1. Integration of New Manufacturing Technologies with Current Equipment/Technologies to meet the needs of Existing and Future Pit Manufacturing Activities
Raj Vaidya, AET-2
Presentation Title Slide Notes
“UNCLASSIFIED” marking of slides is not a security requirement and may be deleted from the Slide Master (View › Master › Slide Master). In general, slides should be marked “UNCLASSIFIED” if there is potential for confusion or misinterpretation of something that could be deemed classified. For guidance on marking slides containing classified and unclassified controlled information, see the Protecting Information Web site at

2. Problem Statement and Quantitative Goal
Incorporating new technologies and/or equipment into PF-4 requires inordinate amount of time. This results in inefficiencies and a lack of flexibility in the manufacturing processes. The flexibility is critical because LANL has been tasked with the Pit manufacturing mission until a decision on the CPC is made. This black belt project will assess the entire process (including the technology selection and equipment installation sub-processes) and identify inefficiencies and bottlenecks.
Numerous data sources exist for equipment installation times (both classified and unclassified).
The Goal is to reduce technology/equipment selection and installation times by at least 50% (success criteria).
Content Slide Notes
“UNCLASSIFIED” marking of slides is not a security requirement and may be deleted from the Slide Master (View › Master › Slide Master). In general, slides should be marked “UNCLASSIFIED” if there is potential for confusion or misinterpretation of something that could be deemed classified. For guidance on marking slides containing classified and unclassified controlled information, see the Protecting Information Web site at

3. Example
Technology Assessment and Insertion in the Plutonium Foundry at TA-55

4. Process Map

5. Cause and Effect (Fishbone) Diagram
Heat Treating Process
Metal/Materials Issues
Use wrong scheme (Time/Temp)
Loss of F/C power
Atmosphere compromised due to equipment and/or operator
Mold/Coating Issues
Chemistry/Phases
Metal inclusions
F/C Element failure
Casting Failure
Mislabeling/Misidentification
Pre-pours
Calibration
LVCW
failure
Handling damage
Aliquot casting issues
F/C power loss
Other Issues
Pre-pours
LVCW
failure
Hemishell Casting Process
F/C power loss

6. Voice of the Customer: RUMBA

7. Casting NCRs

8. X-Y Matrix

9. X-Y Matrix (contd.)

10. X-Y Matrix (contd.)

11. FMEA-Failure Modes and Effects Analysis

12. Process Control Activities

13. Voltage in Zone A

14. Current in Zone A

15. Voltage in Zone B

16. Voltage in Zone C

17. Current in Zone C

18. Oxygen Level in Glove Box (ppm)

19. Oxygen Level in Glove Box (ppm)

20. Process Improvement Activities

21. Business Case (background)
Non conformances (NCRs) are deviations from specified processes or product attributes. Non-conformances may or may not result in scrapped product but nevertheless cost the Pit Manufacturing Program significant resources in time and money.
Plutonium casting operations are the first step in the Pit Manufacturing operations. In the past two years, the Plutonium Foundry at TA-55 has documented a number of NCRs. These NCRs have been both Product and Process related (see Slide 4).
The total costs incurred for all NCRs in the Plutonium Foundry at TA-55 (resulting in scrapped product) amounts to ~ $ 1.1M/year- excluding consumables like graphite molds (see slides 5-7 for cost calculations).
Business Case
Please recall that the business case is HIGH level and could contain several PIPs with their own objective statement.

22. Business Case Statement
For the past 2 years the average number of NCRs/month for plutonium pit casting operations has been This gap of 1.2 NCRs/month represents $1.1M of COPQ annually.

23. Problem Statement & Project Objective
The current project will focus on the aliquot casting processes. Pre-pours during the aliquot casting operations results in large number of required reworks.
The current design of the stopper rod used in the plutonium casting operations is tenuous. This results in a higher frequency of pre-pours during both the aliquot (much higher frequency) and hemishell casting operations. The pre-pour requires reworking and is a waste of resources.
Project Objective:
Developing and Implementing a new stopper rod design for the plutonium casting operations will result in pre-pour being eliminated.
Implementation of the new stopper rods will result in savings of $760K of the total COPQ gap of $ 1.1M per year . This activity will close 70% of the gap and is expected to be completed in one year (including tooling, implementation, and qualification) with implementation in year 2. Payback is expected to begin in year 3.
Problem Statement:
The Problem Statement describes the current situation that could be causing cost overruns, missed deadlines, or redundancy of work. Identify the “Gap” between current process performance and desired performance
Objective/Goal Statement:
Describe the process improvement objective and what business impacts will result from achieving this objective. Identify potential savings, hard and soft, as a result of achieving the objective.

24. Pit Manufacturing NCR Cost Summary (per year) COPQ Analysis

25. Plutonium Foundry NCR Cost Summary Details (by step): COPQ Analysis

26. Plutonium Foundry NCR Cost Summary Details (by step): COPQ Analysis (contd.)

27. Business Case Processes
The process in focus is the Aliquot casting process. This step is the first in the sequence of 3 steps required to complete a Plutonium hemishell casting (see the Process Flow Diagram). Pre-pours during the aliquot process result in rework and are a result of inadequate stopper rod seating.
List key resources needed to support closing business case gap
Process Owner(s): David Dooley (WCM-1), John Park (WCM-1)
Yellow Belt(s): Greg Powell (WCM-1), Drew Kornreich (AET-2),
Steve Booth (AET-2)
Subject Matter Expert(s): Tom Zocco (WT-DO), Doug Kautz (WCM-2)

28. Payback Analysis

29. Payback Analysis (contd.)

30. Payback Analysis (contd.)

31. Payback Analysis (contd.)

32. Data Evaluation
NCR and scrap data is readily available from the monthly Pit Production Report. This data is available electronically as well as in hard copy format.
The yellow belts have collected all relevant data.

33. Next Steps Assessment of Competitive Technologies
Assessment with respect to technical and facility requirements

34. Tool Overview
SIPOC
RUMBA
Process Flow Diagram
QFD

35. SIPOC: Technology Assessment Process for Pit Manufacturing
Suppliers
PMT-2
PM-DO
WCM-DO
WCM-1
WCM-2
MST-6
MST-16
AET-2
C-AAC
C-DO
Inputs
Outputs
Technology
selection and
Documentation
Data,
SME expertise
Process
QFD,
Stage Gate-
methodology,
Peer reviews
Customers
WCM-1(I)
WCM-DO (I)
NNSA/DOE

36. Voice of the Customer: RUMBA

39. Application Name of Process: In-line Pu chemistry process selection
Scope of Process: Assessment of competing technologies to complete in-line Pu chemistry

40. SIPOC Analysis (In-line Chemistry)
Suppliers
WCM-1
Inputs
Customers
WCM-1
WCM-4
MQ-2
Process
GDMS
Gamma Ray Spec
Wet Chemistry
Outputs
Elemental
Analysis
Aliquot
Oxides
Metal

41. Process Map (In-line Chemistry)

42. Quality Function Deployment
QFD1: Customer needs vs. test techniques
QFD2: Test techniques vs. facility requirements
QFD3: Facility requirements vs. other factors
QFD4: Repeat facility requirements ranking based on ranking of other factors.
QFD5: Repeat test techniques ranking based on new ranking of other factors.

43. QFD1 – Customer Requirements vs Techniques

44. QFD2 - Techniques vs Facility Requirements

45. QFD3 - Facility Requirements vs Other Factors

46. QFD4 - Facility Requirements vs Other Factors

47. QFD5 - Techniques vs Facility Requirements

48. QFD Analysis Conclusions
Speed and reliability are top customer requirements. Sample size and flexibility are lower priorities.
Ease of operation in a glove box and criticality interactions are top facility requirements.
Safety/security risk and installation risk are the other top factors.
Rankings from customer requirements perspective: GDMS, wet chemistry, gamma ray spec.
Rankings taking all other factors into account: GDMS, gamma ray spec, wet chemistry.