David Cay Johnston: “the DOE response, which I interpret to favor this amendment, is illuminating in several respects. First of all, it…”

“the DOE response, which I interpret to favor this amendment, is illuminating in several respects. First of all, it confirms that there are real cost savings to be realized by raising the general plant project limit. DOE estimates that $4.7 million would be saved by raising the ceiling under my amendment, considering only costs associated with elimination of Conceptual Design Reports and savings from avoiding the 18-to-24 month hiatus now experienced by projects in the range between $2 million and $5 million. There are also additional savings that will result from reduced overhead (personnel associated with these projects now must be moved to other projects and otherwise kept on the payroll during the hiatus or new personnel must be brought up to speed at the end of the hiatus). As the examples I have given above illustrate, there are also other savings that are possible, from avoided injuries or fines and penalties that might result from missed compliance dates. It is hard to put a figure on such costs, as they will vary from project to project, but they are very real. Second, the DOE response indicates that raising this limit will not open the flood gates to an unmanageable number of additional projects. Based on fiscal year 1996 data, increasing the limit under my amendment will increase the actual number of general plant projects by less than 10 percent.”