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, [email protected] – Debbie Hovley, LMIT PER/E-STARS Program Manager,
(509) 376-8204
17
Q & AQ & A
• Questions?