Environmental Management Review of Corporate Projects

1. Environmental ManagementReview of Corporate Projects

2. 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

3. 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

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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

7. 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

8. 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

9. 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

10. 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

11. 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

12. 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

13. 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

14. 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

15. 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

16. 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

17. 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

18. 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

19. 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

20. 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

21. A cleanup program driven by risk-based end states What we learned: • Coming in the next presentation

22. 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

23. What did we learn?

24. 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

25. 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