UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
Office of Cost Estimating and Program Evaluation (CEPE)

 

Surplus Plutonium Disposition
Dilute and Dispose Option
Independent Cost Estimate (ICE) Report

April 2018

OFFICIAL USE ONLY CONTRACTOR PROPRIETARY



Cos! shaming and Program Evaluation

Approval

OFFICIAL USE ONLY CONTRACTOR PROPRIETARY

Prepared by: 67MW Date:

Submitted by:

Approved by:

William Banks, NA-1.3 CEPE
ICE Lead
National Nuclear Security Administration

Date:

William Banks, .3 CEPE
ICE Lead
National Nuclear Security Administration

.. Date:

Steven Ho, NA-1.3 CEPE

Director
National Nuclear Security Administration

 

SPD Dilute and Dispose Option ICE Report i

April 2018

OFFICIAL USE ONLY CONTRACTOR PROPRIETARY

Record of Changes

Rev.
No.

0 April 2018 Initial Report of the Dilute and Dispose ICE Report

Date

Description of Change

Pages Affected

NIA

 

OFFICIAL USE ONLY CONTRACTOR PROPRIETARY

Executive Summary

Per the Plutonium Management and Disposition Agreement (PMDA), the United States (US) and
Russia are both committed to dispose 34 metric tons (MT) of weapons-grade plutonium (Pu) by
converting it into mixed oxide (MOX) fuel that consists of a mixture of oxidized Pu and uranium
(U) that can be sold to commercial nuclear power plants for peaceful purposes. Due to signi?cant
growth in estimates-at?completion (EACs) of MOX construction from the original plan in 1999,
the President?s Fiscal Year (FY) 2018 budget supports the plan to terminate the MOX project
and pursue an alternative disposition method that will achieve significant long-term savings. This
alternative disposition method is Dilute and Dispose which provides radiological and
physical protection for the material in permanent geological disposal. In addition, the FY2018
National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) authorizes the Secretary of Energy to terminate the
MOX project if the cost for the alternative?the option?would be less than half of the
estimated remaining lifecycle cost of the MOX project. The NDAA further stipulated that
remaining lifecycle costs must be determined in a manner comparable to the cost
estimating and assessment best practices of the Government Accountability Of?ce.

The September 2016 US MOX fuel program lifecycle cost estimate used in the MOX liability
audit report is $56.08, of which are sunk costs through FY17 and are remaining.
However, this MOX lifecycle estimate did not include costs funded outside of the MOX
program, such as transportation costs, decontamination and decommissioning of the MOX
facility, and operations of the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant facility. After including these costs and
correcting other issues in the estimate, the remaining Estimate-To?Complete (ETC) for the MOX
fuel program is $49.48.

The March 2018 ICE ranges between $17.28 and with a most likely ETC cost of
in Then Year dollars, excluding $20 million in sunk costs. The remaining ETC
lifecycle cost is therefore 35% to 40% of the remaining MOX fuel program ETC lifecycle cost.

 

 

SPD Dilute and Dispose Option ICE Report

April 2013

SPD Dilute and Dispose Option ICE Report April 2018

OFFICIAL USE ONLY 2 CONTRACTOR PROPRIETARY

Table of Contents

1 Introduction 1
2 Cost Methodology 2
2.1 Purpose of Estimate 2
2.2 Overview of Estimating Approach 2
2.3 Estimate Assumptions 4
2.3.1 General Assumptions 4
2.3.2 Time Work of Money Assumptions 5
2.4 Scope 6
2.5 Schedule 6
3 Cost Element Scope, Estimates, and Methodology 7
3.1 Cost Estimating High Level Results and Summary 7
3.2 PANTEX 8
3.2.1 PANTEX Background 8
3.2.2 PANTEX Cost Estimate Development and Results 8
3.3 LANL 10
3.3.1 LANL Background 10
3.3.2 LANL Cost Estimate Development and Results 12
3.4 SRS 20
3.4.1 SRS Background 20
3.4.2 SRS Cost Estimate Development and Results 23
3.5 WIPP 34
3.5.1 WIPP Background 34
3.5.2 WIPP Cost Estimating Development and Results 36
3.6 Transportation and Packaging 39
3.6.1 Transportation and Packaging Background 39
3.6.2 Transportation and Packaging Cost Estimate Development and Results 40
3.7 NNSA Program Management and Integration 43
3.7.1 NNSA PMI Background 43
3.7.2 NNSA Cost Estimate Development and Results 43
3.8 MOX Closure 44
3.8.1 MOX Closure Background 44
3.8.2 MOX Cost Estimate Development and Results 45
3.9 Program?Level Risk Analysis 46
3.9.1 Schedule Risk 46
3.9.2 Sensitivity Analysis 46

OFFICIAL USE ONLY CONTRACTOR PROPRIETARY

 

 

 

SPD Dilute and Dispose Option ICE Report iv April 2018

3.9.3 Monte Carlo Results 47
4 Conclusion 48
Appendix A Team Members 49
Appendix Data Sources 50
Appendix LANL Operations Scope Descriptions 51
Appendix K-Area Upgrades Planning Document 56
Appendix WIPP Panel Excavation Excursion 59
Acronyms 61
SPD Dilute and Dispose Option ICE Report it April 2018

OFFICIAL USE ONLY CONTRACTOR PROPRIETARY

List of Figures

Figure 1 Pu Disposition Program Work Breakdown Structure Diagram 3
Figure 2 - LANL Oxidation Throughput Table (Ramp up to 1117 per year) 5
Figure 3 SRS Dilution Throughput Table (Ramp up to 1640 per year) 5
Figure 4 Program Process Flow for Disposal of 34 MT of Pu Materials 6
Figure 5 Program Schedule 6
Figure 6 Dilute and Dispose Cost Breakdown by Site and Operation 7
Figure 7 PANTEX Cost Estimating Process Flow 8
Figure 8 PANTEX Staf?ng Pro?le (October 2017) 9
Figure 9 Advanced Recovery and Integrated Extraction System (ARIES) Flow 10
Figure 10 LANL Cost Estimating Process Flow 12
Figure 11 FY 2017 LANL Spend Plan (100 kgs) for MOX 13
Figure 12 LANL Operations Variable Cost per Year 15
Figure 13 Scaling Pro?le Based on LANL Program Management Phasing Plan 16
Figure 14 LANL Operation Spares Phasing Pro?le 16
Figure 15 LANL Operations Annual Cost after Re-pro?ling (FY1783) 17
Figure 16 Construction Cost Growth Actuals and Fitted Weibull 19
Figure 17 NNSA and DOE-EM SRS Scope 20
Figure 18 SRS Dilute and Dispose Process Flow 21
Figure 19 SRS Dilute and Dispose Cost Estimating Process Flow 24
Figure 20 K-Area 34 MT (50% CL) Staf?ng Pro?le 26
Figure 21 SRS E-Area Staf?ng Pro?le for 34MT (Base Case w/ Extra Shift) 29
Figure 22 SRS Summary of Planned Equipment Installations for E-Area 30
Figure 23 WIPP Underground Repository 34
Figure 24 - WIPP Underground Repository Spatial View 35
Figure 25 Distribution of Months to Complete Environmental Actions 36
Figure 26 WIPP Cost Estimating Process Flow 37
Figure 27 Map of Sites 39
Figure 28 Transportation and Packaging Cost Estimating Process Flow 40
Figure 29 NNSA PMI Cost Estimating Process Flow 43
Figure 30 CEPE ICE Con?dence Interval 47

OFFICIAL USE ONLY CONTRACTOR PROPRIETARY

 

 

SPD Dilute and Dispose Option ICE Report vi April 2018

List of Tables

Table 1 Dilute and Dispose Work Breakdown Structure 2
Table 2 Annual Escalation Rates by Site 5
Table 3 Summary of Cost Estimate 7
Table 4 PANTEX Composite Annual Labor Rates by Cost Functions 9
Table 5 PANTEX Operations Extra Shift Parameter (Triangular Distribution) 9
Table 6 PANTEX Operations Total Cost 10
Table 7 History of ARIES Plutonium Oxide Production 11
Table 8 FY2017 LANL Cost per 100 13
Table 9 Scaling Parameters for Oxide Production Normal Distribution 14
Table 10 ARIES Operations Uniform Distribution 14
Table 11 LANL Operations Variable Cost Total 15
Table 12 LANL Operations Total Cost 17
Table 13 LANL Equipment and Facility Modi?cation List (FY2017 dollars) 18
Table 14 Completed Facilities and Realized Growth 18
Table 15 LANL Total Cost 19
Table 16 K-Area Staf?ng Pro?le 26.2 MTs (October 2017) 24
Table 17 K-Area FTE Normal Distribution Parameters (applied to 26.2MT) 25
Table 18 KIS FTE Normal Distribution Parameters (applied to 7.8MT) 25
Table 19 K-Area Labor Rates Triangular Distribution Parameters by Operations 26
Table 20 K-Area Summary of Planned Equipment Installations 27
Table 21 K?Area Cost Summary 27
Table 22 Source Data: E-Area Staf?ng Pro?le for 26.2 MT (March 2018) 28
Table 23 E-Area FTE Triangular Distribution 28
Table 24 E-Area Labor Cost Triangular Distribution 29
Table 25 Total E-Area (SRS) Cost Summary 31
Table 26 H-Canyon/HB-Line Actuals and Planned Costs (FY2011 to FY2017) 31
Table 27 H-Canyon Normal Distribution Parameters 32
Table 28 Total H-Canyon (SRS) Cost Summary 32
Table 29 Staf?ng Pro?le [Data Source: SRS PMI Data] 32
Table 30 SRS PMI Triangular Distribution 33
Table 31 SRS PMI Staf?ng Total Cost 33
Table 32 WIPP Total Cost 38
SPD Dilute and Dispose Option ICE Report vii April 2018

OFFICIAL USE ONLY CONTRACTOR PROPRIETARY

Table 33 Transportation Responsibilities 39
Table 34 Of?ce of Secure Transportation Costs 41
Table 35 - CCO Container Cost 41
Table 36 OST Transportation Cost (PANTEX to LANL to SRS) Risk Parameters 42
Table 37 Risk Parameters for Average CCO costs 42
Table 38 Transportation and Packaging Total Cost 43
Table 39 Staf?ng Pro?le [Data Source: NNSA PMI Data] 44
Table 40 NNSA PMI Triangular Distribution 44
Table 41 NNSA PMI Total Cost 44
Table 42 MOX Closure Cost Risk Parameters 45
Table 43 MOX Closure Total Cost 45
Table 44 CCO FGE Sensitivity Parameters 46
Table 45 CEPE Con?dence Interval 20%, 50%, 80% 47
Table 46 ICE Summary 48
Table 47 ICE Team Members 49

OFFICIAL USE ONLY CONTRACTOR PROPRIETARY

1 Introduction

The current approach in the US to dispose of 34 metric tons (MT) of surplus plutonium (Pu) is
the mixed oxide (MOX) fuel approach, per a Plutonium Management and Disposition
Agreement (PMDA) between the US and Russia. This involves disposing of surplus weapon-
grade Pu by irradiating it into MOX fuel or by any other method that the parties may agree upon
in writing. In 1997, the US Department of Energy (DOE) decided to pursue the MOX pathway
using light water reactors in combination with immobilization using a can-in-canister approach.
Since that time, the cost of the MOX approach has increased dramatically compared to early
estimates, and the down?blending or dilution of the Pu oxide has been successfully demonstrated
in support of the closure of Rocky Flats.

Due to the dramatic cost increases and the demonstrated feasibility of the down-blending or
dilution approach, DOE chartered a Plutonium Disposition Working Group in 2014 that
reviewed and evaluated cost options for the disposal of surplus Pu, including both MOX fuel and
Dilute and Dispose approaches. Congress subsequently directed the National Nuclear
Security Administration (NN SA) to conduct an independent review of the Plutonium Disposition
Working Group report, which was completed by The Aerospace Corporation in April 2015 and
followed by a Congressional request for a ?Red Team? review of Pu disposition options, which
was completed in August 2015. The conclusions reached in each of these evaluations support the
fundamental business case that is a more cost-effective means of dispositionng surplus Pu.

In 2017, NNSA directed the Of?ce of Cost Estimating and Program Evaluation (CEPE) to
develop an independent cost estimate (ICE) in support of the alternative to the current
Mixed Oxide (MOX) Fuel Fabrication project to disposition 34 MT of surplus Pu. This report
documents the results of the ICE completed by CEPE in March 2018.

 

 

SPD Dilute and Dispose Option ICE Report April 2018

SPD Dilute and Dispose Option ICE Report 1 April 2018

OFFICIAL USE ONLY CONTRACTOR PROPRIETARY OFFICIAL USE ONLY CONTRACTOR PROPRIETARY

 

I I

2 Cost Methodology 2.353.,

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
   
    
    

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 
     

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Alia Pu 
lhli?RM?IOh
2.1 Purpose of Estimate I I I I
23 3.1.:
CEPE developed the ICE to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the program as an 22 22 I 2332'51: Govn'c- ic R: or
alternatlve to the current MOX Fuel Fabrication pl?OjeCt for d1sposrtion of 34 MT of surplus Pu. usinfwsir Sums: 
23 3 1.1 'l .
?aming arid 1'33? 5 1
.. 2 .222 m. .. 23.3231 - 2 .
2.2 OverVIew of Estimating Approach View ties?"
This lifecycle estimate was developed in accordance with GAO cost estimating and 2223321331522?i311?
assessmen es prac Ices. es 1111a 18 primari ase on rs orica cos S, ec nica a a, 2,22,22,32, Mr oarMagoo-"i on an: .rr-m at?! 01!
schedules, labor rates, staf?ng pro?les, and vendor quotes that were pr0v1ded by the Of?ce of 2 3
Material Management and Minimization (NA-23) within Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation Open is
during their ongomg L1fe Cycle Cost Estimate (LCCE). HOAwaPrustari 
. an 1 2
In general, CEPE analyzed the end-to-end work?ow of the Pu program to organize the cost ?Farmer" 22222 323-323: to ?2 II ramDu: ?lion
estlmate by function and srte. The cost and schedule analySIS includes the costs to process 34 MT ramp 2, ?5,3233, ??5235?? 1
over the lifecycle of the program (2018-2050). The cost estimating methodology matrix in Table 3? 1? 3 
I I I 213.212
1 below outlmes the cost estnnatmg approach for all of the cost elements. oat? 
Table 1 Dilute and Dispose Work Breakdown Structure on it I- 
Prawnngand 
Frmfam 23.323?2 I 
. Data Sources . Estimating Approach . ?Mina-rm! 1 
23.3.2.1.1, 23.3.2.1.2 . Staging and Surveillance Staffing Calculated based on Labor Rates 
PANTEX Operations . a i 2 I
23.3.2.1.2.1, 23.3.2.1.22, Profile (WIth adiustments) liars usual-trig
23.3.2.1.2.2 Packaging (Pantex to LANL) StaffingIProfile and PANTEX Calculated based on Labor Rates .r or I I
Historical Material Costs (With adiustmentsl 3 I 
23.3.2.2.2.1, 23.3.2.2.2.2 LANL Operations H'Stor'cal Aqua,? 0f ARIES Extrapolation of Actuals Scaling - 2, 93? 3-333?; .2 i 2] 2423
. . . I '9 awaiting; Dent-talus
23.3.2.2.23, 23.3.2.2.2.4 LANL Facilities Historical ActuaIls of ARIES Historical Nuclear Facilities Cost I
Production Growth - 20% I
H?Canyon Operations H-B Line Historical Actuals Extrapolation Of Actuals 8t Scaling 3130:2323; 5130;232:232
. .

23'3'2'3'2'1? 23'3'2'3'2'2' SR5 Operations (K-Area/E-Area) SR5 Operations Staffing Profile Calculated based on Labor Rates
23.3.2323 I adiustments} 223 2 22 
23.3.2.3.1.2,23.3.2.3.2.2 SRS Facilities (K-Area/EArea) Scaled based on KIS Actuals H'Stor'ca' Fac'I't'es 
I Growth - 20%
23.3.2.4.1, 23.3.2.4.2 WIPP Operations mu?? ?f Extrapolation or Actuals a Scaling
Operations 2i 3 2 2 4 2
23.3.1.1.1, 23.3.1.1.2 Program Management and PMI Staffing Requirements Calculated based on Labor Rates P?mn?uxorl
23.3.1.1.3. Integration NEPA Direct Costs [with adiustments)
. . . Analysis and Adjustment of MOX 2 . .
23-3-15 Mo" Te?m'm'on and ?059?? MOX Data Repumosing Data . Figure 1 Pu Disposmon Program Work Breakdown Structure Diagram
233253 Transportation (OST) Historical OST Actuals and Vendor Extrapolation of Actuals With . Quotes 563""2 Adlustements All estimates identify risk ranges for each major element the estimate. The ICE
233,254 (DOE) H'Stc?r'ca' DOE Acme" and ?and? EXt'apc?Iat'O? f?f Acme? W'th identi?es major risk drivers in construction costs, site staf?ng pro?les, transportation, and
Packaging of CCOs and to WIPP Quotes Scaling Adjustements . .
disposal costs.

 

 

 

 

 

 

The actual Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) elements, by function, are depicted in WBS
diagram illustrated in Figure 1 below. A detailed WBS dictionary containing detailed
explanation of each WBS element is available upon request. A list of data sources used for this
estimate is included in Appendix B.

 

 

SPD Dilute and Dispose Option Report 2 April 2018 SPD Dilute and Dispose Option ICE Report 3 April 2018

OFFICIAL USE ONLY CONTRACTOR PROPRIETARY

OFFICIAL USE ONLY CONTRACTOR PROPRIETARY

 

 

 

 

2.3 Estimate Assumptions 1200
. 1000
2.3.1 General Assumptions
- The estimate is based on processing of all 34 MT of Pu, which includes 26.2 MT of surplus 8001:"-
pit Pu from NNSA and 7.8 MT of non-pit Pu from the DOE Of?ce of Environmental E,
Management (DOE-EM) operations. ..
All cost estimates were developed in base year FY2017 dollars.
. The ICE is based on data sources as provided as of March 30, 2018. 400
. The ICE is based on a CD-O maturity level. 209
. Each individual site and operation estimate start from using historical data or projections FISCAL YEAR

 

derived from historical processes. In most cases, the most likely estimate for the ICE

. . . . . . - represents the 50th percentlle of a Monte Carlo Simulation, factorlng in risk and uncertainty

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

for each operation. Figure 2 LANL Oxidation Throughput Table (Ramp up to 1117 per year)
. The LANL unclassi?ed throughput is assumed to be 100 per year from FY18 to FY22

and I 17 per year from FY23 to FY45. This is illustrated in the throughput tables below 1300 .

in Figure 2. A classi?ed annex for the actual LANL throughput is also available. 1000 154? 154? 15? ?54? 15??
. The SRS K-Area dilute and down-blending unclassi?ed throughput is assumed to be 400Kgs 1400

per year in FY26, 820 per year in FY 27 and 1640 per year from FY28 to FY47 for 5200??

both NNSA and DOE-EM material. This is illustrated below in Figure 3. A classi?ed annex a

for the actual SRS throughput is also available. 1000:32_ 
. The use of annual average throughputs for LANL and SRS will adequately account 80" 

variations in production outputDOE-EM Pu oxide will be down-blended in K?Area using existing processes 40%

within the K-Area Interim Surveillance (KIS) program rather than proposed K-Area 200

infrastructure; DOE-EM will use the same line, personnel and infrastructure as planned for FISCALYEAR

6MT of Pu that is part of a separate DOE-EM disposition program (this 6MT disposition is outside of the scope of this estimate.)

- 7.8 MT of DOE-EM Pu oxide will be packaged by NNSA in SRS E-Area on the same cost
basis as 26.2 MT of Pu, or any alternative processing stream for DOE-EM material . .
will result in a Similar cost. 2.3.2 Time Work of Money Assumptions

The major drivers for long?term Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) requirements are

Figure 3 SRS Dilution Throughput Table (Ramp up to 1640 per year)

All cost estimates were developed in FY2017 dollars and converted to Then Year dollars using
the escalation rates shown in Table 2. (Prior year estimates, when used, have been escalated to

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

programs Other than ase erlo usm same ra es. ese esca a 10n ac ors were 0 osen ena irec an
operations COSIS after accurate I(Zonntiarisorigs to the MOX liability audit report. These escalation factors are in line with
others used Within the NNSA complex.
. Overall, the costs for base of site facilities are based on . .
existing processes, actual costs, engineering analysis, and staf?ng profiles funded by the Table 2 Annual Escalation Rates by Site
ownmg program. SiteIActivity Escalation Rate
PANTEX 2%
LANL 4.1%
PMI 2%
K-Area Ops 4%
Other SRS 2%
All Other 2%

 

 

 

 

 

 

SPD Dilute and Dispose Option ICE Report 4 April 2018 SPD Dilute and Dispose Option ICE REPOII 5 April 2018

OFFICIAL USE ONLY CONTRACTOR PROPRIETARY

2.4 Scope

The program provides processing, characterization, and storage capabilities for disposition
and permanent disposal of 34 MT of weapons?usable Pu. This includes 26.2 MT of surplus pit Pu
and 7.8 MT of non?pit Pu from DOE-EM. Figure 4 below illustrates the primary sites responsible
for execution of the program process ?ow associated with the disposition of the 34 MT of
surplus pit and non?pit materials. Surplus pits are staged and managed for surveillance at the
Panhandle of Texas (PANTEX) plant. PANTEX packages the pits and the NNSA Of?ce of
Secure Transportation (OST) delivers them to Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL). LANL
unpacks and disassembles the pits, and then converts the Pu material into Pu oxide. LANL
packages its processed Pu oxide and OST transports this oxide to SRS for staging and dilution
preparation. Separately the non?pit Pu materials are converted to Pu oxide inside H?Canyon or at
an alternative site. The Pu oxide developed from both pit and non-pit Pu material is received at
K-Area in SRS. K-Area performs the ?nal dilution and down-blend operation, and the ?nal
product is readied in E-Area for characterization and packaging. Finally, the diluted Pu oxide is
shipped to the WIPP for permanent disposal by DOE commercial transportation.

 
 
  
 

  

LANL
Pi: My
and Promising

   
 
 

PANTEK
Swim F?it
Management

26.2 MT rmo2

     
  
   
  
 
 
 
   

  
   

   
 
  
  

   
  
   
  

   
  
  
  
 
 
 

  
 

  
   
 
  

02 (onvcmon
5?5 blitz? WIPP
(IL-him] Area] [icdormcai
D?utc! Characterization nelm'tc?ii

   
   
 
 

 
 
  
    

Downbicnd and Packaging Dupoml



585
7-8 MT 

Non-Pit Ouldc
Production

 

Figure 4 Program Process Flow for Disposal of 34 MT of Pu Materials

2.5 Schedule

provided a plan that identi?es the scope, major functions, and timelines that affect the
program. Figure 5 shows the program schedule from FY2018 to FY2050.

FISCAL YEAR

Haj" ?mumPANTEX Pit Storage Surveillance

LANL Oxide Conversion
Non-Pit Oxide Conversion
K-AREA Dilution Process
E-AREA Dilution Characterization

TRANSPORTATION Vehicle Transter to Sites

PACKAGING Material Handling 8- Safety

WIPP Waste Disposal

MOX Termination MIA

Figure 5 Program Schedule

   

OFFICIAL USE ONLY CONTRACTOR PROPRIETARY

3 Cost Element Scope, Estimates. and Methodology

3.1 Cost Estimating High Level Results and Summary

The total cost estimate for the Dilute and Dispose Option is $18.2 billion in Then Year dollars.
This represents the total cost to the DOE Complex for forgoing MOX and implementing Dilute
and Dispose. The high level breakdown by site and operation is presented in Figure 6.

  
   
    

Dilute and Dispose ICE ?To-go? Cost: $18.23 (Range of $17.28 - $19.93)

 

  
 

  
    
    
   

 
 
 

 

 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

LANL
Pu Pits Pit Disassembiy
Man: em nt and Processing
3 02 Conversion DII Dil 
$7.33 {Ii?Area] IE-Area) Geologm
Dilute} Characterization uD Repository
Downblend 34.0 MT and Packaging 34.0 MT DIE :5 I
H-CANYON K-AREA and E-AREAConstruction - $13 $1.23
Non?Pit Oxide I and E-AREA Operations - $4.73 I
Production ?9
$0.33 7.3 MT i=i.io2
PMI: $0.73 I I osr Transportation: $0.23 I I Packaging Shipping $0.73 I I max Closure: $1.05 I

 

 

Figure 6 Dilute and Dispose Cost Breakdown by Site and Operation

The summary of the total cost estimate subcategories are broken down in Table 3 below:

Table 3 Summary of Cost Estimate

Sub-Cat Cost
Scope Area Category Base Year Then Year
Cost Summary 2017 (SM 

LANL Variable Cost 1 604 3 83

LANL Operations LANL Fixed Cost 990 2 025

K?Area E-Area
Operations Scope

K-Area E-Area
Facilities Scope

 

ICE Totals 5 10,645 I 18,173 

 

 

 

SPD Dilute and Dispose Option Report 6 April 2018

SPD Dilute and Dispose Option ICE Report 7 April 2018

 

   

OFFICIAL USE ONLY CONTRACTOR PROPRIETARY OFFICIAL USE ONLY CONTRACTOR PROPRIETARY
3.2 PANTEX Laura-J: I
3-2-1 PANTEX Background 30 - I I I I 
Within the mission, PANTEX will manage surplus pit materials and package and ship 20 I 
them to LANL for disassembly and conversion to a form suitable for the approachpits will be packaged into an approved Type container for transport to LANL. PANTEX will need to establish and maintain the packaging lme(s) for the (Type B) container approved replace the FL container. PANTEX will perform the annual maintenance as required by the 

Type container Safety Analysis Report for Packaging (SARP). This project will include Figure 8 RANTEX Staffing Profile (October 2017)

establishing and maintaining the capabilities to perform themalntenance act1v1t1es. The pits and 32.2.3 ANTEX Composite Labor Rates

containers are, as required, part of the storage sample surveillance plan. Storage sample

surveillance is ongoing. This project will include the scope for maintaining these The composite labor rates PANTEX provided, displayed in Table 4, were applied to the staf?ng
capabilities. profile displayed in Figure 8 based on a ten?hour work day at four days per week.

3'2'2 PANTEX EStImate and Results Table 4 PANTEX Composite Annual Labor Rates by Cost Functions

?Contractor Proprietary"

 

3.2.2.1 PANTEX Cost Estimating Process

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PANTEX Cost Elements Labor Rates
Figure 7 provides a process ?ow illustrating how the PANTEX operations cost estimates were program Support (FY16-FY46) program Management 9 462,322
developed: Program Support - Project Initialization 5 312,508
Program Support - During Project Operation 5 348,033
0:22:5015 Applied Mea?gpi?dwork .- Total PANTEX Total ANTEX SurpiusSPJI: Slurvs?itllance- (annual cost) 5 396,196
. Operations Cost . Operations Cost ?5 3 242579
Data Source: Labor Rates Shift Factor Estimate . Estimate Maintain Infrastructure for Surplus Pit Surveillance 332,244
Manpower Profile (Based on (?175) - (W5) Maintain Infrastructure for Surplus Pit Transfer to/from Bay 3 308,278
I - Ops Project~Major Maintenance-Monitoring Sensors 448,909
Ops Project-Major Maintenance {continuous} 522,186
Project-Setup Packing Lines #1 and #2 217,696
Risk Analysis Surplus Pit Packing typical Day/Swing Shift - All Lines (Variable Shifts} 394,008
Determine Container Maintenance, Refurbishment and Recertification 428,963
Mean: Shift Factor Support for Shipments 300,760
Parameters Refurbish Packing Line 2 5 458,092

 

 

 

 

 

(0.9 to 1.5)

3.2.2.4 PANTEX Operations Risk

Risk analysis for PANTEX operations is based on a triangular distribution of scaling factors
3.2.2.2 PANTEX Starting Point applied to the effort estimate, shown in Table 5. Low represents the assumed realization of
opportunities for ef?ciency from the starting point. The point estimate requires the addition of a
?fth day of shift work (adding 25% to the initial estimate). The high requires the addition of a
fifth and sixth day of shift work (adding 50% to the initial estimate).

Figure 7 PANTEX Cost Estimating Process Flow

The primary data source for the PANTEX operations estimate was the staf?ng pro?le provided
by the NA-23 program of?ce that shows Full Time Equivalents (FTEs) required for surplus pit
management, surplus pit surveillance, packaging and shipment and other functions necessary to

 

 

 

 

 

operate on a 10 hour work day schedule at four days per week. This staf?ng pro?le, shown in Table 5 - PANTEX Operations Extra Shift Parameter (Triangular 
Figure 8, shows a ramp up from approximately 18?22 FTEs to approximately 30- 42 FTEs. This
FTE staf?ng pro?le is based on labor shifts of 40 hours per week from FY2018 to FY2046. Triangular Parameter Scaling Factor

Low 0.9

Point 1.25

High 1.5

50% Confidence 1.22

 

 

 

 

 

 

SPD Dilute and Dispose Option ICE Report 8 April 2018 SPD Dilute and Dispose Option ICE Report 9 April 2018

3.2.2.5 PANTEX Operations Cost Estimate

After applying risk and running a Monte Carlo model, the scaling value at the 50th percentile
was determined to be 1.22 for additional labor. This factor was applied to the calculated staf?ng
pro?le and multiplied by the associated PANTEX labor rates. This resulted in a total most likely
cost estimate of in FY2017 dollars. The total cost in Then Year dollars over the time
period is This is summarized in Table 6.

Table 6 PANTEX Operations Total Cost

OFFICIAL USE ONLY CONTRACTOR PROPRIETARY

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PANTEX FY2017 Then Year
0 erations Cost Summary (SM) (SM)
'0 PANTEX Operations 5 441 612
3.3 LANL

3.3.1 LANL Background

3.3.1.1 LANL Process and Scope

The oxidation process used for pit Pu in will be similar to the existing Advanced Recovery
and Integrated Extraction System (ARIES) capability at LANL that processes both and Pu, as
shown in Figure 9. This includes the receipt of surplus pits from PANTEX, the disassembly of
the surplus pits, the staging and storage of material, and the conversion of the Pu pit material to
oxide as well as the characterization and packaging of oxide into a 9977 container for transport
to SRS. Further descriptions of ARIES operations are provided in Appendix C.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

OFFICIAL USE ONLY CONTRACTOR PROPRIETARY

. Oxidation: Four new furnaces (in addition to the two existing Direct Metal Oxidation 
and two existing muf?e furnaces) two DMO and two muf?e furnaces

. Packaging: One new automated packaging system, similar to the current Robotic Integrated
Packaging System (RIPS)

. electro?decontamination: One new system

. Trunk lines and a transfer glovebox to facilitate material movement

. Radiography: One new radiography system

0 Inline Storage: Two new material staging gloveboxes with engineered features

Two new blending gloveboxes

- Decommissioning and Decontamination of an existing room that would be taken over by the
ARIES program for new installations

. Two new buildings: An Operations Warehouse/Mock-Up Facility/Machine Shop and a
Logistics Support Center

3.3.1.2 LANL Operations History .

The first certi?ed oxide lot of 242 kg was achieved in FY2011. Shipment of certi?ed oxide to
SRS for long-term storage started in FY2012. In July of 2013, operations paused and the
facility?s ability to produce new oxide was halted. In 2014 and 2015, LANL continued work to
complete formal readiness/restart requirements. In 2016, LANL re-entered operations on all but
one ARIES component (DMO-2 furnace) and disassembled pits for the ?rst time in more than
two years. Table 7 summarizes the actual historical annual kilograms of Pu that were converted
to oxide from FY201 to FY2017.

Table 7 History of ARIES Plutonium Oxide Production

 

 

 

 

Stole Load 99.13 
Put Staging Io: Pu I. In .1 Duane Pu Metal Inc 09W lung. Ploducls and Shipping
Staging (DI-10 or Ruffle) Staging Analysis Other Containing
Hat-rials
14.
one
1 
Receive Materials uranium Store Load Slur-Dino Store Loaded
5 ?If? U: anium 01min Package-9.31m Products and Stopping
Decomammation Ollie! Contams
Haterwts

 

 

 

1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I

 

 

 

 

Predicts
9m Pu and 01M
materials

I Legend urn?maswommon 

?r-Iusns

 

 

 

 

med - Assay Man?)

_pg out SGT Wadi Imam?: Urun 
'33? 5M: - 59cm um: mm
5115 - Sum-mt: Rim Sate


v.1;l_ 1:1: Hut-mar Semycm?e-

?u 00*

 

 

 

Figure 9 Advanced Recovery and Integrated Extraction System (ARIES) Flow

All LANL operations for are planned for the Plutonium Facility?4 (PF-4). ARIES currently
occupies 7.5% of the facility floor space, primarily in two wings of the building. According to
LANL, this floor space would increase to approximately 12% for the approach and would
utilize space in the same or nearby rooms to minimize material movement requirements. The
following major installation projects are needed to produce the planned throughput:

. Disassembly: Four new lathes one ?simple? lathe currently in process, one additional
simple lathe, and two full-capability lathes

 

SPD Dilute and Dispose Option Report 10 April 2018

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Fiscal Year AnnuaITarget for kg Pu Actual Annual kg Pu History
Converted to Oxide Converted to Oxide
2011 200 242 First Certified Oxide
2012 150 200 Second Certified Oxide
2013 150 150 Certified Remaining from 2011 and 2012 Inventory
2014 50 25 Certified Remaining from 2011 and 2012 Inventory
2015 50 50 Certified Remaining from 2011 and 2012 Inventory
2016 0 0 Did not produce or Certifiy any Oxide
2017 100 100 First Converted Oxide of Re-Start

 

From an historical perspective, the operations in FY2011 represent the greatest ef?ciency within
the ARIES project when the maximum of 242 kg was produced.

 

SPD Dilute and Dispose Option ICE Report 11 April 2018

OFFICIAL USE ONLY CONTRACTOR PROPRIETARY

3.3.2 LANL Cost Estimate Development and Results

3.3.2.1 LANL Cost Estimating Process

Figure 10 provides a process flow illustrating how the LANL Operations, Spares and Facilities
cost estimates were developed:

LANL OPERATIONS LANL SPARING LANL FACILITIES

rvzohiggmes 0&0 Adjustment LANL Sparing LANL Facilities
FY17 Spend Plan Cost Data Cost Data

FY17 Spend Plan 534.034 Program Office Plan

Conducted

Analysis on Historical
NSE Facilities

FIXED (Annual) VARIABLE (Annual) LIKE


11' ha I . Historical Nuclear

15 na . . .

Removed Spares Based on Fac'l't'es
FY2011 (242Kgs)

FY2017 (100Kgs)

Not Used Cost Growth 20.4%

Applied Growth
FIXED Annual Mean Annual Cost Factor 
Phasing Profile (per 100kgs} To LANL Facilities

based on VARIABLE Cost Data



 

Total Lifecycle Total Lifecycle Total Lifecycle
Operatit)ms SPARES Cost FACILITIES Cost
FY17S
VARIABLE Cost I I
(FY175)

Total Lifecycle
LANL Operations
FSXED Cost
(FY17S)

Total Lifecycle Total Lifecycle
Cost Profile Adjusted for Realistic Ramp-up SPARES Cost FACILITIES Cost
(TYS) 52.387111 (TVS)

Total Lifecycle
LANL Operations
(26,200Kgs}
VARIABLE Cost


Total Lifecycle
LANL Operations
FIXED Cost
(TVS)

Figure 10 LANL Cost Estimating Process Flow
3.3.2.2 LANL Operations Cost Estimate DeveIOpment

3.3.2.2.1 LANL Operations Cost Starting Point

The primary data source for the LANL operations cost was the FY2017 spend plan summarized
in the ARIES Oxide Production Program Management Plan (PMP) issued on March 24, 2017.
The PMP was for the ARIES Oxide Production Program in FY2017, which aimed to support the
NA-23 program by disassembling and converting 100 kg of Pu metal to certi?ed Pu oxide for the
initial operations of the for the current MOX project and process. The FY2017 spend plan
for the MOX program for FY2017 totaled In order to develop the ICE, the spend plan
data point had to be adjusted for scope. This was accomplished by removing analytic
chemistry, which is a MOX unique operation, taking an assumed 75% of the MOX cost for

 

OFFICIAL USE ONLY CONTRACTOR PROPRIETARY

packaging and 25% of the MOX cost for This resulted in an adjusted spend plan total of
for broken out by ?xed variable and Non-Recurring 
cost. This is summarized in Figure 11 below:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MOX 
FY 17 MOX Spend Plan - Functional Area Scone Scone
Program Management 2.05 2.05
Adjusted for mm. Support 5 1.43 5 L43
ThroughputAnalysis 0.67 0.67
Imass Projects 0.20 0.20
MOX 
Functional Area Scope Scope Process Equipment Engineering Support 5 1.89 1.89
Produce 0A Documentation for Blots [58 thru 661 0.45 0.45 Production Planning and Control 5 1.20 1.20
Material Ship and Receiving 8 lots (58 thru 66] 0.47 0.47 Records Managementr'Document ControllTraining 0.96 0.96
Pit Dissassembly for Blend Cans fer 5 Lots #59, 
#60, #62, #64) 0.37 0.37 Preventive Maintenance 0 86 0 86
Pit Dissassembly for Staffing at 2.3 Million Per Year 
[Derived FTE"8ppl} 2.33 2.33 Analytical Chemistry Suport 0.04 
Perform (9 Blend Lots #55 thru #63] 0.07 0.07 Analytical Chemistry Characterization 1.97 -
FY17 Operations Management Resources 1.91 1.91 Move Material (Blend Lot #56) 0.00 0.00
InstrumentationfCalibration A 0.15 0.15 0.41 0.41
Items Identified for Legacy Processing #61, 
#63 I 0.04 0.04 Spare Parts 1.00 1.00
Pu Conversion of 8 lots
A 0.55 0.55 TA-54 Radioactive Waste Management 5 0.10 5 0.10
Retrieve Materials #61, #62 0.06 0.05 TA-55 Infrastructure Management 5 5.76 5.76
Pu Conversion Resources 3.58 3.53 Criticality Safety Support 5 0.50 0.50
Packaging Oxide Blending [Lots 55 thru 63) 0.45 5 0.3 Legacy Inventory Risk Reduction 2.20 2.20
FY17 Packaging Resources-NEW HIRE 2.18 1.6 Totals 21.3 19.3
Lot 62 Weld Verification Report . 0.02 0.0
Non Destructive Essay 0.29 0.3 Functional Area 55 SS
Sample SR5 OPLOT56 -SR1 and {Lots 55 thru 63} 0.16 - Second Parting Lathe Installation 0.62 0.52
Perform Oxide Characterization [#55 thru #63} 0.25 0.1 Process Equipment Engineering Support FY17 1.10 1.10
Perform Batch and Simple Blend [#55 thru #63] 0.32 0.1 Muffle Furnance - Production Updates - NRE 0.29 0.29
Sieve and Mill thru #63] 5 0.24 0.1 DMD-3 Furnance - NRE 0.25 0.25
Totals 5 13.9 12.5 Totals 5 2.3 2.3

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 11 FY 2017 LANL Spend Plan (100 kgs) for MOX
?Contractor Proprietary" Data Source: Y2017 Spend Plan of (March 2017)

3.3.2.2.2 LANL Operations Variable Cost Starting Point

As discussed in the LANL Operations History (Section 3.3.1.2), the two best data points for
ARIES history are the ?rst year of operations (FY2011) and the most recent year as of this
analysis (FY2017). The FY2017 adjusted variable cost of per year represents the high
cost because it included restarted operations with unoptimized processes and limited equipment
upgrades to produce 100 of Pu oxide. The FY2011 actuals with realized ef?ciencies would
allow 100 of Pu oxide to be produced using operations for which provides a
lower cost than the FY2017 scenario. This is summarized in Table 8 below:

Table 8 FY2017 LANL Cost per 100 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Data Type FY2011 Actuals FY2017 Actuals
Efficiency Level Realized Efficiencies Inefficient Processes
of Pu Oxide Produced 242 100 
Total Variable Cost $12.5 $12.5
Cost per 100 Kg $5.2 $12.5

 

The 201 1 scenario yields per 100Kgs and the 2017 scenario yields per 100Kgs.
These data points were used as the basis for the analysis.

 

 

SPD Dilute and Dispose Option ICE Report 12 April 2018

SP0 Dilute and Dispose Option ICE Report 13 April 2018

OFFICIAL USE ONLY CONTRACTOR PROPRIETARY

3.3.2.2.3

LANL Operations Variable Cost Risk Analysis

Risk analysis for the LANL operations is based on realized actuals from the ARIES program, a
predecessor to the operations that will take place to support either MOX or operations. A
normal distribution was developed based on amount of kilograms per year that could be bought
with The following four parameters were used in the risk analysis:

(1) will produce 100 based on the FY2017 ARIES conditions.

(2) will produce 242 based on the FY2011 ARIES conditions.

(3) will produce 278 based on the FY2011 ARIES conditions plus an
ef?ciency of 15% realized yielding an additional 36 of Pu oxide production.

(4) will produce an assumed 194 based on a failure to meet full ef?ciency target
for the FY2011 Scenario. This is due to an assumed ?fth day labor shift to meet the 242
target. The additional funding would be based on an additional 10 hour shift of labor
which would total ($12.5 25%) to meet the 242 target.

The summary of the aforementioned parameters are summarized below in Table 9:

Table 9 Scaling Parameters for Oxide Production Normal Distribution

 

 

 

FY2011 FY2011 . FY2011 Adding
Data Type 15% New Actuals Funding FY2017 Actuals
Efficiencies For Extra Shift
Dollars will 278Kgs 242 194Kgs 100Kgs
Produce:
Cost per 100 Kg $4.5 $5.2 $6.4 $12.5

 

 

 

 

 

Normal Parameters:

 

Mean: 204 
Standard Deviation: 4.1 

Mean Scaling produces 100Kgs for


 

 

Since it is not yet known how much MOX-speci?c operations will be reduced in the transition
from ARIES to the team applied also applied a uniform distribution to a scaling factor in
the adjusted spend plan (Figure The factors are based on Subject Matter Expert (SME)
input from performing LANL personnel. Table 10 shows the ranges used within the risk analysis.

Table 10 ARIES Operations Uniform Distribution

 

Operation

Uniform Range

Mean

 

Packaging

50%-100% of ARIES cost

75% DIARIES cost

 

Pu Characterization

 

 

0%-50% of ARIES cost

 

25% of ARIES cost

 

 

3.3.2.2.4

LANL Operations Variable Cost Estimate

The result of the normal distribution is that 100Kgs of Pu oxide could be produced for of
variable cost on average. Based 011 this parameter, the total variable operations cost per 100kgs
of Pu oxide is per year from FY18 to FY22 and per year from FY23 to FY45.
This is illustrated in the LANL throughput table, Figure 12 below.

OFFICIAL USE ONLY CONTRACTOR PROPRIETARY

 

per year (1117kgs)

 

 

 

 

 

 

I

I per year(100KgsFigure 12 LANL Operations Variable Cost per Year

result, the total variable operations cost estimate is from FY18 to FY22 and 
from FY23 to FY45 in FY2017 dollars. These calculations are displayed in Table 11 below.

Table 11 LANL Operations Variable Cost Total 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3.3.2.2.5

LANL Operations Fixed Cost Estimate

Total Planned Annual Variable Total Variable
Factor
Timeline Years per Total (B) Cost (5M) Cost (SM)
(A) Year (C) 
FY18 to FY22 5 100 500 1.00 6.1 31
FY23 to FY45 23 1117 25700 11.17 6.1 1,573
Total 1,604

Fixed costs were phased and calculated based on the LANL program management phasing plan
showing ?xed costs ramping up from a factor of IX to 2.5X, as seen in Figure 13. The FY2017
spend plan shown in Figure 11 breaks out a ?xed cost of for MOX ARIES operations.
Processes that will be reduced or removed for were remove from the fixed cost estimate,
and sparing is broken out separately in Section 3.3.2.2.6. This adjustment resulted in a total ?xed
cost of as the ?xed cost basis. Applying the annual scaling factor to the annual FY2017
?xed cost of$19.3M results in a total cost of in FY2017 dollars over the lifecycle.

 

 

SPD Dilute and Dispose Option ICE Report

14

April 2018

SPD Dilute and Dispose Option ICE Report

15

April 2018

OFFICIAL USE ONLY CONTRACTOR PROPRIETARY

 

 

 

 

 

3 LANL Program Management Ramp Up Scaling
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5





Figure13-Scaling Profile Based on LANL Program Management Phasing Plan
3.3.22.6 LANL Spares CostEstimate

The cost from FY18 to FY22 are per year in FY2017 dollars. The cost from FY23 to
FY45 are per year in FY2017 dollars. The total cost over the lifecycle is in
FY2017 dollars and in Then Year dollars. The year-to?year cost is displayed in Figure 14

OFFICIAL USE ONLY CONTRACTOR PROPRIETARY

 

 

Re-profiled LANL Operations Annual Cost 
$140
$120
$100
3380
.9
"$560
$40
$20
5.





 

 

 

Figure 15 - LANL Operations Annual Cost after Re-profiling 

Table 12 below shows the resulting total cost for LANL Operations.
Table 12 LANL Operations Total Cost

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

FY2017 Then Year
Cost Summary (SM) (SM)
LANL LANLVariable Cost 5 1,604 5 3,283
Operations LANL Fixed Cost 5 990 2,026
LANLSpares Cost 5 26 54
Total LANL Operations Cost 2,620 5,363

 

 

 

 

below:
LANL Spares (Base Year 2017) - Dollars SK
$1,000
$800
$600
$400
$200
5.
3223323222233:33333333833933

Figure 14 LANL Operation Spares Phasing Profile
3.3.2.2.7 LANL Operations Cost Profile Adjustment

The assumption of constant throughput for the variable cost does not represent a realistic ramp-
up of LANL operations. To ensure a defensible escalation and cost pro?le, the resulting base
year cost for LANL operations (consisting of LANL Variable, LANL Fixed and LANL Spares)
was re-pro?led based on a costing pro?le provided by this avoids classi?cation issues
caused by using the true throughput plan. This results in the annual cost pro?le shown in Figure
15.

 

 

 

3.3.2.3 LANL Facilities Cost Estimate Development

3.3.2.3.1 LANL Facilities Starting Point

Table 13 below shows the plan that identi?es PF-4 equipment modi?cations and upgrades
required to meet the desired throughput requirements based on the classi?ed feed table. All
planned costs include material, labor, and other direct costs needed to accomplish project needs
from FY2021 to FY2026.

 

 

SPD Dilute and Dispose Option Report 16 April 2018

SPD Dilute and Dispose Option ICE Report 17 April 2018

OFFICIAL USE ONLY CONTRACTOR PROPRIETARY

Table 13 LANL Equipment and Facility Modification List (FY2017 dollars)
?Contractor Proprietary?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3.3.2.3.2

LANL Facilities Cost Risk

 

 

Technical 8: Totals Cost Totals Cost
Equipment INStallatlon Plan Totals Programmatic Management (Before Cost Growth (After
(MILLIONS OF DOLLARS) (SM). Contingency Reserve Growth) Application Growth)
Comprehensive Pit Disassembly Lathe #$37
Simple Pit Disassembly Lathe #2 $26 $6 $6 $39 $8 $47
Install 2 new Muf?e Furnaces in a New Glovebox $20 $5 $5 $30 $6 $36
New can Crimper and Bag out GB $6 $2 $2 $9 $2 $11
Uranium Decontamination System #2 $10 $3 $3 $16 $3 $19
Trunklines in New ARIES Room $45 $11 $11 $68 $14 $82
Install 4 Material Entry Hoods (XBs) $8 $2 $12 $3 $15
Inline Storage Giovebox #1 $23 $6 $6 $35 $7 $42
Uranium PrecipitatiorilStaging GB $14 $4 $4 $21 $4 $26
Comprehensive Pit Dissassembly Lathe #$37
lnline Storage Gioyebox #2 (Main Room) $18 $5 $5 $28 $6 $33
New Blending Glovebox #2 (New Room) $9 $2 $2 $13 $3 $16
Transfer Gloyebox for DMO 5 $9 $2 $2 $13 $3 $16
Engineering Support During Design Construction $23 $6 $6 $34 $7 $41
SPD Warehouse $17 $4 $4 $26 $5 $31
Logistics Support Center $49 $12 $12 $74 $15 $89
LANL Deactivation $183 $46 $46 $275 $0 $275
0&0 Gioveboxes (Design, PM, Demo 8 Removal) $43 $11 $11 $65 $0 $65
Other Major Equipment Replacement $132 $33 $33 $199 $0 $199
Totals ($114) $1,093 $113 $1,206

 

 

 

Based on the seven data points that were pulled out of the Project Assessment and Reporting
System 11 (PARS II) database, the analysis shows that nuclear facilities costs have grown around
20.4%. This increase was determined by taking the average cost growth of seven nuclear

facilities projects (as a percentage) and testing them against a number of potential curves and
curve shapes to determine the best ?t to predict equipment/installation cost growth. The seven
nuclear facilities are summarized in Table 14.

Table 14 Completed Facilities and Realized Growth

 
 

Cost Actuals 

Original
Cost Delta (5K) Difference

HistoricaIFacilit orS ro' 
l? Estimate (SK) (SK)

 

OFFICIAL USE ONLY CONTRACTOR PROPRIETARY

potential curves and curve shapes to determine the best fit for the data. The best ?t (based on
minimizing Sum of Squared Error, or SSE) was a Weibull curve, as shown in Figure 16. This
methodology was also applied to facility upgrade projects for SRS K-Area as described in
Section 0 and SRS E-Area as described in Section 3.4.2.6.2.

Construction Cost Growth


0.35 
Weibull Parameters

3? 0?3 Alpha: 1.929
0,25 Beta: 28.84%
(D
?3 0.2
o.

0.15

0.3 

0.05



3?9" :55? 6" 19'" 65:" 4P: 4.5" o?yxcf?gs?)? 

to 
0? 03'


Percentage Growth

Figure 16 Construction Cost Growth Actuals and Fitted Weibull

3.3.2.3.3 LANL Facilities Cost Estimate

The growth factor was applied to the major equipment purchases within the SPD
Warehouse, and the Logistics Support Center projects, which originally had an FY2017 cost of
This resulted in a total cost of The 20.4% growth factor was not applied to
LANL deactivation, planned major equipment upgrades and the design, program management,
demo and removal of the gloveboxes which totaled in FY2017 dollars. A
comprehensive breakdown of this cost breakdown is shown in Table 13. Adding the unadjusted
and adjusted items results in total cost for LANL facility upgrades of in FY2017 dollars
and in Then Year dollars.

3.3.2.4 LANL Total Costs (Operations, Spares, and Facility Upgrades)

The costs for LANL operations, sparing and equipment installation total in Then Year
dollars from FY2018 to FY2046, as shown in Table 15.

Table 15 LANL Total Cost

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Nuclear Facility Risk Reduction 6 75,790. 70,190 (6) 
Low Liquid Waste Facilty 82,694 90,000 7 8.8%
Tritium Extraction Facility 506,439 709,307 203 40.1%
Waste Solidification Building 278,187 384,000 106 38.0%
Sodium Bearing Waste Treatment Facility 461,600 663,311 202 43.7%
Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Replacement

Facility Radiological Laboratory, Utility, and Office 363,000 396,400 33 9.2%
Building (RLUOB) and Rad Lab Equipment Install (REI)

TRU Waste Facility Staging Facility Phases A and 106,864 106,864 0 0.0%

 

 

 

The cost growth of 20.4 in the historical facilities was then determined by taking the average
actual cost growth for each project as a percentage, and testing the data against a number of

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SPD Dilute and Dispose Option Report

18

April 2018

FY2017 The Year
Cost Summary (SM) (SM)
LANL Total LANL Operations 5 2,620 5,363
LANL Facilities 1,206 2,387
Total LANL Cost 3,826 7,750
SPD Dilute and Dispose Option Report 19 April 2018

 

OFFICIAL USE ONLY CONTRACTOR PROPRIETARY

3.4 SRS

3.4.1 SRS Background

3.4.1.1 SRS Scope

SRS provides operations necessary to facilitate disposition of all 34 MT of surplus Pu
oxide material with inert materials, packaging the diluted material into approved shipping
containers, and transporting the shipping containers to WIPP, Where they would be placed in the
underground panels for permanent disposal. NNSA would be responsible for processing 26.2 MT
of pit Pu oxide in K-Area and managing E-Area characterization and packaging for all 34MT of
surplus Pu. DOE-EM would be responsible for conversion of remaining non-pit Pu metal to
oxide in H-Canyon or at an alternative site, processing 7.8 MT of non-pit Pu materials within the
K?Area Interim Surveillance (KIS) infrastructure, and cost of E-Area characterization and
packaging for 7.8MT of material. Figure 17 illustrates the responsibilities.

 

25.2 MT Poo8
WIN)

         
    

  

Diluted SRS Diluted
595 PUG: [E-Area}

{It-Area] -
cturacte?za?on
Dilute/Downblend and 

  

To WIPP

SR5
H-CANYON
Non-Pit Oxide

Production 7?8 MT 

 

 

 

Figure 17 NNSA and DOE-EM SRS Scope

DOE-EM would be responsible for:

. All current and ?iture operations, maintenance, infrastructure, and security costs of 
owned facilities in HB-Line, K-Area, and E-Area to support EM missions at SRS
. Oxide conversion, down-blending dilution) and waste characterization of non-pit
materials at SRS
NNSA would be responsible for:
0 New equipment installed in K-Area and E-Area Via line item construction projects and
general plant projects

. Incremental labor and non-labor to operate, maintain, and support down-blending, interim
storage, and waste characterization of pit materials

. Third?party infrastructure and veri?cation costs for K-Area and E-Area (pit and non-pit
materials)

. Performance-based security upgrades at E-Area, demolition removal of NA?23-installed
equipment in E?Area and K-Area, and return to current state

3.4.1.2 SRS Process

1. The Pu oxide shipping containers would be brought out of storage into the process room
and opened; the cans containing the Pu oxide would be removed and transferred into a
glovebox in K-Area.

OFFICIAL USE ONLY CONTRACTOR PROPRIETARY

2. Once in a glovebox, the cans would be opened. A can puncture device would vent the
cans and enable gas sampling for certain cans in the Pu container surveillance program.

3. The Pu oxide would be placed in the new can along with the dry inhibitor material used
to dilute the Pu. The cans would be sealed in vented cans and then mechanically
manipulated to further homogenize their contents.

4. The cans would be removed from the glovebox, assayed, and then packaged into a
Criticality Control Over-Pack (CCO), with two cans in each CCO.

5. The CCO would be transferred to an area for ?nal characterization and certi?cation for
disposal at a geologic repository.

The process at SRS is illustrated in Figure 18.

 



 

Jr! ?1 [W?hu?c
mull If?ll" IIJ I

In. tuning-d
w} urn-v1.
kiwi-"I pa. .-

I 

 

 

 

Characterize and Certify

. i.
K.

7?
non
3:547

IISIE mums Hit-ram . 

    

Measure Oxide for Dilution Geological Waste Disposal

Figure 18 SRS Dilute and Dispose Process Flow

3.4.1.3 SRS Equipment Installation Requirements

NNSA plans to install three gloveboxes located inside of the ?nal storage area, a continuous air
monitoring system, a nuclear incident monitoring system, an active con?nement ventilation
system, a gaseous suppression system, ?re protection/detection equipment, a staging room, and
other miscellaneous equipment upgrades. These equipment upgrades are needed to meet desired
throughput.

3.4.1.4 K-Area (SRS) Complex

The K-Area Complex (KAC) provides operations for the handling and interim storage of the
surplus Pu and other special nuclear materials (SNM) as well as ful?lls the US commitment to
international nonproliferation efforts in a safe and environmentally sound manner. Pu materials
shipped to KAC are sealed inside DOE standard 3013 containers that are nested in robust, state-

 

 

SPD Dilute and Dispose Option ICE Report 20 April 2018

SPD Dilute and Dispose Option ICE Report 21 April 2018

 

OFFICIAL USE ONLY CONTRACTOR PROPRIETARY

of-the-art, certi?ed shipping packages called 9975s and 9977s. Prior to being packaged at the
other sites, the Pu is stabilized in accordance with established standards for safe transportation

and storage.

For operations, K-Area will include two separate lines for dilution of Pu Oxide; 
material will run through the existing KIS line, while 26.2MT of pit Pu will run through a new
NNSA K-Area line.

3.4.1.5 E-Area (SR8) Complex

E-Area at SRS is used for the storage and disposal of waste materials. The SRS solid waste
facility in E-Area has routinely processed transuranic (TRU) waste for WIPP, but additional
staf?ng and retooling are required to expand upon the operations to dilute Pu contents.

The fundamental process requires nondestructive assay (NDA) measurement by certi?ed
instruments, procedures, and personnel to demonstrate that the diluted Pu contents meet
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and New Mexico Environment Department (NMED)
criteria for disposal at WIPP. If all regulatory requirements are met, the diluted Pu will be
received to E-Area in CCOs, characterized to meet the WIPP Waste Acceptance criteria, then
packaged and shipped to WIPP.

Three primary activities included as part of characterization and packaging operations are 1)
interim storage, (2) certification and (3) packaging shipping. Each of these activities is
proposed to be conducted in E-Area at SRS.

Additional E-Area scope will include the following:

. Expand interim storage to encompass seven additional waste pads within E?Area perimeter:
Increased scope to stage 10,000-12,000 CCO containers and provide services necessary
for processing 6,000?7,000 CCO containers per year at peak rate
Five to six pads will be used for characterization and packaging operations, and an
additional pad would modi?ed to add characterization and packaging equipment
. Additional storage structure and security system
. More fencing, barriers, detection and monitoring equipment, and fire protection equipment
. Necessary retooling to expand existing operations
. Additional staf?ng, trucks, and forklifts

3.4.1.6 H-CanyoanB-Line (SRS) Complex

H-Canyon processes liquid waste streams associated with HB-Line operations. HB-Line is
located on top of H-Canyon and is the only chemical processing facility of its kind in the DOE
Complex. The facility was built in the early 19805 to support the production of Pu-238, which is
a power source for the nation?s deep space exploration program, and to recover legacy materials
stored in H-Canyon.

HB-Line has three process lines. Phase I is the scrap recovery processing line. Phase II is the
production line for Pu and neptunium oxides. Phase was originally the Pu-238 oxide
production line, but is now used to prepare surplus Pu and materials for disposition.

For H-Canyon supports non-pit production by dissolving Pu metal and by processing
liquid waste streams generated by HB-Line aqueous operations. The HB?Line facility provides
the capability for producing Pu oxide from the Pu solution that results from the dissolution in 

OFFICIAL USE ONLY CONTRACTOR PROPRIETARY

Canyon. Once sampled and packaged for storage, the HB-Line Pu oxide product is transferred to
K-Area. Cost scope will include:

. Continuous preparation of Pu oxide in H-Canyon and HB?Line
. Annual maintenance for 9975 and 9977 shipping packaging

. Additional scope of work centered on capacity, reliability, packaging improvements, and
emergent process requirements

3.4.2 SRS Cost Estimate Development and Results

3.4.2.1 SRS Cost Estimating Process

Figure 19 below provides a process ?ow illustrating how the SRS operations cost estimates were
developed:

 

K-AREA PROCESS

Kv?Area Applied Risk- Applied Risk
Staffing Plan Adjusted FTE Adjusted
252 MT Scaling Factor Labor Rates

Risk Analysis

Effort Factor TOTAL K-Area TOTAL K-Area

Range K-Area Operations Costs Operations Costs
(1.00 to 1.42] Labor Rates $1,348?! 
(FY17S) (TVS)

KIS Staffing based . . .
on K-Area Plan RISK Applied Risk

Adjusted for Adjusted FTE Adjusted
7 8 MT Scaling Factor Labor Rates

Risk Analysis
Effort Factor
Range
(1.16 to 1.56)

 

K-AREA Conducted Historical Applied Growth Total R-AREA Total 
Facilities analysis an Cost Growth Factor Cost Facrlities Cost
Cost Data N55 20 4? To K?Area 

FaC'I't?es 0 Facilities Data (?175) 

 

 

E-AREA PROCESS

EvArea Hm? Applied TOTAL EArea TOTAL E-Area
51mins Fla" Adjusmd Operations Costs Operations Costs

Staffing Plan Adjusted for Scaling Factor 5
. 51.53%?
26.2 MT 34.0 MT and Risk Adjusted (W175) 

Labor Rates

Risk Analysis RiSk Analysis Characterization
Shift Factor Range E-Area Cast to
(1.00 to 1.42) Labor Rates per year)

 

Conducted Historical Applied Growth Total E-AREA Total E-AREA

E-AREA 0 Facilities Cost Facilities Cost
Facilities Cost Growth Fem" (20-46)
Historical NSE

Cost Data

Facilities

To E-Area 
20-496 Facilities Data (H175) 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SPD Dilute and Dispose Option ICE Report 22 April 2018

SPD Dilute and Dispose Option ICE Report 23 April 2018

OFFICIAL USE ONLY CONTRACTOR PROPRIETARY

 

H-CANYON PROCESS

Risk Adjusted Total H-Canvon Total H-Canyon
am ost per Mean Value Operations Costs Operations Costs

53?" "3 5309'? ?175) SEN (TVS)

H-Canyon Actuals

FY12 to FY17
(6 years]

 

 

PMIPROCESS 

Meanmwork 

. :I?aaedw?iik - 

  

. ?'lskAnaiVSlS
FTEScaling' . 


 

 

 

Figure 19 SRS Dilute and Dispose Cost Estimating Process Flow
3.4.2.2 K-Area Operations (SRS)
3.4.2.2.1 K-Area (SRS) Operations Starting Point

The primary data source for the K-Area operations estimate was the staf?ng pro?le required for
NNSA to dilute and dispose 26.2 MT of Pu oxide transported from LANL to SRS. This staf?ng
pro?le was provided by the program of?ce and is based on 3 eight hours shifts, operating
24 hour a day, 7 days per week, using two operational gloveboxes inside K?Area. Table 16
shows the staf?ng pro?le.

Table 16 K-Area Staffing Profile 26.2 MTs (October 2017)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


It-AreaOperatlonsSea-pe Total 311045 47 43 49 so
Progmmnagemem Receive a 
Downblend 1151 34 34 so so so 0 
Assay 547 Staslre 
FaclIItvSuppor?t 1301 SurveillanceandMalntenance MaiorMaimena-ice 
IAEA Deaalvatlon 
Total 4245 103129 154164135191 135 92 1 1 

3.4.2.2.2 K-Area (SRS) Adjustment for DOE EM Material in KIS

The raw data set shown in Table 16 is based on the staf?ng pro?le to dilute and dispose
of 26.2 MT with a ramp-up to a steady-state FTE count of 185. In order to estimate staf?ng for
KIS operations for disposal of DOE-EM 7.8MT, a scaling factor of 0.30 (7.8 MT) was
applied to each K-Area operations scope item. As a result, the adjusted FTE pro?le for NNSA
and KIS operations shows a steady state starting point of 241 FTEs prior to risk adjustments.

 

SPD Dilute and Dispose Option ICE Report 24 April 2018

OFFICIAL USE ONLY CONTRACTOR PROPRIETARY

3.4.2.2.3 K-Area and KIS (SRS) Operations Risk

K-Area operations risk is driven by personnel required for operations and labor costs. The
risk estimate for FTEs is based on scaling factors from the SRS-provided staf?ng pro?le and its
variable cost, as shown in Table 17. The contingency-based estimate from the SRS program
of?ce includes two fully staffed gloveboxes running 24 hours a day and 7 days per week
(including a training shift) with a third glovebox in reserve for surge capacity; this is the starting
point (scaling factor of the variable cost per kilogram of Pu in this estimate is per kg
(FY2017 dollars). If the third glovebox is also fully staffed, it would add 30 TES and result in a
16% increase in K-Area personnel (generating a scaling factor of 1.16). KIS has already
performed small?scale down-blending within an existing glovebox using excess staff when
available. The program of?ce projected that the current ad hoc operation could be scaled up to
down?blend 150 per year at an estimated cost of in FY2017. Stripping out in
?xed cost leaves in variable cost, or per kg of Pu; this variable cost is 42% higher
than the K-Area base operation variable cost (generating a scaling factor of 1.42).

Table 17 K-Area FTE Normal Distribution Parameters (applied to 26.2MT)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SRS-provided . .
Variable Cost Shawn? KIS Variable
Third Glovebox
and FTEs FTE Costs
(Starting Point) 5
Variable $26,544 NIA $37,778
Base FTEs 185 215 NIA
Scaling from Starting Point 1.00 1.16 1.42
. Mean: 1.194
Normal Parameters. Standard Deviation: 0.214

 

 

 

 

The resulting scaling factors as determined above were used to develop a normal distribution for
FTE scaling. The mean staf?ng factor of 1.194 was then applied to the 26.2MT staf?ng pro?le.

KIS staf?ng is based on the initial K-Area staf?ng pro?le in Table 16 with a scaling factor of
0.30 (7.8 MT). However, a separate risk pro?le was applied for FTE scaling, as shown
in Table 18. The low estimate is based on the 1.16 midpoint from NNSA K-Area operations as
shown in Table 17. The same scaling factor based on KIS variable costs (1.42) also applies to
continued KIS operations. NA-23 provided a revised estimate for KIS operations that shows a
total cost of for down-blending of this implies a variable cost of $41,410 per kg
and a scaling factor of 1.56 ($41,410 $26,544 per kg taken from the base K-Area staf?ng). The
mean scaling factor of 1.381 was then applied to the 7.8MT staf?ng pro?le

Table 18 KIS FTE Normal Distribution Parameters (applied to 7.8MT)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

K-_Area est. wl KIS Variable NA-23 Program
Th'rd Glovebox Costs Office Estimate
Operations
Variable Cos?kg WA $37,778 $41,410
Scaling from K-Area Staffing 1.16 1.42 1.56
Mean: 1.381
Normal Parameters. Standard Deviation: 0.203
SPD Dilute and Dispose Option ICE Report 25 April 2018

 

OFFICIAL USE ONLY CONTRACTOR PROPRIETARY

This results in a SA total of 298 FTES required to operate K?Area and KIS operations to
dilute and down?blend 34MT of Pu oxide?98 88888838883883988888
I Program Management I 5P0 Project Support OPEXP Receive
Downblencl Assay I Packaging and Shipping

I Staging I Facility Support I Surveillance and Maintenance
Major Maintenance I IAEA I Deactivation

 

 

 

Figure 20 K-Area 34 MT (50% CL) Staffing Profile

In addition, there is risk in the K-Area labor cost per FTE. The estimates shown in the SRS
contractor estimate are often lower than the Forward Pricing Rates with NNSA, and realized
rates for actual NNSA operations at SRS during the B6l-12 program (with comparable labor
mixes) are higher than both. Therefore, a triangular distribution was created for K?Area labor
rates, shown in Table 19. A similar adjustment was applied to E-Area labor rates, as described in
Section 3.4.2.5.3. The concern with labor rates did not apply to operations at other sites, where
provided labor rates were comparable to realized history and agreements. The labor rates from
the 50% con?dence level are shown in the ?fth column of Table 19.

Table 19 - K-Area Labor Rates Triangular Distribution Parameters by Operations
"Contractor Proprietary"

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Low (FPRA Point (FPRA High (361-12 50% Confidence
SRS Operation Low) Average) SR5 ActuaIS) 

Program Management $255,254 $310,000 $439,430 $330,256
Project Support OPEXP $143,121 $223,589 $358,220 $237,889
Down Blend $124,174 $137,398 $240,543 $163,074
Assay $124,174 $126,760 $224,159 $154,379
Packaging and Shipment $117,762 $134,713 $245,458 $161,370
Facility Support $124,283 $196,824 $316,327 $209, 206
Surveillance and Maintenance $161,519 $165,268 $224,159 $181,212

 

 

3.4.2.2.4

K-Area Operations (SRS) Cost Estimate

Overall, the staf?ng pro?le provided by NA-23 was scoped out to dilute 26.2 MT of diluted Pu
oxide over the lifecycle. After applying the extra effort factor, adding costs for KIS operations
for DOE-EM 7.8MT, and applying the 50% con?dence level labor rates, this resulted in a cost
estimate of in FY2017 dollars, including $1 15M for materials and non-labor. The cost
in Then Year dollars over the lifecycle is (FY2018 to FY2049).

 

SPD Dilute and Dispose Option ICE Report

April

2018

OFFICIAL USE ONLY CONTRACTOR PROPRIETARY

3.4.2.3 K-Area (SRS) Equipment and Installation

3.4.2.3.1 K-Area (SRS) Equipment and Installation Starting Point

Appendix shows the K-Area upgrade plan identifying equipment modi?cations and upgrades
required to meet the desired throughput requirements for 26.2MT based on the classi?ed feed
table. All planned costs include material, labor and other direct costs to accomplish project needs
from FY2018 to FY2027. The summary of planned equipment installations is shown in Table 20.

Table 20 K-Area Summary of Planned Equipment Installations

 

 

 

 

 

 

Cost Elements Cost 
TEC Direct Burden $211
TEC Contingency $126
OPC Direct Burden $30
OPC Contingency $18
Total $385

 

 

 

 

For the DOE-EM material, the existing KIS line will be used for ramped-up operations to dilute
7.8MT of non?pit Pu as well as 6MT of additional Pu for a separate DOE EM project.

3.4.2.3.2 K-Area (SRS) Facilities Cost Risk

The assumption is that K?Area facilities will have a 20.4% cost growth based on the analysis
summarized in Sectiqn 3.3.2.3.2 LANL Facilities Cost Risk. This increase was determined by
taking the average cost growth of seven nuclear facilities projects (as a percentage), and testing
them against a number of potential curves and curve shapes to determine the best ?t to predict
equipment/installation cost growth. Section 3.3.2.3.2 explains the derivation in further detail.

3.42.3.3 K-Area Facilities Cost Estimate

After applying this 20.4% factor to the planning value removing the sunk costs 
and adding the costs for demolition and deconstruction of in FY2017 dollars, the K?Area

Equipment upgrade estimate resulted in a total of in FY2017 dollars and in Then
Year dollars.

3.4.2.4 K-Area Total Cost Summary

The costs for K?Area operations and equipment installation total in Then Year dollars for
the most likely cost scenario from FY2018 to FY2049. This is broken down in Table 21 below.

Table 21 K-Area Cost Summary

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

FY2017 Then Year
Cost Summary (SM) (SM)
K-Area K?Area Operations 5 1,348 2,848
K-Area Facilities 5 548 880
Total K-Area Cost 5 1,896 3,728
SPD Dilute and Dispose Option ICE Report 27 April 2018

 

OFFICIAL USE ONLY CONTRACTOR PROPRIETARY

3.4.2.5 E-Area (SRS) Operations
3.4.2.5.1 E?Area (SRS) Operations Starting Point

The primary data source for the E-Area operations estimate was the staf?ng pro?le required for
NNSA to characterize and package 26.2 MT of Pu oxide from K-Area. This staf?ng pro?le was
provided by the NA-23 program of?ce and is based on one ten?hour shift and four days per
week. The FTE staf?ng pro?le is shown in Table 22 below:

Table 22 Source Data: E-Area Staffing Profile for 26.2 MT (March 2018)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

FISCAL YEAR (FTE Staffing Pro?le)
E-Area Operations Scope Total 31-45 46 4B 49 50
Program Management Characterization 81 Packaging 154OPEXP Ops Proj Deac?va?Total 1752 3.4.2.5.2 E-Area (SRS) Adjustment to 34MT of Manpower

The raw data set shown in Table 22 is based on the staf?ng pro?le to package 26.2 MT
ramping up to a steady-state of 71 FTEs. This staf?ng pro?le is also based on ten hour shifts and
four days per week. In order to account for the portion of the estimate, a scaling
factor of 1.30 (34 MT) was applied to two categories of the data set only: program
management and characterization packaging. As a result, the adjusted FTE pro?le for E-Area
operations to 34 MT of Pu oxide for the base case is a steady state of 91 FTEs.

In addition, WTPP will provide on-site characterization support at E?Area. This was estimated to
cost per year in FY2017 dollars based on current characterization operations to support

WTPP disposal.

3.4.2.5.3 E-Area (SRS) Operations Risk

E?Area operations are sensitive primarily to the personnel required to perform packaging and
shipment operations. A triangular distribution was applied to the FTE estimate, as shown in
Table 23. The low is based on realization of opportunities for ef?ciency from the initial PM
staf?ng estimate. The most likely requires the addition of a ?fth day of shift work (adding 25%
to the initial estimate). The high applies the same scaling factor as K-Area (adding 42% to the
initial estimate).

Table 23 E-Area FTE Triangular Distribution

 

 

 

 

 

Triangular Parameter Scaling Factor
Low 0.9
Point 1.25
High 1.42
50% Confidence 1.23

 

 

 

 

The resulting scaling factors as determined above were used to develop a triangular distribution
for FTE scaling. The mean staf?ng factor of 1.23 was then applied to the 34MT staf?ng pro?le.
This resulted in a total FTE steady state of 112 FTEs, as displayed in Figure 21.

OFFICIAL USE ONLY CONTRACTOR PROPRIETARY

 

120

100 . 
Program Management I Characterization 8; Packaging OPEXP Ops Proj I Deactivation
I

 

 

 

SPD Dilute and Dispose Option ICE Report 28 April 2018

Figure 21 SRS E-Area Staffing Profile for 34MT (Base Case w! Extra Shift)

Like K-Area, E-Area costs will be sensitive to labor costs. Given conflicting data on labor costs
(as discussed Section 3.4.2.2.3) the triangular distribution of labor costs shown in Table 24 was
applied to E-Area FTEs.

Table 24 E-Area Labor Cost Triangular Distribution
?Contractor Proprietary?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Triangular Parameter 08:53:: 721E
Low (FPRA Low) 
Point (FPRA Most Likely) 
High (Based on NNSA Actuals) 
50% Con?dence 

 

 

In addition, the per year characterization cost is affected by the number of shipments per
week sent to in accordance with the sensitivity analysis described in Section 3.9.2, if
shipments per week exceed 3.5, an additional shift of characterization staff is added at a cost of

per year.

3.4.2.5.4 E-Area Operations (SRS) Cost Estimate

Overall, the staf?ng pro?le provided by the NA-23 program of?ce was scoped out to
characterize and package 26.2 MT of diluted Pu oxide over the lifecycle. After adjusting to
account for the 34 MTs, applying the extra shift factor and applying the 50% con?dence level
labor rates, this resulted in a cost estimate of in FY2017 dollars, which also includes
for WIPP characterization support, materials and non-labor cost. The Then Year total is
over the lifecycle (FY2018 to FY2050).

3.4.2.6 E-Area (SRS) Equipment and Installation
3.4.2.6.1 E-Area (SRS) Equipment and Installation Starting Point

The E-Area plan identifying equipment modi?cations and upgrades required to meet the desired
throughput requirements is shown in Figure 22 below, as provided by NA-23 CD-O estimates.
This includes all planned costs, including material, labor, and other direct costs to accomplish
project needs from FY2018 to FY2026.

 

SPD Dilute and Dispose Option ICE Report 29 April 2018

 

OFFICIAL USE ONLY 2 CONTRACTOR PROPRIETARY

- 

   
 

"?2245.-

I'se Only
Low High

Hours Dollars {S1000's) Hours Dollars (SI000's)

E-Area - Surplus Plutonium Disposition - TEC

unlit?,



OfficLl

   

 

 

 

Glorebox Fabrication r' Refurbishment
Automation System

 

 

 

 

Construction Labor 34.800 5 2.500 60.900 4.400
Construction Bulk Material 5 1.800 - 2.500
Design Engineering 12.200 1.400 22.600 '5 2.700
Project Support 13.200 1.500 46.400 5.700
Overheads and Escalation 6.000 5 15.200

    

?9.900

  

Total (Excluding Contingency)

 

 

E-Area - Surplus Plutonium Disposition - 
24.500

       
  
 

 

34.400 5 4.500
4.300

Other Project Cost
Overheads and Escalation

 

 

   
 

 

OPC Total (Excluding Contingency)

 

 

      
     

 

5 22.700
8 10.000

5 7.500
5 ..

Contingency
DOE Other Direct Costs

 

 

         

    

Contingency and DOE Other Direct Costs Total l2.500 32.700

 

 

Total Project Cost (TPC) 84.700 31.200 164,300 5 72.000

 

Figure 22 SRS Summary of Planned Equipment Installations for E-Area
?Contractor Proprietary"

3.4.2.5.2 E-Area (SRS) Facilities Cost Risk

The assumption is that E-Area facilities will have a 20.4% cost growth based on the analysis
summarized in Section 3.3.2.3.2 LANL Facilities Cost Risk. This increase was determined by
taking the average cost growth of seven nuclear facilities projects (as a percentage), and testing
them against a number of potential curves and curve shapes to determine the best fit to predict
equipment/installation cost growth. Section 3.3.2.3.2 explains the derivation in further detail.
The 20.4% factor was applied to the planning value of the average of total project costs (TPC:
Low $31 High Average $51 .6M) shown in Figure 22, excluding a sunk costs
of 1M. This resulted in a total cost of in FY2017 dollars.

- Area Equipment Upgrade Cost 2.1M) 1.204 

A cost for demolition and deconstruction was also added, resulting in a total cost of
in FY2017 dollars and a total cost of in Then Year dollars.
3.4.2.7 E-Area (SRS) Total Cost Summary

The costs for E-Area operations and equipment installation total in Then Year from
FY2018 to FY2048, as illustrated in Table 25.

 

SPD Dilute and Dispose Option ICE Report 30 April 2018

OFFICIAL USE ONLY CONTRACTOR PROPRIETARY

Table 25 Total E-Area (SRS) Cost Summary

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

FY2017 Then Year
Cost Summary (SM) (500)
E-Area E-Area Operations 1,074 5 1,589
E-Area Facilities 72 89
Total E-Area Cost 1,146 1,678
3.4.2.8 Operations (SRS)
3.4.2.8.1 H-Canyon/HB-Line Operations (SRS) Starting Point

The starting point for oxide production of Non-Pit Plutonium operations were the H-Canyon/HB?
Line historical actuals from FY2012 to FY2017 and the planning values provided in the
basis-of-estimates data. Actual costs in Then Year dollars and FY2017 dollars are
summarized in Table 26 below:

Table 26 H-CanyoanB-Line Actuals and Planned Costs (FY2011 to FY2017) .
?Contractor Proprietary?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

H-Canyon Actuals (SM) FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17 Total

Oxide Production 20.5 21.0 19.9 21.2 22.0 21.3 125.8
Program Management - - 0.40 0.27 0.7
Capacityaaeliabmty' - 0.22 1.63 1.90 3.07 0.05 6.9
Then Year (Total) 1 20.5 21.2 21.5 23.1 25.5 21.6 133.4
Oxide Production 22.2 22.5 21.0 22.0 22.4 21.3 131.4
Program Management - - - - 0.40 0.27 0.7
Capacity 8t Reliability - 0.22 1.63 1.90 3.07 0.05 6.9
Base Year 2017 (Total) 22.2 22.7 22.6 23.9 25.9 21.6 139.0

 

The actual variable cost to convert 4.3MT of Pu to oxide from FY2012-FY2017 is kg
4.3MT).

3.4.2.8.2 H-Canyon Operations Risk Summary

The base case assumes H-Canyon operations for will be a continuation of existing
processes and operations to convert 3.5MT of remaining Pu to Pu oxide. However, NA-23 has
indicated that existing HB Line resources might be overtaken by other operational priorities, so
prior costs might not be representative of the future cost. Alternatives proposed (but not yet
down-selected) include continuing HB line operations at a higher costs as resources are
rebalanced, or moving oxide production for non-pit Pu to LANL in the same line as pit
Pu. To capture this uncertainty, a normal distribution was built based on variable cost per kg for
the following options: H?Canyon actuals from NA-23 estimate of updated HB Line
operations 3.5MT per kg); LANL FY11 actuals per kg) and FY17
actuals per kg), using the data described in the LANL variable cost Section 3.3.2.2.3.
The results of the normal distribution are summarized in Table 27.

 

SPD Dilute and Dispose Option ICE Report 31 April 2018

 

OFFICIAL USE ONLY CONTRACTOR PROPRIETARY

Table 27 H-Canyon Normal Distribution Parameters

 

Normal Distribution Data Variable Cost per kg 

 

 

 

 

H-Canyon Actuals (FY1 2-17) 
NA-23 Updated HB Line Estimate 
LANL FY11 Actuals 
LANL FY17 Aotuals 

 

Average: 

ParamEte'S: Standard Deviation: 

 

 

 

 

This normal distribution captures the actual costs to-date as well as the upside risk of potential
operational options. Based on the average variable cost of per kg, the total variable cost at
the 50th percentile is in FY2017 dollars.

In addition, a sensitivity analysis was performed to determine the cost impact of delaying the
dilution of remaining non-pit Pu until FY2030 rather than the original schedule of FY2018 to
the results of this analysis are not included in the base model but are shown in Section
3.9.2.

3.4.2.9 Total Cost Summary

Based on the resulting 50% con?dence level of the variable cost, and after adding in fixed
costs, the total cost from FY2018 to FY2023 for conversion of the remaining non?pit Pu to oxide
is in FY2017 dollars and in Then Year dollars. Table 28 shows the result.

Table 28 Total H-Canyon (SRS) Cost Summary

 

FY2017 Then Year

(SM) (SM)
5 309 331

H-Canyon
Operations

Cost Summary

 

 

 

 

 

 

H-Canyon Operations

 

3.4.2.10 SRS Project Management and Integration (PMI)

3.4.2.101 SRS PMI Starting Point

The primary data source for the SRS PMI estimate was the staffing pro?le provided by the NA-
23 program of?ce for planning, program planning and integration, and technical support
functions, as illustrated in Table 29.

Table 29 Staffing Profile [Data Source: SRS PMI Data]

 

 

 

Fiscal Year
Scope 31to45 45 46 4? 48 49 50
SRS-PMI 333333
SRS - 0&1) Planning

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3.4.2.102 SRS PMI Base Estimate

The SRS FPRAS were used to determine the composite fully burdened labor rates. These labor
rates were then used to cost out the base case optimal staffing pro?le illustrated in Table 29. This

OFFICIAL USE ONLY CONTRACTOR PROPRIETARY

resulted in a total base estimate cost of$198M in FY2017 dollars of which also include of
materials and non-labor cost.

3.4.2.103 SRS PMI Risk

SRS PMI is a relatively small cost and low risk to the program; the base estimate is based on
realized actuals from the MOX program. A triangular distribution was applied to the base PMI
estimate, as shown in Table 30.

Table 30 SRS PMI Triangular Distribution

 

 

 

 

 

Triangular Parameter Scaling Factor
Low 0.9
Point 1.0
High 1.25
50% Con?dence 1.04

 

 

 

 

The results of the triangular simulation would provide a 50% percentile con?dence level of 1.04
to use as a scaling factor to apply to the FTES. 

3.4.2.11 SRS PMI Total Cost Summary

Based on the 1.04 scaling applied to the staf?ng profile, the estimate for SRS PMI totals 
in FY2017 dollars, which also includes of materials and non-labor cost. The Then Year
total for SRS PMI is as shown in Table 31:

Table 31 SRS PMI Staffing Total Cost

 

SPD Dilute and Dispose Option ICE Report 32 April 2018

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Cost Summa FY2017 Then Year
SRS PMI (5M) (5M)
SRS PMI 206 293
SPD Dilute and Dispose Option ICE Report 33 April 2018

 

OFFICIAL USE ONLY CONTRACTOR PROPRIETARY

3.5 WIPP
3.5.1 WIPP Background

3.5.1.1 WIPP Site Description

The WIPP was authorized by Congress in 1979 is located near Carlsbad, New Mexico. It was
certi?ed for long?term storage of TRU waste disposal by the EPA in 1998. The TRU waste is
stored in underground salt repositories at a depth of 2,150 feet, as shown in Figure 23 below.

 

Figure 23 WIPP Underground Repository

The WIPP Land Withdrawal Act (LWA) is the federal law that sets the geographical boundaries
for WIPP, along with limits to the waste capacity, radioactivity, and types of waste stored in
WIPP. The total capacity of WIPP for TRU waste by volume is 6.2 million cubic feet, which is
equivalent to 175,564 cubic meters.

WIPP is regulated by both the EPA and NMED. Under the Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA), the State of New Mexico is authorized to administer the state hazardous waste
program in lieu of the federal program. The Hazardous Waste Permit for WIPP covers the terms
and conditions to protect human health and the environment in the operation of WIPP and
contains a detailed synopsis of WIPP and activities that occur in support of the safe operation of
the site. This includes the speci?cation of how waste is accounted for against the LWA limit.
The WIPP permit is updated by NMED as the requirements for operating WIPP change. A
special view of the site, extracted from the WIPP Hazardous Waste Permit, is shown in Figure
24.

 

SPD Dilute and Dispose Option ICE Report 34 April 2018

OFFICIAL USE ONLY CONTRACTOR PROPRIETARY

WASTE SHAFT CONVEYANCE
HEADFRAME OF THE WASTE WKING

   
 
 
    
 
 
 
  

SURFACE FACILITIES

SHAFT PILLAR AREA 2150 FEET
satr HANDLING s-wr
EXHAUST SHAFT
wasre SHAFT

 

PANELS 1 THROUGH 10
HAZARDOUS WASTE DISPOSAL

UNDERGROUND FACILITIES

Figure 24 WIPP Underground Repository Spatial View

3.5.1.2 WIPP Expected Changes

On September 5, 2017, the GAO published its review of the approach 
which recommended that DOE develop a plan for expanding space at WIPP. During November
28?30, 2017 the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), under its statutory authority in the WIPP
LWA, held a series of meetings to discuss the disposal of surplus Pu at WIPP. During the public
session, the representative from DOE-EM briefed the NAS that part of the capacity issue at
WIPP is that historically the site has included the volume of over-pack material and even unused
air space in packaging containers when determining stored volume under the LWA. This is an
accounting artifact which is not a requirement under the LWA. By modifying the Hazardous
Waste Permit so that only the volume speci?cally associated with the waste material is
accounted as TRU waste under the LWA, the remaining statutory capacity at WIPP can be used
more efficiently without direct legislative action. The effect is that the 8,035 cubic meters of
capacity currently set aside at WTPP for TRU waste from MOX operations would be suf?cient
for the accountable TRU waste generated by under the planned waste accounting change.

CEPE calculates that 1 13,000 55-gallon sized storage containers will be used to store waste from
at WIPP, equivalent to 23,611 cubic meters. The diluted Pu oxide is held in a smaller
container inside the larger storage container, typically 12-24 liters (3.2 6.4 gallons) in size. For
the bulk of the 23,61 1 cubic meters is air volume, and roughly 1,400-2,800 cubic meters is
the volume associated with the diluted plutonium oxide.

Given that these changes can be made without legislative action, CEPE evaluated whether these
and similar administrative changes to required environmental documents could be made before
the ?rst expected shipment in 2026. Conversations with the NNSA program of?ce and the
Carlsbad Field Of?ce (CBFO) revealed the general planning expectation that changes to any
environmentally related document take 18-24 months from initiation to ?nal decision; this
includes public comment periods. To evaluate whether this estimate of time was reasonable,

 

SPD Dilute and Dispose Option ICE Report 35 April 2018

 

OFFICIAL USE ONLY CONTRACTOR PROPRIETARY

CEPE used data regarding durations of changes to environmental documents and discovered that
the DOE maintains a public-facing website with detailed information on its initiation, changes,
and updates to its Environmental Impact Statements (EIS), as available ?'om the Of?ce of NEPA
Policy and Compliance. The time to Record of Decision, along with a ?tted Weibull model, is
shown in Figure 25. CEPE decided that this data could be used as an analogous representation of
risk associated with administrative environmental action since the general processes for those
actions are similar to changes to the Hazardous Waste Permit and could serve the purpose of
explaining impacts of any potential changes to any environmental documents for this effort.

lir'm: Fir-m Notice (II Intent or 
L-r to Record DI Decision 

toot; -- -
not;
ants
7an
eat?.
scat.

4071-9

 

 

6?103 120
Months
. hair-Notice Tc - mef??miw \?thbullpril Wunbul?tdl

 

Figure 25 Distribution of Months to Complete Environmental Actions
Data Source: Of?ce of NEPA Policy and Compliance public material

An analysis of the data available from NEPA revealed that 32 months or less time was needed in
90% of actions requiring a Notice of Intent (N01) or Notice of Availability (NOA) where a
Record of Decision (ROD) was made. While this is longer than projected by the program and the
CBFO, the impact is not suf?cient to drive the critical path unless there are direct legal
challenges leading to court injunctions. Since such court action is dif?cult to predict, it
was not explicitly modeled but was considered to be captured as part of the overall risk range for
the estimate.

3.5.2 WIPP Cost Estimating Development and Results

3.5.2.1 WIPP Operations Cost Estimating Process

Figure 26 provides a process ?ow illustrating how the WIPP operations cost estimates were
developed:

 

SPD Dilute and Dispose Option ICE Report 36 April 2018

OFFICIAL USE ONLY CONTRACTOR PROPRIETARY

SPD will take 4 Risk Analvsis
Of plannped Based on E-Area TOIIBI WIPP Total WIPP

throughput, max 4 Operations Estimate Operations Estimate

17 shipments per shipments a week no
week risk adjustment 51'245 (TVS)

WIPP Operations
Data Source:
WIPP Actuals 

Minor Facility 
Infrastructure
Upgrades
(+516Ml

 

Figure 26 WIPP Cost Estimating Process Flow

I

3.5.2.2 WIPP Starting Point

Because WIPP has a long?established history, a reconstruction of funding history from
1977 through 2017 was developed based on budget documents and compared to Standard
Accounting and Reporting System (STARS) when practicable. This data was used to compute an
inflation-adjusted cost for operations per cubic meter of waste stored. This was done by taking
the total history of operations and excluding construction, transition, and testing costs. Since
WIPP operations had stopped effectively from the middle of FY2014 and restarted at limited
capacity in FY2017, costs and shipments after the middle of FY2014 were excluded. The
remaining cost includes the cost to operate the site, safeguards and security costs, the central
characterization project cost, and the WIPP transportation program cost (which is separate from
shipping costs). This led to an initial estimate of per cubic meter in FY2017 dollars.
Regression analysis comparing emplaced volume to cost did not lead to a strong cost correlation,
so this approach was abandoned. Further research of the E185 for WIPP revealed that operations
costs are largely determined by the staf?ng requirements of the site. In 2017, WIPP restarted
operations and it was assumed that staf?ng requirements to ensure safe operation were largely
stable because of the intensive review needed to achieve approval to restart operations. This led
to the conclusion that the non?construction budget in FY2017 during the continuing resolution
gave a real representation of baseline operations cost for the site.

Discussions with the CBFO indicated that a better methodology for determining cost would be to
consider that funding for WIPP must ensure the processing of a certain number of shipments per
week. Once WIPP has completed construction of its upgraded ventilation system, the site will be
able to return to receiving 17 shipments per week by 2026. Further, the total number of
shipments from operations will be limited to four per week. This is dictated by the need to
only have one vehicle in transit to WIPP while there is another vehicle offloading at WIPP. This
requirement also drives the need for a temporary parking location and associated security
upgrades at WIPP in the event an offloading vehicle cannot depart before a transiting vehicle
arrives.

Based on this information, the best methodology was determined to be allocation of WIPP
operational costs based on the number of shipments per week relative to the total number of
shipments WIPP could process during normal operations.

In FY2017 WIPP funding totaled excluding one-time recovery costs and
characterization costs, the cost for operations, safeguards and security, and transportation
infrastructure was Throughput scenarios showed an average of 2.96 to 3.72 shipments of
material to WIPP per week depending on the CC0 capacity (see Sensitivity Analysis in
Section 3.9.2). While the shipment rate might vary, the maximum throughput shown in the
model ?ts within plan for 4 shipments per week from FY2028 through 
therefore those 4 shipments per week were used as the portion of WIPP costs attributable to

 

SPD Dilute and Dispose Option ICE Report 37 April 2018

 

OFFICIAL USE ONLY CONTRACTOR PROPRIETARY

CEPE used the general relationship of 4 shipments per week out of 17 and adjusted it to
account for only shipping for 40 weeks per year. CEPE also noted variability in the costs
for transportation infrastructure costs based on the volume of waste and made adjustments by
using FY15 actual costs as a baseline since no shipments were made to WIPP that year. This
resulted in an allocated cost of (FY2017 dollars) per year for WIPP storage during normal
operations. In addition, a one-time cost of (FY2017 dollars) for upgrades to create the
temporary parking area is directly attributable to the program.

Costs for excavation are already included in the WIPP base operating cost and therefore should
not be explicitly estimated to avoid double counting. However, CEPE performed an excursion, as
shown in Appendix E, on the requirements for and potential cost of additional panels in case
these costs are later charged to though the CBFO has consistently stated they will
maintain excavation costs in the base budget.

3.5.2.3 WIPP Risk Adjustment

Given that WIPP is sensitive to the number of shipments per week and that the total number of
shipments will be at or under the 4 shipments per week in planning assumptions,
no additional risk analysis was performed on the WIPP estimate.

3.5.2.4 WIPP Cost Results

Based on the expected shipments per year, the allocated operating costs for storage of 
waste at WIPP, which excludes characterization costs captured in E-Area operations, ramps up to
approximately per year; when the in upgrades is added, the WIPP operations cost
totals of in FY017 dollars. In?ating this cost during the expected period of operation
leads to an estimate of $1,245 in Then Year dollars for WIPP storage costs. Table 32 summarizes
the results.

Table 32 WIPP Total Cost

 

FY2017 Then Year
ISM) (SM)
Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) 832 5 1,245

WIPP Cost Summary
Operations

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3.5.2.5 WIPP Cross Check

A cross-check of this estimate can be performed. The cost allocated to for WIPP
operations totals (which excluded upgrades cost), and the characterization costs
performed at E?Area total both in FY2017 dollars. If the sum of these, is
divided by the total waste volume of 23,611 cubic meters, the result is a cost of per cubic
meter in FY2017 dollars. This is higher than the average cost of per cubic meter
from historical WIPP operations as discussed in Section 3.5.2.2; the CEPE ICE therefore
provides a more conservative estimate.

 

SPD Dilute and Dispose Option Report 38 April 2018

OFFICIAL USE ONLY CONTRACTOR PROPRIETARY

3.6 Transportation and Packaging

3.6.1 Transportation and Packaging Background

The program uses an iterative transportation procedure for processing, characterization,
and storage capabilities for disposition and pennanent disposal of 34 MT of weapons?usable Pu.
After nuclear weapons are removed from service and dismantlement programs are completed,
the surplus pits are staged at PANTEX until required for Pit Disassembly and Processing. The
surplus pits are transported by OST to LANL using the MD-2 shipping packages. Once received,
the surplus pits are unpackaged and placed into interim storage until required for disassembly
operations. LANL receives and unpacks surplus pits for disassembly, then processes and
analyzes Pu oxide in preparation for packaging into 9977 containers for delivery to SRS by OST.
The delivery of Pu oxide from processing of both pit and non?pit Pu materials is managed as part
of the K?Area base operation at SRS for the dilute process. E-Area at SRS is responsible for
interim storage, characterization, and packaging for delivery to WIPP. The diluted Pu is
packaged into these are placed into TRU Packaging Transporter Model 11 (TRUPACT II)
and managed by the DOE-EM to be commercially transported to WIPP. Figure 27 shows a map
of the sites involved.


Isolation 
Ti? 

 

Figure 27 Map of Sites

3.6.1.1 Transportation Responsibilities

The NNSA Office of Secure Transportation will be responsible for transportation and cost for all
material being moved from PANTEX to LANL to SRS. DOE-EM will be responsible for all
material being transported from SRS to WIPP. Table 33 below provides a summary including
type of vehicle transport:

Table 33 Transportation Responsibilities

 


Travel Vehicle Use Transport Responsibilty Cost Responsibilty

 

 

ANTEX to LANL to SRS FY23 - FY27 Safeguard Guardian Transporter NNSA Of?ce of Secure NNSA Of?ce of Secure

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

FY28 - FY45 Iv?obile Guardian Transporter Transportation Transportation
SRS to IPP Commercial Transportation DOE-EM DOE-EM
SPD Dilute and Dispose Option ICE Report 39 April 2018

 

OFFICIAL USE ONLY CONTRACTOR PROPRIETARY

3.6.2 Transportation and Packaging Cost Estimate Development and Results

3.6.2.1 Transportation and Packaging Cost Development Process

Figure 28 provides a process ?ow illustrating how the Transportation and Packaging cost
estimates were developed:

OST Transport R1 kA .
5 na W5 Total OST Transport Total OST Transport

Low $4.2 M/yr peak Estimate Estimate

Data Source:
osr Estimate based on if?? (FY17S) (TVS)
1in $17M/yr peak
Actuals to Date

DOE EM Transport
SRS-WIPP
Data Source:
Contract cost for DOE
EM shipment

Risk Analysis Total Total WIPP
Low - $19k/shipment Transport Estimate Transport Estimate

(FY1751 (TVS)

CCO Cost Risk Total CCO Container Total CCO Container
Low SZKICCO Estimate Estimate

Data Source: Med 
Contract Costs for CCOs High (FY2133) (TVS)

 

Figure 28 Transportation and Packaging Cost Estimating Process Flow

3.6.2.2 Transportation and Packaging Starting Point

OST provided estimated costs for transportation from PANTEX to LANL to SRS. OST
transportation costs fall within the ongoing budget for OST operations. However, transportation
of the TRU waste to WIPP is based on a commercial contract calculated average rate over the
estimated operational duration.

OST Transportation used actual costs to provide an estimate for transport operations from
PANTEX to LANL to SRS. The transportation costs include salary, fringe bene?ts, overtime,
and night differential, travel, per mile maintenance, fuel charge, meals, and other incidental
expenses. Table 34 shows the lifecycle estimate for OST transportation in FY2017 dollars and
Then Year dollars.

 

SPD Dilute and Dispose Option Report 40 April 2018

OFFICIAL USE ONLY CONTRACTOR PROPRIETARY

Table 34 Office of Secure Transportation Costs

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

FY26 - FY45 
FY 1 7 Then Year
FY2023
FY2024
FY2025
FY2026 $5.8 $6.9
FY2027 $5.8 $7.0
FY2028 $5.8 $7.2
FY2029 $5.8 $7.3
FY2030 $8.5 $11.0
FY2031 5 $11.2
FY2032 $8.5 $11.4
FY2033 $8.5 $11.6
FY2034 5 $12.0
FY2035 58.5 $12.1
FY2036 $8.5 $12.3
FY2037 50.5 $126
FY2038 58.5 512.9
FY2039 $8.5 $13.1
FY2040 $8.5 $13.4
FY2041 58.5 $136
FY2042 $8.5 $14.0
FY2043 $8.5 $14.2
FY2044 $8.5 $1 4. 5
FY2045 $5.8 $10.0
Total 5157 S228

 

 

For transportation from SRS to WIPP, based on the contract and input from the CBFO, the
average cost is per trip. Based on vendor quotes and research provided by NA-23, the
costs of CCOs are per unit. The team considered the annual number of CCOs needed to
determine the approximate total lifecycle costs for packaging and shipping from SRS to WIPP.
(NA-23 assumes a schedule of approximately four trips per week for 40 weeks per year, on par
with the team?s analysis.)

3.6.2.3 Transportation and Disposal Cost Risk

Packaging and transportation costs are dependent 011 cost per shipment and number of CCOs per
year. Packaging and transportation cost risks are described below. The number of CCOs (and
resulting number of shipments) are explored in sensitivity analysis, Section 3.9.2.

3.6.2.3.1 Packaging Cost Risk

CCO cost is based on an existing contract. However, since CCOs are a signi?cant cost driver for
the program, a triangular distribution was applied to container cost as shown in Table 35.

Table 35 CCO Container Cost

 

 

 

 

 

Triangular Parameter 
Low $2,000
Most Likely $3,000
High $4,500
50% Con?dence Level $3,131

 

 

 

 

The result of the triangular distribution at the 50% con?dence level is $3,131 in FY2017 dollars
for CCOs.

 

SPD Dilute and Dispose Option ICE Report 41 April 2018

 

OFFICIAL USE ONLY CONTRACTOR PROPRIETARY

3.6.2.32 Shipping Cost Risk (PANTEX to LANL to SRS)

Shipping from PANTEX to LANL to SRS will be performed by NNSA OST, which provided a
number of scenarios for transport cost based on existing operations. These scenarios, captured in
Table 36, were applied to the low and most likely of a pert analysis (1/6 probability of low, 2/3
probability of point estimate, and 1/6 probability of high). The high parameter was simply double
the most likely, intended to capture the upside risk of the future cost changing.

Table 38 OST Transportation Cost (PANTEX to LANL to SRS) Risk Parameters

 

 

 

 

 

PERT Parameter 
Low (OST Low) 
Point (OST base) 
High (2x Point) 
Most Likely is the Point 

 

 

 

 

The result of this modi?ed triangular distribution at the 50% con?dence level in FY2017
dollars for OST transport.

3.62.3.3 Shipping Cost Risk (SRS to WIPP)

The shipping costs from SRS to WIPP, shown in Table 37, are based on existing contracts
managed by WIPP. The number of shipments will be driven by the total number of CCOs, which
is explored in the Sensitivity Analysis, Section 3.9.2. Cost per shipment is based on the existing
WIPP contract (as both low and most likely), with a high estimate based on that cost doubling to
capture upside risk of the future cost changing.

Table 37 Risk Parameters for Average CCO costs

 

 

 

 

 

Triangular Parameter 8:53:11}: 
Low $18,700
Point $18,700
High (2): Most Likely) $37,400
50% Con?dence Level $24,177

 

 

 

 

The result of the triangular distribution at the 50% con?dence level for the average shipment cost
to WIPP is $24,177 in FY2017 dollars for DOE EM transport.

3.6.2.4 Transportation and Packaging Cost Estimate

Based on the risk analysis, the 50% con?dence levels for transportation are $3,131 for the CC0
container cost, for annual OST transportation costs from PANTEX to LANL to SRS and
$24,177 per trip for the transportation costs from SRS to WIPP. Based on these parameters the
cost estimates for transportation and packaging across the lifecycle are as follows:

1. The total cost of the CCOs is in FY2017 dollars and in Then Year dollars.
(FY26 to FY48)

2. The cost to transport the CCOs from SRS to WIPP are in FY2017 dollars and
in Then Year dollars. (FY26 to FY48)

 

SPD Dilute and Dispose Option ICE Report 42 April 2018

OFFICIAL USE ONLY CONTRACTOR PROPRIETARY

3. The cost of CCOs over the lifecycle are in FY2017 dollars and in Then
Year dollars. (FY26 to FY48)

The total overall cost of transportation and packaging is in FY2017 dollars and in
Then Year dollars. Table 38 provides the cost summary.

Table 38 Transportation and Packaging Total Cost

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

FY2017 Then Year
Cost Summary
Transportation (SM) (SM)
and Transportation to SRS) 157 229
Packa in Transportation (SRS to WIPP) 67 101
Criticality Control Over-Pack (CCOs) 370 554
Total Transport and Packaging Cost 5 594 884

 

3.7 NNSA Program Management and Integration
3.7.1 NNSA PMI Background

NNSA Program Management and Integration (PMI) provides overall program management and
integration functions for execution of the Program. NNSA PMI also provides detailed
planning and integration, technical support, and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
functions for ongoing program activities, including execution planning, program lifecycle
management, integrated program scheduling, and technical baseline and risk management.

3.7.2 NNSA PMI Cost Estimate Development and Results

3.7.2.1 NNSA Process Flow
Figure 29 provides a process flow illustrating the NNSA PMI cost estimate:

    

. .A?plied'?d?i?i?w -, {i-M?an Spoiling-hatch i ,3 13:33:: - I:
:L?bdrn?t?s. . tolaborl?asedon 5 
1' . nightmares) . .

Risk-Analysis Additional

.FTEScaling 3Contingencybased .
Parameters . on RiskCurve .
(0.9m 1.25) f. 

Figure 29 NNSA PMI Cost Estimating Process Flow

3.7.2.2 NNSA PMI Starting Point

The primary data source for the NNSA PMI estimate was the staf?ng pro?le provided by the
NA-23 Program Of?ce as illustrated in Table 39. Additional projections for NEPA planning,
program planning and integration, and technical support functions were also provided, based on
realized actuals from the MOX program.

 

SPD Dilute and Dispose Option ICE Report 43 April 2018

 

 

 

 

OFFICIAL USE ONLY CONTRACTOR PROPRIETARY

Table 39 Staffing Profile [Data Source: NN SA PMI Data]

 

 

 

 

 

Fiscal Year
Scope Site NNSAPMI Staffing 3.7.2.3 NNSA PMI Risk

To capture risk in NNSA PMI, a triangular distribution was applied to the base PMI estimate, as
shown in Table 40.

Table 40 NNSA PMI Triangular Distribution

 

 

 

 

 

Triangular Parameter Scaling Factor
Low 0.9
Point 1.0
High 1.25
50% Con?dence Level 1.04

 

 

 

 

The results of the triangular distribution show a 50 percentile con?dence level of 1.04 for the
cost scaling factor.

Additional non-labor PMI costs include clearance costs in FY2017 dollars), Support
Contracts, Other Program Money (0PM), and NA-20 Taxes (all totaling in FY2017
dollars). These are based on actuals from MOX ramp-up, with costs irrelevant to removed.

In addition, the Monte Carlo Simulation described in Section 3.9.3 demonstrates additional risk
that is not captured in the 50?1 Percentile of each individual cost element. Therefore, an
additional contingency of per year (for a total of in FY2017 dollars) was added
within the NNSA PMI element to ensure this risk is captured.

3.7.2.4 NNSA PMI Cost Estimate

Based on this, the 1.04 labor cost scaling factor was applied to the base estimate, resulting in a
most likely cost estimate of in FY2017 dollars and in Then Year dollars. Table
41 displays the results.

Table 41 NNSA PMI Total Cost

 

Cost Summa FY2017 Then Year
NNSA PMI or (SM) (SM)
NNSA PMI 490 682

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3.8 MOX Closure
3.8.1 MOX Closure Background

MOX contract termination and construction close?out is de?ned as DOE directing the MOX
prime contractor to develop a plan within 90 days to terminate the project and begin to secure
information, materials, and equipment at the job site to protect government assets and ensure the
safety of workers. The disposition of temporary and permanent facilities would be planned and

 

SPD Dilute and Dispose Option ICE Report 44 April 2018

OFFICIAL USE ONLY CONTRACTOR PROPRIETARY

equipment prepared for storage or disposition as appropriate. In general, the contractor would
begin termination of the sub-contracts and leases.

General activities anticipated in this scope are as described below, but subject to change: The
project will facilitate future occupancy. Permanent buildings will be environmentally sealed and
some form of condition ventilation installed to minimize mold and mildew. Temporary buildings
and structures will only be environmentally sealed and secured. In-process construction activities
will cease and be secured and laid-up to protect people, equipment and materials while
minimizing deterioration from the environment. Equipment and materials will be stored in an
appropriate location to protect and maintain intended performance requirements with minimum
refurbishment costs. All documents associated with planning, design, construction and
operational paperwork for the structures, systems and components, including all nuclear quality
paperwork, shall be suspended in an organized fashion to allow a restart with minimum delay
and risk of rework. Subcontracts that are 70% or greater will be completed and contract
deliverables received and inspected. All contracts less than 60-70% complete will be terminated
for convenience and bi?lateral settlements reached. A complete government property inventory
will be taken and decisions made on release of certain property due to obsolescence. Recurring
maintenance and utilities will be required to maintain the permanent facilities, equipment and
stored govemrnent property.

3.8.2 MOX Cost Estimate Development and Results

The cost to close the MOX facility is a large cost driver for the program; however, the cost is
unknown due to uncertainty of closure scope. Therefore, a wide-range triangular distribution,
captured in Table 42, was developed to allow for a number of potential closure scenarios and
costs.

Table 42 MOX Closure Cost Risk Parameters

 

 

 

 

 

Triangular Parameter MOX COS:
Low 
Point 
High $1 .600M
50% Confidence Level $971 

 

 

 

 

The MOX closeout cost estimate at the 50% confidence level is in FY2017dollars and
in Then Year dollars. Table 43 displays the results.

Table 43 - MOX Closure Total Cost

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

FY2017 Then Year
05 ma
MOX Closeout ry (SM) (5M)
MOX Closeout 905 971
SPD Dilute and Dispose Option ICE Report 45 April 2018

?1

 

 

OFFICIAL USE ONLY CONTRACTOR 

3.9 Program-Level Risk Analysis
3.9.1 Schedule Risk

The ICE allows for schedule risk within operations as the program has deliberate material queues
at each step of the operation to absorb operational delays. The model and risk assumptions also
allow for increased capacities to recover from delays. Therefore, no additional schedule risk was
applied to the program schedule. Schedule sensitivity is explored below in the Sensitivity
Analysis, Section 3.9.2.

3.9.2 Sensitivity Analysis

Three primary avenues for sensitivity analysis were identi?ed: the number of grams of Pu
allowed within a CCO (which affects a number of other costs within the program), schedule for
converting 7.8MT of non-pit Pu from DOE-EM, and the Schedule.

The shipping costs for waste from SRS to WTPP are sensitive to the Fissile Gram Equivalent
(FGE) loading per CCO that is generated by dilution processes. The FGE per CCO limit is a
function of environmental permitting and other processing factors and can vary based on
planning assumptions. This directly affects the total number of CCOs that must be purchased,
shipped, and ultimately stored. The base number of FGE per CCO is 300; if allowed, the
contractor states they could pack up to 330 grams in each CCO, which would reduce the number
of CCOs to be purchased and shipped. The high estimate is based on a worst-case limit of 250
FGE per CCO, which would increase the number of CCOs and shipments. This sensitivity
analysis was folded into the risk estimate using a triangular distribution, with parameters shown
in Table 44.

Table 44 CCO FGE Sensitivity Parameters

 

 

 

 

 

 

ear Shipmentle ear
Low 330 4,970 1 18
Medium 300 5.467 130
High 250 6.560 156
50% Con?dence Level 295 5,628 134

 

 

 

 

 

The resulting number of CCOs per year affects CCO acquisition cost and shipments per year
affects shipping cost to WIPP and E?Area characterization costs. The 50% con?dence level is
used for all estimates above, and the parameters of this sensitivity are included in the Monte
Carlo Simulation described in Section 3.9.3.

As described in Section 3.4.2.8.2, there is still uncertainty as to when the remaining non-pit Pu
will be converted to oxide if current H?Canyon operations are not used. CEPE performed an
additional analysis on the cost of delaying this operation. The sensitivity estimate is based on a
variable cost of per kg and ?xed cost of per year in FY2017 dollars. If conversion
begins in FY2030 instead of FY2018, costs may increase by for 6 years of operations or
for 10 years of operations; this is due to increased escalation costs and addition ?xed
costs incurred for extending operations.

Sensitivity analysis on the schedule assumed a two-year schedule slip of the most likely scenario
to complete the entire process, which includes potential delays for: pit oxide production at

 

SPD Dilute and Dispose Option ICE Report 46 April 2018

OFFICIAL USE ONLY CONTRACTOR PROPRIETARY

non?pit oxide production at HB?Line; dilution operations at K?Area and E-Area; and
transporting diluted Pu oxide to WIPP. The sensitivity of this scenario falls within the anticipated
cost risk range from the Monte Carlo Simulation (Section 3.9.3).

3.9.3 Monte Carlo Results

After each risk and sensitivity driver was assessed independently, relationships were developed
between those dependent on each other; the primary inter-dependency is packaging and shipping,
which are each tied to the number of CCOs. The remaining operations and costs were deemed to
be independent from one another given existing operations, queuing and storage capabilities, and
independence of operations. All risk and sensitivity parameters were applied in a Monte Carlo
risk simulation, resulting in the Con?dence Interval and Risk Range shown in Figure 30 and

Table 45 below.

Confidence interval - CEPE Dilute Dispose ICE (TYSB)





80% 
70%

Probability

C)
39?

10% 
0%
514 $15 $16 $17 $18 $19 $20 $21 $22 $23

TYS Billions

Figure 30 CEPE Confidence Interval

Table 45 CEPE Confidence Interval 20%, 50%, 80%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Percentile Total Cost 
20th Percentile $17.23
50th Percentile 
80th Percentile $19.93
SPD Dilute and Dispose Option Report 47 April 2018

 

 

 

OFFICIAL USE ONLY CONTRACTOR PROPRIETARY

4 Conclusion

With sunk costs of the total ICE cost range is to with a most likely
cost of in Then Year dollars. The ICE summary of the most likely cost is shown in
Table 46.

Table 46 ICE Summary

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Scope 0&0 ICE PANTEX DST Transportation
Sunk Costs 0.02 Operations,0.6 NNSA PMI, 0.7 to LANL to 5R5),
0.2
. PANTEX Operations 0.6 Packaging 3? Shipping H-Canyon, 0.3
WIPP, 0.7 . . .
DST Transportation to LANL to SR5) 0.2 - atlons,5.4
LANL Facilities 2.4 MOX Tsrminatim .- . - -- 
LANL Operations 5.4 
H-Canyon Operation 0.3 WIPP
Operations, 1.2
K-Area and E-Area Facilities 1.0
K-Area and E-Area Operations 
Packaging and Shipping to WIPP 0.7 K-Area and E-Area
WIPP Operations 1.2 Facilities. 1-0 LANL
. Facilities, 2.4
NNSA Program Management 8: Integration 0.7
MOX Termination 8t Closure 1.0 K-Area and E-Area
Totals "To-go" 18.2 Operationsi?i-?i

 

The September 2016 MOX fuel program lifecycle cost estimate is $56.0 billion in Then Year
dollars, of which $7.6 billion are sunk costs by FY2017 and $48.4 billion are costs remaining to-
go in FY2018 and beyond. The GAO notes, however, in their report ?Plutonium Disposition:
Proposed Dilute and Dispose Approach Highlights Need for More Work at the Waste Isolation
Pilot Plant? that the 2016 MOX fuel program lifecycle estimate does not exhibit
the characteristics of an estimate developed in alignment with GAO best practices (and was
never intended as such). CEPE found that the 2016 MOX lifecycle estimate omits costs funded
outside of the MOX program, such as transportation costs, decontamination and
decommissioning of the MOX facility, and operations of the WIPP facility. After including these
costs and correcting other issues in the estimate, the remaining cost of the adjusted MOX fuel
program lifecycle is $49.4 billion in Then Year dollars.

The remaining lifecycle cost is therefore 35%?40% of the remaining MOX fuel program
lifecycle cost.

 

SPD Dilute and DiSpose Option ICE Report 48 April 2018

OFFICIAL USE ONLY CONTRACTOR PROPRIETARY

Appendix A Team Members

The Dilute and Dispose Lifecycle Cost Estimate team included the individuals from the Of?ce of
Cost Estimating and Program Evaluation (CEPE) listed in Table 47 below.

Table 47 ICE Team Members

 

Team Member Role
Steve Ho Director, CEPE
William Banks Dilute and Dispose ICE Lead
Evian Swyers Red Team Review
Tyrone Smith
Mike Metcalf (Contractor)
Rob Kepner (Contractor)
Jill Maloney
Lee Solomon

 

 

 

 

Operations Research Analyst

 

Operations Research Analyst

 

General Engineer
NNSA Graduate Fellow
Post-Doctoral Fellow

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SPD Dilute and Dispose Option ICE Report 49 April 2018

 

Appendix 

OFFICIAL USE ONLY CONTRACTOR PROPRIETARY

Data Sources

 

Sub-Category

Data Sources

Data Source Raw Name

Dated

 

LANL Variable Cost

FY17 Program Management Plan

LANL Operations FY17 Actuals

May 2017

 

LANL Fixed Cost

FY17 Program Management Plan

LANL Operations FY17 Actuals

May 2017

 

LANL Spares Cost

FY17 Program Management Plan

LANL Operations FY17 Actuals

May 2017

 

LANL Cost Pro?le

LANL Operations Basis of Estimates

Various; one per operation

September 2017

 

Total LANL Facilities Cost

LANL Equipment Scoping and
Quantity Development Packages

LANL Equipment List

September 2017

 

PANTEX Operations

PANTEX Task Analysis Sheets

PANTEX Staf?ng Pro?le

May 2017

 

K-Area Operations

K-AREA Operations Task Analysis
Sheets

Area Operations Staf?ng
Pro?le

August 2017

 

E-Area Operations

E-AREA Operations Task Analysis
Sheets

Area Operations Staf?ng
Pro?le

August 2017,
updated March 2018

 

SRS Task Analysis Sheets with

 

 

SRS PMI Manpower Breakout SR8 PMI Staf?ng Pro?le November 2017
. . . SPD K-Area Final Storage Vault K?Area Equipment] Upgrade
Area Glove Box - Costs Breakout List 2016
E-Area Facilities SPD AOA E-Area Upgrade High and E-Area Equipment List August 2016

Low Range Summary

 

H-Canyon Operations

Non-Pit Oxide Production Costs
Actuals (FY12 to FY17)

H-Canyon Actuals

August 2017

 

Non-Pit Plutonium Scope and

Draft LCCE Summary Report,

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

H-Canyon Operations Estimate Update Addendum March 2018
WIPP Operations FY 2017 WIPP Operations Budget WIPP Budget FY 2017
WIPP Hazardous Waste Permit on
WIPP Operations WIPP public website WIPP Hazardous Waste Permit January 2016

NEPA Environmental Impact NEPA Environment I Im act
WIPP Operations Statements history on NEPA public Statements (EIS)T1istop October 2017
website, ry
. NNSA PMI Task Analysis Sheets with .
NNSA PM Integration Manpower Breakout NNSA PMI Staf?ng Profile November 2017
AREVA MOX Services Termination
MOX Closeout ROM Close-Out Quote MOX Closeout AREVA ROM June 2015
Transportation FY2017 NNSA OST Operations
(PANTEX to LANL to SRS) Budget OST BUdget FY 2017
Transportation Contracts Cost for DOE - EM Discussion with Carlsbad Field Au ust 2017
(SRS to WIPP) Shipment Office 9
. . . 
"th322; Over Vendor Quote Discussions with NA-23 August 2017
SPD Dilute and Dispose Option ICE Report 50 April 2018

OFFICIAL USE ONLY CONTRACTOR PROPRIETARY

Appendix LANL Operations Scope Descriptions

LANL Program Management

The work in this WBS element is performed to maintain oversight of the ARIES Oxide
Production program at LANL, including scope, schedule, and budget. Program Management
(PM) personnel will ensure that all necessary activities and documentation for the program are
approved and implemented. This will include directing work, ?nancial tracking, project
justi?cation, regular reporting to developing and maintaining schedules and budgets,
tracking performance, technical reportng and analysis development, and updating the PMP, the
Risk Management Plan, and other planning and program documents.

LANL Quality Assurance Support

The work performed under this WBS element provides quality control and quality engineering
support in accordance with Oxide Production Quality Assurance Project Plan.
These activities include support to integrate the quality requirements for institutional and
customer implementation and serve as the basis for LANL QA program acceptability. QA staff
implement the full scope of requirements as defined in DOE 414.1D, Quality Assurance, 10
CFR 830, Subpart A, Nuclear Safety Management Quality Assurance Requirements, and quality
consensus standard ASME Although product may not be certi?ed in FY17, which
would nonnally be part of this WBS element, QA personnel will provide the following other
types of support during the FY: perform oversight activities for oxide production tasks by
spending time on the processing ?oor; develop, maintain a database, and verify implementation
of corrective actions; initiate, revise, review, and/or approve quality-related procedures,
operational procedures, work instructions, data sheets, travelers, and other documentation;
establish and conduct training related to quality aware ness and implementation of quality
procedures and practices; participate in and support audits and assessments; complete PFITS
actions assigned by the program; and monitor operational travelers, data sheets, and hold points.

LANL Material Shipping and Receiving

The focus of this work includes maintaining capabilities for shipping, receiving, packaging and
transportation of material to and from LANL to support the ARIES Oxide Production Program.
The team will ensure containers are maintained as required. Additional responsibilities include
the storage of the Eurofab lead test MOX fuel rod canisters and cooperation on resolving
classi?cation questions in this area. This program is also cost?sharing with the Pu Sustainment
Program to complete a Title II design for PF-4 shipping and receiving area upgrades to add
capability to receive, pack, and unpack MD-2 Type containers.

LANL Pit Disassembly

The focus of this work includes 1) Engineering associated with pit disassembly, 2) Operations
and production, and 3) Fabrication and testing of a second ARIES parting lathe to serve as a fully
Operational source for spare parts and as a training platform for new disassembly personnel. The
main focus will be meeting production milestones, schedules and deliverables de?ned in the pit
disassembly work packages and this PMP. Operators will continue to maintain specific
processing, fissile material handler, and glovebox certi?cations by performing required training
and exercising their skills. Operators will participate with the operations responsible supervisor
and process engineers to ensure that necessary documentation (Integrated Work Documents,
Radiological Work Permits, Process Monitoring Flow Diagrams, Comprehensive Site Plan,
Detailed Operating Procedures (DOP), and CSEDs) are updated and equipment maintenance is

 

SPD Dilute and Dispose Option ICE Report 51 April 2018

 

OFFICIAL USE ONLY CONTRACTOR PROPRIETARY

performed. In addition, the operators will assist in maintaining housekeeping requirements for
the rooms and gloveboxes to ensure safety and combustible loading requirements are met.

LANL Operations Management

The focus of this work includes operations management, supporting both operations and
engineering across all modules in ARIES operation while supporting the objectives of this PMP.
Operations provides wing coordination, RCT support, classification, and software quality
assurance (SQA) support, as well as interaction with facilities management and participation in
work planning meetings. Operations efforts will focus on updating procedures as required,
maintaining and ensuring activities follow established procedures for safety, security and quality,
and maintaining up-to-date personnel training requirements. In addition, support for uncleared
staff members, upgrading of the current LANMAS system for tracking accountable nuclear
material through the iMass project, and revising ?owsheets for ARIES operations and updating

the ARIES throughput model are part of the FY17 work scope for this WBS element.
LANL Pu Conversion

Pu Conversion will focus in three areas of responsibility: 1) Completing deliberate operations on
the furnace; 2) Engineering associated with direct metal oxidation furnaces DMO-2 and
3) Preparing the DMD-3 furnace for readiness; 4) Production operations associated with
direct metal oxidation in the DMO-2 furnace; and 5) Engineering and Operations support for the
use of muf?e furnaces for Pu oxide production, including procedure revisions and completion of
the installation of a new control system. Engineering will assist with equipment maintenance,
ensure all documentation is updated as needed, and support the installation of the replacement
for the DMO-2 furnace. The Operations work will include conducting operations,
troubleshooting and ensuring maintenance is completed as required, and supporting the
installation of the for the furnace.

LANL Packaging

Packaging will focus in two main areas of responsibility: 1) Engineering support for the
production schedule; 2) Operations support for the production schedule; 3) Implementation
electronic travelers being developed by Production Control; and 4) Supporting NCS in
developing a Level 3 CSED for the ARIES Packaging line that will enable its removal from the
E88. The team will perform all aspects of packaging to meet milestones and schedule,
implement equipment and process training to increase team capability and reduce risk, maintain
training and certifications, maintain good housekeeping, perform system maintenance including
software maintenance, and maintain controlled storage of 3013 containers. The team will also
assist with installation of water diversion features on glovebox windows as needed.

LANL Nondestructive Assay

Nondestructive Assay will focus on performing all aspects of NDA to support ARIES operations
and production to meet work package deliverables, schedule, and the deliverables identified in
this PMP. NDA operations will maintain the NDA system certi?cation for Material Control 
Accountability perform system maintenance as required, perform measurements on
existing certi?ed packages to demonstrate compliance with ICD requirements, and implement
the capability to perform prompt gamma on the ARIES NDA equipment when CSEDs and CSPs
are in place. The team will also deliver a report on gamma spectroscopy measurements requested
by MOX Services.

 

SPD Dilute and Dispose Option ICE Report 52 April 2018



OFFICIAL USE ONLY CONTRACTOR PROPRIETARY

LANL Analytical Chemistry

The focus Analytical Chemistry is to maintain chemical analysis capabilities to support oxide
certi?cation for the Program, including the chemical analysis of product oxide to demonstrate
conformance with the requirements of Section 4.2 of the ICD (ICD-08-025-02, G-ESR-K-
00039). This scope requires the following elements:

Sample eight blend lots produced during the FY and ship samples to SRNL for analysis;
Ensure that LANL maintains listing on the Institutional Evaluated Suppliers List
(IESL) for the chemical analysis of oxide produced by LANL, including conducted a

surveillance at SRNL labs; and

0 Maintain analytical chemistry data (control charts) and evaluate possible ways to qualify
processes or reduce the frequency of analytical chemistry from the current requirement of
100% inspection for 44 elements.

LANL Pu Characterization

Pu Characterization will focus on performing all milling, blending, sieving, and plutonium
characterization operations required to meet production goals with respect to engineering and
operations. The team will maintain training and quali?cation requirements, assist with equipment
maintenance, ensure all documentation is updated, provide operational and engineering support
for production, perform activities, perform waste management, perform material moves,
and ensure glovebox and room housekeeping is maintained. The team will also complete testing
of the new surface area analyzer installed in FY16.

LANL Process Equipment Engineering Support

Process Equipment Engineering Support is technical and engineering support from AET division
for all elements of the Oxide Production Program related to ARIES Operating equipment. This
effort will involve close integration between AET and product and process engineers for
each oxide production unit operation. For FY17, work scope will also include 1) completion of
software upgrades for the DMO-3 furnace; 2) completion of the installation of the new muffle
furnace control system; and 3) design, testing, and installation of new Conveyor?to-glovebox
shuttles on the ARIES Conveyor system. Normal Engineering support is required to keep the
Conveyor/SCADA system, NDA robot, disassembly lathe, DMD-3, muffle furnace,
EDC and packaging systems operational. Engineering will also coordinate engineering tasks,
serve on review boards, mentor and support students, and support NCO-4 and NPI-3 on all
maintenance activities as needed, and provide overall support for the equipment listed above.
Support for the DMO-3 and muf?e furnaces includes maintenance and normal
operational support.

LANL Production Planning and Control

Production Planning and Control is associated with maintaining an effective production planning
and control team, particularly as the Program resumes normal production operations. The team
W111 continue to provide support for the Program and ensure that personnel remain current on all
trarmng and other safety/security requirements associated with access to work inPF-4. Other
responsibilities include the coordination the Measurement and Test Equipment 
calibration support for all production processes, continued work on the ARIES Working
Database for electronic travelers, and management of classified parts and precious metals. In
particular, this will include implementing the ARIES Packaging Module electronic traveler
system on the Floor in FY17.

 

SPD Dilute and Dispose Option ICE Report 53 April 2013

 

OFFICIAL USE ONLY CONTRACTOR PROPRIETARY

LANL Records Management/Document Control/Training

Records Management/Document Control/Training is associated with providing subject matter
expertise and application in the functional areas of Document Control, Records Management and
Training. This includes controlling and processing of documents for issuance and management
of records according to ADPSM, institutional, DOE and other program sponsor guidance to
ensure compliant document and records management operations. It may also include technical
editing of documents and forms where practical. Assistance with overall training coordination
training reports, assigning training, maintaining records, proctor required training support, and
tracking of course credit is included. Classi?ed and unclassi?ed computer support is also
included in this work package.

LANL Preventive Equipment Maintenance

The focus of this work is to perform preventive Equipment Maintenance to support the
Program?s maintenance needs as production resumes in FY17. This comprises performing
routine glovebox maintenance, including surveillance, maintenance, and repairs to the following:
(1) Support for the glovebox Glove Integrity Program; (2) Maintaining gloveboxes with facility
authorized operating parameters; (3) Maintaining glovebox airlock doors; (4) Assisting in
decpmmissioning and removal of inactive equipment efforts IWDs, bag?outs); (5)
Maintaining instruments and group-speci?c procedural documents, as applicable; (6) Torque
maintenance of glovebox windows and service panels; (7) Maintainng additional equipment
necessary for sustaining basic area operations; (8) Developing work orders requiring Integrated
Work Packages; and (9) Providing regular room wipe-down activities and room decontamination
servrces as required. For FY17, it also includes ranking systems for maintenance complexity and
developing or updating maintenance plans and procedures.



is a level of effort work package to support the ARIES Oxide
Production Program and the FY17 Pu oxide production schedule. These support functions
include TASS warehouse and controlled storage inventory management, as well as procurement
act1v1ties. shall comply with P330-12 (Establishing Controlled Storage Areas) P330-l3
(Identi?cation and Control of Items in Controlled Storage Areas), P-840-l (Quality Assurance
for Procurements), and all other applicable policies, procedures, and DOE Directives. In
addition, storage and procurement activities will comply with (ARIES Oxide
Production Quality Implementation Plan), which invokes the ICD requirements of 
19947953. This compliance ensures that through Safety Class/Safety
Significant/Quality related items are procured, stored, and managed in a compliant manner that
meets programmatic needs.

LANL Radioactive Waste Management

Radioactive Waste Management covers the costs for disposal of waste generated by the
production of oxide and related Program activities, including transuranic (TRU), Mixed, and
Low-level Waste. The Program is responsible for the costs for storage and disposal of waste
created from oxide production operations. Due to recent changes in LANL TRU waste
management operations, including the split of newly?generated TRU waste operations funded by
NNSA from legacy TRU waste operations managed by per drum costs for this WBS
element are to be determined.

 

SPD Dilute and Dispose Option ICE Report 54 April 2018

OFFICIAL USE ONLY CONTRACTOR PROPRIETARY

LANL TA-55 Infrastructure

The work performed under Infrastructure is associated with the infrastructure costs of
performing oxide production at The business model provides the validated and
formal methodology to support annual, recurring facility operating and infrastructure costs at
The facility costs are incorporated in one WBS element for facility tenants in order to
manage scope and costs at a single location and distribute costs equitably to participating
programs based on the square footage of utilized by the programs. The work packages are
developed utilizing the Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities (RTBF) National WBS
categories (Facility Management and Support and but are centralized for the full
funding of the facility operations in the RTBF database and follow the RTBF change control
processes. The funding model is based on the footprint utilized by programs working in PF-4.
The space attributed to each program is reviewed and modi?ed based on programmatic needs
before validation and approval by the various programmatic organizations as part of the change
control process. ARIES continues to occupy 7.5% of the facility space.

LANL Criticality Safety Support

This work supports non-readiness criticality safety tasks and perform the function of the
Criticality safety Of?cer for the ARIES Oxide Production Program. Follow all internal LANL
procedures to develop and implement criticality safety analyses, documentation, postings,
procedure reviews, and other support for the program, including interfacing with LANL
Operational Responsible Supervisors and PNNL Criticality Safety (CSAs) working
under a separate contract with NA-23.

I

 

 

SPD Dilute and Dispose Option ICE Report 55

April 2018

OFFICIAL USE ONLY CONTRACTOR PROPRIETARY

Appendix 

?Contractor Proprietary"

otal Estimate Cost
Fab Three
Orders
endor 

Shielded Glove Boxes

otal Vendor- Glove Box Fabrication

Vendor - GLOVEBOX Fabrication

Hours

Dollars

250
250

K- Area Construction Scope

Construction

Material

Engineered

K-Area Upgrades Planning Document

Sub
Contractor

 

OFFICIAL USE ONLY CONTRACTOR PROPRIETARY

?Contractor Proprietary?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hours Dollars Construction Material Engineered Totals
Total Estimated Cost EqUIpment Eqmpment Contractor
Install I Remove Temporary Security Mods 5,000 5 300,000 5 95 300,095
08R Contaminated Piping, Equipment, Platform, etc. Inside Gas Vent Rooms 5 - -
Remove Hangers, Miscellaneous Steel, Lifting Eyesl15 ea.) 5 5
Glove Bags, HEPA Filter vii/ Housing, Copus Blower, Plastic Suits&BA ED 5 5 
Cut Concrete l4 ocationsl, Remove Shield Walls, Sliding Doors& Exhaust Grills -
Cut Concrete [3 locations), for Doors between Glove Box Rooms 5 5
Form and Pour Concrete for Door Opening and Exhaust VentOpening - -
Remove Concrete Fill FIoorOpenings EeRepairEiipansionjoint 1,250 5 25,000 5 3,000.00 5 2,000 5 85,000
Miscellaneous Electrical Commodities in Rooms 5 5 -
D828 Pump Room, Control Room, Electrical Shop. Make?up Room 8 Transformer Room 5 
082R Distillation Tower 8 Install New Stain-veil to Purification Roof 5 5 -
Install Supports on -14{3 supports) 5 - -
Install Airlocks and Fire Doorsto Three Glove Box Rooms 2,500 5 150,000 5 25,000 5 225,000
Install Emergency Egress Doors for Three Glove Box Rooms 2,100 5 126,000 5 50,000 5 126,000
Install Emergency Egress Door for HEPA Room 5 -
lnstall Fire Doors at Gas Bottle Room, Staging and HEPA Room [4 total} 2,500 5 150,000 5 25,000 5 125,000
Install 3-hour Fire Rated Sheetrock Walls for FM200, HEPA. Staging 0 GB 3 Rooms 8,000 5 480,000 5 250,000 5 230,000
Electrical Installation - Lights, PA, Receptacles, etc. 4,000 5 240,000 5 100,000 5 340,000
Scaffold Support Temp StaI rwell to Purification Roof - 5 
Install HVAC System, Duct Work and Associated Dampers 16,000 5 900.000 5 115,000 5 90,000.00 5 1,165,000
Install Active SC HEPA System Pre?Filters, HEPA Filters, Fans and Stack 31,500 5 1,890,000 5 250,000 5 2,550,000.00 5 5,190,000
Install Breathing Air Compressor 8 Manifolds 2,000 5 420,000 5 150,000 5 125,000.00 1,000 5 246,000
Install 5C Fire Suppression System 10,200 5 612,000 5 84,000 5 1,100,000,00 5 1,296,000
Install SC Diesel Generator?Two Units 5,600 5 336,000 5 200,000 5 200,000.00 1,000 5 232,000
Install of Nuclear Incident Monitor System INIMSI 8,400 5 504,000 5 450,000 5 250,000.00 5 1,204,000
Install Stack Monitoring Instrumentation 200 5 42,000 5 15,000 5 25,000.00 5 82,000
Install 2 A605, 185 640 5 33,400 5 5,000 5 243,400
Install Fire Detection System 8 Life Safety Modifications 2,500 5 150,000 5 9,000 5 159,000
Install SC Nitrogen System Bulk Storage Tanks, Tubing Purification Units 6,500 5 390,000 5 62,500 5 125,000.00 5 622,500
Install Various Glove Box 8 Room Monitoring Instrumentation 2,600 5 156,000 5 34,000 5 100,000.00 5 290,000
Install Continuous Air Monitors 800 5 48,000 6,000 5 25,000.00 5 129,000
Install Three Glove Boxes 9,400 5 564,000 5 30,000 5 222,000.00 866,010
Install Glove Boxes Electrical Components 3,000 5 180,000 5 25,000 5 350,000.00 5 605,000
Fab and Install Ventilation to Glove Boxes Hood 4,300 5 258,000 5 2.000 60,000.00 5 325,000
Glove Box 0 Hood Certification Testing 1,600 5 96,000 20,000 5 116,000
Install VTR Staging Prior toShiprnent 4,000 5 240,000 5 5,000.00 5 45,000 5 200,000.00 5 990,011)
SpeciaINuclear Material VehiclesIZI - 5 
Install IAEA Monitoring System 3,000 5 180,111) 5 20,000 5 200,000
Install Five MC8A Rooms w! 3-Hours Sheetrock Walls 8 Fire Doors 6,000 5 360,000 5 125,000 5 485,000
Install 3-hour Fire Rated Sheetrock Walls for FM200 System 2,100 5 126,000 5 25,000 5 201,000
Install Assaying Equipment [1 Gamma Isotopic, 2SWA5 05Calorimeters) 3,500 5 210,000 5 125,000 5 500,000.00 3 835,000
Install SecurityCameras to Monitor all Doors [In and Out] Twentyl20] Doors 4,500 5 220,000 5 115,000 5 385,000
Prep and Paint Floors, Walls and Ceilings 8,000 5 480,000 5 50,000 1,000 5 531,000
Install and Entry Control Facility 5,000 5 300,010 5 300,000 5 800,000.00 5 1,400,000
Install Fighting Positions 5,000 300,000 5 25,000 5 325.000
Relocate Assembly Area Computer Room, Sandboxes and Install Mantrap West Side 9,000 5 540,000 5 350,000 5 200,000.00 5 1,090,000
Install Concrete Pad and Staging 8,000 5 480,000 5 150,000 5 100,000.00 5 230,000
Prep &Paint FSV Floors for New Array 2,000 5 120,000 5 3.000 123,000
Remove and Relocate Cameras in FSV 2,400 5 144,000 5 3.000 142,000
Cut Access Into and Remove Curtain in 9106 Water Seal 4,000 5 240,000 3 30,000 5 220,000
0&8 Ductwork in 9108 Staging Area 3,513) 5 210,111) 5 5 245,000
Form and Pour Concrete forWater Seal Ductwork Opening 4,500 5 220,000 5 150,000 2000 422,000
Prep and Paint Floors, Walls and Ceilings in Water Seal 3,000 5 180,000 5 2,000 5 182,000
subtotal Construction 213,590 12,315,400 0,000 4,177,595 I 3,422,000 I 5,000 i 5 25,427,995

 

 

"Contractor Proprietary?

 

SPD Dilute and Dispose Option ICE Report

55

April 2018

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Construction Engineered Sub 1
Hours Dollars Material ui ment Contractor in a 5
Total Estimated Cost [cont] Equipmen 
Overtime 25,802 5 1,548,120 5 1,548,120
382,025
Construction Equip 5 - 5 332,025.00
44,422 5 2,665,620 5 2,665,620
craft suppm 1612 525
QC Field Ins 12,901 5 1,612,625 
pections
29,469 5 9,933,625 5 9,933,625
NonManual Construction Management 5 2 400 cm
HRP FTE ford years] 40,000 5 2,400,000 .000
10,000 5 600,m0 50,000 5 650,
Scaffold Support 5 19 19? 915
Subtotal Construction Support 212,599 18,259,990 382,025 50,000 
4 222 595 8 422 000 5,030 5 44,625,010
Total 426,189 31,525,390 395,025 
10,121,198
Design Engineering-Title II 81320 5 10,121,250 5 13? 500
1500 5 131,500 5 .
Design Engineering GB peci ication 5 1 312 503
Design Engineering - Bids, Award, Submittal Reviews 10500 5 1,312,500 5 2,542,800
Design Engineering Title 20342 5 2,542,250 25.000
0' -5 In 1000 5 125,000 5 1 
eslgn ngineering tructura na ysis 5 14 338 993
Total Design Engineering 114212 5 14,339,000 
5,192,643
Process Control 8 Automated Technology 32454 5 5,192,643 500
Pro' - - 12503 5 2,182,500 5 2,1 .

iect Management 2 FTES years 5 6 552 gm
Project Controls? Sycars 52500 5 6,562,500 1.352.251

10818 5 1,352,251 i
projm on 1 135 891

10813 5 1,135,891 1 .
Procurement 73 750
5' 250 5 10,750 5 .
ite Estimating 6 5 125
5409 5 515,125 2 .
System Engineenng 675 125
5409 5 626,125 5 .
Design SafetyAnalysis 5 5125
5409 5 626,125 5 2 .
Commissioning and Test Services 250000
2000 5 250,000 5 .
VA Team 5 1 825 000
Nuclear 8. Criticality Safety Engineering 15000 5 1,825,000 20?552?910
Total Project Support 158062 5 20,662,910 5 i .
2033614 5 62,362,261 395025 4252595 5 8,422,000.00 15255600 5 96,192,381
Subtotal Costs Direct 2
Escalation 2,885.9 1
Ila eous ui merit Ad'ustment 5 2,614,921
L5issce CI I 5 10,442,899
5 21,241,689
E55 5 9,052,932
[3 5 $4,988,122
in: Legacy ensionl 5 13,310,404
1 114,541,892
Tut ii;a Slut; 5 210239.223
04:; Silent Reserve 5 105559.539
Techngical Programmatic Risk Analysis 5 14,251,249
5 5 6,322,123
Tctel I: et' enc'es 5 120443557
0 a 0n mg I 5 332,182,845
TEC. TOTAL
Construction Engineered Sub
Hours Dollars Material Totals
Other Project Costs (UPC) Eqummem Equmment Contractor 5 2 240 000
Project SupporthMI? 2FTEs @4years 14000 5 2,240,000 {525,000
- . 21000 5 2,625,000 5 . .
roiect Controls 3FTEs @4years 000
9011 5 1,125,011) 5 1,125,
DE Testing?iCIPS Support after Turnover 3 wow
- 24000 5 3,000,000 5 . .
Conceptual Design 157 500
1500 5 151,500 5 .
Procurement 105 000
s? 1000 105.000 5 
ite Estimating 5 1 535 119
12689 5 1,586,119 . .
Commissioning and TestServices 5 1 903 342
Fire HEPA System Testing 15222 5 1,903,342 

- 1000000 5 1,000,000
Critical Spare Parts 5 137 500
Training Development 1500 5 182.500 13 929.451

99916 5 12,929,451 5 . .
Tom OPC - 99915 5 12 929 461 5 13.929.461
Subtlotal Cost Direct 5 417.334
Eljsza ation 5 1,423,965
5 2,996,222
E55 5 1,222,162
GM 5 2,252,594
Site Legacy {Pension} 5 1 317 300
5 15,801,132
Sub Total Burdens 29 1'30 593
Total Direct 8 Burdens 5 15.051523
Management Reserve 5 .891913
Technical 8Programmatic Risk 5 391.913
5 12,838,359
Total Contmgencres 5 4? 563 95?
OPC Total 5 334.751?302
Contract Price . .
an 
Contractor Proprietary
A ril 201 8
SP0 Dilute and Dispose Option ICE Report 52 

OFFICIAL USE ONLY CONTRACTOR PROPRIETARY

 
 

 

  
  

?Contractor Proprietary?

   

   

   
 

  
 

  

  

  
   

 

   
     
 
    
 
  
 
 
 
  
  
   
   
 

 

  

 

 

 

    
  
  
   
 
 
  
  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Project Support DPEX Dollars {snsf'l?cmn Mate?al En?lneered Sub Totals
Pre?Conceptual Alternative Study qmpment EqUIpment COHt'ador
Engineering - Facility Support 5 FTEs 9 years
cps- Project Support 2 FTEs 2 years 3:42: i 1:33:33 5 114025-000
Rad Con - Project support - 1 FTEs a years, 15630 1?175?000 5 3,430,000
Operations Support - 4 FTEs 7 years 54350 5 41116000 5 1.1751000
4FTEs @4years 31360 3520.000 5 4,116,000
Safeguards 8t Security 1 FTEs 8 years 15580 5 2508800 5 3320-3??
Material Control and Accountability . 0.5 MB 9 years 8820 1926,100 5 2,508,800
Procedures 5 FTEs 5 years 58800 350?000 5 926,100
Maintenance?0.25FTE5 @Syears 3920 5 '294'000 5 2,350,000
SafetyaindusirialHygieneiiHl - 1cm; @Syears 9300 5 1 029?000 294.000
Quality Assurance l?uaiity Control 0'5 FTES 8 years 7840 ?930'000 5 1,029,000
Readiness Assessment FTEs @forSweeksxs 14135 5 1 76082? 980,000
Program Management - 0.5 FTEs 9 years 8320 5 1141112m 5 1,266,827
Nuclear . 0.5 FTEs @dears 3820 5 {1021500 5 1.411.200
Total 354195 5 41?035?427 5 1,102,500
Subtotal Cost Direct 354195 5 41'035'42? 41,035,422
Escalation 5 41,035,422!
1,231,053
E55 5 4,342,213
581A 5 8,828,194
Site Legacy {Pension} 5 3,252,453
FEE 5 22,853,445
Sub Total Burdens 5 5,531,895
Total Direct Burdens 5 45,549,230
Management Reserve 5 82,584, 70?
Technical Programmatic Risk Analysis 5 19353535
Schedule
Total Contingencies 5 2621541
5 21,395.127
5 109,430,334
Deactivation and Decommissioning 5 4942323635
Escalation 5 2,500,000
L55 5 10,124,241
E55 3 1,815, 751
GM 5 3,691,615
Site Legacy [Pension] 5 1,523,319
FEE 5 9,556,443
Sub Total Burdens 5 2,313,229
Total Direct Burdens 5 29.124599
Management Reserve 3 36,524,599
Technical 8: Programmatic Risk Analysis 5 15332-332
Schedule 5 .
Total Contingencies 5 1,093,738
5 16,481,070
Emmett Cost iTPcl Inculding OPEX and 03.0 5 53-105-569
Total Project cost tract Inculding one 5 541338.354
432357.471
?Contractor Proprietary?
SPD Dilute and Dispose Option Report 53 April 2018

 

OFFICIAL USE ONLY CONTRACTOR PROPRIETARY

Appendix WIPP Panel Excavation Excursion

As part of its sensitivity analysis, CEPE reviewed the cost of excavation of additional panels at
WIPP as an excursion to its ICE and collected open source and site-generated cost

information to support this analysis.

The following facts are relevant:

Although generated waste material will be a signi?cant driver for storage needs, it is
not the sole driver of future storage requirements at WIPP.

Two capital asset projects, a new utility shaft and safety signi?cant ventilation are
approaching Critical Decision-2/3. These projects will provide the necessary access and
underground conditions to allow continued mining expansion of the repository footprint.
Mining activities are part of the base operations budget at WIPP and are incorporated in the
annual budgets, thus the cost for mining is included already within WIPP allocation
estimate for 

The physical volume associated with stored waste is different than the physical volume of the
WIPP mine, and if changes are made to the Hazardous Waste Permit as planned, the
accountable volume tracked for compliance with the WIPP Land Withdrawal Act (LWA)

will also be different.

In addition, the following published facts serve as benchmarks in analysis:

Previously published data from mining operations in support of underground lab construction
shows that drum miners can excavate up to 875 standard tons/shift' which clears a space of
4m 8m 15m 480 m3. More recent published numbers state that 10 tons/minute is

achievable.2
Total salt weight for a panel is >1 12,000 tons per panel.3
Rooms generally hold about 10,395 55?gallon drum equivalents which equals 2,164 1113

(based on 264 gal 1113).

The expected volume of waste from operations is 23,61 1 m3 which will make use of the
8,035 m3 already set aside for therefore more than 7 rooms will be needed for the
additional physical volume ([23,61 1 1n3 8,035 1113]/ 2,164 m3 per room 7.2 rooms).

An analysis of the Hazardous Waste Permit for WIPP give the following general characteristics
for a panel:

It is comprised of 7 rooms and two drifts which supply access
Each room is approximately 4m 10m 91m 3,640 m3
Each drift is approximately 4111 10m 256m 10,240 m3
The total volume for a panel is 45,960 m3

 

 

Previously available at 

3 Available at 

3 me-wipp

SPD Dilute and Dispose Option Report

59 April 2018

OFFICIAL USE ONLY CONTRACTOR PROPRIETARY

The salt density derived from the published facts yields 1.8 standard tons per cubic meter (based
on 875 tons /480 1113). This would yield a weight of 83,781 tons per panel. This is lower than
the published number of >1 12,000 tons.

Assuming the salt density number is accurate, and using 112,000 tons as an accurate weight
measurement, then the excavated volume for the panel is estimated at 61,440 m3.

New panels starting with Panel 11 will require main access ways to be mined to access a new
area of the WIPP. The Carlsbad Field Of?ce (CBFO) provided the following ROM data for
Panel 11 construction, including these 3 new main access ways:

0 $7,765 per shift for mining (FY2018 dollars, unburdened)
0 $285 per foot for bolting (FY2018 dollars, unburdened)

- Mining 3 main access ways requires 541 shifts

0 Mining panel 11 requires 403 shifts

0 Bolting length in the mains is 6,213.5 feet

Bolting for cross cuts 2,904 feet

- Bolting for Panel 11 is 4,160 feet

This implies a cost of for Panel 1 1 mining and bolting and for mining and bolting of
three main access ways (without labor cost burdening), for a total of in FY2017. Applying
a burdening to labor (based on SRS labor rates) and adding a 30% program management factor
(based on CBFO SME input), this totals in FY2017 dollars for Panel 11 and three access
ways.

The CBFO also provided a more detailed estimate based on experience from Panels 3 through 7
excavation costs; this shows the total cost for a complete panel is unburdened in FY2017
dollars. Using the same adjustment methodology as shown above yields a cost of per panel
and for three access ways in burdened FY2017 dollars. The excavation cost range is
therefore for one panel and mains (based on the Panel 11 estimate) to for two panels
and three mains (based 011 Panels 3 to 7).

The CBFO estimates panel construction to take 2-3 years. The timing of panel construction
affects escalation cost. Applying an escalation factor of 2% (as used for other WIPP activities),
the low estimate becomes in Then Year dollars for one panel and mains excavated from
FY2023-2025. The high range is in Then Year dollars for two panels and mains excavated
from In either scenario these costs already included in the WIPP base budget and
therefore are allocated to in the WIPP estimate provided in Section 3.5.2.

 

SPD Dilute and Dispose Option Report 60 April 2018

 

OFFICIAL USE ONLY CONTRACTOR PROPRIETARY

 

Acronyms
ARIES Advanced Recovery and Integrated Extraction System
Analysis of Alternatives
CBFO Carlsbad Field Of?ce
CCO Criticality Control Overpack
CD Critical Decision
CEPE Cost Estimating and Program Evaluation
Dilute and Dispose
DMO Direct Metal Oxidation
DOE-EM DOE Of?ce of Environmental Management
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
ETC Estimate To Complete
FPRA Forward Rate Pricing Agreement
TE IFull Time Equivalent
FY Fiscal Year
GAO Government Accountability Of?ce
ICE Independent Cost Estimate
Kg Kilogram(s)

KIS K?Area Interim Surveillance
LANL Los Alamos National Laboratory
LCCE Life Cycle Cost Estimate
LWA Land Withdrawal Act
Mixed Oxide (MOX) Fuel Fabrication Facility
MOX Mixed Oxide
MT Metric Ton
NA-23 NNSA Of?ce of Material Management and Minimization
NAS National Academy of Sciences
NDA Nondestructive Assay
NDAA National Defense Authorization Act
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act
SPD Dilute and Dispose Option ICE Report 61 April 2018

OFFICIAL USE ONLY CONTRACTOR PROPRIETARY

 

NMED New Mexico Environment Department
NNSA National Nuclear Security Administration
NOA Notice of Availability
NOI Notice of Intent
NRE Non-Recurring Equipment
OPC Other Project Costs
OST Of?ce of Secure Transportation
PANTEX Panhandle of Texas Site
PARS II Project Assessment and Reporting System II
PMDA Plutonium Management and Disposition Agreement
PMI Program Management and Integration
PMP Program Management Plan
Pu Plutonium
RIPS Robotic Integrated Packaging System
ROD Record of Decision
ROM Rough Order of Magnitude
SME Subject Matter Expert
SPD Surplus Plutonium Disposition
SRS Savannah River Site
SSE Sum of Squared Error
STARS Standard Accounting and Reporting System
TEC Total Estimated Costs
TPC Total Project Costs
TRU Transuranic
TRUPACT II Transuranic Packaging Transporter Model 11
TY Then Year
Uranium
US United States
WBS Work Breakdown Structure
WIPP Waste Isolation Pilot Plant
SPD Dilute and Dispose Option ICE Report 62 April 2018