Final Value Engineering Report.pdf

Former Nike Battery PR-58 & Disaster Training Village Area Final Value Engineering Report

P2 No.: 108346 Project No.: D01RI0029 05 VE Study No.: NAE-FY22-001E Workshop Dates: November 1 to 4, 2021 Draft Report Date: December 28, 2021

Former Nike Battery PR-58 & Disaster Training Village Area Final Value Engineering Report

Project Number: 60608472 AECOM

Rpt_FINAL_PR-58 VE Study 2021.12.28.Docx X

Table of Contents

1. Executive Summary

1.1 Value Study Results

1.2 Value Study Background

1.2.1 Key Challenges, Issues, Constraints, Risks

1.2.2 VE Study Objectives

1.2.3 VE Study Highlights

2. Value Study Results and Proposals

2.1 Table of Value Proposals

2.2 Recommended Value Proposals

2.3 Quality Review Comments

2.4 Individual Value Proposals

VE-1: DTA-1: Consider different thermal treatment approaches for bedrock vs.

overburden. Target 100°C in bedrock

VE-2: DTA-2: Conduct Request for Information (RFI) to thermal community VE-3: DTA-3: Conduct additional bench scale study VE-4: DTA-4: Update DAR to include a cost and schedule for a 3-phased treatment approach (most likely scenario given existing power) VE-5: DTA-5: Document models ability and limitations (i.e., 2-D) to predict an outcome VE-6: DTA-6: Determine if existing 2-D model can be improved VE-7: DTA-7: Provide EVS Model to bidders VE-8: DTA-9: Provide detailed geology and hydrogeology characterization VE-9: DTA-10: Demonstration of the feasibility of dewatering and the implications of groundwater upwelling VE-10: DTA-11: Undertake utility study (power/gas) VE-11: DTA-12: Determine available capacity of utilities (power/gas) VE-12: DTA-13: Evaluate the use of LPG or LNG as input source for heating wells VE-13: DTA-14: Allow non-emergency use of power generation (prime power generator) VE-14: DTA-16: Utilize the residual heat from the source area (and potentially downgradient monitoring infrastructure) to support enhanced in situ reductive (abiotic & biotic) treatment in the downgradient plume

VE-15: DTA-17: Evaluation of methods to mitigate adverse effects of dewatering bedrock

VE-16: DTZ-1: Revisit data density relative to cost of ISTR (optimize your Return on Investigation)

VE-17: DTZ-2: Secure a real estate agreement with QDC VE-18: DTZ-4: Consider a cost reimbursable contract VE-19: CISTR-5: Re-evaluate the requirement for sheet piling for the purposes of hydrologic control VE-20: CISTR-6: Monitoring of potential contaminant migration during ISTR

Appendix A. Value Study Overview .............................................. A-1

A.1 Introduction .............................................................................................. A-1

Project Number: 60608472 AECOM

Rpt_FINAL_PR-58 VE Study 2021.12.28.Docx X

A.2 Project Description .................................................................................. A-1

A.2.1 List of Documents Reviewed .................................................................... A-3

A.2.2 In-Brief ...................................................................................................... A-3

A.2.3 Site Visit ................................................................................................... A-3

A.2.4 Mid-Point Review ...................................................................................... A-3

A.2.5 Presentation ............................................................................................. A-3

A.3 VE Process ................................................................................................ A-4

A.3.1 Pre-Workshop Stage ................................................................................ A-4

A.3.2 Workshop Stage ....................................................................................... A-4 A.3.2.1 Information Phase .............................................................................. A-5 A.3.2.2 Function Analysis Phase .................................................................... A-5 A.3.2.3 Creative Phase .................................................................................. A-6 A.3.2.4 Evaluation Phase ............................................................................... A-6 A.3.2.5 Development Phase ........................................................................... A-6 A.3.2.6 Presentation Phase ............................................................................ A-6

A.3.3 Post-Workshop Stage ............................................................................... A-6

A.4 Participants ............................................................................................... A-7

A.5 Agenda ...................................................................................................... A-8

Appendix B. Project Analysis ........................................................ B-1

B.1 Introduction .............................................................................................. B-1

B.2 Pareto Cost Models .................................................................................. B-1

B.3 Overall Project Issues, Constraints, Opportunities, Risks .................. B-4

B.3.1 Issues, Constraints and Challenges ......................................................... B-4

B.3.2 Opportunities ............................................................................................ B-4

B.3.3 Risks ......................................................................................................... B-5

B.4 Quality Benefits ........................................................................................ B-5

Appendix C. Function Analysis ..................................................... C-1

C.1 Function Identification ............................................................................. C-1

C.2 FAST Diagram ........................................................................................... C-2

Appendix D. Idea List and Idea Evaluation .................................. D-1

D.1 Determine Treatment Approach (DTA) ................................................... D-1

D.2 Define Treatment Zone (DTZ) .................................................................. D-5

D.3 Construct ISTR (CISTR) ........................................................................... D-6

Appendix E. Value Engineering Reporting System (VERS) ....... E-1

E.1 Overall Phase 1.1A Project ...................................................................... E-1

Figures

Figure 1-1: Site Location

Project Number: 60608472 AECOM

Rpt_FINAL_PR-58 VE Study 2021.12.28.Docx X

Figure 1-2: Site Plan

Figure A-3: Site Location .................................................................................................................. A-1

Figure A-4: Site Plan ........................................................................................................................ A-2

Figure A-4: VE Job Plan ................................................................................................................... A-4

Figure A-5: Six Phases of the VE Workshop Job Plan ...................................................................... A-5

Figure B-1: Pareto Cost Model ......................................................................................................... B-3

Figure C-1: FAST Diagram ............................................................................................................... C-4

Tables

Table 1-1: Summary of VE Study Results

Table 2-1: Summary of VE Proposals

Table 2-2: Recommended VE Proposals

Table A-1: Participants .................................................................................................................... A-7

Table B-1: Pareto Cost Model ......................................................................................................... B-1

Table C-1: Project Functions ........................................................................................................... C-1

Table D-1: Summary of VE Study Results ....................................................................................... D-1

Table D-2: Summary of Creative Ideas and Evaluation – Determine Treatment Approach (DTA) ............................................................................................................................. D-2

Table D-3: Summary of Creative Ideas and Evaluation – Define Treatment Zone (DTZ) ................. D-5

Table D-4: Summary of Creative Ideas and Evaluation – Construct ISTR (CISTR) ......................... D-6

Project Number: 60608472 AECOM

Rpt_FINAL_PR-58 VE Study 2021.12.28.Docx X

Acronyms

2-D 2-dimensional

3-D 3-dimensional

ABD Already Being Done

A/E Architect/Engineer

ASAP As soon as possible

B Basic Function bgs Below ground surface

°C Degrees Celsius

CISTR Construct In Situ Thermal Remediation

COC Contaminants of Concern

CSM Conceptual Site Model

CVOC Chlorinated volatile organic compounds

CVS Certified Value Specialist cy Cubic yards

DAR Design Analysis Report

DoD Department of Defense

DTA Determine Treatment Approach

DTZ Define Treatment Zone

DVTA Disaster Village Training Area

EA EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc.

EAI Energy Information Administration

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

ERH Electrical resistance heating

EVS Environmental visualization software

FAST Function Analysis System Technique

FFP Fixed Fee Price

FS Feasibility Study

Ft Feet ft2 Square feet

FUDS Formerly Used Defense Site gpm Gallons per minute

HO Higher Order

IGE Internal government estimate

ILUC Institutional land use controls

ISTR In-situ thermal remediation kV Kilovolt

Kwh Kilowatt hour

LPG Liquified petroleum gas

LNG Liquified natural gas mg/kg Milligram per kilogram

MNA Monitored natural attenuation

MW Megawatt

MWH Megawatt hour

Project Number: 60608472 AECOM

Rpt_FINAL_PR-58 VE Study 2021.12.28.Docx X

NAPL Non-aqueous phase liquid

NCF Not Carried Forward

OB Overburden

O&M Operation and Maintenance

OH Overhead

OVx Office of Value Expertise

PCE Tetrachloroethylene

PDI Pre-Design Investigation

PDT Project Delivery Team

PM Project Manager psi Pounds per square inch

PWS Performance Work Statement

QDC Quonset Development Corporation

QL Qualitative

QNT Quantitative

QRC Quality Review Comment

RA Remedial Action

REA Request for Equitable Adjustment

RFI Request for Information

RFP Request for proposal

RI Remedial Investigation

RIEDC Rhode Island Economic Development Corporation

ROD Record of Decision

SAIA

SEE

Source Area Investigation Area

SCFH Standard cubic feet per hour

SEE Steam Enhanced Extraction

TCE Trichloroethylene

TCH Thermal conductive heating

TeCA 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane

TOC Total organic carbon

TTZ Target Treatment Zone

USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers

VC Vinyl Chloride

VE Value Engineering

VGAC Vapor-phase granular activated carbon

VOC Volatile organic compounds

WBR Weathered bedrock

Project Number: 60608472 AECOM

Rpt_FINAL_PR-58 VE Study 2021.12.28.Docx 1

1. Executive Summary

1.1 Value Study Results

VALUE STUDY RESULTS SUMMARY

Project Name: Former Nike Battery PR-58 & Disaster Training Village Area

Project Location: North Kingstown, Rhode Island

District or Division: New England Program: DERP-FUDS

Value Study Date: November 1 to 4, 2021 P2 Number: 108346

Project No.: D01RI0029 05

Value Study Timing: Design Analysis Report Original Project Cost:

$15M

ACCEPTED RESULTS

Reliability: Maintained

Initial Cost Avoidance:

$4,690,200 to $6,090,200

Operations & Maintenance: Maintained

Schedule Savings: Maintained

Functionality: Maintained

Return on Investment: 48:1 to 63:1

PROJECT OVERVIEW

The scope of work for this project is for implementation of in-situ thermal remediation (ISTR) at the Former Nike Battery PR-58 & Disaster Village Training Area (DVTA) Formerly Used Defense Site (FUDS) PR-58 (the “Property”). The Property is located in North Kingstown, Rhode Island. The Source Area Investigation Area (SAIA) (the “Site”) that is the subject of this VE Study is approximately

0.33 acres. The selected remedy for the Property is in-situ thermal remediation in the Source Area and reductive dechlorination in the plume, coupled with monitored natural attenuation (MNA) and Institutional Land Use Controls (ILUCs).

VALUE STUDY BENEFITS KEY RECOMMENDATIONS

The Value Engineering (VE) Team generated 27 ideas, of which 20 were developed as VE Proposals. The issues, constraints, challenges, and risks provided in Appendix B as well as the key project functions identified to brainstorm assisted the VE Team in identifying VE Proposals to address constructability issues, mitigate risks and to address the number of unknowns.

The major Quantitative VE Proposals include

◼ Consider different thermal treatment approaches for bedrock vs. overburden

◼ Allow full time use of on-site generators to power the ISTR system.

◼ Re-evaluate requirements for sheet piling for the purposes of hydrologic control.

The VE Team also provided a number of Qualitative VE Proposals to:

◼ Address the VE Team concerns with respect to the number of unknowns

Project Number: 60608472 AECOM

Rpt_FINAL_PR-58 VE Study 2021.12.28.Docx 2

1.2 Value Study Background

A Value Engineering Study (Appendix A) was undertaken for the Source Area Investigation Area (SAIA) at the Former Nike Battery PR-58 & Disaster Village Training Area. The scope of work for this project is for implementation of in-situ thermal remediation (ISTR) at the SAIA located at the Former Nike Battery

PR-58 & Disaster Village Training Area (DVTA) Formerly Used Defense Site (FUDS) PR-58 (the

“Property”). The Property is located in North Kingstown, Rhode Island (Figure 1-1). The SAIA (the “Site”) that is the subject of this VE Study is approximately 0.33 acres. The Site layout is presented in Figure 1-

2. The Property where the Site is located comprises approximately 44 acres and is bounded by the former

Perimeter Road (now a bike path) to the north, Seabee Avenue to the east, Newcomb Road to the west, and Babcock Road to the south. Most of the Property is currently owned by the Quonset Development

Corporation (QDC), a special purpose subsidiary of the Rhode Island Economic Development Corporation

(RIEDC), except for approximately 1.7 acres in the southwest corner of the Property that was purchased by Chipster, LLC in 2008.

Historical operations conducted on the Property resulted in releases of hazardous materials and impacts to environmental media. In addition, multiple releases of contamination have been documented on sites located downgradient and unrelated to the Property operations; it is likely that plumes from these locations have commingled with the Property plume.

Figure 1-1: Site Location

Project Number: 60608472 AECOM

Rpt_FINAL_PR-58 VE Study 2021.12.28.Docx 3

Figure 1-2: Site Plan

A Design Analysis Report (DAR) for implementation of ISTR was completed to document design decisions in the development of a Performance Work Statement (PWS). The PWS is a contract document to procure services for ISTR at the Former Nike Battery PR-58 & DVTA. Site contaminants of concern (COCs) include the following eight chlorinated volatile organic compounds (VOCs):

◼ 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane (TeCA)

◼ 1,1,2-trichloroethane

◼ 1,1-dichloroethylene

◼ cis-1,2-dichloroethylene

◼ tetrachloroethylene (PCE)

◼ trans-1,2-dichloroethylene

◼ trichloroethylene (TCE)

◼ vinyl chloride (VC)

The selected remedy for the Property is ISTR in the Source Area and reductive dechlorination in the downgradient plume, coupled with monitored natural attenuation (MNA) and Institutional Land Use

Controls (ILUCs). The following primary performance requirements were established for the Source Area

ISTR:

◼ Meet soil cleanup goals for Site COCs, which are defined as 1 milligram per kilogram (mg/kg) for each individual COC and 10 mg/kg total chlorinated VOCs (CVOCs)

◼ Operate the thermal treatment system for a minimum of 110 days at a target temperature of 146 degrees Celsius (°C), defined by all subsurface temperature sensors reaching a minimum temperature of 93°C and 95% of them reaching the target temperature

◼ Continue operation of the treatment system until the mass removal rate is reduced to 10% of the mass removal rate at the peak operation of the system or achieve a linear mass removal rate curve as determined by statistical trend analysis (Mann-Kendall)

Project Number: 60608472 AECOM

Rpt_FINAL_PR-58 VE Study 2021.12.28.Docx 4

The three commercially available ISTR technologies, which include thermal conductive heating (TCH), electrical resistance heating (ERH), and steam enhanced extraction (SEE), were evaluated. TCH and ERH bench tests were performed by McMillan-McGee in 2021 using Site soil and bedrock. These tests showed that Site media were amenable to heating by TCH due to adequate thermal conductivity but were not amenable to ERH due to high variability in electrical resistivity. A SEE pilot test was performed at the Site in 2005 by EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc. (EA) and was unsuccessful in achieving target temperatures or mass removal goals. Accordingly, TCH was selected for ISTR implementation.

Numerical modeling of subsurface heat-up and contaminant fate was used to estimate the required target treatment temperature and operational duration for meeting soil cleanup goals, as well as to inform the design of the ISTR wellfield layout. Due to the high proportion of COC mass as TeCA and the high total organic carbon (TOC) content of certain soil samples within the Source Area, the normal boiling point of

TeCA, 146ºC, was selected as the target treatment temperature. In order to achieve a treatment temperature in excess of water’s boiling point, the thermal treatment zone must be dewatered, so the design included multiphase extraction wells, perimeter sheet piling, and a dense spacing of ISTR heater wells.

1.2.1 Key Challenges, Issues, Constraints, Risks

During the Information Phase, the VE Team, the design team and the USACE discussed the project’s challenges, risks, issues, opportunities, and constraints which included:

◼ the project may not be biddable in its current format due to the number of unknowns

◼ USACE does not own the property

◼ USACE does not control access to the Site

◼ further evaluation of whether or not dewatering is required

◼ further evaluation of the required target temperature (100°C vs. >100°C)

◼ utility limitations

◼ unknown number of phases which will impact schedule and funding

◼ funding limitations

◼ schedule

◼ unknown soil conditions

◼ material pricing and supply chain issues

The issues, constraints, challenges, opportunities, and risks are provided in Appendix B.

1.2.2 VE Study Objectives

During the Information Phase, the USACE, the design team and the VE Team discussed the goals and objectives of the VE Study, which are to review the DAR with respect to cost effectiveness and function and provide alternative solutions keeping in mind the project issues, challenges, constraints, risks, and opportunities identified in Appendix B of this report.

1.2.3 VE Study Highlights

At the beginning of the Creative Phase, the VE Team identified the key project functions to brainstorm, which included “Determine Treatment Approach”, “Define Treatment Zone”, and “Construct ISTR”. For

Project Number: 60608472 AECOM

Rpt_FINAL_PR-58 VE Study 2021.12.28.Docx 5 each of these value target areas, the VE Team brainstormed ideas to accomplish the functions. The VE

Team reviewed the identified project functions, the issues, challenges, constraints, opportunities, and risks as well as the Pareto Cost Models to assist in the generation of ideas. The results of the Creative Phase and the Evaluation Phase are summarized in Table 1-1.

Table 1-1: Summary of VE Study Results

Value Target Areas No. of Ideas VE Proposals QRC NCF With ABD

Determine Treatment Approach (DTA) 17 15 0 1 1 0

Define Treatment Zone (DTZ) 4 3 0 0 0 1

Construct ISTR (CISTR) 6 2 0 0 3 1

Total 27 20 0 1 4 2

Notes: QRC = Quality Review Comment; NCF = Not Carried Forward; With = Idea was developed with another idea;

ABD = Already Being Done

Project Number: 60608472 AECOM

Rpt_FINAL_PR-58 VE Study 2021.12.28.Docx 6

2. Value Study Results and Proposals

This section of the report documents the results of the VE Study. The VE Proposals are conceptual in nature and are not intended as final designs. Detailed feasibility and final design development of any VE

Proposals presented herein, should they be accepted, remain the responsibility of the design team and

USACE. VE Team members have not and will not sign or seal any VE Proposals contained in this report as certifiable engineering or architectural designs.

The VE Team had limited time and resources to prepare cost estimates for each VE Proposal. Therefore, these cost estimates are not recommended to be used for budgeting or construction purposes. The USACE and the design team should more accurately quantify any savings / additional costs of the VE Proposals they accept.

2.1 Table of Value Proposals

Table 2-1 presents a summary of the 20 ideas developed into VE Proposals. This table indicates whether the VE Proposal is a Quantitative VE Proposal (i.e., reduces the initial costs of the project) or a Qualitative

VE Proposal (i.e., increases initial costs or does not have a cost impact or the cost impact could not be determined). Quantitative VE Proposals are indicated in Table 2-1 with a QNT, and the values are positive and Qualitative VE Proposals with a QL, and the values are negative.

Table 2-1 documents separately the VE Proposals developed:

◼ to address the VE Team’s concerns with respect to the number of unknowns

◼ to address constructability and to mitigate risks

Project Number: 60608472 AECOM

Rpt_FINAL_PR-58 VE Study 2021.12.28.Docx 7

Table 2-1: Summary of VE Proposals

VE Proposal No.

Idea No. Description Proposal Type Additional

Design Costs Construction Cost

Impacts Preliminary

Decision Comments

Determine Treatment Approach (DTA)

VE-1 DTA-1 Consider different thermal treatment approaches for bedrock

vs. overburden. Target 100°C in bedrock

QNT - $2,600,000 to $4,000,000

Further Study The feasibility and necessity of targeting 146°C in bedrock can be further scrutinized. Specifying different target temperatures for overburden and bedrock will be considered. If implemented, this strategy could reduce the number of heater wells required in bedrock, but the same high density of heater wells would still be required in the overburden zone. Different drilling methods may be necessary.

VE-2 DTA-2 Conduct Request for Information (RFI) to thermal community QL -$28,000 - Accept

VE-3 DTA-3 Conduct additional bench scale study QL -$55,000 - Further Study

VE-4 DTA-4 Update DAR to include a cost and schedule for a 3-phased treatment approach (most likely scenario given existing power)

QL -$21,000 - Accept To be further discussed with design team and USACE

VE-5 DTA-5 Document models ability and limitations (i.e. 2-dimensional [2- D]) to predict an outcome

QL -$1,400 - Accept

VE-6 DTA-6 Determine if existing 2-D model can be improved QL -$100,000 - Reject

VE-7 DTA-7 Provide environmental visualization software (EVS) Model to bidders

QL - - Accept The existing model cannot easily be upgraded to a 3D model. It would be overly complex due to the high number of variables and calculations required. Also, the cost of the model would not justify the benefit; since the data density will not change, the output would still have a high degree of uncertainty.

VE-8 DTA-9 Provide detailed geology and hydrogeology characterization QL -$255,000 - Accept

VE-9 DTA-10 Demonstrate the feasibility of dewatering and the implications of groundwater upwelling

QL -$100,000 - Further Study

VE-10 DTA-11 Undertake utility study (power/gas) QL -$27,500 - Accept Might include with DTA-2

VE-11 DTA-12 Determine available capacity of utilities (power/gas) QL -$5,000 - Accept

VE-12 DTA-13 Evaluate the use of liquified petroleum gas (LPG) or liquefied natural gas (LNG) as input source for heating wells

QL - - Accept

VE-13 DTA-14 Allow non-emergency use of power generation (prime power generator)

QNT - $366,000 Accept Study to determine what the cost would be to have these on-site

VE-14 DTA-16 Utilize the residual heat from the source area (and potentially downgradient monitoring infrastructure) to support enhanced in situ reductive (abiotic and biotic) treatment in the downgradient plume

QL - Accept

VE-15 DTA-17 Evaluate methods to mitigate adverse effects of dewatering bedrock

QL -$56,000 - Accept with Modification

Define Treatment Zone (DTZ)

VE-16 DTZ-1 Revisit data density relative to cost of ISTR (optimize your Return on Investigation)

QL -$353,000 Accept

VE-17 DTZ-2 Secure a real estate agreement with QDC QL - - Accept

VE-18 DTZ-4 Consider a cost reimbursable contract QL - - Accept

Construct ISTR (CISTR)

VE-19 CISTR-5 Re-evaluate the requirement for sheet piling for the purposes of hydrologic control

QNT - $1,724,200 Further Study

VE-20 CISTR-6 Monitor potential contaminant migration during ISTR QL - -$104,000 Further Study

Project Number: 60608472 AECOM

Rpt_FINAL_PR-58 VE Study 2021.12.28.Docx 8

2.2 Recommended Value Proposals

Table 2-2 provides the Maximum Potential Cost Savings based on the 20 VE proposals that can be realized based on initial construction costs. It also provides the recommended additional design studies that should be undertaken as well as “Value Added” VE Proposals to reduce initial construction costs and provide additional information for design. This table excludes mutually exclusive ideas

Project Number: 60608472 AECOM

Rpt_FINAL_PR-58 VE Study 2021.12.28.Docx 9

Table 2-2: Recommended VE Proposals

VE Proposal No.

Idea No. Description Proposal Type Additional

Design Costs Construction Cost

Impacts

Recommended Additional Studies to be Completed

Maximum Potential Construction Cost

Savings Value Added

Determine Treatment Approach (DTA)

VE-1 DTA-1 Consider different thermal treatment approaches for bedrock vs. overburden.

Target 100°C in bedrock

QNT - $2,600,000 to $4,000,000

$2,600,000 to $4,000,000

$2,600,000 to $4,200,000

VE-2 DTA-2 Conduct RFI to thermal community QL -$28,000 - -$28,000 - -$28,000

VE-3 DTA-3 Conduct additional bench scale study QL -$55,000 - -$55,000 - -$55,000

VE-4 DTA-4 Update DAR to include a cost and schedule for a 3-phased treatment approach (most likely scenario given existing power)

QL -$21,000 - -$21,000 - -$21,000

VE-5 DTA-5 Document models ability and limitations (i.e. 2-D) to predict an outcome QL -$1,400 - -$1,400 - -$1,400

VE-6 DTA-6 Determine if existing 2-D model can be improved QL -$100,000 - -$100,000 - -$100,000

VE-7 DTA-7 Provide EVS Model to bidders QL - - - - -

VE-8 DTA-9 Provide detailed geology and hydrogeology characterization QL -$255,000 - -$255,000 - -$255,000

VE-9 DTA-10 Demonstrate the feasibility of dewatering and the implications of groundwater upwelling

QL -$100,000 - -$100,000 - -$100,000

VE-10 DTA-11 Undertake utility study (power/gas) QL -$27,500 - -$27,500 - -$27,500

VE-11 DTA-12 Determine available capacity of utilities (power/gas) QL -$5,000 - - - -

VE-12 DTA-13 Evaluate the use of LPG or LNG as input source for heating wells QL - - - - -

VE-13 DTA-14 Allow non-emergency use of power generation (prime power generator) QNT - $366,000 - $366,000 $366,000

VE-14 DTA-16 Utilize the residual heat from the source area (and potentially downgradient monitoring infrastructure) to support enhanced in situ reductive (abiotic & biotic) treatment in the downgradient plume

QL - - - - -

VE-15 DTA-17 Evaluation of methods to mitigate adverse effects of dewatering bedrock QL -$56,000 - -$56,000 - -$56,000

Define Treatment Zone (DTZ)

VE-16 DTZ-1 Revisit data density relative to cost of ISTR (optimize your Return on Investigation)

QL -$353,000 -$353,000 - -$353,000

VE-17 DTZ-2 Secure a real estate agreement with QDC QL - - - - -

VE-18 DTZ-4 Consider a cost reimbursable contract QL - - - - -

Construct ISTR (CISTR)

VE-19 CISTR-5 Re-evaluate the requirement for sheet piling for the purposes of hydrologic control

QNT - $1,724,200 - $1,724,200 $1,724,200

VE-20 CISTR-6 Monitoring of potential contaminant migration during ISTR QL -$104,000 - - -$104,000

Total -$996,900 $4,690,200 to $6,090,200

Project Number: 60608472 AECOM

Rpt_FINAL_PR-58 VE Study 2021.12.28.Docx 10

2.3 Quality Review Comments

Quality Review Comments were not identified by the VE Team during the VE Study.

2.4 Individual Value Proposals

The 20 VE Proposals developed by the VE Team are provided in this section. The cost estimates for the

VE Proposals, where applicable, are based on the cost estimate provided by the AECOM Design Team as well as the AECOM proposal cost estimate to undertake the design.

Project Number: 60608472 AECOM

Rpt_FINAL_PR-58 VE Study 2021.12.28.Docx 11

VE PROPOSAL VE-1

PROJECT: Idea No.: DTA-1

Former Nike Battery PR-58 & Disaster Training Village Area Date: November 3, 2021

DESCRIPTION OF VE PROPOSAL: Page No.: 1 of 6

Consider different thermal treatment approaches for bedrock vs. overburden. Target 100°C in bedrock

Prepared By: Erin Hauber

VE-1: DTA-1: Consider different thermal treatment approaches for bedrock vs. overburden. Target 100°C in bedrock

VE PROPOSAL SYNOPSIS: Given the difference in mass distribution (higher in overburden/weathered bedrock {OB/WBR}), TOC content (higher in OB/WBR), and complexities involved in dewatering (higher degree of complexity in bedrock), consider targeting steaming conditions in bedrock, regardless of the target treatment for OB/WBR.

ORIGINAL DESIGN: Thermally dewater the overburden, weathered bedrock, and fractured bedrock, by using a sheet pile wall driven into the WBR, grouting fractures during construction, using steam injection, and spacing heaters close enough (higher energy density) that allows boiling off all water. Once dewatering occurs, heating will continue until 146°C is reached. This temperature will be held for a minimum of 110 days.

PROPOSED DESIGN: Target steaming temperatures in bedrock

ADVANTAGES:

Reduces energy

Reduces infrastructure (grout curtain and number of heaters)

Reduces contract risk

Reduces treatment timeframe

Reduces complexity of Remedial Action (RA)

Reduces cost and likelihood of contract modifications

DISADVANTAGES:

Lower degree of confidence in complete mass removal

The 2-D model (see Exhibit 2 below), elevated TOC, and Aberdeen case study shed doubt on efficacy of treatment at 100°C

This is the subject of other VE Proposals

DISCUSSION/JUSTIFICATION:

Reduces energy, well field infrastructure, above ground power delivery infrastructure / phasing, and contractual risk

Dewatering fractured bedrock is challenging and may not be feasible

◼ Dewatering fractured bedrock creates a significant pressure differential (75 feet [ft] of head or

32 pounds per square inch [psi]), both horizontally and vertically

◼ Water follows the path of least resistance and will want to flow into the Target Treatment Zone

(TTZ) shown in the figure below

◼ Grout curtains or steam spears may reduce flux, but they won’t eliminate flux

Project Number: 60608472 AECOM

Rpt_FINAL_PR-58 VE Study 2021.12.28.Docx 12

VE PROPOSAL VE-1

PROJECT: Idea No.: DTA-1

Former Nike Battery PR-58 & Disaster Training Village Area Date: November 3, 2021

DESCRIPTION OF VE PROPOSAL: Page No.: 2 of 6

Consider different thermal treatment approaches for bedrock vs. overburden. Target 100°C in bedrock

Prepared By: Erin Hauber

◼ DAR, Section 3.10 acknowledges this risk “The primary challenge in achieving temperatures above the boiling point of water arises because as water within the TTZ is vaporized, an inward hydraulic gradient is created that drives the flux of the surrounding groundwater into the TTZ.”

After treatment, assuming dewatering is achievable, water from outside the TTZ will recharge the TTZ.

A healthy percentage of this water will be impacted with TeCA and TCE and re-contaminate the TTZ.

If the USACE ask for something that involves significant risk or uncertainty in their Request for Proposal

(RFP)/PWS; 1) They will pay a premium for that risk; 2) They will pay for it after award in the form of

Request for Equitable Adjustment [REAs] and after Fixed Fee Price (FFP) budgets are set; or, 3)

Contractors won’t submit proposals

Other lines of evidence could be used to bolster confidence in mass removal under steaming conditions: 1) Bench scale study; 2) RFI on efficacy of treatment at 100°C based on thermal vendor community’s experience; 3) Revisiting limitations of the model; 4) Phasing treatment to allow evaluation of treatment at 100°C before going full scale

SCHEDULE IMPACTS: DAR Table 3-8 (embedded below) estimates 60 additional days for high temperature operations (210 vs. 270 days) compared to standard (non-extended) 100°C treatment. There will be schedule savings in construction (i.e., 65 fewer heaters). Power demand decreases from 6.5 megawatts (MW) to 5.1MW and may affect the total number of phases.

QUALITATIVE BENEFITS:

Reliability: A 100°C target treatment approach is a more achievable endpoint. A 100°C treatment approach has a minimal change on site hydraulics. The efficacy of 100°C treatment on TeCA removal is the subject of other VE Proposals.

Operation & Maintenance (O&M): Increases the predictability of operations. If dewatering, construction would be slowed down by reviewing rock cores and grouting fractures. Operation could result in chasing areas where water is infiltrating.

Functionality: a non-grouted bedrock zone would allow heated, treated water to migrate downgradient and potentially enhance the performance of the in situ downgradient plume remedy.

Performance Improved Maintained

(No Change) Degraded Explanation

Reliability x If mass removal at 100°C can be vetted

Operation and Maintenance x

Functionality x

Project Number: 60608472 AECOM

Rpt_FINAL_PR-58 VE Study 2021.12.28.Docx 13

VE PROPOSAL VE-1

PROJECT: Idea No.: DTA-1

Former Nike Battery PR-58 & Disaster Training Village Area Date: November 3, 2021

DESCRIPTION OF VE PROPOSAL: Page No.: 3 of 6

Consider different thermal treatment approaches for

Project Number: 60608472 AECOM

Rpt_FINAL_PR-58 VE Study 2021.12.28.Docx 14

VE PROPOSAL VE-1

PROJECT: Idea No.: DTA-1

Former Nike Battery PR-58 & Disaster Training Village Area Date: November 3, 2021

DESCRIPTION OF VE PROPOSAL: Page No.: 4 of 6

Consider different thermal treatment approaches for

Project Number: 60608472 AECOM

Rpt_FINAL_PR-58 VE Study 2021.12.28.Docx 15

VE PROPOSAL VE-1

PROJECT: Idea No.: DTA-1

Former Nike Battery PR-58 & Disaster Training Village Area Date: November 3, 2021

DESCRIPTION OF VE PROPOSAL: Page No.: 5 of 6

Consider different thermal treatment approaches for

Project Number: 60608472 AECOM

Rpt_FINAL_PR-58 VE Study 2021.12.28.Docx 16

VE PROPOSAL VE-1

PROJECT: Idea No.: DTA-1

Former Nike Battery PR-58 & Disaster Training Village Area Date: November 3, 2021

DESCRIPTION OF VE PROPOSAL: Page No.: 6 of 6

Consider different thermal treatment approaches for

ASSUMPTIONS AND CALCULATIONS:

Assumptions are captured in the VE Proposal cost estimate

The cost estimate provided by AECOM already includes mark-ups

COST ESTIMATE:

Construction Item Current Design Proposed Design

Item Units No. of Units Cost / Unit Total No. of

Units

Cost

/ Unit

Total

Install 65 additional heaters into bedrock

(extend heaters to ~85 ft below ground surface

[bgs]) each 65 x 85 ft =

5,525

$150/ft $0.83M

Install grout curtain

(Review rock cores or use downhole geophysics, then inject grout in distinct interval at 5-10ft spacing around perimeter) ft 700 ft x [(40ft bedrock) x

75%+15ft bedrock x 25%)

@ 5 to 10ft spacing, single row=

2,360-4,725ft

$200/ft for grouting +

$100/ft drilling thru OB/WBR

$0.5-1M

$0.3 –

0.6M

Additional energy to dewater

MWH (8,900-16,300)

x 0.6 =

$120/MWH $0.6-1.2M

O&M – equipment rental, operator month 2 $250K/month $0.4M

Total $2.6-

$4.0M

$0

Net Cost Avoidance $2.6-

$4.0M

Notes: MWH = Megawatt hour

Project Number: 60608472 AECOM

Rpt_FINAL_PR-58 VE Study 2021.12.28.Docx 17

VE PROPOSAL VE-2

PROJECT: Idea No.: DTA-2

Former Nike Battery PR-58 & Disaster Training Village Area Date: November 3, 2021

DESCRIPTION OF VE PROPOSAL: Page No.: 1 of 5

Conduct RFI to thermal community Prepared By: Erin Hauber

VE-2: DTA-2: Conduct Request for Information (RFI) to thermal community

VE PROPOSAL SYNOPSIS: Conduct a RFI to vendors. This RFI will allow the design team to solicit pre-

RFP feedback on the treatment approach, efficacy of treatment at different temperatures, project risks and uncertainties, utility demand, and pricing for different scenarios (e.g., phasing, TTZ size, target temperature). This allows vendors a preview of the Site and an opportunity to set up their cost models in advance of the RFP which reduces the burden of proposal assembly when the RFP is released.

ORIGINAL DESIGN: A RFI to vendors has not been conducted

PROPOSED DESIGN: Conduct an RFI prior to solicitation

Provides feedback on thermal treatment approach (300+ case studies vs. 2-3 in the DAR)

Allows vendors to identify risk factors

Gathers pricing on different scenarios (100°C vs. >100°C), volume X vs. volume Y, 1 Phase vs. 4

Phases, quantifies utility demand

Grants vendors review of the Site in preparation for RFP (can help reduce number of bidder inquiries)

Requires additional time to assemble, send to vendors, review feedback, and adjust design, as needed

May be limitations to conducting too close to RFP date

Provides feedback on thermal treatment approach (300+ case studies vs. 2-3 in the DAR)

Allows vendors to identify risk factors

Gathers pricing on different scenarios (100°C vs. >100°C), volume X vs. volume Y, 1 Phase vs. 4

Phases, quantifies utility demand

Grants vendors review of the Site in preparation for RFP (can help reduce number of bidder inquiries)

RFI examples can be provided to the Project Delivery Team (PDT)

SCHEDULE IMPACTS: If the target treatment approach were adjusted to 100°C, it could reduce RA timeframe significantly. Conducting the RFI could require approximately 1-2 weeks to assemble, 3 weeks for input from vendors, approximately 2 weeks to review and discuss, and additional time if adjustments are made to the design. If developing in parallel with the PWS, design changes could be minimized.

Project Number: 60608472 AECOM

Rpt_FINAL_PR-58 VE Study 2021.12.28.Docx 18

VE PROPOSAL VE-2

PROJECT: Idea No.: DTA-2

Former Nike Battery PR-58 & Disaster Training Village Area Date: November 3, 2021

DESCRIPTION OF VE PROPOSAL: Page No.: 2 of 5

Conduct RFI to thermal community Prepared By: Erin Hauber

Reliability: Will vet the approach with industry experience

O&M: Supports decision making and thermal treatment approach which has a direct impact on O&M – energy use, power demand, duration of treatment

Functionality: May lead to more functional procurement and RA implementation if design strategy is in alignment with vendors or points of dissent or disagreement are understood in advance.

(No Change) Degraded Explanation

Reliability x Vets approach

Operation and Maintenance

Functionality x Reduce surprises during RFP

Example with Excerpts from RFI (full examples can be provided)

Project Number: 60608472 AECOM

Rpt_FINAL_PR-58 VE Study 2021.12.28.Docx 19

VE PROPOSAL VE-2

PROJECT: Idea No.: DTA-2

Former Nike Battery PR-58 & Disaster Training Village Area Date: November 3, 2021

DESCRIPTION OF VE PROPOSAL: Page No.: 3 of 5

Project Number: 60608472 AECOM

Rpt_FINAL_PR-58 VE Study 2021.12.28.Docx 20

VE PROPOSAL VE-2

PROJECT: Idea No.: DTA-2

Former Nike Battery PR-58 & Disaster Training Village Area Date: November 3, 2021

DESCRIPTION OF VE PROPOSAL: Page No.: 4 of 5

Project Number: 60608472 AECOM

Rpt_FINAL_PR-58 VE Study 2021.12.28.Docx 21

VE PROPOSAL VE-2

PROJECT: Idea No.: DTA-2

Former Nike Battery PR-58 & Disaster Training Village Area Date: November 3, 2021

DESCRIPTION OF VE PROPOSAL: Page No.: 5 of 5

Assumed combined PDT time to assemble RFI and review responses. Used average overhead (OH) labor costs for USACE.

Item Units Qty Unit $ Total Qty Unit $ Total

RFI Assembly hrs

$0 80 $175 $14,000

RFI Response Review hrs

Total

$0

$28,000

Net Cost Increase $28,000

Project Number: 60608472 AECOM

Rpt_FINAL_PR-58 VE Study 2021.12.28.Docx 22

VE PROPOSAL VE-3

PROJECT: Idea No.: DTA-3

Former Nike Battery PR-58 & Disaster Training Village Area Date: November 3, 2021

DESCRIPTION OF VE PROPOSAL: Page No.: 1 of 5

Conduct additional bench scale study Prepared By: Erin Hauber

VE-3: DTA-3: Conduct additional bench scale study

VE PROPOSAL SYNOPSIS: Conduct additional bench scale study with site-specific overburden and WBR soils.

ORIGINAL DESIGN: Existing ERH bench scale study which heated to and maintained temps at 100°C showed >99.96% removal of TeCA, much higher than our models predicted under best case scenario. The starting concentration was 130 mg/kg. TCE did not accumulate and all other COCs were below detection limits.

PROPOSED DESIGN: Reconduct bench scale test to evaluate thermal treatment approach. Test TeCA removal at 100°C via different pore volumes (i.e., standard vs. extended operation assumed in the DAR) and at >100°C up to 146°C if results of 100°C test indicate mass remains. Track TOC and pH.

Simulates mass removal of different treatment approaches using site-specific soils

Can provide a strong line of evidence for selected treatment approach

Lines of evidence: case studies, model, thermal community experience<bench scale<pilot study

Requires drilling to collect representative soils; therefore, needs to be timed with investigation work to reduce costs

Requires time/money to conduct

Bench scale studies are in a highly controlled environment and oversimplify field conditions

Provides a strong line of evidence to answer the fundamental question on this project

Initial bench scale study test showed >99.96% removal of TeCA at 100°C

SCHEDULE IMPACTS: If the target treatment approach were adjusted to 100°C, could reduce RA timeframe significantly. Reconducting bench scale study test would take approximately 3 months from the time of sample submission.

Reliability: Vets approach with bench scale

O&M: Supports decision making and thermal treatment approach which has a direct impact on O&M – energy use, power demand, duration of treatment

Functionality: May lead to more functional procurement and RA implementation if design team feels more confident in approach

Project Number: 60608472 AECOM

Rpt_FINAL_PR-58 VE Study 2021.12.28.Docx 23

VE PROPOSAL VE-3

PROJECT: Idea No.: DTA-3

Former Nike Battery PR-58 & Disaster Training Village Area Date: November 3, 2021

DESCRIPTION OF VE PROPOSAL: Page No.: 2 of 5

Conduct additional bench scale study Prepared By: Erin Hauber

(No Change) Degraded Explanation

Reliability x Vets target treatment approach

Operation and Maintenance x Improved confidence in O&M strategy

Functionality x Reduce surprises during RFP

ORIGINAL DESIGN SKETCH: See below

PROPOSED CHANGE SKETCH: Reconduct according to assumptions stated earlier

Excerpts from existing ERH bench scale study

Project Number: 60608472 AECOM

Rpt_FINAL_PR-58 VE Study 2021.12.28.Docx 24

VE PROPOSAL VE-3

PROJECT: Idea No.: DTA-3

Former Nike Battery PR-58 & Disaster Training Village Area Date: November 3, 2021

DESCRIPTION OF VE PROPOSAL: Page No.: 3 of 5

Project Number: 60608472 AECOM

Rpt_FINAL_PR-58 VE Study 2021.12.28.Docx 25

VE PROPOSAL VE-3

PROJECT: Idea No.: DTA-3

Former Nike Battery PR-58 & Disaster Training Village Area Date: November 3, 2021

DESCRIPTION OF VE PROPOSAL: Page No.: 4 of 5

Project Number: 60608472 AECOM

Rpt_FINAL_PR-58 VE Study 2021.12.28.Docx 26

VE PROPOSAL VE-3

PROJECT: Idea No.: DTA-3

Former Nike Battery PR-58 & Disaster Training Village Area Date: November 3, 2021

DESCRIPTION OF VE PROPOSAL: Page No.: 5 of 5

ERH bench scale study, including static and dynamic resistivity + 100°C mass removal test = $25K.

Assume $20K was for mass removal test.

Ideally, ERH would be used to test 100°C scenario to ensure 100°C is maintained and IT-DSP would be

Assumes soil and groundwater can be collected in parallel with additional investigations

Bench Scale Study - excludes resistivity testing (2 x existing Costs)

LS

$0 1 $40,000 $40,000

Architect/Engineer (A/E) Coordination hrs

Shipping LS

$0 1 $1,000 $1,000

$55,000

Net Cost Increase $55,000

Project Number: 60608472 AECOM

Rpt_FINAL_PR-58 VE Study 2021.12.28.Docx 27

VE PROPOSAL VE-4

PROJECT: Idea No.: DTA-4

Former Nike Battery PR-58 & Disaster Training Village Area Date: November 3, 2021

DESCRIPTION OF VE PROPOSAL: Page No.: 1 of 4

Update DAR to include a cost and schedule for a 3-phased treatment approach (most likely scenario given existing power)

Prepared By: Erin Hauber

VE-4: DTA-4: Update DAR to include a cost and schedule for a 3-phased treatment approach (most likely scenario given existing power)

VE PROPOSAL SYNOPSIS: Update DAR to cost out and estimate a schedule for implementing 3 phases of treatment assuming that 1.5-2MW of power is available through the existing 12 kilovolt (kV) line and with supplemental non-emergency power.

ORIGINAL DESIGN: Current design assumes 1 phase of treatment requiring an estimated 6.5MW for the heaters and 0.2 MW for the ISTR above ground treatment system. The high-level estimate provided by the utility company for providing enough power for 1 phase of treatment was excluded from the DAR cost estimate.

PROPOSED DESIGN: Update DAR to include cost and schedule for 3 phases of treatment. This can be used to help weigh the costs of a new electrical line and/or natural gas line based on the utility company’s feasibility study. Construction of Phase 2 and Phase 3 could occur concurrently with Phase 1 operation.

The dewatering strategy would need to be considered for a phased approach. For instance, would there still be one perimeter grout curtain and sheet pile wall or would there be a need to segregate the three areas in order to effectively dewater and prevent infiltration. A phased approach is likely needed to accommodate incremental funding strategy.

Phased approach is most likely given utility constraints and funding constraints

Having the analysis ready supports project planning and decision making in the event upgrades are less costly than anticipated

The current base case is not biddable and does not reflect the most likely scenario

Additional labor involved in presenting the costs, schedule, and considerations for a phased approach within the DAR

Miles 1 2

Price/ft Ft 5,280 10,560

600$ $/ft 3,168,000$ 6,336,000$

900$ $/ft 4,752,000$ 9,504,000$

Feasibility Study: 4 to 6 months, ~$25K

Cost for 1-2 Miles of New

Electrical Service

DAR App F - Estimated budgetary costs for Electrical Power

Project Number: 60608472 AECOM

Rpt_FINAL_PR-58 VE Study 2021.12.28.Docx 28

VE PROPOSAL VE-4

PROJECT: Idea No.: DTA-4

Former Nike Battery PR-58 & Disaster Training Village Area Date: November 3, 2021

DESCRIPTION OF VE PROPOSAL: Page No.: 2 of 4

Update DAR to include a cost and schedule for a 3-phased treatment approach (most likely scenario given existing power)

DISCUSSION/JUSTIFICATION: The DAR should present the most likely scenario or range of scenarios to support project execution.

SCHEDULE IMPACTS: A phased approach will increase the duration of the RA. Updating the DAR will require some additional design time.

(No Change) Degraded Explanation

Reliability x Will lead to a biddable and operable design

Operation and Maintenance

Project Number: 60608472 AECOM

Rpt_FINAL_PR-58 VE Study 2021.12.28.Docx 29

VE PROPOSAL VE-4

PROJECT: Idea No.: DTA-4

Former Nike Battery PR-58 & Disaster Training Village Area Date: November 3, 2021

DESCRIPTION OF VE PROPOSAL: Page No.: 3 of 4

Update DAR to include a cost and schedule for a 3-phased treatment approach (most likely scenario given existing

Project Number: 60608472 AECOM

Rpt_FINAL_PR-58 VE Study 2021.12.28.Docx 30

VE PROPOSAL VE-4

PROJECT: Idea No.: DTA-4

Former Nike Battery PR-58 & Disaster Training Village Area Date: November 3, 2021

DESCRIPTION OF VE PROPOSAL: Page No.: 4 of 4

Update DAR to include a cost and schedule for a 3-phased treatment approach (most likely scenario given existing

ASSUMPTIONS AND CALCULATIONS: Costs include design or labor costs to outline a budgetary estimate, schedule, and dewatering design that reflects power and funding constraints.

COST ESTIMATE: Labour hrs provided below

Labor hrs

$0 120 $175 $21,000

$21,000

Net Cost Increase $21,000

Project Number: 60608472 AECOM

Rpt_FINAL_PR-58 VE Study 2021.12.28.Docx 31

VE PROPOSAL VE-5

PROJECT: Idea No.: DTA-5

Former Nike Battery PR-58 & Disaster Training Village Area Date: November 3, 2021

DESCRIPTION OF VE PROPOSAL: Page No.: 1 of 4

Document models ability and limitations (i.e., 2-D) to predict an outcome

Prepared By: Erin Hauber

VE-5: DTA-5: Document models ability and limitations (i.e., 2-D) to predict an outcome

VE PROPOSAL SYNOPSIS: Include brief write-up in DAR to ensure the model’s prediction of mass removal is balanced by other lines of evidence.

ORIGINAL DESIGN: It appeared that the 2-D model’s prediction of mass removal under various scenarios heavily influenced selection of the dewatering approach.

PROPOSED DESIGN: Include write-up of 2-D model’s limitations to predict mass removal based on the many inter-related, dynamic, and complex processes occurring during ISTR. For instance, how the 2-D model accounts for the impact of TOC on mass transfer to the vapor phase could be overly simplified in the model. There are linear and non-linear isotherms describing sorption. A linear isotherm will tend to overpredict the amount of sorbed phase mass at higher concentrations. For vapor-phase granular activated carbon (VGAC) treatment, sorption decreases with temperature, so the temperature of incoming air is limited. Does the current model consider the impact of temperature on sorption or mass transfer coefficients? Exhibit 6 from the DAR predicts only 40% mass removal @ 5.6% TOC. Having 60% of the mass sorbed seems disproportionately high for a non-aqueous phase liquid (NAPL) site. Models are helpful tools and force designers to define the mechanisms of treatment and mass removal, but they have limitations and need to be supplemented with other lines of evidence when used for predictive purposes.

Project Number: 60608472 AECOM

Rpt_FINAL_PR-58 VE Study 2021.12.28.Docx 32

VE PROPOSAL VE-5

PROJECT: Idea No.: DTA-5

Former Nike Battery PR-58 & Disaster Training Village Area Date: November 3, 2021

DESCRIPTION OF VE PROPOSAL: Page No.: 2 of 4

Document models ability and limitations (i.e., 2-D) to predict an outcome

Simulates mass removal of different treatment approaches using site-specific soils

Can provide a strong line of evidence for selected treatment approach

Lin…