Guidance for Environmental Management Science and Technology Roadmapping
Brent Dixon Complex-Wide Science and Technology Integration Bechtel BWXT Idaho, LLC Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory
March 1, 2001
The EM Roadmapping Guide
• Draft completed in September, 2000. Available at http://emiweb.inel.gov/roadmap.html • Developed to provide philosophy and guidance for roadmapping application • Being “proof-tested” via current roadmapping efforts
What is Roadmapping?
EM Science and Technology RoadmappingA Planning process to help identify technical capabilities needed, map them into technology alternatives, and develop project plans to ensure that the required technologies will be available when needed.
EM Roadmapping Goal
“The goal of EM science and technology roadmapping is to align and optimize the science and technology investment portfolio by identifying both gaps in the current program and activities that do not support the cleanup projects”
-EM R&D Program Plan
Roadmapping Has These Critical Core Elements
• Owned by the cleanup project or program • Needs-driven: Based on capabilities required to accomplish cleanup mission • Uses a meeting/work group format - Multi-disciplinary participants - Consensus-building process
Produces credible and defensible decisions
EM’s Roadmapping Approach
• Science and technology roadmaps will represent the cleanup project manager’s definition of the science and technology investments needed to ensure cleanup mission success and when the products of those investments are needed. - EM R&D Program Plan
• “EM’s Science and technology investments must be driven by cleanup project managers.”
- James M. Owendoff
Why Roadmap?
• Identify technical uncertainties and develop integrated plans to reduce those uncertainties. • Ensure a sound design before significant costs are incurred. • Identify opportunities for significant cost and schedule improvements.
Ties together the cleanup program and R&D planning
EM’s Roadmapping Approach
“The roadmaps will include a set of logical, timesequenced steps showing activities and decision points needed to address technology gaps and reduce the cost, schedule, and technology risk associated with cleanup.”
- EM R&D Program Plan
When to Roadmap
Roadmapping involves significant effort, so roadmap only when the following exist: – High potential for mission failure – Significant consequences if failure occurs – High $ costs, high worker exposure, or high environmental impact – Multiple diverse efforts working same problem – Significant political or management visibility
How to Roadmap
• Scope the effort and identify participants • Identify System Alternatives and needed capabilities • Identify technical risks and knowledge/capability gaps - Technical Needs • Identify and sequence R&D activities needed to mitigate risks and fill gaps - Technical Responses • Prioritize needs and responses and develop Integrated Schedule • Write, review, and finalize Roadmap Report
System Alternatives
Technical Needs
CsIX
Unit Operation Mode of Failure Consequence H, M, L Explanation Insufficient data to identify failure mode as an engineering issue Insufficient data to identify failure mode as an engineering issue SRS has noted gas generation which is not fully understood SRS has shown Cs desorbs off CST, and cause is not understood No data on anything There is water in grout, and there may be solids in some grout Solids (suspended, sucked out, and heels) quantity and physical properties unknown, overloads S/L separation equipment. S/L seps fails Unknown solids composition, can't prepare appropriate simulants for testing Downstream processes fail
Characterization Characterization
H H
Cs IX
Cs IX LAW fraction contaminated H HAW/TRU Handling and Storage Effects of temperature on product unknown, Thermal instability may result H Neutralization & Grouting Gas generation via radiolysis DOT will not allow transport H Cannot determine curing (kinetics and thermodynamics) needs and requirements.(Performance H grout) cannot determine formulation which will meet WAC at disposal site. H Required DFs, other ops. constraints, and WAC not met.
Gas generation due to radiolysis Heat generation at high loadings releases Cs from sorbent.
Disrupts solution flow distribution in bed or creates flammability hazard. H
Neutralization & Grouting Neutralization & Grouting
Unknown feed compositions
Cause inability to meet performance reqs,
Unknown feed compositions, Liquid chemical composition not known. Simulated testing does not characterize interferences.
No tests performed with actual wastes. Have some data on problem causing materials, can engineer in that envelope
Characterization
M
Technical Responses
KEY OPEN TECHNICAL ISSUES
Item Ion Exchange Issue Cs loading from feed with extremely low Cs concentration. Efficiency of Cs removal during decomposition of AMP. Comments/Progress This data will have an effect on design and sizing of IX system. Test work was defined and recommended. Test results will provide basis for NaOH elution and data for residual Cs on spent PAN. Test work was defined and recommended.
Resistance of AMP-PAN to Prior work demonstrated AMP-PAN high levels of radiation. resistance at levels up to 108 rad. Testing at higher doses of radiation is essential to confirm stability of waste form. Irradiation tests at 109-1010 rad are proposed.
Integrated Schedule
Risk Waterfall Example
Who Should Be Involved?
• Roadmapping uses multi-disciplinary teams • Always include: - Project/Program technical experts and managers - Science and technology experts • Consider including: - People from shift operations, maintenance, etc. - Experts from other sites, industry, or universities - Regulatory/Oversight and other stakeholders
Roadmapping Lessons Learned
• A number of roadmaps have now been observed, confirming parts of the guide and raising some issues:
- Two types of roadmaps are needed - Roadmapping works best when sponsored by the cleanup program - The model for setting goals for program-level roadmaps may be wrong - Flow sheets aren’t being used at the program level - Stakeholder involvement guidance isn’t being followed - Application should be limited to important, difficult problems
Two Types of Roadmaps Are Needed
• There is a significant difference between “project” and “program” level roadmaps - Project-level roadmaps are focused on one problem, can be developed in 2-4 months, and successfully integrate R&D activities into the project baseline - Program-level roadmaps tackle multiple related problems, take a couple years to develop, and usually support multiple projects
Roadmapping Works Best When Sponsored by the Cleanup Program
• Helps achieve the strong commitment of resources necessary • Improves R&D integration with the baseline • However, some program-level roadmaps are beyond the scope of any single cleanup organization
Goal Setting Model for Program-level Roadmaps May Be Wrong
• Based on Industry roadmaps
• Assumes obsolescence
• Contrary to EM emphasis on technology gaps
Flow Sheets Aren’t Being Used at the Program Level
• Flow sheets or “functional flow diagrams” aid in the systematic identification of technical issues • All recent project-level roadmap have used flow sheets, but only one program-level roadmap has employed them • It isn’t clear whether this is due to a lack of applicability or a lack of effort at the program level
Stakeholder Involvement Guidance Isn’t Being Followed
• Based on review of outside roadmaps, the guidance recommends direct involvement of regulators and other stakeholders in the roadmapping effort • Few roadmaps are including stakeholders, and their involvement is usually indirect (information exchanges)
• However, regulatory and stakeholder acceptance is often a significant factor in new technology deployment
Application Should Be Limited to Important, Difficult Problems
• Roadmapping requires a significant commitment that is usually only available on the most important projects • One measure of project importance is the number of formal independent reviews expected
– The rigor of roadmapping stands up well to formal review – Roadmaps with significant reviews show better commitment of resources, better follow-through on recommendations, and generally a tighter, higher quality effort
Conclusions
• The draft roadmapping guidance has worked well in providing general direction for several EM roadmaps • Experience gained from those roadmaps suggests a number of guidance improvements or refinements • The application of roadmapping has also raised some issues concerning the role of R&D in the EM program