project execution plan for the management of the cesium ... library/other... · project execution...
TRANSCRIPT
CHPRC-02264Revision 3
Project Execution Plan for the Management of theCesium and Strontium Capsules (MCSC) Project(W-135)
Prepared for the U.S. Department of EnergyAssistant Secretary for Environmental Management
Contractor for the U.S. Department of Energyunder Contract DE-AC06-08RL14788
P.O. Box 1600 Richland, Washington 99352
Approved for Public Release; Further Dissemination Unlimited
CHPRC-02264 Revision 3
EDC#:ECR-17-001288
Project Execution Plan for the Management of the Cesium and Strontium Capsules (MCSC) Project (W-135) Program/Project: WFMP
CH2M HILL Plateau Remediation Company
Date PublishedAugust 2017
Prepared for the U.S. Department of EnergyAssistant Secretary for Environmental Management
Contractor for the U.S. Department of Energyunder Contract DE-AC06-08RL14788
P.O. Box 1600 Richland, Washington 99352
Release Approval Date Release Stamp
Approved for Public Release; Further Dissemination Unlimited
Aug 29, 2017DATE:
CHPRC-02264Revision 3
TRADEMARK DISCLAIMERReference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service bytradename, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not necessarilyconstitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by theUnited States Government or any agency thereof or its contractors orsubcontractors.
This report has been reproduced from the best available copy.
Printed in the United States of America
Total pages: 61
CHPRC RECORD OF REVISION (ROR) (1) Document Number
CHPRC-02264
(2) TitleProject Execution Plan for the Management of the Cesium and Strontium Capsules (MCSC) Proiect (W-135)
Change Control Record
(3) Authorized for Release (4) Description of Change - Replace, Add, and Delete Pages DD ROW! Revision (5) DA/TA Date
0 Rev. 0, ECR-14-001099 9-23-14
1 Total document revision to reflect project maturity and change in project title (ECR-16-000888) 07/27/16
2 CHPRC-02264. Project Execution Plan Rev .. 1 released Aug. 2016 MA Buckmaster {ECR-16-000888) CHPRC-02264 Execution Plan Rev. 2 total 07/31/17 document revision to reflect current project scope and maturity. (See ECR-17-000307)
3 Minor revisions to cost data in sections 1.3 and 3.3. (See ECR-17-001288)
Page 1 of 1 A-6004-786 (REV 3)
CHPRC-02264, REV. 3
iii
Contents
1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Background ............................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Project Need .............................................................................................................................. 2 1.3 Project Description .................................................................................................................... 3 1.4 Project Scope ............................................................................................................................. 3 1.5 Project Components .................................................................................................................. 4
1.5.1 CSS ................................................................................................................................ 4 1.5.2 WESF Modifications ..................................................................................................... 5 1.5.3 CSA ................................................................................................................................ 5
1.6 Major Interfaces ........................................................................................................................ 6 1.7 Assumptions .............................................................................................................................. 6 1.8 Environmental Permits .............................................................................................................. 7
1.8.1 NEPA Review ................................................................................................................ 7 1.8.2 WESF Part B Permit Application .................................................................................. 8 1.8.3 New Capsule Interim Storage RCRA Permitting Action ............................................... 8 1.8.4 Air Permit ...................................................................................................................... 8 1.8.5 Cultural, Historical, and Biological Resources Reviews ............................................... 8
1.9 Management Structure and Responsibilities ............................................................................. 9 1.9.1 U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office .............................................. 9 1.9.2 DOE-RL IPT ................................................................................................................ 10 1.9.3 CHPRC Project Organization ...................................................................................... 11 1.9.4 CHPRC IPT ................................................................................................................. 11
2 Tailoring Strategy ........................................................................................................................... 13
2.1 Strategy for DOE-STD-1189-2008 Integration of Safety into the Design Process ................. 15 2.2 Nuclear Safety Framework ...................................................................................................... 15
3 Project Baseline ............................................................................................................................... 15
3.1 Scope ....................................................................................................................................... 16 3.2 Schedule .................................................................................................................................. 16 3.3 Cost .......................................................................................................................................... 16
3.3.1 Management Reserve ................................................................................................... 17 3.3.2 Contingency ................................................................................................................. 17 3.3.3 Performance Measurement Baseline ............................................................................ 17
3.4 Funding Profile ........................................................................................................................ 18 3.5 Baseline Change Control ......................................................................................................... 18 3.6 Key Performance Parameters .................................................................................................. 18
3.6.1 Overview ...................................................................................................................... 18
CHPRC-02264, REV. 3
iv
3.6.2 Objectives .................................................................................................................... 18 3.6.3 Project-Specific KPPs .................................................................................................. 18
4 Project Management and Oversight .............................................................................................. 19
4.1 Project Reporting ..................................................................................................................... 19 4.2 Risk Management .................................................................................................................... 19 4.3 Project Risks ............................................................................................................................ 20 4.4 Technology Readiness Assessment ......................................................................................... 21 4.5 Design Reviews ....................................................................................................................... 23 4.6 Project Review Board .............................................................................................................. 24 4.7 Alternatives Analysis .............................................................................................................. 24 4.8 Independent Analysis of Alternatives ..................................................................................... 24 4.9 Environmental Regulatory Strategy ........................................................................................ 24 4.10 Integrated Safety Management/Environmental Management System .................................... 25 4.11 Industrial Safety and Occupational Health .............................................................................. 25 4.12 Nuclear Safety ......................................................................................................................... 26 4.13 Hazard Analysis ...................................................................................................................... 26 4.14 Training Plan ........................................................................................................................... 26 4.15 Radiological Design Review and ALARA .............................................................................. 26 4.16 Safeguards and Security .......................................................................................................... 27 4.17 Configuration Management ..................................................................................................... 27 4.18 Records Management/Document Control ............................................................................... 27 4.19 Systems Engineering ............................................................................................................... 27 4.20 Earned Value Management System......................................................................................... 27 4.21 Quality Assurance ................................................................................................................... 28 4.22 Communications Plan .............................................................................................................. 28 4.23 Transportation and Packaging ................................................................................................. 28
5 Acquisition Strategy ........................................................................................................................ 28
5.1 Engineering Design ................................................................................................................. 29 5.2.1 Design Verification ...................................................................................................... 29 5.2.2 Technical Configuration Baseline ................................................................................ 30 5.2.3 High Performance and Sustainable Building ............................................................... 30
5.3 Procurement/Construction ....................................................................................................... 30 5.3.1 Procurement ................................................................................................................. 30 5.3.2 Construction ................................................................................................................. 30 5.3.3 License and Permitting ................................................................................................ 30
5.4 Testing/Start-up/Turnover ....................................................................................................... 31 5.4.1 Acceptance Testing ...................................................................................................... 31 5.4.2 Startup Testing ............................................................................................................. 32
CHPRC-02264, REV. 3
v
5.5 Turnover to Operations ........................................................................................................... 32 5.6 Operations ............................................................................................................................... 33
6 Project Closeout .............................................................................................................................. 33
6.1 Objectives ................................................................................................................................ 33 6.2 CD-4 ........................................................................................................................................ 33 6.3 Project Completion Report ...................................................................................................... 33
7 References ........................................................................................................................................ 34
7.1 Codes, Standards, and DOE Requirements ............................................................................. 34 7.2 Other References ..................................................................................................................... 36
Appendix
A CHPRC Project Categorization and Tailoring Checklist ........................................................... A-i
Figures
Figure 1. Photograph of Waste Encapsulation and Storage Facility (WESF) .............................................. 1 Figure 2. Capsule, Canister, and Cask Terminology .................................................................................... 4 Figure 3. Vertical Cask Transporter .............................................................................................................. 5 Figure 4. Richland Operations Office Organization ................................................................................... 10 Figure 5. CHPRC MCSC Project Organization .......................................................................................... 11 Figure 6. Management of Cesium and Strontium ....................................................................................... 14 Figure 7. Risk Management Process ........................................................................................................... 20
Tables
Table 1. Work Breakdown Structure Level 3 Summary ($ Shown in Millions) ........................................ 16 Table 2. WBS Level 4 ................................................................................................................................. 17 Table 3. MCSC Project Funding Profile ..................................................................................................... 18
CHPRC-02264, REV. 3
vi
This page intentionally left blank.
CHPRC-02264, REV. 3
vii
Terms
ALARA as low as reasonably achievable
AoA analysis of alternatives
ATP acceptance test procedure
CAP capital asset project
CD Critical Decision
CENRTC capital equipment not related to construction
CDR conceptual design report
CHPRC CH2M HILL Plateau Remediation Company
CO contracting officer
COR contracting officer representative
CSDR conceptual safety design report
CSVR conceptual safety validation report
CSA capsule storage area
CSS cask storage system
CTE critical technology element
DCSS dry cask storage system
DNFSB Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board
DOE U.S. Department of Energy
DOE-HQ U.S. Department of Energy, Headquarters
DOE-RL U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office
DSA documented safety analysis
DTS dry transfer system
Ecology Washington State Department of Ecology
EIS Environmental Impact Statement
EMS Environmental Management System
ES&H Environment, Safety, and Health
FDC functional design criteria
FPD Federal Project Director
CHPRC-02264, REV. 3
viii
FRD functions and requirements document
FY fiscal year
GAO U.S. Government Accountability Office
GPP General Plant Project
HASP health and safety plan
ICE independent cost estimate
IPR independent project review
IPT Integrated Project Team
ISMS Integrated Safety Management System
ISMSD Integrated Safety Management System Description
KPP key performance parameter
MCSC management of the cesium and strontium capsules (project)
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
NRC U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
OOD Operations Oversight Division
PARS Project Assessment and Reporting System
PBS project baseline summary
PCSD Project Control System Description
PDSA preliminary documented safety analysis
PEP project execution plan
PFWR Plant Forces Work Review
PMB performance measurement baseline
PMP project management plan
PRB Project Review Board
PRC Plateau Remediation Contract
PSDR preliminary safety design report
QA quality assurance
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976
RFP Request for Proposal
ROD record of decision
CHPRC-02264, REV. 3
ix
SDS safety design strategy
SOW statement of work
SNF spent nuclear fuel
SSC structures, systems, and components
TA temporary authorization
TC&WM Tank Closure and Waste Management
TMP Technology Maturation Plan
TPC total project cost
TRA Technology Readiness Assessment
TRL Technology Readiness Level
TRSA Technology Readiness Self-Assessment
TSC transportable storage canister
TSD treatment, storage, and disposal
TSR technical safety requirement
UCS Universal Capsule Sleeve
VCC vertical concrete cask
VCT vertical cask transporter
VPP Voluntary Protection Program
W&FMP Waste & Fuels Management Project
WESF Waste Encapsulation and Storage Facility
WBS work breakdown structure
WMD Waste Management and Deactivation and Decommissioning Division
CHPRC-02264, REV. 3
x
This page intentionally left blank.
CHPRC-02264, REV. 3
1
1 Introduction The Management of Cesium and Strontium Capsules (MCSC) project will fill the capability gap for interim storage of cesium and strontium capsules currently stored underwater at the Waste Encapsulation and Storage Facility (WESF). The scope of the MCSC project is consistent with DOE/RL-2012-47, Mission Need Statement for the Management of the Cesium and Strontium Capsules (hereinafter called the mission need statement). The MCSC project is managed by the CH2M HILL Plateau Remediation Company (CHPRC) in compliance with requirements established by the U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office (DOE-RL) in the Plateau Remediation Contract (PRC; DE-AC06-08RL14788, CH2M HILL Plateau Remediation Company Plateau Remediation Contract).
The approach for managing and controlling all activities necessary to successfully execute all responsibilities inherent to the Plateau Remediation Contract are described in the CHPRC project execution plan (PEP; PRC-MP-MS-19361, CH2M HILL Plateau Remediation Company Project Execution Plan), which has been approved by DOE-RL. The CHPRC PEP describes the CHPRC project management approach, procedures and methods that comply with DOE O 413.3B, Program and Project Management for the Acquisition of Capital Assets.
The MCSC project is a CHPRC subproject and will be managed in accordance with the CHPRC PEP.
This document is the project-specific PEP for the MCSC project and has been prepared in accordance with the CHPRC standard for preparation of PEPs (PRC-STD-PM-53014, Project Execution Plans). This MCSC project PEP defines the overall strategy, objectives, and contractor management requirements for the MCSC project and describes the management methods, organization, control systems, and documentation for the project. This MCSC project PEP has tailored the requirements of DOE O 413.3B and DOE-STD-1189-2008, Integration of Safety into the Design Process.
From 1974 to 1985, cesium and strontium were removed from the nuclear waste at B Plant and then encapsulated and stored at the WESF (Figure 1). Removal of the cesium and strontium from the underground tanks improved management of the underground tanks, enhanced isolation of the tank waste, and provided an opportunity for beneficial use of the encapsulated cesium and strontium.
Figure 1. Photograph of Waste Encapsulation and Storage Facility (WESF)
CHPRC-02264, REV. 3
2
WESF is located adjacent to B Plant in the 200 East Area on the Central Plateau of the Hanford Site. The mission of WESF is the safe and compliant storage of 1,936 cesium and strontium capsules. The capsules contain 91 million curies (as of January 2017). This activity includes the short half-life daughter products barium-137m and yttrium-90.
The capsules are stored underwater in pool cells. The WESF is an aging facility that is being operated beyond its design life. The facility relies on active systems for ventilation, maintaining pool cell water levels, temperature, and monitoring the capsules. These systems are becoming more expensive and difficult to operate and maintain.
The planning for the final disposal of the capsules has assumed that they would be shipped to a high-level waste repository. As designated by the Nuclear Waste Policy Act Amendments of 1987, the Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Repository was to be the deep geological repository for spent nuclear fuel (SNF) and other high-level radioactive wastes
Federal funding for the Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Repository ended in 2011 via an amendment to a Department of Defense appropriations action, passed on April 14, 2011. This leaves the United States without any disposal option for SNF and high-level wastes. It also leaves Hanford in a position of not having a disposal pathway for the capsules and with the need to store the capsules for the foreseeable future.
Recognizing the need for continued storage of the capsules, DOE prepared a mission need statement (DOE/RL-2012-47). DOE-HQ approved this mission need statement and Critical Decision 0 (CD-0) occurred on November 5, 2015. The MCSC project was created to close the capability gaps identified in the mission need statement in a manner that meets the following objectives:
• Does not eliminate any capsule disposal alternative
• Considers the future transfer of the capsules from storage to disposal
• Incorporates the universal canister system concept developed by DOE for disposal of small waste forms
• Uses the commercial nuclear industry’s experience and technologies for the storage of SNF
The CHPRC has the overall responsibility for the successful completion of the MCSC project and will manage the project in accordance with DOE O 413.3B. The CHPRC will maintain the technical, cost, and schedule baselines. The CHPRC is responsible for obtaining the necessary environmental permits and nuclear safety approvals.
In accordance with DOE O 413.3B, DOE approved a mission need statement (DOE/RL-2012-47) and CD-0. The MCSC project will address the capability gaps identified in the mission need statement. The statement of mission need is as follows:
The Hanford Site needs to provide safe, compliant, and cost-effective storage of the cesium-137 and strontium-90 capsules. This storage capability will be necessary until a disposal path for the capsules is established and implemented.
Fulfillment of this mission need will align management of the capsules with site goals for cleanup of the Central Plateau, including safe management of legacy material and long-term stewardship of the site.
CHPRC-02264, REV. 3
3
DOE-RL is responsible for the safe, compliant, and cost-effective management of the cesium-137 and strontium-90 capsules. The capsules represent a significant portion of the radioactive materials on the Hanford Site. Storage of the capsules is required until final disposal of the capsules is possible.
It has been assumed that the capsules would eventually be disposed in the national high-level waste repository. With the elimination of funding for the high-level waste repository in Yucca Mountain, a disposal pathway for the capsules no longer exists.
The need to store the capsules until a disposal pathway is identified and available represents a capability gap. Other factors that contribute to this capability cap include the following:
• Continued operation of the WESF systems for an extended period will result in increased costs as the equipment ages and become more difficult to maintain.
• Cleanup of the B Plant Complex cannot proceed until the capsules are removed from the WESF.
• A beyond design basis accident would result in a significant risk to the Hanford Site workers and the public.
The MCSC project will provide the necessary capabilities to close the gaps identified in the mission need statement (DOE/RL-2012-47). The project will provide the capabilities necessary to transfer the capsules from the WESF pool cell to a cask storage system (CSS) in a new capsule storage area (CSA). The CSS will safely and compliantly store the 1,936 capsules until a capsule disposal option is available.
The total project costs (TPC) is estimated at $119.7 million, which will be managed in accordance with DOE O 413.3B. The tailoring strategy for 413.3B is described in later sections of this PEP.
The project includes a capital asset project (CAP) portion and an expense funded portion. DOE has submitted an initial project data sheet for the CAP. The CAP portion of the project includes a line item and a general plant project (GPP). The line item will fund the design and construction of the WESF modifications necessary to transfer the capsules to the CSS and the GPP will fund the design and construction of the CSA.
The expense funded portion of the MCSC project will provide design and fabrication of the CSS as well as startup and readiness activities. The scope of the MCSC project does not include the actual transfer of the capsules to the CSA. The cost is summarized in section 3.3 of this PEP.
The scope of the MCSC project is described in CHPRC-02252, Management of the Cesium and Strontium Capsules Project (W-135) Functions and Requirements Document, which includes the following major activities to transfer the capsules successfully to a new storage capability:
• Design and fabricate a storage capability that can safely, compliantly, and cost-effectively store the capsules until a disposal pathway for the capsules is available.
• Design and construct the equipment necessary to retrieve, package, and transfer the capsules from the WESF pool cells to the storage capability.
• Design and construct a CSA, including storage pad, fencing, lighting, and road access.
CHPRC-02264, REV. 3
4
• Design and construct the WESF modifications needed to support capsule retrieval, packaging, and transfer to the storage capability.
• Prepare operational procedures, maintenance procedures, and training.
• Perform operational startup readiness activities.
• Prepare required environmental permits and approvals.
• Prepare safety basis and obtain DOE approval.
• Complete project closeout and transition the WESF to a condition that will minimize the cost to maintain the facility until decontamination and demolition is possible.
The CAP portion of the project will be complete when DOE-HQ approves DOE O 413.3B CD-4 (Start of Operations) and project closeout is completed.
The transfer of the capsules from WESF to the storage capability is outside the scope of the project. The MCSC project will work with the fuels facility organization to ensure that preparations for capsule transfer are in place.
This section describes the major components of the MCSC project including the CSS, WESF modifications, and the CSA.
1.5.1 CSS The CSS includes the components necessary to package the capsules and place them into storage. A contract has been awarded to NAC International for the design and fabrication of this system. The CSS for the capsules will be an adaptation of the systems NAC International provides to the commercial nuclear industry for the storage of SNF. Figure 3 is an illustration of these components that will be a part of the CSS.
Vertical Concrete Cask (VCC) Transportable Storage Canister (TSC) Basket
Transportable Storage Canister (TSC)
Universal Capsule Sleeve
(UCS)
Dry Transfer System (DTS)
Figure 2. Capsule, Canister, and Cask Terminology
The NAC International CSS includes the following components:
• Universal capsule sleeve (UCS) – The UCS is consistent with the universal canister system concept developed by DOE for the disposal of small waste forms. The UCS will hold six standard capsules or two Type-W capsules.
• Dry transfer system (DTS) – The DTS will be used to transfer the UCS from G-Cell to the canyon. The WESF Canyon crane will then transfer the DTS to the TSC, which will be staged in the WESF truck port. The UCS will then be lowered into the TSC basket.
CHPRC-02264, REV. 3
5
• Transportable storage canister (TSC) – The TSC holds the TSC basket and is designed to fit inside the vertical concrete cask (VCC).
• TSC basket – The TSC basket will have 11 openings and hold two UCS each.
• Vertical concrete cask (VCC) – The VCC is a storage overpack that houses the TSC and TSC basket. Once loaded, the VCC will be transported to the CSA.
• Ancillary equipment – The CSS includes the necessary ancillary equipment required for retrieval, welding, and leak testing. These will be identified during design but are anticipated to include a new G Cell cover block, welding machine, leak testing equipment, and ventilation barrier.
• CSS transfer equipment – This will include the equipment necessary to transfer the CSS from the WESF truck port to the CSA, including a vertical cask transporter (VCT) and a tugger.
1.5.2 WESF Modifications The WESF modifications include the modifications necessary to support the transfer of the capsules to the CSS. The goal of the project is to use as many of the existing WESF systems as possible to complete the capsule transfer. The scope of the modifications will be identified during the conceptual design of the project. It is anticipated that the modifications will include items such as additional electrical power to G-Cell, increased truck port floor loading, helium supply to G-Cell and truck port, and worker safety improvements to WESF.
1.5.3 CSA The CSA will include the necessary security fence, lighting, and concrete pad. The CSA will also include any necessary upgrades to the roadway from WESF to the CSA. The VCC containing the capsules will be transferred from WESF to the CSA using a VCT. Figure 4 shows a VCT being used at West Valley, New York to transfer a VCC.
Figure 3. Vertical Cask Transporter
CHPRC-02264, REV. 3
6
Physical, administrative, organizational, and regulatory interfaces must be established and managed for successful execution of the MCSC project. Site-level interfaces and their management (between Hanford Site contractors) are described in MSC-OTHER-IFM-00001, Hanford Site Interface Management Plan, and PRC-PRO-MS-10472, Interface Management.
The MCSC project acquisition strategy will result in execution of the majority of project work scope through multiple contracts to acquire the interim storage capability and complete transfer of the capsules to extended storage. These contracts will be subcontracts to CHPRC. The contracts will require interface between the MCSC project, Contracts Management & Facilities Services, and the selected contractors.
Some MCSC project-provided systems will require modifications to the WESF and at the CSA. The conceptual design report (CDR) will define facility interfaces, tie-in requirements, and approach to testing, consistent with requirements of PRC-PRO-EN-286, Testing of Equipment and Systems. The project also will require access to perform work within various areas of WESF and at the CSA.
The MCSC project is managed within the Waste & Fuels Management Project’s (W&FMP’s) fuels facilities organization, which manages WESF and will manage the CSA. The MCSC project manager will identify and resolve interface issues with the W&FMP vice president.
All field work activities will be authorized by the CHPRC release authority designated by the CHPRC fuels facilities director daily, including construction and operations activities.
The MCSC project manager is responsible for managing and integrating interfaces using CHPRC processes. Interfaces with DOE-RL; Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (DNFSB); tribal nations; and federal, state, and local regulators will use existing CHPRC and W&FMP processes and protocols.
The MCSC project scope, schedule, and cost may be impacted by the following assumptions:
• Funding for the CAP portion of the project is allocated in accordance with the initial project data sheet prepared by DOE.
• Project Engineering and Design funding will be available in fiscal year (FY) 2018 for detailed design (preliminary and final design) and line item funding will be available in FY 2019 and FY 2020 for construction of the WESF modifications.
• The MCSC project is a CAP and will include a capital (LI) to provide the WESF modifications and GPP for construction of the CSA. Capital equipment not related to construction (CENRTC) funding will be required for fabrication of the capsule storage system.
• Funding for the expense portion of the project is allocated in a manner that does not impact the implementation and completion of the CAP.
• DOE will provide funding for the MCSC project as described in Chapter 3 of this document.
• Environmental permits and approvals will be received in a manner that does not impact the project schedule.
• A 413.3B tailoring strategy is developed, and receives DOE-RL concurrence prior to the completion of the CD-1 package. This tailoring strategy will combine CD-2 and CD-3 into a single package. Review and approval of the CD packages will be in a timely fashion.
CHPRC-02264, REV. 3
7
• Preparation of detailed design and other CD-2/-3 deliverables will not be constrained by DOE-HQ approval of CD-1.
• Safety documents will be developed and approved in a timely fashion based on the safety design strategy (SDS), in accordance with DOE-STD-1189-2008. The SDS is documented in CHPRC-02236, Waste Encapsulation and Storage Facility Management of Cesium and Strontium Capsules (Project W-135) Safety Design Strategy, Rev. 1, CH2M Plateau Remediation Company, Richland, Washington.
• Multiple CHPRC subcontracts will be used for acquisition of capabilities required to achieve extended storage, consistent with the project acquisition strategy. The availability of funds does not impact the awarding of these contracts.
• Applicable work breakdown structure (WBS) elements within the project baseline summary (PBS) RL-0013 performance measurement baseline (PMB) will be updated after completion of the MCSC project CDR, and prior to submittal of CD-2/-3 for DOE approval, to provide the scope, cost, and schedule baselines for the project execution phase of the MCSC project.
• The following requirements do not apply to the MCSC project: DOE/RW-0333P, Quality Assurance Requirements and Description; DOE/RW-0351, Civilian Radioactive Waste Management System Waste Acceptance System Requirements Document; and DOE/RW-0511, Integrated Interface Control Document, Volume 1 High-Level Radioactive Waste and U.S. Department of Energy and Naval Spent Nuclear Fuel to the Civilian Radioactive Waste Management System.
• Siting for the CSA will be consistent with the Site Evaluation 2E-11-09. Use of this site is predicated on the successful outcome of required regulatory and biological/ecological reviews.
A permitting plan for the MCSC has been prepared and approved by Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology; 15-NWP-024, Final Waste Encapsulation and Storage Facility [WESF] and Capsule Storage Area [CSA] Permitting Plan, January 2015). The permitting strategy for the MCSC project requires the following environmental regulatory actions:
• National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) review • Revision to the WESF Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA) Part B application • New RCRA permitting action for the CSA • Radioactive air permitting for the CSA • Cultural, historic, and biological resources review
1.8.1 NEPA Review The existing Tank Closure and Waste Management (TC&WM) Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) (DOE/EIS-0391, Final Tank Closure and Waste Management Environmental Impact Statement for the Hanford Site, Richland, Washington [TC & WM EIS]) evaluated the environmental impacts of transfer of the cesium and strontium capsules from WESF to extended dry storage as an interim step pending final disposition.
The record of decision (ROD) for the TC&WM EIS did not include a decision on management of the capsules. An amendment to the existing ROD is needed to announce DOE’s decision to pursue transfer of the capsules to extended storage. NEPA documentation and RODs must be issued prior to the project’s CD-2/-3 (approval to start construction/execution).
CHPRC-02264, REV. 3
8
Because the final EIS has already been issued, a ROD for the capsules could be published at any time. Timely issuance of the ROD also will support the RCRA permitting requirements by providing Ecology with the information necessary to fulfill State Environmental Protection Act requirements associated with issuing a RCRA permit.
The preparation of the amended ROD is the responsibility of DOE. The MCSC project will work with DOE to ensure that a revised ROD is completed by summer within FY 2018.
1.8.2 WESF Part B Permit Application The existing RCRA Part B permit application for WESF must be revised to reflect the modifications made to hot cell G and any other part of the treatment, storage, and disposal (TSD) unit that supports transfer of the capsules from the current storage to the CSA. These changes are being made in accordance with the interim status standards under which WESF currently operates. The revised Part B permit application will be based on Ecology CAP guidance and be incorporated into Rev. 9 of the Sitewide Dangerous Waste Permit.
The revised permit application must be approved prior to the start of construction unless a temporary authorization (TA) is obtained.
1.8.3 New Capsule Interim Storage RCRA Permitting Action A new RCRA permitting action will be necessary for the CIS, which will be permitted as a RCRA TSD unit operating under final status standards. The CIS will be permitted as a newly constructed TSD operating unit group (OUG) through incorporation into the current revision of the Sitewide Dangerous Waste Permit.
It is anticipated that the CSA will be permitted as a “Miscellaneous Unit” based on the highly radioactive component of the waste and the unique nature of the CSS. It is expected that normal container inspections cannot occur, and labeling of the capsules inside the CSS will not be possible. Ecology will determine the appropriateness of this classification during the review of the permit application.
The RCRA permit must be issued prior to the start of transfer of the capsules from WESF to the CSA. However, to support the project schedule, in accordance with WAC 173-303-830, “Dangerous Waste Regulations,” “Permit Changes,” DOE-RL may request a TA to proceed with certain activities, such as procurement of storage containers and construction of a storage pad, prior to issuance of the final permit.
1.8.4 Air Permit A calculation that evaluates the potential to emit hazardous air pollutants from the new storage facility must be completed in accordance with WAC 246-247, “Radiation Protection—Air Emissions.” It is anticipated that because the storage containers will be sealed, they will be exempt from WAC permitting requirements.
1.8.5 Cultural, Historical, and Biological Resources Reviews Cultural, historical, and ecological resources reviews will be completed prior to making WESF modifications and prior to construction of the new storage facility to identify constraints and limitations that may need to be imposed during construction in accordance with federal laws, such as the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Endangered Species Act of 1973, and Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918. An existing cultural resource review (HCRC #2011-200-040) for the CSA will be reviewed for adequacy after conceptual design.
CHPRC-02264, REV. 3
9
This section describes the project management structure and responsibilities of DOE-RL and the MCSC project. Both DOE and CHPRC have established an integrated project team (IPT) specifically for the MCSC project. These two IPTs will work closely to ensure that the free flow of information and issues are quickly identified and resolved.
DOE is responsible for the CD processes, as identified in DOE O 413.3B. CHPRC is responsible to assist DOE in execution of the CD processes consistent with the PRC contract and DOE O 413.3B requirements.
1.9.1 U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office Policy, planning, budget preparation, justification, and broad program direction is the responsibility of DOE-HQ. Coordinating the activities of the Hanford Site prime contractor to accomplish the PRC mission is the responsibility of DOE-RL. The DOE-RL Manager is responsible for the performance of work by CHPRC. Authority for contractual direction to CHPRC is limited to the DOE-RL Contracting Officer (CO) and designated Contracting Officer Representatives (COR). The CORs are empowered to act as authorized representatives of the CO for specified functions.
The CO/COR is responsible for providing technical and administrative direction to CHPRC relative to their project or area of responsibility. In addition, the CO/COR is responsible for the following items:
• Provide technical and contractual direction to CHPRC.
• Provide technical oversight of CHPRC to ensure the products and services for which the CO/COR is responsible are delivered in accordance with the contract terms and conditions.
• Document acceptance of work completed by CHPRC.
• Conduct periodic reviews, audits, surveillances, and DOE-RL independent assessments of CHPRC to ensure compliance with the terms of the contract, and to ensure CHPRC’s administration of its subcontractors is effective. These reviews, audits, surveillances, and assessments are performed against established criteria to determine subcontractor progress and to identify any factors that may delay performance or adversely affect quality, environmental protection, or worker safety and health.
• Approve the SDS and safety basis for the MCSC project pursuant to 10 CFR 830, “Nuclear Safety Management.”
The director of the waste management and deactivation and decommissioning division (WMD) is the DOE-RL federal project director (FPD) responsible for PBS RL-0013 within DOE-RL and serves as the point of contact between federal and contractor staff for all matters relating to this PBS and its execution. The MCSC project is a subproject under this PBS. The FPD focuses on budget and spending, nuclear safety, industrial health and safety, fire protection, environmental protection, NEPA compliance, quality assurance, material control and accountability, safeguards and security, and programmatic and legal requirements.
The WMD director reports to the assistant manager for river and plateau. The FPD has overall responsibility for the environmental management cleanup project activity or task; monitoring the technical/scope, cost, and schedule baselines through all phases; providing oversight of design, constructability, and operation reviews; ensuring assistant manager for river and plateau communications occur as defined in the communication list and ensuring that applicable DOE O 413.3B requirements are met. For management of RL-0013, the DOE-RL FPD has established an IPT to assist in providing oversight of the project. More specific details of FPD responsibilities and the IPT can be found in the DOE-RL PEP governing the MCSC project. Figure 5 shows the DOE-RL organization.
CHPRC-02264, REV. 3
10
U.S. Department of Energy Richland Operations Office
Office of the Manager
Assistant Manager forSafety & Environment
(AMSE)
Assistant Manager forMission Support
(AMMS)
Assistant Manager forBusiness and Financial
Operations (AMB)
Assistant Manager forRiver and Plateau
(AMRP)
Waste Management and D&D Division
(WMD)
Office of Communications andExternal Affairs (OCE)
Office of Chief Counsel (OCC)
Soil and Groundwater
Division (SGD)
River Corridor Division (RCD)
Plutonium Finishing Plant Closure Division (PCD)
Operations Oversight
Division (OOD)
Figure 4. Richland Operations Office Organization
Safety and Operations oversight responsibilities of the MCSC project are assigned through the DOE-RL Assistant Manager for Safety and Environment to the Operations Oversight Division (OOD). Specific responsibilities are denoted in the DOE-RL Functions, Responsibilities, and Authorities Manual. The OOD responsibilities include assignment of Facility Representatives at facilities involved with the MCSC project.
1.9.2 DOE-RL IPT DOE-RL has chartered an IPT in accordance with the requirements of DOE O 413.3B. The IPT charter documents the roles and responsibilities of DOE-RL staff and key DOE-EM Headquarters interfaces.
The MCSC project FPD is responsible for the success of the MCSC project. The IPT members are responsible for supporting the project to ensure successful project completion. Direct and open communication is maintained among the IPT members and the FPD.
The IPT is organized to support the PFD with the following three components:
• IPT core team – Meets regularly with the FPD to plan and coordinate execution of the project. The primary focus of the IPT is the technical execution of the project, completion of project deliverables and contract compliance.
• IPT support members – Provide direct support and interface with the IPT core team as needed.
• Contractor project manager – The CHPRC MCSC project manager is periodically called upon to support the FPD with technical planning information needed to coordinate execution of the project and contract.
CHPRC-02264, REV. 3
11
1.9.3 CHPRC Project Organization The CHPRC Vice President for the W&FMP has overall responsibility and accountability for the performance of all activities under PBS RL-0013, including MCSC project activities. The MCSC project manager reports to the W&FMP vice president and is the dedicated project manager to manage the execution of the MCSC project. Figure 6 shows the MCSC project organization and key relationships.
Figure 5. CHPRC MCSC Project Organization
1.9.4 CHPRC IPT In accordance with recommendations contained in DOE 0 413.3B and DOE-STD-1189-2008, CHPRC has chartered a contractor IPT. The mission of this IPT is to manage the initiation, definition, and execution of the MCSC project in accordance with applicable DOE Orders and CHPRC procedures. This IPT has the necessary competencies to conduct, oversee, and manage project activities that affect or influence the execution of this project.
The IPT is the overarching contractor focal point specifically charged with executing a project through interactions with and support to DOE FPD and DOE-charted IPT. The IPT is a team composed of members from project departments representing diverse disciplines with the specific knowledge, skills, and abilities necessary to support the successful execution of the MCSC project.
The objectives of the CHPRC IPT include the following:
• Support the MCSC project director to maintain overall responsibility for successful project execution.
• Support the MCSC project Director to ensure project execution within the technical, cost, and schedule baselines.
• Support the MCSC project director to ensure the execution of the project within all necessary nuclear safety and environmental permitting requirements.
• Serve as the MCSC project’s point of contact for interactions with DOE, regulatory agencies, stakeholders and the DNFSB.
CHPRC-02264, REV. 3
12
• Ensure that MCSC project activities include appropriate implementation of the CHPRC Integrated Safety Management System (ISMS)/Environmental Management System (EMS) systems.
• Identify and manage technical, cost, and schedule risks. Ensure that risk management strategies are developed and managed.
• Perform all project control activities, tracking schedule and cost performance, and prepare needed baseline change requests as needed during the project life cycle.
• Develop and maintain the MCSC project assessment plan and schedule for all company and project-level assessments.
• Support the procurement of the subcontractors necessary to complete the MCSC project.
• Provide daily direction to subcontractors to ensure that they perform within their contract scope and provide all required deliverables within budget and schedule. Ensure that contract deliverables are properly reviewed and of a high technical quality.
• Prepare and submit required CD packages to DOE for approval. Ensure the packages are submitted on schedule and of a high quality.
The MCSC project director retains overall responsibility and authority for the project actions and activities while delegating work to team members.
The IPT consists of the project director and the following core team members:
• Engineering manager • Lead – project controls and schedule • Project manager – CSS • Project manager – WESF modifications and CSA • Lead – WESF operations liaison • Lead – project submittals administrative support
Each of the IPT core members has the responsibility and accountability for managing the work scope assigned to them by the project director. The core team will have several support members necessary to complete the assigned work scope. These support members will be a combination of direct reports and matrix support from other CHPRC organizations.
The size and composition of the IPT support members will change throughout the execution of the project. The initial composition includes the following:
• Contract management procurement • Quality assurance • Nuclear safety • Environmental permitting • Fire protection • Construction management • Radiation protection • Industrial safety
CHPRC-02264, REV. 3
13
2 Tailoring Strategy The MCSC project has developed a tailoring strategy for the implementation of DOE O 413.3B requirements, practices, and principles in the project execution. Tailoring is a flexible approach that allows appropriate levels of effort or analytical rigor to be used in fulfilling all order requirements. Tailoring does not mean waiving requirements nor does it imply omission of essential elements.
The MCSC project will follow the CD process as outlined in DOE O 413.3B. The CD process imposes project hold and approval points to review and approve the project’s readiness to proceed to the next phase of project execution. The strategy is intended to optimize execution of each project phase while ensuring risks are managed prior to committing resources to the next phase of project execution.
CD-0 has been approved by DOE-HQ. The following additional CDs must be approved by the acquisition executive prior to commencing to the next phase:
• CD-1 (Approve Alternative Selection and Cost Range) • CD-2 (Approve Performance Baseline) • CD-3 (Approve Start of Construction/Execution) • CD-4A (Begin Capsule Transfer)/CD-4B (Final Closeout)
The MCSC project uses the checklist from PRC-STD-PM-53012, Project Categorization and Tailoring, as a tool to identify what DOE O 413.3B requirements/documents are applicable to the MCSC project by project phase and to support development of the tailoring strategy. Figure 7 is an illustration of how DOE O 413.3B applies to the MCSC project, showing the project phases, critical decisions, funding, schedule, and CHPRC and DOE actions.
14
CH
PRC
-02264, REV
. 3
Figure 6. Management of Cesium and Strontium
Management of Cesium and Strontium Capsules Project W-135
Mission Need CD-0
Project Closeout (CD-4)
Operations
413.3B Phases
Critical Decisions
Funding
Schedule
CHPRC Actions
DOE – RL Actions
Conceptual Design
Project Definition Project Execution Project Closeout
Alternative Selection & Cost Range (CD-1)
Preliminary Design Final Design ConstructionFabrication
CD-0 Submitted to RL
CD-0 Approved Nov 5, 2015
CD-1 package• CHPRC Approved PEP• CDR for CSA/WESF Mods• Code of Record for CSA/WESF
Mods• Project Definition Ratings
Index (PDRI) • Security Analysis• RL Approved Safety Design
Strategy (SDS) and Major Modification Determination
• Conceptual Design Safety Report (CSDR) for the CSA submitted for RL approval
CD-1 Package Submittal Sept 30, 2017
• Update PEP• Update PDRI• Update SDS• Preliminary design
60%• Update-Risk Analysis
Report• Update TPC Estimate
• Update/Approve PEP with KPPs
• EIR/ICE• Revise EIS Record of
Decision• Update PDS• Technical
Independent Project Review
• Request Construction Funds
CD- 2/3 Tasks
• Final design review 90%
• Final PDR• Final SDS• PDS• Final PMP• Final Risk analysis• Project Baseline
• Package CD-2/3 Submittals for approval
• Independent Project Review
• Safety Evaluation Report
• RCRA Completeness Determination
• Establish Total Project Cost
CD-2/3 Package Submittal
Sept 30, 2018
• Perform CSA Site Work (GPP)
• CSA Construction (GPP)
• WESP Mods• Closeout Procurement • Initiate closeout of
documents• Procedures• Operating &
maintenance manuals
• Training
CD-2/3 RL Approval July 8, 2019
Construction and Fabrication Tasks
• Conduct startup testing
• Verify performance criteria
• Operational Readiness self assessment
• CD-4 Package Submittals for approval
• Operational Readiness Review
• Transition to Operations/Project Closeout Plan
• Lessons Learned
CD-4A SubmittalApril 2022CD-1 Tasks
• Submit 413.3B Tailoring Strategy and Checklist to HQ
• Submit preliminary Project Execution Plan to HQ (with Acquisition Strategy section)
• Approve Safety Design Strategy and Major Modification determination
• Issue Safety Evaluation Report to approve CSDR
• Perform project reviews
• Update Project Execution Plan (PEP)
• Conceptual design for CSS, CSA and WESF Modifications (mods)
• Develop Code of Record• Complete technology readiness
assessment• Update SDS• Develop Major Modification
determination• Develop CSDR for the CSA
CD-4B RL ApprovalAug 5, 2022
Project Initiation Start Up Operations
CD-0 Approved11/5/2015
• Project Data Sheet
• PARS Reporting
• Preliminary Project Execution Plan (PEP)
• Risk Management Plan• Updated Project Data Sheet • Independent Project Review• Conceptual Safety Validation
Report • Technology Readiness
Assessment • Independent Analysis of
Alternatives
• As-built drawings• CD-4 Package
Submittal• Capsule Transfer
CD- 2/3 Tasks CD-4A Tasks
Line Item (TEC) $15.5M (TPC) $20.1M
General Plant Project (GPP) $7.0M
Transfer System $10.2M Transfer $39 M
WESF Modifications (OPC) $4.6M 15
Capsule Storage Area (CSA) Expense support $1.7M)
Cask Storage System Design $8.1M Line item Project Management (OPC) $4.6M
CD- 1 Tasks CD- 1 RL ApprovalJuly 1, 2018
CSS Fabrication CENRTC $15.3M
Performance Baseline & Start of Construction (CD-2/3)
Total Project Cost (TPC) $117.1M
06/27/2017 Version
CD-4B SubmittalMay 22, 2023
CHPRC-02264, REV. 3
15
The MCSC project physical activities will be performed at WESF, an existing Hazard Category 2 nuclear facility, and at the selected site of the CSA, which will be a Hazard Category 2 nuclear facility. The MCSC project will be managed under the requirements of DOE-STD-1189-2008. The safety basis for WESF is provided in a documented safety analysis (DSA) and an associated technical safety requirement (TSR) document. An SDS document will be prepared and approved by DOE during the project definition phase to establish a tailored approach to the application of DOE-STD-1189-2008. In accordance with this approach, the existing WESF safety basis will be revised to incorporate the changes for activities at WESF and new DSA and TSR documents will be developed and implemented for the CSA.
An onsite transportation safety document will be prepared and approved consistent with the requirements of DOE/RL-2001-36, Hanford Sitewide Transportation Safety Document, for capsule transfer activities that are not conducted within the envelope of an approved DSA.
The desired end state of the MCSC project is placement of cesium and strontium capsules into an interim storage system that is based on a system licensed by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) under 10 CFR 72, “Licensing Requirements for the Independent Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel, High-Level Radioactive Waste, and Reactor-Related Greater Than Class C Waste,” Subpart L, “Approval of Spent Fuel Storage Casks.”
The licensed interim storage system will be adapted to accommodate the unique nature of the capsules and the WESF capabilities. The MCSC project will utilize the safety analysis process for DOE facilities required by 10 CFR 830, Subpart B, “Safety Basis Requirements,” to include the following:
• DOE-STD-1189-2008 to define the safety basis, document the safety analysis, and develop appropriate TSRs for placing the cesium and strontium capsules into extended storage.
• The existing WESF DSA and TSRs will govern the activities to be performed in the WESF. Required modifications to the WESF DSA and TSRs will be developed and documented and approved by DOE prior to implementation.
• A new DSA approved by DOE will be prepared for the CSA. Although the MCSC project will be adapting systems approved by the NRC, it will be necessary to develop a new DSA that meets DOE requirements and is approved by DOE. Existing safety and design documentation developed for the NRC under 10 CFR 72 will be used to the extent possible.
• New analyses and designs will be performed to the requirements of 10 CFR 830, Subpart B; DOE O 420.1C, Facility Safety; and DOE-STD-1189-2008, including any design criteria (e.g., industry consensus codes and standards) established by these DOE documents, and any sub-tier references contained within these documents.
3 Project Baseline The MCSC project is a subproject under PBS RL-0013 and is included as a set of activities within the integrated baseline for this PBS. The MCSC project is managed in alignment with the CHPRC Project Control strategy (CHPRC-00003, Project Control System Description [PCSD]), which identifies the requirements and processes for planning, managing, controlling, and reporting baseline performance. The CHPRC contract runs through the end of FY 2018, and the MCSC project schedule extends beyond the end of the CHPRC contract. This PEP will need to be updated to address how the project will be managed in anticipation of the end of the CHPRC contract.
CHPRC-02264, REV. 3
16
The scope baseline provides for the design, procurement, construction, and startup of a completed capsule interim storage system. The project’s key technical performance parameters, characteristics, functions, requirements, and design bases are specified in the project functions and requirements document (FRD) and functional design criteria (FDC) that align with specific design contracts for CSS, WESF modifications, and CSA. Project completion occurs when the CSS, CSA, and the transfer and handling equipment are turned over to the fuels facilities organization, and the CD-4 package is approved. The transfer of the capsules to the CSA is not within the scope of the project.
The MCSC project baseline schedule is part of the PBS RL-0013 PMB. This schedule includes the completion of the CAP as well as the transfer of the capsules to the CSA. The key target deliverables in the preliminary schedule are as follows:
• CHPRC submits CD-1 package to DOE-RL for approval September 30, 2017 • CHPRC submits CD-2/-3 package to DOE-RL for approval September 30, 2018 • Complete CSA construction/WESF modifications September 14, 2020 • CD-4A (Begin Capsule Transfer) September 24, 2021 • Receive CD-4B Approval (Final Closeout) August 5, 2022 • Complete transfer of capsules May 22, 2023
A preliminary cost estimate has been prepared to support CD-1 development and the FY18 CHPRC Long Range Plan. Details of the estimate are included in the FY18 Performance Measurement Baseline and Long Range Plan submitted to RL. The preliminary total project cost (TPC) estimate is $119.7 million including prior FY17 costs and without contingency or management reserve. The CD-0 ROM estimate range was $93 to 150M. The TPC (excluding prior to FY17) by fiscal year is presented in Table 1.
Table 1. Work Breakdown Structure Level 3 Summary ($ Shown in Millions)
Specific Area Fiscal Year Grand
Total 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 013.24.01 – Management of Cs/Sr Capsules Other Project Costs
1.167 2,516 262
1.546
5,492
013.24.02 – (GPP) Cask Storage System (CSA)
846 2,838 2,538 3,335
9,558
013.24.03 – WESF Mods & Capsule Storage Area (CSA)
546.3 3,534 2,712 10,729 1,704
19,234
013.25.01 – Cask Storage System (CSS) Design/Fabrication
2,417 7,049 11,346 21,757
44,155
013.25.02 – Capsule Transfer Startup and Operation
416 9,754 13,978 17,005
38,717
Grand Total 6.0 19.6 29.0 39.7 10.0 8.0 4.0 117,175
In accordance with DOE 413.3B, an updated cost range is to be estimated for the selected alternative including risk and schedule uncertainties. The cost range was established in accordance with PRC-MP-
CHPRC-02264, REV. 3
17
PC-40167, Risk Management Plan. Estimate uncertainties and a 3 point PERT estimate were evaluated to establish a cost range with best case of $119.7 million to worst case $209.3 million. The TPC estimate is at the low end of this range due to the high degree of uncertainties in the out year activities such as the number of casks, construction of the CSA/WESF modifications, mockups, readiness activities and capsule transfer operations. It is anticipated the uncertainties will be reduced as design activities are completed and the cost estimate refined as the project baseline is established at CD-2.
3.3.1 Management Reserve Management reserve for the project will be finalized at CD-2/-3 approval when project baseline is developed.
3.3.2 Contingency Held by DOE-RL, contingency for the project will be finalized at CD-2/-3 when project baseline is developed.
3.3.3 Performance Measurement Baseline The PMB is the time-phased budget plan against which contract performance is measured. It includes all allocated or distributed budgets, plus any undistributed budget, but does not include management reserve or project contingency.
Table 2 shows the WBS Level 4 numbers and titles. The baseline change to reflect updated values will be performed at the appropriate time in conjunction with performance baseline development and approval and consistent with CHPRC contract requirements.
Table 2. WBS Level 4
Number Title Number Title
013.25.01.04 (CE) Storage System Fabrication /Delivery 013.24.01.04 MCSC CD-4 Package
013.25.01.01 Cask Storage System Conceptual Design 013.24.01.05 MCSC Capital Asset Project Close Out
013.25.01.02 CSS Preliminary Design 013.24.02.01 (GPP) CSA CDA Package Input
013.25.01.03 CSS Final Design 013.24.02.02 (GPP) CSA CD-2/CD-3 Package
013.25.01.05 Transfer System Fabrication 013.24.02.03 (GPP) Capsule Storage Area Prelim/Final Design
013.25.01.06 Ancillary Equipment Fabrication 013.24.02.04 (GPP) Capsule Storage Area Construction
013.25.01.07 Mock-up/Integrated Testing 013.24.02.05 CSA Support During Construction
013.25.01.08 Support to CSS Design/Fabrication 013.24.02.06 CSA Project Close Out
013.25.02.01 Operations Support during CSS Design 013.24.03.01 WESF Mods & CSA CD-1 Package Input
013.25.02.02 CSS Transportation Documents 013.24.03.02 (LI) WESF Mods CD-2/CD-3 Package
013.25.02.03 Capsule Transfer Startup/Readiness Review 013.24.03.03 (LI) WESF Mods Preliminary/Final Design
013.25.02.04 CSS Technical Support Services 013.24.03.04 (LI) Modify WESF
013.25.02.05 Capsule Transfer Operations 013.24.03.05 Support During Construction
013.24.01.02 MCSC project CD-1 013.24.03.06 WESF Mods Line Item Project Close Out
013.24.01.03 MCSC CD-2/CD-3 Package
CHPRC-02264, REV. 3
18
Table 3 shows the currently estimated fiscal year funding profile required to complete the MCSC project schedule based on the cost and schedule information presented in Table 1. The profile does not include management reserve. The total funding amounts to $117 million and excludes CD-0 development and preliminary planning activities prior to FY 2017, management reserve, and contingency.
Table 3. MCSC Project Funding Profile
Amount
Fiscal Year
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
$ Millions 6.0 19.6 29.0 39.7 10.0 8.1 4.6
The project will use the CHPRC project baseline control process as identified in PRC-GD-PC-40076, Baseline Change Control Implementation Guide, and PRC-PRO-PC-40074, Baseline Change Control Procedure.
This subsection describes the performance parameters approach for the project.
3.6.1 Overview The execution of CAPs within the originally approved scope, cost, and schedule baseline remains a priority within DOE. Achieving this objective for capital asset projects under the DOE acquisition contract process requires clear and concise statements of work (SOWs) and robust key performance parameters (KPPs), which are necessary to support efficient, effective performance-based contracts.
3.6.2 Objectives As required under DOE O 413.3B, KPPs define a characteristic, function, requirement, or design basis that, if changed, would have a major impact on the system or facility performance, schedule, cost, and risk for the project. The objective is to provide succinct, applicable guidance for developing SOWs and KPPs that are consistent with DOE O 413.3B requirements and accompanying relevant guides. SOWs and KPPs are tied to guidance documents that address a wide range of topical areas, including cost estimating, WBS, project reviews, PMB, technology readiness, project definition rating index, project completion/closeout, IPT, and systems engineering.
While KPPs are indicators of overall project success, SOWs help define the PMB through clear, comprehensive description of the contractor work to be performed. In addition, SOWs provide a basis for the WBS and PMB, and are the benchmark used during project reviews and at project closeout/ completion. To this end, it is vital that SOWs and KPPs are clearly defined, well understood, and appropriate to achieve expected, successful project performance.
3.6.3 Project-Specific KPPs The following locations include specific KPPs for execution and completion:
CSA – Provide a location for interim storage of the Hanford Site’s cesium and strontium capsules. This KPP is considered complete when readiness activities are complete and the authorization is received to begin the transfer of the capsules from the WESF to the storage area.
CHPRC-02264, REV. 3
19
WESF – Modify the WESF to allow for the installation and operation of a CSS, which will provide the capability to load the Hanford Site’s cesium and strontium capsules in a dry storage cask and transfer the loaded casks to the storage area. This KPP is considered complete when readiness activities are complete and the authorization is received to begin loading capsules.
4 Project Management and Oversight This chapter describes the project management and oversight approach for the project.
The MCSC project implements the CHPRC project reporting requirements per PRC-GD-PC-40094, Monthly Reporting Implementation Guide. Because the MCSC project is a part of PBS RL-0013, W&FMP will provide the monthly reporting inputs for inclusion in the PBS-level monthly reports.
Project Controls performs variance analysis and forecasting, prepares estimates at completion and trending analysis, and prepares monthly reporting to assist project management in controlling the project baseline. As needed, corrective actions are developed to maintain or improve success in reaching project schedule and funding targets, performance status. The project uses a pre-established method, or “rules of performance,” for taking percent complete against baseline activities based on the field execution schedule. The field execution schedule and rules of performance have been developed for near-term activities and will be updated as the project progresses. The field execution schedule and rules of performance will be maintained by project controls.
Contractors will be required to develop work plans and performance metrics and provide reporting to CHPRC, such that CHPRC can manage the MCSC project consistent with CHPRC earned value management system requirements.
Project Assessment and Reporting System (PARS)-II reporting will be performed for the MCSC project based on the total project cost of everything associated with the capital asset project. DOE-RL will provide status updates into PARS until the combined CD-2/-3 approval. CHPRC will begin upload of earned value and schedule data into PARS after the combined CD-2/-3 approval.
Risk management is an integral part of the CHPRC project management function that allocates resources to achieve project goals within an acceptable level of risk. The uncertainties and risks inherent to the assigned work scope are analyzed and the necessary actions identified to mitigate risks. The primary objective of the CHPRC risk management program is to ensure prudent and effective identification, management, and handling of project risk. The risk management process is analytical, forward looking, structured, and continuous. This includes tracking and reporting on risk status and identifying and implementing effective risk mitigation strategies to prevent or minimize the potential of a risk occurring or the impact if the risk does occur. In addition to identifying risks with negative potential outcomes, opportunities with positive potential outcomes are also identified.
The MCSC project describes project risk management to include the processes used to identify, analyze, set priorities, and appropriately respond to uncertainties in the execution of the project. The risk management process (Figure 8) includes evaluating potential impacts to scope, schedule, and cost in future work, change proposals, and project investments such as innovative remedial alternatives. Most of the risk management process focuses on the assessment of the baseline using consistent evaluation criteria to achieve an objective basis for status reporting and management decision making. CHPRC uses a risk management process that allows integration with other Hanford contractors at a summary level. Details of the process are described in PRC-MP-PC-40167, Risk Management Plan. PRC-PRO-PC-40079, Risk Management Procedure, provides the process and tools to perform CHPRC risk management.
CHPRC-02264, REV. 3
20
Figure 7. Risk Management Process
The MCSC project follows the CHPRC risk management plan process, identifying events that could have an adverse impact on performance against the cost and schedule baseline as well as opportunities that can have a positive impact on the cost and schedule baseline. The process includes planning and executing actions to avoid the occurrence of negative events or reduce the likelihood and/or consequences of negative events.
The process takes input from the Risk and Opportunity Assessment provided by the hazards assessment activities under DOE-STD-1189-2008. The process also quantifies residual risk and provides the basis for contingency and management reserve planning. Specifics of the approach to risk management are documented in PRC-GD-PC-40080, Risk Management Implementation Guide, which assists in implementing risk management programs and assists in the development of project-specific risk management plans.
The MSCS project risk register contains the CHPRC risk management strategy and approach for the MSCS project. It is the primary tool for communicating MCSC project risks, including defined areas of uncertainty, potential risk events, and planned risk handling actions. The project identified technical and programmatic risks that if left unmitigated would likely have a significant impact to the cost and schedule baseline. The project assesses risks on a routine basis for changes (positive or negative) and updates the risk register quarterly, as required.
At CD-1, the baseline scope is refined enough to develop a preliminary baseline cost range and schedule. The Federal Risk Management Plan (FRMP) continues to evolve as the project scope is refined, new risks are added to the risk register and existing risks are re-examined and the project knowledge base increases.
In preparation for the CD-2 project phase, the project performance baseline estimate is refined to include risk mitigation costs and evaluated to determine the project budget needed to provide an appropriate confidence level to ensure the project’s success. The identified DOE project risks are qualitatively and quantitatively evaluated to determine the likelihood of occurrence and the potential impacts on the project should the risk events occur.
CHPRC-02264, REV. 3
21
Key risks have been identified for the CD-1 deliverable that are currently relevant to the successful completion of the W-135 project. The current CHPRC prime contract with DOE (DE-AC06-08RL14788) ends on September 30, 2018. Risks have been identified past this performance period; CHPRC has notified DOE-RL that these risks may impact the completion of the W-135 project.
The technical requirements for the MCSC project are well defined, and the design and construction of commercial dry cask storage system (DCSS) systems have been performed throughout the DOE complex and at commercial SNF dry storage facilities. DCSS technology has not been previously applied to the interim storage of cesium and strontium capsules. The MCSC project will conduct a review of the technical elements associated with process methods, hardware, software, and support systems.
Commercially available DCSS systems have been successfully used for SNF interim storage; however, this is the first time they will be used for the storage of the radioactive capsules. The technology readiness assessment (TRA) will focus on those elements requiring adaptation to support the unique features specific to the capsules. In accordance with DOE O 413.3 B, TRAs and technology maturation plans (TMPs) are required for major systems projects (i.e., those with total project cost greater than $750M) prior to critical decision (CD) 2. However, they are highly recommended for smaller projects, as well as operations activities such as technology demonstrations, which involve the development and implementation of new technologies or technologies in new operational environments.
The results of the TRA will provide a snapshot in time of the maturity of technologies and their readiness for application to the design process and project execution. The TMP details steps necessary for developing technologies less mature than desired to the point where they are ready for project application. The TRA and the TMP are effective management tools for reducing technical risk and the potential for technology-driven cost increases and schedule delays. Specifically, the TRA is a systematic quantitative assessment of how far technology development has progressed. The TRA will be used for the following tasks:
• Identify the gaps in testing, demonstration, and knowledge of a technology’s current readiness level and the steps needed to reach the readiness level required for successful completion of the project
• Identify at-risk technologies that need increased management attention or additional resources for technology development
• Increase the transparency of management decisions by identifying technologies that have been demonstrated at a certain level of maturity or by highlighting immature or unproven technologies that may result in increased project risk
The TRA will evaluate technology maturity using the Technology Readiness Level (TRL) scale that ranges from 1 (basic technology principles observed) through 9 (total technology system used successfully in project operations). The TMP is a planning document that will complete the TRA by identifying the activities required to bring immature critical technology elements (CTEs) to the desired TRL. A technology element is defined as critical if the technology systems considered depend on the technology element to meet operational requirements and if the technology element being applied is new. For the MCSC project, the CTEs are identified by considering the critical functional systems and elements pertaining to the DCSS as described in the functional requirements document (CHPRC-02252, the functional design criteria document (CHPRC-02622, Cask Storage System [CSS] Functional Design Criteria [Project W-135]) and other relevant system design documents.
A preliminary list of CTEs under consideration includes the following elements:
1. UCS and associated equipment for UCS welding, drying, inspection, and testing
CHPRC-02264, REV. 3
22
2. Capsule cooling equipment needed during UCS packaging operations
3. Temperature modeling and/or capsule temperature monitoring during extended storage at the CSA
The MCSC project will perform a Technology Readiness Self-Assessment (TRSA) during the conceptual design stage. The TRSA will serve as one of the tools used to help evaluate the technology development progress and obtain CD approval by the DOE IPT. The TRSA will support the TRA performed by DOE.
Prior to CD-1, all CTEs of the design should have reached TRL 4 and a TMP that details the strategies for bringing all CTEs to TRL 6 should have been prepared. If a technology is assessed at less than TRL 4, the degree of difficulty to mature the technology, the risk to the project, and the rationale for proceeding with a CTE(s) with a lower TRL(s) will be identified to the CD-1 approval authority in accordance with DOE Guide 413.3-4, Technology Readiness Assessment Guide.
The TRA process also includes the determination of a TRL for the integrated waste processing system (WPS). The WPS TRL determination is designed to determine whether individual processing system technologies are properly integrated together and into existing systems; the processing system can treat the full range of materials it is intended to process; and the processing system yields a product that meets disposal path requirements.
The results of the TRA will include the following for each of the CTE assessed:
• Function of the CTE • Relationship to other systems • Development history and status • Relevant environment • Comparison of the relevant environment and the demonstrated environment • TRL of the CTE and justification
The results of the TMP will include the development of the technology maturation requirements and the determination of the life-cycle benefit to the project that will be achieved from successful completion of the TMP technology development. Specific TMPs will be developed for each CTE that was defined in the TRA and will include the following:
• The technology addressed • The objective of the CTE • The status (TRL) of the CTE • The recommended development approach to reach TRL 6 • The scope of the planned activities including milestones, TRL achieved at milestones, cost estimate,
and risk associated with the planned strategy
The TMP will also include plans to mature system integration, a technology maturity schedule for each CTE, and a summary technology budget to reach TRL 6 for all CTEs in the project.
CD-2 consists of approval of the performance baseline. Prior to CD-2, the preliminary design has been completed and the performance baseline that include a detailed scope, schedule, and cost estimate, has been developed. The process of technology development as recommended in the approved TMP will support all CTEs reaching TRL 6. Attainment of TRL 6 will indicate that the technology considered is ready to be used in the final design. Proceeding beyond CD-2 with a TRL less than six is not recommended. If a technology is assessed at less than TRL 6, the approval authority will consider the degree of difficulty to use the technology and its impact on risks, cost, and schedule.
CHPRC-02264, REV. 3
23
CD-3 approves start of construction/execution as the project is ready for implementation: all design and engineering will be essentially complete and construction, implementation, procurement, and fabrication start. A TRA is required if a significant CTE is identified subsequent to CD-2 as detailed design progresses. A significant CTE modification could include a change in the technology or the need for additional support systems. If a significant modification of a technology occurs, the TRA should be performed and a TMP should be developed to ensure that the modified technology has attained TRL 6 prior to authorization to begin construction.
CD-4 approves start of operations or project completion as the project will be ready for turnover or transition to operations: successful completion of an Operational Readiness Review (ORR) correspond to maturing all CTEs from TRL 6 to TRL 9.
The TRA and TMP focus on the development status of technologies and are related to other reviews conducted by DOE, such as the following:
• An external technical review that assesses the technical bases, technology development, and technical risk identification and handling strategies.
• An independent project review (IPR) that provides the measures that can be taken to ensure the timely resolution of engineering, system integration, TRA, design, QA, operations, and maintenance issues.
On delivery of the conceptual design, the preliminary design, and the final design, formal design reviews will be performed in accordance with the requirements of PRC-PRO-EN-40264, Formal Design Review. The function of this review team is to perform a systematic overall review and evaluation of the design by personnel representing affected disciplines. This process will involve the detailed review of design media to verify the following:
• Design inputs are adequately defined including functions, requirements, and design criteria.
• Design meets all defined requirements and parameters.
• Proof in the functional design verification matrix clearly indicates that the design is adequate to confirm that the requirements meet the performance specification.
• Design is sufficient to proceed to construction and startup.
Design acceptance will be documented through an approved report as a controlled, released engineering document according to PRC-PRO-EN-440, Engineering Documentation Preparation and Control. A design review report will also be developed, approved, and closed by the MCSC project’s director. At each stage (conceptual, preliminary, final), a single design review will be performed to review the design for the capital asset portion of the project (the CSA and WESF modifications). A separate design review will be performed for the CSS design. The reviews will be staffed and chaired by CHPRC with DOE-RL participation.
Additional design verification will be performed as components and systems are received and tested prior to placing structures, systems, and components (SSCs) into operation. Receipt inspections will be performed by qualified inspectors on select SSCs in accordance with PRC-PRO-QA-268, Control of Purchased/Acquired Items and Services. Testing of SSCs will be planned, performed, and documented in accordance with PRC-PRO-EN-286.
CHPRC-02264, REV. 3
24
There will be two Project Review Board (PRB) reviews of the MCSC project. The first will be conducted prior to submittal of the CD-1 package to DOE for review and approval. The second will be prior to the submittal of the CD-2/-3 package to DOE for review and approval.
These reviews will be conducted according to PRC-CHRT-PM-40249, Project Review Board Charter. The W&FMP Vice President is the executive sponsor for the PRB and will identify the PRB chairperson. The focus of both PRB reviews is to ensure that the MCSC project has met all DOE expectations regarding project management and the content of a CD package. Specifically, the reviews will determine whether the elements of the 4133B tailoring strategy are being met. The formal CHPRC design review process (Section 4.4) will perform a review of the project design media.
An Alternative Analysis report was prepared for the MCSC project in accordance with the requirements of DOE O 413.3B and the guidance provided in DOE G 413.3-1, Managing Design and Construction Using Systems Engineering for Use with DOE O 413.3A. The Alternative Analysis was developed using a phased and systematic approach integrating the analysis of alternatives (AoA) best practices recommended by the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) in GAO-15-37, DOE and NNSA Project Management Analysis of Alternatives Could Be Improved by Incorporating Best Practices, based on the mission need to optimize the design solution, considering safety, cost, schedule, and the use of proven technology.
A Value Engineering approach was used during development of the alternative analysis, the results of which are documented in CHPRC-02828, Alternative Analysis for the Management of the Cesium and Strontium Capsules (MCSC) Project (W-135), was selection of the alternative for a new commercial dry cask storage system as the best and preferred alternative to meet the capability gap identified in the mission need statement (DOE/RL-2012-47).
Recent changes to DOE 413.3B require DOE to conduct an AoA that is independent of the contractor organization responsible for managing the construction or constructing the capital asset project. DOE O 413.3B tailoring strategy addresses this requirement in this manner:
The MCSC project has a project history that acknowledges many independent alternatives analyses. These analyses were completed prior to the award of the PRC. The transfer of the capsules to dry storage was included as scope in the PRC on a funding available basis (contract established in 2008). In addition, dry interim storage of the capsules for an extended period was an evaluated case in the Tank Closure and Waste Management Environmental Impact Statement.
In consideration of the work having been performed, the existing analyses will be used to satisfy the requirement for a project independent AoA, as comprising an equivalent document, in accordance with DOE O 413.3B Change 2 and DOE O 251.1D, Departmental Directive Program. An AoA equivalent reported will be prepared. The equivalent report will be included in the CD-1 package for approval.
The environmental regulatory strategy for the MCSC project is described in Section 1.8 of this PEP.
CHPRC-02264, REV. 3
25
This project takes advantage of being a subproject within the CHPRC by implementing CHPRC’s project safety documentation, such as the CHPRC ISMS and the CHPRC EMS, which includes project-specific waste management or pollution prevention plans, as required.
The MCSC project will implement and participate in the established CHPRC processes for ISMS/EMS. Development of a stand-alone strategy is not planned, as this is a subproject within the framework of the CHPRC. The ISMS/EMS program is described in PRC-MP-MS-003, Integrated Safety Management System/Environmental Management System Description (ISMSD), including the three guiding principles related to responsibilities:
• Line management is responsible for safety. • Clear roles and responsibilities are defined. • Competence is commensurate with responsibilities.
The MCSC project implements the requirements and standards of PRC-MP-MS-003, and includes the following key implementation plans/strategies:
• ISMS/EMS qualities and policy communication and compliance verification • work scope definition, budgeting/prioritization, and resource allocation • hazard identification, analysis, and categorization • hazard control development and implementation • hazard communication • ensuring work is performed within established controls • feedback and continuous improvement/corrective action • CHPRC management reviews of project ISMS implementation
CHPRC administers the ISMS/EMS and DOE’s voluntary protection program (VPP). The ISMS/EMS and VPP function together to create a work environment in which management and workers team to integrate Environment, Safety, and Health (ES&H) requirements into work planning and execution. The ISMS/EMS program provides a systematic and structured approach to integrating ES&H into work planning and execution, while VPP promotes excellence in occupational safety and health protection.
Primary hazards associated with the MCSC project include direct radiation exposure, potential personnel contamination, and potential inhalation of airborne concentrations of radioactive materials. Other hazards include falls, being struck by moving or stationary objects, tripping, cuts and abrasions, exposures to noise, toxic chemicals, hazardous substances, hazardous stored energy systems/devices, and transportation accidents.
A MCSC project health and safety plan (HASP) will be developed to provide the framework to implement a compliant and responsive health and safety program during the MCSC project activities. The HASP will outline the controls designed to minimize health and safety risks to workers and other onsite personnel. In accordance with 29 CFR 1910.120(b)(1)(in), “Occupational Safety and Health Standards,” “Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response,” the HASP will be designed to protect Hanford employees, contractors, subcontractors, and visitors from radiological, chemical, physical, and other hazards posed by MCSC project activities.
CHPRC-02264, REV. 3
26
The MCSC project safety design strategy will be documented in an SDS prepared in accordance with DOE-STD-1189-2008. The SDS will provide a single source for the safety policies, major safety requirements, and safety goals for the project. The SDS will describe the major hazards anticipated and how those hazards will be addressed. The SDS also will identify major safety documentation deliverables. The SDS will provide safety basis development planning information like that provided through development of a criteria document prepared using PRC-PRO-NS-700, Safety Basis Development. The SDS will be updated for each design phase.
A revision to the existing WESF safety basis for activities that will be performed at WESF will be prepared in accordance with PRC-PRO-NS-700 and DOE-STD-3009-94. A new safety basis for activities at the CSA in accordance with PRC-PRO-NS-700 and DOE-STD-3009-2014, Preparation Guide for U.S. Department of Energy Nonreactor Nuclear Facility Documented Safety Analyses. Similarly, it is anticipated that the SDS will require a fire hazards analysis revision for WESF and a new fire hazards analysis for the CSA. Safety basis documents will be submitted to DOE-RL for approval as required per DOE O 413.3B.
The MCSC project will comply with PRC-PRO-NS-700, which identifies the general approach for safety basis development. As the design matures, hazards identification and hazard evaluation will be performed to support preparation of the safety documentation. The guidance of DOE-STD-1189-2008 will be applied to the performance of hazards analysis for the associated design phase.
In addition, facility emergency preparedness documents will be developed or revised as necessary, consistent with the requirements of PRC-PRO-EM-7647, Emergency Preparedness Program Requirements.
The MCSC project training plan is an essential component of the project planning and execution. The training process, documentation, and training plan are developed in accordance with PRC-PRO-TQ-40165, Training Program Administration. PRC-GD-TQ-40257, Documenting Training Costs, is used to guide the development of training cost elements. Contributors to the MCSC project will have individual training plans developed in accordance with CHPRC procedures.
The MCSC project is subject to 10 CFR 835, “Occupational Radiation Protection,” Subpart K, “Design and Control.” Optimization methods shall be used to ensure that occupational exposure is maintained as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA) in developing and justifying design and physical controls.
The design objective is to control personnel exposure from external sources of radiation in areas of continuous occupancy to below an average of 0.5 mrem/hr and as far below this average as is reasonably achievable. In addition, the design objective shall be to avoid releases to the workplace atmosphere and in any situation to control the inhalation of radioactive material by workers to levels that are ALARA.
Additional and specific criteria for incorporating radiological considerations into the design are driven by PRC-PRO-RP-1622, Radiological Design Review Process. Radiological Control personnel shall be involved at each stage of design to assist in implementing requirements for optimization and ALARA.
CHPRC-02264, REV. 3
27
MCSC project activities will comply with applicable Hanford Site safeguards and security procedures, including MSC-PRO-SEC-396, Planning Construction Projects in Security Areas; MSC-PRO-SEC-427, Site Safeguards and Security Program Planning Requirements and MSC-RD-SEC-11440, Physical Protection of Property and Facilities.
General Site security measures (including security badges, Site access controls, vehicle searches, and employee security awareness) meet the intent of administrative controls. If the CSA is sited near an existing limited area or protected area, the safeguards and security impacts to those existing areas will be considered and addressed.
The configuration management process documents the functional and physical characteristics of each system during its life cycle, controls changes to those characteristics, and provides information on the status of change actions. The systems, facilities, and processes that define the technical and operational characteristics of the project are maintained under configuration control, as identified in PRC-PRO-EN-20050, Engineering Configuration Management.
The Document Control and Records Management Plan is a company-wide collection of standards and implementing documents, as described PRC-MP-IRM-40119, Document Control and Records Management Plan.
WESF is currently designated as a Hazard Category 2 facility. Systems designated as vital safety systems must comply with the applicable requirements of PRC-PRO-EN-16331, System Engineer Program.
As part of the final design activity, all safety-related SSCs will be identified to ensure they are procured using the appropriate quality clauses and from evaluated suppliers, as required by PRC-PRO-QA-268. Safety-related SSCs will be identified prior to issuing the RFP for the design/fabrication contract for the storage casks and transport systems, which will be initiated prior to completion of final design.
Testing will be used to support design verification and validation of system functionality for SSCs serving a safety function. Qualification testing, factory acceptance testing, and startup testing are key features that will be applied with a graded approach to the overall design acceptance. The design authority/system engineer will approve what testing is required to meet performance requirements. All SSC startup testing will be performed in accordance with PRC-PRO-EN-286.
Earned value management will be implemented on the project through the established CHPRC processes, as described in the PCSD (CHPRC-00003). The project has an approved baseline and will use a field execution schedule that is linked to the baseline schedule. The project will implement rules of performance regarding physical performance measurement at the activity level of the field execution schedule. The rules of performance and field execution schedule will be updated as required.
Project controls and performance reporting will be completed consistent with the established CHPRC processes (monthly, biweekly, and weekly); the project holds regular project review meetings (planned for weekly) to status the field execution schedule.
CHPRC-02264, REV. 3
28
The MCSC project quality assurance programs will be managed consistent with PRC-MP-MS-19361. These requirements are implemented through the CHPRC Quality Assurance Program document (PRC-MP-QA-599, Quality Assurance Program). PRC-MP-QA-599 is the top-level quality assurance document of CHPRC, is a contractual document agreed to with DOE-RL, and compliance is mandatory.
The graded approach to applying quality assurance controls as directed in PRC-MP-QA-599 will be documented through the risk assessment and the DSA and by the assigned Safety Classification. This is the design, procurement, acceptance, and testing processes.
The MCSC project will ensure that communications with interested parties is conducted as a part of the W&FMP. All communications outside of the W&FMP will be coordinated through the CHPRC President’s office. Communications between the MCSC project and DOE Federal Project Director will be coordinated through the W&FMP vice president. Communications between DOE IPT and the MCSC project IPT will occur directly between IPT members of each team. The MCSC project will maintain a single point of contact between the project and the Defense Nuclear Waste Safety Board.
Transportation safety documentation will be prepared in accordance with DOE/RL-2001-36 by CHPRC based on technical input/analyses provided by the CSS design and fabrication contractor. CHPRC will develop procedures and other documents necessary to implement new transportation safety documents.
CHPRC will approve these documents and perform implementation verification as required by PRC-PRO-TP-40436, Transportation Safety Basis Implementation. Transportation and packaging activities will comply with PRC-PRO-TP-156, Onsite Hazardous Materials Shipments and PRC-PRO-TP-40494, Transportation Services Administration, as applicable. Development of transportation safety documentation will parallel facility safety basis document development, as appropriate, to provide required input to design development and the CD process.
5 Acquisition Strategy CHPRC will maintain the overall responsibility for the project, including maintaining the project baseline, reporting on earned value management system, serving as the design authority, and ensuring QA and ISMS/EMS program establishment and compliance.
The MCSC project will require CHPRC to issue several subcontracts to complete the work scope. An acquisition planning notice was prepared in accordance with PRC-PRO-AC-40480, Acquisition Planning. Subcontracts will be required for the following work scope:
• CSS design and fabrication – This scope will include performance of design and offsite fabrication services for the CSS, the associated cask transfer system, and ancillary equipment for both the storage system and the transfer system; and technical support services to CHPRC during assembly and testing of CSS systems at the Hanford Site, commissioning and startup, and canister and cask loading, closure, and transfer operations. The design activities within this scope include conceptual, preliminary, and final designs for the CSS.
• WESF modifications – This scope includes conceptual, preliminary, and final designs for WESF modifications. Expected modifications to WESF include the fabrication of a new G-Cell cover block and strengthening of the truck port floor to support the transportation/storage casks. Inspection, welding, and the leak test equipment will also be installed in G-Cell.
CHPRC-02264, REV. 3
29
• CSA Construction – This scope includes conceptual, preliminary, and final design of the CSA, which will provide interim storage of the capsules. The location of the pad is expected to be in the 200 East Area to the west of WESF and east of the existing Canister Storage Building. The conceptual design of the CSA is like the nearby existing spent fuel storage pads and will likely include concrete pad, fencing, lighting, and upgrades to road from WESF and staging area for receipt of CSS components.
• Operations Support – This scope includes operations support during startup, readiness review, and transfer of the capsules. The need for and the scope of this work will not be determined until a Plant Forces Work Review (PFWR) is completed. Until such time, it is not possible to determine the scope of work that will be performed by construction forces and plant forces.
This section describes the strategy for project acquisition of required engineering and design activities. The applicable requirements will be imposed on the design subcontracts.
The design will be prepared in accordance with applicable requirements of PRC-PRO-EN-40271, Engineering Design Process. The CSS design and fabrication contractor will prepare the design for the cask storage system, the transfer system, and ancillary equipment. A separate contract will be established for design of the WESF modifications and the CSA.
Formal design reviews will be conducted for conceptual design, preliminary design, and final design, which will comply with requirements identified in the safety design strategy as required by DOE-STD-1189-2008 and PRC-PRO-NS-700.
5.2.1 Design Verification The requirements of PRC-PRO-EN-8336, Design Verification, will be met prior to the release of the engineering design for procurement, manufacture, construction, modification, or release to another organization for use in other design and/or construction activities.
CHPRC-02264, REV. 3
30
5.2.2 Technical Configuration Baseline The technical baseline is composed of the FRD, the FDCs, and the SDS, which will be prepared and maintained by CHPRC. Separate FDCs will be prepared for each design contract. The CSS design and fabrication contract will identify required interface requirements applicable to the WESF modifications and CSA designs. CHPRC will perform oversight of these engineering tasks.
5.2.3 High Performance and Sustainable Building The MCSC project will incorporate guiding principles of DOE G 413.3-6, High Performance Sustainable Building, into the design where cost effective and applicable. The way the principles will be applied will be evaluated and documented in the MCSC project CDR, CHPRC-03260, MCSC Project (W-135) Guiding Principles for High Performance and Sustainable Buildings, and incorporated as required into preliminary and final design.
Required project procurement actions will be performed under the requirements of PRC-MP-AC-40500, Acquisition Management Plan. Project construction activities will be performed per the requirements of PRC-PRO-CN-14990, Construction Management.
5.3.1 Procurement The CSS design and fabrication contract, the WESF modifications construction contractor, and the CSA construction contractor will comply with requirements identified in PRC-PRO-AC-40493, Contracting for Construction or Fabrication. Other CHPRC procurement actions necessary to support the project will be performed under PRC-PRO-AC-40480 requirements. Procurements for fabrication and construction will require authorization through CD-2/-3.
5.3.2 Construction Project construction activities will be performed per the requirements of PRC-PRO-CN-14990. Construction will be performed by at least one construction contractor (and possibly as many as two separate contractors) and potentially CHPRC construction forces for tie-in activities, depending on outcomes of PFWRs and work turndown processes. Work will be performed wherever possible by the various contractors who will be responsible for procuring all material/equipment, offsite fabrication and testing, and onsite installation for each of the construction contract work scopes. Procurements by the various contractors will meet CHPRC procurement requirements.
Prior to start of fieldwork, the various contractors will develop their work scope specific construction management plans and submit them to CHPRC for approval. These plans will describe how construction activities will be managed to meet the requirements of PRC-PRO-SH-40078, Contractor Safety Processes, Appendix F or approved alternate program. The construction management plans will also include a list/description of required training for each field work activity.
5.3.3 License and Permitting The full range of license and permitting activities may be required for this project, depending on the final design. These will be determined as the project proceeds, using PRC-PRO-WKM-12115, Work Management (NOTE: environmental and nuclear safety are covered elsewhere in this document). Potential license and permitting activities include the following:
• Asbestos Work (PRC-STD-SH-52894, Asbestos Controls)
• Confined Space Entry (DOE-0360, Hanford Site Confined Space Procedure [HSCSP])
• Energized Electrical Work (DOE-0359, Hanford Site Electrical Safety Program [HSESP])
CHPRC-02264, REV. 3
31
• Environmental Permits (PRC-PRO-EP-15333, Environmental Protection Processes)
• Excavation Work (DOE-0344, Hanford Site Excavation, Trenching and Shoring Procedure [HSETSP])
• Hanford Fire Marshal (PRC-PRO-FP-40422, Fire Marshall Permit Interfaces)
• CHPRC Hot Work Permit (PRC-PRO-FP-40421, Hot Work)
• Non-Emergency Hydrant Tie-In Permit (PRC-STD-FP-40404, Fire Protection Program)
• Pole Contact Permit (MSC-PRO-EU-479, Pole Contact Permits)
• Pre-Demolition Checklist A-6004-622 (PRC-PRO-WKM-12115, Appendix K)
• Radiological Work (CHPRC-00073, CHPRC Radiological Control Manual)
The license and permitting documentation will be prepared by the various contractors as required and processed through the CHPRC system with support from the MCSC project’s construction manager.
To achieve interim storage of the WESF capsules, systems, and equipment will be sited and operated at various locations. A planned approach is required to integrate testing activities through the procurement, installation, and startup phases of the project.
The CSS design and fabrication contractor will be required to develop a plan for mock-up and integrated testing of CSS components prior to delivery to the Hanford Site. CHPRC will be responsible for development and implementation of a plan for onsite integrated testing, startup, and turnover of systems consistent with the requirements identified in this PEP. The plan will be updated during final design and modified, as necessary, during further project evolution. The plan will be approved by the fuels facilities director and the design authority/system engineer.
Testing will comply with requirements of PRC-PRO-EN-286. Section 5.4.2 provides a description of the testing process. The WESF modifications and CSA design contractor will prepare construction acceptance plans, which will be performed by applicable construction contractors. Construction acceptance testing will demonstrate that the major elements have been installed and perform their basic function.
The CSS design and fabrication contractor will be responsible for testing the newly installed equipment. The testing program ensures that new equipment fully meets the design requirements. A test report will be developed to provide an overall analysis of the test results compared to specified acceptance criteria, which will demonstrate compliance with the overall design requirements in a manner that fully supports CHPRC’s readiness activities.
The CSA and systems that will be used during capsule transfer will be turned over to CHPRC for operations prior to start of operational readiness review and CD-4. Operations and disposition of these systems will be outside of MCSC project scope. Storage casks/containers must be accepted by CHPRC prior to loading of the respective cask.
5.4.1 Acceptance Testing Acceptance testing will include factory acceptance, construction acceptance, and startup testing prior to turnover to operations.
5.4.1.1 Factory Acceptance Testing The CSS design and fabrication contractor will be required to ensure that suppliers of cask and transport system equipment will perform testing to ensure all components operate in accordance with requirements. Acceptance test procedures (ATPs) will be developed during the design phase of the project for the supplier to follow. The testing must be satisfactorily completed prior to shipments to the Hanford Site. The
CHPRC-02264, REV. 3
32
Factory Acceptance Test process section will be updated in the PEP as the project matures. Additionally, source inspections will be conducted as required by inspection plans developed during detailed design.
5.4.1.2 Construction Acceptance Testing The contractor installing the equipment will perform testing to ensure all components operate in accordance with requirements. During the design phase of the project, the design engineer will develop the ATP for the contractor to follow. Construction acceptance testing must be satisfactorily completed prior to turnover to CHPRC for use at WESF by CHPRC personnel or for use by the CSS design and fabrication contractor, as applicable, in support of operational testing and for full operations. The ATP will be sufficient to demonstrate system compliance with the FDC.
5.4.2 Startup Testing Operational startup testing will be performed prior to use by the CSS design and fabrication contractor or turnover of systems for operational use by CHPRC personnel. Testing will comply with PRC-PRO-EN-286 and PRC-STD-EN-40281, Engineering Test Documentation. Systems will be assembled and tested in a cold facility prior to use in WESF. Testing will be sufficient to demonstrate operability within expected configurations at WESF and the CSA. An integrated operational test will be successfully performed after production equipment installation at WESF and CSA by responsible operating organizations, consistent with PRC-PRO-EN-286, prior to readiness review. The fuels facilities director has overall responsibility for accepting the results of operational testing.
Site Form A-6004-929, CHPRC Construction Completion Document, will be prepared by the CHPRC Construction Manager and issued to the internal customer, indicating that the system is tied in, mechanically complete, and ready for commissioning and startup. After completion of construction and the operational test process and prior to start of operations, operational readiness will be demonstrated following the protocols of PRC-PRO-OP-055, Startup Readiness. To support the readiness process, a startup plan will be developed during final design that includes the following elements:
• Ensures final validation and publishing of the operating and maintenance procedures
• Ensures development of operations training materials, including material for maintenance activities
• Ensures training and qualification of personnel on the new systems
• Ensures that personnel are familiar with the WESF modifications and systems, as well as the maintenance procedures and processes
• Ensures identification and development of preventive maintenance activities and a preventive maintenance schedule
• Ensures certification that the WESF modifications to support removal and packaging of capsules and the new capsule extended storage systems, including the CSA, are ready for unrestricted operations
The CHPRC Design Authority will verify that the operations and maintenance requirements (defined in vendor manuals) meet the technical specifications and applicable standards, and that design and safety margins are maintained. The CHPRC Design Authority will have to confirm that the standards used in the facility design, the equipment for operations, and the system maintenance requirements are incorporated into processes and procedures. Safety margins will be identified, as applicable, within safety basis documents. Design margins will be consistent with applicable codes and standards.
CHPRC-02264, REV. 3
33
Capsule transfer operations will commence after the completion of operational readiness activities and is outside the scope of the MCSC project line item. The MCSC project will work with the fuels facility organization to ensure that preparations for capsule transfer operation are in place.
6 Project Closeout
Project closeout will be performed consistent with requirements of DOE O 413.3B, CD-4 process, and PRC-STD-PM-53013, Project Closeout. The primary objectives of project closeout include the following:
• Verify that project KPPs have been met as described in Section 3.6.3 of this PEP.
• Settle outstanding issues and complete final negotiations with the client or the various contractors regarding change orders, claims, or adjustments so that final payments can be made or received.
• Transfer required property, project documents, and engineering information to the customer.
• Issue the project completion report and project profile to record project history and performance, and to identify lessons learned to aid future projects.
Planning for closeout will be performed in compliance with the requirements of the procurement and construction contracts. Project closeout will have the participation and concurrence of key project personnel.
CD-4 is the achievement of the project completion criteria as defined in this PEP, represents the approval of transition to operations, and marks the completion of the execution phase. The approval of CD-4 is predicated on the readiness to operate and/or maintain the system, facility, or capability. Transition and turnover does not necessarily terminate all project activity. In some cases, it marks a point known as beneficial occupancy date, at which the operations organization assume responsibility for starting operation and maintenance.
The MCSC project is dividing its CD-4 into two phases: CD-4A will allow the capsule transfer to commence early, and CD-4B will close out the project as operations is still handling the capsules.
In accordance with PRC-PRO-PM-24889, Project Initiation and Execution, a final project acceptance checklist and associated operational acceptance turnover requirements will be developed (e.g., plan for project turnover, project validation checklist, or acceptance for beneficial use checklist).
• Closeout activities will be conducted in accordance with PRC-PRO-CN-14990, contracts and supply chain management business process guides, procedures, and associated Site forms.
• Spare parts (PRC-PRO-EN-129, Controlling Spare Parts Inventory), databases, calibration, preventive maintenance, and machinery history functions will be turned over to Operations.
• Site Form A-6004-929 will be used to ensure that project drawings and modified facility drawings have been entered into the Hanford document control system in accordance with PRC-PRO-EN-2001, Facility Modification Package Process.
CHPRC-02264, REV. 3
34
7 References
10 CFR 72, “Licensing Requirements for the Independent Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel, High-Level Radioactive Waste, and Reactor-Related Greater Than Class C Waste,” Subpart L, “Approval of Spent Fuel Storage Casks,” Code of Federal Regulations.
10 CFR 830, “Nuclear Safety Management,” Code of Federal Regulations. Subpart B, “Safety Basis Requirements.”
10 CFR 835, “Occupational Radiation Protection,” Code of Federal Regulations. Subpart K, “Design and Control.”
29 CFR 1910.120, “Occupational Safety and Health Standards,” “Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response,” Code of Federal Regulations.
Contract, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington, as amended.
DOE G 413.3-1, 2008, Managing Design and Construction Using Systems Engineering for Use with DOE O 413.3A, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, D.C.
DOE G 413.3-4A, 2011, Technology Readiness Assessment Guide, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, D.C.
DOE O 251.1D, 2017, Departmental Directive Program, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, D.C.
DOE O 413.3B, 2010, Program and Project Management for the Acquisition of Capital Assets, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, D.C.
DOE O 420.1C, 2012, Facility Safety, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, D.C. DOE-0344, 2013, Hanford Site Excavating, Trenching and Shoring Procedure (HSETSP), Revision 3A,
U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington.
DE-AC06-08RL14788, 2007, CH2M HILL Plateau Remediation Company Plateau Remediation
CHPRC-02264, REV. 3
35
DOE-0359, 2012, Hanford Site Electrical Safety Program (HSESP), Revision 2 Reissue, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington.
DOE-0360, 2015, Hanford Site Confined Space Procedure (HSCSP), Revision 1, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington.
DOE/EIS-0391, 2012, Final Tank Closure and Waste Management Environmental Impact Statement for the Hanford Site, Richland, Washington (TC & WM EIS), U.S. Department of Energy, Office of River Protection, Richland, Washington.
DOE/RL-2001-36, 2011, Hanford Sitewide Transportation Safety Document, Rev. 1-E, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington.
DOE/RL-2012-47, 2015, Mission Need Statement for the Management of the Cesium and Strontium Capsules, Rev. 6, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington.
DOE/RW-0333P, 2008, Quality Assurance Requirements and Description, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, Rev. 21, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, D.C.
DOE/RW-0351, 2008, Civilian Radioactive Waste Management System Waste Acceptance System Requirements Document, Rev. 5, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, D.C.
DOE/RW-0511, 2008, Integrated Interface Control Document, Volume 1 High-Level Radioactive Waste and U.S. Department of Energy and Naval Spent Nuclear Fuel to the Civilian Radioactive Waste Management System, Rev. 4, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, D.C.
DOE-STD-1189-2008, 2008, Integration of Safety Into the Design Process, DOE Standard, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, D.C.
DOE-STD-3009-94, 2006, Preparation Guide for U.S. Department of Energy Nonreactor Nuclear Facility Documented Safety Analyses, Change Notice 3, DOE Standard, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, D.C.
Endangered Species Act of 1973, Pub. L. 93-205, as amended, 7 USC 136, 16 USC 1531, et seq.
Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, 16 USC 703-712, Ch. 128, July 13, 1918, 40 Stat. 755, as amended.
36
CHPRC-02264, REV. 3
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42 USC 4321, et seq.
National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Pub. L. 89-665, as amended, 16 USC 470, et seq.
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, 42 USC 6901, et seq.
WAC 173-303-830, “Dangerous Waste Regulations,” “Permit Changes,” Washington Administrative Code, Olympia, Washington. A
WAC 246-247, “Radiation Protection—Air Emissions,” Washington Administrative Code, Olympia, Washington.
15-NWP-024, 2015, “Final Waste Encapsulation and Storage Facility (WESF) and Capsule Storage Area (CSA) Permitting Plan, January 2015” (letter to S.L. Charboneau, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, from S. Dahl), Washington State Department of Ecology, Richland, Washington, January 26.
CHPRC-00003, 2015, Project Control System Description (PCSD), Rev. 10, CH2M HILL Plateau Remediation Company, Richland, Washington.
CHPRC-00073, 2016, CHPRC Radiological Control Manual, Rev. 11, CH2M HILL Plateau Remediation Company, Richland, Washington.
CHPRC-02236, 2017, Waste Encapsulation and Storage Facility Management of Cesium and Strontium Capsules (Project W-135) Safety Design Strategy, Rev. 1, CH2M HILL Plateau Remediation Company, Richland, Washington.
CHPRC-02252, 2017, Management of the Cesium and Strontium Capsules Project (W-135) Functions and Requirements Document, Rev. 3, CH2M HILL Plateau Remediation Company, Richland, Washington.
CHPRC-02622, 2017, Cask Storage System (CSS) Functional Design Criteria (Project W-135), Rev. 4, CH2m Hill Plateau Remediation Company, Richland, Washington
CHPRC-02828, 2016, Alternative Analysis for the Management of the Cesium and Strontium Capsules (MCSC) Project (W-135), Rev. 0, CH2M HILL Plateau Remediation Company, Richland, Washington.
GAO-15-37, 2014, DOE and NNSA Project Management Analysis of Alternatives Could Be Improved by Incorporating Best Practices, Report the Committee on Armed Services, U.S. Senate, U.S. Government Accountability Office, Washington, D.C.
MSC-OTHER-IFM-00001, 2015, Hanford Site Interface Management Plan, Revision 4, Change 0, Mission Support Alliance, Richland, Washington.
MSC-PRO-EU-479, 2009, Pole Contact Permits, Revision 0, Change 0, Mission Support Alliance, Richland, Washington.
CHPRC-02264, REV. 3
37
MSC-PRO-SEC-396, 2016, Planning Construction Projects in Security Areas, Revision 4, Change 0, Mission Support Alliance, Richland, Washington.
MSC-PRO-SEC-427, 2013, Site Safeguards and Security Program Planning Requirements, Revision 0, Change 0, Mission Support Alliance, Richland, Washington.
MSC-RD-FP-8589, 2016, Hanford Fire Marshall Permits, Revision 7, Change 0, Mission Support Alliance, Richland, Washington.
MSC-RD-SEC-11440, 2016, Physical Protection of Property and Facilities, Revision 8, Change 0, Mission Support Alliance, Richland, Washington.
PRC-CHRT-PM-40249, 2017, Project Review Board Charter, Revision 3, Change 1, CH2M HILL Plateau Remediation Company, Richland, Washington.
PRC-GD-PC-40076, 2015, Baseline Change Control Implementation Guide, Revision 1, Change 5, CH2M HILL Plateau Remediation Company, Richland, Washington.
PRC-GD-PC-40080, 2015, Risk Management Implementation Guide, Revision 4, Change 0, CH2M HILL Plateau Remediation Company, Richland, Washington.
PRC-GD-PC-40094, 2015, Monthly Reporting Implementation Guide, Revision 0, Change 4, CH2M HILL Plateau Remediation Company, and Richland, Washington.
PRC-GD-TQ-40257, 2016, Documenting Training Costs, Revision 1, Change 0, CH2M HILL Plateau Remediation Company, Richland, Washington.
PRC-MP-AC-40500, 2013, Acquisition Management Plan, Revision 0, Change 1, CH2M HILL Plateau Remediation Company, Richland, Washington.
PRC-MP-IRM-40119, 2016, Document Control and Records Management Plan, Revision 3, Change 2, CH2M HILL Plateau Remediation Company, Richland, Washington.
PRC-MP-MS-003, 2016, Integrated Safety Management System/Environmental Management System Description (ISMSD), Revision 4, Change 0, CH2M HILL Plateau Remediation Company, Richland, Washington.
PRC-MP-MS-19361, 2016, CH2M HILL Plateau Remediation Company Project Execution Plan, Revision 6, Change 0, CH2M HILL Plateau Remediation Company, Richland, Washington.
PRC-MP-PC-40167, 2015, Risk Management Plan, Revision 4, Change 0, CH2M HILL Plateau Remediation Company, Richland, Washington.
PRC-MP-PM-53011, 2015, CHPRC Project Management Plan, Revision 0, Change 0, CH2M HILL Plateau Remediation Company, Richland, Washington.
PRC-MP-QA-599, 2016, Quality Assurance Program, Revision 4, Change 1, CH2M HILL Plateau Remediation Company, Richland, Washington.
PRC-PRO-AC-40480, 2016, Acquisition Planning, Revision 3, Change 1, CH2M HILL Plateau Remediation Company, Richland, Washington.
PRC-PRO-AC-40493, 2016, Contracting for Construction or Fabrication, Revision 0, Change 5, CH2M HILL Plateau Remediation Company, Richland, Washington.
PRC-PRO-CN-14990, 2017, Construction Management, Revision 1, Change 2, CH2M HILL Plateau Remediation Company, Richland, Washington.
CHPRC-02264, REV. 3
38
PRC-PRO-EM-7647, 2013, Emergency Preparedness Program Requirements, Revision 3, Change 0, CH2M HILL Plateau Remediation Company, Richland, Washington.
PRC-PRO-EN-129, 2016, Controlling Spare Parts Inventory, Revision 2, Change 1, CH2M HILL Plateau Remediation Company, Richland, Washington.
PRC-PRO-EN-286, 2015, Testing of Equipment and Systems, Revision 1, Change 1, CH2M HILL Plateau Remediation Company, Richland, Washington.
PRC-PRO-EN-440, 2016, Engineering Documentation Preparation and Control, Revision 1, Change 4, CH2M HILL Plateau Remediation Company, Richland, Washington.
PRC-PRO-EN-2001, 2014, Facility Modification Package Process, Revision 1, Change 4, CH2M HILL Plateau Remediation Company, Richland, Washington.
PRC-PRO-EN-8336, 2014, Design Verification, Revision 0, Change 4, CH2M HILL Plateau Remediation Company, Richland, Washington.
PRC-PRO-EN-16331, 2017, System Engineer Program, Revision 5, Change 1, CH2M HILL Plateau Remediation Company, Richland, Washington.
PRC-PRO-EN-20050, 2015, Engineering Configuration Management, Revision 0, Change 8, CH2M HILL Plateau Remediation Company, Richland, Washington.
PRC-PRO-EN-40264, 2015, Formal Design Review, Revision 0, Change 1, CH2M HILL Plateau Remediation Company, Richland, Washington.
PRC-PRO-EN-40271, 2011, Engineering Design Process, Revision 0, Change 2, CH2M HILL Plateau Remediation Company, Richland, Washington.
PRC-PRO-EP-15333, 2016, Environmental Protection Processes, Revision 2, Change 3, CH2M HILL Plateau Remediation Company, Richland, Washington.
PRC-PRO-FP-40421, 2016, Hot Work, Revision 0, Change 3, CH2M HILL Plateau Remediation Company, Richland, Washington.
PRC-PRO-IRM-8310, 2016, Document Control Processes, Revision 2, Change 2, CH2M HILL Plateau Remediation Company, Richland, Washington.
PRC-PRO-MS-10472, 2015, Interface Management, Revision 3, Change 0, CH2M HILL Plateau Remediation Company, Richland, Washington.
PRC-PRO-NS-700, 2016, Safety Basis Development, Revision 1, Change 3, CH2M HILL Plateau Remediation Company, Richland, Washington.
PRC-PRO-OP-055, 2015, Startup Readiness, Revision 3, Change 1, CH2M HILL Plateau Remediation Company, Richland, Washington.
PRC-PRO-PC-40074, 2014, Baseline Change Control Procedure, Revision 1, Change 3, CH2M HILL Plateau Remediation Company, Richland, Washington.
PRC-PRO-PC-40079, 2015, Risk Management Procedure, Revision 3, Change 0, CH2M HILL Plateau Remediation Company, Richland, Washington.
PRC-PRO-PM-24889, 2015, Project Initiation and Execution, Revision 4, Change 0, CH2M HILL Plateau Remediation Company, Richland, Washington.
CHPRC-02264, REV. 3
39
PRC-PRO-QA-246, 2015, Management Assessment, Revision 4, Change 0, CH2M HILL Plateau Remediation Company, Richland, Washington.
PRC-PRO-QA-268, 2015, Control of Purchased/Acquired Items and Services, Revision 3, Change 1, CH2M HILL Plateau Remediation Company, Richland, Washington.
PRC-PRO-RP-1622, 2016, Radiological Design Review Process, Revision 1, Change 1, CH2M HILL Plateau Remediation Company, Richland, Washington.
PRC-PRO-SH-40078, 2015, Contractor Safety Processes, Revision 1, Change 9, CH2M HILL Plateau Remediation Company, Richland, Washington.
PRC-PRO-TP-156, 2016, Onsite Hazardous Material Shipments, Revision 3, Change 5, CH2M HILL Plateau Remediation Company, Richland, Washington.
PRC-PRO-TP-40436, 2016, Transportation Safety Basis Implementation, Revision 2, Change 0, CH2M HILL Plateau Remediation Company, Richland, Washington.
PRC-PRO-TP-40494, 2017, Transportation Services Administration, Revision 0, Change 6, CH2M HILL Plateau Remediation Company, Richland, Washington.
PRC-PRO-TQ-40165, 2014, Training Program Administration, Revision 0, Change 11, CH2M HILL Plateau Remediation Company, Richland, Washington.
PRC-PRO-WKM-12115, 2016, Work Management, Revision 4, Change 2, CH2M HILL Plateau Remediation Company, Richland, Washington.
PRC-STD-EN-40281, 2012, Engineering Test Documentation, Revision 0, Change 0, CH2M HILL Plateau Remediation Company, Richland, Washington.
PRC-STD-FP-40404, 2015, Fire Protection Program, Revision 1, Change 0, CH2M HILL Plateau Remediation Company, Richland, Washington.
PRC-STD-PM-53012, 2015, Project Categorization and Tailoring, Revision 0, Change 0, CH2M HILL Plateau Remediation Company, Richland, Washington.
PRC-STD-PM-53013, 2015, Project Closeout, Revision 0, Change 0, CH2M HILL Plateau Remediation Company, Richland, Washington.
PRC-STD-PM-53014, 2015, Project Execution Plans, Revision 0, Change 0, CH2M HILL Plateau Remediation Company, Richland, Washington.
PRC-STD-SH-52894, 2014, Asbestos Controls, Revision 1, Change 0, CH2M HILL Plateau Remediation Company, Richland, Washington.
CHPRC-02264, REV. 3
A-i
Appendix A
CHPRC Project Categorization and Tailoring Checklist
CHPRC-02264, REV. 3
A-ii
This page intentionally left blank.
CHPRC-02264, REV. 3
A-1
Appendix A CHPRC Project Categorization and Tailoring Checklist
The categorization process will assign a CL of 1, 2, 3, or 4 to the proposed project. Categorization is an essential and fundamental input to the tailoring strategy which will be developed to meet the requirements of DOE O 413.3B, Program and Project Management for the Acquisition of Capital Assets and PRC-PM-MP-53011, CHPRC Project Management Plan. DOE O 413.3B defines a project management system for project execution of capital asset projects which is organized into project phases. The project phases are organized progressing from broadly-stated needs into well-defined project requirements. As each phase is completed, a CD approval is required. DOE makes CDs (formal determinations) at specific points that allow the project to proceed to the next phase or CD. This approval process is meant to ensure that appropriate planning, development, and documentation has been accomplished for each phase. The DOE O 413.3B phases and associated CDs are as follows:
• CD-1 (Approve Alternative Selection and Cost Range) • CD-2 (Approve Performance Baseline) • CD-3 (Approve Start of Construction/Execution) • CD-4A (Begin Capsule Transfer) • CD-4B (Final Closeout)
There are two major steps in project categorization and tailoring that the project manager and the project team will perform. The first is determination of the CL for the project, and the second is completion of the project tailoring strategy. The results of the application of procedure PRC-STD-PM-53012, CHPRC Project Categorization and Tailoring, will be a completed Project Categorization and Tailoring Checklist, which will document the tailoring strategy for the subproject. The completed form can be a stand-alone document or included as an attachment to the PEP. See the table in this appendix for details.
CHPRC-02264, REV. 3
A-2
This page intentionally left blank.
CHPRC-02264, REV. 3
A-3
CHPRC PROJECT CATEGORIZATION AND TAILORING CHECKLIST - EPC Project Name: W-135 Cesium & Strontium Capsules Project (MCSC) Capital Asset Project: Yes No Category Level: 1 2 3
DOE O 413.3B Approach
Subproject Requirements by Category Level Basis
1 2 3
Initi
alin
g Ph
ase
Mission Need Statement Document Not required Not required Not required DOE/RL-2012-47, Mission Need Statement for the Management of the Cesium and Strontium Capsules, approved by DOE Assistant Secretary for Environmental Management on 11/5/15.
Mission Validation Independent Review Limited review performed on major systems projects (TPC ≥$750M)
Not required Not required Not required Not required. MCSC project capital asset project cost estimated <$60M.
Independent Cost Review (ICR) OECM will conduct review for major systems projects (TPC ≥$750M)
Not required Not required Not required Not required. MCSC project capital asset project cost estimated <$60M.
Prepare Tailoring Strategy Required CHPRC required Required CH included in CHPRC-02264, Project Execution Plan for the Management of the Cesium and Strontium Capsules (MCSC) Project (W-135).
CD-0 Pkg. (if required) Not required Not required Not required CD-0 approved by DOE assistant secretary for environmental management on 11/5/15 per EStars 2015-1328, Approval of the Mission Need Statement and Critical Decision-0 for the Management of the Cesium and Strontium Capsules Project.
DOE O 413.3B Approach Subproject Requirements by Category Level
Basis 1 2 3
Def
initi
on P
hase
Initiate PARS II Reporting Monthly PARS II reporting required for projects with a TPC >$10M.
PARS II reporting for capital asset projects with TPC ≥$10M. For all other projects (i.e., non-Capital Asset, or <$10M TPC) performance metrics to be reported as outlined in PEP or CHPRC procedures.
PARS II reporting for capital asset projects with TPC ≥$10M. For all other projects (i.e., non-capital asset, or <$10M TPC) performance metrics to be reported as outlined in PEP or CHPRC procedures.
PARS II reporting for capital asset projects with TPC ≥$10M. For all other projects (i.e., non-capital asset, or <$10M TPC) performance metrics to be reported as outlined in PEP or CHPRC procedures.
PARS II reporting will be performed because Capital Asset Project TPC >$10M. DOE-RL will provide status updates into PARS until CD-2 approval. CHPRC will begin upload of Earned Value and schedule data after CD-2 approval
Approve an Acquisition Strategy (AS) An acquisition strategy (per 413.3B) “is the framework for planning, organizing, controlling, and leading a project. It provides a master schedule for activities essential for project success, and for formulating functional strategies and plans.” The AS is the FPD overall plan for satisfying the mission need in the most effective, economical, and timely manner and is a requirement for capital asset projects with a TPC ≥$20M.
Document procurement strategy for capital asset projects to be awarded as major subcontracts (TPC ≥$20M). For subcontracts <$20M or non-capital asset projects, standard CHPRC Procurement policies and procedures will be followed.
Documented procurement strategy requirement for capital asset projects with a TPC ≥$20M. For subcontracts <$20M or non-capital asset projects, standard CHPRC Procurement policies and procedures will be followed.
Standard CHPRC Procurement policies and procedures will be followed.
DOE will issue an acquisition strategy for the project. The MCSC project will describe the acquisition approach in CHPRC-02264.
Approve a Preliminary Project Execution Plan (PEP) Prepare PEP per PRC-STD-PM-53014, Project Execution Plans.
Prepare PEP per PRC-STD-PM-53014, Project Execution Plans
Prepare PEP per PRC-STD-PM-53014, Project Execution Plans. Tailor down to meet level of risk and complexity.
DOE is responsible for the preliminary PEP. CHPRC developed a company-level PEP, PRC-MP-MS-19361, approved by DOE-RL. The MCSC project also developed a project-specific PEP, CHPRC-02264.
Establish an Integrated Project Team (IPT) Assemble qualified staff necessary to meet project needs. Describe responsibilities and authorities in PEP.
Assemble qualified staff necessary to meet project needs. Describe responsibilities and authorities in PEP.
Assemble qualified staff necessary to meet project needs. Ensure project personnel are aware of roles and responsibilities.
DOE will establish the IPT. The MCSC project will establish a project management team which will be described in CHPRC-02264.
Develop a Risk Management Plan (RMP) Develop a project risk management plan utilizing elements of the CHPRC risk management plan, PRC-MP-PC-40167.
Develop a project Risk Management Plan utilizing elements of the CHPRC risk management plan, PRC-MP-PC-40167.
Develop a project risk register utilizing elements of the CHPRC Risk Management Plan, PRC-MP-PC-40167.
The MCSC project will use the CHPRC risk management plan, which will establish a module for the project. The primary risks in the risk register will be presented in CHPRC-02264.
Develop an Independent Cost Estimate (ICE) This is a DOE action. OECM will develop an ICE for those projects with a TPC >$100M.
This is a DOE action. OECM will develop an ICE for those projects with a TPC >$100M.
Not required DOE action; not required. MCSC project capital asset project cost estimated <$60M.
Complete a Conceptual Design As a minimum, the conceptual design will include scope and performance levels, project risks and risk handling strategies, reliable cost and schedule range estimates, project criteria and design parameters.
Prepare CDR per PRC-PRO-EN-40271. Prepare CDR per PRC-PRO-EN-40271. Prepare CDR per PRC-PRO-EN-40271. The MCSC project will develop a conceptual design per PRC-PRO-EN-40271.
Conduct a Design Review Perform formal design review per PRC-PRO-EN-40264, Formal Design Review.
Perform formal design review per PRC-PRO-EN-40264, Formal Design Review.
Verify design maturity and adequacy per PRC-PRO-EN-8336, Design Verification; prescribe method in PEP.
Formal design reviews will be performed for conceptual design, preliminary design, and final design per PRC-PRO-EN-40264.
Conceptual Design Report (CDR) A formal CDR may be required for capital asset projects with a TPC ≥$10M.
A formal CDR may be required for capital asset projects with a TPC ≥$10M.
A formal CDR is not required A CDR will be prepared per PRC-PRO-EN-40261, Conceptual Design Report.
CHPRC-02264, REV. 3
A-4
CHPRC PROJECT CATEGORIZATION AND TAILORING CHECKLIST - EPC Project Name: W-135 Cesium & Strontium Capsules Project (MCSC) Capital Asset Project: Yes No Category Level: 1 2 3
DOE O 413.3B Approach
Subproject Requirements by Category Level Basis
1 2 3 A CDR should describe the alternatives analyzed, basis for alternative selected, performance requirements, planning standards, life-cycle cost assumptions and key performance parameters.
Prepare a Preliminary Hazard Analysis Report For projects involving facilities that are below the Hazard Category 3 threshold.
Ensure adequacy of existing SB documentation. Reference PRC-PRO-NS-700 for additional guidance.
Ensure adequacy of existing SB documentation. Reference PRC-PRO-NS-700 for additional guidance.
Ensure adequacy of existing SB documentation. Reference PRC-PRO-NS-700 for additional guidance.
Not applicable. The WESF and CSA are/will be Hazard Category 2 facilities.
Def
initi
on P
hase
Develop and implement an Integrated Safety Management Plan CHPRC’s ISMS Program and CHPRC's approach for integrating safety into all aspects of planning and execution is described in PRC-MP-MS-003.
CHPRC’s ISMS Program and CHPRC's approach for integrating safety into all aspects of planning and execution is described in PRC-MP-MS-003.
CHPRC’s ISMS Program and CHPRC's approach for integrating safety into all aspects of planning and execution is described in PRC-MP-MS-003.
The MCSC project will comply with the CHPRC ISMS program as described in PRC-MP-MS-003, Integrated Safety Management System/Environmental Manager System Description (ISMSD).
Establish a Quality Assurance Plan PRC-MP-QA-599 provides the primary requirements for the integration of quality functions into all CHPRC projects. Ensure adequacy of program plan. A project-specific quality assurance plan may be needed depending on level of project risk.
PRC-MP-QA-599 provides the primary requirements for the integration of quality functions into all CHPRC projects. Ensure adequacy of Program Plan. A project-specific Quality Assurance Plan may be needed depending on level of project risk.
PRC-MP-QA-599 provides the primary requirements for the integration of quality functions into all CHPRC projects.
The MCSC project will use the CHPRC QA program as described in PRC-MP-QA-599, Quality Assurance Program.
Identify general Safeguards and Security requirements General Safeguards and Security requirements are to be identified for the project. Reference MSC-PRO-45109, Safeguards and Security Requirements for Project Planning, for additional information. Document in the D&D Plan or PEP, if applicable.
General Safeguards and Security requirements are to be identified for the project. Reference MSC-PRO-45109, Safeguards and Security Requirements for Project Planning, for additional information. Document in the D&D Plan, if applicable.
General Safeguards and Security requirements are to be identified for the project. Reference MSC-PRO-45109, Safeguards and Security Requirements for Project Planning, for additional information. Document in the PEP, if applicable.
Safeguards and Security requirements will be planned per MSC-RD-SEC-11440, Physical Protection of Property and Facilities, MSC-PRO-SEC-427, Site Safeguards and Security Program Planning Requirements, and MSC-PRO-SEC-396, Planning Construction Projects in Security Areas.
Complete a NEPA strategy Generate NEPA compliance strategy if required. Coordinate with Environmental Compliance and Protection group.
Generate NEPA compliance strategy if required. Coordinate with Environmental Compliance and Protection group.
Generate NEPA compliance strategy if required. Coordinate with Environmental Compliance and Protection group.
Per Project W-135 CHPRC Environmental Activity Screening Form, DOE/EIS-0391, Final Tank Closure and Waste Management Environmental Impact Statement for the Hanford Site, Richland, Washington (TC & WM EIS), Record of Decision, will be amended for this work scope, predicated on DOE concurrence.
Update Project Data Sheet (PDS) A Project Data Sheet is a document requirement for a Line Item Project.
Not required unless a new Capital Line Item. CHPRC EM Projects are expense funded.
Not required unless a new Capital Line Item. CHPRC EM Projects are expense funded.
Not required unless a new Capital Line Item. CHPRC EM Projects are expense funded.
A Project Data Sheet has been prepared and submitted for line item (project engineering and design, and construction) work scope. Consistent with capital determination, the WESF modifications will constitute a line item.
Prepare a Safety Design Strategy (SDS) The SDS provides preliminary information on the scope of significant hazards and the strategy for addressing those hazards for hazards category 1, 2, or 3 nuclear facilities. Reference DOE-STD-1189 Section 2.3.
Reference PRC-PRO-NS-700, for guidance. Reference PRC-PRO-NS-700 for guidance. Reference PRC-PRO-NS-700 for guidance. The SDS established in CHPRC-02236, Waste Encapsulation and Storage Facility Management of the Cesium and Strontium Capsules Project Safety Design Strategy, will be updated as the project matures.
Conduct an Independent Project Review (IPR) An IPR is a DOE action taken to determine whether the scope; underlying assumptions; technical, cost, and schedule baselines; safety and security; and contingency provisions are valid and credible. Applicable for Hazard Category 1, 2, or 3 nuclear facilities.
DOE action which may be required for high hazard, high risk capital asset projects.
DOE action which may be required for high hazard, high risk capital asset projects.
Not required DOE action
Prepare a Conceptual Safety Design Report (CSDR) Applicable for Hazard Category 1, 2, or 3 nuclear facilities
Ensure adequacy of existing SB documentation. Develop/update initial hazard identification and nuclear facility hazard categorization. Reference PRC-PRO-NS-700 for additional guidance.
Ensure adequacy of existing SB documentation. Develop/update initial hazard identification and nuclear facility hazard categorization. Reference PRC-PRO-NS-700 for additional guidance.
Ensure adequacy of existing SB documentation. Develop/update initial hazard identification and nuclear facility hazard categorization. Reference PRC-PRO-NS-700 for additional guidance.
A CSDR for the CSA will be prepared and submitted to DOE-RL prior to CD-1. DOE approval and issuance of conceptual safety validation report (CSVR) will not be required prior to CHPRC submittal of CD-1 to DOE-RL, but will be required prior to DOE-RL submittal of CD-1 for DOE-HQ approval. The WESF modifications portion of the Project is not a Major Modification so does not require a CSDR (see CHPRC-02236).
Prepare a Conceptual Safety Validation Report (CSVR) This is a DOE review of the CSDR for capital asset projects
DOE action DOE action DOE action DOE action
CHPRC-02264, REV. 3
A-5
CHPRC PROJECT CATEGORIZATION AND TAILORING CHECKLIST - EPC Project Name: W-135 Cesium & Strontium Capsules Project (MCSC) Capital Asset Project: Yes No Category Level: 1 2 3
DOE O 413.3B Approach
Subproject Requirements by Category Level Basis
1 2 3 CD-1 Pkg. (if required) Required for capital asset projects with TPC ≥$50M. May be required for capital asset projects $10M ≤TPC <$50M
As required CHPRC required As required A CD-1 package will be prepared and submitted consistent with DOE O 413.3B requirements.
Develop an Acquisition Plan if applicable A major subcontract (≥$20M) on a Capital Asset project requires a written Acquisition Plan.
A major subcontract (≥$20M) on a Capital Asset project requires a written Acquisition Plan.
CHPRC procurement procedures and policies apply.
DOE action. The MCSC project will follow contractor procurement procedures and reference them in CHPRC-02264.
Continue PARS II Reporting Continue PARS II reporting for capital asset projects with TPC ≥$10M. For all other projects (i.e., non-capital asset, or <$10M TPC) performance metrics to be reported as outlined in PEP or CHPRC procedures.
Continue PARS II reporting for capital asset projects with TPC ≥$10M. For all other projects (i.e., non-capital asset, or <$10M TPC) performance metrics to be reported as outlined in PEP or CHPRC procedures.
Continue PARS II reporting for capital asset projects with TPC ≥$10M. For all other projects (i.e., non-capital asset or <$10M TPC), performance metrics are to be reported as outlined in PEP or CHPRC procedures.
PARS II reporting will be performed based on TPC >$10M. DOE-RL will provide status updates into PARS until CD-2 approval. CHPRC will begin upload of earned value and schedule data after CD-2 approval.
Approve updated Acquisition Strategy Update procurement strategy as applicable. Update procurement strategy as applicable. Update procurement strategy as applicable. DOE action. The MCSC project will follow contractor procurement procedures and reference them in CHPRC-02264.
Establish Performance Baseline Subproject PMB will be developed and incorporated into CHPRC Performance Baseline.
Subproject Performance Measurement Baseline will be developed and incorporated into CHPRC Performance Baseline.
Subproject Performance Measurement Baseline will be developed and incorporated into CHPRC Performance Baseline.
A PMB will be developed after conceptual design and approved with CD-2, after which the PMB will be incorporated into the CHPRC performance baseline.
Approve updated PEP Update PEP as required Update PEP as required Update PEP as required CHPRC-02264 will be updated as required.
Prepare a funding profile As required CHPRC required As required CHPRC will prepare a life-cycle funding profile as part of the CD-2 submittal.
Approve long- lead procurements As required CHPRC required As required Long-lead procurements are not expected to be required.
Develop Project Management Plan (PMP) PRC-MP-PM-53011, CHPRC Project Management Plan, satisfies this requirement.
PRC-MP-PM-53011, CHPRC Project Management Plan, satisfies this requirement.
PRC-MP-PM-53011, CHPRC Project Management Plan, satisfies this requirement.
PRC-MP-PM-53011 satisfies the requirement for a contractor PMP for the MCSC project, which has also developed a project-specific PEP, CHPRC-02264.
Def
initi
on P
hase
Complete Preliminary Design Incorporate guiding principles in high performance and sustainable
buildings. Refer to DOE G 413.3-6 and DOE O 430.2B.
Update and refine conceptual design Update and refine conceptual design Update of PEP The conceptual design will be updated and refined in the preliminary design.
If required, document in the CDR, Acquisition Strategy and/or PEP.
If required, document in the CDR, Acquisition Strategy and/or PEP.
If required, document in the CDR, acquisition strategy, and/or PEP.
High performance and sustainable building requirements applicability will be evaluated and documented in MCSC project CDRs and in CHPRC-02264 and CHPRC-03260.
Conduct Design Review Perform formal design review per PRC-PRO-EN-40264, Formal Design Review.
Perform formal design review per PRC-PRO-EN-40264, Formal Design Review.
Verify design maturity and adequacy per PRC-PRO-EN-8336, Design Verification.
A formal design review will be conducted for preliminary design per PRO-EN-40264.
Complete Preliminary Design Report Report issued per PRC-PRO-EN-40271. Report issued per PRC-PRO-EN-40271. Not required A preliminary design report will be issued for preliminary design per PRC-PRO-EN-40271.
Perform a Performance Baseline External Independent Review (EIR) OECM will conduct an External Independent Review (EIR) for projects with a TPC ≥$250M. PMSO will conduct an Internal Independent Review for Projects with a TPC <$250M.
For CAPs, a DOE action based on the Project's risk and complexity. For all other projects, this review will use the CHPRC standard review process.
For Capital Asset projects, a DOE action based on the Project's risk and complexity. For all other projects, this review will use the CHPRC standard review process.
This type of review is not required for capital asset projects with a TPC <$5M. For all other projects, this review will use CHPRC standard review process.
DOE action.
Independent Cost Estimate Office of Engineering and Construction Management (OECM) will develop estimate for capital asset projects with a TPC ≥$100M.
DOE action for Capital Asset projects DOE action for Capital Asset projects Not required DOE action.
Conduct a Project Definitions Rating Index Analysis Required for capital asset projects with a TPC >$100M.
For capital asset projects, this is a DOE action based on the Project's risk and complexity.
For capital asset projects, this is a DOE action based on the Project's risk and complexity.
Not required DOE action. CHPRC will develop a project definition ratings index self-assessment as part of the conceptual, preliminary, and final design submittals.
Employ an Earned Value Management System Earned value performance metrics will be used in PARS II reporting on all capital asset projects with TPC >$20M. On all other projects, EV performance data will be reported through CHPRC reporting process.
Earned value performance metrics will be used in PARS II reporting on all capital asset projects with TPC >$20M. On all other projects, EV performance data will be reported through CHPRC reporting process.
Earned value performance data will be used for reporting purposes.
PARS II reporting will be performed based on TPC >$10M. DOE-RL will provide status updates into PARS until CD-2 approval. CHPRC will begin upload of earned value and schedule data after CD-2 approval.
Prepare a Hazard Analysis Report For projects involving facilities that are below the Hazard Category 3 threshold.
Ensure adequacy of existing SB documentation. Reference PRC-PRO-NS-700 for additional guidance.
Ensure adequacy of existing SB documentation. Reference PRC-PRO-NS-700 for additional guidance.
Ensure adequacy of existing SB documentation. Reference PRC-PRO-NS-700 for additional guidance.
Not applicable. The WESF and CSA are/will be Hazard Category 2 facilities.
CHPRC-02264, REV. 3
A-6
CHPRC PROJECT CATEGORIZATION AND TAILORING CHECKLIST - EPC Project Name: W-135 Cesium & Strontium Capsules Project (MCSC) Capital Asset Project: Yes No Category Level: 1 2 3
DOE O 413.3B Approach
Subproject Requirements by Category Level Basis
1 2 3 Determine that Quality Assurance Program is acceptable Ensure continued adequacy of QA program
plan or project-specific quality assurance plan as required.
Ensure continued adequacy of QA program plan or project-specific quality assurance plan as required.
Ensure continued adequacy of QA Program Plan.
The MCSC project will use the CHPRC QA program as described in PRC-MP-QA-599.
Conduct a Security Vulnerability Assessment Ensure Safeguard and Security issues have been identified and documented if required. Reference MSC-PRO-45109, Safeguards and Security Requirements for Project Planning, for additional information. Document in the D&D Plan or PEP if applicable.
Ensure Safeguard and Security issues have been identified and documented if required. Reference MSC-PRO-45109, Safeguards and Security Requirements for Project Planning, for additional information. Document in the PEP if applicable.
Ensure Safeguard and Security issues have been identified and documented if required. Reference MSC-PRO-45109, Safeguards and Security Requirements for Project Planning, for additional information.
Safeguards and Security requirements will be planned per MSC-RD-SEC-11440, Physical Protection of Property and Facilities, MSC-PRO-SEC-427, Site Safeguards and Security Program Planning Requirements, and MSC-PRO-SEC-396, Planning Construction Projects in Security Areas.
Issue final Impact Statement or Environmental Assessment If required by NEPA If required by NEPA If required by NEPA DOE action. A modification to the current ROD will be required.
Update Project Data Sheet (PDS) Not required unless a new Capital Line Item. CHPRC EM Projects are expense funded.
Not required unless a new Capital Line Item. CHPRC EM Projects are expense funded.
Not required unless a new Capital Line Item. CHPRC EM Projects are expense funded.
The Project Data Sheet will be updated as required.
Technical Independent Project Review Applicable for Hazard Category 1, 2, or 3 nuclear facilities. The focus of review is to ensure safety documentation is bounding and conservative
DOE review and approval of Safety Basis documentation for high risk, high hazard projects.
DOE review and approval of Safety Basis documentation for high risk, high hazard projects. Will not typically apply to this category of projects.
DOE review and approval of Safety Basis documentation for high risk, high hazard projects. Will not typically apply to this category of projects.
DOE action
Update Safety Design Strategy (SDS) Reference PRC-PRO-NS-700 for guidance. Reference PRC-PRO-NS-700 for guidance. Reference PRC-PRO-NS-700 for guidance. The SDS established in CHPRC-02236 will be updated as the project matures.
Prepare Preliminary Safety Design Report (PSDR) This is an update to the CSDR for Hazard Category 1, 2, or 3 nuclear facilities.
Ensure adequacy of existing SB documentation. Develop/update initial hazard identification and nuclear facility hazard categorization. Reference PRC-PRO-NS-700 for additional guidance.
Ensure adequacy of existing SB documentation. Develop/update initial hazard identification and nuclear facility hazard categorization. Reference PRC-PRO-NS-700 for additional guidance.
Ensure adequacy of existing SB documentation. Develop/update initial hazard identification and nuclear facility hazard categorization. Reference PRC-PRO-NS-700 for additional guidance.
The CD-2/-3 submittal will be combined. Therefore, a preliminary documented safety analysis will be submitted based on project maturity at CD-3 and a Preliminary Safety Design Report will not be developed. The safety design strategy described in CHPRC-02236 reflects this approach.
Prepare a Safety Validation Report This is a DOE review of the PSDR
DOE action DOE action DOE action Not required. A preliminary documented safety analysis (PDSA) will be developed for a combined CD-2/-3 submittal and a PSDR will not developed.
CD-2 Pkg. (if required) Required for CAPs with TPC ≥$50M. May be required for CAPs $10M ≤TPC <$50M. For projects, $10M ≤TPC <$50M, CD-2 and -3 can and should be combined if required. Document this strategy in the basis column.
As required CHPRC required As required A combined CD-2/-3 package will be submitted for DOE-RL DOE, DOE approval.
Exec
utio
n Ph
ase
Continue monthly PARS II reporting Continue PARS II reporting for CAPs with TPC ≥$10M. For all other projects (i.e., non-capital asset, or <$10M TPC) performance metrics to be reported as outlined in PEP or CHPRC procedures.
Continue PARS II reporting for CAPs with TPC ≥$10M. For all other projects (i.e., non-capital asset, or <$10M TPC) performance metrics to be reported as outlined in PEP or CHPRC procedures.
Continue PARS II reporting for capital asset projects with TPC ≥$10M. For all other projects (i.e., non-Capital Asset, or <$10M TPC) performance metrics to be reported as outlined in PEP or CHPRC procedures.
PARS II reporting will be performed based on TPC >$10M. DOE-RL will provide status updates into PARS until CD-2 approval. CHPRC will begin upload of Earned Value and schedule data after CD-2 approval.
Complete Final Design Ensure design is mature enough to support establishment of CD-2 baseline per requirements in PRC-PRO-EN-40271.
Ensure design is mature enough to support establishment of CD-2 baseline per requirements in PRC-PRO-EN-40271.
Ensure any engineering designs, drawings, sketches; specs for equipment/materials; project procedures, work documents and bid packages are ready for implementation.
Final design will be completed and Formal Design Review conducted per requirements in PRC-PRO-EN-40271.
Employ a certified EVMS CHPRC-00003, Project Control System Description, identifies compliance requirements and how CHPRC EVMS meets those requirements.
CHPRC-00003, Project Control System Description, identifies compliance requirements and how CHPRC EVMS meets those requirements.
CHPRC-00003, Project Control System Description, identifies compliance requirements and how CHPRC EVMS meets those requirements.
The CHPRC EVMS process described in CHPRC-00003, Project Control System Description, will be used for the MCSC project.
Conduct an External Independent Review for Execution Readiness DOE action for Major System Projects TPC ≥$750M
DOE action for capital asset projects to confirm readiness to execute.
DOE action for capital asset projects to confirm readiness to execute.
Not required DOE action; not required. MCSC project capital asset project cost estimated <$60M.
Independent Project Review This is a DOE action for capital asset projects to confirm readiness to execute.
CHPRC readiness review (PRC-PRO-OP-55) or Management Assessment (PRC-PRO-QA-246) may be required. Define requirement in PEP.
CHPRC readiness review (PRC-PRO-OP-55) or Management Assessment (PRC-PRO-QA-246) may be required. Define requirement in PEP.
CHPRC readiness review (PRC-PRO-OP-55) or Management Assessment (PRC-PRO-QA-246) may be required. Define requirement in PEP.
DOE action. CHPRC-02264 will define the level of readiness activity required per CHPRC procedures.
Independent Cost Estimate (ICE) This is a DOE action for capital asset projects. OECM will conduct the estimate for projects with a TPC ≥$100M
DOE action be required due to risk or performance indicators.
DOE action be required due to risk or performance indicators.
Not required DOE action; not required. MCSC project capital asset project cost estimated <$60M.
CHPRC-02264, REV. 3
A-7
CHPRC PROJECT CATEGORIZATION AND TAILORING CHECKLIST - EPC Project Name: W-135 Cesium & Strontium Capsules Project (MCSC) Capital Asset Project: Yes No Category Level: 1 2 3
DOE O 413.3B Approach
Subproject Requirements by Category Level Basis
1 2 3 Update Hazard Analysis Report For projects involving facilities that are below the Hazard Category 3 threshold.
Ensure adequacy of existing SB documentation. Reference PRC-PRO-NS-700 for additional guidance.
Ensure adequacy of existing SB documentation. Reference PRC-PRO-NS-700 for additional guidance.
Ensure adequacy of existing SB documentation. Reference PRC-PRO-NS-700 for additional guidance.
A hazards analysis report is not required. WESF and CSA are/will be Hazard Category 2 facilities.
Prepare a Project Safety and Health Plan Develop HASP if required. Document decision in PEP.
Develop HASP if required. Document decision in PEP.
HASP typically not required. A HASP to support construction/modification activities in WESF will be developed.
Update Quality Assurance Program Ensure continued adequacy of QA program plan or project-specific QA plan as required.
Ensure continued adequacy of QA program plan or project-specific QA plan as required.
Ensure continued adequacy of QA Program Plan.
The MCSC project will use the CHPRC QA program as described in PRC-MP-QA-599.
Finalize the Security Vulnerability Assessment Report Ensure Safeguard and Security issues have been identified and documented if required.
Ensure safeguard and security issues have been identified and documented if required.
Ensure Safeguard and Security issues have been identified and documented if required.
Safeguards and Security requirements will be planned per MSC-RD-SEC-11440, Physical Protection of Property and Facilities, MSC-PRO-SEC-427, Site Safeguards and Security Program Planning Requirements, and MSC-PRO-SEC-396, Planning Construction Projects in Security Areas.
Update the Safety Design Strategy Reference PRC-PRO-NS-700 for guidance. Reference PRC-PRO-NS-700 for guidance. Reference PRC-PRO-NS-700 for guidance. The SDS established in CHPRC-02236 will be updated as the project matures.
Prepare the Preliminary Documented Safety Analysis Develop/update initial hazard identification and nuclear facility hazard categorization. Reference PRC-PRO-NS-700 for additional guidance.
Develop/update initial hazard identification and nuclear facility hazard categorization. Reference PRC-PRO-NS-700 for additional guidance.
Develop/update initial hazard identification and nuclear facility hazard categorization. Reference PRC-PRO-NS-700 for additional guidance.
A PDSA will be prepared consistent with updated safety design strategy.
Prepare a Safety Evaluation Report (SER) DOE action DOE action DOE action DOE action. A combined CD-2/-3 package will be submitted for DOE approval prior to start of construction. Capital Asset cost is greater than $50 million.
CD-3 Pkg. (if required) Required for CAPs with TPC ≥$50M. May be required for CAPs $10M ≤TPC <$50M. For projects, $10M ≤TPC <$50M, CD-2 and -3 can and should be combined if required. Document this strategy in the basis column.
As required As required As required A combined CD-2/-3 package will be submitted for DOE approval prior to start of construction. Capital Asset cost is >$50M.
Commit necessary resources to execute project Field activities Field activities Field activities Staffing per the authorized project budget.
Exec
utio
n Ph
ase
Continue monthly PARS II reporting Continue PARS II reporting for CAPs with TPC ≥$10M. For all other projects (i.e., non-capital asset, or <$10M TPC) performance metrics to be reported as outlined in PEP or CHPRC procedures.
Continue PARS II reporting for CAPs with TPC ≥$10M. For all other projects (i.e., non-capital asset, or <$10M TPC) performance metrics to be reported as outlined in PEP or CHPRC procedures.
Continue PARS II reporting for CAPs with TPC ≥$10M. For all other projects (i.e., non-capital asset, or <$10M TPC) performance metrics to be reported as outlined in PEP or CHPRC procedures.
PARS II reporting will be performed based on TPC >$10M. DOE-RL will provide status updates into PARS until CD-2 approval. CHPRC will begin upload of earned value and schedule data after CD-2 approval.
Verify Key Performance Parameters and Project Completion Criteria have been met
Required Required Required A CD-4 package documenting that the key performance parameters and the project completion criteria has been met will be developed and submitted.
Conduct Operation Readiness Review DOE action/decision for CAPs. Reference PRC-PRO-OP-055, Startup Readiness.
DOE action/decision for CAPs. Reference PRC-PRO-OP-055.
Reference PRC-PRO-OP-055 DOE action. CHPRC will prepare for readiness per PRC-PRO-OP-055 prior to start of capsule transfer operations.
Issue Project Transition to Operations Plan Typically not a requirement except for CAPs requiring secretarial acquisition executive approval (TPC ≥$750M). Ref. DOE G 413.3-16.
Typically not a requirement except for CAPs requiring secretarial acquisition executive approval (TPC ≥$750M). Reference DOE G 413.3-16.
Not required Not required. MCSC project CAP cost estimated <$60M.
Conduct Readiness to operate If required If required If required CHPRC will prepare for readiness per PRC-PRO-OP-055.
Finalize Hazard Analysis Report For projects involving facilities that are below the Hazard Category 3 threshold.
Finalize SB documentation. Reference PRC-PRO-NS-700 for additional guidance.
Finalize SB documentation. Reference PRC-PRO-NS-700 for additional guidance.
Finalize SB documentation. Reference PRC-PRO-NS-700 for additional guidance.
A hazards analysis report is not required. WESF and CSA are/will be Hazard Category 2 facilities.
Revise Environmental Management System (EMS) The purpose of revising the EMS is to ensure project facility/systems/equipment operations (construction type projects) and long-term stewardship activities (remediation projects) continue to achieve environmental protection and regulatory compliance
Revise EMS as required Revise EMS as required Revise EMS as required EMS will be revised, as required.
Complete and submit Contractor Evaluation Documentation DOE action DOE action DOE action DOE action
CD-04 Pkg. (if required) As required (by others) As required (by others) As required (by others) CD-4 package will be submitted for DOE approval prior to start of capsule transfer operations.
CHPRC-02264, REV. 3
A-8
CHPRC PROJECT CATEGORIZATION AND TAILORING CHECKLIST - EPC Project Name: W-135 Cesium & Strontium Capsules Project (MCSC) Capital Asset Project: Yes No Category Level: 1 2 3
DOE O 413.3B Approach
Subproject Requirements by Category Level Basis
1 2 3 Required for CAPs with TPC ≥$50M. May be required for CAPs $10M ≤TPC <$50M.
DOE O 413.3B Approach Subproject Requirements by Category Level
Basis 1 2 3
Perform final administrative and financial closeout Refer to PRC-STD-PM-53013, Project Closeout.
Refer to PRC-STD-PM-53013, Project Closeout.
Refer to PRC-STD-PM-53013, Project Closeout.
Project Closeout will be completed per PRC-STD-PM-53013.
Prepare Closeout Report Refer to PRC-STD-PM-53013, Project Closeout.
Refer to PRC-STD-PM-53013, Project Closeout.
Refer to PRC-STD-PM-53013, Project Closeout.
Project Closeout will be completed per PRC-STD-PM-53013.
Update the property record in the Facility Information Management System (FIMS)
Update FIMS (by others) Refer to PRC-STD-PM-53013, Project Closeout.
Update FIMS (by others) Refer to PRC-STD-PM-53013, Project Closeout.
Update FIMS (by others) Refer to PRC-STD-PM-53013, Project Closeout.
Project Closeout will be completed per PRC-STD-PM-53013.
Approval:
Concurrence:
Project Manager Date Project Vice President Date
Vice President, Prime Contracts & Project Integration (Required for Category Level 1 projects only) Date