Vogtle
units 3 & 4
Fourteenth Semi-annual
Vogtle Construction Monitoring Report
February 2016 • Docket No. 29849
Cf^^UcWT$&T\_[^hTTbPcE^Vc[T"P]S#fW^f^aZTeTahSPhfXcWPU^Rdb^]bPUTchP]S`dP[Xch
Vogtle Units 3 and 4
Fourteenth Semi-Annual Construction Monitoring Report
Table of Contents
Page
Executive Summary
3
Responses to Stipulated Questions
5
Unit 3 Nuclear and Turbine Islands
As of December 2015
2
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
I.

Highlights
Georgia Power Company (“Georgia Power”) and Southern Nuclear Operating Company
(“SNC”) as agent for Georgia Power (collectively, the “Company”) is fulfilling its
commitment to safety and quality.
During the reporting period of July 1, 2015 to December 31, 2015 (the “Reporting Period”),
approximately 6.1 million work hours were performed safely with no lost time injuries.
The Company received no Notices of Violation and remained in favorable standing with the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (“NRC”) as indicated by its green status under the NRC’s
Construction Reactor Oversight Process.

Georgia Power is requesting verification and approval of $160 million of actual expenditures
incurred during the Reporting Period.
14th VCM Expenditures
Dollars in Millions
EPC
Quality Assurance, Compliance and Operations & EPC Scope Change
Ad Valorem Tax
Transmission
Total 14th VCM Expenditures

97
52
8
3
$160
The Major Claims Litigation has been settled, and the EPC Agreement has been substantially
improved for the benefit of customers.
Project Owners (Georgia Power, Oglethorpe Power Company, Municipal Electric Authority of
Georgia, and the City of Dalton) jointly negotiated and concluded a Definitive Settlement
Agreement with Westinghouse Electric Company LLC (“Westinghouse”), effective December 31,
2015.
This Agreement was separately filed with the Georgia Public Service Commission (the
“Commission”) on January 21, 2016. The Agreement was approved by each Owner because it and
the Project continue to benefit all of their customers. The Agreement accomplishes the following:
3
o Resolves all litigation, open notices of change, and pending and potential claims
between Owners and Westinghouse Electric Company LLC (“Westinghouse”) and
CB&I Stone and Webster, Inc;
o Enhances the protections provided by the Engineering, Procurement and Construction
(“EPC”) Agreement to the Owners and their customers;
o Provides that Westinghouse will assume all contractor responsibilities as the single
prime contractor (the “Contractor”); and
o Authorized Change Orders to reflect the expanded scope of Contractor’s work resulting
from changes to site security integration and change in law pertaining to new cyber
security requirements.

The in-service target dates of June 2019 and June 2020 were reaffirmed in the Definitive
Settlement Agreement and remain unchanged since the 12th Vogtle Construction Monitoring
(“VCM”) Report.

Completing Vogtle Units 3 and 4 remains the best cost option for our customers.
The 60+ year Vogtle Units 3 and 4 nuclear facility (“Facility”) represents the best cost option for
our customers even without yet considering the value that nuclear adds to the state of Georgia’s
future in light of pending environmental regulations.

The EPC Agreement continues to protect customers.
Our customers continue to be protected by the fixed and firm nature of the EPC Agreement which
assigns significant construction cost risks to the Contractor.
The assignment of these risks to the Contractor has saved customers hundreds of millions of dollars
over a “time and materials” contract. Georgia Power customers are protected, with very limited and
specific exceptions, from a large portion of traditional construction cost risks such as Contractor’s
increased construction costs including lower production and productivity, increased cost of bulk
materials and commodities, and Contractor’s own cost of delays.
4
RESPONSES TO STIPULATED QUESTIONS
As agreed in the Stipulation that was incorporated into the Certification Order, Georgia Power
responds below to the 15 specified items in the order in which they appear in Section 2(d)(1-15) of the
Stipulation. In this 14th VCM Report, and in accordance with the Commission’s Order on the
Ninth/Tenth VCM Report (“9th/10th VCM Order”), Georgia Power omitted Items 4, 10 and 13.
1. The reasons for any additional change in the estimated costs of the units since the
process began.
The Total Construction and Capital Cost of the Facility is forecasted to increase $395 million since
the previous reporting period. The $395 million represents the Company’s portion of the settlement
agreement, change orders for cyber security driven by regulatory changes in law, and resolution of
open notices of change including site security integration as outlined in stipulated question 8. This
forecast represents the Company’s estimate of the amount that the Company will spend to complete
the Facility and, if approved by the Commission, will be put into rate base when the Facility goes
into service.
The current cost and forecast reports are provided in Tables 1.1 and 1.1a. The tables reflect the
forecasted changes to the capital expenditures.
5
Table 1.1
Vogtle 3&4 Facility
Georgia Power Company Cost - Subject to Commission Verification and Approval
Project To Date
Through Period Ending December 31, 2015
Total Project Capital
Certified
Cost
($ millions)
Project to Date Capital
Total
Current
Forecast
($ millions)
Variance
($ millions)
Footnote
Forecast
To
Date (4)
($ millions)
Actual
To
Date
($ millions)
Variance
($ millions)
Footnote
Construction & Capital Cost
EPC Base
Fixed Semi Annual Escalation
Indexed Escalation
Other Fixed Escalation
Total EPC Base
1,978
468
670
3,116
1,976
470
674
3,121
-2
2
4
4
EPC Escalation
Fixed Semi Annual Escalation
Indexed Escalation
Other Fixed Escalation
Total EPC Escalation
431
142
108
681
355
117
110
582
-76
-25
2
-99
477
141
-34
37
621
1,489
241
-49
56
1,737
1,012
100
-15
19
1,116
4,418
5,440
0
0
0
Quality Assurance, Compliance and Operations & EPC Scope Change
Ad Valorem & Other Fees
Test Fuel Offsets
Transmission Interconnection
Total Construction & Capital Cost
1
1,472
187
668
2,327
1,452
169
662
2,282
-20
-18
-6
-45
195
27
108
330
191
22
106
319
-4
-5
-3
-11
566
64
0
51
681
794
64
0
50
908
228
0
0
-1
227
1,022
3,338
3,509
171
0
6
0
6
2
3
2
4
0
0
6
6
5
6
0
2
5
3
Other Capital Cost
Certification & Independent Evaluator Fees
Construction Monitor
Total Other Capital Cost
Vogtle 3&4 Facility
Georgia Power Company Financing Cost - Recovered Pursuant to O.C.G.A. 46-2-25 (c.1)
Project To Date
Through Period Ending December 31, 2015
Total Project Financing
Estimated
at
Certification
($ millions)
Project to Date Financing
Total
Current
Forecast
($ millions)
Variance
($ millions)
1,545
111
39
2,329
91
18
784
-20
-21
Total Project Schedule Financing
1,695
2,438
Total Capital Cost and Financing
6,113
7,878
Footnote
Forecast
To
Date (4)
($ millions)
Actual
To
Date
($ millions)
Variance
($ millions)
Project Schedule Financing
Return on CWIP in Rate Base
AFUDC - Accrued through Dec 2010
Return on Unamortized AFUDC Balance
6
886
91
18
885
91
18
-1
0
0
743
996
995
-1
1,765
4,334
4,504
170
Footnotes:
1. Includes $28 million for EPC Joint Use Buildings (that benefits Vogtle 1&2). These buildings will accommodate employees from Units 1, 2, 3, and 4 providing opportunities for better communication,
coordination, and additional synergies.
2. Includes Regulation Changes of $96 million. This includes $4M for the new Training Facility. The training facility will support employees from all four units, as needed, and incorporates the most current
improvements in Human Factors Engineering that will allow for improved training techniques and employee performance.
3. Includes $23 million for Transmission that benefits Units 1 and 2. These upgrades, replacements, and new installations in the new and existing switchyards provide additional capacity and improved
reliability that benefit all customers served by the Vogtle site.
4. The Forecast to Date includes actual costs through the previously filed report, plus forecasted costs through the Fourteenth VCM Reporting Period.
5. Includes Dues and Fees. Taxes and other fees are paid regardless of whether units are under construction or in operation.
6. The Total Current Forecast for Return on CWIP in Rate Base includes $102 million of AFUDC accrued on CWIP above the original certified cost.
7. Includes $98.9M of Disputed Claims previously in a deferred debit account. Includes $137.1M of Settlement accruals made on 12/31/15.
Note: Details may not add to totals due to rounding.
6
7
Table 1.1.a (Trend)
Vogtle 3&4 Project
Georgia Power Company Cost Forecast - Subject to Commission Verification and Approval
Through Period Ending December 31, 2015
Certified
Jun 2009
Dec 2009
Cost
Forecast
Forecast
($ millions) ($ millions) ($ millions)
Jun 2010
Forecast
($ millions)
Dec 2010
Forecast
($ millions)
Jun 2011
Forecast
($ millions)
Dec 2011
Forecast
($ millions)
Jun 2012
Forecast
($ millions)
Dec 2012
Forecast
($ millions)
Dec 2013
Forecast
($ millions)
Jun 2014
Forecast
($ millions)
Dec 2014 Jun 2015 Dec 2015
Forecast
Forecast Forecast
($ millions) ($ millions) ($ millions)
Construction & Capital Cost
EPC Base
Fixed Semi Annual Escalation
Indexed Escalation
Other Fixed Escalation
Total EPC Base
1,978
468
670
3,116
1,978
468
670
3,116
1,976
470
674
3,121
1,976
470
674
3,121
1,976
470
674
3,121
1,976
470
674
3,121
1,976
470
674
3,121
1,976
470
674
3,121
1,976
470
674
3,121
1,976
470
674
3,121
1,976
470
674
3,121
1,976
470
674
3,121
1,976
470
674
3,121
1,976
470
674
3,121
EPC Escalation
Fixed Semi Annual Escalation
Indexed Escalation
Other Fixed Escalation
Total EPC Escalation
431
142
108
681
431
142
108
681
336
142
109
586
336
142
109
587
337
142
109
589
344
119
110
573
343
118
110
572
353
120
111
585
355
117
110
582
355
117
110
582
355
117
110
582
355
117
110
582
355
117
110
582
355
117
110
582
507
111
-34
37
621
507
111
-34
37
621
576
111
-34
37
689
589
111
-34
40
706
582
111
-34
40
699
675
111
-60
40
766
675
111
-60
40
766
727
125
-60
41
833
930
159
-49
56
1,096
930
159
-49
56
1,096
930
159
-49
56
1,096
1,094
241
-49
56
1,342
1,094
241
-49
56
1,342
1,489
241
-49
56
1,737
4,418
4,418
4,395
4,414
4,408
4,460
4,459
4,539
4,799
4,799
4,799
5,045
5,045
5,440
0
5
5
5
4
4
4
4
4
5
6
6
6
6
0
5
5
5
4
4
4
4
4
5
6
6
6
6
Quality Assurance, Compliance and Operations & EPC Scope Change
Ad Valorem & Other Fees
Test Fuel Offsets
Transmission Interconnection
Total Construction & Capital Cost
Other Capital Cost
Construction Monitor
Total Other Capital Cost
Vogtle 3&4 Facility
Georgia Power Company Financing Cost Forecast - Recovered Pursuant to O.C.G.A. 46-2-25 (c.1)
Project To Date
Through Period Ending December 31, 2015
Estimated at Jun 2009
Dec 2009
Certification Forecast
Forecast
($ millions) ($ millions) ($ millions)
Jun 2010
Forecast
($ millions)
Dec 2010
Forecast
($ millions)
Jun 2011
Forecast
($ millions)
Dec 2011
Forecast
($ millions)
Jun 2012
Forecast
($ millions)
Dec 2012
Forecast
($ millions)
Dec 2013
Forecast
($ millions)
Jun 2014
Forecast
($ millions)
Dec 2014 Jun 2015 Dec 2015
Forecast
Forecast Forecast
($ millions) ($ millions) ($ millions)
Project Schedule Financing
Return on CWIP in Rate Base
AFUDC - Accrued through Dec 2010
Return on Unamortized AFUDC Balance
1,545
111
39
1,507
97
32
1,505
99
33
1,546
99
33
1,553
91
31
1,524
91
19
1,516
91
19
1,552
91
18
1,942
91
18
1,851
91
18
1,796
91
18
2,364
91
18
2,298
91
18
2,329 *
91
18
Total Project Schedule Financing
1,695
1,636
1,637
1,678
1,675
1,635
1,626
1,662
2,051
1,960
1,905
2,473
2,408
2,438
Total Capital Cost and Financing
6,113
6,054
6,032
6,092
6,083
6,095
6,085
6,201
6,850
6,759
6,704
7,518
7,453
7,878
Notes: No reforecast was filed in June 2013.
Details may not add to totals due to rounding.
* The Total Current Forecast for Return on CWIP in Rate Base includes $102 million of AFUDC accrued on CWIP above the original certified cost.
7
2. A description of any cooperative actions between other builders of nuclear units in the
southeast to address labor, crafts, engineering and management requirements.
As reported in previous VCM reports, SNC continues to actively participate as a member of APOG
LLC (“APOG”) with other members, Progress Energy Carolinas, Florida Power & Light, Duke
Energy, NextEra and South Carolina Electric and Gas Company (“SCE&G”) to support multiple
engineering, licensing, quality assurance, operational readiness and training initiatives.
To the extent allowed by the EPC Agreement, the Company has also engaged with SCE&G on the
peer-to-peer level in each functional area of the oversight organization to ensure alignment and to
utilize lessons learned and best practices. For example, SNC and SCE&G often participate in joint
quality assurance audits and oversight surveillances of the Contractor. SNC and SCE&G
construction personnel share construction lessons learned and best practices. Engineering and
licensing personnel from the two companies communicate regularly to ensure alignment on
resolution to standard design challenges, and also communicate potential impacts to licensing
requirements. Collaboration with the SCE&G Inspections, Tests, Analyses, and Acceptance Criteria
(“ITAAC”) team is ongoing and is resulting in identification and sharing of best practices to
support implementation of an effective and streamlined ITAAC program. SNC and SCE&G will
also collaborate as necessary with regard to the respective cyber security programs being developed
and implemented by Contractor.
8
3. An explanation of how the indices used in the EPC contract are tracking.
There has been no change in the status of this item since the Eighth VCM Report.
9
4. Omitted per 9th/10th VCM Order.
10
5. The status of the Company’s loan guarantee application at the Department of Energy and to
the extent that application is granted, then the Company shall also report on the impact it has
or would have on the final expected in-service cost of the units.
Available
$3.46 Billion
Received
$2.20 Billion
Remaining
$1.26 Billion
The Department of Energy (“DOE”) Loan Guarantee does not have a material impact on the inservice cost of the units, but it does provide benefits to customers through lower financing costs
during construction and for many years beyond.
11
6. Whether the Company is using trust preferred financing and the impact it has or would have
on the expected in-service cost of the units.
There has been no change in the status of this item since the Sixth VCM Report.
12
7. The extent to which the Company is using short term debt and the impact it has or would
have on the expected in-service cost of the units.
There has been no change in the status of this item since the Third VCM Report.
13
8. An update of the estimated in-service cost and projected date of commercial operation of both
units.
The updated in-service Total Construction and Capital Cost forecast is $5.440 billion, which is an
increase of $395 million from the previous Reporting Period.
Capital Forecast at GPC%
(Dollars in Millions)
Original Capital Forecast
$ 4,418
Changes through VCM 13
627
Currently Filed Capital Forecast
$ 5,045
Proposed VCM 14 Changes:
EPC Scope Change
Settlement
Cyber Security
Resolution of Open Notices of Change including Site Security Integration
Total Proposed Changes for VCM 14 with Settlement
326
46
23
395
Capital Forecast Proposed for VCM 14
$ 5,440
Effective December 31, 2015, the Owners executed a settlement agreement with Westinghouse
resolving disputes between the Owners and the Contractor under the EPC Agreement, including the
Vogtle Construction Litigation. The Company’s portion of the settlement cost is approximately
$350 million, of which approximately $24 million was previously paid by the Company, recognized
in Construction Work In Progress, and incorporated in prior VCM filings. In addition, the Company
will pay approximately $69 million for change orders to incorporate cyber security and site security
integration into the Contractor’s scope of work, and for resolution of open notices of change and
pending and potential claims arising from events occurring prior to December 31, 2015.
The settlement also reaffirms the current in-service dates for Units 3 and 4 are June 2019 and June
2020, respectively. To achieve the in-service dates, certain mitigation strategies will be embedded
into the Integrated Project Schedule (“IPS”). These mitigation strategies include, but are not limited
to, the following:


Use of approved engineering construction joints to support concrete placements in certain
module locations;
Combining concrete placements inside installed Shield Building panels to minimize
concrete curing times. The practice of combining placements was used prior to installation
of the first course Shield Building panels which reduced curing times and reduced schedule
durations for construction joint preparation and cleanliness;
14






Re-sequencing of sub-module delivery from vendors to optimize the fabrication and onsite
assembly schedule;
Installing structures over construction areas, including areas of the Nuclear Island, to protect
work activities from inclement weather;
Process enhancements related to documentation and work packages;
Allocations of resources (i.e., additional craft, equipment) to reflect scope of work;
Increasing production capability at key vendor facilities; and
Standardization of construction sequence above elevation 100 feet to synergize planning.
15
9. A description of all major sources of changes (both increases and decreases) to the in-service
cost and sources of change in commercial operation dates, if any.
On October 27, 2015, Westinghouse and the Owners entered into a term sheet setting forth the terms of
a settlement agreement to resolve disputes between the Owners and Westinghouse and CB&I Stone and
Webster under the EPC Agreement, including the Vogtle Construction Litigation. On January 4, 2016,
the Company announced the settlement agreement was finalized, effective December 31, 2015. In
addition, on December 31, 2015, Westinghouse acquired Stone & Webster (“S&W”) from Chicago
Bridge and Iron Co., N.V. (“CB&I”) to become the prime contractor for the Facility. As a result of the
settlement agreement, Amendment 7 to the EPC Agreement was entered into, effective as of December
31, 2015.
The settlement resolved the commercial issues facing the Facility allowing for the continued and
focused effort on the safe, quality and compliant construction of the Facility. In addition to resolving
the Vogtle Construction Litigation, the settlement eliminated current and pending disputes, reaffirmed
the current in-service dates, and strengthened protections afforded by the EPC Agreement. These
protections incorporated into the EPC Agreement through Amendment 7 include an enhanced dispute
resolution process and restrictions on the Contractor’s ability to seek further increases in the contract
price by clarifying and limiting the circumstances that constitute a nuclear regulatory change in law. As
part of the settlement process, two change orders were executed incorporating cyber security
requirements and site security integration into Westinghouse’s scope of work.
In connection with the acquisition of S&W from CB&I, Westinghouse is now the prime contractor for
the Facility with responsibility for design and construction of the Facility. Having one contractor will
increase efficiency moving forward by streamlining resources. The Company will continue to provide
proactive oversight of the work performed under the EPC Agreement.
Additional information regarding the settlement can be found in the Company’s Application for Review
and Approval of the Definitive Settlement Agreement for Plant Vogtle Units 3 and 4 and Amendment 7
to the Engineering, Procurement and Construction Agreement, filed with the Commission on January
21, 2016.
16
10. Omitted per 9th/10th VCM Order.
17
11. The status of all other significant permits and licenses required from other governmental
agencies.
All other required permits and licenses have been approved or are on track to be approved to meet
construction need dates as shown in the Permits Update filed monthly with the Commission. The
status for the Reporting Period can be found in the December 2015 Monthly Status Report.
18
12. The status of Engineering, Procurement, Construction and Operational Readiness.
A. Engineering
 Completion of Nuclear Island civil/mechanical design in second quarter 2015 is resulting in
reduced Engineering impacts on Construction.
 Engineering process enhancements are also reducing engineering impacts on construction.
o Advanced Constructability Reviews to allow earlier identification and resolution of any
design issues.
o Improved CAD modeling of rebar installation to allow identification of rebar
constructability and Code compliance issues prior to construction.
o Incorporation of outstanding design changes into civil drawings to make the drawings
more user-friendly to construction.
o Co-location of Design Engineering resources with construction.
 Progress continues to be made on the design of the Turbine Building and Annex Building.
o Civil/structural design completed.
o Cable tray routing and tray support design completed.
o Pipe routing and pipe support design on track to meet construction needs.
 The Contractor continued activities to complete Instrumentation and Controls (“I&C”) and
electrical design.
B. Procurement
 The Company continues its oversight of the fabrication of major equipment at international and
domestic vendor locations and directs close attention to challenges associated with design
and/or testing to ensure those are adequately resolved before installation.
 Major equipment delivered during the Reporting Period includes: Unit 4 Steam Generators 4A
& 4B; and the Unit 4 Core Makeup Tank.
Component
Accumulator Tanks
Containment Vessel Components
Core Makeup Tanks
Deaerators
Diesel Generators
Integrated Head Package*
Integrated Head Package
Main Step-up Transformers
Main Turbine Generator
Moisture Separator Reheater
Passive Residual Heat Removal Heat
Exchanger
Passive Residual Heat Removal Heat
Exchanger
Polar Crane
Pressurizer
Unit
3&4
3&4
3&4
3&4
3&4
3
4
3&4
3&4
3&4
3
4
3&4
3&4
19
Status
On-site
On-site
On-site
On-site
On-site
In Fabrication
On-site
On-site
On-site
On-site
Fabrication
Complete
In Fabrication
Support Schedule
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
In Fabrication
On-site
Yes
Yes
Yes
Reactor Coolant Loop Piping
Reactor Coolant Pumps
Reactor Vessel
Reactor Vessel Internals
Reactor Vessel Internals
Reserve Auxiliary Transformers
Squib Valves
Steam Generators
3&4
3&4
3&4
3
4
3&4
3&4
3&4
On-site
In Fabrication
On-site
On-site
In Fabrication
On-site
In Fabrication
On-site
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
*Following on-site receipt of the Unit 3 Integrated Head Package (“IHP”), the IHP was returned to sub-vendor Premier to
incorporate seismic modifications. The Unit 4 IHP, currently on-site, was modified prior to shipment from Premier.
Reactor Coolant Pumps
 The Contractor successfully resolved the Reactor Coolant Pump’s (“RCP”) bearing and
impeller issues during the fourth quarter 2015.
 Production testing of the Unit 3 RCP 501 was completed in January 2016.
o No issues were identified during this testing.
o Production testing on Unit 3 RCP 502 is scheduled for the first quarter 2016.
 Delivery of all four Unit 3 RCPs is on track to meet construction need dates.
Squib Valves
 Margin testing was successfully completed which concludes all testing activities required
for commercial grade dedication.
 Final assembly and delivery is on track to meet construction need dates.
Photo 1 – Final Unit 4 Steam Generator arrives at the Site
20
Structural Modules
Unit 3 CA03
 All CA03 submodules were delivered and upended.
o Seam welding continues with 10 of 16 seams completed.
 All Book II material is expected to be delivered by sub-vendor Specialty Maintenance &
Construction, Incorporated (“SMCI”) to the site to meet onsite construction needs.
 The Contractor began installing vertical leak chases and leak chase piping.
Unit 3 Shield Building
 105 of 167 panels on-site. (37 of 167 Unit 4 Shield Building panels have also been
delivered.)
 Installed the west-side first course panels in the Unit 3 Nuclear Island.
 Completed vertical welding on 37 seams.
 In December, Newport News Industrial (“NNI”) provided a new delivery schedule which
meets construction needs for Unit 3.
Unit 4 CA01
 CA01 assembly began in the Module Assembly Building (“MAB”).
 10 of 47 sub-modules on-site.
 Fabrication continues on 11 CA01 sub-modules.
Unit 4 CA20
 53 of 72 sub-modules on-site.
 Continued upending sub-modules.
o 15 wall sub-modules upended.
 Fabrication of the remaining five CA20 wall sub-modules is being expedited at Vigor.
 Completed 18 seam welds.
 Continued seam welding.
Unit 4 CA05
 All eight CA05 sub-modules on-site.
 Commenced upending sub-modules.
 Commenced seam welding.
 On track for installation in Unit 4 Nuclear Island in second Quarter 2016.
21
C. Construction
Unit 3 Nuclear Island
 Significant progress continued during the Reporting Period.
o Installed approximately 195 tons of rebar.
o Placed approximately 2,522 cubic yards of concrete.
 Installed rebar and placed concrete from 87 feet 6 inches to 94 feet under Containment Vessel
Bottom Head (“CVBH”) on the west side in preparation for installation of Course 01 Shield
Building panels.
 Completed installation of the Course 01 Shield Panels on the west side from elevation 100 feet
to 103 feet.
 Placed concrete inside Course 01 Shield Building panels and under the Containment Vessel
Bottom Head to elevation 103 feet.
Photo 2 – Concrete in Course 01 Shield Building panels





Continued installation of rebar inside containment in preparation for concrete placement to
elevation 87 feet 6 inches. A vertical construction joint was installed inside containment to
accelerate west side concrete placements to allow the Contractor to accelerate the installation of
CA03.
Placed concrete to elevation 90 feet 6 inches on the east side of the CVBH. This was
accomplished in 3 separate placements.
Completed wall 11 placement 3 to elevation 100 feet in the Auxiliary Building.
Completed wall 1 (placements 14, 15 and 16) to elevation 100 feet in the Auxiliary Building.
Installed CB12 and CB25 structural modules inside containment.
22



Installed multiple mechanical
modules inside the Auxiliary
Building (KB11, KB12, KB14,
KB15 and KB16).
Completed multiple concrete floor
placements in the Auxiliary
Building to elevation 82 feet 6
inches including rooms: 12201,
12202, 12203, 12204, 12205,
12207, 12211, 12212 and 12213.
Weld out of CA01 to base plates
was completed. Activities continue
to weld out attachments to CA01
as progress continues vertically
inside containment.
Photo 3 – KB16 installed in Unit 3 Nuclear Island
Unit 3 Turbine Island
 Placed 2,400 cubic yards of concrete for the turbine tabletop at elevation 170 feet with no
quality issues. This is the last concrete placement required prior to installing the turbine casings.
 Placed concrete for slabs 4, 5, and 6, which marked the final concrete floor placements at
elevation 120 feet.
 Placed concrete for slabs 3 and 4 at elevation 141 feet for areas associated with critical
switchgear ES-3, ES-4, ES-5, and ES-6 tied to Initial Energization.
 Installed significant equipment including:
o Gland Steam Condenser and Exhausters;
o Component Cooling Water System Heat Exchangers;
o Main Generator Circuit Breaker;
o Auxiliary Boiler Steam Separator;
o Auxiliary Steam Supply System Deaerator Tank;
o Clean Oil Storage Tanks and Waste Oil Tank; and
o Service Water System Pumps.
 Began structural steel installation above the turbine deck to elevation 243 feet.
23
Photo 4 – Turbine Building Table Top Concrete
Unit 3 Annex Building
 Significant progress was made on rebar installation and concrete placement during the
Reporting Period.
o Placed approximately 283 cubic yards of concrete in Areas 2 and 3, and installed
approximately 278 tons of rebar.
 Area 3 concrete wall placements to elevation 107 feet.
 Area 2 wall 20 was placed to elevation 117 feet.
o Installed approximately 250 tons of structural steel in Areas 1, 2 and 3.
 Progress on Annex Building activities continues to support Initial Energization.
Photo 5 – Annex Building Steel Installation
24
Photo 6 – Internal precast in Unit 3 Cooling Tower
Unit 3 Cooling Tower
 Continued installation of the
internal precast structures, fill
material, and piping systems with
no quality issues.
 Tracking to complete installation of
precast internals during the first
quarter of 2016.
Unit 4 Nuclear Island
 Set the first of three containment vessel (“CV”) rings.
o Weighing approximately 950 tons, this section of the CV is 50 feet tall and 130 feet in
diameter.
o The CV is designed to house the reactor coolant system and other related systems.
 Placed concrete under the CV from elevation 72 feet 6 inches to elevation 82 feet 6 inches.
o Third largest concrete placement at the Facility with approximately 4,000 cubic yards of
concrete placed.
 Installed in-containment structural modules CB65 & CB66 (Reactor Coolant Drain Tank).
 Placed approximately 700 cubic yards of concrete inside the Unit 4 CVBH to elevation 76 feet 6
inches.
 Significant progress on exterior Auxiliary Building walls including completing the south wall to
elevation 100 feet.
 Continued activities in preparation for interior concrete wall placements.
 Lessons learned incorporated from Unit 3 include Shield Building rebar alignment, InContainment wall thickness, and Auxiliary Building construction joints and sequence.
Photo 7 – CV lower ring installed in Unit 4
25
Unit 4 Turbine Island
 Continued vertical construction.
o Placed approximately 3,164 cubic yards of concrete.
o Installed approximately 954 tons of rebar.
o Assembled approximately 837 tons of structural steel.
 Installed the CH82 (18 line) and CH81C structural steel modules.
 Installed the Condenser C lower shell.
o Weighs approximately 717 tons.
 Installed the Condenser A and B upper shells.
 Placed concrete for slabs 1 and 2 to elevation 100 feet.
 Placed turbine first bay concrete to elevation 100 feet.
o Approximately 1,550 cubic yards of concrete.
 Installed significant equipment including:
o Auxiliary Boiler Makeup Pumps;
o Auxiliary Boiler Blowdown Tanks;
o Auxiliary Boiler Feed Pumps;
o MSR Shell Drain Pumps;
o Turbine Closed Cooling Water Pumps; and
o Startup Feedwater Pumps.
 Commenced sequence 7 steel assembly for the exterior portions of the turbine building.
Photo 8 – Structural steel installation on Unit 4 Turbine Island
26
Unit 4 Cooling Tower
 Completed veil concrete placements to approximately 316 feet of 600 feet.
 Tracking to complete the cooling tower veil in second quarter of 2016.
Photo 9 – Unit 4 Cooling Tower
Balance of Plant
 SNC took ownership of and transitioned personnel into the Engineering and Administrative
Building (Building 302) and the Maintenance Building (Building 303) after taking ownership
from the Contractor.
 Substantially completed construction on the Receiving Warehouse (Building 306) and the
Warehouse (Building 307).
 Began construction on the Personnel Access Point (Building 304) by placing concrete slab and
setting bullet resistant enclosure pods.
 Set both Unit 3 Reserve Auxiliary Transformers (“RATs”) to support Initial Energization.
Transmission/Switchyard
 Successfully completed work activities on schedule without impacting Vogtle Units 1 and 2.
 Completed construction of the Unit 3 230kV output breaker bay at the Vogtle Units 1 and 2
switchyard and constructed the east end of the Unit 3 230kV output line into the Vogtle Units 1
and 2 switchyard.
 Completed all 230kV line modifications at Vogtle 1 and 2. Replaced almost 14 miles of
overhead ground wires on 5-230kV lines for increase fault current capability.
27


Achieved significant progress on the Vogtle Unit 4 500kV high voltage switchyard with
installation of all breakers, switches, bus support columns and insulators, and most control
cable.
Georgia Power started physical construction of the Unit 3 low-voltage switchyard.
Photo 10 – 500 kV Switchyard
Licensing
 The Company received several amendments to the Combined Operating License from the NRC
that support the construction activities.
o NRC approved the Company’s LAR-15-009 (License Amendment Request (“LAR”)
110) requesting use of the year 2000 welding code (American Welding Society
(“AWS”) D1.1-2000) in lieu of the year 1992 welding code (AWS D1.1-1992).
o NRC approved the Company’s LAR-15-010 (LAR 111) which confirms acceptability of
C2.C3J coupler welds in multiple locations throughout the Nuclear Island including
major modules and some Shield Building panels.
o NRC approved Company LAR-15-015 (LAR 117) which requested changes to the
thickness tolerances of walls surrounding the reactor cavity, including changes to the
associated ITAAC. The changes were incorporated into the Vogtle Updated Final Safety
Analysis Report removing the hold on placing concrete in the containment vessel to
elevation 87 feet 6 inches.
o The Company submitted LAR-15-021 to the NRC requesting changes to the design of
auxiliary building Wall 11 and other changes to the licensing basis for use of seismic
Category II structures.
28
D. Operational Readiness
Building the Operational Readiness Organization
 The Operational Readiness organization continues to manage resources by using personnel for
augmented construction compliance oversight and start-up activities, in addition to continuing
required operational readiness activities.
o This increases knowledge about the Facility’s construction and installed components
that will provide benefits during future O&M activities.
 The Company requested NRC approval of the Commission Approved Simulator (“CAS”) to
support the operator training schedule and first AP1000 NRC operator licensing exam planned
for April 2016.
o Based on NRC feedback, Initial Licensing Classes (“ILT”) 1 and 2 resumed in January
2016.
o A delay in NRC approval could impact the April 2016 operator exam date.
 The Chemistry, Engineering and Maintenance training programs are in progress and continue to
support operational readiness activities.
Digital Instrumentation and Controls
 NRC conducted three inspections in the last half of 2015:
o Inspection of the Protection and Safety Monitoring System (“PMS”) resulted in no nonconformances or findings;
o Inspection of the safety related Component Interface Module (“CIM”) resulted in no
non-conformances or potential findings; and
o Follow-up inspection of the Integrated System Validation (“ISV”) resolution process
resulted in no non-conformances or finding being identified during the inspection exit
meeting.
 Continued factory acceptance testing of digital control systems equipment.
 Nearly all of the digital instrumentation and controls equipment has been shipped to the site.
PMS is the remaining major equipment set to be shipped and is expected in mid-2016.
Cyber Security
 The Contractor was engaged during the third quarter to support Cyber Security Program scope
that the Owner’s had elected to perform. This work continued through the end of the year and
provides a foundation for remaining scope.
 The Cyber Security Team continues to work with the NRC to identify opportunities for NRC
review and inspection of both the Cyber Security Program development and Contractor scopes
of work.
 As part of the Definitive Settlement Agreement with the Contractor, the design and
implementation of the Cyber Security monitoring system (“CYS”), as well as the assessment
29

and application of Cyber Security Controls on Critical Digital Assets has been incorporated into
the Contractor’s scope.
Going forward the Cyber Security Team’s efforts will focus on oversight of the Contractor,
review and approval of Contractor deliverables through the Vogtle 3 and 4 Cyber Security
Assessment Team (“CSAT”), and implementation of the Cyber Security Program.
Programs, Processes, and Procedures
 The Company has developed an integrated operational readiness schedule that contains over
50,000 activities representing training, program development, and procedure development.
o 36 programs have been approved by the Plant Review Board (“PRB”).
o Engineering Program Administrative procedures are approved.
 Several Engineering Program Implementation procedures are waiting on as built
information.
o Completed the Initial Maintenance Rule functions and classification of all station
components.
o Completed the Equipment Reliability classification and preventative maintenance
strategies for all station systems.
o The configuration management software that aids the design authority transition was
placed into service and plant information is being entered.
Testing, Turnover, and Start-up
 Maintenance and training personnel completed the Initial Test Program (“ITP”) Support
Qualifications.
 Auxiliary Pumphouse (Building 315) initiative progressing with a turnover from construction to
testing expected near mid-year.
o Acceptance/turnover readiness review challenges occurring to ensure procedures and
processes are in place to execute.
 The ITP Administration Manual was completed in November. The manual is a collection of
procedures that govern how the testing will be implemented on the project and will be the first
ITP related site inspection conducted by the NRC late in 2016.
Integrate the Four Unit Site
 Submitted common fleet emergency plan with a Vogtle 3 and 4 annex to the NRC in late 2015.
 Development of common emergency response organization training material continued through
2015.
 As part of the Definitive Settlement Agreement with the Contractor, the design and
implementation of a fully functioning, integrated, plant-wide security system for Vogtle Units 1
through 4 has been incorporated into the Contractor’s scope of work.
30
13. Omitted per 9/10 VCM Order.
31
14. An updated comparison of the economics of the certified project to other capacity options.
The economic analysis performed for this 14th VCM Report has relied on the methodologies used in
all previous economic evaluations conducted in Docket Nos. 27800 and 29849. The economic
evaluation presented in this 14th VCM Report includes updates of all major underlying planning
assumptions including fuel forecasts, load forecasts, and new generation technology costs. While
lower long-term natural gas price forecasts affect the modeled economic results of the Facility, the
lower fuel cost of our existing fleet of natural gas generation also significantly benefits customers
today and in the future.
The estimate of the capital cost to complete the Facility has been updated from the 13th VCM
Report along with pre-in-service O&M, post-in-service O&M, post-in-service ongoing capital
additions, nuclear fuel, and spent fuel storage cost. Decommissioning costs, the assumed operating
characteristics of the Facility and the long-term marginal financing rates for debt and preferred
stock have not changed. The analysis demonstrates that completing the Facility remains the best
cost option for our customers.
The analyses provided do not include any potential cancellation fees or any fully-committed
construction costs that would not be avoidable in the event the project is cancelled. Since the results
reflect significant savings to customers across a wide range of possible future fuel and carbon
prices, a cancellation assessment is not warranted at this time.
Table 14.1
Relative Savings of the Facility versus CC as of February 26, 2016
“Incremental Cost to Complete”
(In 2016 Dollars)
(Net present value of lifetime costs of CC minus the Facility)
Fuel \ CO2
Existing CO2
Moderate CO2
Substantial CO2
High
$3,755,000,000
$4,635,000,000
$5,625,000,000
Moderate
$1,736,000,000
$2,688,000,000
$3,868,000,000
Low
($208,000,000)
$982,000,000
$2,061,000,000
Positive number means the Facility is less costly than the gas-fired CC alternative.
The weighted average expected value of the relative savings for completion of the Facility as
compared to the gas-fired CC alternative is $2.8 billion based on the results provided in Table 14.1.
32
Table 14.2
Relative Savings of the Facility versus CC as of February 26, 2016
“Break-Even Cost to Complete”
(In 2016 Dollars)
(Maximum Cost to Complete the Facility and Remain Economic)
Fuel \ CO2
Existing CO2
Moderate CO2
Substantial CO2
High
$5,573,000,000
$6,337,000,000
$7,199,000,000
Moderate
$3,817,000,000
$4,645,000,000
$5,670,000,000
Low
$2,126,000,000
$3,161,000,000
$4,099,000,000
If the value is higher than the current estimated cost to complete of $2.3 billion
of in-service and construction financing costs, the Facility benefits customers.
On an expected value basis, the Company’s results indicate that the cost to
complete the Facility could increase by $2.4 billion over the current estimated
cost to complete the Facility before becoming uneconomic. (This value can be
derived by averaging the results from the nine scenarios above and then
subtracting the current estimated cost to complete).
Table 14.3
Relative Savings of the Facility versus CC as of February 26, 2016
June 2021 / June 2022 In-service (24 Month Delay) Scenario
“Break-Even Cost to Complete”
(In 2016 Dollars)
(Maximum Cost to Complete the Facility and Remain Economic)
Fuel \ CO2
Existing CO2
Moderate CO2
Substantial CO2
High
$5,228,000,000
$5,894,000,000
$6,644,000,000
Moderate
$3,647,000,000
$4,368,000,000
$5,254,000,000
Low
$2,107,000,000
$3,025,000,000
$3,822,000,000
If the value is higher than this scenario’s estimated cost to complete of $2.9
billion of in-service and construction financing costs, the Facility benefits
customers.
33
Table 14.4
Relative Savings of the Facility versus CC as of February 26, 2016
June 2022 / June 2023 In-service (36 Month Delay) Scenario
“Break-Even Cost to Complete”
(In 2016 Dollars)
(Maximum Cost to Complete the Facility and Remain Economic)
Fuel \ CO2
Existing CO2
Moderate CO2
Substantial CO2
High
$5,402,000,000
$6,047,000,000
$6,767,000,000
Moderate
$3,847,000,000
$4,542,000,000
$5,400,000,000
Low
$2,316,000,000
$3,214,000,000
$3,974,000,000
If the value is higher than this scenario’s estimated cost to complete of $3.3
billion of in-service and construction financing costs, the Facility benefits
customers.
Table 14.5
Relative Savings of the Facility versus CC as of February 26, 2016
June 2023 / June 2024 In-service (48 Month Delay) Scenario
“Break-Even Cost to Complete”
(In 2016 Dollars)
(Maximum Cost to Complete the Facility and Remain Economic)
Fuel \ CO2
Existing CO2
Moderate CO2
Substantial CO2
High
$5,588,000,000
$6,228,000,000
$6,931,000,000
Moderate
$4,058,000,000
$4,736,000,000
$5,567,000,000
Low
$2,537,000,000
$3,426,000,000
$4,148,000,000
If the value is higher than this scenario’s estimated cost to complete of $3.6
billion of in-service and construction financing costs, the Facility benefits
customers.
Economic Analysis Conclusion / Summary of Results
In summary, the vast majority of the scenario studies indicate that the Facility would remain
economic despite the additional costs associated with the delay scenarios. The delay scenarios do
not represent the Company’s projection for the ultimate outcome of the project but instead represent
the delay scenarios ordered by the Commission in the Eighth VCM proceeding.
34
15. The Company will be under a continuing obligation to supplement its response to PIA Staff
DR STF-TN-1-2 by ensuring that the financing data reflected in the schedules attached to that
DR response reflect the most current and updated information at the time of each semiannual monitoring report. In addition, the Company will provide the most current
information shared with each of the Rating Agencies.
Simultaneous with this filing, the Company has filed supplemental PIA Staff DR STF-TN-1-2, and
has included in that filing the most current information shared with each of the Rating Agencies.
35
36