Risk Management Plan & Risk Assessment Report Rev. 1 Rev. 2 03-31 … · 31/3/2003 · risk management plan & risk assessment report revision no: 2 revision date: march 31, 2003

DOCUMENT NO. CGRP-0012-015, R2 Los Alamos National Laboratory Los Alamos, New Mexico 87545

RISK MANAGEMENT PLAN &

RISK ASSESSMENT REPORT

Revision No: 2

Revision Date: March 31, 2003

EMERGENCY OPERATIONS CENTER REPLACEMENT AND RELOCATION

LIP 01-D-702 PROJECT I.D. NO. 100143 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA CONTROL LOS ALAMOS, NEW MEXICO 87545 COPY NO. ____________

Risk Management Plan and Risk Assessment Report Emergency Operations Center Replacement and Relocation

Approvals For Los Alamos National Laboratory: Date: Keith R. Orr Project Team Leader Cerro Grande Rehabilitation Project For U.S. Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration: Date: Herman C. LeDoux Federal Project Manager National Nuclear Security Administration, Office of Los Alamos Site Operations

Revision 2 i March 31, 2003


Table of Contents Approvals ....................................................................................................................................................... i Table of Contents......................................................................................................................................... iiiiRisk Management Plan and Risk Assessment Report Update/Revision Procedure................................. iiiiiiRisk Management Plan Change Log .......................................................................................................... vvAcronyms and Abbreviations ..................................................................................................................... vivi1.0 Risk Management Plan ......................................................................................................................1

1.1 Introduction .....................................................................................................................................1 1.1.1 Project Execution Approach....................................................................................................1 1.1.2 Risk Management History for this Project ............................................................................. 221.1.3 Risk Management Purpose and Scope Summary ................................................................ 331.1.4 Scope Limitations .................................................................................................................. 33

1.2 Project........................................................................................................................................... 441.2.1 Background ........................................................................................................................... 441.2.2 Assumptions.......................................................................................................................... 441.2.3 Structure for Risk Analysis .................................................................................................... 551.2.4 Risk Management Team ....................................................................................................... 661.2.5 Responsibilities for Risk Management .................................................................................. 66

1.3 Risk Management Process Execution.......................................................................................... 881.3.1 Risk Management Planning .................................................................................................. 881.3.2 Risk Identification .................................................................................................................. 881.3.3 Risk Quantification ............................................................................................................ 10101.3.4 Risk Handling .................................................................................................................... 12121.3.5 Risk Impact Determination ................................................................................................ 12121.3.6 Risk Tracking, Reporting, and Closure ............................................................................. 1212

1.4 References ............................................................................................................................... 14142.0 Risk Assessment Report.............................................................................................................. 1515

2.1 Identification.............................................................................................................................. 15152.2 Risk Quantization...................................................................................................................... 28282.3 Conceptual Probabilistic Risk Analysis .................................................................................... 4343

Revision 2 ii March 31, 2003


Risk Management Plan and Risk Assessment Report Update/Revision Procedure

1. Purpose: This Risk Management Plan and Risk Assessment Report (RMP/RAR) documents the risk management process that will be used to achieve the Emergency Operations Center (EOC) Replacement and Relocation Project objectives. The RMP/RAR has the following purposes:

• Describe the project. • State project assumptions. • Identify responsibilities for risk management. • Be a record of risk management activity.

This RMP/RAR is a living document and is required to be updated as often as necessary to ensure that the project and associated risks and risk mitigation strategies remain current and accurate. 2. Distribution and Revisions: Once approved, a copy of this RMP/RAR will be distributed to each

member of the EOC project risk management team as shown in Section 1.2.4. Controlled distribution of the RMP/RAR will be performed by the Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) Project Team Leader (PTL). The RMP/RAR is to be maintained in a three-ring binder to facilitate incorporation of changes and revisions. This RMP/RAR is to be reviewed at a minimum, annually and may be modified as often as required in accordance with the following procedures:

a. The LANL PTL is responsible for initiating and coordinating reviews and updates to this RMP/RAR.

In addition, the LANL PTL is responsible for ensuring that the final RMP/RAR changes are distributed to all EOC project risk management team members that maintain controlled copies of the RMP/RAR. The LANL PTL will be responsible for maintaining a complete documented history of the RMP/RAR and any changes or modifications, to include reviews and review comments. Reviews and updates to the RMP/RAR must be coordinated with the signatory offices to this RAR/RMP as outlined in the following section, and may include some or all the following organizations:

• Keith R. Orr, Project Management Division, Project Team Leader/Construction Projects

Manager, Cerro Grande Rehabilitation Project (CGRP) • Herman C. LeDoux, National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)-Office of Los Alamos

Site Operations (OLASO), Federal Project Manager, CGRP b. Annual reviews of the RMP/RAR will be initiated in March of each year. In addition, major changes to

the RMP/RAR, as identified below, may be initiated at any time as appropriate. Revisions and updates to this RMP/RAR will be incorporated into the appropriate RMP/RAR sections by the LANL PTL utilizing a redline/strikeout system. Deleted text will be highlighted with a strike out, and added text will be indicated utilizing the redline function. If there are changes to numerous pages, the PTL may choose to issue a complete revision to the RMP/RAR. The affected pages of the RMP/RAR will then be transmitted to some or all of the EOC project risk management team as shown in Section 1.2.4, as appropriate, for review. Upon closure of the review process, the changes will be incorporated in the text of the RMP/RAR, and new pages with an alpha character suffix added to the original page number will be generated. As an example, several minor changes to Page 15 of the original RMP/RAR would be reflected in a final revised RMP/RAR Page 15-A. The revised RMP/RAR pages will be annotated with a footer indicating the Revision No. and date of the revision. A summary of the RMP/RAR revisions and changes will also be documented in the RMP/RAR Change Log located on page of this document. vv Revisions and updates to this RMP/RAR will be approved as identified for the two categories of changes discussed below. Approval cover sheets for each revision to the RMP/RAR will accompany the revision package. Once approved, copies of the approval cover sheets will accompany the final revision package issued to the EOC project team members/organizations. These approval cover sheets will also be filed in the RMP/RAR with the RMP/RAR Change Log. Revisions and updates to this RMP/RAR are classified into two categories with individual approval requirements, as follows.

Revision 2 iii March 31, 2003


1. Minor Administrative Changes: Minor changes such as administrative, organizational, grammatical errors, etc., may be identified by any member of the EOC project risk management team, and brought to the attention of the LANL PTL. Approval of these changes requires approval from the PTL.

2. Major Changes: For major changes to the RMP/RAR, the LANL PTL will initiate a complete

revised RMP/RAR for the review process rather than using the redline/strikeout system. Approval of these changes requires approval from the PTL and Federal Project Manager.

c. The review process for updates/revisions to this RMP/RAR may be completed either through normal

hard-copy/mail distribution or electronically via computer, at the discretion of the LANL PTL. In all cases, the most expeditious efficient method shall be selected.

Revision 2 iv March 31, 2003


Risk Management Plan Change Log

Revision No.

Date Change Description Pages Changed

0

12/06/01 Original Issue.

1

03/26/02 Complete Revision. All

2

03/31/03 Annual Revision. iii, vi, 2, 4, 6, 9, 14, 16, 18, 20, 22, 24, 26, 29, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 37, 40, and 43

Revision 2 v March 31, 2003


Acronyms and Abbreviations CDR Conceptual Design Report CGRP Cerro Grande Rehabilitation Project D-B Design-Build DNFSB Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board DOE U.S. Department of Energy DOE M U.S. Department of Energy Manual DOE O U.S. Department of Energy Order EA Environmental Assessment EM&R Emergency Management and Response EOC Emergency Operations Center ESH Environment, Safety, and Health FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact F&OR Functional and Operational Requirement G&A General and Administrative GPG Good Practice Guide KSL Kellog-Brown and Root, Shaw, and Los Alamos Technical Associates LANL Los Alamos National Laboratory LASO Los Alamos Site Operations (NNSA) LIG Laboratory Implementation Guidance LIR Laboratory Implementation Requirement ML Management Level NEPA National Environmental Protection Act NMED New Mexico Environment Department NNSA National Nuclear Security Administration OPC Other Project Cost PEP Project Execution Plan PMD Project Management Division PRA Project Risk Assessment PTL Project Team Leader QA Quality Assurance QC Quality Control RMP/RAR Risk Management Plan and Risk Assessment Report RRES Risk Reduction and Environmental Stewardship TEC Total Estimated Cost WBS Work Breakdown Structure

Revision 2 vi March 31, 2003


1.0 Risk Management Plan 1.1 Introduction The Emergency Operations Center Project (Project ID No. 100143) will deliver a replacement Emergency Operations Center (EOC) for the Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL). Response to and recovery from the Cerro Grande Fire that burned through LANL and Los Alamos County in May 2000 demonstrated the inadequacy of the existing EOC facility. The goal is to provide a new state-of-the-art facility that consolidates the LANL Emergency Management and Response (EM&R) and Los Alamos County police, fire, and 911 dispatching activities into one primary location to enable the best possible response and management of anticipated emergencies. 1.1.1 Project Execution Approach The EOC project is being executed as part of the Cerro Grande Rehabilitation Project (CGRP) following a systems engineering approach in the following phases: Requirements Definition Phase

− Determine program mission need. − Define program requirements. − Define Functional and Operational Requirements (F&ORs).

Conceptualization and Project Development Phase

− Form a multi-discipline project team. − Develop a Conceptual Design based on the program requirements and the F&ORs. − Produce a preliminary cost estimate based on the conceptual design. − Develop a preliminary schedule based on the conceptual design. − Publish required Environmental Assessment (EA) and obtain a National Environmental Policy Act

(NEPA) determination. − Prepare a Preliminary Hazard Analysis of the conceptual design. − Establish project management programs: administration/document management, Quality

Assurance (QA)/Quality Control (QC), cost/schedule performance analysis. − Assess scope, cost, and schedule risks. − Write a Preliminary Project Execution Plan (PEP).

Acquisition Phase

− Write an Acquisition Plan. − Publish EOC Design-Build (D-B) Specifications. − Write a Source Evaluation Plan. − Publish Request for Qualifications. − Review qualification statements and select “short list” of vendors according to the Source

Evaluation Plan. − Publish Request for Proposals. − Review proposals and select contractor according to the Source Evaluation Plan. − Review and approve preliminary design documents produced by D-B contractor. − Review and approve final design documents produced by D-B contractor. − EOC construction by D-B contractor. − Contractor submittal reviews and construction inspections. − Systems operations tests.

Readiness Preparation Phase

− Install security system. − Install programmatic (special facilities) equipment. − Write final safety assessment document. − Conduct Integrated Test Plan and Operational Readiness Validation. − Turnover to operating program and project closeout. − Receive U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Authorization to Operate memorandum for EOC

facility.

Revision 2 1 March 31, 2003


This approach follows from the Laboratory Implementation Requirements (LIR) LIR 220-01-01.5, Construction Project Management. The EOC project has established measures that define satisfactory performance. These include measures of technical performance, cost performance, and schedule performance. The project team must continually identify potential risk factors, evaluate their importance, derive risk management strategies, and take tactical actions that are consistent with the strategies in order to surpass the performance measures. The systems engineering approach described above has been selected because past experience has found that it is thorough and methodical, resulting in risk minimization. Conscious risk management strategizing and risk minimization occurs daily as decisions regarding design, acquisition planning, and project execution planning are made. This Risk Management Plan and Risk Assessment Report (RMP/RAR) establishes a formal process for identifying, evaluating, mitigating, and reporting risks that may degrade project performance. It has been prepared in accordance with DOE Order (DOE O) 413.3, Program and Project Management for the Acquisition of Capital Assets, DOE Manual (DOE M) 413.X, Manual for Program and Project Management for the Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Acquisition of Capital Assets (Draft), DOE Good Practice Guide (GPG)-FM-001, Project Management Overview, DOE GPG-FM-007, Risk Analysis and Management, and LANL Project Management Division (PMD) Procedure 104, Risk Assessment and Management. This RMP/RAR has been tailored to meet the specific needs and complexities unique to the EOC project. Information required in the RMP/RAR that exists in other project documents has been summarized and referenced. 1.1.2 Risk Management History for this Project The EOC Project has engaged in risk management activities from its inception. The first risk management actions of the project were to establish sound project baseline documents, making sure that baseline flaws do not become project risks: Scope and Technical Baseline Documents

− Mission Need Statement (CGRP-0012-001,R1) − Program Requirements Document (CGRP-0012-002,R0) − Functional and Operational Requirements (CGRP-0012-003,R0) − Design-Build Specifications (CGRP-0012-012,R0)

Cost Baseline

− Total Project Cost = $21,489,970. See Project Execution Plan (CGRP-0012-004,R1) Schedule Baseline

− Beneficial Occupancy = September 30, 2003. See Project Execution Plan (CGRP-0012-004,R1) The first three scope and technical baseline documents were included in the Conceptual Design Report (CGRP-0012-008, R0). The Conceptual Design Report (CDR) is not a project technical baseline document because the design concept for the EOC was selected from the proposals submitted in a design-build contract competition. Development of the CDR was a risk management strategy to develop the information required for the Design-Build Specifications and to verify that a reasonable design exists that yields a cost estimate within the established EOC project construction budget. Alternative approaches for procuring the EOC were considered in the Acquisition Plan (CGRP-0012-011,R0). The Acquisition Plan includes a qualitative discussion of broad project risks based on past LANL conventional facilities construction projects experience. It concludes that the strategy of least risk is to acquire the EOC through a single D-B contract. The Project Execution Plan (CGRP-0012-004,R1) sets out strategies for executing the project following the Acquisition Plan. The EOC project has established formal plans and policies designed to minimize the risk of scope growth and associated cost and schedule growth. The PEP states that the Baseline Change Control Board review process established for the CGRP will be used to control changes to the scope, schedule, and cost baselines.



The EOC project has concluded the following specific risk management actions in accordance with PMD Procedure 104 that have identified and evaluated risks in several different ways based on different perspectives. These are discussed in more detail in Chapter 2: Risk Assessment Report. Management Level Determination – The Project Team Leader (PTL) and project team performed a

Management Level (ML) Determination as required by LIR 230-01-02.2, Graded Approach for Facility Work using the process, form, and format described in Laboratory Implementation Guidance (LIG) 230-01-02.0, Graded Approach for Facility Work. The EOC project was determined to be an ML-3, except for the vault, which was determined to be an ML-2. LIR 230-01-02.2 specifies minimum project management and quality management procedural requirements based on the highest rating found (ML-2). The EOC project has its own project specific project management and quality assurance plans and procedures as required by the ML-2 rating and LIR 230-01-02.2 in order to minimize risk.

Risk Screening – The PTL and project team performed a risk assessment using the checklist found

in PMD Procedure 104 (similar to those found in DOE M 413.X (Draft) and DOE GPG-FM-007). The risks identified with the checklist were quantified according to probability of occurrence and consequence of occurrence as described in DOE M 413.X (Draft) and DOE GPG-FM-007. The completed checklist, the quantitative assessment, and the associated mitigation strategies are found in Chapter 2: Risk Assessment Report.

Risk Assessment – A probabilistic Project Risk Assessment (PRA) for the EOC project was

conducted by the Probabilistic Risk Analysis and Hazard Analysis Group of the Decision Applications Division (D-11). This PRA examined the scope, schedule, and cost risks for the activities described in the 95% CDR for the EOC. The results are summarized in Chapter 2 Risk Assessment Report. For more detailed information, refer to the Project Risk Assessment (CGRP-0012-014, R0).

1.1.3 Risk Management Purpose and Scope Summary The purpose of this RMP/RAR is to ensure that the EOC project incorporates appropriate, efficient, and cost-effective measures to mitigate any unacceptable project-related risks. This plan defines the process for risk management for the project. It describes the roles and responsibilities of the project team in performing the risk management functions, and defines reporting, tracking, and closure requirements for risk-related information. The risk management process will: Identify potential sources of risk and the mechanisms forming these risks. Assess individual risks and their impact on project and facility performance, cost, and schedule. Evaluate alternative approaches to mitigate high and moderate risks. Develop action plans to handle (i.e. avoid, reduce, transfer, or accept) individual risks.

The risk management process specified in this plan has been established through project team meetings. This RMP/RAR will remain valid for the life cycle of the project and will be under project configuration control. RMP/RAR revisions will be conducted in accordance with the Update/Revision Procedure described on page of this RMP/RAR. iiiiii 1.1.4 Scope Limitations The scope of the RMP/RAR is the identification, assessment, and mitigation of scope, schedule, and cost risks that may detrimentally affect EOC project performance. The risk management process establishes a risk hierarchy that traces each high and moderate risk to the appropriate level of detail and reports status and closeout of high and moderate risks. The EOC project risk policy is that high risks will not be accepted and must be reduced to at least moderate risks through implementation of a risk mitigation strategy. If this is not possible, CGRP, EM&R, and NNSA management will be advised. Moderate risks will be considered on a case-by-case basis for potential mitigation actions. Low risks will not be mitigated or tracked, but will be retained in the RMP/RAR for future reference only. They will be closed out without further handling.



The RMP/RAR will track, as a potential risk to the project’s cost and schedule, the successful mitigation of environment, and safety and health (ESH) hazards to the public or the worker. However, this RMP/RAR excludes the detailed management and handling of these ESH risks. The ESH Plan and Safety Strategy for the Emergency Operations Center Project (CGRP-0012-006, R0) specifies actions for addressing ESH risks. 1.2 Project 1.2.1 Background DOE is charged with maintaining the capability and capacity required to support the United States nuclear deterrent policy. LANL, as a Government Owned Contractor Operated entity, is required to provide the facilities necessary for safe, long term stewardship, and management of associated nuclear materials in a way that protects the public and worker health and safety, and the environment. This charter is especially true in an emergency event. DOE O 151.1A, Comprehensive Emergency Management Systems, establishes requirements for a Comprehensive Emergency Management System containing an integrated departmental Emergency Response Organization. Worker safety and environmental concerns drive the base program established by DOE O 151.1. These requirements mandate that the site or facility have the ability to properly notify, take protective actions, and maintain accountability of affected employees in the event of an emergency As a result of the Cerro Grande Fire a qualitative analysis determined the existing EOC was inadequate. In order to mitigate risk against future loss, replacement and relocation of the EOC is required. A more detailed discussion of the mission need can be found in the Mission Need Statement (CGRP-0012-001, R0). 1.2.2 Assumptions This RMP/RAR takes a broad view of the EOC project to address specific risks that require assessment, mitigation, and tracking. Risk assessment will be an ongoing process throughout the project life cycle. The following assumptions will serve to guide/bound the risk assessments conducted to date: Scope The project does not require unusual security restrictions during the planning, or design. Some

features of the EOC may be subject to classification restrictions during construction. Security system design will be performed by LANL security staff. They will edit contractor-supplied

drawings to indicate conduit installation. Security system installation will be performed by LANL security staff.

The EM&R groups who will be the occupants of the EOC will provide communications and emergency response gear – either by relocating existing equipment or by purchasing new expense funded equipment.

The NEPA compliance action has resulted in a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI). There will not be a change in scope or site location that would result in the need for a new EA.

The EOC will be procured through a D-B contract. Construction drawings and construction will be provided by the D-B contractor. The technical content of the project (facility square footage, finishing, etc.) will be limited by the fixed-price contract.

The project shall be managed in accordance with LIR 220-01-01.4, Construction Project Management. Schedule Project funds will not be reprogrammed for use by others, which would cause the EOC project to

change its obligations and spending schedules. Lost time from labor disputes, LANL safety stand-downs, unusual weather conditions, natural

phenomena, or LANL security-related conditions will not be considered.



Cost This project includes expense and capital funding. Expense funding for conceptual design and start up

efforts (Other Project Costs (OPCs)) and capital funding for definitive design and construction (Total Estimated Cost (TEC)).

OPCs including conceptual design cost for the EOC shall not exceed $1.534 million. Materials, Johnson Controls Northern New Mexico (JCNNM) labor, and recharge labor are exempt from

General and Administrative (G&A). Group tax will only be applied to B line labor at the rate of the Group of the employee. Division tax will only be applied to B line labor at the rate of the Division of the employee; employees

must charge to their line management Division. LANL labor burden policies and "taxes" applicable to project activities will not significantly change while

the project is being executed. Procurement tax will be applied on all procurements (see LANL Financial Management Handbook,

FY01 Recharge Budgets and Rates). Lost time due to labor disputes, LANL safety-stand-downs, unusual weather conditions, natural

phenomena, or LANL security-related conditions have not been included. LANL labor costs are determined in part by DOE-approved LANL accounting practices. A change in the

accounting practices could affect the cost of the work performed. Costs associated with any programmatic delays resulting from any work contained in the EOC project

are not included (e.g., building residents who are not assigned to this project will not charge the project for delays that may result from EOC project activities).

1.2.3 Structure for Risk Analysis DOE M 413.X (Draft) recommends that a project be logically structured into small elements for risk assessment. The concept is similar to breaking a total project down into systems or a Work Breakdown Structure (WBS). Assessable elements are discrete groupings of project activities against which an effective risk analysis may be performed and the results evaluated to provide the input needed to make necessary decisions. Dividing the project into smaller more manageable elements enables the identification of risks in a structured manner. For the risk assessment conducted using the checklist found in PMD Procedure 104, the EOC project was broken down into the following elements: Whole EOC Project Project Team Program ESH Program Conventional Facilities Design-Build Contract LANL-Provided Items Turnover Preparation

The elements are defined as follows: Whole EOC Element – Used to identify broad risks that span more than one project element and to

roll-up risks identified in the smaller elements. Project Team Program – Includes all the project definition, planning, and management activities of

the project team. These include General Management, Cost/Schedule Analysis, QA/QC program, Project Records Management, and Procurement.

ESH Program – Includes the NEPA activities, PHA, ESH and Safety Plans, ESH-ID activities, and

environmental permitting activities. Conventional Facilities Design-Build Contract – Includes the final design and the construction of

the EOC. LANL-Provided Items – Includes design and installation of security systems, communications gear,

and data collection and analysis systems.



Turnover Preparation – Includes the Integrated Test Plan and Operational Readiness Validation of all EOC systems in an integrated fashion, archival of final project records, and acceptance of the facility by the EM&R program.

This method will be used for subsequent risk assessments, as necessary. The probabilistic risk assessment conducted by D-11 used a different set of assessable elements as identified in Figure 1.2.3.1. It defines the activities modeled and their interrelationships for the project schedule and cost analysis. The activities identified in both the project WBS and in the baseline schedule were used as the starting point for the development of the project risk model. These activities were consolidated and/or expanded to explicitly identify those activities and influences that were expected to have a significant technical risk and/or significant uncertainty in schedule or cost performance. The flow chart was developed in sufficient detail to allow the items important to overall schedule and cost performance to be evaluated individually, yet is simple enough for all key tasks and their interrelationships to be viewed on a single sheet. Figure 1.2.3.1: PRA risk model activity flow chart.

CompleteCD

Dev & IssueRFP, EvalBids, and

Award D/B010

PreliminaryDesign

020

Notice toProceed

060

On/off SiteMechanical

080

On/off SiteElectrical

085

Final Design030

Site Prep070

SubstructureFoundation

Slab090, 100

On-site Parking,Emergency

Road400, 410

Shell110, 130, 150120, 140, 160

Interior Framing& Stairs670, 210

HVAC Rough In280

Fire Prot 310Device EQ/Dist

390

Interior Finishes180, 190, 200,

220, 230

Services250, 270, 290,300, 320, 340,

350Emerg Pwr

360

LANL Const500, 510

Special Equip540

Std Equip550

JCNNM ConstUtility/Fire Tie-in

520, 530

Punch List1000

Bldg Complete1010

DesignManagement

040 - 050

Title III Dsg 1020Const. Management

1030, 1035, 1040, 1110

1.2.4 Risk Management Team The project risk management team will consist of the core project team with additional subject matter experts participating as appropriate in the risk identification and analysis. The core team is comprised of: CGR Project Director (or delegated Deputy Project Director) Project Team Leader Technical Project Leader/Facility Owning Division Representative Engineer/Procure/Construct Project Leader Support Services Project Leader ESH Representative

The core team may obtain the services and advice of probabilistic risk analyst as needed. 1.2.5 Responsibilities for Risk Management Federal Project Manager, NNSA-LASO: The Federal Project Manager will review and approve the RMP/RAR for DOE. CGR Project Director: The CGR Project Director (or delegated Deputy Project Director) will coordinate and integrate the other project activities (such as operations, external issues) with the programmatic risk management activities, as necessary.



Project Team Leader: The PTL has overall responsibility for project risk management and the implementation of this RMP/RAR. The activities required to implement the following responsibilities may be delegated; however, the responsibility remains with the identified function. The responsibilities of the PTL include: Development and approval of the RMP/RAR. Provide budget for RMP/RAR implementation activities. Actively participate in the project’s conduct of risk management, particularly in remedial actions, such

as: (a) Mitigation of programmatic risks, when the project’s scope, budget, or schedule are impacted. (b) Mitigation of interfacing risks when other organizations (outside of LANL) are involved.

Will chair (or designee will chair) the risk assessment meetings. Assemble and lead the project team in the risk analyses. Assure the risk analysis results are documented and risk mitigation plans are brought to closure. Schedule periodic reviews of the project risk screening and analyses, and the status of the associated

handling actions. Technical Project Leader/Facility Owning Division Representative: The Technical Project Leader/Facility Owning Division Representative responsibilities include: Actively participate in the project’s conduct of risk management, particularly in remedial actions such

as: (a) Technical risks identified in conjunction with the institutional Emergency Response plans, when

the project’s scope, budget, or schedule are impacted. (b) Interfacing risks when other organizations (outside of LANL) as they relate to Emergency

Response plans. Identify the need for technical risk analyses.

Engineer/Procure/Construct Project Leader: The Engineer/Procure/Construct Project Leader responsibilities include: Actively participate in the project’s conduct of risk management, particularly in remedial actions such

as: (a) Technical risks, when the project’s scope, budget, or schedule are impacted. (b) Interfacing risks when other organizations (outside of LANL) are involved.

Identify the need for technical risk analyses. Support Services Project Leader: The Support Services Project Leader responsibilities include: Act as the Risk Management Coordinator. Facilitate risk assessment meetings. Manage the identification, assessment, and rating of risks. Prepare a set of identified risks and risk handling strategies. Maintain the RMP/RAR. Prepare a summary status of risk mitigation activities and status of RMP/RAR implementation.

ESH Representative: The ESH Representative is responsible for assisting the EOC project team in performing the ML determination and aiding the EOC project team in conducting risk assessments. All Project Team Members: All project team members will: Perform risk screening to identify risks. Assess and grade identified risks. Assist in the development of risk mitigation strategies.



1.3 Risk Management Process Execution Evaluations of the status and mitigation process of identified risks, any identification of new potential risks, and the closure of acceptable risks will be performed at key points in the project cycle, including: Prior to project Critical Decisions. Accompanying any Baseline Change Proposal. At selected points during detailed design and construction.

Additional risk assessments may be added in support of the procurement and construction schedules, as appropriate. The PTL will schedule and initiate risk screening as needed to identify new potential risks. The risk management process contains the following major elements: Risk Management Planning Risk Identification Risk Quantification Risk Handling Risk Impact Determination Risk Tracking, Reporting, and Closure

1.3.1 Risk Management Planning This document contains the risk management plan and the current risk assessment report. It will be reviewed and revised at important decision points in the project development, which are identified in Section 1.3. 1.3.2 Risk Identification The Project Risk Categories and Screening Questions given in Table 1.3.2.1 shall be answered for each of the risk assessment elements defined in Section 1.2.3. The risk management team will meet and arrive at a consensus for each screening question. The team will also determine whether there are risks that should be included in the "other" category. "No" entries do not require any further consideration. Table 1.3.2.1: Risk Categories and Screening Questions SCREENING CRITERIA YES NO A. TECHNOLOGY 1. New technology? 2. Unknown or unclear technology? 3. New application of existing technology? 4. Modernized/advanced technology in existing application? B. TIME 1. Project schedule uncertainties or restraints that may impact project completion or milestone dates?

2. Long-lead procurement items that may affect critical path or milestone completion?

3. Aggressive schedule? "Fast Track" schedule? C. CONTRACTOR CAPABILITIES 1. Potential unavailable qualified vendors or contractors? D. INTERFACES 1. Significant transportation or infrastructure impacts? 2. Multiple project interfaces? 3. Significant interface with operational facility? 4. Multiple customers or multiple LANL/DOE matrix organizations involved?



SCREENING CRITERIA YES NO E. SAFETY 1. Criticality potential? 2. Significant contamination potential? 3. New design basis accidents or other Unreviewed Safety Questions? 4. Hazardous material involved? 5. Safety class or safety significant systems (or the non-nuclear equivalent) involved?

6. DOE approval of safety documentation required? F. ENVIRONMENTAL (Use ESH-ID results) 1. Environmental Assessment or Environmental Impact Statement required? 2. Potential for releases or additional releases? 3. Unidentified disposal methods? 4. Any Environmental Permits or licenses required (RCRA, NEPA, CAA, CWA, etc.)?

5. Biological Review required? 6. Archaeological Review required? G. REGULATORY INVOLVEMENT 1. Are state regulators involved in any project decisions? 2. Is the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (DNFSB) involved in any project decisions?

3. Is the Nuclear Regulatory Commission involved in any project decisions? H. POLITICAL VISIBILITY 1. Does this project have a high political visibility? 2. Is LANL or DOE championship weak? I. NUMBER OF KEY PARTICIPANTS 1. Will there be more than one primary contractor performing work? 2. Will there be UC, KSL, or subcontractors participating at the worksite in addition to construction contractors?

J. COMPLEXITY 1. Undefined or unclear functional requirements? 2. Undefined or unclear design criteria? 3. Complex design features? 4. Difficult to functional test? 5. Existing or as-built conditions poorly documented? K. LABOR SKILLS, AVAILABILITY, PRODUCTIVITY 1. Will adequate and timely resource availability be a problem? 2. Specialty resources required? 3. Is a rapid labor build-up required? 4. Will labor be exposed to environmental extremes (heat, cold, etc.)? 5. Will any project work be performed in a radiologically controlled zone? L. NUMBER OF LOCATIONS/SITE ACCESS/SITE OWNERSHIP 1. Will project work be performed in more than one physical location (areas, sites, buildings, etc.)?

2. Does DOE have to acquire the site? 3. Are infrastructure improvements required?



SCREENING CRITERIA YES NO M. FUNDING/COST SHARING 1. Is project duration greater than 2 years? 2. Are other Federal agencies or States providing project funds? 3. Are other governments (countries) providing project funding? 4. Funding inadequate to support dedicated project management? N. MAGNITUDE/TYPE OF CONTAMINATION 1. Is hazardous or low-level waste present? 2. Is high-level or mixed waste present? 3. Is uncharacterized waste present? 4. Is a SWMU involved? O. QUALITY REQUIREMENTS 1. Is precision work required? 2. Is rework expected due to nature of project tolerances? 3. 10 CFR 830.120 or non-commercial QA program requirements? P. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT 1. Will the Citizens Advisory Board be involved in making project decisions? 2. Will the Citizens Advisory Board be involved in stabling priorities? 3. Will other intervener organizations (Sierra Club, Green Peace, CCNS, etc.) take interest in the project?

Q. OTHER

1.3.3 Risk Quantification Quantification will be performed to determine the importance of risks identified with an affirmative answer to a screening question. Quantification is accomplished by completing the Risk Assessment Form provided in Section 1.3.6. The determination of occurrence probability and consequence rating is subjective. These numbers should be determined by consensus of the risk management team using the following guidance: Table 1.3.3.1: Probability of Occurrence Guidelines

Probability of Occurrence Qualitative Quantitative*

Criteria

Very Unlikely P <0.1 Will not likely occur anytime in the life cycle of the facilities, or the estimated recurrence interval exceeds 10,000 years, or the probability of the occurrence is judged to be less than 10%.

Unlikely >0.1 P <0.4 Will not likely occur in the life cycle of the project or its facilities, or estimated recurrence interval exceeds 1000 years, or the probability of the occurrence is judged to be greater than 10% but less than 40%.

Likely >0.4 P <0.8 Will likely occur sometime during the life cycle of the project or its facilities, or estimated recurrence interval is between 10 years and 1000 years, or the probability of the occurrence is judged to be greater than 40% but less than 80%.

Very Likely P >0.8 Will likely occur sometime during the life cycle of the project, or estimated recurrence interval is less than 10 years, or the probability of occurrence is judged to be 80% or greater.

* P = Probability of occurrence.



Table 1.3.3.1.2: Consequence Of Occurrence Guidelines Consequence of Occurrence Qualitative Quantitative*

Criteria

Negligible C <0.1 Minimal or no consequences, unimportant. Some potential draw on contingency but budget estimates not exceeded. Negligible impact on program. Schedule impacts can be covered with available float.

Marginal >0.1 C <0.4 Small reduction in project technical performance. Moderate threat to facility mission, environment, or people. May require minor facility redesign or repair, minor environmental remediation, or first aid/minor medical intervention. Cost estimates marginally exceed budget. Minor slip in schedule with some potential adjustment of milestones required.

Significant >0.4 C <0.7 Significant degradation in project technical performance. Significant threat to facility mission, environment, or people. Requires some facility redesign or repair, significant environmental remediation or causes injury requiring medical treatment. Cost estimates significantly exceed budget. Significant slip in schedule with resulting milestones changes that may affect facility mission or project performance measures.

Critical >0.7 C <0.9 Technical goals of project cannot be achieved. Serious threat to facility mission, environment, or people. Possibly completing only portions of the mission or requiring major facility redesign or rebuilding, extensive environmental remediation, or intensive medical care for life-threatening injury. Cost estimates seriously exceed budget. Excessive schedule slip unacceptably affecting overall mission of facility/site/DOE, etc.

Crisis C >0.9 Project cannot be completed. Cost estimates unacceptably exceed budget. Catastrophic threat to facility mission, environment, or people, possibly causing loss of mission, long-term environmental abandonment, and death.

* C = Consequence of occurrence.



1.3.4 Risk Handling After the initial assessment of project risks is complete, strategies and actions forming appropriate responses must be developed for each identified critical risk issue. At the highest level, four generic strategies are available for risk response: Avoidance – This strategy seeks to eliminate the source of the uncertainty. This is generally accomplished through a fundamental change in requirements or specifications. An example would be to eliminate the requirement for an item to be able to withstand a specific severe environmental condition. Avoidance actions should only be taken after a thorough evaluation of the potential impacts on mission and/or functional capabilities has been made. Transfer – Transfer strategies involve the reallocation of risk from one party to another. Transfer strategies are generally financial arrangements that require the payment of a risk premium to accomplish the transfer. Examples include fixed price contracts and insurance arrangements such as a performance bond. The transfer strategies utilized by the EOC project include design-build fixed price contracts and liquidated damages/incentives. Control – Risk control strategies seek to reduce the likelihood of occurrence of the risk event and/or mitigate its consequences, should it occur. This is generally the broadest and most varied strategy. Categories of control strategies include trade studies and decision analyses, system modeling/simulation, targeted research and development programs, competing alternative designs, phased development programs, and early system tests or demonstrations. Acceptance – Risk acceptance is an appropriate strategy for risks that remain after application of the first three strategies and for low-level risks where formal response actions would not be cost effective. The most universally used risk acceptance strategy involves the establishment of reserves or contingencies for time, funds, or other resources. These reserves can be allocated to specifically identified risks or held as true reserves for unknown problems. The response development process consists of three major steps: Identification of potentially effective risk response strategies. Selection of an effective and appropriate response strategy and action for the identified risk issue. Assignment of responsibility and resources for response action implementation.

1.3.5 Risk Impact Determination Risk impact determination is the process of evaluating and qualifying the effect of risk(s) on the project. Risk impacts a project in two different ways: Handling strategy implementation, which must be reflected in a revised project baseline. Residual risk, which must be reflected in project contingency.

The ultimate impact of risk management is to increase the probability of project success by focusing attention on problem areas early and reducing the amount of costly rework in the future. For each and every risk, there is potential cost or schedule impact if the risk occurs. 1.3.6 Risk Tracking, Reporting, and Closure A Risk Assessment Form will be used for each identified risk to document the description of the risk, quantification of the risk, risk handling, and the risk impact determination, as shown in Figure 1.3.6.1. A risk status table will be maintained. It will be reviewed and annotated at a specified project team meeting quarterly. The annotated table will be incorporated in the meeting minutes. This will be the normal method of tracking risk management progress. Progress for any top-level project performance measures established against goals set using risk analysis results will be reported in the monthly reports by the PTL.



Figure 1.3.6.1: Risk Assessment Form

Risk Assessment Form

Risk Description: Occurrence Probability: • Very Unlikely (P <0.1) • Unlikely (>0.1 P <0.4) • Likely (>0.4 P <0.8) • Very Likely (P >0.8) Probability Description: Probability Estimate (P=): Occurrence Consequence: • Negligible (C <0.1) • Marginal (>0.1 C <0.4) • Significant (>0.4 C <0.7) • Critical (>0.7 C <0.9) • Crisis (C >0.9) Consequence Description: Consequence Rating (C=): Estimated Cost of Consequence: $ Estimated Schedule Slip of Consequence: Days Risk Factor (RF=P*C): • Low Risk (RF <0.1) • Moderate Risk (>0.1 RF <0.4) • High Risk (RF >0.4) Mitigation Strategy (Avoidance, Transfer, Control, Acceptance): Action: Residual Cost Impact: $ Residual Schedule Impact: Days



1.4 References DOE Documents DOE GPG-FM-001, Project Management Overview, March 1996. DOE GPG-FM-007, Risk Analysis and Management, March 1996. DOE O 151.1A, Comprehensive Emergency Management Systems, November 1, 2000. DOE O 413.3, Program and Project Management for the Acquisition of Capital Assets, October 13,

2000. DOE M 413.X, Manual for Program and Project Management for the Planning, Programming,

Budgeting, and Acquisition of Capital Assets, October 2000. LANL Documents LANL Financial Management Handbook, FY01 Recharge Budgets and Rates. LIR 220-01-01.5,Construction Project Management, February 11, 2002. LIR 230-01-02.2, Graded Approach for Facility Work, September 11, 1998. LIG 230-01-02.0, Graded Approach for Facility Work, December 24, 1997. PMD Procedure 104, Risk Assessment and Management, March 23, 1998.

EOC Project Documents CGRP-0012-001,R1, Mission Need Statement, October 2, 2001. CGRP-0012-002,R0, Program Requirements Document, January 23, 2001. CGRP-0012-003,R0, Functional and Operational Requirements, June 22, 2001. CGRP-0012-004,R1, Project Execution Plan, October 2, 2001. CGRP-0012-006,R0, ESH Plan and Safety Strategy, July 3, 2001. CGRP-0012-008,R0, Conceptual Design Report, June 22, 2001. CGRP-0012-011,R1, Acquisition Plan, September 7, 2001. CGRP-0012-012,R0, Design-Build Specifications, June 22, 2001. CGRP-0012-014,R0, Project Risk Assessment, June 2001.



2.0 Risk Assessment Report 2.1 Identification Risks were identified by examining each of the assessable elements listed in Section 1.2.3 using the screening question list given in Table 1.3.2-1. The subproject elements were examined first. Then the project was investigated as a whole. The screening results are given on the following pages.



PROJECT TEAM PROGRAM SCREENING QUESTIONS SCREENING CRITERIA YES NO A. TECHNOLOGY 1. New technology? X 2. Unknown or unclear technology? X 3. New application of existing technology? X 4. Modernized/advanced technology in existing application? X B. TIME 1. Project schedule uncertainties or restraints that may impact project completion or milestone dates?

X


X

3. Aggressive schedule? "Fast Track" schedule? X C. CONTRACTOR CAPABILITIES 1. Potential unavailable qualified vendors or contractors? X D. INTERFACES 1. Significant transportation or infrastructure impacts? X 2. Multiple project interfaces? X 3. Significant interface with operational facility? X 4. Multiple customers or multiple LANL/DOE matrix organizations involved? X E. SAFETY 1. Criticality potential? X 2. Significant contamination potential? X 3. New design basis accidents or other Unreviewed Safety Questions? X 4. Hazardous material involved? X 5. Safety class or safety significant systems (or the non-nuclear equivalent) involved?

X

6. DOE approval of safety documentation required? X F. ENVIRONMENTAL (Use ESH-ID results) 1. Environmental Assessment or Environmental Impact Statement required? X 2. Potential for releases or additional releases? X 3. Unidentified disposal methods? X 4. Any Environmental Permits or licenses required (RCRA, NEPA, CAA, CWA, etc.)?

X

5. Biological Review required? X 6. Archaeological Review required? X G. REGULATORY INVOLVEMENT 1. Are state regulators involved in any project decisions? X 2. Is the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (DNFSB) involved in any project decisions?

X

3. Is the Nuclear Regulatory Commission involved in any project decisions? X H. POLITICAL VISIBILITY 1. Does this project have a high political visibility? X 2. Is LANL or DOE championship weak? X I. NUMBER OF KEY PARTICIPANTS 1. Will there be more than one primary contractor performing work? X 2. Will there be UC, KSL, or subcontractors participating at the worksite in addition to construction contractors?

X



SCREENING CRITERIA YES NO J. COMPLEXITY 1. Undefined or unclear functional requirements? X 2. Undefined or unclear design criteria? X 3. Complex design features? X 4. Difficult to functional test? X 5. Existing or as-built conditions poorly documented? X K. LABOR SKILLS, AVAILABILITY, PRODUCTIVITY 1. Will adequate and timely resource availability be a problem? X 2. Specialty resources required? X 3. Is a rapid labor build-up required? X 4. Will labor be exposed to environmental extremes (heat, cold, etc.)? X 5. Will any project work be performed in a radiologically controlled zone? X L. NUMBER OF LOCATIONS/SITE ACCESS/SITE OWNERSHIP 1. Will project work be performed in more than one physical location (areas, sites, buildings, etc.)?

X

2. Does DOE have to acquire the site? X 3. Are infrastructure improvements required? X M. FUNDING/COST SHARING 1. Is project duration greater than 2 years? X 2. Are other Federal agencies or States providing project funds? X 3. Are other governments (countries) providing project funding? X 4. Funding inadequate to support dedicated project management? X N. MAGNITUDE/TYPE OF CONTAMINATION 1. Is hazardous or low-level waste present? X 2. Is high-level or mixed waste present? X 3. Is uncharacterized waste present? X 4. Is a SWMU involved? X O. QUALITY REQUIREMENTS 1. Is precision work required? X 2. Is rework expected due to nature of project tolerances? X 3. 10 CFR 830.120 or non-commercial QA program requirements? X P. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT 1. Will the Citizens Advisory Board be involved in making project decisions? X 2. Will the Citizens Advisory Board be involved in stabling priorities? X 3. Will other intervener organizations (Sierra Club, Green Peace, CCNS, etc.) take interest in the project?

X

Q. OTHER 1. Are security systems required? X 2. Is it likely that any project data will be classified? X



ES&H PROGRAM SCREENING QUESTIONS

SCREENING CRITERIA YES NO A. TECHNOLOGY 1. New technology? X 2. Unknown or unclear technology? X 3. New application of existing technology? X 4. Modernized/advanced technology in existing application? X B. TIME 1. Project schedule uncertainties or restraints that may impact project completion or milestone dates?

X


X


X


X


X


X




X


X




CONVENTIONAL FACILITIES DESIGN-BUILD CONTRACT SCREENING QUESTIONS


X


X


X


X


X


X




X


X




LANL-PROVIDED ITEMS SCREENING QUESTIONS SCREENING CRITERIA YES NO A. TECHNOLOGY 1. New technology? X 2. Unknown or unclear technology? X 3. New application of existing technology? X 4. Modernized/advanced technology in existing application? X B. TIME 1. Project schedule uncertainties or restraints that may impact project completion or milestone dates?

X


X


X


X

X 6. Archaeological Review required? X G. REGULATORY INVOLVEMENT 1. Are state regulators involved in any project decisions? X 2. Is the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (DNFSB) involved in any project decisions?

X


X

5. Biological Review required?




X


X




TURNOVER PREPARATION SCREENING QUESTIONS


X


X


X


X


X


X




X


X




WHOLE EOC SCREENING QUESTIONS


X


X


X


X


X


X




X


X




2.2 Risk Quantization Each risk identified with a positive answer in the risk-screening tool presented in Section 2.1 has been quantized as described in Section 1.3.3. The results along with the risk description, consequence description, and mitigation strategy description are compiled in the following Risk Assessment Forms per the requirements of Section 1.3.6.



Risk Assessment Form – B3 Aggressive Schedule Risk Description: The EOC project schedule is very aggressive leading up to design-build contract award, with multiple parallel activities. There are several activities during the conceptual design phase that are on the critical path. The activity of most concern is completion of the Environmental Assessment (EA) and the issuance of a Finding of No Significant Impanct (FONSI), which are largely out of the control of the project team. Allowance for non-traditional project development is required from NNSA. Occurrence Probability: • Very Unlikely (P <0.1) • Unlikely (>0.1 P <0.4) • Likely (>0.4 P <0.8) • Very Likely (P >0.8) Probability Description: The probability of occurrence is considered likely because there are many potential failures and there may be few opportunities for work-around schedule adjustments. Probability Estimate (P=): 0.6 Occurrence Consequence: • Negligible (C <0.1) • Marginal (>0.1 C <0.4) • Significant (>0.4 C <0.7) • Critical (>0.7 C <0.9) • Crisis (C >0.9) Consequence Description: The consequence of occurrence is that the design-build contract award date performance measure could be missed. Failure to meet the performance measure could cause some political damage and enhanced external project pressures. These could cause additional project management costs, but are not likely to significantly effect the cost at completion, the project completion date, or the technical performance of EOC. Consequence Rating (C=): 0.25 Estimated Cost of Consequence: $100,000 Estimated Schedule Slip of Consequence: One Month Risk Factor (RF=P*C): 0.15 • Low Risk (RF < 0.1) • Moderate Risk (RF > 0.1 but < 0.4) • High Risk (RF > 0.4) Mitigation Strategy (Avoidance, Transfer, Control, Acceptance): Control Action: As a moderate risk, several actions were taken to mitigate the risk. A Memorandum of Understanding was prepared by the EOC PTL and agreed to by NNSA accepting non-standard project development sequences. Extra project management resources (contractors) were retained for the critical period to assure that all deliverables are completed on-time and to expedite issues as soon as they are identified. The EA was completed ahead of schedule with no public comments received, and a FONSI was granted by NNSA in July 2001. The conceptual design was completed on time and the design-build contract was awarded the first week of October 2001. The conceptual design phase of the project was completed on schedule. The final design was completed ahead of schedule. Residual Schedule Impact: $0 Residual Cost Impact: 0 Days



Risk Assessment Form – D2 Multiple Project Interfaces Risk Description: The LANL EOC requires fire alarm data provided by the Partial Site-Wide Fire Alarm System Replacement (PSWFASR) Project and data transmission interface with the Multi-Channel Communications (MCC) Project. Occurrence Probability: • Very Unlikely (P <0.1) • Unlikely (>0.1 P <0.4) • Likely (>0.4 P <0.8) • Very Likely (P >0.8) Probability Description: The probability of occurrence is considered unlikely because the EOC, PSWFASR, and MCC projects are coordinated collectively under the Cerro Grande Rehabilitation Project. The Project Manager for the EOC project is also the Project Manager for the PSWFASR and MCC projects. Probability Estimate (P=): 0.2 Occurrence Consequence: • Negligible (C <0.1) • Marginal (>0.1 C <0.4) • Significant (>0.4 C <0.7) • Critical (>0.7 C <0.9) • Crisis (C >0.9) Consequence Description: The consequence of occurrence is that full utilization of the EOC could be delayed. Consequence Rating (C=): 0.2 Risk Factor (RF=P*C): 0.04 • Low Risk (RF <0.1) • Moderate Risk (>0.1 RF <0.4) • High Risk (RF >0.4) Estimated Cost of Consequence: $? Estimated Schedule Slip of Consequence: ? Days Mitigation Strategy (Avoidance, Transfer, Control, Acceptance): Avoidance Action: Although this was determined to be a low risk, the EOC project incorporated into the conceptual design the requirement to include a dual capacity system to support both BRASS and Argus. In addition, the F&ORs for the EOC project included the requirement for building space to house the MCC equipment. Incorporating the above requirements into the design-build contract will allow the EOC to be fully utilized at the time of completion, regardless of the PSWFASR and MCC projects schedules. Residual Cost Impact: $0 Residual Schedule Impact: 0 Days



Risk Assessment Form – D4 Multiple Customers or Multiple LANL/NNSA Matrix Organizations Involved

Risk Description: Final design and turnover preparations will involve the participation of multiple LANL and NNSA organizations to produce, review, and approve design documents, plans, procedures, and readiness validation efforts. Coordination and prioritization among these entities has traditionally proven difficult. Occurrence Probability: • Very Unlikely (P <0.1) • Unlikely (>0.1 P <0.4) • Likely (>0.4 P <0.8) • Very Likely (P >0.8) Probability Description: The probability of occurrence is considered likely based on lessons learned from other LANL projects. Probability Estimate (P=): 0.6 Occurrence Consequence: • Negligible (C <0.1) • Marginal (>0.1 C <0.4) • Significant (>0.4 C <0.7) • Critical (>0.7 C <0.9) • Crisis (C >0.9) Consequence Description: The consequence of occurrence is that project completion could be delayed. Consequence Rating (C=): 0.4 Risk Factor (RF=P*C): 0.24 • Low Risk (RF <0.1) • Moderate Risk (>0.1 RF <0.4) • High Risk (RF >0.4) Estimated Cost of Consequence: $? Estimated Schedule Slip of Consequence: ? Days Mitigation Strategy (Avoidance, Transfer, Control, Acceptance): Control Action: As a moderate risk, the EOC project team has taken several actions to mitigate this risk. The EOC project has worked closely with the Federal Project Manager from the beginning of the project. The Federal Project Manager has been kept informed of and invited to attend the weekly design meetings held during the conceptual design phase of the project. A Memorandum of Understanding was prepared by the EOC PTL and agreed to by NNSA that established ahead of time the Critical Decision approval process for the CGRP design-build projects. The EOC project provided very comprehensive Critical Decision request packages that enabled NNSA to stay well informed and discuss issues in a timely manner. To date, Critical Decision approvals have been granted by NNSA in a timely manner. In addition, the EOC PTL transmits weekly status reports to NNSA-OLASO and NNSA-HQ to ensure that any questions raised by NNSA can be handled quickly. The EOC PTL is continuing to inform the NNSA review team in advance of upcoming design reviews. There is some concern that Los Alamos County (LAC) may not staff the Dispatch Center in the new EOC. The EOC Project will consider contingency plans regarding procurement and installation of associated dispatch equipment. Residual Cost Impact: $0 Residual Schedule Impact: 0 Days



Risk Assessment Form – E6 DOE Approval of Safety Documentation Required Risk Description: DOE approval of the safety documentation, including the Preliminary Hazard Analysis, preliminary Fire Hazard Analysis, and Operational Readiness Validation will be required. Occurrence Probability: • Very Unlikely (P <0.1) • Unlikely (>0.1 P <0.4) • Likely (>0.4 P <0.8) • Very Likely (P >0.8) Probability Description: The probability of occurrence is considered likely based on lessons learned from other LANL projects. Probability Estimate (P=): 0.5 Occurrence Consequence: • Negligible (C <0.1) • Marginal (>0.1 C <0.4) • Significant (> 0.4 C <0.7) • Critical (>0.7 C <0.9) • Crisis (C >0.9) Consequence Description: The consequence of occurrence is that there could be a significant delay in project completion and turnover of the facility to the end user. This delay could result in a budget overrun. Consequence Rating (C=): 0.5 Estimated Cost of Consequence: $? Estimated Schedule Slip of Consequence: ? Days Risk Factor (RF=P*C): 0.25 • Low Risk (RF < 0.1) • Moderate Risk (RF > 0.1 but < 0.4) • High Risk (RF > 0.4) Mitigation Strategy (Avoidance, Transfer, Control, Acceptance): Control Action: As a moderate risk, the EOC project team has taken several actions to mitigate this risk. The EOC project has worked closely with the Federal Project Manager from the beginning of the project. The Federal Project Manager has been kept informed of and invited to attend the weekly design meetings held during the conceptual design phase of the project. A Memorandum of Understanding was prepared by the EOC PTL and agreed to by NNSA that established ahead of time the Critical Decision approval process for the CGRP design-build projects. The Preliminary Hazard Analysis and preliminary Fire Hazard Analysis were approved by NNSA with Critical Decision-1 approval. The only remaining safety documentation requiring NNSA approval is the Operational Readiness Validation. The EOC PTL transmits weekly status reports to NNSA-OLASO and NNSA-HQ to ensure that any questions raised by NNSA can be handled quickly. The EOC PTL will continue to inform the NNSA review team in advance of any upcoming safety reviews. The EOC Project will conduct a Management Self Assessment to meet the requirements of an Operational Readiness Validation. The Federal Project Manager has concurred with this approach. The EOC Project is working with the Federal Project Manager to determine the appropriate signatory to all operational tests and commissioning activities. The Design-Build Contractor has prepared a draft commissioning plan for review. LANL has completed the review, and the Design-Build Contractor is incorporating comments. Residual Cost Impact: $? Residual Schedule Impact: ? Days



Risk Assessment Form – F1 Environmental Assessment or Environmental Impact Statement Required

Risk Description: An Environmental Assessment (EA) is required for the EOC project. The EA must be published for public review and comment. Publication, management of the public review period, comment incorporation, and determination of the finding (i.e Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) or the need to conduct an Environmental Impact Statement) are NNSA activities largely outside of the EOC project team’s control. Preparation of the EA is scheduled to occur during the summer, when key project individuals may be on vacation. Occurrence Probability: • Very Unlikely (P <0.1) • Unlikely (>0.1 P <0.4) • Likely (>0.4 P <0.8) • Very Likely (>0.8) Probability Description: The probability of occurrence is considered likely based on lessons learned from other LANL projects. Probability Estimate (P=): 0.5 Occurrence Consequence • Negligible (C <0.1) • Marginal (>0.1 C <0.4) • Significant (> 0.4 C <0.7) • Critical (>0.7 C <0.9) • Crisis (C >0.9) Consequence Description: The consequence of occurrence is that the design-build contract award date performance measure could be missed. Failure to meet the performance measure could cause some political damage and enhanced external project pressures. These could cause additional project management costs, but are not likely to significantly effect the cost at completion, the project completion date, or the technical performance of EOC. Consequence Rating (C=): 0.25 Estimated Cost of Consequence: $100,000 Estimated Schedule Slip of Consequence: 1 month Risk Factor (RF=P*C): 0.125 • Low Risk (RF <0.1) • Moderate Risk (>0.1 RF <0.4) • High Risk (RF >0.4) Mitigation Strategy (Avoidance, Transfer, Control, Acceptance): Control Action: As a moderate risk, the EOC project team has taken several actions to mitigate this risk. The EOC project management team worked closely with the Risk Reduction and Environmental Stewardship (RRES)-20 team and NNSA to prepare a timely and accurate EA. NNSA agreed that this project would not likely invite public comment because the EOC would not use or store hazardous or radioactive materials. Therefore, NNSA accelerated the public review process and completed the final EA and FONSI ahead of schedule. Residual Cost Impact: $0 Residual Schedule Impact: 0 Days



Risk Assessment Form – F4 Environmental Permits or Licenses Required (RCRA, NEPA, CAA, CWA, etc.)

Risk Description: See Risk Assessment Form – F1 Environmental Assessment or Environmental Impact Statement Required for the risks associated with NEPA. In addition to NEPA, there will be Clean Water Act (CWA) and Clean Air Act (CAA) permits required to construct and operate the EOC. No RCRA permitting will be necessary. In addition, there are cultural resource sites around the EOC building site. Occurrence Probability: • Very Unlikely (P <0.1) • Unlikely (>0.1 P <0.4) • Likely (>0.4 P <0.8) • Very Likely (>0.8) Probability Description: The probability of occurrence is considered unlikely because the CWA and CAA permits required for the EOC project are standard permits issued to LANL. Probability Estimate (P=): 0.1 Occurrence Consequence • Negligible (C <0.1) • Marginal (>0.1 C <0.4) • Significant (> 0.4 C <0.7) • Critical (>0.7 C <0.9) • Crisis (C >0.9) Consequence Description: The consequence of occurrence is that construction or operation of the facility could be delayed by the permitting process. Consequence Rating (C=): 0.6 Estimated Cost of Consequence: Estimated Schedule Slip of Consequence: Risk Factor (RF=P*C): 0.06 • Low Risk (RF <0.1) • Moderate Risk (>0.1 RF <0.4) • High Risk (RF >0.4) Mitigation Strategy (Avoidance, Transfer, Control, Acceptance): Control, Avoidance Action: Although this is considered a low risk, the EOC project team has taken several actions to mitigate the risk. The EOC project team has worked with RRES-18 and RRES-17 from the conceptual phase of the project to ensure that they have all the necessary information to apply for and receive the CWA and CAA permits required. To avoid the risks associated with the cultural resource sites around the EOC building site, the EOC project team has worked closely with RRES-20 to map these areas so they can be avoided during construction of the building. The EOC project team worked with RRES-18 to prepare and implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan. The EOC project team worked with RRES-17 to ensure that all the appropriate information on the boilers, backup generator, and diesel fuel tanks was transmitted to the New Mexico Environment Department (NMED) for the existing LANL Title V air permit. In addition, the EOC project is working with RRES-18 to have the sanitary sewage tank permit by NMED and with the EM&R Waste Management Coordinator to ensure that the LANL Waste Profile Form is in place. A Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasures Plan is being prepared by RRES-18 for the diesel fuel tanks. Residual Cost Impact: $0 Residual Schedule Impact: 0 Days



Risk Assessment Form – G2 DNFSB Involved in Project Decisions Risk Description: The Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (DNFSB) has expressed an interest in the EOC project because it may respond to emergencies involving LANL nuclear facilities. Occurrence Probability: • Very Unlikely (P <0.1) • Unlikely (>0.1 P <0.4) • Likely (>0.4 P <0.8) • Very Likely (P >0.8) Probability Description: The probability of this occurrence is considered unlikely because the EOC is not a nuclear facility. Probability Estimate (P=): 0.4 Occurrence Consequence: • Negligible (C <0.1) • Marginal (>0.1 C <0.4) • Significant (> 0.4 C <0.7) • Critical (>0.7 C <0.9) • Crisis (C >0.9) Consequence Description: The consequence of occurrence is that the increased information requests and reporting may cause the design-build contract award date performance measure to be missed. Failure to meet the performance measure could cause some political damage and enhanced external project pressures. In addition, DNFSB interest could result in a change in project scope and additional cost to incorporate this scope. Consequence Rating (C=): 0.6 Estimated Cost of Consequence: $100,000 Estimated Schedule Slip of Consequence: 3 Months Risk Factor (RF=P*C): 0.24 • Low Risk (RF <0.1) • Moderate Risk (>0.1 RF <0.4) • High Risk (RF >0.4) Mitigation Strategy (Avoidance, Transfer, Control, Acceptance): Control Action: As a moderate risk, the EOC project team has taken several actions to mitigate this risk. DNFSB conducted their first review of the EOC project in March 2001. The main issue at that time was the siting of the EOC. The EOC PTL, Technical Project Leader/Facility Owning Division Representative, and seismic Subject Matter Expert (SME) presented the history and rationale for selecting the EOC building site. In addition, the EOC PTL and SME presented the method used to determine that the EOC is a Performance Category 2 (PC-2) facility and provided the supporting documentation (DOE O 420.1). As requested by DNFSB, the EOC project team provided all the background information regarding the siting of the EOC, and prepared a cost-comparison of a PC-2 facility and a PC-3 facility, as well as a white paper discussing the “value added” of building the EOC as a PC-3 facility. DNFSB agreed that the EOC site was acceptable and that the EOC should be a PC-2 facility. DNFSB conducted a second review of the EOC project in July 2001. The main issue at that time was the Emergency Management strategy of the Laboratory and how it relates to the EOC. The EOC PTL and Technical Project Leader/Facility Owning Division Representative presented LANL’s defense-in-depth strategy, discussing the primary, secondary, and tertiary EOCs, as well as the Mobile Command Van and Mobile Communications Center being purchased as part of the CGR Project. DNFSB was satisfied with LANL’s Emergency Management strategy. DNFSB toured the facility on 12/05/02. No new issues were raised. Residual Cost Impact: $0 Residual Schedule Impact: 0 Days



Risk Assessment Form – H1 High Political Visibility Risk Description: All new construction projects have high political visibility at LANL. All are tracked by LANL watchdog groups. In addition to public interest, the EOC project involves numerous local, state, and federal agencies. Finally, NNSA has identified project performance as a LANL weakness, resulting in extraordinary focus on project execution practices for projects such as the EOC. Occurrence Probability: • Very Unlikely (P <0.1) • Unlikely (>0.1 P <0.4) • Likely (>0.4 P <0.8) • Very Likely (P >0.8) Probability Description: The probability of occurrence is considered unlikely because the EOC project does not involve hazardous or radioactive materials or waste. Probability Estimate (P=): 0.2 Occurrence Consequence: • Negligible (C <0.1) • Marginal (>0.1 C <0.4) • Significant (> 0.4 C <0.7) • Critical (>0.7 C <0.9) • Crisis (C >0.9) Consequence Description: The consequence of occurrence is that the political visibility will cause increased reporting efforts, which could result in additional project management costs. Consequence Rating (C=): 0.2 Estimated Cost of Consequence: $50,000 Estimated Schedule Slip of Consequence: 0 Days Risk Factor (RF=P*C): 0.04 • Low Risk (RF <0.1) • Moderate Risk (>0.1 RF <0.4) • High Risk (RF >0.4) Mitigation Strategy (Avoidance, Transfer, Control, Acceptance): Acceptance Action: None required. Residual Cost Impact: $? Residual Schedule Impact: 0 Days Revision 2 36 March 31, 2003


Risk Assessment Form – I2 UC, KSL, or Subcontractors Participating at the Worksite in Addition to Construction Contractors

Risk Description: There is a potential conflict between KSL work schedules and construction contractor work schedules, resulting in work interference. Occurrence Probability: • Very Unlikely (P <0.1) • Unlikely (>0.1 P <0.4) • Likely (>0.4 P <0.8) • Very Likely (P >0.8) Probability Description: The probability of occurrence is considered very unlikely because KSL work is limited to utility tie-ins and security fence work. Probability Estimate (P=): 0.1 Occurrence Consequence • Negligible (C <0.1) • Marginal (>0.1 C <0.4) • Significant (> 0.4 C <0.7) • Critical (>0.7 C <0.9) • Crisis (C >0.9) Consequence Description: The consequence of occurrence is that some schedule loss could occur with related contractor claims for additional cost due to lost work time. Consequence Rating (C=): 0.2 Estimated Cost of Consequence: $? Estimated Schedule Slip of Consequence: ? Days Risk Factor (RF=P*C): 0.02 • Low Risk (RF <0.1) • Moderate Risk (>0.1 RF <0.4) • High Risk (RF >0.4) Mitigation Strategy (Avoidance, Transfer, Control, Acceptance): Acceptance Action: None required. Residual Cost Impact: $? Residual Schedule Impact: ? Days Revision 2 37 March 31, 2003


Risk Assessment Form – K2 Specialty Resources Required Risk Description: The EOC project requires security systems specialists. These are internally available through the LANL matrix organization. The risk is that the specialists will not be available or will not consider the EOC project high priority relative to other assignments. Occurrence Probability: • Very Unlikely (P <0.1) • Unlikely (>0.1 P <0.4) • Likely (>0.4 P <0.8) • Very Likely (P >0.8) Probability Description: The probability of occurrence is considered unlikely because the Security division is the end user of the EOC building and is intimately involved in execution of the project. Probability Estimate (P=): 0.25 Occurrence Consequence • Negligible (C <0.1) • Marginal (>0.1 C <0.4) • Significant (> 0.4 C <0.7) • Critical (>0.7 C <0.9) • Crisis (C >0.9) Consequence Description: The consequence of occurrence is that project completion could be delayed. Consequence Rating (C=): 0.25 Estimated Cost of Consequence: $? Estimated Schedule Slip of Consequence: ? Days Risk Factor (RF=P*C): 0.06 • Low Risk (RF <0.1) • Moderate Risk (>0.1 RF <0.4) • High Risk (RF >0.4) Mitigation Strategy (Avoidance, Transfer, Control, Acceptance): Control Action: While this is considered a low risk, the EOC project has continued to involve the LANL Security division in the planning and execution of this project in order to mitigate this risk. Residual Cost Impact: $0 Residual Schedule Impact: 0 Days Revision 2 38 March 31, 2003


Risk Assessment Form – M1 Project Duration Greater than 2 Years Risk Description: The risks associate with duration greater than two years are the danger of not receiving annual funding as requested (or reprogramming of authorized funds) and turnover of project staff and/or stakeholders. Occurrence Probability: • Very Unlikely (P <0.1) • Unlikely (>0.1 P <0.4) • Likely (>0.4 P <0.8) • Very Likely (P >0.8) Probability Description: The probability of occurrence is considered very unlikely because all funding for the EOC has been authorized. Annual requests will not be required. As part of the CGR Project, the funds authorized for the EOC project cannot be reprogrammed to other projects. Key project staff and stakeholders are expected to remain constant for the EOC project. Probability Estimate (P=): 0.1 Occurrence Consequence • Negligible (C <0.1) • Marginal (>0.1 C <0.4) • Significant (> 0.4 C <0.7) • Critical (>0.7 C <0.9) • Crisis (C >0.9) Consequence Description: The consequence of occurrence is that the change in staff or stakeholders could result in project delay. Consequence Rating (C=): 0.1 Estimated Cost of Consequence: $0 Estimated Schedule Slip of Consequence: 0 Days Risk Factor (RF=P*C): 0.01 • Low Risk (RF <0.1) • Moderate Risk (>0.1 RF <0.4) • High Risk (RF >0.4) Mitigation Strategy (Avoidance, Transfer, Control, Acceptance): Acceptance Action: None required. Residual Cost Impact: $0 Residual Schedule Impact: 0 Days



Risk Assessment Form – O3 10 CFR 830.120 or Non-Commercial QA Requirements Risk Description: The EOC will be a critical facility with special structural requirements (PC-2) and a Management Level 2 (ML-2) rating. These factors imply that QA rigor beyond that found in a typical commercial construction project will be required. Occurrence Probability: • Very Unlikely (P <0.1) • Unlikely (>0.1 P <0.4) • Likely (>0.4 P <0.8) • Very Likely (P >0.8) Probability Description: The probability of occurrence is considered unlikely. While LANL has historically experienced difficulties implementing formal QA programs, the EOC project has a dedicated QA specialist and has prepared a project-specific Quality Management Plan. Probability Estimate (P=): 0.3 Occurrence Consequence • Negligible (C <0.1) • Marginal (>0.1 C <0.4) • Significant (> 0.4 C <0.7) • Critical (>0.7 C <0.9) • Crisis (C >0.9) Consequence Description: The consequence of occurrence is that quality deficiencies could result in project schedule delays or unexpected costs. These are most likely to be evident when preparing for operations readiness determination. Consequence Rating (C=): 0.3 Estimated Cost of Consequence: $50,000 Estimated Schedule Slip of Consequence: 2 Months Risk Factor (RF=P*C): 0.09 • Low Risk (RF <0.1) • Moderate Risk (>0.1 RF <0.4) • High Risk (RF >0.4) Mitigation Strategy (Avoidance, Transfer, Control, Acceptance): Control Action: While this is considered a low risk, the EOC project team has employed a dedicated QA specialist and implemented a Quality Management Plan. DOE conducted a Quality Assurance audit of the EOC Project June 10-13, 2002. The EOC Project received 3 noteworthy practices and 3 findings. Two of the findings have been addressed; the remaining finding is an institutional finding that the EOC Project is not directly responding to. “None of the three findings have an adverse impact on the design and construction activities.” Residual Cost Impact: $0 Residual Schedule Impact: 0 Days



Risk Assessment Form – Q1 Security Systems Required Risk Description: Security systems provisions must be coordinated with the contractor, and provided and installed by LANL security specialists. There is a risk that security requirements will change during the project. There is also a risk that security requirements will not be accurately communicated to the design-build contractor. Occurrence Probability: • Very Unlikely (P <0.1) • Unlikely (>0.1 P <0.4) • Likely (>0.4 P <0.8) • Very Likely (P >0.8) Probability Description: The probability of occurrence regarding changes in security requirements is considered likely based on recent events. However, the probability of occurrence regarding communication of these requirements to the design-build contractor are considered unlikely because the LANL Security group is the end user of the EOC building and has been intimately involved in the project from the conceptual phase. Probability Estimate (P=): 0.4 Occurrence Consequence • Negligible (C <0.1) • Marginal (>0.1 C <0.4) • Significant (> 0.4 C <0.7) • Critical (>0.7 C <0.9) • Crisis (C >0.9) Consequence Description: The consequence of occurrence regarding changes in security requirements is a change in project scope and additional cost to incorporate this scope. The consequence of occurrence regarding communication of these requirements to the design-build contractor could be rework resulting in schedule delays or unanticipated costs. Consequence Rating (C=): 0.4 Estimated Cost of Consequence: $50,000 Estimated Schedule Slip of Consequence: 1 Month Risk Factor (RF=P*C): 0.16 • Low Risk (RF <0.1) • Moderate Risk (>0.1 RF <0.4) • High Risk (RF >0.4) Mitigation Strategy (Avoidance, Transfer, Control, Acceptance): Control, Acceptance Action: As a moderate risk, the EOC project team has taken several actions to mitigate this risk. The EOC project team is working closely with the LANL Security group and NNSA to stay apprised of changes to DOE’s Design Basis Threat. In addition, the LANL Security group has been intimately involved in the EOC project from the conceptual design phase. If there is a change to the Design Basis Threat, the EOC project will work with LANL Security and NNSA to minimize the impact to the EOC project. However, the EOC project team cannot control the changes to the Design Basis Threat and may have to accept any directed changes. Residual Cost Impact: $50,000 Residual Schedule Impact: 1 Month



Risk Assessment Form – Q2 Project Data Will Be Classified Risk Description: Data regarding the EOC classified vault security system will likely be classified. The risk is accidental disclosure of classified information. Occurrence Probability: • Very Unlikely (P <0.1) • Unlikely (>0.1 P <0.4) • Likely (>0.4 P <0.8) • Very Likely (P >0.8) Probability Description: The probability of occurrence is considered very unlikely because it is anticipated that there will be a minimal amount of classified data. Probability Estimate (P=): 0.1 Occurrence Consequence • Negligible (C <0.1) • Marginal (>0.1 C <0.4) • Significant (> 0.4 C <0.7) • Critical (>0.7 C <0.9) • Crisis (C >0.9) Consequence Description: The consequence of occurrence is that there could be significant political damage and enhanced external project pressures. These could cause additional project management costs and may significantly increase the cost at completion or delay project completion. Consequence Rating (C=): 0.5 Estimated Cost of Consequence: $? Estimated Schedule Slip of Consequence: ? Days Risk Factor (RF=P*C): 0.05 • Low Risk (RF <0.1) • Moderate Risk (>0.1 RF <0.4) • High Risk (RF >0.4) Mitigation Strategy (Avoidance, Transfer, Control, Acceptance): Control Action: While this is considered a low risk, the EOC project team will follow LANL procedures for creating and handling classified information. Residual Cost Impact: $? Residual Schedule Impact: ? Days




2.3 Conceptual Probabilistic Risk Analysis A project risk assessment (PRA) of the EOC construction project was conducted by the Probabilistic Risk Analysis and Hazard Analysis Group of the Decision Applications Division (D-11) at LANL. The PRA (CGRP-0012-14, R0) examined risks for the activities described in the 95% Conceptual Design Report. This analysis showed some cost concerns with the LANL and KSL construction work on this project. These tasks can impact both schedule and cost. LANL provides Safeguards and Security, and communications to the facility. KSL provides utility and fire alarm tie-ins. Neither of these activities is on the critical path, but can impact the schedule if the activity is delayed beyond “building complete” date. The report concluded that the planned Total Project Cost and Contingency, as reflected in the CDR, were appropriate.