Document evYeMJ3JL3zN1Zq5y5X2V5ep9

J NOV -- 2 1 -- S' 2 S 1=1 T 1 -> : 3 i W A L_ L. A Q E **?!*> N H I TLE V F` . U '2i SURVEY OF ASBESTOS INSULATION FOSSIL PRODUCTION DEPARTMENT r< *m i K. kBWWIWi DUKE POWER COMPANY FOSSIL PRODUCTION DEPARTMENT ` A SURVEy OF INSULATION CONTAINING ASBESTOS DIRECTION Ordered performed by Fossil Management with results due in 90 days. SCOPE Survey the stations for asbestos insulation and figure a cost for removal and replacement of said materials* This study does not include bonded asbestos board "commonly used for certain enclosures around our plant areas nor does it include the cost of disposal at county landfills. All combustion turbines are included. (The asbestos board was not included because it does not emit fibers unless exposed to a grinding or sawing operation.) PURPOSE The figures obtained will be used by management in the decision making process pertaining to asbestos removal and replacement:. Cost Analysis 1. Total Linear Feet Piping Insulation 30^309 L.FT. 2. Total Cost for Piping insulation $1,567.235.*56 3. Total Square Feet Block Insulation 3,323,508 SQ.FT. 4. Total Cost for Block Insulation $3,674,374.05 5. Total Accessory Materials for Insulation $1,885,432.27 6. Total Man-Hours Required 2,913,213.25 Hrs, 7. Total Labor Cost $S3,923,577.25 8. Total Cost for Fossil Production $61,050,619.13 A breakdown of costs per station is found in attachment number 1* Please" note these figures vary due to size of units and prior asbestos removal efforts. NOV -- 21-- 32 SAT 1 3 : 3 T WALLACE Se m H I T L E Y nn P - -4 An example of how these figures were arrived at is found in attachment number XI and XII, the study of Marshall and Allen. Aluminum jacketing was figured into the cost of replacement for all piping due to economical and physical protection reasons. Our justification is found in attachment IV, the logic for using metal lagging on piping. DISPOSAL It is.felt that the on-site disposal of asbestos is more cost effective than answering to the requirements and costs of county landfills. The main factor here is that we Will be in control of our waste, not the county* Under Superfund,t#we. could possibly be made to reclaim our waste at a future date that was deposited in county landfills. (The interpretation of the law concerning Superfund was made by Duke*s Legal Staff.) WORKFORCE REQUIREMENTS While we know the use of Contractors is necessary in some cases, we feel Duke Power Personnel can do the job quicker, more professional and in.some cases, less cost. The logic is discussed in Attachment v. SCHEDULING OP WORK A schedulej^as, been, completed along with the manpower requirem^nfcb;j'complete the jobs in the necessary time frame. OpfcibhVA and B are found in Attachment VI. BELEWS CREEK Belews Creek was not included in the study because we felt it would not be cost effective for a total removal effort. Of the total insulation found at Belews Creek, it is estimated that 80% of the insulation is Asbestos Free. We recommend that Belews Creek be handled on an outage by outage basis with insulation removal being determined by positive or negative test results. CONCLUSION It is our recommendation that appropriate funds and manpower be made available to implement and complete an asbestos removal project in our fossil stations. With many of our NOV -- 2 1-- => 2 SAT i =,: s 7 Wallace: & whitley R . O5 units in PMP, the time would be ideal to start this under taking. Another factor to consider is replacement materials for asbestos is at an all time low. Calcium Silicate has dropped approximately 50% since 1982. The labor required to complete this project will increase as time passes, plus many'of our stations are in bad need of repair now. It is further recommended that an Insulation Preventative Maintenance Program be implemented at each station. Insulation is a costly integral part of our operational process and should be treated as such. We observed many areas in need of minor repair that if left unattended, could develop into major cost items. The last factors to consider are the uncertainty of regulatory agencies in the rule making process with respect to asbestos and possible future compensation cases concerning asbestos exposure. Both of these factors could very well quadruple our cost figures if they become a reality. This study was accomplished by use of Duke Power and Combustion Engineering prints. Where prints were not available, actual measurements were accomplished. Man-hours were figured by using past history on similar jobs (time reports) meshed in some cases with estimation. The evaluation was conducted and completed in seventy (70) working days by Wayne Eidson of Possil Production and Sid Mauney of CMD. NOV -- 21-- ^2 SAT lS : 3 n o P - 6 Attachment I Page 1 of 2 INSULATION CONTAINING ASBESTOS SURVEY Allen Steam Station Total Linear Ft. Piping Total Square Ft. Block Accessory Material Total Man-hours 86/618 L.FT, 926/130 SQ.FT. cost Insulation Cost Cost 761/675 HRS. Cost Labor Total Plant Cost $377/749.30 1,031.550.40 350/482.12 14,098/604,25 $15/858/385.07 Buck Steam Station Total Linear Ft. Piping Total Square Ft. Block Accessory Material Total Man-hours 19,491 L.FT, Cost Insulation 355,445 SQ.FT, Cost Cost 276/728 HRS. Cost Labor Total Plant Cost $ 98/832,44 399,667,24 193,026,19 5,122,235.28 $ 5,813,761,15 clifEside (1-4) Steam Station Total Linear Ft. Piping Total Square Ft, Block Accessory Material Total Man-hours 18,,62 L.FT. -216,724 "sqvft, 184,685 HRS, Cost Insulation Cost Cost Cost Labor Total Plant Cost $ 65.844,19 241,813.06 160,717,31 3,418,51 IT. 35) $ y, 886 / 893791 Cliffside (5) Steam Station Total Linear Ft. Piping Total Square Ft. Block Accessory Material Total Man-hours 23.fr534 15,475 -- 89.379 L.FT, Cost Insulation SQ.FT, Cost Cost HRS. Cost Labor Total Plant Cost $129,999,76 17/768,80 89,426.27 1,654,405,29 $ 1,891,600,12 Buzzard Roost Station Total Square Ft. Block Accessory Material Total Man-hours 9,000 SQ.FT, Cost Cost 6,816 HRS. Cost Labor Total Plant Cost 10,080.00 6.516.00 126,164.16 $ 142,766,16 NOV -- 2 1 -- 92 SAT 1 5 : 5 ? WALLACE & WHIT L_ E V r. O R . T Attachment I Page 2 of 2 INSULATION CONTAINING ASBESTOS SURVEY Dan River Steam Station Total Linear Ft. Piping Total Square Ft* Block Accessory Material Total Man-hours 17,886 L.FT. Cost Insulation 268,591 SQ.FT. Cost Cost 208,057.25 HRS. Cost Labor Total Plant Cost $ 61,088.05 298,303.12 181,394.53 3,851,139,70 $ 4,391,925.40 Lee Steam Station Total Linear Ft. Piping Total Square Ft. Block Accessory Material Total Man-hours 23,834 L.FT, Cost Insulation 333,597 SQ.FT, Cost Cost 263,114 HRS. Cost Labor Total Plant Cost $ 91,883.93 371,068.88 202,949,47 4,870,240.14 $ 5,536,14,2.42 Marshall Steam Station Total Linear Ft. Piping Total Square Ft. Block Accessory Material Total Man-hours 83,000 L.FT. Cost Insulation 784,857 SQ.FT. Cost Cost 712,633 HRS. Cost Labor Total Plant Cost $617,134.85 858,104.38 439,865.10 13,190,836 * 83 $15,105,941 .'iff Riverband Steam Station Total Linear Ft, Piping Total Square Ft. Block Accessory Material *Total Man-hours 29/664 L.FT. Cost Insulation 413,6 89"s<5TFT. Cost Cost 410,126 HRS. Cost Labor Total Plant Cost $124,704.04 446,018.17 261,055.28 7,591,432.26 $8,423,20TT75 * includes man-hours required for removal of 12,000 L.FT. of insulation and 73,704 SQ.FT, of block on the old end. No replacement required.