Environmental Management Review 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 Council Developed 5-Year Acquisition Plan Developed aggressive Small Business Contract Strategy Restructured all large contracts tying fee to objective, measurable, and meaningful performance Developed 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 nCi/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 did Designed a DOE-wide SNF disposition system Developed a business and risk-driven strategy to accelerate transfer of all EM-managed SNF Identified 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 risk Wet 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 risk Get 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?

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