1

Issues ManagementIssues Managementat the Hanford Nuclear at the Hanford Nuclear

Reservation Tank FarmsReservation Tank Farms

September 13, 2004

2

CH2M Corrective Action ManagementCH2M Corrective Action Management

• Problem identification, Tracking and Trending– Zero threshold reporting by any employee or subcontractor– Problem Evaluation Request (PER - electronic form)– Electronic routing for problem review

• Operations control center review each shift

• QA review daily (assignment of trend codes)

• Senior management review daily

– Electronic action tracking (E-STARS)• PER resolution assignment

• Corrective Action assignment

– Trend Analysis• Leading indicators

• Lagging indicators

3

What is PER? What is PER?

• An electronic form used to document problems/issues/concerns– Web-based application– Intuitive, easy to learn system– “zero-threshold” reporting of conditions adverse to quality,

safety, and health– Multiple review cycles – timely management attention– Avenue to document causal analysis, generate corrective

actions, and obtain trending information for continuous improvement

4

Six steps to PERSix steps to PER

• Identification (PER initiator tab)• Operations Control Center Review

– Timely review for operability, reportability, and notifications

• PER Screening – Representative screening for ownership, significance, and

assignment of trend codes

• Senior Leadership Review– VP and Director level review of plant problems

• PER Resolution (graded approach to issues management)– Six levels of significance (Invalid, Trend, TUF, PIE/CIM, PER,

SIGPER)

• PER Closure

5

PER Screen ExamplePER Screen Example

6

What is E-STARS? What is E-STARS?

• An electronic action tracking system that interfaces with the PER system– Web-based application– One system to initiate, track, and close actions– Intuitive, easy to learn system– Interfaces with external systems (e-mail,

document control, job control, etc)– Real-time “in-transit” action status– Supports ad hoc and structured workflow

7

E-STARS Screen ExampleE-STARS Screen Example

8

Proven PerformanceProven Performance

• Addressing ISMS Core Functions & Guiding Principles– Core Functions

• Define Scope of Work

• Perform Work within Controls

• Provide Feedback and Continuous Improvement

– Principles• Line Management Responsibility

for Safety

• Clear Roles & Responsibilities

• Balanced Priorities

• Operations Authorization

9

Implementing ISMSImplementing ISMS

• Audits and assessments identified the company had excessive action tracking systems, lack of control and proper visibility of program critical activities – CH2M HILL reduced corrective action delinquency rate to

single digits • Current delinquency rate of less than 3%

– Retired 9 legacy action tracking systems• Reducing site wide O&M costs

– Providing visibility and accountability of all critical corrective actions to senior leadership

• Daily senior leadership meetings rely on daily reports and metrics pulled from E-STARS

10

PER Delinquency RatePER Delinquency Rate

September 2002-April 2004PER Related ESTARs Actions

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

Augus

t-02

Septe

mbe

r-02

Oct

ober

-02

Novem

ber-0

2Dec

embe

r-02

Janu

ary-

03Feb

ruar

y-03

Mar

ch-0

3

April-

03

May

-03

June

-03

July-

03Aug

ust-0

3Sep

tem

ber-0

3O

ctob

er-0

3Nov

embe

r-03

Decem

ber-0

3Ja

nuar

y-04

Febru

ary-

04M

arch

-04

April-

04

Percent Delinquent

Goal

CH2M HILL Monthly Deliquent Rate

Goal moved as performance improved

1.0%

11

Feedback and ImprovementFeedback and Improvement

• CH2M PER Trending Program– Leading indicators: assigned during PER screening process

by QA Manager• Price Anderson Amendment Act (PAAA); measure of

compliance to Nuclear Rules

• Work Process; characterization of work activity occurring during event

• Functional Area; high level company function impacted by event

• Consequence; actual or potential consequence of the event

• ISMS

– Lagging indicators: assigned during PER resolution by Responsible Manager

• Causal Analysis Tree (CAT) codes; post event trending of associated cause(s)

12

Trend Program FeaturesTrend Program Features

• Early characterization for leading indication– Early identification of issues prior to them becoming

significant events

• Management Review Thresholds– Action levels set based on best business practice goals

• Statistical Thresholds– Statistical control limits set at +/- 3 sigma

• Monthly characterization of key elements– Common cause analysis performed for those above

Management Review or Statistical control limits

• Quarterly trend program health report– Indicator panel style presentation of program health

13

Example: Work PlanningExample: Work PlanningChart 31

March 2004 Trend Charts-Published April 2004

Data Date: 4/20/2004 4:00 AM October 2002 - March 2004

Definition Analysis / Action

Review Threshold Comments

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Oct

-02

No

v-0

2

De

c-0

2

Jan

-03

Fe

b-0

3

Ma

r-0

3

Ap

r-0

3

Ma

y-0

3

Jun

-03

Jul-

03

Au

g-0

3

Se

p-0

3

Oct

-03

No

v-0

3

De

c-0

3

Jan

-04

Fe

b-0

4

Ma

r-0

4

AD1604

(*Refer to Statistical Method from the Viewpoint of Quality Control, page 108, 1986 reprint, by Walter A. Shewhart, Ph.D., for methodologies of prediction using small samples.)

CH2M HILL - Distribution of Consequence Codes

This control chart shows the number of PERs with the Consequence Code Administration, Conduct of Operations, Work Planning. This is the second most frequently selected consequence code over the past twelve months. Data: Does not include PIE/CIMs or Further Evaluate PERs.

Analysis: The process is within the control limits and below the Management Review Threshold. This area has stabilized at a much lower incidence level over the past ten months. Action: This item will continue to be tracked.

DB Cartmell/WH PettigrewConsequence Codes, Control ChartMJ SorrelsPER Database

Management Review Threshold set in April 2003 is twenty occurrences in a month. Current Baseline set in March by an average of October 2003-February 2004.

ADMIN, CONDUCT OF OPERATIONS, Work Planning

Review Threshold Apr 03

Process Owner:Chart Set & Type:Data Owner: Data Source:

No PER is being issued. The majority of items are related to Sig PER 2003-0085.

UCL

LCL

Process Owners determined this decreasing trend to be a positive indicator.

Avg Feb 02-Aug 0239.0

Avg Nov 02-Mar 0320.6

Avg Apr 03-Aug 03

2.6

Avg Oct 03-Feb 04

4.0

14

Why a Best Practice?Why a Best Practice?

• Demonstrating proven performance with Hanford’s accelerated tank waste cleanup mission

• Used to implement ISMS

• Maximizing return on government investment

• Enhancing productivity through technology integration

• Building collaborative partnerships

15

Maximizing ROIMaximizing ROI

• Maximizing Return on Government Investment – Developed at DOE Richland and shared with other

federal agencies • US Air Force

– Correspondence staffing and control - Information management requirements

– Gap Analysis – 90% match, Operation Assessment

• Health & Human Services

– Centers for Medicaid & Medicare to monitor program management action items

• Positioning for Army, FBI, and Defense Travel System

– E-STARS v4.0 was sponsored by the Air Force • Approximately $1M in product enhancements at no additional

cost to DOE

16

ConclusionConclusion

• Corrective Acton Program– Identify issue– Take immediate/compensatory action– Assign significance and ownership– Senior Management input– Causal Analysis and Corrective Action Planning; graded

approach– Feedback and Continuous Improvement (Trend data)

• Contacts:– Marnelle Sheriff, CH2M Corrective Action Program Manager,

(509) 376-2096, marnelle_l_sheriff@rl.gov – Debbie Hovley, LMIT PER/E-STARS Program Manager,

(509) 376-8204

17

Q & AQ & A

• Questions?