Post on 26-Mar-2020
OFFICE OF
SCIENCE
1
Closeout Report on the
DOE/SC CD-1 Review of the
Integrated Engineering Research Center
(IERC) Project
Fermi National Accelerator LaboratoryFebruary 7-9, 2017
Ethan Merrill
Committee Chair
Office of Science, U.S. Department of Energy
http://www.science.doe.gov/opa/
OFFICE OF
SCIENCEReview Committee
Participants
2
Ethan Merrill, DOE/SC, Chairperson
Review Committee
Subcommittee 1: Technical and ES&H
*Marty Fallier, BNL
Ben Maxwell, LBNL
Bill Rainey, TJNAF
Subcommittee 2: Cost and Schedule
*Jerry Kao, DOE/ASO
Jason Budd, ANL
Subcommittee 3: Project Management
*Steve Cannella, BNL
Gary Bloom, ORNL
*Lead
Observers
Stephanie Short, DOE/SC
Gary Brown, DOE/SC
Steve Neus, DOE/FSO
Mike Fenn, DOE/PM
OFFICE OF
SCIENCE
3
Charge Questions
1. Have performance requirements been appropriately and sufficiently defined for this stage of
the project?
2. Has a credible and sufficient alternatives analysis been performed? Are project risks identified
and has a credible Risk Management Plan been developed?
3. Are the estimated cost and schedule ranges supporting the most likely alternatives credible and
realistic for this stage of the project? Are scope, cost, and schedule contingency amounts
adequate? Are there sufficient scope trade-offs and building attributes to be provided to the
building designers to accommodate either bids greater than the estimate or less than the
estimate?
4. Is the project being appropriately managed? Is the Integrated Project Team established and
functioning?
5. Are environment, safety and health aspects being properly addressed given the project’s
current stage of development? Are Integrated Safety Management principles being followed?
6. Are project documents (e.g., Acquisition Strategy, Preliminary Project Execution Plan, and
Preliminary Hazard Analysis Report) complete and ready for approval? Is the project ready
for CD-1?
OFFICE OF
SCIENCE
1. Have performance requirements been appropriately and
sufficiently defined for this stage of the project?
Yes, with minor qualification.
2. Has a credible and sufficient alternatives analysis been performed?
Are project risks identified and has a credible Risk Management
Plan been developed?
Yes, both the AoA and RMP are credible and the Risk Register
is thorough and comprehensive with regard to technical scope
6. Are project documents (e.g., Acquisition Strategy, Preliminary
Project Execution Plan, and Preliminary Hazard Analysis Report)
complete and ready for approval? Is the project ready for CD-1?
Yes, documents are complete - the project is ready for CD-1
4
2. Technical
M. Fallier, BNL / B. Maxwell, LBNL / W.
Rainey TJNAF - Subcommittee 1
OFFICE OF
SCIENCE
2. Technical
M. Fallier, BNL / B. Maxwell, LBNL /
W. Rainey TJNAF - Subcommittee 1
5
Findings
• The IERC is necessary to support the LBNF program at FNAL which is
recognized as a top priority of the P5 committee for the HEP program
• LBNF is part of a large international consortium of users that are investing in
the program and are expected to significantly increase the campus population
• The master campus plan presented the IERC as a top priority to consolidate
remotely dispersed staff and provide facilities to improve efficiency and
collaboration of staff in support of the science mission
• Threshold KPPs of 87,500 SF, Target of 97,500 SF and Objective of 130,000 SF
• Schedule based on a funding profile initiating design in 2017 and completing
delivery in 2020 with an added 24 months float to CD-4
• Cost range of $73M - $86M TPC, with target cost of $86M at 97,500 SF
• P5 science drivers, plans for US particle physic and DOE SC 10 year plan
indicate FNAL collaboration with LHC-CMS experiment and leading the
LBNF neutrino research program
• A FNAL science requirements task force established the program needs for the
IERC including: detector R&D space; lab space with dedicated labs; clean
rooms and lab support; office & technical space; shared space for collaboration
OFFICE OF
SCIENCE
2. Technical
M. Fallier, BNL / B. Maxwell, LBNL /
W. Rainey TJNAF - Subcommittee 1
6
Findings
• Flexible space is a key design consideration enabling response to future changes
• Alternatives analysis considered five options, 2 were rejected as not mission
capable. Build New, Improve Existing and Renovate Existing options
underwent LCC - Build New option had lowest LCC by nearly a factor of two
• Design charrettes for the CDR included notable independent architects in
addition to contracted A/E and on-site team
• Site selection for the new building considered impact on the iconic Wilson hall,
shadow impacts, parking impacts and collaboration feasibility among others.
• Four high rank risks were identified from a risk registry listing 49 risks &
technical risks were medium to minor
• The East Pond (cooling pond) will be drained and filled with on-site material
and is not considered a wetland
• A commissioning contractor will be used during design and construction
• The IERC will not result in changes to site security requirements
• NEPA review has been completed and is approved as Categorical Exclusion
OFFICE OF
SCIENCE
2. Technical
M. Fallier, BNL / B. Maxwell, LBNL /
W. Rainey TJNAF - Subcommittee 1
7
Findings
• The planned science & engineering activities includes Si detector development
but aggressive etching chemicals are not expected to be used in the process
• Plan is for only a gas/chemical inventory that will enable Class B occupancy and
includes no flammables. Thus only very small inventory of some gases will be
allowed. Not expecting corrosives and reactives.
• Interior design focuses on “collaboration commons” areas to assure many
spontaneous scientific interactions among staff
• Lab exhaust runs through an interstitial space horizontally along the full length
of the bldg. before going up a vertical chase which is near to Wilson Hall
• A utility analysis was conducted and plan to relocate existing utilities (power,
water, cooling water, storm and sanitary) in the footprint of the building. A
major communication duct may be able to remain.
• Sustainability features include VAV HVAC, use of outside air, chilled beam
systems, green roof, solar hot water and all LED lighting
• The project identified 55,000 SF as available for demolition but is not included
in the project cost
OFFICE OF
SCIENCE
2. Technical
M. Fallier, BNL / B. Maxwell, LBNL /
W. Rainey TJNAF - Subcommittee 1
8
Findings
• Cooling capacity and boiler capacity from CUB is limited and will need to be
supplemented. Plan to use heat recovery chiller (heat pump) of about 200 tons
to supplement cooling and provide comparable energy amount for heating
• Electrical system will separate lab power from bldg. power to provide a clean
power system
• Plans include 250kw emergency generator for life safety loads, standby loads
for selected equipment, elevator and certain lab equipment & exhausts
• At this time, need for specific vibration criteria are not determined so heavier
steel and concrete and added isolation are not included in the estimate
• Objective scope includes a Wilson Hall stairway at the northwest entry which is
an important improvement to flow and includes a ramp for ADA accessibility
• The target scope does not include a seminar space but seminar space is
proposed as part of the objective scope
• Plans to add or delete scope are very conceptual at this stage and are described
in terms of functional space but not physically represented in the current
design. They propose to involve listing one or more central bays as additive or
deduct scope as the design advances
OFFICE OF
SCIENCE
2. Technical
M. Fallier, BNL / B. Maxwell, LBNL /
W. Rainey TJNAF - Subcommittee 1
9
Comments
• The programmatic and mission need drivers for the facility are clear - the
current dispersed, old, non-purpose-built facilities do not adequately support
the intended growth in program needs and do not support collaboration and
was reinforced by the tour of facilities
• Although there may be opportunities to improve the case for the preferred
solution, the alternatives analysis reached a credible conclusion that building a
new facility adjacent Wilson Hall provides the lowest LCC and is most effective
at reaching mission need
• The approach for the proposed alternative is based on a robust site planning
effort and is consistent with the site master plan
• The program development included a thorough process of outreach to
determine technical scope and program requirements including A/E design
charettes
• The CDR team had a unique challenge in marrying a new facility to Wilson
Hall without detracting from its iconic visage. The team is commended for
finding a functional and attractive architectural solution that retains Wilson
Halls command of the site.
OFFICE OF
SCIENCE
2. Technical
M. Fallier, BNL / B. Maxwell, LBNL /
W. Rainey TJNAF - Subcommittee 1
10
Comments - continued
• As a combined lab/office building, the current design does not include
conservative assumptions about possible future need for stringent vibration,
temperature and EMI/RFI criteria. If these needs (which are becoming typical at
many sites) arise it can add substantially to cost
• Overall impression of the technical deliverables vs target estimate - the estimate
may be low given the high proportion of lab space and clean room space with
potential for more demanding requirements as the design evolves
• The current lab exhaust design involves a long horizontal run to a vertical exhaust
chase at the Wilson Hall end of the IERC and plume modeling has not been done
yet. The project should consider integrating exhaust on the East side as a shorter
run further from Wilson Hall
• The CDR is well developed and thorough however potential scope contingency is
not graphically identified yet but the project has identified functions that can be
omitted if required.
• Current threshold deliverable technical scope is 87,500 SF and target scope is
97,500 SF and objective scope is 130,000 SF. The target scope may not be
achievable (assuming fully functional buildout) at target cost given the full range
of risks and design uncertainty at this stage of development
OFFICE OF
SCIENCE
2. Technical
M. Fallier, BNL / B. Maxwell, LBNL /
W. Rainey TJNAF - Subcommittee 1
11
Recommendations
• Strive to resolve definitive environmental requirements for labs and
cleanrooms so the impacts are incorporated in the estimate prior to CD-2
• Assure that methods to decrease deliverable scope to achieve threshold KPPs
can be integrated in the project design before CD-2
• Proceed to CD-1
OFFICE OF
SCIENCE
12
3. Cost and Schedule
J. Kao, DOE/ASO, J Budd, ANL
Subcommittee 2
2. Has a credible and sufficient alternatives analysis been performed? Yes
Are project risks identified and has a credible Risk Management Plan been
developed? Yes
3. Are the estimated cost and schedule ranges supporting the most likely
alternatives credible and realistic for this stage of the project? No
Are scope, cost, and schedule contingency amounts adequate? Yes
Are there sufficient scope trade-offs and building attributes to be provided to
the building designers to accommodate either bids greater than the estimate
or less than the estimate? Yes
6. Are project documents (e.g., Acquisition Strategy, Preliminary Project
Execution Plan, and Preliminary Hazard Analysis Report) complete and
ready for approval? Yes Is the project ready for CD-1? Yes
OFFICE OF
SCIENCE
13
Findings
• The Total Project Cost (TPC) range is $74.0M - $86.0M and is based solely on the
proposed alternative of constructing a new multi-use building. The high end
completes 97,500 SF which represents the threshold scope and a portion of objective
scope being used as scope contingency (10K SF), 23% cost contingency to go
($15.84M), no separate design contingency, 3-4% escalation, and general
condition/OH/profit of 12.4% of construction.
• The proposed $86.0M point estimate used to develop the cost range is the high end
cost. The low end represents -15% factor of the point estimate based on the DOE
cost estimating guide at this stage of the project.
• A bottoms up third party and A/E conceptual cost estimate was developed and were
within 0.5% of each other when disregarding General conditions, design
contingency, and escalation.
• The project has identified $13.2M in estimate uncertainty and $2.7M in 90% CL
expected risk (when eliminating the duplicate items) totaling $15.9M.
3. Cost and Schedule
J. Kao, DOE/ASO, J Budd, ANL
Subcommittee 2
OFFICE OF
SCIENCE
14
Findings
• CD-4 is currently planned for 2Q FY24 with 23 months of schedule contingency.
Early finish is scheduled for March 2020.
• There currently is no external project dependencies driving the CD-4 date.
• This schedule currently includes long lead procurement (CD-3a) approval for site
preparation involving draining the east reflection pond, parking lot removal, and
utilities.
• Equipment and personnel moves are planned to be done off project.
• The project has developed a preliminary resource loaded schedule with 76 activities
and 83 milestones.
• The project has developed a schedule based on the assumption of a 3 month CR in
all Fiscal Years including FY17.
• The early finish date is based on obtaining CD-2/3a (site preparation) and PED
funding in FY17.
• Project has run an Acumen fuse schedule diagnostics.
3. Cost and Schedule
J. Kao, DOE/ASO, J Budd, ANL
Subcommittee 2
OFFICE OF
SCIENCE
15
Findings
• The critical path runs through a preliminary design, final design, and then
construction. Building construction is scheduled to take 27 months to complete.
• The project is scheduled to receive $2.5M in PED funds in FY17, but may not
receive these funds if there is a year long CR. Site Prep activities are scheduled to
start 4Q FY18 and is not considered to be on the critical path. The project risk
register has identified an expected 6 month delay due to an FY17 CR.
• The risk registry identified 45 risks and 4 opportunities. A preliminary risk cost and
schedule Monte Carlo analysis was performed showing 90% confidence of
completing the project with 19 months schedule contingency and $8.4M in cost
contingency.
• The high risk items identified include a FY17 funding delay, CM/GC proposals
coming in too high, trade package bids coming in too high, and a change in indirect
rates.
• A Risk Management Plan was developed and the project is currently holding
quarterly meetings to review and update risks. Monthly meetings will occur after
CD-1 approval.
• The $86.0 TPC includes an EDIA percentage of approximately 20%.
3. Cost and Schedule
J. Kao, DOE/ASO, J Budd, ANL
Subcommittee 2
OFFICE OF
SCIENCE
16
Findings
• No external dependencies are specifically identified in the cost estimate or schedule.
• The project analyzed 5 different alternative strategies. It was determined that
alternatives 1, 2, and 3 were viable and further analyzed. The total life cycle cost for
alt. 3 ($191M) was the lowest when compared to alt. 1 ($331M) and alt. 2 ($368M).
1.) Improve Existing
2.) Renovate Existing
3.) Construct New Building (next to Wilson Hall or in the Technical Campus)
4.) Retain Building Status Quo
5.) Construct New Building at Another Laboratory
• The analysis used a 50 year service life. The major cost difference between the
improve/renovate existing and the new construction alternatives is the annual
productivity loss avoidance cost of $2.74M per year. This contributes to a majority
of the difference in the analyzed alternatives.
• A scoring system was also performed which ranked the alternatives according to
NPV, Collaboration, Modern mission-ready facilities, ES&H, and Location / Site
Condition. Alternative 3 ranked highest in all of the criterion.
3. Cost and Schedule
J. Kao, DOE/ASO, J Budd, ANL
Subcommittee 2
OFFICE OF
SCIENCE
17
Comments
• The project has completed a thorough analysis of several alternatives and the
proposed renovation of New Construction appears to be the best and lowest cost
alternative to fulfill the mission gap.
• Consider updating the AoA with respect to the cost inputs in the renovation and
improving existing space alternatives by refining or evaluating the need to include
the productivity loss calculation. This cost input does not appear to change the NPV
rankings.
• The cost presented for the WBS 602.4 Construction ($57,640K) in the PPEP did not
match the cost estimate presented ($55,455K). Ensure that the BOE matches the
independent cost estimate going forward.
• When estimating general conditions and overhead in the construction estimate,
ensure the additional cost of performing work in a DOE national lab is incorporated.
For example, DOE safety and EVMS requirements are not costs that are typically
incorporated in a University or private sector construction project.
3. Cost and Schedule
J. Kao, DOE/ASO, J Budd, ANL
Subcommittee 2
OFFICE OF
SCIENCE
18
Comments
• The proposed TPC point estimate of $86.0M appears adequate to meet the threshold
KPP SF. The amount of cost contingency is also considered adequate at this stage of
the project. The project’s cost estimate, which was independently estimated from
bottom’s up, is further along than the typical conceptual design cost estimate.
• The project team also performed a parametric comparison with a recent and
geographically close SLI project, ANL’s MDL, which at CD-1 estimated $762/SF
compared to IERC’s calculated $591/SF at 97,500 SF, and $659/SF at 87,500 SF.
Since there are significant scope differences between IERC and MDL, and two
bottom’s up cost estimates were performed by the project, IERC’s $/SF appears
reasonable.
• Consider including design contingency into the construction cost to account for
unknown design issues/scope that may be identified during remaining design
development. Having design contingency included in the cost estimate at this stage
of the project is a prudent practice.
3. Cost and Schedule
J. Kao, DOE/ASO, J Budd, ANL
Subcommittee 2
OFFICE OF
SCIENCE
19
Comments
• The DOE cost estimating guide suggests a minimum +20% factor for the high end
along with a minimum -15% factor for the low end when determining a cost range
around a Level 4 point estimate. Consider adjusting the high end of the cost range to
account for the +20% factor.
• The CD-4 date of February FY24 with 23 months of schedule contingency appears
realistic and achievable.
• If a full year FY17 occurs, the early completion date may push back up to a year, and
the point estimate may rise due to construction escalation costs.
• Due to the high probability of occurrence, consider accepting the FY17 CR delay
risk and adjusting the project schedule and cost accordingly.
• The proposed cost ($15.843M) and schedule contingencies (23 months) presented
appear adequate and were validated qualitative analysis and Monte Carlo analysis.
3. Cost and Schedule
J. Kao, DOE/ASO, J Budd, ANL
Subcommittee 2
OFFICE OF
SCIENCE
20
Comments
• The committee supports performing the site preparation activities as soon as possible
using a CD-3a or PME letter approval. Doing so shortens the duration of the project,
reduces overall project costs, and reduces potential risks associated with the
relocation of underground utilities.
• The 90/100/110 approach where 100% is the 97,500 SF “design to cost” scope of the
A/E and the 90% is the threshold KPP of 87,500 SF appears sound. This will allow
for a design with a clear deductive option in the event construction bids are high.
• As design progresses, ensure scope contingency deducts total at least 10% in
estimated construction cost during preliminary and final design.
• The risks in the register appear thorough and complete at this stage of the project.
• Consider adding level III milestones into the PPEP.
• By completing a P6 resource loaded schedule, the project is in good position to begin
EVMS reporting when appropriate.
• The project is incorporating best practices in incorporating Acumen Fuse and DCMA
schedule analysis at CD-1 which confirms high degree of schedule logic.
3. Cost and Schedule
J. Kao, DOE/ASO, J Budd, ANL
Subcommittee 2
OFFICE OF
SCIENCE
21
Recommendations
• Re-evaluate the high end of the cost range prior to CD-1 approval.
3. Cost and Schedule
J. Kao, DOE/ASO, J Budd, ANL
Subcommittee 2
OFFICE OF
SCIENCE
22
PROJECT STATUS – Pre CD-1 as of 2/2/2017
Project Type Line Item
CD-1 Planned: 3Q FY17 Actual:
CD-2/3A Planned: 3Q FY19 Actual:
CD-3B Planned: 3Q FY20 Actual:
CD-4 Planned: 2Q FY24 Actual:
TPC Percent Complete Planned: __NA___% Actual: _____%
TPC Cost to Date $847,100 (OPC)
TPC Committed to Date $847,100 (OPC)
TPC - Preliminary Range $74M - $86M
TEC – Preliminary Range $73M - $85M
Contingency Cost – Preliminary $15.84M __
Contingency Schedule on CD-4 – Preliminary _23 months __
CPI Cumulative NA
SPI Cumulative NA
3. Cost and Schedule
J. Kao, DOE/ASO, J Budd, ANL
Subcommittee 2
OFFICE OF
SCIENCE
23
4. Environment, Safety, and HealthB. Rainey, TJNAF
5. Are environment, safety and health aspects being properly addressed
given the project’s current stage of development? Are Integrated
Safety Management principles being followed? YES
6. Are project documents (e.g., Acquisition Strategy, Preliminary
Project Execution Plan, and Preliminary Hazard Analysis Report)
complete and ready for approval? Is the project ready for CD-1?
YES – all ready for CD-1.
OFFICE OF
SCIENCE
• Findings
• ES&H aspects, appropriate to this level of project design, are being addressed with
respect to risk and requirements analysis, acquisition plans and conceptual
designs.
• Fermilab’s existing programs and systems (ISM, WS&HMP, EMS, EMP) are in
place and related operational controls should continue to positively impact project
development.
• The project will not change Fermilab’s safeguards and security requirements.
• IERC siting related S&H issues such as traffic and pedestrian flow, construction
safety, beamline considerations and interactions with Wilson Hall have been
recognized and mitigation strategies are at the appropriate stages of development.
• Project documents (e.g., Acquisition Strategy, Preliminary Project Execution Plan,
and Preliminary Hazard Analysis Report, NEPA CX) are in place and reflect
project ES&H aspects.
24
4. Environment, Safety, and HealthB. Rainey, TJNAF
OFFICE OF
SCIENCE
• Comments
• Updating IERC’s expected/projected chemical and gas inventory and
emission/waste generation should be completed prior to CD-2 to support design
efforts and regulatory impact analysis.
• Recommendations
• Proceed to CD-1
25
4. Environment, Safety, and HealthB. Rainey, TJNAF
OFFICE OF
SCIENCE
26
5. ManagementS. Cannella, BNL / G. Bloom, ORNL
Subcommittee 3
2. Has a credible and sufficient alternatives analysis been performed?
Yes. Are project risks identified and has a credible Risk
Management Plan been developed? Yes.
4. Is the project being appropriately managed? Yes. Is the
Integrated Project Team established and functioning? Yes.
6. Are project documents (e.g., Acquisition Strategy, Preliminary
Project Execution Plan, and Preliminary Hazard Analysis Report)
complete and ready for approval? No. Is the project ready for CD-
1? No.
OFFICE OF
SCIENCE
27
5. ManagementS. Cannella, BNL / G. Bloom, ORNL
Subcommittee 3
Findings
• The project Key Performance Parameters have a scope Threshold Value of
87,500gsf and an Objective Value of 130,000gsf and Site Improvements.
• The project Total Estimated Cost Range is $73M-$86M.
• The Project has an overall cost contingency of $15.8M on TEC or 23.3% on
the to-go –cost. Preliminary EDIA has been calculated at 14% of TEC which
is in-line with similar/recent SLI projects.
• A credible Analysis of Alternatives has been completed resulting in the
identification of the New Building alternative as the preferred solution to
satisfying the Mission Need. Both qualitative sensitivity analysis and
quantitative Building Life Cycle Cost analysis was performed.
• The Fermi lab-standard Risk Management policy/procedure utilized by the
IERC team is well defined and thorough.
• The IERC Risk Registry has been appropriately prepared for CD-1. 45 risks
and 4 opportunities have been identified. Opportunities have not been included
in the Monte Carlo Analysis.
OFFICE OF
SCIENCE
28
5. ManagementS. Cannella, BNL / G. Bloom, ORNL
Subcommittee 3
Findings
• The High Level Risks have been identified…
1. High CM/GC proposals
2. High Subcontractor Bids
3. FY17 Funding delay due to CR
4. Changes in Fermilab indirect rates
• The CDR program is mature for this stage of the project and the preliminary
performance requirements have been established. A high level of program
participation and support is evident.
• The IERC project is aligned strategically to the “Building for Discovery”
(Particle Physics P5 Plan) and the Fermi Annual Lab Plan.
• A CD-1 Director's review was held August 2016. The project has adequately
addressed the management comments from this review
• A comprehensive and experienced IERC project team is in place for the
execution of the project with experienced control account managers (CAMs).
• Project Management
• Design
• Construction
OFFICE OF
SCIENCE
29
5. ManagementS. Cannella, BNL / G. Bloom, ORNL
Subcommittee 3
Findings
• Procurement plans are in place for the acquisition of AE and CM/GC services
that are thorough and well planned.
• The project has determined that the facility will not be a nuclear facility,
commonly referred to as a radiological facility or radiological activities, as
defined in 10 CFR 830. The 10 CFR 830 requirements have not been flowed
down into sub-contract requirements for design and construction of the facility.
OFFICE OF
SCIENCE
30
5. ManagementS. Cannella, BNL / G. Bloom, ORNL
Subcommittee 3
Comments
• The project has overall adequate cost and schedule contingency for this stage of
project development.
• Consider updating project documents to clearly identify key project information
as “Preliminary” (i.e. Preliminary KPP, Schedule, Milestones).
• IERC is to be commended for the level of team experience and qualifications.
• The assignment of an experienced architect to manage the design process is
commendable .
• Consider removing the Analysis of Alternatives from the Acquisition Strategy
to create a stand alone document
• Consider further definition of the project strategy of 90/100/110 scope by early
identification design scope that will support the Preliminary Key Performance
Parameters.
OFFICE OF
SCIENCE
31
5. ManagementS. Cannella, BNL / G. Bloom, ORNL
Subcommittee 3
Comments
• Consider design strategies that support future growth and/or changes in the
facility requirements.
• Suggest obtaining official program/user sign-off/approval on Basis of Design
and/or programming requirements documentation.
• Consider revisiting the Analysis of Alternatives to ensure costs associated with
maintenance, deferred maintenance and repairs, cost of missed collaboration
opportunities, and facility cost of excess facilities are adequately addressed.
• The Analysis of Alternatives sensitivity analysis utilized a 25% weighted value
for Net Present Value. Consider evaluating this weighing factor to ensure it
provides the proper weighting score to the qualitative analysis.
• Consider radiological protection review of proposed facility activities to ensure
that the facility will not need to be classified now or in the future as a nuclear
facility as defined in 10 CFR 830.
• The risk probability associated with risk items 602.32 Changes in
Programming, and 602.33 Errors and Omissions, appear to be low. Consider
continued evaluation of risk probabilities with the Risk Management Board.
OFFICE OF
SCIENCE
32
5. ManagementS. Cannella, BNL / G. Bloom, ORNL
Subcommittee 3
Recommendations
• Update Preliminary KPP table to omit the “Site Improvements” prior to CD-1.
• Create a stand alone Alternatives of Analysis document prior to CD-1.
• Update appropriate required CD-1documents prior to CD-1.
• Upon completion of recommendations proceed to CD-1.