Document LgVNmoM9ObyDyypEXjKjBgpVg

DISTRIBUTION SHEET PRODUCTION DIVISION COST REDUCTION PROGRAM SUMMARY REPORT M. E. Baker - B-16204 E. V. Beebe - Experimental Station J. Blackwell - B-17270 H. B. Clark - B-17204 S. C. Doberstein - Jackson Laboratory D. I. Garnett - Experimental Station A. T. Gentilucci - B-17249 J. P. Glas - B-17206 P. J. Grunwald - B-9237 R. W. Hess - Edge Moor P. A. Hopkins - B-17249 B. F. Kennedy - B-17249 F. Knowles - Experimental Station N. E. Krauss - Jackson Laboratory R. W. Kurek - B-16252 P. Z. Larson - B-17202 J. D. Lojewski - B-17249 R. J. Lombardo - B-17249 R. J. Mattson - B-17249 P. L. Meredith - Experimental Station P. M. Norling - Experimental Station R. J. Pavlin - B-17302 C. C. Quarles - B-6206 C. I. Smith - B-17249 F. A. Vogelsberg - Edge Moor R. S. Weis - B-17202 V hV: Wri$<3e r O^ekson lAtoorafcbry .Kij CH-a REV. 7-to KSlAMSHCBItOt E. I. d u Po n t d e Ne mo u r s & Co mp a n y INCORPORATED Wil min g t o n , De l a w a r e 19898 CHEMICALS AND PIGMENTS DEPARTMENT Wilmington, Delaware November 12, 1982 TO: ADDRESSEES FROM: W. H. MC COY M/ COST REDUCTION PROGRAM 1982 - JANUARY THRU SEPTEMBER RESULTS HIGHLIGHTS Year-to-date savings through September total $59MM, 113% of the year-end commitment, 78% of year-end goal. The current estimate of year-end savings is now $83MM, 140% of commitment and 109% of goal. Only four plants (Beaumont, Fort Hill, Healing Springs, and LaPorte) anticipate a shortfall vs. commitment, all due to having to operate at lower-than-forecast rates or delays of equipment installation. Sixteen plants are forecasting year-end savings in excess of $1MM. Of these, three will exceed $5MM and two, $10MM. The following comments are intended to point up where we are having difficulty meeting our commitments and goals and the off setting highlights -- by exception (generally deviations^-t $100M). Antioch expects to exceed goal by $935M. Use of low-grade ore, (+$165M); reduced labor, (+$100M); and lower-than-forecast energy consumption, (+$720M) more than accounts -for the excess. Beaumont's expected shortfall vs. commitment (-S114M) is mostly the result of cancelling out their process optimization program (-$180M) to shift manpower to computer interfacing for the new methanol plant. Belle will pick up $848M in unforecast "firm" yield savings while losing S680M in forecast "firm" savings from poorer utilization of CO and purchased CO2 than expected to net out at 112% of commitment. DU P050145790 N 26470.01 2 Chambers Works will exceed its J17.3MM goal despite lowerthan-anticipated production rates which will cause a shortfall of $2.3MM in ingredient savings. Labor and salary savings will be $7.2MM vs. a goal set at $4.3MM. Energy cost reduction, including return to coal, will exceed a goal of $3.3MM by $0.4MM. Cleveland1s savings are on target with improved labor and salary savings offsetting shortfalls in ingredient and energy savings caused mostly by lower-than-forecast production rates. Deer Park will exceed their year-end commitment of $9.7MM by better than $3MM mostly through improved yield savings (+$4.0) offset by increased waste disposal costs of $1.2MM. DeLisle will exceed goal savings of $3.9MM by $2.7MM, $2MM of which will be due to reduced use of outside contracting labor. The remainder is in ingredient savings, most of which ($420M) is reduced chlorine cost and use of Conoco coke ($200M). East Chicago will exceed its goal by $602M for a total year-end savings of $1.4MM. The improvement over forecast goal is primarily reduced process engineering manpower ($104M), reduced analytical labor ($130M), and mechanical crew ($122M). Edge Moor anticipates savings at $7.5MM, 215% of goal. This improvement is primarily attributable to use of alternate coke sooner than expected (+$780M), pigment recovery (+$646M), reduced substandard material (+$485M) plus reduced wages and salary costs (+$1.4MM) resulting from job consolidation. Florida will exceed their goal of $920M by 13% ($120M) despite cutback operation, i.e. , 5 day vs. 7 day operation. Labor and salary savings will total $630M vs. a $335M goal (+$295M), more than offsetting some shortfall in the energy category. Healing Springs is forecasting year-end savings of $123M vs. a commitment of $245M with the shortfall due to low demand. Johnsonville is forecasting their year-end savings at $9.2HM., 158% of goal. Of the $3.'4MM difference, $1.8MM is ingredients, $0.9MM is maintenance materials, with the remainder spread over many items. The largest single savings item is $1.7MM in recovered ore feed vs. a goal of $0.3MM. Chlorine price reductions account for more than $0.4MM. LaPorte will miss their $2.6MM savings commitment by just $143M or 5%. Essentially all of this is due to delays in project expenditures in the sulfuric acid area with consequent Io b s of energy savings.1 DUP050145791 3 Memphis is forecast to exceed their commitment of $3.9MM by slightly less than 5%. Reduced savings on ingredients (-$0.653M) and energy (-$0.609M) will be more than made up for by improved savings in labor and salaries (+$769M) and "other" (+$598M) mostly purchasing and freight savings. Newark will exceed its goal of $1.3MM by roughly $560M or 43%. Ingredient savings will account for $127M, mostly improved yields. Labor savings will add $256M and maintenance materials, $192M. Newport will be on target vs. goal. Greater-than-anticipated labor savings will offset shortfalls in ingredients, maintenance materials, and energy savings. Niagara expects to accumulate $2.9MM in savings, 160% of goal. Ingredient savings make up $210M of this $1.1MM differential, the big improvements being in "Teracol" yield and boiler fuel consumption to raise steam. Maintenance savings will exceed goal by $307M. A steam trap program will save an unforecast $180M. "Other" savings are up $355M, made up of a multiplicity of items. Repauno reports year-end savings will be $2.8MM vs. a goal of slightly less than $2.0MM. Manpower reductions valued at $1.5MM vs. $0.6MM forecast account for substantially all the difference. Ingredient and energy savings were under forecast due to lower-than-forecast production rates offset by "others". WHMilrg DUP050145792 _____________ A n n u a l & 0 P -U cn 00 d u h dP rH CO r- <y> CO in <D c m cn r- o * * CM Cn in (T> <n uo rH CO 1 ro rM CM CM *H Ol t r# co co ro o co o *H vo ro v0 in co o (N H if) <Ji ro O rH in r-co r- co rH V0 0> co t j * o co .-i ro co in n m o CM CM 00 h c m io H rH vo ro ro CM THj* CHM M1 M1 CO h m (M ot o m in 5 (N H m H CO CO (J^ C\ CM TT H ro CM r* ^ io rH m co CM ro \o o CO GO *OmcU0 H4Hf0-d> coorH^r^rHCMf^coo rHOiOOt^HCfOnH^tCDTcit^oCt^OiOnoCNM H ro h in ro ro ro r* CM V0 O CM rH CM in rH rH m cn rH vD o <* O CM GO 10 m CM CO CO in ro 10 rH co rH O CM 10 m ro cn rH ro >0 in 10 *d 0) p P o> r^v0 o in i<nn coo> fn'Hnv^ocro'M^H,cinoiH^fnH(MMr>Min' C' 10 0> ^ ^ co CM CM H C% CM CM rH H3* CM M" m in M1 cn o r^ o V0 cn o ro co ** CM ro rH CM *H CM CM r* in co V0 <n S rH rH in 0 4J Hi cn 80 U Cm dP 10 co m GO o H cn in vD 10 cn o 09 io r* c m H CM I CM o o Oi O 10 in 101 CO co CO CM o rH o| rH LA ro 'O 4> r^iporoo^Hr^^^mN *H Erl Qh (S a in ro o m1 ^ t-H I-H o I <T>\D o> I CO CO r- rH in co co o n co rH vo ro ro o r-* m c m r* co H CO ^ in rH rH ^ co CO 10 cn in ro GO m n 00 CM r r- h CM rH CM rH H CM 01 rH in CM in CM UO CO a uo 9 M o n t h s 1 9 8 2 _________ 0) U) -tr> - rH rH MC 3 d) <U 3 < ca m CD Cmm 01 3-8v m p -h ,* +HJ HPi -rrHHH 0 a. B S aa^ a s<le> Z CS<-H8ni ->acH) Z 0. ^Iad< . OQ.) H o 3a < 8 DU P050145793 N 26470.02 <* J* Rl- V. 5-77 flTLF. OF POJ OR S'lULt . SUDJUCT- <>lG.r',EEF!li'>G (gjjJ'jH) CCiviPUTftV!Or>' SKcT ____ o r STUtyT'^ SHCL DU P050145794 N 26470.03