1. Laughton, February 2004Draft - Basis of Estimate for Review 1 Theta 13 Midwest Site Basis of Estimate for Underground Construction Input based on Preliminary Studies

2. Laughton, February 2004Draft - Basis of Estimate for Review 2 Basis of Estimate Overview Documentation Provided –This Text –Site Location Map –Geologic Log of the Braidwood Municipal Well Schedule –Baseline Physics Scope Fixed 2/20/2004 –Basis of Estimate Document Complete - 2/26/2004 –Estimate Delivery - 3/15/2004 Scope Notes –Groundwater control, finish-out and ES&H see Diablo Canyon –A review by FNAL & ANL personnel is recommended to address site-specific si, ES&H, surface structures, infrastructure, design and management issues/costs/scheduling.

3. Laughton, February 2004Draft - Basis of Estimate for Review 3 Baseline Site Location –Site Owned and Operated by Exelon –Roughly 50 miles South West of Chicago –Will County, Illinois –Power Station and proposed shafts and tunnels are sited on an old coal mine property (underground and open cast workings).

4. Laughton, February 2004Draft - Basis of Estimate for Review 4 Baseline Layout - Basis of Estimate Near Site Far Site Plan Section

5. Laughton, February 2004Draft - Basis of Estimate for Review 5 Baseline & Option Commentary The Scope of the Underground Works has not been finalized and may be adjusted as new data is reported from other experiments. The Collaboration is considering options that would change the number and lengths of shafts, tunnels and chambers. One such option is shown on page 8. Where possible please provide bid items and unit pricing that will allow the approximate cost differentials of such changes to be calculated.

6. Laughton, February 2004Draft - Basis of Estimate for Review 6 Option - Under Consideration Near SiteFar Site Plan Section

7. Laughton, February 2004Draft - Basis of Estimate for Review 7 General Construction Statements Costs to be Estimated by Others: –SI, Design and CM –Permanent Surface Structures (include. utilities/roads/buildings) –Installation, Operation and Maintenance (Life-Cycle Costs) Design and Build Contract Format - Design Life ~15yrs Timing: –Decision for design/si funding ~ 2004 –Construction Start ~ 2005/6 –Schedule for Lowest Cost - Near Shaft Delivered First Basic Estimating Scope of This Package –Underground Shell: excavation and support, invert, basic utilities –Surface: site development, spoil sites, basic utilities, settling ponds

8. Laughton, February 2004Draft - Basis of Estimate for Review 8 ES&H Compliance Overview Safety* –OSHA –Uniform Building and Fire Codes Environmental* –Clean air and water acts under a NPDES Permit Other Concerns –Potentially Gassy Ground –Non-electric detonation system required. –Chemical spill containment will be addressed by others (Galena- Platteville it is an permeable and it connects to the regional deep water table) (*For estimating purposes assume Diablo Canyon requirements are also applicable at Braidwood)

9. Laughton, February 2004Draft - Basis of Estimate for Review 9 Security Issues Location –Near and Far sites are both on Exelon Property. Site Access Issues –At the near shaft site access will be from within an heavily- trafficked area close to the reactor - assume 15 minutes inefficiency/shift to get through the check-points. –At the far shaft site independent access is possible - assume no delay. Construction Site Security –Assume guards at both sites 24hr/day, 7 days/week. –Both sites to be fenced and gated. –Additional fencing for magazines (far and near) - probably located adjacent to spoil areas within view of guards.

10. Laughton, February 2004Draft - Basis of Estimate for Review 10 Site Utilities Specific shaft locations have not been identified. Assumptions for costing purposes are as follows: Utilities –Anticipate ability to tie in to local lines. –Say 300 m of pipeline/cable/wire at each site. –Assume all conventional connections required, including power, water, sewer, telephone and other necessary services... Power Supply –Anticipate supplying transformers. –Anticipate paying for all connections and for some assistance from Exelon on siting and installation of all utility runs across their site.

11. Laughton, February 2004Draft - Basis of Estimate for Review 11 Surface Scope Assumptions Near & Far Shaft Sites –Paved road to within ~ 100 m of both shaft platforms. –Sites are in relatively open, flat, low-lying brush-covered areas - assume topsoil stripping, geotextile and at least 60 cm of hard core needed over each area. Near & Far Shaft Spoil Sites –Should be able to find sites adjacent to the platforms - assume 200 m haulage (assume the dolostone tunnel rock will be stockpiled for reuse). –The non-dolostone spoil piles will need capping. Near & Far Shaft Water Treatment, Settlement & Discharge Systems –Assume 50 gpm maximum groundwater inflow/shaft - handled at each outfall. Near & Far Shaft End of Construction –Permanent pumping systems, settling ponds and outfall to Waters of the State (not identified - assume 500 m to outfall) –Repair any wear and tear to Exelon and Braidwood infrastructure/utilities/roads Near & Far Shaft Decommissioning and Site Rehabilitation –Shaft installations removed, and 30 m C-I-P concrete plug ( ~ 5m into bedrock). On surface, hard core removed, topsoil replaced and landscaped.

12. Laughton, February 2004Draft - Basis of Estimate for Review 12 Shaft Blast Mitigation Potential Blasting Problems to Address at Both Shaft Sites –Potential shaft sites likely to be within a few 100 m of Residents/Power Plant –Potential shaft sites likely to be in close proximity to overhead power lines Suggested Mitigation Measures to Include in Estimate –Heavy blast mats to contain 100% of flyrock –Limit blast hours in shaft and first ~ 100 m of tunnel - say 6 am until 10 pm –Noise “mufflers” (Don: in Portland Frontier Kemper (Tri-Met) used a “blast door” at the portal - if it works we could remove blast hour restrictions?) –Monitoring of vibration and noise - say 3 instruments Water Monitoring –Ensure Project does not draw-down the water table or impact the surrounding environment - place piezometers in all site investigation boreholes (estimated by others).

13. Laughton, February 2004Draft - Basis of Estimate for Review 13 Underground Scope 2 x 10m Ø Vertical Shafts –Equipped with Pumps/Elevators (talked to Godwin & Alimak) Running Tunnel (aim for constructable excavations with simple- compatible support and drainage sets) –300m long 8m span horseshoe tunnel, Uniform 1% tunnel gradient to portal Firewall-Isolated Excavations accessed from the Shaft/Tunnel –1 x Near Detector Room - 32 m long 12 m span –2 x Far Detector Rooms with 8 span access tunnels - 16 m long x 12 m span –Utility Room/Sump - nominal length (increase size if inflow greater) –Underground Emergency Refuge Nominal 8 m long 4m span equipped with a 2-hour fire rated wall and a separate ventilation supply (nominal 60 cm lined shaft -> provides tunnel ventilation too) Finish-Out - single continuous floor level –Concrete invert with embedded Hilman roller rails (except in refuge) –Utilities in place at beneficial occupancy: light string, ventilation ducting and fans and refuge firewall –Flood barrier “gate posts” at Far Detector site (1 m high concrete blocks)

14. Laughton, February 2004Draft - Basis of Estimate for Review 14 Geology/Excavation Methods Braidwood Site Geology –Soils overlying sub-horizontal sedimentary rocks.. –Rock Units: Coal measure strata Limestone with shale (NuMI - Fort Atkinson) Shale (NuMI - Scales) Galena Platteville (Dolomitic Limestone or Dolostone) –Notable question marks relating to: Deep water table elevation? In situ stress levels? Swelling potential of rock units containing clay minerals? Excavation Methods –Drill and Blast appears to be preferred excavation method - short tunnels of varying cross-sections sited in some strong rock units –Assumptions relative to rock mass characterization that support the basis of estimate (alignment, supports etc. ) are subject to revision(s) as site-specific investigation data becomes available

15. Laughton, February 2004Draft - Basis of Estimate for Review 15 Preliminary Estimate of Underground Construction Scope Construction Elements - based on preliminary studies –Soils Permeability Reduction by Pre-grouting in soils and top 30 m of bedrock Excavation by Backhoe Initial Support by Steel Ribs and Lagging –Coal measure, limestone and shale rocks units Permeability Reduction by Pre-grouting (one elevation assumed) Excavation by Drill and Blast Initial Support by Rock Bolts and Reinforced Shotcrete (placed after each round) Permeability Reduction by Post-grouting (two elevations assumed) –Galena Platteville Excavation by Drill and Blast Initial Support by Rock Bolts and Reinforced Shotcrete (~ place once a week OK) –No post-grouting anticipated in the Shale and Dolostone (assumed to be “between tables”) –Shaft will receive a permanent cast-in-place lining –Initial Support serves Permanent Support Role in all Tunnels and Rooms

16. Laughton, February 2004Draft - Basis of Estimate for Review 16 Near & Far Shaft Construction Final Lining Top ~70 m of Shafts are contact grouted. Lower Shafts are drained. Residual Flow Rate of less than 50 gpm anticipated. 2 Permanent Pumps designed for 100 gpm each Not to Scale

17. Laughton, February 2004Draft - Basis of Estimate for Review 17 Near & Far Shaft Layouts 2 Alimak-type Elevators –Ref. John Dreyzehner # 847-998-4646 2 Pumps (under crane each 100gpm @ 425’ head) –Ref. Bill Willcox, Godwin Pumps #708-889-1560 Cable Trays, Ventilation and Piping to determine Not to Scale

18. Laughton, February 2004Draft - Basis of Estimate for Review 18 Near & Far Shaft Running Support In Soils –Ribs and Lagging –Ref. Tom Clemens 502- 473-1010 In Rock –Rock Bolts 2.5 m long –1.5 m horizontal/vertical spacing in non-dolostone –1.8 m spacing in Dolostone –10 cm Shotcrete Not to Scale

19. Laughton, February 2004Draft - Basis of Estimate for Review 19 Base of Far Shaft Section Reinforcement Ring @ Intersection –3 rings –8 m bolts –0.8 “sloped” spacing –~ 1.2 horizontal spacing Sump Room –4 m span –8 m high –3 m nominal length –sump extended if required - ƒ(inflow) Not to Scale

20. Laughton, February 2004Draft - Basis of Estimate for Review 20 Far Shaft Floor Plan 30 cm Cast-in Place Concrete Floor Sump Excavation to depth of 4 m Provision for 1m high flood barrier at entrance to each detector room Not to Scale

21. Laughton, February 2004Draft - Basis of Estimate for Review 21 Far Shaft and Detector Room Plan Excavation by Drill & Blast Support as excavated by rock bolts Support at convenience (~1 week) by reinforced shotcrete (10cm) Water Control by weep holes on 5x5 m grid Not to Scale

22. Laughton, February 2004Draft - Basis of Estimate for Review 22 Far Detector Room Section Excavation –Drill & Blast –12 x 14 x 15 m long Support as excavated –Rock Bolts every 1.8 m 5 x 3.0m & 8 x 1.2m –10 cm reinforced shotcrete Water Control –Weep holes 5x5 m grid in dry –Hydroguard over moist/wet fractured zones ~ 30 m of 30cm strips Finish-Out –Shell only with embedded rails, drainage, ventilation and utility run supports Not to Scale

23. Laughton, February 2004Draft - Basis of Estimate for Review 23 Running Tunnel Section Excavation (supported dimension) –Drill & Blast –8 x 8.5 x 300 m long Support as Excavated –Rock Bolts every 1.8 m 5 x 2.5 m long 1.5 m spacing Support Delayed –10 cm reinforced shotcrete everywhere Water Control –Weep holes 5x5 m grid in dry –Hydroguard over moist/wet fractured zones ~ 300 m of 30cm strips Finish-Out –Shell only with drainage, ventilation and utility run supports Not to Scale

24. Laughton, February 2004Draft - Basis of Estimate for Review 24 Base of Near Shaft Section Rock Support as for Far Shaft except only 3 rows of 8 m bolts placed above intersection with Running Tunnel

25. Laughton, February 2004Draft - Basis of Estimate for Review 25 Near Shaft Floor Plan Sump arrangements as for Far Shaft Sump size can be adjusted to accommodate greater residual flow levels

26. Laughton, February 2004Draft - Basis of Estimate for Review 26 Near Detector Room Excavation –Drill and Blast –32 x 12 x 14 m Support –3m bolts on 1.5m center –1.8 m spacing –10cm reinforced shotcrete Finish-out –30 cm concrete floor –Pipe & cable racks –Ventilation duct Tunnel Refuge Not to Scale

27. Laughton, February 2004Draft - Basis of Estimate for Review 27 Safety Refuge Excavation –Drill & Blast –4 x 4 x 8 m long Support as excavated –Rock Bolts every 1.2m 4 x 1.2m Support at convenience –10 cm Reinforced Shotcrete Water Control –Drain strips in wet (hydroguard, waterline or equivalent) –Weep holes 5x5 m grid in dry Firewall and 2hr Rated Door Not to Scale

28. Laughton, February 2004Draft - Basis of Estimate for Review 28 Underground Finish-Out Plan for no encroachment on clearance space anywhere but especially in the arch section of tunnel - plan the excavation profile accordingly (there is no problem if the excavated tunnel centerline “wiggles” a bit as long as the wiggle is gradual say ~ 10cm in 10m and to-portal drain slope is maintained by the pipes Water control measures as for Diablo Canyon (weep holes in lower half of shafts and tunnels and drain strips in detector rooms) A nominal overbreak limit should be called-out - say ~ 30cm Continuous Concrete Invert –Embedded invert drain pipes along the sidewalls –Pipe/Cable Stands, flexible cables may be added/hung from wall Ventilation - 60 cm duct currently sized – exhaust/inlets at crown of excavated structures (potentially gassy ground) –Maximum occupancy 25 person during installation –Fan left-in-place to have capacity to make 1 complete air change an hour (say reconditioned construction fan OK)

29. Laughton, February 2004Draft - Basis of Estimate for Review 29 Potential Geo-Showstopper & Cost Drivers Underground costs can vary dramatically from site to site ƒ(end-user requirements, dimensions, construction methods and means, market conditions, and, above all, the ground conditions…. Groundwater –Basis of estimate assumes Galena Platteville is dry and “between aquifers”. –Pre- and Post- grouting assumed in overlying rock strata Hydrocarbons –Basis of estimate assumed that the coal measure rocks are Gassy Ground. Rock Temperature –Assumed to be temperate and stable. Problem Ground Behaviors (mitigate through design) –Blocky ground (bolting) –High horizontal stresses (type and timing of support) –Swelling rocks (shotcrete) –Open jointing in G-P (hopefully its not saturated!)

30. Laughton, February 2004Draft - Basis of Estimate for Review 30 Contingency Considerations 1 Data Sources –Site cores, City Well Log, ISGS Geo-Map/Field Notes Geo-Structure & Geo-Units –Sands and tills over layer-cake sedimentary rock units (cola measure, limestone, shale and dolostone) Data Deficiencies –No on-site logs to tunnel depth were available –Geotechnical assumptions as to rock conditions at tunnel depth are currently “educated” guesses based on regional data sets (materials, stresses, water table elevation…). These preliminary assumptions are subject to revision.

31. Laughton, February 2004Draft - Basis of Estimate for Review 31 Contingency Considerations 2 Rock mass characterization, alignment and design assumptions are subject to review after site-specific investigation work is performed Localized studies and site-specific investigation is a pre-requisite to support the advancement of the underground design Preliminary Geotechnical evaluation based on desk studies of regional data sets alone. We do not know for sure what is there because we haven’t looked yet! Can’t mitigate what has not yet been identified! Contingency Allocated