WASHINGTON STATE
DEPARTMENT OF
ECOLOGY
Cost Evaluation Project
U.S. Department of Energy-
Hanf ord Site
Conducted by:
Washington State Department of Ecology
United States Environmental Protection Agency
printed on recycled paper
October 1990
90-44
-------
PREFACE
On May 15, 1989 the United States Department of Energy (USDOE), the United
States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the Washington State
Department of Ecology (Ecology) entered into the Hanford Federal Facility
Agreement and Consent Order (Tri-Party Agreement or TPA). The principle
purpose of the TPA is to establish specific milestones to achieve site cleanup
and compliance with Federal and state environmental laws. Moreover, the TPA
requires USDOE to request sufficient funding for its full implementation.
Ecology and EPA recently became aware of new USDOE-Richland (RL) estimates for
implementing the TPA. These estimates for FY 91 totaled $908 million, some
$276 million more than the $632 million in the presidential budget request
which was, in part, based on previous estimates provided by USDOE-RL. Final
resolution of USDOE-RL's budget for FY 91 has yet to occur.
These potential shortfalls are of considerable concern to Ecology and EPA. At
issue is the integrity of the TPA itself, a document which contains specific
measures to ensure that proper waste management and clean-up efforts are
adhered to in the years to come.
Given this concern, Ecology and EPA undertook a limited study in order to
assess the degree of confidence they should place in the budget estimates
provided by the USDOE. The study is a joint effort and is organized into two
distinct sections. Section one consists of Ecology's evaluation of three TPA
projects being initiated under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, and
section two consists of EPA's evaluation of those TPA projects initiated under
the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act and
that are related to specific site operations. Ecology and EPA have also
raised specific issues and, in some cases, have made recommendations for cost
reduction measures based on their experience with other facilities.
These evaluations focused on three areas: 1) who makes budgetary decisions and
how are budget estimates prepared; 2) what costs have been incurred or are
estimated to be incurred for the selected projects or activities; and 3), how
do these costs compare to those costs associated with similar activities at
other facilities or in the private sector.
Ecology and EPA thank the individuals within USDOE-RL and its contractors who
spent significant amounts of time with the study teams. Additionally, Ecology
and EPA thank USDOE-RL management for its willing participation in this
effort.
-------
RECOMMENDATIONS
The scale of the Hanford clean-up is unprecedented, and the overall costs of
the 30-year effort will be enormous. Given these conditions, USDOE-RL must
demonstrate effective management, provide rigorous oversight of its
contractors, and maintain prudent cost control mechanisms throughout the
clean-up effort. USDOE must assure the public and Congress that the clean-up
is conducted to the highest standards of cost-effectiveness, while complying
with applicable regulations and keeping current with technical developments.
It is in this context that Ecology and EPA undertook a limited assessment of
the budgeting and cost control practices of USDOE-RL and its contractors. In
general, Ecology and EPA conclude that the management and budgeting practices
of USDOE-RL and its contractors are inadequate to ensure the development of
valid cost estimates and efficient use of funds. Further, USDOE oversight of
its contractors' budget development and decision-making process is inadequate.
Based on these findings, Ecology and EPA find sufficient cause to recommend
that USDOE-RL arrange for an independent, in-depth evaluation of the
management, budget, and cost control practices of both USDOE-RL and its
contractors. To accomplish this, USDOE should consider using a nationally
recognized management consulting firm with strong expertise in project
management. The objectives of such an evaluation should be to identify
measures to strengthen management controls and financial analyses, and to
improve the accuracy and credibility of cost projections. The results of such
an evaluation could lead to the development of incentives for cost control and
reduction. Ecology and EPA also recommend that USDOE establish a continuing
budget and cost control review program.
-------
COST EVALUATION PROJECT
SECTION 1
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
HANFORD SITE
RICHLAND, WASHINGTON
conducted by
Washington State Department of Ecology
With Assistance From
Brown and Caldwell Consultants
-------
Table of Contents
List of Tables 2
I. INTRODUCTION 3
A. BACKGROUND 3
B. PURPOSE AND SCOPE 3
II. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS 5
A. PRIVATE SECTOR COST COMPARISONS 5
B. PROBLEM AREAS 5
1. Inadequate USDOE Oversight 5
2. Excessive and Ineffective Review 6
3. Inadequate Analysis 6
C. THE HANFORD CULTURE 7
III. USDOE REVIEW OF DOCUMENTS 8
A. THE ACTIVITY DATA SHEETS 8
1. WHC Development of Activity Data Sheets 8
2. USDOE-RL Review 8
B. OTHER USDOE-RL REVIEWS 9
1. Review of Capital Projects 9
2. Mid-Year Reviews 9
C. CONCLUSIONS 10
IV. ANALYSES OF SELECTED PROJECTS 11
A. THE 305-B RMW STORAGE FACILITY 11
1. Facility History and Description 11
2. Description of USDOE's Project Costs 11
a. Operating Costs 12
b. Permit Preparation Costs 13
3. Evaluation of USDOE's Project Costs 15
a. PNL's Basic Options 15
b. Permit Preparation Costs 17
4. Conclusions 18
B. 2727-S NONRADIOACTIVE DANGEROUS WASTE STORAGE
FACILITY 19
1. Facility History and Description 19
2. Description of USDOE's Project Costs 19
3. Evaluation of USDOE's Project Costs 20
4. Conclusions 24
C. 616 HAZARDOUS WASTE STORAGE FACILITY 25
1. Facility History and Description 25
2. Description of USDOE's Project Costs 25
a. Capital Costs 25
b. Permit Costs 26
c. Operating Costs 28
3. Evaluation of USDOE's Project Costs 30
a. Capital Costs 30
b. Permit Costs 30
c. Operating Costs 30
4. Conclusions 32
APPENDIX A A-l
APPENDIX B B-l
-------
List of Tables
Table
1. 305-B COSTS - FY 89 and FY 90 13
2. 305-B PERMIT REVIEWERS 14
3. 2727-S HISTORICAL AND PROJECTED COSTS 22
4. 2727-S BUDGETED COSTS FOR 1989 23
5. COST FOR 616 PERMIT PREPARATION 26
6. 616 PERMIT REVIEWERS 27
7. 616 COSTS - 1990 29
- 2 -
-------
I. INTRODUCTION
A. BACKGROUND
On May 15, 1989 the United States Department of Energy (USDOE), the
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), and the
Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) entered into the
Hanford Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order (Tri-Party
Agreement or TPA). The principle purpose of this Agreement is to
establish specific milestones to achieve site cleanup and compliance
with Federal and state environmental laws.
As in any large scale environmental compliance and clean-up activity,
costs are of major concern. This is particularly true in the case of
the Hanford Reservation, where the scope and complexity of environmental
issues are of an unprecedented nature. To help ensure that cleanup
activities would be accomplished as set forth in the TPA, a component of
the TPA requires the USDOE to request sufficient funding for its full
implementation. For example, in FY 90 the USDOE secured $470 million to
fulfill this commitment. As part of the FY 91 Five Year Plan, USDOE
estimated that $658 million would be needed to implement the TPA in FY
91,
In the spring of 1990 Ecology became aware of new USDOE-Richland (RL)
estimates of cleanup costs. These estimates for FY 91 totaled $908
million, some $276 million more than the $632 million in the
presidential budget. The USDOE-Headquarters (HQ) response to these
increasing cost estimates was to question their validity, and Richland's
ability to spend monies efficiently. According to USDOE-RL, the higher
estimates result from Richland's better understanding of the problems,
and reflect a new scope, improved cost estimates, and a clearer
interpretation of the environmental regulations.
These shortfalls are of considerable concern to Ecology. Most
importantly, budget shortfalls could mean that the environmental
cleanup, long sought-after environmental controls on continuing
discharges, and the development and implementation of alternative waste
treatment and disposal management methods could be delayed. Such delays
would almost uniformly cause further environmental degradation and
increased costs above and beyond that which is already forecast.
B. PURPOSE AND SCOPE
Given this concern, Ecology undertook a limited study in order to help
answer a central question:
o Are the budgeting and cost control practices of USDOE-RL and its
contractors adequate to ensure the development of valid cost
estimates and efficient use of funds?
- 3 -
-------
To accomplish this task, Ecology evaluated USDOE-RL's review procedures,
and three Hanford projects: two Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA) waste storage facilities, and a RCRA storage facility undergoing
closure.
Ecology did not intend, and does not consider, this study to be either
an exhaustive evaluation of these projects or of USDOE's ability to
project costs. Rather it is a preliminary attempt to understand the
budgetary and management processes employed at the Hanford Site with
respect to the TPA. Evaluating cost estimates and how they are derived
is an extremely complicated endeavor. This is particularly true at the
Hanford Reservation in light of the relationship and responsibilities
between USDOE and its four main Contractors--Westinghouse Hanford,
Kaiser Engineers, Pacific Northwest Laboratories, and the Hanford
Environmental Health Foundation.
Ecology undertook this task by focusing on three areas: 1) who makes
budgetary decisions and how are budget estimates prepared; 2) what costs
have been incurred or are estimated to be incurred for the selected
projects or activities; and 3) how do these costs compare to those
costs associated with similar activities at other facilities or in the
private sector.
- 4 -
-------
II. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
The short answer to the central question of this study, "Are the budgeting and
cost control practices of USDOE-RL and its contractors adequate to ensure the
development of valid cost estimates and efficient use of funds?" is no. The
study team emphasizes that this answer reflects a lack of confidence in
USDOE's cost estimates and review procedures, and is not the result of an
unequivocal determination of what USDOE's costs should be. This section
summarizes the study team's reasons for its central conclusion. Section III,
USDOE Review of Documents, and Section IV, the Analyses of Selected Projects,
provide the details.
A. PRIVATE SECTOR COST COMPARISONS
This study does not provide an independent validation of USDOE's costs,
but does compare USDOE's project costs, where possible, with similar
costs in the private sector. The facility renovation costs at the 305-B
facility, and the construction costs of the 616 facility, for example,
conform to construction industry standards for renovation and new
construction, respectively. The study team was unable to develop
comparisons for operating costs, but did develop private sector cost
estimates for the preparation of the 2727-S closure plan, and for the
permit applications for 305-B and 616. Westinghouse Hanford Company's
(WHC) closure plan costs for the 2727-S facility, and Pacific Northwest
Laboratory's (PNL) permit application costs for the 305-B facility both
fall within the parameters of the private sector estimates. WHC's
permit application costs for the 616 facility, however, exceed the high
end private sector estimate by $270,000 ($504,000 compared to $234,000).
B. PROBLEM AREAS
In its investigation of the selected projects, the study team finds
three general problems:
(1) inadequate USDOE oversight of contractors' programmatic and
budgetary decisions,
(2) excessive, and yet ineffective, internal reviews of budgets, permit
applications, and closure plans by contractors, and
(3) inadequate analysis of costs and feasibility by contractors prior to
decision-making.
1. Inadequate USDOE Oversight
The primary documents that serve as the basis for USDOE's approval
of funding are the Activity Data Sheets (ADS). Despite the
importance of these documents, however, USDOE is currently unable
to provide the appropriate review, in particular, of WHC's ADS
submissions. USDOE-RL management assures the study team that
their ADS review is adequate, but other USDOE-RL staff cite staff
shortages, the obligation to meet deadlines, and insufficient
detail in the Activity Data Sheets as ongoing problems in its
- 5 -
-------
review process. The practical effects of these limitations are
that USDOE cannot challenge WHC's cost projections, and that the
original cost estimates devised by WHC Program Managers and Cost
Account Managers survive the entire review process.
The ratio of contractor staff to USDOE-RL is 40:1, a relationship
that reveals USDOE's disadvantage in managing projects and project
costs.
Each ADS assigns a level of confidence to the cost estimates. The
Activity Data Sheets for the projects selected for this study have
a range of confidence levels from medium to low, based largely on
the lack of historical data. Other reasons for low confidence
levels are the absence of technical knowledge, the preliminary
nature of some estimates, or the lack of an engineering study.
The study team determined that 17 percent of the FY 91 Activity
Data Sheets associated with funded TPA milestones were assigned
high confidence, 33 percent were of medium confidence, and 50
percent were of low confidence. From the standpoint of total
dollars required for FY 91 TPA activities, 11 percent of the FY 91
estimates had high confidence, 59 percent of the estimates were of
medium confidence, and 30 percent had low confidence.
2. Excessive and Ineffective Review
The study team finds that the number of internal reviewers used by
USDOE's contractors in the projects selected for this study is
excessive, and offers the following illustrations: 10 PNL
reviewers for the 305-B permit application; approximately 20 WHC
reviewers for the 2727-S closure plan; and 16 WHC reviewers for
the 616 permit application. USDOE also reviews these documents
with the assistance of consultants. The study team notes that
these reviews add time and costs to the projects, and that, in the
projects analyzed by this study, the reviews included the highest
management levels, and still resulted in no significant change in
course.
The study team also suggests that the WHC review of costs may be
ineffective, amounting to a rubber-stamp approval of project costs
generated by Program Managers. This finding corresponds with
USDOE's own observation in its December 1989 audit of WHC's Tri-
Party Agreement management practices:
"There is no detailed senior level WHC management review of
budget/schedule impacts and integration relating to TPA
commitments within the fiscal year 1992 Activity Data Sheets.
There is no independent validation of cost and schedule."
3. Inadequate Analysis
WHC decided to pursue clean closure of the 2727-S facility without
benefit of either feasibility or cost studies, and PNL decided to
seek a storage permit for the 305-B facility with no analysis of
- 6 -
-------
operating costs and without a thorough examination of the less-
than-90-day storage option.
In its decisions regarding the clean closure of 2727-S (a small
storage facility), WHC failed to study the technical feasibility
of decontamination, and failed to examine the costs of disposal at
a RCRA landfill. In addition, WHC based its 1989 budgeted closure
costs for 2727-S in part on sampling cost estimates made without
benefit of site characterization.
PNL based its decision to seek a RCRA permit for 305-B (a
radioactive mixed waste storage facility) on three points of
information--WHC's estimated increase in charges for use of the
616 facility, the unsuitability of an alternative facility (332),
and a capital cost study for upgrades of 305-B. PNL did not know
what the operating costs would be for 305-B as a RCRA facility,
but nevertheless assumed on the basis of the plant manager's
professional judgment that the costs of operating it as a short-
term storage facility would be higher. The study team does not
find that PNL's decisions regarding 305-B were necessarily wrong,
but rather that they lacked the appropriate analytical base.
C. THE HANFORD CULTURE
The study team suggests that the problems it has identified may belong
to a larger pattern, what some call the "Hanford Culture." The recent
Tiger Team assessment of the Hanford site identifies as one of three
root causes of Hanford's environmental, safety, and health problems
that, "Management has not accomplished the necessary safety culture
change." The report mentions "decades of ingrained attitudes" and
suggests that the assurance that the workers are receiving the correct
new message can be obtained, in part, by "greater management/supervisory
oversight..."
The study team concurs with this assessment. It found no real incentive
to keep costs down, nor any incentive to change any management
practices, but rather a casual acceptance of business as usual. The
study team recognizes that the pervasiveness of old attitudes and the
collective sense of institutional history are powerful forces, and that
a cultural change will not come easy.
- 7 -
-------
III. USDOE REVIEW OF DOCUMENTS
The study team conducted interviews with Westinghouse Hanford Company (WHC)
personnel to find out what kind of cost information WHC submits to USDOE, and
to determine how WHC develops that information. The study team also
interviewed USDOE-RL personnel to determine the extent of USDOE-RL's review of
the cost information it receives from WHC.
A. THE ACTIVITY DATA SHEETS
The primary document that serves as the basis for USDOE's approval of
funding for Tri-Party Agreement activities is the Activity Data Sheet
(ADS). An ADS provides cost estimates for the activities conducted
under a program. Some Activity Data Sheets are specific to projects or
activities, and some are program-wide. A program-wide ADS provides no
detail on individual activities within a program. (The ADS covering
PNL's 305-B facility is an example of a program-wide ADS.) The level of
detail in the Activity Data Sheets reflects the needs of the primary
user--USDOE-Headquarters. USDOE initiated the ADS system in FY 90, and
is still revising it.
1. WHC Development of Activity Data Sheets
The WHC Program Managers and Cost Account Managers begin the ADS
process. These managers develop the cost estimates for their
programs, and send their completed Activity Data Sheets to the
next higher WHC management level--Plant Manager or Program
Director--for review and approval. The WHC Program Administration
group also participates in the development of Activity Data Sheets
by providing the line managers with financial advice and plan
coordination.
2. USDOE-RL Review
USDOE-RL management describe the ADS review process as iterative.
The staffs of USDOE-RL and WHC exchange information prior to the
formal submission of the Activity Data Sheets, and follow the
submission with a series of reviews. In what one manager
describes as a "rolling wave" process, USDOE updates their five-
year plan annually, and examines the budgets for each year in
increasing detail as that year approaches, revising Activity Data
Sheets in light of new information or changing conditions.
USDOE assigns each ADS to one of four categories--Waste
Management, Environmental Restoration, Technology Development, and
Corrective Activities--and distributes the Activity Data Sheets to
the appropriate USDOE-RL division for review. The USDOE-RL
Monitors--those staff persons responsible for ADS reviews--
consider the following elements in their review of these
documents:
--justification for the proposed activities
- 8 -
-------
--scoping of the work to be accomplished
--priority assigned to the ADS, and
--whether the activity is TPA-related.
These elements, however, do not constitute a uniform review
procedure, and the Monitors develop their own approaches to the
task. The Monitors typically ask the WHC staff to supply
additional documentation in support of ADS budgets, particularly
for large programs. The Monitors may review cos;t components such
as labor rates and other expenses used in the ADS budgets.
According to one Monitor, most of the ADS changes that result from
USDOE's review are not budgetary adjustments but: rather changes in
the assignment of priority.
In contrast to management's assurances of the adequacy of the ADS
review process, some USDOE-RL personnel (including management)
cite a shortage of staff, combined with the obligations to meet
deadlines, as problems. The range and number of duties of the
Monitors limit the oversight they can provide. In the most recent
ADS review, for example, one Monitor held responsibility for the
program cost review of approximately 325 Activity Data Sheets, and
had to perform this function in a two-week period. The overall
ratio of contractor staff to USDOE-RL staff is 40:1.
Each ADS includes an assignment of a high, medium, or low
confidence level to the ADS's cost estimates. A rationale for the
assigned confidence level explains the basis for the cost
estimate--historical costs, model, or whatever technique was used-
-and identifies any data deficiencies such as the absence of
technical knowledge or the lack of an engineering study. Of the
Activity Data Sheets with funded TPA milestones for FY 91, 17
percent were assigned high confidence, 33 percent were of medium
confidence, and 50 percent were of low confidence. From a total
dollar standpoint, 11 percent of the FY 91 estimates for TPA
milestones had high confidence, 59 percent of the estimates were
of medium confidence, and 30 percent had low confidence.
B. OTHER USDOE-RL REVIEWS
1. Review of Capital Projects
The development of a capital project follows a specific procedure
in which USDOE-RL reviews three documents. The process begins
with an engineering study. The next step is a functional criteria
report, and the last step is a conceptual design report. The
conceptual design report provides detailed costs estimates.
USDOE-RL reviews and approves these three documents.
In the area of capital project reviews, USDOE-RL staff report none
of the misgivings apparent in the ADS reviews. The contractors
provide information sufficiently detailed to permit a cost
- 9 -
-------
evaluation, and USDOE-RL seems to devote enough staff and
sufficient time to conduct adequate reviews of capital projects.
2. Mid-Year Reviews
USDOE-RL conducts raid-year program reviews which USDOE-RL staff
describe as an opportunity for the contractors to reevaluate
priorities and to get approval for base program changes in
response to new developments. USDOE-RL staff report that the
subjects of these mid-year reviews are costs, schedules, and
technical performance.
C. CONCLUSIONS
The study team finds an important discrepancy between the perceptions of
management and staff regarding the review of Activity Data Sheets.
While management asserts that the ADS review process is adequate, some
of the Monitors report (as do some management personnel) that staff
shortages and tight deadlines cause problems. The example of one
Monitor responsible for the review of approximately 325 Activity Data
Sheets in a two-week period is indicative of the difficulty facing a
Monitor attempting to perform a thorough review.
The confidence levels assigned to the Activity Data Sheets supports the
study team's lack of confidence in USDOE's budget estimates: 50 percent
of the total number of specific TPA milestone Activity Data Sheets for
FY 91 have a low confidence level; and 89 percent of all dollars
assigned to specific milestones for FY 91 are assigned medium or low
confidence levels.
The study team finds that USDOE-RL's review of capital projects is much
stronger than its ADS review. The three-step process provides the
information and time necessary to perform an adequate review, and the
study team notes that USDOE's renovation and construction costs conform
to construction industry standards.
- 10 -
-------
IV. ANALYSES OF SELECTED PROJECTS
The study team's most important source of information was the set of personal
interviews the team conducted with those individuals responsible for the
operations of selected projects. The study team also interviewed the
individuals who prepared materials upon which managers based their project
decisions. Technical reports and documents provided by USDOE-RL and its
contractors supplemented the information gathered in these interviews. The
Appendix provides a detailed listing of references. The project team then
evaluated the available information, and, where possible, compared the
selected projects with similar projects both within and outside of Hanford.
The following sections of this report present the analyses of selected
projects on a project-by-project basis. Each analysis follows the same
format: (1) a description of the project facility or activity; (2) a
description of the USDOE-RL project costs; (3) the study team's evaluation of
USDOE-RL's project costs; and (4) the study team's conclusions.
The study team prepared private sector cost estimates for the preparation of
three documents relevant to the selected projects--a closure plan for the
2727-S storage facility, and RCRA permit applications for the 616 and 305-B
storage facilities. These cost estimates assume that a medium to large (500-
3000 staff) engineering firm experienced in Washington State RCRA permitting
prepared the documents for a private client. The estimates reflect the
preparation of two drafts and one final document in each case to account for
the necessary responses to Notices of Deficiency. The Appendix includes a
detailed description of the methodology used for this analysis.
A. THE 305-B RMW STORAGE FACILITY
1. Facility History and Description
The 305-B Storage Facility is a two-story, 7,000-square-foot
building constructed of steel and concrete. Built in 1978, 305-B
was originally a Pacific Northwest Laboratory (PNL) engineering
research and development facility. In the mid-1980s PNL
considered the building underutilized, and later used it for a
limited period as a short-term storage area. PNL then upgraded
the facility for use as a long-term storage facility. In March of
1989, 305-B began service for hazardous and radioactive mixed
waste storage, and PNL is currently in the process of applying for
a RCRA storage permit.
2. Description of USDOE's Project Costs
PNL's decision to use 305-B as a RCRA storage facility was a
result of three coinciding circumstances:
--the inadequacy of PNL's 332 building for waste storage,
--a large increase in WHC's charges to PNL for long-term
- 11 -
-------
storage at WHC's 616 storage facility, and
--the availability of 305-B.
PNL had used its 332 building as a short-term waste storage
facility, and by the late 1980s the facility could no longer meet
PNL's operational requirements, in large part because its 400-
square-foot capacity was too small. In addition, short-term
storage entailed certain logistical and economic inefficiencies
because PNL had to package, manifest, and ship small and less-
than-full containers to comply with the maximum 90-day storage
requirement.
PNL could have continued to use 332 for short-term storage, and
could have continued to send its wastes for long-term storage to
WHC's 616 facility, but in 1988, when WHC announced an increase in
storage charges from the current $80,000/year to an expected
$800,000/year, PNL decided to explore the option of getting its
own permitted facility for long-term storage. Prior to 1988, WHC
had not prorated its long-term storage costs to all of the
generators that used the 616 facility, and WHC's announcement of
this large price increase was actually the inception of WHC's new
storage cost policy to require each generator to pay its
appropriate share of the storage costs. WHC later revised its
estimated increase to $455,600-729,000/year, depending on the
amount of waste received at the facility, and on the final per-
container rate.
The availability of 305-B provided PNL with another storage
facility option, one with a larger capacity (7,000 square feet).
By submitting Part A applications for both 332 and 305-B, PNL
preserved the options of using either or both facilities for long-
term waste storage. PNL subsequently decided, however, that the
332 building was undesirable for waste storage operations. The
building was too small, and the costs of the upgrades--including
bringing water to the facility--were too high. PNL estimated the
facility improvement costs along with the permit preparation costs
for 332 to be roughly $400,000-500,000.
The 305-B facility, on the other hand, required far less extensive
modifications, and was large enough for PNL's purposes. PNL's
Engineering Department prepared a cost estimate of the capital
improvements necessary to meet interim status, and concluded that
the modifications would cost $140,000-150,000. The plant manager,
in light of 305-B's greater capacity and lower capital costs,
decided to seek a RCRA permit for 305-B only.
a. Operating Costs
PNL did not conduct an economic analysis of the costs of
operating 305-B as a RCRA storage facility in its decision
- 12 -
-------
to seek a permit for the building, but, rather, tacitly
assumed that the operating costs would be lower than the
combination of WHC's charges and PNL's costs of operating a
short-term storage facility. In fact, PNL asserts that just
the operating costs of a short-terra storage facility would
exceed the operating costs of 305-B as a RCRA storage
facility because of the inherent inefficiencies of short-
term storage operations.
The USDOE budget does not break out the operating costs for
the 305-B facility, but includes those costs within PNL's
waste management overhead account. The FY 89 budget for
this account was $1,555,000; the FY 90 budget, $1,781,000.
USDOE's Activity Data Sheet (ADS) 8002 estimates that
$2,297,000 is required to fund all activities within this
account for FY 91. The 305-B operating costs are presumably
contained somewhere in these ADS figures.
PNL reports that the actual annual operating costs for 305-B
for FY 89 were $673,000. Table 1 shows the breakdown.
Table 1
305-B COSTS - FY 89 and FY 90
Category
Personnel Labor
Materials and Supplies
Training
SUBTOTAL
Disposal Fees
TOTAL
FY 89 Costs
$145,000
45,000
3,000
193,000
480,000
$673,000
FY 90 Costs
(through mid-
Auciust
170,000
55,000
5', 000
230,000
192,000
422,000
For FY 89 PNL was still paying waste storage fees to WHC.
In FY 90, however, PNL has used 305-B for its waste storage,
and has paid no fees to WHC. PNL's FY 90 expenditures for
305-B, through mid-August 1990, are $422,000.
b. Permit Preparation Costs
PNL considered two options for the preparation of the 305-B
permit application--preparing it internally with the
- 13 -
-------
assistance of an outside consultant, or having WHC prepare
it under contract to PNL.
PNL based its estimate of the cost of preparing the
application internally on the contents of a permit for a
similar waste storage facility in Washington State. The
cost estimate for this option was approximately $200,000.
WHC, on the other hand, initially estimated the application
preparation costs to be $600,000, basing their estimate on
the permit preparation costs for the Grout Facility, a much
more complicated application. This estimate was part of a
larger scoping exercise to provide rough cost estimates for
TPA-related work at 53 sites at Hanford. The 305-B plant
manager selected the internal option on the basis of these
costs. WHC, in a refinement of its original scoping
exercise, later revised its estimate to $200,000-400,000.
Table 2 shows the PNL and USDOE reviewers of the 305-B
permit application.
Table 2
305-B PERMIT REVIEWERS
Reviewer Title
ICF (a PNL Consultant)
305-B Operations Supervisor
PNL Senior Compliance Engineer
Editor
Section Manager,
Laboratory Safety Department
Department Manager,
Laboratory Safety Department
Director,
Facilities and Operations
Legal Staff
USDOE Staff and Consultants
Director, PNL
Manager, USDOE
Function
Assisted PNL in preparation of
Part B permit application
Co-author of permit
Peer review/technical
Typing/grammar check
Technical review, one over one
review
Management review
Management review
Legal review
Technical and legal reviews
Approva I /cert i f i ca t i on
Approva I /cert i f i ca t i on
The plant manager made all of the decisions regarding the use of
305-B with senior PNL management review. USDOE personnel also
reviewed the decisions.
- 14 -
-------
3. Evaluation of USDOE's Project Costs
a. PNL's Basic Options
PNL had two options related to its use of 305-B:
Option 1
Seek a RCRA permit for 332, 305-B, or both. Prepare the
permit application.
The costs associated with Option 1 are as follows:
--capital costs of facility renovation
--permit preparation costs
--operating costs
--post-storage disposal costs.
Option 2
Seek no RCRA permit. Operate 332, 305-B, or both as short-
term storage facilities. Ship wastes to WHC's 616 facility
or to another RCRA facility.
The costs associated with Option 2 are as follows:
--operating costs for a short-term storage
facility
--storage costs (WHC's 616 or other facility)
--post-storage disposal costs
PNL's decision to seek a RCRA permit for 305-B as opposed to
332 makes sense on a logistical and waste management basis--
the 332 building is too small for PNL's long-term storage
needs. PNL estimated that the necessary upgrades of 332,
along with the permit preparation, would have cost $400,000-
500,000. PNL did not conduct a thorough cost analysis of
this option, but given the small size of the facility, such
an analysis was not really necessary.
The 7,000-square-foot floor area of 305-B (compared to 400
square feet for 332) made the 305-B option more attractive
from the logistical point of view, and PNL investigated the
facility improvement costs of this option more thoroughly.
The Engineering Department estimated the costs of the
improvements necessary to bring 305-B into RCRA compliance
at $140,000-150,000, an estimate comparable to private
sector renovation costs and construction industry standards.
The 305-B plant manager reports that the actual costs of the
facility improvements were $100,000-110,000, well under the
estimate.
- 15 -
-------
While these facility improvement cost estimates were
accurate, however, the assessment of the facility
improvements necessary to bring 305-B into RCRA compliance
may not have been. In a Notice of Deficiency (NOD) dated
April 26, 1990, Ecology identifies several plant
shortcomings that may entail additional facility improvement
expense to correct. The issue turns on a difference of
professional opinion on what constitutes secondary
containment.
The decision to seek a RCRA permit as opposed to seeking no
permit is more difficult to assess because PNL did not
develop any cost comparisons. If PNL had opted to seek no
RCRA permit, it would have had to pay WHC's charges for
long-term storage, and would have had to operate either 332
or 305-B as a short-term storage facility. PNL's tacit
assumption that its operating costs for 305-B as a RCRA
facility would fall below the combination of WHC's charges
to PNL for storage at 616 and PNL's costs of operating its
own short-term storage facility remains unconfirmed by PNL's
experience. PNL asserts that operating a short-term storage
facility would cost more than operating 305-B under a RCRA
long-term storage permit because of the inherent
inefficiencies in short-term storage operations. The study
team finds no information to confirm or refute this claim.
The study team acknowledges that one of the inherent
problems in less-than-90-day storage falls beyond the
control of the storage facility manager--if the generators
do not send their wastes to the storage facility in a timely
manner, then the storage facility may have insufficient time
to arrange suitable treatment or disposal and still beat the
90-day clock. In PNL's situation, the 305-B manager could
not enforce timely shipment by the generators. PNL senior
management, however, could have insisted on timely shipment,
thereby insuring that PNL could manage its wastes on a less-
than-90-day basis in a manner similar to other waste
generators in the state.
The study team notes that the 305-B operating costs for FY
90 are $422,000 through mid-August, an amount that projects
to approximately $480,000 for the full year. This total
compares favorably with the FY 89 total of $673,000. This
finding suggests that PNL has improved its situation from
the previous year, but not that it has necessarily found the
best alternative for its waste management.
A re-examination of PNL's two options reveals that PNL's
cost information and analysis do not fully support its
decision-making. At the time the plant manager decided to
seek a permit for 305-B as opposed to 332, he had a rough
estimate of the renovation costs for 332. This information,
combined with the physical limitations of 332, was
- 16 -
-------
sufficient to remove 332 from further consideration. The
plant manager subsequently got an Engineering Department
capital cost estimate for the renovation of 305-B. He also
knew WHC's estimated disposal costs for the use of 616.
\
What PNL's plant manager did not know were the operating
costs for 305-B either as a RCRA facility or as a short-term
storage facility. In the plant manager's professional
judgment, this analysis was unnecessary because the
difficulties of operating on a less-than-90-day storage
basis made that option untenable. Given the lack of
cooperation by the generators, the study team would concur
with this decision. The study team does not, however,
accept this condition as a given because PNL management
could enforce a waste management policy that conforms to the
90-day limit. The study team recognizes that this broader
view exceeds the responsibilities of the plant manager, and
holds PNL senior management and USDOE accountable for the
failure to consider this option.
A thorough analysis would consider the following elements
for each of the two options (RCRA vs. short-term storage):
the operating costs; the permit preparation costs; the
estimated useful life of the facility; the salvage value;
the ultimate closure costs; and other benefits both
quantifiable and not. Such an analysis would also account
for cost and benefits occurring in different time periods,
and would establish present values as a basis for
comparisons. In the absence of such an analysis, PNL and
USDOE must rely on their unverified assumptions and
assertions.
The Department of Energy's Activity Data Sheets (ADS) show
only composite cost information, and an evaluation of a
specific project's planned versus actual costs based on the
ADS is impossible.
b. Permit Preparation Costs
PNL based its decision to prepare the permit application
internally on a straightforward comparison of the two
alternatives. PNL could do the work itself with the
assistance of a consulting firm for $200,000. WHC's
original estimate of the permit application costs was
$600,000, later revised to $200,000-400,000, but too late
for PNL to consider.
The actual permit application costs for FY 89 were $102,000;
the estimated costs for FY 90 are approximately $90,000. If
the FY 90 estimates prove to be accurate, the total cost for
the permit application will be $192,000, or $8,000 under the
original estimate. That the actual costs fall within the
estimated costs does not, however, confirm the
- 17 -
-------
reasonableness of the estimate. The study team questions
the necessity of the 11 separate reviews of the permit
application, and notes that each review adds to the cost of
the permit preparation.
PNL's permit preparation costs nevertheless compare well
with private sector costs as developed by the study team.
(See the Appendix for methodology details). The private
sector estimated costs range from a low end of $153,000 to a
high end of $246,000. The study team notes that PNL's costs
fall within this range.
WHC asserts that PNL's permit preparation costs for 305-B
should reflect PNL's use of boilerplate developed by WHC for
its 616 facility permit application. The study team
disagrees. It is common practice for permit preparers to
avail themselves of EPA guidance documents and previously-
submitted permit applications. If PNL had not used WHC's
material, it could have used available substitutes.
4. Conclusions
The study team concludes that the cost information available at
the time PNL's plant manager made his decisions was not adequate
to support all of those decisions. PNL did have sufficient
information to eliminate 332 from further consideration, but based
its decision to seek a RCRA permit for 305-B on unverified
assumptions that remain unconfirmed by experience. From the plant
manager's perspective, the RCRA storage decision made sense, but
from the broader management point of view, the analysis does not
support the decision. The study team does not find that the 305-B
decisions were necessarily wrong, and notes the reduction in
operating costs from FY 89 to FY 90. The study team does,
however, find that the analytical base was inadequate and that PNL
senior management and USDOE failed to examine thoroughly the less-
than-90-day storage option.
- 18 -
-------
B. 2727-S NONRADIOACTIVE DANGEROUS WASTE STORAGE FACILITY
1. Facility History and Description
The 2727-S Waste Storage Facility is an 800 square-foot temporary
steel building on a 6,200-square-foot concrete pad. It was built
in the early 1960s in the 200 West Area of the Hanford
Reservation, and was used by Rockwell Hanford Operations for the
container storage of hazardous waste. Storage operations began in
March 1983, with wastes stored not only in the building, but also
across the entire pad and on the surrounding soils. In December
of 1986, Rockwell closed the facility because it did not have the
capacity to handle the expected volume of waste, and because it
would have required significant retrofitting to meet RCRA
standards. Westinghouse Hanford Company (WHC) assumed
responsibility for 2121-S in July of 1987.
2. Description of USDOE's Project Costs
USDOE owns the 2727-S nonradioactive dangerous waste storage
facility and co-operates it with WHC. In interviews with the
study team, WHC personnel frequently referred to 2121-S as an
"orphan child" because funding and management responsibility for
the facility was uncertain in recent years. Prior to July 1,
1987, Rockwell Hanford Operations managed the facility, and in
1985 Rockwell decided to close 2121-S. USDOE later changed the
Hanford operating contractor to WHC, and WHC is now conducting the
closure of 2727-S.
WHC identified two options for the clean closure of 2121-S:
(1) salvage the building through chemical assessment and
decontamination, and
(2) assume the building is contaminated and dispose of it as
dangerous waste at a RCRA landfill.
WHC summarily rejected the second option as too costly. The
disposal of the facility under this option would have entailed
demolition of the building and disposal at a RCRA landfill of
contaminated building materials, concrete, and soil in the 2727-S
area.
Having selected the salvaging option, WHC then considered two
alternatives within that option:
(1) decontaminate the building and leave it standing, or
(2) decontaminate the building, demolish it, and send it to
a solid waste landfill.
The costs of disposal at a solid waste landfill are considerably
- 19 -
-------
less than those at a RCRA landfill because of the stricter
requirements for disposal of dangerous waste. In addition,
disposal of dangerous waste at a RCRA facility entails liability
for any adverse consequences resulting from such disposal,
liability for cleanup costs, for example, in the event the RCRA
site becomes a superfund site.
WHC Operations requested that the 2727-S building be left standing
because it might be needed in the future. Consequently, WHC
decided to decontaminate the building and clean up the area to
background levels. WHC further decided, as a contingency, that if
they could not achieve background levels, they would demolish the
building and dispose of it, along with any contaminated soil, at a
RCRA landfill.
More recently, WHC decided to remove all materials from the
interior of the 2727-S building, and to dispose of these
materials--insulation, wiring, etc.--at a RCRA landfill. After
removing these materials, WHC plans to attempt the decontamination
of the metal walls and ceiling--a much simpler operation than the
decontamination of all the other materials. WHC currently plans
to use the building--assuming successful decontamiantion--for
equipment storage. Demolition and disposal at a RCRA landfill is
still the last resort.
Rockwell hired a consultant to prepare the first closure plan (as
part of the operating permit). Since the completion of that draft
(in 1985), WHC and other consultants have prepared several revised
plans. WHC's internal review process includes approximately 20
reviewers and up to 30 signatures before a plan goes to USDOE for
their review. Each revision has undergone this same extensive
review. WHC submitted its most recent revision to Ecology in
February of 1989, and Ecology responded to that revision with a
Notice of Deficiency (NOD) in June of 1989. In March of 1990 WHC
submitted its completed response to Ecology's NOD, and Ecology is
currently reviewing this document.
In its latest cost revision submitted to the study team, WHC
projects its total costs from 1987 through 1990 for the closure of
2727-S to be $920,000. WHC and USDOE did not provide the study
team with costs incurred before 1987 for the development of the
closure plan.
3. Evaluation of USDOE's Project Costs
WHC's experience with the closure of 2727-S is a good example of
the dilemma that typifies clean closure decisions. The easier
course to follow is to assume contamination and to dispose of all
materials at a RCRA landfill. The problems with this course,
however, are that RCRA disposal is more expensive than solid waste
disposal, and entails liability for any adverse consequences
resulting from such disposal.
- 20 -
-------
The other course is to attempt decontamination, but the problem
with this course is its uncertainty. Facility managers need
samples for analysis to determine the extent and type of
contamination, and then need further samples to confirm the
success of decontamination efforts. The actual decontamination
process entails material, labor, and waste disposal costs, and
both the sampling and decontamination processes can vary
considerably in their extensiveness according to the level and
type of contamination. Choosing the decontamination course
carries with it the inherent economic risk that facility
management may find out that decontamination is infeasible after
spending significant sums in that effort. The only recourse is
the RCRA disposal option.
In the actual case of WHC's decisions regarding the closure of
2727-S, the disposal of the building materials and soil at a RCRA
landfill was the option WHC initially rejected as too costly, and
yet it is the contingency option if decontamination procedures
fail to achieve background levels. In other words, after the
removal of interior materials, WHC plans to attempt the
decontamination of 2727-S (at considerable cost), and if that
effort fails, then WHC will fall back to the option it originally
rejected as too costly--the dilemma in action.
The real problem with WHC's approach is not that they face a
dilemma, but that they are proceeding with their plan without
benefit of any study of either the feasibility of decontamination
or the cost of the RCRA landfill option. The recent closure plan
revision that calls for the RCRA disposal of interior materials
does make the decontamination effort simpler, but WHC has not
calculated the costs. WHC also failed to examine another
important element in the decision-making process--the WHC
Operations request to leave 2727-S standing. That request seems
to have guided WHC into their preferred alternative, but no one
ever asked what it would cost to build a similar replacement
structure. After all, 2727-S is an 800-square-foot temporary
steel building on a concrete pad. The costs of decontaminating to
background levels may be higher than the combined costs of
demolition, disposal, and building a replacement.
Table 3 displays WHC's 1987-1990 costs for its closure of 2727-S.
This information comes from the first documents submitted by WHC
to the study team. Of the $1,220,000 total cost, $450,000 are the
closure plan preparation costs ($150,000 spent between 1987 and
1989, and a projected $300,000 for 1990).
- 21 -
-------
Table 3
2727-S HISTORICAL AND PROJECTED COSTS
Cost Category
Closure Plan 1987-1989
Preparation: 1990 Only
Sampling: Labor
Analysis
Decontamination/ Labor
Decommissioning: Disposal
Characterization: Materials
Labor
TOTALS
HISTORICAL
(S)
150,000
-
-
-
150.000
PROJECTED
(S)
300,000
90,000
175,000
210,000
125,000
20,000
150,000
1,070,000
TOTAL
450,000
265,000
335,000
170,000
1,220,000
Upon reviewing these Table 3 figures in a draft of this study,
however, WHC provided the following revisions: historical costs of
$129,500, and projected costs of $80,000. In a subsequent
telephone call, however, WHC provided the following revised
revisions: historical costs of $100,000, 1990 costs of $15,000,
and 1991 projected costs of $35,000. The total closure plan
preparation costs reported by WHC to the study team have therefore
fallen from $450,000 to $209,500 to $150,000. Based on this last
figure, the total closure plan costs for 2727-S are $920,000.
The plan preparation costs include the costs of WHC's internal
review. The necessity and effectiveness of the approximately 20
reviewers is questionable. WHC estimates that the total costs of
review actually charged to the 2727-S closure plan are
approximately $10,000.
The study team estimates the private sector costs for a closure
plan for 2727-S in a range from a low end of $135,000 to a high
end of $210,000. The last costs WHC submitted to the study team
for the closure plan preparation are $150,000, within the private
sector cost range.
The 1989 Cost Account Plan (CAP) shows a total of $683,700 in
sampling and decontamination costs for 2727-S. Table 4 provides
the details.
- 22 -
-------
Table 4
2727-S BUDGETED COSTS FOR 1989
(from 1989 Cost Account Plan)
Sampling Costs
(000)
Assist in Obtaining Samples 2727-S
Provide Heavy Equipment and Teamster Support
Provide Electrician Support
Provide Crane & Rigging Support to Sampling
Provide RPT to Sampling
Provide QA Support to Sampling
Engineering Support/Regulatory Permitting
Take Characterization Samples and Analyze, Prepare Necessary Documentation
for Performing Characterization
Provide Coordinated Support for Sampling
Provide Supervisory Support for Sampling
TOTAL SAMPLING COSTS
19.8
5.5
2.1
1.7
1.2
1.3
6.6
158.6
5.3
9.4
211.5
Decontamination Costs
Decontaminate, Demolish and Package building, Slab Soils, Decontaminate
Equipment and Restore Site: Issue Project Summary Report
Provide Support to the Closure of 2727-S
Provide Engineering Support to the Closure of 2727-S Including Certification
Sampling and Analysis: Issue Decommissioning Report
Waste Disposal through 616 Facility
Bulk Waste Disposal by Northwest EnviroService
TOTAL DECOMMISSIONING COSTS
SUBTOTAL SAMPLING AND DECOMMISSIONING COSTS
GA/CSP
TOTAL
Closure Plan Preparation Costs
Support 2727-S Closure Plan Revision and Response
IRM Support
Support 2727-S Closure Plan Revision and NOD Response
SUBTOTAL
GA/CSP
TOTAL CLOSURE PLAN COSTS
TOTAL 2727 COSTS
95.5
42.5
51.3
120.0
30.0
339.3
550.8
132.8
683.6
63.8
45.0
9.7
118.5
30.2
148.7
832.3
- 23 -
-------
A WHC Cost Account Manager informed the study team that these 1989
CAP costs (a total of $832,300) were budgeted but never spent.
The WHC manager responsible for 2727-S informed the study team
that the 1989 2727-S budgeted costs were based in part on sampling
cost estimates made without benefit of a characterization. These
unspent authorized funds were subsequently applied to other
projects as a part of normal funds management with the approval of
USDOE-RL.
4. Conclusions
The study team concludes that WHC's approach to the closure of
2727-S has been haphazard at best and has compounded the
difficulty of an inherently difficult decision. WHC failed to
study the technical feasibility of decontamination, and failed to
examine the costs of disposal at a RCRA landfill. In addition, a
vague request by WHC Operations to preserve 2727-S for some future
use influenced the decision to decontaminate the building and
leave it standing. WHC proceeded with their plan with a limited
understanding of the contamination at the site, and consequently
based their original cost estimates on conjecture rather than on
any analytical grounds. The study team questions the credibility
of the cost data provided by USDOE and WHC, and notes that the
successive revisions of the closure plan preparation costs erode
confidence in the figures.
- 24 -
-------
C. 616 HAZARDOUS WASTE STORAGE FACILITY
1. Facility History and Description
The 616 Storage Facility is a 20-foot high, one-story concrete
building with 7,700 square feet of floor area. The building has a
separate external ventilation system, a secondary waste
containment system (including separate collection drainage
ditches), and an office area. Rockwell designed 616 to be among
the most modern of RCRA facilities, and built it in 10 months.
Rockwell's original intent was that 616 would serve as a temporary
storage area for all on-site wastes, and it functioned in that
capacity until 1989 when PNL started using their own waste storage
facility. The 616 facility now serves as a storage area, under
the management of WHC, for all nonradioactive dangerous wastes
generated at the Hanford Reservation except for those that PNL
produces.
2. Description of USDOE's Project Costs
a. Capital Costs
Rockwell based its decision to build the 616 facility on an
engineering study done by the J.A. Jones Company in 1984.
The Jones study considered four alternatives:
(1) build 616;
(2) continue use of 2727-S;
(3) require each waste-generating facility to
seek a permit as a TSD; and
(4) use another facility.
The Jones study rejected the continued use of 2727-S
(alternative 2) on the basis that the facility did not
comply with RCRA regulations, and rejected the alternative
of requiring each waste-generating facility to seek its own
permit (alternative 3) as neither viable nor cost effective.
The study also eliminated the alternative of using another
building (alternative 4) when researchers could not locate a
suitable, available facility. After reviewing the
alternatives, the Jones study recommended the construction
of a new facility--616.
USDOE-RL Operations Office Projects reviewed and approved
the decision, and Rockwell built the 616 facility in 10
months at a cost of $926,000. Designed to meet RCRA
requirements, the 616 facility is among the most modern of
hazardous waste facilities.
- 25 -
-------
b. Permit Costs
WHC's costs for obtaining a -RCRA permit for the 616 facility
are $429,000 through 1990. Table 5 provides a breakdown.
Table 5
COST FOR 616 PERMIT PREPARATION
(In 000 Dollars)
Category
Personnel (Technical)
Personnel (Support Services)
Materials
Paper, notebooks, dividers 13
Printing, graphics, technical editing 20
Computer 10
G&A/CSP 7
TOTALS
1989
(FY)
183
46
50
279
1990
(FY)
100
21
29
150
1989
1990
(FY)
283
67
79
429
The personnel costs add up to $350,000 ($283,000 for
technical plus $67,000 for support services). Eighteen
different administrative units of WHC and USDOE review each
revision of the permit application. Table 6 provides the
details of the review process.
- 26 -
-------
Table 6
616 PERMIT REVIEWERS
Reviewer
Function
616 Supervisor
Assures completeness and accuracy of operational
aspects
616 Manager
Assures completeness and accuracy of operational
aspects
Solid Waste Process
Cognizant Engineers
Authors of general description, waste
characteristics, and process information permit
application chapters: assures accuracy and
completeness of these chapters
Environmental Compliance
Officer
Assures waste management facilities comply with
applicable regulations
616 Program Manager
Assures programmatic and budgetary aspects of 616
are met
Lead Permitting Engineer
Responsible for permit preparation, coordination,
and integration: assures accuracy and
completeness of entire permit
RCRA Permits Section
Management
Assigned management responsibility to assure
permit applications are accurate and complete
Environmental Preparedness
Coordinator
Assures contingency plan information requirements
are met and that such information is accurate and
complete
Closure Plan Author
Assures completeness and accuracy of closure plan
10. Regulatory Assessment
Cognizant Engineer
Assures that all applicable regulatory
requirements are addressed by the permit
application
11.
Controller
Reviews estimate of permit application
implementation costs
12.
Legal Counsel
Conducts legal reviews
13.
Quality Assurance Engineer
Performs a quality assurance review of the permit
application
14.
President, WHC
Certification of permit application as co-
operator
15.
USDOE Staff & Consultants
Conducts technical, regulatory, and legal reviews
16.
Technical Editing
Editing check
17.
Designated Derivative
Classifiers
Conduct patent and classification review
necessary for public release of permit
application
18.
Manager, USDOE
Certification of permit application a:; owner/co-
owner
WHC estimates the total cost of the reviews charged to the
616 permit preparation to be approximately $15,000.
- 27 -
-------
WHC projects an additional $75,000 in permit preparation
costs for FY 91. If this projection is accurate, the total
costs for the 616 permit preparation will be $504,000.
c. Operating Costs
The 616 facility operates on a break-even basis at a cost of
$1,629,000 for FY 90. Table 7 provides the details of the
616 budget. WHC sets the charges to the generators so that
the cost of operations are fully recovered, but no more.
WHC sets a certain rate for the first six months of a year
based on an assumed volume of waste, and then adjusts the
rates in mid-year based on the actual volume to date. For
FY 90, the adjusted rate is $700 per container, retroactive
to the beginning of the year.
- 28 -
-------
Table 7
616 COSTS - 1990
Operations
Category
Solid Waste Operator
Training
by Solid Waste
Operations
by Defense Waste
Technology
Clerical Support
Work Order Support
Materials Work Orders
P I anni ng/Schedul i ng
Teamster Support
Janitor Support
Ventilation/Balance Support
Maintenance
Plant Engineering Support
Fire System Maintenance
QA/QC/QE Support
616 Building Electrical Maintenance
616 Building Electricity
TOTAL
Cost
(000)
323.7
43.1
31.0
13.4
35.0
17.0
52.6
10.8
5.3
1.2
39. A
18.5
26.5
5.5
25.0
15.0
663.0
Engineering
Category
Planning, Coordination, Section
Support
Perform Waste Package Inspections
by WHC Traffic
Perform Waste Disposal Analysis
Maintain Database
Provide Support to Maintain
Database
Assist Generators/ Respond to
Special Requests
TSD Support
Compliance Verification
TOTAL
Cost
(000)
250.6
73.9
167.7
117. 4
89.3
42.8
183.3
41.0
966.0
Total Operation Cost of 616 Facility = $1,629,000
The Table 7 costs do not include 616's G & A costs, which
are not passed on to the generators, nor do they include
off-site treatment and disposal costs, for which the
generators are billed separately. The 616 facility manager
reports that 616 sends all its wastes to a full-service
Treatment, Storage, and Disposal facility (TSD) that treats
all the waste before disposing of it. These treatment (and
disposal) costs vary from $15 to $240 per container. The
generators pay these treatment and disposal costs in
addition to the 616 storage costs.
The 616 operating costs include annual training costs of
- 29 -
-------
$74,100 for 616 personnel. The 616 facility averages 300
training hours per year per employee, and, on average, 25
percent of the work force is in training at any given time.
The FY 89 operating costs for 616 were $1,150,000. During
calendar year 1989, the 616 facility took in 1336 containers
from the generators. As of July 31, 1990, the 616 facility
has taken in 1791 containers in FY 90.
3. Evaluation of USDOE's Project Costs
a. Capital Costs
Rockwell based its decision to build 616 on an engineering
study that considered four alternatives and recommended the
construction of the new facility. USDOE reviewed and
approved this recommendation. The construction costs of
$926,000 translate to a cost of $120 per square foot, a
reasonable rate that compares well with private sector
construction standards.
b. Permit Costs
The information that WHC provided to the study team did not
include a breakdown of the review costs for the permit
application, and the study team cannot determine the extent
to which WHC's extensive internal reviews contributed to the
overall permit application costs. The study team does,
however, question the need for such extensive reviews, and
notes that these reviews add to the permit costs.
In a comparison with the study team's private sector
estimates of the costs for preparing a permit application
for 616, the study team finds that WHC's costs of $504,000
fall far outside the private sector range. The estimated
costs for private sector preparation of a permit application
range from a low of $150,000 to a high of $234,000. Even
the high end estimate is $270,000 less than WHC's costs.
c. Operating Costs
The operation of 616 on a zero profit basis sounds good in
theory because it gives WHC no incentive to raise prices.
On the other hand, it provides no incentive to keep costs
down.
A comparison of the per-container costs for storage at 616
and the off-site treatment and disposal costs reveals a
significant disparity. For FY 90, 616 charges its
generators $700/container for storage, regardless of
container size. The ultimate off-site treatment and
disposal costs, on the other hand, range from $15 to $240
- 30 -
-------
per container, depending on the waste.
These storage charges seem to be high enough to warrant a
re-evaluation of USDOE's basic storage strategy, and, in
fact, USDOE-RL recently initiated a study to evaluate the
efficiency of the Hanford hazardous waste storage,
transportation, and off-site disposal program. This study
will consider regulatory compliance issues and risk
mitigation in addition to cost-effectiveness. The USDOE-RL
staff person responsible for this study does not expect the
results to change the basic mission of either the 616 or
305-B facility. The study may, however, lead to more
efficient operations.
WHC's Financial Analyst for their Solid Waste Program
suggests that there are inequities in WHC's billing system
to the generators because the engineering costs in 616's
operating budget are too high for the services actually
provided at 616. He has proposed that the bulk of the
engineering costs be moved to WHC's G & A account so that
generators would not have to bear these costs. Such an
adjustment would reduce 616's costs considerably. The
engineering costs represent 57 percent of 616's FY 90
budget; operations costs, 43 percent. The study team
calculates that if all the engineering costs were removed
from 616's budget, the per-container storage costs would
drop to $301 (43 percent of $700/container). Even this
reduced cost, however, would exceed the treatment and
disposal costs.
In some respects, the evaluation of the 616 operating costs
is an exercise in cost accounting. The engineering costs
currently shown in the 616 budget may belong somewhere in
WHC's Hazardous Waste Program, but the 616 budget should
include only those engineering services in direct assistance
to the 616 facility. The exact costs of engineering
services attributable to the operation of 616 is a matter of
discretion and cost accounting practices, but the current
and projected budgets show costs that belong to generator or
overhead accounts.
For FY 92, WHC is seeking direct funding of 616. USDOE's
Activity Data Sheet (ADS) 9215 shows a required operating
budget for 616 of $2,850,000 for 1992, and explains the
funding basis as follows: "This activity transfers the costs
from a chargeback/assessment program to direct funding from
the waste operations budget. The costs were derived from
operating history gained since 1985..." The FY 92
projection for 616's operating costs includes all the
engineering costs in the current budget plus an increase of
one-two engineers, a 10 percent escalation factor, an
expectation of an increased number of containers per year, a
new site-wide hazardous waste tracking system, and the off-
- 31 -
-------
site treatment and disposal costs currently not included in
616's budget.
WHC estimates the off-site treatment and disposal costs in
the FY 92 projection at $400,000-500,000. The actual
treatment and disposal costs for FY 89, however, are
$110,000. New Land Disposal Requirements (LDR) may account
for some increase in treatment costs, but the estimated
disposal costs appear to be excessive even in consideration
of LDR requirements and an increased number of containers
per year.
The study team notes that the FY 92 projection continues the
same cost accounting practice currently in use--all of the
engineering costs remain in 616's operating budget. The
problem with this practice is that it obscures the actual
costs of operating the 616 facility. The engineering costs
may be legitimate in the Hazardous Waste Program, but they
are not all attributable to 616's operation. This practice
may be changed if USDOE-HQ approves the necessary accounting
practice change.
Employee training costs contribute $74,100 to the overall
operating costs for FY 90. On average, the amount of
training employees receive puts 25 percent of the work force
in training, and therefore off the job, at any given time.
This rate of absence from the job appears to lead to
inefficiencies, but the study team recognizes the need for
ongoing training, and notes that the 616 training
requirements come from one regulatory authority or another.
4. Conclusions
The capital costs associated with the construction of 616 are in
line with private sector construction industry standards.
WHC's permit preparation costs for 616, however, exceed comparable
private sector costs by $270,000-354,000. WHC's costs are between
2.2 and 3.4 times higher than the study team's private sector
estimates.
The analysis of 616's operating costs suffers from a lack of
clarity resulting from WHC's cost accounting practices. The study
team does not challenge the legitimacy of the engineering costs,
but rather finds that their assignment to 616's operating budget
makes the task of determining the actual costs of 616 impossible.
The study team notes that the storage costs--even without
inclusion of the engineering costs--are much higher than the off-
site treatment and disposal costs, and supports USDOE-RL's
initiative to re-evaluate its waste management strategy.
- 32 -
-------
The study team finds that the treatment and disposal costs in the
FY 92 projection are higher than an historical analysis would
suppport, even with adjustments for increased waste volume and for
higher treatment costs resulting from new Land Disposal
Requirements. By projecting these costs at $400,000-500,000, WHC
inflates the overall budget by a significant amount. The exact
sum depends on the adjustments for increased volume and LDR-
related cost increases, but the FY 89 equivalent costs are
$110,000.
- 33 -
-------
APPENDIX A: PRIVATE SECTOR COST COMPARISONS
A-1
-------
ERC
11 September 1990
Mr. Jess Abed
Brown and Caldwell Consultants
100 West Harrison
Seattle, Washington
Dear Jess:
This letter presents the final letter report of private sector
cost estimates for preparation of Hanford permit documents. The
scope of work for this report is described in a June 26, 1990
letter from ERC to Brown and Caldwell Consultants, with written
authorization to proceed received from Brown and Caldwell as
described your letter received August 2, 1990.
INTRODUCTION
ERC prepared draft budget estimates for private sector prepara-
tion of three Hanford documents; a closure plan for 2727-S and
RCRA storage permit applications for 616 Nonradioactive Dangerous
Facility and 305-B Storage Facility. Preliminary estimates were
provided August 8th and August 10th for review. The estimates
were prepared assuming that a medium to large engineering firm
(500 - 3000 person) prepared the documents for a private entity.
This final report is prepared in response to comments from
Ecology and information prepared by Hanford contractors.
ASSUMPTIONS
The costs shown are only estimates. Differences between actual
costs and the estimates may be attributed to unforseen conditions
and situations. Site visits were not conducted prior to prepar-
ing the estimates. The following assumptions were made regarding
all of the documents reviewed:
o An engineering firm with prior experience in Washington
State RCRA regulatory issues and permitting prepared
the documents. It is assumed that the firm had a range
of staff capabilities and billing rates to assist with
accomplishing this type of work.
o Review for the engineering firm is included in the
budgets. It is assumed that major review consisted of
two senior reviewers and the project manager. Standard
firm procedures and controls for items such as text
(206) 747-4379
12 150th Place N. E. Bellevue, Washington $8007
A-2
-------
editing and document appearance are presumed adequate.
Technical review is included in the specific section
budgets. Technical review is presumed conducted by
senior technical experts and limited to a specific area
such as review of stormwater calculations.
The client was a private, industrial type client. This
assumption is key to several factors that may sig-
nificantly affect the cost since private clients are
usually cost conscious and wish to provide as much
assistance as possible to conserve expenditures.
That the engineering firm had some client contact(s)
available to expeditiously provide requested data,
drawings, clarifications and decisions.
Client review provided clear direction with no more
than three weeks needed by the client for review at the
draft and final stage (six weeks total for client
review).
Data are readily available and easily used by the
permit and closure plan preparers. This would imply
that drawings are accurate, easily reproduced and
require no or minor modifications, that data are
provided in a summarized, easy to comprehend format,
and that accurate maps and survey information are
available.
Most graphic figures in the reports are based on
previously prepared materials. As reflected in the
individual estimates, some allowance has been granted
for engineering design time and graphic artists for
preparation of drawings and figures. It is presumed
that maps, survey information, and facility site plans
were available from the client.
All cost estimates presume that two drafts and one
final document were prepared for submittal to the
regulatory agency. It is assumed that a minimum of 20
pages of agency comments (Notice of Deficiency) was
received on the first submittal. It is assumed that 5
to 10 pages of agency comments (2nd NOD) was received
on the second draft. It is also assumed that these
comments were willingly addressed by the client.
Although four meetings with .regulatory agency represen-
tatives would be more standard, an allowance in the
budget estimates is made for the required meetings.
The project manager and a junior staff person would be
the only attendees from the engineering firm. It is
assumed that agency staff provided reasonable commen-
tary and direction and that negotiated items were
resolved in the meetings.
A-3
-------
o Document distribution is limited to 15 copies of draft
(1st and 2nd draft for a total of 30) and 15 final
documents for regulatory agency, client and engineering
company use (total of 45 copies with dividers and
binders). Engineering company internal review copies
(prior to preparation of distribution copies) are
assumed to be on standard copy weight white paper
without binders. It is assumed that 7 internal review
copies were prepared for each round (21 total internal
review copies).
BASIS FOR ESTIMATES
Format Utilization
No allowance for use of the format or text prepared in the first
document (616 Dangerous Waste Storage Facility Permit Applica-
tion) has been included in the estimates for subsequent documents
(305-B Dangerous Waste Storage Facility Permit Application). All
estimates are prepared assuming that the permit application
starts "from scratch". It is presumed that EPA guidance manuals
and other permit applications are available for use by the
preparer. It is common to follow the format presented in the
guidance manuals and in other permit applications as a cost
saving measure and most consulting firms would review other
applications or guidance prior to commencing work.
Example Permit Applications
A permit application for a single container storage facility is
fairly uncommon. Most permit applications are for more compli-
cated offsite treatment and storage facilities with multiple
regulated units. As a comparison permit application, a smaller
offsite facility in Washington state was selected. This facility
has container storage, tank storage and a waste pile. The
facility also processes waste. The permit application was
prepared by a large (within ENR's top 10 firms), national con-
sulting firm with an office in the Seattle area. Approximate
consulting fees billed for permit preparation, closure plan and
certified closure of one regulated unit, and a groundwater
remediation plan and program preparation totalled $250,000.
Several factors contribute to the cost of this example permit
application that are not applicable to the cost estimates for the
Hanford documents:
o The example facility had multiple regulated units
including storage tanks (which required documentation
as to structural integrity) and a waste pile (which
required hydrogeological investigation, characteriza-
tion and monitoring). Movement of wastes from one
A-4
-------
regulated unit to the other was carefully considered.
Operational changes were made at the facility to
accommodate permit requirements.
o Costs for the initial hydrogeological investigation
(including well installation), preparation of a moni-
toring plan and a remedial action plan for sulfates are
included in the $250,000. Adherence to the require-
ments and waste piles are not applicable to the Hanforc3
storage facilities.
o The example facility was existing and therefore had to
address several anomalies in the application including
container storage in rail cars and proving that an
existing dry bin feeder complied with the new tank
rules.
The example facility handles few waste streams compared to the
Hanford facilities, although the waste characterization section
is much more detailed in the example facility's permit applica-
tion. This factor is considered to balance out for the purposes
of cost estimating. The example facility initiated the permit
application in 1985. The permittee responded to three sets of
comments from Ecology, which required one major revision (due to
rule changes) and two more minor modifications. A fourth submit-
tal consisting of page changes to correct typographical errors
and minor editing was submitted prior to permit issuance. The
permit was issued in 1988.
ESTIMATES
The estimates have been provided by section, with data collec-
tion, issue resolution and document preparation included in the
estimates. A high and low budget figure is provided as shown in
the attached estimates. The low budget figure presumes that the
client would have a qualified staff familiar with RCRA, that the
staff provided easily used information to the engineering firm,
and that few questions or issues arose. The high figure is
provided for a client that may have a less sophisticated staff
but is still able to provide accurate engineering drawings of
existing facilities and adequate survey and mapping information.
It is presumed that minor additional work was required in the
high estimate to prepare the graphics and resolve some of the
more complicated issues that may arise. Neither estimate assumes
a potential "worst case". Many circumstances can arise that
would significantly increase the costs of preparing any document.
An attempt to identify, describe and estimate a worst case has
not been made.
The summary sheet shows professional labor, graphic and engineer-
ing design labor (detailed on a separate sheet), and editing and
clerical support labor. The professional labor is an estimate
A-5
-------
based on the assumptions described above. Graphic and engineer-
ing design labor is estimated based on a review of the figures in
the documents. Editing time and clerical support are determined
as a percentage of other labor.
Production costs are a direct estimate based on the appearance of
the document provided and a distribution of copies as described
above. Other expenses are estimated as percentage of labor
expense.
SUMMARY
This document is intended to provide an estimate for preparation
of a RCRA storage facility permit application in the private
sector. The estimate is based on comparison of other permit
applications and limited review of the Hanford documents.
Detailed knowledge of the site(s) and client are not incorporated
into the cost estimates. Unforseen circumstances meiy sig-
nificantly affect the costs associated with preparing the docu-
ments .
If you have any questions, please give me a call.
A-6
-------
ESTIMATE FOR PREPARATION OF RCRA PERMIT APPLICATION
305-B Storage Facility
Section
Forward
Acronyms and Abbreviations
Part A
PartB
1 .0 Introduction
2.0 Facility Description
3.0 Waste Characteristics
4.0 Process Information
5.0 Groundwater Monitoring
6.0 Procedures to Prevent Hazards
7.0 Contingency Plan
8.0 Personnel Training
9.0 Exposure Information Report
10.0 Waste Minimization Plan
1 1 .0 Closure/Post Closure
12.0 Reporting and Recordkeeping
13.0 Other Relevant Laws
14.0 Certification
15.0 References
Appendices
2A Topographic Maps
4A Design Drawings
6A Fire Department Equipment
7A Emergency Response Info.
8A Job Descriptions
Meetings
QA Review
Subtotal Professional Labor
Other Labor
Editing
Clerical Support
Graphic Arts
Engineering Design
Subrofa/AWLabor
Expenses
Production
Travel/Repro.Tele/Mail/Etc
Subtotal Expenses
Total Labor plus Expense
Contingency 1 5%
Low Estimate
Hours Rate
2
4
40
2
40
50
24
0.5
32
50
32
0.5
8
50
32
20
4
8
24
60
16
40
40
192
62
833
167
125
158
48
18% Of Tot
$85
$85
$85
$85
$85
$85
$85
$85
$85
$85
$85
$85
$85
$85
$85
$85
$85
$85
$85
$85
$85
$85
$85
$85
$85
$55
$38
$50
$65
Labor
Estimated Cost - Rounded to Nearest 000 I
Total
$170
$340
$3,400
$170
$3,400
$4,250
$2,040
$43
$2,720
$4,250
$2,720
$43
$680
$4,250
$2,720
$1,700
$340
$680
$2,040
$5,100
$1,360
$3,400
$3,400
$16,320
$5,270
$70,805
$9,163
$4,748
$7,900
$3,120
$95,736
$20,000
$17,232
$37,232
$132,969
$19,945
$153,000
High
Hours
2
8
60
2
65
75
60
1
60
80
50
1
10
80
48
32
6
8
40
90
40
80
60
192
92
7242
248
186
182
58
Estimate
Rate
$85
$85
$85
$85
$85
$85
$85
$85
$85
$85
$85
$85
$85
$85
$85
$85
$85
$85
$85
$85
$85
$85
$85
$85
$85
$55
$38
$50
$65
I
Total
$170
$680
$5,100
$170
$5,525
$6,375
$5,100
$8b
$5,1 00
$6,800
$4,250
$85
$850
$6,800
$4.080
$2,720
$510
$680
$3,400
$7,650
$3,400
$6,800
$5,100
$16,320
$7,820
$105,570
$13,662
$7,079
$9,085
$3,744
$739,740
$50,000
$25,045
$75,045
$214,186
$32,128
$246,000
A-7
-------
Graphic Figures
305-B Storage Facility
Other/ Design
Section 8.5x11 Oversize Bluellne Map
Forward
Acronyms and Abbreviations
Part A 21
PartB
1.0 Introduction
2.0 Facility Description 8
3.0 Waste Characteristics 1
4.0 Process Information 2
5.0 Groundwater Monitoring
6.0 Procedures to Prevent Hazards 4
7.0 Contingency Plan 4
8.0 Personnel Training 0
9.0 Exposure Information Report
10.0 Waste Minimization Plan
11.0 Closure/Post Closure 6
12.0 Reporting and Recordkeeping
13.0 Other Relevant Laws
14.0 Certification
15.0 References
Appendices
2A Topographic Maps 6
4A Design Drawings 4
6A Fire Department Equipment
7A Emergency Response Info.
8A Job Descriptions
Total Number of Figures 27 1 4 6
Hours per Figure 4 6 12 4
Cover/Tabs/Etc 20
Total Hours 128 6 48 24
Total Graphic Hours (1 +2+4)
Engineering Designer Hours
A-8
-------
ESTIMATE FOR PREPARATION OF RCRA PERMIT APPLICATION
616 Nonradfoactlve Dangerous Waste Storage Facility
Low Estimate
Section Hours Rate
Forward
Acronyms and Abbreviations
Part A
PartB
1.0 Introduction
2.0 Facility Description
3.0 Waste Characteristics
4.0 Process Information
5.0 Groundwater Monitoring
6.0 Procedures to Prevent Hazards
7.0 Contingency Plan
8.0 Personnel Training
9.0 Exposure Information Report
10.0 Waste Minimization Plan
1 1 .0 Closure/Post Closure
12.0 Reporting and Recordkeeping
13.0 Other Relevant Laws
14.0 Certification
15.0 References
Appendices
2A Topographic Maps
2B Sample Procedures
4A Design Drawings
4B Containment Calculations
8A Sample Training Course
1 1 A Sampling Procedure
Meetings
QA Review
Subtotal Professional Labor
Other Labor
Editing
Clerical Support
Graphic Arts
Engineering Design
Subtotal Ml Labor
Expenses
Production
Travel/Repro/Tele/Mail/Etc 18%
Subtotal Expenses
Total Labor plus Expense
Contingency 1 5%
Estimated Cost - Rounded to Nearest
2
2
40
2
50
40
24
0.5
24
50
32
0.5
8
50
32
20
4
8
8
60
40
16
20
20
192
60
805
161
121
198
24
of Tot Labor
000
$85
$85
$65
$85
$85
$85
$85
$85
$85
$85
$85
$85
$85
$85
$85
$85
$85
$85
$85
$85
$85
$85
$85
$85
$85
$85
$55
$38
$50
$65
Total
$170
$170
$3,400
$170
$4,250
$3,400
$2,040
$43
$2,040
$4,250
$2,720
$43
$680
$4,250
$2,720
$1,700
$340
$680
$680
$5,100
$3,400
$1,360
$1,700
$1,700
$16,320
$5,100
$68,425
$8,855
$4,598
$9,900
$1,560
$93,338
$20,000
$16,801
$36,801
$130,139
$19,521
$150,000 |
High Estimate
Hours Rate
2
2
60
2
75
60
40
1
40
90
50
1
10
80
48
32
6
8
32
80
60
24
40
32
192
85
7752
230
173
228
29
$85
$85
$85
$85
$85
$85
$85
$85
$85
$85
$85
$85
$85
$85
$85
$85
$85
$85
$85
$85
$85
$85
$85
$85
$85
$85
$55
$38
$50
$65
Total
$170
$170
$5,100
$170
$6,375
$5,100
$3,400
$85
$3,400
$7,650
$4,250
$85
$850
$6,800
$4,080
$2;720
$510
$680
$2,720
$6,800
$5,100
$2,040
$3,400
$2,720
$16,320
$7,225
597,920
$12,650
$6.574
$11,385
$1,872
$130,401
$50,000
$23,472
$73,472
$203,873
$30,581
$234,000
A-9
-------
Graphic Figures
616 Nonradioactive Dangerous Waste Storage Facility
Other/ Design
Section 8.5x11 Oversize Blueline Map
Forward
Acronyms and Abbreviations
Part A 21
PartB
1.0 Introduction
2.0 Facility Description 8
3.0 Waste Characteristics 1
4.0 Process Information 2
5.0 Groundwater Monitoring
6.0 Procedures to Prevent Hazards 4
7.0 Contingency Plan 4
8.0 Personnel Training 0
9.0 Exposure Information Report
10.0 Waste Minimization Plan
11.0 Closure/Post Closure 6
12.0 Reporting and Recordkeeping
13.0 Other Relevant Laws
14.0 Certification
15.0 References
Appendices
2A Topographic Maps 2
2B Sample Procedures 12
4A Design Drawings 2
4B Containment Calculations
8A Sample Training Course
11A Sampling Procedure 2
Total Number of Figures 41 1 2 2
Hours per Figure 4 6 12 4
Cover/Tabs/Etc 20
Total Hours 184 6 24 8
Total Graphic Hours (1 +2+4)
Engineering Designer Hours
A-10
-------
ESTIMATE FOR PREPARATION OF RCRA CLOSURE PLAN
2727-S Nonradloactive Dangerous Waste Storage Facility
Section
Low Estimate
Hours Rate
Total
High Estimate
Hours Rate
Total
Rounded Total
Rounded Total
$134,428
$135,000
Total
Introduction
Closure Performance Standard
Estimate of Maximum Inventory
Closure Activities
Schedule
Appendices
A Checklist
B Current Photographs
C Spill Reports
D Part A Permit Application
E 2727-S NRDWS Waste Inventory
F Sampling Procedures
G Analytical Plan
H Certifications
Other Professional Labor
Site Visit
QA Review
Subtotal Professional Labor
Other Labor
Editing
Clerical Support
Graphic Arts
Engineering Design
Subtotal All Labor
Expenses
Production
Travel/Repro/Tele/Mail/Etc
Subtotal Expenses
Total Labor plus Expense
1 5% Contingency
80
24
80
200
60
20
32
12
16
12
24
32
8
32
60
692
138
104
150
0
18% Of Tot
$85
$85
$85
$85
$85
$85
$85
$85
$85
$85
$85
$85
$85
$85
$85
$55
$38
$50
$65
Labor
$6,800
$2,040
$6,800
$17,000
$5,100
$1,700
$2,720
$1,020
$1,360
$1,020
$2,040
$2,720
$680
$2,720
$5,100
$58,820
$7,612
$3,944
$7,500
$0
$77,876
$25,000
$14,018
$39,078
$116,894
$1 7,534
100
32
120
300
80
40
48
16
32
16
40
80
16
40
92
7052
210
158
173
0
$85
$85
$85
$85
$85
$85
$85
$85
$85
$85
$85
$85
$85
$85
S85
S55
$38
$50
$65
$8,500
$2,720
$10,200
$25,500
$6,800
$3,^00
Sf.OBO
$1,360
$2,720
$1,360
$3,400
$6, BOO
$1,300
$3/s 00
$7,0X0
$89,420
$11 ,!>/;>
$5,9f)i>
$8,62b
$0
$115,613
$45,000
$20,1)10
$65, BIO
$181,4?'!
$27,214
$208,637
$210,000
A-11
-------
Graphic Figures
2727-S Storage Facility
Section
Introduction
Closure Performance Standard
Estimate of Maximum Inventory
Closure Activities
Schedule
Other/ Design
8.5x11 Oversize Blueline Map
3
1
0
6
1
3
Appendices
A Checklist
B Current Photographs 11
C Spill Reports
D Part A Permit Application
E 2727-S NRDWS Waste Inventory
F Sampling Procedures
G Analytical Plan
H Certifications
Total Number of Figures 10 15 0 0
Hours per Figure 4 6 12 4
Cover/Tabs/Etc 20
Total Hours 60 90 0 0
Total Graphic Hours (1 +2+4)
Engineering Designer Hours
A-12
-------
Department of Energy
Richland Operations Office «•"•
P.O. Box 550 T;.
Richland, Washington 99352
90-TPA-033
OCT 0 5 1990
Mr. Timothy L. Nord
Hanford Project Man;
State of Washington
Department of Ecology
Mail Stop PV-11
Olympia, WA 98504-8711
Dear Mr. Nord:
REVIEW OF ERC COST ASSUMPTIONS
We have completed a review of the cost assumptions provided by letter dated
September 11, 1990, from Jodi G. Gearon, ERC, to Jess Abed, Brown and
Caldwell. Based upon this review, we believe that the costs are understated
due to a failure to consider the costs which would typically be incurred by
the client in the preparation of a permit application or closure plan. Our
specific comments are listed below:
1. Review costs consider only ERC staff review. No consideration was given
to the review costs of the client or of review for precedent-setting
commitments in the permit application or closure plan. Rather the costs
considered only very technical reviews, similar to the review that a
regulator would be expected to make.
2. One assumption is that all needed data would be readily available. Again,
no consideration is given to the costs the client would incur in gathering
the data for the contractor. An optimum situation would be that all
required technical data, maps, etc. would be readily available for
transfer to the contractor, but this is seldom the case.
3. The assumption that NOD comments would be "willingly addressed by the
client" does not consider that resolution of comments must consider the
impact to other waste management units. A facility such as Hanford cannot
afford to respond to NOD comments without first understanding the
implication of those comments to other regulated waste units. Once again,
no consideration is given to the client costs.
4. No consideration appears to have been given to the labor costs associated
with the generation of information, gathering of information, and
confirmation of information. The inclusion of these very real costs could
increase the estimates by as much as a factor of two.
5. It would be helpful to cite the actual percentage used to determine
editing time and clerical support and why this approach was selected.
A-13
-------
OCT 0 5 1990
Mr. Timothy L. Nord -2-
6. The document production costs are understated due to the limited number of
copies which are assumed to be required: 15 copies for each review and 15
final copies. The Hanford Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order
requires that one copy be placed in each of the four public information
repositories and one copy be placed in each of the three Administrative
Record files. In addition, both EPA and Ecology require at least two
copies. With only 15 copies produced, this would leave one copy for the
consulting firm, one copy for the owner/operator (DOE-RL), one copy for
the co-operator (WHC), and one copy for DOE-HQ. This is not realistic.
7. The Hanford Site has certain requirements regarding editing and document
production (e.g., union shop and Government Printing Office
considerations). While we agree that it may be possible to achieve cost
reductions in this area, the magnitude of the cost reductions will be
limited due to DOE Orders which document production standards.
I hope that you will consider these comments prior to finalizing your cost
study to ensure that any comparisons consider all appropriate factors,
including the client costs which must always be incurred when an outside firm
is utilized.
Thank you for the opportunity to review the ERC estimates for permit/closure
plan preparation. If you have any questions regarding these comments, please
call me on (509) 376-6798, or Mr. Tim Veneziano, Westinghouse Hanford Company,
on 509 376-0543.
Sincerely,
ieveri H. Wisness
ERD:SHW /Ranford Project Manager
cc:
T. B. Veneziano, WHC
P. T. Day, EPA
A-14
-------
APPENDIX E: INTERVIEWS
B-1
-------
APPENDIX B
BROWN AND CALDWELL CONSULTANTS
RECORD OF INTERVIEWS
Unit
Affiliation/Personnel
Date/Place
BCC Jess Abed
Hal Cooper
Robin Grant
Jon
Sprecher
DOE-RL Rich Hudson
Steve
Kickoff Wisness
Meeting Jim
Rasmussen
Ecology Tim Nord
EPA Paul Day
PNL Bill Bjorklund
PRC Deidre O'Dwyer
Donna
LaCombe
WHC Hal Downey
Karl Fecht
Lynn Mize
Fred Ruck
III
Curtiss
Stroup
Tom
Wintczak
305-B
BCC Jess Abed
Hal Cooper
Ecology Tim Nord
PNL Bill Bjorklund
Glen
Thornton
WHC Lynn Mize
05-04-90
Hapo Building,
Richland, WA
616-8
BCC Jess Abed
Robin Grant
Ecology Tim Nord
WHC Carol Geier
Sue Price
Lynn Mize
Randy
Roberts
Randy
Slaybaugh
05-11-90
Hapo Building,
Richland, WA
B-2
-------
2727-8
BCC Jess Abed
Robin Grant
Ecology Tim Nord
K'HC Carol Geier
Lynn Mize
Linda
Powers
Rex
Thompson
05-11-90
Hapo Building,
Richland, WA
Well-
Installation t
Drilling Costs
(General)
BCC Jess Abed
Robin Grant
Jon
Sprecher
DOE-RL Jim
Patterson
me Hal Downey
Tom
Wintczak
05-15-90
Hapo Building,
Richland, WA
B-3
-------
Unit
Well-Drilling
&
Installation
Costs
Affiliation/Personnel
BCC Mark Liebe
Jon
Sprecher
WHO Duane Horton
BCC Mark Leibe
Jon
Sprecher
WHC Wayne Jonhson
BCC Mark Leibe
Jon
Sprecher
WHC Tom Wintczak
BCC Jon Sprecher
DOE-RL Mike
Thompson
BCC Robin Grant
Jon
Sprecher
WHC Mel Adams
BCC Robin Grant
Jon
Sprecher
WHC Tom Wintczak
BCC Robin Grant
Jon
Sprecher
WHC Rick Ashworth
BCC Robin Grant
Jon
Sprecher
WHC Bruce Agee
Date/Place
05-16-90
450 Hills Bldg,
Richland, WA
05-16-90
450 Hills Bldg,
Richland, WA
05-16-90
450 Hills Bldg,
Richland, WA
05-22-90
Federal Bldg, Richland,
WA
05-23-90
Hapo Building,
Richland, WA
05-23-90
Hapo Building,
Richland, WA
05-23-90
Hapo Building,
Richland, WA
05-23-90
Hapo Building,
Richland, WA
B-4
-------
Well-
Installation t
Drilling Costs
(CERCLA)
BCC Robin Grant
Mark Liebe
Jon
Sprecher
DOE-RL Jim
Patterson
Nancy
Werdef
WHO Hal Downey
Dwayne
Horton
Linda
Powers
Rex
Thompson
Tom
Wintczak
05-15-90
Hapo Building,
Richland, WA
Well-
Installation &
Drilling
(RCRA)
BCC Jess Abed
Robin Grant
Jon
Sprecher
COE Michael Fellows
John Sager
James
Warriner
KEH James Lilly
Bruce Agee
Rick
Ashworth
Bruce
Gilkeson
Duane
Horton
Brian
Thomas
05-22-90
Hapo Building,
Richland, WA
B-5
-------
Unit
300-Area
Wastewater
Treatment
Plant
Affiliation/Personnel
BCC Jess Abed
Hal Cooper
Jon
Sprecher
WHC Mark Carrigan
Vern Dronen
Bob Fritz
Lynn Mize
Brian
Thomas
Date/Place
06-01-90
Hapo Building,
Richland, WA
200-BP-l
BCC Jess Abed
Hal Cooper
Jon
Sprecher
DOE-RL Nancy
Werdef
WHC Rich Carlson
Wayne
Johnson
Brian
Thomas
Tom
Wintczak
06-01-90
Hapo Building,
Richland, WA
Laboratory &
Analytical
Costs
BCC Jess Abed
Hal Cooper
Jon
Sprecher
WHC Lynn Mize
Linda
Powers
Curtiss
Stroup
Brian
Thomas
06-01-90
Hapo Building,
Richland, WA
General/Financ
ial
BCC Jess Abed
Robin Grant
Ecology Tim Nord
WHC Bruce Agee
Bedoy
Austin
Lynn Mize
Lowell
Patterson
Brian
Thomas
05-24-90
Hapo Building,
Richland, WA
B-6
-------
DOE-RL
BCC Jess Abed
Robin Grant
DOE-RL Roger
Freeberg
Ron Light
Patty
Morehouse
Bob
Tibbatts
Ecology Tim Nord
05-24-90
Federal Bldg.,
Richland, WA
Telephone Log
Name
Jim Peterson
Bill Rutherford
Steve Wisness
Roger Freeburg
Bob Tibbatts
Bill Bjorklund
Roger Bowman
Linda Powers
Sue Price
Theresa Hennig
Debbie Trader
Brian Thomas
Organization
DOE-RL
DOE-RL
DOE-RL
DOE-RL
DOE-RL
PNL
WHC
WHC
WHC
DOE-RL
DOE-RL
WHC
Date
09/04/90
09/05/90
09/06/90
09/11/90
09/11/90
09/10/90
09/10/90
08/31/90
08/31/90
08/31/90
09/06/90
09/06/90
09/06/90
R-7
-------
COST EVALUATION PROJECT
SECTION 2
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
HANFORD SITE
HIGHLAND, WASHINGTON
conducted by
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION 10
HANFORD PROJECT OFFICE
OCTOBER 1990
-------
COST EVALUATION PROJECT
SECTION 2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
A. Introduction 1
B. General Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations 3
C. 200-BP-l Operable Unit Remedial Investigation and
Feasibility Study Cost Evaluation 7
1. Background 7
2. Description of DOE's RI/FS Cost Projections 7
3. Cost-Estimating Model Developed for the RI/FS 8
4. Cost-Estimating Model Applied to the 200-BP-l
Operable Unit . 11
5. Cost Estimates and Cost Evaluation for the
200-BP-l Operable Unit 14
6. Summary and Conclusions 42
D. 300-Area Process Water Treatment Plant Cost Evaluation .... 47
1. Background 47
2. Description of DOE's Project Costs 48
3. Evaluation of DOE's Project Costs 56
4. Summary and Conclusions 60
E. Laboratory Analysis Cost Evaluation 63
1. Background 63
2. Description of DOE's Analytical Costs 63
3. Evaluation of DOE's Analytical Costs 72
4. Summary and Conclusions 76
F. References 79
G. Appendices 82
Appendix A Cost Estimating Assumptions
Appendix B Hazardous Waste and Decontamination and
Sample Analysis Matrix
Appendix C 200-BP-l Operable Unit Cost Estimate
Appendix D 1100-EM-l Operable Unit Incurred Costs
Appendix E KEH Cost Estimate for the $15M Design
Appendix F WHC Laboratory Sample Analysis Schedules
-------
LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES
Page
200-BP-l Operable Unit RI/FS Section
Table C-l — 200-BP-l Operable Unit Cost Estimate 12
Table C-2 — Private Sector Cost Comparison 16
Table C-3 — Comparison of Support Personnel Costs
for Drilling Activities 30
300-Area Process Water Treatment Plant Section
Table D-l — 300-Area Process Water Treatment Facility -
Options and Costs 50
Figure D-l —15M Design Process Flow Diagram 51
Table D-2 — Process Equipment Comparison 53
Table D-3 — Cost Breakdown — 300-Area Process Water
Treatment Plant 55
Table D-4 — Construction Cost Comparison 62
Laboratory Analysis Section
Table E-l — WHC Estimated Unit Sample Costs 65
Table E-2 — Estimated Analytical Costs for
Nonradioactive Samples 66
Table E-3 — Estimated Analytical Costs for
Samples Containing Radioactivity 67
Table E-4 — Estimated Analytical Costs for
Single-Shell Tank Core Samples 71
Table E-5 — Estimated Private-Sector Analytical Costs
for Water Samples, less than 1 mR/hr 74
Table E-6 — Estimated Private-Sector Analytical Costs
for Soil Samples, less than 1 mR/hr 75
Table E-7 — Comparison of Private Sector and
Hanford Analytical Costs 77
11
-------
A. INTRODUCTION
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) conducted
reviews in three separate areas, as part of the joint State
of Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology) and EPA cost
evaluation project. PRC Environmental Management, Inc.,
(PRC) a private environmental consulting firm, assisted EPA
by gathering much of the factual information used in the
study and by conducting the final review of this report.
In this way, EPA was able to access various technical
specialties through PRC and its subcontractors. EPA
selected its projects for review based on the following
factors:
o Feasibility of project or topic cost evaluation; i.e.,
whether sufficient cost information existed to
facilitate a review and evaluation;
o Potential to significantly reduce costs in the
Superfund program;
o Relevance of project or topic to similar projects or
topics; i.e., the results of the study would be
representative and applicable to other similar projects
or topics or would have site-wide applicability; and
o Division of responsibility and potential redundancy
with projects selected by Ecology;
The EPA selected three separate projects or topics for
evaluation, based on the above mentioned criteria:
1. 200-BP-l Operable Unit Remedial Investigation and
Feasibility Study (RI/FS). This project fit the
selection criteria well, in that an active Superfund
investigation is underway and some of the costs can be
used to verify the RI/FS cost model that was developed
by Westinghouse Hanford Company (WHC) for cost RI/FS
projections. The first investigation in a radioactive
zone is taking place at this operable unit and it is a
combined source and groundwater operable unit.
Seventy-eight operable units have been defined for
investigation, so the findings from this project will
have broad applicability. WHC estimated the RI/FS cost
at this operable unit to be over $27 million.
Therefore, the magnitude of the project is sufficient
to have a significant impact on the budgeit needs if
cost saving measures could be identified.
-------
2. 300-Area Process Water Treatment Plant. Thi.s project
was selected as it was the only area that specifically
considered design, engineering, and construction costs.
EPA expects that other treatment facilities and
construction projects will be completed over the life
of the Hanford Federal Facility Agreement and Consent
Order (Tri-Party Agreement) and this evaluation should
provide some carryover benefit to those future
projects. Two designs for this treatment plant were
initially considered as part of this cost evaluation, a
$15 million design and a $39 million design.
3. Laboratory Analysis Costs. EPA selected this topic for
review due to its high total cost, both in the near
term and over the duration of the Tri-Party Agreement.
The magnitude of the laboratory analysis program is so
great that even small percentage cost savings would
translate in significant overall reductions in budget
needs. Laboratory costs apply to both the Superfund
and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
programs, as covered under the Tri-Party Agreement, and
to other ongoing programs at Hanford, as well.
The EPA and PRC review began with a kick-off meeting on May
3, 1990, with key individuals from the Department of Energy
(DOE) and WHC. Subsequently, a series of interviews and
site visits were held by PRC and additional information
needs were identified. After the initial draft report was
prepared in July 1990, EPA began to work closely with PRC to
finalize the report. During this period, additional
information and data needs were identified and the report
went through several iterations. Upon completion of the
drafts for each of the three sections mentioned above, EPA
submitted the drafts to DOE and WHC for a limited time for
technical accuracy review. This review was limited to the
factual information only, and not to EPA's conclusions or
recommendations. DOE and WHC had no significant comments on
these sections.
EPA designed this cost evaluation project as a means to
provide an independent assessment of the costs necessary to
implement the Tri-Party Agreement at Hanford. This
consisted, in part, of reviewing the accuracy of proposed
costs estimated by DOE and WHC. In some cases, the
estimates were based on historical incurred costs, while
other Superfund related tasks had never been performed at
Hanford and "best engineering judgement" was used to prepare
the cost estimates. EPA considered the logic behind the
cost estimates and, in some cases,'recommended that the
process itself be changed to allow lower costs, while
maintaining a work product of acceptable quality. EPA
considered and compared Hanford's cost estimates to
-------
experience obtained in the private sector, to the extent
possible. Certain factors that must be considered at
Hanford (e.g., security issues, certain labor issues, and
varying levels of radioactive waste), can not be compared
directly to the private-sector experiences outside of
Hanford.
B. GENERAL FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Each of the three projects or areas reviewed by EPA contains
specific evaluations and a summary and recommendation
section. This section is intended only to point out some of
the general findings and trends noted during the
evaluations.
First, it was apparent that many of the costs were not
substantiated. WHC requested various internal groups to
identify the costs associated with specific tasks. That
information was provided, but the reviewers were unable to
document any effort by which WHC challenged the costs
provided from one branch to another. The reviewers could
not determine whether a suitable internal mechanism for
requiring documentation of costs existed or who the final
arbiter might be in case of a dispute. One obvious example
of this practice was noted in the 200-BP-l Operable Unit
RI/FS review, where the monthly hours for a radiation
protection technician were recently changed from the normal
rate of 160 hours per month to 224 hours per month to
accommodate training needs. Not only is this rate
inconsistent with all other disciplines related to RI/FS
work which still identify a rate of 160 hours per month, but
the rate of 224 hours per month is excessive. Training
needs identified at 40 percent of an individual's time (two
days per week) on a permanent basis should have been called
into question immediately and challenged as inappropriate.
This is but one example to show the need for WHC to
scrutinize the numerous elements or subtasks that make up
the costs for its projects. A mechanism for challenging and
rejecting costs that can not be substantiated should be
implemented. Likewise, DOE needs a mechanism by which it
can ensure that project costs have been carefully reviewed
prior to issuing its approval. A value engineering approach
and review of WHC's proposed project costs by DOE's general
support contractor would be a logical step for DOE to
consider.
EPA's second observation is that the mission at Hanford is
rapidly changing from that of a defense materials production
site to that of a model for environmental restoration. In
this period of change, it is quite likely that many of the
operating requirements, procedures, and orders generated by
-------
both DOE and its contractors may need to change. EPA
realizes that changes to long instituted practices may not
come easy, but recommends that DOE and WHC institute a
review process of the various requirements now in place at
Hanford, as they apply to Tri-Party Agreement related
activities. It may be possible to streamline, tailor, or
even eliminate certain requirements that currently apply to
these activities.
Third, with the exception of the 300-Area Process Water
Treatment Plant, DOE and WHC were frequently not able to
provide defensible and detailed bases for their cost
estimates. As an example, the term "best engineering
judgement" was often used to support the estimates. For
certain tasks, DOE and WHC should have been able to draw
from historical cost information to predict future costs in
an accurate manner. However, even historical or incurred
costs did not always provide sufficient information for WHC
to construct detailed cost estimates for activities reviewed
under this cost evaluation project. These deficiencies
resulted in less detailed information for the reviewers and
the results of this evaluation should be viewed accordingly.
In addition to the general observations noted above, general
findings were noted in each of the three projects or topics
reviewed, as follows.
200-BP-l Operable Unit RI/FS — The RI/FS cost model is of
limited use in its present form because specific adjustments
must be made for each operable unit. The current model does
not include the sensitivity necessary for these adjustments.
The model was a good first attempt to document cost
projections and provide continuity, but the model should be
expanded to include more detail on the assumptions, to
document the assumptions for each subtask, and to provide
increased sensitivity to deal with the variability of each
operable unit. Definition of specific tasks will assist WHC
in preparing the most accurate estimates possible and will
facilitate a thorough review of the model as it applies to
each operable unit.
The level of effort, labor costs, and the time frames
associated with various tasks appeared to be high. Examples
of this include the number of people required for drilling
activities, the level of effort associated with document or
report preparation, and labor rate quotes of $13,000 per
month for a radiation protection technician. The amount of
time devoted to training also appeared high. These areas
are all discussed in more detail in the evaluation of the
200-BP-l Operable Unit RI/FS cost estimate. These issues
all relate back to the need for WHC and DOE to document, and
perhaps challenge, the level of effort planned for certain
-------
specific activities and, in some cases, to determine whether
certain activities are even required or serve a useful
purpose. They also relate to the "unit cost" of activities.
EPA recommends that DOE and WHC closely evaluate and
substantiate the cost estimates and quotes that are used in
the model.
300-Area Process Water Treatment Plant — EPA did not find
major discrepancies in the capital cost projections for
construction of the physical plant. Some of the line item
costs were higher than EPA found through contact with
vendors and some costs were lower. The evaluation could not
be done in-depth, since the detailed plans and
specifications have yet to be developed. The evaluation
focused on the $15 million design, since the more expensive
design was rejected by WHC. This decision was made because
the estimated cost was well beyond the available budget
limitation.
EPA believes that there is some danger in limiting the
design to 300 gallons per minute (gpm), even though WHC
hopes to achieve a flow rate of approximately 200 gpm by May
1993. This requires a high degree of confidence that the
waste stream can be reduced to 200 to 300 gpm from the
current 1200 gpm through waste minimization activities at a
time when budget forcasting has a high degree of
uncertainty. There appeared to be no contingency for
treating amounts in excess of 300 gpm in the event that all
necessary waste minimization efforts can not be achieved.
Additionally, there was apparently no attempt to coordinate
process water treatment and contaminated groundwater
treatment. Although the analysis of a combined treatment
system was not required by the Tri-Party Agreement, EPA
recommends that DOE consider a combined system for treatment
of effluent and contaminated groundwater. This may or may
not be feasible, but EPA recommends that it be considered as
a potential cost-effective measure which could eliminate a
separarate treatment system for groundwater treatment.
While EPA recognizes that speculation on treatment of
groundwater at this time is difficult and that there should
be no predisposition to the record of decision for cleanup
in the 300-Area, a substantial amount of information exists
on the contaminated aquifer that could be usied for general
consideration or feasibility of a combined treatment system.
Most of the design and engineering fees for the treatment
plant appeared reasonable; however, the Kaiser Engineer
Hanford (KEH) engineering fees, the costs for buildings and
sump 1, and the costs for overhead and profit/bond and
insurance for packaged process equipment seemed high. EPA
recommends that as DOE conducts its project validation as
-------
the definitive design is completed, particular attention be
given to verifying and substantiating these costs.
Laboratory Analysis Costs — This review was particularly
difficult for EPA, since WHC could not provide detailed cost
factors related to laboratory analyses. In addition, the
method of assessing user fees to the various groups onsite
made the comparison to the private-sector laboratories
difficult. Additionally, very little could be done to
compare analytical costs for radioactive or mixed waste
samples to the private-sector since most laboratories in the
private-sector do not conduct such analyses. Therefore,much
of EPA's findings had to do with nonradioactive analyses,
which could be compared to offsite laboratories.
It appeared that the cost of analyzing nonradioactive
samples onsite at Hanford at this time is about twice what
it costs in the private-sector. Even with the difficulty in
comparing Hanford laboratories to private-sector
laboratories, this is a significant difference and merits
further detailed investigation by DOE, WHC, and Pacific
Northwest Laboratories.
EPA was not convinced that DOE and WHC had done a thorough
job of cost benefit analysis for the proposed laboratory
upgrade program. It appeared that presently, and even after
the laboratory upgrades are completed at a substantial
expense, it may be less expensive to have samples with
radioactivity levels of less than 1 mR/hour analyzed at
private laboratories offsite. EPA recommends that this
issue be studied carefully, including one scenario for
laboratory upgrades focusing on samples greater than 1
mR/hour.
The remainder of this report consists of a discussion of
each of the three projects or topics discussed above in
detail.
-------
C. 200-BP-l OPERABLE UNIT REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION AND
FEASIBILITY STUDY
1. BACKGROUND
The 200-BP-l Operable Unit is one of 78 operable units
identified to date at the Hanford site that will
undergo investigation and remediation. The unit is
located in the separations area (200-Area) of the
Hanford site; the 200-Area is divided into the 200 East
Area and the 200 West Area. The 200-BP-l Operable Unit
is located along the northern boundary of the 200 East
Area. The unit encompasses 25 acres, although the
majority of the waste management units are concentrated
within a 4-acre area (DOE, 1989b).
The primary function of the 200-Area Facilities was to
reprocess irradiated fuel for separation and recovery
of certain isotopes such as plutonium and uranium. The
200-BP-l Operable Unit contains 13 identified
individual waste management units—10 cribs and
3 spills. The cribs, which are essentially leach
fields for mixed (i.e., radioactive and hazardous)
wastes, were used to dispose of millions of gallons of
wastewater during the 1950s and 1960s. The cribs
received liquid waste from U-Plant uranium reclamation
operations and waste storage tank condensate from the
241-BY Tank Farm. The spills, or unplanned releases,
were the result of tank farm operations.
2. DESCRIPTION OP DOE'S RI/FS COST PROJECTIONS
Since April 1990, the planning process for all RI/FS
work plans has begun with a project scoping meeting
attended by the assigned Unit Managers from DOE, EPA,
and Ecology, an assigned technical lead from WHC, and
other technical support staff including subcontractors.
However, this scoping meeting was not held prior to
development of the 200-BP-l Operable Unit Work Plan, as
the procedure of involving EPA and Ecology during the
early planning stages had not yet been instituted. WHC
and its subcontractors prepared the work plan for the
200-BP-l Operable Unit using EPA guidance documents as
the primary guidelines, supplemented by information and
guidance from EPA, the lead regulatory agency for this
operable unit.
The DOE Monitor (in this case, the Unit Manager) is the
person responsible for review of the 200-BP-l RI/FS
Work Plan and its associated cost estimate. In this
instance, the DOE Unit Manager and a general support
-------
contractor to DOE reviewed the work plan and the cost
estimate compiled by WHC.
The DOE's Five-Year Plan which projects work estimates
and associated costs for environmental restoration
projects is prepared annually and forms the basis for
DOE's funding requests to Congress. Activity Data
Sheets (ADS) include current year and out year funding
requirements and a narrative description of specific
projects and activities. The ADSs are used to support
the budget requirements in the Five-Year Plan. The
costs provided in the ADSs for the Hanford Site were
compiled using a Cost Account Plan (CAP) for the
current fiscal year costs and a computer model for
outlying years. The cost-estimating model for RI/FS
work was developed in September 1989 by WHC. Prior to
the model, WHC developed general estimates for the
first four operable units (1100-EM-l, 200-BP-l, 300-
FF-1, and 100-HR-l) for inclusion in the initial Five-
Year Plan. The original estimates ranged between
$12,000,000 and $13,000,000 (Wintczak, 1990a). These
original estimates were replaced with the model
generated estimates, i.e., $27,200,000 for 200-BP-l
Operable Unit. Costs for the other three operable
units mentioned above also increased under the new
model, but not as significantly as with the 200-BP-l
Operable Unit.
The CAP for each project was developed by the WHC Cost
Account Manager (CAM). The CAP was subdivided into
work packages, which were further divided into task
packages. Each organization potentially responsible
for executing a particular task was consulted to
predict labor effort and associated costs needed for
the current fiscal year. The responsible organization
was then asked to commit the required number of people
to conduct the task and verify this commitment with an
approval signature.
3. COST-ESTIMATING MODEL DEVELOPED FOR THE RI/FS
The WHC cost-estimating model is an order-of-magnitude
cost-estimating tool based on conservative assumptions
developed to represent a typical RI/FS process
conducted at Hanford. An order-of-magnitude model, as
defined by EPA, has an accuracy for which a final cost
falls within the range of +50 percent to -30 percent of
the cost estimated at the site (Burgher et al, 1987).
The assumptions involved typical RI/FS tasks,
initiation dates, execution time frames, labor
requirements, and associated costs. The model is a
8
-------
computer-based algorithm that distributes estimated
costs over assumed time frames for each RI/FS task.
The RI/FS tasks included in the cost-estimating model
are described in detail in the next section of this
report. These tasks include:
project management,
scoping,
preparation and review of primary documents (i.e.,
work plans, RI Reports, FS Reports),
site characterization and nonintrusive field
activities,
staff training and startup,
drilling activities (preparation and execution),
• borehole abandonment,
hazardous waste disposal and decontamination,
chemical analysis,
physical analysis,
groundwater monitoring,
performance assessment,
• treatability studies, and
• environmental assessment.
The assumed time frames used in the model were
developed based on engineering judgement and, where
possible, historical data available for similar onsite
activities. Engineering judgement is a common cost-
estimating tool that refers to the method of using
previous engineering experience to generate cost
numbers. The estimated costs for each task were
obtained from, and approved by, the organizations
responsible for executing a specific task. Typically,
the estimates were provided as a lump sum (i.e., total
cost for executing the task). The model was
constructed to evenly distribute the lump sum over the
assumed time frame for each task. A monthly cost
requirement was then developed for each task based on
this lump sum estimate. Appendix A provides the
model's detailed set of assumed time frames and
estimated costs for the RI/FS tasks.
In addition, WHC developed a matrix (see Appendix B) to
factor the number of waste sites per operable unit into
specific RI/FS tasks. This matrix was integrated with
the model assumptions given in Appendix A to generate a
cost estimate specific to each operable unit. Details
of the matrix information for the 200-BP-l Operable
Unit are given in the next section of this report.
At the time the model assumptions were compiled, a DOE
directive mandated that all primary RI/FS documents be
-------
completed by a firm that is not responsible for
implementing the remedy. WHC, then, had the option of
using WHC contractors or Battelle's Environmental
Management Operations (EMO) and EMO's contractors for
document preparation tasks. The estimates provided in
Appendix A that involve contractor or EMO participation
were estimated for each group separately. When using
the model to generate a cost estimate for a specific
operable unit, DOE determined whether the support was
going to be supplied by a WHC contractor or by EMO and
its contractors. The appropriate monthly cost, as
described in the next section and in Appendix A, was
then used in generating the cost estimate.
DOE Order 5400.4, recently issued by DOE Headquarters,
requires that an organization other than WHC conduct
the RI/FS. It was thought that this organization would
be EMO. It now appears that DOE will be soliciting
bids for a major contract to be awarded to another firm
to conduct the RI/FS work. WHC will continue its
present role until that new contract is awarded.
In a separate action, DOE has recently entered into an
interagency agreement with the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Walla Walla District Office, to perform a
portion of the RI/FS work at the Hanford Site. Under
this agreement, the Corps will have full responsibility
over specified RI/FS projects and have other site-wide
responsibilities related to the Environmental
Restoration program. In regard to direct RI/FS
oversight, the Corps will assume management of the
ongoing work at the 1100-EM-l Operable Unit and will
initiate the RI/FS program at the 100-FR-l Operable
Unit in fiscal year 1992.
The effects that the above mentioned directives will
have on the cost-estimating structure is unknown. It
is possible that cost-estimating will become the
responsibility of the new organizations and that this
model may be modified or become obsolete. The cost of
transition of work to other organizations is not known
at this time, but it will most likely affect costs.
These transition costs and any other costs that can be
attributed to management by multiple organizations
should be closely tracked and documented for the
purpose of future evaluation.
The cost-estimating model includes a trend system, or
updating procedure, by which WHC will acquire and
record information, such as actual task time frames and
incurred costs for RI/FS activities. Information that
impacts all RI/FS work done at Hanford would be
10
-------
incorporated into the general model so that each
operable unit cost estimate generated using the model
in the future would assimilate the new information. As
an example, the work plan review process has been
condensed by 3 months because a concurrent DOE and
regulatory agency review has been implemented.
Therefore, the cost in the general model for the work
plan review task should be adjusted to reflect this
change.
On the other hand, information that is specific to one
operable unit would only be incorporated into that
operable unit's cost estimate. For example, the
conservative assumption that all drilling would be
conducted in a radioactive zone was incorrect for the
200-BP-l Operable Unit. A majority of the new
groundwater wells will be installed outside radioactive
zones. Therefore, the manpower requirements should be
reduced because the health and safety level of effort
will be reduced. In this case, only the 200-BP-l
Operable Unit cost estimate would be adjusted to
reflect this change.
The trend system was scheduled to be executed annually
(when the new ADSs were being developed) unless a major
cost impact was noted. For example, the general model
was adjusted when substantially increased analytical
costs were quoted from the onsite laboratories
(Wintczak, 1990c). New information for the trend
system is collected throughout the year.
4. COST-ESTIMATING MODEL APPLIED TO 200-BP-l OPERABLE UNIT
The 200-BP-l Operable Unit cost estimate generated by
WHC's model is provided in Appendix C. The estimate
incorporated the assumptions in Appendix A and the 200-
BP-l Operable Unit matrix information provided in
Appendix B. The projected total cost for the 200-BP-l
Operable Unit RI/FS is $27,200,000. Table C-l provides
a breakdown of the cost by major task categories.
The 200-BP-l Operable Unit cost estimate was generated
before work plan approval (the work plan was approved
March 16, 1990); therefore, certain assumptions had to
be made regarding the scope of the field investigation.
The tasks affected by these scope assumptions include
drilling, sampling, hazardous waste disposal and
decontamination, borehole abandonment, and sample
analysis. These assumptions are based on the number of
waste management units or waste sites present at an
operable unit. The number of waste sites was factored
into drilling duration, number of samples, cost of
11
-------
TABLE C-l
200-BP-l OPERABLE UNIT COST ESTIMATE
TASK COST
Project Management $5,372,000
Scoping 495,000
Document Preparation and Review:
Work Plan 1,051,000
Remedial Investigation Report 2,040,000
Feasibility Study Report 2,040,000
Site Characterization and
Non-Intrusive Field Activities 2,000,000
Staff Training and Startup 432,000
Drilling (including preparation) 2,765,000
Borehole Abandonment 280,000
Hazardous Waste Disposal and Decontamination 1,326,000
Sample Analysis 3,640,000
Physical Analysis 350,000
Groundwater Monitoring 759,000
Performance Assessment 600,000
Treatability Studies 3,000,000
Environmental Assessment 1.050.OOP
TOTAL $27,200,000
12
-------
decontamination, and cost of hazardous waste disposal.
The factoring was dictated by the model assumptions
presented in Appendix A under tasks 3.8 and 3.9. (For
example, the number of vadose zone boreholes = 3 x the
number of waste sites.) The matrix, developed by WHC,
detailing the factors for several operable units
(including the 200-BP-l Operable Unit) is given in
Appendix B.
The trend system will be employed to refine the model
over time. The 200-BP-l Operable Unit cost estimate
was largely constructed on estimates and best
engineering judgement not on actual RI/FS experience.
The trend system will allow for modifying the cost-
estimating model. Information acquired over the course
of the previous year can be evaluated annually to
determine if adjustments to the model or the specific
operable unit's cost estimate are necessary. The 200-
BP-l Operable Unit cost estimate might be impacted by a
variety of information gathered over fiscal year 1990
as discussed below.
First, investigative work at the 1100-EM-l Operable
Unit is further along than that for 200-BP-l Operable
Unit (RI Phase I Report was submitted August 31, 1990)
and some incurred RI/FS costs are now available for
evaluation and comparison, and for possible application
for similar work to be done at the 200-BP-l Operable
Unit. In addition, the work plan for the 200-BP-l
Operable Unit was recently approved (March 16, 1990)
and the scope of the initial investigation is now well
defined (for example, number of vadose zone boreholes,
depth of boreholes, and number of new monitoring
wells).
Also, revised projections from work groups have been
received. For example, the RPT management has modified
its funding requirements to ensure adequate staffing of
RI/FS tasks. It now requires 224 hours of funding (not
160 hours) to have one RPT on the job for a month. The
extra hours were requested to cover update training
(i.e., extra hours to allow an alternate worker to
assume RPT duties while the original worker is
attending update training). The example of RPT
training will be further discussed under the staff
training element in the next section.
13
-------
5. COST ESTIMATES AND COST EVALUATION
FOR THE 200-BP-l OPERABLE UNIT
This section consists of a discussion of: (a)
assumptions used in WHC's RI/FS cost model; (b) how
that model was used to create the 200-BP-l Operable
Unit RI/FS cost estimate; and (c) the reviewers'
evaluation of that cost estimate and the model from
which it was derived. Each of the fourteen tasks
described in the RI/FS model (shown on Table C-l) are
discussed in terms of these three considerations.
1. PROJECT MANAGEMENT
la. Assumptions Used in Model (See Page A12)
The management task estimate was obtained from the WHC
field services and environmental engineering groups
based on historical costs. The historical costs are
derived from like costs incurred during past activities
at Hanford. The costs for support groups were included
under this task. The RI/FS activities were just
underway; therefore, directly related RI/FS incurred
costs for project management were not available. This
task also included involvement by upper level
management, support for compiling and keeping project
files, scheduling, and administration.
Ib. Model Applied to Cost Estimate for 200-BP-l
The $5,372,000 cost for project management was
generated using the model's monthly task rate of
$68,000 (see Page A12) for 79 months (the duration of
the 200 BP-1 Operable Unit RI/FS from the initiation of
preliminary field activities through the Record of
Decision (ROD).
Ic. Evaluation of Model and 200-BP-l Cost Estimate
The specific tasks covered under the project management
heading were not well defined. Since the category is
not as specific as certain other categories (e.g.,
borehole abandonment), there is a potential for this to
become a "catch-all" category. For this reason, care
must be taken that only legitimate activities related
to management of each RI/FS project are included.
There are some basic management costs that are incurred
on every project. It is important to note that this
cost is a function of the complexity of the project and
the client's needs. Hanford's special factors play a
substantial role in the cost of this task; however, the
level of effort required for project management should
be justified by detailing subtask descriptions and
personnel groups assigned to each subtask and the
associated level of effort, such that an outside
14
-------
reviewer can evaluate the costs and have a basis to
agree or disagree.
The 200-BP-l Operable Unit project management cost is
20 percent of the direct and indirect costs for this
project. A large project such as this one (in terms of
dollars), should exhibit a lower percentage of the
total cost for this task. Table C-2 shows a comparison
to private sector project management costs. The
contrast is significant, in that a large private sector
project has estimated management costs of only 3
percent of direct and indirect costs. The small
private sector project, which would typically require a
higher percentage for management costs, estimated only
9 percent of direct and indirect costs. This
comparison illustrates that two actions should be
taken. First, as stated above, DOE and WHC must
clearly identify each task and subtask that is included
in project management category. Second, DOE and WHC
must closely review the tasks and associated costs to
see whether they are appropriate and absolutely
necessary for completion of the project. This includes
review of those factors considered to be unique to
Hanford.
The reviewers do not agree that a total project
management cost of $5,372,000 can be justified. The
monthly rate of $68,000 is more than six times the rate
experienced for typical large projects in the private
sector. Additionally, the model does not give credit
for economies that will be realized from a single
management structure for numerous operable units.
One specific element of the cost model merits further
discussion. The element of "Procedure Preparation"
(see page A12) is included at a cost of 640 hours (or
$36,000) per month throughout the duration of this task
(79 months, as discussed above). The reviewers do not
believe that this level of effort can be justified.
Obviously, the specific subtasks to be performed as
part of procedures preparation should be defined. It
is not reasonable to assume that procedures of any type
are being prepared for a single operable unit over the
period from initiation of preliminary field work
through the ROD. Further, while certain procedures
should be developed in consideration of Sipecific
operable unit conditions, it is not reasonable to
assume that all procedures should be "redeveloped" for
each operable unit. This seems to be what the model
would propose. The area of procedures preparation, as
included in the model, should be closely scrutinized by
DOE and WHC. The reviewers believe that substantial
15
-------
TABLE C-2
PRIVATE-SECTOR COST COMPARISON
Project Management
Work Plan
Scoping
Rig Decontamination
CLP Analysis3
RI Report
Total Project
200-BP-l
OPERABLE UNIT
20% of direct &
indirect costs1
($68,000/month)
4% of direct &
indirect costs
($1,051,000)
2% of direct &
indirect costs
($495,000)
$18,000/hole
(radiological &
hazardous)
$3,000/sample
$2,000,000
$27,200,000
PRIVATE SECTOR
Small Project Large Project
9% of direct &
indirect costs
($3,000/month)
6% of direct &
indirect costs
($31,000)
7% of direct &
indirect costs
($37,000)
$l,000/hole
(hazardous
only)
$1,200/sample
$46,000
$500,000
3% of direct &
indirect costs
($ll,000/month)
6% of direct &
indirect costs
7% of direct &
indirect costs2
$l,000/hole
(hazardous
only)
$1,200/sample
$50~0,000
$16,000,000
(1) Direct cost — material and labor costs associated with doing the actual work.
Indirect cost — expenses that are not directly involved with material and labor of
the work.
(2) Not included as part of statement of work.
(3) Full CLP analysis of nonradioactive water sample.
-------
savings can be realized in the area of project
management, particularly as more projects come on line.
Another area of concern to the reviewers is the subtask
of quality assurance (QA). The model allows for 40
hours per month of QA activity, with no explanation of
what that activity is intended to accomplish. It
appears that there could be a redundancy with the QA
function, in that QA is also specified in other model
elements, i.e., well drilling activities. The
reviewers can not tell if this represents a duplication
of effort. The model allows for $3000 per month for
the 40 hours of effort. This would convert to a full
time rate of $12,000 per month, based on a 160-hour
work month. In comparison to the $9000 per month for
engineering services, this rate seems high. DOE and
WHC should closely evaluate this labor rate to see if
it can be justified. If it can not be justified, DOE
and WHC should take steps to adjust the rate
accordingly.
2. SCOPING
2a. Assumptions Used in Model (See Page Al)
The scoping task was included in the RI/FS model to
account for collecting information needed before RI
field activities begin at each operable unit. The
assumed subtasks include background investigation,
report preparation, and field activities (e.g., air
monitoring, radiation survey, and soil gas survey).
The environmental engineering group provided an
estimate for the background investigation subtask of
320 hours (2 people for 1 month based on a 160-hour
month) at $18,000 ($9,000 per person). The $9,000-
per-person rate includes a $7,000-labor rate and $2,000
for ancillary items (for example, travel and vehicle)
(Wintczak, 1990c). The estimate for the field
activities subtask included estimates from the
environmental engineering group, the RPT group, and the
NPO group (Wintczak, 1990d). The RPTs and NPOs will
fulfill health and safety duties (radiation monitoring
and decontamination). The cost estimates for RPT and
NPO services are based on the rates specified by the
respective labor unions, and assume that one RPT and
two NPOs are on the job for a month. The RPT funding
request of $13,000 per month covers items such as
labor, equipment, equipment calibration and
maintenance, vehicles, and support hours (Wintczak,
1990d). The Pacific Northwest Laboratories (PNL) and
Kaiser Engineers Hanford (KEH) estimate for scoping
field activities was based on historical costs for
tasks such as air monitoring, soil gas survey, and
geodetic survey. The environmental engineering group
17
-------
estimated $27,000 (or a 3-person month) for the report
preparation task.
2b. Model Applied to Cost Estimate for 200-BP-l
The scoping cost ($495,000) was generated in three
parts. The first part was for the background
investigation, calculated as $18,000 for one month (see
Page Al). The second part was for field activities and
was generated by using $150,000 monthly rate over 3
months. The third part, preparation of the scoping
report, was estimated at $27,000 for one month. All
scoping costs were derived directly from the model,
with no adjustments made for the 200-BP-l Operable
Unit.
2c. Evaluation of Model and 200-BP-l Cost Estimate
The reviewers were not provided with the documentation
necessary to determine whether specific scoping costs
were appropriate. The scoping budget should be refined
to delineate the specific subtasks involved in the
estimate. The anticipated field activities should be
delineated to explain the estimated level of effort.
For example, specify the assumed types of
investigations and samples, the number of samples per
investigation, and the number of man-hours required for
each type of investigation. Scoping activities will
understandably vary from one operable unit to another,
thereby impacting costs. Costs will be impacted by the
operable unit size, number and type of waste sites, and
the extent of available existing information on the
wastes and the sites. These factors should be
considered in development of operable unit cost
estimates, rather than adherence to the generic model
values. These factors have been known for the 200-BP-
1 Operable Unit for several months and should have
impacted the scoping cost estimates. In fact, most of
the scoping activity at this operable unit has been
completed and incurred costs should now be available to
update the trend system.
One specific observation in regard to scoping costs
bears further discussion. The labor rate of $13,000
per month for an RPT should be justified. The
reviewers assume that the labor union quoted this rate
and that WHC has not asked for a detailed breakdown or
justification, except as provided in 2a, above. It
appears that the labor rate is excessive, even when
overhead is included. The reviewers suggest that WHC
pay particular attention to the areas of support hours
and equipment in its review of this task.
18
-------
One other element of the model appears to be of
questionable value, when compared to the cost. The
model (see page Al) provides for a Scoping Report that
requires a level of effort of 480 hours and a cost of
$27,000. The EPA and Ecology are working with DOE in
an effort to eliminate or reduce extraneous process
related activities; i.e., streamlining the RI/FS
process. The scoping activities should result in a
guide for direction into the RI/FS process at an
operable unit. The documentation for scoping should be
minimal and need not be formalized into a separate
report. The scoping document can be a simple
compilation of results that provides information to the
authors of the RI/FS work plan. Data and information
from scoping activities can be made available to the
regulators via data base access, during unit manager
meetings, and through other established lines of
communication without creating a separate report.
3. PREPARATION AND REVIEW OF PRIMARY DOCUMENTS
I
3a. Assumptions Used in Model (See Pages Al and A7
through All)
The estimate for the work plan preparation and review
was obtained from the environmental engineering group.
The estimate was based on historical costs. Included
in the task is 110 hours per month at a rate of $6,500
per month for a WHC review that includes 28 people
(e.g., legal review and permits review) and 80 hours
for review by the WHC engineer responsible for delivery
of the document to DOE. This person essentially walks
the document through the review process.
The cost-estimating model provides for an RI/FS work
plan cost of $769,000 (assuming a contractor prepared
document - see pages Al and A2). Appendix D shows the
incurred costs for work plan preparation and review up
to the point of submittal to the regulatory agencies.
The costs in Appendix D are for information only and
can not be compared directly with the overall cost of
RI/FS work plan preparation and review.
All primary RI/FS documents are estimated to allow a
WHC subcontractor or EMO subcontractor to prepare the
documents, in accordance with DOE's directive
(Wintczak, 1990d). WHC assumes that preparation and
review of RI Reports and FS Reports will require the
same monthly level of effort as the work plan
preparation and review subtasks. It should be noted
that the RI Phase I Report is defined as a secondary
document, rather than a primary document. However, WHC
has deemed that its preparation and review will be
19
-------
equivalent to that of a primary document and is so
reflected in the model.
The model provides the following time periods for
report preparation and review, assuming a combination
source and groundwater operable unit such as the 200-
BP-l Operable Unit:
Document
RI/FS Work Plan (initial)
RI/FS Work Plan (supplemental)
RI Phase I Report
RI Phase II Report
FS Phases I & II Report
FS Phase III Report
Preparation
7 months
3 months
14 months
12 months
10 months
14 months
Review
10 months
3 months
6 months
6 months
6 months
6 months
The six month review cycle for primary documents is set
in the Tri-Party Agreement (Wintczak, 1990c).
3b. Model Applied to Cost Estimate for 200-BP-l
The primary documents considered in this section are
the same as those mentioned in 3a, above. The monthly
rates (hour and dollar) for document preparation and
document review were used for each of these tasks. The
monthly rate was either the EMO rate or the contractor
rate (see page Al). Each task involved the completion
of two reports. The bases for the costs for the
respective document preparation and review tasks for
the 200-BP-l Operable Unit are shown in Appendix C.
The RI/FS work plan cost ($1,051,000) was obtained in
two parts. The first part corresponded to the first
phase of field work. The monthly document preparation
rate of $57,000 (assuming a contractor and not EMO was
doing the work) for seven months and the monthly
document review rate of $37,000 (the contractor rate)
for 10 months were used. The second part corresponded
to the second phase of field activities. The same
monthly rates were used but for a shorter duration (3
months for preparation and 3 months for review).
The costs for the RI Phase I Report and the RI Phase II
Report tasks were estimated to be $1,020,000 each, for
a total of $2,040,000. These estimates were generated
using the same monthly rates and time frames. In a
similar manner, the costs for the FS Phases I and II
Report and the FS Phase III Report were estimated to be
$1,020,000 each, for a total of $2,040,000. WHC based
the costs for these report tasks on a monthly
contractor document preparation rate ($57,000) over a
14 month duration for the first phase and over a 14
month duration for the second phase. Similarly, both
20
-------
tasks used the monthly contractor document review rate
($37,000) over 6 months for the first phase and over
6 months for the second phase.
3c. Evaluation of Model and 200-BP-l Cost Estimate
The cost of preparing these documents appears to be
excessive. In the private sector, it typically
requires approximately 3,000 labor hours to complete
the RI Report task. For example, PRC typically
allocates approximately 2,000 hours (including
clerical) for preparing an RI Report (this includes all
phases). An additional 1,000 hours is usually
estimated for the report review and report revisions.
Project-to-date data from 13 large RI/FS projects
(greater than $800,000) were used to determine an
average loaded labor rate of $137 per hour (CHjM Hill,
1986). This rate was obtained by dividing the total
project dollars by the total hours. The rate is
conservative when being applied to the RI Report task
because other direct costs impacting the loaded rate
are minimal for the RI Report task. An average loaded
labor rate of $137 per hour over a period of 3000 hours
for the RI Report task would result in a cost of
$411,000. This estimate, when compared to the
estimated $2,040,000 to complete the same task at
Hanford, shows nearly a five fold difference.
The reviewers hold the position that this task should
not require a substantially different level of effort
at Hanford than is necessary in the private sector or
at other federal facilities. In other words, the
factors unique to radioactive or mixed waste must be
considered, but will not impact report preparation and
review costs by the same percentage as field
activities.
It appears that following the various Hanford protocols
accounts for a large portion of the abnormally high
costs. An excellent example of this was given in an
earlier section of this report, noting that these
primary documents must be routed through a series of 28
separate individuals for signature. DOE and WHC must
take necessary steps to streamline their "in-house"
protocols to meet the needs of the Environmental
Restoration program in an efficient, yet thorough
manner. This is an area in which the regulatory
agencies can not assist; DOE and WHC must take the
lead. This streamlining must also carry through to
other Hanford contractors such as PNL, KEH, and Hanford
Environmental Health Foundation, as applicable, for
21
-------
consistency and to make a notable improvement in cost
control.
Two areas of inconsistency were noted between the model
assumptions and the printout for the 200-BP-l Operable
Unit cost estimate (Appendix C). First, the
assumptions state that 12 months will be required for
the RI Phase II Report preparation,.yet the printout
shows a duration of 14 months. Second, the assumptions
state that 10 months will be required to prepare the FS
Phases I & II Report, yet the 200-BP-l Operable Unit
printout shows 14 months. WHC was not aware of these
discrepancies. WHC intends to review the model's
assumptions and each operable unit cost estimate at the
end of this fiscal year to eliminate such
inconsistencies. It is most probable that the 200-BP-
1 Operable Unit cost estimate will be modified; for
example, the 200-BP-l Operable Unit time frames will be
adjusted to reflect the change in the model's
assumptions (Patterson, 1990a).
The RI Report and FS Report preparation tasks included
$3,000 per month for the WHC permitting group. This
was an error since only during the work plan
preparation task would the permitting group be
involved. These costs, $84,000 per report preparation
task, should be eliminated when the model is updated
(Wintczak, 1990d).
Although the information is incomplete, Appendix D
provides some basis for comparison of the RI/FS work
plan preparation costs between the various contractors.
DOE and WHC should consider why there is such variation
in the costs and implement any necessary policy changes
to arrive at the most efficient method of work plan
preparation and review.
4. SITE CHARACTERIZATION AND NON-INTRUSIVE FIELD
ACTIVITIES
4a. Assumptions Used in Model (See Page A2)
The site characterization and non-intrusive field
activities lump sum estimate of $2,000,000 was
formulated by assuming that a variety of investigations
would be conducted under this task. During the
interviews, WHC provided the reviewers with additional
information on the subtasks, based on the following
anticipated investigations and associated costs: (1)
surface geophysics (e.g., metal detection surveys,
ground penetrating radar surveys, electromagnetic
surveys, seismic gravity surveys, electronic
resistivity surveys) at a combined cost of $48,000 per
22
-------
month for 10 months; (2) surface water and sediment
sampling at a cost of $50,000 per month for 3 months;
(3) surface radiation surveys at a cost of $54,000 per
month for 10 months; (4) surveying and mapping (e.g.,
sampling grids, aerial photos, construct topographic
maps, conduct vadose and groundwater well surveys) at a
cost of $42,000 per month for 4 months; (5) biota
surveys at a cost of $30,000 per month for 10 months;
(6) air monitoring at a cost of $16,000 per month for
10 months; and (7) surface soil sampling at a cost of
$20,000 per month for 10 months. The above mentioned
subtasks comprise a conservative list and it should be
noted that not every subtask would be proposed for
every operable unit (Patterson, 1990a). The estimate
includes data analysis and report preparation. The
estimate was obtained from WHC's environmental
engineering group and PNL (Wintczak, 1990c).
4b. Model Applied to Cost Estimate for 200-BP-l
This task cost ($2,000,000) was generated in two parts.
Each part corresponded with the anticipated two phases
of field activities, each at a cost of $1,000,000.
These costs were obtained using the monthly rate of
$100,000 for 10 months (see page A2). Costs were
derived directly from the model, without consideration
of operable unit specific conditions at the 200-BP-l
Operable Unit.
4c. Evaluation of Model and 200~BP-1 Cost Estimate
This lump sum estimate needs a greater level of detail
to explain the level of effort required to execute each
of the various subtasks. The model provides very
little information about the various field activities
and the documentation of subtask related costs.
At this time, all of the field screening activities
related to the RI Phase I are to have been completed at
the 200-BP-l Operable Unit. Therefore, incurred costs
should be available to WHC for use in updating the
model and refining the overall cost projections for the
RI/FS at the 200-BP-l Operable Unit.
The reviewers are not convinced that the same level of
effort for screening activities are necessary to
support the RI Phase II that were necessary for the RI
Phase I. The RI Phase I field activities were very
important as very little was known about, the operable
unit prior to the start of the investigation. The
advanced knowledge gained through these activities was
of benefit to WHC prior to undertaking the full scale
investigation. Also, it was critical to identify any
possible worker health and safety concerns at that
23
-------
point. However, the RI Phase II is of a totally
different nature. The majority of data gathering will
have been accomplished during Phase I and a great deal
of information will be available about the operable
unit prior to the start of Phase II. Therefore, the
reviewers do not believe that an equal level of effort
for these preliminary activities (10 months of
sustained activity at a rate of $100,000 per month) can
be justified.
It was unclear whether the 200-BP-l Operable Unit cost
estimate included sampling of surface water and
sediments. The general model assumption states that a
monthly rate of $100,000 is necessary for field
activities, exclusive of river sampling. If river
sampling is appropriate for an operable unit
investigation, such sampling is added at a cost of
$50,000 per month, presumably over the entire 10-month
period preceding the RI Phases I and II. However, the
cost breakdown of this task provided to the reviewers
included a surface water and sediment sampling subtask
at a cost of $50,000 per month for 3 months. Although
the total cost of the seven subtasks provided by WHC
approximated the best engineering judgement cost in the
model, the subtasks defined appear to be inconsistent
with the model. Since the cost for these preliminary
field activities at the 200-BP-l Operable Unit was
included at a rate of $100,000 per month (Appendix C),
the reviewers could not determine whether surface water
and sediment sampling had been included. The reviewers
do not believe that such sampling should be included
for operable units within the 200-Area, unless unique
circumstances exist by which the sampling could be
justified.
WHC should reassess the need and the level of effort
for all of the preliminary field activities for RI
Phase II. In addition, WHC should better define the
subtasks to be done prior to Phase I. Documentation
should be provided for the incurred costs for these
activities over the period from October 1989 through
July 1990. These costs should be evaluated and, as
appropriate, used as input for the trend system. They
should also be used to identify, refine, and support
the specific budget needs for the 200-BP-l Operable
Unit RI/FS.
24
-------
5. STAFF TRAINING AND STARTUP
5a. Assumptions Used in Model (See Page A2)
The training and startup task was included to provide
funding for the training required to adequately staff
(for example, RPTs, NPOs, samplers, and engineers) an
RI/FS project. The estimate assumed that 6 months
would be required for training new people. This
estimate also allowed for a high labor turnover rate.
This activity did not include update training for
trained personnel; however, the cost for update
training was factored into the funding requests from
specific groups (for example, RPTs) (Wintczak, 1990b).
5b. Model Applied to Cost Estimate for 200-BP-l
The training cost ($432,000) was obtained using the
monthly rate of $72,000 over 6 months (see page A2).
Training costs for the 200-BP-l Operable Unit RI/FS
were derived directly from the model, without
consideration to any operable unit specific conditions.
5c. Evaluation of Model and 200-BP-l Cost Estimate
The model did not document the type of anticipated
training to be done. The training level of effort
should be justified by detailing the actual number of
people expected to be trained, the types of training,
and the number of hours necessary for each training
activity.
The reviewers agree that staff training is a legitimate
expense and should be accounted for in the budget
estimate. However, without more specific information,
the reviewers can not support the duration of training
(6 months) for RPTs, NPOs, samplers, and engineers at a
total expense of 1280 hours ($72,000) per month.
The issue of the number of hours required for one month
of activity by an RPT was mentioned while describing
the cost-estimating model in an earlier section. The
RPT management have apparently now required that an
RPT's time must be charged at a rate of 224 hours per
month, rather than 160. The need for update training
was used to justify the additional 64 hours per month
The reviewers strongly question whether 40 percent of
anyone's time can be justified for training purposes,
particularly on a continuing basis. This is an area
that should be closely evaluated and documented by DOE
and WHC. If this level of training is required in
union labor agreements and the level is deemed
excessive by DOE and WHC at this time, it may be
necessary to renegotiate such agreements at the
earliest opportunity.
25
-------
6. DRILLING ACTIVITIES
6a. Assumptions Used in Model (See Pages A3 and A4)
The drilling activities task included two subtasks, (1)
drilling preparation, and (2) drilling and sampling.
Drilling preparation is a project management activity.
The estimate included the level of effort required to
prepare drilling documents (drilling specifications,
radiation work permit, cultural resource reviews,
excavation permit, and start card) and to ensure that
proper documents are completed prior to the drilling
activity. The WHC contractor and EMO funding was
included to cover the cost of an oversight person to
ensure that drilling plans are in accordance with the
work plan. The cost for this task was obtained from the
WHC drilling group (Wintczak, 1990d).
Estimates for drilling and sampling were provided by
the WHC field services group and by KEH. The estimates
assumed that all boreholes would be located in a
radiation zone, and two rigs would be operating in
separate exclusion zones. The estimate from the WHC
field services group assumed that two RPTs and two NPOs
would be required for drilling activities at each rig.
One RPT would monitor in the exclusion zone and the
other RPT would monitor outside the exclusion zone.
The two NPOs would be required for decontamination
activities. The WHC estimate also included quality
assurance (QA), records support, and materials
allocation. The QA level of effort was included to
cover preparation of procedures and audits or
surveillance activities. Records support funding
included maintenance of project records and training
records files. The materials allocation was for items
such as casings and sample bottles. The KEH estimate
was for the driller, the driller's helper for each rig,
and operation and maintenance of the rigs. The WHC
contractor and EMO also included estimates for one
person to oversee the drilling operations to ensure
compliance with the work plan (Wintczak, 1990b).
The assumed drilling rate was 10 feet per day for
vadose boreholes and 20 feet per day for groundwater
wells. This rate was based on typical cable tool
drilling rates at Hanford. Most of the historical
drilling has been done in the 200 Area (Wintczak,
1990e). The different rates were based on the
assumption that more soil samples would be collected
per foot for the vadose boreholes than for the
groundwater wells (Patterson, 1990a). Collection of
soil samples slows the drilling rate.
26
-------
6b. Model Applied to Cost Estimate for 200-BP-l
The drilling cost was obtained assuming two phases of
drilling activities, the RI Phase I and RI Phase II.
Each phase entailed drilling preparation activities and
actual drilling and sampling activities. The
documentation requirements were assumed to be the same
for each phase. Therefore the preparation task would
be identical in each phase (i.e., $32,000 for 4
months). However, an assumption was made that the
second phase actual drilling and sampling activities
would only entail 60 percent of the first phase actual
drilling activities. Therefore, the second phase would
require a time frame that was 60 percent of the first
phase time frame. The monthly rates for each phase
would be the same ($193,000) (see page A3).
The drilling and sampling activity time frame was
dependent on the number of waste management units or
waste sites present at the operable unit. Appendix B
contains the operable unit matrix, which is used to
tailor the model to specific operable units. The 200-
BP-l Operable Unit was assumed to contain 11 waste
sites (see page B2). The cost model's assumptions
included installation of three new boreholes and one
new groundwater well per waste site (see page A4).
Cable tool drilling was the assumed drilling method at
a rate of 10 feet per day for vadose boreholes and 20
feet per day for groundwater wells. The duration for
the Phase 1 vadose zone drilling activities at the 200-
BP-l Operable Unit was 4 months based on the
assumptions that (1) the drilling rate is 10 feet per
day per rig, (2) two rigs will be used, (3) a month is
160 working hours, (4) the number of vadose zone holes
is 33 (3 holes x 11 waste sites), and (5) the depth of
each vadose zone borehole is 50 feet.
Therefore, the Phase I drilling activity would be four
months for vadose boreholes. The calculation for the
vadose boreholes is based on the following:
— 33 boreholes x 50 ft/borehole = 1650 ft;
— 1650 ft at 10 ft/day/rig x 2 rigs =82.5 days;
— 82.5 days at 5 days per week = 16.5 weeks; and
— 16.5 weeks at 4 weeks per month = 4 months.
Similar calculations were made for groundwater
monitoring wells, except that drilling rates were
faster (20 feet per day) due to less sample collection
and the assumed well completion depth for the 200 Area
was 300 feet. Therefore, the drilling duration for
Phase I groundwater monitoring wells was 4 months.
27
-------
The total Phase I drilling period was estimated to be 8
months in duration. The Phase II drilling period was
estimated to be 5 months (60 percent of Phase I). The
drilling cost was a total of the Phase I activities
($32,000 per month for 4 months and $193,000 per month
for 8 months) and the Phase II activities ($32,000 per
month for 4 months and $193,000 per month for 5
months).
Finally, the staffing required for drilling operations
may be adjusted due to information gathered during the
1100-EM-l Operable Unit RI operations. Economies of
scale may be implemented by increasing the number of
rigs and reducing the number of people used per rig by
distributing personnel, as appropriate, between rigs.
(The health and safety requirement was a minimum of 11
people for one rig (Cooper, 1990).)
6c. Evaluation of Model and 200-BP-l Cost Estimate
The high drilling costs are a function of the number of
people required for each rig and the rate (feet per
day) at which a drill rig operates. These factors are
discussed in this section.
The vadose zone underlying the 200-BP-l Operable Unit
is a fluvial deposit ranging in grain size from fine
sand to granitic boulders in excess of 8 feet in
diameter. The vadose zone boreholes and groundwater
monitoring wells are to be drilled using cable tool
drilling rigs, one of the slowest methods available for
drilling boreholes. Other proven methods are available
that may be able to drill boreholes of sufficient
quality, and provide adequate safety standards, in as
little as one-fifth the time. Reverse circulation air
rotary drilling and ODEX drilling are two examples.
The 200-BP-l Operable Unit RI/FS Work Plan states that
other drilling methods are being evaluated as
alternatives to cable tool drilling. DOE and WHC
acknowledge that selection of a faster technique that
still meets all health and safety concerns will reduce
the numbers of drilling hours, and thus, the costs.
Becker Drills, Inc. of Henderson, Colorado, was
contracted to drill a test boring using the reverse
circulation air rotary method at the Hanford site.
Becker completed a water-table borehole (cased and
screened) to 255 feet at an average penetration rate of
8.5 feet per hour. This included six to eight core
samples (Ferris, 1990). The typical penetration rate
at Hanford using cable tool drilling method is
approximately 2.1 feet per hour (Brown, 1990). This
rate does not include time for split-spoon sampling.
28
-------
The potential cost savings that can be realized by use
of a quicker drilling technique can be demonstrated by
applying the model's drilling assumptions to a faster
drilling rate. Table C-3 describes the estimated costs
associated with drilling a 300-foot grounclwater
monitoring well at the 200-Area, within a radioactive
zone. The number of personnel associated with the
drilling task was obtained from the cost-estimating
model (see Appendix A, page A3) and was held constant
for each drilling technique. This rough analysis shows
a cost savings in support personnel labor of over 70
percent (or $37,676 per well) by using a faster
drilling rate. The drilling contractor costs, provided
as a lump sum per month in the model, are not included
in Table C-3 because the model did not differentiate
between labor and materials for the drilling contractor
subtask. The faster drilling rate would result in an
unspecified savings in drilling contractor costs.
Another area which impacts drilling costs is related to
the number of people assigned to the drill rig. The
number of people involved and their work hours can not
be ignored in terms of the speed of the drill rig, as
shown in Table C-13. However, the type of disciplines
required, the detailed subtask descriptions, and the
number of people and level of effort necessary for each
subtask, should be considered separately from the speed
of the drill rig. The model does not provide
sufficient detail for the reviewers to conclude whether
the subtasks and the resource calculations to complete
the subtasks were appropriate. As stated in previous
sections regarding the cost-estimating model, further
description of subtasks and justification for the level
of effort proposed should be provided as part of the
model. DOE and WHC should ensure that only the
essential activities and personnel are included in the
model.
One example of a subtask related to drilling that
should be better defined is that of QA. This subtask
appears to include an excessive level of effort. The
80 hours per month (40 hours per drill rig per month)
for this activity is significantly higher than that
experienced in the private sector. The level of effort
equates to 25 percent of a QA specialist's time at each
drill rig. In the private sector, when numerous RI/FS
projects are managed by a single contractor, QA field
audits are typically conducted at 10 percent of the
RI/FS projects (Ruiter, 1990). The QA field audit
pertains to all field activities, and is not
restrictedto drilling. Forty hours are typically
29
-------
TABLE C-3
COMPARISON OF SUPPORT PERSONNEL COSTS FOR
DRILLING ACTIVITIES
(1)
w
o
Group
Labor Rate
Hour/Person
# People0'
@ 1 Rig
Labor Cost
/Hour/Rig
(2)
Cost/Well
Cable Tool
(3)
(4)
Cost/Well
Air Rotary
Team $55.83
Leader
QA $56.25
Records $75.00
Sampling $56.25
Scientist
RPT<5) $56.25
NPO $56.25
Health & $56.25
Safety
Contractor $75.00
Total
0.75
0.25
0.06
0.75
2.0
2.0
0.75
1.0
(1) Calculated from p. A3 and adjusted
(2) Labor rate/hour/person x # people
(3) Labor cost/hour/rig x 120 hours
(4) Labor cost/hour/rig x 35.3 hours
(5) RPT hours based on 160 hours/month
rate of 224 hours per month.
$ 41.87
$ 14.06
$ 4.50
$ 42.19
$112.50
$112.50
$ 42.19
$ 75.00
$ 5,024
$ 1,687
$ 540
$ 5,063
$13,500
$13,500
$ 5,063
$ 9,000
$53,377
for one drill rig.
@ 1 rig.
(2-1/2 '/hour for 300' well =
(8-1/2 '/hour for 300' well =
, as per model , rather than
$ 1,478
$ 496
$ 159
$ 1,489
$ 3,971
$ 3,971
$ 1,489
$ 2,648
$15,701
120 hours) .
35.3 hours) .
on more recently quoted
-------
allocated for a full QA field audit of an RI/FS
project. Depending on the timing of the visit, the
audit of drilling activities may range from zero hours
if no drilling is being done to 40 hours if drilling is
the only activity occurring. The QA field audit does
not necessarily include an evaluation of each well.
This discussion may or may not be valid in the
evaluation and comparison of QA activities in the
model. However, this highlights the need, again, for
WHC to provide a detailed description of the specific
subtasks that are included in the model. Until that is
done, neither a direct comparison to private sector
costs nor an evaluation of the model can be made with
any reasonable degree of certainty.
The model does not account for potential economies of
scale that may allow key people to perform their tasks
at multiple locations, (in this case, multiple drill
rigs), thereby maximizing their efficiency. The
reviewers assume that the model will be adjusted to
reflect such efficiencies, to the extent realized from
experience, as part of the trend system.
Incurred drilling costs from the 1100 Area RI/FS
activities were reviewed to assess the accuracy of the
cost-estimating model's assumptions (see Appendix D).
The 1100 Area drilling operations were conducted as a
characterization activity and a training session for
personnel (i.e., radiation zone procedures were
implemented to familiarize the staff with the
procedures prior to conducting operations in a
radiation zone) (Patterson, 1990b).
The drilling cost associated with the 1100 Area RI/FS
activities, as of May 31, 1990, is $1,329,000 for
12 boreholes and 16 wells. The total drilling
contractor's costs ($882,000) include drilling,
installing the groundwater wells, abandoning the vadose
boreholes, providing materials, and sampling
(Patterson, 1990b). The field sampling cost was
$176,000 as of May 31, 1990. By subtracting the field
sampling costs from the drilling contractors' costs,
the incurred costs for drilling and materials are
$706,000. The drilling contractor's cost was
calculated to be $482 per foot. This figure was
reached by summing the drilling contractor's costs (KEH
and WHC), then subtracting the field sampling costs and
dividing the result by the total footage drilled. The
$482 per foot rate includes drilling 28 holes,
installing 16 groundwater wells, and abandoning 12
vadose boreholes. Health and safety and other
31
-------
supporting costs are added to this figure for a total
drilling cost of $1,329,000.
The model predicts that the drilling duration for the
1100 Area would be approximately 4.5 months and the
drilling contractor's cost would be $50,000 per month,
including materials. The model assumes that
abandonment of the vadose boreholes would take 1.5
months at a cost of $40,000 per month. The model's
abandonment cost is then $60,000 for 12 boreholes. The
model estimate for the drilling contractor, materials,
and borehole abandonment at the 1100 Area is $285,000.
This is significantly lower than the incurred costs for
the drilling contractor at the 1100 Area.
Due to the apparent high cost of the drilling
contractor at the 1100-Area (exclusive of other support
personnel costs), the reviewers solicited an
independent bid from a private sector company, for
comparison purposes. This bid specified the ODEX
drilling method and was based on other specifications,
as follows, in an attempt to match the conditions at
the 1100-Area as closely as possible.
12 boreholes to an average depth of 30 feet,
16 groundwater wells to an average depth of
72 feet,
level B personal protection,
3 person drilling crew,
2-inch stainless steel casing, and
• construction materials and abandonment
materials for borehole.
The estimated cost received from the drilling company
was $200 per foot (High, 1990). This compares to the
previously mentioned incurred drilling contractor cost
of $482 per foot in the 1100-Area. It is important to
note that this estimate does not include the time
necessary for down-hole sampling using split spoons or
coring methods or additional contingencies applicable
to the Hanford Site. If sample integrity is a concern,
and drill cuttings obtained using the ODEX method will
not suffice for analytical purposes, then extra time
and costs must be added to the estimate (about $50 per
split spoon).
In addition, the cost incurred to drill and sample in
protective level C or B may justify increasing the
workday shifts to 10 hours because of the time involved
in preparing to enter or exit the exclusion zones. The
costs of the lengthened work shift should be calculated
to determine whether any savings could be realized.
32
-------
7. Borehole Abandonment
7a. Assumptions Used in Model (See Page A6)
The borehole abandonment estimate was based on the
assumption that the abandonment task would occur over
the same time frame as the vadose borehole drilling for
a cost of $40,000 per month. The estimate was obtained
from the WHC environmental engineering group and was
based on historical costs. The estimate included a rig
tender, driller, and materials and was based on the
assumption that the entire borehole would be grouted to
the land surface. No additional information was
provided on this task.
7b. Model Applied to Cost Estimate for 200-BP-l
The borehole abandonment cost was generated using the
monthly rate of $40,000 (see page A6) over the vadose
borehole drilling duration. The 200-BP-l Operable Unit
estimate involved 4 months for RI Phase I activities
and 3 months (approximately 60 percent of 4 months) for
RI Phase 2 activities. Thirty-three boreholes are
estimated for the 200-BP-l Operable Unit.
7c. Evaluation of Model and 200-BP-l Cost Estimate
Based on the information given, the reviewers believe
that the assumed time frame for this task, as specified
in the model and applied at the 200-BP-l Operable Unit
is excessive. The depth of shallow boreholes in the
200-BP-l Operable Unit is approximately 25 feet. The
deep borehole at each of the cribs is approximately 255
feet. The reviewers' experience in the private-sector
would indicate that abandonment of a 25-foot borehole
drilled using cable tool method should teike
approximately 4 hours for a 3-man crew to complete.
Abandonment of the deep boreholes (up to 300 feet)
should take a crew approximately 30 hours. Assuming 22
shallow wells and 11 deep wells at the 200-BP-l
Operable Unit, a total of 628 hours would be required
for a 3-man crew to abandon all the boreholes. At 160
hours per month, this converts to approximately 4
months of activity for a crew, rather than the 7 months
estimated in the model. This estimate does not include
any mobilization and demobilization costs.
The model's cost for this task should provide a greater
level of detail. For example, items such as (1) the
cost of materials per borehole, (2) the manpower
requirement for each borehole and a description for
each person's assignment, and (3) the number of hours
required for each borehole should be included. Once
33
-------
this information is available, a more thorough
assessment of the costs can and should be made.
8. HAZARDOUS WASTE DISPOSAL AND DECONTAMINATION
8a. Assumptions Used in Model (See Page A4)
Hazardous waste disposal and decontamination estimates
were developed using a set of assumptions that stem
from the number of waste sites present at an operable
unit. Hazardous waste disposal was estimated to cost
$20 per foot for vadose boreholes and $5 per foot for
groundwater wells.
Radiological decontamination is conducted at the T-
Plant. The T-Plant is currently the only onsite
facility equipped to handle radiological
decontamination of heavy equipment. The T-Plant
operations must be completely funded by current onsite
activities. An assessment program is used to fund T-
Plant operations. This assessment program entails
evaluating expected work loads for the year and
charging the corresponding projects a fee that will
cover operating and maintenance costs. The RI/FS
decontamination assumption is that radiological
decontamination must be conducted after each hole is
drilled at a cost of $18,000 per hole.
8b. Model Applied to Cost Estimate for 200-BP-l
The cost for this category ($1,326,000) is dependent on
the number of waste sites present at the operable unit.
This activity occurred in each of the field work
phases.
A monthly rate was obtained by finding the total cost
for RI Phase I and dividing by the number of months in
Phase I (see Appendix B). The total cost for Phase I
was generated in two parts. First, the $18,000
decontamination cost per rig was used for each of the
holes drilled. For the 200-BP-l Operable Unit, 44
holes will be drilled (33 vadose and 11 groundwater
wells). Therefore, the total decontamination cost was
$792,000 (see page B2). Second, the hazardous waste
disposal cost of $20 per foot for vadose boreholes
(total footage = 1,650 feet) and $5 per foot for
groundwater wells (total footage = 3,300 feet) was used
to obtain a total disposal cost of $50,000 (see page
B3). The total Phase I cost was $842,000 (see page
B4). A monthly rate was obtained by dividing the Phase
I total cost by the Phase I drilling duration (8
months). The 200-BP-l Operable Unit monthly cost was
calculated to be $102,000 (see page B5).
34
-------
The 200-BP-l Operable Unit cost estimate used the
monthly rate and applied it over the RI Phase I
drilling duration of 8 months (disposal/decontamination
occurs over the same time frame) and the RI Phase II
drilling duration (5 months).
Due to significant costs, time, and paperwork
associated with decontamination at T-Plant, temporary
radiological and nonradiological decontamination
facilities may be established adjacent to the work
areas to expedite the decontamination process. A
design study regarding the cost of constructing and
operating such temporary decontamination facilities is
currently being investigated (Wintczak, 1990b).
8c. Evaluation of Model and 200-BP-l Cost Estimate
The level of detail for costs developed for this task
is adequate. The high cost is apparently related to
the costs assessed by the T-Plant ($18,000/borehole).
This assessment cost should be validated and detailed
by DOE and WHC to determine whether this cost can be
justified.
Construction and use of temporary decontamination
facilities in the proximity of the operable units could
decrease decontamination costs. The advisability of
pursuing this action should become clear as WHC
completes its evaluation of this issue. The reviewers
consider this a positive step in an attempt to reduce
costs.
9. CHEMICAL ANALYSIS
9a. Assumptions Used in Model (See Page A5)
The estimate for analytical work was given by the
onsite laboratories at a cost per sample. Chemical
analysis refers to the soil samples taken while
drilling the vadose boreholes and the groundwater
wells. The average cost of $6,000 per sample for
200-Area soil samples was based on the assumption that
5 percent of the samples would require analysis in a
hot cell at $18,000 per sample, 45 percent of the
samples would require analysis in a hood at $8,000 per
sample, and the remaining samples would only require
routine nonradioactive analyses at $3,000 per sample
(Wintczak, 1990c).
9b. Model Applied to Cost Estimate for 200-BP-l
As stated previously, this task includes the costs for
analysis of subsurface soil samples obtained while
drilling. The cost for this activity was generated by
first using the operable unit matrix (Appendix B) and
35
-------
obtaining a monthly analysis rate. The monthly rate
was obtained using the model's assumptions, namely that
10 samples would be collected for each hole drilled.
Sample analysis costs were $6,000 for soil samples from
vadose boreholes and $3,000 for soil samples taken
during groundwater well drilling (see page A6). The
matrix is used because the number of waste sites varies
at each operable unit. The 200-BP-l Operable Unit was
assumed to have 11 waste sites.. Therefore, the total
cost for chemical analyses during the RI Phase I was
calculated as $2,310,000. The monthly rate was
determined to be $280,000 (see page B4), which is
approximately the total RI Phase I cost divided by the
RI Phase I drilling duration (8 months). This monthly
rate is actually rounded down from $288rOOO by WHC.
The monthly rate of $280,000 was entered into the model
and distributed over the RI Phases I and II drilling
time frames (8 months and 5 months, respectively) to
generate the total cost of $3,640,000.
9c. Evaluation of Model and 200-BP-l Cost Estimate
The costs developed for this task are sufficiently
detailed. The assumptions on the number of samples and
types of analyses appear to be reasonable. This is an
area that should be refined by use of the trend system
as incurred cost information becomes available. The
high cost is a function of the individual sample
analysis cost. These soil sample analysis costs should
be more detailed and validated. Further discussion on
laboratory analytical costs for Hanford work is
included in another section of this report and will not
be addressed further in this section.
10. PHYSICAL ANALYSIS
10a. Assumptions Used in Model (See Page A7)
The physical analysis (i.e., soil hydraulic
characterization) task estimate was based on
engineering judgement. WHC anticipated that soils
contaminated with radionuclides would have to be
analyzed in a protective environment (i.e., hood or hot
cell) depending on the radiation level and this was
reflected by higher costs in the model (Wintczak,
1990a). Incurred costs for the physical analysis of
nonradiological samples were not available at the time
this model was generated (Patterson, 1990b).
36
-------
IQb. Model Applied to Cost Estimate for 200-BP-l
The physical analysis cost ($350,000) was generated
using the $50,000 monthly rate over the RI Phase I
vadose drilling duration (4 months) and the RIPhase II
vadose drilling duration (3 months).
IQc. Evaluation of Model and 200-BP-l Cost Estimate
A greater level of detail for this task should be
provided to justify the costs used in the model. The
number and types of soil characterization analyses, and
the cost per analysis should be documented. The
reviewers asked for a more specific breakdown of
subtasks, but WHC was unable to provide this
information. For this reason, comparative costs for
physical analysis outside of the Hanford Site can not
be made by the reviewers.
11. Groundwater Monitoring
lla. Assumptions Used in Model (See Page A7)
The groundwater monitoring estimate was based on
engineering judgement and applies only to monitoring of
newly installed wells. The assumptions were (1)
monitoring would begin at the initiation of groundwater
well drilling and continue through the ROD, and (2) one
sample per newly installed well per quarter would be
collected and analyzed at a cost of $2,000 per
nonradioactive sample. The estimated number of
groundwater wells was dependent on the number of waste
sites identified at the operable unit, i.e., one new
well per waste site. The $2,000 per sample rate was
obtained from PNL's sample management office who
contacted private laboratories to obtain the quotes
(Patterson, 1990a).
lib. Model Applied to Cost Estimate for 200-BP-l
The total cost for the groundwater monitoring task
($759,000) was obtained by first generating a monthly
rate. The monthly rate was generated from the model's
assumptions that one sample per newly installed well
per quarter would be collected and analyz:ed at a cost
of $2,000 per sample. The 200-BP-l Operable Unit
assumption was that 11 groundwater wells would be
installed. Therefore the monthly rate was $7,000 for
Phase I RI (11 wells x 1 sample per quarter x 1 quarter
per 3 month x $2,000 per sample = approximately $7,000
per month) and $15,000 for RI Phase II. The reviewers
have assumed that Phase II monitoring costs for the
200-BP-l Operable Unit were increased to account for
monitoring of additional wells to be drilled in Phase
II. In this manner, wells drilled during both RI
Phases I and II would be monitored at a total monthly
37
-------
cost of $15,000. If the reviewers' assumption is
correct, more wells would have to be drilled in RI
Phase II than in RI Phase I, to account for this
additional cost.
lie. Evaluation of Model and 200-BP-l Cost Estimate
The model's -cost of $2000 per nonradioactive sample is
consistent with costs incurred at other Superfund
sites. However, many of the samples from Hanford will
contain radioactive constituents (e.g., tritium,
technetium, and strontium), for which no cost estimates
were provided in the model. Further, the cost of $2000
per sample applies only to laboratory costs, not to
sample collection. Due to the number of people present
during sampling, it is very possible that the sampling
cost could be higher than the analytical costs per
sample. WHC should account for analysis of radioactive
groundwater samples and for sampling costs to refine
this portion of the model.
Analytical costs are a function of the number of
samples and the type of analyses. The typical cost for
organic and inorganic CLP analyses is $1,000 to $1,200
(see Table C-2). Laboratories that perform
radiochemical analyses are limited. It is important to
note that most commercial laboratories can not accept
samples that have a radioactive component (greater than
1 mR per hour), and the price does not cover the cost
of sample shipment from Hanford.
WHC and DOE have proposed that existing wells be used
as part of the RI/FS wherever possible, in an effort to
reduce costs. The reviewers agree that the use of
existing wells for appropriate purposes, based on data
quality objectives, is prudent. Therefore, the
groundwater monitoring costs should be based on the
total estimated number of wells used to support the
RI/FS, rather than just the new wells to be installed.
The cost of monitoring (sample collection and analysis)
has little to do with whether the well is newly
installed or existing. Installation of 11 new
groundwater monitoring wells was estimated and budgeted
for the 200-BP-l Operable Unit RI/FS. The RI/FS work
plan provides that additional existing groundwater
monitoring wells would be used as part of the
monitoring network. Monitoring costs should be
estimated on the total number of wells included in the
monitoring network.
Finally, the reviewers do not agree that the
groundwater monitoring costs should more than double
($7000 versus $15,000) due to additional wells
38
-------
installed under the RI Phase II. Phase I drilling
activity lasts for 8 months, while Phase II drilling
lasts for only 5 months. Phase II drilling activity
was originally planned as a time to conduct any
necessary treatability investigations and to supplement
data collection needs. Drilling of more wells during
Phase II than during Phase I was never anticipated.
While this scenario is possible, based on operable unit
specific conditions, it should be considered the
exception rather than the rule. WHC should reassess
the basis for the $15,000 per month groundwater
monitoring cost during and after the RI Phase II, and
either provide detailed documentation for this cost or
adjust the cost in the model.
12. PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT
12a. Assumptions Used in Model (See Page All)
This task involves determining the potential fate and
transport mechanisms for contaminants present at the
operable unit and evaluation of the associated risks.
The estimate for this task was based on engineering
judgement. The engineering judgement involved the
number of man-hours necessary to complete the task.
The task was divided into two phases. The assumptions
were that approximately 1.5 staff members were
necessary for the first phase and 2 staff members were
necessary for the second phase. The first phase was
estimated to take 24 months and cost $360,000. The
second phase was estimated to take 12 months and cost
$240,000. The manpower requirement was increased in
the second phase based on the assumption that there
would be more data to process during the second phase
(Patterson, 1990). Unresolved issues that could affect
the cost associated with this task include the
determination of future land use, the expected point of
compliance, and the allocation of risk method (i.e.,
per operable unit or per entire site).
12b. Model Applied to Cost Estimate for 200-BP-l
The performance assessment cost ($600,000) was
generated using the Phase I and Phase II monthly rates
($15,000 and $20,000, respectively) over the assumed
time frames for each Phase (24 months and 12 months,
respectively) (see page All).
12c. Evaluation of Model and 200-BP-l Cost Estimate
The cost for this task should be more detailed in order
to justify the overall level of effort that was
estimated for this task. The subtasks were not well
defined; therefore, the reviewers were unable to
evaluate the adequacy of the cost estimates or to
39
-------
compare the estimates to private sector work for
similar tasks. However, the reviewers were able to
draw some conclusions regarding performance assessment.
First, the model does not account for deletion or
reduction in performance assessment activity after the
first several RI/FS projects have been completed.
Continuation of tasks such as development of models and
establishing site-wide background data at a high level
of effort (5 man-years) can not be justified at every
operable unit.
Second, the model does not consider the difference
between source operable units, groundwater operable
units, or combination (source and groundwater) operable
units. The level of effort for performance assessment
activity as it relates to these different types of
operable units should vary considerably.
The third area is not directly related to cost, but has
to do with management. The reviewers noted during
recent Unit Manager meetings that the WHC group who has
responsibility for performance assessment on a site-
wide basis has very little to do with input to or
review of the various RI/FS work plans as they are
developed. While the performance assessment group's
role is broader than RI/FS work, the reviewers believe
that the performance assessment group should be closely
tied to the engineering group and should be involved at
the operable unit RI/FS level. This would facilitate
better communication, minimize surprises, and,
hopefully, have some degree of positive impact in cost
reduction over the long term.
13. TREATABILITY STUDIES
13a. Assumptions Used in Model (See Page All)
The treatability study estimate was based on
engineering judgement. The $3,000,000 estimate was
going to be built into 10 RI/FS projects and then this
cost would be eliminated from future RI/FS activities
based on the assumption that the studies would be
applicable for a wide range of operable units
(Wintczak, 1990c).
13b. Model Applied to Cost Estimate for 200-BP-l
The treatability study task cost ($3,000,000) was
generated by distributing the total cost over the
assumed time frame. It was assumed that the middle
months of the time frame would require a greater level
of effort than the beginning or ending months.
Therefore the distribution is not evenly distributed
over the entire time frame.
40
-------
13c. Evaluation of Model and 200-BP-l Cost Estimate
Planning for treatability studies prior to initiation
of scoping or investigation activities is a difficult
task. Likewise, a budget estimate for these activities
which is prepared over two years in advance is likely
to have a low degree of confidence. The reviewers do
not disagree with the cost estimate or the assumption
in the model, but do have one suggestion. A generic
list of all potential subtasks should be defined, with
an estimated or documented level of effort for each of
the subtasks, including a breakdown by personnel
required to complete the task. If this were done on a
site-wide basis, WHC could make an "educated guess" on
which subtasks, if any, were likely to have
applicability at an individual operable unit.
Certainly, this is an area where the trend system will
be useful in determining applicability at future
operable units and in updating the model based on
incurred costs.
14. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
14a. Assumptions Used in Model (See Page All)
The DOE has determined that the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA) applies to CERCLA activities at its
various sites, including Hanford. Therefore, to comply
with NEPA, WHC assumed that an environmental assessment
would be done for every unit, including the 200-BP-l
Operable Unit. The WHC regulatory / NEPA permitting
group provided the estimate of $1,000,000 based on
engineering judgement (Wintczak, 1990c). No other
information was provided to justify this cost.
14b. Model Applied to Cost Estimate for 200-BP-l
The environmental assessment cost was generated by
distributing the lump sum cost over the assumed time
frame (18 months). The 200-BP-l Operable Unit
distribution consisted of 15 months at $50,000 per
month and 3 months at $100,000 per month. The higher
level of effort for some months is based on the
assumption that at the beginning of the assessment more
data will have to be compiled before the assessment can
begin. This distribution for 200-BP-l Operable Unit
results in a total cost that is $50,000 above the
model's assumed lump sum of $1,000,000.
I4c. Evaluation of Model and 200-BP-l Cost Estimate
From a cost evaluation standpoint, the estimate for
this task should be more detailed to justify the
overall level of effort that was assumed. A breakdown
by subtask is also needed. Although there is presently
41
-------
insufficient information for the reviewers to evaluate
WHC's estimate, the cost of $1,000,000 per operable
unit seems inordinately high.
From a cost saving standpoint, the EPA Region 10
maintains its position that DOE does not need to
implement the NEPA process at each operable unit.
Elimination of this activity will save approximately
$78 million, based on WHC's current cost estimate and
the number of operable units at Hanford. EPA believes
that the administrative process under CERCLA is
functionally equivalent to that of NEPA, with the
exception of assessing cumulative impacts on a site-
wide basis. The reason that cumulative impacts will
not be assessed under the CERCLA process at Hanford is
that EPA does not believe that a valid assessment can
be made without operable unit specific information.
Under CERCLA, this information will be collected for
each operable unit and assimilated for the Hanford
Site, as specified in the Hanford Federal Facility
Agreement and Consent Order. EPA requests that DOE
reconsider its position on NEPA implementation at the
Hanford Site and decide on a course of action that uses
available funding for environmental restoration in the
most efficient way possible.
6. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
This section consists of a discussion of some of the
factors which are unique to Hanford and impact costs, a
general comparison of overall costs to the costs
encountered in the private sector, and general
conclusions.
A. Factors Unique to Hanford
The most obvious and perhaps the major complication at
the Hanford Site is the fact that the site is
contaminated with radioactive materials. The handling
of potentially radioactive materials requires specially
adapted procedures to minimize the potential for worker
contact and to reduce contaminant migration during
field activities. The two major areas impacted by the
radioactive component during the RI/FS are the field
investigative work (namely, drilling and sampling) and
sample analysis costs. For example, the number of
personnel required for drilling operations is elevated
to provide a higher degree of monitoring and
protection. Another example is the extensive
documentation and multiple approvals required for
transporting samples (for example documentation
includes, chain-of-custody, analysis request, offsite
42
-------
control form, hazardous material shipment record,
radioactive shipment record).
The Hanford Site is evolving from a nuclear production
facility to an environmental restoration and research
and development facility. There are large operations
onsite that must be funded through the new operations.
Examples of these operations are the laundry system,
the busing system, site regulatory personnel, and the
various craft personnel. Also, the transition to the
environmental restoration program entails a degree of
startup costs. As onsite personnel receive training on
the program-specific requirements, the startup factor
should dissipate.
The operations at Hanford occur under the directive of
DOE. Therefore, the operations conducted at the site
must meet with the DOE policies and terms of various
labor agreements that may impact costs. For example,
if onsite work requires personnel protection level A
for welding, a member of the pipe fitters union must be
included in the work party to attach airlines. In
addition, the radiation survey and equipment
decontamination tasks must be conducted by a member of
the RPT union or NPO union, respectively. Laundry
(cleaned coveralls) must be delivered to the work site
by a laundry union member. The union's management is
also funded at a level necessary to provide requested
support.
B. Private Sector RI/FS Cost Comparison
Numerous comparisons to specific project elements have
been made in the preceding pages. This section
provides two brief comparisons to overall RI/FS costs
outside of Hanford. Caution must be used when
comparing costs from different investigations. As
noted previously, Hanford has distinct characteristics
that impact costs (as do all other sites). Thus, the
size and complexity of the site, the nature and extent
of contamination, and the environmental surrounding
must be considered when evaluating costs. A comparison
of selected costs at Hanford with private-sector costs
was previously shown in Table C-2.
A recent cost estimate for an RI/FS projesct at a U.S.
naval installation quoted a total cost of approximately
$16,000,000. However, this figure does not include
RI/FS work plan preparation or scoping. The cost does
include all investigative and reporting activities up
to the finalization of the RI Reports. The
investigation involved three operable units that
included 6 installation restoration sites including
43
-------
industrial landfills, oil reclamation ponds, scrap
yards, old transformer storage yard, and submarine base
area. Seven million dollars were allocated for
anticipated chemical analysis. Three final RI Reports
are estimated to cost a total of about $500,000.
A small RI/FS project (total cost about $500,000) at
the Foldertsma Refuse NPL site in Michigan that was
approximately 70 percent complete as of April 1990 has
incurred costs of $19,000 for scoping; $28,000 for work
plan (including QA project plan) preparation; $110,000
for soil and sediment sampling (including drilling);
$11,000 for groundwater sampling; and $46,000 for
project management. The percent distribution for these
tasks are 6 percent, 8 percent, 32 percent, 3 percent,
and 14 percent, respectively. These percentages
approach "typical" task distributions. Once again, the
comparison between project budgets should be conducted
with great caution.
C. General Summary and Conclusions
The EPA evaluated the 200-BP-l Operable Unit cost
estimate generated by WHC. This cost estimate was
developed as an order-of-magnitude estimate prior to
finalization of the 200-BP-l Operable Unit Work Plan.
The total estimated cost for this project is
$27,200,000. This estimate was generated by a computer
model that used a set of general conservative
assumptions.
The level of documentation explaining the basis for the
model's estimate should be developed in greater detail.
DOE's cost-estimating handbook specifies that an
explanation of how the estimate was developed should be
written for each task. This explanation should include
a task description, project work breakdown structure,
summary task schedule, basis of the cost estimate, and
escalation (DOE, 1990). The trend system that is in
place will provide a degree of documentation.
The model is expected to undergo modifications that
will reflect the information acquired over the previous
fiscal year. A review of the modified model may
provide missing information and give an indication of
the effectiveness of the trend system.
The assumptions used to develop the cost-estimating
model appear to be conservative, yet can not be
confirmed as to their reasonableness based on the level
of the estimate, the various unknowns present during
estimate preparation (i.e., scope of work), and the
special considerations that are associated with the
44
-------
work at Hanford. Some areas of concern involve the
level of effort estimated to produce a report and to
conduct field activities. The funding necessary to
complete these tasks may be reduced by refining the
level of review and documentation required, such as the
28-person WHC review for primary documents. These
decisions must be made in-house and require a re-
evaluation of established procedures.
Private-sector RI/FS cost information is provided, but
caution must be used when comparing the costs to the
Hanford estimates. Site-specific and investigation-
specific characteristics that impact costs are not
obvious from bottom-line cost quotes. Work at Hanford
must contend with a variety of special features
including radioactive contamination, an established
network of contractors, and DOE and contractor
requirements. Similarly, the estimates used for
comparison purposes may be impacted by other cost
impacting features.
A discussion of the loaded hourly rate for RI/FS work
is provided here to clarify the basis for some of the
costs. For the most part, the percent distribution of
labor costs per task is comparable between private-
sector RI/FS costs and Hanford's model estimated costs.
The loaded hourly rates are also similar (200-BP-l
Operable Unit rate is about $105 per hour is lower than
the private-sector rate of $137 per hour). It is
important to note that the 200-BP-l Operable Unit lower
loaded hourly rate may be an indication of labor
inefficiency (i.e., labor cost to material cost ratio
is higher for 200-BP-l Operable Unit work than for
private-sector work).
The 200-BP-l Operable Unit loaded rate was calculated
using only the tasks that were assigned a labor hour
breakdown in the estimate assumptions (i.e., scoping,
work plan, training, drilling preparation, drilling, RI
Report, FS Report, and management) and the tasks that
EPA assumed had minimal labor hours associated with
them (i.e., sample analysis, hazardous waste disposal
and decontamination). The total labor hours were
190,684 and the total cost associated with these tasks
was $20,037,000. The labor hours equate to about 15
people working full time over six years. The 15 people
are for the tasks delineated above. Other tasks that
will include additional staff are site characterization
and non-intrusive field activities, borehole
abandonment, physical analyses, groundwater monitoring,
performance assessment, treatability studies, and
environmental assessments. Using the $105 per hour
45
-------
rate, the number of full-time personnel working on
these tasks for six years would be six. Therefore, it
appears that 21 people are expected to work full-time
for six years on this project. This level of labor
appears to be excessive, based on the reviewers'
experience with other Superfund sites.
In summary, the level of detail forming the basis of
the cost-estimating model should be refined. For
example, breakdown of man-hours required for each task
should be established. Also, a task description should
be provided that gives enough detail to explain the
staffing requirements for each task and the anticipated
time frames.
46
-------
D. 300-AREA PROCESS WATER TREATMENT PLANT
1. BACKGROUND
The 300-Area currently produces approximately 1200
gallons per minute (gpm) of process water containing
inorganics, organics, and trace amounts of
radionuclides. Presently, this water is fed into two
process trenches that use percolation into the soil
column as the process water disposal method. In
response to a Congressional request, the Department of
Energy (DOE) published the annual "Plan and Schedule"
in March 1987 (updated in September 1988 and September
1989) to discontinue disposal of contaminated waste
streams in the soil column at the Hanford Site. This
schedule was adopted into the Hanford Federal Facility
Agreement and Consent Order (Tri-Party Agreement) in
May 1989. The 300-Area process water stream was listed
as a high priority stream for treatment and eliminating
discharge. The Tri-Party Agreement schedule requires
cessation of discharge of this stream by December 1991
and completion of a 300-Area treated effluent system by
June 1995.
In response to DOE's requests in the Plan and Schedule,
Westinghouse Hanford Company (WHC) proposed
constructing a water treatment plant to treat all of
the 300-Area process water. The initial treatment
plant design (from here on referenced as the $39M
design), prepared by Kaiser Engineers Hanford (KEH),
assumed a 1200-gpm process flow and was estimated to
cost $39,500,000. DOE did not approve this initial
design and, as a result, KEH prepared another treatment
plant design that assumed a 300-gpm process flow. The
cost of this design was approximately $15,000,000 (from
here on referenced as the $15M design). The $15M
design is contingent on WHC's and Pacific Northwest
Laboratories' (PNL) ability to reduce process effluent
flow at the 300-Area from 1200 gpm to 300 gpm.
The reviewers considered both the $39M and $15M designs
to determine if both were feasible and whether the $39M
design should be further considered in order to treat
the stream sooner, (i.e., concurrent with any waste
minimization activities). Additionally the reviewers
wanted to identify if it was feasible to use the larger
design system to treat contaminated groundwater
produced during anticipated remedial actions in the
300-Area. The primary documents reviewed in EPA's
investigation were the Conceptual Design Reports (CDR)
for both the $39M and $15M designs and the Functional
Design Criteria prepared by WHC.
47
-------
It should be noted that, during this review, the $15M
CDR was undergoing a concurrent review by WHC. The
final CDR was accepted by DOE on June 8, 1990. The
reviewers have not considered the design changes that
were included in the final CDR as part of this
evaluation, since they had gathered the majority of
information and had begun assessing the information
prior to that date. Changes in the final CDR resulted
in cost savings in some areas and increased costs in
others. The overall cost for the treatment plant,
$14.7 million, remained constant in both the draft CDR
and the final CDR.
2. DESCRIPTION OF DOE'S PROJECT COSTS
DOE did not approve the $39M design because of its high
cost. Subsequently, KEH reevaluated the design basis
for the 1200-gpm plant, for the purpose of reducing
costs. The modified design was based on the assumption
that the inflow stream would be reduced from 1,200 gpm
to about 300 gpm. This flow reduction was to be
accomplished by excluding certain cooling water streams
and adopting area-wide waste minimization. By reducing
the flow rate to 300 gpm and eliminating the holding
basins, the cost estimate of the treatment plant was
reduced to $14.7 million, (i.e., the $15M design). In
addition, the measures to implement waste minimization
measures, necessary to achieve the 300 gpm flow rate,
were calculated to be $6.3 million. The development of
this option followed essentially the same procedures as
the 1200-gpm option. This consisted of revisions to
the Engineering Study, Functional Design Criteria, and
the Conceptual Design Report. WHC and DOE reviewed and
approved each of these reports.
DOE-Richland (DOE-RL) considered a third option, but
abandoned it after developing detailed cost estimates.
This option called for diverting flows from the 300-
Area to the City of Richland's wastewater treatment
facility. After extensive negotiations, the City's
assessment fee was set at $20.4 million. In addition,
a $1.7 million sanitary sewer connection fee was
specified and waste minimization activities were
required, at a cost of $6.3 million. Because of the
high cost, this alternative was dismissed in favor of
the $14.7 million alternative with additional $6.3
million allocated for waste minimization.
It should be noted that the cost of discharging treated
effluent was not considered in the cost estimates for
the $15M and $39M designs. The reviewers assume that
48
-------
this discharge would require either a National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit
or a state 216 discharge permit. Likewise, the cost of
complying with pre-treatment requirements under the
option of tying into the City of Richland's treatment
plant was not calculated. A summary of the options
which DOE-RL considered and their respective costs are
presented in Table D-l. The feasibility of the $15M
water treatment plant design depends on the ability of
WHC and PNL to reduce process water flow from the
300-Area to 300 gpm. It should be noted that the
process flow reduction plan is estimated to cost
$6,260,000 (rounded to $6.3 million), which is not
included in the estimate for the $15M design.
Therefore, the total cost of a 300 gpm treatment
system, as currently planned by DOE, will be $21
million.
The $39M water treatment plant was designed to accept
300-Area process water at a rate of 1200 gpm. However,
only 300 gpm maximum was to actually undergo treatment;
the remaining 900 gpm would have been discharged to the
Columbia River without treatment. This discharge was
contingent on the water meeting applicable permit
specifications such as an NPDES permit. Thus, both the
$39M and $15M designs allow for a 300-gpm water
treatment system, but the $39M design diverts 75
percent of its incoming flow to the Columbia River.
The additional $24 million associated with the $39M
design is primarily attributed to constructing five 2.8
million-gallon retention basins used to retain the
untreated process flow until it could be sampled,
analyzed, and shown to meet discharge limits prior to
release into the Columbia River.
The $39M and $15M designs use similar water treatment
process equipment and follow the same process flow
structure. Figure D-l provides a process flow diagram
for the $15M design. The $39M design's process
equipment is similar to that shown in Figure D-l with
the exception that an electrodialysis reversal (EDR)
unit rather than a reverse osmosis (RO) unit is used in
the $39M design. In addition, the $39M design uses
filtration, ion exchange, and evaporator systems that
are of different design than in the $15M design.
The first stage in the treatment process for both
designs is suspended solids removal using filtration.
The $15M design uses a multimedia filter and the $39M
design uses a bag filter for removing particles to
preclude plugging or fouling of downstream equipment.
The second stage of both designs consists of organics
49
-------
TABLE D-l
300-AREA PROCESS WATER TREATMENT FACILITY
-OPTIONS AND COSTS-
Option Cost
High Flow System (1200 gpm) $39.OM
Low Flow System (300 gpm)
Facility $14.7M
Waste Minimization $ 6.3M
Total $21.OM
City of Richland Sewer Connection
Assessment Fee $20.4M
Waste Minimization $ 6.3M
Sanitary Sewer Connection $ 1.7M
Total $28.4M
50
-------
DATE: 09/18/90 JAA
FILE NAME:D:\C10002^F1C-OO^DWG
GRANULAR
ACTIVATED
CARBON
MULTI-MEDIA
FILTER
FEED FROM
300 AREA
RO CONCENTRATE
AND WASTE
REGENERANT TANK
CNDS RECYCLE
NaOH
MIXED BED
ION EXCHANGER
ST. CNDS
TO COLUMBIA
RIVER OR
(VERSION BASIN/
/D
CENTRIFUGAL
COMPRESSOR
TANK CAR
LOAD OFF-
SITE DISPOSAL
EVAPORATOR
FIGURE D-1
|15M DESIGN PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM
SCALE: NOT TO SCALE
-------
removal using a granular activated carbon (GAG) system.
Switch over to a standby GAC vessel occurs
automatically when organic breakthrough is detected by
a total organic carbon monitor. The third stage of
treatment is inorganics removal. The $15M design uses
RO as pretreatment for an ion exchange system which
follows. The $39M design uses EDR as pretreatment for
an ion exchange system. Both EDR and RO serve to
remove the majority of the inorganic constituents in
the influent by use of membrane filtration. The ion
exchange polishers remove most of the remaining
inorganic constituents not removed during pretreatment.
The final stage of treatment in both designs is liquid
waste minimization through an evaporator unit.
A summary of the process equipment used in each design
for each stage of treatment is provided in Table D-2.
Process equipment required for the $39M design, but not
the $15M design, includes: neutralizer ($110,000),
waste slurry dewaterer ($32,000), and resin disposal
casks ($175,000). The total process equipment cost
(not including labor, escalation, and contingencies) is
$2,300,000 for the $15M design and $3,150,000 for the
$39M design. As indicated in Table D-2, the general
structures of the two designs are similar. Process
equipment costs for the $15M design, however, are
substantially less.
WHC will be responsible for overall project management.
Duties include interfacing with DOE, supervising KEH,
and preparing the safety analysis report (SAR), quality
assurance plan, and project management plan. The
design and construction of the water treatment plant
will be performed by two contractors. KEH will perform
the definitive design, engineering and inspection,
procurement, and construction for the tie-in to the
existing sewer line, sump 1, and new piping through the
contaminated area along the existing crib. An offsite
design and construction contractor (D/C Contractor),
yet to be determined, will perform all design,
inspection, and construction for the water treatment
plant, retention basins, sumps (other than sump 1),
valve pits, and interconnecting piping. KEH is also
responsible for managing the D/C Contractor.
Table D-3 provides a cost breakdown for the treatment
plant. This table summarizes costs developed in the
CDR (see Appendix E, page 2 of 10).
52
-------
TABLE D-2
PROCESS EQUIPMENT COMPARISON
First stage -- suspended solids removal
S15M
Filter
Capacity
Particle Size
Removal
No. of Filters
Cleaning/Changeout
Cost
Multimedia Filter
Unknown
(assumed 300 gpm)
10 microns
2-Filter System/Standby
Period Backwash
$100,000
$39M
[Jag Filter
400 gpm
5 microns
Same
Periodic Bag
Filter Media
Changeout
$20,000
Second stage -- organic contaminant removal
Beds
Capacity
Changeout
Regeneration System
Additional
Organic Removal
Cost
$15M
Two 10-ft-dia vessels
715 eft of carbon
Unknown
(assumed 300 gpm)
Complete bed changeout
from off-site supplier
None
None
$200,000
139M
Same
350 gpm
Fresh carbon
introduction
system
None
Air Stripper
$50,000
$250,000
53
-------
TABLE D-2 (continued)
Third stage -- inorganic contaminant removal
i!5M
$39M
Pretreatment Unit
Capacity
No. of Stages
Concentrate Steam
Recovery
Dissolved Ion Removal
Final Treatment
No./Type of Columns
Cost
Reverse Osmosis (RO)
Unknown
(assumed 300 gpm)
3
10%
95%
Ion Exchange (IX)
2/Mixed Bed Polishing,
Regenerable
$637,000
Electrodialysis
Reversal (EDR)
500,000 gpd
(approx. 347 gpm)
Unknown
Same
90%
Same
3/Treatment and
2/Polishing,
Nonregenerable
$900,000
Fourth stage -- secondary waste treatment, evaporator unit
Basic Components
Capacity
Concentrate Waste
Solutions
115M
Evaporator with
crystallization ability
Unknown
(assumed 30 gpm)
2% solids to 80%
$39H
Same without
crystallization
ability
40 gpm
1.5% solids to
35%
Further Dewatering
Required
Cost
No
$1,500,000
Yes
$1,000,000
54
-------
TABLE D-3
COST BREAKDOWN -- 300 AREA PROCESS UATER TREATMENT PLANT
U1
Ul
CONTRACTOR DESCRIPTION
KEH definitive design
field engr./ inspect.
procurement
24-in. tie-in
collection sump 1
6- in. aboveground effluent
Subtotal-KEH
0/C Contractor design of treatment system
engr. /inspect.
site work
diversion basin 1 & 2
sump 2
sump 3
valve pits
underground piping
process treatment equipment
treatment facility building
discharge line
Subtotal -D/C Contractor
UHC operating contractor
project management
Subtotal - UHC
MATERIALS, LABOR
& OH&P/B&I
(*)
325,176
122,700
60,283
33,488
601,722
149,008
1,292,377
647,500
323,700
507,706
799,238
148,942
143,628
213,922
49,721
3,596,143
995,473
20,948
7,446,921
79,251
878,000
957,251
OTHER DIRECTS
(ADMINISTRATION)
($)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
99,175
42,081
66,649
103,901
19,363
18,672
27,810
6,464
467,499
129,412
2,723
983,747
0
0
0
ESCALATION
(6.88-13. 8U>
($)
22,372
15,841
4,147
4,323
77,682
19,237
143,602
103,116
50,514
79,318
124,724
23,243
22,414
33,383
7,759
561,189
155,346
3,269
1,164,275
9,875
109,399
119,274
CONTINGENCY
(15-35X)
«>
52,132
20,781
12,886
11,958
168,589
42,061
308,407
212,448
104,074
163,418
256,966
47,887
46,178
68,779
15,986
939,096
321,104
6,735
2,182,671
22,281
197,480
219.761
TOTAL
DOLLARS
($)
399,680
159,322
77,317
49,769
847,993
210,306
1,744.387
1,062,239
520,369
817,091
1,284,828
239,435
230,891
343,894
79,929
5,563,927
1,601,334
33,676
11,777,614
111,407
1,184,879
1,296,286
Project Total
9,696,549
983,747
1,427,151
2,710,838
14.818.286
-------
Cost estimates for each piece of equipment were
prepared by KEH by summing costs in the following
manner:
(1) equipment and labor costs were estimated;
(2) overhead and profit/bond and insurance (OH&P/B&I)
costs were estimated;
(3) indirect costs, primarily administrative costs,
were calculated as a percent (about 13 percent) of
the sum of (1) and (2);
(4) escalation costs were developed, ranging from 7 to
14 percent of the sum of (1), (2), and (3); and
(5) contingency costs, varying from 15 to 35 percent
of the sum of all the previous costs.
The total cost of each piece of equipment is then the
sum of these five costs.
3. EVALUATION OF DOE'S PROJECT COSTS
Although it appears that either treatment system would
effectively treat the 300-Area process wastes, the $39M
system was rejected by DOE and therefore the following
discussion is limited to the $15M design.
The $15M process system proposed by KEH uses proven
technologies that should adequately remove organics,
inorganics, and radionuclides from the 300-Area process
water. Two areas of concern, however, were noted
during the review of the current process design.
First, the use of granular activated carbon has been
avoided at another DOE site (881 Hillside Area, Rocky
Flats, Colorado) for removing organics from
radionuclide-contaminated water because uranium may
irreversibly adsorb to the activated carbon.
Therefore, treatability studies should be performed
using activated carbon to determine whether uranium
will be a problem for the 300-Area process water.
Depending on the uranium concentration in the process
water, adsorption of uranium to the carbon could pose
disposal problems.
The second potential problem with the current process
system regards the filter flushing operations. Page 16
of the $15M CDR states that "...periodic backwash water
from the multimedia filters can be routed directly to
the river discharge line since none of the toxic
materials will be retained on the filter media." Since
the backwash may contain toxic materials, including
insoluble metals and radionuclides,, the backwash should
be tested prior to discharge.
56
-------
The reviewers evaluated the accuracy of the materials
and labor costs for process equipment, buildings, and
other structures by comparing KEH's estimates to
estimates from vendors, costs for similar work
performed by PRC Environmental Management, Inc. (a
private environmental consulting firm), and information
from the Means' Construction Cost Data catalog. Cost
estimates for water treatment process equipment
appeared to be accurate with relatively small
discrepancies. For example, KEH's estimated cost for
the reverse osmosis (RO) unit is $350,000, while the
cost obtained by the reviewers from a vendor of a
similar RO unit was $300,000 (Matkovits, 1990). KEH's
estimate for the dual media filter was $40,000 higher
than an estimate obtained by the reviewers, (Matkovits,
1990). However, other process equipment, such as the
ion exchange unit, were priced lower in KEH's estimates
($150,000) than the quote of $200,000 obtained by the
reviewers (Dean, 1990).
Of all equipment and structures examined, sump 1, the
facility building, and the 6-inch aboveground effluent
line appear to be the only items that exhibit high
prices. The cost of sump 1 is estimated at $600,000
for materials and labor. A large portion of this cost
is for PVC electrical wiring conduits encased in
concrete ducts ($100,000). WHC has indicated that the
revised CDR omits the use of concrete encasement, and
will use aboveground electrical wiring instead. WHC
has also indicated that sump 1 was oversized in the
original CDR and that the cost of this item will be
significantly reduced in the revised CDR. A $220,000
building for housing sump 1 is also included in the
$600,000 estimate. This building is being provided to
house control equipment and to keep pipes from
freezing. Heat tracing and insulating pipes and pumps
should be a more economical alternative to housing the
sump, and should be considered in future designs.
The facility building cost is estimated at about
$580,000. This estimate does not include escalation
and contingency costs. This corresponds to a cost of
$90 per square foot. Typical building costs in the
private-sector for similar structures range from $50 to
$60 per square foot. WHC has indicated that
approximately 37 percent of the total building cost is
attributed to electrical hook-up and equipment costs.
WHC stated that the high electrical costs are due to
the large power and wiring requirements for the process
equipment, motors, and constrol systems (Vanselow,
1990). Taking this into consideration, building costs
57
-------
for the treatment plant still appear to be high, but
within reason.
The 6-inch diameter, 1560-foot-long aboveground
effluent line is priced at $149,000. This corresponds
to a pipe cost of $95 per foot installed. Nearly half
of this cost is attributed to heat tracing and
insulation. The reviewers suggested to WHC that this
pipe be placed underground to avoid these costs. In
response, WHC indicated that soils are likely to be
contaminated in this area and excavation is being
avoided to preclude costs incurred for disposing of
this soil.
OH&P/B&I calculated for each work and equipment item in
KEH's estimate averaged 26 percent of the material and
labor costs. Typical engineering procedures use a
profit of 10 percent and an overhead of 15 percent of
the material and labor cost for work and equipment
items. Thus, a 26 percent OH&P/B&I cost is an
acceptable percentage for the majority of the work and
equipment involved in this project. The only items
exhibiting excessive OH&P/B&I costs are packaged water
treatment process equipment. The term "packaged"
corresponds to preassembled equipment purchased from a
vendor, and often installed by the vendor. Costs for
these items can be found on page 46 of KEH's cost
breakdown in Appendix E. Labor costs are low, in
comparison with the material costs, for packaged
equipment because the equipment is preassembled and
installed by the vendor. Because the labor costs are
low, overhead costs are low. Therefore, OH&P/B&I costs
should be less than 26 percent of the material and
labor costs for this equipment. According to WHC, at
least one change has been made in OH&P/B&I costs for
packaged equipment in the revised CDR; the OH&P/B&I for
the evaporator/crystallizer ($1,500,000) has been
reduced from 26 percent of its cost ($400,000) to 10
percent ($150,000) (Carrigan, 1990).
The remaining costs — escalation, contingency, and
other indirect costs — appear to be of a reasonable
magnitude. KEH calculated escalation costs at
approximately 6.9 percent per year, an acceptable
estimate for construction in the Tri-City area. An
average contingency of 23 percent was estimated for
this project. This estimate is also reasonable
considering the level of cost accuracy at this level of
design (typical preliminary construction cost estimates
have a level of accuracy of as much as ±30 percent).
Other indirect costs, which are dominated by
administration costs, average 12 percent of the
58
-------
estimate subtotal (materials, labor, and OH&P/B&I).
This estimate is reasonable as administration costs
typically average 10 percent for similar projects.
The D/C Contractor's engineering fee, including design
and inspection, is 13.4 percent of the capital
investment for that work done by the D/C Contractor.
KEH's total engineering fee ($559,000), which includes
design and inspection fees, is 50 percent of the
capital investment for that work done by KEH. KEH's
engineering design fee ($400,000) includes costs for
designing the tie-in to the existing 300-Area effluent
pipe, sump 1, and new piping to the water treatment
plant. It also includes costs for preparing the
preliminary specifications to be used by the D/C
Contractor in preparing the treatment plant designs.
KEH's design fee is 36 percent of the total capital
investment for that work done by KEH while typical
design fees vary between 10 and 15 percent of the total
capital investment. KEH's engineering inspection fee
($159,000) includes costs for inspecting construction
work done by both KEH and the D/C Contractor.
Although every process design is unique, engineering
fees typically vary between 10 and 30 percent of the
total capital investment (Peters and Timmerhaus, 1980).
The D/C Contractor's engineering fee is well within
this range. KEH's engineering fees, on the other hand,
are between $225,000 and $450,000 higher than expected.
The majority of this fee is attributed to design
preparation. A total of 5,072 man-hours have been
proposed to prepare the designs (50 man-hours are
allotted for specifications preparation). This level
of effort seems extreme considering that the designs
are for relatively simple process operations.
Total management costs for this project, including
WHC's project management and KEH's administration
costs, are 15 percent of the total capital investment.
Typical management and administrative costs range from
5 to 10 percent of the total capital investment cost.
The 15 percent may be incurred due to the proposed
multitiered structure (WHC, KEH, and D/C Contractor)
for completing this activity. The information provided
to the reviewers does not allow for a definitive
evaluation of management costs.
59
-------
4. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Upon reviewing the $39M and $15M designs proposed for
treating the 300-Area process water, the reviewers
discovered that both designs will treat only 300 gpm.
The $39M water treatment plant was designed to accept
1200 gpm of process water from the 300-Area, However,
only 300 gpm was to undergo treatment in the plant,
while the remaining 900 gpm would be discharged to the
Columbia River without treatment, assuming that the
required permits were obtained. The additional $24
million associated with the $39M design is primarily
attributed to the construction of five 2.8 million-
gallon retention basins used to retain the untreated
process flow until it could be sampled, analyzed, and
shown to meet discharge limits prior to release into
the Columbia River.
Because both plant designs only treat 300 gpm of
process water, and the minimum expected flow to the
plant from the 300-Area is 200 to 300 gpm, this plant
would not likely have adequate capacity to treat
contaminated groundwater produced in future remedial
actions, while maintaining adequate contingency
capacity for peak flows of process water. Oversizing
the treatment plant to allow for treating contaminated
groundwater may be economically advantageous in the
long-term, and therefore should be considered prior to
proceeding further in the design process.
The reviewers recommend that DOE prepare detailed cost
estimates for treatment options, comparing the $15M
design to the option of tying into the City of Richland
treatment plant. The initial administrative cost of
obtaining permits should be considered, as should the
cost of retaining the permits over the long-term. A
realistic evaluation should also be made as to whether
an NPDES or state 216 discharge permit can be obtained
in a timely manner, to coincide with milestone M-17-09,
which requires completion of the 300-Area treated
effluent system by June 1995. In addition, long-term
operation and maintenance costs and closure costs
should be considered for the $15M design. The
feasibility of adding contaminated groundwater to the
process effluent should be considered in both the $15M
design and the City of Richland treatment plant
options.
KEH prepared very detailed cost estimates for the 300-
Area Process Water Treatment Plant and, for the most
part, the estimates are reasonable. The total cost of
60
-------
the treatment plant, however, is somewhat higher than
expected for a plant with a 300 gpm treatment capacity.
Areas where estimates do appear high include costs for
buildings, sump 1, OH&P/B&I on packaged process
equipment, and KEH's engineering fees. It is difficult
to accurately determine the extent to which these costs
are in excess without examining detailed construction
drawings and associated design plans. Construction
cost estimates have been prepared for each of these
items in Table D-4 to provide a means of cost
comparison. The PRC estimates are based on average
costs experienced in the private-sector for
construction activities, with no attempt to account for
factors unique to Hanford. As can be seen in Table D-
4, KEH's estimates are $1.5 million higher than the
estimates for these four items. To lower costs, KEH
should eliminate unnecessary expenditures for
constructing buildings and sump 1 and lower the
OH&P/B&I costs on packaged process equipment. In
addition, KEH should explain how its engineering design
fees were estimated.
61
-------
TABLE D-4
CONSTRUCTION COST COMPARISON
Item
Treatment Facility
Building0'
Sump 1(1>
OH&P/B&I for
KEH
Estimate
$825,000
$848,000
$598,000
PRC
Estimate
$438,000(2)
$242,000(3)
$345,000(4)
Difference
$387,000
$606,000
$253,000
Packaged Process
Equipment
Engineering $400,000 $166,000(5) $234,000
Design Fee
Total$1,480,000
(1) Estimates are total cost estimates, including materials,
labor, escalation, contingency, and other indirect costs.
(2) Estimated using $60/ft2 building cost (average from
private-sector experience).
(3) Estimated using $500 per gpm per sump flow capacity
(Smith, 1990).
(4) Packaged process equipment included filters, GAG beds,
RO unit, ion exchange unit, and evaporator/crystalizer.
A 15 percent OH&P/B&I was estimated for this equipment.
(5) Estimated using 15 percent design fee (average from
private-sector experience).
62
-------
E. LABORATORY ANALYSIS COSTS
1. BACKGROUND
The reviewers have studied and evaluated analytical
laboratory costs associated with conducting remedial
activities at Hanford. Westinghouse Hanford Company
(WHC) personnel directly involved in laboratory
services were interviewed, and pertinent documents were
reviewed. Private commercial laboratories were
contacted in order to obtain information on analytical
costs.
WHC and Pacific Northwest Laboratories (PNL) analytical
laboratories at Hanford support facility effluent
monitoring and hazardous waste management programs,
provide waste characterization, implement various DOE
Orders, and support regulatory permitting activities.
With these activities, new sampling and analysis
protocols have been required of the onsite
laboratories. The new protocols include sample chain-
of-custody documentation, more frequent instrument
calibration, more extensive processing of additional
standards and blanks, sample archiving, enhanced
personnel training, detailed quality assurance plans,
and an increased level of overall documentation (Joyce,
1989).
As a result of the increased analytical
responsibilities, a laboratory upgrade program was
developed to effectively provide the required
laboratory support to the various Hanford environmental
programs (Joyce, 1989). The upgrade strategy is to (1)
maximize the capabilities and capacities of the WHC
222-S and PNL 325 laboratories, (2) construct the Waste
Sampling and Characterization Facility (WSCF) to handle
nonradioactive, low-level radioactive, and
dangerous/hazardous waste samples, (3) use the PNL
laboratories for analytical methods development, and
(4) use the Hanford Environmental Health Foundation
(HEHF) as a referee laboratory. The WHC Office of
Sample Management (OSM) has been established to
coordinate programmatic needs with laboratory
capabilities. OSM will make sample projections,
monitor laboratory performance, and coordinate the use
of onsite and offsite laboratories (Joyce, 1989).
2. DESCRIPTION OF DOE'S ANALYTICAL COSTS
The estimated analytical costs provided by WHC are
based on historical costs and expected trends and on
sample projections that were revised to address
63
-------
remedial activities (Stroup, 1990a). Samples obtained
during remedial activities may contain hazardous
chemical constituents as well as radionuclides. Since
sample radioactivity determines laboratory handling
(Stroup, 1990b), WHC has categorized sample materials
according to dose levels, as follows:
Nonradioactive,
Less than 1 mR/hr,
Greater than 1 mR/hr but less than 100 mR/hr, and
Greater than or equal to 100 mR/hr.
Table E-l shows estimated costs for various types of
sample analyses at different laboratories (Stroup,
1990b). This information was provided by WHC in
response to the reviewers' request for cost
information.
Projected costs for in-house analytical services are
based on "unbatched" sample unit costs. In general,
"per sample" analytical costs as shown in budget
projections (Stroup, 1990b) represent "unbatched"
sample costs (i.e., one sample per shipment). These
are applicable to both primary and split laboratories.
These estimated costs are based on the assumption that
the entire cost of laboratory quality control (QC)
sample analyses is passed on to the- customer through
the "per sample cost" (Stroup, 1990b). These unit
costs were based on bid prices received by WHC from
commercial laboratories (WHC, 1989).
At this time, the PNL 325 Laboratory analytical costs
are about $1,000 to $2,000 higher per sample than for
the WHC 222-S Laboratory, as shown on Tables E-l and
E-3. This comparison is for similar matrices and the
same analytical procedures for typical cleanup program
samples. WHC is currently trying to resolve these
differences (Stroup, 1990b).
The following provides details about the sample
analytical costs for the four categories, according to
the radioactivity levels, listed above.
a. Nonradioactive Samples
The estimated costs for analyzing a nonradioactive
sample for target compound list (TCL) and target
analyte list (TAL) parameters in accordance with the
Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Contract
Laboratory Program (CLP) statements of work are
provided in Table E-2. The costs also include WHC
costs for radioactivity screening, packaging, offsite
shipment, and final sample disposal (Stroup, 1990b).
64
-------
TABLE E-l
WHC ESTIMATED UNIT SAMPLE COSTS
(a)
SAMPLE TYPE
Water, Nonradioactive
Soil, Nonradioactive
Soil, <1 mR/hr
Soil, 1 to 100 mR/hr
Soil, >100 mR/hr
Single-Shell Tank (SST)
Core
(d)
FACILITY COST f$)
PNL l,300(b)
Offsite 3,500
WSCF 3,500
Offsite(c) 4,700
WHC 222-S 6,000
PNL 325 7,000
WSCF 4,000
WHC 222-S 7,000
PNL 325 8,000
WHC 222-S(with upgrades) 5,500
PNL 325(with upgrades) 6,500
WHC 222-S 15,000
PNL 325 17,000
WHC 222-S(with upgrades) 10,000
PNL 325(with upgrades) 12,000
WHC 222-S 290,000
PNL 325 340,000
(a) Analysis include CLP TCL and TAL for all samples. Analyses
of radioactive samples also include total alpha, total beta,
gamma energy analysis (Cs-137, Co-60, Ru-106), Tc-99,
Sr-90, and Pu/U isotopes for all but SST samples.
(b) Cost for analyses only, total cost not provided.
(c) Does not include Pu/U isotopes.
(d) Samples analyzed for wide range of radionuclicles, organics,
and inorganics (see Appendix F).
Source: Stroup, 1990b and 1990c
65
-------
TABLE E-2
ESTIMATED ANALYTICAL COSTS FOR NONRADIOACTIVE SAMPLES(8)
SAMPLE TYPE
Water
Analysis-Onsite
Soil
Analysis-Offsite
FACTOR
PNL 325
COST
$1,300
WHC Screening $ 200
WHC Shipping $ 200
Offsite Laboratory $2,800-$3,300
WHC Sample $ 100
Disposal
TOTAL COST
Not Provided
$3,300-$3,800
Soil
Analysis-Onsite
WSCF Laboratory
WHC Sample
Disposal
$3,000-$4,000
$2,900-$3,900
$ 100
(a) Analyses include CLP TCL and TAL parameters.
Source: Stroup, 1990b and 1990c
66
-------
TABLE E-3
ESTIMATED ANALYTICAL COSTS FOR SOIL SAMPLES CONTAINING RADIOACTIVITY"
(a)
ACTIVITY LEVEL
<1 mR/hr
FACTOR
Offsite
WHC Screening
WHC Shipping
Laboratory
WHC Sample
Disposal
Onsite
WHC 222-S
PNL 325
WHC Sample
Disposal
Onsite
WSCF Laboratory
WHC Sample
Disposal
COST
$ 200
$ 300
$3,500-$4,500
$ 200
$5,800
$6,800
$ 200
$3,300-$4,300
$ 200
TOTAL COST
$ 4,200-$5,200
$ 6,000-$7,000
$ 3,500-$4,500
1 to 100 mR/hr
Onsite
WHC 222-S b
PNL 325 b
WHC 222-S(with upgrades) b
PNL 325(with upgrades) b
$ 7,000
$ 8,000
$ 5,500
$ 6,500
>100 mR/hr
Onsite
WHC 222-S b
PNL 325 b
WHC 222-S(with upgrades) b
PNL 325(with upgrades) b
$15,000
$17,000
$10,000
$12,000
(a) Analyses include CLP TCL and TAL parameters, total alpha, total beta,
gamma energy analysis (Cs-137, Co-60, Ru-106), Tc-99, Sr-90, and
Pu/U isotopes.
(b) Cost factors not provided; sample disposal is included.
Source: Stroup, 1990b
67
-------
Sample screening is used to classify samples as
nonradioactive or radioactive prior to transport to
offsite laboratories. Based on the assumption that any
given sample may contain radioactivity, WHC has
developed a sample screening protocol to classify
samples by activity using gross alpha, beta, and gamma
scans (Stroup, 1990c). According to WHC, this
protocol, which will involve mobile laboratory sampling
and the WHC 222-S Laboratory, is necessary to prepare
for transportation of samples and to determine which
facility (offsite or onsite) can safely process and
analyze them (Joyce, 1989 and Stroup, 1990d).
The following values are the limits below which WHC
(Stroup, 1990c) considers a sample nonradioactive and
suitable for analysis at an offsite commercial
laboratory:
Total alpha — <60 pCi/g,
Total beta — <200 pCi/g, and
• Gamma energy analysis — <200 pCi/g.
At present, samples that only contain hazardous
chemical constituents are analyzed offsite at
commercial facilities, in accordance with EPA's CLP
statements of work for organics and inorganics. The
WHC Professional/Maintenance Services Procurement
Office is in the process of establishing contracts with
commercial laboratories for these services (Wilson,
1990). WHC believes that it will continue to be more
cost effective to have these samples analyzed by
commercial laboratories until such time as the WSCF is
operational (Stroup, 1990d). At this time, the PNL 325
Laboratory has the capability to analyze samples in
accordance with CLP requirements. WHC anticipates that
the WHC 222-S Laboratory will also have that capability
in early 1991 (Stroup, 1990b). Neither of these
laboratories were analyzing remedial investigation
samples at the time of this review.
b. Radioactive Samples
Table E-3 provides the costs of analyzing samples that
exhibit radioactivity. WHC procedures mandate that
radioactive samples be analyzed in a protective
environment, depending on their activity level, as
follows:
Less than 1 mR/hr — offsite commercial
laboratory, or onsite in hood with high efficiency
particulate air (HEPA) filtration,
Greater than 1 mR/hr but less than 100 mR/hr —
onsite in shielded hood, and
68
-------
Greater than or equal to 100 mR/hr — onsite in
hot cell.
The projected costs range from $3,500 to $12,000 per
sample, depending on the radioactivity level and the
laboratory chosen. According to WHC, once the WSCF is
operational and the laboratory upgrades are complete,
analytical costs for typically requested analyses, as
shown on the list below, are expected to decrease by 25
to 40 percent of the current combined onsite and
offsite costs.
• Inorganics — CLP TAL
• Organics — CLP TCL
• Total alpha
• Total beta
• Uranium (U) isotopes
• Plutonium (Pu) isotopes
• Strontium-90 (Sr-90)
• Technicium-99 (Tc-99)
• Gamma energy analysis [Cesium-137 (Cs-137),
Cobalt-60 (Co-60), and Ruthenium-106 (Ru-106)]
If radioactive samples (<100 mR/hr) are to be analyzed
offsite, additional preliminary analyses will be
performed onsite prior to shipment in order to ensure
(1) that the safety of offsite laboratory personnel is
not compromised and (2) that the laboratory has the
licenses and capabilities needed to perform the
required analyses (Stroup, 1990d). At the time of this
cost evaluation project, WHC was attempting to
establish an agreement with Oak Ridge National
Laboratory to analyze radioactive samples (Wilson,
1990).
WHC believes that costs for shipping low-level
radioactive samples offsite will result in higher costs
than identical services onsite (Stroup, 1990d),
although no documentation was provided to support this
assumption. According to WHC, low-level radiochemical
services at offsite laboratories may be insufficient to
meet analytical program needs (Stroup, 1990d). The
following justification was provided by WHC (Stroup,
1990b) to address the issue of high costs associated
with analyzing radioactive samples and to provide the
rationale for performing such analyses onssite:
Most commercial laboratories do not use mass
spectrometry or ICP-MS analytical methods required
to obtain acceptable detection limits for
Plutonium and uranium isotopic analyses.
69
-------
• Numerous samples will require short analytical
turn-around times that cannot be provided by
offsite laboratories.
Radioactivity standards for samples producing 1 to
100 mR/hr cost about five times more than the
standards for samples producing less than 1 mR/hr
because of matrix interferences.
• Shipping costs for samples with more than 1 mR/hr
of activity can be over $1,000 per shipment.
High costs are associated with developing and
obtaining an adequate supply of approved shipping
containers. It can cost up to $500,000 to obtain
approval of a shipping container.
• High-level radiochemical analyses cannot be
performed at offsite commercial laboratories,
because most laboratories cannot accept samples
with activities greater than 1 mR/hr.
c. Single-Shell Tank Samples
WHC has provided estimated costs for analyzing
single-shell tank (SST) core samples, as shown in Table
E-4. Each core sample is expected to cost $290,000 if
analyzed at the WHC 222-S Laboratory or $340,000 if
analyzed at the PNL 325 Laboratory. According to WHC,
the primary reasons for the high costs are extensive
sample preparation steps that are labor intensive
(i.e., sample splitting, separation, extraction) and
numerous matrix interference problems (Stroup, 1990e).
Figures showing the analyses now being performed on
these samples are provided in Appendix F (Stroup,
1990f).
d. Description of Onsite Laboratory Costs
Onsite laboratory cost estimates include an analytical
operations cost and an assessment fee or "tax" (Stroup,
1990a and 1990d). The analytical operations cost
includes specific analyses, preparation of standards,
and chemist support for equipment monitoring, report
generation, computer support, and OSM assistance
(Stroup, 1990g). The assessment fee is for laboratory
operation, maintenance, and repair (Stroup, 1990g).
The assessment fee includes preventive and predictive
maintenance, housekeeping, radiation protection
technician support, facility engineering, quality
engineering, planning and material coordinator support,
70
-------
TABLE E-4
ESTIMATED ANALYTICAL COSTS FOR SINGLE-SHELL TANK CORE SAMPLES
ONSITE ANALYTICAL
LABORATORY FACTORS COST TOTAL
WHC 222-S $290,000
Hot Cell $ 25,000
Physical Characteristics $ 10,000
Organics $ 30,000
Inorganics $ 20,000
Radionuclides $ 50,000
Receipt $ 1,000
Data Package $ 7,000
OSM Validation $ 1,000
Quality Assurance $ 1,000
Laboratory Assessment $145,000
PNL-325 $340,000
Hot Cell $ 31,000
Physical Characteristics $ 12,000
Organics $ 30,000
Inorganics $ 24,000
Radionuclides $ 61,000
Receipt $ 1,000
Data Package $ 9,000
OSM Validation $ 1,000
Quality Assurance $ 1,000
Laboratory Assessment $170,000
(a) PNL 325 Laboratory.
Source: Stroup, 1990d
71
-------
stockroom operation, all service assessments (steam,
laundry, electricity, waste disposal, etc.)/ and all
other costs associated with repair and maintenance of
the facility complex. With the exception of required
room air sample analyses, no analyses are performed
under this work scope (Stroup, 1990g).
The Laboratory assessment is part of the accounting
practice at Hanford used to cover what are often called
"overhead costs." These costs vary from laboratory to
laboratory, depending on various factors, such as the
kind of security involved and the types of analyses to
be performed (Stroup, 1990g). For example, a
laboratory that performs radiological analyses is
considered by WHC to have higher costs than one that
only does cold (nonradioactive) analyses (Stroup,
1990g). Similarly, a laboratory that is located in a
secured area will cost more to operate than one in an
unsecured area (Stroup, 1990g).
The assessment is applied to analytical operations
costs at a rate of 100 percent of operations cost
(Stroup, 1990a). The 100 percent value is based on
historical data (Joyce, 1989).
Costs associated with the OSM are shown as part of the
Laboratory Upgrade Program through fiscal year 1990.
Starting in fiscal year 1991, OSM costs will be
included in analytical operations costs (Stroup,
1990h).
3. EVALUATION OF DOE'S ANALYTICAL COSTS
The reviewers' evaluation of WHC's analytical cost
projections is limited in scope, because of the lack of
• detailed cost factors available from WHC.
Specifically, two items should be clarified.
First, a cost analysis of the per-sample analytical
cost projections, both prior to and after laboratory
upgrades (as shown previously in Tables E-2 and E-3)
must be provided in order to evaluate these costs. The
cost analysis should itemize cost factors such as
sample volume capacity (number of samples per hour or
day), labor requirements and wage rates, material costs
(e.g., reagents, standards, etc.) and operating
expenses. The cost analysis should demonstrate that
the $39,120,000 capital expenditure for the laboratory
upgrades will result in the reduction of analytical
costs projected by WHC (Stroup, 199Oa).
72
-------
Second, the basis for the laboratory operating budgets
projected for 1990 through 2020 (Stroup, 1990a) should
be provided. The reviewers' comparison of the total
annual operating budget to estimated analytical costs
shows discrepancies that should be explained. For
example, the total laboratory operating budget for the
three laboratories ~ WSCF, WHC 222-S, and PNL 325 ~
for fiscal year 1996 is estimated to be $16,400,000
(Stroup, 1990a). In contrast, the summation of the
per-sample analytical costs, multiplied by the
projected number of samples in each radioactivity
level, total is $26,000,000 (Stroup, 1990a). There are
three possible explanations for this difference (1) an
unknown factor such as the assessment fee makes up the
difference, in which case the operating budget does not
reflect the true cost, and the assessment fee amounts
to only 58 percent, instead of 100 percent; (2) the
laboratory budget is insufficient for the projected
number of samples; or (3) the per-sample analytical
cost is too high. In any case, the differences among
these figures should be reconciled.
a. Private-Sector Costs
This section presents a comparison of private-sector
costs for laboratory analyses of nonradioactive and
low-level (less than 1 mR/hr) radioactive? samples. The
cost comparison is limited to these two categories,
because commercial laboratories are not equipped to
handle mixed-waste samples with radioactivity levels
greater than 1 mR/hr.
The reviewers tried to obtain information about
overhead rates from several commercial laboratories in
order to compare the assessment fee with the private-
sector overhead rate. However, this information could
not be obtained, because commercial laboratories
provide fixed unit price costs to customers, and
overhead costs are considered confidential. Therefore,
the appropriateness of WHC's 100 percent assessment fee
could not be established.
The analytical costs obtained from commercial
laboratories for nonradioactive samples to be analyzed
for CLP TAL and TCL parameters ranged from $1,150 to
$1,560 for water samples, and from $1,250 to $1,670 for
soil samples. The analytical costs for low-level
radioactive samples are presented in Tables E-5 and
E-6. These costs were compiled using the parameter
list that WHC provided as "typical radioactive analyses
requested on CLP sample." Average analytical costs are
$2,510 for water samples and $2,696 for soil samples.
73
-------
TABLE E-5
ESTIMATED PRIVATE-SECTOR ANALYTICAL COSTS FOR WATER SAMPLES, <1 mR/hr
CORE IT THERMO-
PARAMETER LIST LABORATORIES ANALYTICAL SERVICES ANALYTICAL*a)
CLP TCL
CLP TAL
Total Alpha and
Beta
Gamma Spectral
Analysis(c)
Isotopic Plutunium
Isotopic Uranium
Sr-90
Tc-99
Total
$1
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$2
,400
450
45
130
110
80
70
90
,375
$1
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$2
,281
500
60
70
130
130
100
150
,421
$2,
-
$
$
$
$
$
$
$2,
000(b>
-
50
116
133
133
102
200
734
(a) Thermoanalytical can accept radiochemistry samples exhibiting up to
10 mR/hr, but TCL and TAL samples must be <1 mR/hr. CLP sample prices
include a $100 radioactivity screening charge.
(b) Includes CLP TAL.
(c) Includes Cs-137, Co-60, and Ru-106.
74
-------
TABLE E-6
ESTIMATED PRIVATE-SECTOR ANALYTICAL COSTS FOR SOIL SAMPLES, <1 mR/hr
CORE IT THERMO-
PARAMETER LIST LABORATORIES ANALYTICAL SERVICES ANALYTICAL(a)
CLP TCL
CLP TAL
Total Alpha and
Beta
Gamma Spectral
Analysis
-
70
152
143
143
120
210
958
(a) Thermoanalytical can accept radiochemistry samples exhibiting up to
10 mR/hr, but TCL and TAL samples must be < ImR/hr. CLP sample prices
include a $100 radioactivity screening charge.
(b) Includes CLP TAL.
(c) Includes Cs-137, Co-60, and Ru-106.
75
-------
b. Cost Comparison
Table E-7 lists the commercial laboratory costs,
together with WHC costs for nonradioactive-and low-
level radioactive (less than 1 mR/hr) samples.
Nonradioactive Samples WHC provided only one cost
estimate for nonradioactive water samples ($1,300 for
samples analyzed onsite at PNL) . This cost was
provided with no explanation and' may not include the
laboratory assessment fee.. AS" it' stands, this: price
compares very closely to the private-sector cost quotes
obtained by the reviewers. In' contrast, the
nonradioactive soil sample costs provided by WHC are at
least 2 tiities higher than those obtained by the
reviewers from commercial laboratories.. The costs of
preparing,, screening, and shipping samples were not
included in the off-site cost estimates.
Radioactive Samples Since no cost information was
provided by WHC for radioactive water samples, the
reviewers were only able to compare the costs involving
soil samples. The WHC offsite commercial laboratory
cost is 1.5 times higher than quotes that the reviewers
obtained from commercial laboratories. The costs of
performing the same analyses onsite at WHC 222-S
Laboratory or PNL 325 Laboratory are 2.3 times higher
than quotes the reviewers obtained from commercial
laboratories. The costs of preparing, screening, and
shipping samples were not included in the off-site cost
e'stimates.
4. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Based on the reviewers' evaluation of the limited
information provided by WHC about analytical costs, the
per-sample cost for both nonradioactive and low-level
radioactive soil samples is about 2 times higher than
expected. The WHC cost for offsite laboratories may be
higher if it includes some factor for quality control
costs. The higher per-sample costs provided for the
onsite laboratories may correspond to the 100 percent
assessment fee applied to each sample. In any case, it
does not appear that the WHC projected per-sample cost
can reasonably be justified.
The current projections by WHC for upgrading and
operating laboratories at Hanford for the next 30 years
total $745,020,000, which includes $39,120,000 for
upgrades and $705,900,000 for operation and maintenance
(Stroup, 1990a). At present, there does not seem to be
76
-------
TABLE E-7
COMPARISON OF PRIVATE-SECTOR AND HANFORD ANALYTICAL COSTS
COMMERCIAL
SAMPLE TYPE LABORATORY WHC-OFFSITE WHC-ONSITE
Nonradioactive
Water $l,150 NR(b> $1,300 NR(b) NR(b)
Soil $2,696
-------
sufficient economic basis for making an informed
decision involving expenditures of this magnitude.
Based on the reviewers' evaluation of the information
provided by WHC, additional detailed cost analyses
should be performed to address the following:
• The cost differences between samples analyzed at
WHC 222-S Laboratory and those analyzed at PNL 325
Laboratory should be identified in order to ensure
that the bases for the higher costs at the PNL
facility can be evaluated and .considered in future
decisions regarding laboratory selection.
A detailed cost analysis should be performed in
order to demonstrate that the laboratory upgrade
program will result in lower analytical costs and
that the resulting difference in analytical costs
justifies the capital expenditure.
Given that 64 percent of the projected number of
samples to be analyzed over the next six years
(Stroup, 1990a) are in the <1 mR/hr category,
additional investigations should be performed to
evaluate the availability of and costs associated
with using offsite commercial laboratories for
nonradioactive and low-level radioactive samples.
• The costs of contracting to commercial
laboratories should be compared to the laboratory
upgrade program costs, once these costs have been
better defined. As a basis of comparison, WHC
should develop an alternative laboratory upgrade
program that is geared toward onsite analysis of
samples producing more than 1 mR/hr and offsite
analysis of samples producing less than 1 mR/hr.
78
-------
REFERENCES
Brown and Caldwell (B&C), 1990, Hanford Clean-up and Compliance
Cost Analysis Statement of Work.
Brown, Randy, 1990, private consultant, personal communication
with Willis Wilcoxon, PRC Environmental Management, Inc., Denver,
CO, May 25, 1990.
Burgher, Brian, Culpepper, Mike, and Zieger, Werner, 1987,
Remedial Action Costing Procedures Manual, EPA/600/8-87/049,
October 1987.
Carrigan, Mark, Westinghouse Hanford Company, personal
communication with Jeff Reichmuth, PRC Environmental Management,
Inc., Denver, CO, May, 1990
Cooper, Hal, 1990, Westinghouse Hanford Company, personal
communication with Deirdre O'Dwyer, PRC Environmental Management,
Inc., Denver, CO, May 6, 1990.
CH2M Hill, 1986, Work Plan Guidance Handbook, REM IV Remedial
Planing Activities at Selected Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste Sites
- Zone II, July 30, 1986.
Dean, Lewis, 1990, Mile-Hi Culligan, personal communication with
Jeff Reichmuth, PRC Environmental Management, Inc., Denver, CO,
May 24, 1990.
Department of Energy (DOE), 1989a, Environmental Restoration and
Waste Management Five-Year Plan, FY 92, ADS ID: 5125-EE-O,
DOE/RL 89-17 Rev.l.
DOE, 1989b, Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study Work Plan
for the 200-BP-l Operable Unit Operable Unit Hanford Site,
Richland, Washington, November 1989, DOE/RL 88-32 Draft Revision
3.
DOE, 1990, Cost Estimating Handbook for Environmental
Restoration, Final Draft, April 1990.
Unknown, 1985, Market Trends, Engineering News-Record (ENR),.vol.
214, no. 23, pg 53.
Unknown, 1989, Market Trends, Engineering News-Record, vol 223,
no. 9, pg 46.
Ferris, Oscar, Becker Drills, Inc., personal communication with
Willis Wilcoxon, PRC Environmental Management, Inc., Denver, CO,
May 25, 1990.
79
-------
High, Carl, Boyle Brothers Drilling Co., 1990, personal
communication with David West, PRC Environmental Management,
Inc., Denver, CO, June 7, 1990.
Joyce, S.M., 1989, Hanford Environmental Laboratory Upgrade
Program, SD-CP-PAP-001, March 1, 1989.
Matkovits, Monika, 1990, Osmonics, personal communication with
Jeff Reichmuth, PRC Environmental Management, Inc., Denver, CO,
May 29, 1990.
Means Cost Data Catalog (Means), 1989.
Patterson, Jim, 1990a, WHC, personal communication with Deirdre
O'Dwyer, PRC Environmental Management, Inc., Denver, CO, July 12,
1990.
Patterson, Jim, 1990b, WHC, personal communication with Deirdre
O'Dwyer, PRC Environmental Management, Inc., Denver, CO, June 7,
1990.
Peters and Timmerhaus, 1980, Plant Design and Economics for
Chemical Engineers, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1980.
Ruiter, Terry, 1990, PRC, personal communication with Deirdre
O'Dwyer, PRC Environmental Management, Inc., Denver, CO, August
23, 1990.
Smith, Terry, 1990, PRC, personal communication with Jeff
Reichmuth, PRC Environmental Management, Inc., Denver, CO, June
5, 1990.
Stroup, Curtis, 1990a, WHC Internal Memo, "Sample Analyses/Budget
Projections for Operable Units-Revision D," March 12, 1990.
Stroup, Curtis, 1990b, WHC, telefax communication with Donna
Lacombe, PRC Environmental Management, Inc., Seattle, WA, May 14,
1990.
Stroup, Curtis, 1990c, WHC, personal communication with Richard
Cheatham, C.C. Johnson & Malhotra (CCJM), Denver, CO, July 6,
1990.
Stroup, Curtis, 199Od, WHC, personal communication with Donna
Lacombe, PRC Environmental Management, Inc., Seattle, WA, May 10,
1990.
Stroup, Curtis, 1990e, WHC, personal communication with Donna
Lacombe, PRC Environmental Management, Inc., Seattle, WA, July 6,
1990.
80
-------
Stroup, Curtis, 1990f, WHC Internal Memo, "Laboratory Sample
Analysis Schedules," March 27, 1990.
Stroup, Curtis, 1990g, WHC, telefax communication with Richard
Cheatham, CCJM, Denver, CO June 4, 1990 (1).
Stroup, Curtis, 1990h, WHC, telefax communication with Richard
Cheatham, CCJM, Denver, CO June 4, 1990 (2).
Westinghouse Hanford Company (WHC), Assumptions for RI/FS
Planning, undated.
WHC, 200-BP-l Operable Unit Cost Estimate Printout, undated.
WHC, 1988, Summary Description of Draft Inactive Waste Disposal
Site Study, April 1, 1988.
WHC, 1990, Cost Account Plan, 1EE323, Version 1990,, May 8, 1990.
WHC, 1989, Professional/Maintenance Services Procurement, WHC
Internal Memo, "Procurement Case File Memorandum-Modification
Number 28," MLW-SW-548357, May 25, 1989.
Wilson, Dave, 1990, WHC, personal communication with Donna
Lacombe, PRC Environmental Management, Inc., Seattle, WA, July
10, 1990.
Wintczak, Tom, 1990a, WHC, personal communication with Deirdre
O'Dwyer, PRC Environmental Management, Inc., Denver, CO, June 22,
1990.
Wintczak, Tom, 1990b, WHC, personal communication with Deirdre
O'Dwyer, PRC Environmental Management, Inc., Denver, CO, May 29,
1990.
Wintczak, Tom, 1990c, WHC, personal communication with Deirdre
O'Dwyer, PRC Environmental Management, Inc., Denver, CO, May 6,
1990.
Wintczak, Tom, 1990d, WHC, personal communication with Deirdre
O'Dwyer, PRC Environmental Management, Inc., Denver, CO, May 16,
1990.
Wintczak, Tom, 1990e, WHC, personal communication with Deirdre
O'Dwyer, PRC Environmental Management, Inc., Denver, CO, July 16,
1990.
Vanselow, Larry, 1990, WHC, personal communication with Jeff
Reichmuth, PRC Environmental Management, Inc., Denver CO,
September 25, 1990.
81
-------
APPENDICES
82
-------
APPENDIX A
COST ESTIMATING ASSUMPTIONS
-------
Assumptions for RI/FS Planning
3.1 Scoping
Initiate - 4 months before initiation of work plan
Duration - 5 months
First month is background investigation
Next three months are field activities
Fifth month is scoping report
Basis for estimate:
Activity Support Hours Cost in $K
Scoping
Background Investigation Engineering 320 18
Field Activities Engineering 480 27
RPT 160 13
NPO'S 320 14
PNUKEH / 2£
Total 150
Scoping Report Engineering 480 27
3.2 Work Plan
Initiate - 4 months after initiating scoping
Duration - 7 months preparation, 10 months review
Basis for estimate:
Activity Support Hours Cost in $K
EMO WP Prep
Engineering 40 3
QA 20 2
Permitting 30 3
EMO 640 4fi
Total / 56
EMO WP Review
Engineering 40 3
QA 20 2
EMO 3 36
WHO. US &£
Total / 47.5
A1
-------
Work Plan
Basis for estimate (Continued)
Activity
Contract WP Prep
Contract WP Review
Support
Engineering
QA
Geology
Field Services
Permitting
Contractor
Total
Engineering
QA
Contractor
WHC
Total
Hours Cost in $K
160
40
40
40
30
360
80
20
2
9
3
3
3
3
57
4.5
2
24
37
3.3 Site Characterization/Non-intrusive Field Activities
Initiate - 10 months before initiation of RI-1 and RI-2 drilling
Duration - 10 months
Basis for estimate: Engineering judgement, estimate is .$100K per month for all
operable units except those associated with river sampling
for which an additional v$50K per month has been added.
3.4 Training
Initiate - 6 months before initiation of drilling for RI-1
Duration - 6 months
Basis for estimate:
Activity
Training/Ramp-Up
Support
RPTs
NPO's
Sampler's
Engineers
Total
Hours Cost in $K
320
320
320
320
18
18
18
IS
72
A2
-------
3.5 Drilling Preparation/Mobilization
4 months before drilling for both RI-1 and RI-2
Initiate
Duration - 4 months
Basis for estimate:
Activity
Drilling Prep
Hours Cost in $K
Support
Health/Safety
Procure/Control
Prestart Docs
Contractor
EMO
Total Contractor
Total EMO
3.6 Drilling Support/Sub-Surface Characterization - RI-1
Initiate - 4 months after approval of work plan
Duration - Dependent on number of waste sites in operable unit
Basis for estimate:
80
40
240
160
220.
/
/
4.5
2
13.5
12
24
32
44
Activity
Drilling Sampling
Support
Team Leader
QA
Records
Materials
KEH
Sampling
RPT's
NPO's
Health/Safety
Contractor
EMO
Total Contractor
Total EMO
Hours Cost in $K
240
80
20
/
/
240
640
640
240
320
480
/
/
13.4
4.5
1.5
210
40
13.5
36
36
13.5
24
m
192.5
204.5
A3
-------
3.7 Drilling Support/Sub-Surface Characterization - RI-2
Initiate - At completion of RI-1 Report
Duration - 60% of RI-1 drilling
Basis for estimate:
Activity Support Hours Cost In $K
Drilling Sampling
Team Leader 240 13.4
QA 80 4.5
Records 20 3,1.5
Materials / /to------^*rr*t -
f C *_i> I
KEH / 40
Sampling 240 13.5
RPT's 640 36
NPO's 640 36
Health/Safety 240 13.5
Contractor 320 24
EMO 4&Q 2£
Total Contractor / 192.5
Total EMO / 204.5
3.8 Hazardous Waste Disposal and Decontamination
Initiate - At start of drilling
Duration - Same as drilling
Basis for estimate:
The number of waste sites per operable unit is a major factor in the cost and
duration of the RI/FS activities. Therefore a matrix was developed to factor the
number of waste sites in each operable unit into the following:
- Drilling duration
- Number of samples
- Cost of sample analysis
- Cost of decontamination ;
- Cost of hazardous waste disposal
The matrix contains the following assumptions:
- The number of sites, equals the number of cribs, ditches, ponds,
trenches, burial grounds, etc., plus one of every three spills, drench
drains and sanitary sewers
- Number of vadose zone holes equals three times the number of sites
- Number of groundwater wells equals number of sites
- Vadose zone hole depth is 50 ft for 100/300/200 Areas
- Groundwater well depths are 80 ft for 100/300 Areas and 300 ft for 200
Areas
-------
Hazardous Waste Disposal and Decontamination
Basis for estimate (Continued)
- Equipment will be deconed between each hole or well and estimated to
cost $18K per decon
- Hazardous waste disposal is estimated to cost $20 per ft for vadose zone
holes and $5 per ft for groundwater wells
- Drilling rate for vadose zone holes is 10 ft per day per rig
- Drilling rate for groundwater wells is 20 ft per day per rig
- Drilling duration assumes two rigs per site working five days per week
- Number of samples from vadose zone holes equals 10 per hole
- Number of samples from groundwater wells equals 10 per hole
- Analysis cost for groundwater wells assumes $3K per sample
- Analysis cost for vadose zone holes assumes $6K per sample for 200
Area operable units and $4K per sample for 100/300 Area operable units
This is based on the following:
200 Area
5%hotcell@$18K
45% rad bench @ $8K
50% CLP @ $3K
Average is $6K
100/300 Area
0% hot cell
20% rad bench $8K
80% CLP @ $3K
Average is $4K
3.9 Sample Analysis
Initiate - At start of drilling
Duration - Same as drilling
Basis for estimate:
The number of waste sites per operable unit is a major factor in the cost and
duration of the RI/FS activities. Therefore a matrix was developed to factor the
number of waste sites in each operable unit into the following:
• Drilling duration
- Number of samples
- Cost of sample analysis
- Cost of decontamination
- Cost of hazardous waste disposal
A5
-------
Sample Analysis
Basis for estimate (Continued)
The matrix contains the following assumptions:
- The number of sites, equals the number of cribs, ditches, ponds,
trenches, burial grounds, etc., plus one of every three spills, drench
drains and sanitary sewers
- Number of vadose zone holes equals three times the number of sites
- Number of groundwater wells equals number of sites
- Vadose zone hole depth is 50 ft for 100/300/200 Areas
- Groundwater well depths are 80 ft for 100/300 Areas and 300 ft for 200
Areas
• Equipment will be deconed between each hole or well and estimated to
cost $18Kperdecon
- Hazardous waste disposal is estimated to cost $20 per ft for vadose zone
holes and $5 per ft for groundwater wells
- Drilling rate for vadose zone holes is 10 ft per day per rig
- Drilling rate for groundwater wells is 20 ft per day per rig
- Drilling duration assumes two rigs per site working five days per week
- Number of samples from vadose zone holes equals 10 per hole
- Number of samples from groundwater wells equals 10 per hole
- Analysis cost for groundwater wells assumes $3K per sample
- Analysis cost for vadose zone holes assumes $6K per sample for 200
Area operable units and $4K per sample for 100/300 Area operable units
This is based on the following:
200 Area
5%hotcell@$18K
45% rad bench @ $8K
50% CLP @ $3K
Average is $6K
100/300 Area
0% hot cell
20% rad bench @ $8K
80% CLP @ $3K
Average is $4K
3.10 Borehole Abandonment
Initiate - At start of vadose zone drilling
Duration - Same as vadose zone drilling
Basis for estimate: Engineering judgement based on experience, estimate is
$40K per month.
A6
-------
3.11 Physical Analysis
Initiate - Lag 1 month behind vadose zone drilling
Duration - Same as vadose zone drilling
Basis for estimate: Engineering judgement, estimate is $50K per month.
3.12 Groundwater Monitoring
Initiate - At initiation of groundwater well drilling
Duration - Through ROD
Basis for estimate: Engineering judgement, 1 sample per well per quarter at
$2K per sample.
3.13 Rl Report Preparation
Initiate • At completion of drilling
Duration - Groundwater and source/groundwater operable unit • RI-1 --14
months, RI-2 « 12 months, source operable unit -- 6 months
Basis for estimate:
Activity
EMO WP Prep
EMO WP Review
Contract WP Prep
Support
Hours Cost in $K
Engineering
QA
;^IIPejTTiittm£
EMO
Total
Engineering
QA
EMO
WHC
Total
Engineering
QA
Geology
Field Services
(^Permitting
Contractor
Total
40
20
30
640
'
40
20
3
Hfl
'
160
40
40
40
30
360
/
3
2
3—
43
56
3
2
36
6.5
47.5
9
3
3
3
3 j
2£
57
A7
-------
Rl Report Preparation
Basis for estimate (Continued),
Activity
Contract WP Review
Support
Engineering
QA
Contractor
WHC
Total
Hours Cost in. $K
80
20
2
3.14 Rl Report Review
Initiate - At completion of report preparation
Duration - 6 months
Basis for estimate:
Activity
EMO WP Prep
EMO WP Review
Contract WP Prep
Support
Engineering
QA
Geology
Field Services
Permitting
Contractor
Total
4.5
2
24
fi.5
37
Hours Cost in $K
Engineering
QA
Permitting
EMO
Total
40
20
30
640
/
3
2
3
42
56
Engineering
QA
EMO
WHC
Total
40
20
3
11Q
/
3
2
36
£
47
160
40
40
40
30
360
/
9
3
3
3
3
36
57
A8
-------
Rl Report Review
Basis for estimate (Continued)
Activity
Contract WP Review
Support
Hours Cost in $K
Engineering
QA
Contractor
WHC
Total
80
20
2
llfl
/
4.5
2
24
&5
37
3.15 Work Plan Supplement
Initiate - 6 months before RI-2 drilling
Duration - 3 months preparation and 3 months review
Basis for estimate:
Activity
EMO WP Prep
EMO WP Review
Contract WP Prep
Support
Engineering
QA
Permitting
EMO
Total
Hours Cost In $K
Engineering
QA
Geology
Field Services
Permitting
Contractor
Total
40
20
30
640
3
2
3
4fl
56
Engineering
QA
EMO
WHC
Total
40
20
3
Ufl
/
3
2
36
£
47,
160
40
40
40
30
360
/
9
3
3
3
3
2fi
57
A9
-------
Work Plan Supplement
Basis for estimate (Continued)
Activity
Contract WP Review
Support
Hours Cost in $K
Engineering
QA
Contractor
WHC
Total
80
20
2
11Q
/
4.5
2
24
&5
37
3.16 Feasibility Report
Initiate - Completion of FS 1 and 2 driven by initiation of RI-2 drilling
Completion of FS 3 is 6 months after 4 months of review on RI-2
report
Duration - FS 1 & 2 report preparation -10 months, review - 6 months
FS 3 report preparation --14 months, review - 6 months
Basis for estimate:
Activity
EMO WP Prep
EMO WP Review
Contract WP Prep
Support
Engineering
QA-— —— ^
^Permitting
EMO
Total
Engineering
QA
EMO
WHC
Total
Engineering
QA
Geology
Field Services
pofrpitt'pn
Contractor
Total
Hours
40
20
30
640
'
40
20
3
im
/
160
40
40
40
30
360
/
Cost in
3
2^
4fi
56
3
2
36
6.5
47.5
9
3
3
3
57
A10
-------
Feasibility Report
Basis for estimate (Continued)
Activity Support Hours Cost in $K
Contract WP Review
Engineering
QA
Contractor
WHC
Total
80
20
2
us
/
4.5
2
24
L5
37
3.17 Performance^Assessment
Initiate -/ PA-1 completion is driven by initiation of RI-2 drilling
ipletion is 3 months before completion of FS-3 report
Duration/- PA-1 \tf24 months, PA-2 is 12 months
Basis for (estimate: Engineering judgement, estimate is $15K per month for first
phase and $20K per month for second phase.
3.18 Treatability
Initiate - Completion of treatability driven by completion of FS-3 report
Duration - 20 months or less depending on duration of Ri-2, does not start
before RI-2 drilling
Basis for estimate: Engineering judgement, estimate is an average of $150K
per month.
3.19 Environmental Assessment
Initiate - Completion of EA driven by completion of FS-3 Report
Duration - 18 months
Basis for estimate: Engineering judgement, estimate is $1 ,OOOK total.
3.20 Integrated Closure Plan
Initiate - Completion of closure plan driven by completion of FS-3 Report
Duration - 12 months
Basis for estimate: Engineering judgement, estimate is $30K per month.
A11
-------
3.21 Management
Initiate - At initiation of preliminary field activities
Duration - Initiation through ROD
Basis for estimate:
Activity Support Hours Cost in $K
Management Rl
Engineering 160 9
Eng. Admin. 40 2
QA 40 3
Field Services 80 4.5
Procedure Prep 640 36
F.S. Admin. 40 2
Contractor 160 12
EMO 320 24
Total Contractor / 68.5
Total EMO / 80.5
3.22 Interim Remedial Actions
Westinghouse Hanford Company has overall management responsibility for RI/FS
activities.
Contractors and EMO are subcontractors to WHC.
Hanford Site Contractors will be utilized for field and lab activities.
All operable units follow the RI/FS process.
RCRA TSD's currently designated as part of an operable unit will be addressed in an
integrated manner with that operable unit.
Current operable unit concept continues.
Schedules are as shown with no delays due to Regulator reviews.
A12
-------
APPENDIX B
HAZARDOUS WASTE AND DECONTAMINATION AND SAMPLE ANALYSIS
MATRIX
-------
OUBGRDDATA
Operable Unit
300-FF-1
300-FF-5
RAD
Cost
8000
Monthly
RAD Cost
533
RA
Cost
160000
Monthly
RACost
3556
Monthly
CostGWW
524
Monthly
CostVZH
512
Total
GWW$
0
2253
Total
VZH$
3072
0
100-HR-1
100-HR-3
100-DR-1
100-BC-1
100-BC-5
100-KR-1
100-KR-4
100-NR-1
100-FR-1
100-NR-3
N200-UP-2
11500
19550
25300
5750
9200
18400
18400
35650
767
1303
1687
383
613
1227
1227
2377
230000
391000
506000
115000
184000
368000
368000
713000
5111
8689
11244
2556
4089
8178
8178
15844
524
524
524
524
524
524
172
512
512
512
512
512
512
512
672
0
2463
0
0
1782
0
1467
419
838
838
2000
1920
0
3264
4224
0
960
0
1536
3072
3072
7812
Pagel
-------
OUBGRDDATA
# of Sites
16
43
# of VZH
48
# of GWW
43
VZH Rqe
100/300
2400
VZH Rqe
200
GWW Ftqe
100/300
3440
GWW Ftge
200
VZH
Decon$
864
0
GWW
Decon$
774
10
47
17
22
34
5
28
8
16
16
31
30
51
66
15
24
48
48
93
47
0
34
28
8
16
16
31
1500
2550
3300
750
1200
2400
2400
4650
3760
2720
2240
640
1280
1280
0
0
0
0
9300
540
0
918
1188
0
270
0
432
864
864
1674
0
846
0
0
612
0
504
144
288
288
558
CM
03
Page 4
-------
Mm
Wast© Bisfj.
48 •
0
GWW
Wast© Disp
0
17
VZM
Weeks
24
0
V^
Months
6
0
V24
KEH$
240
0
GWW
Weeks
0
17
GWW
Months
0
4
GWW
KEHS
0
172
33
17
17
4
165
17
4 f 165
VZH
Samples
480
0
f ~330
30
©
51
66
0'
15
0
24
48
48
93
0
19
0
0
14
0
1 1
3
6
6
47
15
0
26
33
0
8
0
12
24
24
47
4
0
6
8
0
2
0
3
6
6
1 2
150
0
255
330
0
75
0
120
240
240
465
0
19
0
0
14
0
1 1
3
6
6
47
0
5
0
0
3
0
3
1
2
2
1 2
0
188
0
0
136
0
112
32
64
64
465
300
0
• 510
660
0
150
0
240
480
480
930
CO
03
Page 7
-------
OUBGRDDATA
VZHLab
Samples
480
0
VZH
Analysis $
1920
0
GWW
Samples
0
430
GWW Lab
Samples
0
430
GWW
Analysis $
0
1290
Total
Drilling
6
4
Total
Analysis$
1920
1290
Monthly
Analysis $
320
300
Total
Decon/Haz$
912
791
300
0
510
660
0
150
0
240
480
480
930
1200
0
2040
2640
0
600
0
960
1920
1920
5580
0
470
0
0
340
0
280
80
160
160
310
0
470
0
0
340
0
280
80
160
160
310
0
1410
0
0
1020
0
840
240
480
480
930
4
5
6
8
3
2
3
4
8
8
23
1200
1410
2040
2640
1020
600
840
1200
2400
2400
6510
320
300
320
320
300
320
300
.
316
316
316
280
570
865
969
1254
626
285
515
603
1206
1206
2372
CO
Page 10
-------
Monthly
Total $
Monthly
Decon/Haz$
Total $
152
3072
512
184
2253
524
184
2463
524
152
3264
512
152
960
512
184
1467
524
159
1955
515
159
3910
515
159
3910
515
102
9812
422
OUBGRDDATA
152
184
4224
1782
512
524
LO
CO
Page 13
-------
APPENDIX C
200-BP-l OPERABLE UNIT COST ESTIMATE
-------
200-BP-1
Mortra 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 IB 10 20 21 22 23
Dal,, 01/88 02/88 03/88 04/88 05/88 06/88 07/88 08/88 09/88 10/88 11/88 12/88 01/89 02/80 03/89 04/89 05/89 06/89 07/89 08/89 09/89 10/89 11/89
Soaping 18 150 150 ISO 27
Work Plan Pr.p 57 57 57 57 57 57 57
Work Plan Review 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37
Field Activist 100 10°
Contractor Mgl 6B 6a
Drilling Prep-Conlr.
Training
Drill Sup • Contractor
Haz/Decon
Analytic
Borehole Abandonment
Physical Lab
Groundwaler Monitor
Rl Report Prep • Contr.
Rl Report Rev - Contr.
PA
FS Report Prep - Contr.
FS Report Rev -Contr.
Treatibility
Environ Asses*.
168 168
Total - Contr.
Total Quarterly
Total Fiscal Year
18 ISO ISO 150
318
84 57 57
291
57 57 57
171
780
57 37 37
151
37 37 37
111
37 37 37
111
37 37
111
484
200-BP-1
-------
200
24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 48 47 48 49
12/89 01/90 02/90 03/90 04/90 05/90 06/90 07/90 08/90 OS/90 10/90 11/90 12/90 01/91 02/91 03/91 04/91 05/91 06/91 07/91 08/91 09/91 10/91 11/91 12/91 01/92
100 100 100 100 JOO • 100 100 100
68 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 68
32 32 32 32
72 72 72 72 72 72
193
102
280
40
193
102
280
40
SO
193
102
280
40
SO
193
102
260
40
SO
193
102
280
SO
7
193
102
280
7
193
102
280
7
193
102
280
7
57 57 57 57 67 67 57 57 67 57
15 IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS 15 IS IS IS
57 57 57 57 57 67 57 57 57 57
CM
O
168 168 240 240 272 272 272 272 683 733 733 733 715 665 665 665 204 204 204 204 204 204 204 204 204 204
S04 648 816 1688 2181 1995 612 612 612
3656 5400
3656 S400
1B96 1991
3656 5724
200-BP-1
-------
• BP . 1
SO SI 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 SB 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 60 70 71 72 73 74 75
02/92 03/02 04/92 05/92 06/92 07/92 08/92 09/92 10/92 11/92 12/92 01/93 02/93 03/93 04/93 05/93 06/93 07/93 08/93 09/93 10/93 11/93 12/93 01/94 02/94 03/94
57 57 57
100
68
100
68
32
100
68
32
100
68
32
100
68
32
37
100
68
37
too
68
37
100
68
100 100
68 68
68 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 66 68 68 68 68
57 57
IS IS
57 57
193
102
280
40
S7 57
37 37 37 37 37 37
15 15 IS IS 15 IS IS IS
57 -S7
193
102
280
40
SO
193
102
280
40
50
193
102
280
50
1 *.
1 9
193
102
280
f C 1C
19 19
57
| C f C • C | C 1C 1C 1C 1C 1C 1C
19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19
57 57 57 57 57 57 57 57 57 57
20 20
67
37 37 37 37 37 37 cr>
150 150 200 200 200 200 200
SO 50 100 100 100
204 204 204 204 164 264 296 353 353 353 827 877 877 808 758 140 140 140 140 290 290 390 390 440 460 517
612 S72 913 1533 2S62 1038 570 1070 1417
2709 5703
2980 6273
1»B2 1893
3317 6982
200-BP-1
-------
70 77 78 70 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 SO 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101
04/94 05/94 06/94 07/94 08/94 09/94 10/94 11/94 12/94 01/95 02/95 03/95 04/95 05/95 06/95 07/95 08/95 09/95 10/95 11/95 12/95 01/96 02/96 03/96 04/96 05/96
495
570
481
2000
66 68 66 68 68 66 66 66 68 66 68 66 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 66 66 66 68 68 5372
256
432
15
67
20
87
200
SO
467
IS IS 15
57 67
37
20 20 20
57 57 67
ISO ISO ISO
so so so
417 417 397
1301
IS IS IS
37 37 37
20 20 20
- 67 67 67
ISO ISO 150
SO SO SO
397 397 397
1101
4979
5477
1994
6096
IS 15 IS IS IS IS
37 37
20 20 20
67 67 57 57 S7 57
150 ISO ISO SO SO 50
SO SO SO 50 50 SO
397 397 360 240 240 240
1191 840
IS IS 15 IS IS IS IS 15 IS
37 37 37 37 37 37
120 120 120 120 120 120 83 83 83
480 360 286
2871
3158
1991
3515
2509
1326
3640
280
350
IS IS IS 759
1596
444
600
1596
444
3000
1050
83 83 83 27200
249 83 27200
618
680
1996
757
c_>
200-BP-1
-------
APPENDIX D
1100-EM-l OPERABLE UNIT INCURRED COSTS
-------
1100-EM-1 Drilling $
1100-EM-1 |
i
Geosciences Support I
Technical Support i
Vadose Zone Drillinp !
Vadose Zone Drilling KEH !
GW Monitoring Wells I
GW Monitoring Wells KEH !
NPO Support !
RfPRP^Support i
Analytical Systems !
QA Support |
Subtotal WHC 1
e«..u«-»«i ixr-i i .!
25% G&A/CSP on WHC
6.5% CSP on KEH
Total
Number of Holes
Footage
• Drilling •
1 .1
i 107 '
i 65 i
j 200 !
i 105 !
I 67 !
I 510 !
I 11 i
I 44 i
! 30 !
I 15 ;
! 539 i
| *\ * r- *
}
I 674
655
i
; 1329
i
Vadose
30
40
200
105
9
10.
ao
10
331
4 * r>
414
112
526
12
317
GW
77
25
»
t
i 67
510
! 2
22
, 10
5
208
260
543
803
16
1149
D1
-------
WORK PLAN COST ANALYSIS
Work Plan WHC
100-HR-1
100-DR-1
100-NR-1
100-NR-3
100-KR-1
100-KR-4
1100-EM-1
200-BP-1
300-FF-1
AVG COST PER WORK PLAN
Work Plan WHC
100-HR-3
300-FF-5
AVG COST PER WORK PLAN
WORK PLANS EMO*
100-BC-1*
100-BC-5"
100-FR-1
AVG COST PER WORK PLAN
CONTRACTOR WHC MGT
178
187
200
300
250
230
111
181
175
PNL
506
291
416
413
477
215
100
120
120
120
120
205
155
120
WHC MGT
104
120
WHC MGT
120
120
120
TOTAL
393
287
320
420
370
350
316
336
295
338
TOTAL
610
411
511
TOTAL
536
533
597
555
Costs include the production of the Work Plan
and reviews up to the issuance to the regulators.
'Issued under the new Work Plan streamlining process.
Parallel DOE and Regulator review save approximately 2
months and 50K Per Work Plan.
Page 1
D2
-------
1100EM-1 COST ANALYSIS
Sample Analyzed
Groundwater sample • 45
Vadose and waste samples 346
Total Samples Taken 391
Total cost as of 5-31-90 $813
Field Sampling Costs
Manpower 130
Misc. supplies 1 o
Overheads 3 6
Total (Also included in the Drilling Costs) $17$
Total Sampling Cost as of 5-31-90 $989
Cost per sample $2.5K
Not all sampling cost have been recored to date
Commerica! Analytical Labs Used
SURFACE INVESTIGATIONS
Physical and Geophysical Surveys 277
Radiation Surveys 52
Biota Surveys 1 3
Air Monitoring 67
Reconnassance 8
Total $417
-------
APPENDIX E
KEH COST ESTIMATE FOR THE 15M DESIGN
-------
KAISER ENGINEERS HANFORO
WESIINGHOUSE HANFORD COMPANY
JOB NO. L-045H/ER0184
** KAISER ENGINEERS INTERACTIVE ESTIMATING **
300 AREA TREATED EFF. DIPOSAL FACILITY
KEHR01 - PROJECT COST SUMMARY
PAGE 1 OF 10
DATE 05/04/90 07:25
BY GDC LGH DKH
COST
CODE
X = 3 X 3
000
460
501
550
600
700
DESCRIPTION
ENGINEERING
(ADJUSTED TO MEET DOE 5100.4)
IMPROVEMENTS TO LAND
BUILDINGS
OTHER STRUCTURES
UTILITIES
SPECIAL EQUIP/PROCESS SYSTEMS
(ADJUSTED TO MEET DOE 5100.4)
ESCALATED
TOTAL COST
1 . 750. 000
' -50JOOO
300,000
940,000
1,580.000
550,000
7, 000,000
30,000
CONT 1 RGENCY
X TOTAL
22
25
25
25
25
21
390.000
10)000
70,000
240,000
390,000
140,000
1 ,490,000
-30,000
TOTAL
DOLLARS
2. 140.. 000
-40,000
370,000
1, 180,000
1 ,970,000
690,000
8,490, 000
0
PROJECT TOTAL
12,100,000
22
2,700,000
14.800,000
TYPE OF
ESTIMATE
ARCHI TEC
ENGINEER
OPERATING
CONTRACTOR
CONCEPTUAL
MAY 5,1990
REMARKS:
(ROUNDED/ADJUSTED TO THE NEAREST " 10,000 / 100,000 " - PERCCNTAGES HOT RECALCULATED TO REFLECT ROUNDING)
-------
KAISER ENGINEERS HANFORD
UESTIHGHOUSE HANFORD COMPANY
JOB NO. L-045H/ER0184
UBS
DESCRIPTION
110000
120000
DEFINITIVE DESIGN ONSITE A/E
FIELD ENGR/INSPEC. ONSITE A/E
>* KAISER ENGINEERS INTERACTIVE ESTIMATING **
300 AREA TREATED EFF. DIPOSAL FACILITY
CONCEPTUAL ESIIMATE
KEHR02 - WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE SUMMARY
PAGE 2 OF 10
DATE 05/04/90 07:25
BY GDC LGH OKH
SUBTOTAL 1 ENGINEERING
210000 PROCUREMENT - ONSITE A/E
SUBTOTAL 2 PROCUREMENT
310000 24" HOPE TIE IN
310001 COLLECTION SUMP 01
310002 6" ABOVE GROUND EFFLUENT
'SUBTOTAL 31 CONST. ONSITE CONSTRUCTOR
320001 DESIGN OF TEDF BY D/C CONTRACTOR
320002 ENGR/INSPEC. BY D/C CONTRACTOR
321000 SITE WORK
322000 DIVERSION BASIN 1 & 2
323000 SUHP NO. 2
324000 SUHP NO. 3
325000 VALVE PITS
326000 UNDERGROUND PIPING
327101 FACILITY - PROCESS TREATMENT AREA
327102 PROCESS TREATMENT MECH.
327103 TREATMENT FACILITY ELECTRICAL
327201 FACILITY - OPERATIONS AREA
327202 OPERATIONS AREA HECH.
327203 OPERATIONS FACILITY ELECTRICAL
328000 DISCHARGE LINE
SUBTOTAL 32 CONSTRUCTION OFFSITE D/C
330000 OPERATING CONTRACTOR
SUBTOTAL 33 OPERATING CONTRACTOR
340000 PROJECT MANAGEMENT
SUBTOTAL 34 PROJECT MANAGEMENT OPER.CONTR.
ESTIMATE
SUB
TOTAL
========
325176
122700
447876
60283
60283
33488
• 601722
149008
784217
647500
323700
507706
799238
148942
143628
213922
49721
311762
3596143
284436
96766
85337
217172
20948
7446922
79251
79251
878000
878000
OTHER
INDIRECTS
=========
0
0
0
0
" 0
0
0
0
0
991 75
42001
66649
103901
19363
18672
27810
6464
40529
467499
36977
12580
1 1094
28232
2723
983747
0
0
0
0
SUB
TOTAL
=========
325176
122700
447876
60283
60283
33488
601722
149008
.., 784217
il ' '
' 746675
365781
574355
903139
168305
162299
241732
56184
352291
406J642
32U12
10V346
96430
245405
23672
8430668
i - ' -'
79251
79251
878000
878000
ESCALAT ION
X
= = = = =
6.88
12.91
8.53
6.88
6.88
12.91
12.91
12.91
12.91
13.81
13.81
13.81
13.81
13.81
13.81
13.81
13.81
1 J.81
13.81
13.81
13.81
13.81
13.81
13.81
13.81
12.46
12.46
12.46
12.46
, TOTAL
========
22372
15841
38213
4147
4147
4323
77682
19237
101242
/ 1031 16
^ 50514
79318
124724
23243
22414
33383
7759
48651
561 189
44387
15101
13317
33890
3269
1164275
9875
9875
109399
109399
SUB
TOTAL
=========
347548
138541
486089
64431
64431
37812
679404,
168244
885460
849791
416295
653673
1027863
191548
184713
2751 15
61943
400942
4624831
365799
124446
109747
279295
26941
9594944
89126
89126
987399
987399
CON! 1
X
= = = = =
15
15
15
20
20
32
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
23
20
25
22
35
25
25
23
25
25
20
20
I NfiENCY
10T AL
========
52132
20781
72913
12886
12886
1 1958
168589
42061
222608
212448
104074
163418
256966
47887
46178
68779
15986
93573
939096
91450
27845
38412
69824
6735
2182670
22281
22281
197480
197480
TOTAL
DOLLARS
=========
399680
159322
559002
77317
77317
49769
847993
210306
1108068
1062239
520369
817091
1284828
239435
230891
343894
79929
494515
5563927
457249
152292
148159
3491 19
33676
11,777,614
111407
111407
1184879
1 184879
-------
KAISER ENGINEERS HANFORD
UESTINGHOUSE HANFORD COMPANY
JOB NO. L-045H/ER0184
UBS DESCRIPTION
** KAISER ENGINEERS INTERACTIVE ESTIMATING **
300 AREA TREATED EFF. DIPOSAL FACILITY
CONCEPTUAL ESTIMATE
KEHR02 - WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE SUMMARY
PAGE 3 OF 10
DATE 05/04/90 07:25
BY GDC LGH DKH
ESTIMATE
SUB
TOTAL
OTHER
IND IRECTS
SUB
TOTAL
ESCALATION
X , TOTAL
SUB
TOTAL
CONTINGENCY
X TOTAL
TOTAL
DOLLARS
SUBTOTAL 3 CONSTRUCT!OS
9188390
983747 10172137 13.61 1384791 11556928 23 2625039 14181967
PROJECT TOTAL
983.747 1,427,151 2,710,838
9,696,549 ^ 10,680,296 13.36 12,107,447 22 14,818,286
-------
SER ENGINEERS HANFORD
TINGHOUSE HANFORD COMPANY
NO. L-045H/ER0164
** KAISER ENGINEERS INTERACTIVE ESTIMATING **
300 AREA TREATED EFF. DIPOSAL FACILITY
CONCEPTUAL ESTIMATE
KEHR03 - ESTIMATE BASIS SHEET
PAGE OF
DATE 05/03/90 07:06
BY GDC LGH DKH
DOCUMENTS AND DRAWINGS
DOCUMENTS: FUNCTIONAL DESIGN CRITERIA, WHC-SD-L045H-FDC - 001 , "DRAFT"
CONCEPTUAL DESIGN REPORT, WHC-SD-L045H- CDR- 001, "PRELIMINARY"
DRAWINGS : ES-L045H-A1,H1,M1 THRU H5
MATERIAL PRICES
UNIT COSTS REPRESENT CURRENT PRICES FOR SPECIFIED MATERIAL. VENDOR INFORMATION WAS OBTAINED FOR THE FOLLOWING ITEMS:
(THE VENDOR INFORMATION SHEETS ARE STILL BEING DEVELOPED)
LABOR RATES
CURRENT HANFORD BASE RATES AS ISSUED BY KEH (ISSUE * 13, REV. 0, DATED 2-1-90) INCLUDE FRINGE BENEFITS,
LABOR INSURANCE, TAXES AND TRAVEL WHERE APPLICABLE.
GENERAL REQUIREMENTS/TECHNICAL SERVICES
= « S = = =
A.) ONSITE CONSTRUCTION FORCES GENERAL REQUIREMENTS AND TECHNICAL SERVICES COSTS ARE INCLUDED AS A COMPOSITE
PERCENTAGE BASED ON THE KEH ESTIMATING FAC TOR/BILLING SCHEDULE REVISION 10 DATED JANUARY 2, 1990. THE TOTAL
COMPOSITE PERCENTAGE APPLIED TO ONSITE CONSTRUCTION FORCES LABOR FOR THIS PROJECT IS 72 TO 79% FOR SHOP
WORK AND 102 TO 109* FOR FIELD WORK WHICH IS REFLECTED IN THE "OH&P / B & I" COLUMN OF THE ESTIMATE DETAIL.
B.) FIXED PRICE CONTRACTOR .OVERHEAD, PROFIT, BOND AND INSURANCE COSTS HAVE BEEN APPLIED AT THE
TOlLOWING PERCENTAGES AND ARE REFLECTED IN THE "OH&P / B & I" COLUMN OF THE ESTIMATE DETAIL:
LABOR & MATERIAL 3 15X OVERHEAD & 10X PROFIT,B & I ; SUBCONTRACTS 3 5%
ESCALATION
====ST=S=S
ESCALATION CALCULATED BY THE HANFORD MATERIAL & LABOR ESCALATION STUDY, JANUARY 1990.
ROUNDING - LINE ITEMS:
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY - DOE ORDER 5100.4 PAGE J-2 SUBPARAGRAPH (M), REQUIRES ROUNDING OF A COST ESTIMATE
TO $10,000 FOR ITEM COST AND $100,000 FOR TOTAL COST. REFERENCE: DOE 5100.4, FIGURE 1-11, DATED 10-31-84.
-------
KAISER ENGINEERS HANFORD ** KAISER ENGINEERS INTERACTIVE ESTIMATING ** PAGE OF
UESTIMGHOUSE HAN FORD COMPANY 300 AREA TREATED EFF. DIPOSAL FACILITY DATE 05/03/90 07:06
JOB NO. L-045H/ER0184 CONCEPTUAL ESTIMATE BY GDC LGH DKH
KEHR03 • ESTIMATE BASIS SHEET
7. REMARKS
S Z S SS SS
A.) AS OF DECEMBER 1, 1989, QUALITY SUPPORT AND SAFETY FOR CONSTRUCTION FORCES ARE INCLUDED IN THE CRAFT
ADDER.
B.) THIS ESTIMATE IS BASED ON THE FOLLOWING METHOD OF PERFORMANCE:
. THE ONSITE A/E WILL PERFORM DEFINITIVE DESIGN, ENGINEERING/INSPECTI ON AND PROCUREMENT FOR THE SUMP #1,TIE-IN TO
EXISTING SEWER, AND NEW PIPING THRU THE CONTAMINATED AREA ALONG THE EXISTING CRIB.
. THE ONSITE CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTOR WILL PERFORM ALL CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES DESIGNED BY THE ONSITE A/E.
. THE OFFSITE DESIGN/CONTRUCT CONTRACTOR WILL PERFORM ALL DESIGN, INSPECTION, AND CONSTRUCTION FOR THE T.E.D.F.,
RETENTION BASINS, SUMPS, VLAVE PITS, AND INTERCONNECTING PIPING.
. THE CONTRACT PLACEMENT AND CONTRACT MANAGEMENT FOR THE DESIGN/CONSTRUCT CONTRACT WILL BE PERFORMED BY THE ONSITE
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTOR.
. OVERALL PROJECT MANAGEMENT WILL BE THE RESPONSIBLITY OF THE OPERTING CONTRACTOR.
C.) DUE TO THE LEVEL OF DESIGN INFORMATION AVALIABLE NUMEROUS ASSUMPTIONS WERE HADE. THE FOLLOWING ARE THE ASSUMPTIONS
THAT HAVE THE LARGEST IMPACT TO THE PROJECT COSTS.
. ASSUMED MOST PIPE AND ELECTRICAL QUAINTIES, LENGTHS. SIZES, AND LOADS FOR THE TREATMENT FACILITY.
. ASSUMED 316' OF TRENCHES AT 2'X 3'DEEP AND A 10' X 12' X 10'DEEP CATCH TANK SUMP FOR THE PROCESS AREA.
. ALLOWANCES WERE MADES FOR THE MINOR IMPROVEMENTS TO THE EXISTING ROAD.
. ALLOWANCES WERE MADE FOR PENETRATIONS IN THE LINER SYSTEM.
. ASSUMED EXCAVATION 3' BELOW THE BOTTOM ELEVATION SHOWN ON THE RETENTION BASIN PLAN IN ORDER TO ALLOW FOR THE
LAYER OF CLAY.
. ASSUMED DEPTH OF EXCAVATION FOR THE SUMPS, VALVE PITS, AND UNDERGROUND PIPING.
. ASSUMED DISPOSAL FACILITY ELECTRICAL LOAD 1500 KVA OF THAT LOAD THE EVAPORATOR IS 645 KVA AND THE ELECTRIC
BOILER IS 450 KVA.
. ASSUMED PROGRAMMABLE CONTROLLER CONTROLS THE PROCESS SYSTEM INCLUDING THE EVAPORATOR,STEAM GENERATOR AND
RO SYSTEM.
-------
KAISER ENGINEERS HANFORD
WESTINGHOUSE HANFORD COMPANY
JOB NO. L-045H/ER0184
COST
CODE
UBS DESCRIPTION
KAISER ENGINEERS INTERACTIVE ESTIMATING **
300 AREA TREATED EFF. DIPOSAL FACILITY
CONCEPTUAL ESTIMATE
KEIIR04 - COST CODE ACCOUNT SUMMARY
ESTI MATE
SUB
TOTAL
OTHER
INDIRECTS
SUB
TOTAL
ESCALATION
% , TOTAL
SUB
TOTAL
PAGE 6 OF 10
DATE 05/04/90 07:25
BY GDC LGH DKH
CONTINGENCY
X TOTAL
TOTAL
DOLLARS
000 ENGINEERING
110000 DEFINITIVE DESIGN ONSITE A/E
120000 FIELD ENGR/INSPEC. ONSITE A/E
320001 DESIGN OF TEDF BY D/C CONTRACTOR
320002 ENGR/INSPEC. BY D/C CONTRACTOR
TOTAL 000
ENGINEERING
325176
122700
647500
323700
1419076
0
0
99175
42081
1412,56
325176
122700
746675
365781
1560332
6.88
12.91
13.81
13.81
12.30
22372
15841
1031 16
50514
191843
347548
138541
849791
416295
1752175
15
15
25
25
22
52132
20781
212448
104074
389435
399680
159322
1062239
520369
2141610
460 IMPROVEMENTS TO LAND
321000 SITE WORK
TOTAL 460 IMPROVEMENTS TO LAND
501 BUILDINGS
310001 COLLECTION SUMP #1
321000 SITE WORK
327101 FACILITY - PROCESS TREATMENT AREA
327103 TREATMENT FACILITY ELECTRICAL
327201 FACILITY - OPERATIONS AREA
327202 OPERATIONS AREA MECH.
327203 OPERATIONS FACILITY ELECTRICAL
TOTAL 501
BUILDINGS
550 OTHER STRUCTURES
210000 PROCUREMENT - ONSITE A/E
310001 COLLECTION SUMP #1
322000 DIVERSION BASIN 1 & 2
323000 SUHP NO. 2
324000 SUHP NO. 3
325000 VALVE PITS
231077
231077
156303
15737
31 1762
37004
96766
85337
46059
748967
60283
254692
748759
34578
34578
133350
30040
30040
0
2046
40529
4011
125P.O
1 1094
5988
77046
0
0
97339
4495
4495
17336
2611 17
261117
156303
17783
352291
41815
10V346
96430
52046
826014
60283
254692
846098
39073
39073
150686
13
13
12
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
6
12
13
13
13
13
.81
.81
.91
.81
.81
.81
.81
.81
.81
.64
.88
.91
.81
.81
.81
.81
36060
36060
20179
2456
48651
5775
15101
13317
7188
112666
4147
32881
116846
5396
5396
20810
297177
297177
176481
20239
400942
47589
124446
109747
59234
25
25
25
25
23
25
22
35
25
74294
74294
44120
5060
93573
11897
27845
38412
14808
938680
64431
287572
962944
44469
44469
171495
25
20
25
25
25
25
25
235715
12886
70631
240736
11117
11117
42874
371471
371471
220602
25299
494515
59486
152292
148159
74042
1174395
77317
358203
1203680
55586
55586
214369
-------
KAISER ENGINEERS HANFORD
WESTIMGHOUSE HANFORD COMPANY
JOB NO. L-045H/ER0184
** KAISER ENGINEERS INTERACTIVE ESTIMATING **
300 AREA TREATED EFF. DIPOSAL FACILITY
CONCEPTUAL ESTIMATE
KEHR04 - COST CODE ACCOUNT SUMMARY
PAGE 7 OF 10
DATE 05/04/90 07:25
BY GDC LGH DKH
COST
CODE UBS DESCRIPTION
ESTIMATE
SUB
TOTAL
OTHER
INDIRECTS
SUB
TOTAL
ESCALATION
X , TOTAL
======
SUB
TOTAL
:======:
CONT1NGENCY
X TOTAL
TOTAL
DOLLARS
TOTAL 550 OTHER STRUCTURES
1266240
123664
1389905
13.34
185476
1575381
25
389362
1964742
600 UTILITIES
310001 COLLECTION SUMP * 1
321000 SITE WORK
330000 OPERATING CONTRACTOR
TOTAL 600
UT1LITIES
172450
260892
15000
448342
0
34563
0
34563
172450
295455
15000
482905
12.91
13.81
12.46
13.45
22263
40802
1869
64935
194713
336257
16869
547839
25
25
25
25
48678
84064
4217
136960
243391
420321
21086
684799
700 SPECIAL EQUIP/PROCESS SYSTEMS
310000 24" HOPE TIE IN
310001 COLLECTION SUMP #1
310002 6" ABOVE GROUND EFFLUENT
322000 DIVERSION BASIN 1 & 2
323000 SUHP NO. 2
324000 SUHP NO. 3
325000 VALVE PITS
326000 UNDERGROUND PIPING
327102 PROCESS TREATMENT HECH.
327103 TREATMENT FACILITY ELECTRICAL
327203 OPERATIONS FACILITY ELECTRICAL
328000 DISCHARGE LINE
330000 OPERATING CONTRACTOR-
340000 PROJECT MANAGEMENT
33488
18278
149008
50479
114365
109050
80572
49721
3596143
247431
171114
20948
64251
878000
0
0
0
6562
14867
14176
10474
6464
467499
32166
22245
2723
0
0
3^488
18278
149008
57041
129232
123226
91047
56184
4063642
279598
193358
23672
64251
878000
12.91
12.91
12.91
13.81
13.81
13.81
13.81
13.81
13.81
13.81
13.81
13.81
12.46
12.46
4323
2360
19237
7877
17847
17018
12574
7759
561 189
38612
26703
3269
8006
109399
37812
20637
168244
64919
147079
140244
103620
63943
4624831
318210
220061
26941
72257
987399
32
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
20
25
25
25
25
20
1 1958
5159
42061
16230
36770
35061
25905
15986
939096
79552
55015
6735
18064
197480
49769
25796
210306
81 148
183849
175305
129525
79929
5563927
397762
275077
33676
90321
1184879
TOTAL 700
SPECIAL EQUIP/PROCESS SYSTEMS 5582847
577177
6160024
13.57
836172
6996196
21 1485072
8481269
PROJECT TOTAL
9,696,549
983,747
10,680,296
1 ,427,151
13.36 12,107,447
22
2,710,838
14,818,286
-------
KAISER ENGINEERS HANFORD
WESTINGHOUSE HANFORD COMPANY
JOB NO. L-045H/ER0184
** KAISER ENGINEERS INTERACTIVE ESTIMATING **
300 AREA TREATED EFF. DIPOSAL FACILITY
CONCEPTUAL ESTIMATE
KEHR05 • ESTIMATE SUMMARY BY CSI DIVISION
PAGE 8 OF 10
DATE 05/04/90 07:25
BY GDC LGH DKH
CSI
Dl V
DESCRIPTION
ENGINEERING
00 TECHNICAL SERVICES
TOTAL ENGINEERING
CONSTRUCTION
02 SITEUORK
03 CONCRETE
04 MASONRY
05 METALS
07 MOISTURE AND THERMAL CONTROL
08 DOORS, WINDOWS AND GLASS
09 FINISHES
10 SPECIALTIES
11 EQUIPMENT
13 SPECIAL CONSTRUCTION
15 MECHANICAL
16 ELECTRICAL
19 PROJECT MANAGEMENT
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION
PROJECT TOTAL
EST (MATE
SUB
TOTAL
========
1419076
1419076
1246284
613332
14280
29165
3077
23248
73649
7587
3522896
186921
387255
1291780
878000
8277473
===========
9,696,549
OTHER
INDIRECTS
141256
141256
128069
60162
1856
2910
400
3022
6595
986
457976
21056
40539
118917
0
842491
===========
983,747
SUB
TOTAL
1560332
1560332
1374353
673494
16136
32075
3477
26271
80244
8573
3980872
207977
427793
1410697
878000
9119964
===========
10,680,296
ESCALATION
X
12.30
12.30
13.62
13.61
13.81
13.62
13.81
13.81
13.55
13.81
13.81
13 . 70
12.80
13.56
12.46
13.55
:========
1
13.36
TOTAL
191843
191843
187181
91655
2228.
4368
480
3628
10876
1 184
549758
28497
54764
191289
109399
1235309
,427,151
SUB
TOTAL
1752175
1752175
1561534
765149
18365
36443
3957
29899
91 120
9757
4530631
236475
482558
1601986
987399
10355273
===========
12,107,447
*
CONT
y.
= = = = =
22
22
25
25
25
25
25
25
24
25
20
20
29
25
20
22
= = = = =
22
INGENCY
TOTAL
========
389435
389435
394329
191287
4591
9111
989
7475
21486
2439
906126
47781
137813
400497
197480
2321404
=========
2,710,838
TOTAL
DOLLARS
2141610
2141610
1955863
956436
22956
45554
4947
37373
112606
12197
5436757
284256
620371
2002483
1184879
12,676676
14,818,286
-------
KAISER ENGINEERS HANFORO
UESTINGHOUSE HANFORD COMPANY
JOB NO. L-045H/ER0184
WBS DESCRIPTION
110000 DEFINITIVE DESIGN ONSITE A/E
120000 FiElO EHGR/iiiSPEC. ONSITE A/
210000 PROCUREMENT - ONSITE A/E
310000 24" HOPE TIE IN
310001 COLLECTION SUMP #1
310002 6" ABOVE GROUND EFFLUENT
320001 DESIGN OF TEDF BY D/C CONTRACTOR
320002 ENGR/INSPEC. BY D/C CONTRACTOR
321000 SITE WORK
322000 DIVERSION BASIN 1 & 2
323000 SUMP NO. 2
32AOOO SUMP NO. 3
325000 VALVE PITS
32-6000 UNDERGROUND PIPING
327101 FACILITY - PROCESS TREATMENT A
327102 PROCESS TREATMENT MECH. ____
FACILITY ELECTRICAL
OPERATIONS AREA
AREA MECH.
FACILITY ELECTRICAL
** KAISER ENGINEERS INTERACTIVE ESTIMATING **
300 AREA TREATED EFF. DIPOSAL FACILITY
CONCEPTUAL ESTIMATE
KEHR07 - ONSITE INDIRECT COSTS BY UBS
PAGE 9 OF 10
DATE 05/04/90 07:26
BY GDC LGH DKH
327103
327201
327202
327203
328000
330000
340000
TREATMENT
FACILITY -
OPERATIONS
OPERATIONS
DISCHARGE LINE
OPERATING CONTRACTOR
PROJECT MANAGEMENT
PROJECT TOTAL
ESTIMATE
SUB
TOTAL
325176
122700
60283
33488
601722
149008'
R 647500
323700
507706
799238
148942
143628
213922
49721
EA 311762
3596143
284436
96766
85337
217172
20948
79251
878000
_______________
9,696,549
CONTRACT
X
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
13.00
13.00
~ 13.13
13.00
13.00
13.00
13.00
13.00
13.00
J3.00
13.00
13.00
13.00
13.00
13.00
0.00
0.00
____________
ADMI Nl STRAT ION
TOTAL
0
0
0
0
0
0
84175
42081
66649
103901
19363
18672
27810
6464
40529
467499 ,
36977
12580
1 1094
28232
2723
0
0
BID PACK
PREP.
0
0
0
0
0
0
15000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
_--__-__---._-.,__.,
15,000
OTHER
INDIRECTS
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
TOTAL
INDIRECTS
0
0
0
0
0
0
99175
42081
66649
103901
19363
18672
27810
6464
40529
A67499-
36977
12580
1 1094
28232
2723
0
0
968,747
983,747
-------
KAISER E
H A N F O R D
KG IN E E R S
ED&I COST ESTIMATE SUMMARY
Title
L-045H 300 AREA TEDF
•ork Order No. [lien: . Contractor
EK 01B4 Cl. Carncan WriC
rrecareo av
V. T. ami in
Key
u
Date
C3-Mav-90
fceH Ksorovals
OISCIPLINE
CIVIL
ENVIRQMtrrTiiL EftoRo
ARCHITECTURAL
NUCLEAR EfiUIPHENT
FIRt PROTECTION
SrtFETi REv'r'd
PIPING i, VESSELS
MAC
INSTRUMENTATION
SAFtsLKrDs * sruUhiT't
SPECIFICATIONS
SPECIALTf ENoiNEERINa
CAD
E(JviRQNHENTAL%':D.lFLlAKCE
PROJECT HAJsAsEi-.EHT
WORD rSsJ'.risiNo
BUALITi hsstJRH.iiLs
ACCEPTANCE INSPECTION
PRuJtCT CurJTr.uL
EETiMATlNo
aCntuilLINS
FUr-LiLMTiuNs
stirLOfiiRACTS i rRu'.iiRt'rtcriT
CF AifflNisTRATIGN
CONsTRUoiiuN EKciriEtRINB
i21i
Uil
i23)
i24i
i25i
UEI
liU.il
i27i
(28)
\29i
\MI
(32i
i33i
i34i
U3!
i39;
isOi
i*;!;
(44'i
!43)
(4o)
(47i
Mai
HTJ
(eO)
(all
(ftji
sAFETt RE? io4)
RECuRps TiiRfiCvER ic5i
A5-BUILTlNb isci
TOTAL Diiba TOTAL HCiJrs.
RATE $/HR TOTAL t
REPRODUCTIONS
PHOTOaRAPHi
CDftPUTER SERVICES
CALisrihTIOri
OTHER SERVICES
RENT
TRAVEL
SUBTOTAL
ESCALATION RATE
SUBTOTAL
CONTIfinENC'f
i70-2i
(70-3i
i.70-4!
i70-5i
(70-oi
(73-1)
(74-li
(71-1 i
i72-li
TOTAL COST
DEFINITIVE DESieN
DRAsiNas flANtiOURS
e 790
2 1052
0
0
0
40
40
a 940
0
0
0
o 500
30
u
0
40
20
3rO
100
40
40
90
2oO
0
100.
20
0
4u
< 0
laO
0
cO
0
20 5072
156.00 J294.17s.00
t5.000.00,
$4.000.00
t20.000.00
t2.000.00
t325.17i.00
e. 55 $22.372.00
$347.54S.OO
15 t52, 132.00
ENfcF./lNSP
hANHOURS
500
30u
0
0
0
20
20
350
0
0
0
105
10
0
0
10
10
100
20
10
5eO
140
30
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
oO
0
0 2045
loO.OO ii22.700.00
il22.700.00
12.51 $15..541.00
$138.541.00
15 $20,781.00
*3St,o80.00
$159,322.00
Reaarlcs
GN-SITE (KEH). DEFINITIVE DE5I6N COSTS
ON-5ITE (KEH) ENGINEERING:/ INSPECTION COSTS
OTHER SERVICES INCLUDES $5520 CADD SURCHARGE (164.0 HRS «! $3.00)
E10
Distribution: Ennr Dot Control har Enor hor Proi flat rrc.i Control
-------
KAISER ENGINEERS HANFORO
WESTINGHOUSE HANFORD COHPANY
JOB NO. L-045H/ER0184
* KAISER ENGINEERS INTERACTIVE ESTIMATING **
300 AREA TREATED EFF. DIPOSAL FACILITY
CONCEPTUAL ESTIMATE
KEHR08 - ESTIMATE DETAIL BY UBS / COST CODE
PAGE 0001
DATE 05/04/90 07:26
BY GDC LGH DKH
ACCOUNT
NUMBER
DESCRIPTION
110000 DEFINITIVE DESIGN ONSITE A/E
110000.00 TECHNICAL SERVICES
110000.0000001 DEFINITIVE DESIGN
SUBTOTAL TECHNICAL SERVICES
TOTAL COST CODE 00000
WBS 110000
(ESCALATION 6.8BX - CONTINGENCY 15.00X)
COST EQUIP SUB-
CODE QUANTITY MANHOURS LABOR USAGE MATERIAL CONTRACT
000 1 LS 0 00 0 325176
0 0 325,176
0 0
0 0 325,176
0 0
CY 15.00X)
EQUIP- OH8P TOTAL
MENT / B « 1 DOLLARS
= c = = X = = B ====££== r===ss=S=
0 ' 0 325176
0
0 325.176
0
0 325.176
LU
TOTAL WBS 110000 DEFINITIVE DESIGN ONSITE A/E
325,176
325,176
-------
KAISER ENGINEERS HANFORO
WESTINGHOUSE HANFORO COMPANY
JOB NO. L-045H/ER0184
** KAISER ENGINEERS INTERACTIVE ESTIMATING **
300 AREA TREATED EFF. DIPOSAL FACILITY
CONCEPTUAL ESTIMAJE
KEHROS - ESTIMATE DETAIL BY UBS / COST CODE
PAGE 0002
DATE 05/04/90 07:26
BY GDC LGH DKH
ACCOUNT
NUMBER
120000
120000.00
120000.0000001
SUBTOTAL
COST
DESCRIPTION CODE
FIELD ENGR/INSPEC. ONSITE A/E
TECHNICAL SERVICES
ENGINEERING INSPECTION 000
TECHNICAL SERVICES
EQUIP SUB- EQUIP- OH&P
QUANTITY HANHOURS LABOR USAGE MATERIAL CONTRACT MENT / B & 1
1 LS 0 0 0 0 122700 0 ' 0
0 0 122,700 0
000
TOTAL
DOLLARS
122700
122,700
TOTAL COST CODE 00000
UBS 120000
(ESCALATION 12.91X -CONTINGENCY 15.00X)
122,700
122,700
CM
TOTAL UBS 120000 FIELD ENGR/INSPEC. ONSITE A/E
122,700
122.700
-------
KAISER ENGINEERS HANFORD
WESTINGHOUSE HANFORD COMPANY
JOB NO. L-045H/ER0184
*• KAISER ENGINEERS INTERACTIVE ESTIMATING **
300 AREA TREATED EFF. DIPOSAL FACILITY
CONCEPTUAL ESTIMATE
KEHR08 • ESTIMATE DETAIL BY UBS / COST CODE
PAGE 0003
DATE 05/04/90 07:
BY GDC LGH DKH
26
ACCOUNT
NUMBER
210000
210000. 15
210000. 1500002
210000. 1500004
SUBTOTAL
TOTAL
COST EQUIP
DESCRIPTION CODE QUANTITY MANHOURS LABOR USAGE MATERIAL
PROCUREMENT - ONSITE A/E
MECHANICAL
24" MOTOR OPERATED BUTTER 550 F 1 EA 0 0 0 7500
FLY VALVE
5 HP PUMP GOULD MODEL VIT 550 F 2 EA 0 0 0 37000
MECHANICAL (FIELD) 0 0
0 44,500
CONSUMABLES 6.00X 2670
SALES TAX 7. BOX 3679
WAREHOUSING 20.00X 9434
COST CODE 55015 0 0
UBS 210000 0 60,283
(ESCALATION 6.88X - CONTINGENCY 20.00X)
SUB- EQUIP- OH&P TOTAL
CONTRACT MENT / B & 1 DOLLARS
0 0 ,0 7500
000 37000
0 0
0 44,500
2670
0 3679
9434
0 0
0 60,283
CO
UJ
TOTAL UBS 210000 PROCUREMENT
ONSITE A/E
60,283
60,283
-------
KAISER ENGINEERS HANFORD
WESTINGHOUSE HANFORD COMPANY
JOB NO. L-045H/ER0184
•* KAISER ENGINEERS INTERACTIVE ESTIMATING **
300 AREA TREATED EFF. DIPOSAL FACILITY
CONCEPTUAL ESTIMATE
KEHR08 - ESTIMATE DETAIL BY UBS / COST CODE
PAGE 0004
DATE 05/04/90 07:
BY GDC LGH DKH
26
ACCOUNT
NUMBER
310000
310000.02
COST
DESCRIPTION CODE QUANTITY MANHOURS LABOR
24" HOPE TIE IN
SITEUORK
310000.0200018 CUT INTO EXISTING 24" VCP 700 H 2 EA 12 373
SUBTOTAL
TOTAL
310000.0200010
SUBTOTAL
SITEWORK (MASK) 12
373
SUP 100. OOX ' 12 373
CONSUMABLES 6. OOX
SALES TAX 7.80X
WAREHOUSING ZO. OOX
OH&P / B&l (ON MARKUPS ONLY)
COST CODE 70002 24
UBS 310000 746
(ESCALATION 12.91X - CONTINGENCY 35:00%)
FAB BURIAL BOXES 700 S 7 EA 224 5470
SITEUORK (SHOP) 224
5,470
CONSUMABLES 6:OOX
SALES TAX 7.80X
UAREMOUSING 20. OOX
EQUIP SUB- EQUIP- OH&P
USAGE MATERIAL CONTRACT KENT /B&l
0 100 d 0 380
0 0 380
100 0
6
B 0
21
380
0 0 760
135 0
0 1400 0 0 3938
0 0 3,938
1,400 0
84
116 0
297
TOTAL
DOLLARS
=z=s=ss=s
853
853
373
6
8
21
380
1,642
«*
LU
10808
10,808
84
116
297
TOTAL COST CODE 70002
UBS 310000
(ESCALATION 12.91X - CONTINGENCY 25.OOX)
224
5,470
1 ,897
3,938
11,305
310000.0200002 HAND EXCAVATION FOR 24" TIE
IN TO .EXISTING
700
36 CY
72 1492
1522
3014
-------
KAISER ENGINEERS HANFORD
UESTINGHOUSE HANFORO COMPANY
JOB NO. L-045H/ER0184
** KAISER ENGINEERS INTERACTIVE ESTIMATING **
300 AREA TREATED EFF. OIPOSAL FACILITY
CONCEPTUAL ESTIMATE
KEHR08 - ESTIMATE DETAIL BY UBS / COST CODE
PAGE 0005
DATE 05/04/90 07:26
BY GDC LGH DKH
ACCOUNT
NUMBER DESCRIPTION
310000.0200004 SAND BEDDING
310000.0200006 SELECT BACKFILL
310000.0200008 COMMON BACKFILL
310000.0200012 LOAD WASTE MATERIAL INTO
BOXES (20X SWELL)
310000.0200014 HAUL BOXES TO BURIAL SITE
310000.0200016 DAM 24" VCP AT UPSTREAM MH
AND PUMP TO TRENCH VIA
TEMPORARY LINE (ALLOW)
310000.0200020 INSTALL 24" HDPE FLGD. WYE
310000.0200022 24" HDPE PIPE
310000.0200024 MISC. WORK, FLUSH, TEST AND
TERRA TAPE
SUBTOTAL S1TEWORK
SWP 15.00X
CONSUMABLES 6.00X
SALES TAX 7. SOX
WAREHOUSING 20.00X
OH&P / B&l (ON MARKUPS ONLY)
TOTAL COST CODE 70002
COST
CODE
700
700
700
700
700
700
700
700
700
EQUIP
QUANTITY MANHOURS
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
(SWP)
3
1 1
9
32
7
1
1
50
50
CY
CY
CY
CY
BXS
LS
EA
LF
LF
2
8
5
48
5
40
8
25
13
226
34
260
LABOR USAGE MATERIAL
41 0
166
104
noc
118
1244
249
777
404
5,590
839
0
0
Q
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
30
28
0
0
0
1000
2500
1375
63
4.996
300
413
1059
SUB-
CONTRACT
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
750
0
750
750
EQUIP-
MENT
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
OH&P
TOTAL
/B&l DOLLARS
42
169
106
1015
.
120
1269
254
830
412
5,739
855
6,594
113
363
210
2010
238
3513
3003
3732
879
17,075
839
300
413
1059
855
WBS 310000
(ESCALATION 12.91X - CONTINGENCY 35.00X)
6,429
6,768
20,541
TOTAL WBS 310000 24" HDPE TIE IN
508
12,645
8,800
750
11,293
33,487
-------
KAISER ENGINEERS HANFORD
WESTINGHOUSE HANFORD COMPANY
JOB NO. L-045H/ER0184
»* KAISER ENGINEERS INTERACTIVE ESTIMATING **
300 AREA TREATED EFF. OIPOSAL FACILITY
CONCEPTUAL ESTIMATE
KEHR08 - ESTIMATE DETAIL BY WBS / COS! CODE
PAGE 0006
DATE 05/04/90 07:26
BY GDC LGH DKH
ACCOUNT COST
NUMBER DESCRIPTION CODE QUANTITY HANHOURS
310001 COLLECTION SUMP #1
310001.02 SITEUORK
310001.0200002 MACHINE EXCAVATION FOR 550 F 1000 CY 170
SUMP NO. 1
310001.0200004 BACKFILL AND COMPACT 550 F 944 CY 283
SUBTOTAL SITEUORK (FIELD) „ 453
TOTAL COST CODE 55002 453
UBS 310001
(ESCALATION 12.91X - CONTINGENCY 25.00X)
310001.0200003 HAND EXCAVATION 550 U 204 CY 204
310001.0200005 HAUL TO BURIAL 550 U 204 CY 61
SUBTOTAL SITEUORK (SUP) 265
SUP 15.00X 40
OH&P / B&l (ON MARKUPS ONLY)
TOTAL COST CODE 55002 305
UBS 310001
(ESCALATION 12.91X - CONTINGENCY 35.00X)
310001.03 CONCRETE
310001.0300002 GRADE AND SCREED SOG 550 F 679 SF 7
310001.0300004 FORM SOG 550 F 145 LF 35
310001.0300006 FORM WALLS, SUMP 550 F 2208 SF 530
EQUIP SUB- EQUIP- OH&P TOTAL
LABOR USAGE MATERIAL CONTRACT MENT /B&l DOLLARS
4015 0000 4095 8110
6684 0000 6818 13502
0 0 10,913
10,699 0 0 21,612,
0 0 '10,913
10,699 0 0 21,612.
LU
4227 0000 4312 8539
1264 0000 1289 2553
0 0 5,601
5,491 0 0 11,092
824 824
B40 840
0 0 6,441
6,315 0 0 12.756
145 0 68 0 0 148 361
855 0 181 0 0 872 1908
12943 0 2760 0 0 13202 28905
-------
KAISER ENGINEERS HANFORD
UESTINGHOUSE HANFORO COMPANY
JOB NO. L-045H/ER0184
** KAISER ENGINEERS INTERACTIVE ESTIMATING **
300 AREA TREATED EFF. DIPOSAL FACILITY
CONCEPTUAL ESTIMATE
KEHR08 - ESTIMATE DETAIL BY WBS / COST CODE
PAGE 0007
DATE 05/04/90 07:26
BY GDC LGH DKH
ACCOUNT
NUMBER
310001
310001
310001
310001
310001
310001
310001
310001
310001
310001
310001
310001
310001
310001
0300008
0300010
0300012
0300014
0300016
0300018
0300020
0300022
0300024
0300026
0300027
0300028
0300030
0300032
DESCRIPTION
S===£S3BSBS33»&SZCSS=E==S=:
FORM WALLS, VALVE PIT
FORM WALLS, BUILDING
FORM SUSP. SLAB
KEY JOINTS
STRIP AND OIL
CONCRETE, SOG
CONCRETE, SUMP WALLS
CONCRETE, VALVE PIT WALLS
BUILDING WALLS
SLAB
CONCRETE,
CONCRETE, SUSP.
SUMP LINER
CURING
REBAR 3 140#/CY
WATER STOP
SUBTOTAL CONCRETE
CONSUMABLES 6.00X
SALES TAX 7.SOX
WAREHOUSING 20.00X
TOTAL COST CODE 55003
WBS 310001
(ESCALATION 12.91X - CONTINGENCY 25.00X)
COST
CODE
550
550
550
550
550
550
550
550
550
550
550
550
550
550
EQUIP
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
(F
QUANT 1
319
408
448
316
3528
27
42
5
4
17
968
4731
13300
1 1 1
1ELD)
TY
SF
SF
SF
LF
SF
CY
CY
CY
CY
CY
SF
SF
LBS
LF
MANHOURS
77
98
672
16
106
27
53
6
5
17
484
24
199
10
2,366
LABOR USAGE
1880
2393
16410
391
2257
645
1266
143
1 19
406
1 1563
573
5395
233
57,617
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
SUB-
MATERIAL CONTRACT
399
510
560
158
882
1485
2310
275
220
935
9680
71
3724
999
25,217
1513
2085
5346
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
EQUI P-
OH&P
MENT / B & I
0 1918
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2441
16738
399
2302
658
1291
146
121
414
1 1794
584
5503
238
58, 769
TOTAL
DOLLARS
4197
5344
33708
948
5441
2788
4867
564
460
1755
33037
1228
14622
1470
141 ,603
1513
2085
5346
2,366
57,617
34,161
58,769
150,547
310001.05
METALS
310001.0500002 ACCESS LADDER 550 F 24 LF
310001.0500004 3' X 3' ACCESS HATCH (ALLOW) 550 F 1 EA
310001.0500006 4' X 5' PIT COVER (ALLOW) 550 F 1 EA
24
16
16
651
434
434
1440
500
800
SUBTOTAL METALS
(FIELD)
56
1,519
CONSUMABLES 6.00X
SALES TAX 7.BOX.
WAREHOUSING 20.00X
2, 740
164
227
581
664
443
443
2755
1377
1677
1,550
5,809
164
227
581
-------
KAISER ENGINEERS HANFORO
UESTINGHOUSE HANFORD COMPANY
JOB NO. L-045H/ER0184
** KAISER ENGINEERS INTERACTIVE ESTIMATING **
300 AREA TREATED EFF. 01POSAL FACILITY
CONCEPTUAL ESTIMATE
KEHR08 - ESTIMATE DETAIL BY UBS / COST CODE
PAGE 0008
DATE 05/04/90 07:26
BY GDC LGH DKH
ACCOUNT COST EQUIP SUB-
NUMBER DESCRIPTION CODE QUANTITY MANHOURS LABOR USAGE MATERIAL CONTRACT
'
TOTAL COST CODE 55005 56 0 0
WBS 310001 1,519 3,712
(ESCALATION 12.91X - CONTINGENCY 25.00X)
310001.09 FINISHES
310001.0900002 WATERPROOF SUMP EXTERIOR 550 F 1378 SF 96 2130 0 1791 '0
310001.0900004 SPC INTERIOR CONCRETE 550 F 2624 SF 184 4083 0 3936 0
310001.0900006 MISC. PAINTING (ALLOW) 550 F 1 LS 40 888 0 600 0
SUBTOTAL FINISHES (FIELD) 320 0 0
7,101 6,327
CONSUMABLES 6.00X 380
SALES TAX 7. SOX 523
WAREHOUSING 20.00X 1341
TOTAL COST CODE 55009 320 0 0
WBS 310001 7.101 8.571
(ESCALATION 12.91X - CONTINGENCY 20.00X)
310001.13 SPECIAL CONSTRUCTION
310001.1300002 PRE-ENG1NEERED METAL BLDG. 550 F 594 SF 000 0 23760
SUBTOTAL SPECIAL CONSTRUCTION (FIELD) 0 0 23.760
0 0
EQUIP- OH4P TOTAL
MENT / B & I DOLLARS
1,550
0 6,781
r
0 2173 6094
0 4165 12184
0 906 2394
7,244
0 20,672
380
0 523
1341
7,244
0 22.916
0 1188 24948
1,188
0 24,948
TOTAL
COST CODE 55013
WBS 310001
23,760
1 , 188
24,948
(ESCALATION 12.91X - CONTINGENCY 20.00X)
-------
KAISER ENGINEERS HANFORD
UESTINGHOUSE HANFORD COMPANY
JOB NO. L-045H/ER0184
** KAISER ENGINEERS INTERACTIVE ESTIMATING **
300 AREA TREATED EFF. DIPOSAL FACILITY
CONCEPTUAL ESTIMATE
KEHR08 - ESTIMATE DETAIL BY WBS / COST CODE
ACCOUNT
NUMBER
DESCRIPTION
COST
CODE
QUANTITY MANHOURS
LABOR
EOUI P
USAGE
MATER IAL
SUB-
CONTRACT
PAGE 0009
DATE 05/04/90 07:26
BY GDC LGH OKH
EQUIP-
MENT
OHSP
/ B & I
TOTAL
DOLLARS
310001.15
310001.1500002
MECHANICAL
310001
310001
310001
310001
310001
310001
310001
310001
310001
. 1500004
. 1500006
. 1500008
. 1500010
. 1500012
. 1500014
.1500016
. 1500018
. 1500020
24" MOTOR OPERATED BUTTER 550
FLY VALVE
5 HP PUMP GOULD MODEL VIT 550
24" FLANGES AND B,N & G SETS 550
6" MOTOR OPERATED BUTTER 550
FLY VALVE
6" CHECK VALVE 550
6" FLEX CONNECTOR 550
6" GATE VALVE 550
6" PIPE AND FITTINGS 550
LEVEL ELEMENT 550
PRESSURE INDICATOR 550
1 EA
187
SUBTOTAL MECHANICAL
TOTAL
GENERAL FOREMAN 2.00X
CONSUMABLES 6.00X
SALES TAX 7.80X
WAREHOUSING 20.00X
OH&P / B&l (ON MARKUPS ONLY)
COST CODE 55015
UBS 310001
(ESCALATION 12.91X - CONTINGENCY 25.00X)
3,711
7,638
191
378
2
2
2
2
2
1
F 1
F 1
F 2
( F IELD)
EA
EA
EA
EA
EA
EA
LS
EA
EA
48
8
3
2
4
1
40
2
3
1 17
2
119
1493
249
93
62
124
31
12/.4
62
93
3.638
73
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1500
1500
738
150
300
1000
250
200
5,638
338
466
1 195
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1523
254
95
63
126
32
1269
63
95
3,711
74
3,785
3016
2003
1688
863
400
363
3513
375
388
12,987
73
338
466
1195
74
15,134
310001.16
ELECTRICAL
310001.1614703 ••* BUILDING *** 501
310001.1639901 OUTLET WIRING • RECEPTACLE I 501
SWITCH, COMPOSITE/GRS
310001.1639902 OUTLET WIRING - LIGHTING 501
0
594 SF
594 SF
0
18
59
0
548
1798
0
754
1437
0
559
1834
0
1861
5069
-------
KAISER ENGINEERS HANFORD
UESTINGHOUSE HANFORD COMPANY
JOB NO. L-045H/ER0184
>* KAISER ENGINEERS INTERACTIVE ESTIMATING *'
300 AREA TREATED EFF. DIPOSAL FACILITY
CONCEPTUAL ESTIMATE
KEHR08 - ESTIMATE DETAIL BY UBS / COST CODE
PAGE 0010
DATE 05/04/90 07:26
BY GDC LGH DKH
ACCOUNT
NUMBER
310001 .
310001 .
310001.
310001 .
310001 .
310001 .
310001.
310001.
310001.
310001.
310001.
1642001
1642030
1642031
1642033
1642036
1661001
1661002
1662014
1662016
1662017
1664104
DESCRIPTION
EXTERIOR, COMPOSITE/GRS
FIRE ALARM CND ft WIRE
MANUAL FIRE ALARM STATION
HEAT DETECTOR
FIRE ALARM GONG
SMOKE DETECTORS
KILOWATT HOUR/DEMAND METER
AUTOMATIC TRANSFER SWITCH
225A 480V 3 POLE
NOOB 100A H.B. 4 W 120/208V
U/24 EA 20A IP C.B.
NEHB 225AF/225AT M.B. PNLBD
480Y/277 3 PH 4W
W/3 EA 60AF/20AT 3P C.B.
1 EA 60AF/25AT 3P C.B.
2 EA 60AF/SOAT 3P C.B.
15 KVA DRY-TYPE TFMH 3 PH
480V-208/120Y
SUBTOTAL ELECTRICAL
TOTAL
GENERAL FOREMAN 5.00X
CONSUMABLES 6.00X
SALES TAX 7.SOX
WAREHOUSING 20.00X
OH&P / B&l (ON MARKUPS ONLY)
COST CODE 50116
WBS 310001
(ESCALATION 12.91X - CONTINGENCY 25.00X)
COST
CODE
SS S X
501
501
501
501
501
501
501
501
501
501
501
QUANTITY HANHOURS
= = =s = = = :
F 100
F 1
F 1
F 1
F 1
F 1
F 1
F 1
F 1
F 1
F 1
(FIELD)
:ss :
LF
EA
EA
EA
EA
EA
EA
EA
EA
EA
EA
======== =
20
2
2
2
2
16
8
14
0
24
14
181
9
190
EQUIP SUB- EOUIP-
LABOR USAGE MATERIAL CONTRACT MENT
======= £=:
609
61
61
61
61
487
244
427
0
731
427
5,515
276
= == = == =
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
:======= ===
134
50
250
150
115
1000
9500
500
0
1930
1 146
16,966
1018
1403
3597
===== ===
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
===== =
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
OH&P
/B&l
==== " ~
621
62
62
' 62
62
497
249
436
0
746
436
5,626
281
5,907
TOTAL
DOLLARS
========
1364
173
373
273
238
1984
9993
1363
0
3407
2009
28,107
276
1018
1403
3597
281
5,791
22,984
34,682
310001.1614702 3-2" PVC CONDUITS IN CONCRET 501 U 1560 LF 1267 38603
ENCASED DUCT BANK COMPLETE
FA,SIC ft SPARE
310001.1614704 MANHOLE 4' X 4' X 4' FOR 501 U 3 EA 48 1462
ENCASED DUCT BANK
FA.SIG & SPARE
310001.1644010 5/8" STEEL GROUND CABLE 501 W 250 LF 10 305
310001.1644040 GROUND PLATE 501 U 2 EA 2 61
12402
1800
113
15
39375
1491
311
62
90380
4753
729
138
-------
KAISER ENGINEERS HANFORD
WEST1NGHOUSE HANFORD COMPANY
JOB NO. L-045H/ER0184
** KAISER ENGINEERS INTERACTIVE ESTIMATING **
300 AREA TREATED EFF. DIPOSAL FACILITY
CONCEPTUAL ESTIMATE
KEHROB - ESTIMATE DETAIL BY WBS / COST CODE
PAGE 0011
DATE 05/04/90 07:
BY GDC LGH DKH
26
ACCOUNT COST
NUMBER DESCRIPTION CODE QUANTITY
310001.1644042 CADUELD & PATCH 501 U 18 EA
310001.1644043 CONNECT TO BLOG STEEL 501 W 2 EA
310001.1644060 GROUSC SOD STEEL 0.75" X 8' 501 U 4 EA
SUBTOTAL ELECTRICAL ' (SUP)
SUP 15.00X
GENERAL FOREMAN 5.00X
CONSUMABLES 6.00X
SALES TAX 7. BOX
WAREHOUSING 20.00X
OH&P / B&I (ON MARKUPS ONLY)
TOTAL COST CODE 50116
UBS 310001
(ESCALATION 12.91X - CONTINGENCY 25.00X)
310001.1674101 FUSED CUTOUT 600 F 3 EA
UHC POWER INSTALL
NORMAL POWER
310001.1674102 LIGHTNING ARRESTORS 600 F 3 EA
UHC INSTALL
NORMAL POWER
310001.1674104 4" POLE RISER 600 F 1 JOB
NORMAL POWER
310001.1674204 50 KVA TRANSFORMERS 600 F 3 EA
13.8KVA-277V 1 PH
NORMAL POWER
310001.1674300 3-4" PVC CONDUITS IN CONCRET 600 F 1300 LT
ENCASED DUCT BANK COMPLETE
BLDG 333 TO COLL 8LDG
310001.1674301 MANHOLE 4' X 4' X 4' FOR 600 F 3 EA
ENCASED DUCT BANK
BLDG 333 TO COLL BLDG
310001.1674302 #4 XLP NON-SHLD 1/C CU 5KV 600 F 3900 LF
STANDBY POWER
310001.1674306 45 KVA XFMR 600 F 1 EA
2400 - 480/277V
INSTALL IN COLL BLDG
MANHOURS
36
4
4
1.371
206
79
1,655
0
0
16
0
1391
48
78
36
LABOR
1097
122
122
41 , 772
6266
2402
50,440
0
0
487
0
42381
1462
2377
1097
EQUIP SUB-
USAGE MATERIAL CONTRACT
0 180 0
0 20 0
0370
0 0
14,567
874
1204
3088
0 0
19,734
0 450 540
0 180 540
0 500 240
0 3000 2880
0 20397 0
0 1800 0
0 2059 0
0 8374 0
EQUIP- OH&P TOTAL
MENT /B&I DOLLARS
0 1119 2396
0 124 266
0 124 283
42,606
0 98,945
6266
2402
874
0 1204
3088
8841 8841
51 ,447
0 121,620
0 27 1017
0 27 747
0 509 1736
0 144 6024
0 43229 106007
0 1491 4753
0 2425 6861
0 1119 10590
CM
-------
KAISER ENGINEERS HANFORD
UESTINGHOUSE HANFORD COMPANY
JOB NO. L-045H/ER0184
** KAISER ENGINEERS INTERACTIVE ESTIMATING **
300 AREA TREATED EFF. DIPOSAL FACILITY
CONCEPTUAL ESTIMATE
KEHR08 • ESTIMATE DETAIL BY UBS / COST CODE
PAGE 0012
DATE 05/04/90 07:26
BY GDC LGH DKH
ACCOUNT COST
NUMBER DESCRIPTION CODE QUANTITY MANHOURS
310001.1674308 BLDG 333 POWER 600 F 1 EA 24
2400V ASSUME EXST C.B. TO
TIE INTO
SUBTOTAL ELECTRICAL - (FIELD) 1,593
GENERAL FOREMAN 5.00X 80
CONSUMABLES 6.00X
SALES TAX 7. BOX
WAREHOUSING 20.00X
OH&P / B&I (ON MARKUPS ONLY)
TOTAL COST CODE 60016 1,673
WBS 310001
(ESCALATION 12.91X - CONTINGENCY 25.00X)
310001.1614701 **• UTILITY •** 600 WO 0
ZONE
310001.1614722 3-4" PVC CONDUITS IN CONCRET 600 W 100 LF 107
ENCASED DUCT BANK COMPLETE
POLE *3 TO BLDG
310001.1621123 0350 1/C IHU STRANDED COPPE 600 W 500 LF 24
NORMAL POWER
310001.1674103 POLE GROUNDING 600 W 1 JOB 6
NORMAL POWER
SUBTOTAL ELECTRICAL (SWP) 137
SWP 15.00X 21
GENERAL FOREMAN 5.00X 8
CONSUMABLES 6.00X
SALES TAX 7.80X
WAREHOUSING 20.00X
OH&P / Btl (ON MARKUPS ONLY)
TOTAL COST CODE 60016 165
EQUIP SUB- EOUIP-
LABOR USAGE MAT ER I AL CON T RACT MENT
731 0 300 0 0
0 4,200
48,535 37,060 0
2427
2224
3064 0
7857
0 4,200
50,962 50,204 0
00000
3260 0 1569 0 0
731 0 1809 0 0
183 0 100 0 0
0 0
4,174 3,478 0
626
240
209
288 0
737
0 0
OH&P TOTAL
/B&I DOLLARS
746 1777
49,717
139,512
2427
2224
3064
7857
2475 2475
52,192
157,558
CM
CVJ
UJ
0 0
3325 8154
746 3286
187 470
4,258
11,910
626
240
209
288
737
883 883
5,141
WBS 310001
5,040
4,712
14,893
-------
KAISER ENGINEERS HANFORO
WESTINGHOUSE HANFORO COMPANY
JOB NO. L-045H/ER0184
** KAISER ENGINEERS INTERACTIVE ESTIMATING *'
300 AREA TREATED EFF. DIPOSAL FACILITY
CONCEPTUAL ESTIMATE
KEHR08 - ESTIMATE DETAIL BY WBS / COST CODE
PAGE 0013
DATE 05/04/90 07:26
BY GDC LGH OKH
ACCOUNT
NUMBER
DESCRIPTION
310001.1610001 •*• PROCESS ***
CLEAN
310001.1610022 30A 4W FEEDER - 1/2" GRS WIT
4 #10 THHN CONDUCTORS
310001.1610024 65A 4W FEEDER - 1" GR
4 #6 THHN CONDUCTORS
310001.1610027 115A 4V FEEDER - 1 1/4"
4 #2 THHN CONDUCTORS
310001.1610032 230A 4W FEEDER - 2"
4 #4/0 THHN CONDUCTORS
310001.1625007 2/C #14 ALPHA SHIELDED
SINGLE PAIR
310001.1638701 480V 1.5KW EVAPORATOR COOLER
CONNECT ION
310001.1638702 480V 7.5KW UNIT HEATER
INSTALL A CONNECTION
310001.1668703 480V 5 HP MOTOR P-1.1A
CONNECTION
310001.1681004 INSTRM RACK
310001.1682004 LE/LIT
310001.1684004 HS/SC INCLUDED WITH VFD
CONN CABLE
310001.1684006 MOV-1,2,3
CONNECT
310001.1684008 COND 4 WIRE ALLOWANCE
INSTRM
SUBTOTAL ELECTRICAL
GENERAL FOREMAN 5.00X
CONSUMABLES 6.00X
SALES TAX 7.SOX
WAREHOUSING 20.00X
OH8P / B&I (ON MARKUPS ONLY)
TOTAL COST CODE 70016
WBS 310001
COST
CODE
QUANTITY MANHOURS
EQUIP SUB- EQUIP- OH&P
LABOR USAGE MATERIAL CONTRACT MENT / B t 1
INGENCY 25.00X)
700
WIT 700
WIT 700
GRS 700
GRS 700
700
OLER 700
700
700
700
700
700
700
700
LY)
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
(F
0
70 LF
10 LF
90 LF
60 LF
2100 LF
1 EA
1 EA
2 EA
1 EA
1 EA
2 EA
3 EA
150 LF
IELD)
0
8
2
20
20
42
1
4
4
8
8
1
3
12
133
7
140
0
244
61
609
609
1280
30
122
122
244
244
30
91
366
4,052
203
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
119
32
533
826
1743
9
500
46
1000
2000
10
75
255
7.148
429
591
1515
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
249
62
621
621
1306
31
124
124
249
249
31
93
373
4. 133
207
4,340
TOTAL
DOLLARS
0
612
155
1763
2056
4329 £3
LU
70
746
292
1493
2493
71
259
994
15.333
203
429
591
1515
207
4.255
9.683
18,278
-------
KAISER ENGINEERS HANFORD ** KAISER ENGINEERS INTERACTIVE ESTIMATING ** PAGE 0014
UESTINGHOUSE HANFORD COMPANY 300 AREA TREATED EFF. DIPOSAL FACILITY DATE 05/04/90 07:26
JOB NO. L-045H/ER0184 CONCEPTUAL ESTIMATE BY GDC LGH DKH
KEHR08 • ESTIMATE DETAIL BY UBS / COST CODE
ACCOUNT COST EQUIP SUB- £oUIP- OM4P TOTAL
NUMBER DESCRIPTION CODE QUANTITY HANHOURS LABOR USAGE MATERIAL CONTRACT KENT / B & I DOLLARS
= = = = = = = 8 8 EC 8 8 » 8 = 8 8 = r 8 8 8 88 8 SS 8 8 3 8 as 8 = 8 = 8 8 8 8 = = :£ a = 8 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = == = = = = = = = = = = = == = = = = 88 = = = = = = = = 8 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = 3
(ESCALATION 12.91X - CONTINGENCY 25.00X)
TOTAL UBS 310001 COLLECTION SUMP #1 ,7,442 0 27,960 208,918
203,448 161,398 0 601,724
CM
-------
KAISER ENGINEERS HANFORD
UESTINGHOUSE HANFORD COMPANY
JOB NO. L-045H/ER0184
** KAISER ENGINEERS INTERACTIVE ESTIMATING **
300 AREA TREATED EFF. DIPOSAl FACILITY
CONCEPTUAL ESTIMATE
KEHR08 - ESTIMATE DETAIL BY WBS / COST CODE
PAGE
DATE
BY
0015
05/04/90 07:
GDC LGH DKH
ACCOUNT
NUMBER
310002
310002.02
DESCRIPTION
r = s = ss3es*5sas2s:easrc = ss
6" ABOVE GROUND EFFLUENT
SITEWORK
COST
CODE
QUANTITY HANHOURS
LABOR
EOUI P
USAGE
SUB- EQUIP-
MATERIAL CONTRACT MENT
= = ± = = = = = zsrsssss r = s s = s s
OH&P
/ B & I
TOTAL
DOLLARS
310002.0200122 FABRICATE BURIAL BOXES
SUBTOTAL SITEUORK
CONSUMABLES 6.00X
SALES TAX 7.BOX
WAREHOUSING 20.00X
700
S 5 BXS
(SHOP)
160
160
3907
1000
3,907
TOTAL COST CODE 70002
WBS 310002
(ESCALATION 12.91X - CONTINGENCY 25.00X)
1 .000
60
83
212
160
3,907
1 ,355
3985
3,985
3,985
8892
8,892
60
83
212
9,247
LD
<\J
310002
310002
310002
310002
310002
310002
310002
310002
310002
310002
310002
.0200110 HAND EXCAVATION FOR PIPE
SUPPORTS FOR 6" ABOVE GRND.
EFFLUENT
.0200112 SET PRECAST CONC. SUPPORTS
.0200114 PIPE CUSHION AND ANCHOR.
.0200116 BACKFILL
.0200118 LOAD WASTE MATERIAL INTO
BOXES
.0200120 HAUL TO BURIAL SITE
.0200124 6" SCH. 80 PVC PIPE
.0200126 6" SCH. 80 PVC COUPLINGS
.0200128 HEAT TRACE
.0200130 1 1/2" FIBERGLASS INSULATION
.0200132 ALUMINUM INSULATION JACKET
700
700
700
700
700
700
700
700
700
700
700
W
U
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
SUBTOTAL SITEWORK (
SWP 15.00X
CONSUMABLES 6.00X
SALES TAX 7. BOX
WAREHOUSING 20.00X
OH&P / B&l (ON MARKUPS ONLY)
55
260
260
35
23
5
1560
78
1560
1560
1560
SWP)
CY
EA
EA
CY
CY
BXS
LF
EA
LF
LF
LF
110
86
52
18
35
5
234
0
78
218
281
1,117
168
2279
1782
1617
373
725
1 18
7277
0
2468
6294
8112
31,045
4657
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1 1700
1300
0
0
0
17160
3471
7800
5226
3276
49,933
2996
4128
10586
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2325
1818
1649
380
740
120
7423
0
2517
6420
8274
31,666
4750
4604
15300
4566
753
1465
238
31660
3471
12785
17940
19662
112,644
4657
2996
4128
10586
4750
-------
KAISER ENGINEERS HANFORD
WEST1NGHOUSE HANFORO COMPANY
JOB NO. L-045H/ER0184
** KAISER ENGINEERS INTERACTIVE ESTIMATING **
300 AREA TREATED EFF. OIPOSAL FACILITY
CONCEPTUAL ESTIMATE
KEHR08 • ESTIMATE DETAIL BY UBS / COST CODE
PAGE 0016
DATE 05/04/90 07:26
BY GDC LGH DKH
ACCOUNT COST
NUMBER DESCRIPTION CODE QUANTITY MANHOURS
TOTAL COST CODE 70002 1,285
UBS 310002
(ESCALATION 12.91X - CONTINGENCY 25.00%)
TOTAL WBS 310002 6" ABOVE GROUND EFFLUENT 1,445
EQUIP SUB- EQUIP- OHSP TOTAL
LABOR USAGE MATERIAL CONTRACT MENT / B & 1 DOLLARS
0 0 36,416
35,702 67,643 0 139,761
0 0 40,401
39.609 68,998 0 149,008
to
CM
-------
KAISER ENGINEERS HANFORO
UESMNGHOUSE HANFORD COMPANY
JOB NO. L-045H/ER0184
ACCOUNT
NUMBER DESCRIPTION
s=cr==s=CK3=s ss==ss=ss==aSBB*e=sxes=s
** KAISER ENGINEERS INTERACTIVE ESTIMATING **
300 AREA TREATED EFF. DIPOSAL FACILITY
CONCEPTUAL ESTIMATE
KEHR08 - ESTIMATE DETAIL BY UBS / COST CODE
PAGE 0017
DATE 05/04/90 07:26
BY GOC LGH DKH
COST
CODE
EQUIP SUB-
QUANTITY MANHOURS LABOR USAGE MATERIAL CONTRACT
a = == = = = =s= s = s:s = = = s ss = = = = = s = s = = = = = s== = = ==s sss = s = = s
EQUIP-
MENT
OH8P
/ B & I
320001 DESIGN OF TEOF BY D/C CONTRACTOR
320001.00 TECHNICAL SERVICES
320001.0000002 DESIGN 000
BY THE DESIGN/CONTUCT CONTR
ALLOW 10X OF CONSTR.
SUBTOTAL TECHNICAL SERVICES
1 LS
TOTAL COST CODE 00000
UBS 320001
(ESCALATION 13.SIX - CONTINGENCY 25.00X)
647500
647,500
647.500
TOTAL
DOLLARS
=s=ss==rs
647500
647,500
647,500
TOTAL WBS 320001 DESIGN OF TEDF BY D/C CONTRACTOR
647,500
647,500
-------
KAISER ENGINEERS HANFORD
UESTINGHOUSE HANFORO COMPANY
JOB NO. L-045H/ER0184
•* KAISER ENGINEERS INTERACTIVE ESTIMATING **
300 AREA TREATED EFF. OIPOSAL FACILITY
CONCEPTUAL ESTIMATE
KEHR06 - ESTIMATE DETAIL BY UBS / COST CODE
PAGE 0018
DATE 05/04/90 07:26
BY GDC LGH DKK
ACCOUNT
NUMBER
320002
320002.00
320002.0000003
SUBTOTAL
TOTAL
COST
DESCRIPTION CODE QUANTITY MANHOURS
ENGR/INSPEC. BY D/C CONTRACTOR
TECHNICAL SERVICES
ENGR/INSP. 000 1 LS 0
BY THE DESIGN/CONTUCT CONTR
ALLOW 5X OF CONSTR.
TECHNICAL SERVICES 0
COST CODE 00000 0
UBS 320002
(ESCALATION 13. SIX - CONTINGENCY 25. OCX)
EQUIP SUB- EQUIP- OH«P TOTAL
LABOR USAGE MATERIAL CONTRACT MENT / B & 1 DOLLARS
1
000 323700 0 . 0 323700
0 323,700 0
000 323.700
0 323,700 .. 0
0 00 323,700
CO
C\J
LU
TOTAL UBS 320002 ENGR/INSPEC. BY D/C CONTRACTOR
323.700
323,700
-------
KAISER ENGINEERS HANFORD
UESTINGHOUSE HANFORD COMPANY
JOB NO. L-045H/ER0184
•* KAISER ENGINEERS INTERACTIVE ESTIMATING •'
300 AREA TREATED EFF. DIPOSAL FACILITY
CONCEPTUAL ESTIMATE
KEHR08 - ESTIMATE DETAIL BY UBS / COST CODE
PAGE 0019
DATE 05/04/90 07:26
BY GDC LGH DKH
ACCOUNT
NUMBER
321000
321000.
321000.
321000.
321000.
321000.
321000.
321000.
321000 .
321000.
321000.
321000.
321000.
321000.
321000.
321000.
321000.
n •*
v c.
0201002
0201004
0201006
0201008
0201010
0201011
0201 012
0201014
0201016
0201018
0202002
0202004
0202006
0202008
0202009
DESCRIPTION
SITE WORK
SiTEUCSK
CLEAR ft GRUB
EXCAVATION 2.5'
FINE GRADING
WATER FOR CONSTRUCT
HAUL OFF WASTE
8' HIGH CHAIN LINK
WITH BARB WIRE
STABI LIZATION
FINE GRADING
3" CRUSHED ROCK
WATER FOR CONSTRUCT
FINE GRADING
4" 1 1/4"-0 BASE
2" 5/8"-0 LEVELI
ION
FENCE
ION
COURSE
ING
WATER FOR CONSTRUCT
MINOR IMPROVEMENTS
COURSE
ION
TO
ENTRANCE ROAD (ALLOWANCE)
COST
CODE
QUANTITY MANHOURS
LABOR
EQUI P
USAGE
SUB-
MATERIAL CONTRACT
EQUIP-
MENT
OH&P
/ 8 & I
TOTAL
DOLLARS
= = = s==s=3s
460
460
460
460
460
460
460
460
460
460
460
460
460
460
460
SUBTOTAL SITEWORK
4450
37100
44500
2250
2500
2000
0
32450
5840
1620
5000
1 125
560
250
1
CY
CY
SY
M/G
CY
LF
SY
TON
M/G
SY
TON
TON
M/G
LS
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5563
46375
13350
1 1250
10000
22000
0
9735
61320
8100
1500
11250
5880
1250
12500
220.073
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
278
2319
668
563
500
1100
0
487
3066
405
75
563
294
63
625
11 ,006
5841
48694
14018
11813
10500
23100
0
10222
64386
8505
1575
11813
6174
1313
13125
231.079
TOTAL COST CODE 46002
WBS 321000
(ESCALATION 13.81X - CONTINGENCY 25.00X)
220,073
11,006
231,079
321000.0200002 EXCAVATION AND BACKFILL FOR 600
SANITARY WATER
321000.0200004 8" SCH 40 PVC PIPE 600
321000.0200006 8" SCH 40 PVC FITTINGS 600
321000.0200008 8" TIE IN TO EXISTING 600
321000.0200010 MISC. WORK, FLUSH AND TEST 600
321000.0200012 EXCAVATION AND BACKFILL FOR 600
SANITARY SEWER
170 CY
978
560 LF
4 EA
1 EA
1 LS
180 CY
39
2
4
4
0
1245
64
128
128
0
0
0
0
0
0
6160
540
150
25
0
0
0
0
0
1035
49
1962
160
74
41
52
1027
9367
764
352
194
1087
-------
KAISER ENGINEERS HANFORD
UESTINGHOUSE HANFORO COMPANT
JOB NO. L-045H/ER0184
'* KAISER ENGINEERS INTERACTIVE ESTIMATING **
300 AREA TREATED EFF. DIPOSAL FACILITY
CONCEPTUAL ESTIMATE
KEHR08 - ESTIMATE DETAIL BY UBS / COST CODE
PAGE 0020
DATE 05/04/90 07:26
BY GDC LGH DKH
ACCOUNT
NUMBER
DESCRIPTION
PIPE
PRESSURE
FITTINGS
CHECK VALVE
IN TO EXISTING
LIFT STATION
FOR
321000.0200014 2" PVC
321000.0200016 2" PVC
321000.0200018 2" PVC
321000.0200020 2" TIE
321000.0200022 SEWAGE
ALLOW
321000.0200032 EXCAVATION AND BACKFILL
FIRE PROTECTION
321000.0200034 FIRE PROTECTION PIPING
321000.0200036 POST INDICATOR VALVE
321000.0200038 FIRE HYDRANTS
SUBTOTAL SITEUORK
SALES TAX 7.SOX
OH&P / B&I (ON MARKUPS ONLY)
TOTAL COST CODE 60002
WBS 321000
(ESCALATION 13.BIX - CONTINGENCY 25.00X)
COST
CODE
= = a =
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
QUANTITY MANHOURS
========
1020
6
1
1
1
40
1
1
2
r = B =
LF
EA
EA
EA
EA
CY
LS
EA
EA
======= =
61
2
1
2
0
0
80
6
16
217
217
EQUIP SUB- EQUIP-
LABOR USAGE MATERIAL CONTRACT MENT
======= = = =
1947
64
32
64
0
0
2299
172
460
6,603
===== =
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
======== ••
1530
78
35
25
0
0
4800
750
2400
16,493
1286
======== ===
0
0
0
0
30000
230
0
0
0
32,243
32.243
===== =
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
OH&P
/B&I
======= =
921
38
18
24
1500
12
1881
244
758
7,734
341
8,075
TOTAL
DOLLARS
= = = = = = = =r
4398
180
85
1 13
31500
242
8980
1166
3618
63.073
1286
341
o
CO
LU
6,603
17,779
64,700
321000.16
ELECTRICAL
321000.1634004 LIGHT POLE ONE ARH
U/LPS & PC 40'
COMPLETE W/COND/WIRE
321000.1644010 5/8" STEEL GROUND CABLE
321000.1644040 GROUND PLATE
321000.1644042 CADWELO & PATCH
321000.1644043 CONNECT TO BLDG STEEL
321000.1644060 GROUND ROD STEEL 0.75" X 8'
SUBTOTAL ELECTRICAL
SALES TAX 7.BOX
OH&P / B&I (ON MARKUPS ONLY)
501
2 EA
60
1828
4400
1650
7878
501
501
501
501
501
1200
4
41
4
11
LF
EA
EA
EA
EA
48
4
82
8
11
213
1462
122
2498
244
335
6,489
0
0
0
0
0
0
540
30
410
40
101
5,521
431
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
531
40
771
75
116
3, 183
114
2533
192
3679
359
552
15.193
431
114
-------
KAISER ENGINEERS HANFORO
UESTINGHOUSE HANFORD COMPANY
JOB NO. L-045H/ER0184
** KAISER ENGINEERS INTERACTIVE ESTIMATING **
300 AREA TREATED EFF. DIPOSAL FACILITY
CONCEPTUAL ESTIMATE
KEHR08 - ESTIMATE DETAIL BY UBS / COST CODE
PAGE 0021
DATE 05/04/90 07:26
BY GDC LGH DKH
ACCOUNT
NUMBER DESCRIPTION
COST
CODE
EQUIP
QUANTITY MANHOURS LABOR USAGE
MATERIAL
SUB-
CONTRACT
EQUIP-
MENT
OH&P
/ B ft 1
TOTAL
DOLLARS
TOTAL COST CODE 50116
UBS 321000
(ESCALATION 13.SIX - CONTINGENCY 25.00X)
213
6.489
5,95?
3,297
15,736
321000.1610001 •** UTILITY ••*
YARD
321000.1614702 3-2" PVC CONDUITS IN CONCRET
ENCASED DUCT BANK COMPLETE
FA.SIG & SPARE
321000.1614722 3-4" PVC CONDUITS IN CONCRET
ENCASED DUCT BANK COMPLETE
POLE TO XFMER
321000.1614725 8-4" PVC CONDUITS IN CONCRET
ENCASED DUCT BANK COMPLETE
XFMR TO TF BLDG
321000.1621326 #600 XHHU 1/C COPPER 600V
SUGR TO MCC-1 ft MCC-2
NORMAL POUER
321000.1622515 #2 EP/PVC GRD 1/C CU 15KV
321000.1626004 #4 ACSR 1/C UIRE "SWAN"
POLE #14 TO POLE #17
321000.1626010 SIG CABLE
321000.1629235 #2 15KV UIRE TERMINATION
321000.1665060 1500 KVA PAD MOUNT XFMR
13.8KV-480V
1 EA TIE BUS
1 EA MAIN SUITCH 2000A
1 EA 1200A SUITCH MCCJM
1 EA 800A SUITCH MCC#2
3 EA PROVISION
1 EA KUM
321000.1674006 45' CLASS 2 UOOD POLE
321000.1674101 FUSED CUTOUT
321000.1674102 LIGHTNING ARRESTORS
321000.1674103 POLE GROUNDING
321000.1674104 4" POLE RISER
321000.1674106 UOOD X-ARMS
321000.1674107 DOUN GUY AND ANCHOR
321000.1674108 POLE HARDWARE
321000.1665070
321000.1665080
6150
6150
6150
6150
6150
6150
6150
6150
6150
6150
0
1720 LF
100 LF
100 LF
2400 LF
250 LF
1800 LF
10320 LF
3 EA
1 EA
6150
6150
6150
6150
6150
6150
6150
6150
6150
6150
1 EA
1 EA
0
1032
79
145
115
6
25
248
9
0
80
0
0
2407
4418
3504
185
762
7556
27 >t
0
2437
0
13674
1569
3462
16874
442
490
13127
105
0
67147
3 EA
3 EA
3 EA
1 JOB
1 JOB
3 JOB
3 JOB
3 JOB
48
9
9
6
16
12
24
18
1462
274
274
183
487
366
731
548
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
675
570
270
100
500
300
300
270
0
0
0
0
0
0
3624
0
17298
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1054
2088
5400
5030
9968
25778
0
0
0
0
0
166
332
5481
100
0
793
1584
26164
479
0
18440
566
224
144
75
262
176
273
217
88024
2703
1068
688
358
1249
842
1304
1035
-------
KAISER ENGINEERS HANFORD
WEST1NGHOUSE HANFORO COMPANY
JOB NO. L-045H/ER0184
** KAISER ENGINEERS INTERACTIVE ESTIMATING **
300 AREA TREATED EFF. DIPOSAL FACILITY
CONCEPTUAL ESTIMATE
KEHR08 - ESTIMATE DETAIL BY UBS / COST CODE
PAGE 0022
DATE 05/04/90 07:26
BY GDC LGH DKH
ACCOUNT
NUMBER
DESCRIPTION
COST EQUIP SUB- EQUIP- OH&P TOTAL
CODE QUANTITY MANHOURS LABOR USAGE MATERIAL CONTRACT MENT / B £ I DOLLARS
TOTAL
ELECTRICAL
SALES TAX 7. SOX
OH&P / B&l (ON MARKUPS ONLY)
COST CODE 61516
WBS 321000
(ESCALATION 13. SIX - CONTINGENCY 25.00X)
1,881 0 0 38,622
25,868 119,875 0 184,365
9350 0 ' 9350
2478 2478
1,881 0 0 41,100
25,868 129,225 0 196,193
C\J
ro
LU
TOTAL WBS 321000 SITE WORK
2,311 0 252,316
38,960 152,956
63,478
507,710
-------
KAISER ENGINEERS HANFORO
UESTINGHOUSE HANFORO COMPANY
JOB NO. L-045H/ER0184
•* KAISER ENGINEERS INTERACTIVE ESTIMATING **
300 AREA TREATED EFF. DIPOSAL FACILITY
CONCEPTUAL ESTIMATE
KEHR08 • ESTIMATE DETAIL BY UBS / COST CODE
PAGE 0023
DATE 05/04/90 07:26
BY GDC LGH DKH
ACCOUNT
NUMBER DESCRIPTION
322000 DIVERSION BASIN 1 ft 2
322000.02 SITE WORK
322000.0200000 •** MASS EXCAVATION ***
322000.0200002 EXCAVATION CUT
322000.0200004 EXCAVATION FILL
322000.0200010 ** DIVERSION BASIN BASE **
322000.0200012 PUG MILL OPERATION
322000.0200014 COMPATIBLE SOIL
322000.0200016 BENTON1TE
322000.0200018 APPLY SOI L/BENTON I TE MIX
322000.0200100 *••* LINER SYSTEM ****
322000.0200102 60 MIL HOPE DOUBLE LINER
322000. 0200104 HOPE GEONET
322000.0200106 VLDPE COVER U/BALAST TUBES
ft FLOTATION
322000.0200108 ACCESS HATCH IN COVER ALLOW
322000.0200120 *•*** LINER ANCHOR •*•**
322000.0200122 EXCAVATION
322000.0200124 BACKFILL
322000. 020012S BASIN LECHATE SYSTEM
SUBTOTAL SITEUORK
SALES TAX 7. SOX
OH&P / 8&I (ON MARKUPS ONLY)
TOTAL COST CODE 55002
COST
CODE
550
550
550
550
550
550
550
550
550
550
550
550
550
550
550
550
550
QUANTITY MANHOURS
0
6826
46858
0
7850
6675
950
7850
0
131400
65700
65700
8
0
1504
1504
2
CY
CY
CY
CY
TON
CY
SF
SF
SF
EA
LF
LF
EA
_ _ _ _ ^ _ a _
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
124
124
124
EQUIP
LABOR USAGE MATERIAL
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3720
3, 720
_ _ a =i= x
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5400
5.400
421
SUB- EOUIP-
CONTRACT MENT
SSSSSSS5 CS?~
0
8533
58573
0
23550
73425
95000
31400
0
85410
29565
137970
12000
0
5264
7520
0
568.210
568,210
; = s = = s
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
OHSP
/ B & 1
sas=ssrn
' 0
427
2929
0
1178
3671
4750
1570
0
4271
1478
6899
600
0
263
376
2417
30.829
112
30,941
TOTAL
DOLLARS
a=aess==a
0
8960
61502
0
24728
77096
99750
32970
0
89681
31043
144869
12600 co
0 °°
5527 ^
7896
1 1537
608,159
421
112
UBS 322000
(ESCALATION 13.81X • CONTINGENCY 25.00X)
3,720
5,821
608,692
322000.03
CONCRETE
322000.0300000 **** LINER ANCHOR ****
322000.0300002 FINE GRADE FOOTINGS
322000.0300004 FORM LINER ANCHOR
322000.0300006 STRIP S, OIL
322000.0300008 CONCRETE LINER ANCHOR
550
550
550
550
550
0
3000
12032
12032
112
SF
SF
SF
CY
0
30
1444
301
123
0
684
36620
7633
3026
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
9024
3008
6160
0
181
12096
2820
2434
0
865
57740
13461
1 1620
-------
KAISER ENGINEERS NANFORD
WESTINGHOUSE HANFORD COMPANY
JOB NO. L-045H/ER0184
** KAISER ENGINEERS INTERACTIVE ESTIMATING **
300 AREA TREATED EFF. DIPOSAL FACILITY
CONCEPTUAL ESTIMATE
KEHR08 - ESTIMATE DETAIL BY UBS / COST CODE
PAGE 0024
DATE 05/04/90 07:26
BY GDC LGH DKH
ACCOUNT
NUMBER DESCRIPTION
322000.0300010 CURING
322000.0300012 REBAR
322000.0300014 FLOAT FINISH
322000.0300016 SST BATTON PLATE 1/4"X 2"
322000.0300018 NEOP. GASKET 1/4"X 2"
322000.0300100 *••• INFLOW STRUCTURES ****
322000.0300102 GRADE & SCREED
322000.0300104 FORM SOG
322000.0300106 STRIP & OIL
322000.0300108 CONCRETE SOG
322000.0300110 CURING
322000.0300112 REBAR
322000.03001 U TROWEL FINISH
322000.0300116 SST BATTON PLATE 1/4"X 2"
322000.0300118 NEOP. GASKET 1/4»X 2"
322000.0300200 ***• OUTFLOW SUMP *••*
322000.0300202 GRADE & SCREED
322000.0300204 FORM SOG
322000.0300206 STRIP & OIL
322000.0300208 CONCRETE SOG
322000.0300210 CURING
322000.0300212 REBAR
322000.0300214 TROWEL FINISH
322000.0300216 SST BATTON PLATE 1/4"X 2"
W/ANCHORS
322000.0300218 NEOP. GASKET 1/4" X 2"
SUBTOTAL CONCRETE
SALES TAX 7*80%
OH4P / BSI (ON MARKUPS ONLY)
tOTAL COST CODE 55003
COST
CODE
550
550
550
550
550
550
550
550
550
550
550
550
550
550
550
550
550
550
550
550
550
550
550
550
550
EQUI P
QUANTITY MANHOURS
15040
4500
1253
1504
1504
0
150
80
80
6
150
626
150
60
60
0
128
64
64
4
128
270
128
48
48
SF
LB
SF
LF
LF
SF
LF
IF
CY
SF
LB
SF
LF
LF
SF
LF
L F
CY
SF
LB
SF
LF
LF
75
54
25
496
135
0
1
8
2
6
2
9
4
20
5
0
1
6
2
4
2
4
4
16
4
2,783
2,783
SUB- EQUIP-
LABOR USAGE MATERIAL CONTRACT MENT
1710
1545
615
12579
3424
0
25
203
51
148
46
257
98
507
127
0
25
152
51
98
46
114
98
406
101
70,389
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
d
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
226
1260
0
1 1731
3910
0
15
60
20
330
2
175
0
468
156
0
13
48
16
220
2
76
0
374
125
37,419
2919
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
OH4P
/ B & I
513
743
163
6442
1944
0
11
70
19
127
13
114
26
258
75
0
10
53
18
84
13
50
26
207
60
28,570
773
29,343
TOTAL
DOLLARS
2449
3548
778
30752
9278
0
51
333
90
60S
61
546
124
1233
358
0
48
253
85
402
61
240
124
987
286
136,378
2919
773
WBS 322000
(ESCALATION 13.SIX • CONTINGENCY 25.00%)
70,389
40,338
140.070
322000.16 ELECTRICAL
322000.1615002 0.75" PVC COATED GRS 40 MIL 7060
400 LF
36
1097
966
547
2610
-------
KAISER ENGINEERS HANFORO
UESTINCHOUSE HANFORO COMPANY
JOB NO. L-045H/ER0184
•• KAISER ENGINEERS INTERACTIVE ESTIMATING **
300 AREA TREATED EFF. OIPOSAL FACILITY
CONCEPTUAL ESTIMATE
KEHR08 - ESTIMATE DETAIL BY UBS / COST CODE
PAGE 002S
DATE 05/04/90 07:26
BY GDC LGK DKH
ACCOUNT
NUMBER DESCRIPTION
322000.1624002 4/C #12 CABLE WIRE
322000.1661411 SOD HU361RB 30A-600V-3P
NEMA 3R SWITCH MF
322000.1668700 220V FRACTIONAL HP MOTOR
CONNECTION
SAMPLE PUMP
322000.1668701 480V 1.5 HP MOTOR
CONNECT ION
LEACHATE PUMP 1,2
SUBTOTAL ELECTRICAL
SALES TAX 7. SOX
OH&P / B&I (ON MARKUPS ONLY)
TOTAL COST CODE 70616
WBS 322000
COST
CODE QUANTITY
7060 2500 LF
7060 2 EA
7060 2 EA
7060 2 EA
EOUI P
HANHOURS
55
6
2
3
..
102
102
SUB- EQUIP-
LABOR USAGE MATERIAL CONTRACT MENT
1676
183
61
91
3, 108
3, 108
0
0
0
0
0
0
4150
197
18
18
5,349
417
5,766
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
OH&P
/B&I
1544
101
21
'
29
2,242
1 11
2,353
TOTAL
DOLLARS
7370
481
100
138
10,699
417
1 1 1
un
11,227 2
(ESCALATION 13. SIX - CONTINGENCY 25.00X)
322000.1610011 *** PROCESS •*•
INSTRH/CONTROL
322000.1624003 CONTROL CABLE WIRE
322000.1624005 INSTRM CABLE WIRE
322000.1681004 0.75" PVC COATED GRS 40 MIL
322000.1681005 MOV
CONN
322000.1681008 FE/FIT
FLOW ELEMENT & FLOW 1 ND TRAN
CONN
322000.1681010 Y/K
PROPORTIONAL SAMPLER
CONN
322000.1681012 LEL/LSL
LEVEL SENSOR LOU/LEVEL
SWITCH LOU LOCAL MOUNT
322000.1681014 LEH/LSH
LEVEL SENSOR HIGH/LEVEL
SWITCH HIGH LOCAL MOUNT
322000. 1681016 LE/LIT
7065 0
7065 4000 LF
7065 4800 LF
7065 200 LF
7065 4 EA
7065 2 EA
7065 2 EA
7065 2 EA
7065 2 EA
7065 2 EA
0
88
106
18
4
2
2
8
8
24
0
2681
3230
548
122
61
61
244
244
731
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4360
5232
483
100
50
50
2500
2500
4000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1866
2242
273
59
29
29
727
727
1254
0
8907
10704
1304
281
140
140
3471
3471
5985
-------
KAISER ENGINEERS HANFORO
UESTINGHOUSE HANFORO COMPANY
JOB NO. L-045H/ER0184
** KAISER ENGINEERS INTERACTIVE ESTIMATING **
300 AREA TREATED EFF. OIPOSAL FACILITY
CONCEPTUAL ESTIMATE
KEHR08 - ESTIMATE DETAIL BY UBS / COST CODE
PAGE 0026
DATE 05/04/90 07:26
BY GDC LGH OKH
ACCOUNT
NUMBER
322000.1681018
322000.1681020
322000. 1681022
SUBTOTAL
TOTAL
COST EQUIP SUB- EQUIP- OH&P TOTAL
DESCRIPTION CODE QUANTITY MANHOURS LABOR USAGE MATERIAL CONTRACT MENT /B&I DOLLARS
LEVEL ELEMENT ft LEVEL IND
TRAN INSTALL ft CONN
IT 7065 2 EA 24 731 0 1000 0 0 459 2190
CURRENT IND
INSTALL ft CONN
MS 7065 2 EA 6 183 0 100 0 0 75 358
HAND SWITCH
INSTALL & CONN
HY 7065 4 EA 4 122 0 100 0 0 59 281
SOLENOID VALVE
CONN
ELECTRICAL 294 0 0 7,799
8.958 20.475 0 37.232 ^
SALES TAX 7.80X 1597 0 1597 ^
OH&P / B&I (ON MARKUPS ONLY) 423 423
COST CODE 70616 294 0 0 8,222
UBS 322000 8,958 22,072 0 39.252
(ESCALATION 13.81X - CONTINGENCY 25.00X)
TOTAL UBS 322000 DIVERSION BASIN 1 & 2
3,303
86,175
73.997
568,210
70.859
0 799.241
-------
KAISER ENGINEERS HANFORD
WESTINGHOUSE HANFORD COMPANY
JOB NO. L-045H/ER0184
** KAISER ENGINEERS INTERACTIVE ESTIMATING **
300 AREA TREATED EFF. DIPOSAL FACILITY
CONCEPTUAL ESTIMATE
KEHR08 - ESTIMATE DETAIL BY UBS / COST CODE
ACCOUNT
NUMBER
323000
DESCRIPTION
SUMP NO. 2
SITEWORK
COST
CODE
QUANTITY MANHOURS
323000.0200004 EXCAVATION
323000.0200006 BACKFILL
SUBTOTAL SITEUORK
550
550
230 CY
230 CY
690
920
PAGE 0027
DATE 05/04/90 07:26
BY GDC LGH DKH
EQUIP SUB-
LABOR USAGE MATERIAL CONTRACT
EQUIP-
MENT
1 ,610
OH&P TOTAL
/ B & I DOLLARS
"35
46
61
725
966
1 ,691
TOTAL COST CODE 55002
UBS 323000
(ESCALATION 13.SIX - CONTINGENCY 25.00X)
1,610
81
1,691
CO
323000.03
CONCRETE
323000.0300002 GRADE t SCREED SOG
123000.0300004 FORM SOG SUMP
323000.0300006 FORM WALLS SUMP
533000.0300008 FORM SUSP SLAB SUMP
323000.0300010 FORM FOOTINGS BLDG.
323000.0300012 FORM WALLS BLDG.
323000.0300014 FORM SOG BLDG.
123000.0300020 STRIP & OIL
J23000.0300022 CONCRETE FOOTINGS
{23000.0300024 CONCRETE SOG SUMP
(23000.0300026 CONCRETE SOG WALLS
23000.0300028 CONCRETE SUSP SLAB,SOG BLDG
23000.0300030 CURING
J23000.0300032 REBAR
323000.0300034 TROWEL FINISH
SUBTOTAL CONCRETE
SALES TAX 7.BOX
OH&P / B&I (ON MARKUPS ONLY)
550
550
550
550
550
550
550
550
550
550
550
550
550
550
550
250
60
960
216
128
256
64
1684
5
8
19
5
1912
3700
700
SF
LF
SF
SF
SF
SF
LF
SF
CY
CY
CY
CY
SF
LB
SF
1
5
115
52
10
31
5
34
4
6
21
4
10
37
4
339
22
126
2903
1312
252
782
126
752
96
143
502
96
221
1054
96
8,483
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
12
54
864
302
1 15
230
58
253
275
440
1045
275
29
1110
0
5,062
395
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
9
48
998
428
97
268
49
266
98
154
410
98
66
573
25
3,587
43
228
4765
2042
464
1280
233
1271
469
737
1957
469
316
2737
121
17,132
395
105
105
-------
KAISER ENGINEERS HANFORD
UESTINGHOUSE HANFORD COMPANY
JOB NO. L-045H/ER0184
** KAISER ENGINEERS INTERACTIVE ESTIMATING **
300 AREA TREATED EFF. DIPOSAL FACILITY
CONCEPTUAL ESTIMATE
KEHROB - ESTIMATE DETAIL BY UBS / COST CODE
PAGE 0028
DATE 05/04/90 07:26
BY GDC LGH DKH
ACCOUNT COST EQUIP SUB- EQUIP- OH&P TOTAL
NUMBER DESCRIPTION CODE QUANTITY MANHOURS LABOR USAGE MATERIAL CONTRACT MENT / B & 1 DOLLARS
TOTAL COST CODE 55003 339 0
UBS 323000 8,483 5,457
(ESCALATION 13. SIX • CONTINGENCY 25.00X)
323000.05 METALS
323000.0500002 ACCESS LADDER 550 8 LF 8 231 0 480
323000.0500004 3' X 3' ACCESS HATCH 550 1 EA 16 462 0 500
323000.0500006 4' X 5' PIT COVER 550 1 EA 16 462 0 800
SUBTOTAL METALS 40 0
1,155 1,780
SALES TAX 7. SOX 139
OH&P / B&l (ON MARKUPS ONLY)
TOTAL COST CODE 55005 40 0
UBS 323000 1,155 1,919
(ESCALATION 13. SIX • CONTINGENCY 25.00X)
323000.09 FINISHES
323000.0900006 UATERPROOF SUMP EXTERIOR 550 480 SF 34 789 0 624
323000.0900008 SPC INTERIOR CONCRETE 550 912 SF 64 1485 0 1368
323000.0900010 MISC PAINTING 550 1 LS 40 928 0 600
SUBTOTAL FINISHES 138 0
3,202 2,592
SALES TAX 7. SOX 202
OH4P / Btl (ON MARKUPS ONLY)
0 3,692
0 17,631
r
0 0 188 899
0 0 255 1217
0 0 334 1596
0 777
0 3,712
0 139
37 37
0 814
0 3,888
0 0 374 1787
0 0 756 3609
0 0 405 1933
0 1,535
0 7.329
0 202
54 54
-------
KAISER ENGINEERS HANFORD
WESTINGHOUSE HANFORD COMPANY
JOB NO. L-045H/ER0184
** KAISER ENGINEERS INTERACTIVE ESTIMATING *'
300 AREA TREATED EFF. OIPOSAL FACILITY
CONCEPTUAL ESTIMATE
KEHR08 - ESTIMATE DETAIL BY WBS / COST CODE
ACCOUNT
NUMBER
DESCRIPTION
COST
CODE
QUANTITY MANHOURS
LABOR
EOUI P
USAGE
SUB-
MATERIAL CONTRACT
PAGE 0029
DATE 05/04/90 07:26
BY GDC LGH DKH
EOUIP-
MENT
OH&P TOTAL
/ B & I DOLLARS
TOTAL COST CODE 55009
UBS 323000
(ESCALATION 13.81X - CONTINGENCY 25.00X)
13B
3,202
2, 794
1,589
7,585
323000.13 SPECIAL CONSTRUCTION
323000.1300001 PRE-ENGINEERING METAL BLDG. 550
SUBTOTAL SPECIAL CONSTRUCTION
240 SF
TOTAL COST CODE 55013
UBS 323000
(ESCALATION 13.81X • CONTINGENCY 25.00X)
0 3600
3.600
3,600
0 180 3780
180
0 3,780
180
0 3,780
en
oo
523000.15 MECHANICAL
(23000.
(23000.
123000.
23000.
23000.
,23000.
523000.
523000.
523000.
523000.
1500002
1500004
1500005
1500006
1500008
1500010
1500012
1500014
1500016
1500018
5
4"
4"
4"
4"
4"
4"
4"
LE
PR
HP PUMP GOULD VIT
HO BUTTERFLY VALVE
MO BALL VALVE
CHECK VALVE
GATE VALVE
MAGNETIC FLOU METER
FLEX CONNECTOR
PIPE AND FITTINGS
EL SENSER
SSURE INDICATOR
SUBTOTAL MECHANICAL
SALES TAX
7.SOX
700
700
700
700
700
700
700
700
700
700
2
5
1
2
1
1
2
1
1
2
EA
EA
EA
EA
EA
EA
EA
LS
EA
EA
48
8
2
2
1
1
1
32
2
3
100
1532
255
64
64
32
32
32
1021
64
96
3.192
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
37000
3900
650
480
200
350
150
1250
250
200
44,430
3466
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1021 1
1101
189
144
61
101
48
602
83
78
12,618
48743
5256
903
688
293
483
230
2873
397
374
60,240
3466
-------
KAISER ENGINEERS HANFORD
WEST1NGHOUSE HANFORD COMPANY
JOB NO. L-045H/ER0184
•* KAISER ENGINEERS INTERACTIVE ESTIMATING **
300 AREA TREATED EFF. DIPOSAL FACILITY
CONCEPTUAL ESTIMATE
KEHROS - ESTIMATE DETAIL BY UBS / COST CODE
PAGE 0030
DATE 05/04/90 07:26
BY GDC LGH DKH
ACCOUNT COST
NUMBER DESCRIPTION CODE QUA
OH&P / BftI (ON MARKUPS ONLY)
TOTAL COST CODE 70015
WBS 323000
EQUIP SUB- EQUIP- OH&P TOTAL
NTITY MANHOURS LABOR USAGE MATERIAL CONTRACT MENT / B & 1 DOLLARS
918 918
100 0 0 13,536
3,192 47.896 0 , 64.624
(ESCALATION 13.SIX - CONTINGENCY 25.00X)
323000.16
323000.
323000,
323000.
323000.
323000.
323000.
323000.
1610011
1610024
1610029
1614703
1614801
1621215
1625007
323000.1638702
323000.1639901
323000.1639902
323000.
323000,
323000.
323000.
323000.
323000.
323000.
323000.
323000.
323000.
323000.
1642001
1642030
1642031
1642033
1642036
1644010
1644040
1644042
1644043
1644060
1662000
323000.1662002
ELECTRICAL
••• PROCESS ***
POWER
65A 4U FEEDER • 1" GRS WIT
4 *6 THHN CONDUCTORS
150A 4W FEEDER - 1 1/2" GRS
4 *1/0 THHN CONDUCTORS
4-2" PVC CONDUITS IN CONCRET
ENCASED DUCT BANK COMPLETE
TF TO CS-2
MANHOLE
#2 THHN 1/C COPPER 600V
2/C #14 ALPHA SHIELDED
SINGLE PAIR
4BOV 7.5KU UNIT HEATER
INSTALL & CONNECTION
OUTLET WIRING - RECEPTACLE &
SWITCH, COMPOSITE/GRS
OUTLET WIRING - LIGHTING
EXTERIOR, COMPOSITE/GRS
FIRE ALARM CND & WIRE
MANUAL FIRE ALARM STATION
HEAT DETECTOR
FIRE ALARM GONG
SMOKE DETECTORS
5/8" STEEL GROUND CABLE
GROUND PLATE
CADWELD & PATCH
CONNECT TO BLDG STEEL
GROUND ROD STEEL 0.75" X 8'
100 A PNLBD
480Y/277V 18 CKT
225 A PNLBD
7060
7060
7060
7060
0
10 LF
10 LF
250 LF
0
2
3
185
0
61
91
5637
0
0
0
0
0
32
85
2655
7060
7060
7060
7060
7060
7060
7060
7060
7060
7060
7060
7060
7060
7060
7060
7060
7060
1
1100
1650
1
318
318
100
1
1
1
1
250
2
18
2
4
1
EA
LF
LF
EA
SF
SF
LF
EA
EA
EA
EA
LF
EA
EA
EA
EA
EA
16
20
33
4
10
32
20
1
2
1
1
10
2
36
4
4
16
487
609
1005
122
305
975
609
30
61
30
30
305
61
1097
122
122
487
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
800
714
1370
500
404
770
134
50
250
150
115
113
15
180
20
37
800
0
0
0
0
0
25
47
2197
0
118
c
223 u
10489
341
351
629
165
1628
1674
3004
787
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
188
462
197
21
82
48
38
111
20
338
38
42
341
897
2207
940
101
393
228
183
529
96
1615
180
201
1628
7060
1 EA
40
1219
1255
656
3130
-------
KAISER ENGINEERS HANFORD
UESTINCHOUSE HANFORD COMPANY
JOB NO. L-045H/ER0184
** KAISER ENGINEERS INTERACTIVE ESTIMATING *'
300 AREA TREATED EFF. 01POSAL FACILITY
CONCEPTUAL ESTIMATE
KEHR08 • ESTIMATE DETAIL BY UBS / COST CODE
PAGE 0031
DATE 05/04/90 07:26
BY GDC LGH DKH
ACCOUNT
NUMBER DESCRIPTION
208Y/120V
323000.1664106 45 KVA DRY-TYPE TFMR 3 PH
480V-208/120Y
3ZJGOO. 1666006 SIZE 1 FUSED COK5 STARTER
480V NEMA 12
P2.P2A * EXH FAN
323000.1668700 ROOF VENTALATOR HP MOTOR
CONNECTION
323000; 1668701 480V 5 HP MOTOR P-2.2A
CONNECTION
323000.1668801 480V 5 HP MOTOR & HTR
FEEDER, (0.75"GRS U/#12>
323000.1681004 INSTRM RACK
323000.1682002 FE/FIT
323000.1682004 LE/LIT
323000.1684004 HS
3 POS NEMA 1 ENCLOSURE
323000.1684006 MOV-1,2,3
CONNECT
323000.1684008 COND & WIRE ALLOWANCE
INSTRM
SUBTOTAL ELECTRICAL
SALES TAX 7. SOX
OH&P / B&l (ON MARKUPS ONLY)
TOTAL COST CODE 70616
UBS 323000
COST
CODE QUANTITY MANHOURS
EQUIP SUB- EOUIP-
LABOR USAGE MATERIAL CONTRACT MENT
I
7060 1 EA
7060 3 EA
7060 1 EA
7060 2 EA
7060 150 LF
7060 1 EA
7060 1 EA
7060 1 EA
7060 1 EA
7060 3 EA
7060 300 LF
17
24
1
3
•-
25
8
8
8
3
3
24
566
566
518
731
30
91
762
247
244
244
91
91
731
17,245
17,245
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1615
2445
9
18
301
1000
2000
2000
55
75
510
20,477
1597
22,074
OH&P TOTAL
/B&l DOLLARS
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
565
842
10
29
282
330
595
595
'39
44
329
9,997
423
10,420
2698
4018
49
138
1345
1577
2839
2839
185
210
1570
47,719
1597
423
49,739
(ESCALATION 13. SIX - CONTINGENCY 25.00X)
TOTAL UBS 323000 SUMP NO. 2
1, 183
33,277
80, 140
5,210
30,312
148,938
-------
KAISER ENGINEERS HANFORD
UESTINGHOUSE HANFORD COMPANY
JOB NO. L-045H/ER0184
ACCOUNT
NUMBER
»• KAISER ENGINEERS INTERACTIVE ESTIMATING *'
300 AREA TREATED EFF. DIPOSAL FACILITY
CONCEPTUAL ESTIMATE
KEHR08 - ESTIMATE DETAIL BY UBS / COST CODE
DESCRIPTION
COST
CODE
QUANTITY MANHOURS
LABOR
EQUIP
USAGE
SUB-
MATERIAL CONTRACT
PAGE 0032
DATE 05/04/90 07:26
BY GDC LGH DKH
EQUIP-
MENT
OH&P
/B&l
TOTAL
DOLLARS
324000
324000.02
SUMP NO. 3
SITEWORK
324000.0200004 EXCAVATION
324000.0200006 BACKFILL
SUBTOTAL SITEWORK
550
550
230 CY
230 CY
690
920
1.610
35
46
81
725
966
1,691
TOTAL COST CODE 55002
WBS 324000
(ESCALATION 13.SIX - CONTINGENCY 25.00X)
1,610
81
1 ,691
CM
•3-
LU
324000.03
CONCRETE
324000.0300002 GRADE & SCREED SOG
324000.0300004 FORM SOG SUMP
324000.0300006 FORM WALLS SUMP
324000.0300008 FORM SUSP SLAB SUMP
324000.0300010 FORM FOOTINGS BLDG.
324000.0300012 FORM WALLS BLDG.
324000.0300014 FORM SOG BLDG.
324000.0300020 STRIP & OIL
324000.0300022 CONCRETE FOOTINGS
324000.0300024 CONCRETE SOG SUMP
324000.0300026 CONCRETE SOG WALLS
324000.0300028 CONCRETE SUSP SLAB,SOG BLDG
324000.0300030 CURING
324000.0300032 REBAR
324000.0300034 TROWEL FINISH
SUBTOTAL CONCRETE
SALES TAX 7.SOX
OHSP / B&l (ON MARKUPS ONLY)
550
550
550
550
550
550
550
550
550
550
550
550
550
550
550
250
60
960
216
128
256
64
1684
5
8
19
5
1912
3700
700
SF
LF
SF
SF
SF
SF
LF
SF
CY
CY
CY
CY
SF
LB
SF
1
5
115
52
10
31
5
34
4
6
21
4
10
37
4
339
22
126
2903
1312
252
782
126
752
96
143
502
96
221
1054
96
8,483
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
12
54
864
302
115
230
58
253
275
440
1045
275
29
1110
0
5,062
395
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
9
48
998
428
97
268
49
266
98
154
410
98
66
573
25
3,587
105
43
228
4765
2042
464
1280
233
1271
469
737
1957
469
316
2737
121
17,132
395
105
-------
KAISER ENGINEERS HANFORD
UESTINGHOUSE HANFORD COMPANY
JOB NO. L-045H/ER0184
** KAISER ENGINEERS INTERACTIVE ESTIMATING *'
300 AREA TREATED EFF. DIPOSAL FACILITY
CONCEPTUAL ESTIMATE
KEHR08 • ESTIMATE DETAIL BY UBS / COST CODE
PAGE 0033
DATE 05/04/90 07:26
BY GDC LGH DKH
ACCOUNT
NUMBER
TOTAL
324000.05
324000.0500002
324000.0500004
324000.0500006
SUBTOTAL
TOTAL
324000.09
324000.0900006
324000.0900008
324000.0900010
SUBTOTAL
COST
DESCRIPTION CODE QUANTITY HANHOURS LABOR
COST CODE 55003 339
WBS 324000 8.483
(ESCALATION 13. SIX - CONTINGENCY 25.00X)
METALS
ACCESS LADDER 550 8 LF 8 231
3' X 3' ACCESS HATCH 550 1 EA 16 462
4' X 5' PIT COVER 550 1 EA 16 462
METALS 40
1 , 155
SALES TAX 7. SOX
OH&P / B&l (ON MARKUPS ONLY)
COST CODE 55005 40
UBS 324000 1,155
(ESCALATION 13. SIX - CONTINGENCY 25.00X)
FINISHES
WATERPROOF SUMP EXTERIOR 550 480 SF 34 789
SPC INTERIOR CONCRETE 550 912 SF 64 1485
MISC PAINTING 550 1 LS 40 928
FINISHES ' 138
3,202
SALES TAX 7. SOX
OH&P / B&l (ON MARKUPS ONLY)
EQUIP SUB- EQUIP- OH&P
USAGE MATERIAL CONTRACT MENT /B&l
0 0 3,692
5.. 457 0
0 480 0 0 188
0 500 0 0 255
0 800 0 0 334
0 0 777
1,780 0
139 0
37
0 0 814
1 .919 0
0 624 0 0 374
0 1368 0 0 756
0 600 0 0 405
0 0 1,535
2,592 0
202 0
54
TOTAL
DOLLARS
17.631
899
1217
1596
CO
3,712 S
139
37
3,888
1787
3609
1933
7,329
202
54
-------
KAISER ENGINEERS HANFORO
UESTINGHOUSE HAMFORO COMPANY
JOB NO. L-045H/ER0184
ACCOUNT
NUMBER
** KAISER ENGINEERS
300 AREA TREATED
KEHR08 -
INTERACTIVE ESTIMATING **
EFF. DIPOSAL FACILITY
CONCEPTUAL ESTIMATE
ESTIMATE DETAIL BY UBS / COST CODE
PAGE 0034
DATE 05/04/90 07:26
BY GDC LGH DKH
COST
DESCRIPTION CODE
EQUIP
QUANTITY MANHOURS LABOR USAGE
MATERIAL
SUB-
CONTRACT
EQUIP-
MENT
OH&P
/ B & 1
TOTAL
DOLLARS
TOTAL COST CODE 55009
UBS 324000
(ESCALATION 13.81% • CONTINGENCY 25.00X)
138
3,202
2.794
1,589
7,585
324000.13 SPECIAL CONSTRUCTION
324000.1300001 PRE-ENGINEER1NG METAL BLOC. 550
SUBTOTAL SPECIAL CONSTRUCTION
240 SF
TOTAL COST CODE 55013
UBS 324000
{ESCALATION 13.BIX - CONTINGENCY 25.00X)
0 3600
3,600
3,600
0 180 3780
180
3,780
•=3-
180
3,780
324000.15
324000.1500002
324000.1500004
324000.1500006
324000.1500008
324000.1500010
324000.1500012
324000.1500014
324000.1500016
324000.1500018
MECHANICAL
5 !HP PUMP GOUL'D VIT
4" HO t'UTTERFLY VALVE
4" c'Htc'K VALVE
4'" G'AT'E VALVE
4" MAGNETIC FLOW METER
4" FLEX CONNECTOR
4" PIPE AND FITTINGS
LEVEL SENSER
PRESSURE INDICATOR
700
700
700
700
700
700
700
700
700
SUBTOTAL MECHANICAL
SALES TAX
OHIP / B&l
7.SOX
(ON MARKUPS ONLY)
2
2
2
1
1
2
1
1
2
EA
EA
EA
EA
EA
EA
LS
EA
EA
48
3
2
1
1
1
24
2
3
85
1532
96
64
32
32
32
766
'64
96
2,714
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
37000
1560
480
200
350
150
1000
250
200
41 , 190
3213
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10211
439
144
61
101
48
468
83
78
11,633
851
48743
2095
688
293
483
230
2234
397
374
55,537
3213
851
-------
KAISER ENGINEERS HANFORD
UESTINGHOUSE HANFORD COMPANY
JOB NO. L-045H/ER0184
** KAISER ENGINEERS INTERACTIVE ESTIMATING **
300 AREA TREATED EFF. DIPOSAL FACILITY
CONCEPTUAL ESTIMATE
KEHR08 - ESTIMATE DETAIL BY WBS / COST CODE
ACCOUNT
NUMBER
==3S===333333
DESCRIPTION
COST
CODE
QUANTITY MANHOURS
LABOR
EQUIP
USAGE
SUB-
MATERIAL CONTRACT
PAGE 0035
DATE OS/04/90 07:26
BY GDC LGH DKH
EQUIP-
MENT
OH&P
/ B & I
TOTAL
DOLLARS
TOTAL COST CODE 70015
UBS 324000
(ESCALATION 13.SIX - CONTINGENCY 25.00X)
85
2,714
12,484
59,601
324000.16
324000,
324000,
324000.
324000,
324000.
324000.
324000.
324000.
324000
, 1610011
, 1610024
1610029
1614703
1614801
1621215
1625007
, 1638702
,1639901
324000. 1639902
324000.
324000.
324000.
324000.
324000.
324000.
324000.
324000.
324000.
324000.
324000.
1642001
1642030
1642031
1642033
1642036
1644010
1644040
1644042
1644043
1644060
1662000
324000.1662002
ELECTRICAL
**• PROCESS ***
POWER
65A 4U FEEDER - 1" GRS UIT
4 #6 THHN CONDUCTORS
150A 4V FEEDER - 1 1/2" GRS
4 01/0 THHN CONDUCTORS
4-2" PVC CONDUITS IN CONCRET
ENCASED DUCT BANK COMPLETE
TF TO CS-3
MANHOLE
#2 THHN 1/C COPPER 600V
2/C #14 ALPHA SHIELDED
SINGLE PAIR
480V 7.5KU UNIT HEATER
INSTALL & CONNECTION
OUTLET WIRING - RECEPTACLE ft
SWITCH, COMPOS1TE/GRS
OUTLET WIRING - LIGHTING
EXTERIOR, COMPOSITE/GRS
FIRE ALARM CND & WIRE
MANUAL FIRE ALARM STATION
HEAT DETECTOR
FIRE ALARM GONG
SMOKE DETECTORS
5/8" STEEL GROUND CABLE
GROUND PLATE
CADWELD ft PATCH
CONNECT TO BLDG STEEL
GROUND ROD STEEL 0.75
100 A PNLBD
480Y/277V 18 CKT
225 A PNLBD
208Y/120V
X 8'
7060
7060
7060
7060
0
10 LF
10 LF
200 LF
0
2
3
148
0
61
91
4509
0
0
0
0
0
31
85
2124
7060
7060
7060
7060
7060
7060
1 EA
900 LF
2400 LF
1 EA
318 SF
318 SF
16
16
48
10
32
487
487
1462
122
305
975
800
584
1992
500
404
770
7060
7060
7060
7060
7060
7060
7060
7060
7060
7060
7060
100
1
1
1
1
250
2
18
2
4
1
LF
EA
EA
EA
EA
LF
EA
EA
EA
EA
EA
20
1
2
1
1
10
2
36
4
4
16
609
30
61
30
30
305
61
1097
122
122
487
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
134
50
250
150
115
113
15
180
20
37
800
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
24
47
1758
0
1 16
223 £
LU
8391
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7060
1 EA
40
1219
1255
341
284
915
165
188
462
197
21
82
48
38
111
20
338
38
42
341
656
1628
1355
4369
787
897
2207
940
101
393
228
183
529
96
1615
180
201
1628
3130
-------
KAISER ENGINEERS HANFORD
UESTINGHOUSE HANFORD COMPANY
JOB NO. L-045H/ER0184
** KAISER ENGINEERS INTERACTIVE ESTIMATING **
300 AREA TREATED EFF. DIPOSAL FACILITY
CONCEPTUAL ESTIMATE
KEHR08 - ESTIMATE DETAIL BY UBS / COST CODE
PAGE 0036
DATE 05/04/90 07:26
BY GDC LGH DKH
ACCOUNT
NUMBER
DESCRIPTION
324000.1664106 45 KVA DRY-TYPE TFMR 3 PH
480V-208/120Y
324000.1666006 SIZE 1 FUSED COMB STARTER
480V NEMA 12
P3.P3A S EXH FAN
324000.1668700 ROOF VENTALATOR HP MOTOR
CONNECTION
324000.1668701 480V 5 HP MOTOR P-3.3A
CONNECTION
324000.1668801 480V 5 HP MOTOR ft HTR
FEEDER. (0.75-GRS W/«12)
324000.1681004 INSTRM RACK
324000.1682002 FE/F1T
324000.1682004 LE/LIT
324000.1684004 HS
3 POS NEMA 1 ENCLOSURE
324000.1684006 MOV-1,2,3,4
CONNECT
324000.1684008 COND & WIRE ALLOWANCE
INSTRM
SUBTOTAL ELECTRICAL
SALES TAX 7.SOX
OH&P / B&l (ON MARKUPS ONLY)
TOTAL COST CODE 70616
WBS 324000
(ESCALATION 13.81X - CONTINGENCY 2S.OOX)
COST
CODE
= 3 = 3
7060
7060
7060
7060
7060
7060
7060
7060
7060
7060
7060
CY 25
QUANTITY
==========
1 EA
3 EA
1 EA
2 EA
150 LF
1 EA
1 EA
1 EA
2 EA
4 EA
400 LF
.OOX)
MANHOURS
========
17
24
1
3
25
8
8
8
5
4
32
551
551
LABOR
========
518
731
30
91
762
247
244
244
152
122
975
16,788
16,788
FOUIP
USAGE
=======
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
MATERIAL
========
1615
2445
9
18
301
1000
2000
2000
110
100
680
20,687
1614
22,301
SUB-
CONTRACT
======3=
0
0
0
0
0
0
. , o
• '' '0
0
0
0
0
0
EQUIP-
MENT
££=====£
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
OH&P
/ B ft 1
========
565
842
10
29
282
330
595
595
69
59
439
9.931
428
10,359
TOTAL
DOLLARS
=========
2698
4018
49
138
1345
1577
2839
2839
331
281
ID
2094 S
47,406
1614
428
49.447
TOTAL W8S 324000 SUMP NO. 3
1. 153
32,342
76,873
5,210
29,198
143.623
-------
KAISER ENGINEERS HANFORD
WES.T INGHOUSE HANFORO COMPANY
JOB NO. L-045H/ER0184
••KAISER ENGINEERS INTERACTIVE ESTIMATING **
300 AREA TREATED EFF. DIPOSAL FACILITr
CONCEPTUAL ESTIMATE
KEHR08 - ESTIMATE DETAIL BY UBS / COST CODE
PAGE 0037
DATE 05/04/90 07:26
BY GDC LGH DKH
ACCOUNT COST
NUMBER DESCRIPTION CODE QUANTITY
============= ============================= ==== ==========
325000 VALVE PITS
325000.03 CONCRETE
325000.0300002 VALVE PIT (LARGE) ALLOW 550 3 EA
325000.0300004 VALVE PIT (SMALL) ALLOW 550 4 EA
SUBTOTAL CONCRETE
TOTAL COST CODE 55003
WBS 325000
(ESCALATION 13. SIX - CONTINGENCY 25.00X)
325000.15 MECHANICAL
325000.1500002 6" BUTTERFLY VALVE 700 6 EA
325000.1500004 4" BUTTERFLY VALVE 700 8 EA
325000.1500005 4" MO BUTTERFLY VALVE 700 6 EA
325000.1500006 4" CHECK VALVE 700 2 EA
325000.1500008 6" PIPE AND FITTINGS 700 1 LS
(ALLOW)
325000.1500010 4" PIPE AND FITTINGS 700 1 LS
(ALLOW)
325000.1500012 PROPORTIONAL SAMPLER 700 1 LS
(ALLOW)
SUBTOTAL MECHANICAL
SALES TAX 7. SOX
OH&P / B&l (ON MARKUPS ONLY)
TOTAL COST CODE 70015
MANHOURS
========
0
0
0
-
0
6
6
9
2
8
96
16
143
143
EOUI P
LABOR USAGE
======== =======
0 0
0 0
0
0
0
0
192 0
192 0
287 0
64 0
255 0
3064 0
511 0
0
4,565
0
MATERIAL
========
0
0
0
0
3000
640
4680
480
250
4500
3500
17,050
1330
SUB-
CONTRACT
========
75000
52000
127,000
127,000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
EQUIP-
MENT
========
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
•
0
0
OH&P
/ 8 & I
========
3750
2600
6,350
6,350
846
220
1316
144
134
2004
1063
5,727
352
6,079
TOTAL
DOLLARS
=========
78750
54600
133,350
133.350
4038
1052
6283
688
639
9568
5074
27,342
1330
352
WBS 325000
4,565
18,380
29,024
(ESCALATION 13.81X - CONTINGENCY 25.00X)
-------
KAISER ENGINEERS HANFORD
UESTINGHOUSE HANFORD COMPANY
JOB NO. L-045H/ER0184
*• KAISER ENGINEERS INTERACTIVE ESTIMATING **
300 AREA TREATED EFF. DIPOSAL FACILITY
CONCEPTUAL ESTIMATE
KEHROS • ESTIMATE DETAIL BY UBS / COST CODE
PAGE 0038
DATE 05/04/90 07:26
BY GDC LGH DKH
ACCOUNT
NUMBER
325000.16
325000.1610011
325000.1614721
325000. 16U801
325000. 1624003
325000.1681005
SUBTOTAL
TOTAL
COST
DESCRIPTION CODE QUANTITY MANHOURS LABOR
ELECTRICAL
*** PROCESS *** 7065 0 „ 0 0
INSTRM/CONTROL
2-4" PVC CONDUITS IN CONCRET 7065 880 LF 581 17702
ENCASED DUCT BANK COMPLETE
MANHOLE 7065 2 EA 32 975
CONTROL CABLE WIRE 7065 4500 LF 99 3016
MOV 7065 11 EA 11 335
CONN
ELECTRICAL 723
22.028
SALES TAX 7.80X
OH&P / BSI (ON MARKUPS ONLY)
COST CODE 70616 723
WBS 325000 22,028
(ESCALATION 13.81X • CONTINGENCY 25.00X)
EQUIP SUB- EQUIP- OH&P TOTAL
USAGE MATERIAL CONTRACT MENT / B & 1 DOLLARS
'
00000 0
0 10586 0 0 7496 35784
0 1600 0 0 682 3257
0 4905 ' 0 0 2099 10020
0 275 0 0 162 772
00
0 0 10,439 2i
17,366 0 49,833
1355 0 1355
359 359
0 0 10,798
18,721 0 51,547
TOTAL UBS 325000 VALVE PITS
866
26,593
37,100
127,000
23,227
213,921
-------
KAISER ENGINEERS HANFORD
WESTINGHOUSE HANFORO COMPANY
JOB NO. L-045H/ER0184
** KAISER ENGINEERS INTERACTIVE ESTIMATING **
300 AREA TREATED EFF. DIPOSAL FACILITY
CONCEPTUAL ESTIMATE
KEHR08 - ESTIMATE DETAIL BY UBS / COST CODE
PAGE 0039
DATE 05/04/90 07:26
BY GDC LGH DKH
ACCOUNT
NUMBER
326000
326000.02
DESCRIPTION
UNDERGROUND PIPING
SiTtWOftiC
COST EQUIP SUB- EOUIP-
CODE QUANTITY MANHOURS LABOR USAGE MATERIAL CONTRACT KENT
OH4P
/ B * I
TOTAL
DOLLARS
326000.0200002
326000
326000
326000
326000
326000
326000
326000
.0200004
.0200006
.0200008
.0200010
,0200012
,0200014
,0200016
EXCAVATION AND BACKFILL
UNDER GROUND PIPING
FOR 700
1800 CY
10350
SCH 80 PVC PIPE
SCH 80 PVC PIPE
SCH 80 PVC FITTINGS
SCH 80 PVC FITTINGS
SCH 80 PVC COUPLINGS
SCH 80 PVC COUPLINGS
MISC. WORK, TERRA TAPE,FLUSH
AND TEST
SUBTOTAL SITEWORK
SALES TAX 7.80X
OH&P / Btl (ON MARKUPS ONLY)
TOTAL COST CODE 70002
UBS 326000
(ESCALATION 13.SIX - CONTINGENCY 25.00X)
16.024
14.690
'518
10868
700
700
700
700
700
700
700
1840
3000
12
30
92
150
4840
LF
LF
EA
EA
EA
EA
LF
202
240
4
8
0
0
48
502
502
6448
7661
128
255
0
0
1532
16.024
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5796
4950
168
150
1012
825
726
13.627
1063
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10.350
10.350
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3245
3342
78
107
268
219
598
8,375
282
8.657
15489
15953
374
512
1280
1044
2856
48.376
1063
282
49.721
TOTAL UBS 326000 UNDERGROUND PIPING
502
16,024
14,690
10,350
8,657
49.721
-------
KAISER ENGINEERS HANFORO
UESTINGHOUSE HANFORD COMPANY
JOB NO. L-04SH/ER0184
** KAISER ENGINEERS INTERACTIVE ESTIMATING **
300 AREA TREATED EFF. DIPOSAL FACILITY
CONCEPTUAL ESTIMATE
KEHR08 • ESTIMATE DETAIL BY UBS / COST CODE
PAGE 0040
DATE OS/04/90 07:26
BY GDC LGH DKH
ACCOUNT
NUMBER DESCRIPTION
327101 FACILITY - PROCESS Tl
327101.02 SITEWORK
327101.0234502 EXCAVATION
327101.0234504 BACKFILL
SUBTOTAL SITEWORK
COST EQUIP SUB- EQUIP- OHtP TOTAL
CODE QUANTITY MANHOURS LABOR USAGE MATERIAL CONTRACT MENT / B 1 I DOLLARS
tEATMENT AREA
501 270 CY 0000 675 0 34 709
501 270 CY 0 0 0 0 540 0 27 567
0 0 . 1.215 61
000 1,276
TOTAL COST CODE 50102
UBS 327101
(ESCALATION 13.81* - CONTINGENCY 25.00X)
1,215
61
1,276
327101.03
327101.0345100
327101
327101
327101
327101,
327101,
327101
327101,
327101,
327101.
327101.
327101.
327101.
327101.
327101.
327101.
0345102
0345104
0345106
0345108
0345110
0345112
0345602
0345604
0345606
0345608
0345610
0345612
0345614
0345616
0345618
CONCRETE
(EVAPORATOR PAD 40X100)
GRADE I SCREED SOG
(EVAPORATOR PAD 40X100)
FORM SOG
(EVAPORATOR PAD 40X100)
STRIP I OIL
(EVAPORATOR PAD 40X100)
CONCRETE SOG
(EVAPORATOR PAD 40X100)
CURING
(EVAPORATOR PAD 40X100)
REBAR SLAB
(EVAPORATOR PAD 40X100)
TROUEL FINISH
GRADE ft SCREED SOG
FORM SOG
FORM FOOTINGS
FORM WALLS
FORM CURBS
KEY JOINTS
STRIP & OIL
CONCRETE FOOTINGS
CONCRETE SOG t RAMPS
501
501
501
501
501
501
501
5100 SF
354 LF
354 SF
200 CY
5100 SF
20000 LBS
5100 SF
31
28
7
160
25
160
31
741
707
155
3826
553
4558
741
501
501
501
501
501
501
501
501
501
4000
290
580
1160
380
220
2100
18
147
SF
IF
SF
SF
SF
LF
SF
CY
CY
24
23
46
139
76
11
42
14
118
574
581
1161
3508
1918
263
929
335
2821
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
255
319
53
10400
76
6000
200
261
522
1044
342
110
315
936
7644
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
264
272
55
3770
167
2798
C
L
1260
1298
263
17996
796
1335i
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
196
205
223
446
1206
599
99
330
337
2773
979
1065
2129
5758
2859
472
1574
1608
13238
-------
KAISER ENGINEERS HAMFORD
UESTIMGHOUSE HANFORD COMPANY
JOB NO. L-045H/ER0184
** KAISER ENGINEERS INTERACTIVE ESTIMATING **
300 AREA TREATED EFF. DIPOSAL FACILITY
CONCEPTUAL ESTIMATE
KEHR08 - ESTIMATE DETAIL BY UBS / COST CODE
PAGE 0041
DATE 05/04/90 07:26
BY GDC LGH DKH
ACCOUNT
NUMBER DESCRIPTION
327101.0345620 CONCRETE WALLS I COLUMNS
327101.0345622 CONCRETE CURBS
327101.0345624 CURING
327101,0345626 REBAR SLAB
327101.0345628 REBAR WALLS
327101.0345630 TROWEL FINISH
327101.0345632 INTERIOR EQUIPMENT PADS
FORM PADS
327101.0345634 CONCRETE SOG
327101.0345636 REBAR
327101.0345638 TROWEL FINISH
327101.0345642 FORM TRENCH WALLS
2'WIDE X 3'DEEP
327101.0345644 TRENCH WALLS
STRIP I OIL
327101.0345646 TRENCH WALLS
CONCRETE WALLS
327101.0345648 TRENCH WALLS
CURING
327101.0345650 TRENCH WALLS
REBAR
327101.0345652 TRENCH WALLS
TROWEL FINISH
327101.0345660 DIKED AREA (TWO TANKS)
FORM SOG
327101.0345662 DIKED AREA (TWO TANKS)
FORM WALLS
327101.0345664 DIKED AREA (TWO TANKS)
STRIP t OIL
327101.0345666 DIKED AREA (TWO TANKS)
CONCRETE SOG
327101.0345668 DIKED AREA (TWO TANKS)
CONCRETE WALLS
327101.0345670 DIKED AREA (TWO TANKS)
CURING
327101.0345672 DIKED AREA (TWO TANKS)
REBAR
327101.0345674 DIKED AREA (TWO TANKS)
TROWEL FINISH
327101.0345680 (CATCH TANK BASIN) 10X20X6
FORM SLAB
327101.0345682 (CATCH TANK BASIN) 10X20X6
FORM WALLS
327101.0345684 (CATCH TANK BASIN) 10X20X6
STRIP I OIL
327101.0345686 (CATCH TANK BASIN) 10X20X6
COST
CODE
501
501
501
501
501
501
501
501
501
501
501
501
501
501
501
501
501
501
501
501
501
501
501 ,
501
501
501
501
501
QUANTITY MANHOURS
20
5
5680
10000
4000
4386
480
188
11280
1680
1300
1300
25
1300
2500
632
94
656
750
20
15
750
2800
276
44
528
572
6
CY
CY
SF
LBS
LBS
SF
LF
CY
LBS
SF
SF
SF
CY
SF
LBS
SF
LF
SF
SF
CY
CY
SF
LBS
SF
LF
SF
SF
CY
22
5
28
80
40
26
38
150
90
10
156
26
27
6
25
4
8
79 -
15
16
16
4
28
2
4
63
11
5
EQUIP SUB- EQUIP- OHCP TOTAL
LABOR USAGE MATERIAL CONTRACT MENT / B I I DOLLARS
526
120
619
2279
1140
622
959
3586
2564
239
3937
575
646
133
712
96
202
1994
332
383
383
88
798
48
101
1590
243
120
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1040
260
85
3000
1200
0
432
9776
3384
0
1170
195
1300
19
750
0
85
590
112
1040
780
11
840
0
40
475
86
312
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
415
101
187
1399
620
165
369
3541
1576
63
1353
204
516
40
387
25
76
685
118
377
308
26
434
13
37
547
87
114
1981
481
891
6678
2960
787
1760
16903
7524
302
6460
974
2462
192
1849
121
363
3269
562
1800
1471
125
2072
61
_
178
2612
416
546
-------
KAISER ENGINEERS HAMFORD
UESTINGHOUSE HANFORD COMPANY
JOB NO. L-045H/ER0184
** KAISER ENGINEERS INTERACTIVE ESTIMATING **
300 AREA TREATED EFF. D1POSAL FACILITY
CONCEPTUAL ESTIMATE
KEHR08 - ESTIMATE DETAIL BY UBS / COST CODE
PAGE 0042
DATE 05/04/90 07:26
BY GDC LGH DKH
ACCOUNT COST EQUIP SUB-
NUMBER DESCRIPTION CODE QUANTITY MANHOURS LABOR USAGE MATERIAL CONTRACT
CONCRETE SLAB
327101.0345688 (CATCH TANK BASIN) 10X20X6 501 10 CY 11 263 0 520 0
CONCRETE WALLS
327101.0345690 (CATCH TANK BASIN) 10X20X6 501 650 SF 3 66 0 10 0
CURING
327101.0345692 (CATCH TANK BASIN) 10X20X6 501 1600 IBS 16 456 0 480 0
REBAR
SUBTOTAL CONCRETE 1.949 0 0
49,191 56,469
SALES TAX 7. BOX 4405
OHIP / Bll (ON MARKUPS ONLY)
TOTAL COST CODE 50103 1,949 0 0
UBS 327101 49.191 60,874
(ESCALATION 13. SIX - CONTINGENCY 25.00X)
327101.04 MASONRY
327101.0456702 12" CONCRETE BLOCK UALL 501 1600 SF 0 " 0 0 0 13600
SUBTOTAL MASONRY 0 0 13,600
0 0
TOTAL COST CODE 50104 0 0 13,600
UBS 327101 0 0
(ESCALATION 13. BIX - CONTINGENCY 25.00X)
\
327101.05 METALS
327101.0567802 STEEL GRATING 501 700 SF 28 798 0 8400 0
327101.05678.04 STEEL GRATING SUMP 501 120 SF 5 142 0 1440 0
EQUIP- OHtP TOTAL
MEHT / B 1 I DOLLARS
0 207 990
0 20 96
0 248 1184
27,998
0 133,658
0 4405
1167 1167
29.165
0 139.230
0 680 14280
680
0 14.280
680
0 14,280
0 2437 11635
0 419 2001
m
-------
KAISER ENGINEERS HANFORO
UESTINGHOUSE HANFORD COHPANT
JOB HO. L-045H/ER0184
** KAISER ENGINEERS INTERACTIVE ESTIMATING **
300 AREA TREATED EFF. DIPOSAL FACILITY
CONCEPTUAL ESTIMATE
KEHR08 - ESTIMATE DETAIL BY UBS / COST CODE
PAGE 0043
DATE 05/04/90 07:26
BY GDC LGH DKH
ACCOUNT
NUMBER
SUBTOTAL
TOTAL
327101.07
327101.0765402
327101.0765404
327101.0765408
SUBTOTAL
TOTAL
327101.08
327101 .0876502
327101 .0876504
327101 .0876506
COST EQUIP SUB- EQUIP-
DESCRIPTION CODE QUANTITY NANHOURS LABOR USAGE MATERIAL CONTRACT MENT
METALS 33 0 0
940 9,840 0
SALES TAX 7. SOX 768 C
OH&P / Btl (ON MARKUPS ONLY)
COST CODE 50105 33 0 0
UBS 327101 940 10,608 0
(ESCALATION 13. SIX - CONTINGENCY 25.00X)
MOISTURE AND THERMAL CONTROL
DAMPPROOFING 501 500 SF 10 252 0 120 0 0
RIGID INSULATION BOARD 2" 501 1000 SF 10 252 0 200 0 0
SEALANTS 501 1 JOB 16 404 0 300 0 0
MOISTURE AND THERMAL CONTROL 36 0 0
908 620 0
SALES TAX 7.80X - 48 0
OH&P / Btl (ON MARKUPS ONLY)
COST CODE 50107 36 0 0
UBS 327101 908 668 0
(ESCALATION 13.81X - CONTINGENCY 25.00X)
1
DOORS, WINDOWS, AND GLASS
6/0 HM DOOR t FRAME EXT 501 1 EA 6 151 0 1100 0 0
3/0 HM DOOR & FRAME EXT 501 3 EA 12 303 0 1950 0 0
14X16 ROLL UP DOOR 501 1 EA 55 1388 0 5600 0 0
OH&P
/Btl
2,856
203
3,059
99
120
187
406
13
419
332
597
1852
TOTAL
DOLLARS
13,636
76S
203
14.607
572!
891
1.934
48
13
1;995
1583
2850
8840
-------
KAISER ENGINEERS HANFORD
UESTINGHOUSE HANFORD COMPANY
JOB NO. L-045H/ER0184
*» KAISER ENGINEERS INTERACTIVE ESTIMATING **
300 AREA TREATED EFF. DIPOSAL FACILITY
CONCEPTUAL ESTIMATE
KEHR08 - ESTIMATE DETAIL BY UBS / COST CODE
PAGE 0044
DATE OS/04/90 07:26
BY GDC LGH DKH
ACCOUNT COST
NUMBER DESCRIPTION CODE QUANTITY MANHOURS
SUBTOTAL DOORS, WINDOWS AND GLASS 73
SALES TAX 7. BOX
OHtP / Btl (ON MARKUPS ONLY)
TOTAL COST CODE 50108 73
WBS 327101
(ESCALATION 13. SIX • CONTINGENCY 25.00X)
327101.09 FINISHES
327101.0987602 PROTECTIVE COATING ON FLOORS 501 9500 SF 0
AND UP 4' ON WALLS.
327101.0987604 PAINT DOORS 501 5 EA 0
SUBTOTAL FINISHES 0
TOTAL COST CODE 50109 0
WBS 327101
(ESCALATION 13. SIX - CONTINGENCY 25.00X)
*
327101.13 SPECIAL CONSTRUCTION
327101.1345602 STEEL BUILDING 102X43X20 501 * 4386 SF 0
SUBTOTAL SPECIAL CONSTRUCTION 0
EQUIP SUB- EQUIP- OHtP TOTAL
LABOR USAGE MATERIAL CONTRACT NENT /Btl DOLLARS
0 0 2.781
1,842 8,650 0 13,273
675 0 675
179 179
0 0 2,960
1,842 9,325 0 14.126
000 21375 0 1069 22444
0 0 0 175 09 184
0 21,550 1.078
000 22,628
0 21,550 1.078
0 0 0 22.628
-
00 0 98685 0 4934 103619
0 98,685 4,934
103,619
-------
KAISER ENGINEERS HAHFORO
UESTIMGHOUSE HANFORD COMPANY
JOB NO. L-045H/ER0184
•• KAISER ENGINEERS INTERACTIVE ESTIMATING *•
300 AREA TREATED EFF. OIPOSAL FACILITY
CONCEPTUAL ESTIMATE
KEHR08 - ESTIMATE DETAIL BY UBS / COST CODE
PAGE 0045
DATE 05/04/90 07:26
BY GDC LGH DKH
ACCOUNT
NUMBER
DESCRIPTION
COST
CODE
QUANTITY NANHOURS
LABOR
EQUIP
USAGE
SUB-
MATERIAL CONTRACT
EQUIP-
MENT
OHSP
/ B C
TOTAL
DOLLARS
TOTAL COST CODE 50113
UBS 327101
(ESCALATION 13.SIX - CONTINGENCY 20.00X)
98.685
4.934
103,619
TOTAL UBS 327101 FACILITY - PROCESS TREATMENT AREA
2,091
52.881
0 135.050
81,474
42.356
0 311.761
in
to
-------
KAISER ENGINEERS HANFORD
UESTINGHOUSE HANFORD COMPANY
JOB NO. L-045H/ER0184
'* KAISER ENGINEERS INTERACTIVE ESTIMATING **
300 AREA TREATED EFF. DIPOSAL FACILITY
CONCEPTUAL ESTIMATE
KEHR08 • ESTIMATE DETAIL BY UBS / COST CODE
PAGE 0046
DATE OS/04/90 07:26
BY GDC LGH DKH
ACCOUNT
NUMBER DESCRIPTION
COST
CODE QUANTITY HANHOURS
327102 PROCESS TREATMENT MECH.
EQUIP
LABOR USAGE
MATERIAL
SUB- EQU1P-
CONTRACT MENT
OHtP
/ B t 1
TOTAL
DOLLARS
327102.11 EQUIPMENT
327102.1100000
327102.1100002
327102.1100004
327102.1100006
327102. 1100008
327102.1100010
327102.1100012
327102.1100014
327102.1100016
327102. 1100018
327102.1100020
327102.1100022
327102.1100024
327102.1100026
327102.1100028
327102.1100029
327102.1100032
327102.1100034
327102.1100038
••»«••*****••*•*••*****»*«••
PROCESS EQUIPMENT
*•«******•*••»**•**•*•**«•»*
50,000 GAL. SURGE TANK
SITE ERECTED U/ I NSUL L AT ION
t HEAT TRACE
TRANSFER PUMPS 5 HP
MULTI-MEDIA FILTERS
SKID MOUNTED
GRANULAR-ACTIVATED CARBON
FILTERS SKID MOUNTED
RO SURGE TANK 500 GAL
REVERSE OSMOSIS UNIT
SKID MOUNTED
MIXED BED IX COLUMNS
SKID MOUNTED
IN-LINE MIXER
EVAP. SURGE TANK 15000 GAL
INSULATED & HEAT TRACED
HVR EVAPORATOR/CRYSTALLIZER
SKID MOUNTED
ACID STORAGE TANK
2000 GAL FRP
INSULATED & HEAT TRACED
CAUSTIC STORAGE TANK
2000 GAL CS
INSULATED t HEAT TRACED
REGENERANT STORGAE TANK
15000 GAL FRP
ACID DAY TANK 500 GAL FRP
CAUSTIC DAY TANK 500 GAL FRP
ELEC STEAM BOILER
1500 LBS/HR
AIR COMPRESSOR 40SCFH
U/660 GAL RECEIVER TANK
CHEN METTERING PUMP
700
700
700
700
700
700
700
700
700
700
700
700
700
700
700
700
700
t
700
700
0
1 EA
10 EA
1 SK
1 SK
1 EA
1 SK
1 SK
1 EA
1 EA
1 EA
1 EA
1 EA
2 EA
1 EA
1 EA
1 EA
1 EA
2 EA
SUBTOTAL EQUIPMENT
0
0
240
32
56
16
64
56
8
8
240
24
24
96
16
16
56
56
32
1.040
0
0
7661
1021
1788
511
2043
1788
255
255
7661
766
••
766
3064
511
511
1788
1788
1021
33.198
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
SALES TAX 7. 80%
0
0
38000
100000
200000
800
350000
150000
3000
25000
1500000
8000
12000
30000
800
800
15000
5000
6400
.444.800
190694
0
140000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 «'
0
0
0
0
0
0
140.000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7000
12100
26771
53474
347
93291
40224
863
6693
399530
2323
3383
8762
347
347
4449
1799
1967
663.670
0
147000
57761
127,792
255262
1658
445334
192012
4118
31948
1907191
11089
16149
41826
1658
1658
21237
8567
9388
3.281.668
190694
-------
KAISER ENGINEERS HAHFORD
UESTINGHOUSE HANFORD COMPANY
JOB NO. L-045H/ER0184
•« KAISER ENGINEERS INTERACTIVE ESTIMATING *•
300 AREA TREATED EFF. DIPOSAL FACILITY
CONCEPTUAL ESTIMATE
KEHROB • ESTIMATE DETAIL BY UBS / COST CODE
PAGE 0047
DATE 05/04/90 07:26
BY GDC LGN DKH
ACCOUNT
NUMBER
DESCRIPTION
COST
CODE
QUANTITY HANHOURS
EQUIP SUB- EQUIP- OHIP TOTAL
LABOR USAGE MATERIAL CONTRACT MENT / B t I DOLLARS
TOTAL COST CODE 70011
UBS 337102
(ESCALATION 13.SIX - CONTINGENCY 20.00X)
1,040 0 140,000
33,198 2,635,494
714,204
0 3,522,896
327102.15
327102.1500000
MECHANICAL
A***************************
700
PROCESS STREAM
327102.
327102.
327102.
327102.
327102.
327102.
327102.
327102.
327102.
327102.
327102.
327102.
327102.
327102.
1500002
1500004
1500005
1500006
1500008
1500010
1500012
1500020
1500022
1500024
1500026
1500028
1500030
1500100
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
2
2
2
2
2
M
n
N
n
tt
n
M
n
M
o
M
M
PIPE PVC
FITTINGS
BALL VALVE
PVC
PVC
MOV BALL VALVE PVC
INSULATION
HANGER IN
SUPPORT
PIPE PVC
FITTINGS
BALL VALVE
INSULATION
SUPPORTS
U/ JACKET
TRENCH
PVC
PVC
FLUSH & TEST
•A**************************
700
700
700
700
700
700
700
700
700
700
700
700
700
700
RO CONC I IX REGEN
*>•**•* ALLOW **********
327102.1500120 2" PIPE PVC 700
327102.1500122 2" FITTINGS PVC 700
327102.1500124 2" BALL VALVE PVC 700
327102.1500126 2" INSULATION 700
327102.1500128 2" SUPPORTS 700
327102.1500129 2" HANGERS IN TRENCH 700
327102.1500130 FLUSH & TEST 700
327102.1500200 **************************** 700
STEAM & COND PIPING
******* ALLOW ******•••*
327102.1500202 2" PIPE CS SCRD 700
327102.1500204 2" FITTINGS CS SCRD 700
327102.1500206 2" VALVES CS SCRO 700
327102.1500208 2" MOV CS SCRD 700
600 LF
90 EA
32 EA
8 EA
100 LF
100 EA
16 EA
100 LF
32 EA
8 EA
20 LF
8 EA
1 LS
0
200 LF
48 EA
8 EA
80 LF
8 EA
20 EA
1
0
LS
80 LF
20 EA
4 EA
1 EA
66
49
19
6
25
25
40
9
11
4
3 "
12
16
0
2107
1564
606
192
798
798
1277
287
351
128
96
383
511
0
18
16
4
12
12
5
16
0
11
12
3
1
575
511
128
383
383
160
511
0
351
383
96
32
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
990
450
6720
5200
500
500
320
55
112
200
100
120
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
110
168
200
400
120
100
0
0
160
100
320
350
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
821
534
1941
1429
344
344
423
91
123
87
52
133
135
0
3918
2548
9267 ,
6821 >
1642 '
1642
2020
433
586
415
248
636
646
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
182
180
87
207
133
69
135
0
135
128
110
101
867
859
415
990
636
329
646
0
646
611
526
483
-------
KAISER ENGINEERS HANFORO
WESTINGHOUSE HANFORD COMPANY
JOB NO. L-045H/ER0184
'* KAISER ENGINEERS INTERACTIVE ESTIMATING **
300 AREA TREATED EFF. DIPOSAL FACILITY
CONCEPTUAL ESTIMATE
KEHR08 • ESTIMATE DETAIL BY UBS / COST CODE
PAGE 0048
DATE OS/04/90 07:26
BY GDC LGH DKH
ACCOUNT
NUMBER DESCRIPTION
327102.1500210
327102.1500212
327102.1500214
327102.1500216
327102.1500300
327102.1500302
327102.1500304
327102.1500306
327102.1500308
327102.1500310
327102.1500312
327102.1500314
327102.1500316
327102.1500400
327102.1500402
327102.1500404
327102. 1500406
327102.1500408
327102.1500410
327102.1500412
327102.1500414
327102.1500416
327102.1500500
327102.1500502
327102.1500504
327102.1500506
327102. 1500510
327102.1500512
327102.1500514
327102 . 1500600
327102.1500602
327102.1500604
327102. 1500606
327102.1500608
327102.1500610
327102.1500612
327102.1500614
327102.1500616
2" PI
2" INSULATION
2" SUPPORTS
FLUSH I TEST
A***************************
ACID PIPING
******* ALLOU **********
1 PIPE KYNAR
1 FITTINGS KYNAR
BALL VALVE KYNAR
MOV BALL VALVE KYNAR
SUPPORTS
HANGERS IN TRENCH
INSULATION
FLUSH & TEST
•A**************************
CAUSTIC PIPING
* ***** ALLOU **********
PIPE CS
FITTINGS CS SCRD
VALVES CS SCRD
MOV CS SCRD
SUPPORTS
" HANGERS IN TRENCH
• INSULATION
FLUSH t TEST
•••••••••A******************
AIR PIPING
***•**• ALLOU **********
1" PIPE CS
,1" FITTINGS CS SCRD
1" VALVES CS SCRD
1" HANGERS
PI
TEST
PROCESS DRAINS
******* ALLOU **********
CATCH TANK 1.000 GAL.
4" PIPE
2" PIPE
4" F 1 TT INGS
2" FITTINGS
4" HANGERS IN TRENCH
2" HANGERS IN TRENCH
FLUSH 1 TEST
COST EQUIP SUB- EQUIP-
COOE QUANTITY MANHOURS LABOR USAGE MATERIAL CONTRACT MENT /
700
700
700
700
700
700
700
700
700
700
700
700
700
700
700
700
700
700
700
700
700
700
700
700
700
700
700
700
700
700
700
700
700
700
700
700
700
700
2 EA
80 LF
8 EA
1 LS
0
100 LF
20 EA
3 EA
1 EA
2 EA
10 EA
40 LF
1 LS
0
100 LF
20 EA
3 EA
1 EA
2 EA
10 EA
100 LF
1 LS
0
400 LF
100 EA
10 EA
40 EA
4 EA
1 LS
0
1 EA
160 LF
100 LF
48 EA .
28 EA
20 EA
18 EA
1 EA
1
12
12
16
0
14
50
9
4
3
3
8
16
0
14
10
2
1
3
3
20
16 „
0
56
50
6
60
1
16
0
16
18
9
26
9
8
5
16
32 0
383
383
511
0
447
1596
287
128
96
96
255
511
0
447
319
64
32
96
96
638
511
0
1788
1596
192
1915
32
511
0
511
575
287
830
287
255
160
511
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
150
400
120
0
0
1730
1000
330
350
30
50
160
0
0
100
60
150
250
30
50
400
0
0
400
300
500
600
300
0
0
1200
264
55
240
98
120
90
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
,0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
OHIP TOTAL
B 1 1 DOLLARS
48
207
133
135
0
577
688
164
127
33
39
110
135
0
145
100
57
75
33
39
275
135
0
580
502
183
666
88
135
453
222
91
284
102
99
66
135
230
990
636
646
0
2754
3284
781
605
159
185
525
646
0
692
479
271
357
159
185
1313
646
0
2768
2398
875
3181
420
646
2164
1061
433
1354
487
474
316
646
-------
KAISER ENGINEERS NANFORD
UESTINGHOUSE HANFORD COMPANY
JOB NO. L-045tr/ER0184
»• KAISER ENGINEERS INTERACTIVE ESTIMATING **
300 AREA TREATED EFF. OIPOSAL FACILITY
CONCEPTUAL ESTIMATE
KEHR08 - ESTIMATE DETAIL BY UBS / COST CODE
PAGE 0049
DATE OS/04/90 07:26
BY GDC LGH OKH
ACCOUNT
NUMBER
SUBTOTAL
TOTAL
COST
DESCRIPTION CODE QUANTITY MANHOURS
MECHANICAL 908
SALES TAX 7.60%
OH&P / B&I (ON MARKUPS ONLY)
COST CODE 70015 908
UBS 327102
(ESCALATION 13.81X • CONTINGENCY 35.00X)
EQUIP SUB- EQUIP- OHCP TOTAL
LABOR USAGE MATERIAL CONTRACT MENT / B 1 I DOLLARS
0 0 14,785
28.989 26,822 0 70,596
2092 0 2092
554 554
0 0 15,339
28,989 28,914 0 73,243
(ft
ID
UJ
TOTAL UBS 327102 PROCESS TREATMENT MECH.
1,948 0 140,000
62,187 2,664,409
729,543
0 3.596,139
-------
KAISER ENGINEERS HANFORO
UESTINGHOUSE HANFORD COMPANY
JOB NO. L-045H/ER0184
** KAISER ENGINEERS INTERACTIVE ESTIMATING **
300 AREA TREATED EFF. DIPOSAL FACILITY
CONCEPTUAL ESTIMATE
KEHR08 - ESTIMATE DETAIL BY UBS / COST CODE
PAGE 0050
DATE 05/04/90 07:26
BY GDC LGH DKH
ACCOUNT
NUMBER
327103
327103.16
327103.1610002
327103.1631002
327103.1631004
327103.1632022
327103.1632024
327103.1632025
327103.1642030
327103.1642033
327103. 1642036
327103.1642037
327103.1642144
327103.1661201
327103.1661202
327103.1661211
327103.1668002
327103.1668004
327103.1668015
327103.1668016
327103.1668017
DESCRIPTION
TREATMENT FACILITY ELECTRICAL
ELECTRICAL
30A 3W FEEDER - 1/2" GRS WIT
3 *10 THHN CONDUCTORS
20 KW UNIT HTR FEEDER
400W HPS LIGHT FIXTURE
W/OUARTZ
ASSUME 1 PER 500 SF
COND I. WIRE
EXIT
W/EMERGENCV PAK
EMERGENCY 2 HEAD
W/BATT PAK WALL MT
WALL FIXTURE
55W LPS
MANUAL FIRE ALARM STATION
FIRE ALARM GONG
SMOKE DETECTORS
HEAT DETECTORS
CONDUIT & WIRE ALLOWANCE
SOD H361 30A-600V-3P
NEMA 1 SWITCH
20 KW HEATER SW.
SOD H361 30A-600V-3P
NEMA 1 SWITCH
ROLL-UP DOOR HDSW.
SOD H361RB 30A-600V-3P
NEMA 3R SWITCH EF-1 SW
480V HP MOTOR
•CONNECTION ROLL-UP DOOR
480V 1.5 HP MOTOR EF-1
CONNECTION ON ROOF
•*• HEAT **•
ASSUME 84000 CF OF AIR TO BE
HEATED ASSUME 62 BTU LOSS
UNIT HTR 20 KW 480V
W/ REMOTE STAT
INSTALL
480V 1-1/2 HP MOTOR EF-1
FEEDER. (0.75"GRS U/*12)
COST
CODE
501
501
501
501
501
501
501
501
501
501
501
501
501
501
501
501
501
1
501
501
EQUIP SUB- EQUIP-
OUANTITY MANHOURS LABOR USAGE MATERIAL CONTRACT MENT
700 LF
8 EA
4000 SF
3 EA
4 EA
3 EA
3 EA
2 EA
4 EA
4 EA
1 JOB
4 EA
1 EA
1 EA
1 EA
1 EA
0
4 EA
150 LF
SUBTOTAL ELECTRICAL
71
18
48
3
12
9
3
2
4
8
40
12
3
•*»
3
4
1
0
64
25
330
2163
548
1462
91
366
274
91
61
122
244
1219
366
91
91
122
30
0
1950
1950
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1056
4000
760
405
1408
1260
150
300
460
860
1000
425
106
190
20
9
0
4000
299
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
""
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
OHtP TOTAL
/ B & I DOLLARS
853
1205
589
131
470
407
64
96
154
293
588
210
52
74
38
10
0
1577
596
7,407
4072
5753
2811
627
2244
1941
305
457
736
1397
2807
1001
249
355
180
49
0
7527
2845
11,241
16,708
35,356
-------
KAISER ENGINEERS HANFORD
WESTINGHOUSE HANFORO COMPANY
JOB NO. L-045H/ER0184
•* KAISER ENGINEERS INTERACTIVE ESTIMATING **
300 AREA TREATED EFF. DIPOSAL FACILITY
CONCEPTUAL ESTIMATE
KEHR08 - ESTIMATE DETAIL BY UBS / COST CODE
PAGE 0051
DATE 05/04/90 07:26
BY GDC LGH DKH
ACCOUNT
NUMBER DESCRIPTION
SALES TAX 7. SOX
OHtP / Btl (ON MARKUPS ONLY)
COST
CODE i
S X S S C
QUANTITY MANHOURS
TOTAL COST CODE 50116
WBS 327103
330
EQUIP SUB- EQUIP-
LABOR USAGE MATERIAL CONTRACT MENT
11,241
0
1303
18.011
0
0
u
OHtP
/Btl
345
7.752
TOTAL
DOLLARS
1303
345
37.005
(ESCALATION 13.81X - CONTINGENCY 25.00X)
327103
327103
327103
327103
327103
327103
327103
327103
327103
327103
327103
327103
327103
.1610024
.1610036
.1610037
.1610060
.1661407
.1661408
.1661409
.1661431
.1661432
.1662006
.1664014
.1668000
.1668701
65A 4W FEEDER - 1" GRS WIT
4 *6 THHN CONDUCTORS
335A 4W FEEDER - 3" GRS
4 *400 MCM THHN CONDUCTORS
STEAM GENERATOR 450 KW
335A 4W FEEDER - 3" GRS
4 0400 MCN THHN CONDUCTORS
STEAM GENERATOR 450 KW
1000A 4W FEEDER - 3-3" GRS
4*400 MCM THHN CONDUCTORS EA
EVAPORATOR 645 KW
SOD HU367 800A-600V-3P
NEMA 1 SWITCH NF
HDSW FOR 450 KW STEAM GEN.
SOD HU368R 1 200A-600V- 3P
NEMA 3R SWITCH NF
SOD HU367 800A-600V-3P
NEMA 1 SWITCH NF
HDSW FOR 450 KW STEAM GEN.
SOD HU361AWK 30A-600V-3P
NEMA JR. 12 SWITCH NF
SOD HU362AWK 60A-600V-3P
NEMA 12 SWITCH NF
NEUTRALIZER HOSW
60A 240V/120V POWER PNL
HEAT TRACE
10 KVA TFHR.1 PH DRY-TYPE
240/480V-120/240V
PROCESS AREA HEAT TRACE
CONTROLLER ALLOWANCE
480V 10 HP MOTOR
CONNECTION
PROCESS PUMPS/METERING PUMPS
7060
7060
7060
7060
7060
7060
7060
7060
7060
1
7060
7060
7060
7060
150 LF
150 LF
150 LF
200 LF
1 EA
1 EA
1 EA
5 EA
1 EA
1 EA
1 EA
1 EA
4 EA
25
70
70
233
18
'—
22
18
15
4
10
9
50
6
762
2133
2133
7099
548
670
548
457
122
305
274
1523
183
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
485
3834
3834
15013
2451
3296
2451
650
167
450
586
2000
35
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
"
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
330
1581
1581
5860
795
1051
795
293
77
200
228
934
58
1577
7548
7548
27972
3794
5017
3794
1400
366
955
1088
4457
276
-------
KAISER ENGINEERS HANFORD
UESTINGHOUSE HANFORO COMPANY
JOB NO. L-045H/ER0184
•* KAISER ENGINEERS INTERACTIVE ESTIMATING **
300 AREA TREATED EFF. DIPOSAL FACILITY
CONCEPTUAL ESTIMATE
KEHR08 • ESTIMATE DETAIL BY UBS / COST CODE
PAGE 0052
DATE 05/04/90 07:26
BY GDC LGH DKH
ACCOUNT
NUMBER DESCRIPTION
327103.1668702 480V 15 HP MOTOR
CONNECTION
AIR COMPRESSOR
327103.1668704 480V EQUIPMENT
CONNECTION
NEUTRALI2ER
327103.1668711 480V 450 KU STEAM GEN
CONNECTION
327103.1668714 480V 645 KU EVAPORATOR
CONNECTION
327103.1668801 480V 10 HP MOTOR
FEEDER. (0.75-GRS U/«12)
PROCESS PUMPS/METERING PUMPS
327103.1668802 480V 15 HP MOTOR
FEEDER. (0.75-GRS U/*TO>
AIR COMPRESSOR
327103.1668804 4BOV EQUIPMENT
FEEDER. (1.25"GRS U/f 6)
NEUTRALIZER
327103.1683002 HEAT TRACE
ALLOUANCE
327103.1683004 EVAPORATOR ASSEMBLY
ALLOUANCE
SUBTOTAL ELECTRICAL
SALES TAX 7. SOX
OHCP / Btl (ON MARKUPS ONLY)
TOTAL COST CODE 70616
UBS 327103
COST
CODE
7060
7060
7060
7060
•"
7060
7060
7060
7060
7060
(ESCALATION 13.81X - CONTINGENCY 25.
*
327103.1610011 •*• PROCESS *••
INSTRM/CONTROL
327103.1611002 0.75" GRS CONDUIT
327103.1624002 CONTROL CABLE UIRE
327103.1624005 INSTRN CABLE UIRE
327103.1681005 MOV
1
7065
7065
7065
7065
7065
QUANTITY
1
1
1
1
400
150
150
1
1
OOX)
0
8100
10800
4800
27
EA
EA
EA
EA
LF
LF
LF
JOB
JOB
LF
LF
IF
EA
MANHOURS
2
2
16
28
66
25
34
40
96
859
859
0
1306
238
106
27
LABOR
61
61
487
853
2011
,
762
1036
1219
2926
. 26.173
26,173
0
39792
7251
3230
823
EQUIP
USAGE
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
MATERIAL
13
13
624
1241
797
325
608
1500
1500
41,873
3266
45,139
0
28290
17928
5232
675
SUB-
CONTRACT
0
0
0
0
. 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
EQUIP-
MENT
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
„.
0
0
0
0
0
0
OH&P
/Btl
20
20
294
555
744
288
436
721
1173
18.034
866
18,900
0
ffL
h M8042
6672
2242
397
TOTAL
DOLLARS
94
94
1405
2649
3552
1375
2080
3440 \
\
5599
86.080
3266
866
90.212
0
86124
31851
10704
1895
-------
KAISER ENGINEERS HAMFORD
UESTINGMOUSE HAHFORO COMPANY
JOB NO. L-045H/ER0184
** KAISER ENGINEERS INTERACTIVE ESTIMATING •*
300 AREA TREATED EFF. DIPOSAL FACILITY
CONCEPTUAL ESTIMATE
KEHR08 - ESTIMATE DETAIL BY UBS / COST CODE
PAGE 0053
DATE 05/04/90 07:26
BY GDC LGH DKH
ACCOUNT
NUMBER DESCRIPTION
327103.
327103.
327103.
327103.
327103.
327103.
327103.
327103.
327103.
327103.
327103.
CONN
1681008 FE/FIT
FLOW ELEMENT 1 FLOW I NO TRAN
CONN
1681016 Lt/LiT
LEVEL ELEMENT & LEVEL IND
TRAN INSTALL I CONN
1681020 HS
HAND SWITCH
INSTALL t CONN
1681022 PDIT
PRESSURE IND TRANSMIT
CONN
1681028 AI/AE
ANALYSIS IND
CONN
1681030 CT/CE
CONDUCTIVITY IND
CONN
1681036 TIT/TE
TEMP INO TRANSMIT
CONN
1681038 RO SYSTEM
CONN
1681040 STEAM GEN
CONN
1681042 EVAPORATOR
CONN
1681060 ATP
COST
CODE QUANTITY HANHOURS
7065
7G65
7065
7065
7065
7065
7065
7065
7065
7065
7065
3 EA
4 EA
1 EA
4 EA
1 EA
1 EA
1 EA
1 EA
1 EA
1 EA
1 EA
SUBTOTAL ELECTRICAL
•*
SALES TAX 7. 80%
OH«P / BSI (ON MARKUPS ONLY)
3
t A
HO
3
8
2
2
8
16
16
16
120
1.919
EQUIP SUB-
LABOR USAGE MATERIAL CONTRACT
91
1462
91
244
61
61
244
488
488
488
3660
58.474
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
75
onn A
M W V
50
100
25
25
500
50
50
50
0
61,050
4762
0
C
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
EQUIP-
MENT
0
A
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
OHtP
/ B t 1
44
2507
37
91
23
23
197
143
143
143
970
31,674
1262
TOTAL
DOLLARS
210
11969
178
435
109
109
941 £
UJ
681
681
681
4630
151.198
4762
1262
TOTAL COST CODE 70616
UBS 327103
1.919
58,474
65,812
32,936
0 157,222
(ESCALATION 13.SIX - CONTINGENCY 25.00X)
-------
KAISER ENGINEERS HANFORD
UEST1NGHOUSE HANFORD COMPANY
JOB NO. L-045H/ER0184
** KAISER ENGINEERS INTERACTIVE ESTIMATING *•
300 AREA TREATED EFF. DIPOSAL FACILITY
CONCEPTUAL ESTIMATE
KEHR08 - ESTIMATE DETAIL BY UBS / COST CODE
PAGE 005*
DATE OS/04/90 07:26
BY GDC LGH DKH
ACCOUNT
NUMBER
DESCRIPTION
COST
CODE
QUANTITY HANHOURS
LABOR
EQUIP
USAGE
SUB-
MATERIAL CONTRACT
EQUIP-
MENT
OH&P
/ B &
TOTAL
DOLLARS
TOTAL UBS 327103 TREATMENT FACILITY ELECTRICAL
3,108
95,888
128.962
59,588
284,438
io
-------
KAISER ENGINEERS NANFORD
UESTIH6HOUSE HANFORO COMPANY
JOB NO. L-04SH/ER0184
'* KAISER ENGINEERS INTERACTIVE ESTIMATING **
300 AREA TREATED EFF. OIPOSAL FACILITY
CONCEPTUAL ESTIMATE
KEHR08 - ESTIMATE DETAIL BY UBS / COST CODE
PAGE 0055
DATE OS/04/90 07:26
BY GDC LGH DKH
ACCOUNT
NUMBER DESCRIPTION
327201 FACILITY • OPERATION!
327201.02 SITEUORK
327201.0234502 EXCAVATION
327201.0234504 BACKFILL
SUBTOTAL SITEUORK
COST EQUIP SUB- EQUIP- OHtP TOTAL
CODE QUANTITY MAHHOURS LABOR USAGE MATERIAL CONTRACT MENT /Bit DOLLARS
5 AREA
501 80 CY 0 0 0 0 200 0 10 210
501 80 CY 0 0 0 0 160 0 8 168
0 0 360 18
00 0 378
TOTAL COST CODE 50102
UBS 327201
(ESCALATION 13.SIX - CONTINGENCY 25.00X)
360
18
378
327201.03
327201
327201
327201
327201
327201
327201
327201,
327201,
327201,
327201,
327201,
327201,
327201,
0345602
0345604
0345606
0345608
0345610
0345612
0345614
0345616
0345618
0345620
0345622
0345624
0345626
CONCRETE
GRADE I SCREED SOG
FORM SOG
FORM FOOTINGS
FORM UALLS
KEY JOINTS
STRIP t OIL
CONCRETE FOOTINGS
CONCRETE SOG 6"
CONCRETE UALLS
CURING
REBAR SLAB
REBAR UALLS
TROUEL FINISH
501
501
501
501
501
501
501
501
501
501
501
501
501
SUBTOTAL CONCRETE
TOTAL
SALES TAX 7.80X
OHtP / Bftl (ON MARKUPS ONLY)
COST CODE 50103
UBS 327201
1840
172
252
504
86
756
10
38
10
2600
2800
1600
1840
SF
LF
SF
SF
LF
SF
CY
CY
CY
SF
LBS
LBS
SF
11
14
20
60
4
15
8
30
11
13
22
16
11
235
235
263
353
505
1514
96
332
191
717
263
287
627
456
263
5,867
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
92
155
227
454
43
113
520
1976
520
39
840
480
0
5,459
426
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
94
135
194
522
37
118
188
714
207
86
389
248
70
3,002
113
3.115
Lf>
IO
LU
449
643
926
2490
176
563
899
3407
990
412
1856
1184
333
14,328
426
113
5,867
5,885
14,867
-------
KAISER ENGINEERS HANFORD
WESTINGHOUSE HANFORD COMPANY
JOB NO. L-045H/ER0184
>* KAISER ENGINEERS INTERACTIVE ESTIMATING **
300 AREA TREATED EFF. DIPOSAL FACILITY
CONCEPTUAL ESTIMATE
KEHR08 • ESTIMATE DETAIL BY UBS / COST CODE
PAGE 0056
DATE OS/04/90 07:26
BY GDC LGH DKH
ACCOUNT COST EQUIP S
NUMBER DESCRIPTION CODE QUANTITY MANHOURS LABOR USAGE MATERIAL CON
(ESCALATION 13. SIX - CONTINGENCY 25.00X)
327201.07 MOISTURE AND THERMAL CONTROL
327201.0765402 DAMPPROOFING 501 270 SF 5 126 0 65
327201.0765404 RIGID INSULATION 501 540 SF 5 126 0 108
327201.0765406 SEALANTS 501 1 JOB 8 202 0 200
SUBTOTAL MOISTURE AND THERMAL CONTROL 18 0
454 373
SALES TAX 7. 80% 29
OHtP / Btl (ON MARKUPS ONLY)
TOTAL COST CODE 50107 18 0
UBS 327201 454 402
(ESCALATION 13.81X - CONTINGENCY 25.00X)
**
327201.08 DOORS. WINDOWS AND GLASS
327201.0876502 3/0 HM DOOR & FRAME EXT 501 3 EA 12 303 0 1950
327201.0876504 3/0 HM DOOR t FRAME INT 501 5 EA 20 505 0 2750
327201.0876506 6/0 HN DOOR t FRAME INT 501 1 EA 6 151 0 1100
SUBTOTAL DOORS, WINDOWS AND GLASS ' 38 0
959 5,800
SALES TAX 7t80X 452
OHtP / Btl (ON MARKUPS ONLY)
TOTAL COST CODE 50108 38 0
UB- EQUIP- OHtP
TRACT MENT /Btl 1
0 0 51
0 0 62
0 0 107
0 220
0
0
8
0 228
0
0 0 597
0 0 863
0 0 332
0 1,792
0
0
120
0 1,912
TOTAL
>OLLARS
242
296
509
1.047
29
8
t
t
t
1,084
2850
4118
1583
8.551
452
120
UBS 327201
959
6,252
9,123
(ESCALATION 13.SIX - CONTINGENCY 25.00X)
-------
KAISER ENGINEERS HAMFORO
WESTIHGHOUSE NANFORO COMPANY
JOB NO. L-045H/ER01B4
** KAISER ENGINEERS INTERACTIVE ESTIMATING **
300 AREA TREATED EFF. DIPOSAL FACILITY
CONCEPTUAL ESTIMATE
KEHR08 - ESTIMATE DETAIL BY UBS / COST CODE
PAGE 0057
DATE 05/04/90 07:26
BY GDC LGH DKH
ACCOUNT
NUMBER
DESCRIPTION
COST
CODE
QUANTITY MANHOURS
LABOR
EQUIP
USAGE
SUB-
MATERIAL CONTRACT
EQUIP-
MENT
OH&P
/ B t
TOTAL
DOLLARS
327201.09
FINISHES
327201.0987602 CONCRETE FLOOR SEALER 501
327201.0987604 PAINT DOORS 501
327201.0987606 PAINT UALLS 501
327201.0987608 METAL STUD WALLS SHEETROCK 501
ONE SIDE
327201.0987610 METAL STUD UALLS SHEETROCK 501
TWO SIDE
327201.0987612 VINYL TILE FLOORS 501
327201.0987614 SUSPENDED ACOUSTICAL TILE 501
327201.0987616 BASE 4" 501
SUBTOTAL FINISHES
TOTAL COST CODE 50109
UBS 327201
(ESCALATION 13.SIX - CONTINGENCY 25.00X)
1330
10
2426
770
1656
1014
1014
468
SF
EA
SF
SF
SF
SF
SF
LF
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1663
350
873
1309
3643
2535
1268
679
12,320
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
83
18
44
65
182
127
63
34
616
1746
368
917
1374
3825
2662
1331
713
12,936
12,320
616
12,936
327201.10 SPECIALTIES
327201.1012302 PAPER TOWEL DISPENSER 501
327201.1012304 TOILET PAPER HOLDER 501
327201.1012306 MIRRORS 501
327201.1012308 SOAP DISPENSER 501
327201.1012310 COAT HOOKS • 501
327201.1012312 TOILET SEAT COVER HOLDER 501
327201.1012314 MOP HOLDER 501
327201.1012316 COMPUTER FLOOR 501
327201.1012318 DOOR SIGNAGE 501
1 EA
1 EA
1 EA
1 EA
5 EA
1 EA
4 EA
540 SF
9 EA
25
25
25
25
25
25
50
0
202
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
300
20
75
50
75
65
60
0
180
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5670
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
86
12
27
20
27
24
29
284
101
411
57
127
95
127
114
139
5954
483
-------
KAISER ENGINEERS HANFORD
UESTINGHOUSE HANFORD COMPANY
JOB NO. L-045H/ER0184
'* KAISER ENGINEERS INTERACTIVE ESTIMATING **
300 AREA TREATED EFF. DIPOSAL FACILITY
CONCEPTUAL ESTIMATE
KEHR08 - ESTIMATE DETAIL BY UBS / COST CODE
PAGE 0058
DATE OS/04/90 07:26
BY GOC LCD DKH
ACCOUNT
NUMBER
SUBTOTAL
TOTAL
327201.13
327201.1345602
SUBTOTAL
TOTAL
COST EQUIP SUB-
DESCRIPTION CODE QUANTITY HANHOURS LABOR USAGE MATERIAL CONTRACT
SPECIALTIES 16 0 5,670
402 825
SALES TAX 7. BOX 64
OHtP / Bill (ON MARKUPS ONLY)
COSt CODE 50110 16 0 5,670
UBS 327201 402 889
(ESCALATION 13. SIX - CONTINGENCY 25.00X)
SPECIAL CONSTRUCTION
STEEL BUILDING 50X43XU 501 2150 SF 000 0 48375
SPECIAL CONSTRUCTION 0 0 48.375
0 0
COST CODE 50113 0 „ 0 48,375
UBS 327201 00
(ESCALATION 13. 81X - CONTINGENCY 20.00X)
EQUIP* OH&P TOTAL
MENT / B & 1 DOLLARS
610
0 7,507
0 64
17 17
627
0 7,588
0 2419 50794
2,419
0 50.794
2,419
0 50,794
-•
TOTAL UBS 327201 FACILITY - OPERATIONS AREA
367 0 66,725
7,682 13,429
8,934
96,770
-------
KAISER ENGINEERS HANFORD
UESTINGHOUSE HANFORD COMPANY
JOB NO. L-04SH/ER0184
** KAISER ENGINEERS INTERACTIVE ESTIMATING **
300 AREA TREATED EFF. OIPOSAL FACILITY
CONCEPTUAL ESTIMATE
KEHR08 - ESTIMATE DETAIL BY UBS / COST CODE
PAGE 0059
DATE 05/04/90 07:26
BY GDC LGH DKH
ACCOUNT
NUMBER
327202
327202.
327202.
327202.
327202.
327202.
327202.
327202.
327202.
327202.
327202.
327202.
327202.
DESCRIPTION
(
15 1
1501000
1501002
1501004
1501006
1501008
1501010
1501012
1501014
1501016
1501018
1502000
9PERATIONS AREA MECH.
MECHANICAL
FIRE PROTECTION & PLUMBING
FIRE PROTECTION
UATER CLOSET U/SEAT
LAVATORY U/TRIM
JANITOR SINK U/TRIM
UATER HEATER
SAFTY SHOUER / EYEUASH
REFIG DRINKING FOUNTAIN
UATER PIPING U/FITTINGS
SEUER & VENT U/FITTINGS
****************************
COST
CODE
501
501
501
501
501
501
501
501
501
501
501
QUANTITY MANHOURS
0
5840
1
1
1
1
1
1
200
100
0
SF
EA
EA
EA
EA
EA
EA
LF
LF
0
0
10
8
8
10
18
6
60
20
0
EQUIP SUB- EQUIP- OHIP TOTAL
LABOR USAGE MATERIAL CONTRACT MENT / B 1 I DOLLARS
0
0
319
255
255
319
575
192
1915
638
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
A
V
0
275
150
400
. 200
1200
600
1000
300
0
A
V
13140
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
n
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
657
157
107
174
138
470
210
772
249
0
n
13797
751
512
829
657
2245
1002
3687
1187
0
327202.1502002
327202.
327202.
327202.
327202.
327202.
327202.
327202.
327202.
327202.
327202.
327202.
327202.
327202.
1502004
1502006
1502008
1502010
1502012
1502014
1502016
1502018
1502020
1502022
1502024
1502026
1502028
HVAC
••••A***********************
EVAP COOLER PACE A-30
U/FARR FILTERS/CELL DEK
MEDIA 17.500 CFM / 10 HP
SUPPORT FOR EVAP COOLER
INLET LOUVER 5' X 4'
U/MANUAL DAMPER
UNIT HEATER 20 KU / T.T.
UNIT HEATER 4 KU / T.T.
UNIT HEATER 2.6KU / T.T.
UNIT HEATER 2.6KU / T.T.
EX. FAN 11.500 CFM U/CURB
t MOTORIZED DAMPER
EX. FAN 440 CFM U/CURB
t BACKDRAFT DAMPER
GRAVITY RELEIF HOOD
30" X 54"
DUCT
REG U/DAHPERS
PIPING FOR UATER/DRAIN
TEST & BALANCE
501
501
501
501
501
501
501
501
501
501
501
501
501
501
1 EA
48
1200
15000
SUBTOTAL MECHANICAL
4293
20493
vo
SALES TAX 7.80X
OHIP / B&l (ON MARKUPS ONLY)
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
3000
9
100
1
EA
EA
EA
EA
EA
EA
EA
EA
EA
LBS
EA
LF
LS
40
16
8
16
8
8
40
8
16
300
18
100
40
806
1000
400
200
400
200
200
1000
200
400
7497
450
3192
1277
22.084
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
500
1000
600
600
200
200
5000
200
750
1500
1800
500
0
31.975
2494
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
13,140
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
398
371
212
265
106
106
1590
106
305
2384
596
978
338
14,982
661
1898
1771
1012
1265
506
506
7590
506
1455
11381
2846
4670
1615
82,181
2494
661
-------
KAISER ENGINEERS HANFORO
UEST1NGHOUSE HANFORO COMPANY
JOB NO. L-045H/ER0184
** KAISER ENGINEERS INTERACTIVE ESTIMATING **
300 AREA TREATED EFF. DIPOSAl FACILITY .
CONCEPTUAL ESTIMATE
KEHR08 - ESTIMATE DETAIL BY UBS / COST CODE
PAGE 0060
DATE 05/04/90 07:26
BY GDC LGN DKH
ACCOUNT
NUMBER
DESCRIPTION
s=sac=s=s33 &s=s&sss=
COST
CODE
SSSSSSS S = SS
QUANTITY MANHQURS LABOR
EQUIP SUB- EOUIP-
USAGE MATERIAL CONTRACT NENT
fSSe CS3S3SXB •IICECS8B1
OHtP TOTAL
/ B I I DOLLARS
TOTAL COST CODE 50115
UBS 327202
(ESCALATION 13.BU - CONTINGENCY 35.00X)
806 0 13,140
22,084 34,469
15,643
85,336
TOTAL UBS 327202 OPERATIONS AREA NECH.
BQ6 0 13,140
22,084 34,469
15,643
0 85,336
-------
KAISER ENGINEERS HANFORO
UESTINGHOUSE HANFORD COMPANY
JOB HO. L-045H/ER0184
** KAISER ENGINEERS INTERACTIVE ESTIMATING **
300 AREA TREATED EFF. DIPOSAL FACILITY
CONCEPTUAL ESTIMATE
KEHR08 - ESTIMATE DETAIL BY UBS / COST CODE
PAGE 0061
DATE OS/04/90 07:26
BY GDC LGH DKH
ACCOUNT
NUMBER DESCRIPTION
COST
CODE
327203 OPERATIONS FACILITY ELECTRICAL
327203.16 ELECTRICAL
327203.1610301 ZOA 3W FEEDER - 1/2" ENT
3 #12 THHN CONDUCTORS
HVAC FAN
327203.1610304 65A 3U FEEDER - 1" EMT
3 #6 THHN CONDUCTORS
HVAC HEATER FEEDER
327203.1610321 20A 4U FEEDER - 1/2" EMT
4 «12 THHN CONDUCTORS
HOT WATER FEEDER
327203.1632006 1 X 4 INDUSTRIAL 2 LAMP
ASSUME 1 FIXTURE 112 SF
327203.1632008 COND I WIRE
327203.1632010 1 X 4 INDUSTRIAL 2 LAMP
U/EMERGENCY PAK
20X TO BE EMERG.
327203.1632012 2X4 TROFFER 4 LAMP
327203.1632014 COND t WIRE
327203.1632016 2X4 TROFFER 4 LAMP
U/EMERGENCY PAK
327203.1632018 2X4 TROFFER 2 LAMP
327203.1632020 2X4 TROFFER 2 LAMP
U/EMERGENCY PAK
327203.1632022 EXIT
U/EMERGENCY PAK
327203.1632024 UALL FIXTURE
55U LPS
327203.1637026 RECPT t SU
'COND/UIRE
327203.1642014 FA CONSOLE U/ POUER SUPPLY
t BATT. PACK 8 ZONE
327203.1642020 RADIO TRANSMITTER/ANTENNA
t INTERFACE 8 ZONE
F.A. MASTER BOX
327203.1642030 MANUAL FIRE ALARM STATION
327203.1642033 FIRE ALARM GONG
327203.1642036 SMOKE DETECTORS
327203.1642037 HEAT DETECTORS
327203.1642139 CONNECT SPRINKLER PIV VALVE
327203. 1642U2 CONNECT SPRINKLER FLOU SU
327203.1642144 CONDUIT & WIRE ALLOWANCE
327203.1661111 SOD H321NRB 30A-240V-4SN
MEM A 3R EF-2
501
501
501
501
501
501
501
501
501
501
501
501
501
501
501
501
\
501
501
501
501
501
501
501
501
QUANTITY
50 LF
50 LF
100 LF
6 EA
1120 SF
4 EA
6 EA
962 SF
f EA
3 EA
1 EA
4 EA
3 EA
2082 SF
1 EA
1 EA
4 EA
2 EA
6 EA
2 EA
1 JOB
1 JOB
1 JOB
1 EA
LABOR
EQUIP SUB-
USAGE MATERIAL CONTRACT
EQUIP- OHSP
MENT / B S I
TOTAL
DOLLARS
17
8
4
2
6
4
4
4
40
3
152
213
244
518
244
10
29
2
5
2
4 *
9
54
24
12
305
884
61
152
61
122
274
1645
731
366
122
61
183
122
122
122
1219
91
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
99
77
330
327
820
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
390
454
225
129
205
540
1260
679
4490
4000
200
300
690
430
25
25
1200
118
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
67
77
152
224
282
159
318
367
726
1069
1346
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
184
355
76
74
70
175
407
616
1384
1157
879 -
1693 u
362
355
336
837
1941
2940
6605
5523
85
96
231
146
39
39
641
55
407
457
1104
698
186
186
3060
264
-------
KAISER ENGINEERS HANFORD
UESTIHGHOUSE HANFORD COMPANY
JOB NO. L-045H/ER0184
** KAISER ENGINEERS INTERACTIVE ESTIMATING **
300 AREA TREATED EFF. DIPOSAL FACILITY
CONCEPTUAL ESTIMATE
KEHR08 - ESTIMATE DETAIL BY UBS / COST CODE
PAGE 0062
DATE 05/04/90 07:26
BY GDC LGN DKN
ACCOUNT
NUMBER DESCRIPTION
327203.1661211 SOD H361RB 30A-600V-3P
NEMA 3R SWITCH
HVAC FAN SU
327203.1662002 225A 208Y/120V POWER PNL
327203.1662004 100A 480Y/277V POWER PNL
327203.1664106 45 KVA DRY-TYPE TFMR 3 PH
480V-208/120Y
327203.1668015 *•* HEAT •**
ASSUME 31237 CF OF AIR TO BE
HEATED ASSUME 59 BTU LOSS
327203.1668016 HVAC HTR 36 KW 480V
W/ REMOTE STAT
CONNECT
327203.1668700 120V 1/2 HP MOTOR EF-2
CONNECTION
327203.1668701 480V 10 HP MOTOR HVAC FAN
CONNECTION
327203.1668710 480V 2000W HOT WATER TANK
CONNECTION
327203.1668800 120V 1/2 HP MOTOR EF-2
FEEDER, (0.50-GRS W/*12>
ON ROOF
SUBTOTAL ELECTRICAL
SALES TAX 7. SOX
OHtP / Btl (ON MARKUPS ONLY)
TOTAL COST CODE 50116
WBS 327203
COST
CODE
501
501
501
501
501
501
501
501
501
501
(ESCALATION 13.81X - CONTINGENCY 25.
327203.1662008 60A 208V/120V UPS PNL
327203.1664206 18.75 KVA UPS
327203.1666010 HCC-1 480V 1200A
1
7060
7060
7060
QUANTITY
1 EA
1 EA
1 EA
1 EA
0
1 EA
1 EA
50 EA
1 EA
50 LF
OOX)
1 EA
1 EA
1 EA
MANHOURS
3
36
11
17
0
16
1
75
1
7
433
433
13
17
0
LABOR
91
1097
335
518
0
487
30
2285
30
213
*
13,191
13,191
396
518
0
EQUIP
USAGE
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
MATERIAL
190
1250
750
1615
0
140
9
443
9
85
21,539
1680
23,219
5f9
28000
0
SUB-
CONTRACT
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
EQUIP-
MENT
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
OHtP
/ B C I
74
622
288
565
0
166
10
723
1.0
79
9,202
445
9,647
242
7557
0
TOTAL
DOLLARS
355
2969
1373
2698
0
79$
49
3451
49
377
43,932
1680
445
46.057
1157
36075
0
1 EA 1200AF/1200AT M.C.B
1 EA 1200AF/1000AT C.B.
327203.1666020 1 EA SIZE 2 MCP
4 EA SIZE 1 MCP
7060
1 EA
-------
KAISER ENGINEERS HANFORD
WESTIMGHOUSE NANFORD COMPANY
JOB HO. L-045H/ER0184
** KAISER ENGINEERS INTERACTIVE ESTIMATING *•
300 AREA TREATED EFF. DIPOSAL FACILITY
CONCEPTUAL ESTIMATE
KEHR08 - ESTIMATE DETAIL BY WBS / COST CODE
PAGE 0063
DATE 05/04/90 07:26
BY GDC LGH DKH
ACCOUNT
NUMBER DESCRIPTION
6 EA SIZE 1 SPACE
327203.1666030 1 EA 100AF/100AT C.B.
327203.1666040 MCC-2
1 EA 800AF/800AT MCB
1 EA 800AF/700AT
327203.1666050 4 EA 100AF/30AT C.B.
1 EA 100AF/70AT C.B.
6 EA SIZE 1 MCP
SUBTOTAL ELECTRICAL
SALES TAX 7. SOX
OHtP / Btl (ON MARKUPS ONLY)
TOTAL COST CODE 70616
UBS 327203
COST
CODE QUANTITY
7060 1 EA
7060 1 EA
7060 1 EA
MANHOURS LABOR
75 2285
0 0
74 2287
179
5,486
179
5,486
EQUIP
USAGE MATERIAL
0 26000
0 0
0 27000
0
81,519
6358
0
87,877
SUB-
CONTRACT
0
0
0
0
^0
EQUIP-
MENT
0
0
0
0
0
0
OHtP
/Btl
7496
0
7761
23,056
1685
24,741
TOTAL
DOLLARS
35781
0
37048
110.061
6358
1685
118.104
(ESCALATION 13. SIX - CONTINGENCY 25.00X)
327203.1610011 ••* PROCESS **•
INSTRH/CONTROL
327203.1684000 ** PROCESS INSTRUMENTATION *
327203.1684002 PROCESS MONITORING AND
PROCESS CONTROL SYSTEM
(PMMCS)
327203.1684003' 1 EA PROGRAMMABLE
CONTROLLER (GOULD 984
5 EA OPERATOR STATION
327203.1684004 5 EA FUNCTIONAL KEYBOARD
5 EA COMPUTER AT
1 EA DOT MATRIX PRINTER
327203.1684005 20 EA ANALOG I/O.AI/O
120 EA DISCRETE 1/0,01/0
20X SPARE OF THE ABOVE
327203.1684006 ASSUME PROGRAMING OF THE
PROGRAMMABLE CONTROLLER
BY DESIGN CONSTRUCT
327203.1684007 ALLOU ONE UK TO TEACH UHC
PROGRAMMABLE CONTROLLER
327203.1684008 20 EA ANALOG I/O.AI/O
7065 0
7065 0
7065 1 EA
7065 1 EA
7065 1 EA
\
7065 1 EA
7065 1 EA -
7065 1 EA
7065 1 JOB
0 „ 0
0 0
40 1219
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
80 2438
0 0
0 0
0 28000
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0
0
5000
0
0
0
2000
1500
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8743
0
0
0
400
300
646
oo
LU
0
0
42962
~-
0
0
0
2400
1800
3084
-------
KAISER ENGINEERS NANFORD
UESTINGHOUSE HANFORD COMPANY
JOB NO. L-045H/ER0184
'* KAISER ENGINEERS INTERACTIVE ESTIHATING **
300 AREA TREATED EFF. DIPOSAL FACILITY
CONCEPTUAL ESTIMATE
KEHR08 - ESTIMATE DETAIL BY UBS / COST CODE
PAGE 0064
DATE 05/04/90 07:26
BY GDC LGH DKH
ACCOUNT
NUMBER
SUBTOTAL
TOTAL
COST
DESCRIPTION CODE
120 EA DISCRETE I/O.DI/O
TERM
ELECTRICAL
SALES TAX 7. SOX
OH&P / Btl (ON MARKUPS ONLY)
COST CODE 70616
EQUIP SUB-
QUANTITY MANHOURS LABOR USAGE MATERIAL CONTRACT
120 0 8.500
3.657 28.000
2184
120 0 8,500
EQUIP- OHtP
HENT / B & I
10,089
0
0
579
10,668
TOTAL
DOLLARS
50,246
2184
579
UBS 327203
(ESCALATION 13.SIX - CONTINGENCY 25.00X)
3,657
30,184
53.009
TOTAL WBS 327203 OPERATIONS FACILITY ELECTRICAL
732
22,334
141,281
8,500
45.056
217.170
-------
KAISER ENGINEERS HAMFORO
UESTINGHOUSE HANFORD COMPANY
JOB NO. L-045H/ER0184
•* KAISER ENGINEERS INTERACTIVE ESTIMATING **
300 AREA TREATED EFF. DIPOSAL FACILITY
CONCEPTUAL ESTIMATE
KEHR08 - ESTIMATE DETAIL BY UBS / COST CODE
PAGE 0065
DATE OS/04/90 07:26
BY GDC LGH DKH
ACCOUNT COST
NUMBER DESCRIPTION CODE QUANTITY HANHOURS
328000 DISCHARGE LINE
328000.02 SITEUORK
328000.0200002 EXCAVATION AND BACKFILL FOR 700 350 CY 0
8" OUTFALL LINE
328000.0200004 8" SCH 80 PVC PIPE 700 920 LF 129
328000.0200006 8" SCH 80 PVC COUPLING 700 46 EA 0
328000.0200008 MANHOLES 700 4 EA 32
328000.0200010 OUTFALL STRUCTURE (ALLOU) 700 1 EA 40
SUBTOTAL SITEUORK 201
SALES TAX 7. SOX
OHSP / Btl (ON MARKUPS ONLY)
TOTAL COST CODE 70002 201
UBS 328000
(ESCALATION 13.81X - CONTINGENCY 25.00X)
EQUIP SUB- EOUIP-
LABOR USAGE MATERIAL CONTRACT HENT
0 G 0 2013 G
4118 0 4370 0 0
0 0 690 0 0
1021 0 1800 0 0
1277 0 1000 0 0
0 2.013
6.416 7.860 0
613 0
0 2.013
6.416 8,473 0
OHSP
/Btl
1C1
2249
183
748
603
3.884
162
4.046
TOTAL
DOLLARS
2114
10737
873
3569
2880
20,173
613
162
20.949
TOTAL UBS 328000 DISCHARGE LINE
201
6.416
8,473
2,013
4,046
u.
20,949
-------
KAISER ENGINEERS HANFORD
UESTINGHOUSE HANFORD COMPANY
JOB NO. L-045H/ER0184
ACCOUNT
NUMBER
DESCRIPTION
330000 OPERATING CONTRACTOR
330000.02 SITEUQRK
330000.0200000 BURIAL CHARGES
SUBTOTAL SITEUORK
** KAISER ENGINEERS INTERACTIVE ESTIMATING **
300 AREA TREATED EFF. DIPOSAL FACILITY
CONCEPTUAL ESTIMATE
KEHR08 - ESTIMATE DETAIL BY UBS / COST CODE
PAGE 0066
DATE 05/04/90 07:26
BY GDC LGH DKH
COST
CODE
QUANTITY HANHOURS LABOR
EQUIP SUB- EQUIP-
USAGE MATERIAL CONTRACT NENT
OHSP TOTAL
/ B & I DOLLARS
700
1566 CF
TOTAL COST CODE 70002
UBS 330000
(ESCALATION 12.46* - CONTINGENCY 25.00X)
0 49251
49,251
49.251
0
0
49251
49.251
49,251
330000.16 ELECTRICAL
330000.1622225 UTILITY TERM.EQUIP TEST 6150
ALLOU
SUBTOTAL ELECTRICAL
1 JOB
TOTAL COST CODE 61516
UBS 330000
(ESCALATION 12.46X - CONTINGENCY 25.00X)
0
0
0 15000
15,000
15,000
0 15000
0
15,000
15,000
330000.1684007 ALLOU ONE QK TO TEACH UHC 7065
PROGRAMMABLE CONTROLLER
SUBTOTAL ELECTRICAL
1 EA
15000
15,000
15000
15.000
-------
KAISER ENGINEERS HANFORD
UESTIHGHOUSE HANFORO COMPANY
JOB NO. L-045H/ER0184
•* KAISER ENGINEERS INTERACTIVE ESTIMATING **
300 AREA TREATED EFF. DIPOSAL FACILITY
CONCEPTUAL ESTIMATE
KEMR08 - ESTIMATE DETAIL BY UBS / COST CODE
PAGE 0067
DATE 05/04/90 07:26
BY GDC LGH DKH
ACCOUNT
NUMBER
ss sB s = sa
TOTAL
DESCRIPTION
SS==S=S=SSSS3SSSS
COST CODE 70616
UBS 330000
======ssscss
COST
CODE QUANTITY MANHOURS
0
cr 25. COX)
EQUIP SUB- EQUIP- OH&P TOTAL
LABOR USAGE MATERIAL CONTRACT NENT / B S I DOLLARS
0 15.000 0
000 15.000
TOTAL UBS 330000 OPERATING CONTRACTOR
79.251
79.251
-------
KAISER ENGINEERS HANFORD
WESTIHGHOUSE HANFORD COMPANY
JOB NO. L-045H/ER0184
•* KAISER ENGINEERS INTERACTIVE ESTIMATING *•
300 AREA TREATED EFF. DIPOSAL FACILITY
CONCEPTUAL ESTIMATE
KEHR08 • ESTIMATE DETAIL BY UBS / COST CODE
PAGE 0068
DATE OS/04/90 07:26
BY GDC LGH DKH
ACCOUNT
NUMBER
340000
340000.19
340000.1900000
340000.1900001
340000.1900002
SUBTOTAL
TOTAL
COST
DESCRIPTION CODE QUANTITY MANHOURS
PROJECT MANAGEMENT
PROJECT MANAGEMENT
PROJECT MANAGEMENT 700 1 LS 0
PSAR 700 1 LS 0
FSAR 700. 1 LS 0
PROJECT MANAGEMENT 0
COST CODE 70019 0
UBS 340000
(ESCALATION 12.46X - CONTINGENCY 20.00X)
EQUIP SUB- EQUIP- OHtP TOTAL
LABOR USAGE MATERIAL CONTRACT HEHT / B t I DOLLARS
•
00 0 478000 0 0 478000
000 150000 0 0 150000
000 250000 0 0 250000
0 878,000 0
0 0 0 878,000
0 878.000 0
000 878,000
00
UJ
TOTAL UBS 340000 PROJECT MANAGEMENT
878.000
878,000
-------
KAISER ENGINEERS HANFORO
UESTINGHOUSE HANFORO COMPANY
JOB NO. L-045H/ER0184
*• KAISER ENGINEERS INTERACTIVE ESTIMATING »•
300 AREA TREATED EFF. OIPOSAL FACILITY
CONCEPTUAL ESTIMATE
KEHR08 - ESTIMATE DETAIL BY UBS / COST CODE
PAGE 0069
DATE 05/04/90 07:26
BY GDC LGH DKN
ACCOUNT
NUMBER
DESCRIPTION
COST
CODE
QUANTITY
MANHOURS
LABOR
EQUIP
USAGE
MATERIAL
SUB-
CONTRACT
EQUIP-
MENT
OH&P
/ B & I
TOTAL
DOLLARS
REPORT TOTAL
27.906 0 3.738.761
758.545 3.807.732
1,391.509
0 9.696.547
-------
APPENDIX F
WHC LABORATORY SAMPLE ANALYSIS SCHEDULES
-------
Westlnghouse
Hanford Company
From: 222-S/RCRA Analytical Laboratories
Phone: 3-5669 MO-039/200W T6-07
Date: March 27, 1990
Subject: LABORATORY SAMPLE ANALYSIS SCHEDULES
Internal
Memo
12740-90-020
To: M. R. Adams
N. C. Boyter
J. D. Briggs
H. F. Daugherty
A. J. OiLiberto
V. W. Hall
S. M. Joyce
cc: CRS File/LB
H4-55 J. H. Kessneir T6-08
R2-52 E. J. Kosiandc R2-67
T6-14 T. A. Lane T6-07
R2-53 R. E. Lerch B2-35
K2-12 L. L. Powers B2-35
B2-15 L. H. Taylor T6-16
T6-08 R. 0. Wojtasek B2-1S
The following Laboratory sample schedules for protocol analyses shall be
utilized for Environmental Restoration Tri-Party Agreement (TPA) activities.
Laboratory analysis and quality assurance documentation, excluding
validation, shall not exceed the following schedule (see attachments):
1. Single-Shell Tank Analyses (complete core) - 180 days
2. TRU and Hot Cell Analyses • 140 days
3. Low-Level and Mixed Waste (up to 100 mr/hr) Analyses - 90 days
4. Nonradioactive Waste Analyses - 50 days
Sample analyses schedules for specific activities can be evaluated to
determine if reduced or lengthened times are appropriate.
If you have any questions, please contact Joan Kessner on 373-3507.
C. R. Stroup
Manager
pjm
Attachments.
(I
F-1
-------
12740-90-020
Attachment 1
Page 1 of 6
BASES
1. Single-Shell Tank Analyses
Figure 1 1s a subsample breakdown of a Phase 1A Single-Shell
Tank Waste Characterization Segment Sample. An average of five
segment samples and one composite sample are considered one
complete single-shell tank core analysis. One hundred and eighty
days shall be utilized as the time required to complete a TPA
protocol analyses. This time Includes Initial segment receipt
at Laboratory to final data package submlttal to the Office of
Sample Management for validation.
Assumptions
o Critical Path Work
-- Hot Cell Sample Preparation 23 days*
-- Radiological Analyses 90 days
-- Data Package Preparation 10 days
-- QA Review/Approval 5 days
128 days
o At -70% operating efficiency
128 davs
0.7 =180 days
o Hot cell preparation includes receipt of all segments during
first two weeks.
o Hot cell preparation activities conducted on day shift only,
with 5 work days per week.
o Hot cell analyses can be conducted 24 hr/day, 5 work days
per week.
o Radiological analyses are performed by three and a half
equivalent full-time personnel.
*See Attachment 2.
F-2
-------
12740-90-020
Attachment 1
Page 2 of 6
2. TRU and Hot Cell Activities
Figure 2 1s a breakdown on generic analyses requirements.
Assumptions
o Critical Path Work
-- Glovebox or Hot Cell Preparation 10 days
-- Radiological Analyses 73 days
-- Data Package Preparation 10 days
-- QA Review 5 days
98 days
o At -70% operating efficiency
98 davs
0.7 = 140 days
o Hot cell activities can be conducted 24 hr/day, !> work days
per week.
o Assume 20% reduction in radiological analyses required for
SST analyses. Work based on three and a half equivalent
full-time personnel.
F-3
-------
12740-90-020
Attachment 1
Page 3 of 6
3. Low-Level and Mixed Waste (up to 100 mr/hour) Analyses
Figure 2 1s a breakdown on generic analyses requirements.
Assumptions
o Critical Path Work
-- Sample Preparation 2 days
-- Radiological Analyses 46 days
-- Data Package Preparation 10 days
-- QA Review 5 davs
63 days
o At -70% operating efficiency
63 days
0.7 =90 days
o Assume 50% reduction in radiological analyses required for
SST analyses. Work based on three and a half equivalent
full-time personnel.
F-4
-------
12740-90-020
Attachment 1
Page 4 of 6
4. Nonradioactlve Waste Analyses
This work will normally be subcontracted. The 50-day time period
reflects actual experience on 1100 Area sample analyses
activities. Sample screening analyses conducted onsite reflect
the first'7 days of the 50-day period. Minimal radiological
analyses are required.
F-5
-------
Single Shell Tank Waste Characterization
Phase 1A
Subsample Breakdown of Segment Samples
Note I - Pc»etnHMlM toft
art pvrfometf o>
pl« «s4 in ftot
depicted o«
1111
S«« Nol
1 1 1 I 1 1 1
lb*»fa
Fa
TA
GtA
ICP a
u
total*
**(%•
ICP
"Bf
1"-
.2 KMVab
AmV-
T
[
i J
raA.VIV RlVOatM RlvkvIV **itE^L*
VmlaA |KOH «*!»»•» ia^
1C
Rj— i
Saafa
Q»K
| No* 1 - IWon-W o»fr oa Hotie|t»«iBrT.»l 1
1 III II 1 1
fefefa
ABB
TA
TB
ICP
PU
941 Am
337 tip
Mie
1291
9O9t
Pu*l
U-l
38 ,'O J Nl
total*
AddDt*
icr
At 4
Hfl 4
Noi>4-.Yn4u*M
|*.(b*r*toolu|ft«»
•HovHiAxiidStio
tedrfemlMdottdinct
poftioworife.oli.K
do* •«u«ft«4t«k
•illbt.uJcM.to
•cttdgAtportfo*.
tot»fa
W*rlA*
ICP
U
NUB
COS
TOC
IA
IV
QtA
Pu 5
€M Np 5
B9TC
M91
TO
14 C
At
P»VOH
»%fcUIA
No*}
«**•
>IO«C
WMKiaact
-££"-=>_
. Mnkab Rltab
• MaaVO favkaK UaV^i C
**A^« DM^a
^^r
i
i i
IMab IMab .S^, IMab Poaab Ibtob. Rafab ,
pHOH WrtWa. 5x3H B0" TOA.'DSC l***f f Anc ^ '
1 1 1
Ibfab MMkab Kntab
SfaaB Q«ik Ofca-14
II 1 1
1 1 1
ratoattv KrfKxtf ni&jBV *^j«»j_aL
Aalt^n 1C pIMJH SJJ^S
"H
OEA
W
WTe
-NrtomH «°£_
l* 5
'
i i i i
Qapa>rf
A^Sp 0
1 1
Rrtab KAab
BOX Mnqr
1 1 1 1
IMab FMab Katab Ibfa
Anfc Qaak Qtea* Qfc»
kraOiril
"1 - -"
ft*«b s«t Nol« 2
*^—
I I I I I I I
n j_ ( ratxH » . «^ ratLMo ^ j ji IvaaMd
HJ«UBBr »^aa> RHOlaV **• Mi IWlBf tt-jj*—
**>«.« £5 IHOH J* \w ,£5*,
U TOC
TA
Z. Now 2 - If ndUtio tntl b
^=5 to>oo>0lo>a<»Ma«^Ml
k.i»»wJ(po«lWkolc.a
niiiaia^initai t
Daia)LiratkaiaA
r SaMrfteCb.
I
•V"^? NoM«-r>-l,U-lu<5»,«3Xitn.o«|
»lj»d4 r«ferMiU|»iJCi>a|niH. |
I
I I I I I I
1» Kitab T^!^, Moil* Ibkab IMab SSjS*
14 SMa '72^ T*W \tea> (02 ^2£T
L*p*ntf
r^i— r^ ^|~ .j».j»_ ^ miyx^ji
mTA fHi^M^Mllt !• k I ^A An'tA KLJ M^J J.
fOX-Fi»«trfJtO|)«nit Hiptf»« TA-TrMAlp
OEA-OanTvEnvgyAndrA TI-ToUIB.
tVEOTA- MCOTA intfEOTA TOA-Ttom
Plutonium
"-<*»* -ri1> —
Z F±^
»«<-«*MlcAcid TOC - ToM O^vic Cvbon '" n ^T
p»VOH-pHo>Hr«adil> U- Total l*««um . .. U. C?
IC-tonCh™™*^*, W-Umnlum.o.opfc $.,,..b., II. |9.» ^f^>
^1?
r o
%>
o
-------
Fll. - 2
Generic Samples
RKxtv
TA
GeA
Pu
2«1 Am
99 fen*cU-«ne**a»«»tSc
EOX- E«i»ciW» >j«r>< H*r«*M
GCA - CWTVTI. E-^gy Ana-V v*
H^UTA - HECTA v^ EDTA
HEDTA - H^ccy^y E>>W«*«.Ti;r>«trUo»*: Add
pfVOH -
1C -
• 23S;2«0 Plutonium
TA- Total AJph*
TB -Total Srta
TOC - o ;
U-ToUlUrmoIurn
1H-
<£> O» 4>
fl> O O
3- I
O\ 3 *O
n> o
o 3 i
-t< c-t- O
-------
12740-90-020
Attachment 2
, 16 NUCLEAR REACTORS (SPECIAL ENGINEERING) 24.1
tli5f rved or sensed by the operator must be telemetered and displayed remotely.
*!' " ^ 0( television cameras and audio transmitters in the shielded enclosure provides
.'normal sensory information to the operator. Additional information regarding
1 l miCC8s functions normally is supplied by one of the many forms of instrumentation
' ' transmits to a central control panel. The sensor for any measurable parameter
'"'.' l'e() ^ an environment that includes a radiation Held in addition to the envi-
''•n'menl created by the quantity being measured; therefore, some caution must be
terrised in the development or selection of sensor materials (7).
The design of complex machines for radioactive environments has proceeded on
broad philosophical base. Approaches vary from the utilization of commercially
available equipment, which is used until it malfunctions and then is discarded and
replaced, to the design of equipment in which all components can be repaired remotely
(>r replaced. Recent designs favor a compromise: a modular design where functions
thai have similar reliabilities are grouped together and constitute a removable module.
The cost compromises in design are the closer tolerances required for mating parts
versus the cost and time delays of replacing principal segments of a machine. A recent
eiample of modular design in a fuel-shearing machine is shown in Figures 2 and 3. Two
levels of modularization are displayed. Principal modules are designed to be replaced
when wear or malfunction is detected. Replacement modules are available so that
operational delays are minimized. The module being replaced is designed so that it
can be moved to a repair area where it can be disassembled remotely and repairs and
replacements can be made. The repaired unit then becomes the spare. This approach
is particularly valuable in instances where wear, eg, of shear blades, is predictable.
The described approach requires that the facility have a remotely operated repair area.
Repair areas increase the capital costs of the facility, but the alternative to repair and
reuse is the added cost of radioactive disposal.
One of the key factors in implementing the design of a remotely operated and
maintained piece of equipment is the capability of the manipulator that is employed;
.he norm is a manipulator that is similar to a person accomplishing both operation
and maintenance. Manipulators vary in their ability to duplicate human capabilities.
Compamoo o« Tune* Needed tot an Opetalot or i ManipuMlive Device to fertom Typical Tasks
Organization conducting performance ttud.y
LA.SL-
two-armed operator (unsuited) 1
two-armed operator (wiled)
two-kratd mechanical multr/ilavt S
ana-armed electromechanical manipulator 80
(petition control)
onc'inntd electromechanical manipulator 480
(twitch control)
cram (impact wrench) >SOO
MIT*
1
8-10
40-50
80-100
>100
NASA'
1
a
16
64
640
>600
MUA*
1
8
8
55
>500
CEA'
1
»-8
10-30
50-100
>100
• Ref. 10. LASL - Lot Alamo* Scientific Laboratory.
* R*r. 11. MIT - Mauachuaetu Institute of Technology.
' Ref. 12. NASA • National Aeronautics end Space Administration.
' Ref. 13. MBA - MB Associates.
' Ref. 14. CEA • Commissariat a rEnert.it Atomique.
F-8
-------
|