DRC-2012-001949 - 0901a0688030af60

State of Utah
GARY R HERBERT
Governor
GREG BELL
Lieutenant Governor
Dei department of
Environmental Quality
Amanda Smith
Executive Director
DIVISION OF RADIATION CONTROL
Rusty Lundberg
Director
C-2li(2-00l949
MEMORANDUM
TO
FROM
DATE
Phil Goble, Section Manager
Russell J Topham, P E
February 7, 2012 r
SUBJECT hitenm Report 2, LLRW Surety Review, Energy Solutions, Clive, Utah
This is a summary of Utah Division of Radiation Control (DRC) staff review of the Energy Solutions
LLRW Surety (Surety) for 2011 This memorandum is limited to review of the 2011 surety against the
approved 2010 surety, to the 2011 Online Edition of the RS Means Heavy Construction Cost Data (RS
Means, accessed at meanscostworks com) and to conditions on the ground at the Clive, Utah facility
Issues related to Loren Morton's memorandum of August 18, 2011 are being handled in a parallel track
and will be documented separately
I have reviewed the spreadsheet detailing calculation of the Surety requirement for LLRW operations at the
Energy Solutions (ES) facility at Clive, Utah I am in process of resolving a number of issues with ES
personnel This memorandum documents progress to date Activities used to answer my questions have
included intemal interview of staff previously involved in the Surety review process or having specific
history or technical qualification, two meetings with Vem Rogers (on January 26 and February 3, 2012),
and a site visit (on February 1, 2012) Line number references in this document refer to the excel
spreadsheet representing the approved 2010 Surety which you provided me on January 11, 2012 We have
received updates in the form of a revised Surety spreadsheet
Review ofthe Surety spreadsheet revealed several classes of questions, all of which have been resolved
These mcluded
1 Items not tied to RS Means cost codes for which cost codes may be available 27 additional items
were tied to RS Means cost codes to simplify future review and to eliminate the need to estimate
an annual inflation factor
2 Items not tied to RS Means cost codes for which third-party quotes are required These 54 items
require update on a five-year repeating cycle ES will add a column to the Surety spreadsheet
indicating the year of the quote, and has obtained and submitted new quotes for the 11 items aged
five years or more
3 Items for which the umts in the RS Means tables did not match those in the Surety calculation
spreadsheet, e g , RS Means uses linear feet, and ES used square feet 3 items required correction
195 North 1950 West • Salt Uke City, UT
Mailing Address P O Box 144850 • Salt Uke City, UT 84114-4850
Telephone [phone] • Fax [phone] 'TDD (801) 536^414
www deq Utah gov
Pnnted on 100% recycled paper
Page 2
4 Items for which the RS Means unit cost differed from that included in the Surety estimating
spreadsheet Two items were corrected
5 Items for which I had questions and needed additional input 2 items were clanfied and adjusted
1.0 Items not tied to RS Means for which cost codes may be available.
The following items were revised to include an RS Means reference by estimating hours and assigning a
crew rate, or as noted in the line item descnption
1 Line 40 Decontamination of Equipment and Furniture
2 Line 96 Dismantling the Rollover
3 Line 128 Dismantling the Rollover Enclosure
4 Line 173 Demolish Pump Station This item was divided into two and tied to two RS Means cost
codes, one for plumbing demolition and one for removal of utility piping
5 Line 181
6 Line 185
7 Line 193
8 Line 384
9 Line 388
10 Line 473
11 Line 720
equivalent to the HP Technician Item set for review every five years to venfy assumed
equivalence or to make appropnate rate adjustment
12 Line 732
13 Line 740
14 Line 749
15 Line 964
16 Line 1162
17 Line 1408
18 Line 1428
19 Line 1509
Page 3
20 Line 1598 Haul
21 Line 1616 Signs
22 Line 1627 Removal of Signs
23 Line 1651 Rotary Drum Startup - Labor
24 Line 1655 Locomotive Operator
25 Line 1662 Decontamination of Other Containers
26 Line 1743 Wntten Reports to regulators
27 Line 1763 Report
2.0 Items not tied to RS Means cost codes for which third-party quotes are required.
Several items in the Surety referenced third-party quotations The surety spreadsheet contained no means
of venfymg costs associated with third-party quotations, of determining whether the costs were current, or
whether the costs reflected preferred rates to ES rather than market rates available to DRC
For all third-party quotations, copies of the quotations have been submitted ES added a column to the
Surety spreadsheet indicating the year the quote was received, facilitating easier identification of quotes m
need of update ES solicited new quotes for those items whose quotes were aged five years or more The
Surety calculation sheet was updated with these new quotations, and copies ofthe quotations were
provided to DRC With these quotations in hand, I am now able to research whether these quotes represent
preferred rates, and whether the quantities used reflect a reasonable estimate of work to be performed
Third-party quotations and the applicable annual Surety review year (current review is for 2011) are
1 Line 8 Temporary Decontamination Facility (2011)
2 Line 738 Locomotive and crew (2011)
3 Line 759 Compactor (2012)
4 Line 760 CAES Momtonng System (2012)
5 Line 761 GPS System (2012)
6 Line 941 250 Ton Crane (2011)
7 Line 942 Transport for 250 Ton Crane (2011)
8 Line 1423 Removal of Waste Oil (2011)
9 Line 1456 PPE and Miscellaneous Supphes (2013)
10 Line 1457 In Situ Gamma Spectrometer (2013)
Page 4
11 Line 1458 Badgmg (2013)
12 Line 1459 Analytical Cost (2013)
13 Line 1461 Senior Health Physicist (2013)
14 Line 1462 Senior HP Technician (2013)
15 Line 1463 HP Tech (2013)
16 Line 1464 Closure Report (2012)
17 Line 1467 HP Personnel, General Cleanup (2013)
18 Line 1508 Surveys(2011)
19 Line 1510 Surveys - Bi-annual Engineenng Review (2013)
20 Line 1540 hitermediate Fill (2015)
21 Line 1551 Flocculant (2011)
22 Line 1552 Mixing (2011)
23 Line 1589 Road Base (2011)
24 Line 1596 Screening Plant (2012)
25 Line 1618 Monuments (2011)
26 Line 1645 Locomotive Operators (2013)
27 Line 1650 Rotary Drum Startup (2013)
28 Line 1658 Startup Track 4 Railwash (2013)
29 Line 1659 Startup Track 4 Railwash - Labor (2013)
30 Line 1663 Well Abandonment (2015)
31 Line 1674 Aenal Surveys (2011)
32 Line 1677 Bi-annual Engineenng Review (2012)
33 Line 1716 Equipment (2013)
34 Line 1734 Equipment (2013)
35 Line 1738 Equipment (2013)
Page 5
36 Line 1741 Equipment (2013)
37 Line vl 759 Metals Analysis (2013)
38 Line 1760 Radiologicals Analysis (2013)
39 Line 1761 Organics Analysis (2013)
40 Line 1775 Aerial Surveys (2013)
41 Line 1784 Gross Alpha Sampling (2013)
42 Line 1785 Gross Alpha and Gross Beta Analysis (2013)
43 Line 1788 Isotopic Analysis (2013)
44 Line 1794 Soil Sampling (2013)
45 Line 1797 Gamma Spectrum Analysis (2013)
46 Line 1799 Isotopic Analysis (2013)
47 Line 1806 Gamma Spectmm Analysis (2013)
48 Line 1807 Isotopic Analysis (2013)
49 Line 1816 E-perm Chamber (2013)
50 Line 1817 Electret (2013)
51 Line 1818 Time to Read Electret (2013)
52 Line 1827 E-perm Chamber (2013)
53 Line 1828 Electret (2013)
54 Line 1829 Time to Read Electret (2013)
3.0 Items for which the units in the RS Means tables did not match those in the Surety calculation
spreadsheet.
Review of the Surety spreadsheet against RS Means revealed one discrepancy in units, which was
corrected
1 Line 436 Wash Platform Steel (Change from LF to Each)
2 Line 437 Wash Platform Miscellaneous (Change from CY to Each)
3 Line 758 CLSM Batch Plant Crew (Change from daily to hourly rate)
Page 6
4.0 Items for which the RS Means unit cost differed from that included in the Surety estimatmg
spreadsheet.
I encountered a small number of items for which the umt cost presented in the Surety spreadsheet did not
equal or exceed the RS Means umt cost
1 Line 7 Trailer Delivery (revised upward to $4 60 per mile from $3 98)
2 Line 757 CLSM Batch Plant (Revised upward to $4750 00 from $4525 00)
5.0 Items for which I had questions and needed additional input.
I encountered a few items in the Surety spreadsheet for which I had questions
1 Line 130 Demolish Rollover Enclosure I questioned whether the 50% reduction from RS Means
unit cost used in the Surety spreadsheet reflected a reasonable assumption regarding the demolition
of this building ES justified the reduction in the notes, indicating no intenor walls existed in the
stmcture Recent demolition of another structure onsite provided an opportunity to test this
assumption, assessing how much of the work pertained to demolition of intenor features versus the
outer shell
2 Line 662 Mobile Batch Plant I could not reconcile this cost to the RS Means data ES split this
Item into two separate line items with umque RS Means codes