Overview of a Developing Data System and Future Data Call Needs

Douglas Tonkay Office of Commercial Disposition Options

June 22, 2005

EM planning has evolved

• Site Roadmaps/ 5-Year Plans

• Baseline EM Reports• FFCAct Implementation• Paths-to-Closure• EM Integration• Top-to-Bottom Review• Project Baselines• Business Strategy

1990

Today

Several reasons we need corporate waste data

• Business strategy and analyses– Facilitating baseline and alternate options– GFS/I requirements– Informed decisions– Disposition graphics

• Waste program planning (complex-wide)– DOE Order 435.1 requirements

• Transportation planning

More reasons we need corporate waste data

• Dialogue with stakeholders

• Congressional Q&As and GAO requests

• International reporting– US National Report - Joint Convention on the

Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management

– Net-Enabled Waste Management Data Base

• Central Internet data base – settlement agreement

What data exists?

• Site baseline and contract documents– Ideally, volumes and schedules in project

management systems– But……what is really out there?

• Site treatment plans (MLLW subset)• EM Corporate Project Team Report• Budget documents and “gold chart”

– Corporate performance metric “LLW and MLLW disposed”

– Not a complete picture

What data exists? (Continued)

• Disposal site data– Hanford Solid Waste EIS and RODs– Annual disposal forecasts at NTS and Hanford

• Ad hoc data calls, e.g., to support RODs and litigation

• Stream disposition data (SDD) ca 2000-2001– Does not reflect current site baselines– Populates “Central Internet Database”

• Florida International University’s Waste Information Management System (WIMS)– Last year from Oak Ridge and Savannah River

What went wrong with the last corporate waste data effort?

• “One shoe-sized to fit all”

• Many data requirements

• Data suppliers often not project managers

• Extensive work for “stop lights”/risk scores

• Rollup of waste stream data to a level not useful by the site project managers

• Streams split between budget accounts (PBSs)

What went well?

• Disposition maps and flow diagrams - liked by stakeholders

• Inventory and lifecycle waste forecast

• Reconciled disconnects between shipping and receiving sites

• Consistent format and approach

• Electronic data transfer

• Used for program decisions (WM PEIS)

What are we thinking about?

• Efficiently collect needed LLW/MLLW information to support business strategy and ongoing systems analysis

• Place minimal burden on projects• Utilize existing corporate systems or

processes to the extent possible• Direct correlation with site baselines • Configuration control – organize around a

“Waste Breakdown Structure”

WBS numbering

• Unique MLLW and LLW stream id• Example: 02012111010202t

1. Generator program = EM (02)2. Generator site = Oak Ridge (013. Waste Class = MLLW (2), not GTCC (1), CH (1),

<10nCi/g alpha (1)4. Physical waste description = debris (01)5. Treatment = incineration (02)6. Disposal site = Envirocare (02)7. Shipment mode = truck (t)

Result is a smaller data set

• Descriptive information provided largely through unique WBS identifier

• Starting inventory and life-cycle waste volume projection

• Some additional data with capability to add comment or .pdf files as backup

• Waste Streams and TSDs limited detail

Options for data collection

• Waste Information Management System as proposed by FIU– State-of-the art graphics and web technology– Existing system with flexible features– Ease of use and access

• New IPABS “Waste Baseline Module” with options for web-based access and/or electronic file transfer input– Build under corporate IT standards and requirements – Corporate visibility and acceptance– Capability for multiple and archived data sets

• Hybrid of the above options