skip to main content
OSTI.GOV title logo U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Scientific and Technical Information

Title: Lessons Learned

Abstract

LLNL turned in 5 Declaration Line Items (DLI's) in 2006. Of these, one was declared completed. We made some changes to streamline our process from 2005, used less money, time and fewer team members. This report is a description of what changes we made in 2006 and what we learned. Many of our core review team had changed from last year, including our Laboratory Director, the Facility safety and security representatives, our Division Leader, and the OPSEC Committee Chair. We were able to hand out an AP Manual to some of them, and briefed all newcomers to the AP process. We first went to the OPSEC Committee and explained what the Additional Protocol process would be for 2006 and solicited their help in locating declarable projects. We utilized the 'three questions' from the AP meeting last year. LLNL has no single place to locate all projects at the laboratory. We talked to Resource Managers and key Managers in the Energy and Environment Directorate and in the Nonproliferation Homeland and International Security Directorate to find applicable projects. We also talked to the Principal Investigators who had projects last year. We reviewed a list of CRADA's and LDRD projects given to usmore » by the Laboratory Site Office. Talking to the PI's proved difficult because of vacation or travel schedules. We were never able to locate one PI in town. Fortunately, collateral information allowed us to screen out his project. We had no problems in downloading new versions of the DWA and DDA. It was helpful for both Steve Blair and Arden Dougan to have write privileges. During the time we were working on the project, we had to tag-team the work to allow for travel and vacation schedules. We had some difficulty locating an 'activities block' in the software. This was mentioned as something we needed to fix from our 2005 declaration. Evidently the Activities Block has been removed from the current version of the software. We also had trouble finding the DLI Detail Report, which we included in our signature process last year. This report had been inadvertently omitted from the version of the software we used. We typed our own version of the Detail Report and the package was sent to signature. The final software was not available in time to include the DLI Report. We streamlined our review process for the Technical and Security Reviews by sending one letter to each entity instead of getting separate approvals from the subordinates, then getting an approval from the lead reviewer. The Review process took 20 days, far shorter than the 6 weeks it required last year. It will be difficult to shorten the process much more. One of our projects had associated laboratory work at NIF. This required many discussions with NIF management during the review process and before their paperwork came to them for signature since they were not aware of the Additional Protocol.« less

Authors:
;
Publication Date:
Research Org.:
Lawrence Livermore National Lab. (LLNL), Livermore, CA (United States)
Sponsoring Org.:
USDOE
OSTI Identifier:
896012
Report Number(s):
UCRL-TR-226213
TRN: US1200101
DOE Contract Number:  
W-7405-ENG-48
Resource Type:
Technical Report
Country of Publication:
United States
Language:
English
Subject:
11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS; LAWRENCE LIVERMORE NATIONAL LABORATORY; MANAGEMENT; PROLIFERATION; SAFETY; SCHEDULES; SCREENS; SECURITY

Citation Formats

Dougan, A D, and Blair, S. Lessons Learned. United States: N. p., 2006. Web. doi:10.2172/896012.
Dougan, A D, & Blair, S. Lessons Learned. United States. doi:10.2172/896012.
Dougan, A D, and Blair, S. Tue . "Lessons Learned". United States. doi:10.2172/896012. https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/896012.
@article{osti_896012,
title = {Lessons Learned},
author = {Dougan, A D and Blair, S},
abstractNote = {LLNL turned in 5 Declaration Line Items (DLI's) in 2006. Of these, one was declared completed. We made some changes to streamline our process from 2005, used less money, time and fewer team members. This report is a description of what changes we made in 2006 and what we learned. Many of our core review team had changed from last year, including our Laboratory Director, the Facility safety and security representatives, our Division Leader, and the OPSEC Committee Chair. We were able to hand out an AP Manual to some of them, and briefed all newcomers to the AP process. We first went to the OPSEC Committee and explained what the Additional Protocol process would be for 2006 and solicited their help in locating declarable projects. We utilized the 'three questions' from the AP meeting last year. LLNL has no single place to locate all projects at the laboratory. We talked to Resource Managers and key Managers in the Energy and Environment Directorate and in the Nonproliferation Homeland and International Security Directorate to find applicable projects. We also talked to the Principal Investigators who had projects last year. We reviewed a list of CRADA's and LDRD projects given to us by the Laboratory Site Office. Talking to the PI's proved difficult because of vacation or travel schedules. We were never able to locate one PI in town. Fortunately, collateral information allowed us to screen out his project. We had no problems in downloading new versions of the DWA and DDA. It was helpful for both Steve Blair and Arden Dougan to have write privileges. During the time we were working on the project, we had to tag-team the work to allow for travel and vacation schedules. We had some difficulty locating an 'activities block' in the software. This was mentioned as something we needed to fix from our 2005 declaration. Evidently the Activities Block has been removed from the current version of the software. We also had trouble finding the DLI Detail Report, which we included in our signature process last year. This report had been inadvertently omitted from the version of the software we used. We typed our own version of the Detail Report and the package was sent to signature. The final software was not available in time to include the DLI Report. We streamlined our review process for the Technical and Security Reviews by sending one letter to each entity instead of getting separate approvals from the subordinates, then getting an approval from the lead reviewer. The Review process took 20 days, far shorter than the 6 weeks it required last year. It will be difficult to shorten the process much more. One of our projects had associated laboratory work at NIF. This required many discussions with NIF management during the review process and before their paperwork came to them for signature since they were not aware of the Additional Protocol.},
doi = {10.2172/896012},
journal = {},
number = ,
volume = ,
place = {United States},
year = {2006},
month = {11}
}