18
Peter Dessaules, U.S. Department of Energy Brian Horn, Nuclear Regulatory Commission Programmatic Lessons Learned and Path Forward

Peter Dessaules, U.S. Department of Energy Brian Horn, Nuclear Regulatory Commission

  • Upload
    ouida

  • View
    44

  • Download
    0

Embed Size (px)

DESCRIPTION

Peter Dessaules, U.S. Department of Energy Brian Horn, Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Programmatic Lessons Learned and Path Forward. Overview. Day-to-Day operational challenges Reports/Backlog Issues Path forward Lessons Learned Specific Actions Anticipated Regulatory Landscape. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Citation preview

Page 1: Peter Dessaules, U.S. Department of Energy Brian Horn, Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Peter Dessaules, U.S. Department of Energy

Brian Horn, Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Programmatic Lessons Learned and Path Forward

Page 2: Peter Dessaules, U.S. Department of Energy Brian Horn, Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Overview

2

Day-to-Day operational challenges Reports/Backlog Issues

Path forward Lessons Learned Specific Actions

Anticipated Regulatory Landscape

Page 3: Peter Dessaules, U.S. Department of Energy Brian Horn, Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Day-to-Day Operational Challenges(Backlog Issues)

Backlog is defined and measured by the following metrics:

• Daily Processing (Transactions, Inventory, and MBR)– Hundreds of thousands of records per year

• Monthly Closing– Essential to overcoming the backlog issue

• Reconciliation of NRC Facilities– Approximately 350 facilities per year

• Report Generation and Distribution– Approximately 12,000 reports per year

Page 4: Peter Dessaules, U.S. Department of Energy Brian Horn, Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Backlog Issues: Daily Processing

Daily processing encompasses:• Transaction, inventory, and material balance data/records• Represents the DNA of the entire NMMSS system• Accuracy, completeness, and currency of records is vital• Error correction

Daily Processing backlog has been eliminated

4

Page 5: Peter Dessaules, U.S. Department of Energy Brian Horn, Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Backlog Issues: Monthly Closing

Monthly closing encompasses:• Officially closes the reporting period • Requires all facility data submitted• Once closed, it can only be changed as part of the next reporting period

Monthly closing consists of:• Ensure there are no record/data errors• Reconcile records for affected sites (varies from month to month)

September is by far the most complicated month• End of Government Fiscal Year• Vital input to multiple end of the year reports, e.g., Financial Reports• All DOE facilities need to be reconciled• September is historically closed in the November through January

timeframe

Page 6: Peter Dessaules, U.S. Department of Energy Brian Horn, Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Backlog Issues: Monthly Closing STATUS

Period Goal Actual Delay (Days)

Sept 08 Oct 23 Feb 19 119

Oct 08 Nov 23 Mar 5 102

Nov 08 Dec 23 Apr 3 101

Dec 08 Jan 23 Apr 16 83

Jan 09 Feb 23 May 4 70

Feb 09 Mar 23 May 8 46

Mar 09 Apr 23

Page 7: Peter Dessaules, U.S. Department of Energy Brian Horn, Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Backlog Issues: Reconciliation of NRC Facilities

Reconciliation of NRC facilities include:• Comparison of reported information to NMMSS vs. the

detailed material balance report– Detailed material balance info is kept at site-specific databases

• Approximately 350 facilities– Represents a 100% increase over 2008– Reconciliation takes place at least once a year– Some facilities report twice a year

• Continuing disconnect and needed error correction • 115 inventories submitted since Sept. 08• 76 inventories reconciled since Sept. 08

Page 8: Peter Dessaules, U.S. Department of Energy Brian Horn, Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Backlog Issues:Report Generation and Distribution

Report generation and distribution encompasses: • Financial Reports• International Reports• Customized and facility-specific report for NRC Offices• Customized and Program-specific report for DOE line

management• Site-specific reports• Special Regulatory/External requests, e.g.,

– IG– GAO– Health studies

Page 9: Peter Dessaules, U.S. Department of Energy Brian Horn, Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Backlog Issues:Report Generation and Distribution (Cont’d)

Report generation and distribution includes: • Many reports requires unique data processing• Specialized algorithms • Specific format• Varying rules between NRC and DOE• Large volume of differing types of reports

– Upwards of 12,000 reports per year

Page 10: Peter Dessaules, U.S. Department of Energy Brian Horn, Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Backlog Issues:Report Generation and Distribution (STATUS)

Represents the most challenging and urgent issue Backlog goes back to September 2008 Varying degrees of current backlog

• Financial reports are completed thru the end of February 2009• International reports are completed thru the end of February 2009• Backlog of site reports go back to September 2008

– Current plan is to prepare reports for the most recently closed month and work backwards

– Starting to transmit reports reflecting end of February 2009 records

Please provide us feedback on your priorities during breakout sessions

Page 11: Peter Dessaules, U.S. Department of Energy Brian Horn, Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Lessons Learned

Many decades of operational experience NMMSS performance is dependent on several

interlinked factors:• Data that is accurate, complete, and current• Right skill mix and staff expertise• Robust infrastructure including software and automated

processing capabilities• Clarity in expectations and communication• Accountability

Applicable to all of us within the NMMSS Community!

Page 12: Peter Dessaules, U.S. Department of Energy Brian Horn, Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Lessons Learned:Performance Drivers

12

Operational Staffing

Roles and Responsibilities

UserTraining

Software andInfrastructure

Transparency and Accountability

Page 13: Peter Dessaules, U.S. Department of Energy Brian Horn, Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Specific ActionsStaffing

13

Brought on board additional resources to eliminate the backlog MC&A experience Document classification Administrative

More focused priority-driven tasking Specific backlog issues

Page 14: Peter Dessaules, U.S. Department of Energy Brian Horn, Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Specific ActionsSoftware and Infrastructure

14

Data Preparation Software to be made available to both DOE sites and NRC licensees

Improved Electronic Communications Infrastructure Key drivers are to:

Minimize error rates More efficiently prepare reports for data submittal Achieve cost and time savings for both data input and data

processing New software (SAMS 6.0) is currently being Beta tested

Projected release date by the end of CY-09 (maybe sooner based on comments)

Page 15: Peter Dessaules, U.S. Department of Energy Brian Horn, Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Specific Actions

Roles and Responsibilities

15

Clarify and effectively communicate roles and responsibilities

Improve timeliness and responsiveness to stakeholders Ensure currency of information and materials Improved communication

Website E-Newsletter 1-800 Call center

Transparent Performance—Web Based Report Card

Page 16: Peter Dessaules, U.S. Department of Energy Brian Horn, Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Specific ActionsTraining

16

Make the training more targeted, specific, and cost-effective Reach out to a broader audience Leverage web-based delivery

Pressing training topics include: Data preparation and report submittal DOE and NRC reporting requirements Beginner and Advanced users

Jim Crabtree is NMMSS training coordinator

Resources have been allocated for three (3) NMMSS training courses this calendar year

Page 17: Peter Dessaules, U.S. Department of Energy Brian Horn, Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Anticipated Regulatory Landscape

17

NRC rule change implemented January 1, 2009

No current plans for NRC rule changes

Potential for new foreign obligation codes

Page 18: Peter Dessaules, U.S. Department of Energy Brian Horn, Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Summary

We recognize the enormity of operational challenges facing all of us

We understand the factors that influence our collective performance

We have made significant improvements but have a lot to do

We have management support, engagement, and scrutiny We have made specific commitments for results