Integrated Safety Management Best Practice: Automating Corrective Action Management Systems

1. Integrated Safety Management Best Practice:Automating Corrective Action Management Systems September 13, 2006

2. Key Initiatives • President’s Management Agenda to expand Electronic Government • E-Gov to leverage greater management efficiencies through the modernization and integration of corporate business systems • ISM implementation and continuous improvement • Improve DOE safety performance

3. The Goal “The goal is to become predominantly assessment driven, finding underlying problems before they result in adverse events - by FY 2008” Stephen Sohinki, Director Office of Price-Anderson Enforcement

4. Why a Best Practice? • Enhances productivity through web-based technologies • Optimizes processing time through system automation • Maximizes return on government investment • Demonstrates proven performance • Provides real time feedback for continual improvement

5. Working in cooperation with prime contractors to the U.S. Department of Energy

6. Enhancing Productivity Through Web-Based Technologies • Single point of entry for timely identification and evaluation of conditions and the correction of deficiencies adverse to: • Quality • Safety • Health • Operability • Environment  • Graded approach application to corrective action management

7. Worker Level Assessment • Enables personnel the ability to:  • Identify quality and safety-related deficiencies • Request process improvement evaluation • Request clarification of requirements • Evaluate lessons learned reports • Manage concerns, findings, or observations from surveillances, audits, or inspections, and • Manage action items, overall

8. Real Time Feedback for Continual Improvement • Originator defined feedback • Automated e-mail notification system • @ key process steps • @ closure • Real time trend coding and reporting • Process Improvement Initiative tracking

9. Proven Performance • Providing visibility and accountability of all critical corrective actions to senior management • Retired several legacy action tracking systems – single system reporting • Reduced corrective action delinquency rate to single digits; improved timeliness of resolution • Reduced number of significant issues through low level reporting

10. 5.0 4.5 4.0 3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 6.0 0.5 4.0 0.0 Cases per 200,000 hrs. 2.0 0.0 Jun-06 Jul-06 Sp-05 Nov-05 De-05 Jan-06 Mar-06 May-06 Aug-05 Oct-05 Feb-06 Apr-06 Charted Results • Contractor delinquency rate reduced • Contractor injury case rate reduced

11. PER Initiation and Shift Office Screening PER Screening and Senior Management Review PER Resolution PER Closure Problem Evaluation Request (PER) Initiation 1 Shift Office Screening 2 Corrective Action Management (CAM) Process Flow Problem Identification PER Screening PER Resolution PER Closure 3 6 5 NOTE: Responsible Manager contacts Originator Senior Management Review 4 NOTE: System sends e-mail to originator

12. Identify deficiency or process improvement Originator fills out and submit PER A Step 1 – PER Initiation • Employee Creates PER • System Assigns unique tracking number

13. PER Initiation and Shift Office Screening PER Screening and Senior Management Review PER Resolution PER Closure PER Screening PER Resolution PER Closure 3 6 Problem Evaluation Request (PER) Initiation 5 1 Senior Management Review Shift Office Screening 4 2 CAM - Process Flow Problem Identification NOTE: Responsible Manager contacts Originator NOTE: System sends e-mail to originator

14. Shift Manager Screening Reportability Operability Safety Confirm immediate actions and safe condition Fill out SO screening tab A Reportable? Make notifications iaw Occurrence Reporting procedure Yes No No or Degraded Structures, systems, and components operable? Implement required actions iaw TFC-ENG-FACSUP-C-02 Yes PISA? Submit SO Screening tab Yes No LEGEND IAW In Accordance With PISA Potential Inadequacy in the Safety Analysis SO Shift Office Contact Nuclear Safety & Licensing representative B Step 2 – Shift Office Screening

15. PER Initiation and Shift Office Screening PER Screening and Senior Management Review PER Resolution PER Closure PER Screening PER Resolution PER Closure 3 6 Problem Evaluation Request (PER) Initiation 5 1 Senior Management Review Shift Office Screening 4 2 CAM - Process Flow Problem Identification NOTE: Responsible Manager contacts Originator NOTE: System sends e-mail to originator

16. B Review immediate actions and compensatory measures Combine similar problems, identify repeat issues and potential trends Record PAAA screening results Assign Significance category* Assign Responsible Manager * Further Evaluation Trend Only Invalid Track Until Fixed PIE/CIM PER with Resolution Significant PER Populate PER Screening tab C Step 3 - PER Screening • Screening Team • Significance • Ownership • Trend Codes • PAAA

17. PER Initiation and Shift Office Screening PER Screening and Senior Management Review PER Resolution PER Closure PER Screening PER Resolution PER Closure 3 6 Problem Evaluation Request (PER) Initiation 5 1 Senior Management Review Shift Office Screening 4 2 CAM - Process Flow Problem Identification NOTE: Responsible Manager contacts Originator NOTE: System sends e-mail to originator

18. Senior Management Concurrence Significance Ownership Review PER for concurrence C D Step 4 – Senior Management Review

19. PER Initiation and Shift Office Screening PER Screening and Senior Management Review PER Resolution PER Closure PER Screening PER Resolution PER Closure 3 6 Problem Evaluation Request (PER) Initiation 5 1 Senior Management Review Shift Office Screening 4 2 CAM - Process Flow Problem Identification NOTE: Responsible Manager contacts Originator NOTE: System sends e-mail to originator

20. Resolution by Responsible Manager Graded approach analysis Develop Corrective Action Plan Evaluate the PER D E Resolve PER and submit to CAG LEGEND CAG Corrective Action Group Step 5 – PER Resolution by Responsible Manager

21. PER Initiation and Shift Office Screening PER Screening and Senior Management Review PER Resolution PER Closure PER Screening PER Resolution PER Closure 3 6 Problem Evaluation Request (PER) Initiation 5 1 Senior Management Review Shift Office Screening 4 2 CAM - Process Flow Problem Identification NOTE: Responsible Manager contacts Originator NOTE: System sends e-mail to originator

22. CAG Review Closure Closure evidence sufficient? Yes E Close PER No Revise evidence and resubmit to CAG LEGEND CAG Corrective Action Group Step 6 – PER Closure • Final review and closure • Graded approach review/approval • Closure evidence • Records management

23. PER Initiation and Shift Office Screening PER Screening and Senior Management Review PER Resolution PER Closure CAM – Process Flow Problem Identification PER Screening PER Resolution PER Closure 3 Problem Evaluation Request (PER) Initiation 6 5 1 NOTE: Responsible Manager contacts Originator Senior Management Review Shift Office Screening 4 NOTE: System sends e-mail to originator 2

24. Maximizing Return on Government Investment • Developed an enterprise-level desktop tool to provide workflow management and reporting • Single system to interface with external and legacy systems • Cornerstone to any Enterprise Information Management initiative

25. ISM in Action

26. Systems Integration