Estimating Workbook Presentation by yjc86162

VIEWS: 41 PAGES: 96

More Info
									             SUMMARY REPORT

PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING COST ANALYSIS

                  FOR THE

 PANTEX SOUTHEAST GROUNDWATER (SEG)
                SITE




                PREPARED FOR:

INNOVATIVE TREATMENT REMEDIATION DEMONSTRATION
                 (ITRD) PROGRAM

   PANTEX SEG TECHNICAL ADVISORY GROUP (TAG)



                 PREPARED BY:

     CONSULTING AND FUNDING RESOURCES, LLC
          (ITRD PROGRAM CONTRACTOR)
           ALBUQUERQUE, NEW MEXICO


                   July 12, 2002
                                    EXECUTIVE SUMMARY



         The Innovative Treatment Remediation Demonstration (ITRD) Program, managed by Sandia
National Laboratories for the United States Department of Energy (DOE), is working with the DOE Amarillo
Field Office and the Management and Operations Contractor of the Pantex Plant (BWXT) to investigate and
accelerate the use of innovative remediation technologies for remediation at the Southeast Groundwater
(SEG) Site. The SEG site covers several square miles and involves a deeply situated perched saturated zone
contaminated with low concentrations of high explosives, and in some areas low concentrations of hexavalent
chromium, and/or certain volatile organic compounds. The perched saturated zone overlies the regionally
important Ogallala Aquifer.


         The ITRD Program for this site was initiated in 2000 with the formation of a Technical Advisory
Group (TAG) in that year. One of the tasks that the TAG is undertaking is the development of conceptual
deployment scenarios and preliminary estimated costs for several innovative technologies: insitu chemical
oxidation (ISCO), insitu redox manipulation (IRM), and insitu anaerobic bioremediation (IAB). Only those
innovative technologies that have the strong potential to significantly reduce the cost and increase the
effectiveness of remediation compared to conventional Pump and Treat (P & T) technology are being
considered.


         An estimating system has been developed to support the estimation of costs to deploy the three
innovative technologies, plus P & T, in specific configurations and at specific field scales referred to in this
work as Technology Unit Scenarios (TUS). The principal goal was to create an estimating system and
corresponding cost estimates that satisfy the estimating quality objective referred to as DOE Planning Level
(i.e., -50 percent to +100 percent accuracy). A secondary goal was to create a system that could be used for
developing both point and probabilistic estimates and sensitivity analysis insights associated with these
estimates. By including probabilistic estimating techniques in this project, the ability to propagate uncertainty
through the calculations and presentation of cost estimate results was enhanced. The system was created using
Microsoft ® EXCEL 2002 and Decisioneering Crystal Ball ® Pro (Version 4.0). Information used in
developing the system and generating initial output was obtained from the work of various members of the
TAG, general industry information, and professional judgment.


                                                         I
         The cost estimating system is designed around a number of variables that are believed to heavily
influence any estimates of cost for the three technologies as applied to the SEG site. For this preliminary
estimating phase, lumped parameter variables were selected and credible intervals and most likely values for
each were developed. The system user, through a User Interface (UI) screen, has the option to repeatedly enter
different values for these variables, subject to guiding constraints, to calculate unique point estimate values of
Labor Cost, Subcontractor Cost, the combination of Equipment and Consumables and Other Direct Costs,
and Total TUS Cost. Probability Distribution Functions (PDFs) and pair-wise correlations were developed
for those random variables deemed to individually influence at least 10 percent of the overall cost. This subset
of random variables is referred to as the Primary Cost Variables, and PDFs and pair-wise correlations for
these were prepared using the combination of Crystal Ball Pro integrated with the EXCEL cost estimating
workbook. A unique set of “Estimated Cost” PDFs, and corresponding sensitivity analyses, were then
produced using the integrated estimating system, along with the Primary Cost Variable PDFs and static
estimated values for the balance of the random variables. With access to the cost estimating system workbook
developed using Microsoft ® Excel (Version 2002 or later) and Decisioneering Crystal Ball® software
(Version 4.0 or later), the system user can change descriptive input and parameters controlling the numerical
simulations, and generate other unique probabilistically-based estimates.


         Specific estimates of cost, in deterministic and probabilistic format, were generated for the ISCO,
IRM, and IAB TUS. Additionally, deterministic estimates were generated for the P&T TUS. Of perhaps
greatest value to the TAG and subsequent users of the information generated from the subject task is not the
actual numeric estimate of cost but the identification of potential cost variables, the recognition (within a cost
estimating framework) of natural variability and uncertainty associated with these random variables, and the
identification of those cost variables that appear to exert the most influence over 1) any efforts to estimate cost
before the remedial work is completed, and 2) the final cost incurred - after the remedial work is completed.




                                                        II
CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................... I
CONTENTS ................................................................................................................................................ III
LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES ......................................................................................................... III
1.0          INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1
2.0          GOALS AND OBJECTIVES ........................................................................................................ 3
3.0          ENGINEERING COST ANALYSIS PROCEDURES ................................................................ 6
4.0          RESULTS ....................................................................................................................................... 9
5.0          CONCLUSIONS ...........................................................................................................................38
6.0          RECOMMENDATIONS ..............................................................................................................42
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................................44
APPENDIX A ...............................................................................................................................................A
UNCERTAINTY ANALYSIS/ ESTIMATION QUALITY OBJECTIVE STATEMENT ....................A
APPENDIX B ................................................................................................................................................ B
TASK SCOPE DOCUMENT ...................................................................................................................... B
APPENDIX C ...............................................................................................................................................C
COST ESTIMATING WORKBOOK ........................................................................................................C
APPENDIX D ...............................................................................................................................................D
CRYSTAL BALL REPORTS FOR ISCO, IRM, AND IAB TUS ............................................................ D



LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES

Figures
Figure 1. In Situ Chemical Oxidation TUS Schedule in 6 Month Increments from
     Beginning FY 2007 ................................................................................................... 13
Figure 2. In Situ Redox Manipulation TUS Schedule in 6 Month Increments from
     Beginning FY 2007 ................................................................................................... 14
Figure 3. In Situ Anaerobic Bioremediation TUS Schedule in 6 Month Increments from
     Beginning of FY 2007 .............................................................................................. 14
Figure 4. PDF for IRM Number of Injection/Extraction Wells ........................................ 28
Figure 5. Mean Standard Error vs. No. Simulation Trials ............................................... 30
Figure 6. Summary of Estimated Cost with Certainty Ranges around Mean ................... 31
Figure 7. Estimated Labor Subtotal Cost PDF for ISCO .................................................. 31
Figure 8. Estimated Subcontractor Subtotal Cost PDF for ISCO ..................................... 32
Figure 9. Estimated E&C and ODC Subtotal Cost PDF for ISCO ................................... 32
Figure 10. Estimated Total Cost PDF for ISCO TUS ....................................................... 32
Figure 11. Estimated Total Cost PDF for IRM TUS ........................................................ 33


                                                                             iii
Figure 12. Estimated Total Cost PDF for IAB TUS ......................................................... 33
Figure 13. Sensitivity Chart for ISCO Total Estimated Cost............................................ 34
Figure 14. Sensitivity Chart for IRM Total Estimated Cost ............................................. 35
Figure 15. Sensitivity Chart for IAB Total Estimated Cost .............................................. 36

Tables
Table 1. Summary of Tasks Applicable to Each TUS ...................................................... 10
Table 2. Cross-Reference of Costing Tasks to WBS ........................................................ 11
Table 3. Summary Description of WBS Elements, based on the Environmental Cost
    Element Structure (ECES) ........................................................................................ 12
Table 4. List of Random Variables and Assigned MLV for ISCO, IRM, and IAB ......... 16
Table 5. Summary of Estimated Costs using Base Case Values, by TUS Cost Component
    ................................................................................................................................... 19
Table 6. Summary of Primary Cost Components for Each TUS ...................................... 21
Table 7. Summary of Descriptive Information for ISCO Primary Cost Variables ........... 22
Table 8. Summary of Descriptive Information for IRM Primary Cost Variables ............ 23
Table 9. Summary of Descriptive Information for IAB Primary Cost Variables ............. 24
Table 10. Pair-Wise Correlations for Primary Cost Variables ......................................... 26
Table 11. Summary of Estimated PDF Mean and Range for Each Cost Component for
    Each TUS .................................................................................................................. 30
Table 12. ISCO Total Estimated Cost Sensitivity to Isolated Primary Cost Variables .... 37
Table 13. Summary of Estimated Costs using Base Case Values, by TUS Cost
    Component ................................................................................................................ 39
Table 14. Summary of Probabilistic Simulation Results for Estimated Cost, by TUS .... 40
Table 15. Top Three Variables Influencing Total Estimated Cost, by TUS..................... 41




                                                                   iv
                                   1.0 INTRODUCTION

         The Innovative Treatment and Remediation Demonstration (ITRD) program supports
Department of Energy Environmental Restoration Projects with evaluations of emerging
technology to replace inefficient or ineffective traditional baseline methods. In 1998, the ITRD
program began a project on explosives contaminated soil and surface water at the Pantex Plant.
In June 2000, the ITRD Explosives Project was expanded to include the Pantex Southeast
Groundwater problem. The ITRD Pantex Southeast Groundwater (SEG) project established four
technical thrust areas:
                 Trace measurement of explosives in groundwater
                 Stratigraphic control on perched groundwater
                 Decision support using simulation modeling
                 Evaluation of aquifer treatment technologies

         The ITRD process is implemented in two phases. In Phase I, a Technical Advisory Group (TAG)
reviews various aspects of the problem and previous methods used for characterization and remediation.
After careful review of the technical, regulatory, and economic aspects of the problem and internal debate, the
TAG makes recommendations on innovative approaches for characterization and remediation that would
improve upon the current baseline. The recommendations may require site-specific treatability studies, which
are cooperatively executed by the ITRD project and the Pantex Environmental Restoration Program.
         In Phase II, a Performance Evaluation Group (PEG) evaluates the results of the
treatability studies and makes recommendations for pilot-scale tests or full-scale deployments
using the most appropriate methods. The PEG supports the design, installation, operation and
quality assurance aspects of monitoring systems that will be used to evaluate the cost and
performance of the technologies deployed. The ITRD project culminates in a Cost and
Performance Report that describes the benefit and cost aspects of each technology deployed.
         An ITRD program report was posted to the ITRD program website in the spring of 2002
(www.nwer.sandia.gov/ITRD ) that summarizes the history of the ITRD program project at
Pantex, discusses the Phase 1 process and outcome to-date for the site, and presents a general
description of innovative remediation technologies that have been identified for further
evaluation. The report is titled “Innovative Treatment and Remediation Demonstration, Pantex
Southeast Groundwater, Technology Evaluation Report” (Sandia National Laboratories, 2002).




                                                      1
         Two additional work products, funded by the ITRD Program, are of note. In the spring of 2002,
University of Nebraska presented the results of their bench-scale research into potassium permanagate (ISCO)
application and anaerobic bioremediation (IAB) at the site. Concurrently, the DOE Pacific Northwest
National Laboratory (PNNL) presented the results of bench-scale research into application of the in-situ redox
manipulation (IRM) at the site. Both sets of presentations were uploaded to the ITRD website in the spring of
2002.
         In January 2002, the ITRD program contracted with Consulting and Funding Resources, L.L.C.
(CFR) to conduct a preliminary Engineering Cost Analysis (ECA) in support of the fourth thrust area defined
by the SEG TAG – i.e., evaluation of aquifer treatment technologies. The subject report is a summary of the
preliminary ECA conducted from February through April 2002. Three innovative remediation technologies
were addressed: Insitu Chemical Oxidation; Insitu Redox Manipulation; and Insitu Anaerobic
Bioremediation. A cost evaluation of the existing interim Pump & Treat system was also performed.
         The specific purpose of the ECA was to provide the Pantex Southeast Groundwater TAG
with the first documented DOE Planning Level estimate of costs to implement the field phase of
the three innovative remediation technologies, under specific application scenarios. This report
describes the goals and objectives of the ECA, references relevant work accomplished by ITRD
TAG contributors as of early May 2002, describes the process utilized in developing a cost
estimating system and arriving at estimated costs, discusses results and conclusions from the
ECA, and presents recommendations for consideration in designing future data collection and
cost analyses for this project.




                                                      2
                           2.0       GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

        The goals of the engineering cost analysis (ECA) task for the ITRD Pantex Southeast
Groundwater (SEG) Plume were to:


            1. Develop a cost estimating system for use in estimating costs for deploying three insitu
                 remediation technologies, under one of two types of deployment scenarios (area and
                 reactive barrier), each at specific scales of operation. The system must exhibit point estimate
                 and probabilistic output capability, as well as sensitivity analysis functionality.
            2. Use the cost estimating system to develop DOE Planning Level cost estimates, in both
                 point estimate and probabilistic formats, and to perform limited sensitivity analyses.
            3. Present the results of the ECA work in report format and to the ITRD/Pantex SEG
                 Technical Advisory Group (TAG).


        As stated previously, the three remediation technologies are Insitu Chemical Oxidation
(ISCO), Insitu Redox Manipulation (IRM), and Insitu Anaerobic Bioremediation (IAB). Each is
considered an innovative technology and has not been utilized previously under site conditions
similar to that contemplated at Pantex. In particular, these technologies have not been utilized
with the combination of contaminants, or at the depths and over the areas contemplated at Pantex.
Limited bench-scale treatability testing has been completed as of April 2002. Even less
information from field pilot testing is available. This situation, combined with the fact that the
natural variability in the SEG site conditions is currently undergoing characterization by Pantex,
and the fact that the experience base for full-scale application of any of these three technologies is
quite limited, points to the relatively high degree of uncertainty inherent in any cost estimating
exercise conducted early in this project.
        An interim groundwater Pump & Treat (P&T) containment system is being operated near
the center of the SEG plume site. Estimated costs for a P&T scenario similar to the current
interim action were also developed. For this scenario, most of the basis for cost estimating was
Pantex-supplied information. It is reasonable to assume that there could be some level of inter-
dependency between this existing P&T operation and one or more of the three insitu
technologies, when deployed. Consequently, a secondary goal of the ECA was to search for
opportunities to utilize the existing P&T system in support of the three innovative technologies to
reduce overall costs, increase effectiveness, or both.



                                                       3
        By achieving the goals laid out above, the ITRD Program, Pantex personnel, and other
stakeholders in the ITRD Pantex TAG would receive four technology scenarios and associated
estimated costs representing “building blocks”. For the purposes of this project, these “building
blocks” are referred to as Technology Unit Scenarios (TUS). Conceivably, these building blocks
will be used in creating partial and comprehensive remedial scenarios (i.e., Conceptual Treatment
Scenarios and Baseline Alternatives, respectively) and associated cost estimates for programmatic
planning and budgeting purposes. As more characterization and design information useful to the
estimating effort becomes available, natural variability will be better defined and uncertainty
around TUS configuration and expected performance will be reduced. The estimating system and
input values can be revised and more detailed and reliable estimates will be possible. Thus, the
subject ECA task represents the beginning of a series of engineering cost analysis steps that will
lead to a detailed design and cost estimate.
        A general assessment of natural variability and uncertainties associated with the
estimation of costs for the three technologies, along with consideration of the potential uses of the
estimates, was conducted to further define the specific objectives of the ECA. Appendix A
presents a memorandum that documents the variability and uncertainty assessment. One of the
principal outcomes of the assessment was the development of an Estimating Quality Objective
(EQO) for the ECA. Similar to a Data Quality Objective (DQO) in concept, the EQO provides a
specific basis for the design of the ECA and conduct and presentation of the cost estimation work.
        The EQO statement presented in Appendix A, reiterated below, was utilized as guidance
in completing the preliminary ECA for the Pantex SEG project.
        Develop DOE Planning Level cost estimates (i.e., projected deterministic accuracy of -
        50% to +100%), similar to a relatively conservative Rough Order of Magnitude (ROM)
        estimate, for the following three Technology Unit Scenarios (TUS): Insitu Chemical
        Oxidation; Insitu Redox Manipulation; and Insitu Anaerobic Bioremediation. In addition,
        develop relatively compatible deterministic estimates for a Pump & Treat TUS using
        costing information provided by Pantex ER personnel. These estimates should be of a
        quality compatible with the intended use of developing more comprehensive Conceptual
        Treatment Scenarios (CTS) and Baseline Alternatives (BA). Due to the relatively
        complex engineering and cost estimating process required to arrive at reliable detailed
        final cost estimates for BA for this project, and the relatively large amount of resources
        anticipated in implementing any effective solution, any and all cost estimates should be
        derived from a relatively robust and documented cost estimating system. The system(s)
        should incorporate sensitivity analysis and probabilistic analysis functionality, as well as
        an architecture that will allow for modification/upgrade as more representative and
        accurate data become available and more representative cost estimating relationships are
        developed. Emphasis should be placed on identifying sources of variability and
        uncertainty, and propagating uncertainty throughout the estimating process. Proper
        documentation of uncertainties, assumptions, and limitations on use at this stage of the




                                                 4
estimating process is desired to promote optimal use of the cost estimating system in
developing Planning Level cost estimates at the TUS level.




                                        5
         3.0     ENGINEERING COST ANALYSIS PROCEDURES

        This section describes the process developed to derive the cost estimating system and
corresponding cost estimates. In addition to the Phase 1 summary report referenced above,
conceptual treatment scenarios for each of the three insitu technologies were developed and
presented in the report titled “Conceptual Deployment Scenarios for Insitu Remediation of the
Southeast Perched Aquifer Plume, Pantex Plant, Amarillo, Texas” (Aquifer Solutions, Inc.,
2002). These two documents provide much of the foundation upon which the ECA was designed
and conducted. The reader is encouraged to review those documents to obtain detailed
information on SEG site conditions, why the three innovative technologies introduced in the
previous sections were chosen for detailed evaluation, and on conceptual application scenarios
including estimates of the range and most likely value for important engineering and cost
parameters quantitatively describing the scenarios.
        The following sequence was developed to create the cost estimating system and to
produce outcomes in both deterministic and probabilistic formats.
        1. Select TUS configuration for each technology, areal or barrier, and the smallest
            reasonable scale of application (e.g., 40 acres or 500 ft in length) for each. Make
            selections in consultation with Aquifer Solutions, Inc.
        2. Select the portion of the conceptual life-cycle project, typically beginning with
            design and ending with final project close-out, to isolate for achieving consistent cost
            estimates across the various technology applications.
        3. Outline the general scope by defining TUS tasks and a Work Breakdown Structure
            (WBS) using the Environmental Cost Element Structure (ECES). Determine cost
            categories to sum costs into (e.g., Labor Cost, Total Estimated Cost for TUS).
        4. Prepare Task Scope Documents (TSD) for each TUS. The TSD documents the scope
            and schedule assumptions by WBS. These are the assumptions upon which the cost
            estimating relationships of the cost estimating system are based. Sources of
            information are documented.
        5. Review important technical and cost variables and plausible estimates of the range
            and most likely value (MLV) of the variables describing the TUS in collaboration
            with Aquifer Solutions, Inc. Make a preliminary selection of those variables on
            which to base the cost estimates.




                                                 6
6. Using the preliminary selections of cost variables and professional judgment,
    estimate the MLV and credible interval for each cost variable. This information will
    be used to represent guidance for selecting input values for key cost variables used in
    point estimating of cost, and manual sensitivity analysis.
7. Use the tasks and WBS along with the cost estimating variables and their estimated
    values as the basis for creating a User Interface (UI) format unique to each TUS that
    allows for keystroke input of values for cost variables and “same view” reporting of
    calculation results in U.S. dollars. Structure the UI to promote efficient manual
    sensitivity analysis.
8. Design a Microsoft ® Excel (Microsoft Corporation, 2002) workbook structure that
    integrates UI worksheets, master calculation worksheets, and supporting worksheets
    containing modules that are dedicated to specific CER such as Labor Costs or Other
    Direct Costs (ODC). The structure should allow calculation of costs for the three
    innovative TUS quasi-simultaneously (and the P&T TUS), minimize redundancy and
    promote relatively rapid modifications and upgrades, and promote relatively straight-
    forward checking for correct functionality and calculation. The design must also
    support manually conducted deterministic sensitivity analysis as well as integration
    of the probabilistic based simulation and sensitivity analysis software Crystal Ball ®
    Pro, Version 4.0 (Decisioneering, 1998).
9. Using unit price, overhead, and escalation rate information obtained primarily from
    Pantex ER personnel, and to a lesser extent other sources (e.g., Aquifer Solutions
    personnel, general market information, and professional judgment), develop task
    based labor and ODC modules applicable to a field duration of one week. Develop
    analytical unit cost modules based on unique suites of laboratory analyses applicable
    to specific TUS.
10. Develop master calculation worksheets for each TUS. These are the worksheets
    where custom cost estimating relationships (CER) determining task duration,
    volumes, flow rates and the like are coded. Values for random variables comprising
    each CER are pulled from the TUS-specific UI and the labor, ODC, and analytical
    modules. Estimated costs for labor, subcontractors, equipment, consumables, and
    ODC are calculated and summed by task and these are summed to calculate total
    estimated cost.
11. For each TUS UI, enter discrete values for each cost variable, and initiate the Excel
    calculation sequence to calculate a point cost estimate for the TUS. Conduct several



                                         7
    calculations using different input values. Review to determine whether system is
    working as intended. If system appears to be working as intended, record calculated
    estimates and underlying input values by printing UI page. Perform for each TUS.
12. Identify “Primary Cost Variables” from the list of cost variables used for point
    estimating to use in probabilistic simulations for propagating uncertainty through the
    cost calculations. Select PDF type (e.g., normal, Poisson) and descriptive parameters
    for each (e.g., mean (or MLV), standard deviation, credible interval, etc.).
13. Estimate correlation between pairs of these variables.
14. Integrate Crystal Ball Pro (CB) with the EXCEL costing workbook. Using CB,
    identify cells representing assumptions and cells representing forecasts. Create
    “Assumption” profiles for each Primary Costing Variable. These profiles contain the
    PDF information and correlation information. Create “Forecast” Profiles that define
    the format of output.
15. Define parameters that control the nature of the simulation such as type of sampling
    (Monte Carlo or Latin Hypercube Sampling), number of trials, whether sensitivity
    analyses will be performed, whether statistics will be calculated, etc.
16. Run simulation and use reporting features to create and view several types of
    graphical presentations, summarize assumptions (e.g., PDF information), and prepare
    output results for each of the three TUS.
17. Review simulation results and rerun using different parameters. One objective is to
    establish a perspective on numeric stability by comparing simulation results (e.g.,
    Mean Standard Error) for 1200 trials to results for 5000, 7500, and 20,000 trials.




                                         8
                                            4.0       RESULTS

         The generalized procedure described in the previous section was followed to generate point and PDF
estimates of cost for each TUS. Results for each step of the procedure are presented in this section.


         Step 1 Result: Selected TUS Configuration
         The TUS for ISCO is based on areal treatment of the perched aquifer over a rectangular to square
area of 40 acres. It is assumed that the perched zone is 10 feet in thickness and the base of the zone is 280 ft
below grade (bg).
         The TUS for IRM is based on permeable reactive barrier containment within the perched aquifer
over a length of 500 feet and width of approximately 30 feet. The base of the perched zone is 280 ft bg.
         The TUS for IAB is based on areal treatment of the perched aquifer over a rectangular or square area
of 40 acres. It is assumed that the perched zone is 20 feet thick and the base is 280 ft bg.


         Step 2 Result: Select Stage of Project Life Cycle to Estimate
         The field implementation phase of the overall project life-cycle for each TUS was chosen and this
includes major tasks starting with Field Mobilization and ending with Field Decommissioning (and final
demobilization). The significance of this is that pre-full-scale deployment tasks such as site characterization,
field pilot tests, design and permitting are not included. Technology licensing fees or royalties are also not
included.


         Step 3 Result: General Scope Definition
         The following tables (Tables 1 and 2) summarize the tasks and ECES-based WBS developed for
each TUS. Selected cost categories for each TUS are: Labor Cost, Subcontractor Cost, Equipment and
Consumables Cost, Other Direct Costs, and Total Estimated Cost.




                                                         9
           Table 1. Summary of Tasks Applicable to Each TUS
           TUS Costing Tasks                                  Technology Unit Scenarios (TUS)
                                                           P&T                   ISCO (PP)                IAB         IRM
                                                            (1)                     (2)                    (3)         (4)
   Pre-design/Pilot Tests/Planning                       NA (5)                     No (6)                 No             No

           Design/Permitting/PM                            NA                         No                   No             No

     TUS Contractor Mobilization                         Yes (7)                     Yes                  Yes         Yes

              Well Installation
                  Injection                                  8                       Yes                  Yes         Yes
                Extraction                                   8                       NA                   Yes         NA
                Monitoring                                   8                       Yes                  Yes         Yes

  Treatment System Construction
  Batch Mobile Treatment Unit (MTU)                        NA                        Yes                  No          Yes
   Continuous (Recirculation) MTU                          NA                        No                   Yes         No
      Continuous Fixed P&T and
              Discharge                                      8                        No                   No             No

  Operations & Process Monitoring
   Batch Delivery MTU (ISCO, IRM)                          NA                        Yes                  No          Yes
       Recirculation MTU (IAB)                             NA                        No                   Yes         No
  Long-term Ops/Permanent System                           Yes                       No                   No          No
    TUS Contractor Demobilization                           8                        Yes                  Yes         Yes

      Post-Treatment Monitoring                             No                       Yes                  Yes         Yes

           Long-term Performance
                Assessment                                 Yes                        No                   No             No

             Decommissioning
               Well Plugging                               Yes                       Yes                  Yes         Yes
             Plant & Equipment                             Yes                       No                   No          No

Notes to Table 1.
     (1)   P&T is Pump and Treat Interim System (existing) operated over 30 years
     (2)   ISCO (PP) is In Situ Chemical Oxidation using Potassium Permanganate in Batch Injection Mode / Area
           Application
     (3)   IAB is In Situ Anaerobic Bioremediation in Recirculation Mode / Area Application
     (4)   IRM is In Situ Redox Manipulation using Sodium Dithionite in Barrier Mode / Linear Application
     (5)   NA is Not Applicable
     (6)   No means a cost estimate for the indicated task was not prepared
     (7)   Yes means a cost estimate was prepared for the indicated task
     (8)   The P & T System referenced in Note 1 is existing. Therefore, Mob/Demob, well installation, treatment system
           manufacturing, delivery, and setup are already completed




                                                             10
             Table 2. Cross-Reference of Costing Tasks to WBS
     TUS Costing Tasks                        WBS (based on ECES)
                                    Level 1
                                    Phase     Level 2       Level 3                   Level 4
Pre-design/Pilot Tests/Planning      1, 2       NA             NA                       NA

     Design/Permitting/PM             3         NA             NA                       NA

  TUS Contractor Mobilization         4         .05            .01            .01, .02, .03, .04, .05,
                                                               .02                      .01,

        Well Installation
            Injection                 4         .18            .02                     None
          Extraction                  4         .18            .01                     None
          Monitoring                  4         .07            .15                     None

Treatment System Construction
Batch Mobile Treatment Unit (MTU)     4         .11            .05                     None
 Continuous (Recirculation) MTU       4         .11            .05                     None
    Continuous Fixed P&T and
            Discharge                 4         .11            .05

Operations & Process Monitoring
 Batch Delivery MTU (ISCO, IRM)       5         .23            .04                     None
     Recirculation MTU (IAB)          5         .21            .06                     None
Long-term Ops/Permanent System        5         .25            .23                     None
                                      5         .24            .15                     None
                                      5         .26            .44                     None
                                      5         .26            .23                     None
                                                                              .01, .02, .03, .04, .05,
  TUS Contractor Demobilization       5         .05            .36                       .06

   Post-Treatment Monitoring          5         .06            .02                  .01, .03, .05
                                                .07            .09                    .01, .02
                                                .08            .02                    .01, .02
                                                .09     .01, .03, .04, .06, .07, .08

    Long-term Performance
         Assessment                   6         .06            .02                  .01, .03, .05
                                                .07            .09                    .01, .02
                                                .08            .02                    .01, .02
                                                .09     .01, .03, .04, .06, .07, .08
       Decommissioning
         Well Plugging                5         .31            .21                      .01
       Plant & Equipment              5         .31            .21                      .01




                                              11
        The next table, Table 3, provides abbreviated descriptions for each WBS element shown
in Table 2.


        Table 3. Summary Description of WBS Elements, based on the
        Environmental Cost Element Structure (ECES)
                                               ECES Titles


 4.05.01 is Construction/ Site Work/ Mobilization
 4.05.02 is Construction/ Site Work/ Cleanup, Landscape, Revegetate

 4.18.02 is Construction/ Groundwater Containment, Collection, and Control/ Injection Wells
 4.18.01 is Construction/ Groundwater Containment, Collection, and Control/ Extraction Wells
 4.07.15 is Construction/ Investigations and Monitoring, Sample Collection / Monitoring Well

 4.11.05 is Construction/ Treatment Plant, Facility, Process/ Full-scale Environ. Management Plant, Facility
 4.11.05 is Construction/ Treatment Plant, Facility, Process/ Full-scale Environ. Management Plant, Facility
 4.11.05 is Construction/ Treatment Plant, Facility, Process/ Full-scale Environ. Management Plant, Facility

 5.23.04 is O&M / Insitu Chemical Treatment/ Oxidation
 Reduction
 5.21.06 is O&M / Insitu Biological Treatment/ Enhanced Bioremediation
 5.25.23 is O&M / Insitu Physical Treatment/ Draw-Down
 Pumping
 5.24.15 is O&M / Exsitu Chemical Treatment/ Coagulation, Flocculation, Precipitation
 5.26.44 is O&M / Exsitu Chemical Treatment/ Ultra & Microfiltration
 5.26.23 is O&M / Exsitu Physical Treatment/ GAC Adsorption – Liquid
 5.05.36 is O&M/ Site Work/
 Demobilization

 5.06.02 is Surveillance and Long term Monitoring / Surveillance and Maintenance/ Outdoor S&M
 5.07.09 is Surveillance & LT Monitoring/Investigations & Monitoring, Sample Collect./GW Sampling,
 Monitoring
 5.08.02 is Surveillance and Long Term Monitoring / Sample Analysis/ Groundwater Sample Analysis
 5.09 is Surveillance and Long Term Monitoring / Sample Management, Data Validation, Data Evaluation
 LTM up to 30 years
 6.06.02 is Surveillance and Long term Monitoring / Surveillance and Maintenance/ Outdoor S&M
 6.07.09 is Surveillance & LT Monitoring/Investigations & Monitoring, Sample Collect./GW Sampling,
 Monitoring
 6.08.02 is Surveillance and Long Term Monitoring / Sample Analysis/ Groundwater Sample Analysis
 6.09 is Surveillance and Long Term Monitoring / Sample Management, Data Validation, Data Evaluation

 5.31.21 is O&M / Facility Decommissioning and Dismantlement/ Dismantling or Demolition of other Facilities
 5.31.21 is O&M / Facility Decommissioning and Dismantlement/ Dismantling or Demolition of other Facilities




                                               12
        Step 4 Result: Specific Scope and Schedule Definition
        Refer to Appendix B for a relatively comprehensive Task Scope Documentation (TSD) of
the specific scope and schedule for each of the four TUS. Generalized schedules showing the
basic tasks and time relationship between tasks are presented in the following Gantt charts
(Figures 1, 2, and 3). The task durations for each TUS are based on initial estimates of Level of
Effort (LOE) to accomplish the scope as defined for that TUS in Appendix B. In each case, it is
assumed that mobilization starts at the beginning of Fiscal Year 2007. The duration for the Post-
Treatment Monitoring task includes the field portion and 60 additional days for final laboratory
reporting and final review and reporting. The field portion is estimated to be 52 weeks, except for
IAB where only 26 weeks is estimated to be required due to the nature of the recirculation
operation and the lengthy period of O&M process monitoring.
        Per Figures 1 through 3, the total TUS duration is estimated to be approximately 1 ¾
years, 3 ¼ years, and 4 ¼ years, respectively, for ISCO, IRM, and IAB. These estimates should
be viewed as initial starting points for subsequent schedule analyses.


    Figure 1. In Situ Chemical Oxidation TUS Schedule in 6 Month
    Increments from Beginning FY 2007


                     In Situ Chemical Oxidation TUS Schedule
                  in 6 month Increments from Beginning FY 2007


                  FY    07    FY    08      FY    09        FY   10   FY   11   FY   12

                    Mobilization

                       Well Installation


                                       O&M, Process Monitoring

                                           O&M Demobilization

                                             Post-Treatment Monitoring
                                                               (Quarterly Sampling)
                                                 Field Decommissioning




                                                       13
Figure 2. In Situ Redox Manipulation TUS Schedule in 6 Month
Increments from Beginning FY 2007


             In Situ Redox Manipulation TUS Schedule
          in 6 month Increments from Beginning FY 2007


          FY      07   FY     08     FY   09        FY     10     FY   11   FY   12

               Mobilization

                Well Installation

                 Treatment System Construction

                                    O&M, Process Monitoring

                                    O&M Demobilization

                                                         Post-Treatment Monitoring

                                                         Decommissioning (4 weeks)




Figure 3. In Situ Anaerobic Bioremediation TUS Schedule in 6 Month
Increments from Beginning of FY 2007


          Insitu Anaerobic Bioremediation TUS Schedule
          in 6 month Increments from Beginning FY 2007

          FY      07   FY     08     FY   09        FY     10     FY   11   FY   12

               Mobilization

                Well Installation

                 Treatment System Construction

                                                           O&M, Process Monitoring

                                                                O&M Demobilization

                    Post-Treatment Monitoring

                  Field Decommissioning (4 weeks)




                                               14
        Steps 5 and 6 Result: Identify and Characterize Important Costing Variables
        Table 4 summarizes the variables that the cost estimating system was constructed around
and the MLV for each. The table only presents the three innovative technologies. MLV for the
P&T TUS and credible intervals for all four TUS can be found on the UI pages in Appendix C.
         The MLV are associated with specific TUS configurations as described in Appendix B.
The credible intervals were developed by synthesizing information obtained from laboratory
treatability studies and other analyses performed by TAG participants, with general industry
information and professional judgment. Taken as a group, the MLV are considered the “Base
Case” for the respective TUS.
        It is emphasized that the MLV associated with the base case was considered to be a
starting point for completing the analysis described in this report. These base cases should
continue to be viewed in the near term as a reasonable starting point for developing and
evaluating additional TUS configurations.
        To demonstrate the nature of the MLV, the Operations and Maintenance cost variable
“water analysis suites per well per week” is singled out for inspection. As shown in Table 4, the
value of this variable is different for each of the TUS (1.0, 3.0, and 0.25, for ISCO, IRM, and
IAB, respectively). CFR selected each value based on perceived process control and in situ
monitoring requirements for each TUS. The premise is that different levels of field and laboratory
data collection will be required to effectively control the technical and economic performance of
each TUS, and to achieve the appropriate level of data quality for supporting decisions late in the
project. Different levels of data collection effort are represented by different values for sampling
frequency. Different information type requirements are addressed by the different laboratory
analytical suites developed for each TUS (Note: these suites are described on the “Lab Suites”
spreadsheet of the Cost Estimating Workbook). To achieve the goal of creating DOE Planning
Level estimates (i.e., conservative ROM), the value of the sampling frequency for each TUS base
case was selected to be somewhat conservative in nature.
        During TUS operation and maintenance, the sampling frequency is estimated to be
highest for IRM and lowest for IAB, with ISCO somewhere between the two. For IRM alone, the
operation and maintenance phase represents the barrier construction period. The basis for
estimating 3 samples per well per week is the perceived rate of reactions between injected
chemicals and the subsurface matrix and the volume of subsurface over which the reactions must
occur. The reactions are perceived to be relatively rapid (compared to ISCO and especially IAB)
and the volume, area, and distances over which reactions will take place are relatively small
(compared to ISCO and especially IAB). From an economic perspective, it is believed that greater



                                                 15
          investment in sampling and analysis will lead to disproportionately high pay-back in terms of
          reductions in the amount of chemicals to inject, the amount of water to extract, and in the overall
          duration for treatment.


                   Table 4. List of Random Variables and Assigned MLV for ISCO,
                   IRM, and IAB
          ISCO FIELD TASKS                                IRM FIELD TASKS                                 IAB FIELD TASKS
          TUS Contractor Mobilization                     TUS Contractor Mobilization                    TUS Contractor Mobilization
Pre-defined Duration and Scope                    Pre-defined                                     Pre-defined
                Well Installation                                Well Installation                              Well Installation
Number of Injection Wells? 24                     Number of Injection/Extraction Wells? 24        Number of Injection Wells? 18
Number of Soil Analysis Suites per Injection      Number of Soil Analysis Suites per Injection/
Well? 3                                           Extraction Well? 3                              Number of Extraction Wells? 8
Number of Monitoring Wells? 15                    Number of Monitoring Wells? 15                  Number of Soil Analysis Suites per Well? 3
Number of Soil Analysis Suites per Mon Well? 3    Number of Soil Analysis Suites per Well? 3      Number of Monitoring Wells? 12
Number of Drilling Rigs Operating                 Number of Drilling Rigs Operating               Number of Soil Analysis Suites per
Simultaneously?      4                            Simultaneously? 4                               Monitoring Well? 3
                                                                                                  Number of Drilling Rigs Operating
                                                                                                  Simultaneously? 4
     Mobile Treatment Unit Construction               Mobile Treatment Unit Construction             Mobile Treatment Unit Construction
No. Wells undergoing injection                    No. Wells undergoing injection                  No. Extractors treated simultaneously
concurrently? </= 4                               concurrently? </= 4                             per MTU? </= 2
No. of Injection MTU?       </= 2                 No. of Injection MTU?        </= 2              No. of MTU?     </= 6
Is Injection under Gravity (1) or Ind. Pressure   Gravity Injection Flow Rate per MTU in gpm?
(2)? 2                                            </= 105                                         Extraction Rate per Well in gpm? 20
                                                  No. Wells undergoing extraction concurrently?   Total Extraction Flow Rate per MTU in gpm?
Injection Rate per Well in gpm?       </= 60      </= 4                                           40
Instantaneous Injection Flow Rate/MTU in gpm?     No. of Extraction MTU?        </= 2
                                                  Total Extraction Flow Rate per MTU in gpm?
</= 120                                           </= 60
         O &M & Process Monitoring                       O &M & Process Monitoring                        O &M & Process Monitoring
No. Pore Volumes Injected (constant dosage)?      No. Pore Volumes Injected (constant
0.75                                              dosage)? 3                                      No. Pore Volume Exchanges? (w/ dosage) 3
No. Pore Volumes Chase Water? </= 0.5             No. Pore Volumes Extracted?      </= 12         No. of Water Analysis Suites
No. of Water Analysis Suites per Well per         No. of Water Analysis Suites per Well per
Week? 1                                           Week? 3                                         per Well per Week? 0.25

          Post-Treatment Monitoring                       Post-Treatment Monitoring                       Post-Treatment Monitoring
Duration of Treatment Monitoring in weeks?        Duration of Treatment Monitoring in weeks?      Duration of Treatment Monitoring in weeks?
52                                                52                                              26
No. Water Analysis Suites / Monitoring Well /     No. Water Analysis Suites / Monitoring Well /
week? 0.08                                        week? 0.08                                      No. Water Analysis Suites / Monitoring Well
                                                                                                  per week? 0.25
               Decommissioning                                  Decommissioning                                 Decommissioning
Variables subordinate to those listed above       Variables subordinate to those listed above     Variables subordinate to those listed above

      Additional TUS-Wide Cost Factors                 Additional TUS-Wide Cost Factors               Additional TUS-Wide Cost Factors
Contractor Markup on Subconcontractors,           Contractor Markup on Subconcontractors,         Contractor Markup on Subconcontractors,
E&C 1.05                                          E&C 1.05                                        E&C 1.05
Field Productivity (Duration) Efficiency          Field Productivity (Duration) Efficiency        Field Productivity (Duration) Efficiency
Derating 1.00                                     Derating 1.00                                   Derating 1.00




                                                                  16
        Having concluded the above inspection of the MLV, it is once again stressed that each of
the MLV are starting point estimates based largely on professional judgment. The accompanying
estimating system (which is being described herein) is designed to allow straight-forward
evaluation of other parameter values within somewhat well defined ranges.


        Steps 7 through 11 Result: Design and Build System Architecture/ Calculate Point
Estimates
        The cost estimating system architecture consists of an integrated series of spreadsheets
contained in one EXCEL workbook. The separate program, Crystal Ball Pro, is designed to work
seamlessly with EXCEL in producing probabilistic estimates. The spreadsheets include User
Interface (UI) for each TUS, master calculation worksheets for each TUS, and unit price costing
modules for TUS Contractor Labor and Pantex Labor by Task Group, ODC by Task Group, and
Analytical Suites by TUS.
        Also included in the system are spreadsheets dedicated to documentation. One
spreadsheet of the workbook cross references the WBS (developed using ECES) with both major
task descriptions, and Labor and ODC costing groups. Another spreadsheet summarizes and
describes those random cost variables identified as Primary Cost Variables. The documentation
contained in the workbook is supplementary to this report, including the appendices of this report.
         The UI serves two concurrent functions. First, it serves as the value entry point for the
user, with guidance provided to assist the user in selecting variable values. The second function is
to present results of the point estimating calculation sequence to the user. Refer to Appendix C
for a printout of selected items from the costing workbook (Costing Workbook 050802),
including copies of the UI.
        One of the simplifications introduced into the cost estimating process was to create Labor
Groups and Other Direct Cost (ODC) Groups, with one Labor Group and one ODC Group
associated with each task. Each Labor Group is a unique combination of direct billing personnel
(each with unique direct hourly billing rate) and billable hours representing a typical LOE
associated with the task (e.g., well installation) over one week (unit) duration. TUS Contractor
personnel are shown in one table and Pantex direct billing personnel in another. Third tier labor,
such as that associated with a drilling subcontractor or analytical laboratory, is not included in
these Labor Groups. Rather, the drilling company labor is included in the well installation per
well charge and the laboratory labor is included in the charge per analysis. The ODC Groups
were prepared in a similar way. Typical cost items related to travel and per diem for field




                                                 17
personnel, shipping, sampling, ES&H, and miscellaneous tools, etc were included in the group
and the number of units for each was determined based on the typical LOE for each task.
        The direct cost per week for each Labor Group is calculated by summing the individual
costs. This cost is then adjusted for escalation and overhead (the rate value determined by who
the employer is) to arrive at a fully loaded cost per week. The total labor cost for each task can
then be calculated by multiplying the per week cost by the task duration. Adjustments may be
required depending on LOE assumptions. For example, the Well Installation Labor Group per
week cost is based on one rig operating at a time (but also assuming that more than one rig would
be operating at a time). In the case of four rigs operating at the same time, the Labor Group cost is
adjusted to account for one additional field personnel per rig, this multiplied by three (for the
three additional rigs). This adjusted value is then multiplied by the duration that the four rigs are
operating concurrently. A similar approach is taken to arrive at a total ODC cost for each task.
        The total labor cost for the TUS is calculated by summing the individual task labor costs.
A similar approach is taken to arrive at total subcontractor cost, and total equipment and
consumables and ODC (E&C and ODC) costs for the TUS. The result from summing these totals
is a total TUS cost (estimate) that is consistent with what BWXT might report to the DOE for
actual work projected. Of course, the labor cost estimates are only inclusive of direct TUS field
implementation (i.e., contractor and BWXT personnel directly applied to the project) and do not
include otherwise relevant labor that would be required before and after the field work is
complete, nor indirect BWXT (site M&O contractor) and DOE labor costs. Direct rates,
escalation rates, and overhead rates were derived predominately from site specific information.
Direct rates and overhead rates are representative for the fiscal year 2001 (the “base year”). The
escalation rate schedule is based on an annual escalation in costs of 2 percent, starting with the
end of the base year (i.e., escalation factor for FY 2001 is 1.00). Subcontractor markup was
selected from the range 0 to 20 percent.
        An assumption is made for each TUS, other than P&T, that mobilization starts sometime
between Fiscal Year 2001 and 2007 and that the cost estimating horizon ends approximately 6 to
18 months after the O&M task is complete. For P&T, the assumption is that the P&T system is
turned on sometime during the same period but is operated continuously for 1 to 100 years.
Estimated costs are calculated in constant dollars for a specified year. The user can select for
which year the estimated cost will represent, within the range 2001 through 2011, inclusive. The
annual escalation factor of 2 percent is applied starting with the end of the base year and
continuing through 2011. For example, the escalation rates for Fiscal Years 2007, 2008, 2009,
and 2010 are 1.12, 1.14, 1.16, and 1.18, respectively. Typically, if estimated costs are to be



                                                  18
reported in constant dollars, then the corresponding year is selected to be coincident with project
start.
         Specific overhead rates, approximately 0.3 and 0.5, are assumed for all cost elements,
with the latter rate associated with direct Pantex project personnel and any equipment and
materials purchased directly by Pantex (assumed to not occur in this estimating work).
         A Net Present Value (NPV) calculation was not performed within the current scope
because the four TUS are not comprehensive enough to support representative “apples to apples”
comparison between the TUS cost estimates and other options. NPV analysis would be
appropriate, at a later stage in the project, for comparing conceptual treatment scenarios or
baseline alternatives because those will be more comprehensive in scope and integrated in time.
         Using the architecture described above and the base case for each TUS, point estimates of
cost to implement were calculated. The point estimates for ISCO, IRM and IAB are summarized
in Table 5. The results are presented in Constant 2002 dollars. For reporting purposes, many of
the calculation results are rounded off to be consistent with Rough Order of Magnitude estimates.


         Table 5. Summary of Estimated Costs using Base Case Values, by
         TUS Cost Component
                      TUS & Cost Component                  Point Estimate of Cost
                                                          Using Base Case Values ($)
                                  ISCO
                    Total Labor                                     1,000,000
                    Total Subcontractors                            2,000,000
                    Total E&C and ODC                               9,000,000
                    Total for ISCO                                 12,000,000
                                 IRM
                    Total Labor                                     1,000,000
                    Total Subcontractors                            2,000,000
                    Total E&C and ODC                               5,000,000
                    Total for IRM                                   8,000,000
                                 IAB
                    Total Labor                                     3,000,000
                    Total Subcontractors                            2,000,000
                    Total E&C and ODC                               5,000,000
                    Total for IAB                                  10,000,000

         Point estimates were also calculated for the P&T TUS. These are not presented in the table in an
attempt to prevent the reader from directly comparing results for P&T to the other three TUS. There is a
critical distinction between the three innovative TUS and P&T, as applied to the SEG site. Use of ISCO, IRM,
and IAB each offers the potential to prevent contaminants of concern in the perched zone from migrating
downward to the Ogallala Aquifer. P&T, on the other hand, can only reduce the amount of contaminated


                                                     19
water in the already contaminated perched zone. At the SEG site, any contaminants in the perched zone are
potentially available for downward transport if a downward directed hydraulic gradient exists. The presence
of practically any amount of water under gravity head in the perched zone ensures that such a condition exists.
Therefore, the P&T TUS should be viewed as an assistive technology, not a competing one.
         The following estimated costs for the P&T cost components are based on a TUS similar to the
existing interim P&T system at the SEG site, a 30 year operational duration, and constant year 2002 dollars.
Other variables are as defined in the workbook. Labor and Subcontractor costs are $9,000,000 and
$5,000,000, respectively. Equipment and Consumables plus Other Direct Costs are $16,000,000. The Total
Estimated Cost to operate the P&T TUS for 30 years is $30,000,000.


         Step 12 Result: Identify and Characterize Primary Cost Variables for Probabilistic
Simulations
         For each of the three TUS, a subset of the Random Costing Variables was developed to
expedite the probabilistic analysis by limiting the number of variables directly involved in
simulations to those identified to have at least a 10 percent representation in the total estimated
cost. The subset is referred to as the Primary Cost Variables. Limiting the number of variables to
the apparently most important variables reduced the time required to define PDFs and pair-wise
correlations, and set up the simulations. Simulation run time was also reduced slightly. Table 6
summarizes the results of the first step taken to identify the Primary Cost Variables. Identification
of the cost components (e.g., Subcontractor Cost for Well Installation) that appear to dominate
based on review of results from the point estimate calculations provides a useful means for
logically identifying the specific random variables that are dominate.
         Tables 7 through 9 list the random costing variables selected as Primary Cost Variables
for use in the probabilistic simulations of the TUS ISCO, IRM, and IAB, respectively.




                                                      20
      Table 6. Summary of Primary Cost Components for Each TUS
                                          Primary Cost
                                            Estimate
Cost Component by TUS Task                 Influence?
                                   ISCO   IRM Barrier    IAB
Mobilization
Labor
Subcontractor
E&C and ODC
Well Installation
Labor
Subcontractor                      Yes        Yes        Yes
E&C and ODC
MTU Construction
Labor
Subcontractor
E&C and ODC                        Yes        Yes        Yes
OM&M
Labor                              Yes        Yes        Yes
Subcontractor
E&C and ODC                        Yes        Yes        Yes
Post-Treatment Monitoring
Labor
Subcontractor
E&C and ODC
Decommissioning
Labor
Subcontractor
E&C and ODC
Project Wide (General)
TUS Markup on Subcontractors and
E&C                                Yes        Yes        Yes
Production (Duration) Efficiency
Derating Factor                    Yes        Yes        Yes




                                     21
                  Table 7. Summary of Descriptive Information for ISCO Primary
                  Cost Variables
                                                                              Credible          Form of
Cost Component                    Primary Cost Variable                       Interval           PDF           Continuous
  by TUS Task                                                                  & MLV                           or Discrete
   Mobilization
      Labor
   Subcontractor
   E&C and ODC
 Well Installation
      Labor
   Subcontractor                        # Injection Wells                      4, 24, 62          Custom         discrete
                                       # Monitoring Wells                      4, 15, 28          Poisson        discrete
                                         # Drilling Rigs                        1, 4, 10          Poisson        discrete


   E&C and ODC
MTU Construction
      Labor
   Subcontractor
   E&C and ODC              # Wells undergoing injection concurrently           1, 4, 10          Poisson        discrete
                                         # Injection MTU                         1, 2, 6        Geometric        discrete
                        Is Injection under Gravity (1) or Induced Pressure
                                               (2)?                          1- 30%, 2-70%        Custom         discrete
                             Gravity Injection Rate per Well in gpm            1, 35, 50         Custom *       continuous
                            Pressure Injection Rate per Well in gpm            5, 60, 100        Custom *       continuous
                                                                                               * = combined
     OM&M
      Labor              # Pore Volumes Injected (at constant dosage)        0.3, 0.75, 4.0      lognormal      continuous
                                 # Pore Volumes Chase Water                   0.1, 0.5, 0.6      triangular     continuous
   Subcontractor
   E&C and ODC               No New Primary Variables Introduced
  Post-Treatment
    Monitoring
      Labor
   Subcontractor
   E&C and ODC
 Decommissioning
      Labor
   Subcontractor
   E&C and ODC
   Project Wide
    (General)
                           TUS Markup on Subcontractors, and E&C             1.0, 1.05, 1.20     Triangular     continuous
                        Production (Duration) Efficiency Derating Factor      0.8, 1.0, 3.0    Extreme Value    continuous




                                                               22
                  Table 8. Summary of Descriptive Information for IRM Primary Cost
                  Variables
                                                                            Credible          Form of
Cost Component                   Primary Cost Variable                      Interval           PDF           Continuous
  by TUS Task                                                                & MLV                           or Discrete
   Mobilization
      Labor
   Subcontractor
   E&C and ODC
 Well Installation
      Labor
   Subcontractor                  # Injection/Extraction Wells               10, 24, 50         Poisson        discrete
                                      # Monitoring Wells                     4, 15, 20          Poisson        discrete
                                         # Drilling Rigs                       1, 4, 6          Poisson        discrete


   E&C and ODC
MTU Construction
      Labor
   Subcontractor
   E&C and ODC             # Wells undergoing injection concurrently          1, 4, 12          Poisson        discrete
                                        # Injection MTU                        1, 2, 4        Geometric        discrete
                            Gravity Injection Flow Rate/MTU in gpm         30, 105, 650         Custom        continuous
                          # Wells undergoing extraction concurrently          1, 4, 12         Triangular      discrete
                                       # Extraction MTU                        1, 2, 6          Poisson        discrete
                            Total Extraction Flow Rate/MTU in gpm           20, 60, 240         Custom        continuous
     OM&M
      Labor              # Pore Volumes Injected (at constant dosage)          1, 3, 6         lognormal      continuous
                                  # Pore Volumes Extracted                   5, 12, 20         triangular     continuous
   Subcontractor
   E&C and ODC               No New Primary Variables Introduced
  Post-Treatment
    Monitoring
      Labor
   Subcontractor
   E&C and ODC
 Decommissioning
      Labor
   Subcontractor
   E&C and ODC
   Project Wide
    (General)
                          TUS Markup on Subcontractors, and E&C            1.0, 1.05, 1.20     Triangular     continuous
                        Production (Duration) Efficiency Derating Factor    0.8, 1.0, 3.0    Extreme Value    continuous




                                                                 23
                  Table 9. Summary of Descriptive Information for IAB Primary Cost
                  Variables
                                                                            Credible          Form of
Cost Component                   Primary Cost Variable                      Interval           PDF           Continuous
  by TUS Task                                                                & MLV                           or Discrete
   Mobilization
      Labor
   Subcontractor
   E&C and ODC
 Well Installation
      Labor
   Subcontractor                       # Injection Wells                     4, 18, 40          Poisson        discrete
                                      # Extraction Wells                      4, 8, 16          Poisson        discrete
                                      # Monitoring Wells                     4, 12, 25          Poisson        discrete
                                         # Drilling Rigs                       1, 4, 6          Poisson        discrete
   E&C and ODC
MTU Construction
      Labor
   Subcontractor
   E&C and ODC           # Extractors Treated Simultaneously per MTU          1, 2, 16        Geometric        discrete
                                            # MTU                             1, 6, 16          Poisson        discrete
                                Extraction Rate per Well in gpm              10, 20, 35       Lognormal       continuous




     OM&M
      Labor              # Pore Volumes Injected (at constant dosage)          1, 3, 7         lognormal      continuous


   Subcontractor
   E&C and ODC
  Post-Treatment
    Monitoring
      Labor
   Subcontractor
   E&C and ODC
 Decommissioning
      Labor
   Subcontractor
   E&C and ODC
   Project Wide
    (General)
                          TUS Markup on Subcontractors, and E&C            1.0, 1.05, 1.20     Triangular     continuous
                        Production (Duration) Efficiency Derating Factor    0.8, 1.0, 3.0    Extreme Value    continuous




                                                              24
        Step 13 Result: Develop Pair-wise Correlations for Primary Cost Variables
        Upon inspection, it is apparent that certain of the Primary Cost Variables are either
positively or negatively correlated to certain other Primary Cost Variables. In fact, most of the
variables are not strictly independent variables. This is problematic if the strongest relationships
can not be compensated for during the recombinant simulations associated with Monte Carlo and
Latin Hypercube Sampling. Without proper compensation, too many unrealistic combinations of
variable values can occur, at best resulting in excessive generation of outliers. Fortunately,
Crystal Ball Pro offers the ability to quantitatively characterize the correlation between unique
pairs of variables. This information is used in the software to constrain the random sampling and
selection processes of the probabilistic simulations.
        Correlation values between -1.0 and +1.0 can be assigned to unique pairs of variables. A
value approaching -1.0 means that the correlation between the two variables is strong and
negatively correlated. In other words, there is a strong quantitative relationship between the two
variables and an increase in the value of one signifies a decrease on the value of the other. A
value approaching +1.0 indicates a relatively strong and positively correlated relationship. A
value near zero means there is only a weak, or perhaps no, relationship.
        The documentation for Crystal Ball Pro states that assignment of strong correlation
values may disrupt the simulation process. This was experienced during development of the
correlation values when values greater than approximately 0.75 were applied to certain variable
pairings. Generally, assigned values are in the range -0.5 to +0.5.
        A summary of correlation values assigned to various pairings for each of the three TUS is
presented in Table 10, and in the workbook (Appendix C) under the spreadsheet “PDF” at cell
reference “AC138”.




                                                 25
                        Table 10. Pair-Wise Correlations for Primary Cost Variables
Variable (ISCO/ IRM/ IAB) (2)                             A           B        C (3)         D          E          F         G         H         I        J
                                                                              -.25/-.5/-
# Injection Wells (# injection/extraction wells)   A       -        0/0/.1       .25       .5/.5/.5   .5/.25/0   0/.33/0   .5/.5/0   0/.33/0            0/0/.5
# Extraction Wells                                 B     0/0/.1        -         (4)                                                           0/0/.5   0/0/.5
                                                       -.25/-.5/-
# Monitoring Wells                                 C      .25                     -
# Drilling Rigs                                    D   .75/.5/.5                              -
# Wells undergoing injection concurrently          E   .5/.25/0                                          -
# Wells undergoing extraction concurrently         F   0/.33/0                                                      -                0/.75/0
# Injection MTU                                    G   .75/.5/0                                                               -      0/.25/0
# Extraction MTU                                   H   0/.33/0                                                   0/.75/0   0/.25/0      -
                                                                                                                                                        0/0/-
# MTU (Combined)                                   I                0/0/.5                                                                       -       .5
                                                                                                                                               0/0/-
# Extractors treated simultaneously per MTU        J                0/0/.5                                                                      .5        -
Injection by Gravity (1) / Induced Pressure (2)    K    -.5/0/0
Injection Rate per Well in gpm                     L
                                                                     0/0/-
Extraction Rate per Well in gpm                    M    0/0/.2        .15
                                                                                                                            0/-
Gravity Injection Rate per MTU in gpm              N                                                  0/.5/0               .15/0
                                                                                                                                      0/-
Total Extraction Flow Rate per MTU in gpm          O                                                  0/0.5/                         .75/0
# Pore Volumes Injected (at constant dosage)       P   -.2/-.2/0
# Pore Volumes Chase Water                         Q
# Pore Volumes Extracted (or exchanged)            R   0/0/-.15
TUS Markup on Subcontractors, and E&C              S
Duration Efficiency Derating Factor                T
Continuation of Table                                     K           L          M           N          O          P         Q         R        S         T
                                                                                                                  -.2/-               0/0/-
# Injection Wells (# injection/extraction wells)   A    -.5/0/0                                                   .2/0                 .15
# Extraction Wells                                 B
# Monitoring Wells                                 C
# Drilling Rigs                                    D
# Wells undergoing injection concurrently          E                                       0/.15/0    0/.5/0
# Wells undergoing extraction concurrently         F
                                                                                             0/-
# Injection MTU                                    G                                        .15/0
                                                                                                        0/-
# Extraction MTU                                   H                                                   .75/0
# MTU (Combined)                                   I
# Extractors treated simultaneously per MTU        J
Injection by Gravity (1) / Induced Pressure (2)    K       -        1.0/0/0
Injection Rate per Well in gpm                     L   1.0/0/0         -
Extraction Rate per Well in gpm                    M                              -                                                  0/0/.25
Gravity Injection Rate per MTU in gpm              N                                          -
Total Extraction Flow Rate per MTU in gpm          O                                                     -
# Pore Volumes Injected (at constant dosage)       P                                                                -      .5/0/0    0/.75/0
# Pore Volumes Chase Water                         Q                                                             .5/0/0       -
# Pore Volumes Extracted (or exchanged)            R                          0/0/.25                            0/.75/0
TUS Markup on Subcontractors, and E&C              S                                                                                    -
Duration Efficiency Derating Factor                T                                                                                             -




                                                                       26
        Steps 14 and 15 Result: Integrate Crystal Ball Pro with EXCEL Workbook
        Basic integration of the EXCEL workbook and Crystal Ball Pro is performed by loading
Crystal Ball Pro using the unique registration key provided by the vendor Decisioneering and
starting the program. The program brings up an EXCEL spreadsheet that offers all the typical
features in the menus and tool bars and also specific features for Crystal Ball Pro. Use of Crystal
Ball Pro Version 4 (released in 1998) with Microsoft EXCEL as part of Office XP (released in
2001) requires the user to manually open a file CBTools8 which will display the proper toolbar
underneath the EXCEL toolbar. This software incompatibility is corrected according to the
vendor when the most recent version of Crystal Ball is used.
        Once Crystal Ball Pro is open, the user then opens the workbook itself. At this point, all
the features of both programs are available and probabilistic simulations can be run. Before
simulations are performed however, a number of simulation variables involving the workbook
must be defined and configuration parameters controlling the simulations and subsequent
reporting must be addressed. The key actions that must be taken are as follows:
                  Identifying Assumption Cells for each of the three TUS in the Workbook.
                   These are the cells representing costing variables (in this case the subset as
                   variables referred to as Primary Cost Variables) and containing simple
                   numbers whose value will be varied during the simulation using a random
                   number selection process with other information about the variable such as the
                   PDF and correlations. The PDF and any pair-wise correlations must be defined
                   during this step. Figure 4 presents one of the PDFs, with associated
                   correlations, developed through this process. The Assumption Cells are
                   visually identified within the computing, or on-screen, environment by a user
                   selected color and fill pattern. Green and no pattern were chosen for this work.
                  Identifying Forecast Cells for each TUS in the Workbook. These are the cells
                   representing the Cost Estimate Components for Labor, Subcontractors, E&C
                   and ODC, and the sum of these for the TUS. A unique number is calculated
                   and presented in each of these cells after each step of the simulation is
                   completed. Each numeric result is collected to produce a PDF and it is these
                   PDFs, in addition to information on variable sensitivity, that are the intended
                   output from the overall simulation. A light yellow and no fill pattern were
                   chosen to distinguish the Forecast cells within the computing environment.




                                                 27
Figure 4. PDF for IRM Number of Injection/Extraction Wells
   Poisson distribution with parameters:
     Rate                                    24.00
   Selected range is from 10.00 to 50.00
   Mean value in simulation was 24.01
   Correlated with:
     IRM Number of Monitoring Wells? (C11)                                     -0.50
     IRM Number of Drilling Rigs Operating Si (C13)                             0.50
     IRM No. Wells undergoing extraction conc (C19)                             0.33
     IRM No. Wells undergoing injection concu (C16)                             0.25
     IRM No. of Injection MTU? (C17)                                            0.50
     IRM No. of Extraction MTU? (C20)                                           0.33
     IRM No. Pore Volumes Injected (constant (C24)                             -0.20

                                   IRM Number of Injection/Extraction W ells
                 .0 8 1



                 .0 6 1



                 .0 4 1



                 .0 2 0



                 .0 0 0

                          0 .0 0                           2 4. 0 0                    4 9. 0 0




           Selection of Monte Carlo or Latin Hypercube Sampling (LHS) as the PDF
            sampling technique to use for the simulations. LHS generally provides for
            more efficient and technically appropriate sampling of the entire PDF for each
            variable. Overall results can be expected to be very similar between the two
            approaches, although Mean Standard Error (MSE) may be slightly lower for
            LHS, which is desirable. LHS was selected for the simulations reported herein.
           Selection of the number of trials to complete during each simulation. One trial
            is completed when a random number is generated and fed into the LHS
            algorithm, the LHS algorithm selects a value from each PDF and inserts the
            value into the corresponding Assumption Cell, EXCEL uses these values along
            with the pre-selected values for the less significant costing variables to
            calculate values for each Forecast Cell. These values become data points for
            their corresponding PDFs. A general rule is that the final results are more
            accurate, from an estimating point of view, if more trials are run per
            simulation. That is, more trials usually lead to higher numeric stability and



                                                        28
                      lower MSE. Unique to each simulation, however, is a preferred number of
                      trials that optimizes the balance between simulation run time and minimization
                      of MSE. A near optimum solution for number of trials was determined
                      through multiple simulation runs at different trial levels. Actual results are
                      discussed in more detail under Steps 16 and 17.
                     Selecting whether sensitivity analysis should be performed during simulation
                      and if so, determining which variables will be fixed and which will be free to
                      change, and the format for presenting the sensitivity results. Sensitivity
                      analysis was selected for almost every simulation run. Basic sensitivity charts
                      using rank correlation or percent variance were prepared. Tornado charts were
                      generated for one simulation run. Sensitivity analysis results are discussed in
                      more detail under Steps 16 and 17.
        Steps 16 and 17 Result: Run Simulations to Confirm Stability and Produce
Reportable Results
        A variety of simulations were run to achieve specific evaluation objectives. A couple of
early runs were performed to verify that the calculations were in agreement with general
expectations of the developer and two were run to evaluate the difference, if any, between Monte
Carlo and LHS. Several runs were performed to determine the near-optimal number of trials to
complete in the remaining simulations required to finish the scope. Two simulations were
performed to determine the effect on output when no correlations were active versus runs when
all correlations were active. Some simulations were run to evaluate various options for reporting
sensitivity analyses. Through this iterative process it was determined that the most desirable
results are obtained by setting up simulation runs using LHS, 5000 trials, with all correlations
active, and with sensitivity analysis option turned on. The one simulation run that satisfies these
requirements was the run reported herein. Simulation run results for other configurations are
maintained on file.
        Figure 5 presents a graph demonstrating why 5000 trials were chosen as the near-optimal
solution for number of trials per TUS simulation. Four levels were tested: 1200, 5000, 7500, and
20,000. Future simulations of substantially similar TUS configurations using the costing
workbook should be performed at or above 5000 trials.




                                                    29
    Figure 5. Mean Standard Error vs. No. Simulation Trials



       350000
       300000
       250000
  MSE                                                                                      ISCO
   ($) 200000                                                                              IRM
       150000                                                                              IAB
       100000
        50000
           0
             0               5000       10000 15000 20000 25000
                                       Number of Trials



         Table 11 summarizes the mean and range (minus outliers) of each cost component PDF of each
TUS, and was prepared using the output from the selected simulation run described above. The program
automatically defines the range by using statistics to identify outliers. The range upper and lower bounds,
rounded off to the closest increment of two-hundred and fifty-thousand, are presented in the table. Because
the intent of the table is to describe the PDFs (and not point estimates), the actual calculated values for mean
are presented.


         Table 11. Summary of Estimated PDF Mean and Range for Each
         Cost Component for Each TUS
        TUS & Cost Component Mean of PDF ($) Range of PDF, minus outliers ($)
                   ISCO
        Total Labor                3,350,730      750,000 – 15,000,000
        Total Subcontractors       2,571,477      1,250,000 – 4,500,000
        Total E&C and ODC         13,584,847     4,000,000 – 30,000,000
        Total for ISCO            19,507,109     7,000,000 – 45,000,000
                    IRM
        Total Labor                1,475,254       750,000 – 3,000,000
        Total Subcontractors       2,067,707      1,250,000 – 2,750,000
        Total E&C and ODC          5,887,507     2,250,000 – 15,000,000
        Total for IRM              9,430,468     4,750,000 – 20,000,000
                    IAB
        Total Labor                3,664,101      750,000 – 12,000,000
        Total Subcontractors       2,058,201      1,250,000 – 3,000,000
        Total E&C and ODC          5,218,666     2,000,000 – 10,000,000
        Total for IAB             10,940,968     5,000,000 – 22,500,000



                                                       30
        A trend chart that graphically summarizes the mean estimate for each cost component for
all three TUS, plus certainty ranges of 10, 25, 50, and 90 percent around these means is presented
as Figure 6.
        Figures 7 through 12 are PDFs for selected cost components. For the ISCO TUS, estimated subtotal
cost PDFs for Labor, Subcontractors, E&C and ODC, and Total TUS Cost are presented as Figures 7, 8, 9
and 10, respectively. Figures 11 and 12 present Total TUS Cost for IRM and IAB, respectively. PDFs for all
the cost components of these TUS are presented in Appendix D.


    Figure 6. Summary of Estimated Cost with Certainty Ranges around
    Mean
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  Trend Chart

                                                                                                                                                                                            Trend Chart - Estimated Cost for the Three TUS
                   $ 50 , 00 0 ,0 0 0


                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      9 0%

                   $ 37 , 50 0 ,0 0 0


                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      5 0%

                   $ 25 , 00 0 ,0 0 0


                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      2 5%


                   $ 12 , 50 0 ,0 0 0

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      1 0%


                                 $0
                                        IS CO TUS L a b or S u bt ot a l Co st



                                                                                      IS CO TUS S u b co n tra cto rs S u bt o ta l Co st



                                                                                                                                            IS CO TUS E & C a n d ODC S u bt o ta l Co st



                                                                                                                                                                                                   IS CO TUS To ta l E sti m a te d Cost



                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           IRM TUS La b o r S u b to ta l Co st



                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         IRM TUS S ub con tracto r S ub t ot al Co st



                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        IRM TUS E &C an d ODC S u b to ta l Cost



                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          IRM TUS To ta l E st im a te d Co st



                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      IA B TUS L a b or S u bt o ta l Co st



                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              IA B TUS S u b co n tracto r S ub to ta l Co st



                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                IA B TUS E & C an d ODC S u b to ta l Co st



                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              IA B TUS To ta l E st im a te d Co st




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           C e rta in t ie s C en te r ed o n Me a ns




    Figure 7. Estimated Labor Subtotal Cost PDF for ISCO
                                                                        Forecast: ISCO TUS Labor Subtotal Cost

          5,000 Trials                                                                                                                                                                      Frequency Chart                                                                                                                                                                                                                      63 Outliers
                 .0 6 2                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          3 08



                 .0 4 6                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          2 31



                 .0 3 1                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          1 54



                 .0 1 5                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          77



                 .0 0 0                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          0

                           $0                                                    $ 3, 7 50 ,0 0 0                                                                                             $ 7, 5 00 ,0 0 0                                                                     $ 11 , 25 0 ,0 00                                                                               $ 15 , 00 0 ,0 00
                                                                                                                                                                                                  D o ll ars




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  31
Figure 8. Estimated Subcontractor Subtotal Cost PDF for ISCO
                          Forecast: ISCO TUS Subcontractors Subtotal Cost

   5,000 Trials                                          Frequency Chart                                               26 Outliers
          .0 2 7                                                                                                       1 34



          .0 2 0                                                                                                       1 00 . 5



          .0 1 3                                                                                                       67



          .0 0 7                                                                                                       3 3. 5



          .0 0 0                                                                                                       0

               $ 1, 0 00 ,0 0 0       $ 1, 8 75 ,0 0 0      $ 2, 7 50 ,0 0 0    $ 3, 6 25 ,0 0 0    $ 4, 5 00 ,0 0 0
                                                                D o ll ars




Figure 9. Estimated E&C and ODC Subtotal Cost PDF for ISCO
                            Forecast: ISCO TUS E&C and ODC Subtotal Cost

   5,000 Trials                                          Frequency Chart                                               85 Outliers
          .0 2 8                                                                                                       1 41



          .0 2 1                                                                                                       1 05 . 7



          .0 1 4                                                                                                       7 0. 5



          .0 0 7                                                                                                       3 5. 2 5



          .0 0 0                                                                                                       0

               $ 2, 5 00 ,0 0 0       $ 9, 3 75 ,0 0 0     $ 16 , 25 0 ,0 00   $ 23 , 12 5 ,0 00   $ 30 , 00 0 ,0 00
                                                                D o ll ars




Figure 10. Estimated Total Cost PDF for ISCO TUS
                                  Forecast: ISCO TUS Total Estimated Cost

   5,000 Trials                                          Frequency Chart                                               54 Outliers
          .0 3 5                                                                                                       1 74



          .0 2 6                                                                                                       1 30 . 5



          .0 1 7                                                                                                       87



          .0 0 9                                                                                                       4 3. 5



          .0 0 0                                                                                                       0

               $ 5, 0 00 ,0 0 0      $ 15 , 00 0 ,0 00     $ 25 , 00 0 ,0 00   $ 35 , 00 0 ,0 00   $ 45 , 00 0 ,0 00
                                                                D o ll ars




                                                                               32
    Figure 11. Estimated Total Cost PDF for IRM TUS
                                          Forecast: IRM TUS Total Estimated Cost

           5,000 Trials                                         Frequency Chart                                               82 Outliers
                  .0 4 0                                                                                                      1 99



                  .0 3 0                                                                                                      1 49 . 2



                  .0 2 0                                                                                                      9 9. 5



                  .0 1 0                                                                                                      4 9. 7 5



                  .0 0 0                                                                                                      0

                       $ 2, 5 00 ,0 0 0      $ 6, 8 75 ,0 0 0     $ 11 , 25 0 ,0 00   $ 15 , 62 5 ,0 00   $ 20 , 00 0 ,0 00
                                                                       D o ll ars




    Figure 12. Estimated Total Cost PDF for IAB TUS
                                          Forecast: IAB TUS Total Estimated Cost

           5,000 Trials                                         Frequency Chart                                          125 Outliers
                  .0 3 2                                                                                                      1 58



                  .0 2 4                                                                                                      1 18 . 5



                  .0 1 6                                                                                                      79



                  .0 0 8                                                                                                      3 9. 5



                  .0 0 0                                                                                                      0

                       $ 5, 0 00 ,0 0 0      $ 9, 3 75 ,0 0 0     $ 13 , 75 0 ,0 00   $ 18 , 12 5 ,0 00   $ 22 , 50 0 ,0 00
                                                                       D o ll ars




         The relative influence of each cost variable on the estimation outcome, whether at the subtotal or
total level, is not uniform or patently obvious. For a particular TUS, the sensitivity of each cost component
(e.g., Labor Sub-Cost, TUS Total Cost) to changes in corresponding variables is unique. To understand which
cost variables have the greatest influence over the estimated cost to implement a TUS is to have a better
understanding of how to channel limited resources to optimize the future design and implementation. Two
techniques were used during CB simulations to infer cost parameter sensitivity. The first technique involves
the creation of sensitivity charts for each cost component for each TUS. In this technique, all cost parameters
are allowed to change and assigned pair-wise correlations were either allowed to provide some constraint or
turned off completely. Sensitivity charts were developed from the results. The second technique involves the
creation of what Crystal Ball Pro refers to as a Tornado Chart. In the Tornado Chart analysis, one Primary
Cost Variable is isolated as a dynamic (i.e., changing) variable and all other variables are held static (i.e., to
one value – the base case value). The effect on the range in values for a specific Forecast Cell is then



                                                                                      33
documented. The analysis is complete after each of the Primary Cost Variables has been selected as the
dynamic variable. Tornado Charts were developed from the results.
         Figures 13, 14, and 15 graphically present the results of sensitivity analyses, using the
first technique, on Total Estimated Cost for ISCO, IRM, and IAB, respectively. These results are
from the one simulation run, using preferred simulation-control parameter values, and described
previously. The sensitivity charts present the top seven variables measured by rank correlation, in
order of most influence over the total estimated cost to the least influence. A negative correlation
value for a particular variable suggests that an increase in the value for that variable leads to a
decrease in total estimated cost.


    Figure 13. Sensitivity Chart for ISCO Total Estimated Cost
                                                                            Sensitivity Chart

                                                              Target Forecast: ISCO TUS Total Estimated Cost

           *   IS C O N o . P ore V o lu m es In je ct e d                       .8 3

           *   IS C O N o . P ore V o lu m es Ch a s e W a te r?                 .4 2

               F ie ld P rod u ct ivity (D urat io n ) E f fic ie n c y          .2 1

           *   IS C O N o . o f I nj ec t io n MT U?                             .1 7

           *   IS C O N o . W e ll s un d e rg oi ng in je ct io n c on c       -. 16

           *   IS C O I n je ct io n R a te p er W e l l i n gp m ?             -. 13

           *   IS C O I s In je c ti on u n d er Gra vity o r In du c           -. 10




                * - C o rre la t ed a s s um p ti o n                                   -1           -0 .5             0                     0 .5   1

                                                                                                 Me as u re d b y R an k C o rre la ti o n




         This chart indicates that the total estimated cost for the ISCO TUS is most sensitive to the
two cost variables defining the total volume of fluid to be pumped, either injected or extracted.
The values for these variables ultimately play a large role in defining the total field duration
required to complete the treatment (one pore volume for the ISCO TUS, using a perched aquifer
thickness of 10 feet and a porosity of 0.33, is approximately 43 million gallons).


         The Field Productivity (Duration) Efficiency Factor, the third most sensitive value, is a
“Derating Factor” that is utilized to adjust the field duration of all tasks in a consistent way. This
factor, when multiplied against the various duration variables of the various Cost Estimating
Relationships, essentially converts all duration variables into random variables. Like the top two
variables, this variable directly affects the field time over which most of the other cost variables
such as labor and ODCs are applied. As is the case for all the Primary Cost Variables, application
of a PDF that is different than that used herein would result in a different outcome. The Derating


                                                                                                34
Factor PDF used in this work is defined by a continuous extreme value distribution and a range of
0.8 to 3.0. The mean value is 1.49 (the distribution was manually truncated on the lower end at
0.8). A value of 1.0 represents the deterministic estimate of duration (for each task) for any
specific estimation attempt. The concept behind this PDF was that the uncertainty around the
author’s deterministic estimate of duration can be described by a function with characteristics
similar to both the normal distribution and log-normal distribution. This is in recognition of the
fact that the author, like many professionals, often under estimates the time and effort required to
achieve a task. This is also in recognition of the stated goal to provide estimates that are on the
conservative side. The value of 3.0 as the upper bound on the range may seem extreme. However,
completion of field work at sites like Pantex often requires significantly more time and resources
than originally planned. Heightened security, programmatic uncertainties, and unforeseen
circumstances are the typical causes. Because the extreme value PDF form is used, the LHS
selection process does not sample frequently above a value of approximately 2.0. Despite this, the
use of 3.0 as the upper bound probably is the reason that this variable is indicated to be the third
most sensitive variable.


    Figure 14. Sensitivity Chart for IRM Total Estimated Cost
                                                                           Sensitivity Chart

                                                              Target Forecast: IRM TUS Total Estimated Cost

          *   IR M No . o f E xtrac ti on MT U ?                                .6 6

          *   IR M T o t al E xt ra c tio n F lo w R a te p e r MT U i         -. 56

          *   IR M No . o f I nj e ct io n MT U ?                               .4 6

          *   IR M Nu m b e r o f In je c ti on /E xtrac ti on W e lls          .3 9

          *   IR M No . W e ll s un d e rg oi n g extrac ti o n co n c          .3 3

          *   IR M No . W e ll s un d e rg oi n g in je c tio n c o nc u       -. 28

              F ie ld P rod u ct ivity (D urat io n ) E f fic ie n c y          .2 7




               * - C o rre la t ed a s s um p ti o n                                   -1         -0 .5                0                     0 .5   1

                                                                                                 Me as u re d b y R an k C o rre la ti o n




        In contrast to the ISCO TUS (and IAB), the IRM TUS does not involve injection and/or
extraction of fluids over 40 acres. Because one 500 feet long, nominally 20 feet deep by 30 feet
wide, permeable reactive barrier (equivalent pore volume of approximately 740,000 gallons and
total gallons moved at less than 12 million gallons) is to be constructed instead, one can expect
that other types of cost variables will also be most important to the total cost. In this case, two of
the three most important variables define equipment cost and number of field personnel – number
of extraction MTU and number of injection MTU. To a lesser degree, these two variables


                                                                                            35
influence the time required to pump a specified amount of fluids in and out of the treatment zone.
The second most important parameter, Total Extraction Flow Rate per MTU, obviously has direct
influence over the field duration.


    Figure 15. Sensitivity Chart for IAB Total Estimated Cost
                                                                           Sensitivity Chart

                                                                Target Forecast: IAB TUS Total Estimated Cost

           *   IA B No . E xt ra c to rs tre at ed s i m ul ta n eo u sl        -. 61

           *   IA B No . P o re V o lu m e F lu sh e s ?                        .5 4

               F ie ld P rod u ct ivity (D urat io n ) E f fic ie n c y         .4 1

           *   IA B Nu m b e r o f E xt ra c tio n W e ll s ?                   -. 40

           *   IA B No . o f MT U ?                                             .1 4

           *   IA B Nu m b e r o f In je c ti on W el ls ?                      -. 10

           *   IA B Nu m b e r o f D ri lli ng R i gs Op e ra ti ng Si          -. 10




                * - C o rre la t ed a s s um p ti o n                                   -1          -0 .5             0                     0 .5   1

                                                                                                Me as u re d b y R an k C o rre la ti o n




         Figure 15 compared to Figure 13 suggest that IAB sensitivity is similar to ISCO. This is probably
due to the fact that the TUS configurations for these technology applications are similar. In this case, Number
of Pore Volume Flushes is the second most sensitive variable. The range in pore volume flushes, in gallons,
investigated for IAB, using a saturated thickness of 20 feet and porosity of 0.33, is approximately 86 million
(one pore volume) to 602 million gallons. Like ISCO, the Derating Factor is the third most sensitive variable.
The most sensitive parameter for IAB is “Number of Extractors Treated Simultaneously”, with a relatively
strong negative correlation indicating that when more extraction wells are installed across the 40 acres (within
a range of 4 to 16) and when more of them are being used at the same time, the overall cost goes down.


         The effect of turning off all pair-wise correlations on the sensitivity analysis outcome (first
technique) was investigated by re-running the ISCO “near optimum” simulation (described previously) but
with correlations turned off. The calculation results were similar except for the fact that Mean Standard Error
(MSE) and number of outliers were greater when correlations were inactivated. For the case of 5000 trials, all
assumptions active, and correlations turned off, the MSE for ISCO Total Cost was $131,859 and the mean
was $19,997,975. The number of outliers was 80. However, the MSE was $119,661, the mean $19,515,573,
and number of outliers 50 for the case with correlations active. Thus, based on this limited analysis, use of
pair-wise correlations improves the MSE (9.2 percent change observed) and reduces the number of outliers
(37.5 percent change observed), without causing a significant relative change in the estimated value of the
PDF mean (2.4 percent change observed).


                                                                                               36
                 Table 12 presents one set of results from application of the second sensitivity analysis technique.
        This table shows the Tornado Chart using ISCO Total Estimated Cost as the Forecast Cell.


                 Table 12. ISCO Total Estimated Cost Sensitivity to Isolated
                 Primary Cost Variables

                Variable                             ISCO TUS Total Estimated Cost                                   Input
                                                                                                                                 Base
                                                 Downside          Upside            Range          Downside         Upside      Case
ISCO No. Pore Volumes Injected                  $10,311,139      $22,897,078       $12,585,940          0.53           1.99        0.75
ISCO No. of Injection MTU                       $11,122,026      $15,460,977        $4,338,951             1              5           2
Field Productivity (Duration) Efficiency        $12,076,897      $14,090,047        $2,013,150          0.91           2.24        1.00
ISCO Number of Injection Wells                  $11,455,778      $13,333,242        $1,877,463            12             42          24
ISCO No. Wells undergoing injection
concurrently                                    $11,770,613      $13,224,448        $1,453,835                 7             2        4
Contractor Markup on Subcontractors,
E&C                                             $12,154,711      $13,244,924        $1,090,213              1.04        1.16       1.05
ISCO Injection Rate per Well in gpm             $12,193,849      $13,104,405         $910,556               55.0        22.6       60.0
ISCO Number of Monitoring Wells                 $11,990,719      $12,422,809         $432,090                 10          20         15
ISCO No. Pore Volumes Chase Water               $12,079,383      $12,240,013         $160,629               0.34        0.54       0.50
ISCO Number of Drilling Rigs Operating          $12,189,282      $12,315,059         $125,777                  5           2          4
ISCO Is Injection under Gravity (1) or
Induced Pressure (2)?                           $12,185,601      $12,206,764            $21,163                1             2        2


                 A review of the results in Table 12 indicates that “Number of Pore Volumes Injected”, with a
        maximum observed range of $12, 585, 940 is the Primary Cost Variable that most influences ISCO Total
        Estimated Cost when varied from 0.53 to 1.99 while all other variables were held static at their base case
        values. As discussed previously in accord with Figure 13, the first sensitivity analysis technique, where all
        variables are dynamic (and for the case where pair-wise correlations were applied), also singled out “Number
        of Pore Volumes Injected” as the most influential variable for the ISCO “Total Estimated Cost” category.




                                                               37
                                       5.0      CONCLUSIONS

         The engineering cost analysis resulted in the creation of a cost estimating system and estimated costs
for three innovative remediation technologies: Insitu Chemical Oxidation (ISCO); Insitu Redox Manipulation
(IRM); and Insitu Anaerobic Bioremediation (IAB). The system also addresses Pump and Treat (P&T)
technology and estimated costs for P&T were also developed. Specific configurations of the physical and
operational characteristics of each technology were developed at a scale referred to herein as Technology Unit
Scenarios (TUS). These TUS are specific to the Pantex SEG site.


         The work summarized in this report is intended to support the planning level engineering and costing
phase of the ITRD SEG project. Thus, a fundamental objective of the work was to produce cost estimates
meeting DOE Planning Level estimation quality, generally equivalent to Rough Order of Magnitude, but with
somewhat less chances of under-estimating the true cost. Other objectives of the work were to develop the
estimating system capable of being used over an extended period of time to create DOE Planning Level cost
estimates, and to perform an initial analysis of uncertainty associated with the act of estimating costs for this
project. These objectives are believed to have been achieved through the ECA process described in this report.


         The estimating system specifically consists of an EXCEL workbook containing multiple integrated
spreadsheets, Crystal Ball Pro (Version 4.0), and this report which represents documentation on how the
system was constructed and utilized. The workbook consists of one User Interface (UI) for each TUS, one
master calculation worksheet for each TUS, common modules for Labor and ODC, analytical unit costs, and
lookup tables for certain factors such as escalation rate. The workbook also includes a couple of spreadsheets
dedicated to documentation of costing structure and identification of Primary Cost Variables and development
of probability distribution functions (PDFs) for these variables. The workbook can be used by itself to
generate deterministic (or point) estimates of cost for each of the four TUS, and to manually perform
sensitivity analyses. Alternatively, Crystal Ball Pro can be used with the workbook to generate probabilistic
output for ISCO, IRM, and IAB.


         The Field Implementation phase of a typical life-cycle insitu remediation project was chosen as the
general phase to estimate costs. The field implementation phase considered in this cost estimating exercise
starts with field mobilization for full-scale remediation and ends with field decommissioning after completion
of performance assessment monitoring (which is different than long-term stewardship).




                                                        38
         Previous sections of this report documented the process of creating the estimating system and using
the system for point estimating and manual sensitivity analysis. Random costing variables for ISCO, IRM,
and IAB were identified, and their credible intervals and most likely values defined. Using the most likely
values for all of the random variables of each TUS (collectively referred to as the base case for each TUS),
point estimates of cost to implement were calculated. The point estimates for ISCO, IRM and IAB are
summarized in the following table. The results are presented in Constant 2002 dollars.


         Table 13. Summary of Estimated Costs using Base Case Values,
         by TUS Cost Component
                       TUS & Cost Component                  Point Estimate of Cost
                                                           Using Base Case Values ($)
                                 ISCO
                    Total Labor                                      1,000,000
                    Total Subcontractors                             2,000,000
                    Total E&C and ODC                                9,000,000
                    Total for ISCO                                  12,000,000
                                  IRM
                    Total Labor                                      1,000,000
                    Total Subcontractors                             2,000,000
                    Total E&C and ODC                                5,000,000
                    Total for IRM                                    8,000,000
                                  IAB
                    Total Labor                                      3,000,000
                    Total Subcontractors                             2,000,000
                    Total E&C and ODC                                5,000,000
                    Total for IAB                                   10,000,000


         Point estimates were also calculated for the P&T TUS. These are not presented in the table to
discourage the reader from directly comparing results for P&T to the other three TUS. Use of ISCO, IRM,
and IAB each offers the potential to prevent contaminants of concern in the perched zone from migrating
downward to the Ogallala Aquifer. P&T, on the other hand, can only reduce the amount of contaminated
water in the already contaminated perched zone.


         The following estimated costs for the P&T cost components are based on a TUS similar to the
existing interim P&T system at the SEG site, a 30 year operational duration, and constant year 2002 dollars.
Other variables are as defined in the workbook. Labor and Subcontractor costs are $9,000,000 and
$5,000,000, respectively. Equipment and Consumables plus Other Direct Costs are $16,000,000. The Total
Estimated Cost to operate the P&T TUS for 30 years is $30,000,000.




                                                      39
         Use of the system in probabilistic estimating mode was described in previous sections of
this report. A subset of the random variables, the Primary Cost Variables, was defined including
PDFs for each variable in the subset. Crystal Ball Pro was used with these variables to create
PDFs of the cost components, which are in and of themselves uncertain variables. The output
from the final simulation runs (presented in Appendix D) was generated using 5000 trials of Latin
Hypercube Sampling to propagate the Primary Cost Variable uncertainty through the workbook
calculations. Mean and range values from the resulting PDFs of the four cost components for
ISCO, IRM, and IAB, are summarized in the following table.


         Table 14. Summary of Probabilistic Simulation Results for
         Estimated Cost, by TUS

        TUS & Cost Component Mean of PDF ($) Range of PDF, minus outliers ($)
                   ISCO
        Total Labor                3,350,730      646,426 – 15,000,000
        Total Subcontractors       2,571,477      1,153,599 – 4,500,000
        Total E&C and ODC         13,584,847     4,050,546 – 30,000,000
        Total for ISCO            19,507,109     6,895,159 – 45,000,000
                    IRM
        Total Labor                1,475,254       686,875 – 3,000,000
        Total Subcontractors       2,067,707      1,250,000 – 2,750,000
        Total E&C and ODC          5,887,507     2,294,447 – 15,000,000
        Total for IRM              9,430,468     4,628,665 – 20,000,000
                    IAB
        Total Labor                3,664,101      697,777 – 12,000,000
        Total Subcontractors       2,058,201      1,250,000 – 3,000,000
        Total E&C and ODC          5,218,666     2,035,704 – 10,000,000
        Total for IAB             10,940,968     5,000,000 – 22,500,000


         A comparison between the estimates tabulated above, which incorporate parameter uncertainty, to
the point estimates shown in Table 13 of this section, shows that the most uncertainty (i.e., the greatest cost
risk) among the three TUS lies with ISCO. An estimate of $12 million was derived from the base case for
ISCO. The ISCO PDF on the other hand has a range of nominally $7 million to $45 million and a mean of
$19.5 million. In contrast, the ranges and mean values for the other two TUS are much more closely aligned
with the corresponding point estimates. The most significant uncertainty associated with ISCO seems to be in
the consumables category. The difference in cost between injections of 0.3 pore volumes of water amended
with potassium permanganate over 4.0 amended pore volumes is rather large. And it should be noted that and
additional uncertainty of potentially significant magnitude was not incorporated into these calculations. The
uncertain variable, potassium permanganate injectate concentration, was held constant at ½ percent (5000



                                                       40
ppm). Laboratory and field tests indicate that the uncertain variable could have an upper bound concentration
of around 2 percent.


         Sensitivity analyses were conducted for each of the three innovative TUS. The top three variables, by
TUS, to which the uncertain cost component “Total Estimated Cost” is sensitive, are summarized in Table 15.
These are the top three Primary Cost Variables as indicated by the first of two sensitivity analysis techniques
described in the report, namely under conditions where all Primary Cost Variables are simultaneously varied
and the other random variables are set to the base case values.


         Table 15. Top Three Variables Influencing Total Estimated Cost,
         by TUS

    ISCO Total Estimated Cost
       1. Number of Pore Volumes Injected
       2. Number of Pore Volumes Chase Water
       3. Field Productivity (Duration) Derating Factor

    IRM Total Estimated Cost
      1. Number of Extraction MTU
      2. Total Extraction Flow Rate per MTU (related to Flow Rate per well)
      3. Number of Injection MTU

    IAB Total Estimated Cost
       1. Number of Extractors Treated (Pumped) Simultaneously
       2. Number of Pore Volume Flushes
       3. Field Productivity (Duration) Derating Factor
       4.
         ISCO and IAB total estimated cost responded similarly to the sensitivity analysis in that
each appears to be most sensitive to cost variables that directly influence the amount of fluid
pumped and the overall field duration. The potential range in pore volume injected (or extracted)
and the potential range in the duration for the more significant tasks are both relatively large. It is
the pore volume variable and certain field task duration variables (e.g., operation and
maintenance task) that many of the other variables and constants are multiplied against. These
variables are not quite as important to the IRM TUS because the volume of perched zone to be
treated is less and the volume of fluids to be pumped is perhaps an order of magnitude less
compared to the other two TUS. The total estimated cost for IRM appears to be more sensitive to
capital equipment costs associated with the mobile treatment units (or fixed facilities if the TUS
were configured that way).




                                                       41
                                    6.0   RECOMMENDATIONS

         The cost estimating system and results presented in this report should be reviewed by the ITRD
Program SEG Site TAG and the Pantex ER department to verify that the goals and objectives laid out in this
report was achieved. After an operating level of understanding over the capabilities and limitations of the
system has been achieved, the system should be applied to additional sensitivity analyses and “what-if”
scenarios for the purpose of developing implementation strategies that programmatic budget estimates of out-
year activities can be predicated upon. These strategies could be predicated on conceptual treatment scenarios
that combine one or more of the TUS to address portions of the SEG site, or they could be founded on
baseline scenarios that combine two or more of the TUS to address the entire SEG site and which represent
potential alternatives to the existing Pantex baseline. Budgetary estimates can be developed by combining the
numerical estimates of cost derived from the cost estimating system with separately derived estimates of costs
representing other aspects of the SEG site remediation not addressed by the cost estimating system (e.g.,
overall project management, detailed design, and final efforts to satisfy all DOE and State of Texas closure
requirements). Of potentially high value will be the use of the system’s sensitivity analysis output to prioritize
and refine data collection efforts during the RCRA Facility Investigation (RFI) phase of the overall
environmental restoration program at Pantex. The results from this preliminary ECA strongly suggest that
uncertainty associated with just a few of the costing parameters, and representing many tens of millions of
dollars over the entire SEG site, can be reduced by tightly integrating the RFI data collection program with,
not only generally understood remediation requirements but also the specific requirements of any and all
innovative remediation technologies that appear, at this stage of the project, to exhibit a reasonably high level
of applicability to the SEG site.


         For the three innovative TUS taken as a group (and more so for ISCO and IAB), further site and
technology characterization aimed at reducing uncertainty should be heavily focused on the following basic
variables influencing the number of pore volumes to inject or extract or the time required to inject or extract a
pore volume: perched zone hydraulic conductivity; heterogeneities affecting thorough and timely contact of
remediation fluids; and saturated zone transmissivity under varying injection and extraction conditions. To a
lesser extent (but more so for IRM), engineering decisions concerning the configuration of above-grade
treatment facilities (whether mobile or fixed) appears to be relatively important. The subject ECA suggests
that reductions in uncertainty around these variables (including understanding of their natural variability) will
contribute non-proportionally to promoting a successful outcome of the SEG site remediation project.



                                                       42
Certainly, basic variables associated with the reaction kinetics of potassium permanganate, sodium dithionite,
and the IAB biological amendments are of great importance as well. The relative importance of these
variables, however, could not be resolved in detail within this ECA.


         As is the case for every tool, this cost estimating system has important limitations and will become
obsolete at some point in the life-cycle of the project to remediate the SEG site. An attempt has been made in
designing the system architecture to promote extended use through the preliminary engineering and costing
phase of the project. Although the accuracy of any single cost variable unit rate is not that important at this
stage in the project, a plan should be made for periodically updating unit rate information as it becomes
available. Perhaps more significant at this stage in the project is the representativeness of major assumptions
about the configuration and operational characteristics of each TUS. A plan should be developed for
periodically revisiting the cost estimating relationships (i.e., equations in the master calculation worksheets)
and updating or replacing these CER (many which are currently based on volumetric principals) with new
relationships that are based on actual kinetics data from reactive transport simulations or field logistical
information based on pilot testing experiences. Because the SEG site remediation project will span perhaps a
decade or longer, a knowledge management system should be developed (if it is not already available) that
provides a controlled, unifying environment for securely and efficiently archiving, retrieving, modifying, and
utilizing the subject cost estimating system, individual components of the subject work, and all output from
the system, as well as all other cost estimating efforts.




                                                            43
REFERENCES

Sandia National Laboratories, 2002. Innovative Treatment and Remediation Demonstration,
Pantex Southeast Groundwater, Technology Evaluation Report. Sandia National Laboratories,
Albuquerque, NM. April 2002.


Aquifer Solutions, Inc., 2002. Conceptual Deployment Scenarios for in situ Remediation of the
Southeast Perched Aquifer Plume, Pantex Plant, Amarillo, Texas. May 2002.


Microsoft Corporation, 2002. Microsoft ® Excel 2002 as part of Microsoft ® Office XP for
Microsoft Windows®. Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, WA. 2002.


Decisioneering, Inc., 1998. Crystal Ball® Pro, Version 4.0. Decisioneering, Inc. Denver, CO.
1998.




                                               44
              APPENDIX A
UNCERTAINTY ANALYSIS/ ESTIMATION QUALITY
         OBJECTIVE STATEMENT




                   A
Memo
To:       ITRD/Pantex Southeast Groundwater Plume Engineering Cost Analysis File
From:    Jim Studer
CC:

Date:    4/30/02
Re:      Analysis of Uncertainty in Cost Estimating and Development of Estimation Quality Objective
         Statement



The current engineering cost analysis (ECA) task (Task 1) for the ITRD Pantex Southeast
Groundwater (SEG) Plume is being conducted to:

      1. Develop a cost estimating system for use in estimating costs for deploying three insitu
         remediation technologies, potentially under two types of deployment scenarios (area and
         reactive barrier), each at specific scales of operation. The system will exhibit point
         estimate and probabilistic output capability, as well as sensitivity analysis functionality.

      2. Use the cost estimating system to develop those costs, in both point estimate and
         probabilistic formats, and to perform limited sensitivity analyses.

      3. Present the results of the ECA work to the ITRD/Pantex SEGP Technical Advisory
         Group (TAG).

The three technologies are Insitu Chemical Oxidation, Insitu Redox Manipulation, and Insitu
Anaerobic Bioremediation (IAB). Depending on the technology, some dependency with the
existing interim Pump and Treat (P&T) operations may be built into the corresponding cost
estimate. In addition, cost for a P&T scenario similar to the current interim action will be
estimated over a 1 to 30 year horizon using Pantex information. These four technologies represent
“building blocks” or Technology Unit Scenarios (TUS) for ITRD Program, Pantex personnel, and
the ITRD Pantex TAG to use in creating partial and comprehensive remedial scenarios and
associated cost estimates for programmatic planning and budgeting purposes. As more
information useful to the estimating effort becomes available, more detailed estimating will be
possible. Thus, the current task represents the beginning of a series of engineering cost analysis
actions. The purpose of this memo is to discuss the major factors, other than the available budget
underwriting this work, that define the appropriate level of detail that should be incorporated into
the current cost estimating effort. Using this focus, an Estimating Quality Objective (EQO) is
developed for use in guiding the current estimating phase.

The ITRD Task 1 scope of work calls for an estimation accuracy of DOE Planning Level to be
achieved. Planning Level corresponds to an estimation range around a central “most likely”
value of plus 100 percent to minus 50 percent. This is essentially the same as a ROM except that
the estimates to be produced here should pose less of a risk of under-estimation. This can be


                                                -1-
achieved by ensuring that all relevant cost factors have been included, and through careful
consideration of the minimum level of effort for each cost factor. Contingency will not be
considered as a separate cost item at this TUS estimating level. Contingency would typically be
included later in the project when more comprehensive estimates, such as those compatible with
an alternative to the Pantex baseline are required.

The target accuracy level is the primary consideration in determining overall “Estimating Quality
Objectives” or EQO. Further definition of the EQO can come from more detailed consideration of
the potential use of the cost estimate work product by the end-user, and preliminary identification
and analysis of uncertainty that will be introduced not only in the original act of estimating but
also in the use of the estimates to achieve some end-result. The resulting EQO is used to
determine the level of effort required in the original estimating work that will result in
compatibility between the cost estimate information and the future efforts to apply that
information to varying Pantex and DOE programmatic and budgeting exercises.

The potential users of the current cost estimating effort include the ITRD manager and technical
support for the Pantex project, Pantex technical and management staff, TAG team members, and
field and headquarter staff of the DOE. It is expected that the building blocks or TUS and
associated estimated costs will be used to create Conceptual Treatment Scenarios (CTS) that
address specific regions of the overall plume or specific phases of action over the entire plume.
The TUS information could even be used to create alternatives (i.e., Baseline Alternative or BA)
to a P&T course of action that would address the entire plume (as opposed to the current baseline
which is predicated on an interim P&T system that does not address management of the entire
SEG plume).

The TUS and their estimated costs provide “building block” information for addressing relevant
questions and issues. CTS and BA will eventually be developed by the Pantex staff, potentially
with ITRD Program assistance, to support technical and programmatic planning and budgeting.
At the CTS level, one TUS might be applied across a specific region of the overall plume, or over
the entire plume. Alternatively, two or more TUS could be applied over the same region at the
same time or in series. The existing interim P&T system may or may not be considered. A BA is
produced when the TUS are brought together within a lifecycle strategy that addresses all the
important remediation and close-out issues across the plume. A comprehensive estimate,
including all administrative and risk management costs and profit for tasks from the beginning to
the end of the project, should be the result of a BA cost estimating effort.

Multiple opportunities for the introduction of uncertainty or error into the series of cost estimating
phases (including the current phase of estimating) exist. In the context of this discussion,
uncertainty arises from a lack of knowledge of the following:

       The natural variability of the subsurface at the SEG Plume site

       The configuration and performance objectives of the remedial action as defined through
        detailed engineering and regulatory negotiations

       The performance of the remedial action once constructed.

For the purposes of this discussion, error means the difference between the estimated cost value
and the actual or experienced cost after the regulatory objectives have been met. Even though the
overall quality or accuracy of the cost estimate should improve over the series of estimating
phases of the project, the factors that lead to the uncertainty, and error in actual estimates made,


                                                -2-
do not disappear. The rate at which the estimating output quality improves can be optimized to
some degree by explicitly identifying and accounting for the specific uncertainty and error
components at the beginning of the estimation process, and throughout the series of estimating
phases. Additionally, future misapplication of the cost information to be developed under the
current estimating phase can be avoided to some extent by explicitly addressing estimation
uncertainty and error. This is one reason procedures that promote propagation of uncertainty
throughout the estimation process are attractive to this project.

Uncertainty/error components that might be expected to arise from the current TUS estimating
effort (and potential use of the resulting estimates), and that can influence some future CTS or
BA cost estimate is as follows. The components are listed in order of most fundamental in nature
to least, as opposed to most significant to least significant.

    1. Unit Cost Element Estimation Uncertainty

    2. Operational Duration (Level of Effort) Estimation Uncertainty

    3. Subcontractor Markup Estimation Uncertainty

    4. Site Contractor Direct Technical Support Estimation Uncertainty

    5. Site Contractor Direct and Indirect Support Overhead Markup Estimation Uncertainty

    6. TUS Scaling Estimation Uncertainty

    7. TUS Integration Estimation Uncertainty

    8. Timing of Implementation Estimation Uncertainty

Definitions for each source of uncertainty/error follow.

    1. Unit Cost Element Estimation Uncertainty

    Error is introduced by omission of a cost item, including an item that should not be included,
    or providing an inaccurate estimate of the current or future unit cost value for the item.

    2. Operational Duration (Level of Effort) Estimation Uncertainty

    Error is introduced by incorrectly estimating the level of effort – labor, or number of required
    treatment campaigns, or duration of system operation or monitoring to achieve a certain
    cleanup or management goal. The error may be due to the use of an inappropriate or unstable
    (i.e., changing-over-time) cleanup criterion. Or the error may be due to an inadequate
    understanding of the natural variability associated with site conditions inherent to certain cost
    factors. For example, the estimated cost components as influenced by the cost variable
    “groundwater extraction rate per well” are further influenced by the natural variability
    associated with a number of random variables which may or may not be explicitly addressed
    in the estimates. Hydraulic conductivity, aquifer thickness, and well screen open area are
    three random variables inherent to the subject cost variable.

    3. Subcontractor Markup Estimation Uncertainty




                                                -3-
    Error is introduced in estimating what the technology vendor or remediation contractor
    (referred to heretofore as TUS Contractor) markup on third tier subcontractors’ costs will be,
    and similarly, what the Site Contractor (e.g., Pantex BWXT) markup on the TUS Contractor
    costs will be. This is a function of contract T&C between both the TUS Contractor and Site
    Contractor and Site Contractor and DOE. Significant changes can occur when new M&O or
    M&I are brought in by DOE.

    4. Site Contractor Direct Technical Support Estimation Uncertainty

    If a TUS Contractor is not to conduct a full turn-key remediation, or significant direct
    oversight is required, error is introduced in estimating Site Contractor direct technical scope
    and direct cost for that work.

    5. Site Contractor Indirect Support Overhead Markup Estimation Uncertainty

    Error is introduced in estimating what the Site level overhead charges will be on indirect
    labor (e.g., security guards) and materials (e.g., facility utilities). This is a function of contract
    T&C between DOE and Site Contractor. Significant changes can occur when new M&O or
    M&I are brought in by DOE.

    6. TUS Scaling Estimation Uncertainty

    Error is introduced in taking the TUS and associated estimated cost and scaling them to a
    larger or smaller area or volume of interest.

    7. TUS Integration Estimation Uncertainty

    Error is introduced in combining TUS together to create CTS or BA.

    8. Timing of Implementation Estimation Uncertainty

    Error is introduced in estimating when (i.e., in which year) specific work will be performed.
    There is also error introduced in applying escalation/inflation rates in that these are uncertain
    variables as well.

Thus, at the TUS estimating stage, at least 8 unique estimation uncertainty components exist at
the level of the Pantex estimator and manager. The first five and last uncertainty components
listed above directly affect the current estimating effort and taken individually, each has the
potential to introduce significant estimation error. However, the combination of uncertainty
components 6 and 7, under the right circumstances, might introduce more error than, say,
components 1 and 2 combined. Combined with the fact that detailed engineering data are not
currently available for the three technologies, this analysis suggests that a highly detailed
estimating process is not appropriate at this point in the project. A more appropriate approach
appears to be the identification and use of say 5 to 15 primary cost variables to create a bottoms-
up estimate sequence, instead of detailed, highly supported cost line item, bottoms-up, estimating.
The typical primary variable would be described as a lumped parameter (e.g., well spacing, which
is determined ultimately by aquifer permeability, injection pressure, injectate volume, etc) with
values established through application of professional judgment, as supported by limited
laboratory, modeling, and field data where available.




                                                  -4-
Explicit consideration of the role of uncertainty in the estimation process (and the cost variables
themselves) is very important at every stage in the estimating series, and perhaps most important
at the current stage. One of the key benefits of taking this approach is that important sources of
uncertainty are identified and opportunities for the most significant reduction in uncertainty and
estimation error are presented.

Use of Crystal Ball™ (CB) is planned for propagating uncertainty through the Microsoft Excel™
calculations. The following general procedure will be used:

    1. Identify the primary random cost variables and establish a range and most likely value
       (i.e., central tendency) for each.

    2. Using CB, develop a Probability Distribution Function (PDF) for each variable.

    3. Characterize the correlation between pairs of variables.

    4. Using CB, code in the correlations, define simulation assumption and forecast cells, and
       establish other parameters for simulations (e.g., PDF sampling method such as Monte
       Carlo or Latin Hypercube Sampling, number of trials, sensitivity analyses, etc.)

    5. Using CB, run a variety of simulations to produce a PDF on each major cost category
       (forecast) for each TUS. Various post-simulation data analyses techniques are available.

Uses of probabilistic forecasting techniques, in and of themselves, introduce uncertainty to the
cost estimating process. The choice of PDF type and parameter values describing the position,
scale, and boundaries of the PDF involves making decisions that introduce error. Sampling of
PDFs using Monte Carlo or Latin Hypercube Sampling techniques introduces error, especially
when correlation exists among the random cost variables represented by the PDFs.

Despite the fact that the cost estimating system will be based on lumped parameters (i.e., cost
variables explicitly or implicitly representing multiple independent variables) with some
dependencies as opposed to discrete and independent variables (e.g., permeability, contaminant
concentrations, reaction kinetics), careful application of professional judgment should result in
effective and useful application of the probabilistic approach. The resulting expression of
estimated cost as uncertain distributions should be significantly more useful than point estimates
and manual sensitivity analyses.

In conclusion, a candidate EQO statement for the subject ECA task for the SEG Plume project is
as follows:

         “Develop DOE Planning Level cost estimates, similar to relatively conservative Rough
Order of Magnitude (ROM) estimates, for the following three Technology Unit Scenarios (TUS):
Insitu Chemical Oxidation; Insitu Redox Manipulation; and Insitu Anaerobic Bioremediation
(IAB). In addition, develop compatible point estimates for a Pump & Treat TUS using reliable
cost data provided by Pantex management. These estimates should be of a quality compatible
with the intended use of developing more comprehensive Conceptual Treatment Scenarios and
Baseline Alternatives. Due to the relatively complex engineering and cost estimating process
required to arrive at reliable detailed final cost estimates for Baseline Alternatives for this project,
and the relatively large amount of money anticipated in implementing any effective solution, any
cost estimates (including preliminary estimates at the TUS level) should be derived from a
relatively robust and documented cost estimating system. The system(s) should incorporate



                                                 -5-
automated sensitivity analysis and probabilistic analysis functionality, as well as an architecture
that will allow for modification/upgrade as more accurate data become available and more
representative cost estimating relationships are developed. Emphasis should be placed on
identifying sources of uncertainty, and propagating uncertainty throughout the estimating process.
Proper documentation of uncertainties, assumptions, and limitations on use at this stage of the
estimating process is desired to promote optimal use of the cost estimating system in developing
Planning Level cost estimates at the TUS level.




                                               -6-
    APPENDIX B
TASK SCOPE DOCUMENT




         B
Memo
 To:       ITRD Pantex SE Groundwater Plume File
 From:     Jim Studer, CFR
 CC:
 Date:     4/30/02
 Re:       Task Scope Descriptions (TSDs) for ITRD Program /Pantex SEG Plume Cost Estimates



 This memorandum summarizes the Task Scope Descriptions (TSDs) for the three innovative
 Technology Unit Scenarios (TUS), plus Pump & Treat (P&T) TUS, which are under evaluation
 by the ITRD Program as part of an effort to develop viable alternatives to the current Pantex
 baseline for the Southeast Groundwater Plume. The original draft version of this memo (since
 updated) was presented to Jim Phelan of Sandia with copies to Wilson Clayton and Bruce Marvin
 of Aquifer Solutions, Inc., in March 2002. The four TUS are:

          Insitu Chemical Oxidation (ISCO) using Potassium Permanganate in batch delivery mode
           over a 40 acre area

          Insitu Anaerobic Bioremediation (IAB) over a 40 acre area using groundwater
           recirculation techniques

          Insitu Redox Manipulation (IRM) to create a 500 feet long, 30 ft wide permeable reactive
           barrier

          Groundwater Pump & Treat creating a capture zone of approximately 400 acres in area
           (the existing interim 500 gpm capacity, 43 extraction and 9 injection well system
           operated over 30 years)

 The objective of the current phase of work is to develop estimated costs for each TUS. The cost
 estimates are to be of defined quality. A goal is to generate DOE Planning Level estimates
 (+100% to -50% of the actual cost incurred should the exact scope defined in the estimates be
 accomplished sometime in the future). Furthermore, the estimates should be prepared in such a
 way as to be useful in subsequent estimating efforts of the ITRD Program and/or Pantex. The
 TUS estimates will be initially developed using deterministic, bottoms-up techniques.
 Subsequently, probabilistic techniques will be employed to propagate uncertainty through the
 calculation sequences. Unit costs, schedule durations, and level of effort estimates are based on
 scientific and vendor data, Pantex supplied data, and professional judgment. A significant portion
 of the information was developed in conjunction with another ITRD contractor, Aquifer
 Solutions, Inc. Other sources of information include collaboration with Pantex ER staff and
 copies of presentations on the technologies, as well as a Pacific Northwest National Laboratory



                                                -1-
report titled “Feasibility of In Situ Redox Manipulation of Subsurface Sediments for RDX
Remediation at Pantex, dated December 2001.

Because the first three listed TUS are based on innovative technologies with little or no prior field
application at Pantex (or other sites of a similar nature and size), a high degree of uncertainty
surrounds any near-term attempt to project how these TUS would be implemented and how
effective they would be. A significant amount of attention will be paid to identifying the most
significant uncertain cost parameters, estimating the uncertainty around these parameters, and
propagating these estimates of uncertainty through the cost calculations. In a prior memo from
CFR dated February 22, 2002 (and since updated and included in the associated report as
Appendix A), an attempt was made to identify all the major sources of uncertainty, not only in the
TUS estimates themselves, but in the various steps of the project and bureaucratic level processes
that would play out before and during any actual full-scale remediation involving the
technologies that the TUS are based upon. A review of major sources of uncertainty suggests that
uncertainty associated with overall programmatic scope (i.e., scope beyond the TUS itself) could
be of greater magnitude than uncertainty associated strictly with the TUS. Clearly, at this
preliminary stage of the ITRD Project, there is little to be gained in developing highly detailed
cost estimates, with cost estimating relationships (CER) at the lowest possible level (i.e., based on
independent variables and process simulation). A balanced approach of developing CERs with a
moderate level of detail and identifying and characterizing uncertainties has been chosen instead.

The scope of work to be estimated for each TUS is limited to:
    Field mobilization and installation;

       Operation, maintenance and process monitoring;

       Short-term treatment monitoring;

       Long-term performance assessment; and

       Decommissioning and dismantlement.

The scope for each TUS starts with mobilization to the field and ends with decommissioning of
treatment wells and any treatment systems remaining onsite. Mobile treatment units (MTU) that
have the potential to expedite chemical injection, groundwater extraction, and/or above-grade
water processing, are considered for some of the TUS. It is assumed that these MTU are
manufactured by a third party and thus only estimated capital costs (to purchase) are included. It
is assumed that the P&T TUS is already in place and operating. Planning, studies, and design
(scope that must occur prior to any field work) are not included in this scope for cost estimating
purposes. Furthermore, other than direct BWXT construction management support, overhead on
this support, and overhead on all TUS Contractor (tier two) costs, no BWXT (or DOE) direct or
indirect (overhead) cost elements are included.

A task outline and Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) has been developed to promote organized
and consistent cost estimates. The task outline is as follows:

        Task 1 Mobilization and Demobilization
        Task 2 Well Installation
        Task 3 Treatment System Acquisition
        Task 4 Operations, Maintenance, and Process Monitoring
        Task 5 Post-Treatment Monitoring


                                                -2-
        Task 6 Long Term Monitoring and Surveillance
        Task 7 Decommissioning

The cost estimates will be structured using a WBS developed by a federal interagency group
called the Environmental Cost Engineering Committee (EC2). The WBS is called the
Environmental Cost Element Structure (ECES). There are five levels of detail to ECES. The first
level consists of 8 phases. These phases, with their applicability to the current assignment, are
listed as follows:

        Phase 1 Assessment (not applicable)
        Phase 2 Studies (not applicable)
        Phase 3 Design (not applicable)
        Phase 4 Capital Construction (this is applicable to the preliminary cost estimation work)
        Phase 5 O&M (this is applicable to the estimating)
        Phase 6 Surveillance and Long Term Monitoring (this is applicable to the estimating)
        Phase 7 Reserved (not applicable)
        Phase 8 Program Management and Infrastructure (not applicable)

A cross reference table that shows the relationship between the task outline and ECES WBS to
Level 4 is presented in the spreadsheet named “Cost Structure”, which is integral to the Excel
Cost Estimating Workbook named “Costing Workbook 050802cb”.

The WBS will be used to explicitly show what cost elements are included in the TUS cost
estimates, to the third level of ECES detail. Determination of cost elements not included in the
TUS estimates is as straight-forward as referring back to the ECES. A scope and schedule
description will be developed for each WBS element associated with each task. The preliminary
cost estimates for the TUS will be predicated on this scope and schedule information.

The scope and schedule for each Technology Unit Scenario (by task and ECES element) are
presented in the remainder of this memorandum.

                      Task Scope (and Schedule) Descriptions

TUS: Insitu Chemical Oxidation using Potassium Permanganate
(ISCO)
        Task: TUS Contractor Mobilization
        4.05.01 Construction/ Site Work/ Mobilization

        Scope:
        TUS Contractor mobilization of construction equipment, facilities, and personnel to the
Pantex plant. Receive Pantex specific safety and security training. Set up temporary facilities
including office trailer, storage trailer, field toilets, maintenance shed, decontamination stations,
barricades, security fencing, signs, grading and gravel surfacing for walk ways and vehicle
access. Coordinate with Pantex overhead personnel to set up temporary utilities including power
connection and distribution, lighting, water, sewer, communications (telephone, etc). Receive and
perform final assemble of ISCO Mobile Treatment Unit(s) (MTUs) for operation. Receive and
setup drilling subcontractor crew(s) and rig(s).

        Survey and stake in all monitoring well drilling locations, the initial panel of injection
well locations, MTU stations, access routes, surface and subsurface utilities, other features, etc.


                                                -3-
         The ISCO process will require a significant amount of water suitable for injecting into the
perched aquifer. A water supply pipeline will be constructed from the nearest source access point.
For the purposes of this estimating project, it is assumed that access to the facility water hydrant
system is two miles from the closest section of the 40 acre plot. It is assumed that one trench will
be excavated and then backfilled with bedding material, one high pressure/high flow PVC water
line, and excavated soil. The trench will be excavated from a point 500 feet into the 40 acre site to
the access point, for a total distance of (5280 ft x 2 miles) + 500 ft = 11,600 feet. The work will
be performed by a company subcontracted to the TUS Contractor. Pantex Construction Manager
will provide direct support/oversight to TUS Contractor personnel.

        Schedule:
        Duration is two base weeks plus two weeks for every mile of pipe laid. Drilling rigs
arrive on last day of Contractor mobilization.

      Source of Information:
      ECES library. Professional judgment. Conversation with Todd Harris. Pantex estimates
Mob/Demob direct cost of $69,000 ($35,000 for mob) for medium sized project (e.g., $1.5M).

        . 4.05.02 Construction/ Site Work/ Cleanup, Landscape, Revegetation

        Scope:
        Removal of trash and debris. Repair minor erosion problems.

        Schedule:
        Concurrent with two week mobilization period.

        Source of Information:
        Same as 4.05.01

        Task: Well Installation
         4.18.02 Construction/Groundwater Containment, Collection, and Control/ Injection
         Wells
         Scope:
         Survey and stake injection well drill sites, and MTU stations and other relevant features
not staked during mobilization. Drill and complete multiple injection wells over a 40 acre plot to
nominally 280 ft bgs for use in injecting potassium permanganate treatment solution and chase
water. Entire drilling subcontractor scope for injection wells is contained in this WBS element.
Other than TUS contractor oversight during second week of mobilization, all supervision labor
for injection wells included in this WBS element.

        Drilling will be performed using Air Rotary Casing Hammer (ARCH) technique. Drill
cuttings will be collected in 1 or 2 CY wrangler bags and provided to Pantex waste management
personnel who will assume control of the waste. Soil sampling will only be conducted for the
sole purpose of limited contaminant characterization once the perched aquifer is reached and up
to a maximum of 3 soil samples (one approximately every 10 ft) will be collected per Pantex
sampling criteria. Soil samples will be sent to offsite analytical laboratory for analysis of
Potential Contaminants of Concern (PCOC) RDX and HMX (HE) (expected at low levels of 10-
50 ppb in water matrix) by Method 8330 (Modified), and VOCs by Method 8260.




                                                -4-
        The treatment wells will be constructed of flush coupled, Schedule 40 PVC with 20 ft of
machine slotted screen and manually placed gravel pack. Borehole diameter is nominally 14
inches and well casing and screen diameter is nominally 8 inches. Pantex/State of Texas well
head completion requirements and well development practices will be met. A high level of
development will include alternating surging and groundwater extraction for up to eight hours at
each well.

         Three or more drill rigs will be operating simultaneously. Each drill crew will consist of
lead driller and two laborers. A drilling supervisor will oversee all rigs. TUS contractor will
supply one Geologist per drill rig and one sampling technician, who will float between rigs.
Overall field supervision and technical support will be provided by Contractor Task Manager and
Senior Geologist/Field Engineer. Office staff includes Program Manager, Project Manager,
Senior Hydrogeologist/Engineer, Data Engineer, Senior QA/QC Reviewer, Project Administrator,
Project Controls, Technical Editor, CAD Operator, Office Administrator, and Data Entry/Word
Processor. Pantex Construction Manager will provide direct support/oversight to TUS Contractor
personnel.

        The Geologist will prepare a boring/well log for each well. Field paper forms will be
converted into Electronic (CAD) version at the office. Daily and weekly drilling reports will be
prepared by drilling supervisor and reviewed by task manager. Field data will be entered into
project database.

         Schedule:
         The duration of this subtask is a function of the following variables: number of injection
and extraction wells to install (which is a function of design basis concentration (mass) of target
PCOCs, hydraulic conductivity (transmissivity) of the perched aquifer, and well pattern), and
number and productivity of drilling rigs/crews. Weather is a factor. Injection wells will be
installed after monitoring wells are installed. For illustration purposes, the following scenario was
developed.

        An area fill-in pattern based on evenly spaced injection wells, with overlapping treatment
pore volumes, will be constructed using 24 extraction wells. Estimated per well duration: 5 days
to decontaminant drill rig and rods, set up on drill spot and later demob to decon area, drill to 280
ft, manage drill cuttings, construct well, construct and cure surface pad, develop well by surging
and pumping, and manage development and decon water. An extra 4 hours per well included for
rig preventative maintenance and refueling, and unforeseen down time due to breakdown,
personnel issues, and unforeseen Pantex requirements.

        For example, the task duration, assuming four (4) drill rigs and 24 injection wells is
estimated at 49.5 days or 6.6 weeks. Supporting calculations follow:

     At one well per week (5
      day period), this equals               Source of Information:
      24 rig-weeks. 24 /4 rigs               Notes from Todd Harris, Pantex. 5 days per well
      = 6.0 (5 day) weeks at        estimate based on constructing P&T extraction wells that
      52 weeks/year and 100%        include wellhead building. Per well cost estimated by Todd at
      uptime. 6.0 x (5 +            $30,000 and includes PVC material and volume discount for
      2.5)/week = 45 days           installing thousands of wells. P&T well heads estimated at
       45 days x 1.10              $17,730 each. These include the downhole submersible pump
          Efficiency Derating       (1.25 to 1.5 HP that produce approximately 7.5 gpm within
                                    existing system), extraction and drop pipe, controls,
          Factor = 49.5 days

                                                -5-
transducer, readout, the metal box, and concrete pad and bollards. This type of well head will not
be required for ISCO TUS. For purposes of this preliminary estimate, a unit cost of $35,000/well
will be used. Discussions with other professionals that have worked onsite and professional
judgment also relied upon. Personnel categories obtained from Pantex ER Personnel.


         4.07.15 Construction/ Investigations and Monitoring, Sample Collection /
         Monitoring Well
         Scope:
         Drill and complete multiple monitoring wells over a 40 acre plot to nominally 280 ft bgs
for use in monitoring the injection of potassium permanganate treatment solution and chase
water, and in conducting post-treatment monitoring (and long-term monitoring by Pantex). Entire
drilling subcontractor scope for monitoring wells is contained in this WBS element. Other than
TUS contractor oversight during second week of mobilization, all supervision labor for
monitoring wells included in this WBS element.

        Drilling will be performed using Air Rotary Casing Hammer (ARCH) technique. Drill
cuttings will be collected in 1 or 2 CY wrangler bags and provided to Pantex waste management
personnel who will assume control of the waste. Soil sampling will only be conducted for the
sole purpose of limited contaminant characterization once the perched aquifer is reached and up
to a maximum of 3 soil samples (one approximately every 10 ft) will be collected per Pantex
sampling criteria. Soil samples will be sent to offsite analytical laboratory for analysis of
Potential Contaminants of Concern (PCOC) RDX and HMX (HE) (expected at low levels of 10-
50 ppb in water matrix) by Method 8330 (Modified), and VOCs by Method 8260.

          Wells will be constructed of flush coupled, Schedule 40 PVC with 20 ft of machine
slotted screen and manually placed gravel pack. Borehole diameter is nominally 10 inches and
well casing and screen diameter is nominally 5 inches (Pantex now requires all wells greater than
200 ft to TD be 5 in. or greater in diameter to accommodate a development pump). Pantex/State
of Texas requirements will be met in capping the well casing and constructing a surface seal
(concrete pad) and bollards. A moderate level of development will include surging and pumping
because it is anticipated that these wells will be used solely for groundwater level measurements
and groundwater sample acquisition.

         Three or more drill rigs will be operating simultaneously. Each drill crew will consist of
lead driller and two laborers. A drilling supervisor will oversee all rigs. TUS contractor will
supply one Geologist per drill rig and one sampling technician, who will float between rigs.
Overall field supervision and technical support will be provided by Contractor Task Manager and
Senior Geologist/Field Engineer. Office staff includes Program Manager, Project Manager,
Senior Hydrogeologist/Engineer, Data Engineer, Senior QA/QC Reviewer, Project Administrator,
Project Controls, Technical Editor, CAD Operator, Office Administrator, and Data Entry/Word
Processor. Pantex Construction Manager will provide direct support/oversight to TUS Contractor
personnel

        The Geologist will prepare a boring/well log for each well. Field paper forms will be
converted into Electronic (CAD) version at the office. Daily and weekly drilling reports will be
prepared by drilling supervisor and reviewed by task manager. Field data will be entered into
project database.

        Schedule:



                                               -6-
        Monitoring wells will be installed before injection wells. Overall duration of monitoring
well installation subtask depends on the number of drilling rigs operating at the same time and
rig/crew productivity. Estimated per well duration: 5 days to decontaminant drill rig and rods, set
up on drill spot and later demob to decon area, drill to 280 ft, manage drill cuttings, construct
well, construct and cure surface pad, develop well by surging and pumping, and manage
development and decon water. An extra 4 hours per well included for rig preventative
maintenance and refueling, and unforeseen down time due to breakdown, personnel issues, and
unforeseen Pantex requirements.

        For example, the sub-task duration, assuming four (4) drill rigs and 15 monitoring wells,
is estimated at 31 days, or 4.1 weeks. Example calculations follow:

    15 rig-weeks. 15 / 4 rigs
     = 3.75 weeks (of 5 day                 Source of Information:
     duration) (100% uptime                 Notes from Todd Harris, Pantex. Baseline information
     assumed).                     suggested a direct rate of approximately $71/ft completed (or
                                   $19,900). 5 days per well estimate based on constructing P&T
    3.75 weeks x (5 + 2.5
                                   extraction wells. General per well cost estimated by Todd at
     days/week) = 28 days
                                   $30,000 and includes PVC materials and volume discount for
    28 days x 1.10
                                   installing thousands of wells. Wellhead features for monitoring
     Efficiency Derating
                                   wells cost approximately $3000 per discussion with Todd
     Factor = 31 days
                                   Harris. For purposes of this preliminary estimate, a unit cost of
                                   $23,000/well will be used. Discussions with other
                                   professionals that have worked onsite and Professional
judgment also relied upon.


        Task: Treatment System Acquisition
         4.11.05 Construction/Treatment Plant, Facility, Process/Full-scale Environ.
         Management Plant, Facility
         Scope:
         Purchase ISCO Mobile Treatment Unit(s) designed and manufactured specifically for this
project. The intent of the MTU is to provide a high degree of site mobility, and make individual
or cluster well site mob/demob more efficient. Significant time/cost reduction can be gained by
driving MTU to one location that is in proximity to 2 or more wells, and using the MTU to treat
those wells without additional moves. The MTU concept also accommodates plans calling for
simultaneous operation of more than one MTU.

         Each MTU will consist of fuel storage tank, power generator(s), power distribution,
Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) system, chemical storage and conveyance
subsystem (dry if potassium permanganate and liquid if sodium perm.), potable water storage and
conveyance subsystem (potentially including one or more large inflatable tanks of approximately
100,000 gal capacity), mixing tank and temporary storage subsystem (potentially up to 10,000 gal
capacity), injection manifold subsystem including well head connectors (potentially up to 100
gpm combined capacity). Safety systems including leak detection and retention subsystem. All
subsystems include motors and pumps as required, as well as weather-proofing features such as
insulation and electrical heating tape. The equipment will be installed on a semi-tractor trailer and
flat-bed assembly. Transport system may be modified for all-weather and all-terrain use.
Inflatable tanks will not require intense foundation preparations.




                                                -7-
       The total hydraulic capacity and number of wells that can be treated simultaneously by
each MTU are constrained variables. The number of MTU to purchase is a variable, but probably
would not exceed six individual units under any circumstances.

       Pantex Construction Manager will provide direct support/oversight to TUS Contractor
personnel.

        Schedule:
        Take delivery of MTU(s) at site after at least 50% of the wells have been installed. Field
crew involved in drilling will accept and setup equipment.

        Source of Information:
        Professional judgment and discussions with, and estimates from, AS, Inc.

        Task: Operations and Process Monitoring
         5.23.04 O&M / Insitu Chemical Treatment/ Oxidation-Reduction
         Scope:
         Treat the entire 40 acre plot by starting up, operating, maintaining, and monitoring the
ISCO system including MTU-injection well couplings, injection wells, and monitoring wells.
Using the ISCO MTU(s), inject sufficient quantity of potassium permanganate (and pH
adjustment chemicals as necessary) into the water obtained from plant hydrant system. The
amended water will be transported by at-grade hose and injected under gravity into the injection
wells to reduce target PCOCs (HE and VOCs only) across the 40 acre plot (as measured at the
monitoring wells) to below regulatory cleanup levels, based on Texas Risk Reduction Standard 2.
Pressurized injection into wells will also be possible.

         Treatment will involve injecting water with treatment chemicals into each well some time
after the well has been completed. An outside-in injection pattern, to minimize uncontrolled flow
of contaminated groundwater directed away from the treatment plot, is contemplated. It is
assumed that the flow rate of water from the temporary supply line connected to the facility water
hydrant system will equal or exceed the maximum instantaneous water use rate across the 40 acre
site. This rate could approach a couple hundred gallons per minute. However, because the water
will be used at multiple locations and to provide for capacity in case the hydrant system capacity
must be redirected temporarily by Pantex, the water will first be directed to one or more large
holding (equalization) tanks (e.g., 100,000 gallon), and from there the water will be pumped to a
mixing tank located on or next to the MTU mobile platform. Potassium permanganate solids will
be carefully added to the water and thoroughly mixed in the tank. The MTU will be used to pump
this mixture from the mixing tank and into the injection well(s) connected to the MTU at a rate
that is compatible to what the well is able to sustain under gravity drainage. To increase flow rate
(and decrease time for injection), pressurized injection will also be possible.

        Perform preventative maintenance on the MTUs and repair MTUs and ancillary
equipment as they fail. Perform process monitoring during the active injection period, including
sampling of groundwater monitoring wells immediately before nearby injection wells are
operated to establish background conditions. Background conditions will be used for comparison
purposes during not only process monitoring, but also for post-treatment monitoring, and later
long-term surveillance by Pantex personnel. Sampling will end with the completion of OM&M.

        Monitoring wells will be sampled periodically during OM&M. Extracted groundwater
will be monitored using a Flow-Through Analytical Cell to estimate the value of the parameters
pH, temperature, and Dissolved Oxygen (DO). Tritration analysis will be performed to estimate


                                               -8-
permanganate concentration. Samples will be sent to offsite analytical laboratory for analysis of
Potential Contaminants of Concern (PCOC) RDX and HMX (HE) (expected at low levels of 10-
50 ppb) by Method 8330 (Modified), VOCs by Method 8260, and Total Organic Carbon (TOC by
E415.1), Total Dissolved Solids (TDS by E160.1), and pH (ASTM G51-77).

          One field crew will be responsible for operating the entire 40 acre well field and will
include the following TUS Contractor personnel and percent FTE: Task Manager (100%), Field
Engineer (100%), Senior Technician (100%), Sampling Technician (100%), and Laborer (100%).
It is assumed that this crew can manage at least several MTUs operating simultaneously.
Although not included in the calculations, additional laborers may be needed if more MTUs are
used. Office personnel with TUS Contractor will include: Program Manager, Project Manager,
Project Controls, Office Administrator, Senior Hydrogeologist/Engineer, Data Engineer, Senior
QA/QC professional, Senior Staff Engineer, Technical Editor, CADD Operator, and Data
Entry/Word Processor. Pantex direct (field) labor will consist of Safety Engineer/Specialist II,
who will also function as a Construction Manager for Pantex.

         Schedule:
         The duration of this task is a function of the following variables: the number of injection
wells, the average concentration (mass) of target PCOCs and oxidizable natural organic and
inorganic matter (which defines the quantity of oxidant required to be injected at each well), the
number of MTUs operated, the total number of pore volumes to inject, the injection flow rate, and
the number of injection cycles. This task will start after sufficient injection wells have been
completed to ensure that there is sufficient physical distance between drill rigs and MTUs (and
considering that the injection sequence will follow an outside-in pattern).

          The following assumptions are selected as the basis for estimating this task duration (for
illustration purposes only). A uniform pattern of 24 injection wells and 15 monitoring wells will
be operated within a square 40 acre area. A total of 2 MTU will be operated at the same time,
and each MTU will service two injection wells concurrently. Mobilization and setup time
between MTU stations (of which there are 12 under this example) represents a total of two weeks
duration. Injection flow rate per well is assumed to be 35 gpm, and the water supply can support a
continuous, long term, demand of over 140 gpm. Treatment pore volume overlap geometry is
assumed as follows:

              A non-overlapping pore volume pattern would be
              defined by a radii R1 representing half of the
              distance of one side of the square to the right. This
              would lead to dead areas at the corners. The
              minimum overlap to prevent dead areas is defined
              by the circular geometry with radii R2 equal to
              R1/0.707 where 0.707 = sin 45. Thus, the treatment
              pore volume (per unit thickness) is larger than the
              non-overlapping pattern by a factor of R2 area/ R1
              area. R2^2/R1^2 = 1.414


        The contaminant concentrations and natural organic loading are consistent with a
potassium permanganate injection concentration of 0.5%. And finally, one treatment cycle will
achieve cleanup levels at all monitoring locations.
        The actual overall injection duration is estimated as follows:



                                               -9-
  Calculate the total volume associated
   with 1.25 PV / well x 24 wells, using                Source of Information:
   the overlap pattern described above.                 Professional judgment and AS, Inc.
  (40 acres x 43560 sf/acre)/24 = 7.26
   E4 sf                                                5.05.36 O&M/ Site Work/ Demobilization
  Square root of 7.26 E4 sf = 269.44 ft
                                                      Scope:
   (this is the distance of one side of the
                                                      Disassembly and removal of ISCO MTU.
   square shown above.
                                              Perform final decontamination. Transport equipment
  Radius R1 of a circle contained in         and personnel not remaining for treatment
   the square above (circle not shown)        monitoring work to home office or other locations.
   is ½ or 134.72 ft                          Pantex Construction Manager will provide direct
       R2 = R1/0.707 = 190.55 ft             support/oversight to TUS Contractor personnel.
       1 Treatment PV = (3.1416 x
          190.55^2) x 10 ft sat thickness              Schedule:
          x 0.33 x 7.48 gal/cf =                       One week duration. Decontamination to
          2.815809 E6 gal                     start immediately after last well is treated. MTUs
       0.75 PV + 0.5 PV = 1.25 PV =          and personnel do not leave site for two weeks, until
          3.51966 E6 gal/ well                immediately after analytical results from first
       3.51966 E6 gal / (35                  treatment monitoring event at last group of wells to
          gpm/well) x 1/1440 min/d =          be treated is received and reviewed.
          69.83 days
       24 wells / (2 wells/MTU x 2                    Source of Information:
          MTU) = 6 injection campaigns                 Same as 4.05.01. Demob for medium size
          at duration of 1.25 PV each         project estimated at $35,000 by Pantex.
       69.83 days x 6 = 419 days
       419 days x 1.10 efficiency
          factor = 461 days
       461 days = 1.263 years = 65.7
          weeks

Task: Post-Treatment Monitoring
        5.06.02 Surveillance and Long term Monitoring / Surveillance and Maintenance/
        Outdoor S&M

        Scope:
        TUS contractor will perform treatment monitoring surveillance concurrent with Post-
Treatment groundwater sampling. One sampling crew, equipped with a sampling truck, will
operate throughout the year. The sampling crew will perform inspections of all surface features
over the 40 acre area, with special attention paid to periodic visual checks of constructed well-
heads, temporary access roads, and contractor field office and equipment. Preventative
maintenance and simple repairs will be performed as required. Pantex Construction Manager will
provide direct support/oversight to TUS Contractor personnel.

        Schedule:
        The sampling crew will start outdoor S&M activities when PT sampling starts and will
complete its scope after the last well is sampled. Duration estimated at approximately 1 year.
Pantex personnel will resume long-term monitoring across the 40 acre site after this task is
complete.



                                               - 10 -
        Source of Information:
        Professional judgment and AS, Inc,

        5.07.09 Surveillance and Long Term Monitoring / Investigations and Monitoring,
        Sample Collection/ GW Sampling, Monitoring

        Scope:
        TUS contractor will perform treatment monitoring for 12 months, including 6 months
after ISCO injection operations have been completed.

         One sampling crew will be equipped with a sampling truck which eliminates the need for
manually moving sampling equipment. Extracted groundwater will be monitored using a Flow-
Through Analytical Cell to estimate the value of the parameters pH, temperature, and Dissolved
Oxygen (DO). Estimates of permanganate will be made using tritration. Samples will be sent to
offsite analytical laboratory for analysis of Potential Contaminants of Concern (PCOC) RDX and
HMX (HE) (expected at low levels of 10-50 ppb) by Method 8330 (Modified), and Total Organic
Carbon (TOC by E415.1), Total Dissolved Solids (TDS by E160.1), and pH (ASTM G51-77).
         A dynamic sampling and analysis plan will be followed to maximize use of information
obtained and minimize sampling and analysis cost. Pantex Construction Manager will provide
direct support/oversight to TUS Contractor personnel.

         Schedule:
         Using the previous example scope, the sampling crews will start sampling the 15
monitoring wells 26 weeks before injection operations end and terminate Treatment Monitoring 6
months later. Each monitoring well will be sampled at least once each month during the
monitoring period. The sampling crew production rate is estimated to be 4 wells per day; thus an
average of four days per week will be required for sampling. The maximum number of sampling
events per well will be 12. Pantex personnel will resume long-term monitoring across the 40 acre
site after this task is complete.

        Source of Information:
        Professional judgment and AS, Inc,

        5.08.02 Surveillance and Long Term Monitoring / Sample Analysis/ Groundwater
        Sample Analysis

        Scope:
        Groundwater samples collected during Treatment Monitoring will be prepared and
shipped to a CLP accredited offsite laboratory for analysis per analyte lists that will vary over the
duration of this subtask. Initially, samples will be analyzed as described in previous subtask. In
most cases, 30 day TAT will be requested.

         Schedule:
         The laboratory analysis schedule and total duration closely mirrors the sample collection
schedule and total duration. Final laboratory reports should be received no later than 45 days after
the last sampling event.

        Source of Information:
        Professional judgment.



                                               - 11 -
        5.09 Surveillance and Long Term Monitoring/ Sample Management, Data
        Validation, Data Evaluation

         Scope:
         Field and laboratory data collected during treatment monitoring will be compiled using a
project relational database and GIS. Several steps of QA/QC will be executed according to a
QA/QC Plan (developed in prior phases of the project). Steps will include initial data screening,
data verification, and data validation. Technical data evaluation will occur at different times
throughout the overall QA/QC process, and represents an important QA/QC step.

          Schedule:
          This subtask will begin when treatment monitoring field data begin to be generated (one
week before treatment operations begin) and will end with the final review and use of the last set
of laboratory analytical data received at the TUS contractor office. The last set of lab data should
be received 45 days after the last sampling event is complete. Final review and project use of this
last set of data will conclude 60 days after the data set is received at the TUS contractor office.

        Source of Information:
        Professional judgment.

        Task: Long-Term Performance Assessment
        TUS Contractor will not perform LT PA for ISCO.
        Task: Decommissioning
         5.31.21 O&M / Facility Decommissioning and Dismantlement/ Dismantling or
         Demolition of other Facilities
         Scope:
         Because each well represents a potential artificial conduit for downward migration of
contaminants in the vadose zone, all ISCO wells will eventually be decommissioned per State of
Texas regulation. The monitoring wells will be incorporated into the Pantex Long Term Facility
Monitoring program (and future well decommissioning costs will be included in other Pantex
accounts). However, the relatively low number of injection wells and their spacing are somewhat
compatible with a scenario where the ISCO remediation is found to not be completely successful
and P&T containment or dewatering must be implemented. Therefore, these wells will be
maintained until at least the Treatment Monitoring Task has been completed. In general, the wells
will be sealed from bottom to surface by pressure grouting using a work over rig (or equivalent).
No other decommissioning or dismantlement of facilities or equipment will be necessary. The
ISCO MTU and at-grade recirculation piping (hose) and ancillary treatment equipment will
already have been demobilized at the end of the Treatment Operations Task. The temporary field
office, storage and maintenance sheds, toilet, decontamination facilities, barricades, fencing, and
signs will be removed from the site after well decommissioning is complete. Coordinate with
Pantex overhead staff to disconnect and decommission temporary utilities. Transport equipment
and personnel to home office or other locations. Pantex Construction Manager will provide direct
support/oversight to TUS Contractor personnel.

        Schedule:
        Assuming 24 wells, 9 cubic yards (cy) per well casing volume (assume nominal leakage
out screen or shrinkage during curing), a total of 8 hours to fill well and top off after settling, and
one pressure grout rig, the duration is estimated at 24 working days or 5 weeks.

        Source of Information:
        Professional judgment. Todd Harris on well decommissioning procedures and timing.


                                                - 12 -
TUS: Insitu Redox Manipulation (IRM)
Task: TUS Contractor Mobilization
        4.05.01 Construction/ Site Work/ Mobilization

         Scope:
         TUS Contractor mobilization of construction equipment, facilities, and personnel to the
Pantex plant. Receive Pantex specific safety and security training. Set up temporary facilities
including office trailer, storage trailer, field toilets, maintenance shed, decontamination stations,
barricades, security fencing, signs, grading and gravel surfacing for walk ways and vehicle
access. Coordinate with Pantex overhead personnel to set up temporary utilities for field
office/yard including power connection and distribution, lighting, water, sewer, communications
(telephone, etc). Receive and perform final assemble of IAB Mobile Treatment Unit(s) (MTUs)
for operation. Receive and setup drilling subcontractor crew(s) and rig(s). Drilling crews receive
site safety and security training.

         Survey and stake in all monitoring well drilling locations, the Injection/Extraction well
locations, MTU stations, access routes, surface and subsurface utilities, other features, etc. Pantex
will use the survey information to set up electrical distribution to each of the extraction well
locations.

         The IRM process will require a significant amount of water suitable for injecting into the
perched aquifer. Additionally, a large amount of contaminated groundwater will be produced. A
water supply pipeline will be constructed from the nearest source access point and a wastewater
discharge line will be constructed from the barrier site to the closest wastewater conveyance
access point. For this project, it is assumed that the IRM project can take full advantage of the
P&T system capacity to accept additional groundwater and to deliver significant volumes of
treated water. The IRM barrier will be located between the existing interim P&T treatment
facility and the central Pantex facility. Treated water from the P&T system, up to 20 gpm, will be
available for injecting at this site. Also, a contaminated groundwater effluent conveyance system,
connecting all of the P&T extraction wells, is available for this project. Groundwater extracted
from the site can be piped to an access point, and from there, the groundwater would mix with
water from the P&T system and enter the P&T treatment plant (consisting of metals precipitation,
microfiltration, and GAC absorption). Currently, the P&T system is operated with 200 gpm
excess capacity and Pantex has the flexibility to reduce the inflow from the P&T extraction wells
to temporarily accommodate up to approximately 300 gpm generated during barrier
emplacement. The IRM groundwater will contain high sulfate in addition to the contaminants that
the treatment plant is designed to handle. It is assumed that the existing P&T facility can not
handle high sulfate and therefore pre-treatment of all groundwater from the barrier site is
required. It is assumed that the pre-treated groundwater will be delivered to the P&T effluent
conveyance system. Alternatively, pre-treatment for the sulfate could occur at the building,
immediately upstream of the metals precipitation unit process.
          For the purposes of this estimating project, it is assumed that access to the treated water
hydrant system and groundwater effluent system is co-located and at 1000 feet from the nearest
edge of the barrier site. It is assumed that one trench will be excavated and backfilled with
bedding material, one PVC water line, one double-lined HDPE wastewater line, and excavated
soil. The trench will be excavated from a point 200 feet into the barrier site to the access points,
for a total distance of 1200 feet. The work will be performed by a company subcontracted to the
TUS Contractor.




                                               - 13 -
       Pantex Construction Manager will provide direct support/oversight to TUS Contractor
personnel.

        Schedule:
        For the scope defined above, the initial estimate of duration of this subtask is 2.5 weeks.

        Source of Information:
        ECES library. Professional judgment. Discussions with Todd Harris (Pantex) concerning
existing infrastructure. AS, Inc. Pantex estimates Mob/Demob direct cost of $69,000 for medium
sized project. ($35,000 for mob).

        4.05.02 Construction/ Site Work/ Cleanup, Landscape, Revegetation

        Scope:
        Removal of trash and debris. Repair minor erosion problems.

        Schedule:
        Concurrent with 2.5 week mobilization period.

        Source of Information:
        Same as 4.05.01

        Task: Well Installation
         4.18.02 Construction/Groundwater Containment, Collection, and Control/ Injection
         Wells
         and
          4.18.01 is Construction/ Groundwater Containment, Collection, and Control/
         Extraction Wells
         Scope:
         Drill and complete multiple injection wells (which will also serve as extraction wells)
over a 500 ft long plot to nominally 280 ft bgs to create a near-linear permeable reactive barrier
that will treat groundwater as it flows through aquifer sediments reduced by the IRM process. The
wells will be used for batch injecting of clean water amended with sodium dithionite and
extracting groundwater containing residuals from the reaction of the treatment chemical with the
subsurface media. In this case, the water will contain high sulfate concentrations, as well as all
the PCOCs (i.e., HE, Chromium VI, CVOCs) and their soluble chemical reduction by-products.
Other than driller mobilization, entire drilling subcontractor scope for injection and extraction
well construction is contained in this WBS element. Other than TUS contractor oversight during
second week of mobilization, all supervision labor for injection and extraction wells included in
this WBS element.

        Drilling will be performed using Air Rotary Casing Hammer (ARCH) technique. Drill
cuttings will be collected in 1 or 2 CY wrangler bags and provided to Pantex waste management
personnel who will assume control of the waste. Soil sampling will only be conducted for the
sole purpose of limited contaminant characterization once the perched aquifer is reached and up
to a maximum of 3 soil samples (one approximately every 10 ft) will be collected per Pantex
sampling criteria. Soil samples will be sent to offsite analytical laboratory for analysis of
Potential Contaminants of Concern (PCOC) RDX and HMX (HE) (expected at low levels of 10-
50 ppb in water matrix) by Method 8330 (Modified), and VOCs by Method 8260.




                                               - 14 -
        The treatment wells will be constructed of flush coupled, Schedule 40 PVC with 20 ft of
machine slotted screen and manually placed gravel pack. Borehole diameter is nominally 14
inches and well casing and screen diameter is nominally 8 inches. Pantex/State of Texas well
head completion requirements and well development practices will be met. A high level of
development will include alternating surging and groundwater extraction for up to eight hours at
each well.

         Three or more drill rigs will be operating simultaneously. Each drill crew will consist of
lead driller and two laborers. A drilling supervisor will oversee all rigs. TUS contractor will
supply one Geologist per drill rig and one sampling technician, who will float between rigs.
Overall field supervision and technical support will be provided by Contractor Task Manager and
Senior Geologist/Field Engineer. Office staff includes Program Manager, Project Manager,
Senior Hydrogeologist/Engineer, Data Engineer, Senior QA/QC Reviewer, Project Administrator,
Project Controls, Technical Editor, CAD Operator, Office Administrator, and Data Entry/Word
Processor. Pantex Construction Manager will provide direct support/oversight to TUS Contractor
personnel.

        The Geologist will prepare a boring/well log for each well. Field paper forms will be
converted into Electronic (CAD) version at the office. Daily and weekly drilling reports will be
prepared by drilling supervisor and reviewed by task manager. Field data will be entered into
project database.

         Schedule:
         The duration of this subtask is a function of the following variables: number of injection
and extraction wells to install (which is a function of design basis concentration (mass) of target
PCOCs, hydraulic conductivity (transmissivity) of the perched aquifer, and well pattern), and
number and productivity of drilling rigs/crews. Weather is a factor. Injection wells will be
installed after monitoring wells are installed. For illustration purposes, the following scenario was
developed.
         A linear well pattern will be constructed using 24 extraction wells on a center line.
Estimated per well duration: 5 days to decontaminant drill rig and rods, set up on drill spot and
later demob to decon area, drill to 280 ft, manage drill cuttings, construct well, construct and cure
surface pad, develop well by surging and pumping, and manage development and decon water.
An extra 4 hours per well included for rig preventative maintenance and refueling, and
unforeseen down time due to breakdown, personnel issues, and unforeseen Pantex requirements.

        For example, the task duration, assuming four (4) drill rigs and 24 injection wells is
estimated at 49.5 days or 6.6 weeks. Supporting calculations follow:

    At one well per week (5
     day period), this equals               Source of Information:
     24 rig-weeks. 24 /4 rigs               Notes from Todd Harris, Pantex. 5 days per well
     = 6.0 (5 day) weeks at        estimate based on constructing P&T extraction wells that
     52 weeks/year and 100%        include wellhead building. Per well cost estimated by Todd at
     uptime. 6.0 x (5 +            $30,000 and includes PVC material and volume discount for
     2.5)/week = 45 days           installing thousands of wells. P&T well heads estimated at
    45 days x 1.10                $17,730 each. These include the downhole submersible pump
                                   (1.25 to 1.5 HP that produce approximately 7.5 gpm within
     Efficiency Derating
                                   existing system), extraction and drop pipe, controls,
     Factor = 49.5 days
                                   transducer, readout, the metal box, and concrete pad and
bollards. This type of wellhead will not be needed for these wells. For purposes of this


                                               - 15 -
preliminary estimate, a unit cost of $35,000/well will be used. Discussions with other
professionals that have worked onsite and professional judgment also relied upon. Personnel
categories obtained from Pantex ER Personnel.

       4.07.15 Construction/ Investigations and Monitoring, Sample Collection /
       Monitoring Well
       Drill and complete multiple monitoring wells around a 500 ft long barrier plot to
nominally 280 ft bgs for use in monitoring the injection of amended water and extraction of
groundwater with treatment residuals, and in conducting post-treatment monitoring (and long-
term monitoring by Pantex). Entire drilling subcontractor scope for monitoring wells, other than
mobilization, is contained in this WBS element. Other than TUS contractor oversight during
second week of mobilization, all supervision labor for monitoring wells included in this WBS
element.

        Drilling will be performed using Air Rotary Casing Hammer (ARCH) technique. Drill
cuttings will be collected in 1 or 2 CY wrangler bags and provided to Pantex waste management
personnel who will assume control of the waste. Soil sampling will only be conducted for the
sole purpose of limited contaminant characterization once the perched aquifer is reached and up
to a maximum of 3 soil samples (one approximately every 10 ft) will be collected per Pantex
sampling criteria. Soil samples will be sent to offsite analytical laboratory for analysis of
Potential Contaminants of Concern (PCOC) RDX and HMX (HE) (expected at low levels of 10-
50 ppb in water matrix) by Method 8330 (Modified), and VOCs by Method 8260.

          Wells will be constructed of flush coupled, Schedule 40 PVC with 20 ft of machine
slotted screen and manually placed gravel pack. Borehole diameter is nominally 10 inches and
well casing and screen diameter is nominally 5 inches (Pantex now requires all wells greater than
200 ft to TD be 5 in. or greater in diameter to accommodate a development pump). Pantex/State
of Texas requirements will be met in capping the well casing and constructing a surface seal
(concrete pad) and bollards. A moderate level of development will include surging and pumping
because it is anticipated that these wells will be used solely for groundwater level measurements
and groundwater sample acquisition.

         Three or more drill rigs will be operating simultaneously. Each drill crew will consist of
lead driller and two laborers. A drilling supervisor will oversee all rigs. TUS contractor will
supply one Geologist per drill rig and one sampling technician, who will float between rigs.
Overall field supervision and technical support will be provided by Contractor Task Manager and
Senior Geologist/Field Engineer. Office staff includes Program Manager, Project Manager,
Senior Hydrogeologist/Engineer, Data Engineer, Senior QA/QC Reviewer, Project Administrator,
Project Controls, Technical Editor, CAD Operator, Office Administrator, and Data Entry/Word
Processor. Pantex Construction Manager will provide direct support/oversight to TUS Contractor
personnel

        The Geologist will prepare a boring/well log for each well. Field paper forms will be
converted into Electronic (CAD) version at the office. Daily and weekly drilling reports will be
prepared by drilling supervisor and reviewed by task manager. Field data will be entered into
project database.

        Schedule:
        Monitoring wells will be installed before injection wells. Overall duration of monitoring
well installation subtask depends on the number of drilling rigs operating at the same time and
rig/crew productivity. Estimated per well duration: 5 days to decontaminant drill rig and rods, set


                                               - 16 -
up on drill spot and later demob to decon area, drill to 280 ft, manage drill cuttings, construct
well, construct and cure surface pad, develop well by surging and pumping, and manage
development and decon water. An extra 4 hours per well included for rig preventative
maintenance and refueling, and unforeseen down time due to breakdown, personnel issues, and
unforeseen Pantex requirements.

        For example, the sub-task duration, assuming four (4) drill rigs and 15 monitoring wells,
is estimated at 31 days, or 4.1 weeks. Example calculations follow:

     15 rig-weeks. 15 / 4 rigs
      = 3.75 weeks (of 5 day              Source of Information:
      duration) (100% uptime              Notes from Todd Harris, Pantex. Baseline information
      assumed).                   suggested a direct rate of approximately $71/ft completed. 5
                                  days per well estimate based on constructing P&T extraction
     3.75 weeks x (5 + 2.5
                                  wells. General per well cost estimated by Todd at $30,000 and
      days/week) = 28 days
                                  includes PVC materials and volume discount for installing
     28 days x 1.10
                                  thousands of wells. Wellhead features for monitoring wells
      Efficiency Derating
                                  cost approximately $3000 per discussion with Todd Harris.
      Factor = 31 days
                                  For purposes of this preliminary estimate, a unit cost of
                                  $23,000/well will be used. Discussions with other
professionals that have worked onsite and Professional judgment also relied upon.

        Task: Treatment System Acquisition/Construction
         4.11.05 Construction/Treatment Plant, Facility, Process/Full-scale Environ.
         Management Plant, Facility
         Scope:
         Purchase three types of Mobile Treatment Units (MTUs), one for injecting sodium
dithionite amended water, and a second type for extracting groundwater containing reaction
residuals and PCOCs. Purchase a third type MTU consisting of a package sulfate reduction
bioreactor such as a continuously operating contact bioreactor. The bioreactor will serve to pre-
treat the extracted groundwater to remove most of the sulfate prior to discharge to the existing
interim P&T treatment plant. Purchase submersible injection/extraction pumps and piping, and
hose/pipe for connecting each MTU to wells or other MTU or the temporary wastewater effluent
line constructed during mobilization. Electrical power will be supplied from Pantex system and
will not be the responsibility of the TUS Contractor. These submersible pumps will be sized to
provide for at least 300 feet of lift plus additional head to push from one (1) to thirty (30) gpm of
groundwater through an inline process treatment system (as described below) and into a
equalization tank upstream of the bioreactor. The piping is a polyethylene or rubber (or
equivalent) rugged outdoor grade hose manufactured using continuous extrusion process. The
hose will be shipped to the site on large diameter spools. During placement, the hose will be fed
through a second larger diameter secondary containment hose or fixed wall pipe (e.g., HDPE).

         Purchase multiple MTUs, at least one for injection operations, at least one for extraction
operations, and at least one for biological pre-treatment operations. Based on general schedule
logistics, it may be most efficient to combine injection and extraction capabilities on a mobile
platform if the same number of injection MTUs and extraction MTUs is specified. Each MTU
will be designed and manufactured specifically for this project and will consist of the following
basic subsystems or components: manifold couplings (to allow rapid connection to well head and
to distribution piping leading to MTUs), sampling ports, level/flow/pressure/temperature sensors,
lighting, alarms, central control panel with SCADA system, electrical distribution subsystem,
secondary containment and leak detection subsystem, and weatherization components. These


                                                - 17 -
components will be installed in a medium-sized enclosed four axle trailer or skid-mounted
building. In addition to the basic components common to each of the three MTU types, the
injection MTU will include chemical storage and metering subsystem. The extraction MTU type
will include microfiltration bag filters. And the treatment MTU type will include an equalization
tank subsystem, bioreactor vessels, carbon substrate and nutrient storage, mixing, and delivery
subsystems. Larger tanks may be moved around the site with a fork-lift or other heavy equipment
(e.g., crane) and set on level ground or, if necessary, prepared foundations (e.g., sand and gravel)
for operation. Note: With the advancement in wireless data transmission capabilities, it is possible
to cost-effectively design, construct, and operate one Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition
(SCADA) system that applies to all MTUs.

        Take delivery of treatment chemicals: Sodium dithionite is an unstable, hazardous
chemical, particularly in the presence of moisture. Lactic Acid as carbon substrate to drive the
bioreactor system anoxic and the nutrients sodium nitrate and phosphate salts to support biofilm
growth.

      The total hydraulic capacity and number of wells that can be treated simultaneously by
each MTU are constrained variables. The number of MTU to purchase is a variable.

        Actual construction of the barrier, in situ, is considered “operations” and is described
under the next task heading.

         Schedule:
         Take delivery of MTUs at site at the end of mobilization or during well drilling task.
Only minor final assembly will be required. Applying the 24 injection/extraction well scenario
described under well installation task (i.e., the “example”), it is further assumed that there will be
two Injection MTU, two extraction MTU, and one treatment MTU. Because the same number of
injection MTU are specified as extraction MTU, the capabilities will be combined into one MTU
platform. Thus, in this example 2 Inj/Ext MTU and 1 treatment MTU will be delivered. At each
well, the extraction pump subsystem of the combined MTU will be installed within one or two
days of completing dithionite injection. The drilling subcontractor will perform the work using a
pump (work over) rig. Estimated duration for temporary pump installation is 4 hours per well or
96 hours (approximately two work weeks).

        Setup up of bioreactor and acclimation of the microbial community is assumed to take
eight weeks.
        Maximum amount of piping (hose) to be placed on the ground for conveying injectate,
extractate, or treated extractate is estimated to be 1100 ft. Assuming 500 feet of hose are laid per
day, the duration is slightly over 2 days (say one work week). However, most of this time in
moving the hose will occur throughout the operational period. Overall duration of this task under
the above assumptions is 8 weeks.

        Source of Information:
        Professional judgment and discussions with, and estimates from, AS, Inc. Estimate can be
improved by obtaining market information for skid-mounted buildings or trailers containing the
treatment system, and improving the estimate for laying out the hose/pipe.

        Task: Operations and Process Monitoring
        5.23.04 O&M / Insitu Chemical Treatment/ Oxidation-Reduction

        Scope:


                                                - 18 -
         The 500 ft long, 30 ft wide, IRM permeable reactive barrier will be created, in situ, under
this subtask. In situ treatment is assumed to begin immediately after the reductant has been
introduced into the subsurface and has reacted with the subsurface minerals. Typical O&M
activities begin immediately after groundwater extraction to remove reaction by-products has
been completed.

         Creation of the barrier will involve injecting water with dithionite into each well some
time after the well has been completed. Treated water (from the temporary pressurized line
connected to the treated water hydrant system) will be used to fill large holding tanks (e.g.,
100,000 gallon), and from here the water will be sent to a mixing tank located on the MTU
mobile platform. Sodium dithionite solids will be carefully added to the water and thoroughly
mixed in the tank. The MTU will be used to pump this mixture from the mixing tank and into the
injection well at a rate that is compatible to what the well is able to sustain under gravity
drainage.

         After the required amount of water has been injected, the well is left alone for a period of
from 2 to 5 days to allow reactions to carry out to the extent practical. At each well, extraction of
groundwater must occur immediately after this period to improve the probability of collecting
most of the groundwater containing the reaction residual sulfate. The longer it takes to start
extraction, the longer extraction pumping must occur.

         The extraction process will take far longer than the injection process (due to perched
aquifer and well hydraulic limitations, as well as the process requirement to remove more pore
volumes than what was injected). For each well, the extraction process will be setup shortly after
the injection work has been completed. For practical purposes, the extraction pump and piping
subsystem can be considered an integral part of the MTU. The pump and piping are installed and
connected to the MTU and discharge piping from the MTU to the Treatment MTU is laid out and
connected. Groundwater is extracted from the well, is filtered (in-line) at the MTU, and sent over
to the Treatment MTU for pre-treatment prior to entering the P&T conveyance system (or
alternatively the treatment building itself).

         At the Treatment MTU, the groundwater first enters an equalization tank, and then is
pumped into a continuous sulfate reducing bioreactor, probably of rotating contactor design. A
carbon substrate and nutrients will be added to the reactor to maintain quasi-equilibrium
conditions. Residence time may be on the order of several days, and therefore the required
reactor(s) size to handle the anticipated groundwater influx rate (e.g., 8 to 32 gpm) will be
significant


              Assume 32 gpm of groundwater influx to equalization tank. Assume quasi-
               equilibrium flow.
              Assume a residence time of three days is required to meet sulfate reduction
               criterion.
              32 gpm x 1440 min/day x 3 days = 1.3824 E5 gallons groundwater must be stored
               at a minimum, while the reactor volume will need to be of similar capacity.
              Two nominal 100,000 gal tank or four nominal 50,000 gal tanks may be required.



     Flow rate(s), pressures, and temperature data will be collected using the dedicated MTU
SCADA system. Perform preventative maintenance on the MTUs and repair MTUs and ancillary


                                               - 19 -
equipment as they fail. Perform process monitoring during the active recirculation period,
including sampling of groundwater monitoring wells immediately before injection wells are
operated to establish background conditions. Background conditions will be used for comparison
purposes during not only process monitoring, but also for post-treatment monitoring, and later
long-term surveillance by Pantex personnel. Sampling will end with the completion of OM&M.

         Extracted groundwater will be monitored using a Flow-Through Analytical Cell to
estimate the value of the parameters pH, temperature, and Dissolved Oxygen (DO). Samples will
be sent to offsite analytical laboratory for analysis of Potential Contaminants of Concern (PCOC)
RDX and HMX (HE) (expected at low levels of 10-50 ppb) by Method 8330 (Modified), VOCs
by Method 8260, Total Metals by Method 6020, Hexavalent Chromium, Total Organic Carbon
(TOC by E415.1), Total Dissolved Solids (TDS by E160.1), and pH (ASTM G51-77).

        One field crew will be responsible for operating the entire 500 ft long well field and will
include the following TUS Contractor personnel and percent FTE: Task Manager (100%), Field
Engineer (100%), Senior Technician (100%), Sampling Technician (100%), and Laborer (100%).
Office personnel with TUS Contractor will include: Program Manager, Project Manager, Project
Controls, Office Administrator, Senior Hydrogeologist/Engineer, Data Engineer, Senior QA/QC
professional, Senior Staff Engineer, Technical Editor, CADD Operator, and Data Entry/Word
Processor. Pantex direct (field) labor will consist of Safety Engineer/Specialist II, who will also
function as a Construction Manager for Pantex.

          Schedule:
          The duration of this task is a function of the following variables: the number of injection
wells, well pattern, the average concentration (mass) of target PCOCs (which defines the average
amount and strength of injectate required for each well), the extraction and injection flow rates,
and other variables. This task will start after all the monitoring wells and at least 25 % of the
injection wells have been completed to ensure that there is sufficient physical distance between
drill rigs and MTUs. The following assumptions (example) are selected as the basis for estimating
this task duration. As established under well installation task, a linear line of wells will be
operated, consisting of 24 injection wells on the center line. The minimum width of the reactive
zone perpendicular to flow is 30 feet, and this requirement defines the pore volume radii for a
given total number of evenly spaced injection wells. Two MTU designed for servicing four wells
at a time, whether in injection mode or extraction mode, and one Treatment MTU designed to
handle groundwater from two concurrently operating MTU, will be used for a total of 3 MTU.


          Injection is assumed to occur at 35 gpm and extraction at 8 gpm per well. 100 percent of
the extracted water will be pre-treated in the sulfate reduction bioreactor and pumped to the P&T
facility for further treatment of metals and organics by chemical precipitation/flocculation,
filtration, and GAC absorption. The total instantaneous extraction rate is therefore 8 gpm x 2
wells x 2 MTU = 32 gpm. Assuming 3 Pore Volumes injected and 12 PV extracted, OM&M
duration of approximately 577days (76.9 weeks, 17.7 months, or 1.48 years) is calculated.

        Source of Information:
        Professional judgment, engineering calculations, and AS. Inc..Personnel categories
obtained from Pantex ER Personnel.

        5.05.36 O&M / Site Work/ Demobilization

        Scope:


                                               - 20 -
         Disconnect, decontaminate and removal the IRM MTUs. Remove submersible pumps
from the treatment wells and remove all at-grade piping. Perform final decontamination.
Transport equipment and personnel not remaining for treatment monitoring work to home office
or other locations. Pantex Construction Manager will provide direct support/oversight to TUS
Contractor personnel.

         Schedule:
         Using the previous example scope, approximate 2 week duration is estimated, including
one week to remove pumps and drop pipe. Decontamination to start immediately after last wells
is treated. MTUs and personnel do not leave site for three weeks, until immediately after
analytical results from first Treatment Monitoring Task event (performed on the day after the last
day of operations) is received and reviewed.

        Source of Information:
        Same as 4.05.01. Demob for medium size project estimated at $35,000 by Pantex.

        Task: Post-Treatment Monitoring
        5.06.02 Surveillance and Long term Monitoring / Surveillance and Maintenance/
        Outdoor S&M

        Scope:
        TUS contractor will perform treatment monitoring for 12 months after operations have
been terminated. One sampling crew, equipped with a sampling truck, will operate throughout the
period. The sampling crew will perform inspections of all surface features over the 500 ft long
area, with special attention paid to periodic visual checks of constructed well-heads, temporary
access roads, and contractor field office and equipment. Preventative maintenance and simple
repairs will be performed as required. Pantex Construction Manager will provide direct
support/oversight to TUS Contractor personnel.

        Schedule:
        The sampling crew will start outdoor S&M activities during the second week of
Operations demobilization and will complete its scope 12 months later. Pantex personnel will
resume long-term monitoring across the 500 ft site after this task is complete.

        Source of Information:
        Professional judgment and AS, Inc,

        5.07.09 Surveillance and Long Term Monitoring / Investigations and Monitoring,
        Sample Collection/ GW Sampling, Monitoring

       Scope:
       TUS contractor will perform treatment monitoring for 12 months after operations have
been completed.

       One sampling crew will be equipped with a sampling truck which eliminates the need for
manually moving sampling equipment. Extracted groundwater will be monitored using a Flow-
Through Analytical Cell to estimate the value of the parameters pH, temperature, and Dissolved
Oxygen (DO). Samples will be sent to offsite analytical laboratory for analysis of Potential
Contaminants of Concern (PCOC) RDX and HMX (HE) (expected at low levels of 10-50 ppb) by
Method 8330 (Modified), VOCs by Method 8260, Total Metals by Method 6020, Hexavalent



                                              - 21 -
Chromium, Total Organic Carbon (TOC by E415.1), Total Dissolved Solids (TDS by E160.1),
and pH (ASTM G51-77).

         A dynamic sampling and analysis plan will be followed to maximize use of information
obtained and minimize sampling and analysis cost. Pantex Construction Manager will provide
direct support/oversight to TUS Contractor personnel.

        Schedule:
        Using the previous example scope, the sampling crews will start sampling the 12
monitoring wells one week after extraction and injection operations end and terminate Treatment
Monitoring 12 months later. Each monitoring well will be sampled at least once each month
during the monitoring period. The sampling crew production rate is estimated to be 4 wells per
day; thus an average of three days per week will be required for sampling. The maximum number
of sampling events per well will be six. Pantex personnel will resume long-term monitoring
across the 500 ft long site after this task is complete.

        Source of Information:
        Professional judgment and AS, Inc,

        5.08.02 Surveillance and Long Term Monitoring / Sample Analysis/ Groundwater
        Sample Analysis

        Scope:
        Groundwater samples collected during Treatment Monitoring will be prepared and
shipped to a CLP accredited offsite laboratory for analysis per analyte lists that will vary over the
duration of this subtask. Initially, samples will be analyzed as described in previous subtask. In
most cases, 30 day TAT will be requested.

         Schedule:
         The laboratory analysis schedule and total duration closely mirrors the sample collection
schedule and total duration. Final laboratory reports should be received no later than 45 days after
the last sampling event.

        Source of Information:
        Professional judgment.

        5.09 Surveillance and Long Term Monitoring/ Sample Management, Data
        Validation, Data Evaluation

         Scope:
         Field and laboratory data collected during treatment monitoring will be compiled using a
project relational database and GIS. Several steps of QA/QC will be executed according to a
QA/QC Plan (developed in prior phases of the project). Steps will include initial data screening,
data verification, and data validation. Technical data evaluation will occur at different times
throughout the overall QA/QC process, and represents an important QA/QC step.

        Schedule:
        This subtask will begin when treatment monitoring field data begin to be generated (one
week before treatment operations begin) and will end with the final review and use of the last set
of laboratory analytical data received at the TUS contractor office. The last set of lab data should



                                               - 22 -
be received 45 days after the last sampling event is complete. Final review and project use of this
last set of data will conclude 60 days after the data set is received at the TUS contractor office.

        Source of Information:
        Professional judgment.

        Task: Long-Term Performance Assessment
        TUS Contractor will not perform LT PA for IAB.
        Task: Decommissioning
         5.31.21 O&M / Facility Decommissioning and Dismantlement/ Dismantling or
         Demolition of other Facilities
         Scope:
         Because each well represents a potential artificial conduit for downward migration of
contaminants in the vadose zone, all IRB wells will eventually be decommissioned per State of
Texas regulation. The monitoring wells will be incorporated into the Pantex Long Term Facility
Monitoring program (and future well decommissioning costs will be included in other Pantex
accounts). However, the relatively low number of injection/extraction wells and their spacing are
somewhat compatible with a scenario where the IRM remediation is found to not be successful
and P&T containment or dewatering must be implemented. Therefore, these wells will be
maintained until at least the Treatment Monitoring Task has been completed. In general, the wells
will be sealed from bottom to surface by pressure grouting using a work over rig. No other
decommissioning or dismantlement of facilities or equipment will be necessary. The pre-
treatment bioreactor system will have been shut down previously. The IRM MTU and at-grade
recirculation piping (hose) and ancillary treatment equipment will already have been demobilized
at the end of the Treatment Operations Task. The temporary field office, storage and maintenance
sheds, toilet, decontamination facilities, barricades, fencing, and signs will be removed from the
site after well decommissioning is complete. Coordinate with Pantex overhead staff to disconnect
and decommission temporary utilities. Transport equipment and personnel to home office or other
locations. Pantex Construction Manager will provide direct support/oversight to TUS Contractor
personnel.

         Schedule:
         Assuming 26 wells, 9 cy per well casing volume (assume nominal leakage out screen or
shrinkage during curing), a total of 8 hours to fill well and top off after settling, and one pressure
grout rig, the duration is estimated at 26 working days or 5.2 weeks.

        Source of Information:
        Professional judgment. Todd Harris on well decommissioning procedures and timing.



TUS: Insitu Anaerobic Bioremediation (IAB)
        Task: TUS Contractor Mobilization
        4.05.01 Construction/ Site Work/ Mobilization

        Scope:
        TUS Contractor mobilization of construction equipment, facilities, and personnel to the
Pantex plant. Receive Pantex specific safety and security training. Set up temporary facilities
including office trailer, storage trailer, field toilets, maintenance shed, decontamination stations,
barricades, security fencing, signs, grading and gravel surfacing for walk ways and vehicle
access. Coordinate with Pantex overhead personnel to set up temporary utilities for field


                                                - 23 -
office/yard including power connection and distribution, lighting, water, sewer, communications
(telephone, etc). Receive and perform final assemble of IAB Mobile Treatment Unit(s) (MTUs)
for operation. Receive and setup drilling subcontractor crew(s) and rig(s). Drilling crews receive
site safety and security training.

         Survey and stake in all monitoring well drilling locations, the Injection/Extraction well
locations, MTU stations, access routes, surface and subsurface utilities, other features, etc. Pantex
will use the survey information to set up electrical distribution to each of the extraction well
locations.

       Pantex Construction Manager will provide direct support/oversight to TUS Contractor
personnel.

        Schedule:
        Duration is two weeks

        Source of Information:
        ECES library. Professional judgment. AS, Inc. Pantex estimates Mob/Demob direct cost
of $69,000 for medium sized project. ($35,000 for mob).

        4.05.02 Construction/ Site Work/ Cleanup, Landscape, Revegetation

        Scope:
        Removal of trash and debris. Repair minor erosion problems.

        Schedule:
        Concurrent with two week mobilization period.

        Source of Information:
        Same as 4.05.01

        Task: Well Installation
         4.18.02 Construction/Groundwater Containment, Collection, and Control/ Injection
         Wells
         and
         4.18.01 is Construction/ Groundwater Containment, Collection, and Control/
         Extraction Wells
         Scope:
         Drill and complete multiple injection and extraction wells over a 40 acre plot to
nominally 280 ft bgs for use in continuously extracting and re-injecting extracted groundwater
amended with anaerobic bioremediation treatment chemicals. Other than driller mobilization,
entire drilling subcontractor scope for injection and extraction well construction is contained in
this WBS element. Other than TUS contractor oversight during second week of mobilization, all
supervision labor for injection and extraction wells included in this WBS element.

        Drilling will be performed using Air Rotary Casing Hammer (ARCH) technique. Drill
cuttings will be collected in 1 or 2 CY wrangler bags and provided to Pantex waste management
personnel who will assume control of the waste. Soil sampling will only be conducted for the
sole purpose of limited contaminant characterization once the perched aquifer is reached and up
to a maximum of 3 soil samples (one approximately every 10 ft) will be collected per Pantex
sampling criteria. Soil samples will be sent to offsite analytical laboratory for analysis of


                                               - 24 -
Potential Contaminants of Concern (PCOC) RDX and HMX (HE) (expected at low levels of 10-
50 ppb in water matrix) by Method 8330 (Modified).

          Extraction and injection wells will be constructed using the same specifications, and this
will allow for maximum flexibility if well field modifications need to be considered during
construction or during or after the operational period. Wells will be constructed of flush coupled,
Schedule 40 PVC with 20 ft of machine slotted screen and manually placed gravel pack. Borehole
diameter is nominally 14 inches and well casing and screen diameter is nominally 8 inches. It is
anticipated that these wells will be used solely for continuous extraction of groundwater and
reinjection of that extracted groundwater amended with carbon substrate and nutrients. However,
it is also recognized that some or all of these wells may be subsequently integrated into a P&T
containment system if IAB is not successful in treating the 40 acre plot. Therefore, these wells
will be constructed to a higher standard compared to the potentially larger number per unit area of
ISCO or IRM treatment wells. State of Texas well head completion requirements and minimum
well development practices will be exceeded. Besides construction of an enlarged concrete
surface cap, a small metal wellhead box will added for added protection of the well head,
submersible pump piping and electrical connections. A high level of development will include
alternating surging and groundwater extraction for up to eight hours at each well.

         Three or more drill rigs will be operating simultaneously. Each drill crew will consist of
lead driller and two laborers. A drilling supervisor will oversee all rigs. TUS contractor will
supply one Geologist per drill rig and one sampling technician, who will float between rigs.
Overall field supervision and technical support will be provided by Contractor Task Manager and
Senior Geologist/Field Engineer. Office staff includes Program Manager, Project Manager,
Senior Hydrogeologist/Engineer, Data Engineer, Senior QA/QC Reviewer, Project Administrator,
Project Controls, Technical Editor, CAD Operator, Office Administrator, and Data Entry/Word
Processor. Pantex Construction Manager will provide direct support/oversight to TUS Contractor
personnel.

        The Geologist will prepare a boring/well log for each well. Field paper forms will be
converted into Electronic (CAD) version at the office. Daily and weekly drilling reports will be
prepared by drilling supervisor and reviewed by task manager. Field data will be entered into
project database.

         Schedule:
         The duration of this subtask is a function of the following variables: number of injection
and extraction wells to install (which is a function of design basis concentration (mass) of target
PCOCs, hydraulic conductivity (transmissivity) of the perched aquifer, and well pattern), and
number and productivity of drilling rigs/crews. Weather is a factor. Injection and extraction wells
will be installed after monitoring wells are installed. For illustration purposes, the following
scenario was developed. A double line drive well pattern will be constructed using 8 extraction
wells on the center line and a line of 8 injection wells on either side of the extractor line. Two
additional injectors will be placed adjacent to the end extractors for hydraulic control and ensure
the ends of the plot are treated. Estimated per well duration: 5 days to decontaminant drill rig and
rods, set up on drill spot and later demob to decon area, drill to 280 ft, manage drill cuttings,
construct well, construct and cure surface pad, develop well by surging and pumping, and manage
development and decon water. An extra 4 hours per well included for rig preventative
maintenance and refueling, and unforeseen down time due to breakdown, personnel issues, and
unforeseen Pantex requirements.




                                               - 25 -
         For example, the task duration, assuming four (4) drill rigs and 18 injection and 8
extraction wells (26 total) is estimated at 54 days or 7.2 weeks. Supporting calculations follow:

    40 acres x 43560 sq
     ft/acre = 1,742,400 sq ft              Source of Information:
                                            Notes from Todd Harris, Pantex. 5 days per well
    Of the 26 wells, 24 are
                                   estimate based on constructing P&T extraction wells that
     located inside the 40
     acre plot and the two         include wellhead building. Per well cost estimated by Todd at
                                   $30,000 and includes PVC material and volume discount for
     others are located at
     either end of the plot for    installing thousands of wells. P&T well heads estimated at
                                   $17,730 each. These include the downhole submersible pump
     hydraulic control.
                                   (1.25 to 1.5 HP that produce approximately 7.5 gpm within
    At one well per week (5
                                   existing system), extraction and drop pipe, controls,
     day period), this equals
                                   transducer, readout, the metal box, and concrete pad and
     26 rig-weeks. 26 /4 rigs
                                   bollards. For purposes of this preliminary estimate, a unit cost
     = 6.5 (5 day) weeks at
                                   of $35,000/well will be used. Discussions with other
     52 weeks/year and 100%
                                   professionals that have worked onsite and professional
     uptime. 6.5 x (5 +
                                   judgment also relied upon. Personnel categories obtained from
     2.5)/week = 49 days.
                                   Pantex ER Personnel.
      49 days x 1.10
          Efficiency Derating
                                   4.07.15 Construction/ Investigations and Monitoring,
          Factor = 54 days         Sample Collection / Monitoring Well
                                            Drill and complete multiple monitoring wells over a
40 acre plot to nominally 280 ft bgs for use in monitoring the extraction of groundwater and the
reinjection of this groundwater amended with chemicals to support anaerobic bioremediation, and
in conducting post-treatment monitoring (and long-term monitoring by Pantex). Entire drilling
subcontractor scope for monitoring wells, other than mobilization, is contained in this WBS
element. Other than TUS contractor oversight during second week of mobilization, all
supervision labor for monitoring wells included in this WBS element.

        Drilling will be performed using Air Rotary Casing Hammer (ARCH) technique. Drill
cuttings will be collected in 1 or 2 CY wrangler bags and provided to Pantex waste management
personnel who will assume control of the waste. Soil sampling will only be conducted for the
sole purpose of limited contaminant characterization once the perched aquifer is reached and up
to a maximum of 3 soil samples (one approximately every 10 ft) will be collected per Pantex
sampling criteria. Soil samples will be sent to offsite analytical laboratory for analysis of
Potential Contaminants of Concern (PCOC) RDX and HMX (HE) (expected at low levels of 10-
50 ppb in water matrix) by Method 8330 (Modified).

          Wells will be constructed of flush coupled, Schedule 40 PVC with 20 ft of machine
slotted screen and manually placed gravel pack. Borehole diameter is nominally 10 inches and
well casing and screen diameter is nominally 5 inches (Pantex now requires all wells greater than
200 ft to TD be 5 in. or greater in diameter to accommodate a development pump). State of Texas
requirements will be met in capping the well casing and constructing a surface seal (concrete pad)
and bollards. A moderate level of development will include surging and pumping because it is
anticipated that these wells will be used solely for groundwater level measurements and
groundwater sample acquisition.

         Three or more drill rigs will be operating simultaneously. Each drill crew will consist of
lead driller and two laborers. A drilling supervisor will oversee all rigs. TUS contractor will
supply one Geologist per drill rig and one sampling technician, who will float between rigs.


                                               - 26 -
Overall field supervision and technical support will be provided by Contractor Task Manager and
Senior Geologist/Field Engineer. Office staff includes Program Manager, Project Manager,
Senior Hydrogeologist/Engineer, Data Engineer, Senior QA/QC Reviewer, Project Administrator,
Project Controls, Technical Editor, CAD Operator, Office Administrator, and Data Entry/Word
Processor. Pantex Construction Manager will provide direct support/oversight to TUS Contractor
personnel

        The Geologist will prepare a boring/well log for each well. Field paper forms will be
converted into Electronic (CAD) version at the office. Daily and weekly drilling reports will be
prepared by drilling supervisor and reviewed by task manager. Field data will be entered into
project database.

         Schedule:
         Monitoring wells will be installed before injection and extraction wells. Overall duration
of monitoring well installation subtask depends on the number of drilling rigs operating at the
same time and rig/crew productivity. Estimated per well duration: 5 days to decontaminant drill
rig and rods, set up on drill spot and later demob to decon area, drill to 280 ft, manage drill
cuttings, construct well, construct and cure surface pad, develop well by surging and pumping,
and manage development and decon water. An extra 4 hours per well included for rig
preventative maintenance and refueling, and unforeseen down time due to breakdown, personnel
issues, and unforeseen Pantex requirements.

        For example, the sub-task duration, assuming four (4) drill rigs and 12 monitoring wells
corresponding to a representative spacing of one MW per 3.33 acres, is estimated at 25 days or
3.3 weeks. Example calculations follow:

    12 rig-weeks. 12 / 4 rigs
     = 3 weeks (of 5 day                  Source of Information:
     duration) (100% uptime               Notes from Todd Harris, Pantex. Baseline information
     assumed).                    suggested a direct rate of approximately $71/ft completed. 5
    3 weeks x (5 + 2.5           days per well estimate based on constructing P&T extraction
                                  wells. General per well cost estimated by Todd at $30,000 and
     days/week) = 22.5 days
                                  includes PVC materials and volume discount for installing
    22.5 days x 1.10
                                  thousands of wells. Wellhead features for monitoring wells
     Efficiency Derating
                                  cost approximately $3000 per discussion with Todd Harris.
     Factor = 25 days
                                  For purposes of this preliminary estimate, a unit cost of
                                  $23,000/well will be used. Discussions with other
professionals that have worked onsite and Professional judgment also relied upon.

        Task: Treatment System Acquisition/Construction
        4.11.05 Construction/Treatment Plant, Facility, Process/Full-scale Environ.
        Management Plant, Facility
        Scope:
        Purchase and install extraction pumps, above-grade recirculation piping, and Mobile
Treatment Units (MTUs) to create a complete IAB treatment system. Install submersible positive
displacement/centrifugal pumps and discharge piping into each of the extraction wells. Electrical
power will be supplied from Pantex system and will not be the responsibility of the TUS
Contractor. These submersible pumps will be sized to provide for at least 300 feet of lift plus
additional head to push from one (1) to thirty (30) gpm of groundwater through an inline process
treatment system (as described below) and down two separate sections of nearly level, above-
grade, pipes (flexible hose), each at least 320 feet in length. The piping is a polyethylene or


                                               - 27 -
rubber (or equivalent) rugged outdoor grade hose manufactured using continuous extrusion
process. The hose will be shipped to the site on large diameter spools. During placement, the hose
will be fed through a second larger diameter secondary containment hose or fixed wall pipe (e.g.,
HDPE).

         Purchase multiple IAB MTUs, one for every two extraction wells. Each MTU will be
designed and manufactured specifically for this project and will consist of the following
subsystems or components: manifold couplings (to allow rapid connection to extraction well head
connector at wellhead building wall and to distribution piping leading to injection wells),
microfiltration bag filters, carbon source storage and metering subsystem, nutrient storage and
metering subsystem, sampling ports, level/flow/pressure/temperature sensors, lighting, alarms,
central control panel with SCADA system, electrical distribution subsystem, secondary
containment and leak detection subsystem, and weatherization components. These components
will be installed in a medium-sized enclosed four axle trailer or skid-mounted building. Larger
tanks may be moved around the site with a fork-lift or other heavy equipment (e.g., crane) and set
on level ground or, if necessary, prepared foundations (e.g., sand and gravel) for operation. Note:
With the advancement in wireless data transmission capabilities, it is possible to cost-effectively
design, construct, and operate one Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) system
that applies to all MTU).

         Take delivery of treatment chemicals: Lactic Acid as carbon substrate to drive the system
anoxic and the nutrients sodium nitrate and phosphate salts. If carbon source is molasses, heating
will be required and a centralized heated storage and mixing facility may be supplied. These
calculations will assume use of Lactic Acid instead of molasses.

      The total hydraulic capacity and number of wells that can be treated simultaneously by
each MTU are constrained variables. The number of MTU to purchase is a variable.

         Schedule:
         Take delivery of MTUs at site at the end of mobilization or during well drilling task.
Only minor final assembly will be required. Applying the 26 injection/extraction well scenario
described under well installation task (i.e., the “example”), 8 of the 26 wells will initially be
extraction wells. Thus, 4 MTUs will be delivered. Extraction pumps will be installed in the 8
extraction wells using the drilling subcontractor and a pump (work over) rig. Estimated duration
for pump installation is 8 work days or two weeks. At-grade recirculation piping (hose) will be
laid from each MTU location to four nearest injectors (three injectors for the two ends of the 40
acre plot). This equates to four (4) separate pipe networks connecting either four or five wells
together. MTUs will be connected to recirculation piping leading from each extraction well
building. Maximum total piping (hose) distance is estimated to be 610 ft x 18 legs or 11,880 ft.
Assuming 2440 feet of hose (one separate pipe network) are laid per day, the duration is 4.5 days
(one week). Overall duration of this task under the above assumptions is 4 weeks.

        Source of Information:
        Professional judgment and discussions with, and estimates from, AS, Inc. Estimate can be
improved by obtaining market information for skid-mounted buildings or trailers containing the
treatment system, and improving the estimate for laying out the hose/pipe.

        Task: Operations and Process Monitoring
        5.21.06 O&M / Insitu Biological Treatment/ Enhanced Bioremediation

        Scope:


                                              - 28 -
        Treat the entire 40 acre plot simultaneously by starting up, operating, maintaining, and
monitoring the IAB system including MTUs-extraction well couplings, injection wells, and
monitoring wells. Using the IAB MTU(s), inject sufficient quantity of carbon substrate and
nutrients into the filtered effluent from each extraction well. The amended groundwater will be
transported by at-grade hose and injected under gravity into the injection wells to reduce target
PCOCs (HE only) across the 40 acre plot (as measured at the monitoring wells) to below
regulatory cleanup levels, based on Texas Risk Reduction Standard 2.

        Perform preventative maintenance on the MTUs and repair MTUs and ancillary
equipment as they fail. Perform process monitoring during the active recirculation period,
including sampling of groundwater monitoring wells immediately before extraction and injections
wells are operated to establish background conditions. Background conditions will be used for
comparison purposes during not only process monitoring, but also for post-treatment monitoring,
and later long-term surveillance by Pantex personnel. Sampling will end with the completion of
OM&M.

         Extracted groundwater will be monitored using a Flow-Through Analytical Cell to
estimate the value of the parameters pH, temperature, and Dissolved Oxygen (DO). Samples will
be sent to offsite analytical laboratory for analysis of Potential Contaminants of Concern (PCOC)
RDX and HMX (HE) (expected at low levels of 10-50 ppb) by Method 8330 (Modified), and
Total Organic Carbon (TOC by E415.1), Total Dissolved Solids (TDS by E160.1), and pH
(ASTM G51-77).

        One field crew will be responsible for operating the entire 40 acre well field and will
include the following TUS Contractor personnel and percent FTE: Task Manager (100%), Field
Engineer (100%), Senior Technician (100%), Sampling Technician (100%), and Laborer (100%).
Office personnel with TUS Contractor will include: Program Manager, Project Manager, Project
Controls, Office Administrator, Senior Hydrogeologist/Engineer, Data Engineer, Senior QA/QC
professional, Senior Staff Engineer, Technical Editor, CADD Operator, and Data Entry/Word
Processor. Pantex direct (field) labor will consist of Safety Engineer/Specialist II, who will also
function as a Construction Manager for Pantex.

         Schedule:
         The duration of this task is a function of the following variables: the number of extraction
and injection wells, well pattern, the average concentration (mass) of target PCOCs (which
defines the average amount and strength of injectate required for each well), the extraction and
injection flow rates, and the effectiveness of efforts to increase the population and degradation
activity of the biological consortia capable of degrading the PCOCs. This task will start after all
the monitoring wells and most of the extraction and injection wells have been completed to
ensure that there is sufficient physical distance between drill rigs and MTUs. The following
assumptions (example) are selected as the basis for estimating this task duration. As established
under well installation task, a double line drive will be operated, consisting of 8 extraction wells
on the center line and a line of 8 injection wells on either side of the extractor line. Two
additional injectors will be placed adjacent to the end extractors for hydraulic control. One MTU
will be established halfway between pairs of extractors, for a total of 4 MTU. The MTU will be
used to filter the extracted groundwater, amend it with carbon source and nutrients, split the
extracted groundwater into two (in two cases three) flow streams, and direct these streams to the
adjacent injectors. Flow rate(s), pressures, and temperature data will be collected using the
dedicated MTU SCADA system.




                                               - 29 -
         Each extraction well is assumed to be pumped continuously at 30 gpm. 100 percent of
the extracted water will be reinjected. The total instantaneous recirculation rate is therefore 30
gpm x 8 wells = 240 gpm. Assuming 4 Pore Volume replacements will be required to achieve
cleanup level at monitoring wells, and 4 PV = 3.441 E8 gal, an OM&M duration of 996 days
(141.8 weeks, 32.7 months, 2.4 years) is calculated.


       40 acres x 43,560 sf/acre = 1.7424 E6 sf
       1.7424 E6 sf x 20 ft sat thickness = 3.4848 E7 cf
       3.4848 E7 cf x 0.33 porosity = 1.149984 E7 cf pore volume
       1.149984 E7 cf x 7.48 gal/cf = 8.60188032 E7 gallons/ 1 PV
       4 PV = 3.441 E8 gallons
       4 PV/240 gpm x 1/1440 day/min = 996 days



        Source of Information:
        Professional judgment, engineering calculations, and AS. Inc..Personnel categories
obtained from Pantex ER Personnel.

        5.05.36 O&M / Site Work/ Demobilization

         Scope:
         Disconnect, decontaminate and removal the IAB MTUs. Remove submersible pumps
from the extraction wells and remove all at-grade piping. Perform final decontamination.
Transport equipment and personnel not remaining for treatment monitoring work to home office
or other locations. Pantex Construction Manager will provide direct support/oversight to TUS
Contractor personnel.

         Schedule:
         Using the previous example scope, three week duration, including one week to remove
pumps and drop pipe. Decontamination to start immediately after all wells are shut down. MTUs
and personnel do not leave site for three weeks, until immediately after analytical results from
first Treatment Monitoring Task event (performed on the day after the last day of operations) is
received and reviewed.

        Source of Information:
        Same as 4.05.01. Demob for medium size project estimated at $35,000 by Pantex.

        Task: Post-Treatment Monitoring
        5.06.02 Surveillance and Long term Monitoring / Surveillance and Maintenance/
        Outdoor S&M

        Scope:
        TUS contractor will perform treatment monitoring for 6 months after recirculation
operations have been terminated. One sampling crew, equipped with a sampling truck, will
operate throughout the period. The sampling crew will perform inspections of all surface features
over the 40 acre area, with special attention paid to periodic visual checks of constructed well-
heads, temporary access roads, and contractor field office and equipment. Preventative
maintenance and simple repairs will be performed as required. Pantex Construction Manager will
provide direct support/oversight to TUS Contractor personnel.


                                               - 30 -
        Schedule:
        The sampling crew will start outdoor S&M activities during the second week of
Operations demobilization and will complete its scope 6 months later. Pantex personnel will
resume long-term monitoring across the 40 acre site after this task is complete.

        Source of Information:
        Professional judgment and AS, Inc,

        5.07.09 Surveillance and Long Term Monitoring / Investigations and Monitoring,
        Sample Collection/ GW Sampling, Monitoring

        Scope:
        TUS contractor will perform treatment monitoring for 6 months after recirculation
operations have been completed.

       One sampling crew will be equipped with a sampling truck which eliminates the need for
manually moving sampling equipment. Extracted groundwater will be monitored using a Flow-
Through Analytical Cell to estimate the value of the parameters pH, temperature, and Dissolved
Oxygen (DO). Samples will be sent to offsite analytical laboratory for analysis of Potential
Contaminants of Concern (PCOC) RDX and HMX (HE) (expected at low levels of 10-50 ppb) by
Method 8330 (Modified), and Total Organic Carbon (TOC by E415.1), Total Dissolved Solids
(TDS by E160.1), and pH (ASTM G51-77).

         A dynamic sampling and analysis plan will be followed to maximize use of information
obtained and minimize sampling and analysis cost. Pantex Construction Manager will provide
direct support/oversight to TUS Contractor personnel.

        Schedule:
        Using the previous example scope, the sampling crews will start sampling the 12
monitoring wells one week after extraction and injection operations end and terminate Treatment
Monitoring 6 months later. Each monitoring well will be sampled at least once each month during
the monitoring period. The sampling crew production rate is estimated to be 4 wells per day; thus
an average of three days per week will be required for sampling. The maximum number of
sampling events per well will be six. Pantex personnel will resume long-term monitoring across
the 40 acre site after this task is complete.

        Source of Information:
        Professional judgment and AS, Inc,

        5.08.02 Surveillance and Long Term Monitoring / Sample Analysis/ Groundwater
        Sample Analysis

        Scope:
        Groundwater samples collected during Treatment Monitoring will be prepared and
shipped to a CLP accredited offsite laboratory for analysis per analyte lists that will vary over the
duration of this subtask. Initially, samples will be analyzed as described in previous subtask. In
most cases, 30 day TAT will be requested.

        Schedule:



                                               - 31 -
         The laboratory analysis schedule and total duration closely mirrors the sample collection
schedule and total duration. Final laboratory reports should be received no later than 45 days after
the last sampling event.

        Source of Information:
        Professional judgment.

        5.09 Surveillance and Long Term Monitoring/ Sample Management, Data
        Validation, Data Evaluation

         Scope:
         Field and laboratory data collected during treatment monitoring will be compiled using a
project relational database and GIS. Several steps of QA/QC will be executed according to a
QA/QC Plan (developed in prior phases of the project). Steps will include initial data screening,
data verification, and data validation. Technical data evaluation will occur at different times
throughout the overall QA/QC process, and represents an important QA/QC step.

          Schedule:
          This subtask will begin when treatment monitoring field data begin to be generated (one
week before treatment operations begin) and will end with the final review and use of the last set
of laboratory analytical data received at the TUS contractor office. The last set of lab data should
be received 45 days after the last sampling event is complete. Final review and project use of this
last set of data will conclude 60 days after the data set is received at the TUS contractor office.

        Source of Information:
        Professional judgment.

        Task: Long-Term Performance Assessment

        TUS Contractor will not perform LT PA for IAB.

        Task: Decommissioning
         5.31.21 O&M / Facility Decommissioning and Dismantlement/ Dismantling or
         Demolition of other Facilities
         Scope:
         Because each well represents a potential artificial conduit for downward migration of
contaminants in the vadose zone, all IAB injection and extraction wells will eventually be
decommissioned per State of Texas regulation. The monitoring wells will be incorporated into the
Pantex Long Term Facility Monitoring program (and future well decommissioning costs will be
included in other Pantex accounts). However, the relatively low number of injection and
extraction wells and their spacing are somewhat compatible with a scenario where the IAB
remediation is found to not be successful and P&T containment or dewatering must be
implemented. Therefore, these wells will be maintained until at least the Treatment Monitoring
Task has been completed. In general, the wells will be sealed from bottom to surface by pressure
grouting using a work over rig. No other decommissioning or dismantlement of facilities or
equipment will be necessary. The IAB MTU and at-grade recirculation piping (hose) and
ancillary treatment equipment will already have been demobilized at the end of the Treatment
Operations Task. The temporary field office, storage and maintenance sheds, toilet,
decontamination facilities, barricades, fencing, and signs will be removed from the site after well
decommissioning is complete. Coordinate with Pantex overhead staff to disconnect and



                                               - 32 -
decommission temporary utilities. Transport equipment and personnel to home office or other
locations. Pantex Construction Manager will provide direct support/oversight to TUS Contractor
personnel.

         Schedule:
         Assuming 26 wells, 9 cy per well casing volume (assume nominal leakage out screen or
shrinkage during curing), a total of 8 hours to fill well and top off after settling, and one pressure
grout rig, the duration is estimated at 26 working days or 5.2 weeks.

        Source of Information:
        Professional judgment. Todd Harris on well decommissioning procedures and timing.


TUS: Groundwater Containment Pump & Treat (P&T)
        Tasks: Mobilization, Well Installation, Treatment System
        None for P&T

        Task: Operations and Process Monitoring
        5.25.23 O&M / Insitu Physical Treatment/ Draw-Down Pumping

        Scope: All aspects of the P&T system O&M are considered under 5.25.23. The other
unit processes are listed after this section for reference purposes only.

          Operate the existing P&T system consisting of 43 extraction wells, 9 gravity injection
wells, and approximately 10 monitoring wells. The system contains groundwater over
approximately 400 acres. Groundwater is delivered to the treatment plant via subsurface double
wall HDPE piping that connects groups of extraction wells in specific areas together. SCADA
control wiring is co-located with the effluent line and allows for remote monitoring of extraction
activity.
          The treatment plant has a throughput capacity of 500 gpm and consists of a chemical
precipitation and microfiltration series to remove metals (principally hexavalent chromium),
followed by GAC to remove remaining organics (principally HE). Solids from the filter press are
disposed of hazardous waste under Pantex facility overhead. The wells produce approximately
300 gpm and the plant treats at the same rate. Treated water is pumped into a treated water
distribution system where most of the water is directed to 9 injection wells. The balance of the
treated water, approximately 20 gpm, is available to be used for other non-potable purposes.

         Flow rate(s), pressures, and temperature data will be collected using the dedicated
SCADA system. Perform preventative maintenance and repair on the extraction wells, collection
system, treatment plant, and ancillary equipment as they fail. Perform process monitoring during
the active extraction period, including periodic sampling of groundwater monitoring wells. Long-
term surveillance by Pantex personnel, will occur concurrent to OM&M.

        Extracted groundwater will be monitored at the treatment plant and occasionally at
individual extraction wells using a Flow-Through Analytical Cell to estimate the value of the
parameters pH, temperature, and Dissolved Oxygen (DO). Samples will be sent to offsite
analytical laboratory for analysis of Potential Contaminants of Concern (PCOC) RDX and HMX
(HE) (expected at low levels of 10-50 ppb) by Method 8330 (Modified), VOCs by Method 8260,
Total Metals by Method 6020, Hexavalent Chromium. Approximately once per year Total




                                                - 33 -
Organic Carbon (TOC by E415.1), Total Dissolved Solids (TDS by E160.1), and pH (ASTM
G51-77), will be evaluated.

        One field crew will be responsible for operating the entire well field and treatment plant
and will include the following TUS Contractor personnel and percent FTE: Senior Technician
(100%) and Laborer (100%). Supporting office personnel with TUS Contractor will include:
Program Manager, Project Manager, Project Controls, Office Administrator, Senior
Hydrogeologist/Engineer, Data Engineer, Senior QA/QC professional, Senior Staff Engineer,
Technical Editor, CADD Operator, and Data Entry/Word Processor. Pantex direct (field)
oversight labor will consist of Safety Engineer/Specialist II (also referred to as Construction
Manager for other TUS).

        Schedule:
        Start OM&M immediately after TUS Contractor mobilization is complete and continue
for specified OM&M period (which is essentially coincident with the duration of the Long-term
Performance Assessment task). For example, OM&M/LTPA may be specified for 30 years.
System decommissioning and TUS Contractor demobilization would occur immediately after
OM&M/LTPA is terminated. Due to the long duration, it is reasonable to expect multiple TUS
Contractor mob/demob events due to contract change-outs.

        Source of Information:
        Pantex staff, including draft baseline information for 2002. Professional judgment.

        5.24.15 O&M / Exsitu Chemical Treatment/ Coagulation, Flocculation, Precipitation

        See 5.25.23

        5.26.44 O&M / Exsitu Chemical Treatment/ Ultra & Micro filtration

        See 5.25.23

        5.26.23 O&M / Exsitu Physical Treatment/ GAC Adsorption - Liquid

        See 5.25.23

        Task: Short-Term Treatment Monitoring
        None for P&T

        Task: Long-Term Performance Assessment
        6.06.02 Surveillance and Long term Monitoring / Surveillance and Maintenance/
        Outdoor S&M
        Scope:
        TUS contractor will perform LTPA outdoor S&M concurrently with OM&M. One
O&M/sampling crew (as specified above), equipped with a sampling truck, will operate
throughout the period. The sampling crew will perform inspections of all surface features over
the 400 acres, with special attention paid to periodic visual checks of constructed well-heads,
temporary access roads, treatment plant, and contractor field office and equipment (co-located
with treatment plant office). Preventative maintenance and simple repairs will be performed as
required. Pantex Construction Manager will provide direct support/oversight to TUS Contractor
personnel.



                                               - 34 -
         Schedule:
         The sampling crew will start outdoor S&M activities after mobilization and will complete
its scope when OM&M terminates.

        Source of Information:
        Professional judgment and AS, Inc,

        6.07.09 Surveillance and Long Term Monitoring / Investigations and Monitoring,
        Sample Collection/ GW Sampling, Monitoring

        Scope:
        TUS contractor will perform field LTPA concurrent with OM&M.

         One sampling crew (as specified above) will be equipped with a sampling truck which
eliminates the need for manually moving sampling equipment. Extracted groundwater will be
monitored using a Flow-Through Analytical Cell to estimate the value of the parameters pH,
temperature, and Dissolved Oxygen (DO). Samples will be sent to offsite analytical laboratory for
analysis of Potential Contaminants of Concern (PCOC) RDX and HMX (HE) (expected at low
levels of 10-50 ppb) by Method 8330 (Modified), VOCs by Method 8260, Total Metals by
Method 6020, Hexavalent Chromium. Total Organic Carbon (TOC by E415.1), Total Dissolved
Solids (TDS by E160.1), and pH (ASTM G51-77) will be performed on an approximate annual
basis.
         A dynamic sampling and analysis plan will be followed to maximize use of information
obtained and minimize sampling and analysis cost. Pantex Construction Manager will provide
direct support/oversight to TUS Contractor personnel.

         Schedule:
         Using the previous example scope, the sampling crews will start LTPA sampling
concurrent with the start of OM&M and terminate LTPA monitoring 30 years later when OM&M
is terminated. Although the actual sampling plan (rate) may be reduced over time to as little as
once annually, it is assumed here that each monitoring well will be sampled at least once each
quarter. The sampling crew production rate is estimated to be 4 wells per day; thus an average of
43/4 or 11 days (two weeks) will be required for sampling event. Additional time will be required
when samples are also collected from the treatment plant or other locations upstream or
downstream from the plant.

        Source of Information:
        Pantex staff. Professional judgment.

        6.08.02 Surveillance and Long Term Monitoring / Sample Analysis/ Groundwater
        Sample Analysis

        Scope:
        Groundwater samples collected during LTPA will be prepared and shipped to a CLP
accredited offsite laboratory for analysis per analyte lists that will vary over the duration of this
subtask. Initially, samples will be analyzed as described in previous subtask. In most cases, 30
day TAT will be requested.

        Schedule:




                                                - 35 -
         The laboratory analysis schedule and total duration closely mirrors the sample collection
schedule and total duration. Final laboratory reports should be received no later than 45 days after
the last sampling event.

        Source of Information:
        Professional judgment.

        6.09 Surveillance and Long Term Monitoring/ Sample Management, Data
        Validation, Data Evaluation

         Scope:
         Field and laboratory data collected during LTPA will be compiled using a project
relational database and GIS. Several steps of QA/QC will be executed according to a QA/QC
Plan (developed in prior phases of the project). Steps will include initial data screening, data
verification, and data validation. Technical data evaluation will occur at different times
throughout the overall QA/QC process, and represents an important QA/QC step.

         Schedule:
         This subtask will begin when LTPA field data begin to be generated and will end with the
final review and use of the last set of laboratory analytical data received at the TUS contractor
office. The last set of lab data should be received 45 days after the last sampling event is
complete. Final review and project use of this last set of data will conclude 60 days after the data
set is received at the TUS contractor office.

        Source of Information:
        Professional judgment.

        Task: Decommissioning
         5.31.21 O&M / Facility Decommissioning and Dismantlement/ Dismantling or
         Demolition of other Facilities
         Scope:
         Wells and the treatment plant will be decommissioned. For the purposes of these
estimates, the subsurface effluent conveyance system will not be decommissioned (this may be
necessary if it is determined that contaminant residuals have accumulated in the subsurface
piping). Because each well represents a potential artificial conduit for downward migration of
contaminants in the vadose zone, all P&T extraction and injection wells will eventually be
decommissioned per State of Texas regulation. The monitoring wells will be incorporated into the
Pantex Long Term Facility Monitoring program (and future well decommissioning costs will be
included in other Pantex accounts). In general, the wells will be sealed from bottom to surface by
pressure grouting using a work over rig.
         The treatment plant will not be completely decommissioned and demolished. Rather it
will be decontaminated and mothballed. The temporary field office, storage and maintenance
sheds, toilet, decontamination facilities, barricades, fencing, and signs will be removed from the
site after well decommissioning is complete. Coordinate with Pantex overhead staff to disconnect
and decommission temporary utilities. Transport equipment and personnel to home office or other
locations. Pantex Construction Manager will provide direct support/oversight to TUS Contractor
personnel.

      Schedule:
      Removal of pumps and piping at extraction wells will require 5 days for 43 wells.
Assuming 52 extraction and injection wells, 9 cy per well casing volume (assume nominal


                                               - 36 -
leakage out screen or shrinkage during curing), a total of 8 hours to fill well and top off after
settling, and one pressure grout rig, the duration is estimated at 52 working days or 10.4 weeks.
The treatment plant will be mothballed during this time. Total duration estimated at 11.4 weeks.

        Source of Information:
        Professional judgment. Todd Harris on well decommissioning procedures and timing.




                                              - 37 -
                            APPENDIX C
              COST ESTIMATING WORKBOOK
(Refer to Separate Microsoft ® EXCEL File Named “Costing Workbook 050802cb”)




                                     C
                                APPENDIX D
   CRYSTAL BALL REPORTS FOR ISCO, IRM, AND IAB
                     TUS
(Refer to Separate Microsoft ® EXCEL File Titled ThreeCBReports050802Trial5000.xls)




                                        D

								
To top