snubbers'. and Restraints -
/..
.. 'a .:9 u ~
- 3) Considerable amounts of Field Changes due to Engineering or Client requirements such as , Steam Generator Handholes, Vent Valve Modification, Reactor Coolant Pump Motor Spacer Blocks, etc. There are approx 1=ately 150 such verk items under consideration at this time, the bulk of which will require work to be performed by B&W.
- 4) B&W Construction Company support to the Preservice Inspection Team.
ACCOUh'r 2.0 TURBINE GENERATOR The $6.9 Million increase forecasted in this account is the result of subcontracting Turbine-Generator Erection. This work had been handled as a Force Account ite= in
- previous forecasts, with the previously estimated manhours now being remc.ried from ,
. the Bechtel Field Labor.
7.55 A -//- to .
l ACCOUNT 3.0 PROCESS MECHANICAL EOUIPMEh*r
- The major factor for the $2.2 Million increase in this accoun: is the S1.9 Million increase in sub-account 3.19, Miscellaneous Equipment Insulation. The S.8 Million original estimate was a conceptual past-plant-requirement type of number based on limited equipment design and a now outdated pricing structure. The Forecast 6 estimate is based on current pricing, better defined equipment types, sizes and numbers, and current requirements in acoustical and temperature limitations.
...a._. '
.-. . . .~,. . .... .
. . .a .. - -.
- :.[
. . _ . I-ACCOUNT 5.0- CIVIL &-STRUCTURAL
- The total projected increase ..... - >
of $8.3 Mt114on in subcontract costs'in this Civil'. S . ~-
~
. .. . . y ~_m.
. . . . 3. 7.::
and Structural Account ,k. broken down.. as ,follows: . ._ . . . . . . . . -
. . .. . . . . . , , , . . . .. . .. ..... - - . - :.r.= ~
- 1) Account 5.135 - Ttmocrarv Piling & Dewaterint ~ ~~~ '
An estimate of $.7 Million is made for this work activity necessitated as a " soils fix". . .
~
- 2) Accounts 5.16, 5.18, 5.20 and 5.21 - Turbine Elda. Containment.
Auxiliary Blda & Misc Structures Services Respectivelv This increase must be handled as an entity along wit.h Ac. count 5.26 which will be explained later. At the time the Zack Subcontract for HVAC was changed from Unit Price to T&M, Bechtel removed all labor funding from individual facilities to an unallocated account. Material was left allocated to facility. When labor is paid, it will be removed from the unallocated fund to a facility allocation. The total increases in these accounts which is attributable to HVAC ,
, is approximately $10.3 Million, a figure which corresponds to the previously granted Change Order issued to Zack. While it appears that a disproportionate amount of this increase ($7 Million) appears - "#
'T S e 2 -h - D .
.- ,- , ..~_..,_ ..._._ ,,,_..y .,_, _ _ _ . . . _ .., ., .,,,.-____.,..,__.,___.,,,.m_ _ . _ _ . , . . . _ , . . . . . . _ . . , _ _ _ _ _ . . . _ _ . . _ . _ _ _
I in the Auxiliary Building, this figure represents both the Auxiliary . Building Material plus the unallocated hciding account for the entire 1 HVAC Labor.
- 3) Account 5.26 - Process Steam Evaoorator Superstructure & Services Approximately $1.5 Million of the $3.9 Million decrease in subcontract costs on this facility is due to the previously mentioned change in the handling of funding for HVAC. The balance is a Subcontract decrease-Force Accoune increase -.resulting-from Force Account-erection.-of-structural-- ..
. ~.. :
steel,.vich the subcontract estimate subtracted here and the actual. man- - -
.. ., . . :: : :. ... ....e. . :. . . .
-- ~
' hour cost adde # re..Bechtel Field Labor. - -- - .
- c ;.-
- 4) Account 5.19 - Paintinst. *
~~
This also will be a S.9 Million Subcontract decrease-Force Account increase brought about by the early termination of Subcontract A-15. This termina-tion was necessitated by the many " holds" and changes which in turn 9ould, cause delays or demobilization-remobilization of the painting subcontractor. Estimated Bechtel Field Labor vill be increased to accommodate this work. l ACCOUNT 6.0 PROCESS PIPING & INSTRUMENTATION l I The $.8 Million reduction in subcontract is not an actual reduction but a change in the reporting of the accounts. In Forecast #4, I-Ray was named as a separate cate-gory at the bottom of the "6" Series but did not have its own Sub-account Number. In Forecast #6, the X-Ray category of $1.2 Million has been deleted, showing as a reduction in Account 6.0. A new Sub-Account, 6.00, has been established at $.8 Million to cover I-Ray costs involved in the Process Piping Accounts, s,howing as an increase. The balance of the previous X-Ray funds are shown as small increases in Accounc 9Z5.00, Large Pipe ($42,000), Accounts 1C5.03599.and.2C5.03599, Ta.sts including I-Ray ($110,000 each), and Account OZ72.42. I-Ray for Welding Test ($153,000). While this causes an
'f55 2-//- D 2 __ . - - . - _ = = - _ - _ . . : ---_ - - - . - _ . - - _
Account 6.0 Process Piping & Instrumentation (Contd) . apparent S.4 Million reduction in Account 6.0, net effect on total. Project is a virtual wash. The balance of the Account 6.0 " reduction" is caused by charging advance payments for insulation material stored on site to.a Stock Material Account. As the material is removed from stock and installed, funding is shif ted from the Stock Material Account to the appropriate Direct Account. ACCOUNT 7.0 . YARDWORK 6- MISTED.XNwud r. This $3.4 Million increase fs Iocated - -
- - ...fn tfiree.smafor areas.".. Kccount -7.01..ySite-.._ .
Preparation, has been increased.by .S2,.7.Millio6 to allow for " son's fix" work.. -- .-- .%
. . . . .7 ,
Account 7.10, Dams, Dikas AReservoirs. has.been,increasei by..$.5. Million: to provEepw. . for possible repairs tot the rip-rap fac5hg on:the. dikes. Account 7.14,'Special t . .
~~~- ~
Plant Facilities, has been increased by $.4 Million to cover the costs of the Subsidence and Groundwater Monitoring Programs. While this last item is basically complete and costs are c.ertain, the first two containing the largest funding are, at best, educated guesses in light of the many unknowns involved. l r t . 4 e
. :; a . y .
l l (
"G -c" 3 9 -// - @v 6
. .. j
\
. l
. , _ _ _ . - _ . - . , _ . . - - - - - - . . T, * ~. ~ ~ ~AT-,
~ ~ --i------- - - - - - - ~ ~ - - ~ - - - - - ~ ~ - - - - ~
A""ACICC".' 6 0:.c"".G-"A7I MAIJA1 LA2 ? In general, total =an-heurs in this area have increased by approximately 58% or 2,597,5L 6 =an-hours . Fonoving is a con 2arison, by forecast, of each individual account. To-Go Area 1.000 Man-Heu s Ven-Hou s Ferecast L Ferecast 6 Chance 9110 Tenporar.r Building h5 1ho 176 36 9120 Road / Parks /laydown h6 75 133 58 9150 Const:uction Utilities 388 697 1008 2n 9160 Mise Te=porary constr 65 2ch 2L9 L5 9170 Te=pora y Work Area 3ays 9 50 h3 (7) M0_ . Concrete Batch Plant
. 23 0 28 y 28 9210 Cleanup 557 653 1038 385 9220 Scaffolding L7 185 153 (32) 9230 Material Eandlins L32 618 1026 LOS 92ko Warehousing h07 269 672 h03 9250 Maintenance of Tools and Eqai;=ent 289 3h1 60 5 26L 9260 Welders Test / Training 39 '112 128 16 9270 Unanocated Senice Labor 21h 207 L13 206 9281 Manual suney L9 98 81 (17) 9282 Watch =en and Ouards 18 h7 55 8 9283 shovup and voting 120 1 69 259 90 9285 Manual Engineering 30 8 62 sk 9288 On and Off Expenses 5 36 39 3 J290_ Weather and Stor: Related 122 176 328 .1
--.52 9320 Site Reactivation 0 66 66 0 9330 De=cbilize/Re=cbilice o n n 0 93ho Storage / Reconditioning 0 3 13 E 9530 sta:.up 318 321 3 21 0 95ko Tempora y startup Work-arounds 99 0 107 107 9550 Tenporary Startup -
Operations 12 0 30 30 9561 Piping Instanatien 3 0 5 5 9562 r eetrical Tests 17 0 17 17 9570 client Requested change . 20 0 20 20 y h,k86 7,086 . 2,600
2 Eased 0: car analysis we can cc tribute 215 cf the increase to productivit;- cr unit rating changes and 79% to gaantity changes. Unit rate increases were most =ctable in the =iscellaneous constructice services area with varehousing up 280,560 =an-hours, =aterial handling up 130,877 cn anocated service later up 113,016 =an-heurs, =aintenance of tools and equi;=ent up 111,n8 =cs-hours and clea ap up 92,399 =an-hours. Quantity related increases vere =0s evident is the fclieving areas, construction utilities up 312.12h =an-heurs, cleanup up 292 h01 =an-heurs. =aterial handling up 276,723 =an-heurs, =ainte=ance of tools and eqai;:=ent up 152,682 =an-heurs and waretcusing up 120,hho =an-heurs. Overall, in a atte=pt to evaluate these increases, the use of Nove=ber 1979 d:1Lft schedule curves do not provide a proper distribution of manpower levels for the re=aining &aration of the Project. With this in =ind, we have atte=pted to lock at the increases frc= a general overview and te anticipate what can be expected in future =caths. Presently, distributable trend overruns can be attributed to the foncving areas:
=iscellanecus te=perary constructio=, scaffolding, =aterial handling, shev-up time and =a=ual engineering assistance.
We are of the opinion that with the recent =anpower reduction, this should provide l fer = ore. efficient verk operation in general and fewer distributable =an-hours vill be reTaired in sup;crt of direct =an-hours. I In conclusion, we anticipate that the recent =anpower reduction vin prc=ote a =0re efficient work operation, therefore, offsetting the present trend overrun. Based on this assumption, we reccc=end accepting this forecast as is. Pending a furtter I review of the revised manpower curves to be provided by Bechtel at a later date. l R ee e==er:dat iens Accept as is, i I 7JB 2/ 22/80 _ . _ _ . _ _ . . . . . - - .m. . , . . . _ , - - _ . - . . _ _ . . ___. . . . . . _ - . - . _ . _ , . . _ - . . . - . _ -
A CA0E C ~2 7 Non-??.anual Laber: In general, total =anhou s in this area have increased by apprcxi=ately 60% or 3,269,700 G's. Following is a ce=parisen, by forecast, of each individual account. Area - 1,000 ?G 's F/C *h F/C # 6 ' Chance 1 Supervisicn 536 838 3C2 56 Field Engineering 2,99h 5,690 2,696 90 First Aid / Medical / Safety 97 191 9h 97 F1d Frecurement 273 522 2h9 91 Ad=inistration 1,392 1,312 ' (80) (6) Surreying 1h5 155 10 7 Subtotal 5,h37 8,708 3,271 Late Change 0 530 530 Total 5,h37 9,238 3 ,801 Reasons for non-=anual =a= hour increases between F/C #h and 6 included:
- 1. The i= pact of the QA/QC require =ents developed because of past proble=s (ie, missing rebar) was not fully recognized at F/C #h.
- 2. Werk taken over by the Field Non-Manual orgn=1:ation (fabricatien of hangers ,
small pipe design, etc) adds to =anpever requirements.
- 3. The build up of shiftverk requires a corresponding build up in non-manual.
- h. The overvhel=ing change that out-weighs all of the above is the change in schedule necessitating the non-=anual staff to stay on the job for a longer duration of time. The following =anpower level by year ce=parison de= castrates this effect.
I Manceve- Levels - Bv Year l Year F/C #L F/C #6 P4/ Late Change) Changa 1979 560 700 1ho 1980 k00 630 230 1981 200 620 L20 1982 30 51 0 L80 1983 0 koo h00 198L 0 200 200 1985 0 25 25 l Based on our analysis, we can attribute 26% of the increase to productivity er : unit Iste changes and Th% to quantity changes. Unit Rate increases were =ainly ! effected by two areas: Field Engineering and Ad=inistration. Quantity increases j vere reflected in the Field Engineering, Ad=inistraticn and Supertisien areas . 1 l
- - - . _ ~ w - . - - ----w w--ye-w-e v--- y - w-----e-
2 i l 1 Overall, in an atte=pt to evaluate the individual acccunts hav1=g the =cs; i= tact ' c the change, it should be Octed that a portion of the engineering incre(se 'anc be attributed to a shift in =a:pover levels between Engineeri=g and Ad=inistratics. Previously, =ost all ad=inistrative personnel vere assigned to the Administratic: Depart =ent, nov Bechtel has attepted to shift personnel to their responsible work areas , in this case =cre clerical perscenei are reflected in the Engineering Depa-t=ent. In conclusic'n , we feel that to =eaninghlly evaluate this area more accuratA
=arpower cu.mres =ust be provided to better enable us to detex=ine Sture =a:pver l evels . The curves provided, represe=t the November 1979 draft schedule, and therefore do not reflect the proper =a= ing structure. It is our opinics, based c: recent actic=s, that the lion-Manual force in general vill be reduced in the near future. If this happenc , then an overall reductics of forecasted =a:-bours can be expected. But, if =anpover levels reain the sa=e, the ove.C increase as a percentage of direct =angvers has increased by approxi=ately 5%. Sis increase can be mainly attributed te a require =ent for increased su:-teilla=ce, by engineeri g, of onscing construction.
Recc==endation: Accept as is, pe= ding our review of revised =aryver curves unen they becc=e available. [ I i 4 I i i i l
l A . t
.' e. _ . . . = = = = * *
- t
,e A - *-
* .,u,. ====7 i
- y (' */ %' g' h' , o$
p h , sWe( . na h i . I ' I i i f ' i e ' l}7]0 e 4 ; i q R%,w $ p 4 : r
. . . , i i i ,
ii.! ; i i i!
. i i i i ;
. i i i i ~i i i ! . . ' I I I t . .
i . . i i lw3 e4 8 i . -* fkT$'Q iii - . i . i i:.
! i i i i i : . I i i r i .
,iii;iii i t i i iiii 6 i i
!i '
l El :{ - ll3 % %i i .
> !'t i ! l I!!
i p9_x_.a._u m ti>>>l
> . . . . i i i i ' ' ' > ' ' i l l ' ' ' ' ' l l ' I t i
i ! i t i i i i i i i i Y T nx m v,. :nsve., all. h s l I I i i i t i i I i i nN .y. it i , ,a ,i,i.iii (
. . . . i ! i i i t I i i
,, i i f a l i i i e i i it i i i i t i : i 6 i i i i f I i i l ! I l l I I ( l l I l l I I h^ l } l I i l l l l l l I l l t I I I l l l l l : I I I l I I I l l 1 9 e Ii!t! it i6 t ili ii ii ii It ii et it !i t' !i Ii Ii ii ii it !i li Ii Ii Ii it lII!i I1I I t i . i 6
! t % ' D k) . )1i i, i l iiie ! l I i i l I i I I 1 i i i ! l I I iiI t ! l L 1 l l I l 1 l i i i l i l I l4 4 2 '. 1 I i eii
; g iug g-i;iiie i eI i i i l l l I I I i i ii i it i i i i ; , e i i i i :
il i % -S-%%%4t*;;'
--)- 4 Wis.Y Wssssssv E-W W-k l l i,
; lllll';;;llllll l t i s i l l i s l i i l l i lll
, , 1 I ,
_2* t3..i 2 St Q,2 i i 2t ';2I ie i : t t i i i i i l I i I f I I i l i
'M 9 9. 3 $ 9 I I I l i I I t i I I I I l I s
i
+ n**w** i s. oss*
i .y i _hy g_g.g. h,, N, l l l l l l ; ; I t l l l 1 y a i . ,,, ,, s . is p .>sat w_ w. > e V, m e [ .# 6 il i ~ t S' i i ssiiiiiiiie i i i i l i - i i i i t i . 5 i i l i t i t I ( l I t 1 i (
,,) . 5 iit i i I i ) i a i l I i i l i f f I 1 l 3 1 4 ( I I l a i ! i l I t I l l i l '
I l l l t ' I i i I l 4 i i i l 1 I
% i ) i ! t i i i l i t i i l 8 I i i i g N t i i t 6 i l i
- t i 1 I e i l i l i e i l i i i i t 1 I i i i i i 4 l 1 i I i i i>in>e i i i i i i .
i , i i i i i i i 1 i w i i i
- 4' 14 i Q lIgm) f I i i I i i 1 1 I l
ss i a : q b e .e i i l a ! # : I l i i g i iiiT ! .T I ! l i l e i i i i i l I i i i i i N' t i I i < l l I i i l ) l hqw . i .. f.
.,. ,' ,,i
.. . . . . i . ,,! i sil i ,
/f . ,O i R I % 'l 'l 'l 'i 'i ' I I i l t i i i i i l i i
~
l '. s R R! t 1 I i i ' i t t t } }
= l I i l I i i t i i l ( l l j l ) i I I i
_a a y_0,y_2a.,'is,,t i s , i , i l , , , , , , , , , ,
)
_} Q, t: *_F y., s v, - 1 9, 0 0 4. :' O I i i 1 i i g 9 4 't i i t . i i I
'i 'i *: 'i ! i i l i ! ! i i i i e i i i p
} i
. 5' t t %'
t i i 6 i e i i i l i i e iS ! I i 1 .% IiI eI iQt i i i ii i i I ( l I i t t i i i 3 i ig i i f i I I I i t i 6 1 l t i i i l l I
] ;
l i t R ,i i i n l i1iit] I I i i t i i ) i i t i I t i _*ti ) >%y_i 113 9 i l l l l l 1 l l l l l t t_ if it N i!jC() i i
% ll t gf,;f1
- i s l I i i t i 8 I I t i i t i t'* jC l t t } l 1 i il I I I l I f
, ic !
q i g_4 _'{.1 4i ' i
> t .
7 w> ~n4 s* U l_1y
- d4 iiii i i .
i i i i i i it-
--t-h=+-tq i i i . i i j -
s- ' '
.iii: i i l'
- k..% *h}--h le k
.U 4
i _m +
. % 9=
9 __x w __ .c , #. =i. l
, s l Il! i [ ....,, -
k;t 3
- 2. k ,
Yb $ . ~t$N' Wh.i i i,,
~ 4 ) l l t i e .
i I I i ; i i 1 --
) l i i i le l E_
4._.M.S.h.M
? .tc-tcw Q Q._'.h ' 8 ii' a a i it ti i i i i i ' k--- 8 ' '
;y ; 14 :s _ 3".R.4 ' %.2* m3 l I e 1iI i :i. ;-
8
.. ... .-._-. =
.~...
A':"!ACFXI:.T 6 DISTRIBUTABLE CONSTRUCTION COSTS - INVOLVING SUBCONTRACTS (70-Series Accounts) ACCOUNT NO. DESCRIPTION F/C #4 F/C #6 VARIANCE 71.0 Temporary Construction Facilities S 3.8 S 4.5 S . 7 72.0 Misc Construction Services 3.5 6.0 2.5 73.0 Const Eqpt, Tools, Supplies and 2.5 7.0 4.5 Utilities 74.0 Field Office Costs .2 28.7 28.5 78.0 State Taxes - . 2- .5 . 3 79.0 other Distributable Field Costs _
.5 .5 I
$ 10.7 $ 47.2 S 36.5 Late Charge 2.6 2.8 50.0 39 3 All Dollars shown in Millions .
e l 755 2-//- fo _ _ = . - _ - __~s-.y-m._,___,.-.-- .-,-_,,,._,_9 ,-Y--tew'M+- - - -- re- -Y w '=v --w ' -"W 'T- e *-V -"we- - 9 ev7-- =y w- ---~'-'r--T*--'"-'*N*--- - - '- - - - --'
ACCOUNT 71.0 Temocrarv Construction Facilities - This S.7 Million increase is scattered throughout the account with the bulk ($.5 Million) in Account 71.1 Temporary Buildings. This increase is basically complace and expended and results from the additional trailers and office areas required plus minor overruns in , I other tempor.iry building construction costs. 1 ACCOUNT 72.0 Miscellaneous Construction Services - This $2.5 Million cost increase is found primarily in Accounts 72.9 at $1.9Eillion increase and Account 72.6 at $.4 i Million increase. Account 72.9, Testing of all Materials, is.merely a transfer of a formerly direct subcontract, C-206, into a distributable " holding" account. As payments are made, they will be charged back against the appropriate direct account. Account 72.6, Unallocated Service and Labor, reflects an increase in the cost of the subcontracted janitor service due to the extended schedule. ACCOUNT 73.0' Construction Equinment. Tools. Supplies & Utilities - The entire increase projected in this account, $4.5 Million, falls in sub-eccount 73.13, Third Party Equipment Operated and Maintained. This increase railects both increased equipment requirements as well as the entended schedule. ACCOUNT 74.0 Field Office Costs - The $28.5 Million increase in this account is due to an increase of $28 Million in " Job Shopper" costs to perform engineering, Account 74.2. This had previously been considered a Force Account operation, so
. the man-hours previously estimated for Bechtel Direct Eire Labor will be reduced.
The balance of the funding falls in Account 74.9, Survey, where an extended usage of subcontracted surveyors was made for the Subsidence and Groundwater Monitoring Programs. i i
~TS S
, 1- H- % l
-grryw y-9 y ,-w, ,.w --e-- - - -- - - -, ,- -,- <-+ag--- , , .,---,g-. - - +g.,w,y--gw , ,-y.- gr_
l A'"!ACHMZ2C 9 f.
. ._. . .. _. . - - . . . . y
) $
- - a ; . _
lf I i i i i l i i i . . l l i i l i i i i i 1) 1 :% i
. ..Q l I i i i i i i d . . i i I ! e f i j i - i t i' I 5 6l Ty -
- ,. : i i ! i ; i is i . ,a .g .e..iiiidi i st . An E
1 i !
- i i i i i : Q7,i, I Qi i . ! ! l lX . : g i
- g
. i i i i l I i i i . 'n i % , ;;ll i* ! I i i t i i i s3 i3% ! ,& f
(*. ,,
.i
( i i i i i t i Q l I i i i ! I i i ! i l i i i!Iug i RA I iiiiiiii :a t e t ; i i i i e i i i i i e id s i g . 4 1 eiie i i l i i ; ii i - i i i i i I : i is i; 3 i qw
,.]
i i i l i i I t t I i i i t i i i i i i in ii! i i i 1 4 i I ! t i i i iNisi; i i4 i i t i i t i i i i t; #4 % i ;y_ 3y i i i i i i i 1 I4 i i l I3i?3 i i"u
- W
. 1 i
'I i i i i t i i i ,
i!L' i oR g TO . R !s lt # i i i l
- y : 3 i; i i l i i i ; i t i ! *- it it i*i! t i i i r i t'; i _3 i e 4 'c tv i i i i I i i i i i i e i t i e ; i i 4 isR t JL
IN i i ! i t i l l l i j i ! l i9 !Q f ! , I l i I i 1 l l j 6 i e i : : : 1 i i i i i 6 ii i i I ei icitsi _
i i l i i i i i i i e i i e i i i i i l I i i3t i $ : w, ' ' I i i i l l l l g ! I l I l I iil i t i i 1 ! $ 13 $ i 2 .{ i i i i i i + i in is is i i I 6 i i i :5 i s t ; xy I l i I I i i i LZ ' M7. I I I I I i 14 I in 1 ; 3RC
- 1 I I i i i i* IM ; 4; I I: tRii N i i 1 i l ui i C ti ! ,
i ei i i 1 m i.t tw -r i i i i i i t i it i s' ' e y- ,
, ! i I i i l i i id ' i i I i I ii i I i 1 1 I i 4 i s e i . -4 ' '
I i i eil i i i e i i ! : 1 1 .J i l i e i in I i 3 - Jy I i l i I ! ' I I i l I i e i l ij t i i i i l ad iD_ii $ t't l I i i I tn i ! I i i ' i 1ii i i3 1y? iis' - iiiI i l l i+ I i 'a !@ t 3+t I i 13 I C l i N . , I i i i i i e it i s .3 2:. i N i i i i it ieei so
- s l a e e i
! Q i j i i i t'
tJ
;a :q 3 in im I e i i i 1 -:il i, l : I *f' !*J l I i* t l l l l l qi I 4 'JI j'2(
' f'~
N i i i S@ ihl 1 i
*i ! Vi t I i i i i L,.! I i i 4 8- 1 I I i ie i i ! [
i i ! iiit i i t I i as it i 'iiit l l l 1 !OiQs l i I I i 19 i t lp 'n k I t t It iny QL t ii it ! I I La l ! l l t i i i l I ' I li 11 13 w W s t I i ! tie i t !+ 1 ! tQ iS 1 M i I I I i t 8 ; 1 % ii Q g, ; 8 I. a' gI l -. i;7,3 i 4 1I I t it;
! ?. i ig De .Q i'/,. 2 N'a;-~Y i i i t i t t p .i l 19 s ciy,,;
t- t i I I Lt t I l '4 l ar ' t J l 4 is 13 liOJJ? 1 .i Q' 4AL 4 L
; = . t .4 < i tz i i ! ic i! i e i ii ! G iE +
j I !$EO i i i t i I I i ! I i i I I i i 4
- I I A .3 ed i i {
i i % i i i7 i i tw I e i IQi9'473 eiI3 ins 1 - N -
! I t i iiI i i l i! i I !? Im iE I i i ! I I3i3% i e d'T t i i iiii
- i i 17 6 i II si l ! i i i t i 69;5dg
, . . pg >( % t-i g f,l ,
t.r i i i mqtwi ,i 4i iii ini,x 44,,,. oi, , 1 ,,,i , 1 4
; z y; r i i i i i i i i .
" J, 10 i l I i iI i ty !Q y w I i i eiii : I set a 6t g (; i1 eV ii! I t i i i i r, i e t, i4 iJ i i i t i; i . .' t 3C I :n iil i t I i i ? iw i; :E l i et i l i* *O i tD [
{A ' # Y,1 ; 9 -S 34 1 I i i i l i.I; ;_i_4 i d 4 i 9 IN IS! I i i i c. i e 4 J' f_,3 37W i i i i i ! i i C ij i ! i i id b* *4v 0 M 3 1i *? iI i i 1 : i 2 ! .5 l v Id IM I I I
;<g,,p i I E ! wi qng.s<=
i.
< ;; _q_ != is;9 ;4 ix : i eii u .
i : I i i i i i i i
,,i;is i3Iy i; , , , , ,.g,3j i s i s 13 y ji t o _] D i i i ? . ; i it 3i 5 **y\ _( Q .~ ~
u('-s ! ' ' -{ ,? s5-5.- : -a 5- g i i i; . i-t- 'f'kY(s s$5 i 2 - s 4 c ,t. - i +2 .s - 'e ; - ? _. s = 3 _t 3 44 y wyt i i ; .% *s 6 au, 1a y i : w . 4 - qJ s a ! . , W,,s s . ba_g __R I
*;q :; 'S t.
i
! 3 -
Qi _ ( . i i :9 et x .
$_2 @ '>
l 2 t - i .ii: ii i i i,! ,ii,i ii .! i . - i *I i l Il 2 - I-
I . ATTACT!ET 1C M? h e PRnJT** CP se Larect costs (X $1,00C) De s en yt t on P/C aa P/c *e Vertance Preseet Manaaement Budrets Project Management S 7.550 3 13,000 $ 5.450 PE&C Share of Testtag 23.930 43,200 19,270 miscellaneous Consultants 1.360 2.236 876 PM0 Landscapang 15 15 0 Transformer Storage 90 75 (15) Briae Line Relocation 70 68 (2) Meteorolosteal Tower 940 1.139 199 Misc QC laepections 150 144 (2) Imased Equipment 1.500 2,400 900 Mascellaneous Espenses 280 800 520 Project Guard Servtce 2.600 11,000 8.400 Temporary Material & Services 100 1C5 5 Temporary Bids & Equip 0 0 0 Temporary 3143 & Equty Credit (15) (15) 0 Construction Power 3.200 9.900 6,700 Natural Gas 0 1,400 14400 City Water 20 70 50
~
Electric M&S 30 29 (1) Communication Services 350 535 185 Temporary Substation 50 50 0 Welder Qualification Pacilities 30 62 32 Alloweace for Lakaowas 400 - (400) CE Process Steam Study 0 6 6 lasta11 Cas Lane 0 179 179 Micassaa Sales & Use Taa 1.250 1.700 450 Contract Eagineers 0 133 133 QA Services 6,800 10.427 3,627 Environmental Services 710 357 147 Enytrommental Stadies 4,290 4,037 (253) Enytroemmatal Activities 240 229 (11) Control Services 870 1.596 726 United Research 940 974 (6) Engineerias Services 2.200 3,546 1.346 Eiscellaneous laspections (151) 2.000 2.071 71 Background Sample Analysis 15 12 (3) Constructies Services 1.400 1,724 324 Construction Services Testing Above 53 53 Electric Eastseering 80 . 458 378 Microwave Equipment 280 245 (35) Surveytot-Electric Eastseer 15 0 (15) CP Co People on Loan to locatel 0 1.144 1.144 Nuclear Safety Task Force 0 2,734 2.734 other (1525 (152) Subtetal PE&C 3 63,780 $118.090 $ 54.310 Plaat Staff T' raining & bases S 15.370 $ 33,974 8 18.604 Mise Per====t Plant 5aterial 1.960 1.560 (400) Tura. Lab & Shop Material 3.120 6.985 3.865 Buildiass & Matl-off Site 60 472 412 Buildings & Matl-On site 80 459 379 Temp Matl. Servic t & Supplies 3,900 23.308 19,408 Preep Nuclear Puei Used 0 0 0 Preep Energy credit 0 0 0 PET Testing to 998.128 6.200 18,690 12.490 Spare Parts Procurement 1,110 1.110 0 P&T Other Wages 390 8,478 T,585 PET Survey Subcontracter 0 190 Ito subsetal Plant Staff $ 32.690 $ 95,226 3 62.536 Other CP Co Directs Landacaping 8 320 $ 352 5 32 P&T QA 1.280 2,627 1.347 Operational Services 390 0 (390) Plant Accouattag 990 1.271 281 Alternate Site Studies (5) 230 229 (1) Pensions 2,900 10,600 T.700 Electric Lab 1.600 2,227 627 Records Management 1.200 1.450 250 subtotal other $ 8.910 $ 18,756 5 9,846
% Subtotal $105,380 8232,072 5126.692 Rounding 20 (72) (92)
Total All CP Co Directs $105.400 $232.000 $126.600 rp0380-0172b-71
.c ,
s lu , l
- "' 1
- .-a . m, ...,, a .sI..r 3
to :.=.. .
.. ., .4 . e.2 *.- -.-. - .
+
i
- I L 1
- I Faow RC3au.an, 7-lL k1d Consumers .
Datt Febraarv 12, 1960 pggg[ Sussec.. . - ,..
<- ..,, . . . 0w .
Company j FOR3.CASO UO 6 RIVih~n' -1 m. r .
. C ' "4. , .' I.". A -. C
,. ',
- C ' N'.
- -. a - c".v'.^- "'t"
c'enes.o~=c ue c . f CC 03yiller, Midland '
)
4
,, . .1
Reference:
- 1. TRFline/DCRandciph's Januar/ 16,19T.O Mero. Serial 823E Attach =ent: 1. Pajor Licensing / Design Ite=s 'a'nich A e,E_xcludet_ F.r.en '
Forecast No 6 Dated January 25,1960-('as revised-2/20/60). -
"se folleving coe=ents relative to Dechtel's January 1960 repcrt c Midland Plant - 1.' its 1 and 2, Freject Cost and Schedule Forecast lio 4 c.re provided 7 I in response to Reference 1. __-
+.
Ite=s 6A and 13 - 3echtel Enrineerine ..
~
Face 3-11.1 of t.he forecast provides 3echtel's engineering esti= ate for to-go design and support activities. ':'his esti=nte is based c the defined score at the forecast, cutoff and does =ct provide cry allevance for excluded it'e=s , such as shown on Attach =ent 1. The sig=ificant upgrade'in encineering planninc l tools which 3echtel has recently ec=pleted (inclu.iing the Remaining Ucrh Schedule) has per=itted the= to mere accurately esti=cte to-ge ent;ineering. "he nev 3echtel Project tea = has taken considerable effort to fully define and. plan all future work. . As a result of this effort, and the ser plannin tools, the Forecas. No 6 encineering estinate should accurately predict the r,enainint.: engineering verk. Alsc, frc= a schedule viewpoint Bechtel he.s ce=pleted a =ajerdpp ade relative to factoring licensing require =ents into their engineering verk plans. "his. should increase their ability to accurately esti= ate engineering /censtraction schedules. Uo adjustment to engineering =anheurs and/cr schedule is recc= ended, however. - the deter =ination of Owner's Contingency should consider the fact.that the s 3echtel forecast is li=ited to a definite huevn scope. Ite= 133 - Licensier -~
"he licensing schedule shov en A L of the forecasi was provided to 3echtel by Censu=er's FMC with ec fidence levels en the various steps >:tsed c the ~en ren.:
licensi:E situatics within the "RC. It is considered to te es accurate as possible given the hichly uncertain licensinc verb which exist: teisy. As shev c Pace A-3. 3echtel's probability annlysis (usir. ' CF00 input) sh:vs a -
~05 ccafidence level cf c?tainint c: cperatin- li:==:e . Fernr- 17% zhich is adequate to support the engineerinc/censtructicn schedule. No rdjust s:. ir the projected licensinc schedule is recc=c ded.
, . ^m ~ j h%_
. _ . - . . . - , , . _ , , . . _ . . _ .~_m. e , , - - - .,, k._ ., g, . , , . ,,, . , . , ,,_,,%., .,-.
^
^
/ s s T Ravictd
,- 2/20/60 x -
~
s MAJOR LICENSING /DI3IGN ITEG WCH ARE EXCIUDED FRCM F/C HO 6 AND WHICE COULD HAVE
, ",' SIGNIFICA!.T IMoACT ON COST AND SCHED7LE
- .~ '
/ , ,
Cost / Schedule
< '; Item Primary Imoact Risk Assessment
. I. Generic Items Frc:s NUREG-C510 w
....~
- 1. ATWS (Task A-9) - Plant Modification High
' - 2.; . Systems Intera6tionsf(Task A-17) Plant Mcdification High
, 3 Seismi,c Design Criteria. (Task A kO) Plant Modificatica Medium
,h. Station Ble.chout' (Task A h4) Plant Modification Medium c II. NRC Relemaking
> 1. Emergency Planning Licensing Delay Medium
~
- 2. Operating Staff Quality and Training ' Licensing Delay Medium 3 Ptychological Fitness cf Operators Licensing Delay Low
- k. Siting Criteria Licensing Delay and High Plant Modification 5 Design Festures for Deg::sded Cora Licensing Delay and High and Core Melt Plant Modification
- 6. Commission Role in Adjudicatien Licensing Delay Medium 7 Backfitting -
Licensing Delay Low III. NRC Action Plen SUREG-C660 (Dmft 2)
- 1. Use of cereditated Training Institu- Licensing Delay Medium tioni (Taskn I.A.2.7) l 2.- SimulatorUse'(TaskI.A.h)' Licensing Delay Medium 3.' Control'RoomDesign(Taski.D.) Plant Modification High
- 4. Additional Quality Assurance (Task I.F) Engineering Delay and Medium Construction Delay
. 5 Siting (Task II. A)
- a. , Revised Criteria Plant Mcdification High l
- l <. . . . . .
2 Cost / Schedule Ite- Srimary Imeact Risk Assessnent i i l
- 6. Degraded Core and Core Melt (Task U.3)
- a. Shielding Vital Areas Plant Modification Hisn
- b. Post Accident Sa=pling Plant Modification High
- c. Research on Core Melt Licensing Delay Mediu.
- d. Filtered vented Containment Plant Modification High
- e. Core Retention System Plant Modificatic: High
- f. Bunkered Decay Heat Remeval Plant Modification High g, Hydrogen Control Plant Modification High
- 7. Systems Interacticas (Task E.C.1)
- a. Integrated Reliability Ivaluation Plant Modification Mediu:
- Program (IRIP)
- b. Systems Interactions ('Alkdown in Plant Modification High F/C)
~
- 8. Relief and Safety Valve Testing (n.D) Plant Med*,fies71on Medi=
9 Auxiliar/ Feedvater System (Tesa IIcE.1)
- a. Addition of Third Pump Plant Modifiention Medft=
- 10. Eme:rgency Core Cooling Systen (Dask Plant Mcdificatica Mediu:
II.E.2 )
- 1. Le:ay Heat Removal (Task II.I.3) Plant Mcdificatico Medlun
- 12. I&C to Follow Accident Ccaditions(Task II.F) Plant Modification Mediu=
13 Vender Inspection Program (Task II.J.1) Diuipment Deliver / Medium 1 14 Management for Design and Construction Construction Delay Medium (Task II.J.2) 15 Improved Licensee Emergency Preparedness - Short Term (Task HI.A.1)
- a. Near-Site Emergency Operations Center Project Budget Medium
- 16. Improved Licensee Emergency Preparedness -
Long Term (Task IH.A.2)
- a. Upgrade SIP /Connunications Project Budget High 17 Improved NRC Emergency Preparedness (TaskIU.A.3)
- a. Nuclear Data Link Plant Modification High
- 18. Funding of State & Locci Government Project Budget Lev Planning & Preparedness (Task III.3)
D w- . < -- - , - - , - , - n,- - -- - - ,--. -,n --n
- - - - , - , .----..-,~ew- ---,- -~~- , ---------e,-.-
3 Cost / Schedule Item Pri=ary I=ca ct Risk Assessnent 19 Fedemi Emergency Management A6ency (FD%)
- a. Review of State Plans (Task III.3) Licensing Delay Low '
- 20. Radiation Source Control (Task III.D.1)
- a. Vent Gas Systems Plant Modifiestion Medius
- b. Secondary System Sources Plant Modification Medium
- c. Gas Recovery or Delay Plant Modification Medium
- d. Auxiliary Building Ventilaticr. Plent Modification Medium
- e. Radiciodine Adsorber Pisst Modification Medium 211 Public Radiation Protection Imp ovemer.:
(Tast III.D.2)
- a. Monitoring of Effluents Plant Modifiestics Mediu=
- b. Rarliciodine Path Dese Analysis LicenAing Delay Madium
. Liquid Pathway Radiological Control Plant Modification Ned'.nm
- d. Off-Site Dose Measurements Plant Modification Mediu=.
- 22. Worker Rudiation Protection Improvement (Task III.D.3)
- a. Health Physics Improvements Plant Modification Medium
- b. In-Plant Radiation Mcnitoring Plant Modification Medium
- c. Control Room Habitability Plant Modification Medium IV. NRC Review Activities l 1. NRC Special Review Group (Rogovin) Licensing Delay High
- 2. NPC Reorganization Licensing Delay High 3 Continuation of Current NRC Licensing Licensing Delay Medium Pause 4 Post Licensing Pause Review Priorities Licensing Delay High 5 Subconta cting of NRC Reviews Licensing Delay and High Plant Modification
- 6. Revised NRC Positions on Closed Licenting Delay and Medium Midland Issues Plant Modification 7 New NRC Review Criteria Licensing Delay and High Plant Mcdification -
- 8. Expanded Content of NRC's Safety Licensing Delay High Evaluatica Report (SIR)
,y n - - - , - , , - . - - .,,e --
e , , ,-a w - --p-. ,- ,- ---n,- - - -- , e - - - - - - - - - , , , - -,----,---,--n, -,,----F-.
I Cost / Schedule Ite: Pri=a:y I=:s et Risk Asserstent V. Miscellaneous
- 1. P.ffects of Another Major Nuclear Licensing Delay and Low Accident Plant Modification
- 2. Possible Adverse ASL3 Rulin6s at Rancho Licensing Delay and Mediu=
Seco Hearing Plant Modification 3 High Level Waste Disposal Licensing Delay Lov
- k. Elimination of Shared Systems Plant Modifications Mediu=
% Revised Single Failure criteria Plant Modification High
- 6. New Requirements for "Nen-Safety" Plant Modification Medium Systems VI. Political .
- 1. Hart Senate Hearing Licensing Delays and Lov Plant Modification
- 2. Udall Congressionni Hearing Licensing Delsys end Lev
, Plant ModIficetion 3 Election Year ,
Lice. sing Delays Mediu: VII. Midland Specific Issues
- 1. Soils Settlement (Major Changes) Plant Modification Lov
- 2. Sensitivity of 3fsW NSSS to Oransients Plant Modification Medium 3 Seismic Design Pactor Plant Modifiestion Medium
- k. Prolonged Operating License Public Licensing Delay Medium Hearing 5 Control Room Habitability (cff-Site Plant Modification Medium Har.ards ) ,,
- 6. State Congressional Hearings on Licensing Delay Lov l Nuclear Power 7 Reactor Vessel Anchor Bolt Deficiency Plant Modification Higa
- 8. Funding of z- 3RI Valve Test Program Project Budget Lov 9 Training Simulator Project Budget Medium
- 10. Equipment Qualification Upgrade Plent Modification Media:
- 11. Cooling Pond Algae control Project Budget Icv
. 5 Cost / Schedule Ite: Pri=2r/ !=cact Risk Assessment
- 12. Circulating deter Travelinc Screens Plant Modification Lev 13 Appendix ! Tech Spec Requirenente Plant Medi"ication Lev 14 Deletics of Process Statam from Plant Licensin6 Delay and High Design Plant Modifica ics 15 A=menia Stripper Plant Medification Mediu=
- 16. Fire Protection Ups:ade Plant Modificatien Mediu=
17 NSTF Tasks -
- a. Replacement Cc=puter Plant Modificatien High
- b. Preventics of OTSG Overfill Plant Modification Medium -
c.- Presscri:er Heater Interlocks Plant Modification Medi.m
- d. Plant Ther=e1 Fe,d:scite Mcdel Analysis I:cv
- e. Auxiliar/ Shutdcr n Panel Modifica- Plant Modification Medium tiens for Cold Shutdown
- f. Systen acspense Ti=e Analysis Plant Modification Medium VIU. Other " Exclusions" Idetiff ed in 3echtel's 7/0 No 6 Report a
h e RC3 2/20/80
- . , , - - - - - --- . .~.,e - ~ - . . , - - - -
SCAcazr u j> , 0 - - - - - - - -- m . M p i I #$ 5gm s 3
's s f s *E:$ D n:
s ne o v -- O. .o Ig Yh ) W- E B
.s.-
, a. wG"s
- B wo
- c
[ b $'
- T Wa z u -g o----- $dy es G
w ., 4s id - g#
$se 82 56' s cu so G 5w'$> $ js'$5 h :
y y_ g ___.--___o ; _m $q 7--
-d
*o
- ',a ga-W s" u!<1 ga a .
a 5-v). 'l 7 s$h> $2 f? = -O 5' ! 1-- W e W E '.- 4$ 3 $2 " Za 2 gefy lI-3 Sw - a j O ._) 4.E. # r Jge_ ~7--- --Q
/
J3 .O O !
;;; ._t i ga u-a --_-_/J. __ __/ :
2b < 5"Ta Oi -
) D- % %,
[ 4 3 u. -%w<+> it D 2 -g e t a ge- - ' - - - - - - "b : 3 0 0) - gc$is D". w W- g Eci s ' s _J 7 - 3' d g551 - lgs !! - sD O 7 o 53 8 e g E 9,b 4 5 - g .s-te _. .. ..e s
$ 5--'D ----- "_
_i c.
$ _5 -
$h e f , c f, -i '5 " k, . '5s,-,.
Nst .> ggs, ; Q u-- -e5r e " s" i 9 ----_f I K%>= =9 J g
- w i1 4 g.. ay q) -
g ! 1 - eg a p - O i d tg u. l_ 3 e I-d') 1 25
- u. -- )6 fgw- $ 5 3 a o 2 s
l -
- f. 2h hfl:
g asy> wri - Ic =L*= ggl , da v' 5: g G! E
~
W 2$a w$T eo djc $2a I
= t W~l; n
P E
ATTACE C " 13 To KRKline, P14-414 rao= TCCooke, Midlan Consunsers 04rc February 11, 1980 pg@gg[ susacet MIDI.AND PROJECT GWO 7020 - FORECAST #6 REVIEW File: 0152.2 UFI: 53*01 Serial: CSC-4801 '"""**' Coastsponct=ct e CC In response to your eemo, Serial 8238 above subject, various attachments to this me'mo provide the information requested. Not all required information was available from Bechtel during the review. Consequently, some of this information is somewhat preliminary, and there are portions which have not been included, due to lack of or late receipt of information from Eechtel.
\ Paragrsch IB, 1D, 1F and 5 Attachment 1 provides the worksheets for these headings. Mr. Drzewiecki notes that he should have the conclusions complete for tomorrow's mai! and that gen-erally increases are in quantities and net productivitiy Icsses. During the staff discussion of February 8,1980, it was also noted that when considering the congestion which is offset in part, at least, by the reduced number of manual personnel, the normal 4% productivity decline may no longer be valid.
The more proper category may be rework with a new allowance shown in the fore-cast. j Paragraph IC Manning the job dces not appear to be any problem at this point in time. Paragraoh IE In general', the sixteen million five hundred thousand dollar reduction noted on revised page A-9.7 is deemed appropriate at this time, assuming that delayed engineering is made available in a timely fashion, and does not arrive all at once in the field late in the time period. . Paragrach 4 The attachment adequately explains the major subcontract changes, however, it. should also be noted here that an approximate twenty-eight million dollar in-crease is due to job shoppers being transferred to subcontracts from material accounts. At one time the commitment for job shoppers was seven million seven hundred fif ty thousand dollars. Today it is as noted above, twenty-eight million dollars. Some additional dollars will also be required for field offic's e to be , open longer due to the schedule delay. Soils funds could also be low. ii. Paragraeh 2B ,
,, m (later) , , ,
' "2 Ad ".
et E
.-,n. .- . - . _ , , - - - . . ,
KRKlino Midlcnd Project GWO 7020 - Forecast **6 Review File: 0152.2 UFI: 53*01 Serial: CSC-4801 Page 2 . Pararrach 13B l 1 As a point of clarification, it should be noted in Mr. Vokal's discussion of CPCo involvement in nonmandatory design revisions, he refers to a planned over-view by the PMO Field Engineers on the revised room designs necessitated by lack of space. Aside from that two main points of concern stand out in the mechanical area:
- a. The amount of rework does not appear to be tied down. It could be as high as 30-40*. Bechtel should clarify this activity.
- b. There is concern in the field over Bechtel's ability to attract the recuired numbers of engineers for small pipe and hanger design, and their ability to design the required numbers of small pipe hangers in a timely fashion.
The emphasis in the electrical write up, of course, is directed towards trying i to improve the number of electrical circuits that is being put out by Ann Arbor Engineering. While Bechtal has committed to doing everything possible to in-crease the number of circuits designed per month, our main concern is that they
- may be staffing only for the circuits per month as shown on the Forecast #6 curves. This could be a mistake if a rapid advance were to be made in the con- ,
ceptual design area. In any event, more emphasis should be placed on managing this area of the job. . Attachments: Attachment I - Manhours Work Sheets (JJD) Attachment II - Manpower Review (BHP) Attachment III - Subcontract Review (JSS) Attachment IV - Mechanical Review (DJV) l Attachment V - Electrical Review (JGB) sid d
ACACM r 3 To TCCooke s
-[a /ry ./' St/
- V Fa ma BHPe2 D'JVo al/BACameron Consun1ers Datt February 8, 1980 EQiVST sweacet FORECAST #6 REVIEW - SMALL PIPE AND HANGERS lNTc=NAL coaacs m=oc=cc CC
~
Per your request a review of Becht'el's Project Cost and Schedule F6reca'stad6~
~
dated January l'980 was performe'd in the' Small ' Pipe [and ' Hanger area. - - Of utmost concers resuThing, from our reviewi ss the abili'ty' to' desi~gnIand ,, , install Q and critical small pipe supports .and.the .revork. necessary to finalize. .. the composite rooms ih the Auxiliary Bu~iIding. It appears ~that"the' design of ' ~ ~ - these rooms will impact the installation rates due to the excessive amount of rework. Bechtel states the reason for so much rework is changing criteria, regulatory guides, licensing changes, interferences, etc. Rowork should be tied to its cause so that CPCo can monitor this closely. A cutoff date for design changes should be considered for each Auxiliary Building level. CPCo (field) should be involved in the consideration of changes / rework that are , not uandatory which are being made. Bechtel in their Schedule Probability . Model (C-22) presents an optimistic estimate for completion of Q & critical small pipe support design; i.e., 50% by 5-15-80. Further impact on this is the availability of small pipe support designers to support this schedule. Pr- -xperience shows a large attrition of job shoppers and presently the
- is short almost 60. We have noc been able to maintain a sufficient
. .r ower level to date and don't feel this situation will change any. Down from oc 130 (total Small Pipe Design Group) in-October 1979- to 7e 105 now. .
Bechtel is optimistic in their estimate for small pipe / hanger installation because rework is not fully factored into the curves and installation rates. When questioned about rework Bechtel didn't really have a handle or even offer a guess as to the amount they would run into.
. Improvements:
An area (space task force)has been established at the jobsite under the direction of a tesident engineer (Pat Corcoran) to ensure an organized approach to resolving difficulties in coordination with construction personnel. To fall out from this is hoped better a) planning, b) coordination and c) accountability
- resulting in lower' unit rates and greater probability of meeting overall schedule. l l
Concerns: (not already mentioned above)
- 1. A flushing / hydro / insulation schedule is needed to plan work by the area /
system concept. This would eliminate moving in and out cf areas many times r---' --, , _ . , . - _ - . , , . _m,. _--.mn w. , y __ ---,,-,,.,.y_.-_ym,,%-.,-, _i.,w%..m.i
Page 2 Forccasc f6 Rsvisv - Small Pipa cnd Mrngtrs i and more efficient use of manpower / equipment. A schedule has been promised since June of 1979.
- 2. Hanger design has never put out 250/wk that is projected for a 8 month period. (ref: C-19.4 Release and Installation Curves for Small Pipe Supports)
Field Engineering has walked down= 40/wk max so far and Standish Fab Shop , has fabricated 245/wk max versus x 105 required by Forecast #6.
- 3. Impact of Auxiliary Building revisions of HVAC ductwork and hangers (new gas tight requirements) on small piping?
- 4. There still is a need to monitor hangers installed; i.e., inclusion in tieekly Progress reports, of a breakdown by building on hangers and piping. Forecast
#6 does not address it in this amount of detail, l
1
- 5'-2-2.; ?. . .,.-.~,
~
_?f[.T. ) . - - . '
- . .: , . ..-l
'~
~ ~ '
.. ~-
~
~
i 1 l l
l 1 i - ATACEZI.T 15 To TCCooke,5{q,
/;/y 9e W: -
Facu BHPee JGB l CDDSUmBTS ! Darc February 7,1580 PD)VST , koscet MIDLAND PROJECT GWO 7020 - FORECAST 6 ELECTRICAL REVIEW lNTERNAL Commcspe=otwet CC
Reference:
Serial 8238 . K. R. Kline to T C. Cooke Per your request: Forecast 6 confirms our worst expectations -- the comple' tion of the Project will be delayed because- cf late design and design evolution. Circuit design _ is the key. Ann Arbor engineering intends to releare circuits at 400 to 450/ month. The graph C-19.6 (attached) shows 420/ month or about 133kL.F./ month. Censtruction intends to install circuits at a rate of about 330kL.F./ month - provided that a sufficient backlog of pullable circuits exists. The graph shows an apparent backlog of 2000k to 3000kL.F. during the peak pulling period, ' essentially all of 1981. ( The real backlog of pul~lable circuits is the limiting factor and Bechtel's real backlog is much, much less than indicated. As of December 7, 1979 l total cable footage scheduled 5,303kL.F. less cable pulled 2,237k less electrician backlog (real) 65k total designed backlog 3,001kL.F. less Ann Arbor restraints 1,172k available backlog to field 1,829kL.F. less construction restraints 1,603kL.F. less cable restrained by raceway not installed (approximately) 100kL.F. . I backlog released to field engineering for detail review prior to release to electricians 126kL.F. l - 1 l l
~'e.,--2.~_-
a m. . ~
. Pe e :
The real backlog is the electrician backlog of 65kL.F. . Bechtel, during client-contractor field meetings, has conservatively ce=mitted to a 10% of backlog / week installation rate. The Forecast ]kL.F./ month would require an 800kL.F. backog sustained 6installationrateof3)Installationof100kL.F./weekhasbeen on a weekly basis. demonstrated; field engineering, however, has not demonstrated a sustained 100kL.F./ week makeup rate. It is now apparent that the key to maintaining a schedule is to provide a suf-ficient backlog of engineered circuits. The two obvious areas to attack are construction and engineering restraints (attachment 2). I. For the most part, the construction restraints vill hopefully b cleared mid_. 1980, however; without strict adherence.co schedules some could slip and others could appear. Discussion with P. Corcoran (R.A.P.E.) provided further assur-ances that improved controls and -methods during design will hopefully reduce i rework efforts in the field. .. Future rework cannot be forecasted, however. l . . i II. The lack of good engineered circuits is by far the rargest restraint and is the element which can offer the largest payoff. ' Attachment #3 lists the' remaining circuits yet to be designed, nominally 12,000 by count on January 18 or 14,300 per Forecast 6. Circuits / month Comoletion Date Duration Forecast 6 420/ month October, 1962 34 months
~
600/ month January 1,198hk 24 months 800/ month July 1, 1981 18 months l Engineering employs five person in Scheduling (routing) who of ten perform re-medial work (rerouting of circuits may constitute 5C% of their work effort); twelve persons in schematics who identify new circuits; and potentially eight persons in raceway problem solving who often contribute rework to the Scheduling group. Presently staffing does not appear to be sized for contingency. - To illustrate: in recent weeks the schematics group has been expending much of their effort on Forecast 6, not on circuit productivity, and the new computer addition will ob-viously contribute new circuits (specifically excluded from Forecast 6). Although engineering is committed to 420 circuits / month, Consumers Power Company has been assured that the rate will be bettered whenever possible (telecon - Curtis to Cooke). Historically, however, Bechtel Power Corporation has never , been able to sustain a race above their forecast. Encineering To Go Circuit Status (January 18, 1980)
- 1. 1948 circuits in design evolution - constrained
- 2. 2077 circuits vendor constrained J. - .. ,
7. Paga 3 .
\
- 3. 1441 circuits without constraints 4 3659 circuits in licensing issues - constrained
- 5. 2500 circuits - allowances Icess 1, 2, 3, and 4 could be expedited further to reach to 600 to 800/ month )
rate. A. Double the Scheduling staff B. Increase the schemes staff to a level to support the Scheduling staff C. . Increase _the.expe.diting effort ,
- 1. Install a Consumers Power Company expediter in the engineering /
procurement department
- 2. As a result of #1, more Bechtel staffing may be needed -
3', Establish production quotas by. department, staff, and_ individual. 4 Make quotas visible to key management personnel - client as well as contractor 4. D. Commensuratset with these activities, Consumers Power Company must ce=mit to releasing licensing issues for design. Risks may have to be taken as early releases may not avail themselves the experience and direction fram , the nuclear industry. . Item C alone would have a significant impact as engineering accountability would be established. l l Implementation of these four items will assure an increased production rate and schedule contingency. 9 l
- l i
I _ , .- , - + . - - - - - __ p , y __.,,, ,
O . 9 > .. U CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY '
'l I MIDLAND UNITS I & 2 - JOD 7220 A M u N a'T 1 FORECAST 0 M HELEASE AND INSTALLATION FOR Wine AyD CADLE I
l l b 1 10 -- - - _ _
- _ - - _ _ -j _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -
9,600,000 LF
; D -- - - - - _ _ _ _ _ / ,.*
_.19dOO,000 LF f. , 7 phss 20d.'600 iF - I f ()fij g f
~
/*~ lalo aclpssimusil
( 8 _ _ - - - - - _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ y.4 /
'f* _ - - -
e4p:010,000.000 i F jlo bo instaucal - l F. -
/
g( o/ O
; y i _ - _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _l _ _ ,.
,f g'e .] _* _ _ _ _ _ ._ _ _ _ _ _ _
4 lj 3 i e
.e o
o o 6 _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
; # J/
m _l / , ._ _ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ __ _ s,l d
/ _i s _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ , . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .
l '[ 3 D FORECAST 6
\ 4 -- - - _ _ _ - _ - - _ _ *
/ tlNIT 2 FUEL LOAD 4164 e 7
l _ _ _ _ T-l a _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ l
/ _ _ _
***' 8 i
M' ~... FollECAST 8 2 _ .- _ _ _ _ _ __. _ _ _ _l UNIT 1 FUEL LOAD 0184___ _ f
/
/ I j_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
,s t
h 0 _- l
; 1976 1977 1978 1079 1000 juGI [ 3082 1003
! i. - fon4 i I 3 l' . I G (020 4 4 i U _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
SECCEL ?D'n'E2 CO?20?,AT105 A rf*h tpf.j[g7 2 caste str.msn ; AS PER E-37 REVISION 34 (Figures In Thous, ands of Feet) Totcl Footace Avsilabic For Full Circuit Schedule (Scheduled Length) 5,303 . Less: Cable Pulled- (Scheduled Length). 2,237 (1) . . . Actual Pulled 2,504 Field Released Backlos '65 (2) Designed Backlog (Below Restraints Incl.) 3,001 3,001 Ann Arbor Engineering / Material Restraints Cable Shortage 544 (3) Laters, Holds & Incomplete Routing 378 (4), (5) Discrepant Routing (esti=ated)- 250 (6)" ,- , . _ Total Footage Restrained By Matsrdals.& 1,172 1,829 Engineering Definition Construerion Restraints Diesel Generator Building 135 (7) . Contni=nents - 335 (8) l . Turbine Erection 20 (9) Raceway Bold 334 (10) Raceway Rework (Spreading Roces) 779 (11) Unsvailable For Insallat!on - 1,603 . M BACKLOG 226 ( Notes - See Page 2)
' fhr f yc tag ' or /k A ufsJA Y NE / -
g;i,0.ufD l , A ! W ~^'M '^4-- % / /7 .m c a si g-i
;..._.... ..--.x - .:- .- . . . .
=;
t EXPLAIMION OF KI. TEE".ED ITD;3 1 Censral: The infern2 tion included in this s"--ary is based or raw date contained l in Revision 34 to E-37 (Ci~rcuit Schedule unnodified by sebsequent DcN's/ ' TON's) and information obtained by Field r.ngineering. (See Note f4) l (1) , Cable listed as pulled in E-553, Revision 34 - (2,237). Field Records indicate 2,504K pulled, (including DEI cable), as of 12/7/79. (2) Cable Released by Construction Engineering to Field Craf ts for pun as of 12/7/79. (3) See Attachment. 1 for specific. cable. codes required. This figure is based on a field inventory and the E-553 Cable Requirement Reporr. Quantiries
- shown on"Attachmen:-1 are being updated on a 'bi-vaakly basin (4) Scheduled Cabla Footage entered in circuit schedule with 1' complete n routing: .Lateis, Holds, and ZZZI's. (Not reflected in this summary are-327K on hold by DCH's not incorporated. into E-37).
(5) There are conduits in Unit 1 and Unit 2' that are scheduied beyond National Electrical Cods fin criteria. These conduits havii to be ==%=d by .
- Field Engineering on a case'by case basis to determin' s if their physical 1ayout will anow cable to be pulled. .
(6) Discrepant Routing - have cbserved a. significant er'ror rate in cable routing ' (i.e., not possible to pu n cable with vias shown on cards). Would expect - to see this trend in other cables currently designed.- (7) Cable cannot be puned because of a construction hold on the building and its raceway.
. (8) Cable puning on hold because of penetration rework and raceway not i stalled. '
(9) Power System Inc. currently has priority on mechanical work on turbine deck. Cable puning is not feasible. .' . (10) In the Aux. Bldg., raceway in seventeen valve roons and the HVAC Equip. Room, are currently on hold, due to nachanical interferences (sman piping and H & V). An area management approach (overlays) is being utili ed in these congested areas. Ann Arbor Engineering is supplyidg redesign of H & V supports and sman pipin;. Extensive raceway reworks are expected.
'(n) Raceways in Spreading Room, Process Instrumentation Room and Control Rooms on rework due to overfin problems. .
1 I e G l l t
' /TTMHNDj7 3 To JOBalazer, Midland -
e raea MURahman, P-lh-210 M cs gy eR3 PO N o.re January 22, 1980 g 6pe p6 C0ilSUIDSTS pyggr su sect MIDLA::D FIxtr - ELECTaICAL BU:x D j,. u. .. .c. - GES C0iilp5ily PRODUCTIVITY / SCHEDULE STUDY g7 pgC3e,CT i .tc.. 6 g,pt.A D g gts A 8 coaac m aocact cc P5Eauppila, P-1k-209A Rahm 6-80 ( On January-18,1980, I attended a meeting at Bec'htel, Ann Arb5r, the purpose ~ of which was to look at the schedule of circuits to go, ie, still to be written and routed. The circuits fall. under the following broad categories (the na=es of these categories have been chosen arbitrarily by me)..
- 1. Desien Evolution Constraint ,_
There are 19L8' circuits in this crtegory. "he circuits in this category belong to systems that are still in the design stage. Either so=e or r.ost of the design details about these systems have still not been resolved. The systems in this category are switchyard power pool, service water, I radvaste solid vaste syste=, boron recovery system, fire protection and detection system, miscellaneous building HVAC, plant urd.t coolers, integrated leak rate test, plant security, turbine extraction steam to evaporator, nonnuclear. instrumentation hydrazine system, sonie detectors and control rod drive. G. Vendor Information Constraint There are 20T7 eircuits in this category. The circuits in this category belon6 to systems for which all the desi.gn information has been given to vendors and Bechtel is avaiting drawings frem the vendors, Tha systems in this category are liquid vaste and boric acid evaporation, chemical and oily vaste system, radiation monitoring, plant unit henters, evaporator steam syste=, air sampling and monitoring system, co:xputer system, heat tracing and freeze protection syste=, cranes and hoists.
- 3. No constraints l There are lhkl circuits in this category. All the information for routing these circuits is available to Bechtel. The syste=s in this category are
, too numerous to list here.
- h. Licensine Issues There are 3659 circuits in this category. The systems in this category are too numerous to list. here.
5 Allevances There are 2500 circuits in this category.
2 ) l
\
i
- 1 The total of the above 5 categories is 11,625 circuits. At the present rate of production of hoo to L50 circuits per month, this represents 25 to 29 months of work. Activities in Categories 1 through k should be expedited so that a level of 600 to 800 circuits per month can be r.aintained. This vill take care of contingencies such as major rerouting efforts through 1200 feet of new racevays yet to be installed, increase in number of circuits beyond the present estimate of 39,000, etc.
At this time, I have no plans to attend an'y ruture meetings at Bechtel unless there is something specific that you want studied or monitored.
~
e e e e O pa
~
O e l =~ --- ~~- - -e --- - - * *- _ _ _ ____ _ _ e . . ...
--. ,, , . . e - _ , . .. - . ._ - .- -, _
~ _ -
ACACE!C"." 16 To TCCooken !
.A\
[.!,,; 1"}- . I raos. EHPeck1> ' Consumers oave February 8, 1980 POW $[ Company l Sussect MIDLAND PROJECT GWO 7020 FORECAST #6 MANPOWER AVAILABIL;TY REVIEW l es T E R**a L ConatsPomotmet CC Dstailed Forecast #6 manpower curves provided with the handout are based on a November, 1979 draft schedule, and do not reflect the possible fuel load dates in 1984 Re. vised Forecast #6 information on. individual craf,t manpower will not be available until the end of February, 1980. It is not expected that these revised curves will indicate any substantial changes in manpower levels. The following coments, therefore, are based on the Forecast #6 curves originally , provided in the handout. Peak Manpower Forecast 5 Forecast 6 Pipefitters 1020 700 (based on Nov. 1979 Schedule) ' Electricians 575 575 (bas.2d on Nov. 1979 Schedule), Total Field Manual 2550 2000 (based on 1984 dates) Since the peak manpower levels are the same for electricians and lower for the pipefitters it is my opinion that manpower needs een probably be ma.t without any great difficulty. Bechtel will probably continue to supplemant the domestic work forces with manpower from Canada, as has been done in the past. We should ask Construction Services to monitor construction work in Canada to make sure that we learn of increased activity which could reduce the availability of man-power for our use at Midland. - 4 4 e o ee
, . - - - - - , - , , , - - - _ , - ,,, . . - . _ . , . . -. . , , - , , - . . , . _ , , , . , . , , - . . - - - .n---.,,,.+e . - - - - - - , - - .,..,,,w.,c. ,- -
A"'TACECC 17 To K.R. Kline F14-414 raov D.D. Johnson ggg earc February 14, 1980 Power ' sussect MIDLAND PROJECT GWO 7020 Company F/C #6 REVIEW FILE: 01522 SERIAL: CSS-052 UFI: 53*01 $ 'ic N ec cc cc DBMiller TCCooke REMcCue The following summarizes our review of the two apparent critical construction areas of the project and the potential impact of the Test Schedule: Small Pipe /Haneers (ref D. Vokal's comments for details) Our Mechanical group's evaluation concluded that the installation rates for Small Pipe / Hangers projected in F/C d6 are very optimistic based on experience to date. These curves (rates) were established for the draft schedule review and supported a Unit 42 Fuel Load date of July,1983. Bechtel subsequently concluded that the July,1983 date was not achieveable and based i en small pipe / hangers alone we concur with that conclusion. Electrical (Ref J. Balazar's ccmanents for further details) Bechtel's draf t schedule (Unit #2 F.L. of July,1983) indicated a match point of 70% wire and cable at the turnover of component cooling water which " kicks off" a sustained turnover ef fort of primary systems with all turnovers complete prior to Unit #2 Fuel Load. This percentage is more reasonable than previous indications that the match point should be at approximately 60% wire and cable. However we were still concerned about the large quantity of wire and cable to be completed during the sustained system turnover effort (30% of 9.4 million feet in approximately 18 months). Consequently, we felt that, based on electrical quantities, the fuel load date of July,1983 was optimistic. Also, looking at the family of curves developed in support of the July,1983 Unit #2 Fuel Load shows wire and cable installation at 33% with conduit i installation at 60%. Bechtel has indicated in the past that the desirable relationship to ensure proper fill and minimize rework, should be 60% conduit i equal to 10% wire and cable. Moving the wire and cable curve approximately 4 months achieves this relationship which in turn reflects a November,1983 Unit #2 Fuel Load. Although this is rather simplistic, it supports Bechtel's latest thoughts on probable fuel load dates.
~ ~
r- r . v I. J. FEW - - u.n; . ., -T h . a. .. .. . o . -~ - i: ... i:. ..e.! L.. . -... u4 5
'T. ,
PAGE Based on the above two areas alone, we feel that using a Unic #2 Fuel Load date of November, 1983 for establishing EPC targets (per Bechtal's recommendation) is as aggressive a plan that can be realistically pursued. Further that when all open items are evaluated and incorporated into the plan, the November, 1983 date will appear optimistic. Test Schedule The corrent system turnover requirements reflect a similar curve to the Rev. 8 curve (Rev. 8 used for F/C #6) relative to fuel load dates. Although the sequence is somewhat different, the major systems line up closely to the Rev. 8 logic and we are confident that no signifcant impact on the F/C #6 evaluation will result. However, not included in the current Test Schedule (nor in previous issues) is a full blown flush program which has recently been removed from the construction scope and added to the Test Program Scope. The impact of the flush program, if any, will be determined as the individual Test Engineers evaluate their specific areas of responsibility. Also excluded is any allowance for changes in QA Program and Policy. Conclusion Because of the above critical Engineering / Construction areas of small pipe / hangers and electrical bulks, the epen itess yet to be incorporated, and the potential impact of the Test Prograr, we feel that a Fuel Load date for Unit #2 of November, 1083 is very optimistic. Although we are unable to quantitatively evaluate / support an additional 5 months to April,1984 (Bechtel's most probable Unit #2 F.L. date) a duration of this magnitude it certainly in the range considered appropriate at this time. It should be noted that Bechtel's evaluation is considered by them to be accurate to plus or minus 3 months. ( With the many unknowns, we consider Bechtel's recommendations (i.e. EPC targets based on #2 F.L. of November,1983 and budget based on #2 F.L. of April,1984) to be acceptable for current planning and recommend that project targets be established accordingly. D.D. Johnson dak
Attachment # is T/C 1 to 6 Chnage Due to Scope Su::=:ary Schedule Extension Due to Secoe: Bechtel's estimate of $1L6.5 million comes from the F/C 6 book in the following manner: Page C-25.1 lists $220 million in ecsts associated with schedule. Sechtel has assumed that 5% or $110 =1111on is due to scope. In addition, page 3-22.1 lists Late Adjustments of $35 million due to a change in the unit fuel load date of 9 months, for a total of $lk5 mi1 Lion scope. An additional $1.5 million has been added for Bechtel's estimate of their fee related to this increase in scope. Secce - Non-Licensing and Score - Licensing. Non-TMI: F/C 1-k summaries of the Forecast changes. They were identified as scope by Sechtel, and classified as Licensing or Non-Licensing by CPCo PMO. The F/C 4 to 6 portion is as provided by Sechtel as an attachment to their letter SLC- ' 8507 dated February 12,1980 (as revised to remove the cost of CPCo purchase orders, and to redistribute items moved between the T>C primary / secondary categories,etc.) S_coce - Licensing "'MI Primary and Secondary: These items have been provided by Bechtel as an attachment to 3IC-8807 dated February 12, 1980. Cost Summary Millions Descriotion F/C 1 k F/C h-6 Total Schedule $0 $ 146.5 $ 146.5 Non-Lieensing 69.6 . _ .. 39 9 109.5 Licensing Non-TMI th2 5 78 . 2 . _ __ _ __ . . '12 0. r Licensing TMI Primary 0 24.0 2h.0 Licensing TMI Secondary 0 15.3 15.3 Total Scope $ 112.1 $ 303 9 $ 416.0
~
W
Feconciliation Summary Forecasts #1 Thru #4 (Millions) Scope - Non-Licensing Cost
- 1. Addition of Startup Manual Labor Support Costs $ 8.2
- 2. Deletion of Plant lleating Bollers (1.4) 3 Deletion of Blowdown Cooling Towers '
(2.8) 4 Netof15ItemsUnder$1.0Million(F/C#2) 3.6 4 FI 4 $
- 5. NSS Erection Subcontract 3.7
- 6. QA Regulatory Guides Effect of NSS Transfer to Subcontract (2.0) 7 Engineering and llome Office Munhours h.1
- 8. Overtime and Recruiting Allowance Expended 50 9 Inte Scope Changes (5 Items) and Miscellaneous'Other Under $1.0 Million (F/C #3) 2.2
- 10. Overtime and Recruiting. Allowance 25.0
- 11. Increased Size of Solid Radweste Building 59
- 12. Overtime Allowance for NSS Subcontract 2.0
- 13. Other Engineering and Home Office Scope Changes 2.0 li t. Automatic Steam Transfer System 1.6
- 15. Process Steam Flow Rate Increase -
1.3
- 16. Scope Reduction Study (1.5) 17 Engineering Allowance 5.0
- 18. Iate Scope Changes Under 1.0 Million (15 Items) (F/C fle) 3.8 19 Miscellaneous other 3.9 Subtotal $69.6 Scope Change - Non-Licensing F/C #1 Thru #4
'l
JOE 7120 MIDI.AND FI. ANT UNITS I & 2 O FOAF. CAST 6 o kF.Ct1HCII.l AT10N OF SCOPE CNANCES (Continued) CD (eh a 1,000s) ($1,tM10s) CD
~
Hanual Manual O Description Manual Manual Home Direct Direct Cletrib Direct Distrib N/H Home Contin-(Inci Cost & Trend) Directs Distrih Q M Office Hat S/C Hat /SC l. abor Labor t.shor Eng Office _ge nrL Total Score NONLICENSING go I) Road reflectore for cool- 0.6 - - 1.1 - 13 - - II - - 37 - 19 ing pond Alke (Trend 379)
- 2) Cheetcal cleaning of the 6.9 2.5 2.8 0.6 0.3 71 I40 25 125 34 37 15 7 96 550 condensate end feeduster system (Trend 382) 1 3) Computer changee for auto- - - -
<0.6) (0.3) - - - - - -
(6) (to) (14) (10) matic turbine startup (Trend 385)
- 4) ScheJul'Ing progree changes - -
<3.5) (0.3) <3.1) - - - - -
(90) (9) (98) (40) <280) (Trend 386)
- 5) Quality documente list - - -
<9.0) (l.8) - - - - - -
(173) <33) (24) (210) (Trend 390)
- 6) Drilling and teaming reac- - 0.8 0.3 - - -
92 29 8 2 4 - - 22 150 tor vessel ektra flange (Trend 198)
- 7) llealth phyalce calibration 0.4 0.1 0.2 1.5 0.8 IO 99 8 7 2 2 39 19 36 215 f actitty (Trend 400)
- 8) Holeture separator openinge 0.2 - 0.1 - - -
<l05) i 3 I i - -
(18) <lin) (Trend 409) .
- 9) AJA reactor coolant pump I.0 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.2 <t34) -
3 16 5 5 7 4 <26) (140s seat injection filters (Trende 314 and 411)
- 10) Delete machine shop equip- - - - - -
<470) - - - - - - - -
(47u) ment (Trend 415) l II) Hudify piping and instru- - -
- 50.0 10.0 - - - - - -
1,500 300 200 2,000 ment diagrame (Trend 424) , 12) Access road to river intake - -
- (0.8) - -
s30) (9) - - - - - (1) (40)
,(Trend 425) i
l . JS 7220 NIDE.AND Ft. ANT UNITS I 6 2 FORE. CAST 6 g RECINICil.IATION OF SCort CHANCES (Continued) CJ1 (eh a 1,000m) t ($1,000s) CD Description k nuel Manual N aust CD knual Home (Inct Cost 6 Trend) Directs Distrlb Dltant Dstect Distrib Direct Distrib N/N Nome Coggjn-Q E3 Office ht S/C _ h t/SC l. abor _ Labor Labor Eng Office J ency Total SCOPE NONLICENSINC (Continued)
- 13) Hodifications to edelnie- 1. 8 0.5 0.7 2.4 1.1 6 266 tration building 7 32 9 9 58 28 85 500 (Trend 426)
- 14) Flant computer espanetoe 0.6 0.2 0.2 5.7 2.8 257 -
2 11 i (Trend 430) 3 3 148 72 94 590
- 15) Austliery feedveter systee 1.2 0.4 0.5 0.1 discharge check valve I -
4 22 6 6 2 1 8 50 relocation (Trend 442) -
- 16) Swing away accese plat- 3. 9 1.0 1.4 1.7 0.8 53 -
15 92 20 20 forme (Trende 445 and 195) 43 21 56 320
- 17) AJJitional elitelding of the 3.2 0. 5 0.8 0.1 -
incore instrument tank
<5) 46 22 9 5 <3) 26 800 (Trend 446)
- 18) Reactor building jtb cranes 0.1 ' -
0.5 0.6 0.3 25 - - (Trend 447) 2 1 7 16 8 il 70 a
- 19) Additional office facilittee - $1.0 8.4 - - - - 282 (Trend 450) -
183 IS - - 97 580
- 20) Overtime, recrutting, and - -
47.9 - training labor allowance 1,0l9 100 - 795 -
- (2,754) <C40) j (Trende 452 and 453)
- 21) Ausillery boiler modift- 0.9 0.3 0.4 3.6 1.8 i 66 -
3 17 4 cation for naturet see 5 94 46 45 280 (Irlag (Trend 455) 1
- 22) Consumere Fover Company - -
74.8 13.0 - - - requested work orders 113 - 1,288 173 - - 386 I,890 (Trend 459) ) 5 1
- 23) Fond blowdown systee 6.8 6.2 2.7 14.0 1.S 233 697 62 137 104 (Trend 465) 36 363 46 332 2,010 i
- 24) Turbine generator purchase price coste, furnlohed by Delel.e Coneamers Power Company .
(Trend 479) l 4 L d _ __ _ _
" A A A O O e O e A e a e ce O
e O m
- O g O e O O t =, = m d
N " m *
- 4 e e e A V ""
E
- g. . a v "v n05h
=
v g N. e A se em m A e m A A g .O. d ==
- d g g, ul e m
N v e em ce ce e N ee v 8'"e P .Oe v == == == d "! " A A g g N ee e6 m @ ae @ M N m w m V == es 1 I V e.s e en e3 A ^ es g i
.ee e en e i m e e N
- e f
=*
v c't M == == v led A g A A
%,$e e n e e O e
$e y l
.O N
=. .e. m. e, se e me v
e I om v er> wmA es n. A 4 e .e e e m A I a.e4 1 e em O e m =, e O -e == e= em == m == v 1
$$b a m as a w n. A A
= we 3 3 M em o O e en 8"5 h
- e4 I C s.
-. Jq em em
@ em N en v
e6
==
m m
==
se == v N e1 =
.a U
-m A A 1 O I em em e em g* e se
=s %. C s.e
. .Oe em f
= a= == -v N v
=* N N
o es as A w I == O I e I I
== 6U d N m e't i 8 i @ f en % N @
m == m V k 2
-4 OE es A ce C l= u O = A A ** m 6 as 0 N N s* m g h m @ N
- m. e= ac h. e em ==
m m C em N a - en N a. 9 zy =f
== v ce N == v %
e%a O v E A a e 8 *9 N GB e m N A 2 y
- e 1 d == N 2 == N O O o
O e e o e me. e e
$ == v O O O O O O v
3 m 3 E A N m M O A 1 e e e e I am m N m N N I a C o e o e o e em O == == 0 O O O O O e ma v v 5 . A A z 0 .e ., e e O N ee
= %
. e c.e e. c.e e e o e e 1
* == == 0 == w O N O
, X == v
== O v
i w A me es A A
% me l N O en W @ m @ ** e N em o e o e o e e o e I
3 ee O == o e ee == 0 O C m O N O O O
= a == v v 9 2Q
== a A
** *e se @ ge A C eu 3 en me @ O O se 4 e o e o e @ l q 3 e O m ce == m o e e o e e o b E h M me N h ee O =e V =e V n b lei A W 9 E 6, E &
'W C
q he dC D e D l E 3 e =e es On 3 E C E e es O Q es as g $lt gA we ene O =8 e 9 h $g
==
WW
*W es W es E &
as a kl amm g as g e se as a em he 45 m he se N en ea == e C auf sun "C 0
& aC es e me g@ es enme Gm hs @ *e ed es g e W^ &3 og e ** ew N e C ee aw m =e Se U W e 3e W O w W to 3 en e es ee me I. =a= == e en G == ese hs 0 e e. W9 me e 3 Ce es u o TC eg M = 9* e3 W W ed ee e se e he e 3 em lim Go et Q
E E Gm eg *C W ha C S S e m hs W C *W C eb e Ce he "E O hs S9 eS C C
=e ene
-e e
** es C ==
e B 'U e=e h C == me 0 eA e es as W 3 == =e g me *g a me ** O C es ee n se he A e to ea a *= at e WO ge he h as e O S *== W W W as y w= z e es h e s.e e. ee I =S w
= Se se es en to em - e $m O N *O
= 0 9Q w
W a 6. .e. - e e C s .e e F- e C.s,-
-w e
a=. e 3 aeR ".W. we 8 wuc . .h.s oc m me W W sg e e g ee g e& S O E =m* == e& W Ce e hs 6 ee .- e e 9"t e = 4 a == E 4 en t 'Tc .U. y%OC me, O e g =e "g .==,**e4 .E, 9 C e5 C *W g O ae T 3 g b -e en
= W e eg e C 6 e e2 C U C C { ** et e as hs V 3 O
7 W C he D*** = 4 eV eb T ha SWW *e g w am e 2 C b as es C g f
=e?s = f O ek
=# me e as N h e C O 6 to C e e= es to b he e g h W e u b W O l= e0 e 5 p en e 'c O e.
- I w W e. ah-a
- a. es u- a me w "c e a w.eawe e. k aw C e.
w3 W e l=
- a. s. -
0k aw
* *l e a w'*
= **
ze ha
,k O sii. . . .
u o em . - e es e a u N es ee es es e e ee e a e e e e ~ M e m et n
JOB 7220 MIDt.AND Ft ANT UtttTS I & 2 TORECAST 6 g C) RECfWCll.IATIotl 0F SCOPE CHANCES (Continued) C T1 (eh a 1.000s) (sl.000s) cn Manual Manual C7) De scr iption Manual Manual Home Direct Direct Distrib Direct Distrib N/H Nome Con g 18/M g Office Hat S/C Mat /SC l. abor t. abor t. abor g Office gem y Total (Inct Cost & Trend) Directs Distrth score INWLICENSING (Continued) 0.1 0.2 0.1 22 I 5 2 2 6 3 9 50
- 38) Solid raJuaste truck 0.3 0.1 -
bay shlanding (Trend 509) UCIOle
- 39) Consumere Feuer Company- .
fuentslied material (TrenJ SilA)
- - 65.0 - - - - - - -
2.600 - - 500 3.100
- 40) Unit price startup services (Trend 583)
- - - - 555 - - - - - - -
105 660
- 41) OT5C hand hele instal- -
let ton late adjustment (Trend 516) s' 2.3 0.7 0.9 0.5 0.2 6 - e 40 11 12 13 6 19 115
- 42) Alternate stese bisabeting
! draine for seheaters (Trend $22)
- 43) tron removal system fu 5.0 1.5 2.0 0.3 0.1 35 - 19 96 25 27 7 3 38 250
- the electroessnette filter I bachuash (Trend 524)
. 44) Turbine cycle sodliao 20.5 6.1 8.0 4.5 2.3 590 4 74 367 102 109 117 58 289 1.780 cleanup (Trend 525A and 8) 3.4 - - - - -
- 56 4 60
- 45) Supplier documentation - - - - -
support (Trend 528)
- 46) Acoustic insulation sub- - - - -
- 1.3C5 - - - - - - - 295 .l.600 contract 7220 M-191 (Trend 531) 0.5 0.1 0.2 0.1 42 - 2 10 2 3 5 3 13 so
- 47) Hetering of process etese -
electrical loads late adjustment (Trend 534) 1.2 0.4 0.5 0.3 0.2 8 - 5 24 6 6 e 4 9 70 .
- 48) Reverse locettone of Unit I and 2 hydrogen recombiner control panele late adjustment (Trend 535) ,
- 49) Austitary feeduster pump -
5.0 1.1 - - - - IF - 66 16 - - Il 110 turbine temporary piping (TrenJ 536)
s e i s i ee l A A A A
- 4' O art g O .* O l
-i # - _ .et. ~ #, 3, _0 _ ~
3 % m e. N N e.
>= v v v .e y e -
005 5);0 . be
- . - 0 .
e O
- - 4-v om v 4
A \ W $ $ $ 9 h og e .e g w .e. s em m
," v w e
O A A *- 0 $ f N O d ,4em 4 el s t I m em w hi y N O v e n e tm Q EC A
- A =
x %3 N 1 * ' ' # l 1 1 8 w E si == v s= ei m. V w me e> was ,a
^ ^
S ~as E as a
'c' N m
==
g g g gg g g p g v Ee q v -
.e-e.
G/ es A A I5 whs 4 to 0 J
$ en em g es e e t 3 s e N et J-9 v v w -
a O es e AU
== we A
- en i =
0 A e - ~*
- I i e 1 y .e
."s $ "
a , e4 ** A w
- O
== 0U e 8
N 0 0 1 8 8 9 4 d he % M em M =8 m v
$* Q ee a OE w A A N OW w 1 I m i = d l l 6 i N A e en m 4 *si >= 4 to em v pm EW = . v -
e4e a c- a g
=g ,
- A >
- W l l i 1 N J O w e. ' O. e. ==. - e 2 = 0 e = 0 O
"," V v =
.e O -- -
E A A l i s a e sa em. a. O. N. N. m. 9 e- en O e O O e anal V V , -- m A A -
** g == j 9 9 0 0 e E o O. . m.
*= C == c '
N
, %I E v v N -
v A A A
**"m" "". N. 1* 1 4 0 1 8
- N. O.n
*= 0 O O @
ee v v .
, 2.
8 e C es e A A .,
** i G l 9' 1 5 "e" *w* e I
se, 1 O, $ , S & N n. ' q E V y e 2 a," . . e9 ** e es .as C S ed a* W al o == s== e a o e, = c 91 to as >N N an e en a g .-
- O WG e W O es er F,-~
3 C C es me se e as N & eaa. A e e" en es in em E ** 88 e M E G8 d$ e U eh as 9 *) 4 hr 86 D e
** 4 to Dg e eO es ad
.e em og em eem == m e 9 tas 3
^ * == 0 -m e e en g a e 3 .S9 e w me 3 e == 3. & * =T h E Oe N E ** ** he as >= te ad e as e es W as == = 83 3 9
. C
=
es e&, as em, e u y a g e e, e e me to g g 0 g es e C e M S 3 ea- e e he a e3 3 5 e se z == Wo aww == w me e se e e me
** he w a s== e 3 e ' me g ee e e == U N ** b 48 @ D 9 e em me W Q he is e em e es e e8 ed W e se em he g$ .Cs y g to ee las en e4 en >= g g$ .e.4 .E. .D. g <a g he g s.e,e so. m asg he gwDe g he me O en O em O ** = e8 ea C .e ea e g' U O es w a,e m = m es a e.en e is, en as m e .e, 9 == e e C' w eN T eeeem 3 .=8 e ==
y- we a . m e ,3 g . Cae es e e e =- em m. eo W w W en e S W e s, s. e e he e
- u.
me . s. e n
.s. e w we N
. - e e3 o8 0 a wum e .s . e - e ., -
e D"* 4 ** 8 ceJ "a5
"" e la E me he oeM es w as e em "e S e
' ' c.a.
hp
.ee 9
W *e es e 48
**a' e$e
- Dh W hs E h N ap # e e e e "5 a w 3 *e
= w "=
5
*= =w- o e ~y a
-ae eseewas o. s c =.
c e, =, w -e e =w a e I E s-- 3 o e,ao e
- e. . .e c
ee -
,e e e e,
~ oe 3
e.a.. eo c=r-. .=. - e e e, e i u w s e e-ac = w .o. es - p .o a. eewwen S. ce w se , I, _ vs. e se
- e. - - eee ee-m a.
i ze m.a :.o. -
- 3. W = > -
.-x3m-E a ,= a e. , . ' , . , a s
C * - ~
,a - * * - ' =
- g ,8, e a e A - e e r -
e e . 1 i
, m m , - -
s !_ . s
,. s Jos 1220 '
HIDLAND PLANT UellTS I & 2 ,o. FURECAST 6 g , REClosCILIATibei OF SCOPE Ct',AleGES (ContinueJ) " os ' (e. s m I,000s) ~ ($1.000s) cn - Manuel He n.sa l 6 , PeScalption fianual Manuel Home Direct Direct Dt.t rib Direct Distrib N/H _ Hume Contin-(lact Coat & Trend) Directs Distrib Q g Office Nt S/C m t/SC 1.shor I.aber Labor h Office gency Total SCOPE 800eILICENSING (Coettaued)
- 60) Hetallurgical weld testing - - -
0.4 - - 40 - - - - 1 - 9 50 to conforn with Regulatory Cutde 1.44, ellocation of Forecast' 5 late adjusteent (Trend 262)
- 61) Setssic requirements for - -
- 10.0 5.0 - - - - - -
730 125 70 425 instrument piping and tubing, allocation of Forecset. 5 late aJJustment (Trend 201) _
- 62) Future BOF performance - - -
2.2 1.1 ,
' 51 27 7 85 calculatione, allocation of Forecast 5 late adjustment '
(Trend 42) .
- 63) Document review - - - -' 21.5 - - - - - - -
792 158 950
- 64) Reactor building spesy - - -
3.5 8.9 - - - - - - 85 49 26 160 system (Trende 403A and 501A)
- 65) (mu condensate systee - - -
4.7 2.4 - - -
!!6 65 39 220 (Trende 403A and 50tA) '
- 66) Hiscellaneous scope - - -
- 29.7 15.3 - - - - - -
728 416 231 1,375 engineering / hoes office manhours (Trende 403A and 50lA)
- 67) Contatsu6ent revised pipe (16. 0) (6.8) <6.8) - -
(400) - <88) (100) (90) (88) - -
<l59) (1,125) break analyste (restratat partion) late adjustment (Trend 321)
- 68) Electrical equipment and 100.7 35.3 40.3 36.0 19.1 596 -
406 2,030 691 687 1,Il2 608 1,230 7,360 bulke for destga changes requested by Coneianere Feuer Company or its majar equipment suppllee, not licensing related
- 69) Electrical equipment and 32.8 11.5 13.1 11.7 6.2 194 -
132 662 225 224 363 198 402 2,400
' bulk additions for 54W and CE required computer circuit teolation and Buterlock
l l f JOS 7220 MIDLAND FLANT UNITS I 6 2 C:) FORECAST 6 C) SECONCILI AT10N OF SCOPE CRANCES (Continued) , CJI CJ) (nh n I.000s) ($1,IM)os) cyj_ Hanual Manual Description Manual Manual Nome Direct Direct Distrib Direct Distrib N/H Rome Contf' (lact Cost & Trend) Directs Dietrib jl
] jl Eyjt Offica Hat S/C Nat/SC Labor La bor Labor Eng Office gency Total SCOPE IGNILICENSINC (Continued) , 70) Electrical equipment and 28.5 10.0 11.4 10.2 5.4 168 -
115 574 195 194 314 172 348 2,080 bulks for process etese transfer systen J
- 78) Electrical equipment and 22.5 10.0 11.4 10.2 5.4 168 -
115 574 195 194 384 172 348 2,080 bulks for integrated leak rate test and structural 4 integrity test instru-mentation and controlo
- 72) fee on manual startup - - - - - - - - - - - - -
130 130 labor
- 73) NSSS and SWECO coste. Delete 1 furntelied by Conounere
\ Fower Company (Trend 368)
- 74) Primary water storage tank 2.6 0.6 0.9 .- -
273 - 7 44 9 11 - - 66 410 oxygen control (Trend 307)
- 75) AJJition of equipment and <3.9) (1.0) (2.0) <5.3) <2.2) (30) 3 (24) (66) <!4) (26) (115) (58) <35) <365) surge tank for condensate return f ree Dow (Trend 283)
- 76) Sreething air supply - - - - - - - - - - -
(12) (7) (11) (10) for self-contained str-Igned reeptrators (Trend 312) '
- 77) Isolation of Class at - - -
(3.2) (1.5) - - - - - -
<74) (37) <t9) (130) associated cltcutta (Trend 137)
- 78) River mining mone studies - - -
<0.4) (0.8) (59) 120 - -
3 (3) (6) (17) 12 50 (Trend 297) ,
- 79) Sutng-suay accese platforms 2.9 1.0 1.3 - -
47 - 14 50 14 16 - - 29 170 for anubbers (Trend 195)
- 80) Additional ehtelding of 1.7 0.8 1.0 0.6 0.3 91 -
12 34 18 18 le 9 58 240 time I core instressent asuk (Trend 196) 8I) Containment rewteed pipe 16.0 6.8 6.8 - - 400 - 88 300 95 88 - - 159 8.810 break analyste (Trend 321)
A A A A A A A A
.e, O e O O O em C 3 e e C C O m - - e ce m e m N e - o ==
0 - m - V = N N
- v
- e N
>= v v = v v v v en
== s A A ^ ^ A A A A 00%y ee c
y C m m M v
==
v C v e m @ @ w v v c m v m c
.a.
,or
==
== v y 6 "!
A A A A
. . e e i e i i N eri m i
, b =e m N N .c. t e == v v - y j e= ==
v C
^ ^ A A 8 =8 == O 8 e i N c .A. e c A.
5 N em e e em faa v v v N v e.
- .o.m v v e o g EO e i i e e ,
, e4 e i e i ,e e.
z .q. - - .
. e m
.e.
e.
- o. O i W I i == m N i e i A
art i . C en A & ea .e* .O Zgq - V e me as a
- 5. o. w e e e. - i a N = i i e i i i E w& v et en ers m .q. e -
au m
. . - i ~ m . i e i e i
.o.
.e. 2 N
m
=0 ed A
- S C ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '
t .u
. e.
== 4 a
OE as A A A
~ = >=- u i ,e ~ i i e e R i e i i e N . e .
mm >= aC en g N v me
.zu C .s-ao
-E o
v v - A A A A "I &= .0 . i < s i e i i - i , i
- . . . e. o. .
x a -. c v v e v v a O ==
.Me =-
= 0 E ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
i ~ i . e i i e o N M m a Ma o v v A v A V J d v mal i
==
= E l em me e
i i e e e m o o l l v g g i g g e a - t e
'E ter A
* * - 8 B l m N I i e i i i a h. e e
- G.
I e.n O O O m C e
- g ==
T EQ t a
== e
** I N I l O N $ $ i i e i i C "e" *u8 e e o C 3 O == 0 W e es m w 3-E2 w a==
- so
.N es em e en m f*
N. AN GP ** M Dn O ed E . 4 3 N S & me CO @ W == w E E t.o Dg g ad 3 g .Se a=
& g e e g e a W == "W e 1 to y a to & WE em es en e W
e
** C ee
- ed E W .5 O E S to O 3 as e to O e hs W ha *W S 3 . es 9 3 .E to S e e- es e- C - == e .J em 3 .
&= 0 - *g be se he O se #44 3 em me er g es == es 3 . =8 ea 0 em 9 .e W .M w ed >= We ** m e S Se EC OW w t.e
. E - A O 8
m O en w Wd to
. misp E U at . ae** h a e. se
.e =e N
. ame to me == J gm C la.
==>= e == 0 g == t.o .M C et 8 en & 0 ed an e ea U es e em S en as 9 == an 9 ae == g uW 5. eEe C == e. N 8C= = = -
hm en as 3 0g S ** SO == t.e 9 ** *W e5 3 &C S . 3 == C Q ** *e es C O e ON e W- .C ** d"$ C . . e. ** ** dan e. 88 es as .9 e. es - em 0 to GN e .C O es O af e e em 4." es to em W- O ep 4 se ao g N 3 We 2 en es e e9 ed == ur en b =e e >= to C >= e CN m e o.g U- ** ".3 O C e 0 esJ ->= e . te me ** >= .ma e l.m gm e.w .w A q ey C he m Cwasw as N W . =se to eg D en w to , C g. e O, O ew e.ne
.- 2U -
3 ==
.e i.~ . a.se e.. e. 8 .U .-, .O.
- m. y* eg.. .
.a e.
- e. .t.=. .d .e
.e
- e. o - .O . . .
. .=-
- . . . .e . e. . . - . , e
- . . . . O. e . . .. - , e4. .=~. e - - ,e
.- a g e, m a.
.. g - 3e. g .- .- GOO -e_= .-
.- g* . , e ==
<eee -= ,_-
y .,
. - .e. -
w N m et kr% %e 0% 8 O O - N Pt 4 fas , e e e g 3 g g g gt p p @ 04 m W
I Jos s220 HitMAND PLANT ONITS I 6 2 FORECAST 6 O Rt.CONCll.I ATION OF scope CHANGES (Continued) o (eli a 1,000s) ($1 000s) W Hanuat h numI Description Kanual Manien t llume Direct Direct Distrib Direct Diottib N/M illone Cont lF3 (Inci Cost 6 Trend) Directs Dletrib N/H g Office Hat S/C Mat /SC t. abor I. abor I. abo r Eng Of fice _ gen f3 Total , SCOPE NrMaLICENSINC (Continued) , 95) Addtttonal engineering - - - 4.3 2. 0 - - - - - - 97 54 29 180 associated with pond blowdown coollas towers (Trend 115)
- 96) Bechtel startup seelstance - - - -
<l.0) - - - - - - -
<47) (33) (80) to Consioners power Company Cc0 8 (Trend 308) i
- 97) Engineering allowance - -
- <87.0) - - - - - -
- (2,146) -
- <2,146) change (Trende 332 and 367)
- 98) permanent security plan - - -
5.8 2.9 - - - - - - 133 76 84 29) (Trend 200)
- 19) Review and approval of - - -
4.5 2.2 - - - - - - 112 55 30 197 ] unsolicited revletone to i supplier quality eseurance manuals (Trend 366) 100) AJJitional manhours far - -
- 48.0 24.0 - - - - - -
1,200 600 320 2,120 l licensing (Trend 166) 301) Shielding of solid redweste - - - 1.8 0.9 - - - - - - 44 21 12 77 Instiding (Trend 366) t 102) Creation of new mechantcal - - - 2.9 1.5 - - - - - - 72 37 22 131 purchase ordere not in current mechanical budget (Trend 366) 101) Estabilah Tittabawassee - - - 0.7 0.4 - - - - - - 11 9 5 31 River sempting and labora-i tory testing program (Trend 366) 104) Containment analysis - - - 1.8 0.9 - - - - - - 44 21 12 77 required to support the FSAR (Trend 166) 105) Hiscellaneous scope - - - 1.5 0.8 - - - - - - 37 20 10 67 engineering manhours (TrenJ 366) 106) Iron removal system from (2.0) (0.8) <0.6) - - - -
<10) (16) <ll) (R) - -
<l5) (R0) evaporator to condenser hotweIIe (Trend 198)
I
/ .'
JOB 7220 HIDE.AND F1.ANI INIITS I & 2 FORECAST 6 REculCll.IATION OF SCOPE CHANCES (Continued) (mh g 5,000s) ($l,000s) Manimal Manual Description Manual Manual Home Direct Direct Distrib Direct Dietrib N/M 18ame Contin-Qg Office Het S/C Mat /SC Labor I. abor _ Labor Eng Office gency Total (Inct Cost & Trend) Directs Distrib score HONI.lCENSING (Continued) 107) Frovisions for poet <4.8) (1.6) (I.6) (1 1) (0.6) (157) - (34) (90) (30) (24) <26) (13) (76) (450) accident plant analyste system, Begulatory culde 1.97 (Trend 2) 108) AdJitten of reactor (9.0) (2.0) (2.6) (0.3) (0.2) - - (26) (140) s,.) (22) (7) (4) (67) (305) coolant pump seat injection filtere due to 1 Bf.W recommendation { Trend 384) 109) Hetallurgical weld testing - - - (0.4) - - (40) - - - - (t) - (9) <50) to conform with Regulatory Guide 4.44 Position C-6 (Trend 262) 110) Balance-of plant computer - - -
<0.8) (0.I) - (237) - - - - (2) (I) (120) (360) changes (Trend 5)
Subtotal Scope E TH~i EE E @ QR WW WW W 4 329 4,102 54,619 Nonlicensing Delet.lon of CPCo P.O. of major Equipment (ll,719) t (11,,719) Revised Subtotal 3,712 39,900 - - 8 I
Reconciliation Summiary Forecasts #1 Thru #3s (Millions) Scope - Licensing Non-THI Cost
- 1. Implementation of QA Regulatory Guides and BQ-TOP-1 . $ 27.1
- 2. ' Addition of Seismic Raceway Supports (Conduit and Tray) 21.7
- 3. Changes to TV, Security,* P/A and Smoke Detection Systems h.0
- h. Increased KW Rating of Diesel Generators for Added Scope 2.3
- 5. Increased Non-Manual Costa Due to Q/C Requirements 5.h
- 6. Increased Requirements for ESFAS, Radiation Monitoring, Seismic Instrumentation 17 per Regulatory Guides 7 Decay Heat Removal Bypass .8
- 8. Seismic Raceway Supports (11.2) 9 DHR System Compliance 9
- 10. Compliance with QA Regulatory Gulden (17.0)
- 11. Instrumentation Scope Changes 4.0
- 12. Seismic Requirements for Instrumentation, Piping & Tubing (Late Change) 2.h
- 13. Revised Containment Pipe Break Analysis (Late Change) (1.5)
- 14. Late Scope Changes (3 Items) 1.1 Subtotal $h2 5 Scope Change - Licensing Non-THI 5
I t l s a e a2 v s- =sa = 2
~
a m s
- s.
- V V 4
e v N 905660
^
ii w *Ii
- : ~@ - - I s
N V V Oe
=F A A A 6 O O I ** et O O @ N 9 H t w N == em M P == e N at g en V me e= =e g =m= V e V
.= u N O
A A A N P S S E O $ *F em @ @ g a m em O at M e h e ana == V V m N
- V
^ at I E A A A
- s .a e m 9 m e % - N c.
5a E q N - V
=e i
im 0 O ==
-e
- e. V =r N W
e V N . wtme .O g= hs w P 8"' I A et N I I A
- 0 O
' 1 6
C ed .O 2 N =e == em N i ee .q= v v l E O. O N
==
e =,# w 1 A A 5 % 0 *e O $ e O $ 1 % i se $ C as me % m em O em f5 ** e V N - EOd V e eum a0 U .
== m A A to % C *= $ N em l l m 9 O as
- M N == e l e3 v V .e=i y
== E a O -
N e4 ed A Ed == 3 O l W
== eU en 0 $
O 0 l l I
- n. % *e V W == m W O
== 4 O
N3> N e m u e me e O O h 1 N A
==
8*= N 0 O m A
== 1 m i N
% 0= eC en p == V ==
et 2U = M O l a q 6.: O -V e c-s =e !
"I as O A ies b % A A O M e 84*
o 5 =* e D e C 9 @ N O O o e 2 ** O O N O m o e e al( == O sr Fem em v V @ V T : -t E ^ ur em e =e p A ^ e e 8 0 N oy gg O e e e a S $ - - ne 9 - e o e e ha
*e N & O V V N **
A == V G S A A
= E e e l *F o
O *f 9 Ft l O O e e o
== % C == 0 as == ae ==
e e E V V em N se ame
== V w .O A
=e =a 4 gr A e to I et Pe l I d I rem e e o
- es O ==
c O e m e e i ae V im A == V O N O - W 3 E se e A me == es e S I S A a aw e e e em l l == I tm $ e Q C =W g
== m im N
- e
- V N w e .tee - d% e m tO V e== m o m @
& % M 0%
ao S S S 5" " m 8 te m S N pg
*E 4 C e ef == O es t' *B "o c e E eN h80 me er == 0A E e I
&W t
W == > *e e == == == to == O Te h E as O C he se 2 o o 3 at s S A a ee ee 3 ee =* N e =e e en e esem* 'O a "C u e .e ee *C M. e
~ 'l > to e me ww V e
=s 0 se to e ,en E*
g =e g
& es
=e as a y a == We eme & ==
O IW = - m e. e.o e -m S~u'
- es=m 0
- v e ,e
~ a-n -as > N I
is c eO 3 e E om go
=
w =
=
s .a
- ec -
.. am he e. et NO O E eC e e e >= .- O s
== es == 0. as C 9 e Q == E e me = = ^
==
ee
=e as es ee is e
es is me ==
& d%
== w e
-tese. n e =o iE C e wr e0 ==
s ws to e i=.
. 3 W e
as & == s - e- - e
.I 'E= tem O 6=
w c be ts I. em C Ow ce
** W 3
=* 4 3 C pe w
e o
>v g .- e Em - -
= as .O
- n. O w- ee ew- e no O
->* Q $ = 6 C i. . = 4, e no s. e- u>< c C---
*C ==
to ""J & 5 "J W G to et ee == C C =5 O ta - ,.f O = =
== 3 b es e == e eO
=5 e en C to N ao go ag g 4
W E U 2 C 3
== C as we G a e as E G > == me se == - Q 8t E E 4 E u 0 $
es == e na es e se W me ee W 6 ec
- ** == aC eC =a C ee % t. en w == en g == to he C V w 4 == e hH m es O C 3 0 e e De b hs 9 he 4 (M E == Eew J, WW ee == 0 C 9"5 - I E les E W == 3 QW w Es w m to O. h3 Ce aC % w ase .=
U w na laa Q ^ m A 4% A m a a == == N m =e e a m a a in d *= e e O
== .m
JOB 7220 MIDIAND Fl. ANT INelTS I & 2 F00FCAST 6 RF. CONCILIATION OF score CelA10GES (ContinueJ) g (ele a 1,000e) O ( @ 000s) Manuel Manual LJ3 Description Hanual Manuel Home Direct Direct Distrib Direct Distrib N/M Home Contist13 (Inct Coat & Trend) Directs Distrib N/M / Eg Office Hat S/C Mat /SC l. abor I.a bo r I.ahar Eeg office _ggngg n Total LICENSING tooel-THI-2 (Continued) U l2) Altborne and liquid- - - - -
- (1,625) - - - - - - -
(335) (1,960) related radiation monitoring (t ransf erred to non-scope changes) (Trend 488A)
- 13) Pressuriser hester and 16.4 4.9 6.6 3. 7 1.9 100 -
61 303 82 88 96 47 153 930 control upgrade (Trend 421)
- 14) Cable spreading room fire 80.4 3.1 4.2 1.3 0.7 25 278 38 187 52 55 34 17 134 820 protection and draine (Trend 428) i 15) Reactor coolant pump 13.9 4.2 5.5 4.0 2.0 239 -
50 249 69 74 104 51 164 1,000 madtftcatione (Trend 431) I6) Upgrade musillery Instid- 1.2 0.4 0.5 1.0 0.5 390 - 4 28 6 7 26 13 93 560 Ing crane to meet require-ments of Regulatory Culde 3.104 (Trend 433) I I (7) i cverse feeduster mo't- n G - - - - 410 .- - - - - - - - 410 toring system (Trend 439) , 18) Suleefdence surveillance (0. 3) (0.8) <3.9) - - (1) (172) (3) (6) (2) (46) - - (50) <280) l and foundation settlement (transferred to non-scope cleanges) (Trend 448 A)
- 19) Isolation of Class IE/ I.4 0.4 0.6 0.2 0.1 4 -
5 25 7 7 5 3 14 70 non Clase IE to main steam line teolation system (Trend 443)
- 20) Control room pressuri- 8.7 2.6 3.5 1.2 0.6 408 75 31 157 44 44 29 14 198 1,tum
! sation (Trende 457 i anJ 370)
- 21) Engineered asfety featuree 0.5 1.3 1.8 3. 0 1.5 91 114 -
2 28 14 18 38 107 465 (ESF) filtration system (Trend 493)
- 22) Escrgency yard lighting 0.8 0. 2 0.4 1.1 5.1 825 43 28 102 28 30 29 14 83 475 generator (Trend 497) s .
Job 7220 HIDLAND PLANT UNITS I & 2 FORECAST 6 O O RECONCILIATION OF score CHANCES (Continued) g O (eh a B.000s) ($I.000s) Manual Manuel U3 Description Manual Manual Hasse Direct Direct Distrib Direct DIstrib N/H Home Cont Gt3 (inct Cost & Trend) Directs DIstrib Q Eng Office H.s t S/C Hat /SC Labor Labor Labor g Office ,genc y, Total LICF.NSINC NON-1181-2 (Coatinued)
- 23) Reactor coolant pump 3. 2 1.0 1.3 l.0 0.5 41 -
13 63 16 17 28 14 38 210 oil collection system (Trend 498)
- 24) Contalienent toolation 0.2 0.5 0.3 - - 80 37 I 4 9 5 9 5 30 150 during fuel handling accident (Trend 506)
- 25) Increased este shutdoun - - -
2.3 I.2 - - - - - - 60 29 16 105 earthqualie design criterion (Trende 500 and 508A)
- 26) Reevaluation of Setemic - - -
1.8 0.9 - - - - - - 48 24 13 H5 Category I structures to current codes (Trend 510)
- 27) Auxillery feedwater switch- 6.6 2.0 2.6 - -
51 - 25 112 33 35 29 I4 il 370 4 over to service water , (Trend 582)
- 28) Baron dilution tremetent 5.9 1.8 2.4 0.5 0.3 31 -
22 110 30 32 13 6 46 290 j (Tsend 517)
- 29) Loss of component co oling 15.9 4.8 6.4 0.1 0.1 79 -
59 294 79 83 3 1 152 750 unter to reactor cos.lant pump beartage (Tren.1 589)
- 30) renetration preneurlastion 5.0 1.5 2.0 1.0 0.5 901 8 23 186 25 27 26 13 231 1,370
- erstem (Trend 520)
- 34) Ilazardous ses sonttoring 18.8 5.6 7.5 1.0 0.5 2,995 -
73 366 93 100 26 13 734 4,400 system (Tread 523) l 32) Fire protection systen 0.7 0.2 0.3 2.2 1.5 20 - 3 13 4 4 58 28 20 850 (Tren.1 529)
- 31) Instrumente to follow the 44.8 13.4 17.9 1.8 0.9 598 -
175 874 223 2 19 51 25 435 2.670 i courne of an accident j (Trend 5304) e
9 JGE 7220
- HIDIAND Pl. ANT tl NITS I & 2 FORECAST 6 RECONCILI ATION OF Score CHANCES (Continued)
(ali a 1.000s) ($1,000m) Hanual Hanual Description k nual k nust hoe Direct Direct Distrib Direct Distrib N/H bee Contin-(Inct Cost & Trend) Directs Distrib IIf/N g Office mt S/C Nat/SC Labor I. abor _ l. abo r E3 Office Jency Total LICENSINC NON-THi-2 (Continued)
- 34) nelocation of secondary 15.2 4.1 4.9 2.4 I.2 133 18 69 229 58 58 55 30 250 900
. eterm station ellocation of Forecast 5 late adjustmente (Trend 352)
- 35) Increase in engineering 163.4 67.4 93.9 33.5 II.7 4,003 1,472 t,460 4.785 1,336 1,537 982 345 -
15,850 for the stret 37 licenetas tenues (Trend 427A) t
- 36) Forecent 6 factuatona 56.0 16.9 22.3 348.0 174.0 764 -
384 I,455 419 478 12.095 5,528 3,526 24,579 (Trend 427C)
; 37) Increased requiremente - - - - -
400 - - - - - - - 140 740 for forardous gas eyeten (Trend 369)
- 38) Addition of reverse flow - - - - -
50 - - - - - - - 10 60 detection for ESFAS (Trend 369)
- 39) Subcontractor QA progree - - -
3.8 I.9 - - - - - - 87 48 25 160 clangee (Trend 199)
- 40) Cast of 1978 licensing - -
- (10.0) (10.9) - - - - - -
(200> (215) (85) (500) hearings (Trend 187)
~
Subtotal Licensing 729.1 240.1 306.2 T30 I 261.8 11,757 2,046 3.865 16,383 4.676 5,062 18,036 0,129 10,075 80,029 j Non-THI-2 Tronsfer of MLIA (1,829) items from Non-THI to other categories
- Itevised Total 78,200 ,
i
*MIIA # 67 was moved from THI Secondary to TMI Primary. MLIA #'s 68,102, & 221 were mover from Non-TMI to THE l'rlmary. (See 111c-8797).
JOB 724d i MIDLAND FLANT UNITS I 6 2 FORECAST 6 BEOmeCII.lAfl0N OF SCOFE CilANCES (Continued) ($1,000s) (eh a 1,000s) Manual Hanual Home Contin-Manual Manual Home Direct Direct Distrib Direct Distrib N/H g Office senc y Total Description It/N Eng Office Het S/C Mat /SC l. sher _ l. abor _ l.nhor Directs Distrib (inct Cost t Trend) LICENilNC Till-2 SECONDAR.' EFFECTS 1 894 229 244 189 92 1,091 4,750 18.4 7.3 3.6 1.822 4 179 i) Safety graJe cold shutdoun 46.0 13 8
; (Trend 488) 310 75 20 21 72 35 62 l 2.8 1.4 70 - 15
- 2) Auxillary f eeduater erstem 3.0 1.2 f.6 suction piping endif t-cation (Trend 492) 42 49 31 11 -
500 1.0 0.3 126 46 46 149
' 3) Frnvision for Licensing 5.1 2.1 3.0 l
lesue 17 decay heat removal i letJoens line single failure (Trend 427A) 212 973 202 320 4.797 2.192 1,398 10.687 37.6 11.4 14.9 138.0 69 0 513 -
- 4) Forecast 6 inclustone (Trend 427C) 3 E 2,091 M N $,089 2.))O 2,5$7 16. 3til Subtotal Lic.ensing THI-2 C E M 149.'I' E 2,$31 Secondary Effect (1,007)
Transfer of items to other categories
- 15,300 Revised Total "MI.I.A # 67 was moved from TMI Secondary to 'INI Primary. MLIA #'s 68,102, & 221 were moved from Non-TM1 to TML Primary. (See BIE-8797).
4 4
)
Jos e220 =** MIDIAND PLANT UNITS I & 2 FORECAST 6 f. RECONCll.lATION OF SCOPE CNANCES (Continued) ($1,000s) , (eh a 1,000s) l Hanwel Manuel lione Contin-Descriptioet Heauel Manuel Home Direct Direct Distrib Direct Distrib N/M g Office mency Total Distrib Qg Office Hat S/C Met /SC Labor._ Labor _ l.eber (inct Cost & Trend) Directs i LICENSINC THt-2 PRIMART FFFF. CTS 24 121 33 35 20 to 130 560 i 6.5 2.0 2.6 0.8 0.4 107 - l) Anticipetery reactor l tripe eyetee (Trond 526) ! 57.0 3,059 - 1,260 5,817 1,600 1,914 3,963 1,811 1,155 20,659 224.3 67.5 09.2 114.0 j
- 2) Forecset 6 incluetone (TrenJ 427C) i WW @ 1,M9 1.e21 1,2al 27.219 -
1,284 5,938 3,983 subtotal Liceesins THI-2 230.0 E UM - I Frieery Effect ! Transfer of iteins 2,781 e from other categories
- I Hevised Total P4,000 i
"MI!A # 67 was inoved froen TMI Secondary to TMI Priinary. MLIA 8's 68,102 & 221 were moved from Non-TMI to TMI Primary. (See BIC-8797). ;
. 3 4.
I
l Attachmsnt # 19
"'his attachment lists the "Other" - (Kon-Scope) Changes made since F/C 1.
"Other" changes are variations within the project scope due to such factors as project evaluation, refinement of estimates, pricing changes, etc. "Other" changes have been anticipated and en attempt to provide for them has been included as Contingency. The change due to other since F/C 1 was $412.6 million. The F/C 1 to 6 Reconciliation, page 5, indicates that $65.7 million ,
of that increase was offset by contingency used. ; 3echtel's estimate of $145.0 million due to schedule comes from their F/C 6 book, page C-25.1, which lists the schedule related increases in F/C 6 as $220 million, 50% or $110 million of which are assumed to be other. The remaining
$35 million is identified on page 3-22.2 as the late adjustment schedule related costs for addi=g 9 months to the fuel load date.
Included in this attachment is a ' summary page and h sections labled Quantity, Pricing, Labor and Other. In order to assemble all the material together from F/C 1 to 6, the summaries of the "other" changes found in the 3echtel F/C Socks 1 thru 4 are included. i The F/C 5 sectics was also identified by Bechtel's F/C 5 book. Fowever, individual trends are used rather than summaries. Since 3echtel did not do the F/C 6 "Other" portion on a' by trend basis, we have identified all the "Other" trends since F/C 5 and placed them in the above categories. 'tiovever, not all the F trends, so Bechtel's "F/C 6 Development" sheets /Chave 5 to been6 change wasThese included. identified by sheets are based on 3echtel's F/C 6 I4bor Worksheets, Material and Subcontract Worksheets, and other F/C 6 estimate sheets. , __ __ _ - _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ . - _,______._._u_1
r1. a .
- s. ,
i r J Summary of Changes by Category j Millions ! Other - (Non-Scope) I Schedule Extension Quantity I.nbo r Pricing Other Total F/C 1-4 $ 0 $ 19 1 $(8.6) $ 5.1 $41.5 $57.1 F/C 5 0 8.5 50 0 19 15.h F/C 6 145.0 72.8 29.6 22.9 32.6 30e.9_
$ 145.0 $100.4 $ 26.0 $ R8.0 $ 76.0 $375.8s I
F/C6 ! Development o 71.7 64.4 (10.8) (88.1) 37.2 1 Total $ 145.0 $172.1 $ 90.ls $ 17.2 $(12.1) $412.6 i a r 9
a Reconciliation Summary j . Forecasts #1 Thru #4 Other - (Non-Scope) i j Quantity . Millions
- 1. Reassessment of Lighting Quantities and Pricing $ 2.2
- 2. Equipment and Piping Insulation - Better Definition h.1
) . 3. Design Development on Intercom, Gound Power and Communications 29
- 4. Electrical Dulks - Better Quantity and Pricing Definition 1.3 l 5 Revised Quantities for Excavation and Backfill 25
; 6. Reassessment of Grounding System 1.3 T. Henseessment of Instrumentation (1.5) l 6. Embedments Quantity Increase 2.5 l 9 Concrete Quantity and Pricing Changes 19
- 10. Small Pipe (Non-Process) Quantity and Pricing 3.5 3.1
- 11. Process Piping Changes 1 12. Miscellaneous Items Under $1.0 Million (2.9)
- 13. Concrete Quantity and Pricing Changes 1.9 lb. Piping Quantitler and Pricing _( 3.7)
Gubtotal $19.1 i i I i I 1
EE00:CII. A!!O!! SUO:ARY Ferecast 5 ($1, ooc's) 9ther - (Ii:n-Scope) Q"A' *I"'Y g. T?r:D DESCRI?rION COST 173 Enclosure of Main Steam pipe on Aux 31dg rooy protection of the $ 620 Main Steam pipe from external missiles was not included in F/C 1 220 Decay Heat Removal Sys. fixes required to the DER Sys. for 316 compliance with new SkW single failure criteria 2h9 F/C 3 Development ilo 305 Main Steam stop valves support steel in Turb sidg. additional 960 structural steel added for main steam stop valve supports in the Turb 31dg due to finalization of design 336 Structural steel mat'is & erection increase in shipping cost of 145 T/B sti,' increased erection labor over F/C 4 for containment 1&2 and increase in fabrication of grating and checker plate for Aux Elds 339 Electrical bulk quantities decrease in wire, cable and raceway (ho30) quantities due to reduction in average run le g b 353 Formwork; decrease in qtys and unit rate for Aux Bldg, Diesel Gen 190 Blds, Cire Water Bldg and yard area
;5h Decrease in Metal decking quantities and labor for the Aux and (5h)
Diesel Gen 31dgs 356 Reactor 31ds recirculation air cooling units reduction in (240) escalation costs , , 360 Additional piping quantities and increase in velding unit rates 170 for Aux, Turb, Evap, and Containment Bldgs 362 Increased labor, Mechanical & Electrical Instrumentation 2610 36h Closing distributables - reduction in non-manual costs and 5000 increase in materials and equipment 372 Allowance for piping quantity increases 1600 3733 Addition of 2nd jobsite c:znputer and temp heating boiler 200 378 F/C 5 quantity re-evaluations resulting in increases including 4873 electrical load centers, resteel, earthwork, concrete, piping, hangers and instrumentation F/C 5 quantity re-evaluations resulting in decreases including (3771) allowances for CEDM material, special tools, Evap 31dg quantities hTAC, Civil, and large process pipe See the 3echtel F/C 5 book; pages h-34 to h h3 for decalls. Total F/C 5 Quantity change $ 8,519
PICONCILIATION SUEARY Forecast 6 Listed as Part Quantity and Part Labor ($1,000's) CTFIR - (Non-Seepe) QUANTITY T?IMD DESCRI?"'ICN CCST l 380 Containment embeds change in to-go unit rates & qty $ 470 overthoseanticipatedinF/C5 4 h20 Evap Sids structural steel added quantity & MP3 resulting h70 from added reinforement to floor van and roof steel and also a revision to installation rates 451 Aux 31dg large process pipe increase due to added qty H00 from design changes and from unit rate increases due to late delivery of pipe h60 Aux Bldg small process pipe increase to reflect the h300 instauntien rate growth per pre 14=4n=7 F/C6 development; this trend also includes instanation of the Aux Bldg portion of the qty added in trend hhh h72 Reinforcing steel qty's and labor for F/C 6 re-evaluation 510 of qty's and unit rates for all bldgs preliminary 473 Embeded met'ls and labor for F/C 6 re-evaluation of qty's 350 and unit rates for all bldgs preliminary 474 Structural cone. mat'l and labor for F/C 6 re-evaluation 1280 of qty's and unit rates for all bldgs pre 14=4n=7 475 Structural steel mat'l and labor for F/C 6 re-evaluation 9o0 of qty's and unit rates for all bldgs - preliminary h76 Earthwork & dewatering re-evaluation of qty's and unit 650 rates for all areas - preliminary Total $ 10,120 l i l
I l i i COST isIEND REGISTEN 7220 MIDLAND -UNITS 1 & 2 UATEt 03/13/80
.__ _. . CONSUMER S PL'aEM C0HP AtlT _.__ _. _. _ _PAGE8. _ l . _ .
j ' l _gp a u f t t v nt t Y MIDLAND, MICHIGAN ! I l ! 1ALL CelSIS Its 31000) i INII SDY SRR ACllON & DUE/ C tufAL TelT AL FIELD CalSTS ENGft HU"E CONIGV I**
..TREN9 DESCRIPflOr4. . . . . _ _ _ . . . . _ _6 REASUN
- l. ========= BY 84 H . /UU HLit i SIf P RV P CUST ========================**== OFFICE l.
e' .)ATC.*===================*==*==== _.IJ.._ .-================. MHDH.T. = . H All. . . S/C H=Ltus . g/n= Leer
'I. Ny, lle 188 0F78 CH%falhaENT UN!? ! MALL RECH UR R CtlHPLEIEU 126 24 0 102 0 0 0 0
- I'
. _ . . . . .. . ... . . ...... . ...._ .._ ... 78. __._16 ~__ . 0. _ .. . A tt- . J e . ._ _ . U 0 0 REI NC Hil 84E A.. SEl '4 OUANTITV. 10. . _ . _ . . . _ _ . . . . _ _ . . . . . _ _ . . NESOLWED PER
't," Cu"PLETE CONSIRUCiluN SERIAL 6645 l' . . . .
. OPF u!*80.3 AND IWQ $' TALL , l*
l 7 *All.S 11 ELEV 6eb & 659 .. l'* i . _ . _ . . . . . . . . . . . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . . . _ I!lI AL FUR TPENu .301. lig,_ a0 ___ . ..__130.., _30_,._..__,____ ,, 'B', , !l 392 0179 C503ST![ FUR LUw=Petr8SURE llECH U R R COMPLF.TE J2 5 e 23 0 0 e e l E N T R A C T ION F NQ1. NP. 1964W I NL .___, . _ _ _ _ _ _ . . .58 q ._1 1 7 21 _ _ _10._ . 8._ RESOLVLfl #LN HIG_ l l tit:IT l l ADQITI0tt OF 30lN. CROSSTIE SERIAL 6761 i. 1 10 PREVENT.PulEtellAL GNUSS __ . j l bp *' f tti'lliuE IHM AL AtlCE PLH G.E. PE"UEMT l
. . _ . . _ ut8 : HLC=636e , _,...,,.,_ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ , _ . . _ _ __._ _ _ _ , _ _
l l' , th TLIIAL FUN 1 ret 40 312 90 9 1 30 7 21 16 12 ) ,5 ! !. j- 348 0978'AIN'OPLRATED BALL VALVES CPCU U N ft COMP (LIED 48 37 0 3 0 0 0 8 ! J t- VALVES ARE NEWult4ED TU 22 1 0 1 l 11 5 3 j, p~ .150 LATE THE SAFEIT H El661(D NE80LVED PER Aux FEED 4a Esl rienn itit tant.= GENIAL 5eFS - h t' t n ' "' 5AFly RELATED MAlH _. . _ . . FEf04 ATE 4 SYSIIH . . _ .__ .. __ _ _ _ _ . _ . .. .. ; i HEFl SERIAL 5475 & ULC-5639. _ . .. t. 1 t," i P _ . _ _ _ . .._. .. __ __ _. __ _...__. _ _ _ . . I!'I AL J.0,R_,] REND .P.e_., 70 . 38 _ __ e ; 3 1 _ , __ , 5 ., 18 , j'- n i. : SECH U R R COMPLETED 60 35 0 25 0 0 0 e f 3'a- 408 18 78 EVAPURATU!t DUILDING SLAu 1 _ _ _ . . . . . _ _EnntDtp METAL. _. . . ... _ . _ . _ _ . . _ . a o_ __ _ . 5 _ __. o . . . . _ r _. __ . a __... _ 0 o _ 0
- n. AUDli!HNat COSTS NESULTING HES!)(VED PEN FWOH THE ADDITION OF THE SERIAL tbel .
l* . . . _ _ . 3 1/2. INCH EMBE0. PLATE _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . . . . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . . _ _ _ _ . . . . . . _ _ _ _ _ _ . . . . _ . . _ _ l I- StilELDING AT ELEV ATit N 6S3. . _ _
, b, lHEF DMG C776 REV2) '
j (' i 4 4
Cel3T INEND HLGISTER 7220 MIDLAs0 -uNII5 142 DAfft 03/13/00 t , OUANTITV sWLT ..._. ._...._._ __... _ ____ _...._.._. NCO 5urEus PHarp CHHPANT_. _ _ __._. .._._ .._..
._.________.PAGEg . 2 nipt Aou, MICHis AH r.
4 (ALL COSIS IN sinOO) i.o DUE/ C IUTAL IllI AL PIELD CilS T S TREND DESCHIPTION & REASOH IN!I 30f S. H R AClluN & ENGN HO%E CONTGV
- ----.-- sv Hu / U U NEXT STEP Rf P CUST -==------------------------- Of f !CE .c
. .N0s 04TE ---------------------------- . LL... _. _? ?--- ?-?-------=. f HutL T ..._ Hall._..8/G _H-LHN,N/H-1HR ,, .lg
,'.3-
' 'l intal FOR 1Rf.HD 400 84 40 32 8 4 J
- k. * *
~'422 1278 LLECIRICAL QULn CHANGES DELH D R H COMPLETED -6920 -el5 0 -6tn5 o 0 0 0 ".
i ' DLLLTE INE 8tELON THE LINT -5000 -1371 0 -16H6 -lehl -374 -l H 8- @ , , se
. . . _ _ _ . .._. ALLdd ANCt . 0E SCRIHLO_ IN _. _._. kE3HLVED,PLH __. . _ . . . , _ _ . , _ . _ _ _ _ . . _ . . . . _ , . . . . . . , . _ _ . . . _. .
THEND 371 SLRIAL 6643 I g. I TuiAlf!!N.1RLHO 422 =l2000 =2lM6 -{7?l__-{#61 -374 - l e s .._ ._ . . . .i l. 1 i _ _ . . . . . _ _
, '.: c i
1 . 423 0779 ELECin! CAL ouLK CHANGES HECH U U N NEVIEW THLSE U1Y0 0079 22642 a629 1 18032 0 0 0 0 ,e ___ . Aug'LO .Cus Ts . FUR . El,(C T!s!C Al, _A Lf C S I. e_^ pgCu soere 36n2 0 525u 609e intse 5396 0 ,. - i Cu"Houtly ouAwTity i INCHEA5LS AdDNESSED IN c
. .___ _ _ F C S I . 8 5 __ __. . _ _ _... . _ . . . _ _ _. . . . _ _ . . _ _ _ . _ _ . _ . .. . . . . _ _ _ _ . _
(REFI TNFNDS 371 s 422) l'
. t*
I'llAllJ'8__IP(N_p_4g3_ 53120 E23{ l 23262 6092 {0838_5396 . . , { _ . _ _
.: 1:
c l* i
.. _ _ __. .. ._._._.. .___. - _ . _ . . . _ _. h, <-
, * *4
- ..I
- t
- 6 440 0279 88CC HruiFICATIuHS CPCU SIS U R H CHHPLLIED 189 63 0 *s t G O 0 0 l4 4
* . _ . . _ _ . HuntFY Til I f1PL E ME N T, H L G , ,_ _ _ _. _ _._ . _ . . . 61. __. 16. . .. . .!. . 14 , _. 3 7 . 9 4 0 -
1 GUIDE 1.63 . _ . .HLautvtp PLH . . . _ _ _ . . .._ 4 SENIAL 6 eel be
")..___..__._. . . . _ _ _ _ _ . . . . . . . _ _ . _ . . . . - _ . _. _ _ _ . ._ . . _. . .. .. . . . .
- e.
C44 0279 SHALL PIPE QUANTITV tl u R HFFINE INEND 0679 10484 798 0 964e n 0 0 0 li 3 . DEVELOPHENT JAH, 79 QTv RLASSEHLHI PEN FCST 6 UICH 2456 ses 97 e76 935 0 o o t
! 's
,. . . . . . . . . . m ..
s Cn3T indf ND 64ECISTER 7220 HIDLarse utallS IL2 DATEI 03/13/00 c l QUONTITY ONLY, . _ _ _ . . . . . . . . . _ . . _ _ ....CHHSuntPS PuaLN C OM P A 4 7__ _._. _ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _.PAGLI 3 . , H l ut a rad, nlcHIGAN ! *. (ALL COSTS IN 18900) *
.o TCEhD DESCHIPTION & RE ASU'I INII SDT S R R ACilUrs a DUE/ C TUTAL TuTAL PIELp CHSIS ENGR HUME CUhTGV ,
....-=... BY NH. / UU NEMI STEP RV P CUST ====....-=================== OFFICE f
. _ _N O . ._. 15 4 T E _ - -- - . . - - - + - - - -- - = = = ~ ~ ~ - * = = = = u ==...----- ...... wHuH i . . .n A ll. 8/C ___ H-Lt4N ,[4/phL esR =
,c
. _ . _ _ . . - . . . . . . _ _ . . _ _ _ _ . . . __.T u l # L_ff tR_1.R E f'D_ e_e a .,_ __ _ _12 9 0 0 . _ l 3 8:6 97_10522 .. U 5 _ . . _ _ _
. . .e
;l 461 0579 Cot.INHL PANEL AND itCC U U N REvlEd thEND 0579 1047 0 0' 3087 0 0 0 0 [g "l RECH 0_. 275___..299_.._.70F . 387 .
' 1.. ._ __ __.___ __. PUD I F I C A I I U'8 3_._._ ._ _ PE R_ FC 31.. h DELti 1033. _ 210. .0. ~!
"8
" THF.SE N0DIFIC Afl0p*8 ANE ftE'3D 10 HEET CUNRENT PANEL 4
._.__ _ .___ REcU!REHENTS . . . _ . _ .
_ _ _ _ . _ _ l-TOTAL Fup TREND 461 2nso 210 1322 29s 70F 347 I. le
- e
~456~ 05f9'AllEit EM!SijhGCkD'h'ACK5ju 6(sbl h U U R le(Ni T NE'hh T O'7 F 4 i f ei i?-~---^s-~'8 4 9 T i~" 6' ' ~ '~ 0 ~
Atu NACNS CPCO 16e 34 6 Se SF 9 4 0 .I l i______.____. EVOLVING DESIGN REQUlHf8 _.__ ,_ _ ___ _ . . . . _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ , _ _ _ _ . . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _
,- THAT ADDIT!Uf4AL ALD RACK 4
SPACE isE PROVIDED
. ._ DCAN.27_ ___. ___
'l THTAL FUN TREND e66 s e,n,, 111 6 253 SF 9 4 T
,J
,.. ']
. ,1 457 0579 RA058ASit itLDG SHitLDit4G BECH U U R REWlEN TNIND 0 t~79 .ie 4 1 FTal.l- o 6- --- ~6 ' ~ ~ d' I,
FLHOVE FHRECAST $ ESilHATE CPCO 6h 36 0 26 2e 3 3 0 l';, 'i 1 . _. _. ._ _ . ._ F O R THE 4 FT HIGH MALLS UN EL-652 SLAS AS PER hen l SHIELDING INFURMATIU*4 l- .____ _ ___ .(REF.DCte.#1 TU_.Hl2.8H21 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ..___ . . _ , l' TillAL FOR THEND 467 =140 =20 13 ein9 20 3 1 t i b
, I f
~ 466-~0519 ~ADDliloq Of CHLd FUALviS iECH 3 5 U U R ' f I'ETilit ED Of)4 19 ~~ ~3 5- ~ 0~ - ~ $ ~~~ ~ 6~ - s~~~6 'i f
- ' TO AFw LlHES ADlil0 FOR tlE LU 4 .. . . ._ _____ .
CPC0 l 0 2 2 4 2 0 [e i-CONS IDE R A T ]U'4 10 PREVEtii .. s' SifA*t CENERATOR BLonpowra ..
. _ _ _ . . . . . OUTS IDE CON T A INNEHL ,,_:_,_ _ _ , _ _ . , . . .
i DCAN 24 ,'e
- ~ - * . - -
-_ -~~ ~ __ _ _m c
Cn3T THEND RIGISTE R 7220 MIDLAno -uhlis 1 4 2 UAlta 05/l3/so e GUANIIIY UNLY . _ _ _ . _ _ . . ..__ .._.C0450HLWS PisalR CHNPA*lT______ .____..._.__ _.____ .. _..._ ..._____. PAG'8 . a 1 HIDLAND, f*lC H I G A N . ( ALL C'IST S IN $1000) .h/
~ ~
~ ' TN E ND' " UESCHIPElilU Y R'iESUN' ~ "INIT7f 0 UI N ~~'~ 5CiluN'I ~ ~EUET C iUTEL~ ~ ~ ~ ilifAL ~i iEl 0 ~CITsT'5 - ~5'G'~50 NR E hC'UNTGV
-- -----. Hf hD. / UU HEAT SitP HV P CUSI -------------*-----*-------- UFFICE C Nn. DATE --?-t-----?---??-- .?------- _. .....U __.__-- -------- .---- phon.T__.. ,_.__ Halt .._.s/C _H-LHH N/H-1.HH__,,. , ,, _,
.=
. t, . 35 4 .. c' e __. . . _ Illi AL FON TREND e6e 3 . .. 7 2 2 l'. o l 471 0579 ADMINISTAATIUM RLDG HECH H U M HEvlEW TREhD 0879 934 153 .e5 606 0 0 0 o . g RLESiletATE tlF PECHTEL NHFN PER FCSI 6 BECH 636 162 0 229 245 0 0 0 ld _RfnulHED.f0R.COM PLf,110N ,_.._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ . . . . . . . . . . _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ . . . . _ _ _ . . . . . . . . . . _ _ _ . . . . . . , THIAL FilR IRENs 471 g 315 -a5 1935 24S O _ . _ _ . _ _ . . . _ . . . . . _ _ . _ . . . . _ _ _ . . . _ . . _ _ _ _ . . _ . . . _ _ _ _ _ . . . . _ . _ . _ _ . . _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . . . . . . .___ ._. . ._ ij (1
. t CO2B 0679' PROCESS STEAM SUPPLV/HLTONu flECH U U R NEVIEW tnt lND 0979 872 300 -96 2To o 0 0 0 '!'
ADD CtlSTS FOR PIPE SUPPURIS CPCO 305 e6 8 MO t en 59 d9 0 a. AND.EARIHWORM.., l
'I; TiliAL FOR TREHD s8de g 3a6 -ge 350 at 59 29 . (1 j . . _ _ . . _. _ . . _ . . _ _ .. .. . . . _ _ . . . . . . _ _ . . . _ . . . _ _ . . . _ . . _ _ . _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ . _ _ _ _ . . _ . . _ _ _ _ . . _ _ .. ,
i e
- o .C 484'~ 679 VEhPUR PAi d 'HUDiFICAfillNS ~~ ts'i t* H U U N ftEVIEW IM56 #ff9 50 50 0 0 0 0 0 0 '
g "Ut?!F IC A T I'.tNS TO THE CPCD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 e REACTUR PLANT 3AMPLL PANT ( _,.._________,_ ., ,.,...___,,____ ___,__ _ _ . , _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ , , _ . , , _ _ . , ,... h.
. . _ _ _ ., J-210 70 ALLilW T Hi, NOUM TU h. "l HE CLASSED AS RADIATION pC
- ZONE II..__......_.._..__.__., _ . . . . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . . . . . _ , _ _ _ . ..
i . . _ _ _ _ _ . _ nie eLC 7147 0
._. ... _., _ .__ _IHIAL F08 iRt"O,ae4..._______ _ ,. ._ ._ _ 5,o,..__s0___._______ _. . _ . _ . _,
091 0779 AURILI ARY 881ILUING I?!SSILt. IlE CH U U R REVIEn FCat 6 0979 732 391 0 388 o e o o ((c
. . . . . _ . .P401kCTION . . . _ _ _ . _ _ . . .._.___.__ ._____..CPCU_ _._363 ___69 0 7m_ ,__el_ .__5d _. 25 . 0 ADDITlalNAL PLATE SILEL UWLH FC$i 5 TO PRHIECT Test Aux o ' tlLOG FROM.LMTERNAL,HIESILES .
REF TR 173 _ _ . . _ . _ _ . _ _ . . _ _ _ . . .b_._ .__ it!! A L. .F 81R_.i. ret'D =8 9 8 __.. __._ . t 0].5. . _ _ .* *
- __ __.__. ._ _. 4 8 7. _ _ ___ o I 52 25 (.e
. .l ,
b
( COS T THEN(i ALG13fER 7220 MIDLAND 'uhils i E 2 UA1El 03/13/3e C QU At4TITY titiLY _ . . . . . . . . . . ._ __ . __.._ _.. C uM 3 ue L R 3 Pu n t N C t'n P A *a f .. _. _ _ _ . . _ . . . . _ _ . . . . . . . . . . . _.__. .PAGLI 5 . ulDLano, elCHIGaN
~
( ALL C9'3I3 14 31000) I
.I TREND DESCRIPiluN 4 RE A30*s INII 3DY 3 H R ACT!uN & DUE/ C TOTAL TOTAL rifLp Cin3 t 3 E N C,9 ftGHE CuhTGY
========= ts y NH, /uo NLai Sit P By P CUSI =============*=========*="** (JSFICE I C
. . __N O . _0 A T E. ? = = = ? - * = = = = = = = = = = = = = * * = = = ? = = . . . . . EL _ _. ._= = i> * = = = = = * = = = = = = = . P H t1 M T . N#1L 3/C M=LHW N / M = L l* R !
'C i-
?. O c
c.
._)t7s_9979 190H nE*uv4L rum THg Coupt,N=_gigCH gLtLR_REVIEM_INEt80___ _ Il79 ega 7.c o e_ 3e e 0 0 . 156 , -l 3 ATE etTupy Fstu* Tait LvAPO4- CPCn 28 4 0 12 T U 0 5 ' 'j Alp 45 Ts1 Cu'4DL'sSER 18u14 LL ; ,C
_ _ . . EST!*tAIED INCHE ASE Iti PO .H _ __ .
, _ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ . . _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ . . . . _ . _..._ _.._ __ _ _ . . . . . j 301 & A330Cl4IED LADHN I!L T s.E E N FuRECAST I ANU . .,O IREN9 {$1,L_A(yg${ltEpi,]I) _ , , _ _ _ _ _ , _ _ _ _ , _ , , , , , , _ , , , ,
'].. HAINTAIPf f(IRECAST DALANCE [*
O
-l It!I ALf.op.IRErvD_5 CtL 2 0 ._ _ 7 H . _ _ _ __._ . a s_ _ _ ._ . .T . 161 i, e'
t 518 1979 ADD 3ENWICE WAIER B0031LN RECH u u A 14EVIEt8 E3flHAVE 1279 327 15e 0 173 o o e 0
.._______._PHHP f u if /B. a lli COut,Lil3..__ . DECH IU M o. a)_ '41 _ _ g l,_,,33 __ ___ g _. .
*n l.'
Punes ARE NEsaulREu Tss PNovlut as PSIG PRES 3uME AT \(.
*._, . THE 4/5 AIR CoutEst3 (F TLR_.
LOCA uR HSLB PREL IHit4 AR Y E311 HATE .U RLF DC AR._l 61. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ __ _ . . . . ._ i TilTAL Fult TREND Sie 500 In9 220 bl 27 13 ' 1
! . f'
.. l Ic r,
kl r-
.. . _ _ . . __ _ _ . _ _ . _ . . . . . _ _ _ . ___..s____. __ .
(, j
,O a
- c-f
-_ m. _
. _ . . , . . _ . - m -m,_ -_
m _ _~m_ -_
Jos 1220 MIDIAND Pl. ANT (mitts I & 2 FoltECAST 6 arCONCll.lATION OF 100N-SCOPE CHANCES (Continued) (ah n 1.000s) ($l.000s) massal Manual
- Desc ript ion Hanuel Manuel linee Direct Direct Distrib Direct Distrib N/H Hume Contin-IIs t S/C l.aho r 1. sher Eng Office mency Total l (Inci Cost & Trend) Directs Distrib N/H Ena Office _ _Het/SC labor I
QUANTITY ININ-score I) Changes in 70.2 43.7 57.7 52.2 34.8 (100) - 510 1,F88 1,065 1,273 1,%0 1,194 - F,690 seclunical e equi pment
! Acenunts I, i 2 and 3
- 2) thanges In 697.4 326.3 432.0 270.2 180.8 1.060 58 3,763 15,054 6,775 F,902 9,645 5.877 -
52.134 electrical p} emsipment and , j bulha Account 4
- 3) Changes in 645.2 287.6 181.1 217.0 I44.7 5,851 939 3,5AF 15.160 6,s32 F 040 7.119 4.332 - 50,160 civil comendi-
! ties Acroimite 5 j amt 7
- 4) Changes in 199.5' 236.0 311.5 268.6 179.0 4,n87 - 2,589 9,299 5,087 6.082 9,372 5,711 . 41,027
. Inst r essent a tion and piping g
Accnunt 6 Subtotal 1,812.3 893.6 1,182.3 808.0 $38.6 13,698 997 10,449 48,308 19,059 22,297 28.096 17,884 - 153,088 Quant it y Hon-Scope 2 Quantity Changes (DL,311) ident.irled by individual trends (F/C's 5 & 6)
,F/C 6 Developsient 4 .g ,p 1
i l t
1 Reconciliation Summary i Forecasts #1 Thru #h l 2
- Other - (Non-Scope)
Labor Millions A i
- 1. Addition of Electrical Miscellaneous Ops and Long Term Storage Labor Cost $ 3.6
- 2. Reassessment of Turbine Building Structural Steel and Labor 1.7
- 3. Reevaluation or Manual Wege Rate (0.9)
- h. Reevaluation of Shiftwork Allowance 5.0 l 5 Reevaluation of Productivity Decline Allowance 3.6 j 6. Liner Plate Miscellaneous Operations 1.3 Reevaluation of Wege Rates 7 ( 6.4)
- 8. Productivity Decline Allowance Reevaluation (11.0)
Reassessment of Distributable Labor 9 h.7
- 10. Miscellaneous Items Under $1.0 Million (3.3)
- 11. Reevaluation of Blockwork Manhours 4.3
! 12. Structural Steel Productivity 1.9 i 13. Lighting Conduit and Grounding Productivity (1.7) ! 14. Reevaluation of Productivity Decline 1.6
- 15. Reevaluation of Shiftwork (1 5)
- 16. Future Savings Due to Utility System _
( 2.,7 ) j Subtotal $(0.6) I 1 1 I U et
[' P200NCI'.,IA"' ION SONARY Forecast 5 ($1,000's) Other - (Non-Scope) 1A33R TRl";D DESCRIPTION COST 336 Containment elevated slab rebar increase in labor over F/C k $ 300 to complete 337 Dome rebar and tendon sheathing increase in labor over F/C 4 750 to complete dome rebar & tendon sheathing for containments 1 & 2 33S Structural steel materials and erection increase in shipping ecs: k85 of T/3 sti, increased erection labor over F/C 4 for containment 1 & 2 and increase in fabrication of grating and checker plate for Aux Blds 339 Electrical bulk quantities decrease in wire, cable and raceway (2970) quantities due to reduction in average run length 345 concrete block walls increase in direct labor unit rates for 2Sh3 instanation of grout fined, reinforced block walls and transfer of subcontract to directs (rates are above and beyond increase included in trend # 75-302) 346 Admin 31ds structural steel increased direct labor due to extra 290
- field fabrication, additional welding and increased welder weather protection 347 Containment van embeds-increased direct labor due to decreased (h60) field fabrication 3h8 Distributables - increase in costs due to re-evaluation of 1190 apprentice schooling p.mgrams 349 Containment 1 & 2 dome & interior van eonerete decrease in 210 dome concrete actual labor and increased labor for pouring and finishing interior va ns 350 Evaporator 31ds structural steel increase in steel bolt-ups 290 results in increased labor unit rates 351 Flued heads final field take-off of flued head quantities and 760 unit rate (particularly welding portion) results in increased labor for installation of revised total 353 Decrease in formwork qtys and unit rate for Aux Elds, Diesel Gen (11kO)
Bldg,.Cire Water 31dg and yard area 35h Decrease in metal decking quantities and labor for the Aux & Diesel (336) Gen Eldgs l l i i
?.ECONCILIATION S'CSidiY Forecast 5
($1,000's) Other - (Non-Scope) ! LABOR (Cont'd) TFTO DESC?l? TION COST 358 Embedded materials and labor re-evaluation of embedded material $(710) quantities and labor unit rates for the yard, Aux and Cire Water Bldgs l l 35e Fiping miscellaneous operations re-evaluation of unit rates due to 2560 line testing, scaffolding, etc. 360 Large process piping additional quantities and increase in welding 1270 unit rates for Aux, Turb, Evap, and Containment 31dgs 361 Large non-process piping re-evaluation of all-in unit rates and 2480 quantity increases in yard, Turb, Aux, Evap, Diesel Gen & Admin Bldgs 363 Future labor productivity decline in forecasted productivity as a (4500) result of future labor 36h Closing distributables reduction in non-manual costs and increase (loco) in materials and equipment 378 F/C development resulting in increases to labor accounts including: 6613 support NSS subcontractor, unit rate increase for mechanical equipment, liner plate mise operations, concrete block walls, structural steel, other civil piping and mechanical operations, and distributable labor F/C 5 development resulting in decreases to labor accounts including: (3897) conduit and supports, civil operations and distributables See the Bechtel F/C 5 book; pages k-34 to 4-43 for details. Total F/C 5 Imber change $ 5028 I I i
--- _ __. -. _ . _ _ . . _,._ _ _ _ _ . , - _ _ . . - . . _ . _ _ . , _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ , , - . . , . - - _ . - ~
l RECONCILIATION SI.W.ARY Included as Partiany Quantity Forecast 6 ($1,000's) OTHER - (Non-Scope) LA3OR
'"RE::D DESCRIF'" ION COST 380 Containment embeds change in to-go unit rates & qty $ 320 overthoseanticipatedinF/C5 420 Evap Bldg structural steel added quantity & MHS resulting 320 from added reinforement to floor vall and roof steel and also a revision to installation rates 451 Aux Bldg large process pipe increase due to added qty 730 from design changes and from unit rate increases due to late delivery of pipe 460 Aux Bldg small process pipe increase to reflect the 2830 installation rate growth per preliminary F/C 6 f development, this trend also includes installation of the Aux Sids portion of the qty added in trend hhh 472 Reinforcing steel qty's and labor for F/C 6 re-evaluation 3ho of qty's and unit rates for all bldgs pre 14*4"a 7 473 Embeded mat'ls and labor for F/C 6 re-evaluation of qty's 240 and unit rates for all bldgs pre 14=4n=_7 47h Structuralcone. mat'landlaborforF/C6re-evaluation 850 of qty's and unit rates for all bldgs preliminary h75 Structural steel mat'l and labor for F/d 6 re-evaluation 650 of qty's and unit rates for all bldgs - preliminary 476 Earthwork & dewatering re-evaluation of qty's and unit kho rates for all areas - preliminary Total $ 6,770
_ _ _ _ - . . _ _ - . . , , , . , , , , - ,..,,-.,-,-,y-,,..,,_,_, , , -
i e
\
COST THFND REGISTEM 722n MIDLAND = UNITS Ig2 DAf t s 03/83/pe
- t. A0'IN trsLY . . . ._ _ . . . L ut:3 0M E'4 3 P un til C ON 8' A tl y. . .__ . __ ... ._ . _ ___._ _ .__ _ . . _.. __ ._ __ .._ .P A G E I I "19LANu, NICHIGAN .
*. (4LL Ct'STS IN $1000) I < i' . . .. .
l'
. . . _THI ND . . DESCHIPTilHe & REASOle _ . . _ _ _ . .INIT SOY S R H. _ _ . . . . A . CTION &. . . . . .DUE/
_ . . . _C. . . _ . _tufAL TisT AL PIELD COST 8 ENGet Heal CDNIGY h i * ...====== 91 NHe /UU NLMI SitP HV P COST ============================ LaflCL g-
; _r0 _ DATE.============================ ll_ _.===*========?*===.wHUti T._ " A T L .__ _ 8 / C _ N = LH N . N / M =L ilR .. __ ._ . ... . __ . _ .
** BECH-3 0978 CONTAINe=ENT 8 LUG Ct HCHLik O R R CnHPLLIEu 170 0 0 17e o e e e =
!'* . _ _8 _..9- _f19315d1N6 . _ . . . . . . . _ _ .. . .._ _..._. __ __ 170... .. 52 ..... ..e___. 36 _ __.42.. ... 9 ._ e o ,
'" l' ADi>ED v&NHOUNS OVER FC8T 5 _ _ . . .REStiLVED PER Tu P4LPAIR WALL 3 FON SERIAL 5955 -
._ C 0 A T l'8G S _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ . . _ .
s!'.' . Till AL Fil88 IREND 3R9 340 52 224 62 .; '.'~ er
;'I 400 0479 CorsialHattaf 142 stRUCTUHAL #ECH U R R C0t1PLETE , 30s e 0 304 e o o a j e STEtt f e4 MING RE3HLVED PER 216 h6 9 T6 b6 0 0 0 =
b', . __. _ _ _. ItarHEASL IM INSI4Ll, ATION _. - SERIAL 6443 _ _ _ _ _ . . . _ _ _ . . _ _ _ . l l- Utill NATES UVER FCST 85 fu { e REFLECT CUPRENT EXPERIENCE ..e Till4L FOR TPEND 406 520 60 380 to , .. l.
- h. ,
F .. 40 F___1176 AurIL I Aar nult.0ING.hisc ..NTL_ptqH U R R Coe<PLE lg_._ 150 0 0 150 e e e __o0 l. g ! lhrHEASE IN IN3taLLATION NE3DLVED PER 120 31 o al 46 0 0 j q' j"
.._ ... _ _. Ur. CatILf PAIES PON NON-SLISHIC l f THay 50PPor:T1 Aw tOH SERIAL 6643 l'fl i
' .' DHale SuPPDNTS TO HLFLECT THE INCHEASE BETkEtk. . ,e i i _.. __ _CuRNENT.EzrERIEevCt.AND___ __ ~
. _ _ .__ __.._._.._l. g' j
'fURECAST m) '
j __' . . . . -. . . __. T!'IR.10M _1 REDO 4 e t ,_. __31, _ In e6 I,' 3T3 , {". . l.. e f
' s i ~
, ' 419 127s HVAC EmHAusf SIAcut s DECH U N R CONPLEIEb l at) i e' O 143 0 0 0 0 !. l . ._ _ _ _ . _ . . . ADDIfluN OF H53. REuulNLp_ .. _ _ .. .. _ _ . . _ . _ . . _ _ _ . , _ _. lor _ _ re a 3 e_ _. 4 8. .e .o e [ c' TO ERECT THE STACm3 UN 'IliE . . .NEWISE A NESULVL l' i OUTSIDE OF E ACH CONI AIND18df PER 3ERIAL 6 del 4 "1._ .____. .. ._. _ . _. . _ . . . . _ _ _ . . . THIAL fuse TREND 419 250 2d 188 ta l l '.')' c... {' . . . . . . _ _ _ _ _ . . _ . _ .._. _ . _ _ _ _ . . . . _ . _ _ . . _ _ _ _ . _ . _ . . . . . [ j _e 449_,g3T9 RELVal,UATInta OF plsTwit 5 HECH U U N NLVIEW PEN PC3T 6 OnT9 0 e e e ti - 0 ~o o *
- cRO.e T H [N MANLfAL ANU NON= tlL CH 6sso o 6 503e '
is46, o o o e- nautual platft185 StraCE PCSI s
-t-I f
( ___ww._vv es. _ _ -
.-__m- --
- -_0.-w a_q.wre we_.
O . DATE 03/,13/80 O Cost tvErsn REGisTEN 1223 HIDLAND -UleIIS l1 2 , L a u nie s o,L Y ____. . . .. C ON5unt R 3 Poa t se C OMP A t{ V_ ,,,_ __ , _ , _ , , , ,
, _ _ _,,_ _, , __ P A (,[ g 2 j . . . . . . . _ _ . _ . . .
.* p l ut a tiU, ngCulgaN
) () (aLL C 1513 IN 38000) . , THENb DESCRIPfl0M E REA30H leali Spy 5RR AC l luts & DUE/ C IUTAL illf AL P If LO COSIS ENGR HOME CUteTGV , G ==--~~~-- dv No. / U U NEkt sit P RV P Ct:51 - -----------------------**= UfflCE .. ' .0 .. . ._.. -- ----- --- -- ---- . 9 Mu H 1 __ _ __ _ S A I L ._... ._ p / C .._J'- L al N . H / H - ( tHe . . , _ . , l ', _.90 ..DATE.----------------------~~---- O' 5 LESS PREVIstOSLY T HEriUEU h . .__. _ . _ . _ f Mi h I N .. . .._ _ ._. _ . . . . . _._ . . . . . . _ . . . . .._ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ . . . . _ _ _ . _ . . . _ . . _ . . . _ . . _ . . I I" Suse teen O" 10fAL FUK IREt80 ees _6 n e o _ . i _ . _ . . . _ _ _ . _ . . _ _ _ _ _ . . _ . _ . . _ _ . _ - .____.._. _ .
- l. .
o,". 3 . t62 0579 AUX ULGG LAHGE PudCESS P!PE B ECit 0 U N REVISE THLND PEN 0779 1579 0 0 IS79 e e. 0 0 FCST 6 SECH 1221 316 0 asy s e es u 0 o Q," Ha ter.t s s
. P84 f L I N I rl 4 R V, P ust g C a S T 4 DEVELUPMEtel 3H043 AN
.,1 ItsCHEASE IN HGR UNII RAffs - *
- t. . . . _ . . _ . . _ . . _ _ . . . _ . . . _ _ _ , _ . - _
o- . O~ W 100 0 0 100 ft 0 0 c __47 8 ;. 0579 Cf t'*E'13f R Af30 AUNIL I Alt f. _,_,, ,, MECH Q_U R..REVIEN THt040 __ _0R79 Euu!P"ENT PER FC3T 6 #ECH st o 21 0 Ps 31 0 o o NEEst!'* ATE Ur nECHTEL O' , . . .__ !'ais RE'lo FON .COMPL EIIUti i
" UF INSTALLATIUM Ot ]' iUT4.L Foa .J Ruso..e_f e .___. __ 3 .._ 21._ . ._.__ I 2 e _. . 3 . _
li - O
- C -
IllI AL FilR INEk'D NPI 187s0 Sns alge 257a
@] _. . . _ . _ . . . _ _ . .. ._. .._. . _ ... ......_ ...___ . . _ _ _ _ . . . . . . . . . _ _ _ . . . . . . . _ _ _ . . . . . . _ . .
! O' . . . . . . _ . . _ . . . _ _ _ . . . . _ . g.' ass este sacetaste rarsas maiesen ca.ee seen e m e ( m ia tio.. use. e e a rasicass start sa m e_.4.ier este ones esca._._ n gi_ _:..e. e sees
. isn___isi.
a e e gese
, ____ , _ _.e s e __.
out to tatt e taste t/ Part Maastae . O .__ . _ _ . . . _ _ _ . . . . . . _ _ _ _ _ . . _ - _. .._ ___. ...... . . . .
. . aus t es. i.e.e esi sisse ie., reen i. e. esse O ~-ge,,4f y/hm Fan erve o e C ,g3 hd 06 %[
O .i __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __. _ .__. . _ e t . l O ^ o
. . . ..-.~.-- ~-
. - . . .. m m a:.o-
-m aa m 1..-.
L... I JOS 7220 . I MIDEAND pl. ANT UNITS I & 2 ,*
- FORF. CAST 6 8
I BFC084 CILI ATION OF IION-5Copt CIU.IICES (Coatinued) * (eh a 1.000s) (31,000.) , nn! n .l Desc ript ion Meniul Manoel Ilone Direct Direct Distrib Direct Distrib N/M IIcee Contin- * (incl Cost & Trend) Directs Dietrib N/M Ena Office' Het S/C _ Hat /SC'_l.ahor labc r labor Ena _ Office .mency Total 9 I.ASGt AND LAR(R-BELATED IIDIS-scope fI) e Beevalisation of piping and 1,915.0 731.3 955.3 - - - - 8,471 37,404 13,648 15,146 - - 2,012 76,688 ins t r essent at ion f productivity j
- 2) seevaluation 509.0 197.2 26).7 - - - -
2,190 9,586 4,209 i
. of elvil and 3.712 - - -
19,69F g conc ret e s
,a prode.c t i vit y I
8
- 3) Beevali.e t ion 59.0 26.1 34.7 - - - -
293 1,202 SlF 600 - - 2,682 e of elecas teal and eccleanical ' equi pment ! proJuctivity subtot al 2,481.4 954.6 1.249.7 - - -
- 10,933 48,192 17,877 19,955 - -
2,012 98,990 8 Labor-Related Non-Scope ' i Changes ident,iried ' Ols,6md, by F/C 5 & 6 F/C 6 DevelopInent $ 6IsJ90
. l I
7 e i . e
Reconciliation Sununary Forecasts #1 Thru #h l Other - (Non-Scope) Pricing Millions I Reassessment of Lighting Quantities and Pricing $ 2.3 Electrical Bulks - Better Quantity and Pricing Definitions 1.h
- 3. Reassessment of Rebar Pricing and Other Civil Quantitles (1.5)
- h. Pricing Difference (Bids Received yst Estimated) h.O 5 Mechanical Equipment Quantity and Pricing (1.9)
- 6. Diesel Generator Pricing (1.h)
! 7. Concrete Quantity and Pricing Changes 1.8
- 8. Small Pipe (Non-Process) Quantity and Pricing 3.7
- 9. IIVAC Material Pricing 1.2
- 10. Miscellaneous Items Unider $1.0 Million (.8)
- 11. Concrete Quantity end Pricing Changes 1.8 l 12. Piping Quantities and Pricing (3.0)
; 13. Reevaluation of Wire and Cable Pricing (1.7)
Subtotal $5.1 I i t
PICONCILIATION S32').RY Forecast 5 (51,000's)
;ther - (Non-Scope)
PRICIIG TPID DESCRIPTION COST 283 Condensate Surge Tank - add 2-200,000 gallon surge tanks & pump $ 85 house to condensate return from Dow; transfer piping from Dow property line to surge tank from Bechtel scope of work to Dow Scope 355 MainCondensererectionincreasetoS/CM-325foramendments8&9 240 374 HVACBalancing-omittedfromestimateatF/C4 500 i 376 F/C 5 development resulting in pricing increases including: 5130 rigging, condenser erection, earthwork and HVAC subcontracts; also tanks, cable tray hangers, piping and wage rate increases. I F/C 5 development resulting in pricing decreases including: (5915) cooling tower subcontract, C k2 bids, valve pricing, C-70 escalation, wage rates and reg guide requirements. See the Bechtel F/C 5 book; pages 4-34 to 4-43 for details. Total F/C 5 Pricing change $ ho 1 l I
CO5T tRt..e RLGisfER
. .. S I C lG ' P'L T . 722e =Intae'o -uNils 1 E 2 ualte 03/83/so
.. . .. CH450"E"3 PH*EP C D* A H V ngoLato, MICHIGa's _ _ _ _ - _ P A GI . .I f, . I (ALL Cit 315 IN 5 tost) 1 REND DESCNgPf3DN g REASUN INIT 30V 3RR e' --------- aC11uw a Dut/ C IUIAL T'alat pirto Costa I-er Nu, / u u Stat SIEP LNGR HUNL CuNTGy
.NO.._ PaiE ---------------------------- MT P COST ---------------------------- Of f IC L 3
.___ __.15
- -- ------------ un0H J . _ _.. HAIL 5/C. . M-LMN !s/M-L Mit 396 1978 CONCHEtt esTEm!AL PRICit4G RECH U u N NEvgEW Tl8t 40 6379 553 0 580 8 8
. . _ . . . . . . NLNOGI4 TION.Of 3/C 230.._ . _ .______.... .Rf. PORT .._ _ _ WECit.._ O_,__
e 0 0 . 9___. 0.__...V.. .0 9 0 0 fuf AL Foot IRENp 346 ( 3 580 l, 416 1278 LVAPURATOR PMDCES3 RADIAI!UN HECH U R R COMPLEIE MONIIHNING ]NSIRUMENl&T{0N -1000 -1909 0 0 3 8 0
" e 0 e e e i
_ .P U . J2e? ..... . . _ . . . _ _ WE 3Ht.VED. PE R 8 0 0 e '
- DELETE THE PREVIOUSLf . SEPI4L 792h I.
' INENDED BELON THE LINE I
. _ . . . _ . _ . . ALLOWANCE FOR J209 J SEE TR 19e,37e a a17.. _ _ _ _ . _* _ _ . _
l IUI AL_.f!M_ I8'Ef89.81%_ .. { _1000.*1000
'.I _ . . . . . . _ . .
437 1275 EVAPURATOR Nee.IlpHINc :N3 PROCE33 tout *LNI A T10ta RADIATION
. MECH 306 0 R R COMPLETE &lF 603 0 31 e e I
e 3 Pt'. J2so . . . . _ _ _ . . . 23 2_ _q 3 S 7 3 5 8 RESOLVED PLM al)DED COST TO TREND 19e 10 , SERgat fed 5 !* i HNthG IRENDED TOTAL {Niu.m Lint wtTH THE VENnONS UQlllE aNo to INCLupt CONCHEIL ..
- DE TECinM C4VE8 EXCLuoEn _ _ l* "
Ff#0's THE QUOT E. _ . . _ _ _ . _ _ , . l ., SEE IR 194,376 & ett ' t-l .eles.,o7 Fe AINHURt4f. AND L iqu!D PROCL33 PECH . U U k_ Rt.VILW.E3 tit' Alt.. _0979_. 4000 atep ssFEly REta:Ep RaplailuN 4000 0 0 0 0 0 Pti, H&T WL latblD bECH 0 nemtinNING PO J2ee 300 0 0 0 200 0 10e o' '
. Aten!T104.10 8HING.188thDED i fuTAL 1t470 LINE WITH 18'E 1 _. fg REnto fe
- - - - i (
{,e i . _ . . _ _ _ . . . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - .C j i
- 0. . . _ . , _ . . . . . . . . . -
. - _ _._ e
_ . _ _ . e _- b
t o COST INE.40 REGISTEM 722e riptahu .uNtl3 3 a 2 UATE: 33/13/33 f P2 ICING prLv ___ . ___ CON S UML 4 5 P8.= LN Cil" Parti ___ _.. .__ .....__.._._. _ . . . ._ P A st. : 2
- ~
m tt>L A rap, ~3LHggag g' *
* ( alt. CI'$ f 3 les 318:00) '.
I*,l TCEND DESCRIPTIDM & NEASON INII SDf 8 h R AC l liin g piegf C futAL tatt,L r3FLp Csis t s to cn pas"E CUNTGV l.'* l HFFICE I HV P CU53 =*======**================**
'.j' ..No,.i,=,Tc............................
....== .. of h0, / U U esEAT 5ftP
_ _ o_ _ _. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , ,. u.i . i_ _ . . _ . n . _ / C _ _ .Li. . /.Li. __
!.-(
, '1 ,
- 10f AL F 08t TettaD a g e.s 4100 asas 200 tes [. 4
!. g i-i' . _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ . . . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .
295.- e _o_ _ . _ _ e_ _ _ _ _ _ . e __.0 _ _ _3'*' 450 0479 HVAC BALArCING HECH 322 U U N REVIEen VHFhtiS 374_ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ . _ _1279 =205_ _ _ _ _ _ .-500
& 458 FIIM f tII AL CPCO 5 e e o e 3 2 o .'
I I" REVISLO HIDS BASED UN 6008 _. . ___ _ ..___ . 3 / E . itH 3 . S HO'4 INIS DLCHLASL..__ . - - . _ . . . _ _ . . . . _ _ _ _ . . . __ _ . _ . . . _ _ . . . _ . _ _ . _ . . . _ _ . . _ _ _ DVEN PREVIOUS BID a g.,
- 3"
_IDIP L_lD#_. .RcND_.458 I .{$e,.__.500____._2?5__ 3 2 .. i :
. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ . g
- a. . . _ _ . _ _ . . ._ . . . _ _ . . . _ . . . _ . . . . . _ _ . . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . . . _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ . . _ _
U U R REVIEI8 FURECASI 6 GOT9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 [* 4634 1079 FILLD DETAILIP86 NatsPUMER BECH _ .Sf.Ctj 0 e e ,e. f,- .a j i'
- __
.PNtHlute COSIS. INCbliED DOE _
, _ _ . 7004 8.._._7000 0,_.
g ' ,' i :- ). 1H USING JOH SHo# PENS TU
)l
- AliAIN THE FONECAST e
S T AF FING LEVELS .4LCutRf.D_HI
. * .. . . . _ _ _ _ . PLEt DESIGM RELEASE
- D$ SCHEDULES
' ~ ~ ~ ~ "
~~ ~" '~~'~~ ~
itIIAL FUE'iREflD 'lii3 A g Ws o~o
, p* > I ,.
l .- , j- C69__9579 FISHER CONTRACT _SETTLENfNJ DECH U R R .CpHPLE![ __ 220 0 220 e o 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 a 0 e 0 j' SLTILE**Etif Ur ALL CLAI'*S
- 9. "]; HEtaflVL ft1 THE RIVER li.Sul,VED PER ttTG j ,-
184 T Al(E AND PudP . 3T RUC ]UNt,8 , __ _ ___ HO{E3 9JS _ __ [8 . . _ . . _ . . . (NEF SENIAL 3091) 7 s' 3 t," iu t el_f 0H . IREteD_e69 _. .. . 2 2 0 22 0_ __ _ _ . _ _ . . . _ . _ , [ . _ _ _ e,* g 1 4050 7226 o 0779 a*- 470 0579 Z ACK stV AC s/C n=t51 BLCH U U R NEVIEW THthu 0 554 e 0 0 l . _ __PE'8E GUII A T IU'8. HF . l ALK . . CPCQ 700 171 1 29 275 0 0 0 f* CONieACT AND NEESilHAlf. 6, t OF llECHfEL sHPPORT HEOD. FOR COMPLETIDT 6 !'
. . _ _ _ _ . . . _. . . . . _ _ _ . . _._ _ -_ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ . _ . . _ _ _ . . _. _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ . _ . . . _ . - _ . . .=
i . ! t ". .. . _ . .. . . _ _ . _ _ .. . _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ . . . . . . _ _ _ . . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . - . _ _ _ . _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . . _ _ . - . . i b
t COST THEND REGISIEN 7220 MIDLAND =UNil3 l R2 UATEl 03/13/50 t PPICI'G sysL T_ CON 5UNL RS 8*H*E N COnPANT _.
. , , , PAGfl 3 ,*
eg nIDLAap, elCHIGah ( ALL CalSTS Its stoco) ' 'C
&......-.__.. ___Ditt/ C IUTAL_ . . _ _ . . . TOTAL __ PIELO. "C . .
ENGH lI TCENn _ . DESCRIPflflu 4 RE ASON. . . . . . . _ INII SDf 3 R R. . . - . _ _ . . . _ _ _ . . . _ _ . .ACIION
========= WY hti, / UU NEPT SIIP RY P CHSI ==========================** OFi lC E
.. NO _ DATE ===========?-=??*=========??.._.__. ,U. .?? ==?=========== mt*UM. T. . M A fl. 3 / G . _ . P = L t* W N/M-L M N _ __. ..
.e THIAL FOR T8END 470 efe0 171 7226 !!!s' 273 . O j n r
ie 477
. . _ . . . _ . . _0579 PAINTING. .__
_ . . .tlECH O U R NEVIEW TMLNH 0079. _ . _ . _903 .. . .0 . _0_ _ 903 _ _ _ . 0. . . . . 0 . 0 0 NEEvAltjATIDf4 UF PAINIlhG PEN FCOT 6 SECH est 17 1 0 323 343 0 0 e {O FUP FCST 86 . PNE L lHIN Al4Y I '. 10f AL.f 0R. _iREpit.87l I750 Mt 122e 3 4 3 . __ _ . _ .. ._ . _ . . . . . l.c.
;8 ll C q
*4 I
400 0679 vatvE Hil. PRICINs N=372 sECH o u R REvlEw TRtun 0079 te0 lao e 0 0 0 0 0 e 6(GH 0 ,_ _0 0 0 o U _0 . _ __ 0 l'aCNF. A SE UUE TH __ CUMPLIC A f10NS l'ESULT INr. i F40a DOHGLD SIEEL VALVE l."*. _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . C0'4P044 flONS S AotuRUPICY *1 NLF DLC 7375 *n IUI AL_!081_I8E.N.D 498 1** 188 -
. e.
e 0800 710 0 710 0 0 0 0 0 ~' C, 537 0100 PLAll00Y IESTING F5C 206 '8ECH 0 U R REVIEW TNthD , O O O O O O O O .,' _ . . E87tetAft0 COSI in.EstEno, _ _ , __CPCO *-
+ ftsis CONTPACT 10 0/31/40 10 . .;O SUPPnHT THE SITE PIPING AND l.._,,__ WE LO I NG DEP A R ittENT 3. ,,,_, _ ,,, _ _ _ _ , , _ _ ,
i PHOJECIE9 AM')U'4I OF i (t atHalg!NG nUR4 REF F3C-206 CHAtnGE REQtlESI sL,_,,,, ,__,_ _ _ ___ _ _ , , _ ,
- TOTAL FON IREiso 537 750 780- .I e 8
, . . , _ _ . . _ _ . . . _ , _ . . . . _ _ _ , , . . , _ , , , , , ,_ , _ , f1 t
1 t r-l _g g . ,. _.. __ _ _. . _ _ .
, 'j .;
4.___.._____._ __ . ___ __ _.__ _ _. I (c
. _ _ __.__.-__.. ._.~.- _ _ _ _ _ .
l, h t.C l-
- j. . _ _ . _ . . . .. ..._..___ . _ _ _ . . _ . __ . . _ _ _ . . . _ . . . _ . _ . _ _ . . .
r, i [.* (. l O
Jet 7220 MIDIAND FIANT tlHITS 1&2 FORECAST 6 C O BFIdi'!Cll.l Afl000 0F Nuff-SCOPE CHANCES (Cont inued) (J) 03 (ah a 1,000s) ( $ 1 ',000s) CI? Manual Manual O Desc r i pt ion Manuel knual Name Direct Direct Dist ril Direct Diet r ib N/M Home Contin-(Inct Cost & Trend) Directs DIstrib N/M Ena Office _ Mat S/C ht/SC l. abor I.nho r taber JL Office _ ,gency Total PRICINC NON-SCOJP I) Benegotiation St.2 15.4 20.5 - - 854 7.226 178 - 2% 273 - - - n.780 , of the NVAC subennt roc t , changing free . e unit price beels to time and material (TrenJ 470)
- 2) rrentim coete - - - - - - -
7.000 - - - - - - - 7.Gm for contract nonmanual personnel ( jobelioppe rs) to meet field detalling p1.inmanpower . I requiremente (Trend 463A)
- 3) Increased cost - - -
8.0 4.0 4.000 - - - - - 200 100 - 4.100 . of alie air-borne and liquid procese and sa f e t y-selated radiation monitoring erstem (Trend 4188)
- 4) Reevaluation of - - - -
.- 8.771 (6.240) - - - - - - -
2,511 to-go pricing for allier to-30 material g, and euh- V contracte
- 5) peevaluation of - - - - - - - - - -
(4.418) - - - (4.415)
, nonmanimal wage rate and
', experietsce to Jete l
i
er
.lon 1220
*' ~
MlplAffit PLANT llNITS 1 & 2 DONEE:AST 6 artfulCII.lAff0N OF NON-SCOPE CNANCES (Contlnesed) (als a I.000s) ($1,000s) Kinenal H,enual Desc r ipt inse Manual kneen t Hnme Direct Direct Distrib Direct Pietrib N/H llame Cantin-(Inct Cost & Trend) Directs Distr l . M/M Eng Office _ Mat S/C Mat /SC Labor Labor I.a bo r Eng _ . Office ,gency Total
- 6) Reevaluatinn - - - - - - - -
946 - - - - - 946 of maneul labor wage rate and to gn craft distribution
- 7) seevaluation - - - - - - - - - - - (2,941> (F,870> <10.11)>
of engineering
, an.1 home office wage rates
- 8) Turbine-generator <l41.0) - - - -
(620> 6,500 - <2,800) - - - - - 1,0a0 erection transfer froe techtel labor to subcontract subtotal (49.8) 15.4 20.5 E U 13,005 14.486 TTT <t,854> tit <4,158> <2,74)> <i,Oro) - 12.091 g Pricing Mon-Scope 1 Pricing Changes P2,000 ident,1ried by
', P/C S & 6 Trends F/C 6 Development $(10,fky/ )
e 4 O
i Reconciliation Susanary Forecasts #1 Thru fle Other - (Non-Scope) Other Millions
- 1. Post Tensioning Cost increase Due to Plan IsE Delay $ 2.0 2 Additions / Deletions to Mechanical and Electrical Equipment Lists 1.8
- 3. Reevaluation of Liner Plate Requirements 1.5 Is . Reassessment of Construction Equipment and Tools 1. li S. Reevaluation of Sales Tax and Insurance ( 2.ls )
- 6. Reassessment of Engineerf g and llome Office Wage Rate 2.3 7 Elimination of Posting Duplication Error ( Auxiliary Feedwater Pumps) (1.2)
- 8. Changes Under $1.0 Million (21 Items) and Miscellaneous Other (F/C #2) Is .8
- 9. Earthwork Reevaluation 1.5
- 10. Reevaluate Plumbing and Drainage 3.7
- 11. Reduction of Superstructure for Reboller and River Structure (3.2)
- 12. Reassessment of Non-Manual Manhours (2.0)
- 13. Reassessment of Engineering and. Ilome Office Manhours 2.3 lis . Miscellaneous Items Under $1.0 Million (F/C #3) (.5)
- 15. Reevaluation of Distributables 17.0
- 16. NSS Subcontract Reevaluation 3.5
- 17. Steam Generator.and Pressurizer Supports 1.3
- 18. Reevaluation of Engineering and llome Office Manhours and Wage Rate (2.8)
- 19. Engineering Allowance 10.0
- 20. Miscellaneous Other (F/C #is) __.J, Subtotal $31 5 l
I j
72C0!!0!LIATIO:: S'M.ARY Forecast 5 ( $1,ooo 's ) other - (Non-Scope) l oT:-2R TPI:3 DF,5C?lPTION COST 2k9 F/C3 Development $ 290 3733 Addition of 2nd jobsite computer and temp heating boiler 150 378 F/C 5 development resulting in increases including: 3724 T/G erection transfer to a subcontract, engineering manhmurs, temporary Doller and miscellaneous other F/C 5 development resulting in decreases including: (223h) transfer of Adsdn Bids electrical to subcontract, shiftwork reduction and miscellaneous other See Bechtel F/C 5 book; pages 4-34 to 4-43 for details. Total F/C 5 other changes $ 1930 l l
9 OAffs 03/13/00 0 COST farNp REr.ISTER T220 MIOLAND -UNIIS I L 2 OTHfR t o r ,D M_ LHagSuaER$ Plant N, CfMP.A.taf _PAGEl ,, ! . H10LAho, HIC,43GA84 i (aLL CUSIS IN $1000) ]/, DOL / C IO{A( IlliaL FIFLp CHOTS ENGR HUHk (,0NIGY i ffEND OfSCRIPTION & NEASUN INII SDY S R R ACi]UN & .*
......... ev No, f u u Eai SItP ey P CDSI .................... ....... Dee!CE [.
,p . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . n hut I i, H A IL . - . S / C __ H.Lto M. N/P?L M N_ _ __. _, .,
Ny, paiE..........................._, _ HECH U U N NEvifu FILLp 12f6 0 0 0 0 0 0 e n ". I ' J ti) r. .i F A RFi t85C dE'4tV AL REf.5TIHATE s'F FSC 31*J 10.____ _ .. _.___ _ . l *l P U I . .__ _ULCll... .100 -. . 0 __199 0 _ . .__ fr . .. _ . O _ 0 e
- l *.
i PHOVICE REFUSL REttPVAL SLNv!CES IllRudGH PHOJECT C O*9 PL E T I Ord ,_ , . , _
! TOTAL FOR TREND 353 g 100 .
r' l , e'
. - _ . - - - . . - _ . - . - - . - -- .L....... .--. .- .-.-- . . ..-.. ..
-e
'U T ii CitndijlE O o l'~~~0 4 -~- 0 0 l 383 lif s 'IE HPUR Auf' Nt Ailt.'6 F DLL '~ --~"utCW e20 0 0 0 0 0 0 TO.G's F UEL COST FOR 420
- 1 -
I tiPPNAllON Of, TEMP UUILERSp, RE30LVEp_PLR HIS 1_.._. untill M AIUR AL G AS PIPL LINE 840TES 9f # *
,,i .
'j IS 143TALLED AND FOR SPACE 8
.HEaltc5 U'8TIL START or_e*Nii _
*)
d Stat 4 TUP UPER&ftflNS .- TUI AL .F oLIRtteo_ see _., g ._ __4 2 0 __ _ _ _ _ _
.l
_ ____,___ ._. h f' I 3
'ba u R R CUMPLETE 108 20 0 65 0 0 0 15 .
399 1970 LlHIT STEAM ErsIEu1NG TUNf4EL DECH 9g j 8,_ $ _ , _ ,19 20 1 3,__ _ 0_ _l), ' l.J 3 AuntiltN OF FLOS E LL t1E riT_ IN, r MalN STEsn LINE 10 LIMIT HESDLVED PER PfG '! I SilAH ENTENING THE TUNhEL NOTES 978 *.. } l'8 t ra THE LvE41 OF A PIPL .' i
-A purf t'HL Rtf s PLID 440 SHI RLv.2 I .} ! .
IUTAL FOR IPEND 394 200 46 1 84 20 13 0 28 .
~
f 'g l -
. . . - . . _ . .4
?
i . 1 4340 1278 8DUlfl0HAL 04,9C,0E .CPCO. ___U R R COH1'LETED 212 0 0 O _212 . _ . 0.... 0 . 0_ i Hs uulRE Pit:T5 IR ANSF ER OF ALLO *' AhCE S tra RESOLvEn FER ade 0 0 0 u 286 142 0 h r
' 48].
, TRfun 20 Flor
- SCOPE 10 SLAIAL 66u3 .
b)
* (StL ALSO INENDS 20 g aleA) ,, g ,
.1
.-__ h8IA.L..ULN_IREHQ,4140 _ ,___ . g __ _ . . _,_ _ _ _ .,212 _ _286 142 _ _ ,, 6 -j l
IL o e 0 0 0 e o 0 0 0 l j 438 02f9 SHIF IriURM PHEMIUM BECH U R k COMPLEIED h .
. .. - . . . . . . . . . . . _ . ~ _ ~ .
6 7220 H10 LAND 'UNIIS 1&2 , DAlf t 03/13/80 . 8 COST T h F Nf' REGISTER .PAGEl._... 2 ._ OTHER l t '.14 _ . . . _ . _ . . _ . _ CON 30PERS. POaLP.CUHPAltY ___
.'l. -
HIOLehu, MICHIGAN 8
' IALL Ct1313 IN 18009)
Dut/ C futAL TOTAL FIELD CUSTS ENGR IgDME CuhTGY T
- E t40 DESCN! Pill)N & 14EASUN INIT SOY 8 R H ACIluN s , 8
- gy his, / U U NLRI SILP RY P CUSI ================**========== DP f lCl 8 =========
__D_ ? ? -= = = = = = = = = = ? ?? ?
- tiUH. f. .t' A I L _ _ _6 / C . . . tt-Lt* H N / h-Ltut _ ..._. . ... . ..
lt No._.0 ATE ===========****===========*= 130 0 0 0 130 0 0 0 . i ADDED lot 5917T . .. _ . _
.._ _. l'If F tliENT ! A L t DM F IELU NON. ..__ ..___. .. ._ __ . N E S HL V L D P L 't _ _ . _ . _ _ _ __ . .. _ . . . . _ . _ . . . . . . _ _ . . _ _ . .
HA'aual SERIAL 6683 ,
. . . . _ . . _ . . . _ . - . _ _ _ _ _ . . . _ _ _ Il'I4L.EDlLIhEHD. 938_. M _.__ _ _ __13 e p.
- s. . t g,
238 280 7 0 0 0 0 t 4318 0279 SUbSIDLNCE SURWEILLANCE CPCO O R R CitNPLElto 1 *
._ Hu11 t ne t NG AND.,FOUht' Alli n ' 62 4 . .. 0__ __ 2 . __ _ S t . __ __ . 0 . _ . 0 .__ __ 0 asoral leH ING NESDLVED PtM 10 C O PLY WITH LICthSING SERIAL 6643
' 'l eof PNtylouSLT I N(g,UD& D [N,, ,_,,,__ ,,,, , , , , , _ , , , _ _ _ , _ _ _ , , , _ , _ _ _ , , , _ , _ , , , _ _ , , _ _ , , _ _ _ _ , , , , , , , , _ _ _,
I
.] THE PROJECT FUWLC&SI I t* (4f FI SEMIAL 6345) _ _ _ _ . . _ . _ _ _ _ . _... .
,f _ . . _ _ . . ( SI L AL8'l 14f ND 24 5.E 481A) ....__..__ ___. _ .. .._ .._. _... .... ___.
TOTAL FOR TREND 4818 5 250 9 56 - t ' I 1 _ _ .. _ . . . _ . . . . . . . _. . _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ l 4 al 6 5- ~ a55 Ge.79 PLAPT FILL lhyESflGATION Ardp Bf.CH U U H REVIEN THLND 0079 5110 1256 430$ ~}s41~-~~~~0 0 0 8 P' 568 790 839 3636 1220 9 I CootC TIVE ACT10a4S lit CH 7070 0 SP !' tsTIiatto CuSis Fop Inyts- l' I!CATING & CO# ECTIhG THE l ,'
% " D,G. 6 LUG SETILE"ENI ..
g-TOTAL FON IREND 456 IS t a n_ 1824 e305 3331 839 3636 1228 17
%g- *
.l
."' . 'l to C63 1079 FILLD DETalLlHG MANPuhtP . ... _ ttECH U U R REVIEW. FORECAST 6 00T9 .
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
]
" thCHEASL UVER FORLCAST 5 FCSI 6 UECH 13:50 =0$0 la000 0 0 0 0 0
%- f Off **4'JPOpt.R N101' IRED 10 s.
atti olSIG* RLLEASt .. _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . . _ _ _ _ . . _ _ . . _ . _ _ . . . . . _ _ _ _ _ . . _ . _ _ ( *i ECCCliULES IF WECHILL DIRECT ,,
%" l'lut PERSONNEL dERC ,
AVAllAllLE . . _ _ . _ , _ _ , , 1DI AL FON IRgt'D 863 _13150_
=B50 1a000 (,
9.+ g 4 . i ll i .,
-- - . . . - = . . - . . = . - - . ~ . . _ . . . . . . . , , , , ...,m_,,
' C 3 ;p3T TRfHD REGISTEst 722e MIDLAND -UNIIS 1R 2 , Dalt 03/13/se (*
OTHfR t rE'sp3 CONSUs*Eup.PelatR COMPANY ,,,,_ _ ,PAGFg
}
,'l ___ __
MIptatsu, etICH]G Aff ,
)*l s.
(ALL Cel513 In 380001 f l TH[NO D'E SCitIPTIUM 4 REASUN [N]I SDY 3 R H ACl]UN & Dut / C TUT AL IllT Al. P !f LD CUSIS LNGR NO'*[ CUNIGY
) ========= BV NU, / U U NEXT SItP RT P CUSI ============================ Of71EE C NO. DATE ============== g============ U ================= nHun y taalg._ _.S/C H-LMH k/H=LFfs , ,,,,,
8 *t I .s C! *
,- 8 .,
.)
, ,8 g.. ,
~
.;0 ~0779 73AR REYIfes ~FsH'8 CCHisAO v5 T NU ~ ~0 T il'EVIEW ~H ~ T eiE'8 sip 0973 0 0~ ~ i ~~'~ -'i'~ ~ 0 ' ~ d ~ ~ E~ E' I Cs'**uEnf des!Gn CPCn a00 0 0 e o 33 66 .t
{ FtVIEW 8 tJPDATF, PSAM,., o .
's ..,___,_ . , _ , _ _ _ , _
3 j Cu"sitTr'ENT LIST S HEviEh 6
; 3tCTIONS OF THE FS AN DEf t.R= 0
. . _ _ . -INLD 10 HL !ssACTivt,, . _ _ ,._ _ _,_,_ _
{ l! TitTAL FilR TREND .gu 00_ 33s es 6
,e 8 ie
. e l, SilR HafENIAL FCST 5 BALANCE HECH U R N SEE TRENp SilA F83 TR3 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
' Teil3 IS TO OFFSET THE ABHVE o o o o o 0 0 0 t Tut un 5tI A .I'IEREny . . . . .__ ___ __ _ ._..__._ ._. _ __ _ . :-
nalNTAgra!NG THE FORECAST 5.._ h I SaLANCE lf f
.. .._.- .. . . . _ . _ _ _ _ _ . .. _._ . E' THIAL FON THEHO Sinn 783_ - . _ . .7s3 3' e
-e 1'
g 521,.1079 itNDute PROTECTIOes PROCEDUNE3 tiECH [ t U U R REVIEW PNUCEUuRES 12To 773 71 0 702 o e 0 0 g C=b7 CPCU S2F 120 0 ine 22F 0 0 0 e 8 EST!nATED COSIS 70 PEE 1 THE eECH I8 STnkacf CONDIlloHS HEupINEp ' SV SPEC C=81 v~ 8 el e
. . . . . . . . _ . _ . _ . _ . . _. _ . __. I H I S _f.!'N T H ( N Q 5 R I ., _ __ _ _. _ ._ _ __ J,,,{,0 0 ___ , J 91 SM2 22F ,
y-t i . . s* g
.e e-
{'
, Toi Ai. rnR inENo Pr n 2.i, io 6i6 .m i... .u. i... 5 j.,
8 l t
,1 . , n JOB 7220 MIDIAND FtANT TWITS I & 2 FORECAST 6 O
<.11 BF.C(MCll.I ATION OF te0N-SCOPE CllANCES (Continued) .($1,000s) m .
(eli e 1,000s) Manuel Nnuel lione @ itin-N/H lione Direct Direct Distrib Direct Distrib t.sha r I.she r Eng _ _Offire ,ge s _ Total Manuel Manuel _ S/C _ Hat /SC _f.ebar Descr ipt inn Het N/H Ena _ Office _ ( Inct Cost
& Trend) ._ Directs Distrib _ _
<479) (3,888)
- <1,597)
OTiltR NON-SCOPE - - -
- - (117.8) (9.7) l) seevelustion of engineering and imme office man-hours bened a
on esperience to date end work plans to suPP08% LI* licensing procese and the project , . (12,199)
. schedule . - . . - <l2.199) ~
- ~ <I*
- 2) seevelustion of field non-mennel labor bened on the forecent pro ject - - - - (17,109) actedule - -
- - (17,309)
- <581.8)
- 1) Beevaluation of field diet r lhut able menuel labor beoed on the required levels of support to directe end the f orec ent - - <l9,VHo pr o jec t schedule 2,645 1,630 -
- - (5,178) (18,197)
(451.0) 50.0 (27.0) -
- 4) Reevelustion of allowance I
for overtime end ehlft I work premium coste
o Jos 1220 , , HIDS.AMD Pl ANT UNITS I & 2 . Foltr. CAST 6 strostCil.lATION OF NON-SCOPE CHANCES (Continseed) . t . (nh a 1.000s) ($1.000s) . Manual k nual Drec ri pt ion Manuel Manual Home Direct Direct Dietrib Direct Distrib N/M Nome CentIn-(Inct Cost 6 Trend) _Directo Distrib N/M Ena office Hat S/C . Mat /SC Labor I.a bo r labor Ena Office _gency__ Total
. OTHER NON-SCOPE (Continued) t
- 3) seevaluation - - - - - - - - - - - - - (26,0s7) (26,0sF)
- i of cost cont ingenc y j
- 6) Miscellaneous (429.0) (123.5) (211.6) 69.o s96.6 2,913 FFo 4,209 (9,362) (3,377) (5,530> l.039 <42) 4,354 (1,026) other changes i I
subtotal otber <sso> <665.3> 352.7) es.1 es6.9 2,983 7 70 3,o31 <27,759) <ts 04t> <t6,299> 560 <3,860) <21,733> c9,71si 3 Non-Scope , Miscellaneous Other (0,3<fj ) Changes Added to . Balance the report: . l f ' Subtota1 Other (gg,j33) Non-Scope e\ e I i l
! i l !
I
I
. . - . . . . . .. 1 n.. n : .. a.
l l Te KEY.line, ?-1L 111 r.on ED'#:itney, ?-13-102 CORSum8IS oire Februa / as, 19ec POW 8r COmpBDy su. seer icd:anD raozz~ mes.z mRS - AFRIDC Prz INTcRNA6
- ancs.:~:cuce CC Cc fir =ing our earlier tele;hese ccaversatics, I have, at you request =ade
=u=ercus ecstacts in General and Property Accounting, Corporate Accounting and Regulatcry and Data Research Depart =e: s cencerning the "Allevance For Funds Used During Constructic=" rate to be used in future years. The opinica ec veyed to me was : 1980 AFFUDC rate vill not change frc= SM per a u=. With respect to the rate for years beycnd 1980, taking into ecesideratic: the in-creased ecs s of borroving money (prime interest rates, bond and first =crtgage ra,es, etc) and uncertainty of the outeeme of the pending rate case before the Michigan Public Service Cem=issic: using 1980 as the test year, the potential does exist for an increase in rate for AFFUDC for years beycad 1930.
Ne suggestions were offered ec=cerning any rate beycud SW or in what year a:-/ increase =ight occur, only rece6:izing that the potential does exist if the facters affecting this rate re=ain the same or escalate further. t
!! I can be cf further assistance, please advise.
l t . I I 1 i
W
* & e **4 es *O G mg. DN i
i
^
Att Schlllt** ** "^ kA3 httC deleggg, t 9 4 I l l l i I i S W k l
ATACH C 23 1 Increased Testing Due To Regulatory Require =ents i
- 1. Decay Heat Re= oval and Reactor Building Spray Pu=ps suction line loss.
- 2. Radio Frequency Interference test.
3 Type C" Leakage testing of penetrations serviced by penetration pressure syste=s.
- h. Electric Distributicc Voltage Gradient and "ransfer Tap testing.
5 cold shutdown with safety grade equipment.
- 6. Natural Circulation Cooldown testing.
7 Testing of valves in drain lines in rooms having critical equipment.
- 8. Testing of single failure proof Auxiliary Building crane retrofit.
9 Check excess flow check valves and reactor coolant system sample system.
- 10. Verification that safety related DC devices vill operate on mini:m:m design battery voltage.
- 11. CRDM housing te=perature profile testing.
- 12. Expansion of piping vibration testing progress.
13 Expansion of safety valve testing program.
- 14. Emergency Diesel Generator vibration and settlement monitoring during test program.
. 15. component cooling Water testing on reactor coolant pump seals and motor i bearings.
- 16. I&C sensor response time testing.
17 Expand Emergency Diesel Generator testing to meet Regulatory Guide 1.108. l l 18. Addition of Auxiliary Feedvater System testing. i 19 Hot functional qualification test of ASME code valves, j
- 20. Other TMI-2 related tests to be determined later.
i Per RAD 3/12/80
(1,000's)
]
Midland Project F/C /k to #6 Cc=parison Lescrittien F/C #6 F/C #4 Variance ) 3echtel Equipment & Material $ 285,389 $ 214,662 $ 70,727 Direct Subcontract 148,25k 100,13k k8,120 Direct Manual Labor 363,255 237,865* 125,390 Distr Manual Labor 139,660 86,343' 53,317 Non-Manual Field Labor 136,279 66,195* 70,08h Distr Material & Subcontract 1ki,032 61,813 79,219 Home Office Engineering 179,806 90,734 89,072 Other Home office 96,308 3k,515 61,793 Fee 15,235 10,k50 k,785 Contingency , 89,701 58,176 31,525 A11ovances 0 58,000 (58,000) l Rounding (h19) 313 (732) Total $1,59h,500 $1,019,200 $575,300 l (
' Labor allevances have been allocated on same basis as appea.r in F/C #6.
(1,000's) 2 F.xplanation of Changes F/C #h to #6 Ecuin=ent and Material (Change = $70,727) The change between F/C #k and #6 for major equipment purchases was minor. The significant changes vere for bulk naterials, ie, $9,000 added for civil l com=odities, $10,000 fer piping and $16,000 for instrumentation and electrical bulks. An addition for late changes is the largest sine le centributer to this increase at $31,653. Direct Subeentracts (Change = $k8,120) For details, see Attachment 5 Below is a summary. *he increase in subeentracts from F/C #h to #6 was due to: 1.0 NSS: Increase in NSS erection subcontract ($6,800) , ( Added fuel transfer system to SIN's scope, field changes and client require-ments and support of the preservice inspection team.) 2.0 *urbine Generator: Nove of T/G erection subcontract from force account to subcontract. ($7,000)
3.0 Hechanical
Increase in miscellaneous equipmenn insulation. ($2,100) 5.0 civil and Structural: Increase in the Zach EVAC subcontract, plus transfer of painting frem subcontract to force account. ($8,200) l 6.0 Pipe and Instrumentation ($800) 7.0 Yardvork and Miscellaneous: Increases due to soils fix vork, repairs to dike riprap, and subsidence and groundvater monitoring. ($3,k00) l l In addition to the individual account changes listed above, late changes in the a.ucunt of $25,692 have been added for subcontract extensien and additions due to the schedule extension fre= July c. 1983 to April of 198k. l
i 1 (1,000's) 3 j Direct Manual labor (Change $125.390) Direct manual labor increased between F/C #h and #6 due to several factors l a=eng the= are: Additional quantities, an increase in the cost per manhour (due to some of the work being performed later than planned) and increases in unit manhours. An extensive study of Bechtel's =anual labor estimate was performed by the field members of our estimate review team using 3echtel's Labor Forecast Worksheets (which had an August 1979 cutoff) and the 70C"3 Report for 10/2/77. Sumnary of F/C #h to #6 Direct Manual Manhours Reconciliation. Total Direct Mc= hours (X 1,000) Unit / Total F/C #h F/C #6 Variance Unit I 2,847 E 3,265 E h18 m - Unit II 3,222 m 3.591 E 369 m h.780 m
~
j Common 6.276 m 11,056 m 1 Total 12,3k5 m 17,912 E 5.567 s i l l l l \
l l (1,000's) L Direct Manual Laber (Continued) Unit / Facility F/C #h F/C #6 Variance Unit I ?sbine 889 m 1,265 E 376 E Centainment 1,52k 1,967 kk3 Cire Water 20 22 2 Unallocated k13 11 (kC2) L%it II trbine 1,179 1,k79 300 Contai= ment 1,601 2,066 h65 Cire Water 29 31 2 Unalloeated k15 1h (h01) Cce: mon Auxiliary Bids 3,k93 5,969 2,k76 Process Steam Evap Bldg 500 1,Okk 5kk Diesel Generator Bldg 230 373 1h3 Administration Eldg 10k 12k 20 cire Water Facility kk2 Sk3 101 Dov Structure 0 191 191 Yard Area TkB 9k7 199 Unallocated 758 1,866 1,108 Total 12,3k5 m 17,912 E 5,567 E 9
=
SO
._L_
l l l i (1,000's) 5 Category / Total y/C #h F/C #6 Variance
- 1. Concrete 3,klo E 3,715 E 305 E
- 2. Civil 1,5k2 2,539 997
- 3. Reactor Related 61 66 5
- h. Mechanical Equipment h5h h2h (30) 5 Piping 3,878 6,132 2,25h
- 6. Instrument & Controls h67 855 388 l 7 Elsetrical Iquipment 297 352 55
- 8. Electrical Bulk 2.236 3.829 1,593 Total 12,3k5 E 17,912 E 5,567 E An analysis that compares changes between F/C #h and #6 by manual labor category (ie, all formvork on the job, or all resteel on the job) looks at 22 separate areas and thereby picks up 5,16k E's of the 5,567 m change. *he report reveals that about 80% of the added manbours was due to added quantities and abe.;t 2C%
was due to productivity. The largest increases occurred in the miscellaneous pipe operations account at 1,247 E 's. Generally, one manheur is budgeted here for every one manhour in all the other piping accounts. The next largest categories were condu'its and supports at 685 m, vire and cable at h92 E, mechanical instrumentation at k70 E and small pipe at kk9 E. Generally, added quantities were most responsible for these increases. Attachment k to this report goes into further detail, discussing some of the reasons for the changes. l "he change in the scheduled co=pletion of the project has shifted the centroid 1 to a later date meanin6 the average cost per =anual manheur vill be higher. The total project average cost per whnur was esti=ated to be $16.06 per hour g - w-- ~ , _ - + ~- - a - "*-- ? - - , , , , - , --
? (1,000's) 6 Direct Manual Labor (Continued) for F/C #k. Se co=parible F/C #6 rate is $18.19. Sis fact alone contributes nearly $k0,000 to the manual labor cost increase. Se Bechtel allowance for overtime and recruiting (a technique for providing critical crafts) is included within the labor estimates shown at $13,k00 which l indicates $16,600 of the F/C #L $30,000 allowance has been expended to date and the $16,600 is a to-go cost. Sis allowance is for overtine above the 5% casual overtime built into the base labor rate. Our field analysis of this area supports the inclusion of this allowance. Another labor allowance included within the manual labor area is for a producti-vity decline of k% per year. Se allowance is $15,200. Again, our field reviev team members agree with the inclusion of this allevance due to the high incidence of rework that is necessary in many areas, which adds to manheurs, but not to quantities. See Attachment 9 I I I r i
* ~
. - - - - - - - , . , , : - :,7 .. -. -- - , . .
1 l (1,000 s) 7 Oistributable Manual Labor ($53.317) This area has been increased by 2,600 manhours or 587. since F/C #k. Since . these are the support f anctions, they are directly affected by the longer schedule duration. The crafts who perform site maintenance, varehcusing, material handling, cleanup, etc vill be on site for a longer period of ti=e. The same impacts as discussed above on direct manual labor also affect distributable manual labor. The cost per manhour is greater (responsible for $15,000 of the above increase) and there are certain allowances for productivity decline, overtime, etc. Attachment 6 lists 28 different labor accounts and ecmpares the= to F/C #h. At a summary level, the largest increase was for construction services which made up 1,9ho manhnurs of the 2,600 manhours increase. This was due to added cleanup (385 m) material handling and varehousing (800 m) and maintenance of tools and equipment (26k E). Non-Manual Field Labor ($70,08k) The same factors affecting manual labor also impact non-manual labor: The shift in centroid causing a higher cost per manhour; the stretched out schedule causes certain support groups to be on site longer adding to the marhours, and more work has been added due to late changes. A=ea F/C #h F/C #6 Change Supervision 536 838 302 Field Engineering 2,99k 5,690 2,696 First Aid / Medical / Safety 97 191 9k Field Procurement 273 522 2k9 Ad=inistraticn 1,392 1,312 (80) Surveying 1h5 155 10 See Attachment 7 for more details.
. .- -, - - , - . , . - _ - , - - - . - - - - - - , - . . - - - - - - - - - . , ,---,-,--,,-,r-----..y---.,.--,.,-----.--.r, .
.y,, y.,,-,,.
l l 1 e (1,000's) $ Distributable Material and Subcentract ($79,219) Distributable materials account for $k0,092 of the above increase fr== T/C #k to #6. As pointed out in the Estimate Review Section, the use of distributable
=sterials consumable supplies, etc is tied to manual labor. Since the manheurs are up, it is expected that distributable materials vill be up too.
Distributable subcontracts account for $39,127 of the above increase. Attach =ent 8 discusses the changes in detail. However, the dominating change for this area' is the addition of " job shoppers" who are performing small pipe and hanger design at $28,500. Sechtel Engineerine and Home Office ($150,565) A nov department was recently established in Ann Arbor called Adr.inistrative Services which includes manhours from several departments, making a comparisen by department from T/C pk to #6 difficult ** Therefore, both Engineering and Home Office have been combined together for this reconciliation. Total Ecune Office manhours (including late changes) have increased from h,959 manheurs to 10,186 manhours or 105%. The reason for this increase is:
- 1. The schedule extension means support of construction over a longer period of time, adding to manhours.
-2. The scope of verk has been increased due to design evolution, added work (scope changes) and late changes.
- 3. 3echtel has been required to supply increased support to CPCo in the licensing effort.
The estimated cost per average manhour is greater by $k.60 because the centroid is nov later. "his adds $kT,000 to the costs. v --
<-+, -, - --,,v------g, --- -. > - - - - - .-- - -
w -- - , - -e se,m- e ew. --, ----,,s--, . y,o
o (1,0CO's) .. 9 w Sechtel Fee ($k,Td5)
'"his change is discussed in the Esti= ate Reviev Sectics of this report, Page 16. . ;
Bechtel Con-irrency (S31,525) Contingency is based en to-go costs and is deter =ined by the assig:*d rists factor. "'he Estimate Reviev Section, Pages 16 and 17 discusses thy necessity for cc tingency. 3echtel A11ovances ($36,000) ' During the preparation of T/C #6, Sechtel eli=inated this categorl/. 3elev-the-line allovn=ces were considered to be outside 3echtel's scope, but provided at CPCo's request on an order-of-magnitude basis. The 7/C #6 policy is to include all items that are being considered as part of the estimate including materials, manhours , engineering, etc felt necessary to secomplisfl the task. -
\
S
-r m
J
. - , - g , - - . . - , - -
r A CACE. c 25
/
3echtel Contingency Sum =ary of Changes From F/C #1 to #6 Millions A. Contingency at F/C #1 $76
- 3. Forecast #2 Contingency added $ 17.L Contingency used and unneeded (22.L)
$ (5.0)
Contingency at F/C #2 $71 C. Fort ast #3 Contingency added $ 3.8 Centingency used and unneeded (9.8)
$(6.0)
Contingency at F/C #3 $65 D. Forecast #h Contingency deleted $(2.3) . Contingency used and unneeded (5.7)
$(8.0)
Contingency at F/C ph $57 E. Forecast #5 and #6* Contingency added $ 59.8 Contingency used and unneeded (28.3)
. $ 31.5 Rounding- 15 Contingency at F/C #6 $90
*Per Bechtel me=o BLC-8916 dated March 3, 1980.
I l N
~ r - - - .
w--- , - , - - . - -, , , , _ , . .. . _ , _ _ _ _ , . _ , _ _ ,
A'""_"AC*-2C7 26 Sechtel Allowances Su==ary of Changes Frc= F/C #1 to #6 Millions A. A11ovances included in F/C #1 $116.0
- 3. Forecast #2
- 1. A11ovances used $(39 3)
- 2. Allowances deleted (21.0) 3 Additions to previous allevances 26.0
- k. New allevances 2h.3
$( 8. 0)
A11ovances included in F/C #2 $106.0 C. Forecast #3
- 1. Allowances used $(10.k)
- 2. Allowances deleted (7.2)
- 3. Addition to previous allowances 5.8
- k. New allowances 3.6
$(8.0)
Allowances included in F/C #3 $100.0 D. Forecast #h
- 1. Allowances used $(k2.6)
- 2. Allowances deleted 0
- 3. Additions to previous allevances .6
- k. New allevances 0
$(k2.0)
Allowances included in F/C #h $56.0 E. Forecast #5
- 1. A11cvances used $(5.3)
- 2. Allowances deleted (.3) 3 Additions to previous alld.rances k.h
- h. New allowances 73 2
$72.0 Allowances included in F/C #5 $130.0 i
2 A r_ACHIC'T 26 F. Forecast #6
- 1. Allowances used $(103.S)
- 2. Allowances deleted (26.2)
- 3. Mditions to previous allowances 0
!+ . New allavances O
$(130.0)
Allowances included in F/C #6 $0 Further details on individual allowances are available in each of the Forecast Books. O
,_ - . . _ . . _ -,w y , .,, , . _ .. ,,v_ _ , , . _ _ , _ _ ___,,y _yy -. , _y., .. ,,y , - , , , . _ ..,,y
b ATTACHMENT 8 -
~E To Applicant's 8/17/83 Response
O To FILE 0130.1, 0650 f. raos ARMollenkopf, P-lk-308A Consumers one July 31, 1980 POW 8f suescer MIDLAND PROJECT bOEhEOY CCNSUMERS PCf4ER/BECHTEL l EXECUTIVE MANAGDEF2 MEETING M ca m JUNE 25,.J.980 C " " * * " "C E TLEli0130.1,0650 UFI: 12*2h SEPlAL: 8892 cc JDSelby, M-1115 GSKeeley, P-lh-113B TJSullivan, P-2h-62hA SHHowell, P-26-336B DBM111er, Midland KRKline, P-lh-312A JWCook, P-lh-113A RCBau=an, P-lh-3123 WP31rd, P-1k h18A
' , Q ' L ' '._ n - C 3 r: ,- .
On June 25, 1980 an Executive Manage =ent Meeting with Bechtel was held in Roo= M-1175 of Consu=ers Pcver Main Office Building. MEETING MINTJZES Meeting Purrose_ The purpose of the meeting was to reviev vith the Executive Manage =ent of both Bechtel Power Corporation and Consumers Power Cc=pany the project scope and schedule redefinition effort that has been undertaken since March 1980, and to arrive at a decision on the target dates for key project =ilestones. Meeting Agenda and Attendees The meeting agenda is attached as Enhibit A. The =eeting attendees are indicated on the Agenda. 1
- Seepe and Schedule Definition l A. J A Rutgers discussed the background leading up to the start of the schedule l
redefinition effort in March 1980. The background is docu=ented in Forect.st #6. B.- The plan for reevaluating the project scope and schedule was presented by G S Keeley. An outline of this presentation is included as Exhibit B. C. G S Keeley described the process used by the project team to reevaluate the project scope and su==ari::ed the results. The outline of this discussion is attached as Exnibit C. Mr Selby suggested that the project tea = concentrate on the scope as we know it today and get on with the job. The list of future exposures tc scope additions should not be a major influence on the project because it vill result in indecision and schedule delays. D. J A Rutgers defined the schedule hierarchy and the develop =ent status of each of the various schedule tools. The schedule development effort to date has
e 2 been based on a " working line" Unit 2 fuel load date of November 1983. This l date was selected, pending a final decision on the key project =ilestones, for purposes of establishing and integrating to-go design, procurement, construc-tion requirements, monitoring progress, and as a reference point for decision making. The major effort re=aining is the development of the 18 =enth EPC schedules. Work has started on these schedules with Revision 0 of the crit-ical schedules (Aux Bldg) planned for release in early August. The view-graphs used for this agenda ite= are included as Exhibit D. E. W G Jones presented the analysis process and techniques used to evaluate the project schedule and establish recc== ended major project =ilestones. The project schedule was =cdeled using three separate logic network models representing the three critical categories of effort for the to-go project. These are:
- 1. Design release and installation of bulk quantities, namely small pipe supports, exposed metallic conduit and wire & cable (Path A Model) .
- 2. Critical schedule proble= areas including licensing changes resulting fro: TMI-2 and other outstanding licensing issues (Path B) . A tetal of 3h of these proble= areas were included in the =odel.
- 3. The licensing process including FSAR updating & review and all other activities up to the issuance of the Operating License (Path C Model).
The project =anage=ent tes= (both Bechtel and Consu;:ers Power) evaluated each model in ter=s of duration estimates for each activity in the model. Five separate ec=posite duration esti=ates for each activity were provided represent-ing achievement confidence levels of 10, 25, 50, 75 and 90%. \ l The input data was processed with the Bechtel PATH 3 Risk Analysis schedule processor which utilizes a Monte Carlo simulatiou technique. The cutput for each model depicts a range of total project durations each associated with a probability of achievement. Project management can then choose a total project duration asse-ciated with an acceptable degree of risk. The view 6raphs outlining the discussion on schedule risk analysis and the results of the schedule evaluation using this approach are attached as Exhibit E. Several con:=ents were raised concerning the limitations of the risk analysis model. A separate analysis of the conservatis=s in the risk model are contained in a memorandu= prepared by the Consumers Power planning staff. Werk Plans A. T J Sullivan discussed the licensing process, the need for the NRC to resume FSAR review and the work plan for achieving an operating license for the plant. A detailed plan for cc=pletion of NRC review of the Midland docket is being developed and will be presented to the NRC at a meeting with Earold Denten on 8/5/80. The plan vill define scope and priority for the l l
l
)
3 ) l review effort and include criteria for acceptability and scheduling of any new requirements (backfit criteria) . The graphic material used during this portion of the presentation are attached as Exhibit F. B. R C Bauman presented the work plans to i= prove the efficiency of the design production process. The plans call for a thorough exa=ination of each schedule critical area to deter =ine where the bottlenecks are and then the application of special procedures to relieve the bottlenecks. A small team or task force of Consu=ers Power and Eechtel perscnnel vill be assigned to each schedule critical item to develop and i=ple=ent the necessary work-arounds. The replacement of the plant co=puter was shown as illustration of what can be done to resolve potential schedule delay proble=s. In this case the schedule was accelerated by 12 months by applying special procedures for procurement of the 2:puter . To achieve the efficiency improvements desired, it will be necessa:/ to streamline many of the generic procedures both within Bechtel and Consu=ers Power. Mr Selby indicated that he would assist where Consu=ers Power pro-cedural roadblocks stand in the way of getting the job done. Mr Bau=an's presentation material is included as Exhibit G. C. L E Davis presented the current status and forecast for the design release and installing of bulk quantities. K D Bailey reviewed the actions being taken to i= prove the release of bulk quantity design infor=ation to the field. Bechtel is committed to and currently working toward higher internal goals than presently indicated in the working line schedule associated with j the 11/83 fuel load date for Unit 2. Internal near term goals cocrared to i the current plan (11/83) are: Small Pipe Support (Each) - 700 to 800/mo vs 550/mo Wire & Cable (Circuits) - 700 to 750/mo vs h00/=o Exposed Conduit (Feet) - 11,000/mo vs 7,000/mo K D Bailey discussed the work of the Device Location Task Force.
- Their effort vill allow early routing of conduit and cable in parallel with detailed design.
Mr Bailey also discussed engineering manpower requirements and indicated a need for additional staff to support the design production effort. A curve was presented showing the buildup of engineering manpower. Not included in the forecast is the i= mediate need for 21-2h senior engineering staff for the FSAR update. The presentation material shown by Messrs Davis and Bailey are attached as ; Exhibit H. 1 1
k D. D 3 Miller discussed the work plans for syste= preoperational and startup testing. The test plan up to fuel load is well defined. The test scheduling group is supporting engineering and construction in the evaluation of schedule workarounds and has also reviewed the schedule issued by Nuclear Operations from fuel load to ecuercial operation and steam to Dov. Early results of this review indicate significant i=provements in the steam to Dov date by early testing of the evaporator building using steam from sources other than Unit 1. Mr Miller's presentation material is attached as Exhibit I. Project Management and Control This discussion, presented by J A Rutgers and G S Keeley, su=rarized the signifi-cant changes and improvements in the project organization, the interfaces with the Bechtel organization, and the control tools being i=plemented. Of particular note are the monthly Project Manage =ent Meetings starting in July which are aimed at decision-making and problem resolution. An outline of this portion of the discussion is attached as Exhibit J. - Project Schedule Recomendation J W Cook led off this discussion with a recommendation that the fuel lead dates can be i= proved frcm the 11/83 working line based on the conservatism inherent - in the schedule analysis and the ability of Bechtel to meet better engineering release rates than presently forecast. J A Rutgers recommended that the 11/83 , working line schedule be endorsed and then see if the track record over the next three to six months warrants accelerating the schedule. The ensuing discussion produced general agreement by both Bechtel and Consumers Power senior management and those of the project team present on the following points:
- 1. The schedule vill be based on the current scope. Additional scope from hereon could impact the schedule.
- 2. The revised schedule must be achieveable.
- 3. Path A represents the most concern especially in the Auxilia:7 Euilding where space is a problem and the design is impacted by many of the never licensing requirements. -
- h. The Path A critical paths include the design and installation of significant bulk com=odity allowances which cannot at this time be verified as real.
Should these allowances not be required, or enly partially required, the project schedule could be shortened accordingly. f 5 The specific structure of the Fath A schedule analysis model induces a large degree of conservatism into the analysis because of merger bias; ie, large number of parallel path.s of equal or near equal duration te:=i-nating at a common network node. l
5
- 6. Summarization of a project as large and complex as Midland into the Path A model (55 activities) results in soft and conservative relation-ships between activities.
'7 The potential is good for substantial increases in the design release rates of bulk commodities. Also the installation rates of bulk co=modities can be increased as =uch as 30% to h0% if supported by design release.
- 8. Those schedule critical ite=s represented by Fath B can be improved or resolved with proper management and attention.
9 Further analysis of the Path B critical schedule ite=s is necessary to develop verkarounds.
- 10. Eechtel must and can find ways of improving both the quantity and experience level of engineering resources on the project particularly in the short-term.
- 11. No restrictions on cash flow which impact the buildup of engineering personnel vill be tolerated.
- 12. The new Censumers Power organization and Bechtel/ Consumers Power inter-face relationship has and vill allow improved cocmunication and decision-making and thus enhance schedule confidence and perfor=ance.
The target schedule resulting from the discussion is: Unit 2 Fuel Load Date 7/83 Unit 1 Fuel Load Date , 12/83 Unit 2 Commerical Operation 12/83 - Unit 1 Commercial Steam to Dow 7/84 These dates vill be announced only after discussion with and approval by the Consumers Power Board of Directors at the 7/2/80 meeting.
- e. ' cp
[pW/dW
~
KIDLAND PROJEC"' EXECUTIVE RE7IEW i June 25,1980 l Consu=ers Power Co=pany/3echtel Power Corporation I l I AGENDA I. Discussion of Agenda . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . G S Keeley II. Scope and Schedule Definition A. Background of Current Basis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . J A Rutgers
- 3. Plan for Re-evaluation and Definition . . . . . . . . . G S Keeley C. Scope Definition Actions and Results . . . . . . . . . . G S Keeley D. Schedule Definition Actions and Results . . . . . . . . J A Rutgers E. Schedule Risk Analysis Technique and Results . . . . . . W G Jones III. Work Plans A. Safety and Licensing . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . T J Sullivan
- 3. Schedule Critical Design Production Itens . . . . . . . R C Baunan C. Bulk Design Release and Installation . . . . . . . . . . L E Davis /
K D 3ailey D. Pre-operational Testing and Startup . . . . . . . . . . D 3 Miller IV. Project Manage =ent and Control A. Organization and Staffing. ........ . . . . . . . G S Keeley/ J A Rutgers
- 3. Design Freeze and Scope Control . . . . . . . . . . . . G S Keeley l .
C. Project Managenent Tea = Meetings . . . . . . . . . . . . J A Rutgers V. Project Scope and Schedule Discussion on Project Secpe, Schedule and Basis to Proceed . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . J A Rutgers/ J W Cock I I _ . , , . . - . - - - . . . - . - - . - . . , _ . . . - - -
- <o
$xA&ftr k i
AT'ETDEES Censu=ers Power Cc=;any 3echtel Fever Correration J D Selby E O Reinsch S E Ecwell E W Wahl J W Cook 9-"--- G S Keeley -J A Rutgers R C Bau=an K D 3ailey D 3 Miller L E Davis A R Mollenkopf .W G Jones T J Sullivan o d 9 ]
=
OO
r
.. . y c g"
l
,&ssas nas t .2[8 l I
II-3. Plan for Reevaluation and Defintion Folleving the activities of the Atc=ic Industrial Foru= (AIF) Policy Cc=mittee on follow-up to the TMI-2 accident, a quick review was =ade in February,1980 of the AIF Report on Action Plan Priorities versus Forecast 6 Scope. This resulted in sc=e ite=s being added to the scope. Later, after the March,1980 CPCo Scard of Directors Meeting, a plan was established to reevaluate the project scope and schedule to provide future definition for the July,1980 CPCo Board of Directors Meeting. This plan consisted of the following activities.
- 1. Identify ite=s (which had been previously included or excluded frc=
the Forecast 6 scope, and additional ite=s which had arisen since Forecast 6 cutoff) which should be evaluated for project scope and schedule definition.
- 2. Review require =ent, scope of change, schedule, and approach to i=plementation for a selected nu=ber of licensing and TMI-2 issues.
3 Review of require =ent, scope of change, sad schedule for a selected nu=ber of nonlicensing and potentially schedule critical ite=s. l
- h. Utilization of the ongoing scheduling hierarchy detailing and integration of the Forecast 6 EPC " working line" plan activities to -
incorporate scope additions, deletions, and =odifications resulting frc= the above activitier in order to perfor= a = ore definitive schedule analysis. Activities included are:
- a. Further detailing of licensing inter =ediate networks.
- b. Better quantity definition based on better licensing and
, design infor=ation.
- c. Review of engineering, procurement, construction and testing activities for durations and workarounds.
- d. Refining and integrating.
B-l
Sh4//'6 " 2 i II-B. Plan for Reevaluation and Definition (Contd)- !
)
I 5 Work "off line" on:
- a. Back-fit policy with IGC including possible deletion of some licensing non-TMI-2 issues.
- b. Setting priorities on long lead-time items with IEC staff.
4 t d 4 l , s f i GSK/blt
- 6/2h/80
, 15 2
-- .,,.,--.------..,.....,.-,-..,,,-w,n -..n- -e., -
., - --.n - -y ,-- , - - ,, ,- ,
- c, .. . fxW'4/!~ [
kawan Z~7EM AC
- II-C Scope Definition Actions and Results I In early April, 1980, a draft listing of safety related licensing issues, l nonsafety related licensing issues, and nonlicensing ite=s to be reevaluated for project scope was prepared by the project tea =. This list included all the issues which had been discussed with CFCo and 3echtel manage =ent both pre- and post- TMI-2. On April 15 and 16, 1980, a working group =eeting was held with project tea: =e=bers to review these issues and ite=s for scope inclusion or exclusion, scope of issue, tcplenentation approach, and assign =ent of follow-up scope definition actions. Ninety-eight issues and ite=s were addressed.
The above exercise resulted in changes to 35 issues and ite=s with respect to the project scope which had been included in Forecast 6. These changes are categori::ed as fo11cus: Tvre of Change Nu=ber of Issues Scope Addition 1; Scope Modifications - Increase 9 Scope Deferment (Software Develop =ent) h Scope Modification - Decrease 3 Scope Deletion 6 The i= pact of these changes is most evident in the engineering schedule and =anpower requirements because the significant changes place additional require =ents on analysis, study, and other engineering activities including
~
preparation of the FSAR. No changes in the bulk co==odity quantification esti=ates addressed in the Forecast 6 is anticipated for these changes. i 6-/
fxMsr C 2 II-C Score Definition Actions and Results (Contd) Based on the above, it is apparent that there has been a great deal of effort made in reviewing the scope of the job and where deemed proper, scope has either been removed or added. Although the Co==ission has recently approved an Action Plan, a quick review by CPCo and Bechtel indicates it vill probably not cause any =ajor changes from our latest defined scope. The project tea = sees no basis for another scope review or to =ake changes to the proposed scope other than to =eet with the staff so that we may ecme up with an agreed upon backfit policy and the setting of priorities on implementation of so=e of the longer lead time issues. It l l is also possible that the staff =ay agree to deletion of some licensing non-TMI-2 issues. A co=plete restatement of the Forecast 6 package of C-1 (items included or excluded) has been prepared and incorporates the above changes. The list titled Major Licensing / Design Ite=s '4hich Are F.xcluded Fr.m F/C 6 And k"hich Could Have Significant I pact on Cost and Schedule, has not j been revised since February 20, 1980. GSK/blt 6/2h/80 C- L
l I SCOPE DEFINITION - ACTIONS AND RESULTS l e IDENTIFIED AND REVIEWED 98 ISSUES
! AND ITEMS
! e ESTABLISHED DURING SCOPE ! RE-EVALUATION 3
. Scope inclusion or Exclusion i'
. Scope of issue
. Implementation Approach g
! . Assignments for Scope Definition ? l Follow-Up G 0980 04 i
i SCOPE DEFINITION - ACTIONS i AND RESULTS (Cont.) 4 l e CHANGES TO THE SCOPE OF FORECAST 6 l (35 issues and items) l . Scope Addition 13
. Scope Modification -Increase 9 l . Scope Deferment
- 4 l
l . Scope Modification - Decrease 3 ! !? l . Scope Deletion 6 j I Software development only G 0980 05 1 - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .
l SCHEDULE DEFINITION - ACTIONS AND RESULTS i I I
, e ACTIONS i
l . Concentrated Evaluation by Engineering,
! Procurement, Construction, and Testing of Schedule-Critical and Potentially Schedule-Critical issues and items l . Refinement of Existing Licensing Inter-mediate Schedules for Logic, Scope, and Durations l!
l . Development of Licensing Intermediate and j Production Schedules for New Scope items g i 5 l . Ongoing Development and Detailing of g Various Schedules included in Project Schedule Hierarchy G-0080 06 l
l i i SCHEDULE DEFINITION - ! ACTIONS & RESULTS I ! e RESULTS OF INDIVIDUAL ISSUE AND ITEM EVALUATIONS ! Months Delay (-) or Float (+) Evaluation Evaluation Evaluation to the EPC Plan Unit 2 included in as of Early at the End of li Fuel Load Date (0 = 11183) FC 6 Feb 1980 April 1980 May 1980 0 to -9 4 5 2 4 -1 to -3 1 5 5 ! O 3 1 4 ! + 1 to +3 7 9 8 l + 4 to +6 4 8 16
+ 7 to +9 -
4 5 j + 1010 + 16 1 4 5 i Total issues Evaluated 20 36 45 G 0980-17 a ! [- l i
SCHEDULE DEFINITION - ACTIONS AND RESULTS e EVALUATION AT THE END OF MAY 1980 ! . O to 9 Months Delay
- Blockwalls
- MLLA 6, Fire Protection l 1 to 3 Months Delay -
(
- Tornado Depressurization
- MLLA 19, Instrumentation to Follow Course of an f Accident
!
- Component Numbering
- MLLA 65D, Cold Shutdown - RCS Depressurization l
- Plant Computer Replacement i
! . O Months Delay
~
g
- MLLA 217, Plant Shielding Review D
- MLLA 306, Plant Status Indication l 3'
- NNillCS Modifications f
- MLLA 65G, Cold Shutdown - DHR System Upgrade i G-0980-18 l
l :
SCHEDULE DEFINITION - ACTIONS AND RESULTS e RESULTS OF SCHEDULE HIERARCHY DEVELOPMENT TO-DATE USED IN THIS SCHEDULE RE-EVALUATION L l . Refined Engineering Remaining Work l Schedule Reflecting New Scope Definition j and Review of Available Resouces l . Intermediate Engineering Schedules (Net- ! works) Showing System Design Completion Schedule Indicated in Remaining Work l Schedule m ! . Design Production and Installation Produc- l tion Schedules (Curves) for Key Bulk Com-modities by Facility G 0980-01 l
SCHEDui.E FOR IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE HEIRARCHY PROJECT MILESTONE - PHELIM REV O EXISTS, SCHEDULED REV O 7/1/80 SCHEDULE REV O IN DRAFTING, SCHEDULED FOR 7/1/80 l REV D ISSUED 6/5/80. REV O _ REV O IN DRAFTING, SCHEDULED REV O 7/1/80 TO BE ISSUED W/lES PROJECT
SUMMARY
INTERMEDIATE SCHEDULES FOR SCHEDULE PRELIM REV O EXISTS. REV 9 INDIVIDUAL HAfiDWARE ISSUES REV O FORECAST 8/1/80 TO EPC EXIST l l PLAN EXISTS I i I I i I I LICENSING INTERMEDIATE REMAINING INTERMEDIATE CPCo MILESTONE ENGINEERING iseessesa WORK essesseen CONSTRUCTION iesessesi TEST AND INTERMEDIATE SCHEDULE SCHEDULE SCHEDULE SCHEDULE SCHEDULES (Networks) I I 1 I EPC PRODUCTION 18 MONTH PRODUCTION SCHEDULES ROLLING CURVES SCHEDULE -.- UNDER DEVELOPMENT. HEV A FOR BULKS ISSUED 6/6/80 SCHEDULED " REV O SCHEDULED FOR 7/1/80 FOR 7/1/80, SUB-SYSTEM OTHER ITEMS EXISTING OR IN RE FORECAST DETAIL PROCESS EPPR eme seen CONSTR CTION FOR REV 0 SCHEDULE SCHEDULE P ON 8/l/80 TlO UNIT g e+ t t a EXISTING REV A M ISSUED 6/6/80 REVOSCHED FOR 7/1/80 G 096012
4 SCHEDULE RISK ANALYSIS l ! e BASIC PREMISE
. Schedule Durations Forecast the Future , . Schedule Durations are Simply Estimates . Estimates are Subject to Uncertainties i
! Therefore
. The Risk involved in Meeting a Schedule '
Date Should be Considered Prior to Making e l a Schedule Commitment E (t
. G 0980-07 73 i
i
SCHEDULE RISK ANALYSIS - e RISK ANALYSIS PERFORMED e Path A, Bulks Schedule Paths Through Design Release and Installation of Key Bulk Commodities, System Turnover, and Pre-Operational Testing and Startup
. Path B, Long Lead-Time issues l Schedule Paths Through a Number of in-I dividual Long Lead-Time Licensing and l Non-Licensing issues and items for Design, i Procurement, Construction, Turnover, and l Pre-Operational Testing and Startup i Activities
! . Path C, Operating License Schedule Path to Obtain an Operating $ L I License Through Resumption of FSAR l Review, SER issuance, Hearings, etc _ 1
~
SCHEDULE RISK ANALYSIS 3 e TECHNIQUE
. Quantitative Assessment of Estimated Schedule Durations by Establishing a Range of Possible Durations for an Activity . Establishment of Probability Distribution for the Range of Possible Durations . Process Total Model using a Computer-Based Monte Carlo Critical Path Simulation Program eINPUT . Composite Project Team Assessment l Based on a Pre-Established, Weighted l Average input from Appropriate Project &
Team Members , , , , , ,
I l 1 l SCHEDULE RISK ANALYSIS i 4 INPUT RESPONSIBILITV MATRIX PATH A l - l, Input Weighting Factor l Team Member Engineering Procurement Construction Testing l J.W. Cook and ! G.S. Keeley 2x 1x 1x l l R.C. Bauman 3x - - D.B. Miller - 3x 3x J.A. Rutgers 2x 2x - L.H. Curtis 10x 1x - L.E. Davis 1x 10x - W.G. Jones 1x 1x - Total 19x 18x 4x l G-0980- 15 5 1
~
SCHEDULE RISK ANALYSIS INPUT RESPONSIBILITY MATRIX PATH B : i input Weighting Factor
- Team Member Engineering Procurement Construction Testing J.W. Cook and
- G.S. Keeley 1x 1x 1x 1x
] R.C. Bauman ' 2x 3x - -
- D.B. Miller - -
3x 3x T.J. Sullivan 2x - - - J.A. Rutgers 2x 2x 2x - L.H. Curtis 10x 2x - - i L.E. Davis - - 10x - R.C. Ash - 10x - - m rr l W.G. Jones 1x 2x 1x - R Total 18x 20x 17x 4x [, l i G 0980-33 l
SCHEDULE RISK ANALYSIS-INPUT RESPONSIBILITV MATRIX PATH C C Activities 1 to Activities Activities 9,11 to 20 -10, 21 to 28 20 to 31 4 J.W. Cook and G.S. Keeley 2x 2x 2x R.C. Bauman 3x 1x 1x T.J. Sullivan 3x 2x 2x , J.A. Rutgers 1x - - LH. Curtis 7x 1x - g W.G. Jones 1x-Total 17x 6x 5x yt G 0980-34
+
LOGIC NETWORK FOR PATH A l SCHEDULE RISK ANALYSIS START 51118 0 SYSTEM TURNOVER & TESTING INTERFACES
- __ ~
i
! CRITICAL SMALL PIPE SUPPORTS $ SIGN R LEASE 1 Design Releases C ,, CP,Q : :
INSTALLATIOf7 ' / FACILITY LEVEL
* "' : ^
4 ! Installation C"(Typicci) " :%, N j EXPOSED METALLIC CONDUIT i Design Releases C :Q g l g l g l l L FACILITY LEVEL Insnilation C 'A N
'b \ l l I l
i l WlRE & CABLE (Power & Control) I IlI 1 l I Design Releases C :O i : II I I l l INSTALLATION ! ! L TOTAL PLANT LEVEL l instaliation C :Y ' "" " th /jI i 1 h 1 I
- p i I
l i l SYSTEM TURNOVERS 25% SYSTEM TURNOVER [ l2-RCSg 1-RCS l g: i l f^ : l BULK INSTALLATION TO TESTING SCHEDULE ' j l ll l ! l ! I
!l l
g l UNIT 1 COMMER " STEAM y INTERFACE POINTS . CW f
~
/ ' '
2C
- 2. INSTR & U TESTING SCHEDULE 6 2-HFT 2-FL 1-FL SERV AIR G 0980-1G
- . i
~
I SCHEDULE RISK ANALYSIS
- RESULTS - UNIT 2 FUEL LOAD l PATH A, BULKS l
i Confidence Level l 10% 50 % 90 % Forec~ast 6 7/83 11/83 2/84 Composite Project Team l Probabilistic 11/83 218 4 418 4 ! Deterministic 5/83 12/83 12/84 Responsible Team i Member Deterministic y ! Input 7/83 11/83 11/84 [! G 098013 to i b l I 1
~
! PATH A SEQUENCE OF . l SCHEDULE PATHS BY l CRITICALITY ! 1. Auxiliary Building Exposed Conduit -Design and Installation
- 2. Circuit Releases Through 1st Quarter 1982
- 3. Wire and Cable Installation from 1st
! Quarter 1981 to 1st Quarter 1982 70 % { Complete I ! 4. BOP Exposed Conduit - Design and , Installation . i m i Rl ! 5. Auxiliary Building ASME Small Pipe Sup- 5 j ports - Design and Installation I G 0960-31 i
PATH A SEQUENCE OF f SCHEDULE PATHS BV l CRITICALITY l (Cont.) i l 6. Reactor Building 2 ASME Small Pipe Sup-l ports - Design and Installation
- 7. Reactor Buildings 2 and 1 Exposed Conduit
-Design and installation
- 8. Reactor Building 1 ASME Small Pipe Sup-i ports - Design and installation i 9. Turbine Buildings 2 and 1 Exposed Conduit l -
Design and Installation g. i 10. Turbine Buildings 2 and 1 ANSI B31.1 gli Small Pipe Supports - Design Installation _
m SCHEDULE RISK. ANALYSIS RESULTS - UNIT 2 FUEL LOAD Path B, Long Lead-Time items Confidence Level 10 %_ 50 % 90 % Forecast 6 11/83 4/84 10/84 Composite Project Team Probabilistic Input 1/84 5/84 9/84 Median of 34 issues and items Modeled 2/83 7/83 12/83 o m e,. s
g9 ~ 4g _ A N OY I M6 TL 8 1 ' UT 9 B I N E AL F1 R T U C J S EQI I T D RR I D S YFC E TT LS D I E N T ' BOV I A ^' AMR O D B O3S E T RFB S . R ' POO O . [I N A . T P U PU . ' j
/ ' ^' '
J4 8 9 P S - j/A J 1 T ' UD nO d M OA ^v l
/
MO OU ;/ A L A - j
~
_ R EL : mV ^ / M G U / F OF R f U
^
L ' P 2 E ^ J V SI T E h_ L ' Oo D SN I - Oo f Y U 0 'U N LE 5 B f U ; nu AU NS H T
- )
g o U O
-3'1 'r ,-
AS A n- S I P 6 E N s ' (- 1 ) n,et KL T I L 4 x I
!, J.
( A SA S G w ^T 0o I 1
~-
j I A f ( RU C N
]r. >
J38 LI D o I E EV R O K R O f U u M j ' j w r s r J1 9
"' ~
s ' ) ' F DI D W f < ON I C
. ' (
Mm %
/
u $ J M MI P E n Ou '
"u '
h m o/ j , A B F ' - H O U D E L 7 , /n u M - TN ' ' U EE HD ru F AO I TO l Oyu ( P T RM O SB 1 - J U B ^' F E _ b y D NU H [w o I R AS TI DIS I A d q N T E P S 4N ( < I M3I O D , ,
. s
.s y
S 2 A 8 9 s - A1 J J M 5 o 0 0 M 0 5 8 7 0 7 0 6 0 5 0 4 2 a t 1 _ I a o o go $7f25 6y3yi - [ I
IMPLEMENTATION OF FUTURE REQUIREMENTS 1 APPLICABILITY: FUTURE TMI-RELATED CHANGES THAT e ARE IN ADDITION TO NTOL LIST e STEM FROM ACTIVITIES DESCRIBED IN THE ACTION PLAN FOUR PRINCIPAL GOALS:
- PRIORITY OHDER BASED ON RISK REDUCTION AND RESOURCE REQUIREMENTS e PUBLIC COMMENT ON SUBSTANCE AND SCHEDULING e UNIFORM APPLICATION TO OPERATING PLANTS AND PLANTS UNDER CONSTRUCTION, ALLOWING CASE-BY-CASE EXCEPTIONS TO DEADLINES FOR GOOD CAUSE e SET IMPLEMENTATION DEADLINES SO AS TO AVOID DOWNTIME ON OPERATING PLANTS AND DELAY IN STARTUP OF PLANTS UNDER CONSTRUCTION BEYOND THAT NECESSARY TO ACCOMPLISH THE CHANGE IN AN ORDERLY MANNER NUREG 0660 pp 8 - 10, M AY,1980
s' s~ .. - _ . _ _ . . . . . . . . . . . _ . . _ . -
= -- _ - _ . . -
q__ i . . _ . . . . . . . . . . _ _ . . . _ . . t. 2
._.___....._..__...5_._.
- 1
. w .e w- _ . _ - _ _ . I. _ . .
_ c_
.3, .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4, .
,, H . . . _ .._... ... ._.... ..._. . . . . . . . . . . .
i._.' '
$Y
.,n _ . _ . _ . . . .. ...
- f. W.s, . ) ,c .. .
s
. 4 _ _.
n * . _ . . . .
, } c- , 4 _ - _ .
~
- d.
. g ,
2 , /, __a f ! !
, 6
; i> .!.e g .
2, d; -. . , , l . l i . wt2 ; [P . , , , 3 4 I i . e . 4 I I ' l l l g h . , .
, 6 i e i 1 i e
>=. d_.
. g:
$" 0
.. 7 h '
M f W p..p_ _ g= _/ _ ..e, _s
=
4 7 gf 9
.1 y e jp ___f s _
_w h -> e j- .. . .. . _ ..
, n s, . . _ _ . _ . . .
J 5 E (
. i ; * *
?= ' . , ,
d *!
.o i.
, I * $
4 ' W i ! . 3 0 . ' , w . . M
- . g7 j
g -_fs_>_- _ _ . ..g g_...._.__.. . -- . ____ . g .P M .. nl . . .. 3 % o g . - - - - _.. ._ . .. g . - . . _ . _ . _ . w s 3 - . _ . - _ . - _ . _ _ E 7 g 2 -- ._ . _ . .... . _ _ _ .._. ... . _ - . . _ . _ . . _ . . . g .3, g .- o E-d tiqT4X2 , v v ) 1
Exhibit F-3 BASES FOR MIDLAND PRIORIT I ULED CONSTRUCTION
- REALISM OF SCOPE AND SCHED COMPLET10N DATE HE REVIEW e SIGNIFICANT RESOURCES ALREAD e UNIQUENESS OF MIDLAND APPLICATION
- IMPACT OF DOW PARTICIPATION ,
CT ON e RECOGNITION OF PROCEDURAL A POST-SSEB DURATIONS TJ S - 6/23/80 l
Exhibit F-4 l l MIDLAND REVIEW PLAN OBJECTIVE: TO FACILITATE COMPLETION OF NRC REVIEW OF THE l MIDLAND ER AND FSAR LEADING TO TIMELY ISSUANCE OF THE DES /FES AND SER/SSER. POLICY ELEMENTS G UTILIZE THE STRENGTHENED NRC PROJECT MANAGEMENT CONCEPT AND REORGANIZED CP CO MIDLAND PROJECT TO FACILITATE COMPLETION OF THE OVERALL ENVIRONMENTAL AND SAFETY REVIEW G ESTABLISH MIDLAND-SPECIFIC B ACKFIT CRITERIA G MAINTAIN AND UTILIZE SER OPEN ITEMS LIST l l 9 MAKE MAXIMUM USE OF NRC REVIEW ALREADY COMPLETED G SCHEDULE REGULAR MANAGEMENT.-LEVEL MEETINGS FOR PLANNING, PROGRESS REVIEW AND DECISION MAKING G CONDUCT SEPERATE HEARINGS AS NECESSARY ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL AREA AND OTHER MAJOR SEPARABLE ISSUES l SUCH AS SOILS TO ALLOW EARLY RESOLUTION TJS - 6/10/80
Fxhibit F-5 l MIDLAND REVIEW PLAN PROCEDURAL ELEMENTS i ONGOING LICENSING ACTIVITIES e ITEMlZE AND RESOLVE SCHEDULE CRITICAL HARDWARE ITEMS EARLY TO ALLOW OPTIMAL DESIGN AND TO MINIMlZE APPEALS S DETERMINE Ato IMPLEMENT MIDLAND SPECIFIC RESOLUTION OF l B&W - GENERIC POST - TMi ISSUES SUCH AS SENSITIVITY AND NUREG-0667 l 9 CP CO CONTINUE TO RESPOND TO REQUESTS FOR INFORMATION l AND UPDATE FSAR S NRC CONTINUE TO IDENTIFY ORGANIZATIONS AND INDIVIDUALS REVIEWING FSAR SECTIONS OR SPECIFIC ISSUES TJs - 6/10/80
Exhibit F-6 l MIDLAND REVIEW PLAN PROCEDURAL ELEMENTS RESUMPTION OF FORMAL DOCKET REVIEW G NRC FORM REVIEW TEAM AND ASSIGN REVIEWERS UTILIZING THOSE FAMILIAR WITH MIDLAND DESIGN TO THEGREATEST POSSIBLE EXTENT G NRC INCORPORATE SUBMITTED FSAR REVISIONS AND PROVIDE BACKGROUND INFORMATION TO ASSIGNED REVIEWERS S CP CO ASSIST IN FAMILIARIZING REVIEWERS WITH MIDLAND DESIGN l 1 9 DEFINE SCOPE AND PRIORITY OF REVIEW TO BE COMPLETED, MAINTAINING CONTINUITY WITH PREVIOUS EFFORTS 9 CP CO SUBMIT REPORT PROVIDING STATUS OF OPEN ITEMS AND APPLICABLE NUREG-0660 ITEMS AS WELL AS CROSS-REFERENCE TO APPROPRIATE FSAR SECTIONS S EXPEDITE COMMUNICATIONS l
~: TJS - 6/10/80 , , . , - , - - - - , , . , , - - - - - - . - , - - - - . ,--,-.---,---,----.-,-.-,----,,---,--.-.,-----,--.-.v--. -_---,-.--.,-_,-------,,--.,,-,,----.-v.,.-----_.
i . l I WORK PLANS j SCHEDULE-CRITICAL IYEMS r i )
- BECHTEL PROGRAMS i
l
- Remaining Work Schedule 1 '
!
- lndividual Networks l
i
- Licensing Work Group i
- Schedule Visibility o COMMON PROGRAMS
\ !
- Task Groups - Working Relationships '
i !
- Engineering Planning i
- B&W Resident Engineer ,
1 e CONSUMERS POWER PROGRAMS g 9
- Organization ['
, ,L i
- Ann Arbor Offices G 0980-26
\ -
l
__ .. _ _ _ .-. _ m --__
~
l 1 WORK PLANS . i SCHEDULE-CRITICAL ITEMS e COMPUTER REPLACEMENT STRATEGY l . Established Computer Replacement Working Group
. Retained SSS, A Hardware / Software Con-
! sultant with Previous Experience in Replac-ing the B&WlBailey 855 Computer H
. Established Site Need Date to Support l Startup l
l
. Reviewed the SSS Report for Computer
! Hardware Replacement and Software i Development y
. Decided to Expeditiously Replace the !'
Computer _ L
~,
WORK PLANS SCHEDULE-CRITICAL ITEMS e COMPUTER REPLACEMENT SPECIAL EFFORTS l
. Prepare Schedule and Milestones for l Expedited Procurement i
i t
. Establish List of Most Viable Vendors
) ! . Eliminate the Preparation of Functional { Specification ! w ! . Prepare Detailed Material Requisition for E ! Each Vendor, Specifying Standard Catalog [; l Hardware G 0980-29
WORK PLANS SCHEDULE-CRITICAL ITEMS (Cont.) . I e COMPUTER REPLACEMENT SPECIAL EFFORTS (Cont.)
. Allow 2 Weeks for Quotation Preparation and Evaluation . Expedite All Parties to Maintain Schedule . Define Software Scope . Retained SSS to Prepare Software in Multi- [
Phased Program to Support Startup !! aoseo.3o S
i Exhibit H-1 LEO HAS JUST PRESENTED PROJECT STATUS AND TARGETS IN THE BULK QUANTITIES FOR DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION. THE CURVES THAT HE HAS ! SHOWN FOR WIRE AND CABLE AND CONDUIT AND SMALL PIPE AND HANGERS REPRESENT MINIMUM RELEASE RATES FOR ENGINEERING. ENGINEERING l CANNOT BE CONTENT TO MEET THE MINIMUMS, AND THE PROJECT HAS SET l INTERNAL DISCIPLINE GOALS GREATER THAN SHOWN BY THE EPC AND REMAINING WORK SCHEDULE CRWS) CURVES. THE PROJECT HAS SOME PRODUCTION IMPROVEMENT ITEMS UNDERWAY TO HELP ATTAIN THESE GOALS. THE COMPUTERIZED RWS IS A GREAT TOOL. WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THAT THIS MORNING. OTHER METHODS OF ENGINEERING PLANNING AND CONTROL ARE IN PLACE. THIS HAS BEEN VERY EFFECTIVE IN THE SMALL PIPE AND HANGER DESIGN GROUP AT THE JOBSITEJ AND WE HOPE TO SEE FRUIT FROM THAT SHORTLY. IN ALL GROUPS THE PROJECT HAS STRENGTHENED SUPER-VISION, IMPROVED THE ORGANIZATION, AND INCREASED STAFFING WHERE NECESSARY AND POSSIBLE. l'LL TALK MORE ABOUT STAFFING IN A FEW MOMENTS. BUT THE POINT I WANT TO MAKE NOW IN BULKS IS THAT ENGINEER-i ING HAS SET SOME SHORT TERM TARGETS THROUGH THE END OF 1980 THAT LOOK REAL GOOD TO ME AND WE HAVE REASON FOR PAYOFF AND OPTIMISM. t ONE SUCH REASON FOR OPTIMISM IN THE CRITICAL PATH AREA 0F EXPOSED METAL CONDUIT IS THE EFFORT UNDERWAY TO SHORTCUT THE DESIGN OF REMAINING CONDUIT IN ALL FACILITIES INCLUDING THE CRITICAL AUXILIARY BUILDING. ENGINEERING HAS ESTABLISHED A DEDICATED TEAM OF EXPERIENCED PEOPLE FROM ALL DISCIPLINES CALLED A " DEVICE LOCATION IASK GROUP". THIS GROUP HAS BEEN OPERATING PRODUCTIVELY SINCE APRIL OF THIS YEAR.
. THE GROUP HEADED BY AN ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING SUPERVISOR ALSO INCLUDES PARTICIPATION FROM SPECIFIC MEMBERS OF FIELD ENGINEERING AND RESIDENTS.
IT'S FUNCTION IS TO GENERATE A MARKED UP SET OF REPRODUCIBLE EQUIPMENT LOCATION DRAWINGS TO SHOW LOCATION OF ALL KNOWN DEVICES THAT WILL REQUIRE ELECTRICAL CONNECTIONS. THESE DEVICES ARE NOT YET LOCATED BY NORMAL DESIGN METHODS AND PROGRESS. MANY OF THEM ARE STILL IN THE 1
Exhibit H-2 THINKING STAGE BY INDIVIDUAL DISCIPLINES. THEY INCLUDE INSTRUMENTS, VALVES AND ALL TYPES OF SMALL EQUIPMENT THAT NORMALLY COMES TO LIGHT MUCH LATER IN DESIGN. THIS MULTI-DISCIPLINE GROUP IS REACHING OUT INTO THE MLLA LICENSING ISSUES TO IDENTIFY AND LOCATE DEVICES. THESE MARKED DRAWINGS ARE FORMALIZED IN THE WAY OF ENGINEERING SKETCHES AND ISSUED TO THE FIELD FOR PLANNING PURPOSES. AS LEO HAS MENTIONED THEY PROVIDE CONSTRUCTION A MUCH NEEDED ADVANCE LOOK AT WHAT IS COMING IN THE VARIOUS BUILDINGS. EQUALLY IMPORTANT IS THE SERVICE THEY PLAY TO GET THE EXPOSED METAL CONDUIT DESIGNED AND INSTALLED. ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING TAKES THESE DRAWINGS AND SIZES THE CONDUIT, ADDS THE CONDUIT NUMBER, GIVES THE FROM AND TO LOCATION AND ISSUES TO CONSTRUCTION. INSTALLATION THEN PROCEEDS WELL IN ADVANCE OF DETAILED THOUGHT-0UT DESIGN PROCESS. THERE IS SOME RISK. 6 BUT THE ADVANTAGE OF EARLY CONDUIT INSTALLATION OUTWEIGHS THE RISK, ESPECIABLY IN THE TIGHT AREAS OF THE JOBSITE. ENGINEERING HAS SCHEDULED THIS DEVICE LOCATION IASK GROUP WORK TO BE COMPLETE BY THE LATTER PART OF NEXT MONTH (JULY). THAT WILL INCLUDE IDENTIFICATION AND LOCATION OF EVERY DEVICE THEY CAN SEE IN THE PRESENT SCOPE OF THE DESIGN. HEREIN LIES THE SHORTFALL THAT THE PROJECT MUST REMAIN ACUTELY AWARE OF. ALLOWANCES HAVE BEEN MADE IN FC-6 0F APPROXIMATELY 100,000 LF OF EXPOSED METAL CONDUIT. (555,000 LF TOTAL JOB'IN FC-6). THESE ALLOWANCES HAVE BEEN MADE WITH GOOD ENGINEERING AND ESTIMATING TECHNIQUES AND ARE EXPECTED TO BE USED. THE DEVICE LOCATION IASK FORCE WITH ALL THEIR BEST EFFORTS IN 1980 WILL HAVE ACCOUNTED FOR ABOUT 465,000 LF. THERE WILL REMAIN IN THE ESTIMATE ANOTHER 90,000 LF TO BE LOCATED AND DESIGNED AND INSTALLED IN THE FUTURE AS THE DESIGN DEVELOPS. FOR EXAMPLE IN THE AUXILIARY BUILDING WE ARE LOOKING AT ALLOWANCES OF ABOUT 40,000 LF l THAT WE CANNOT SEE TODAY--THAT IS OUT OF A TOTAL OF 228,000 LF ESTIMATED. MAXIMUM ATTENTION WILL BE GIVEN TO THE ALLOWANCE QUANTITIES, EITHER TO IDENTIFY OR TO ELIMINATE FROM THE SHORT TERM CONSIDERATION.
'1
r (.- .- Exhibit H-3 ENGINEERING STAFFING TO WORK THE EPC PLAN IS NOT AN EASY TASK, BUT WE ARE TAKING STEPS TO MANAGE IT, ALONG WITH HELP FROM CPCO IN SOME AREAS. THE TOTAL ENGINEERING SCOPE GRAPH COMPARES TO THE EPC FC-6 i CURVE SHOWING THE MOST RECENT RWS CURVE WHICH INCLUDES ALL OF THE l SCOPE WE CAN SEE, INCLUDING THE ALLOWANCES. THIS DOES NOT INCLUDE THE' MANHOURS FOR THE SMALL PIPE AND HANGER DESIGN GROUP IN THE FIELD. THE NEW PEAK OF THIS CURVE INCLUDES ENGINEERING MANHOURS FOR FC-6 LATE ADJUSTMENT ITEMS AS WELL AS THOSE FOR INCREASED SCOPING AND BETTER DEFINITION. ENGINEERING HAS STAYED AHEAD OF THIS SHARP INCREASED SCHEDULE SO FAR THROUGH THE USE OF OVERTIME AND APPROXIMATELY 20 FIELD ENGINEERS LOANED FROM THE JOBSITE. THE HARD SPOTS AHEAD ARE PRIMARILY IN THREE DISCIPLINES: ELECTRICAL, CONTROL SYSTEMS AND CIVIL STRUCTURAL. THE CHIEF ENGINEERS ARE CONTINUING TO REVIEW WORK PLANS AND STAFFING REQUIREMENTS WITH THEIR SUPERVISORS. THEY ARE ALSO LOOKING TOWARD IMPROVED METHODS WHERE POSSIBLE TO GET MORE DONE WITH FEWER PEOPLE. ELECTRICAL BY SEPTEMBER IST MUST INCREASE THEIR NUMBERS Fi,0M 104 To 114, AND MAINTAIN THAT THROUGH ATTRITION AND RETURNING COOP-STUDENTS AND ALSO RETURNING 11 FIELD ENGINEERS BACK TO THE J0dSITE BY NOVEMBER IST. PLANS ARE UNDERWAY IN THE OFFICE TO STAFF THIS, PRIMARILY THROUGH INCREASE EFFORT IN RECRUITING AND INCREASED USE OF ENGINEERING TECHNICIANS. CONTROL SYSTEMS HAS A REVIEW UNDERWAY TO SHIFT SOME OF THE NON-CRITICAL I PATH STUDY WORK BY RESCHEDULING TO A LATER DATEJ ALSO TO REDUCE SCOPE WHERE LIKELY NOW SHOWN IN THE EARLY PEAK PERIOD BY PUTTING MORE INTO THE CONSULTANTS SCOPE, E.'G., S!MULATOR TRAINING AND SIMULATION PROGRAMS, ALONG WITH ENVIRONS RADIATION MONITORING. I<HIS WILL LEVELIZE THE MANPOWER REQUIREMENTS. me 3
Edlibit 54 CIVIL / STRUCTURAL PERHAPS RAS THE BIGGEST PART OF THE EARLY PEAK WITH MANHOURS REQUIRED FOR SOILS, TORNADO DEPRESSURIZATION, BLOCKWALLS, RPV ANCHOR BOLTS, HELBA AND SEISMIC FLOOR SPECTRAS. THEY HAVE 95 HEAD COUNT NOW AND PLAN A STAFF BUILDUP OF 23 TO BE
, ACCOMPLISHED BETNEEN NOW AND THE END OF SEPTEMBER. EXPERIENCE FROM OTHER AA0 JOBS AND EXPERIENCE FROM NEW HIRES, ALONG WITH A FEW NEW COLLEGE GRADS. ENGINEERING PLANNERS ARE TAKING STEPS TO l LEVELIZE BY SHIFTING SOME OF THE FRONT END LOAD WITHOUT IMPACTING SCHEDULE-CRITICAL ITEMS OVER THE NEXT 6 OR 7 MONTHS PERIOD. ONE OTHER BIT OF HELP WILL ACCOMPLISH THE JOB AND SMOOTH OUT THE HARD-SPOTS. CPCO HAS AGREED THROUGH THEIR CONSULTANTS TO REDUCE THE PEAK BY 4 PEOPLE BETWEEN JULY AND DECEMBER. THEY WILL DEVELOP THE FLOOR SPECTRA CURVES FROM THE SITE SPECIFIC DATA 0F 0.12 vS 0.2 G TO BE OBTAINED IN JULY FOR THE TECHTONIC PROVINCE FROM WESTERN GEOPHYSICAL COMPANY.
FOR PATH "C" ON NRC LICENSING, THIS PROJECT MANHOUR CURVE PRESENTLY INCLUDES MANHOURS AND STAFFING IN ALL DISCIPLINES TO ACCOMMODATE AN FSAR DETAILED UPDATE FOR EXISTING MAJOR MLLA'S WITH COMPLETED DESIGN DRAWINGS AND DOCUMENTS TO 80% BY FEBRUARY 1, 1981. CON-l CURRENTLY AND WITH THE SAME STAFFING, ENGINEERING AND CONSUMEF.3 CAN PREPARE AN FSAR SUPPLEMENT REPORT FOR SUBMITTAL BY OCTOBER 1,1980. THE SUPPLEMENT REPORT WOULD PROVIDE CONCEPTUAL DESIGN INFORMATION AND COMMITMENTSFORALLOPENMLLA'tINCLUDINGTHEAPPLICABLENRCTASK ACTION PLAN (NUREG 0660) ALONG WITH A PLAN FOR COMPLETING THE DESIGN l AND IMPLEMENTATION AND LATER INCLUSION IN THE FSAR. THAT APPROACH WILL MESH WITH THE CURRENT RWS PLAN FOR' THE EPC PATH. A MORE ACCEPTABLE APPROACH TO PRESENT THE NRC FOR EARLIER FULL ATTENTION TOWARD FSAR REVIEW WOULD BE AN ATTEMPT BY THE PROJECT TO COMPLETE THE DETAILED DESIGN ON MAJOR MLLA'S BY OCTOBER 1, 1980 AND SUBMIT THE FSAR 80% UPDATED IN FINAL FORM BY,THAT DATE OF OCTOBER 1ST. l
Exhibit H-5 THIS LATTER APPROACH WILL REQUIRE A MAJOR RE-DIRECTION OF PROJECT DESIGN AND PRODUCTION PRIORITIES. IHE RWS MUST BE REWORKED ON THE FRONT END TO Cot;CENTRATE ON COMPLETION OF THESE MAJOR MLLA'S WHILE MAINTAINING INSOFAR AS POSSIBLE DESIGN AND PRODUCTION IN OTHER AREAS. ADDITIONAL STAFFING OF SENIOR EXPERIENCED ENGINEERS FAMILIAR WITH THE MIDLAND DESIGN WOULD HAVE TO BE BROUGHT IN IMMEDIATELY TO THE PROJECT. ESTIMATES OF ADDITIONAL NUMBERS REQUIRED FOR THE NEXT FOUR MONTHS ARE: 3 TO 4 CIv!L, 3 TO 4 ELECTRICAL, 6 CONTROL SYSTEMS, 6 MECHANICAL / NUCLEAR AND 3 TO 4 i PIPING STRESS. PROBABILITIES OF OBTAINING THESE TYPES OF PEOPLE ON SHORT NOTICE ARE VERY LOW, IF NOT IMPOSSIBLE. THE "MORE COMPLETE DETAILS" EFFORT-GOAL OF COURSE PRESUPPOSES THE FULL TIME INVOLVEMENT OF THE CPCO DESIGN PRODUCTION AND LICENSING GROUPS IN THE GENERATION AND REVIEW OF ALL TEXT AND STRATEGY DECISIONS. i K. D. AILEY LD 6/25/80 . i 5
y'Q;;s .- ..
- . @TT.W:'.
. . . _ . - . . . .. - . q:Fhf.
- $ ri:<~'
- +;.3. .. .
. T"M *WWf $W.'1' ? ". -- l
"'_,j g kH @ iu' ty g
@';" r . . . , .,. . . ..
.m mm7.w.y.e.
y s x.a cry:w:erm"5 :-i:m..$ ~u. p
.n, . a7m"\W:.X. ..r.mm'O ,s , :+.% .r ' ~r
.yy'Idy*kMW.
~4 -
y S U* W 'YSygJf
. .4* M %.Y* "cy*n,tq:. .u 4., Q *fvi.,g,% Mg.
p-5M.d.4( e d.-W1*
.m M ... *'t,'(p"/
.Wrh*a p.;; a b' e.- ' d!~5'#iM[,.y%*e c.*.$~ N)&"ggW
'"r M;;- L d'# W'
- 6 g
k ey$.N._. Ik"'?g'NYh35.s$N4h%Ew[e:dNY
/ <
Q n.Ibutd.,c. 1,-.4..<.% A"s.*^/p- . , . , rt. es -- - Ae .a W-v
% s- .'
.I ' 'N gm{rmm w-m 4
.&.rw & e n h .a?8.a.c.m a-M M. N '
ki.7 M~. g.,n M.inI@ p ww, G W
@ a WR n4-g w' W. @ MM e
?,fv%@nW:x W *
@ _. w'n .- Q m,~ a-535'6 w- ..A W h t-y.fy, A. %.. s m. .w< w:
a 1 r- q u. . u '4 2
.f.-
.W .m
- ~ 6y', g,-::a . 7;9 - :'" M,41-.
;~ -? X -M s.% & '
?-e % S>9c.g. ' . s>
9td} V.w at:? t . -
,s tt Qgf.-e w'Q'W .
+g'rg. % ) &. & 3 WW g.2, & a
.h: & h~i5.A;V,! , D.' sg+
$$!".s&A.%.hM-'1 $$ & N h0 k'N, a j 9 MiwR M WWn2 9MN @ n Eihy && MiiMM $
x . % e Q.x w *mr.
**%'Q (wQ w.=
- w*~*m.
g~w a =tD*o *
1"
f 'Af - J " h Y. g % , '*~'*
- Y ~N hk f'N.
'Y hk{ Y
+x a:m e h,,1nNm
~3. ? -G- N g[':co.2 w% a
?M M d'dwa WAW W*%M- OM
. ,.A. u u',' .r.:.4 4"6 & #tC, '*, '*I4 p @te -
a'.m .n; 4 e a
,F m ,' 4
'4.{ i.hVe G.*.% . w, p'Ath 'A'
'I M, - % , . .
M e e s., MM f .'E ?Ih. N hMw;.5n .c Mh hM a
.y e m [.:.g .k No b
't:-
b *c
}k s h,
a-t -a
.MP.ha.,. Dav,:, , %WW v.-w: N a%
h+Y. M b,4 l K.@w.4p W N Y ,.M. . g, kyE
$e - P p y .y*
N E a la'NiO Y-[OM3"Y.d'U- .A g hw.--.e Y,H. .a_D M k. N.4*5 R@sL9@y
- wq cs e .
g ,, ,8 G RM""' i. 1a @*-C$b_ M.-- = $$g PRR*$$eMK l% 7 ypr ' -* - r - ***-*==L <"'-'w W A
'%$& N,* 'ihN Wb -& IfI
\ ~
' D .*'
%N**W.* .'=# ! *'$ QN
~[#'f * 'T -rp't '? d i,ME (%.
D dt 2 *
~
M '.N '6 d ','*.T* w gt+' pr PN A a 4,E W .'42 W7 y.y av e- ,t . Meek v: 4 aa b4ya TMc{, g.a
~ d.e > br_2 Cr-% @,.
ainia.s .Qgrru g 3
~. e c, NN,b.)
4 1 e 63 '. 1,,,. ep
~ q ..qwe.gg p.6 l'g?ns. v ux. b
- W. n.en G k= ., .
w; b....
. - /.
'AW Shpt p. *.
> . 3%,
*1 D= [.4$. ;h 'M @'G=6Mc,-M h 9e"M[*
g* 8
.* 'W e b-' mQ'gh .{d fa* ? -
UM
" W*j 8 I'
.g W,fd[h"1E T*
,#eI(#
8
. 7, g y I -e .ar%r.,
e -
-h= -.M.. . "7.gl:. p, ' _#)%.
. , ~
. 1?-Y5 M.
- n y.
i.s *n G. ., [> _ h*mm'.u: a., t' T.s,i.[I.f. s. l
;. id W
,:. W'.N.
. in4Y ,* 5 th b s
Dh
//, b hse n h_ F 5
J 2.N' @.Yi-, f g. MT- 2N' kblh
. Y lagt 4u o,'P T,'."+ w m M.. A- I r ** ~
'g g-,
- f9m m2c; c+, f app . g g*. .'s ,~n,,*.,h '***~G.'
@e*=r-W2 o
$.. h' h -h f 7,yr >-t 2g. '.vem ;je1.s.st ~ e . t4 -l.c Q ER.' '
- s. 'h d-$
I hM k b ~ag. w *. N.m a h G co w< w t._ ~at '.%rr,e:q. '. 7 w'Sk"eY . g.m_
=M .=.a:e%:-E w; m.
_M Te dki - t, YRJ't d: O #ei z n .- >., -
) ,r.m v..e 4 g . N g or:y t
l i, g
- ti,a#
O*gl 4 (h j ark m )d
=- i;
'. "t
h, g.g k. g., r**aA * . rat M .; i[#e-$
$r 5.-
.e ~< y -a ..w
.+
t 6* . s ,, b a .. D'i - ',.' n k.r-;=ne . Y Ib _.u.-*J.rO,..".c. f".I.s6 w . 4 u Flh$ , , .
, $ l e'. I lQ.M'pf.
,4 . .
2 ,.c .
- q. ;p ,
E .. w g,, h. p [ O [ O ko -. * [ [ S ,,, ,. s'
...x.ym n 4 4 e n > ' ~ &n'ma a ou &n 1 -. . - -
- i 5:mm,u. .g =. .l .Ro uw.
.*).:
w,- f.n-4 m=.w .L
~
a m
.,s...-~
, ~ . , w m, r
. v > .
i . o e bw'4*.*.E;u *.J.*'-<'
-a .4,
=
*'2"@ ia4 - mu.- wm ;
,M y.A2 .M (~r.i n
Q.;b
~* -ww
%=p At ab mg N
r "dyw.gd'e,g e.3!*Mn .h. c0 e gn
.g;, .
g,c. % .. vt":. : : . . e.. ..3.q. p .
~ . . . - g. .-0 w.g=: T--L r~ v., r-
.:1 g:.:u:::- on
.. 'a.f e 4. . , ,. .
g - - ~ ,-
"3 s-
="*
,6,.M*,'
X &!;::.
.s .
.. s a. .a .
- - lg :
i;y
.y'$ @i a. - a.r - .
e.A.- Ja
~"
'T
*s
=.sh.-U. ,
74i- r p w a. N*~~.. F-J
. w. NyA ;
P .., 1"#<* [)*,. M.- - e
?"
m: y .m. - . m -*;A:k .j .- -,.4.T
- f%;wt3
- - -}}