Loading in 2 Seconds...
Loading in 2 Seconds...
Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.
Achieving ReadinessPacific Northwest National Laboratory Operational Experience Committee Meeting, September 13, 2011 Brad Evans PNNL Nuclear Safety & Facility Authorization PNNL-SA-82612 Reviewed for Public Release
Readiness is the Bridge • The bridge between developing a Capability and startingOperations A systematic process focused on delivery of turn-key capability fully ready to operate safely and conduct research operations.
Why Readiness is necessary Prevent missed action that could lead to delays in startup Provides a higher degree of confidence in operations Sound business practice and cost-effective Mitigate risks and deliver benefits
Getting to Readiness:Through seamless integration • Tailored to Risk • Institutionalized in the “Phases of Project Management” procedure • Reinforces the tenets of Integrated Safety Management • Scope • Hazards • Controls • All in place prior to operations • Feedback is always in place --- readiness is real-time
Getting to Readiness: Focus on starting turn-key capability • Evaluate • Project scope + customer input = focused Readiness deliverables • Decide • Level of rigor required to assure delivery • Execute, document, validate • Assure Readiness items are completed to expectations • Final acceptance to start • Begin safe operations of the fully operational capability
The Best Part:Real experiences Paul Crane Division Manager, PNNL Nuclear and Materials Operations Division Joe Cruz Division Manager, PNNL Projects and Engineering Division Mark Hartzell Manager, EMSL Project Office
Successful Execution of Readiness at PNNL Category 2 Nuclear Facility Paul Crane Division Manager, PNNL Nuclear & Materials Operations firstname.lastname@example.org PNNL-SA-81089 Reviewed for Public Release
Pop Quiz • Answer: D – Execution of the readiness principles described in this presentation can lead to a very successful and efficient completion of nuclear readiness activities • Question: What are the odds of completing a DOE-approved nuclear Readiness Assessment within 2 months of completion of construction? • A: Not a chance • B: 50/50 • C: It’s a sure thing • D: Depends on the execution
Radiochemical Processing Laboratory Readiness Assessment - Scope • Contractor-led DOE-approved Readiness Assessment • Scope of RPL Readiness Assessment • Category 2 Nuclear Facility • Start-up of 4 hot cells and 3 gloveboxes (newly constructed)
Radiochemical Processing Laboratory Readiness Assessment - Challenges • Many Challenges to Successful Readiness Outcome • Stress: Critical path schedule to completion of $230M PNNL Capability Replacement Laboratory (CRL) Project • Change: Prior to CRL Project, RPL was a limited-life facility schedule for shut-down • Multiple Activities: Hot cell and glovebox construction and readiness one of many activities underway at facility • Limited Experience: No nuclear RA/ORR conducted at PNNL in ~10 years • Time: Less than 2 months to go from completion of construction to DOE approval of RA => must be successful the first time with no significant issues • Recognition of these challenges and management approach led to successful RA outcome
Radiochemical Processing Laboratory Readiness Assessment - Approach • Critical elements to successful RA outcome • Manage as a project with adequate authority of project lead • Clear understanding and documented agreement of “completion of construction” (competing priorities) and turnover from construction to operations • Early documented agreement with approval authority of assessment criteria that will be evaluated – manage scope and scope creep
Radiochemical Processing Laboratory Readiness Assessment - Approach • Critical elements to successful RA outcome • Hold responsible parties accountable to “defend” readiness – establish CRADs and use affidavits • Early and continued involvement of stakeholders • Dry-run staff as many times as it takes to get it right – both administrative and operational • Robust and independent Management Self Assessment – As method to verify readiness, not to determine whether you are ready • Select RA team with approval authority credibility • Select and use capable and credible mentors
Radiochemical Processing Laboratory Readiness Assessment - Outcome • Independent Readiness Assessment team identified one minor finding requiring resolution prior to start-up • DOE approval obtained within days of requested approval to operate • DOE-SC considers RPL RA as model execution of nuclear readiness process
Integration and Management Commitment: Delivering “Ready for Research Capability” Joe Cruz Projects and Engineering Division Manager email@example.com PNNL-SA-81089 Reviewed for Public Release
Pop Quiz • A: Management must provide framework to deliver and set the expectation that E is the only acceptable answer • Q: When is a project finished? • A: When it runs out of money • B: When it runs out of time • C: When the project sheds scope to finish • D: All of the above • E: When a well understood and documented ‘finish line’ is achieved
Opportunity Knocks • Project Management Manual due for a rewrite • Lessons learned from the Capability Replacement Laboratory • Assessment findings • Too many small ‘Band-Aid’ revisions • Non-nuclear readiness gaining momentum in DOE • PNNL projects have complex systems and interfaces • Unique equipment, facilities, hazards • Desire to improve the reliability/efficiency of project delivery • Leverage the Achieving Readiness methodology
PNNL’s Approach to Readiness: Project Management Manual Revision Plan • Charter • Objectives to guide authoring team • Stakeholder group identified • PM, Engineering, CM, Contracts, Readiness, Safety • Schedule • Approach • Tailored approach: “Risk Drives the Rigor” • Integrate readiness • Core + process guide architecture • Mimic DOE critical decision process • Outcomes • Safe and efficient execution
Project Phases and Project Decisions (PD) Readiness inherent to PM approach Ensures clarity for project finish line for ALL involved parties (IPT) Ensure project delivers “ready to operate” condition
Lessons Learned • Tailoring is easier said than done • Clearly state criteria for different levels of rigor • Clearly state differences in tailored approach • Thresholds are difficult to establish • Cookbook approach to readiness is key • With a good checklist, anyone can do it – no excuses not to • Readiness component delivering desired improvements • Fewer hiccups when occupying new spaces • Customers are pleased – view the approach as value added • Not free, but not expensive • Reduces burden on customer and building functions • PMs may be reluctant • Challenges and misconceptions
Using Readiness for Successful Delivery of New Research Capability Mark Hartzell Manager, EMSL Project Office firstname.lastname@example.org PNNL-SA-81089 Reviewed for Public Release
Environmental Molecular Science Laboratory • 200,000sf research facility • BER user facility • Provides integrated experimental and computational resources • Three science themes • Biological Interactions and Dynamics • Geochemistry/Biogeochemistry and Subsurface Science • Science of Interfacial Phenomena
EMSL Projects AARA EMSL Capability Expansion 1 2 • $60M to develop and deploy transformational capabilities • 34 separate instrument systems • 18-months to procure, modify space, and install • Involved 10 separate science leads • Scope ranged from simple install to significant modifications • Quiet Wing • 10,000sf • Low EMF low vibration • High res imaging (TEM+) • Radiochemistry Annex • Located in new PSF • 5 existing labs • Expands rad exhaust
How EMSL uses Readiness • Plan early • Determine Readiness scope during baseline development • Include discrete activities for readiness in schedule • Develop a comprehensive checklist • Team effort between the project, facility, and research staff • Starts with the general categories from Achieving Readiness Process • Assign individual responsibility • Prepare in advance • Meet throughout project execution to status and prepare • Complete and Document • Completion verified and documented • Readiness achieved when all approve
How research uses Readiness • Testing and Qualification • Equipment Operations training for staff • Hazards (IOPS) and Emergency Preparedness • System Acceptance • Meets procurement requirements • Technical Documentation • Vendor manuals received and archived • Spare parts list • Laboratory Space Acceptance • Space ready for research • Administrative • MIT • MEL
How Facilities and Operations uses Readiness • Maintenance • Developed preventative maintenance and calibration procedures • Provide special tools or training • Operations • Alarm response • Operator rounds • Technical documentation • Updated as-built and key drawings • Design documentation • Laboratory space acceptance • New or modified systems meet requirements • Ready for operations
Benefits Faster time to research Process leads to “ah-ha” moments Changes project delivery to capability delivery Reduces operating risk Facilitates the dialog between facilities and research Documents Readiness Develops Lessons Learned Can be quite smooth once you have done it
The challenge and misconceptions The potential misconceptions Ask yourself : If you think: “How?” “We already ‘do’ readiness.” 1 “Where?” “It’s built into our process.” 2 “How are you demonstrating you're ready?” “This is another work barrier.” 3 “I do ‘readiness’ before I start operations.” “At what point before?” 4 “I involve the customer when I’m ready to turnover the project.” “Is this too late?” 5 “Is there money to do it over?” “We don’t have money.” 6 • The challenge • Culture change: moving from how it was done to how it is done
Lessons Learned high risk non-nuclear high risk nuclear • New, unique Fissile Materials Package • Initiated Readiness very late in the project life cycle • Quickly evaluated and focused on minimum needs to safely deploy • Successful deployment and oversight assessment with no findings low risk non-nuclear & high visibility • Low Risk but High Visibility Projects • 34 EMSL projects for latest state-of-the-art technology • Accelerate turnkey deliveries • Necessary steps and key risks were not overlooked high risk nuclear • Hazard Category 2 Nuclear Facility RA • No RA in over 10 years • Took Readiness seriously • Near Flawless RA outcome • New first time lab technology • Project managers – train them and followup • Readiness needs to be planned, not ad-hoc
Support to Share Success • Customize and apply Readiness to your site’s unique processes. • Develop procedures and processes that integrate with your site’s lifecycles. • Focus on implementation, it’s not as simple as it may seem. • Train staff to sustain and expand a successful Readiness process. • On-going support to ensure smooth integration into project management, research, and other site mission needs. • Mentor and provide technical support for startups. • Publish success – Articles in • NNSA June 2011 Tech Bulletin • PNNL Operating Experience/Lessons Learned
Contacts for Information and Support Nick RegoliSenior Advisor, Startup and Operational ReadinessNuclear & Materials Operations Division Tel: 509-372-4765 email@example.com Brad EvansNuclear Safety & Facility Authorization ManagerNuclear & Materials Operations Division Tel: firstname.lastname@example.org Paul CraneNuclear & Materials Operations Division ManagerFacilities & Operations Directorate Tel: email@example.com