Vogtle
units 3 & 4
Thirteenth Semi-annual
Vogtle Construction Monitoring Report
August 2015 • Docket No. 29849
The CA01 module is lifted into the Vogtle Unit 3 containment vessel
Vogtle Units 3 and 4
Thirteenth 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 July 2015
2
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
I.

Highlights
Georgia Power Company as itself (“Georgia Power”) and Southern Nuclear Operating
Company (“SNC”) as agent of Georgia Power (collectively, the “Company”) is fulfilling its
commitment to safety and quality.
During the reporting period of January 1, 2015 to June 30, 2015 (the “Reporting Period”),
approximately 6.6 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 $148 million of actual expenditures
incurred during the Reporting Period.
13th VCM Expenditures
Dollars in Millions
EPC
Quality Assurance, Compliance and Operations & EPC Scope Change
Ad Valorem Tax
Transmission
Total 13th VCM Expenditures
78
55
9
6
$148

The Total Construction and Capital Cost Forecast and in-service target dates 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 regarding pending environmental regulation.

The EPC Agreement continues to protect customers.
Our customers continue to be protected by the fixed and firm nature of the Engineering,
Procurement and Construction (“EPC”) Agreement which assigns significant construction cost
risks to the Contractor.
3
The assignment of these risks to Contractors has saved customers hundreds of millions of dollars
over a “time and materials” form of 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.
The Contractors are Westinghouse Electric Company LLC (“Westinghouse”) and Stone &
Webster, Inc., a subsidiary of The Shaw Group Inc., which was acquired by Chicago Bridge & Iron
Company N.V. (“CB&I”), (collectively, “Contractor”).
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 13th VCM Report, and in accordance with the Commission’s Order on the
Ninth/Tenth VCM Report (“9th/10th VCM Order”), Georgia Power has 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 remain the same as the
previous reporting period. This forecast represents the Company’s estimate of the amount that the
Company will spend to complete the Facility and, if deemed prudent 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 schedule and capital expenditures as well as shifts in timing of costs and
minor movement between cost categories that typically occur in management of a project of this
scale.
5
Table 1.1
Vogtle 3&4 Facility
Georgia Power Company Cost - Subject to Commission Verification and Approval
Project To Date
Through Period Ending June 30, 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)
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
1,094
241
-49
56
1,342
617
100
-15
19
721
4,418
5,045
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
1,446
171
661
2,278
1,400
151
656
2,207
-46
-20
-5
-71
187
23
104
314
176
19
103
297
-11
-5
-2
-17
514
55
0
48
617
509
54
0
47
610
-5
-2
0
-1
-8
627
3,209
3,113
-96
0
6
0
6
2
3
2
3
0
0
6
6
5
5
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 June 30, 2015
Total Project Financing
Estimated
at
Certification
($ millions)
Project to Date Financing
Total
Current
Forecast
($ millions)
Variance
($ millions)
1,545
111
39
2,298
91
18
753
-20
-21
Total Project Schedule Financing
1,695
2,408
Total Capital Cost and Financing
6,113
7,453
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
758
91
18
757
91
18
-1
0
0
713
867
866
-1
1,340
4,077
3,980
-97
Footnotes:
1. Includes $28 million for EPC Joint Use Buildings (that benefits Vogtle 1&2).
2. Includes Regulation Changes of $62 million and Owner's Cost for Training Facility of $4 million.
3. Includes $23 million for Transmission that benefits Units 1 and 2.
4. The Forecast to Date includes actual costs through the previously filed report, plus forecasted costs through the Thirteenth 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 $55 million of AFUDC accrued on CWIP above the original certified cost.
Note: Details may not add to totals due to rounding.
6
6
Table 1.1.a (Trend)
Vogtle 3&4 Project
Georgia Power Company Cost Forecast - Subject to Commission Verification and Approval
Through Period Ending June 30, 2015
Certified
Cost
($ millions)
Jun 2009
Forecast
($ millions)
Dec 2009
Forecast
($ 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
Forecast
Forecast
($ 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
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
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
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
0
5
5
5
4
4
4
4
4
5
6
6
6
0
5
5
5
4
4
4
4
4
5
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 June 30, 2015
Estimated at Jun 2009
Certification Forecast
($ millions) ($ millions)
Dec 2009
Forecast
($ 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
Forecast
Forecast
($ 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
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
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
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 $55 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 restrictions of 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. The
level/status of cooperative actions between SNC and SCE&G on cyber security is currently being
evaluated, and will be incorporated in a future VCM report once it is more clearly defined.
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
$1.80 Billion
Remaining
$1.66 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 in-service Total Construction and Capital Cost forecast and in-service dates did not change
since the 12th VCM Report. The in-service Total Construction and Capital Cost forecast remains
$5.045 billion and the in-service target dates for Units 3 and 4 are June 2019 and June 2020,
respectively. The Contractor stated that it is developing mitigation strategies to overcome the
negative float in the most recent IPS.
14
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.
There has been no change in the status of this item since the last reporting period.
15
10. Omitted per 9th/10th VCM Order.
16
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 June 2015 Monthly Status Report.
17
12. The status of Engineering, Procurement, Construction and Operational Readiness.
A. Engineering
 Westinghouse reported nuclear island civil/mechanical design completion.
 CB&I continued activities to complete the civil/mechanical design in the following
buildings: turbine, annex, radwaste and diesel generator.
 Contractor continued activities to complete Instrumentation and Controls (“I&C”) and
electrical design.
 Redesign and lack of constructability reviews continue to impact construction activities.
 Design errors caused delays on critical path items and required the Company to pursue
License Amendment Requests (“LARs”).
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.
Component
Accumulator Tanks
Containment Vessel Components
Core Makeup Tanks
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
Polar Crane
Pressurizer
Reactor Coolant Loop Piping
Reactor Coolant Pumps
Reactor Vessel
Reactor Vessel Internals
Reactor Vessel Internals
Reserve Auxiliary Transformers
Squib Valves
Steam Generators
Steam Generators
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
3&4
3&4
3&4
3
4
3&4
3&4
3
4
18
Status
On-site
On-site
On-site
In Fabrication
On-site
On-site
On-site
In Fabrication
On-site
On-site
On-site
In Fabrication
In Fabrication
On-site
On-site
In Fabrication
On-site
On-site
In Fabrication
On-site
In Fabrication
On-site
In Fabrication
Support Schedule
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Reactor Coolant Pumps
 The engineering and endurance test for China’s first Reactor Coolant Pump (“RCP”) is
complete.
o Design modifications were incorporated into the pump components and endurance
testing showed no indications of bearing material in water samples.
o Disassembly and further assessment of the pump is ongoing.
Squib Valves
 Completed eight-inch valve submergence test and functional test.
o Inspection found no internal leakage.
Photo 1 – Unit 3 Reactor Vessel Internals Arrive at the Site
Structural Modules
Unit 3 CA01
 Completed approximately 25,000 linear feet of welding that supported the setting of CA01
in August 2015.
Unit 3 CA03
 Eight of the 17 sub-modules have been upended and four weld seams have been completed.
 Specialty Maintenance & Construction, Incorporated (“SMCI”) remained under Quality
Ratings List (“QRL”) restriction that was issued by CB&I. The Company and CB&I
continued implementation of enhanced inspections.
o The Company is working with the Contractor to establish a mitigation plan to ensure
sub-module deliveries meet construction need dates.
 The Unit 4 CA03 work was transferred to CB&I Lake-Charles who has shown quality
improvements.
Unit 3 Shield Building
 81 of 167 panels on-site.
 Continued pre-concrete placement activities.
 Installed 18 shield panel supports for west side shield building transition panels.
19


Completed approximately 5,900 feet of seam welding.
A focus area continues to be Newport News Industrial (“NNI”) productivity and delivery
schedule.
Photo 2 – Shield Building Panels
Unit 4 CA01
 Fabrication scope for CA01 is split between Toshiba and IHI.
 Four of 47 sub-modules on-site.
 Fabrication continues on 12 CA01 sub-modules.
 A focus area continues to be sub-module productivity and delivery schedule.
Unit 4 CA20
Photo 3 - Unit 4 CA20 in the MAB
 Fabrication scope for CA20 is split
between CB&I-Lake Charles and
Vigor Works, formerly known as
Oregon Iron Works.
 30 of 72 sub-modules on-site.
 Commenced upending sub-modules.
o Two sub-modules upended.
 Commenced seam welding.
 A focus area continues to be submodule productivity and delivery
schedule.
20
C. Construction
Unit 3 Nuclear Island
Photo 4 - Unit 3 Nuclear and Turbine Islands
 Significant progress made during the
Reporting Period.
o Placed approximately 1,900
cubic yards of concrete.
o Installed approximately 430
tons of rebar.
 Placed
concrete
inside
the
Containment Vessel Bottom Head
(“CVBH”) to elevation 83 feet
providing the foundation for the
CA01 module.
 Placed concrete in the CA20
construction joint, also known as
“the wedge.”
 Placed concrete outside the CVBH to
elevation 87 feet 6 inches.
 Continued installation of rebar and embeds outside the CVBH in preparation of concrete to
elevation 94 feet and 90 feet 6 inches on the west and east sides of the containment vessel,
respectively.
 Commenced floor and wall coatings and setting of mechanical modules in Unit 3 Auxiliary
Building.
 Began Unit 3 Auxiliary Building east Photo 5 – Unit 3 CA01 Being Set in Nuclear Island
wall placement to elevation 100 feet
to allow for Annex Building
construction.
 Although outside the Reporting
Period, a significant milestone was
achieved on August 8, 2015 when
structural module CA01 was set
inside containment.
o CA01 will house the steam
generators, pressurizer, and
refueling canal.
o The 70 feet tall and 80 feet
wide module is the heaviest
module at more than 1,100
tons.
 Continued concrete placement performance is a focus area.
21
Unit 3 Turbine Island
 Completed work activities on schedule.
o Placed approximately 280 cubic yards of concrete.
o Installed approximately 65 tons of rebar and 1,300 tons of structural steel.
 Set multiple pieces of equipment including the start-up feedwater pumps and the high
pressure feedwater heaters.
 Completed the turbine building structural steel and concrete floors at elevation 120 feet.
 Commenced rebar installation for first bay walls to elevation 122 feet.
 Began rebar and form work for the turbine generator pedestal at elevation 160 - 170 feet that
supports the beginning of the turbine and generator installation.
Photo 6 - Unit 3 Turbine Island Building
Unit 3 Annex Building
 Proactive planning supported significant progress to elevation 154 feet.
o Placed approximately 3,550 cubic yards of basemat concrete for Areas 1, 2 and 3.
o Installed approximately 740 tons of rebar.
o Erected approximately 250 tons of structural steel in Areas 1 and 2.
 Progress on Annex Building activities support initial energization.
Photo 7 - Unit 3 Annex Building
22
Unit 3 Cooling Tower
 Began installation of the internal precast supports and columns.
 Completed installation of permanent handrails, permanent lighting and access ladder.
Unit 4 Nuclear Island
Photo 8 - Unit 4 Nuclear and Turbine Islands
 Continue to implement lessons
learned from Unit 3.
o Placed approximately 1,450
cubic yards of concrete.
o Installed approximately 45
tons of rebar.
 Set the reactor vessel cavity module,
CA04, inside the CVBH.
 Continued activities in preparation for
interior and exterior concrete wall
placements.
 Continued rebar installation for the
exterior walls up to elevation 100 feet.
 Placed concrete on the north auxiliary
building wall to elevation 100 feet to
allow turbine building first bay
construction to commence.
Photo 9 - Unit 4 CA04 set in Nuclear Island Containment
Island Walls to Elevation 100 feet
23
Unit 4 Turbine Island
 Made significant vertical progress.
o Placed approximately 2,500 cubic yards of concrete.
o Installed approximately 500 tons of rebar.
o Erected approximately 650 tons of structural steel (CH81A, CH81B and CH82).
 Set two of three condensers and set the auxiliary boiler on the base slab.
 Installed condensate pumps and began installation of the main feedwater pumps.
Photo 10 - Unit 4 Turbine Island
Unit 4 Cooling Tower
 Transferred formwork from Unit 3 to resume vertical construction activities.
 Vertical construction is at approximately 150 feet.
Balance of Plant
 SNC personnel transitioned into Office Building (Building 301) after taking ownership from
the Contractor.
 Substantially completed construction on the Engineering and Administrative Building
(Building 302) and the Maintenance Building (Building 303). Turnover activities to begin
later in the year.
 Continued construction on the Receiving Warehouse (Building 306) and the Warehouse
(Building 307).
Transmission/Switchyard
 Completed work activities on schedule without impacting Vogtle Units 1 and 2.
 Completed reconstruction of existing Unit 1 230kV and Unit 2 500kV switchyards to
facilitate integration of Units 3 and 4 into the overall Plant Vogtle system.
 Added two 500kV bus tie lines between the Unit 4 switchyard and Unit 2 switchyard.
24


Completed modifications to four existing 230kV lines to provide required clearance for
construction of the Unit 3 230kV output line.
Commenced overhead construction in the Unit 4 500kV high voltage switchyard.
Photo 11 - Unit 4 500kV Switchyard
Licensing
 Company received several LAR acceptance letters from the NRC that support the
construction schedule.
 Company submitted LAR-15-009 to the NRC requesting use of the year 2000 welding code
(AWS D1.1-2000) in lieu of the year 1992 welding code (AWS D1.1-1992).
o Different versions of steel weld code were used in the Contractor’s design
documents (AWS D1.1-2000) as compared to the NRC approved licensing basis
(AWS D1.1-1992).
o The Company received a no objections letter from the NRC in response to a
Preliminary Amendment Request (“PAR”) submitted by the Company. A combined
license holder in the construction stage may identify the need for a change that is
necessary in a short timeframe in order for the construction to continue to comply
with the approved design. The NRC may make a finding of “no objections” to
proceeding with the change “at risk.”
 LAR 111 is being developed in response to a similar issue that was addressed in LAR 15009 involving weldable threaded rebar couplers.
o Couplers were not in conformance with ACI 349 code requirements for weld
strength.
o Contractor issued a self-imposed Stop Work Order on areas affected by this issue
and currently releasing work on an as evaluated basis to allow activities to proceed.
o Activities are ongoing to submit LAR 111 to the NRC. The Company will likely
pursue a PAR.
25
Status of Major Dispute with Contractor
 On March 10, 2015, the Court of Appeals affirmed that litigation will continue in the
Southern District of Georgia.
 Discovery and other pre-trial preparation activities are ongoing.
D. Operational Readiness
Building the Operational Readiness Organization
 Operational readiness 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.
 Four classes comprising a total of 85 reactor operator and senior reactor operator candidates
have completed various phases of rigorous classroom and simulator training.
 The NRC initial examination scheduled to occur in November 2015 has been postponed.
The primary factor for postponing is completing the in-plant Job Performance Measures
requirement.
o Postponing the initial examination does not jeopardize the in-service dates of June
2019 and June 2020 for Units 3 and 4, respectively.
 Engineering, Maintenance, Chemistry and Training staff continue to perform work activities
and maintain proper qualifications.
Digital Instrumentation and Controls
 Completed Integrated System Validation (“ISV”) testing.
o Test program that lasted eight weeks validated the Human System Interface (“HSI”)
design of the AP1000 main control room.
o ISV demonstrated that plant personnel can perform required operator actions within
the HSI design.
o Issues identified during ISV are being evaluated for characterization and resolution.
 The current status of the ISV resolution prevents the Plant Reference
Simulator (“PRS”) from supporting the NRC license examinations.
 SNC is pursuing the allowed NRC Commission Approved Simulator
(“CAS”) option that supports the first NRC license examination.
 Continued factory acceptance testing of the digital control system.
Cyber Security
 The NRC issued a new cyber-security rule in 2009. The new rule imposes new requirements
aimed at protecting the nuclear plant digital computer and communication systems and
networks against cyber attacks and will result in a number of first-of-a-kind activities.
26




Efforts are ongoing to develop and implement required protections, as well as mitigate
potential impacts to the project cost and schedule resulting from compliance with the cyber
security rule.
Commercial arrangements are in progress to perform the work.
The cyber security team initiated planning meetings with the NRC during the first half of
2015; the focus of these meetings is to provide input to industry guidance documents for
implementation of the cyber security rule.
Interaction and alignment with the NRC will continue through 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 Programs, processes and procedures are being developed and completed.
o Initial scoping and classification of over 70 percent of the station systems has been
completed for the Equipment Reliability Program.
 The configuration management software that aids the design authority transition was placed
into service.
Testing, Turnover, and Start-up
 The Joint Test Working Group approved procedures that make up the Vogtle ITP
Administration Manual (“VIAM”).
 Readiness review challenge for Pumphouse and Switchgear Building (Building 315)
turnover and acceptance was performed.
 ITP personnel observed Hot Functional Testing at Watts Bar Unit 2.
 Maintenance Technicians, System Engineers, and Reactor Operators are preparing to begin
observations of Chinese AP1000 units testing and start-up during the fourth quarter of 2015.
Integrate the Four Unit Site
 Progress was made on the Vogtle 1-4 emergency plan with submittal to the NRC scheduled
for August 31, 2015.
 Continued development of emergency planning training material.
 Continued development of security target sets and defensive strategies.
 Developing the interface design changes necessary to tie civil, electrical and mechanical
systems between Vogtle 1-4.
27
13. Omitted per 9/10 VCM Order.
28
14. An updated comparison of the economics of the certified project to other capacity options.
The economic evaluation presented in this 13th VCM Report is based on the same underlying major
planning assumptions used in the 12th VCM Report.
The estimate of the capital cost to complete the Facility has been updated from the 12th VCM
Report along with pre-in-service O&M and post-in-service O&M. Projected post-in-service
ongoing capital additions, nuclear fuel, spent fuel storage cost estimates, decommissioning costs
and the assumed operating characteristics of the Facility have not changed. The long-term marginal
financing rates for debt and preferred stock have been updated to reflect current expectations. The
analysis demonstrates that completing the Facility remains the best cost option for our customers.
Table 14.1
Relative Savings of the Facility versus CC as of August 31, 2015
“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
$4,429,000,000
$5,247,000,000
$6,397,000,000
Moderate
$2,272,000,000
$3,338,000,000
$4,460,000,000
Low
$1,339,000,000
$2,456,000,000
$3,541,000,000
Positive number means the Facility is less costly than the gas-fired CC alternative.
29
Table 14.2
Relative Savings of the Facility versus CC as of August 31, 2015
“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
$5,826,000,000
$6,455,000,000
$7,340,000,000
Moderate
$4,166,000,000
$4,986,000,000
$5,850,000,000
Low
$3,449,000,000
$4,308,000,000
$5,143,000,000
If the value is higher than the current estimated cost to complete of $2.4 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 $2.9 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 August 31, 2015
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
$5,782,000,000
$6,379,000,000
$7,217,000,000
Moderate
$4,200,000,000
$4,966,000,000
$5,779,000,000
Low
$3,504,000,000
$4,315,000,000
$5,092,000,000
If the value is higher than this scenario’s estimated cost to complete of $3.1
billion of in-service and construction financing costs, the Facility benefits
customers.
30
Table 14.4
Relative Savings of the Facility versus CC as of August 31, 2015
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
$5,896,000,000
$6,491,000,000
$7,299,000,000
Moderate
$4,362,000,000
$5,105,000,000
$5,894,000,000
Low
$3,674,000,000
$4,467,000,000
$5,213,000,000
If the value is higher than this scenario’s estimated cost to complete of $3.4
billion of in-service and construction financing costs, the Facility benefits
customers.
Table 14.5
Relative Savings of the Facility versus CC as of August 31, 2015
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
$5,999,000,000
$6,599,000,000
$7,381,000,000
Moderate
$4,523,000,000
$5,245,000,000
$6,008,000,000
Low
$3,843,000,000
$4,624,000,000
$5,340,000,000
If the value is higher than this scenario’s estimated cost to complete of $3.7
billion of in-service and construction financing costs, the Facility benefits
customers.
Economic Analysis Conclusion / Summary of Results
In summary, all scenario studies indicate that the Facility would remain economic despite the
additional costs associated with the delay scenarios. In the delay scenarios, the Facility remains less
costly than the next best fuel alternative and will continue to benefit customers. These 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.
31
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, Georgia Power 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.
32
33