Achieving Readiness Evans 20110913

Achieving Readiness
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory
Operational Experience Committee Meeting, September 13, 2011
Brad Evans
PNNL Nuclear Safety & Facility Authorization
PNNL-SA-82612 Reviewed for Public Release
The Purpose of Readiness
Readiness is the Bridge
A systematic process focused on delivery of turn-key
capability fully ready to operate safely and conduct
research operations.
The bridge between developing a Capability and starting
Why Readiness is necessary
Mitigate risks and deliver benefits
• Major changes
• Efficient and effective operations
• High hazards
• Respected reputation
• Unique processes and training
• Customer confidence
• Schedule constraints
• Favorable award fee
• Elevated strategic and mission
• Improved business opportunities
Prevent missed action that could lead to delays in startup
Provides a higher degree of confidence in operations
Sound business practice and cost-effective
Getting to Readiness:
Through seamless integration
Tailored to Risk
Institutionalized in the “Phases of Project Management”
Reinforces the tenets of Integrated Safety Management
All in place prior to operations
Feedback is always in place --- readiness is real-time
Getting to Readiness:
Focus on starting turn-key capability
Project scope + customer input = focused Readiness deliverables
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
PNNL-SA-81089 Reviewed for Public Release
Pop Quiz
Question: What are the odds of completing a DOEapproved 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
Answer: D – Execution of the readiness principles
described in this presentation can lead to a very
successful and efficient completion of nuclear
readiness activities
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
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
Clear understanding and
documented agreement of
“completion of construction”
(competing priorities) and
turnover from construction to
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
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
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
PNNL-SA-81089 Reviewed for Public Release
Pop Quiz
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
A: Management must provide framework to deliver and
set the expectation that E is the only acceptable answer
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
Leverage the Achieving Readiness methodology
PNNL’s Approach to Readiness:
Project Management Manual Revision Plan
Objectives to guide authoring team
Stakeholder group identified
PM, Engineering, CM, Contracts, Readiness, Safety
Tailored approach: “Risk Drives the Rigor”
Integrate readiness
Core + process guide architecture
Mimic DOE critical decision process
Safe and efficient execution
Project Phases and Project Decisions (PD)
inherent to PM
Ensures clarity
for project finish
line for ALL
involved parties
Ensure project
delivers “ready
to operate”
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
PNNL-SA-81089 Reviewed for Public Release
Environmental Molecular Science Laboratory
200,000sf research facility
BER user facility
Provides integrated experimental and computational
Three science themes
Biological Interactions and Dynamics
Geochemistry/Biogeochemistry and Subsurface Science
Science of Interfacial Phenomena
EMSL Projects
$60M to develop and
deploy transformational
34 separate instrument
18-months to procure,
modify space, and install
Involved 10 separate
science leads
Scope ranged from simple
install to significant
Capability Expansion
Quiet Wing
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
How Facilities and Operations uses Readiness
Developed preventative maintenance and calibration procedures
Provide special tools or training
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
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 challenge
Culture change: moving from how it was done to how it is done
The potential misconceptions
If you think:
Ask yourself :
“We already ‘do’ readiness.”
“It’s built into our process.”
“This is another work barrier.”
“How are you demonstrating you're
“I do ‘readiness’ before I start
“At what point before?”
“I involve the customer when I’m ready
to turnover the project.”
“Is this too late?”
“We don’t have money.”
“Is there money to do it over?”
Lessons Learned
New first time lab technology
Project managers – train them and followup
Readiness needs to be planned, not ad-hoc
New, unique Fissile Materials Package
high risk
high risk
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 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
Hazard Category 2 Nuclear Facility RA
No RA in over 10 years
Took Readiness seriously
Near Flawless RA outcome
low risk
non-nuclear &
high visibility
high risk
Support to Share Success
Customize and apply Readiness to your site’s unique
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
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 Regoli
Senior Advisor, Startup and Operational Readiness
Nuclear & Materials Operations Division
Tel: 509-372-4765
Brad Evans
Nuclear Safety & Facility Authorization Manager
Nuclear & Materials Operations Division
Tel: 509-371-7386
Paul Crane
Nuclear & Materials Operations Division Manager
Facilities & Operations Directorate
Tel: 509-371-6177