AECOM Nuclear & Environment Assessment Framework

1. AECOM Nuclear & EnvironmentAssessment Framework Presented by Paul Gubanc, AECOM TS Performance Assurance Functional Area Coordination Team (PA FACT) Chair April 2018

2. About the Presenter – Paul Gubanc • BS/MS ChemEng’g, MBA, PE, CSP, PMP • Work History, since 1982 • 8 years Naval Reactors HQ • 11 years DNFSB (incl. Site Rep at Hanford & Oak Ridge) • 7 years ORNL/UT-Battelle • 9 years AECOM Technical Services (formerly WSMS, URS-PS) • Active with the AECOM N&E Performance Assurance FACT since 2013. Appointed Chair in March 2018. • Principal Author of AECOM N&E Assessment Framework AECOM Assessment Framework

3. AECOM Functional Area Coordination Teams (FACTs) • In 2001, AECOM N&E initiated FACTs across its DOE projects, initially aligned to Safety Management Programs defined in documented safety analyses • Areas of focus have evolved and currently entail 10 FACTs • ES&H Performance Assurance • Quality Assurance Ops & Maintenance • Nuclear Safety Engineering • Project & Business Integration LEAN • Technology & Innovation Labor Relations • Membership typically includes functional leads and SMEs from across AECOM-affiliated projects Presentation Title

4. AECOM N&E FACTs – continued • Key missions include: • Communicating emerging issues, lessons learned, best practices • Conducting extent of condition reviews • Coordinating enterprise-wide improvement initiatives • Maintain SME awareness and broker resource sharing as needed • Professional development of functional leaders & staff • As deemed appropriate, develop N&E Standards • Receive overall guidance from the N&E Chief Operating Officer Steering Group (COOSG) Presentation Title

5. Intersection with EFCOG CAS Working Group • John McDonald, WRPS; Patricia Allen, SRR; and Jita Ellis, SRR; each serve in leadership roles in Safety, ISM and Contractor Assurance, respectively • Several other AECOM-affiliated functional leads and SMEs are active in both the EFCOG CAS Working Group and the AECOM N&E Performance Assurance FACT • We’ve utilized EFCOG’s 2017 CAS Effectiveness Attributes in our corporate assessments • PA FACT seeks a synergistic relationship with EFCOG to maximize value for our shared interests & membership Presentation Title

6. Today’s presentation • We recognize that the EFCOG CAS Working Group already has several efforts planned for this meeting • We’re not seeking to add another or divert your ongoing efforts • PA FACT has spent the last 18 months developing ideas on several CAS-related topics • We believe these ideas have merit across the entire complex • They don’t conflict or compete with CAS Working Group products • We offer these as concepts we’re willing to share with the CAS Working Group if there is interest Presentation Title

7. AECOM N&E Assessment Framework • Issued in January 2018. 22 pages • Complements DOE G 414.1-1C, Management and Independent Assessments Guide, 27MAR2014 • Created for several reasons, including: • Awareness and understanding of overlapping assessment roles • Offering ideas for how assessment planning can be integrated using risk management tools • Developing the concept/practices of assessing for Sustainability • Not requirements, rather guidance for consideration Presentation Title

8. 1. Reconciling Overlapping Assessment Roles • Directives are aligned to their Sponsoring functional owner • Overlapping jurisdictions can exist • Resolving conflicts in primacy may not be obvious • Contractors can be caught between overlapping authorities • In 2016, two directives created the potential for confusion between the CAS and Internal Audit functions: • DOE P 226.2, Implementation of Department of Energy Oversight Policy, 8/9/2016, broadened CAS to include “financial matters” • OMB continued to expand OMB Circular A-123, Management’s Responsibility for Enterprise Risk Management and Internal Control, 7/15/2016, from financial matters to management controls Presentation Title

9. Reconciling Overlapping Assessment Roles - continued • AECOM recognized the need for the key implementing organizations to dialogue & understand each other • The dialogue grew in scope to include SMEs in CAS, Internal Audit, Quality Assurance, Enterprise Risk Management (ERM), and others. • Significant challenges were revealed in working towards a common nomenclature and the primacy of overlapping mandates • Ultimately produced two key takeaways: • Agreement that all the functional groups within each LLC would benefit from using a common ERM tool for that LLC • Appendix A Comparison Matrix (4 pages) of our Assessment Framework which attempts to help all realize the players, their drivers, and potential areas of overlap Presentation Title

10. 2. Assessment Integration • DOE G 414.1-1C provides general guidance on Assessment Integration • Acknowledges potential for overlapping & redundant assessments • Encourages creation of an annual integrated assessment schedule • DOE requires CAS assessments to be “risk informed” • AECOM SMEs recognized the utility in working to a common enterprise risk management (ERM) tool as a vehicle for integration • Assessment Framework offers a method on how to do this Presentation Title

11. Enterprise Risk Management (ERM) • ERM broadly applies across the full range of technical and financial considerations and provides an integrated listing of risks up to executive leadership and the Board. • ERM is also designed to allow disparate risk comparisons Presentation Title

12. Assessing Organizations • LLCs likewise possess a variety of assessing organizations which operate across the same spectrum. • The figure below is intended to highlight some of these organizations, their relative size, and the general domains in which they operate. Presentation Title

13. Risk-informed Assessment Integration • Combining the two prior images, suggests a risk-informed integrated assessment planning approach: • Management System (MS) Owners plan their assessments first, informed by known areas of need and ERM. • Quality Assurance (QA) builds their plan informed by ERM and MS assessment plan awareness. • Contractor Assurance builds their plan informed by ERM and QA & MS assessment plan awareness. • Internal Audit efforts are informed by ERM, and Board and Executive priorities, as well as potential gaps in assessment planning coverage. • Insights gained through assessments are shared across the assessing organizations and used to update the enterprise risk register in support of the next cycle of assessment planning. Presentation Title

14. 3. Assessing for Sustainability • Two types of Assessments represent common practice in the DOE Complex: • Compliance • Performance • Compliance & Performance assessments are typically “snapshots in time” • Consistent with initiatives in the broader U.S. business community, the Assessment Framework recommends that assessments also examine Sustainability. • Identify those issues that, while currently compliant, represent a potential, significant source of failure to performance of an SMP. Presentation Title

15. Why Focus on Sustainability? • Safety Management Programs (SMPs) can suffer erosion from continuing pressure for cost and schedule gains. • The DOE Complex has experienced multiple, high profile examples where once healthy SMPs became weak and could no longer safeguard against major failures • We’ve all experienced circumstances where the health of an SMP was recognizable as precarious: • High turnover or “one-deep” in a critical skill • Aging, unsupported software or hardware • Processes have not been updated over extended periods Presentation Title

16. Methods to Assess Sustainability • Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats (SWOT) Analysis • Pre-mortem Technique • Has the advantage of avoiding SMP owner defensiveness • Allows for looking ahead versus focusing on today’s status • Savannah River Remediation (SRR) Reliability Checklist • Built using the Pre-mortem technique to inventory failure modes • Allows evaluating SMPs for both their current performance as well as their ability to sustain that performance • Briefed to the EFCOG CAS Working Group in November 2017 • Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI) Presentation Title

17. Experience in Assessing for Sustainability • AECOM N&E Corporate assessments started including sustainability features in its CRADs in 2017 • SRR piloted their Reliability Checklist in late 2017 realizing both useful insights and positive client feedback • PA FACT benchmarking efforts are continuing • Still early days in recognition for the value of sustainability assessment and how to manage identified issues Presentation Title

18. In Conclusion • Continued pressure for “faster, better, cheaper” will not end • DOE contractors must guard against SMP atrophy • As a community we continue to repeat this lesson • Too often, we chase the symptoms, not the causes, of atrophy • Assessing SMPs for Sustainability is a new feature that should be accommodated in our methodologies • Part of making CAS faster, better, cheaper is taking improved advantage of ERM tools and working in an integrated fashion amongst parallel assessors Presentation Title

19. QUESTIONS? Presentation Title