Soon after becoming the Program Secretarial Officer (PSO) for the Department of Energy (DOE) Environmental Management (EM) Program, Jessie Roberson initiated a thorough Top-to-Bottom review of the EM Program and challenged the sites to conduct business differently. As an example, she emphasized risk reduction, not just risk management. INEEL's 2070 cleanup baseline was considered too long and must be completed significantly sooner. The cleanup costs must also be significantly reduced from the current baseline of $41 Billion. The challenge is to complete most of the cleanup by 2012 and to reduce the EM footprint at the INEEL to one site area, the Idaho Nuclear Technology and Engineering Center (INTEC), also by 2012. The difficulty of the challenge is increased by the requirement to perform the work within nearly flat budgets. The bottom line: do more work in less time for less money. Further complications were added when funding for EM's technology development program was greatly reduced, cutting out most of the technology support to the operational projects. To face this incredible challenge, the INEEL began a several month effort to develop an implementation strategy and the tactics required for success. The strategies to meet EM's challenge under these constraints require the scope of work to be crisply defined with a clear understanding of the completion criteria. A number of techniques will be discussed in this paper that were used to more fully define the completion criteria as well as redefine the cleanup projects and their system boundaries. The mechanics of redefining and recasting cleanup projects at the INEEL to focus on how all the work fits together for an entire site area along with some of the advantages will be discussed. This paper highlights how roadmapping techniques and processes were used to gather information about the site's cleanup programs, review the system boundaries, identify the project risks to completing the cleanup tasks, and to help recast the projects to meet the stewardship requirements for that portion of the site. This paper will discuss how site cleanup projects were recast into geographical areas. Some geographical areas were divided into several sub-projects while others site areas were completed within one project depending on the amount and type of integration required to complete the cleanup. The paper also addresses some of the other changes that are needed to facilitate implementation of the revised structuring of the cleanup project. Some of these changes include organizational modifications and resources allocation enhancements.
展开▼
