Department of Energy Environmental Management Complex- Wide Integration Using System Engineering

Paul Fairbourn Lockheed Martin Idaho Technologies Company

Systems Engineering Directorate P.O. Box 1625, MS 3750

Idaho Falls, ID 83415-3750

ABSTRACT

A systems engineering approach was SUC-

cesshlly used to recommend changes to en- vironmental management activities across the DOE Complex. A team of technical experts and systems engineers developed alternatives that could save tax payers billions of dollars if the barriers are removed to allow com- plete implementation. The alternatives are technically-based and defensible, and are be- ing worked through the stakeholder review process. The integration process and imple- menting project structure are both discussed.

INTRODUCTION

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) manages a multibillion dollar Environmental Management (EM) Program. The DOE As- sistant Secretary of Energy for EM issued a guidance memorandum for a ten-year plan- ning process for the EM Program. The pur- pose of the Ten-Year Plan is to projectize the work within EM and expedite meaningfir1 cleanup progress.

As a parallel and complimentary effort to the Ten-Year Plan, DOE requested that site contractors use a systems approach to iden- ti@ and evaluate integration alternatives for wastes and materials treatment, storage, and disposal. The alternatives identified during this contractor-led EM integration effort will

require input and discussion with the regu- latory agencies and stakeholders. The Ten- Year Plan, coupled with the complex-wide EM integration effort, will reduce DOE-EM program costs and risks, shorten schedules for EM cleanup activities, and help meet the Ten-Year Plan goals:

Eliminate the most urgent environmental risks Reduce mortgage and support costs to free up hnds for hrther risk reduction Reduce the generation of waste

0 Integrate waste treatment and disposal across the Ten-Year Plan sites.

PROBLEM STATEMENT

DOE-EM faces significant technical and fi- nancial challenges in cleaning up the envi- ronmental legacy of nuclear weapons pro- duction. In addition, fbture fbnding to per- form this work is uncertain. DOE-EM pro- grams need effective solutions that meet en- vironmental regulations and significantly re- duce the gap between projected costs and target fbnding levels.

CONTRIBUTING FACTORS TO PROBLEM -

For over 40 years, DOE wastes and materi- als have been placed at various sites throughout the complex for treatment, stor- age, and disposal. The focus in the past was

on weapons production, energy research, and safe management of wastes and nuclear materials. This resulted in the accumulation of significant quantities of wastes and mate- rials throughout the DOE Complex. Since the end of the Cold War, the focus has shifted to cleanup of the legacy wastes and materials and their final disposition. DOE

Many politically-driven agreements drive the EM scope and schedules. While political decisions will continue to influence technical decisions, EM and the sites must continue to present sound technical information to sup- port risk-based, fiscally-responsible choices.

DOE Decision Authority

4 AIAlm

Greg Frandsen, Roject Manager M d a J . Lamy Bates Oak Riac . Ed Hesg WIPP . Jim Kanmd, Nevada . Allen SchubeR Rocky Flab . Dick Wd&, Hanford

. Vernon Daub, F d d . Reed lensen. Los Alamos . Sam Key, Savannah River . Les Shephard. Sandia

. Temm .MLLW .SpcntFuel .Cms?-CutTeams . TRU . Hazardous - Metal Recyc4e . LLW .Special- -Consoiidakd . HLW . ER procurement

Figure 1. Project Organization Structure

faces daunting institutional and technical challenges in dealing with this cleanup.

Traditionally wastes and materials at the sites have been managed in a nonintegrated man- ner. DOE'S Defense Programs managed wastes and materials fiom weapons produc- tion, while Nuclear and Energy Research managed wastes and materials fiom their re- spective activities. In 1989, DOE-EM was formed and given responsibility to address these past issues and manage all wastes, re- gardless of the generating program, within the DOE Complex.

Regulatory compliance is paramount to the DOE-EM program. DOE sites must comply with many Federal statutes, including the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA); the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA); and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). In some cases, regulations have been applied to legacy sys- tems. For example, RCRA has been applied to wastes already generated and facilities al- ready constructed. These statutes, and a host of other regulatory requirements form a

DISCLAIMER

This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or use- fulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any spe- cific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufac- turer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recam- mendation. or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof.

DISCLAIMER

Portions of this document may be illegible electronic image products. Images are produced from the best available original document.

complicated framework within which EM and the sites must operate.

to support the vision of the Ten-Year Plan. Figure 1 identifies the project management structure used to manage the Complex-wide integration efforts.

A group of three senior executives from the Rocky Flats, Hanford, and Idaho National Engineering Laboratory (INEL) sites and two DOE managers make up the steering

Several identified integration opportunities require changes to existing requirements and practices. While the approaches have a sound safety, engineering, and technical ba- sis, it is imperative to understand that com- pliance with these requirements will continue

Figure 2. Systems Engineering Process

to be DOE'S highest priority. The DOE is committed to stakeholder involvement and participation. Program changes affected by regulatory requirements will not occur until they have been fblly evaluated and agreed upon by stakeholders and appropriate regu- latory agencies. This improves public ac- ceptance of the outcomes

PROJECT ORGANIZATION AND STRUCTURE

The project was commissioned by the As- sistant Secretary for the DOE-EM Program

committee, which is responsible for the over- all direction of the project. The project man- agement team is comprised of middle man- agement from the following contractor sites: INEL, West Valley, Rocky Flats, Hanford, Savannah River, Los Alamos National Labo- ratory, Sandia National Laboratory, Fernald, Oak Ridge, Nevada Test Site, and the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant. The lead project man- ager is from the INEL and is a member of the project management team. He is re- sponsible for the daily operations and sys- tems engineering efforts. Six integration teams, comprised of subject matter experts

from the ten contractor sites, represent the product areas: spent nuclear &el, high-level waste, low-level waste, mixed low-level waste, transuranic waste, environmental restorationldecomtarnination and decommis- sioning. These product areas represent the vast majority of the waste and materials in the DOE-EM Complex.

APPROACH METHODOLOGY

The EM Integration teams used a systems engineering approach, as shown in Figure 2 to develop alternatives and recommendations that significantly improve the DOE-EM sys- tem.

This approach has been successhlly used in performing similar EM integration exercises (Murphy, Caliva, and Wixson, 1997). Over- all, the process consisted of defining the driving requirements, identifjmg tasks to meet requirements, and evaluating integra- tion opportunities for a unified system, This allowed the integration teams to identie, combine, eliminate, and/or simplie activities across the DOE Complex.

The systems engineers facilitated workout sessions, evaluated requirements, aided brainstorming of opportunities, conducted trade studies, and participated on the inte- gration teams. This provided process and information continuity, as well as integration vision throughout the project. The subject matter experts were responsible for the tech- nical content of the information products, while the systems engineers were responsible for defining and implementing the integration process, as well as data management opera- tions. This charter made for a productive team.

The mission statement developed to keep the teams focused was to develop and implement a national strategy that:

Is technically defensible Results in lower costs Is supported across the DOE Complex Rewards completion of waste cleanup programs.

INTEGRATION PROCESS DETAILS

Because of the magnitude (Le., time and complexity) of the integration effort, the

location for one week to complete a portion of the systems engineering process.

Figure 3. Integration Team Status Using Systems Engineering

product areas were sequenced by DOE-EM. This order established the timing for using the systems engineering process Figure 3. The first teams were mixed low-level waste and transuranic waste. The systems engi- neers developed a prescriptive integration process to ensure each integration team would be productive and consistent.

The estimated time to complete the integra- tion process was approximately 3 weeks for each team, so the integration process was divided into three separate, 1 week workout sessions. New product areas were phased in over a period of 4 months. Between work- outs, action item were completed and data were collected. The subject matter experts fiom each sites would meet at a common

Alternatives Development

A baseline of sites' current and near term projected wastes and materials volumes and characteristics, fbnctions, costs, schedules, and requirements was established and used throughout the project for comparison with potential integration opportunities. The baseline data consisted of the driving re- quirements and waste disposition maps. These maps portray the disposition steps that wastes or materials complete, including stor- age, characterization, treatment, transporta- tion, and ultimate disposition. In addition, facilities and hnctional capabilities are also documented. The cost baseline information used for this effort was formulated fiom the sites' draft Ten-Year Plans.

In a series of workout sessions, the subject matter experts fiom each site identified op- tions to improve the baseline through inte- gration of processes and facilities and/or through changing requirements. Opportuni- ties were identified and grouped into com- patible system alternatives. These system alternatives were evaluated against the base- line.

Analysis and Trades

Once the characteristics of a new system concept were described, an analysis of how

cost reduction, schedule improvement, speed of implementation, stakeholder acceptance, site consensus, and risk reduction.

Detailed qualitative evaluations Figure 4 were performed comparing the alternatives to the baseline. Then, a preferred alternative was selected based on how well the alterna- tives met the pre-defined criteria. The evaluations focused on the differences be- tween the baseline and the alternatives char- acteristics. These evaluations assumed that removal of barriers would result in the nec- essary flexibility to allow savings to be real- ized.

Figure 4. Alternatives Evaluation

the new concept could be implemented was conducted. This phase evaluated different SUBJECT MATTER EXPERT TRAIN-

ING

Subject Matter Expert training was held to provide an overview of the methodology and process to the participants. The training also helped build a synergistic team with a com-

ways of satisfying the general requirements of the system concept. The various alter- natives were then analyzed by the subject matter experts using their professional ex- pertise and judgment on how each alternative performed against a set of criteria, including

-

Figure 5. Prescriptive Integration Process

mon mission and vision. This training was valuable in achieving common understanding and vocabulary, team cohesiveness, and as we embarked on the integration process. Pre-training assignments were required for each site. These assignments were the foun- dation for the creation of the initial informa- tion baseline. The systems engineering staff prepared detailed electronic forms and in- structions, which were mailed to each site 2 weeks before their first workout. Follow- up telephone calls helped clarifL the required information and reinforce the importance of the effort.

At the training, an overview of the workout process was presented and a detailed review of the information to be created in the work- out was conducted. Before the training con- cluded the team agreed upon what functions (e.g. treatment, disposal, transportation, etc.) would be addressed at the first workout and what level of information detail was appro- priate for their wastes or materials. This gave the team a normalized view of their in- formation and a consistent level of detail to work with in the integration workouts.

INTEGRATION WORKOUTS

The integration process Figure 5 uses forms to capture the set of data governing each step of the process, with each step building upon the next. The first part of the workout was spent formalizing the baseline. The teams refined the baseline information to a consistent level, which helped provide a solid understanding of the existing Complex-wide baseline. The teams then created a list of integration opportunities from brainstorming and from ideas from other documented sources. The integration opportunities were grouped by compatible topics and defined into a system concept. Then the teams per- formed alternatives development and analy- sis. Once an alternative was selected, each site documented (using specifically design forms) the impacts and actions to their sites. This information was intended to identify the configuration changes required at each site if the alternative was implemented. The infor- mation included changes to requirements, facilities, contracts, fbnctions, and cost. Ad- ditionally for each action required, barriers were identified that would need to be re- moved to realize the cost saving associated with the action.

COORDINATION WITH OTHER ACTMTIES

The integration team used information from many program sources, including the Mixed Waste Focus Area, national programs, in- ventory reports, and issue papers prepared as a result of their initial Ten-Year Plan re- views. This information defined a starting point for integration opportunities, and en- sured team members were aware of these other activities. The team used this infor- mation, but was carehl to not be constrained by it. The team explored areas beyond those identified in these other programs.

LESSON LEARNED

Key to the success of integration is to em- power technical experts to do the right thing; allow them to develop the right technical solutions with documented clear barriers that would imped implementation. It is then the decision makers responsibility to decide if removing the barrier is worth the effort. The use of a prescriptive integration and data management process ensured consistency and success in meeting our schedule and product commitments.

PATH FORWARD

A final integration report will be prepared for submittal to DOE-Headquarters by February 1997. The report will identify alternatives by waste or material type for focused imple- mentation. Scope, schedule, cost, relative risk, and implementing actions will be devel- oped for each se>ected aIternative(s). DOE- Headquarters will be provided a recommen- dation discussing the preferred alternatives. Additionally, a plan for institutionalizing EM integration efforts and for folding into DOE- Headquarters annual planning and budgeting process. The plan will also include recom- mendations for expanding the integration efforts to include other DOE programs (e.g.,

Defense Programs) and for forming teams to address the implementation barriers.

Each site has the responsibility to meet with the stakeholders in their region. The project management staff at the MEL has the re- sponsibility to involve the stakeholders at the national level. Stakeholder comments will be considered in future workouts. Following stakeholder involvement, DOE-Headquarters will approve what is to be changed in their respective Ten-Year Plan to reflect the se- lected alternatives(s).

CONCLUSIONS

The DOE Complex-wide EM Integration project is accomplishing its chartered mission by identiGing technically defensible cost saving alternatives. The systems engineering process has a proven track record for deliv- ering results that meet customer and pro- gram requirements. Given a complex system like DOE-EM, the systems engineering ap- proach has assisted in breaking down the complexity to understandable components and subsystems. The focus on requirements, functions, cost, and risk ensured technically defensible recommendations.

REFERENCES

Integration of Transuranic and Mixed Low- Level Waste Activities Across the De- partment of Energy Complex, Technical Report INEL-96/0427, December 1996.

Project Management Plan for the Complex- Wide EM Integration Report, Complex- Wide Project Management Team, Sep- tember 1996. -

Murphy et al., Development of the Environ- mental Management Integrated Baseline at the Idaho National Engineering Labo-

ratory Using Systems Engneering, INCOSE Paper, Lockheed Martin Idaho Technologies Company, 1997.

Plowman et al., Aa'rrpting Classical Systems Engneering to Deparfment of Energy (DOE) Needs, Technical Report INEL- 96-0262, INCOSE Paper, Lockheed Martin Idaho Technologies, 1996.

BIOGRAPEIY

Paul Fairbourn is the lead systems engineer supporting the Complex-wide Environmental Management Integration Efforts. He has a BS fi-om Brigham Young University in Me- chanical Engineering. He has 14 years expe- rience in soflware engineering and systems analysis for the Department of Defense and the Department of Energy.