Gary Shamber, Manager, Environmental Management November, 2006

1. Sandia National Laboratories, CaliforniaInterdisciplinary Team (IDT) Review Process of Proposed Site Projects and Activities Gary Shamber, Manager, Environmental Management November, 2006 Sandia is a multi program laboratory operated by Sandia Corporation, a Lockheed Martin Company,for the United States Department of Energy under contract DE-AC04-94AL85000.

2. Set The Stage – the problem. • In 1992 a new Facilities manager was frustrated with the ES&H review of facilities projects. ES&H review was considered somewhat of a check-the-box exercise after design was essentially complete. • Review was conducted in series by routing the design package. • 3 to 6 week review time was not uncommon. • Sat in queue to be reviewed by those who ultimately had no interest or input. • Not uncommon to get conflicting requirements/input. • For important projects or those on a tight schedule we would “walk them through.” • If a significant ES&H issue was identified that had not been considered, it sometimes: • required the engineer to redesign • negated purchased material • affected an established project schedule

4. The proposal • Let’s get all the ES&H SMEs together in one place at the same time each week. • Let’s get the facilities project managers to come to this group and discuss their projects during the planning stage. • Let’s make the reviews short by not attempting to solve issues. Instead…. • Let’s identify the issues that will need to be resolved and those individuals who will need to be involved to resolve them.

5. IDT Was Born 1992

6. Immediate Results • Time dedicated to project reviews reduced by >50%. • Eliminated conflicts of ES&H feedback. • Quality of facilities project planning improved. • Improved partnership between ES&H and Facilities.

7. There were growing pains • What needs to be reviewed by IDT? • Should IDT be voluntary or mandatory? • When’s the right time to present a project / activity to IDT? • What about project issues other than those related to ES&H?

8. What needs IDT review? • Any new project or activity of significance. • Generally anything non-routine. • Changes to a routine process. • Examples: facilities projects, maintenance procedures, new lab experiments, new programs, site activities (celebrations, open house, Earth day, etc.)

9. Voluntary or mandatory? • Initially IDT was voluntary. We wanted to offer an alternative review process and through time demonstrate that it was in the customer’s best interest to use it. • Later, IDT was made mandatory for all facilities projects. • Eventually, IDT review was made a mandatory site practice for all projects.

10. When’s the right time to come to IDT? • Good time is….Once you thoroughly understand what needs to be done and how you would like to do it. • Before you complete a design. • Before you commit to a schedule. • Before you issue a contract. • Before you purchase material. • Large or long duration projects should perform multiple IDTs at key stages.

11. Project issues other than ES&H • Many projects have issues that bridge between ES&H, facilities and security (adjacencies, safety v security design, changes in space allocation and ownership, scheduling). • Facilities and security were added as permanent members of IDT about 3 years ago.

12. IDT Today • The IDT provides a “one-stop shop” to obtain preliminary and interim ES&H, Facilities and Security review of projects and activities. • IDT is also offered as a forum to review proposed ES&H-related corrective actions or discuss organizational ES&H compliance, issues or difficulties. • The IDT consists of subject matter expert representatives from all Environmental, Safety and Health (ES&H) subject areas, Facilities and Security. • IDT serves as a NEPA trigger.

13. IDT - Desired Outcome • Surface and clarify the significant ES&H, physical security and facility issues (safety design, adjacencies, construction safety, traffic, capabilities) associated with a proposed project. • Provide guidance to the customer for further project / action development. • Identify the SMEs who will need to work with the customer in follow-up meetings or interactions to resolve the issues, get approvals, completing permits, etc.

14. IDT Process • Requests are made to the IDT Point-of-Contact any time. • IDTs are scheduled for Thursday mornings. Special or urgent requests are accommodated. • Primary IDT SMEs or the designated backups attend. • 10-30 minute presentation is conducted by requester. Covers: what/where/when’s of the project/action, how they are planning to execute it, what they perceive as the ES&H issues. • Presentations are recorded in case any SME needs to later review a particular comment or discussion detail. • At the end of each presentation each SME in turn surfaces any issue and indicates whether they will need to be further involved. • Presenters receive a report by COB Monday identifying the issues and who will need to be involved to help the customer resolve the issues.

15. IDT process continues to grow.

16. Challenges • Some customers come to IDT looking for blanket approval. • Expensive for simple or benign projects/actions. • Thresholds when to engage IDT are subjective. • Customers coming to IDT late in project development.

17. IDT – Residual Benefits • Keeps ES&H, Security, and Facilities SMEs knowledgeable of upcoming site projects/activities. • Creates a cross functional learning environment and teamwork among IDT members. • Improves ES&H, Security, & Facilities visibility and customer relations.

18. IDT Customer Feedback(FY2005)

19. Sample Feedback Comments FY06 • “Not sure if I have approval to continue.” • “Great process & value.” • “Painless & great.” • “Quick, and not over-burdensome.” • “Unclear when to involve IDT.” • “Great system, works well.” • “Meeting & discussions were great.” • “Professional & straight forward.”

20. Case Study 1 • A facilities project was presented to IDT to modify a high pressure test building that had been on the site demo list for some time. The discussion exposed a much larger program. • The line customer was requested to present to IDT. Several line customers participated. • It was discovered that the proposed test facility project was but the initial step of a much larger site program to do large quantity hydrogen work in not only the test facility but other buildings as well. • There was also evidence of a space conflict between several organizations due to the project.

21. Case Study 1 • IDT worked with the line customer(s) to coordinate many of the program issues: • The safety design basis of the test facility was reviewed to assure it could handle the expected explosive potentials. • Safety analysis performed on the work to be performed in the other facilities. • Adjacencies were considered. • Building safety systems were coordinated. • Investment monies were found to make the longer range facility modifications. • The space issues were resolved in a systemic and satisfactory manner.

22. Case Study 2 • SNL/CA was planning its 50th Year Anniversary celebration. • An IDT was performed that resulted in: • Modification of several demonstration projects because of safety concerns to the public. • Underground electrical scans/surveys in areas where tents were to be installed. • Coordinated contingency and emergency response planning. • “Health stations” for visitors (expected hot weather). • Coordination of temporary utilities (water, gas powered electric/generators, etc.)

23. Questions?