ERM Integration with Contractor Assurance System Integrated Performance Management Community of Practice (CoP)- Enterprise Risk Management
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Littleton, Seth Corey↗
SEARCH · Engineering Papers
Results for “Contractor Assurance”
Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.
Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.
Direct Feed Low Activity Waste Program Integration - 16638
The mission of Program Integration is to champion and steer the development and implementation of common and consistent programs between the Tank Operating Contract (TOC) contractor and the Waste Treatment Plant (WTP) contractor. TOC is managed by Washington River Protection Solutions LLC (WRPS) and WTP is managed by Bechtel National, Inc. (BNI). The DOE Office of River Protection (DOE ORP) is the Program Owner. WRPS has been actively managing the TOC at the Hanford Site Tank Farms (TF) since 2008. Programs are already developed, verified, and in use for the TOC, whereas WTP is still in the construction phase. WTP Programs are established for construction only, but not developed for commissioning and future operations. An extensive effort is underway at WTP to develop commissioning programs. In order to drive consistency and minimize differences in program requirements between TF, which will feed the tank waste, and WTP, which will receive and treat the tank waste, DOE-ORP requires the two contractors to integrate and collaborate in program development. Advantages of integration are: - Achieves cost and time savings as WTP is able to review existing TOC programs as starting points in development of its programs. - Promotes interfaces with industry counterparts to share experiences, issues, and lessons learned. ? Minimizes difference in program requirements between the companies. - Helps prepare for and ultimately succeed in Operational Readiness Reviews (ORR). Program Integration is a priority for TOC and WTP, and in order to maintain the focus and drive to this effort, a unified One System Program Integration Council (OSPIC) was created in 2012. Membership of the OSPIC consists of senior managers from both companies and the OSPIC chair's report directly to their respective President. Thirty (30) programs are subject to integration, including but not limited to Conduct of Operations, Worker Safety and Health, Quality Assurance, Contractor Assurance, and Environmental Management. Progress of program development and integration efforts are tracked and monitored, and barriers to integration are resolved in a collaborative fashion within both companies. (authors)
12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
Idaho National Laboratory Integrated Safety Management System FY 2016 Effectiveness Review and Declaration Report
Idaho National Laboratory’s (INL’s) Integrated Safety Management System (ISMS) effectiveness review of fiscal year (FY) 2016 shows that INL has integrated management programs and safety elements throughout the oversight and operational activities performed at INL. The significant maturity of Contractor Assurance System (CAS) processes, as demonstrated across INL’s management systems and periodic reporting through the Management Review Meeting process, over the past two years has provided INL with current real-time understanding and knowledge pertaining to the health of the institution. INL’s sustained excellence of the Integrated Safety and effective implementation of the Worker Safety and Health Program is also evidenced by other external validations and key indicators. In particular, external validations include VPP, ISO 14001, DOELAP accreditation, and key Laboratory level indicators such as ORPS (number, event frequency and severity); injury/illness indicators such as Days Away, Restricted and Transfer (DART) case rate, back & shoulder metric and open reporting indicators, demonstrate a continuous positive trend and therefore improved operational performance over the last few years. These indicators are also reflective of the Laboratory’s overall organizational and safety culture improvement. Notably, there has also been a step change in ESH&Q Leadership actions that have been recognized both locally and complex-wide. Notwithstanding, Laboratory management continues to monitor and take action on lower level negative trends in numerous areas including: Conduct of Operations, Work Control, Work Site Analysis, Risk Assessment, LO/TO, Fire Protection, and Life Safety Systems, to mention a few. While the number of severe injury cases has decreased, as evidenced by the reduction in the DART case rate, the two hand injuries and the fire truck/ambulance accident were of particular concern. Aggressive actions continue in order to understand the causes and define actions needed to prevent similar injuries and accidents in the future. While our injury rate is not where we want it to be, it is not the only indicator that defines our ISMS program, safety culture, and efforts to be a continuous learning organization. When reviewing the entire year’s performance, and all areas that integrate ISMS principles and core functions, INL has an “effective” ISMS program that is continually improving.
99 GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS↗
Battelle Energy Alliance, LLC (BEA) 2016 Self-Assessment Report for Idaho National Laboratory (INL)
This report provides Battelle Energy Alliance’s (BEA) self-assessment of performance for the period of October 1, 2015, through September 30, 2016, as evaluated against the goals, performance objectives, and notable outcomes defined in the Fiscal Year (FY) 2016 Performance Evaluation and Measurement Plan (PEMP). BEA took into consideration and consolidated all input provided from internal and external sources (e.g., Contractor Assurance System [CAS], program and customer feedback, external and independent reviews, and Department of Energy [DOE] Idaho Operations Office [ID] quarterly PEMP reports and Quarterly Evaluation Reports). The overall performance of BEA during this rating period was self-assessed as “Excellent,” exceeding expectations of performance in Goal 1.0, “Efficient and Effective Mission Accomplishment”; Goal 2.0, “Efficient and Effective Stewardship and Operation of Research Facilities”; and Goal 3.0, “Sound and Competent Leadership and Stewardship of the Laboratory.” BEA met or exceeded expectations for Mission Support Goals 4.0 through 7.0 assessing a final multiplier of 1.0. Table 1 documents BEA’s assessment of performance to the goals and individual performance objectives. Table 2 documents completion of the notable outcomes. A more-detailed assessment of performance for each individual performance objective is documented in the closeout reports (see the PEMP reporting system). Table 3 includes an update to “Performance Challenges” as reported in the FY 2015 Self-Assessment Report.
99 GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS↗
Issues Management Process Course # 38401
The purpose of this training it to advise Issues Management Coordinators (IMCs) on the revised Contractor Assurance System (CAS) Issues Management (IM) process. Terminal Objectives: Understand the Laboratory’s IM process; Understand your role in the Laboratory’s IM process. Learning Objectives: Describe the IM process within the context of the CAS; Describe the importance of implementing an institutional IM process at LANL; Describe the process flow for the Laboratory’s IM process; Apply the definition of an issue; Use available resources to determine initial screening risk levels for issues; Describe the required major process steps for each risk level; Describe the personnel responsibilities for IM process implementation; Access available resources to support IM process implementation.
99 GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS↗
FY17 LLNL LDRD Annual Report
The LDRD Program achieves continual improvement through internal and external reviews of Program management, execution, and oversight of each LDRD project. In accordance with DOE Order 226.1B of the prime contract between NNSA and Lawrence Livermore National Security, LLC, a contractor-assurance system is in place at the Laboratory; the LDRD office uses this system and tools provided to support improvements in LDRD Program performance. The FY17 portfolio was carefully structured to promote the Program’s vigorous strategic vision and the long-term goals of DOE, NNSA, and Livermore.
99 GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS↗
2017 BEA Self-Assessment Report for Idaho National Laboratory
This report provides Battelle Energy Alliance’s (BEA) self-assessment of performance for the period of October 1, 2016, through September 30, 2017, as evaluated against the goals, performance objectives, and notable outcomes defined in the Fiscal Year (FY) 2017 Performance Evaluation and Measurement Plan (PEMP). BEA took into consideration and consolidated all input provided from internal and external sources (e.g., Contractor Assurance System [CAS], program and customer feedback, external and independent reviews, and Department of Energy [DOE] Idaho Operations Office [ID] quarterly PEMP reports and Quarterly Evaluation Reports). After considering the information related to performance during the rating period, including feedback from the Office of Nuclear Energy (NE), Idaho Operations Office (ID), and other programmatic sponsors, BEA has self-assessed the Laboratory’s performance at a grade of A, an adjectival rating of “Excellent.” Table 1 documents BEA’s assessment of performance to the goals and individual performance Objectives. Table 2 documents completion of the Notable Outcomes. A more-detailed assessment of performance for each individual performance objective is documented in the closeout reports (see the PEMP reporting system). Table 3 includes an update to “Performance Challenges” as reported in the FY 2016 Self-Assessment Report.
99 GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS↗
Panel Session 33: Aligning Decision-Making to Deliver Timely Performance in Large Results-Based Programs
The panel focused on results-based project execution and ways to improve the effectiveness of program and project-specific decisions by gearing them to consistently achieving timely, cost-efficient, and sustainable results. Panelists discussed the complexities of making sound, actionable decisions in the face of budgetary, resource and technological constraints. Toward that end, the 10 panelists responded to the following questions: 1. What decision-making process has been most effective for you and your project team? 2. How effective are the incentives in your contract? 3. What would you be doing differently if your project were being executed on purely commercial terms? 4. Are your Contractor Assurance Programs effective? 5. Have we challenged industry and national laboratories to deliver revolutionary rather than evolutionary technologies to solve challenges? 6. What can we do to make stakeholder involvement more meaningful? 7. How do you apply lessons learned from events and issues like the Mixed Oxide Facility (MOX), the Plutonium Finishing Plant (PFP) event, and the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) incident?.
12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
LANL Five-Year Wildland Fire Management Plan (2016-2020)
The Plan Chapters provide risk and hazard assessment, a mitigation plan, preparedness planning and requirements, a structure for incident management, fire suppression and post-incident activities.
54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
Quality New Mexico Performance Excellence Award Roadrunner Application 2016
The Human Resources (HR) Division is a critical part of Los Alamos National Laboratory, an internationally recognized science and R&D facility with a specialized workforce of more than 10,000. The Laboratory’s mission is to solve national security challenges through scientific excellence. The HR Division partners with employees and managers to support the Laboratory in hiring, retaining, and motivating an exceptional workforce. The Laboratory is owned by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), with oversight by the DOE’s National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA). In 2006, NNSA awarded the contract for managing and operating the Laboratory to Los Alamos National Security, LLC (LANS), and a for-profit consortium. This report expounds on performance excellence efforts, presenting a strategic plan and operations.
99 GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS↗
Biosafety- A Regulatory Primer for DOE/NNSA Sites
The objectives of a biological safety program, and this are to ensure that work with biological materials are conducted in compliance with applicable biosafety standards and ensure that protection of workers, facilities, the public, and the environment.
54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
NQA-1 Indoctrination
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Contractor Assurance↗
ERM-CAS Integration
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
ERM = Enterprise Risk Management CAS = Contractor ↗
Integrated Issues and Risk Management: A Theoretical Framework Overview
The contractor requirements document for DOE O 226.1B, Implementation of Department of Energy Oversight Policy, requires DOE/NNSA contractors to establish an assurance system that includes, among other things, “Rigorous, risk-informed, and credible self-assessment and feedback and improvement activities. Assessment programs must be risk-informed, formally described and documented, and appropriately cover potentially high consequence activities” and “Contains an issues management process that is capable of categorizing the significance of findings based on risk and priority and other appropriate factors….” However, the term “risk-informed” is not defined in this or any other DOE order, and no formal guidance on how to integrate the two concepts currently exists. The Risk Management Guide for Defense Programs released by NA-18, Office of Systems Engineering and Integration (SE&I), states it is “a framework and general guidance to program office personnel on the effective management of program risks and issues”, however it then defines issues as “events with 100% likelihood of affecting program objectives” and states “unless specified otherwise, the term “risk” will also serve to represent issues for the remainder of this plan,” severally limiting its ability to provide adequate guidance on this topic. Outside of DOE scope, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (U.S. NRC) imposes similar requirements. ASME NQA-1-2015 Requirement 16 states “Conditions adverse to quality shall be identified promptly and corrected as soon as practicable. In the case of a significant condition adverse to quality, the cause of the condition shall be determined, and corrective action taken to preclude recurrence. The identification, cause, and corrective action for significant conditions adverse to quality shall be documented and reported to appropriate levels of management. Completion of corrective actions shall be verified”. The purpose of this document is to provide a best-in-class framework for an integrated risk and issues management process. This process would provide a robust feedback loop between risk management and issues management to: Enhance risk identification and characterization, use risk handling principles to improve corrective action planning, and ensure regulatory compliance.
96 KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT AND PRESERVATION↗
Idaho National Laboratory Emergency Readiness Assurance Plan — Fiscal Year 2016
Battelle Energy Alliance, LLC, the prime contractor for Idaho National Laboratory (INL), provides this Emergency Readiness Assurance Plan (ERAP) for Fiscal Year 2016 in accordance with DOE O 151.1C, “Comprehensive Emergency Management System.” The ERAP documents the readiness of the INL Emergency Management Program using emergency response planning and preparedness activities as the basis. It describes emergency response planning and preparedness activities, and where applicable, summarizes and/or provides supporting information in tabular form for easy access to data. The ERAP also provides budget, personnel, and planning forecasts for Fiscal Year 2017. Specifically, the ERAP assures the Department of Energy Idaho Operations Office that stated emergency capabilities at INL are sufficient to implement PLN 114, “INL Emergency Plan/RCRA Contingency Plan.”
99 GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS↗
Battelle Energy Alliance, LLC, Continuity Readiness Assurance Report — Fiscal Year 2017
Battelle Energy Alliance, LLC, the prime contractor for Idaho National Laboratory (INL), provides this Continuity Readiness Assurance Report (CRAR) in accordance with DOE O 150.1, “Continuity Programs.” This CRAR documents the readiness of the INL Continuity of Operations Program using emergency response planning, recovery actions, and preparedness activities, and where applicable, summarizes and/or provides supporting information for Fiscal Year (FY) 2017. This CRAR also provides goals for Fiscal Year 2018. Specifically, this CRAR assures the Department of Energy Idaho Operations Office that the emergency capabilities at INL are sufficient to implement the INL Continuity of Operations Plan.
99 GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS↗
Idaho National Laboratory Emergency Readiness Assurance Plan — Fiscal Year 2017
Battelle Energy Alliance, LLC, the prime contractor for Idaho National Laboratory (INL), provides this Emergency Readiness Assurance Plan (ERAP) for Fiscal Year 2017 in accordance with DOE O 151.1C, “Comprehensive Emergency Management System.” The ERAP documents the readiness of the INL Emergency Management Program using emergency response planning and preparedness activities as the basis. It describes emergency response planning and preparedness activities, and where applicable, summarizes and/or provides supporting information in tabular form for easy access to data. The ERAP also provides budget, personnel, and planning forecasts for Fiscal Year 2018. Specifically, the ERAP assures the Department of Energy Idaho Operations Office that stated emergency capabilities at INL are sufficient to implement PLN 114, “INL Emergency Plan/RCRA Contingency Plan.”
99 GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS↗
Battelle Energy Alliance, LLC, Continuity Readiness Assurance Report — Fiscal Year 2016
Battelle Energy Alliance, LLC, the prime contractor for Idaho National Laboratory (INL), provides this Continuity Readiness Assurance Report (CRAR) in accordance with DOE O 150.1, “Continuity Programs.” This CRAR documents the readiness of the INL Continuity of Operations Program using emergency response planning, recovery actions, and preparedness activities, and where applicable, summarizes and/or provides supporting information for Fiscal Year 2016. This CRAR also provides goals for Fiscal Year 2017. Specifically, this CRAR assures the Department of Energy Idaho Operations Office that the emergency capabilities at INL are sufficient to implement the INL Continuity of Operations Plan.
99 GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS↗