environmental management review of corporate projects
TRANSCRIPT
Environmental ManagementReview of Corporate Projects
EM Goals from November 2001:
Improve Safety Performance
Reduce the cost and time required to complete cleanup
Close Rocky Flats, Fernald, Mound and 6 other sites by 2006
Improve approach to high-level waste
EM Goals from November 2001:
Consolidate nuclear material
Make EM a better customer
Shrink the EM footprint
Get waste to disposal facilities quickly
Reshape EM systems & infrastructure to drive accelerated cleanup
Why did we create corporate projects?
We could not reform the system from within…we had to continue to do work while creating change
We wanted a different approach and new ideas
We wanted to drive managing EM as a project
We wanted to develop next generation of leaders
Corporate Projects
Getting more performance from performance based contracts
National Focus Project
Managing waste to reduce risk-other than SNF and HLW
Integrated/risk-driven disposal of SNF
Managing waste to reduce risk-HLW
Focusing EM resources on cleanup
Safeguards and Security/Nuclear material consolidation
A Cleanup Program driven by risk-based end states
Getting more performance from performance based contracts
What we found: We were getting the performance we were asking for in the contracts.
What we did:Developed a contract review process and Implemented Contract Management Advisory CouncilDeveloped 5-Year Acquisition PlanDeveloped aggressive Small Business Contract StrategyRestructured all large contracts tying fee to objective, measurable, and meaningful performanceDeveloped integrated training program for EM Managers Developed Source Evaluation Board Guidance
Getting more performance from performance based contracts
What we learned:
You can’t change performance unless you change the expectation FIRST
Getting the acquisition process right is essential
EM needs to become better contract managers
Small businesses are key to our future success
The project team developed tools, but success can only be measured by the acquisition process, the contract, and its execution
National Focus Project
What we found: “Small” sites aren’t really small…they cost EM $600M annually
What we did:
Worked to develop project baselines at the small sites, starting with requirements and ending with completion
National Focus Project
What we learned:
Its as hard to get baselines in place at our small sites as it is at our largest sites
Establishing requirements is one of the single most important elements in project management
We can’t afford to lose ‘focus’ on our small sites again
Managing waste to reduce risk-other than SNF and HLW
What we found: We weren’t using our disposal sites and infrastructure as effectively as we should have
What we did
Placed the WIPP baseline under configuration control
Made over 800 shipments of waste to WIPP in FY03…eight sites shipped TRU waste last year
Made record shipments of LL and LLMW in FY03
Started to manage the transportation infrastructure
Managing waste to reduce risk-other than SNF and HLW
What we learned:
We still don’t have a site to dispose of LLMW 10-100nCi/gram
Waste management/disposal costs EM over $1B/year
The best waste is the waste that is never generated…need to control waste at its point of generation or before
We have to change our approach to waste through the contract
Integrated/risk-driven disposal of SNF
What we found: SNF disposal was not thought of as an integrated DOE system
What we didDesigned a DOE-wide SNF disposition system Developed a business and risk-driven strategy to accelerate transfer of all EM-managed SNFIdentified opportunities to reduce risk, cost, & schedule by avoiding unnecessary treatment and packaging activities.Closed 5 SNF basins in last 16 months
Integrated/risk-driven disposal of SNF
What we learned:
This is a very complex issue…this project will go on into FY04
There are things we can do today to decrease the riskWet to dry storage
Consolidation
Managing waste to reduce risk-HLW
What we found: SNF and HLW disposition are the single largest cost element in the EM program today
What we did
Provided a technical risk-based approach for the disposition of HLW and associated facilities
Developed and defined HLW processing and disposal alternatives that permanently dispose of HLW consistent with its risk, as quickly and cost effectively as possible
Managing waste to reduce risk-HLW
What we learned:
This is a very complex issue…this project will also go on into FY04
There are things we can do today to decrease the riskGet waste out of single shell tanks
Optimize production
Decrease volume
Focusing EM resources on cleanup
What we found: EM as an institution was not managing its own resources effectively…we were the third highest cost in the closure project
What we did:
Eliminated unnecessary activities and transferred non-core functions to appropriate organizations
Focused resources on accelerating risk reduction
Institutionalized our new business processes
Focusing EM resources on cleanup
What we learned:
To reform the system required that we reform
EM is responsible for cleanup…its role needs to be spelled out in the contract
Leaders inspire change, however, changing the institution is the only way to ensure that the change is lasting
Change will be the only constant
Safeguards & Security/SNM Consolidation
What we found: Safeguards and security costs EM over a quarter-billion dollars annually…doing nothing is not an option
What we did:
Focused on EM accountable quantities of SNM that were not contained in SNF, HLW, or other waste forms
Provided policies and objective for consolidation & disposal of EM excess SNM to enhance security and reduce risk
Safeguards & Security/SNM Consolidation
What we learned:
Although the system is complicated, we can do this
Stabilization and packaging material is key
DOE-wide integration key
A cleanup program driven by risk-based end states
What we found: We absolutely needed to look at this corporately
What we did
Generated a DOE Policy for Risk-Based End States
Prepared site-specific Risk-Based End State documents
Developed a corporate strategy to implement the policy and achieve the RBES goals
A cleanup program driven by risk-based end states
What we learned:
Coming in the next presentation
Safety
Safety needs to improve before work can be accelerated
In the last 2 years, EM has seen a 40% improvement in recordable case rates and lost work day case rates…
…but we are not satisfied with our safety performance
We need to see at least that much improvement in safety in the next two years if we are going to be successful
Outstanding safety performance is a requirement to do work at our sites
Federal Managers will be held accountable for safety at their sites
What did we learn?
What did we learn?
A lot of ideas that no one had ever thought about…we were forced to look at things differently as an institution
We had set back, restarts, and failures…but we learned from that
We had projects that were extremely successful
What did we learn?
Projects had more interaction with other projects and the “established system” than was originally anticipated…to reform the system, you needed to re-connect back to the system
The institution is starting to change
We got more than we bargained for…and more than we hoped for