PROJECT EXECUTION PLAN - UNT Digital Library/67531/metadc734151/...PROJECT EXECUTION PLAN Environmental Restoration Division U.S. Department of Energy National Nuclear Security Administration

DOE/NV--536--REV. 3

PROJECT EXECUTION PLAN

Environmental Restoration DivisionU.S. Department of Energy

National Nuclear Security AdministrationNevada Operations Office

Las Vegas, Nevada

Revision No.: 3

July 2002

Approved for public release; further dissemination unlimited.

i

Preface

This plan addresses project activities encompassed by the U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE’s),

National Nuclear Security Administration Nevada Operations Office, Environmental Restoration

Division and conforms to the requirements contained in the Life-Cycle Asset Management,

DOE Order 430.1A; The Joint Program Office Policy on Project Management in Support of

DOE Order 430.1; Program and Project Management for the Acquisition of Capital Assets,

DOE Order 413.3; the Project Execution and Engineering Management Planning Guide,

GPG-FM-010; and other applicable Good Practice Guides; and the FY 2001 Integrated Planning,

Accountability, and Budgeting System Policy Guidance.

The plan also reflects the milestone philosophies of the Federal Facility Agreement and Consent

Order, as agreed to by the State of Nevada, the DOE, and the U.S. Department of Defense; and

traditional project management philosophies such as the development of life-cycle costs,

schedules, and work scope; identification of roles and responsibilities; and baseline management

and controls.

ii

Table of Contents

Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i

List of Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v

List of Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vi

List of Acronyms and Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii

1.0 INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-1

1.1 History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-1

1.2 Project Summary Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-2

1.3 Time Frame . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-2

2.0 JUSTIFICATION OF MISSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-1

2.1 Program Mission Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-1

2.2 Project Necessity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-4

2.3 Environmental Restoration Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-4

2.3.1 Technical Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-4

2.3.2 Schedule Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-6

2.3.3 Cost Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-6

3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-1

4.0 MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE AND RESPONSIBILITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-1

4.1 Project Team and Organizational Interfaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-1

4.1.1 NNSA/NV Participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-1

4.1.2 Other Project Participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-5

4.2 Organizational Interfaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-7

4.3 Environmental, Health, and Safety Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-7

4.4 Quality Assurance Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-8

4.5 National Environmental Policy Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-8

Table of Contents (Continued)

iii

5.0 STARTUP PLAN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-1

5.1 Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-1

5.2 Kickoff . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-1

5.3 Oversight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-1

5.4 Readiness Review and Determination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-1

5.5 Prefield Briefing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-2

6.0 WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-1

7.0 RESOURCE PLAN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-1

8.0 PROJECT TECHNICAL, SCHEDULE, AND COST LIFE-CYCLE BASELINES . . . 8-1

9.0 PROJECT CONTROLS SYSTEM DESCRIPTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-1

9.1 Project Management Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-1

9.2 Project Management, Measurement, and Planning and Control Systems . . . . . . . . 9-1

9.3 Work Authorization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-1

9.4 Funds Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-2

9.5 Performance Measurement and Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-2

10.0 BASELINE CHANGE CONTROL APPROVAL AND THRESHOLDS . . . . . . . . . . 10-1

10.1 Change Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10-1

11.0 RISK MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-1

11.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-1

11.2 The NNSA/NV EM Risk Management System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-1

11.3 Risk Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-2

11.3.1 Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-2

11.3.2 Techniques . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-2

11.3.2.1 Expert Interviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-2

11.3.2.2 Plan Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-3

11.3.2.3 Decision Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-3

11.3.2.4 Network Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-3

Table of Contents (Continued)

iv

11.3.2.5 Cost Performance Report Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-3

11.4 Risk Management Team . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-3

11.5 Responsibilities for Risk Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-3

12.0 ACQUISITION STRATEGY PLAN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12-1

13.0 ALTERNATE, TRADEOFFS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13-1

13.1 FFACO Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13-1

13.1.1 Content . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13-1

13.2 Technology Needs and Opportunities Statement Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13-1

13.2.1 Content . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13-2

13.3 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13-2

14.0 TECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14-1

14.1 Configuration Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14-1

15.0 INTEGRATED SAFETY MANAGEMENT PLAN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15-1

16.0 PROJECT QUALITY ASSURANCE PLAN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16-1

17.0 SAFEGUARDS AND SECURITY DOCUMENTATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17-1

18.0 TRANSITION AND CLOSEOUT PLAN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18-1

18.1 Nevada Test Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18-1

18.2 Offsites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18-2

19.0 REFERENCES AND ASSOCIATED DOCUMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19-1

v

List of Figures

Number Title Page

2-1 Nevada Test Site Location Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-2

2-2 NNSA/NV Environmental Restoration Division Offsites Locations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-3

2-3 Data Quality Objectives Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-5

4-1 Nevada Operations Office Organizational Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-2

4-2 Nevada Environmental Restoration Division Organizational Structure . . . . . . . . . . . 4-3

4-3 NNSA/NV Organizations Providing Support to Environmental Management

Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-6

6-1 Nevada Environmental Restoration Project

Work Breakdown Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-2

9-1 EMIS Process Flow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-3

10-1 Baseline Change Control Process Flowchart . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10-2

vi

List of Tables

Number Title Page

4-1 Responsibility Assignment Matrix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-4

vii

List of Acronyms and Abbreviations

ANSI American National Standards Institute

BN Bechtel Nevada

CAU Corrective Action Unit

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

CM Configuration Management

CNTA Central Nevada Test Area

CPR Cost Performance Report

DoD U.S. Department of Defense

DEAR DOE Acquisition Regulations

DOE U.S. Department of Energy

DOE/HQ U.S. Department of Energy, Headquarters

EM Environmental Management

EMPCS Environmental Management Project Control System

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

ER Environmental Restoration

ERD Environmental Restoration Division

ES&H Environmental, Safety, and Health

FAR Federal Acquisition Regulation

FFACO Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order

FIMR Federal Information Resources Management Regulation

FPMR Federal Property Management Regulation

FY Fiscal Year

IPABS-IS Integrated Planning, Accountability, and Budget System - Information System

ISMS Integrated Safety Management System

ITLV IT Corporation, Las Vegas

LCAM Life-Cycle Asset Management

NAFR Nellis Air Force Range

NDEP Nevada Division of Environmental Protection

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

NNSA/NV U.S. Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration

Nevada Operations Office

NTS Nevada Test Site

RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

List of Acronyms and Abbreviations (Continued)

viii

REOP Real Estate/Operations Permit

ROAM Risk Opportunity Assessment Model

RWP Radiological Work Permit

SSHASP Site-Specific Health and Safety Plan

SUD Site Use and Development Board

TPC Total Project Cost

TTR Tonopah Test Range

UGTA Underground Test Area

WBS Work Breakdown Structure

WM Waste Management

1-1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

The U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE’s)

Environmental Management (EM) Program,

created in 1989, addresses the environmental

liabilities of over 50 years of nuclear

weapons production in the United States.

The environmental liabilities include cleanup

costs associated with environmental

contamination, contained hazardous and

radioactive wastes and materials,

contaminated buildings and facilities, and the

associated risks. The costs are collectively

referred to as the Department’s

“environmental mortgage.”

1.1 History

For more than 40 years, the primary mission

of the DOE’s Nevada Operations Office was

to conduct tests of both nuclear and

conventional explosives in connection with

the research and development of nuclear

weapons. Field testing was primarily

conducted at the Nevada Test Site (NTS).

In addition to weapons tests, the NTS has

also hosted secondary missions, including

neutron and gamma-ray interaction studies;

open-air nuclear reactor, nuclear engine, and

nuclear furnace tests; hazardous materials

spill response testing; and experiments

involving radioactivity and nonradioactive

materials conducted by the U.S. Department

of Defense (DoD). In the 1950s,

atmospheric tests were the predominate NTS

activity. Atmospheric testing of nuclear

weapons ceased in 1963, and off-site nuclear

tests ceased in 1973. Nuclear tests

conducted at the NTS after July 1962 were

underground. Underground nuclear testing

was suspended in October 1992, although a

readiness posture is maintained by

Presidential mandate.

The DOE EM Program was established in

1989 at DOE offices around the country to

address environmental liabilities associated

with nuclear weapons production and

testing, and other nuclear experiments, in the

United States. Activities that assess the

degree of contamination resulting from the

testing program and the performance of

corrective actions required by federal and

state regulations are collectively referred to

as environmental restoration. The DOE,

National Nuclear Security Administration

Nevada Operations Office (NNSA/NV)

environmental restoration activities fall under

the purview of the NNSA/NV Environmental

Restoration Division (ERD).

For management purposes, these

environmental restoration responsibilities

have been combined into the NNSA/NV

Environmental Restoration Program, which

in turn is subdivided into the following

projects: Soils, Underground Test Area

(UGTA), Industrial Sites, and Offsites.

1-2

1.2 Project Summary Objectives

The objectives of the Environmental

Restoration Program are to: identify the

nature and extent of the contamination;

determine its potential risk to site workers,

the public, and the environment; and perform

the necessary corrective actions in

compliance with applicable regulatory

guidelines and requirements. The goal of the

Environmental Restoration Program is to

implement appropriate corrective actions and

establish institutional controls at NNSA/NV

responsible sites to ensure the protection of

human health and the environment.

1.3 Time Frame

The end of the Environmental Restoration

Program corrective action implementation

phase corresponds to the estimated end of

the UGTA Project. According to existing

project life-cycle plans, the duration of

activities in the UGTA Project extend for a

longer period than the other projects which

have earlier completion dates. Following the

completion of the NNSA/NV Environmental

Restoration Program, long-term surveillance

and monitoring is projected to continue for

at least 100 years. Institutional control of all

the NNSA/NV responsible sites is

anticipated to continue in perpetuity due

primarily to the nature of deep underground

contamination resulting from the nuclear

tests. Project assumptions are identified

within the NNSA/NV Environmental

Restoration Program Life-Cycle Baselines.

2-1

2.0 JUSTIFICATION OF

MISSION

The mission of the Environmental

Restoration Program is to complete

applicable corrective actions at inactive

contaminated sites and facilities managed by

NNSA/NV while protecting human health

and the environment. This mission will be

accomplished by adhering to the following

core values:

• Ensure protection of site workers,the public, and the environment

• Serve as a model steward of naturaland cultural resources

• Comply with federal, state, and localstatutes

• Use public money prudently inachieving tangible results

• Focus on customer satisfaction andcollaborative decision making

Approximately 2,000 sites both on and offthe NTS that were used primarily for nucleartesting (including nonweapons tests) areaddressed by the Environmental RestorationProgram. Sites include the undergroundareas where tests were conducted,contaminated surface soils that resulted fromatmospheric testing, and sites that supportedtesting activities (e.g., underground storagetanks, leachfields, landfills, contaminatedwaste sites, injection wells, muckpiles, andponds).

The NNSA/NV maintains environmentalrestoration responsibility for historicalnuclear test areas on the NTS and the NellisAir Force Range (NAFR), including the Tonopah Test Range (TTR). Both the TTRand NAFR are located on restricted federalgovernment lands adjacent to the NTS. TheNNSA/NV also has environmentalrestoration responsibility for eight inactiveUnited States nuclear test sites: AmchitkaIsland, Alaska; Rio Blanco (Rifle) andRulison (Grand Valley) sites, Colorado;Salmon site (Hattiesburg), Mississippi;Gasbuggy (Farmington) and Gnome-Coach(Carlsbad) sites, New Mexico; and theCentral Nevada Test Area (CNTA) andProject Shoal Area (Fallon), Nevada. Mapsdepicting the location of these sites are inFigures 2-1 and 2-2. The NNSA/NV isresponsible for the assessment and correctiveactions associated with these sites andfacilities to meet applicable regulatoryrequirements.

2.1 Program Mission Goals The NNSA/NV will implement DOEinitiatives in environmental management andstewardship at the NTS and otherNNSA/NV facilities and sites. TheEnvironmental Restoration Program willcontinue to demonstrate a strongcommitment to the environment. TheNNSA/NV Environmental RestorationProgram will ensure compliance withrequirements and regulations and promoteprotection of the environment, while activelypursuing the necessary corrective actions toaddress historical NNSA/NV nuclear testingactivities. The NNSA/NV will work closelywith federal, state, and local regulators;

2-3

ALASKA

AMCHITKAISLAND

SHOAL

CENTRAL NEVADATEST AREA

RIO BLANCO

GASBUGGY

GNOME-COACH

SALMON

RULISON

Figure 2-2NNSA/NV Environmental Restoration Division Offsites Locations

2-4

the general public; local community; NativeAmericans; and other stakeholders todevelop and achieve these environmentalobjectives.

2.2 Project Necessity The Environmental Restoration Program isneeded to reduce existing environmental,safety, and health risks resulting from pastoperations and to meet regulatoryobligations associated with the FederalFacility Agreement and Consent Order(FFACO) with the State of Nevada and theDoD.

2.3 Environmental RestorationObjectives

The overall objective of the EnvironmentalRestoration Program is to effectivelyimplement project activities in a manner thatis consistent with regulatory requirementsand agreements and that provides for thecontinued protection of human health andthe environment. Supporting the overallobjective are project-specific objectives thatare discussed in detail in the followingsections.

2.3.1 Technical ObjectivesThe technical objectives of theEnvironmental Restoration Program are:

• Identify and characterize inactive orabandoned, contaminated DOE sitesand facilities under the purview of theNNSA/NV EM.

• Plan and implement deactivation anddecommissioning of applicablefacilities. Maintain facilities in a safeconfiguration that will also preventserious physical degradation.

• Develop strategies for applicablecorrective action for sites throughinvestigations, alternative evaluations,and the development of CorrectiveAction Plans.

• Develop models for the UGTA andOffsite subsurface Corrective ActionUnits (CAU) of hydrologicalboundaries encompassinggroundwater resources that may beunsafe for domestic, industrial, ormunicipal use. Long-term monitoringprograms will be established todetermine if model predictions remainvalid.

• Implement selected corrective actionstrategies in a timely manner.

• Establish a comprehensive program toevaluate and implement innovativetechnologies for site characterizationand corrective actions.

Each specific project within the NNSA/NVwill have site- or task-specific technicalobjectives defined as part of project-specificplans. Performance against these objectivesis measured by the degree to which all workproducts and related remedial actiondecisions can be technically defended usingdata that meet established Data QualityObjectives. The U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency (EPA) data qualityobjective process is depicted in Figure 2-3.

2-5

Step 7. Optimize the Design for Obtaining DataSelect resource-effective sampling and analysis planthat meets the performance criteria.

Source: EPA, 2000

Step 1. State the ProblemDefine the problem; identify the p lanning team;examine budget, schedule.

Step 2. Identify the DecisionState decision; identify study question; definealternative actions.

Step 3. Identify the Inputs to the Decision Identify in formation needed for the decision(in formation sources, basis for Action Level, sampling/analysis method).

Step 4. Define the Boundaries of the StudySpecify sample characteristics; definespatial/temporal limits, units of decision making.

Step 5. Develop a Decision RuleDefine statistical parameter (mean, median); specifyAction Level; develop logic for action.

Step 6. Specify Tolerable Limits on Decision ErrorsSet acceptable limits for decision errors relative toconsequences (health effects, costs).

Figure 2-3Data Quality Objectives Process

2-6

2.3.2 Schedule Objectives

This document was prepared in support of

the DOE EM objectives contained in

Integrated Planning, Accountability, and

Budget System - Information System

(IPABS-IS) guidance. The overall schedule

objective for the Environmental Restoration

Program is to complete corrective actions of

identified sites as outlined within the

Environmental Restoration Program

Life-Cycle Baseline.

2.3.3 Cost Objectives

The cost objective for the Environmental

Restoration Program is to complete project

activities as efficiently and effectively as

possible within identified funding levels.

Accuracy of currently identified costs is

highly dependent on future findings of the

nature and extent of contamination,

regulatory interpretations of data sufficiency

and cleanup levels, and the selected

corrective action remedies. Total project

costs based on available data are part of the


Life-Cycle Baseline, and are outlined in the

Integrated Planning, Accountability, and

Budget System - Information System

(IPABS-IS).

The methodology used to develop the

NNSA/NV Environmental Restoration

Program Life-Cycle Baseline was as follows:

• Parametric cost estimates weredeveloped for similar release sites to

estimate Life-Cycle Baseline costswithin each of the respective projects.

• Cost models were developed based onexperience gained during assessmentand corrective activities performed atcompleted sites. The costs wereadjusted up or down based on theestimated areas, volumes ofcontaminated material, and otherfactors as specified in the individualproject sections.

• Costs for closing each CAU within thestate of Nevada were separated intothe following eight activities, outlinedin the FFACO, which may be requiredas part of the corrective actionprocess: the Corrective ActionInvestigation Plan, the CorrectiveAction Decision Document, theCorrective Action Plan, the ClosureReport, the Corrective ActionDecision Document/Closure Report,the Corrective Action DecisionDocument/Corrective Action Plan, theStreamlined Approach forEnvironmental Restoration process,and the housekeeping process.

• Costs required to complete each phasewere further divided into workpackages which include scheduledurations and costs for labor,equipment, materials, subcontracts,and travel.

• In the Soils Project, estimated costsfor each CAU were developed basedon the actual costs for the DoubleTracks and Clean Slate I CAUs.

• For the UGTA Project, a detailedestimate was first developed for the

2-7

Frenchman Flat CAU based on costsexperienced for well installations, datacollection, and modeling activities. The estimate was used as a model andscaled to the other CAUs based on thenumber of wells, depths, geology, andother factors associated with eachCAU.

• In the Industrial Sites Project, siteswere organized into like waste units. Waste units were further organizedinto CAUs, and detailed costestimates were developed for eachCAU.

• In the Offsites Project, cost estimatesfor each site were developed based onactual costs experienced at ProjectChariot in Alaska, the Project Rulisonsite in Colorado, the Salmon site inMississippi, and Project Shoal Area inNevada.

• All costs within the Life-CycleBaseline database are in nonescalatedcurrent fiscal year (FY) dollars. Information in IPABS-ISdocumentation reflects the latestguidance regarding development ofcosts.

Cost estimates in the NNSA/NV


Life-Cycle Baselines and annual task plans

follow guidance established in the following

documents:

• EM CAT Handbook

• Cost Estimation Guide, MA0063,Volumes 1-6

• Cost Estimating Guide - Office ofInfrastructure Acquisition, FM-50,Vol. 6, Rev. 0

3-1

3.0 PROJECTDESCRIPTION

As previously stated, for management

purposes, NNSA/NV environmental

restoration responsibilities have been

combined into the Environmental

Restoration Program, which, in turn, is

subdivided into the following projects: Soils,

UGTA, Industrial Sites, and Offsites.

Project activities include literature searches;

field investigations; preparation of required

documentation; decontamination and

decommissioning of facilities; surveillance

and maintenance, monitoring; and related

regulatory compliance and waste

management activities.

These projects were defined by the source of

contamination and by geographic location.

The Soils Project source of contamination is

widespread surface radioactive contaminants

resulting from nuclear weapons safety tests

on the NTS and NAFR, including the TTR.

The UGTA Project source of contamination

is deep underground radioactive

contaminants resulting from underground

nuclear tests on the NTS. The Industrial

Sites Project source of contamination is

limited area surface or facility radioactive

and hazardous contaminants resulting from

historic nuclear testing support activities on

the NTS and NAFR, including the TTR.

The Offsites Project source of contamination

is both deep underground radioactive

contaminants resulting from underground

nuclear tests, and associated surface

radioactive and hazardous contaminants

resulting from support activities for nuclear

testing at remote locations in Alaska,

Colorado, Mississippi, Nevada, and New

Mexico.

The FFACO was entered into in May 1996

by the State of Nevada, DOE, and the DoD.

The facilities for which DOE is responsible

and which are subject to the FFACO

guidelines include the NTS, parts of the

TTR, parts of the NAFR, the CNTA, and the

Project Shoal area. The agreement

establishes the framework for grouping and

prioritizing project activities, defines the

corrective action strategy for each specific

project, identifies all sites and facilities

requiring investigation and possible

corrective action, provides definition of the

required deliverables, and defines the

mechanisms for dispute resolution. Also

included is the approach for appropriate

public involvement activities

(FFACO, 1996).

Deliverables that may be required under the

FFACO include:

• A Corrective Action InvestigationPlan that provides or references allspecific information for plannedinvestigation activities.

• A Corrective Action DecisionDocument that describes the

3-2

corrective action that is selected as theresult of investigation activities andthe rationale for its selection.

• A Corrective Action Plan thatprovides the plan for implementing theselected corrective action alternative.

• A Streamlined Approach forEnvironmental Restoration Plan thatprovides a plan for initiating andcompleting corrective actions atCAUs where enough informationexists to predict the appropriatecorrective action.

• A Closure Report that states thecompleted corrective action wasconducted in accordance with theapproved Corrective Action Plan andprovides all necessary support data toconfirm the appropriate correctiveaction took place.

• Corrective Action DecisionDocument/Closure Report thatcombines specified elements of thedocuments described above.

• Corrective Action DecisionDocument/Corrective Action Plan thatcombines specified elements of thedocuments described above.

Regulatory guidelines that also affect the

technical objectives include, but are not

limited to, the Resource Conservation and

Recovery Act (RCRA); the Comprehensive

Environmental Response, Compensation,

and Liability Act; the Hazardous and Solid

Waste Amendments to RCRA; National

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA); the Safe

Drinking Water Act; the Clean Air Act;

National Emissions Standards for Hazardous

Air Pollutants; and applicable state statutes

and administrative codes.

4-1

4.0 MANAGEMENT

STRUCTURE AND

RESPONSIBILITIES

The Environmental Restoration Program

team includes key personnel from

NNSA/NV; Bechtel Nevada (BN), which is

responsible for corrective actions within the

state of Nevada (BN is also the management

and operations contractor for the

NNSA/NV); IT Corporation, Las Vegas

(ITLV), which provides project management

and characterization support; and the

national laboratories and federal agencies

that provide technical and scientific support.

Regulators and stakeholders also participate

in the development and implementation of

Environmental Restoration Program efforts

through State agreements, grants to the

Nevada universities and the Harry Reid

Center, the Community Advisory Board, and

other public forums.

4.1 Project Team and

Organizational Interfaces


Team is composed of organizations from the

public and private sectors. Figures 4-1 and

4-2 show the NNSA/NV overall

organization and the NNSA/NV ERD

organizational structures, respectively.

Additional descriptions of the participants

and their roles can be found in the following

sections.

Table 4-1 depicts the Environmental

Restoration Program Responsibility

Assignment Matrix.

4.1.1 NNSA/NV Participants

• Office of the Assistant Manager forEnvironmental Management -Develops policies and procedures andprovides the programmatic planningand centralized management for allNNSA/NV EM activities. Theseactivities are assigned to NNSA/NVby the DOE Headquarter’s(DOE/HQ) Assistant Secretary forEnvironmental Management andinclude assessments and correctiveactions.

• Office of the Assistant Manager forTechnical Services - Develops,interprets, and provides matrixsupport for environmental, safety,and health; and safeguards andsecurity policies, procedures, andpractices to ensure NNSA/NVoperations are conducted in a mannerthat complies with statutes,regulations, orders, mandatedstandards, and DOE/HQ programdirection.

• Assistant Manager for Business andFinancial Services - Responsible forensuring the financial integrity ofNNSA/NV by developing andimplementing appropriate policiesand procedures to provide advice andassistance for effective managementof NNSA/NV finances and related

4-2

U.S. Department of EnergyNational Nuclear Security Administration Nevada Operations Office

OFFICE OF THE MANAGERManager - Kathleen A. Carlson

Deputy Manager - Kenneth W. Powers

Deputy Manager for Test and OperationsJay H. Norman




OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNSELChief Counsel – Kathy D. Izell

YUCCA MOUNTAIN SITE CHARACTERIZATION OFFICE

Project Manager - J. Russell DyerDeputy Project Manager - Donald G. Horton

COMMUNICATION SERVICESDIVISION

Acting Director - Grover Lewis

CONTRACTS MANAGEMENTDIVISION

Director - Melody C. Bell

FINANCIAL SERVICESDIVISION

Director - Richard L. Busboom

HUMAN RESOURCESDIVISION

Director - Audrey S. Clark

RESOURCES MANAGEMENTDIVISION

Director - Allen J. Roberts

ASSISTANT MANAGER FOR TECHNICAL SERVICES

Assistant Manager - VacantDeputy Assistant Manager - Terry Wallace

ENVIRONMENT, SAFETY& HEALTH DIVISION

Director - Kenneth A. Hoar

SAFEGUARDS & SECURITYDIVISION

Director - E. Wayne Adams

ENGINEERING & ASSETMANAGEMENT DIVISION

Director - Steven J. Lawrence

ASSISTANT MANAGER FOR ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT

Assistant Manager - Carl P. GertzDeputy Assistant Manager - Stephen A. Mellington

TECHNOLOGY DIVISIONDirector - Richard D. Betteridge

ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION DIVISIONDirector - Runore C. Wycoff

WASTE MANAGEMENTDIVISION

Director - E. Frank Di Sanza

ASSISTANT MANAGER FOR NATIONAL SECURITY

Assistant Manager - Deborah D. MonetteDeputy Assistant Manager – Timothy J. McEvoy

EMERGENCY MANAGEMENTDIVISION

Director – Donald M. Daigler

SITE MANAGEMENTDIVISION

Acting Director – Michael Childers

STOCKPILE STEWARDSHIPDIVISION

Director – Laura Tomlinson

NATIONAL SECURITYSUPPORT DIVISION

Director - Vacant

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

Victoria L. Scofield

OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRSDirector - Darwin J. Morgan

OFFICE OF QUALITY,LEADERSHIP, & DIVERSITY

Program Manager - Annette M. Hill

OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONALAFFAIRS

Project Manager – Tom Williams

PERFORMANCE ASSURANCEDIVISION

Director - Vacant

INDEPENDENT OVERSIGHTDIVISION

Director – Timothy Henderson

ASSISTANT MANAGER FOR BUSINESS & FINANCIAL SERVICES

Assistant Manager - David L. Marks, Jr.Deputy Assistant Manager - Jerry R. Truax, Jr.











































Director - Vacant









Director - Vacant





Figure 4-1Nevada Operations Office Organizational Structure

4-3

Assistant Manager for Environmental Management

Carl P. Gertz - Assistant Manager

Stephen A. Mellington - Deputy Assistant Manager

Waste Management Division

E. Frank Di Sanza

Environmental Restoration Division

Runore C. Wycoff

Low-Level WasteOperations

Transuranic, Mixed, andSolid Waste Operations

Transportation

RCRA Program

Soils

Underground Test Area

Industrial Sites

Offsites

Functional OrganizationProgram Integration

AIPs/GrantsBobbie K. McClure

Technology DivisionRichard D. Betteridge

National Programs- CMST- Waste Mgmt. Ctr. of Excellence

Nevada Programs- Accelerated Site Technology

Deployment- Technical Program/Site

Technology CoordinatingGroup

- Risk Policy Initiatives





E. Frank Di Sanza


Runore C. Wycoff



Transportation

RCRA Program

Soils


Industrial Sites

Offsites













E. Frank Di Sanza


Runore C. Wycoff



Transportation

RCRA Program

Soils


Industrial Sites

Offsites









Figure 4-2Nevada Environmental Restoration Division Organizational Structure

4-4

Table 4-1Responsibility Assignment Matrix

Name NNSA/NV ITLV BN DRI LLNL LANL Major-Sub

NevadaEnvironmentalRestoration Program

R. Wycoff P. Gretsky J. Smith D. Shafer

Soils M. Sanchez L. Wille J. Smith D. Shafer

Assessments M. Sanchez L. Wille D. Shafer

Remediation M. Sanchez J. Smith D. Shafer

LTS&M M. Sanchez J. Smith D. Shafer

UGTA R. Bangerter J. Wille P.K. Ortego C. Russell T. RoseG. Pawloski

J. Aldrich B. Thompson

Assessments R. Bangerter J. Wille C. Russell T. RoseG. Pawloski


Remediation R. Bangerter P.K. Ortego C. Russell T. RoseG. Pawloski


LTS&M R. Bangerter J. Wille P.K. Ortego D. Shafer T. Rose J. Aldrich B. Thompson

Industrial Sites J. Appenzeller-Wing R. L. Kidman J. Smith C. Beck

Assessments J. Appenzeller-Wing R. L. Kidman C. Beck

Remediation J. Appenzeller-Wing J. Smith C. Beck

LTS&M J. Appenzeller-Wing D. Shafer

Offsites M. Sanchez D. Stahl J. Smith J. Chapman

Assessments M. Sanchez D. Stahl J. Chapman

Remediation M. Sanchez D. Stahl J. Smith J. Chapman

LTS&M M. Sanchez D. Stahl J. Smith D. Shafer

NNSA/NV = U.S. Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration Nevada Operations Office

ITLV = IT Corporation, Las VegasBN = Bechtel NevadaDRI = Desert Research Institute

LLNL = Lawrence Livermore National LaboratoryLANL = Los Alamos National LaboratoryLTS&M = Long-Term Surveillance and Maintenance

activities. In addition, this officedevelops and maintains integratedfinancial accounting and financialmanagement systems and providesoversight of all financial managementactivities relating to programs andoperations.

• Office of Chief Counsel - Provideslegal advice and assistance on mattersof law and legal policy which arise inconnection with functions

administered by NNSA/NV. Thisoffice also assists in the developmentof solutions to technical andadministrative problems inaccordance with legal policies andresponsibilities, and coordinates theinvestigation and resolution ofcomplaints and claims.

• DOE Defense Programs - Thelandlord program for DOE at theNTS.

4-5

• Office of Public Affairs - Developsand administers programs for publicinformation and education and servesas the primary interface with themedia and the public. This officecoordinates all external interviews,community meetings, and publicoutreach programs.

• Other NNSA/NV Organizations -Provide advice and guidance toensure that all DOE policies,requirements, and procedures aremet. They also provide matrixedsupport in specialized areas such asinformation management, security,and procurement. The specificNNSA/NV organizations providingsupport to the EnvironmentalRestoration Program are shownshaded on Figure 4-3.

4.1.2 Other Project Participants

Numerous organizations share responsi-

bilities in the Environmental Restoration

Program:

• IT Corporation, Las Vegas -Providesassessments/characterization andenvironmental engineering servicesfor work performed at the NTS,TTR, NAFR, and off-site locations. ITLV also prepares permitdocumentation for CAUs; determinesthe physiography, geography, andhydrology of each CAU; determinesthe nature (including the physical,chemical, and radiologicalconstituents), extent, volume ofcontamination, and concentration insoil or groundwater through theperformance of site investigationactivities; and identifies and evaluatescandidate technologies for treatability

studies. ITLV also develops the totalproject cost and schedule baselineand budget submittals. Otherservices include: supporting thedevelopment of NEPA documents,regulatory agreements, andAgreements in Principle; publicinvolvement activities; and verifyingcorrective actions for off-sitelocations.

• Bechtel Nevada - Performs correctiveactions at project sites within thestate of Nevada. Bechtel Nevadaprovides architectural, engineering,and inspection services, includingdesign drawings and detailed costestimates for corrective actions, anddeactivation and decommissioning ofinactive facilities. Bechtel Nevadaprovides support for the drilling,completion, and testing ofcharacterization and monitoring wellsand provides site developmentactivities. Other support includesfield survey and materials testinglaboratory services for design andconstruction activities.

• Nevada Division of EnvironmentalProtection (NDEP) - The NDEP hasregulatory and oversightresponsibility for Nevada. TheNDEP ensures that the impactsassociated with the release ofhazardous substances, pollutants,solid wastes, and hazardous wasteinto the environment are thoroughlyinvestigated and remediated perapplicable regulations andagreements.

4-6

U.S. Department of EnergyNational Nuclear Security Administration Nevada Operations Office











































Director - Vacant



Offices interactingwith EM







Director - Vacant





EM











































Director - Vacant



Offices interactingwith EM







Director - Vacant





EM

Figure 4-3NNSA/NV Organizations Providing Support to Environmental Management Program

4-7

4.2 Organizational Interfaces

To ensure that the necessary information is

provided to the appropriate participants,

NNSA/NV issued the Real Estate/

Operations Permit (REOP) Manual,

NV M 412.X1B. This manual establishes

the mechanism that provides effective

NNSA/NV authorization and control of real

estate and the operations conducted under

NNSA/NV’s purview (DOE/NV, 2000d). It

provides operations authorization to the

contractor performing the work. All

operations under NNSA/NV’s purview are

required to obtain an approved REOP prior

to initiating operations. The Environmental

Restoration Program Project Managers are

responsible for ensuring that contractor/user

organizations develop and maintain adequate

REOPs for assigned real estate and/or

operations. The NNSA/NV Engineering and

Asset Management Division determines if

real estate is available for proposed uses and

coordinates reservations with the NNSA/NV

Site Operations Coordinator. The

NNSA/NV Site Operations Coordinator

determines if any potential conflict exists

with other scheduled activities and makes

appropriate reservations.

4.3 Environmental, Health, and

Safety Objectives

The Environmental Restoration Program is

committed to ensuring that risks to the

environment and to human health and safety

are either eliminated or reduced to

acceptable levels. All work performed will

be consistent with regulatory requirements

and agreements, and applicable DOE Orders

and Policies (DOE Policy 450.1,

Environment, Safety and Health Policy for

the Department of Energy Complex; DOE

Policy 450.2A, Identifying, Implementing

and Complying with Environment, Safety

and Health Requirements; DOE

Policy 450.5, Line Environment, Safety and

Health Oversight; DOE Policy 450.6,

Environment, Safety and Health). Each

contractor supporting NNSA/NV


activities is responsible for environmental

health and safety. Integrated Safety

Management System (ISMS) principles are

incorporated throughout all aspects of the


activities (see Section 15.0). In order to

ensure readiness prior to the start of work,

operational readiness reviews, hazard

assessments, and as-low-as-reasonably-

achievable reviews (when required by the

NV/YMP Radiological Control Manual

[DOE/NV, 2000]) are conducted. Measures

used to monitor the adequacy of health and

safety controls include surveillance by

project management and health and safety

personnel of work in progress. Site

monitoring is used to verify the effectiveness

of contamination controls. If unforeseen

(not already covered by contingency

planning) health and safety hazards arise,

work activities are suspended until the

4-8

hazard is properly addressed by health and

safety professionals. Stop Work Orders are

issued in the event of an inherent hazard.

As a project progresses from planning

through implementation to closure, resource

allocation will necessarily shift. Health and

safety resources necessary during a project

may include industrial hygienists, health

physicists, safety professionals, risk

assessors, waste management specialists,

monitoring technicians, internal and external

dosimetry, respiratory protection, training,

medical surveillance, and records retention

and management. Prior to and during

fieldwork, health and safety professionals

ensure the project plans and activities are in

accordance with 29 Code of Federal

Regulations (CFR) 1910 (Occupational

Safety and Health Administration),

29 CFR 1926, 49 CFR (U.S. Department of

Transportation), and 10 CFR 1021 (NEPA)

requirements. Ensuring compliance with the

overall NNSA/NV Environment, Safety, and

Health (ES&H) objectives is the

responsibility of the ERD Director and

Project Managers with oversight from the

ES&H Division.

4.4 Quality Assurance Objectives

The overall quality assurance objective of the


ensure that work performed meets applicable

quality assurance requirements. Program

plans and procedures will be consistent with

the applicable requirements of DOE

Order 414.1A, Quality Assurance, and

quality assurance requirements for nuclear

safety management detailed in

10 CFR 830.120, “Quality Assurance

Requirements.” Consistency will also be

maintained with applicable criteria of the

American National Standards Institute

(ANSI), ANSI/ASQC E4-1994,

Specifications and Guidelines for Quality

Systems for Environmental Data Collection

and Environmental Technology Programs

and DOE G 414.1-2, Quality Assurance

Management System Guide for Use With

10 CFR 830.120 and DOE O 414.1. Each

contractor supporting Environmental

Restoration Program activities is responsible

for quality assurance. Ensuring compliance

with the overall Quality Assurance objectives

is the responsibility of the ERD Director and

Project Managers.

4.5 National Environmental

Policy Act

The overall NEPA objective of the


ensure that work performed meets applicable

requirements. Prior to initiating field

activities, Environmental Restoration

Program personnel will ensure that

applicable requirements of DOE

Order 451.1B, National Environmental

Policy Act Compliance Program, and DOE

National Environmental Policy Act

Implementation Procedures detailed in

10 CFR 1021 are met. The Environmental

Restoration Program will carry out its

4-9

mandated programs in a safe and

environmentally responsible way. Each

contractor supporting activities is responsible

for NEPA compliance. Ensuring compliance

with the overall NEPA objectives is the

responsibility of the Environmental

Restoration Program Project Managers and

the NEPA Compliance Officer. The

ER Project Managers will ensure that the

NNSA/NV Environmental

Restoration Program activities are conducted

in a manner that ensures protection of

workers, the public, and the environment;

that Project Managers will consider

consequences of their actions before they are

carried out; that the public is allowed to

comment on planned actions; and that

environmental, safety, and health laws are

not violated.

5-1

5.0 STARTUP PLAN 5.1 Definition

The readiness process is a systematic,

documented review of the readiness for

startup of a facility, process, or activity. The

purpose of the readiness process is to

provide a framework for an integrated team

effort to effectively complete the task

Statement of Work. The ERD Director

ensures that readiness reviews are properly

developed, conducted, and documented.

5.2 Kickoff

A project kickoff meeting is held when the

draft Corrective Action Investigation Plan is

sent out for review or as early as practicable

following development of project plans. This

meeting is the official start of the field work

preparations and is conducted by the Site

Supervisor.

5.3 Oversight

The ERD Director ensures that PMs are

conducting proper oversight of their assigned

responsibilities. At a minimum, the

following activities shall be performed prior

to initiation of field work:

• Identify required resources(e.g., personnel, equipment, andmaterial) and ensure availability.

• Verify that all appropriate lessonslearned have been reviewed andincorporated into the work processes.

• Verify hazard analysis is adequate andappropriate controls are identified andimplemented.

• Verify that personnel performing thework have a copy of all appropriatework instructions and procedures,including any applicable changenotices.

• Verify that all periodic calibrationsand calibration standards used formeasuring and test equipment arecurrent and that all calibration andmaintenance documentation is on file.

• Verify that proper workauthorizations, permits, and siteaccess have been obtained.

• Assemble the necessary equipment,material, and forms.

• Assemble copies of the approvedproject plans.

5.4 Readiness Review and

Determination

Readiness reviews shall verify that all

planning documents and systems are formally

approved and in place for the successful and

efficient accomplishment of the project

objectives. A readiness review checklist

shall be completed to document a

determination of readiness. At a minimum,

the contractor Project Manager or a designee

will accomplish the following:

• Ensure receipt of approved REOPwith all appropriate authorizationbasis documents.

5-2

• Review the project plans, thesite-specific health and safety plan(SSHASP), the Quality AssuranceProject Plan, and any applicableprocedures to ensure that they areappropriate for the planned activities.

• Verify that variances to proceduresand plans are documented through theapplicable contractor’s Change NoticeProcess.

• Review the qualifications of potentialfield personnel to verify that thepersonnel selected are qualified toperform their assigned duties and thatdocumentation of qualifications is onfile.

• Verify that subcontractors have beenprequalified in accordance withprocurement procedures and withconcurrence of Health and Safety andQuality Assurance departments.

• Verify that subcontractors have hadthe necessary training and medicalclearances, and that any requiredcertifications/documentation are in theproject files.

5.5 Prefield Briefing

A prefield briefing will be conducted by the

contractor prior to commencement of field

activities. At a minimum, the prefield

briefing will be attended by appropriate

contractor personnel, such as project

management, project field personnel, any

subcontractors involved in the project, a

health and safety representative, and a

quality assurance representative.

Additionally, representatives of the DOE will

attend prefield briefings as appropriate.

Prefield briefings will be documented on a

prefield briefing summary form.

During the prefield briefing, the following

topics should be addressed by the Project or

Task Managers:

• Present a brief history of site activitiesand an overview of the project and theobjectives of the upcoming fieldactivity.

• Establish a clear line ofcommunication for questions orproblems that may arise in the field. Ensure that an approved REOP is inplace.

• Review the health and safetyrequirements and documents,Radiological Work Permits (RWPs),and applicable Standard QualityPractices.

• Ensure all personnel are trained on thehealth and safety requirements andhave signed the SSHASP and otherdocuments such as the RWPs.

• Identify the means of emergencycommunication and “walk through”emergency actions as identified in theSSHASP.

• Review quality assurancerequirements and quality controlactivities to be performed.

• If appropriate, conduct “dry-runs” or“mock-ups” to demonstrate thathealth and safety, quality assurance,and activity-related procedures aresuitable.

5-3

• Define what activities each team orindividual shall be responsible forperforming. Include contingencyplans for reassignment of duties.

• Discuss the work site (a map isdesirable) and each location whereactivity is to take place. Discuss anyconstraints the site may present.

• For sampling activities, identify whatsamples are to be collected at eachsample location, the number ofsamples to be collected, and thesample types and analyses. Reviewthe sampling technique to beimplemented.

• Identify what equipment requires fielddecontamination, wheredecontamination shall take place, andthe logistics of the fielddecontamination process.

• Discuss any waste management issues.

• Identify, to the extent possible, anypotential problems that may beencountered, and discuss possiblecontingencies.

• Discuss any lessons learned from priorfield activities or similar eventsinvolving other projects.

• Review information required on fielddocumentation and discuss how fieldvariances to plans and proceduresshould be executed.

6-1

6.0 WORK BREAKDOWNSTRUCTURE

Technical objectives are the basis for the

Environmental Restoration Program Work

Breakdown Structure (WBS), which

integrates cost, schedule, and work scope for

all aspects of accomplishing the project. The

Environmental Restoration Program WBS

facilitates the planning and controlling of

work scope and reflects the way the work

will be performed and managed. The WBS

is depicted in Figure 6-1. The WBS

Dictionary is provided within the ER

Life-Cycle Baseline.

The WBS depicts the Statement of Work in

a hierarchy in which the work is subdivided

into increasingly detailed work elements or

tasks containing each successive lower level

of the hierarchy. The WBS breaks down the

Statement of Work to the level of detail

where responsibility for performance of the

work is assigned to individual contractors.

Each WBS work element is assigned a

unique number that readily identifies that

work element in the total WBS. The WBS

numbering system logically relates

lower-level work elements to their

upper-level parent elements. The WBS

Dictionary describes the content of each

work element in the WBS. The WBS

Dictionary lists the WBS element code, title,

index line number, revision number and

authorization, approved changes, and

element task description which describes the

work to be performed.

6-2

1.4.1.1.02

Clean Slate 1

CAU 412

North Yucca Flat

GMX

1.4.1.4.01

Alaska

CAU AM1

1.4.1.4.02

Colorado

CAU CH1

Small Boy

1.4.1.1.01

Double Tracks

CAU 411

Clean Slate 2

1.4.1.1.03 CAU 413

Clean Slate 3

1.4.1.1.04 CAU 414

Project 57

1.4.1.1.05 CAU 415

Plutonium Valley

1.4.1.1.06 CAU 366

1.4.1.1.07 CAU 365

South Yucca Flat

1.4.1.1.08 CAU 104

1.4.1.1.09 CAU 105

Frenchman Flat

1.4.1.1.10 CAU 106

Buckboard Mesa

1.4.1.1.11 CAU 107

Nuclear RocketEngine

1.4.1.1.12 CAU NRE

Hydronuclear

1.4.1.1.13 CAU 465

1.4.1.1.14

Sedan

CAU 367

1.4.1.1.15

Johnnie Boy

CAU 370

1.4.1.1.16

Danny Boy

CAU 371

1.4.1.1.17

Cabriolet/Palanquin

CAU 372

1.4.1.1.18

Schooner

CAU 374

Buggy

1.4.1.1.19 CAU 375

1.4.1.1.20

1.4.1.2.01

Frenchman Flat

CAU 098

1.4.1.2.02Western PahuteMesa

CAU 102

1.4.1.2.03Yucca Flat/Climax Mine

CAU 097

1.4.1.2.04

Central Pahute Mesa

CAU 101

1.4.1.2.06

Rainier Mesa/Shoshone Mountain

CAU 099

1.4.1.2.99Surveillance & Maintenance

1.4.1.4.03

Mississippi

CAU RB1

1.4.1.4.04

Nevada

CAU RU1

1.4.1.4.05

New Mexico

CAU SA1

1.4.1.4.99Surveillance & Maintenance

CAU 416/447

Nevada Operations OfficeEnvironmental Management

1.4

1.4.1.3.11

MiscellaneousSites Source Group

1.4.1.3.09Spill Sites SourceGroup

1.4.1.3.01Disposal WellsSource Group

1.4.1.3.03Contaminated WasteSites Source Group

1.4.1.3.07Ordnance SitesSource Group

1.4.1.3.02Inactive TanksSource Group

1.4.1.3.04

Septic Tanks &Lagoons Source Group

1.4.1.3.06Drains & SumpsSource Group

1.4.1.3.08Bunkers, Chemicals &Materials StorageSource Group

1.4.1.3.10Part A SitesSource Group

1.4.1.3.12

D&D Facilities

1.4.1.3.14PreliminaryAssessments

1.4.1.3.98Surveillance &Maintenance Pre-Closure

EnvironmentalRestoration

1.4.1

Underground Test Area(UGTA)1.4.1.2

Industrial Sites1.4.1.3

Offsites1.4.1.4

Soils1.4.1.1

1.4.1.3.05

Inactive Ponds & TunnelMuckpiles Source Group

Surveillance & Maintenance

1.4.1.1.99

1.4.1.3.99Surveillance &Maintenance Post-Closure

Figure 6-1Nevada Environmental Restoration Project

Work Breakdown Structure

7-1

7.0 RESOURCE PLAN


funding and expenditure plans (Resource

Plan as defined in DOE Order 413.3,

Program and Project Management for the

Acquisition of Capital Assets), including the

total project cost profile, budget by funding

category, and the total project life-cycle cost

plan by fiscal year is provided in detail within

the ER Life-Cycle Baseline.

Categories include the budget outlay, actual

and estimated budget authority,

appropriations at fiscal year end, and prior

year experience (DOE, 2000b). Detailed

information contained in the


Program Resource Plan is also maintained

and updated on a periodic basis within

IPABS-IS.

8-1

8.0 PROJECT TECHNICAL,SCHEDULE, AND COSTLIFE-CYCLEBASELINES

The NNSA/NV ER Life-Cycle Baselines are

the documents that identifies the scope,

schedule, and cost from the beginning to the

end of the projects. The scope of the

NNSA/NV ER Life-Cycle Baselines describe

the structure of the project’s technical work

and identifies the objectives to be achieved

throughout the duration of the project. The

life-cycle baseline schedule

identifies dependancies and completion time-

frames as constrained by assumed funding

and resource limitations. Cost information in

the baseline depicts the labor, services, and

materials required to accomplish the

technical scope. The NNSA/NV ER Life-

Cycle Baselines provide project technical,

schedule, and cost details for the historical

progress and planned execution of future

work. Appropriate information from the

NNSA/NV ER Life-Cycle Baselines have

been entered into IPABS-IS according to

DOE/HQ’s guidance.

9-1

9.0 PROJECT CONTROLSSYSTEM DESCRIPTION

9.1 Project Management Objectives

The Life-Cycle Asset Management (LCAM),

DOE Order 430.1A, is the DOE’s directive

on implementing project management

principals. The LCAM is transitioning the

management of projects from a

compliance-based system to a

performance-based system (DOE, 1998). In

support of the LCAM, the Environmental

Management Information System (EMIS) is

used to report the activities within the

Environmental Restoration Program. In FY

2000, DOE/HQ changed from using the

Project Management Information System for

project controls and performance reporting

to the use of the Project Execution Module

within the IPABS-IS. The elements within

the EMIS are consistent with IPABS

planning, budget, and execution elements

with a focus on results. The Environmental

Restoration Program WBS established the

basis for required project management and

control systems. A responsibility assignment

matrix for the project has been established to

ensure direct DOE project management

control over the contractors through all

elements of the WBS. Project progress is

measured against cost and schedule

parameters developed within the framework

of the WBS, subject to approval levels

established in the Baseline Change Control

process. These parameters will be used as

the criteria for measuring performance and

determining the need for control actions by

successively higher levels of management.

9.2 Project Management,

Measurement, and Planning

and Control Systems

Project management, progress measurement,

control, and reporting of project activities to

DOE/HQ is structured by the WBS. The

Environmental Restoration Program project

activities are planned, managed, measured,

controlled, and reported through the EMIS.

9.3 Work Authorization

The DOE/HQ has established a number of

policies and requirements that govern project

work. Planning processes include

development of Project Baseline Summary

Sheets, Life-Cycle Project Baselines, and

Task Plans. These processes involve

establishing work scope, resource

requirements, schedules, and milestones;

identifying project assumptions, issues, and

constraints; and specifying project control

parameters. Project control functions

established by DOE/HQ include issuance of

performance measurements that identify

performance that DOE/HQ wishes to track

within EM programs at the field level.

Authorization of work scope for the


Program is a process that combines planning,

cost estimation, budget allocation, and

budget approval processes. Work scope

9-2

at this level is accomplished through task

agreement plans that establish the scope,

costs, schedule, milestones, and spending

plan for specific work to be accomplished by

a contractor or user organization within a

given fiscal year. Upon approval of the task

agreement plans, work scope is incorporated

into Task Orders that become a contractor’s

programmatic authorization to perform work

for the project. Modifications to task plans

are through formal change control processes.

9.4 Funds Management

Cost estimates within task plans followguidance established in the followingdocuments:

• EM CAT Handbook

• Cost Estimation Guide, MA0063,Volumes 1-6

• Cost Estimating Guide - Office ofInfrastructure Acquisition, FM-50,Vol. 6, Rev. 0

Cost estimates form the basis for budget

requests. The annual budget request

considers both the required resources and the

annual distribution of the estimated costs

within IPABS-IS document. Budget

formulation and execution are accomplished

in accordance with DOE Order O130.1,

Budget Formulation Process. Upon

designation of funding by DOE/HQ EM,

work authorization is reviewed and revised,

as applicable, based on the funding received.

Allocated funds are tracked by DOE/HQ

through IPABS-IS. The Environmental

Restoration Program input to the system is

coordinated with the Resource Management

Division to ensure that reported funds reflect

information in the Financial Information

System.

9.5 Performance Measurement

and Control

Performance measurement consists of

monitoring progress against the established

project baselines, analyzing variances and the

impacts of the variances, and implementing

corrective actions. The project life-cycle

baselines and task agreement plans provide

the basis against which project performance

is measured and controlled. The NNSA/NV

EMIS provides the foundation for reporting

information to DOE/HQ.

The task planning effort establishes the

baseline scope, budget, and schedule for

each task where contractor performance is

measured and controlled for the current year.

The NNSA/NV EMIS is depicted in

Figure 9-1. Contractors are responsible for

monitoring performance on assigned tasks

and reporting to NNSA/NV, via EMIS, on a

monthly basis. Contractor performance

measurement and control systems retain

flexibility, but must be capable of providing

the following information at a minimum:

9-3

DBMS

1) ACCESS LINK =WBS/CONTRACTOR

2) COMMONDICTIONARYCODES

3) COMMONRESOURCE CODES

OUTPUT

1) WEB ENVIRONMENT2) EXPORT LINKS

(I/PABS)3) SUPPORT LINKS

DIRECTSCREENINPUT

DATA INPUT

1) DBMS COMMANDLINKS

2) EXCEL FOR INPUT3) INTEGRATED

SCHEDULE4) VALIDATION

TABLES5) BASELINE/RISK

CONTRACTORSYSTEMS –MAPPED CODESTRUCTURES

CCB

FILETRANSFER

CONTROLLEDAPPROVAL

SUPPORT MODULES

1) ESTIMATING2) RATE TABLES3) ESCALATION TABLES4) MONTE CARLO

Figure 9-1EMIS Process Flow

• Cost Performance:- Budgeted cost of work scheduled- Actual cost of work performed- Budgeted cost of work performed (earned value)- Cost variances- Estimates at completion- Variance analysis

• Schedule Performance:- Approved baseline schedule- Schedule variances- Major commitment tracking- Milestone tracking

Specific performance measurement and

control requirements are contained in DOE

Order 430.1A and further defined in the

Joint Program Office Direction on Project

Management in Support of DOE

Order 430.1.


total project cost and the baseline schedules

are depicted in EMIS. All contractor

reporting must be consistent with the

project's WBS.

The Responsibility Assignment Matrix (see

Table 4-1) depicts the Environmental

Restoration Program hierarchy, with the

attendant responsible manager for

performance of that portion of the WBS.

9-4

Centralized site-wide systems for

performance measurement; baseline

management and change control; policies

and procedures; and DOE/HQ reporting

requirements have been developed and are

used to manage the progress and execution

of Environmental Restoration Program

activities. Project activities are measured

against prescribed thresholds. Monthly

performance data is reviewed by the Project

Managers, the Division Director, and the

DOE/HQ EM Site Lead Team to identify

potential impacts to technical requirements

criteria, the validity of cost estimates,

necessary corrective actions, and the

progress of critical-path activities within the

project. Quarterly reports are also prepared

to detail project progress against the

approved project baseline.

10-1

10.0 BASELINE CHANGECONTROLAPPROVAL ANDTHRESHOLDS

This section defines the Secretarial

Acquisition Executive (Level 0, as defined in

DOE Order 413.3) (DOE, 2000b), the

Program Secretarial Officer (Level 1), and

the Federal Project Manager and Contractor-

level (Level 2/3) baseline change control

approval process and thresholds for the


Program that are under the purview of

DOE Order 413.3.

10.1 Change Control

Baseline management is part of a planned

program to monitor and control project

performance. The process designates

variance thresholds above which approvals

must be secured as well as the procedural

requirements for securing the approvals.

Thresholds and approvals vary for the level

of the WBS at which the change occurs.

When actual or projected variances exceed

the variance thresholds for an approved cost,

schedule, or technical baseline, formal

baseline change control action is initiated in

response to requirements established in the

Task Plan and Change Control Process,

NNSA/NV Manual 410.XA.

Approved changes are incorporated in the

NNSA/NV EMIS to ensure that

performance measurement for the project

reflects the most current cost, schedule, and

technical status.

The approval authority and threshold level

are established in the Assistant Manager for

Environmental Management Baseline

Change Control Process.

Contractor-requested changes at the task

level are reviewed by the Contractor’s

Change Control Board and the NNSA/NV

Project Manager. Upon approval of the

change request, a Task Order Change Order

is issued to the contractor. Contractors are

not to proceed with any out-of-scope work

that is the subject of a change request until

the Change Order is issued by NNSA/NV.

The NNSA/NV EM Baseline Change

Control Process is depicted in Figure 10-1.

Change approval authorities for all ER

Projects are defined as follows: (1) changes

to technical scope that affect mission need

requirements, require six or more months of

schedule increase (cumulative) in a

project-level schedule milestone date, or

increase the Total Project Cost, require

approval from the Program Secretarial

Officer; (2) other changes require approval

as defined in the Assistant Manager for

Environmental Management for the Baseline

Change Control Process.

10-2

DOE/NV TP Manager

Submits BCCP

Is BCCPComplete, and

Correct?

Is BCCPApproved?

Yes

NoReturn

Assigns DOE Log Numberand Enters on BCCP

Enter BCCP in ChangeControl Log

Reviews BCCP

Prepares FCC Formand Obtains

Required Approval

Signs BCCP

Division DirectorApproves/Disapproves

Change ControlDocuments

Change Control BoardApproves/Disapproves


LogsDisposition inBCC Log and

Distributes

Does BCCPRequire DivisionDirector and/or

CC BoardApproval?

Yes

No

Yes

No

Contractor PCSAdministrator

DOE DivisionPCS Administrator

DOE/NV TP Manager

Submits BCCP

Is BCCPComplete, and

Correct?

Is BCCPApproved?

Yes

NoReturn

Assigns DOE Log Numberand Enters on BCCP

Enter BCCP in ChangeControl Log

Reviews BCCP

Prepares FCC Formand Obtains

Required Approval

Signs BCCP

Division DirectorApproves/Disapproves


Change Control BoardApproves/Disapproves


LogsDisposition inBCC Log and

Distributes

Does BCCPRequire DivisionDirector and/or

CC BoardApproval?

Yes

No

Yes

No

DOE Change ControlApproval Authority

Figure 10-1Baseline Change Control Process Flowchart

11-1

11.0 RISK MANAGEMENTASSESSMENT

An assessment of impacts from potential

events within the Environmental Restoration

Program, along with potential detriments or

benefits, will be included in the Risk

Management Plan. This plan will describe

the probability that a risk event will occur,

and the potential consequence of the extent

of loss or gain from the occurrence. The

plan will provide the necessary steps and

planning actions to determine and control

risks to an acceptable level. The purpose of

the plan is to enhance the probability of

project success by increasing the likelihood

of improved project performance, thereby

decreasing the likelihood of unanticipated

cost overruns, schedule delays, and

compromises in quality and safety. Risk

management is a tool used to maximize the

results of positive events and minimize the

consequences of adverse events.

11.1 Introduction

Risk management is a critical part of the

planning and implementation of the

Life-Cycle Baseline. Risk management

planning identifies the risks which could

affect the scope, schedule, or costs identified

in the Life-Cycle Baseline.

Risk management also provides mechanisms

and systems for mitigating risks which do

occur. Mitigating the possibility of having an

impact to the Baseline and being prepared to

address the impacts when they occur is

critical to the effective implementation of the

program.

11.2 The NNSA/NV EM Risk

Management System

The NNSA/NV EM’s risk management

system is implemented in accordance with

DOE Order 413.1, Program and Project

Management for the Acquisition of Capital

Assets, and the NNSA/NV EM Risk

Management Plan (under development).

The Risk Management Plan will provide

guidance on the systemic identification and

management of risks (i.e., future events

which could affect the scope, schedule, and

cost of NNSA/NV EM projects). The

system outlined in the Risk Management

Plan will be implemented by Environmental

Restoration Program projects through the

methods outlined in the following section.

The results of implementing this

methodology can be found in the current

revision of the ER Life-Cycle Baseline.

As a mature project, the Environmental

Restoration Program has already identified

project risks and is working to handle and

mitigate them. Part of the process is to

continuously recognize and update the risk

events to address current changes in project

implementation.

11-2

11.3 Risk Methodology

11.3.1 Approach

The NNSA/NV EM’s risk management

system has three components: identification,

prioritization, and mitigation. Risk

identification occurs on an ongoing basis.

Project Managers actively identify new risks.

Project Managers identify risk through the

course of project planning and

implementation as well as through periodic

structured identification meetings. The

NNSA/NV Project Managers, NNSA/NV

support staff, and contractor support staff

meet to analyze the identified risk, prioritize

it relative to other known risks, and add to

mitigation plans.

11.3.2 Techniques

Several techniques have been employed to

accommodate the various project

applications. This is due, in large part, to the

diversity of projects within a program which

have the unique total basis of a radionuclide

environment. The following Risk Analysis

Technique Selection Matrix represents a

summary of the selection techniques

employed on the program. A discussion of

each application follows.

All risk assessment techniques or models

share common requirements, and the axioms

of probability must not be violated and

include:

A. The probabilities of all possibleevents must sum to 1.

B. The probability of any event, P(A),must be a number greater than orequal to 0 and less than or equal to1 (0�