**Supporting Document**

**Description of Work**

**1.0 Introduction**

This description of work provides additional information regarding work
to be performed for the Nevada Site Office Environmental Restoration
Project and the Project Support Group. Not all the work described in
this document will be performed by the Environmental Characterization
and Remediation Contractor (ECRS), but is provided to provide a broader
picture of the work that will be performed during the planned period of
performance for this acquisition action. Additional information should
be reviewed and considered, such as the attached schedule, the Federal
Facility Agreement and Consent Order, and other pertinent documents. It
is recommended that potential Offerers also review project specific
published documents available at [www.osti.gov](http://www.osti.gov/) or
at by visiting the Southern Nevada Public Reading Facility at the
Nuclear Testing Archive located at 755 East Flamingo Road in Las Vegas,
Nevada.

**2.0 Soils**

**2.1 Scope of Work**

Nuclear testing activities conducted at the Nevada Test Site (NTS),
Tonopah Test Range (TTR), and Nellis Testing and Training Range (NTTR)
produced radionuclide contamination of near surface soils. The U.S.
Department of Energy (DOE), Nevada Site Office (NSO) Environmental
Restoration Soils Project objective is to characterize near surface soil
contamination sites and perform corrective actions, where it is cost
effective and there is a significant reduction in risk to human health
and the environment. Work scope activities for the Soils Project are
required by the implementation of the Federal Facility Agreement and
Consent Order (FFACO) Technical Strategy and are predicated on
establishing site-specific Corrective Action Levels (CALs). The Soils
Project Corrective Action Units (CAUs) are divided into five groups,
which parallel the categories presented in the FFACO:

1\. Storage- Transportation Tests: GMX, Plutonium Valley, Project 57,
Double Tracks, and Clean Slate Sites 1, 2, and 3.

2\. Cratering Experiments: NTS Areas 10, 18, 20, and 30. (Sedan, Johnnie
Boy, Danny Boy, Cabriolet/Palanquin, Schooner, and Buggy respectively)

3\. Atmospheric Tests: South Yucca Flat (Areas 1, 3, 4, and 7), North
Yucca Flat (Areas 2, 8, 9, and 10), Frenchman Flat (Area 5 and 11),
Buckboard Mesa (Area 18) and Small Boy. This grouping also includes
small restricted areas of contamination produced by unplanned venting of
subsurface tests. (Note: The Small Boy atmospheric test was part of the
Frenchman Flat CAU, but is now designated as its own CAU.)

4\. Hydronuclear Experiments: Hydronuclear Tests.

5\. Nuclear Rocket Engine Experiments: Nuclear Rocket Engines (Note:
This CAU includes surface soil contamination not addressed by the
Industrial Sites Project.)

The objective of the Soils Project is to reduce the risk to human health
and the environment through implementation of a cost-effective
corrective action strategy. This strategy encompasses CAU
characterization, assessment, corrective action evaluation, and
corrective action implementation. For Soil Project sites, where it is
not cost effective and a significant reduction in risk to human health
and the environment cannot be achieved, corrective actions are not
anticipated. For Soils Project sites within designated future testing
areas, corrective actions are not anticipated. The future testing area
sites are defined in the Nevada Test Site Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS) and Nevada Test Site Resource Management Plan (RMP), and are
secured in accordance with federal and DOE Orders to prevent inadvertent
intrusion.

For Soil Project CAUs where corrective action is assumed to be
undertaken, a site-specific CAL for each CAU will be established that
allows for release of the CAUs in accordance with agreed upon designated
land uses that are in accordance with the Nevada Test Site EIS and RMP.
The CAL is based on a dose criteria of 25 millirem per year (mrem/yr)
and concurrence with identified decision makers on future land use
scenarios, dose calculation methodology, and dose calculation input
parameters. The CAL is required by DOE Orders to have an
as-low-as-reasonably-achievable (ALARA) analysis performed. Fieldwork is
performed as authorized by NSO applicable directives, including the Real
Estate/Operations Permits (REOPs).

Selected Storage-Transportation Test CAUs require a Corrective Action
Investigation Plan (CAIP) that includes a historical literature review
and historic evaluation, a description of the Data Quality Objectives
(DQOs), preliminary risk (dose) assessment (if applicable), and site
characterization scope of work. National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA)-mandated Environmental Assessment (EA) documentation is not
required because remaining uncharacterized Soils Project CAUs are
included in the Environmental Impact Analysis and Record of Decision for
the NTS EIS.

For Storage-Transportation Test Soils Project CAUs scheduled to be
remediated and with areas of contamination greater than approximately 20
hectares, an aerial-based detection system is used to establish the
horizontal extent of contamination. A ground-based detector platform is
also used, when appropriate, to determine the depth of contamination,
isotopic ratios, and to verify that hot spots do not exist that may bias
the aerial and ground-based detector system results. For
Storage-Transportation Test Soils Project CAUs with areas of
contamination less than approximately 20 hectares, only ground-based
detector systems are utilized. The M&O contractor will perform both the
aerial-based and ground-based surveys. After in situ radiological
surveys are completed, soil sampling is conducted to further
characterize the site and to meet waste acceptance criteria. Ground Zero
and suspected burial areas will be investigated, as required.

Based on characterization data, including waste acceptance criteria
results, a CAL will be proposed when appropriate in accordance with the
ALARA strategy. A dose calculation, utilizing the Residual Radiation
(RESRAD) computer code if applicable, will be performed and included in
the ALARA analysis. The ALARA analysis document summarizes the dose
calculation, risk (e.g., transportation, remediation worker, and
public), cost analysis, and proposes the most environmentally sound,
cost-effective corrective action.

If the Storage-Transportation Test Soils Project CAU is not in a
designated future land use area, and not scheduled to be remediated, the
Corrective Action Decision Document (CADD) is assumed to include a
corrective action alternative (CAA) analysis, summarizing the
decision-making process followed to arrive at the recommended corrective
action, the proposed CAL, the proposed CAA, and a summary of the
characterization results. If the Storage-Transportation Test Soils
Project CAU is in a designated future testing area, a CADD/Closure
Report (CR) will be prepared that recommends that long-term surveillance
and monitoring continue. If corrective actions are performed, the
Corrective Action Plan (CAP) is prepared and includes a discussion of
the recommended CAA, and how it is implemented, including the post
corrective action site stabilization and restoration. The CR summarizes
the corrective actions implemented and presents the recommendation for
site closure, as appropriate.

Atmospheric Testing CAUs require a historical literature review and
historic data evaluation.. NEPA-mandated EA documentation is not
required because atmospheric testing CAUs are included in the
Environmental Impact Analysis and Record of Decision for the NTS EIS.

If the Atmospheric Testing CAU is located in an area designated as a
future testing area and it is not cost effective to perform corrective
actions, corrective actions beyond use restrictions may not be
performed.

An aerial-based detector system is used as appropriate to determine the
horizontal extent of contamination at atmospheric testing CAUs. Based on
historical data, a CADD/CR will be prepared to close the respective CAUs
and place them in post closure monitoring.

Cratering Experiment CAUs require a historical literature review and
historic data evaluation; NEPA mandated EA documents are not required
because Cratering Experiment CAUs are included in the Environmental
Impact Analysis and Record of Decision for the NTS EIS.

An aerial-based detector system is assumed to be used to determine the
horizontal extent of contamination at cratering experiment CAUs. Based
on historical data, a CADD/CR will be prepared to close the respective
CAUs and place them in post closure monitoring. If the cratering
experiment CAUs are located in an area designated as a future testing
area, and it is not cost effective to perform corrective actions,
corrective actions will not be performed.

The Hydronuclear CAU requires a historical literature review and
historic data evaluation. Based on historical data, a CADD/CR will be
prepared to close the CAU and place it in long term surveillance and
monitoring.

Project management includes scope of work, planning, cost and schedule
control, management of resources, reporting, baseline management, task
plan execution, contractor and interagency interaction, change control,
strategy, scope, budget, and schedule control. Project management
support is provided for the DOE Integrated Safety Management System
(ISMS) and the appropriate accident and incident records and reporting
systems.

Milestones associated with project management scope include monthly
reports of project status and accomplishments. Deliverables will be
associated with technical support requests, but these deliverables will
be defined on a case-by-case basis.

**2.2 Corrective Action Process**

Administrative closure of the all the Soils Project CAUs the NTS will be
completed using the following process.

**2.2.1 Corrective Action Investigation Plan**

CAIP document will be prepared in accordance with the FFACO. The CAIP
presents the site-specific technical approach and characterization
methodology to be implemented to delineate the nature and extent of
contamination. Historical literature is collected, reviewed, and
evaluated to establish a basis of site knowledge. The DQOs are developed
to support the technical approach. If the DQO evaluation identifies data
gaps for the site then additional information to fill the data gaps will
be provided during the Corrective Action Investigation. A preliminary
risk (dose) assessment (if applicable) is performed. An ecologic and
cultural resource survey is performed. A review of CAU and CAS
historical documents will be performed to determine if the remaining
features or structures require historic preservation.

Prefield efforts include the preparation of a SSHASP; sampling and
analysis plans; field instructions; REOP; procurement of subcontractors,
materials, and equipment; and staff planning and logistics support.

A helicopter-based detector system is used at the CAU to determine the
horizontal extent of contamination. The helicopter survey results are
verified with ground-based detector systems. Ground-based detector
systems are also used to determine the depth of contamination, isotopic
ratios, and to verify that hot spots do not exist that may bias the
aerial and ground-based detector system results. After in situ
characterization surveys are completed, soil sampling is conducted to
further characterize the site, check for any potential RCRA
constituents, and to gather data to meet waste acceptance criteria. In
addition, radiologic and treatability analyses are also performed.
Geophysical surveys and soil borings are conducted, as appropriate, to
provide data at the location of potential buried materials from the
tests and associated experiments. If it is decided to remediate this
CAU, characterization results are included in the CADD document. If it
is decided to not remediate this site, a CADD/CR document will be
prepared.

The NSO M&O contractor will support the ECRS contractor in their
development of a CAIP.

**2.2.2 Corrective Action Decision Document/Closure Report (CADD/CR)**

**CADD/CR Planning**

Prepare a brief description of the scope of work for technical support,
to enable identification of the appropriate support group.

Prepare detailed work scopes for posting rad signs and Use Restriction
surveys.

A kickoff meeting will be held to review the available data for each CAS
and to identify the DQOs to be included in the CADD/CR report.

**CADD/CR Field Preparation Work**

Complete planning checklist (or alternative substitute planning
document) that identifies the planning requirements for performing field
activities.

The only field activity will be to post/repost the CASs in accordance
with the NTS/YMP RADCON manual.

Prepare Field Management Plan.

Prepare REOP for Closure Activities.

**CADD/CR Activities**

Available data will be analyzed to support a CADD/CR with administrative
closure.

The ALARA analysis required by DOE Order will be included in the CADD/CR
and will not be a separate document. The CADD/CR document summarizes the
decision-making process followed to recommend closure of the sites.

Review and understand the extent of the Radionuclide Inventory and
Distribution Program (RIDP) soil sample (depth profile) data and its
applicability to this project including the assessment of the data and
the determination of a defendable soil profile(s) for each CAU.

Determine Am (Pu) vertical soil profile.

Determine Cs-137 vertical soil profile.

Determine the Pu:Am ratio for each site .

Convert Am measurements into GIS files (site wide data plus 8 50-ft
surveys).

Construct a table relating Am count rate to Pu concentration for array
of soil profiles and review.

Extract Cs-137 count rate from the site wide data and create GIS files.

Extract Cs-137 count rate from the 8 50-ft surveys and create GIS files.

Construct a table relating count rate to soil concentration for Cs-137.

Based on the CADD/CR data analysis, post or de-post radiologically
controlled areas according to the requirements in the NTS/YMP RADCON
Manual.

Pre & Post-Field Photo Documentation

Surveying to obtain coordinates that will be used to identify the limits
of the Use Restriction that will be established for the site(s) will be
completed. Surveyors will not enter any of the posted areas and will be
able to work in Level D PPE.

Post-job debrief will be held with all of the field personnel to review
the job accomplishments and to identify lessons learned for future
activities.

Lessons learned will be provided as lessons are learned during the
project. Assumes one formally documented lesson learned for the closure
activities.

A site drawing will be developed and will include survey coordinates
identifying location of the use restriction. The use restriction form
will be completed and will be recorded.

GIS maps will be developed documenting closure of the site. Upon
completion, final maps will be added to the archive library. Upon
completion of the CADD/CR project file closeout will be completed
consisting of pulling all project documentation into the project file,
verifying that all project documentation is present in the file,
verifying that confidential project information (e.g., personnel medical
monitoring/bioassay data) is managed in a confidential manner.

Technical support will be provided to the NSO and other team members
during the preparation of the CADD/CR document and negotiations to close
the sites with the NDEP.

**2.3 Soils Sub-Project Corrective Action Unit (CAU) Descriptions**

**2.3.1 Plutonium Valley (CAU 366)**

Plutonium Valley Unit Safety Shots CAU consists of six Corrective Action
Sites (CAS). The CASs is related to a series of safety tests. Based on
aerial radiological survey data and other historical characterization
data the primary contaminants are americium and plutonium. However, an
inadvertent fission of one of the tests caused relatively low levels of
fission product (Sr-90, Cs-137, Co-60) and common soil activation
product (Eu-152, Eu-154) contamination. Two of the CASs are contaminated
waste disposal areas.

The area of potentially contaminated soils associated with the CAS of
Plutonium Valley CAU has been informally estimated to be 2000 acres. The
area is controlled for radiological purposes under requirements set
forth in 10 CFR 835**.**

**2.3.2 GMX (CAU 365)**

GMX Unit Safety Shots CAU consists of one Corrective Action Site (CAS).
This site is related to equation of state tests. Based on aerial
radiological survey data and other historical characterization data the
primary contaminants are americium and plutonium.

The area of potentially contaminated soils associated with the CAS of
GMX Unit CAU has been informally estimated to be 70 acres. The area is
controlled for radiological purposes under requirements set forth in 10
CFR 835.

**2.3.3 South Yucca Flat (CAU 104)**

South Yucca Flat Atmospheric Sites CAU consists of 37 Corrective Action
Sites (CAS). Most of these sites are directly related to above ground
nuclear tests. One site (CAS 07-39-01) is a bunker which is not directly
test related and about which little is known. Twenty-six of the CASs is
associated with weapons effects or weapons related tests and ten sites
are associated with nuclear weapons safety tests. Based on aerial
radiological survey data and other historical characterization data the
sites are contaminated with common fission products (Sr-90, Cs-137,
Co-60), common soil activation products (Eu-152, Eu-154) and, for most
sites, small areas of plutonium and americium contamination. The safety
tests have larger areas and higher levels of plutonium and americium
contamination. Some of the CASs may also include test related
contaminated and activated debris.

The area of potentially contaminated soils associated with the CASs of
South Yucca Flat CAU has been informally estimated to be 6,200 acres.
Most of these test areas are controlled for radiological purposes under
requirements set forth in 10 CFR 835.

**2.3.4 NORTH YUCCA FLAT (CAU 105)**

North Yucca Flat Atmospheric Sites CAU consists of 26 Corrective Action
Sites (CAS). Most of these sites are directly related to above ground
nuclear tests. Eighteen of the CASs are associated with weapons effects
or weapons related tests, seven sites are associated with nuclear
weapons safety tests, on one site is associated with a Plowshare test.
Based on aerial radiological survey data and other historical
characterization data the sites are contaminated with common fission
products (Sr-90, Cs-137, Co-60), common soil activation products
(Eu-152, Eu-154) and, for most sites, small areas of plutonium and
americium contamination. The safety tests have larger areas and higher
levels of plutonium and americium contamination. Some of the CASs may
also include test related contamination and activated debris.

The area of potentially contaminated soils associated with the CASs of
North Yucca Flat has been informally estimated to be 13,200 acres. Most
of these test areas are controlled for radiological purposes under
requirements set forth in 10 CFR 835.

**2.3.5 Frenchman Flat (CAU 106)**

Frenchman Flat Atmospheric Sites CAU consists of seven Corrective Action
Sites (CAS). Most of these sites are directly related to above ground
nuclear tests. Two sites are radiologically controlled areas that are
not directly test related. The remaining CASs is associated with weapons
effects and weapons related tests. Based on aerial radiological survey
data and other historical characterization data the sites are
contaminated with common fission products (Sr-90, Cs-137, Co-60) and
common soil activation products (Eu-152, Eu-154). Some of the CASs may
also include test related contaminated and activated debris.

The area of potentially contaminated soils associated with the CASs of
Frenchman Flat CAU has been informally estimated to be 1,700 acres. Most
of these test areas are controlled for radiological purposes under
requirements set forth in 10 CFR 835.

**2.3.6 Buckboard Mesa (CAU 107)**

Buckboard Mesa Atmospheric Sites CAU consists of three Corrective Action
Sites (CAS). The sites are directly related to nuclear tests. Two of the
CASs is associated with weapons effects tests and one site is associated
with a Plowshare test. The plowshare test was a subsurface test and did
not produce surface level soil contamination. Based on aerial
radiological survey data and other historical characterization data the
other two sites (Little Feller I and Little Feller II) are contaminated
with common fission products (Sr-90, Cs-137, Co-60), common soil
activation products (Eu-152, Eu-154) and plutonium and americium.

The area of potentially contaminated soils associated with the CASs of
Buckboard Mesa CAU has been informally estimated to be 1,400 acres.
These test areas are controlled for radiological purposes under
requirements set forth in 10 CFR 835.

**2.3.7 Sedan Crater, Ess and Uncle Unit Craters (CAU 367)**

Sedan Crater, Ess and Uncle Unit Craters CAU consists of three
Corrective Action Sites (CAS). The CASs are all craters and associated
ejecta. One of the tests, SEDAN, was a Plowshare test while the other
two were weapons effects tests. Based on aerial radiological survey data
and other historical characterization data the sites are contaminated
with common fission products (Sr-90, Cs-137, Co-60), common soil
activation products (Eu-152, Eu-154) and plutonium and americium.

The area of potentially contaminated soils associated with the CASs of
Sedan Crater CAU has been informally estimated to be 9000 acres. The
Sedan crater area is controlled for radiological purposes under
requirements set forth in 10 CFR 835.

**2.3.8 Johnnie Boy (CAU 370)**

Johnnie Boy Unit CAU consists of one Corrective Action Site (CAS). The
CAS is a crater and associated ejecta from this weapons effects test.
Based on aerial radiological survey data and other historical
characterization data the site is contaminated with common fission
products (Sr-90, Cs-137, Co-60) and common soil activation products
(Eu-152, Eu-154).

The area of potentially contaminated soils associated with the CAS of
Johnnie Boy CAU has been informally estimated to be 250 acres. The area
is controlled for radiological purposes under requirements set forth in
10 CFR 835.

**2.3.9 Danny Boy (CAU 371)**

Danny Boy Unit CAU consists of one Corrective Action Site (CAS). The CAS
is a crater and associated ejecta from this weapons effects test. Based
on aerial radiological survey data and other historical characterization
data the site is contaminated with common fission products (Sr-90,
Cs-137, Co-60), common soil activation products (Eu-152, Eu-154) and
plutonium and americium.

The area of potentially contaminated soils associated with the CAS of
Danny Boy CAU has been informally estimated to be 180 acres. The area is
controlled for radiological purposes under requirements set forth in 10
CFR 835.

**2.3.10 Area 20 CAUs -Cabriolet/Palanquin (CAU 372)**

Cabriolet and Palanquin CAUs consists of two Corrective Action Sites
(CAS). The CASs is craters and associated ejecta from these weapons
effects tests. Based on aerial radiological survey data and other
historical characterization data the sites are contaminated with common
fission products (Sr-90, Cs-137, Co-60), common soil activation products
(Eu-152, Eu-154) and plutonium and americium.

The area of potentially contaminated soils associated with the CASs of
the Area 20 CAUs has been informally estimated to be 1500 acres. The
areas are controlled for radiological purposes under requirements set
forth in 10 CFR 835.

**2.3.11 Small Boy (CAU 541)**

Small Boy CAU consists of one Corrective Action Site (CAS). The CAS is
related to a weapons effects test. Based on aerial radiological survey
data and other historical characterization data the site is contaminated
with common fission products (Sr-90, Cs-137, Co-60), common soil
activation products (Eu-152, Eu-154) and plutonium and americium.

The area of potentially contaminated soils associated with the CAS of
CAU 541 has been informally estimated to be 2700 acres. The area is
controlled for radiological purposes under requirements set forth in 10
CFR 835.

**3.0 Underground Test Area Sub-Project (UGTA)**

The goal of the UGTA Sub-project is to define the site-specific
hydrologic boundaries encompassing groundwater resources on the Nevada
Test Site (NTS) and at off-site locations that may be unsafe for
domestic or municipal use. To perform data analysis and modeling
activities to allow informed decisions that ensure risk to public health
and the environment posed by impacted groundwater are, and will remain,
within protective levels.

Project Management includes management of scope planning and execution,
cost and schedule control, management of resources, reporting, baseline
management, task plan execution, client interaction, change control,
strategy, scope, budget, and schedule control.

**3.1 Frenchman Flat (CAU 098)**

Workscope activities for the Frenchman Flat Corrective Action Unit (CAU)
are driven by the implementation of the Federal Facility Agreement and
Consent Order (FFACO) technical strategy. Frenchman Flat-specific
modeling is required to determine the location

of the contaminant boundary and design the corrective action monitoring
well system. These activities provide the complete basis for a
Corrective Action Decision Document (CADD) for regulatory approval.
Corrective action involves the implementation of the closure activity
recommended in the CADD. Compliance with the closure criteria leads to a
Closure Report (CR) and notice of completion from Nevada Division of
Environmental Protection (NDEP).

**3.1.1 Corrective Action Decision Document (CADD)**

The scope of the CADD involves determination of the contaminant boundary
location and the design of a monitoring well system.

Computer modeling predictions are the primary basis for determining the
location of contaminant boundary and designing the monitoring well
network. Results of the corrective action investigation are summarized
in the CADD, which specifies the recommended corrective action
alternative. The CADD defines the corrective action to be taken and
provides the rationale for the choice. The CADD for Frenchman Flat is
consistent with FFACO requirements and is reviewed and approved by the
U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), National Nuclear Security
Administration Nevada Operations Office (NNSA/NV), and NDEP.

**Monitoring Network Design**

Select parameters, develop performance criteria, and design a CAU
monitoring network. Document the process and results in a report for
inclusion in the CADD.

**Develop Monitoring Network Criteria**

This task includes development of the design basis, technical
requirements, and specification criteria for the CAU monitoring system
to be implemented under the CADD for the five-year monitoring period.
DOE specifies the basic concept and assumptions to be used in developing
the monitoring plan. The criteria are developed at the general level,
and are based on expectations about the CAU in accord with the draft CAU
geologic, flow, and transport models. In addition, criteria for
determining compliance are developed in general.

**Design Monitoring Network**

This task includes development of the design of the physical layout of
the well system, identification of parameters to be monitored, operating
parameters, and performance standards. The locations of existing wells
are compared with the design criteria to assess the functionality of
existing wells. The uncertainty in the CAU contaminant transport
predictions and the contaminant boundary definition is evaluated to
determine the uncertainty in determining

**Monitoring Network Report**

Documentation for the monitoring system design is developed for
inclusion in the CAU CADD. A report is prepared presenting the
conceptual design, general design and physical layout, specific
monitoring well identification, well configuration requirements,
parameters to be monitored, proposed monitoring schedule, and discussion
of the determination of compliance. Supporting material includes
technical justifications, pertinent modeling analyses and results, and
location of the monitoring wells relative to the contaminant boundary.
This task includes preparing the draft report, responding to a DOE/TWG
review, and preparing the final report.

**CADD Preparation**

The CADD is prepared following the UGTA-specific outline agreed upon by
the State of Nevada and the DOE.

**Prepare Draft CADD**

The CADD is an FFACO report designed to document the findings of the
CAI. It describes the corrective action that is selected as the result
of investigation activities and the rationale for its selection. The
rationale consists of an analysis of the possible alternatives and may
reflect a decision ranging from no action to clean closure. The CADD is
a NNSA/NSO document that will be made available to the public. Major
elements of the CADD are the CAU model, verification results, the
corrective action alternative (CAA) evaluation, and the selected
corrective action alternative (monitoring network). The CADD is
therefore dependent on the following documents:

\- CAU model documentation packages

\- Classified CAU model report

\- Monitoring network design report

\- Verification Plan

\- Verification Report

\- Risk evaluation report

The contents of these CAI documents will be summarized in the CADD.
Relevant and unclassified reports may serve as attachments to the CADD.
The CADD will also include the results of the corrective action
alternative evaluation conducted as a part of the CADD. The task
consists of three subtasks:

\- Prepare Draft CADD

\- DOE Review

\- NDEP Review

The ECRS contractor prepares the CADD with support from other
participating agencies as needed for specific information needs or
specialized technical input. Other agency support includes information
calls and preparation of material for inclusion in the CADD.

**CADD DOE Review And Approval**

The purpose of this task is to conduct a NNSA/NSO-internal review of the
Draft CADD to produce a Rev. 0 CADD. This task includes several
activities: 1) answering questions and providing technical support
during the review of the Draft CADD, 2) resolving disputed comments; 2)
preparing a formal comment response document; and 3) revising the CADD
following comment resolution. Products of this task are the Rev. 0 CADD
and a formal review comment/response document.

The ECRS contractor will lead this task with support from NNSA/NSO and
the other participating agencies. NNSA/NSO and the other contractors
will review the draft CADD and provide formal comments on NNSA/NSO
document response sheets to the ECRS contractor. The comment resolution
activity will be conducted with NNSA/NSO's support, when necessary.

**CADD NDEP Review & Approval**

The purpose of this task is to conduct an NDEP review of the Rev. 0 CADD
to produce the Rev. 1 CADD. This task includes several activities: 1)
answering questions and providing technical support to NNSA/NSO during
the review by NDEP, 2) preparing a formal comment response document; and
3) revising the CADD following comment resolution. Products of this task
are the Rev. 1 CADD and a formal review comment/response document.

The ECRS contractor will lead with support from NNSA/NSO and the other
participating agencies. The comment resolution activity will be
conducted by NNSA/NSO with support from the ECRS Contractor.

**Project Support**

The scope of project support encompasses all activities associated with
project management and maintenance of site facilities through closure of
the final CAU.

**Support**

Support includes all project management costs including management, TWG,
consulting, building costs including on-site support facilities,
maintenance of databases, hydrologic data collection from the NTS and
regional water-level network, scope associated with sampling of Hot
wells, and other administrative work for the benefit of the entire
project.

**3.1.2 Contaminant Boundary Phase II**

If the Phase I model was not sufficient to provide sufficient confidence
in the location of the contaminant boundary, a Phase II effort is
required. The Phase II effort provides a CAU-specific risk-based
contaminant boundary based upon the revision and verification of the
Phase II flow and transport model.

**Flow Model**

Revise the Phase I flow model using information acquired during the
Phase II data acquisition and data analysis activities, suggestions by
peer reviewers, and improvements identified by the program.

Scope of work has been completed.

**Analysis/Evaluation**

The CAU Phase I flow model is created through revisions to the Phase I
model. Work may include revisions to the following: base case
hydrostratigraphic model of the basin; the initial boundary conditions,
recharge and its uncertainty; the range of boundary fluxes; the model
grid, the flow parameters distributions in the model; the
transferability of data from other CAUs; the process model to assess the
role of faults on groundwater flow; the process model to assess the role
of thermal processes on groundwater flow; the process model to assess
the role of the testing related changes to the subsurface and their role
on groundwater flow; two sub-CAU models to simulate groundwater flow in
smaller regions; the CAU flow model incorporating the process and
sub-CAU models; the calibration of the CAU model; the sensitivity and
uncertainty analyses including multiple alternative hydrologic,
hydrostratigraphic, and conceptual models.

The basic tasks are to revise these models, to address specific
questions, then integrate the results of each model into the CAU model.

Scope of work has been completed.

**Reporting**

The reporting phase revises the documents created in Phase I. These
documents are to be complete and accurate records of the revised models
and are reviewed by DOE and other internal peer reviewers for
completeness, accuracy, and acceptability. Multiple reports are revised.
Reports include documentation of any sub-CAU model revisions, any
process model revisions, and the revision to the single report documents
the CAU flow model. The documents present the assumptions of each model,
the model details (such as grids, input data, boundaries) and the model
results.

Scope of work has been completed.

**DOE Review**

The DOE review of the Phase II flow modeling products includes review of
the individual model component reports including process models, sub-CAU
models, and the CAU-model documentation; comment review and comment
response for each model report; revisions to the models to address
reviewer comments and concerns; and revision to the various model
documentation packages.

Scope of work has been completed.

**Transport Model Phase II**

The final transport model is a revision of the Phase I model and is
based upon incorporation of information acquired during the phase II
data acquisition and data analysis activities, suggestions by peer
reviewers, and improvements identified by the program.

**Analysis/Evaluation**

The CAU transport model is constructed from a number of smaller models
and studies that come together to produce the final product. The CAU
transport model integrates the studies, process models, and sub-CAU
models into a final transport prediction. The transport predictions are
compared with current contaminant and environmental concentrations to
increase confidence in the models. Finally, the process to take
classified source data and determine contaminant concentrations are
tested. After the testing, all the components to produce the final model
simulations are tested and put into practice.

**Reporting**

The reporting phase documents the revisions to the various transport
models and results. These documents are to be complete and accurate
records of the models created and will be reviewed by DOE for
completeness, accuracy, and acceptability. Multiple reports will be
revised. Reports will document any sub-CAU model created, any process
models created, the GoldSim modeling, and a single report will document
the CAU transport model. The documents will present the assumptions of
each model, the model details such as grids, input data, boundaries,
etc, and the model results.

**DOE Review**

The DOE Review of the transport modeling products includes the following
tasks:

1\. Review of the individual model component reports including process
models, sub-CAU transport model reports, the GoldSim documentation, and
the CAU model documentation.

2\. Comment review and comment response for each model report.

3\. Revisions to the models to address reviewer comments and concerns.

4\. Revisions to the various model documentation packages.

**Model Documentation**

The final composite report for Phase II combines the results of all the
work to date into one consistent, well-documented report suitable for
external peer review. The report undergoes internal peer review and DOE
review prior to completion.

**Develop Model Document**

The final composite report for Phase II combines the results of all the
work to date into one consistent, well-documented report suitable for
external peer review. The report undergoes internal peer review and DOE
review prior completion.

**Peer Review**

External peer reviewers are brought in to review the final report. A
presentation is made and the reviewers are asked to comment on the
models and results.

**Model Verification**

Establish verification criteria for the CAU model, perform verification
activities, and prepare a report.

**Prepare Model Verification Plan**

This task covers development of the Model Verification Plan, including
establishing verification requirements and defining performance
criteria, and preparing a report. Model verification assumes some data
are held back from use in creating the CAU flow and transport model, and
that data are compared to the developed model to verify the model. The
plan identifies which data are held back, and how that data are used to
verify the model.

**Perform Model Verification**

Perform the model verification of the CAU flow and transport model in
accordance with the Model Verification Plan. The concept for model
verification assumes some data are held back from use in creating the
CAU flow and transport model. That data are compared to the developed
model to verify the model. This effort includes performing the
verification process and determining if the verification meets
performance criteria.

**Prepare Model Report**

Document the verification of the CAU flow and transport model in
accordance with the Model Verification Plan. This effort includes
producing draft and final documents presenting the verification results
and the determination whether the verification meets performance
criteria. The concept for model verification assumes some data are held
back from use in creating the CAU flow and transport model. That data
are compared to the developed model to verify the model.

**3.1.3 Risk**

A human health risk assessment will be prepared to provide additional
insights for DOE\'s understanding of the implications of the
contaminated groundwater from the CAU. Following a short period of
internal planning, the assessment will begin with a meeting with State
regulators to present and come to consensus on which exposure scenarios
need to be discussed, and what factors and guidance will be followed in
the calculations. This first step ensures that the stakeholders have a
chance to recommend any adjustments to the assessment that are needed to
cover stakeholder concerns. The assessment will then proceed with
revision and modification of the spreadsheet risk models that were
created for the Regional Model risk assessment. The additions will
include considerations of additional radionuclides and any modifications
required to incorporate changes to the scenarios to be considered. The
risk models will be run. Finally, the archived hydrologic model results
used to predict the contaminant boundary will be processed to provide
information as a function of space and time covering the affected area
that corresponds to any risk levels of interest.

These results will be used to build an EarthVision property (risk) model
so that the risk extent can be illustrated in three dimensions. A report
will be prepared to present the results. The report will be reviewed,
edits incorporated, and a final report will be issued.

**3.1.4 Corrective Action Plan (CAP)**

The CAP is prepared per FFACO agreements.

**Draft CAP**

The purpose of this task is to conduct technical oversight activities
during the preparation of the draft Corrective Action Plan (CAP). The
CAP will be derived from the Corrective Action Decision Document (CADD)
and will contain details on the implementation of the corrective action
proposed for the CAU.

Although the M&O will be the lead on this task, the ECRS Contractor will
be responsible for the technical oversight during the preparation of the
CAP. The ECRS contractor will provide technical support to the M&O
during the preparation of the Draft CAP. This technical support may
include responding to information calls, contributing to the sections
describing the implementation of the selected corrective action,
reviewing information prepared by the M&O, and preparing other materials
for inclusion in the draft CAP.

**CAP DOE Review And Approval**

The purpose of this task is to conduct technical oversight activities
during the DOE review of the CAP. Task activities will include reviewing
the draft CAP, preparing formal comments, and providing support to
NNSA/NSO and the M&O during the DOE review phase of the CAP.

The M&O will lead the DOE review of the draft CAP. The ECRS contractor
will conduct a technical review of the Draft CAP commensurate with their
technical oversight role. The review will be detailed to ensure that the
CAP is consistent with the CADD and the proposed corrective action (the
CADD is an FFACO document prepared by the ECRS Contractor). Review
comments will be recorded on DOE document review sheets (DRSs). The main
product of this task is a set of formal comments to be delivered to the
M&O at the end of the review period. Support to the M&O in answering
reviewers questions will be provided on an as-needed basis.

**CAP NDEP Review And Approval**

The purpose of this task is to conduct technical oversight activities
during the NDEP review of the CAP. The M&O will lead the NDEP review of
the CAP. The ECRS contractor will support the M&O and DOE during the
review. Task activities include providing support to NSA/NSO and the M&O
during the review phase of the document by answering NDEP questions or
fulfilling information calls, and preparing and/or reviewing comment
responses.

Support will include responding to questions, assisting with information
calls from NDEP, preparing responses to comments relating to CAI
activities conducted by the ECRS Contractor, revising portions of the
CAP, and reviewing the CAP or selected sections.

**3.1.5 Closure Report (CR)**

The CR is prepared per the FFACO agreement.

**Five Year Monitoring Program**

Activities associated with planning and implementing the five-year
proof-of-concept monitoring program includes sampling, analysis,
database maintenance, and data report preparation.

**Sampling**

Six wells designated as part of the proof-of-concept program are sampled
on an annual basis for physical and chemical parameters as agreed to by
FFACO signatories

**Reporting**

Results of the annual sampling are published in an annual report. Data
are maintained in a database.

**CR Preparation**

Activities associated with analyzing and evaluating data associated with
the five-year monitoring program and preparing the CR.

**Evaluation Of Monitoring Results**

Evaluate monitoring results after the initial 5 Year monitoring period
prior to CAU closure and produce a report to be included in the Closure
Report. Monitoring results will be evaluated with respect to the
criteria for compliance specified in the CAU CADD. Determination of
compliance would include summaries of the monitoring data and technical
analyses and/or modeling results demonstrating compliance. The CAU flow
and transport models will be updated and used to provide an assessment
of the extent of transport to date and predictions for the 100 Year
monitoring period. The models will also be used to evaluate requirements
for the 100 Year monitoring program. This report will be developed to
specifically address the needs of the Closure Report following the
specifications of DOE with regards to the regulatory situation and will
provide recommendations for the 100 Year monitoring program.

**Prepare Draft Results**

The purpose of this task is to conduct technical oversight activities
during the preparation of the draft closure report (CR). The CR will
document compliance standards during the corrective action. It will
contain the initial 5 year pre-closure monitoring results and a listing
of requirements and standards for compliance monitoring during the
following 50 years. It will additionally include the post-monitoring
plan and data with technical justification to achieve closure.

Although the M&O will be the lead on this task, the ECRS Contractor will
be responsible for the technical oversight during the entire CR task.
The ECRS contractor will provide technical support to the M&O during the
preparation of the Draft CR. This technical support may include
responding to information calls, contributing to the sections describing
the implementation of the selected corrective action, reviewing
information prepared by the M&O, and preparing other materials for
inclusion in the draft CR.

The review will be conducted by geologists, hydrogeologists,
geochemists, and support staff. Review comments will be recorded on DOE
document review sheets (DRSs). The DRSs will be internally reviewed and
delivered to the M&O at the end of and delivered to the M&O at the end
of the review period.

**CR DOE Review And Approval**

The purpose of this task is to conduct technical oversight activities
during the DOE review of the CR. Task activities will include reviewing
the draft CR, preparing formal comments, and providing support to DOE
and the M&O during the DOE review phase of the CR. Although the M&O will
be the lead on this task, the ECRS Contractor will be responsible for
the technical oversight during the entire CR task. The ECRS contractor
will conduct a technical review of the Draft CR. This will be an
in-depth review to ensure that the Closure Report is consistent with the
results of the monitoring results analyses and with the proposed
long-term monitoring program. The review will be conducted by
geologists, hydrogeologists, geochemists, and modelers. Review comments
will be recorded on DOE document review sheets (DRSs). The DRSs will be
internally reviewed. Word processing and technical editing support will
be needed. The main product of this task is a set of formal comments to
be delivered to the M&O at the end of the review period.

The CR will be reviewed by DOE and selected contractors. A comment
response document will be prepared and revisions made to the draft plan.

**CR NDEP Review And Approval**

The purpose of this task is to provide support to DOE and the M&O to
respond to NDEP review comments. Although the M&O will be the lead on
this task, the ECRS Contractor will be responsible for the technical
oversight during the entire CR task. The support to responding to NDEP
review comments will be conducted by geologists, hydrogeologists,
geochemists, and modelers. Responses to NDEP Review comments will be
recorded on DOE document review sheets (DRSs). The DRSs will be
internally reviewed. Word processing and editing support will be needed.
The main product of this task is a set of comment responses provided on
DRSs to be delivered to the M&O and support in incorporating the comment
responses into the final CR.

**3.2 Western Pahute Mesa (CAU 102)**

Workscope activities for the Western Pahute Mesa CAU are driven by the
implementation of the FFACO Technical Strategy. Western Pahute
Mesa-specific data analysis and modeling are required to determine the
contaminant boundary location and design the corrective action
monitoring well system. These activities provide the complete basis for
preparing a CADD for regulatory approval. Corrective action involves the
implementation of the closure activity recommended in the CADD.
Compliance with the closure criteria leads to a CR and notice of
completion from NDEP.

**3.2.1 Corrective Action Investigation Plan (CAIP)**

Consistent with agreed upon outlines, a Corrective Action Investigation
Plan (CAIP) and as needed for Phase II activities, prepare a CAIP
Addendum to plan additional data acquisition activities.

**CAIP Addendum**

The CAIP Addendum describes additional data analysis and modeling tasks
as well as any new data collection tasks required to further reduce
uncertainty in the contaminant boundary.

**Prepare Draft CAIP Addendum**

The Draft CAIP Addendum prepared with technical input from project
participants and describes new activities required to reduce contaminant
boundary uncertainty. The CAIP Addendum contains an introduction and
revisions only to those chapters describing new work to be performed.

**CAIP Addendum DOE Review And Approval**

DOE, assisted by other participating agencies, conducts an internal
review of the Draft CAIP to produce a Rev. 0 CAIP Addendum. The NDEP
also participates in this review. The reviewers provide the
Environmental Restoration (ECRS) contractor with formal comments
recorded on DOE Document Response Sheets at the end of the 30-day review
period.

Following receipt of the comments from the peer reviewers designated by
DOE, the ECRS contractor with support from the other project
participants as needed, prepares a formal comment response document,
resolves disputed comments, and revises the Addendum following comment
resolution. The final document (Rev. 0) and comment/response forms are
delivered to DOE within 60-calendar days of the approval of the comment
responses.

**CAIP Addendum NDEP Review and Approval**

Conduct an NDEP review of the Rev. 0 CAIP Addendum to produce a Rev. 1
CAIP Addendum. The ECRS contractor, with technical assistance as needed
from project participants, answers questions and provides technical
support during NDEP's review of the Rev. 0 CAIP Addendum; prepares a
formal NDEP comment response document; provides support during comment
resolution; and revises the CAIP Addendum following comment resolution.
The ECRS Contractor will procure an external peer review team to review
and provide feedback to NDEP on decision making for moving on to the
Corrective Action Plan or to provide additional data by

proceeding to a Phase II.

**3.2.3 Corrective Action Decision Document (CADD)**

The scope of the CADD involves determination of the contaminant boundary
location and the design of a monitoring well system. Computer modeling
predictions are the primary basis for determining the location of
contaminant boundary and designing the monitoring well network. Results
of the CAI are summarized in the CADD, which specifies the recommended
CAA. The CADD defines the corrective action to be taken and provides the
rationale for the choice. The CADD for Western Pahute Mesa is consistent
with FFACO requirements and is reviewed and approved by NSO and NDEP.

**Data Acquisition Phase II**

Data are acquired through field and laboratory studies to supplement
significant data gaps determined as a result of Phase I data analysis
and modeling activities.

**Field Work Phase II**

Phase II Field studies are performed to fill in data deficiencies
determined through the calibration and completion of the Phase I flow
and transport model.

**Drilling**

As determined by the Phase I CAU model, wells are installed at critical
locations to provide geologic, hydrologic, and chemical data that will
reduce the uncertainty in the CAU model. Five wells are currently
planned.

**Well Development, Testing & Sampling**

The wells installed in Phase II are developed and tested for hydrologic
parameters. Two aquifer and tracer tests are performed that may
incorporate new and existing wells. The newly installed wells are
sampled for chemical and isotopic parameters. Other wells within the CAU
may also be sampled if necessary to further reduce uncertainty in the
location of the contaminant boundary.

**Other Activities**

Develop approaches to reduce model uncertainty.

**Laboratory Studies**

Develop sorption parameters for use in source term and large-scale
transport models, based on existing data. Perform carbonate sorption and
zeolite diffusion to determine sorption properties to use for
geochemical modeling. Perform laboratory studies of glass dissolution,
with emphasis on measuring the reactive surface area of glass,
saturation state, and secondary minerals as parameters in the glass
dissolution rate equation and glass dissolution model. Evaluate existing
information on radionuclide concentrations in and near cavities, and in
new wells in a cavity and downgradient of the cavity. Complete ongoing
colloid laboratory and modeling studies. Develop the distribution of
vertical hydraulic properties of various rock types in each of the CAU
areas. Conduct a two-hole aquifer test in Gold Flat and evaluate the
test result in terms of estimating a hydraulic conductivity and obtain
geochemical information. Complete a comprehensive analysis of the
deformation style and coupled processes that leads to determination of
the factors that control fault-related permeability, how it varies
spatially, and how to determine field-based and in-situ hydraulic
parameters for the fault zones and surrounding host rocks. Create a
database containing fracture orientation, fracture density, and fracture
aperture data, and the nature and relative coverage of fracture-coating
mineral phases. Develop hydraulic head maps.

**3.3 Yucca Flat/Climax Mine (CAU 097)**

Workscope activities for the Yucca Flat/Climax Mine CAU are driven by
the implementation of the FFACO Technical Strategy. Yucca Flat/Climax
Mine-specific data analysis and modeling are required to determine the
contaminant boundary location and design the corrective action
monitoring well system. These activities provide the complete basis for
preparing a CADD for regulatory approval. Corrective action involves the
implementation of the closure activity recommended in the CADD.
Compliance with the closure criteria leads to a CR and notice of
completion from NDEP.

**3.3.1 Corrective Action Investigation Plan (CAIP)**

Consistent with agreed upon outlines, a Corrective Action Investigation
Plan (CAIP) and as needed for Phase II activities, prepare a CAIP
Addendum to plan additional data acquisition activities.

**CAIP Addendum**

The CAIP Addendum describes additional data analysis and modeling tasks
as well as any new data collection tasks required to further reduce
uncertainty in the contaminant boundary.

**Prepare Draft CAIP Addendum**

The Draft CAIP Addendum prepared with technical input from project
participants and describes new activities required to reduce contaminant
boundary uncertainty. The CAIP Addendum contains an introduction and
revisions only to those chapters describing new work to be performed.

**CAIP Addendum DOE Review and Approval**

DOE, assisted by other participating agencies, conducts an internal
review of the Draft CAIP to produce a Rev. 0 CAIP Addendum. The NDEP
also participates in this review. The reviewers provide the
Environmental Restoration (ECRS) contractor with formal comments
recorded on DOE Document Response Sheets at the end of the 30-day review
period.

Following receipt of the comments from the peer reviewers designated by
DOE, the ECRS contractor with support from the other project
participants as needed, prepares a formal comment response document,
resolves disputed comments, and revises the Addendum following comment
resolution. The final document (Rev. 0) and comment/response forms are
delivered to DOE within 60-calendar days of the approval of the comment
responses.

**CAIP Addendum NDEP Review And Approval**

Conduct an NDEP review of the Rev. 0 CAIP Addendum to produce a Rev. 1
CAIP Addendum. The ECRS contractor, with technical assistance as needed
from project participants, answers questions and provides technical
support during NDEP's review of the Rev. 0 CAIP Addendum; prepares a
formal NDEP comment response document; provides support during comment
resolution; and revises the CAIP Addendum following comment resolution.
The ECRS Contractor will procure an external peer review team to review
and provide feedback to NDEP on decision making for moving on to the
Corrective Action Plan or to provide additional data by proceeding to a
Phase II.

**3.3.2 Corrective Action Decision Document (CADD)**

The scope of the CADD involves determination of the contaminant boundary
location and the design of a monitoring well system. Computer modeling
predictions are the primary basis for determining the location of
contaminant boundary and designing the monitoring well network. Results
of the CAI are summarized in the CADD, which specifies the recommended
CAA. The CADD defines the corrective action to be taken and provides the
rationale for the choice. The CADD for Western Pahute Mesa is consistent
with FFACO requirements and is reviewed and approved by NNSA/NV and
NDEP.

**Data Analysis Phase I**

Gather, interpret, and document existing and newly acquired data
pertinent to the development and completion of the CAU flow and
transport model. The data analysis volumes serve as a primary reference
to the CAU modeling effort.

**Source Term Phase Data Analylsis I**

Analyze existing and new data pertaining to the source term. Work may
include work in a classified environment. Classified and unclassified
near-field models and reports are submitted.

**Analysis/Evalution**

This task includes activities associated with gathering, qualifying, and
storing new and existing source-term data required to feed subsequent
contaminant transport modeling. Work may take place in a classified
environment. Specifically, subtask activities are designed to: obtain
and incorporate CAU source-term data and information from the National
Laboratories and possibly other sources; acquire, update, and manage
datasets prepared as part of this subtask; integrate all new datasets
with existing databases; evaluate the release of radionuclides from the
cavity and chimney regions of a test and their retardation to identify
the source term to be used for transport modeling on the CAU scale.
Establish thermodynamic, sorption, and ion exchange databases.

**Reporting**

This task includes all activities associated with documenting
source-term data and interpretations into a data documentation package.
The package serves as a primary reference to the CAU transport model for
Phase I. This also includes activities associated with documentation of
the analysis and interpretation of groundwater chemistry data as it
relates to interpreting the source term. The documentation package
includes technical approaches, data tables, and data interpretations and
analyses that allow for adequate technical review of the work.

**DOE Review**

This task is an internal review of the Phase I Source-Term Data
Documentation Package by DOE and selected contractors as requested by
DOE. Includes activities associated with the internal review and
revision of the documentation package and database. Specific activities
include: provision of technical support during the draft documentation
package review by DOE and selected reviewers; address, resolve, and
incorporate review comments and publishing a comments/resolutions
document; and revise the final document for Phase I based on review
comments.

**3.3.3 Contaminant Boundary Phase I**

Develop the CAU-specific risk-based contaminant boundary based upon the
development and verification of a flow and transport model.

**Flow Model Phase I**

Develop, calibrate, and complete sensitivity analysis on the CAU model.
Document activities and respond to review comments.

**Analysis/Evaluation**

The CAU flow model involves a series of steps that lead to the final
flow model. These steps are:

1\. Use EarthVision to produce HSU and fault specific surfaces for input
to LaGrit for the base CAU geologic model and 4 alternatives and mesh
development.

2\. Assignment of initial boundary conditions.

3\. Incorporation of recharge and its uncertainty.

4\. Incorporation of the range of boundary fluxes into the model.

5\. Incorporation of the flow parameters distributions into the model.

6\. Assessment of the transferrability of data from other CAUs.

7\. Creation of a process model to assess the role of thermal processes
on groundwater flow.

8\. Creation of the CAU flow model incorporating the process and sub-CAU
models.

9\. Calibration of the CAU model.

10\. Flow model verification.

11\. Sensitivity and uncertainty analyses including multiple alternative
hydrologic, hydrostratigraphic, and conceptual models.

**Reporting**

Reports documenting the modeling process are complete and accurate
records of the models created and are reviewed by DOE for completeness,
accuracy, and acceptability. Multiple reports are written. Reports
document any sub-CAU model created, any process models created, and a
single report documents the CAU flow model. The documents present the
assumptions of each model, the model details (e.g., grids, input data,
boundaries), and the model results.

**DOE Review**

The DOE Review of the flow modeling products includes the following
tasks:

1\. Review of the CAU model documentation.

2\. Comment review and comment response.

3\. Revisions to the models to address reviewer comments and concerns.

4\. Revisions to the model documentation.

**Transport Model Phase I**

Develop the CAU transport model, perform uncertainty analyses, document
modeling activities, and respond to review and comments.

**Analysis/Evaluation**

The final CAU transport model is constructed from a number of smaller
models and studies that come together to produce the final product. The
analyses that contribute to the transport modeling include:

1\. Upscaling of transport properties.

2\. Development of the simplified source term model (both unclassified
and classified versions) which will include categorizing the sources,
thermal effects, glass zone heterogeneity, estimation of reactive
surface area, and calculation of a hydrologic source term.

3\. The transport parameters and providing ranges of acceptable values.

4\. Sub-CAU models of transport may be created to simulate transport
processes at smaller scales to better understand the migration of
radionuclides.

5\. The CAU transport model will yield a full 3D transport analysis
which will include sensitivity and uncertainty analysis.

6\. After the CAU model, an abstraction of CAU transport will be
developed (most likely using GoldSim) in order assess a wide range of
uncertainty from parameters, conceptual models, hydrostratigraphic unit
models, and other factors.

7\. The transport predictions will be compared with current contaminant
and environmental concentrations to increase confidence in the models.

8\. The classified source data will be used to determine contaminant
concentrations.

**Reporting**

The reporting phase documents the various transport models and results.
These documents are to be complete and accurate records of the models
created and are reviewed by DOE for completeness, accuracy, and
acceptability. Multiple reports are written. Reports document any
sub-CAU models created, any process models created, and a single report
documents the CAU transport model. The documents present the assumptions
of each model, the model details (e.g., grids, input data, boundaries),
and the model results.

**DOE Review**

The DOE and selected contractor review of the transport modeling
products includes the following: review of the individual model
component reports including process models, sub-CAU transport model
reports, and the CAU-model documentation; comment review and comment
response for each model report; revisions to the models to address
reviewer comments and concerns; and revisions to the various model
documentation packages.

**Data Acquisition Phase II**

Data are acquired through field and laboratory studies to supplement
significant data gaps determined as a result of Phase I data analysis
and modeling activities.

**Field Work Phase II**

Phase II Field studies are performed to fill in data deficiencies
determined through the calibration and completion of the Phase I flow
and transport model.

**Drilling**

As determined by the Phase I CAU model, five wells are installed at
critical locations to provide geologic, hydrologic, and chemical data
that will reduce the uncertainty in the CAU model.

**Well Development, Testing And Sampling**

The wells installed or recompleted in Phase II are developed and tested
for hydrologic parameters and sampled for chemical and isotopic
parameters. Other wells within the CAU may also be sampled if necessary
to further reduce uncertainty in the location of the contaminant
boundary. Two aquifer and/or tracer tests are performed that may
incorporate new and existing wells.

**Other Activities**

To refine the HSU framework model during Phase 2, LLNL will interpret
historical earthquake and underground nuclear test aftershock records to
better locate major structures, or structures close to contaminant
sources (underground nuclear tests). Major structures are of importance
because they can juxtapose layers in the hydrostratigraphic model and
serve and either conduits or barriers (condition is unknown) for
contaminant transport. Of concern is predicting pathways to the
carbonate aquifer that may be shorter than what would be modeled without
knowledge of the structure. The assumptions is major structures will be
a plane of weakness and may move during significant ground motion and
can be mapped. Permeable units located near structures with recent
motion may suggest the structure is permeable and could be an enhanced
pathway for transport.

**Laboratory Studies Phase II**

Subtask #1

In an effort to develop a better conceptual understanding of
ground-water flow away from the Yucca Flat/Climax Mine Corrective Action
Unit, the U.S. Geological Survey proposes to construct a water-level
altitude map of the Yucca Flat/Climax Mine area. This map will take
advantage of new land surface and water-level measuring point altitude
data proposed to be collected in Yucca Flat.

This task will include the following activities:

1\. Initiate a review of geologic information and water-level, well
construction, and well elevation data in the Yucca Flat/Climax Mine
area. This review will include adjusting water levels based on the new
altitude data, and, where needed, collecting new water-level data.

2\. Construct a water-level altitude map for the Yucca Flat area.

3\. Define the likely ground-water flow directions away from Yucca Flat.

4\. Publish a USGS map report describing and documenting results.

Subtask #2

Relatively large sulfate/chloride ratios for ground water in the
Cretaceous Climax granitic stock provide a mechanism to track the
downward movement of ground water through the granite and into the
underlying regional limestone aquifer. Water from drill holes and from
seeps in the granite is of a calcium-sulfate type with sulfate/chloride
ratios that are unique among NTS ground waters. This unique chemical
signature is derived from the mineralogy of the granite and from
secondary sulfides that line water-transmitting fractures. Ground water
flowing through these fractures likely oxidizes the secondary sulfides
to sulfates. This work package will

utilize these and other unique chemical and isotopic signatures to
support ongoing flow-path analysis and modeling studies in Yucca Flat by
describing the "natural source term" and determining the potential for
vertical ground-water movement from the Climax stock to the regional
ground-water system. The principal tasks to be completed in this study
are:

1\. Design a comprehensive geochemical/isotope study to characterize
unique features of Climax stock ground water,

2\. Compile and synthesize available geologic, geochemical, and
radiological data for Climax stock and contained ground water,

3\. Sample wells completed in granite and surrounding limestone
upgradient and downgradient from Climax stock for laboratory analysis,

4\. Conduct dissolved ion (major and minor cations and anions) and
isotopic analyses of ground water (O, C, H, Sr, U, Cl-36), and

5\. Synthesize and interpret data with regard to the source of water
(natural source term) from the Climax stock and to the direction of
ground-water flow.

Results of the Climax stock natural source term study will be documented
in a report to be published in the final year of the study.

**3.4 Central Pahute Mesa (CAU 101)**

Workscope activities for the Central Pahute Mesa CAU are driven by the
implementation of the FFACO Technical Strategy. Central Pahute
Mesa-specific data analysis and modeling are required to determine the
contaminant boundary location and design the corrective action
monitoring well system. These activities provide the complete basis for
preparing a CADD for regulatory approval. Corrective action involves the
implementation of the closure activity recommended in the CADD.
Compliance with the closure criteria leads to a CR and notice of
completion from NDEP.

**3.4.1 Corrective Action Investigation Plan (CAIP)**

Consistent with agreed upon outlines, a Corrective Action Investigation
Plan (CAIP) and as needed for Phase II activities, prepare a CAIP
Addendum to plan additional data acquisition activities.

**CAIP Addendum**

The CAIP Addendum describes additional data analysis and modeling tasks
as well as any new data collection tasks required to further reduce
uncertainty in the contaminant boundary.

**Prepare Draft CAIP Addendum**

The Draft CAIP Addendum prepared with technical input from project
participants and describes new activities required to reduce contaminant
boundary uncertainty. The CAIP Addendum contains an introduction and
revisions only to those chapters describing new work to be performed.

**CAIP Addendum DOE Review and Approval**

DOE, assisted by other participating agencies, conducts an internal
review of the Draft CAIP to produce a Rev. 0 CAIP Addendum. The NDEP
also participates in this review. The reviewers provide the
Environmental Restoration (ECRS) contractor with formal comments
recorded on DOE Document Response Sheets at the end of the 30-day review
period.

Following receipt of the comments from the peer reviewers designated by
DOE, the ECRS contractor with support from the other project
participants as needed, prepares a formal comment response document,
resolves disputed comments, and revises the Addendum following comment
resolution. The final document (Rev. 0) and comment/response forms are
delivered to DOE within 60-calendar days of the approval of the comment
responses.

**CAIP Addendum NDEP Review And Approval**

Conduct an NDEP review of the Rev. 0 CAIP Addendum to produce aRev. 1
CAIP Addendum. The ECRS contractor, with technical assistance as needed
from project participants, answers questions and provides technical
support during NDEP's review of the Rev. 0 CAIP Addendum; prepares a
formal NDEP comment response document; provides support during comment
resolution; and revises the CAIP Addendum following comment resolution.
The ECRS Contractor will procure an external peer review team to review
and provide feedback to NDEP on decision making for moving on to the
Corrective Action Plan or to provide additional data by

proceeding to a Phase II.

**Data Acquisition Phase** II

Data are acquired through field and laboratory studies to supplement
significant data gaps determined as a result of Phase I data analysis
and modeling activities.

**Field Work Phase II**

Phase II Field studies are performed to fill in data deficiencies
determined through the calibration and completion of the Phase I flow
and transport model.

**Drilling**

As determined by the Phase I CAU model, wells are installed at critical
locations to provide geologic, hydrologic, and chemical data that will
reduce the uncertainty in the CAU model. Five wells are currently
planned.

**Well Development, Testing And Sampling**

The wells installed in Phase II are developed and tested for hydrologic
parameters. Two aquifer and tracer tests are performed that may
incorporate new and existing wells. The newly installed wells are
sampled for chemical and isotopic parameters. Other wells within the CAU
may also be sampled if necessary to further reduce uncertainty in the
location of the contaminant boundary.

**Laboratory Studies Phase II**

Develop sorption parameters for use in source term and large-scale
transport models, based on existing data. Perform carbonate sorption and
zeolite diffusion to determine sorption properties to use for
geochemical modeling. Perform laboratory studies of glass dissolution,
with emphasis on measuring the reactive surface area of glass,
saturation state, and secondary minerals as parameters in the glass
dissolution rate equation and glass dissolution model. Evaluate existing
information on radionuclide concentrations in and near cavities, and in
new wells in a cavity and downgradient of the cavity. Complete ongoing
colloid laboratory and modeling studies. Develop the distribution of
vertical hydraulic properties of various rock types in each of the CAU
areas. Conduct a two-hole aquifer test in Gold Flat and evaluate the
test result in terms of estimating a hydraulic conductivity and obtain
geochemical information. Complete a comprehensive analysis of the
deformation style and coupled processes that leads to determination of
the factors that control fault-related permeability, how it varies
spatially, and how to determine field-based and insitu hydraulic
parameters for the fault zones and surrounding host rocks. Create a
database containing fracture orientation, fracture density, and fracture
aperture data, and the nature and relative coverage of fracture-coating
mineral phases. Develop hydraulic head maps.

**3.5 Rainer Mesa/Shoshone Mountain (CAU 099)**

Workscope activities for the Rainier Mesa/Shoshone Mountain CAU are
driven by the implementation of the FFACO Technical strategy. Rainier
Mesa/Shoshone Mountain-specific data analysis and modeling are required
to determine the contaminant boundary location and design the corrective
action monitoring well system. These activities provide the complete
basis for preparing a CADD for regulatory approval. Corrective action
involves the implementation of the closure activity recommended in the
CADD. Compliance with the closure criteria leads to a CR and notice of
completion from NDEP.

**3.5.1 Corrective Action Investigation Plan (CAIP)**

Consistent with agreed upon outlines, a Corrective Action Investigation
Plan (CAIP) and as needed for Phase II activities, prepare a CAIP
Addendum to plan additional data acquisition activities.

**CAIP Addendum**

The CAIP Addendum describes additional data analysis and modeling tasks
as well as any new data collection tasks required to further reduce
uncertainty in the contaminant boundary.

**Prepare Draft CAIP Addendum**

The Draft CAIP Addendum prepared with technical input from project
participants and describes new activities required to reduce contaminant
boundary uncertainty. The CAIP Addendum contains an introduction and
revisions only to those chapters describing new work to be performed.

**CAIP Addendum DOE Review and Approval**

DOE, assisted by other participating agencies, conducts an internal
review of the Draft CAIP to produce a Rev. 0 CAIP Addendum. The NDEP
also participates in this review. The reviewers provide the
Environmental Restoration (ECRS) contractor with formal comments
recorded on DOE Document Response Sheets at the end of the 30-day review
period.

Following receipt of the comments from the peer reviewers designated by
DOE, the ECRS contractor with support from the other project
participants as needed, prepares a formal comment response document,
resolves disputed comments, and revises the Addendum following comment
resolution. The final document (Rev. 0) and comment/response forms are
delivered to DOE within 60-calendar days of the approval of the comment
responses.

**CAIP Addendum NDEP Review and Approval**

Conduct an NDEP review of the Rev. 0 CAIP Addendum to produce a Rev. 1
CAIP Addendum. The ECRS contractor, with technical assistance as needed
from project participants, answers questions and provides technical
support during NDEP's review of the Rev. 0 CAIP Addendum; prepares a
formal NDEP comment response document; provides support during comment
resolution; and revises the CAIP Addendum following comment resolution.
The ECRS Contractor will procure an external peer review team to review
and provide feedback to NDEP on decision making for moving on to the
Corrective Action Plan or to provide additional data by

proceeding to a Phase II.

**3.5.2 Corrective Action Decision Document (CADD)**

The scope of the CADD involves determination of the contaminant boundary
location and the design of a monitoring well system. Computer modeling
predictions are the primary basis for determining the location of
contaminant boundary and designing the monitoring well network. Results
of the CAI are summarized in the CADD, which specifies the recommended
CAA. The CADD defines the corrective action to be taken and provides the
rationale for the choice. The CADD is consistent with FFACO requirements
and is reviewed and approved by NNSA/NV and NDEP.

**Data Analysis Phase I**

Gather, interpret, and document existing and newly acquired data
pertinent to the development and completion of the CAU flow and
transport model. The data analysis volumes serve as a primary reference
to the CAU modeling effort.

**Geologic Data Analysis Phase I**

Develop the CAU-specific geologic model by integrating new and existing
data; a geology data documentation volume is prepared at the conclusion
of this task.

**Analysis/Evaluation**

Construct the preliminary CAU-scale, HSU-based EarthVision model using
borehole HSU information, outcrop data, topographic maps, geologic maps,
and cross sections. These data sources are supplemented with accurate
petrographic, chemical, and mineralogical data, and interpretations of
geophysical and weapons testing data that are necessary to ensure that
geologic characterizations used for the hydrogeologic model are accurate
and comprehensive.

Use EarthVision to construct six alternative models for the modeling
area. Revise the preliminary HSU model to produce the working HSU-base
model using EarthVision. The revision includes incorporation of in_house
expert review comments. Changes that are needed so that the model is
consistent with other models (e.g., USGS Death Valley regional model)
also are conducted at this stage of development.

Using EarthVision, the HSU-base model is incorporated into the existing
UGTA EarthVision regional HSU model. This effort also may require slight
modifications to each model to ensure that HSUs are consistent and
continuous from the CAU-scale model area into the surrounding regional
model. Once the CAU-scale model is incorporated into the regional-scale
model, the resultant HSU surfaces can be extracted and used for
construction of the regional groundwater flow model.

Incorporate three of the HSU EarthVision Alternative Models into the
Regional HSU EarthVision Model. This effort also may require slight
modifications to each model to ensure that HSUs are consistent and
continuous from the CAU-scale model area into the surrounding regional
model. Once the CAU-scale model is incorporated into the regional-scale
model, the resultant HSU surfaces can be extracted and used for
construction of the regional groundwater flow model.

EarthVision is used to produce HSU and fault-specific grids for input to
LaGrit, the grid generator for the working CAU-scale flow model, and the
six alternative CAU flow models.

Scope of work has been completed

**Reporting**

Prepare figures for in-house review. Produce structure, structure
contour, and isopach maps, including well locations, fault names,
legends, and title blocks. Produce cross sections with annotation,
legends, and title blocks.

**DOE Review**

Following internal review, assist project geologists in documentation
package for the base preliminary model and up to 6 alternative models.
Produce revised structure, structure contour, and isopach maps,
including well locations, faults names, legends and title blocks.
Produce revised cross sections with annotation, legends, and title
blocks.

**Hydrology Data Analysis Phase I**

Compile and interpret hydrologic data pertinent to the completion of the
CAU flow and transport model. Prepare a Draft Hydrologic Data
Documentation Volume to be used as a primary reference to the CAU
modeling task.

**Analysis/Evaluation**

This task includes all activities associated with gathering, qualifying,
managing, storing, and interpreting new and existing data required for
the development of the groundwater flow model. Data types will include
potentiometric data, well information, recharge and discharge data,
hydraulic parameters, and geochemistry. In addition, boundary flux
analysis will be required.

Activity under the Hydrologic Data Analysis subtask may consist of
processing compiled data already obtained but not used in the regional
flow modeling effort. Activity under this subtask may also consist of
compiling and processing other applicable CAU data not already obtained.
Specifically, subtask activities consist of:

1\. Incorporating all CAU hydrologic data already compiled as part of
the regional model, and compiling and processing any unused data
gathered during the regional modeling effort.

2\. Filling CAU-specific data gaps (A task that is assumed to be
justified through the value-of-information analysis (VOIA)) by
processing and analysis of data from Phase 1 data acquisition
activities.

3\. Acquiring, updating, and managing data sets prepared as part of this
subtask; integrating all new data sets with existing databases; managing
hardware, software, and the databases through system maintenance,
periodic backup, and archival; extracting and distributing data.

**Reporting**

This task includes all activities associated with documentation of
pertinent hydrologic data and interpretations of the data in the
Hydrologic Data Documentation Package. The documentation package serves
as a primary reference to the CAU groundwater flow model for Phase 1.

The documentation package will include technical approaches, data
tables, and data interpretations and analyses that allow for adequate
technical review of the work. Activities include preparation of the
package by technical staff, internal peer and management reviews,
technical editing, and document production, reproduction, distribution,
etc.

**DOE Review**

This task is an internal review of the Phase 1 Hydrologic Data
Documentation Package by DOE and selected contractors as requested by
DOE. Activities are associated with the internal review and revision of
the documentation package and database. Specific activities include:

1\. Providing technical support during the draft documentation package
review by DOE and TWG participants;

2\. Addressing, resolving, and incorporating review comments and then
publishing a comments/resolutions document;

3\. Revising the final document for Phase 1 based on review comments.

**Transport Parameter Analysis Phase I**

Collect, analyze, qualify, and document existing and newly collected
chemical, geochemical, and hydrologic data pertinent to the transport of
radionuclides in groundwater.

**Analysis/Evaluation**

This task includes all activities associated with gathering, qualifying,
managing, storing, and interpreting new and existing data required to
feed subsequent contaminant transport modeling (source term is not
included in this subtask). Data types will include groundwater
chemistry, porosity, dispersion, matrix diffusion, and distribution
coefficient data. Activity under the Transport Parameter Data Analysis
subtask may consist of processing compiled data already obtained but not
used in the regional flow modeling effort. Activity under this subtask
may also consist of compiling and processing other applicable Rainier
Mesa/Shoshone Mountain data not already obtained. Specifically, subtask
activities consist of:

1\) Incorporating all Rainier Mesa/Shoshone Mountain transport parameter
data already compiled as part of the regional model, and compiling and
processing any unused data gathered during the regional modeling effort.

2\) Filling CAU-specific data gaps (A task that assumed to be justified
through the value-of-information analysis (VOIA)) by processing and
analysis of data from the Phase 1 data acquisition activities.

3\) Acquiring, updating, and managing data sets prepared as part of this
subtask; integrating all new data sets with existing databases; managing
hardware, software, and the databases through system maintenance,
periodic backup, and archival; extracting and distributing data.

**Reporting**

This task includes all activities associated with documenting transport
parameter data and interpretations into a Data Documentation Package.
The package serves as a primary reference to the CAU transport model for
Phase 1. This also includes activities associated with documentation of
the analysis and interpretation of groundwater chemistry data. The
documentation package will include technical approaches, data tables,
and data interpretations and analyses that allow for adequate technical
review of the work. Activities include preparation of the package by
technical staff, internal peer and management reviews, technical
editing, and document production, reproduction, distribution, etc.

**DOE Review**

This task is an internal review of the Phase 1 Transport Parameter Data
Documentation Package by DOE and selected contractors as requested by
DOE. Also includes activities associated with the internal review and
revision of the documentation package and database. Specific activities
include:

1\. Providing technical support during the draft documentation package
review by DOE and TWG participants;

2\. Addressing, resolving, and incorporating review comments and then
publishing a comments/resolutions document;

3\. Revising the final document for Phase 1 based on review comments.

**Source Term Analysis Phase I**

Analyze existing and new data pertaining to the source term. Work may
include work in a classified environment. Classified and unclassified
near-field models and reports are submitted.

**Analysis/Evaluation**

This task includes activities associated with gathering, qualifying, and
storing new and existing source-term data required to feed subsequent
contaminant transport modeling. Work may take place in a classified
environment. Specifically, subtask activities are designed to: obtain
and incorporate CAU source-term data and information from the National
Laboratories and possibly other sources; acquire, update, and manage
datasets prepared as part of this subtask; integrate all new datasets
with existing databases; evaluate the release of radionuclides from the
cavity and chimney regions of a test and their retardation to identify
the source term to be used for transport modeling on the CAU scale.
Establish thermodynamic, sorption, and ion exchange databases.

**Reporting**

This task includes all activities associated with documenting
source-term data and interpretations into a data documentation package.
The package serves as a primary reference to the CAU transport model for
Phase I. This also includes activities associated with documentation of
the analysis and interpretation of groundwater chemistry data as it
relates to interpreting the source term. The documentation package
includes technical approaches, data tables, and data interpretations and
analyses that allow for adequate technical review of the work.

**DOE Review**

This task is an internal review of the Phase I Source-Term Data
Documentation Package by DOE and selected contractors as requested by
DOE. Includes activities associated with the internal review and
revision of the documentation package and database. Specific activities
include: provision of technical support during the draft documentation
package review by DOE and selected reviewers; address, resolve, and
incorporate review comments and publishing a comments/resolutions
document; and revise the final document for Phase I based on review
comments.

**3.5.2 Contaminant Boundary Phase I**

Develop the CAU-specific risk-based contaminant boundary based upon the
development and verification of a flow and transport model.

**Model Approach/Strategy**

Select an appropriate model code, create test cases, and modify code if
needed. Develop modeling strategy that permits the development of a CAU
model acceptable to DOE and the State.

**Analysis/Evaluation**

The task consists of developing a guiding document that outlines the
goals of the CAU modeling and integrates the data and modeling needs
across contractors and across time to achieve those goals. Factors
relevant to the modeling approaches are the internal and external peer
review group reports, experience gained during the modeling, and
colleague input via individual discussion and subcommittee
contributions. Coordination with all modeling contributors is included
in the document. Other considerations include ensuring the flow of
information from group to group is appropriate with respect to scale and
type. The modeling approaches define the order of activities, what type
of data is needed for the models, and the types of models to be

constructed.

**Reporting**

This task includes all activities associated with documenting the
results of the evaluation phase of developing a strategy.

**DOE Review**

This is an internal review by DOE and contractors as requested by DOE
and includes developing comments, resolving comments, and incorporating
revisions into the strategy document.

**Flow Model Phase I**

Develop, calibrate, and complete sensitivity analysis on the CAU model.
Document activities and respond to review comments.

**Analysis/Evaluation**

The CAU flow model involves a series of steps that lead to the final
flow model. These steps are:

1\. Use EarthVision to produce HSU and fault specific surfaces for input
to LaGrit for the base CAU geologic model and 4 alternatives and mesh
development.

2\. Assignment of initial boundary conditions.

3\. Incorporation of recharge and its uncertainty.

4\. Incorporation of the range of boundary fluxes into the model.

5\. Incorporation of the flow parameters distributions into the model.

6\. Assessment of the transferrability of data from other CAUs.

7\. Creation of a process model to assess the role of thermal processes
on groundwater flow.

8\. Creation of the CAU flow model incorporating the process and sub-CAU
models.

9\. Calibration of the CAU model.

10\. Flow model verification.

11\. Sensitivity and uncertainty analyses including multiple alternative
hydrologic hydrostratigraphic, and conceptual models.

**Reporting**

Reports documenting the modeling process are complete and accurate
records of the models created and are reviewed by DOE for completeness,
accuracy, and acceptability. Multiple reports are written. Reports
document any sub-CAU model created, any process models created, and a
single report documents the CAU flow model. The documents present the
assumptions of each model, the model details (e.g., grids, input data,
boundaries), and the model results.

**DOE Review**

The DOE Review of the flow modeling products includes the following
tasks:

1\. Review of the CAU model documentation.

2\. Comment review and comment response.

3\. Revisions to the models to address reviewer comments and concerns.

4\. Revisions to the model documentation.

**Transport Model Phase I**

Develop the CAU transport model, perform uncertainty analyses, document
modeling activities, and respond to review and comments.

**Analysis/Evaluation**

The final CAU transport model is constructed from a number of smaller
models and studies that come together to produce the final product. The
analyses that contribute to the transport modeling include:

1\. Upscaling of transport properties.

2\. Development of the simplified source term model (both unclassified
and classified versions) which will include categorizing the

sources, thermal effects, glass zone heterogeneity, estimation of
reactive surface area, and calculation of a hydrologic source term.

3\. The transport parameters and providing ranges of acceptable values.

4\. Sub-CAU models of transport may be created to simulate transport
processes at smaller scales to better understand the migration of
radionuclides.

5\. The CAU transport model will yield a full 3D transport analysis
which will include sensitivity and uncertainty analysis.

6\. After the CAU model, an abstraction of CAU transport will be
developed (most likely using GoldSim) in order assess a wide range of
uncertainty from parameters, conceptual models, hydrostratigraphic unit
models, and other factors.

7\. The transport predictions will be compared with current contaminant
and environmental concentrations to increase confidence in the models.

8\. The classified source data will be used to determine contaminant
concentrations.

**Reporting**

The reporting phase documents the various transport models and results.
These documents are to be complete and accurate records of the models
created and are reviewed by DOE for completeness, accuracy, and
acceptability. Multiple reports are written. Reports document any
sub-CAU models created, any process models created, and a single report
documents the CAU transport model. The documents present the assumptions
of each model, the model details (e.g., grids, input data, boundaries),
and the model results.

**DOE Review**

The DOE and selected contractor review of the transport modeling
products includes the following: review of the individual model
component reports including process models, sub-CAU transport model
reports, and the CAU-model documentation; comment review and comment
response for each model report; revisions to the models to address
reviewer comments and concerns; and revisions to the various model
documentation packages.

**Data Acquisition Phase II**

Data are acquired through field and laboratory studies to supplement
significant data gaps determined as a result of Phase I data analysis
and modeling activities.

**Field Work Phase II**

Phase II Field studies are performed to fill in data deficiencies
determined through the calibration and completion of the Phase I flow
and transport model.

**Drilling**

As determined by the Phase I CAU model, two wells are installed at
critical locations to provide geologic, hydrologic and chemical data
that will reduce the uncertainty in the CAU model.

**Well Development, Testing And Sampling**

The two wells installed in Phase II are developed and tested for
hydrologic parameters and sampled for chemical and isotopic parameters.
One aquifer and/or tracer test is performed that may incorporate new and
existing wells.

**4.0 Industrial Sites**

**4.1 Scope of Work**

The following generic work scope applies to activities planned for the
Industrial Sites Project at the Nevada Test Site (NTS) and the Tonopah
Test Range (TTR). The following paragraphs define tasks to be
accomplished.

**4.1.1 Corrective Action Investigation Plan (CAIP):**

Conduct all activities necessary to prepare a site specific CAIP as
defined in the FFACO. Preparation activities include: gather additional
knowledge about the site and historical operations; prepare and develop
Data Quality Objectives (DQO); prepare a CAIP which conforms to the
approved standard outline; perform peer reviews and technical editing of
the document; provide document production, reproduction, and
distribution of a draft CAIP for DOE Nevada Site Office (NSO), Nevada
Division of Environmental Protection (NDEP), and contractor review;
provide technical support during the review period; address and resolve
NSO, NDEP, and contractor review comments and prepare document review
sheets; revise the draft document based on review comments and publish a
final document (Revision 0) for NDEP review.

**4.1.2 Corrective Action Decision Document (CADD)**

Includes Corrective Action Investigation (CAI) Activities, Analytical
Work, Waste Management and Disposal, and CADD Preparation.

**CAI Activities**

Provide all necessary labor, equipment, and materials to plan and
perform the field investigation. Specifically, the effort includes the
following activities: perform required National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) activities; prepare a site-specific health and safety plan
(SSHASP) to guide all planned field operations; prepare a sampling
instruction set (contractor-level document) to provide specific
direction to the sampling crew with respect to procedures used for all
aspects of sampling, decontamination, sample packaging, etc; prepare a
Field Management Plan (FMP) to identify key personnel for the field
activities; provide all necessary services and logistical support for
the field effort; assemble the field crew; conduct a readiness review;
and otherwise prepare for the effort. A 'prefield' briefing will be held
and the field crew will mobilize to the project site, perform the field
investigation as specified in the CAIP, and demobilize from the site.

**Analytical Work**

Perform chemical, radiological, and physical parameter analyses on
samples acquired during field operations, as required by the CAIP. Full
analytical data packages will be obtained for characterization samples.
All samples will undergo Tier I and II data validation and five percent
of the samples will be submitted to an off-site laboratory for Tier III
data validation. Support activities include laboratory coordination,
data tracking and assessment, and posting analytical results in the
Common Data Repository.

**Waste Management and Disposal**

Provide waste management services for all site investigation derived
waste generated during the field investigation, to include periodic
inspections. Waste records and manifests will be prepared and maintained
with copies provided to the Management and Operating (M&O) Contractor. A
waste characterization is completed to determine the appropriate waste
classification. For radioactive waste, a waste profile is prepared
demonstrating compliance with the NTS waste acceptance criteria (NTSWAC)
for Radiological Waste Acceptance Plan (RWAP) approval. Disposal
services will be provided for all nonhazardous and hazardous waste
generated at TTR. Radioactive waste and all NTS-generated waste will be
disposed in coordination with the Waste Management Division (WMD).

**CADD Document Preparation**

Prepare a CADD that conforms to the approved standard outline. The CADD
will consist of a corrective measures study, and will include an
investigation report as an appendix that presents the data collected in
the field. Preparation activities include: perform peer reviews and
technical editing of the document; provide document production,
reproduction, and distribution of a draft CAIP for NSO, NDEP, and
contractor review; provide technical support during the review period;
address and resolve NSO, NDEP, and contractor review comments and
prepare document review sheets; revise the draft document based on
review comments and publish a final document (Revision 0) for NDEP
review.

**4.1.3 Corrective Action Plan (CAP):**

Complete engineering design and review (Titles I through III) as
necessary. Prepare draft CAP according to the FFACO format and conduct
internal review/comment resolution. The CAP will provide details of how
the corrective action activities will be implemented. The draft CAP will
be submitted to NSO, Office of Public Affairs (OPA), and NDEP for
review/comment. Comment resolution will be conducted and a final CAP
will be prepared. The final CAP will be transmitted to NSO and NDEP.
NDEP approves final CAP and/or requires modification to the document.
After NDEP approval, prepare a .PDF conversion and submit to the Office
of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI) and Public Reading Rooms.

**4.1.4 Closure Report (CR)/Streamlined Approach For Environmental
Restoration (SAFER):**

CR and SAFER are comprised of the following activities.

**SAFER Plan**

Based on Preliminary Assessment information and a site visit, Work
Packages, Job Hazard Analysis (JHA) documents, and Real
Estate/Operations Permits (REOPs) will be prepared. Limited sampling
activities will be conducted to determine the type of waste disposal
required. A SAFER justification letter will be prepared and transmitted
to NSO and NDEP. A draft SAFER Plan and engineering drawings/as-built
drawings (as required) will be prepared. The SAFER Plan will be prepared
according to the FFACO format. An internal review/comment resolution
activity sequence will be conducted. The draft SAFER Plan will be
submitted to NSO, OPA, and NDEP for review/comment. Comment resolution
will be completed and a final SAFER Plan will be prepared. The final
SAFER Plan will be transmitted to NSO and NDEP. NDEP approves final
SAFER Plan and/or requires modification to document. After NDEP
approval, prepare a .PDF conversion and submit to OSTI/Reading Rooms.

**Field Work**

Prepare a REOP, SSHASP, Work Packages/JHA, Field Management Plan,
Biological Opinion, NEPA Checklist, and Radiation Work Permits (RWP), as
necessary, for the closure activities. An
as-low-as-reasonably-achievable (ALARA) meeting will be held, if
required. Materials, equipment, and subcontracts will be procured as
required. A Readiness Review and 'prefield' briefing will be conducted
prior to mobilization of labor and equipment to the closure site. Three
possible closure alternatives are identified:

**Closure in place alternative**

The closure site will require a biological survey and infrastructure set
up (includes utility clearance, fencing/posting installation, portable
toilet delivery, brush removal, and waste accumulation area and
decontamination pad construction). It is anticipated a minimal amount of
waste will be required to be excavated for disposal. Waste will be
characterized, stored, transported, and disposed in accordance with
applicable regulations/requirements. Site housekeeping and debris
disposal will be conducted during demobilization of equipment and labor.
A post-job debrief will be conducted for work package closeout and
lessons learned.

**Clean closure alternative**

The closure site will require a biological survey and infrastructure
setup (includes utility clearance, fencing/posting installation,
portable toilet delivery, brush removal, and waste accumulation area and
decontamination pad construction). Closure is anticipated to consist of
excavation to an approved action level/volume with standard construction
equipment (front-end loaders/backhoes/scrapers), waste characterization
and cleanup verification sampling/analysis, backfill and area grading.
De-posting/demarcation surveys, as-built documentation, bioassay
analysis/evaluation will be conducted as necessary. Waste materials will
be segregated from clean materials for waste minimization and management
(a Material Evaluation Form \[MEF\] and RWAP form may be required),
stored/stockpiled/ containerized, transported, and disposed in
accordance with applicable regulations/requirements. Site housekeeping
and debris disposal will be conducted during demobilization of equipment
and labor. A post-job debrief will be conducted for work package
closeout and lessons learned.

**Administrative closure alternative**

Administrative closure will consist of utility clearance,
fencing/posting, installation of monuments, land surveys, and as-built
documentation (as necessary), minimal waste disposal, and
use-restrictions. The waste will be packaged, stored, transported, and
disposed according to applicable regulations and requirements. Site
housekeeping and debris disposal will be conducted during demobilization
of equipment and labor. A post-job debrief will be conducted for work
package closeout and lessons learned.

**Closure Report Document Preparation**

Prepare a draft CR, engineering drawings/as-built drawings (as
applicable), and use restrictions. The CR will be prepared according to
the FFACO format. An internal review/comment resolution will be
conducted. The draft CR will be submitted to NSO, OPA, and NDEP for
review/comment. Comment resolution will be conducted and a final CR will
be prepared. The final CR will be transmitted to NSO and NDEP. NDEP
approves final CR and/or requires modification to document. After NDEP
approval, prepare .PDF conversion and submit to OSTI/Reading Rooms.

**Post-Closure Monitoring**

Perform site inspections to include moisture monitoring (time domain
'reflectrometry' \[TDR\] or neutron), settlement monitoring (land survey
or borehole survey), sample collection/analysis/data evaluation and
photo documentation as required by the NDEP approved CR. Samples may be
analyzed for volatile organic compounds (VOC), semivolatile organic
compounds (SVOC), total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH), biodegradable
populations, etc., depending upon requirements of the CR. Site
maintenance (e.g., brush removal, fence/sign repair/replacement, area
grading) is performed as needed and during or after site inspections.

Monitoring for Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) sites is
done per the relevant closure report. Other 'closure-in place' sites are
monitored as indicated in the NDEP approved CR. Prepare a Post Closure
Monitoring Report annually or as coordinated with NDEP.

**4.1.5 Decontamination and Decommission (D&D) SAFER Plan**

**Plan Preparation**

The SAFER Plan and the D&D Plan will be reviewed and approved by NDEP
and NSO. The SAFER plan will conform to the approved standard outline
and will incorporate the DQO process. Internal reviews of the document
will be conducted by the M&O contractor. The following areas will be
reviewed: quality assurance, quality control, technical editing, peer
review, regulatory compliance and health and safety. Word processing,
graphics preparation and document production support is included for the
preparation of the final document and should be included for all final
doc prep.

Following completion of the draft document review, comment resolution
will be performed and a comment response form will be completed. NDEP
comments will be addressed within the final document and a copy of the
comment resolution form will be attached to the final version of the
document as an appendix (and for all other final docs as well).

**Field Work**

D&D SAFER fieldwork will eventually be performed at several facilities
within the NTS. Experiences gained at the Reactor Maintenance, Assembly,
and Disassembly (R-MAD) decon facility and the RMAD building 3110
indicates D&D activities will consist, typically, of the following
activities: decontamination of radiological impacted surfaces and the
removal of radioactively (rad) impacted items in disassembly areas, hot
cells and cell service areas; removal/disposal of hazardous materials
from the building, removal/disposable of asbestos containing material
from the building; removal/disposal of hazardous fluids associated

with equipment reservoirs; removal/disposal of polychlorinated biphenyls
(PCB) ballast fluorescent light units; removal/disposal of mercury vapor
lights; evaluation, removal, and disposal of the following systems and
equipment: drop ceiling system; rad impacted building heating,
ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) systems; rad impacted piping
systems; rad impacted electrical conduit systems; rad impacted water
distribution systems; rad impacted sewer systems; rad impacted pneumatic
systems; rad impacted high-efficiency particulate air (HEPA) systems;
rad impacted stacks; miscellaneous equipment; rad impacted leaded glass
windows; and manipulator arms.

**4.2 Industrial Sites Corrective Action Units (CAUs)**

**4.2.1 CAU 130 Storage Tanks**

The sites are described as Underground Storage Tanks and Buried UST
Piping. The Source Group for this CAU is classified as Inactive Tanks.
The CASs are located in Areas 1, 7, 10, 20, 22, and 23 of the NTS. The
proposed characterization strategy falls under the SAFER process and the
closure strategy is clean closure.

**Closure Report (CR)**

Corrective actions as described within the approved CAP will be
implemented during the Closure Report (CR) phase of the complex or SAFER
process. This task includes pre-fieldwork planning, pre-fieldwork
preparation, fieldwork, analytical, waste management, and CR document
preparation. The M&O will provide all labor, equipment, and materials
necessary to implement the approved CAP. The CR will present details
concerning the closure activities and associated support documentation.

Work will consist of preparing for and completing closure of the CAU, in
accordance with the approved SAFER Plan, and for developing a SAFER
Closure Report documenting closure of the CAU. This estimate was
developed based on the following planned activities, available
information, and assumptions.

**4.2.2 CAU 134 Underground Storage Tanks and Spills**

The sites are described as Aboveground Storage Tanks, Tank, and
Hydrocarbon Staining. The Source Group for this CAU is classified as
Inactive Tanks. These CASs are located in Area 3, 15, and 29 of the NTS.
The proposed characterization strategy falls under the SAFER process and
the closure strategy is close in place.

Work will consist of developing a SAFER PLAN to effect closure of this
CAU which includes the following CASs:

CAS 03-01-03: Aboveground Storage Tank (U-3em)

CAS 03-01-04: Tank (WOD Storage Facility)

CAS 15-01-05: Aboveground Storage Tank (RSM 15 D 20)

CAS 29-01-01: Hydrocarbon Stain (Receiver Station)

**4.2.3 CAU 139 Waste Dumps and Berms**

This CAU consists of seven CASs located in Areas 3, 4, 6, and 9 of the
NTS, at a distance approximately 45 minutes maximum distance from each
other and from Mercury. The sites are described as Burn Pit, Waste
Disposal Site, Contaminated Surface Debris, Waste Disposal Site/Burn
Pit, Waste Disposal Trenches, Area 9 Gravel Gertie, and Underground
Detection Station. The Source Group for this CAU is classified as
Contaminated Waste Sites. The proposed characterization strategies for
these sites include one or more of the following: geophysical and
radiological surveys; hand, and trench sampling strategies. Samples may
be collected and analyzed for hazardous and, when appropriate,
radiological constituents. The proposed closure strategies include clean
closure, close in place/administrative controls, and clean closure.

**Corrective Action Investigation Plan (CAIP)**

The ECRS Contractor will conduct all activities necessary to prepare a
site-specific CAIP as defined in the FFACO. The preparation activities
are as follows: compile and review historical site information and
operational history; develop and prepare data quality objectives (DQOs)
with participation from NSO, NDEP and the M&O contractor; prepare the
CAIP in accordance with the approved standard outline; perform peer
reviews and document production services; provide technical support
during NSO, NDEP and contractor reviews; address and resolve NSO, NDEP
and contractor comments and prepare document review sheets; publish a
final document for NDEP approval; and address and resolve NDEP comments,
as necessary.

**Corrective Action Decision Document (CADD)**

This task is inclusive of the prefield planning, corrective action
investigation, analytical work, waste management and CADD preparation.
The ECRS Contractor will provide all necessary labor, equipment and
materials to perform the investigation activities as described in the
CAIP, manage and coordinate the disposal of the waste generated, and
prepare a report identifying the preferred site closure alternative.

**Corrective Action Plan (CAP)**

The M&O will prepare a site-specific Corrective Action Plan (CAP) as
defined within the FFACO. The site-specific closure activities described
in the CAP will be consistent with the selected corrective action
alternatives contained within the approved CADD. Activities completed
during the CAP phase of the complex process include a site visit,
preparation of a draft document, internal and external document reviews,
and production of a final CAP consistent with the approved CAP format.

**Closure Report (CR)**

Corrective actions as described within the approved CAP will be
implemented during the Closure Report (CR) phase of the complex or SAFER
process. This task includes pre-fieldwork planning, pre-fieldwork
preparation, fieldwork, analytical, waste management, and CR document
preparation. The M&O will provide all labor, equipment, and materials
necessary to implement the approved CAP. The CR will present details
concerning the closure activities and associated support documentation.

**4.2.4 CAU 166 Storage Yards and Contaminated Materials**

The sites are described as Conditional Release Storage Yard.-North
Conditional Release Storage Yard.-South, D-38 Storage Area, Conditional
Release Storage Yard, Contaminated Soil and Drum, Aboveground Storage
Tank, and Wax Piles/Oil Stain. The Source Group for this CAU is
classified as Contaminated Waste Sites. These CASs are located in Areas
2, 3, 5, and 18 of the NTS. The proposed characterization strategies for
these sites include one or more of the following: hand and trench
sampling strategies. Samples may be collected and analyzed for hazardous
and, when appropriate, radiological constituents. The proposed closure
strategies include close in place/septic tank, clean closure, and close
in place.

**Corrective Action Decision Document (CADD)**

This task is inclusive of the prefield planning, corrective action
investigation, analytical work, waste management and CADD preparation.
The ECRS Contractor will perform the investigation activities as
described in the CAIP, manage and coordinate the disposal of the waste
generated, and prepare a report identifying the preferred site closure
alternative.

**Closure Report (CR)**

Corrective actions as described within the approved CAP will be
implemented during the Closure Report (CR) phase of the complex or SAFER
process. This task includes pre-fieldwork planning, pre-fieldwork
preparation, fieldwork, analytical, waste management, and CR document
preparation. The M&O contractor will provide all labor, equipment, and
materials necessary to implement the approved CAP. The CR will present
details concerning the closure activities and associated support
documentation.

**4.2.5 CAU 190 Contaminated Waste Sites**

This CAU consists of approximately four CASs located at the NTS with a
maximum distance of approximately 1 hour from the farthest site to
Mercury. The sites are described as Underground Centrifuge, Storage
Tanks, Tweezer Facility Septic System, and LTU-6 Test Area. The Source
Group for this CAU is classified as Contaminated Waste Sites. The CASs
are located in Areas 11 and 14 of the NTS. The proposed characterization
strategies for the sites include one or more of the following: video
mole surveys, hand, trench, and sonic drill sampling strategies. Samples
may be collected and analyzed for hazardous and, when appropriate,
radiological constituents. The proposed closure strategies include clean
closure, close in place/Use Restriction, and no further action.

**Corrective Action Investigation Plan (CAIP)**

The ECRS Contractor will conduct all activities necessary to prepare a
site-specific CAIP as defined in the FFACO. The preparation activities
are as follows: compile and review historical site information and
operational history; develop and prepare data quality objectives (DQOs)
with participation from NSO, NDEP and the M&O; prepare the CAIP in
accordance with the approved standard outline; perform peer reviews and
document production services; provide technical support during NSO, NDEP
and contractor reviews; address and resolve NSO, NDEP and contractor
comments and prepare document review sheets; publish a final document
for NDEP approval; and address and resolve NDEP comments, as necessary.

**Corrective Action Decision Document (CADD)**

This task is inclusive of the prefield planning, corrective action
investigation, analytical work, waste management and CADD preparation.
The ECRS Contractor will perform the investigation activities as
described in the CAIP, manage and coordinate the disposal of the waste
generated, and prepare a report identifying the preferred site closure
alternative.

**Corrective Action Plan (CAP)**

The M&O will prepare a site-specific Corrective Action Plan (CAP) as
defined within the FFACO. The site-specific closure activities described
in the CAP will be consistent with the selected corrective action
alternatives contained within the approved CADD. Activities completed
during the CAP phase of the complex process include a site visit,
preparation of a draft document, internal and external document reviews,
and production of a final CAP consistent with the approved CAP format.

**Closure Report (CR)**

Corrective actions as described within the approved CAP will be
implemented during the Closure Report (CR) phase of the complex or SAFER
process. This task includes pre-fieldwork planning, pre-fieldwork
preparation, fieldwork, analytical, waste management, and CR document
preparation. The M&O will provide all labor, equipment, and materials
necessary to implement the approved CAP. The CR will present details
concerning the closure activities and associated support documentation.

**4.2.6 CAU 545 Dumps, Waste Disposal Sites and Buried Radioactive
Material**

This CAU consists of approximately nine CASs with proposed closure
activities primarily located in Area 3, but also include Areas 8, 9, and
20 of the NTS, at a distance approximately ¾ to 1½ hour maximum distance
from each other and approximately 2 hour maximum from Mercury. The sites
are described as Mud Disposal Site, Waste Consolidation Site 3B, Waste
Disposal Sites (4), Europium Disposal Site, Radioactive Material
Disposal Area, and U-9y Drilling Mud Disposal Crater. The Source Group
for this CAU is classified as Contaminated Waste Sites. The CASs are
located in Areas 3, 8, 9, and 20 of the NTS. The proposed
characterization strategies for these sites include one or more of the
following: geophysical and radiological survey, with hand and trench
sampling strategies. Samples may be collected and analyzed for hazardous
and, when appropriate, radiological constituents. The proposed closure
strategies include close in place/UR, clean closure, close in place, and
close in place/administrative controls.

**Corrective Action Investigation Plan (CAIP)**

The ECRS Contractor will conduct all activities necessary to prepare a
site-specific CAIP as defined in the FFACO. The preparation activities
are as follows: compile and review historical site information and
operational history; develop and prepare data quality objectives (DQOs)
with participation from NSO, NDEP and the M&O; prepare the CAIP in
accordance with the approved standard outline; perform peer reviews and
document production services; provide technical support during NSO, NDEP
and contractor reviews; address and resolve NSO, NDEP and contractor
comments and prepare document review sheets; publish a final document
for NDEP approval; and address and resolve NDEP comments, as necessary.

**Corrective Action Decision Document (CADD)**

This task is inclusive of the prefield planning, corrective action
investigation, analytical work, waste management and CADD preparation.
The ECRS Contractor will perform the investigation activities as
described in the CAIP, manage and coordinate the disposal of the waste
generated, and prepare a report identifying the preferred site closure
alternative.

**Corrective Action Plan (CAP)**

The M&O will prepare a site-specific Corrective Action Plan (CAP) as
defined within the FFACO. The site-specific closure activities described
in the CAP will be consistent with the selected corrective action
alternatives contained within the approved CADD. Activities completed
during the CAP phase of the complex process include a site visit,
preparation of a draft document, internal and external document reviews,
and production of a final CAP consistent with the approved CAP format.

**Closure Report (CR)**

Corrective actions as described within the approved CAP will be
implemented during the Closure Report (CR) phase of the complex or SAFER
process. This task includes pre- fieldwork planning, pre-fieldwork
preparation, fieldwork, analytical, waste management, and CR document
preparation. The M&O will provide all labor, equipment, and materials
necessary to implement the approved CAP. The CR will present details
concerning the closure activities and associated support documentation.

**4.2.7 CAU 234 Areas 3, 12 Mud Pits And Cellars**

This CAU consists of 14 CASs located in Areas 2, 3, 4, 5, 9, 12, and 15
of the NTS, comprised of mud plants, mud pits, cellars, muckpiles,
ponds, contaminated waste dumps, and debris with potential chemical and
radiological contamination at a distance approximately 1 hour maximum
distance from each other and from Mercury. The sites are described as
Area 2 Mud Plant #1, Area 2 Mud Plant #2, Mud Spills (3), Mud Dump
Trenches, Evaporation Pond, Mud Pit (5), Cellar, and Mud Dump. The
Source Group for this CAU is classified as Inactive Ponds and Tunnel
Muckpiles. These CASs are located in Areas 2, 3, 4, 5, 9, 12, and 15 of
the NTS. The proposed characterization strategy for these sites includes
hand and trench sampling strategies. Samples may be collected and
analyzed for hazardous and, when appropriate, radiological constituents.
The proposed closure strategies include close in place, close in
place/administrative controls, clean closure, and no further action.

**Corrective Action Investigation Plan (CAIP)**

The ECRS Contractor will conduct all activities necessary to prepare a
site-specific CAIP as defined in the FFACO. The preparation activities
are as follows: compile and review historical site information and
operational history; develop and prepare data quality objectives (DQOs)
with participation from NSO, NDEP and the M&O; prepare the CAIP in
accordance with the approved standard outline; perform peer reviews and
document production services; provide technical support during NSO, NDEP
and contractor reviews; address and resolve NSO, NDEP and contractor
comments and prepare document review sheets; publish a final document
for NDEP approval; and address and resolve NDEP comments, as necessary.

**Corrective Action Decision Document (CADD)**

This task is inclusive of the prefield planning, corrective action
investigation, analytical work, waste management and CADD preparation.
The ECRS Contractor will perform the investigation activities as
described in the CAIP, manage and coordinate the disposal of the waste
generated, and prepare a report identifying the preferred site closure
alternative.

**Corrective Action Plan (CAP)**

The M&O will prepare a site-specific Corrective Action Plan CAP) as
defined within the FFACO. The site-specific closure activities described
in the CAP will be consistent with the selected corrective action
alternatives contained within the approved CADD. Activities completed
during the CAP phase of the complex process include a site visit,
preparation of a draft document, internal and external document reviews,
and production of a final CAP consistent with the approved CAP format.

**Closure Report (CR)**

Corrective actions as described within the approved CAP will be
implemented during the Closure Report (CR) phase of the complex or SAFER
process. This task includes pre- fieldwork planning, pre-fieldwork
preparation, fieldwork, analytical, waste management, and CR document
preparation. The M&O will provide all labor, equipment, and materials
necessary to implement the approved CAP. The CR will present details
concerning the closure activities and associated support documentation.

**4.2.8 CAU 408 Bomblet Target Area (TTR)**

This site is described Bomblet Target Areas. The Source Group for this
CAU is classified as an Ordnance Sites. This site is located within the
TTR. The proposed characterization strategies fall under the SAFER
process and the closure strategy is close in place.

**SAFER Plan**

Sites where sufficient data is available to select corrective action
alternatives prior to completing the corrective action investigation may
be closed under the SAFER process. The SAFER process requires some
degree of investigation to determine whether the appropriate corrective
action will be clean closure, closure in place, or no further action.
The purpose of the investigation is to document and verify the adequacy
of existing information; to affirm the selected closure alternative; and
to provide sufficient data to implement the corrective action. The SAFER
Plan is the primary document governing actions and decisions at CAUs
where the SAFER process is being applied. The SAFER Plan is an inclusive
document that incorporates elements of a CAIP, CADD, and CAP that allows
site work to proceed directly from the CAI to the corrective action. The
SAFER Plan will identify decision points where NSO and NDEP will reach
consensus prior to beginning the next phase of work.

**Closure Report (CR)**

Corrective actions as described within the approved SAFER Plan will be
implemented during the Closure Report (CR) phase of the complex or SAFER
process. This task includes pre-fieldwork planning, pre-fieldwork
preparation, fieldwork, analytical, waste management, and CR document
preparation. The M&O will provide all labor, equipment, and materials
necessary to implement the approved CAP. The CR will present details
concerning the closure activities and associated support documentation.

Work will consist of preparing for and completing closure of CAU 408, in
accordance with the approved SAFER Plan, and for developing a SAFER
Closure Report documenting closure of the CAU. This estimate was
developed based on the following planned activities, available
information, and assumptions.

**4.2.9 D&D Facilities**

D&D facilities include the R-MAD Facility, Pluto Disassembly Facility,
Super Kukla Reactor Facility, Test Cell A, Test Cell C, and the E-MAD
Facility. The D&D CAUs use characterization and remediation techniques
that are slightly different than those used by other sites. Use direct
frisk and wipe sampling, decontamination, and dismantlement techniques.
Closure of the D&D facilities follows the standard FFACO processes.

**4.2.9.1 CAU 117 Area 26 Pluto Disassembly Facility**

The site is described as the Pluto Disassembly Facility. The Source
Group for this CAU is considered a D&D site. The CAS is all located in
Area 26 of the NTS. The proposed characterization strategy for this site
includes D&D characterization surveys. The closure strategy is clean
closure/D&D.

**SAFER Plan**

Sites where sufficient data is available to select corrective action
alternatives prior to completing the corrective action investigation may
be closed under the SAFER process. The SAFER process requires some
degree of investigation to determine whether the appropriate corrective
action will be clean closure, closure in place, or no further action.
The purpose of the investigation is to document and verify the adequacy
of existing information; to affirm the selected closure alternative; and
to provide sufficient data to implement the corrective action. The SAFER
Plan is the primary document governing actions and decisions at CAUs
where the SAFER process is being applied. The SAFER Plan is an inclusive
document that incorporates elements of a CAIP, CADD, and CAP that allows
site work to proceed directly from the CAI to the corrective action. The
SAFER Plan will identify decision points where NSO and NDEP will reach
consensus prior to beginning the next phase of work.

**Closure Report (CR)**

Corrective actions as described within the approved SAFER Plan will be
implemented during the Closure Report (CR) phase of the SAFER process
for D&D sites. This task includes pre-fieldwork planning, pre-fieldwork
preparation, fieldwork, analytical, waste management, and CR document
preparation. The M&O will provide all craft labor, equipment, and
materials necessary to implement the approved SAFER Plan. The CR will
present details concerning the closure activities and associated support
documentation.

**4.2.9.2 Area 25 EMAD Facility**

The site is described as the Area 25 EMAD Facility. The Source Group for
this CAU is considered a D&D site. The CAS is all located in Area 25 of
the NTS. The proposed characterization strategy for this site includes
D&D characterization surveys. The closure strategy is clean closure/D&D.

**SAFER Plan**

Work will consist of developing a SAFER PLAN to effect closure of this
CAU.

**Closure Report (CR)**

Work will consist of preparing for and completing closure of CAU 114, in
accordance with the approved SAFER Plan, and for developing a SAFER
Closure Report documenting closure of the CAU.

**4.3 Preliminary Assessments (PA)**

Preliminary assessments are targeted at Corrective Action Sites (CASs)
with limited available information. The focus of the effort is to gather
existing written documentation, available aerial photographs, conduct
interviews with former site workers and other individuals with potential
information on the historical operations at the site, and identify and
document references. The information is compiled and assembled into a
standard-format data summary suitable to the complexity of the site and
incorporated into the PA database.

The focus of the effort is to gather existing written documentation,
available aerial photographs, conduct interviews with former site
workers and other individuals with potential information on the
historical operations at the site, and identify and document references.
The information is compiled and assembled into a standard format data
summary suitable to the complexity of the site and incorporated into the
PA databases.

**Historical Assessments and Out Year Planning**

Assessment of historical data and site operations in an effort to
determine the potential for contamination to exist and the estimated
volume of impacted media. This information is used to establish the
priority for site characterization and is the basis for the development
of the Data Quality Objectives.

Development of a PA investigation summary encompasses the historical
data and results of the field evaluation, peer review, technical
editing, and document production. A debriefing of the findings with the
project team and stakeholders is the final phase in the PA process.

The Life-Cycle Baseline is developed from the information obtained
through the PA process. The Estimate Parameter Table is populated
through a technical evaluation of the available data. Cost estimates are
developed in support of the investigation and remediation strategies
selected for each site.

**Field Verification And Evaluation**

Field evaluation is the initial step in the investigation process.
Previously identified or potentially new CASs are located and
CAS-specific information is collected to include: driving directions;
latitude-longitude and UTM coordinates; site photographs; waste area and
volume measurements; a site layout sketch; radiological field screening;
and documentation of current site conditions. Personnel required to
perform the evaluation are a field team of 2 people and minimal support
staff.

**5.0 Program Integration Support**

Provide crosscutting support for the Environmental Restoration (ER) and
Waste Management (WM). The largest components of this support are to
provide contract support, per contractual agreement. Support provided
includes management support; project tracking and control; Quality
Assurance (QA); integrated safety management (ISM) implementation;
health and safety (H&S) services; technical and regulatory, Public
Involvement, EM Integration, Emergency Management and Beryllium Program.

Other components in support of programmatic crosscutting initiatives
include budget preparation; project management initiatives; baseline
updates; performance measurement, tracking, and reporting;
DOE/Headquarters (HQ) and NSO data calls; stewardship initiatives;
management, documentation, and implementation of agreements; quality
assurance initiatives; ISM initiatives; regulatory compliance; public
outreach and stakeholder activities.

**5.1 Administrative Support**

Provide management, integration, and oversight of the ECRS contractor
administrative activities, as well as contractor PM support for the NSO
EM Program Integration function. Provide M&O infrastructure support to
the ECRS contractor, and facilities and security management for the ECRS
contract.

**5.2 Program Management**

Provide Program Management support for the NNSA/NSO EM Program
Integration function. Activities include providing management and
leadership to a team of project controls, administrative support,
scientists, engineers, and regulatory specialists; ensuring that all
Program Integration activities are conducted in accordance with NNSA/NSO
policies and procedures; supporting strategic initiatives throughout the
EM mission; providing management and oversight of Program Integration
commitments to NNSA/NSO; updating and maintenance of performance
measures; and interfacing with NNSA/NSO.

**5.3 Business and Information Systems Management**

Business and Information Systems provides support to the project for the
administrative areas of procurement, human resources, accounting,
document production, geographic information systems, central files,
technical library, information technology, security and facilities. The
functions performed, but not limited to, are described below.

· Purchase orders and subcontracts issued for goods and services.

· Human resource activities for the ECRS contractor organization working
on the NNSA/NSO contract.

· Financial accounting activities for the NNSA/NSO contract.

· Desktop publishing and technical editing activities on ECRS Contractor
deliverables.

· Maintenance of records generated on the NNSA/NSO contract

· Maintenance of reference materials used in document production.

· Computer hardware and software acquisition, maintenance, and
development.

· Map production for documents.

· Cyber and Physical Security Management

· Management of ECRS Contractor facilities

· Administration of Government property assigned to ECRS Contractor

**5.4 Facilities Support**

Provide M&O infrastructure support to the ECRS contractor. The M&O
element provides facilities support; telephone services including
equipment, maintenance, and modifications; miscellaneous logistics
support; communications equipment including portable radios, remote
radios, office phones, cellular phones, and pagers; vehicles including
gasoline, maintenance, and communication equipment; facilities rent and
utilities; and medical support to the ECRS contractor.

Provide additional office space at the Nevada Support Facility (NSF) to
the ECRS contractor staff for Public Involvement, EMIS, and FFACO staff
members.

**5.6 Programmatic Planning**

Establish and maintain programmatic level requirements through a process
of continuous improvements in the areas of Price-Anderson Amendment Act
(PAAA), Lessons Learned, and ISMS. Activities include program reviews,
follow-up and investigation on identified issues, concerns, and
opportunities for improvement. Activities will include development,
review, and implementation of programmatic documentation and flow down
of NNSA/NSO and the ECRS Contractor requirements. Activities will
include periodic reviews, self-assessments, independent assessments,
tracking and trending of assessment results, corrective actions, process
improvements, lessons learned, and as well as participation on and
review of feedback from NNSA/NSO strategic team initiatives.

Provide management and planning processes for supporting development and
implementation of EM planning documents: provide lead responsibility for
the development and publication of the Environmental Management and the
Waste Management Division Risk Management Plans, provide lead
responsibility for the development, publication, and annual update of a
5-year Strategic Plan for Environmental Management.

**5.7 Project Planning and Control**

Provide programmatic planning, budgeting, project control, and
performance reporting services to the EM program. This work includes
development and management support related to the life-cycle baselines
and work authorization plans. Work includes functions necessary to
develop, maintain, control, and retrieve baseline information; develop
and maintain risk management; develop and maintain Earned Value
Management System (EVMS) in accordance with DOE Order 413.3, coordinate
work authorization planning and development, change control, and status
tracking; answer ad-hoc requests for information and provide
configuration management of critical program elements as identified by
NNSA/NSO. Integrated schedule development and

maintenance.

**5.8 Health And Safety**

Provide integrated health and safety management services, including
health, safety, industrial hygiene, and a record and reporting system
that documents accidents, incidents, training, medical, and occupational
exposure monitoring. Coordinate with other program participants to
ensure full integration of project health and safety initiatives.

Provide an integrated health and safety program for the ECRS Contractor
office to include all aspects of the requirements of 10 CFR 850, Chronic
Beryllium Disease Prevention Program, as required by federal regulations
and by DOE directives and guidelines.

**5.9 Quality Assurance Program**

Provide a quality assurance program that ensures products and services
provided to NNSA/NSO meet or exceed customer expectations. Establish and
maintain quality program and integrated management system documentation.
Provide quality systems performance and independent assessments as well
as consulting support and guidance on quality management to the overall
program. Coordinate assessment and reporting activities and provide and
maintain an action, issues management and tracking system including a
lessons learned and feedback communication and distribution process.

**5.10 Technical And Regulatory Support**

Provide development, implementation, maintenance, and management support
of regulatory-mandated and administrative functions for ER activities
under the responsibility of the NSO EM Program. Support is provided
relative to federal (e.g., Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
\[RCRA\], National Environmental Policy Act \[NEPA\], Executive Orders),
DOE (e.g., HQ and NSO Orders, manuals, policy directives) and DOT
requirements.

General functional areas include the continuous development,
maintenance, assessment and implementation of a Radiation Protection
Program that is compliant with NNSA/NSO requirements and at a minimum
with the following: 10 CFR 835, Occupational Radiation Protection; 10
CFR 830.120, Nuclear Safety Management, "Scope"; DOE P 450.4, Safety
Management System Policy; DOE P 450.5, Line Environment, Safety and
Health Oversight; DOE G 441.1-7, Portable Monitoring Instrument
Calibration Guide for use with Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations,
Part 835, Occupational Radiation Protection; DOE O 5480.20A, Personnel
Selection, Qualification, and Training Requirements for DOE Nuclear
Facilities; DOE O 5400.5, Radiation Protection of the Public and the
Environment.

General functional areas include the continuous development,
maintenance, assessment and implementation of an Environmental
Compliance/Waste Management program that is compliant with NNSA/NSO
requirements and at a minimum with the following:

40 CFR 260-280, Federal Hazardous Waste Regulations; 40 CFR 301,
Designation, Reportable Quantities and Notification; 40 CFR 355,
Facility Notification & Release Reporting Requirements; 40 CFR 370,
Hazardous Chemical Inventory Reporting Requirements; 42 USC 4321 to
4370b, National Environmental Policy Act; 42 USCA 9601-9675,
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation & Liability Act
(CERCLA); 49 CFR 106-199, U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT)
Hazardous Materials Regulations; DOE O 435.1, Radioactive Waste
Management; NSO M 435.1-1, Radioactive Waste Management Manual; NSO O
451.1, National Environmental Policy Act Compliance Program; NSO P
450.X1, Compliance with RCRA; and NTSWAC, Rev. 5, Nevada Test Site Waste
Acceptance Criteria.

General functional areas include the continuous development,
maintenance, assessment and implementation of an Analytical program that
is compliant with NNSA/NSO requirements and at a minimum with the
following: Environmental Protection Agency Laboratory Procedures; The
surveillance of subcontracted laboratories in accordance with the
Department of Energy Consolidated Audit Program (DOECAP).

**5.11 Environmental Management Integration Support**

Provide direct support for the integration of initiatives involving the
centralized information system (EMIS), public interaction and
involvement activities, classification reviews, management initiatives
and response to DOE/HQ, NNSA/HQ, DOD, State of Nevada and stakeholder
information needs. Direct support to NNSA/NSO EM clients includes:
Support on the central information system EMIS including activities
necessary to maintain and enhance the actual electronic computer system;
integration of a comprehensive set of contractor's baseline data for use
by NNSA/NSO in coordinating the various scope, schedule, and cost
aspects of project activities; providing services to enhance and
distribute information related to NSA/NSO EM activities to internal and
external individuals including DOE/HQ, State representatives, and
stakeholders; and providing experienced consultation, planning, and
execution support for major EM programmatic issues such as long-term
stewardship, DOE/HQ reporting, FFACO support activities and
strategic/program execution. The scope also includes the preparation of
draft proposed enhancements to withdrawal and use restriction language
and support to NNSA/NSO on the development of coordination strategies
for long-term stewardship and institutional controls.