Idaho Chemical Processing Plant Process Efficiency improvements Page: 6 of 31
This report is part of the collection entitled: Office of Scientific & Technical Information Technical Reports and was provided to Digital Library by the UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
In response to decreasing funding levels available to support activities at the Idaho
Chemical Processing Plant (ICPP) and a desire to be cost competitive, the U.S. Department of
Energy Idaho Operations Office
(DOE-ID) and Lockheed Idaho ICPP Effectiveness Improvement Initiative.
Technologies Company have I Euectines iot
increased their emphasis on cost- - Budget allocation reduction
saving measures. As shown in the - Process efficiency improvement activity (Phase I)
tabulation to the right, the ICPP - HLW work package budget review
Effectiveness Improvement Initiative - SNF work package budget review
involves many activities to improve - Infrastructure work package budget review
cost effectiveness and - Rover tumnback
competitiveness. This report - Electrical upgrade project reductions
documents the methodology and - Process efficiency improvement activity (Phase II)
results of one of those cost-cutting - Additional future activities
measures, the Process Efficiency
During the last quarter of Fiscal Year 1995 (FY-95), a cost evaluation team consisting of
members from DOE-ID and Lockheed Idaho conducted a joint evaluation of nine ICPP work
processes and associated costs at ICPP. The team identified the steps associated with completing
the work processes, assigned costs to complete the steps, and identified the "low value" steps that,
if eliminated, would generate cost savings without adversely affecting the product. The conclusion
of the evaluation, as documented in the "Wichmann Report," was that about 13% of the steps
associated with these nine processes did not add value. The study also determined that the vast
majority of the nonvalue-added activities were required by current orders, procedures, and
regulations; and "the total reinvestment [based on resource allocation] will not be realized for at
least 2 years from initial re-engineering." One of the recommendations in the Wichmann Report
was to "initiate a systematic review of major work processes at the Idaho Chemical Processing
Plant using activity-based management techniques to increase productivity and to identify
nonvalue-added requirements." The Process Efficiency Improvement Activity was started to
fulfill this recommendation and to realize some of the cost-saving potential identified in the report.
A two-phase approach was selected for the activity to allow for near-term implementation
of relatively easy process modifications in the first phase while obtaining long-term continuous
improvement in the second phase and beyond. Phase I of the initiative included a concentrated
review of processes that had a high potential for cost savings with the intent of realizing.savings in
FY-96. Phase II consists of implementing long-term strategies too complex for Phase I
implementation and evaluation of processes not targeted for Phase I review. The Phase II effort is
targeted for realizing cost savings in FY-97 and beyond.
To kick off Phase I of the initiative, a steering team of DOE-ID and Lockheed Idaho
managers reviewed the 11 product lines supported at ICPP and rated each product line based on the
perceived potential for cost savings. To keep the initiative manageable, the seven highest-rated
functional areas were selected for detailed review during Phase I. Teams were established to
review the processes involved in each of the functional areas. In instances where a functional area
was too large for review by a single team, the area was subdivided and reviewed by additional
teams. Ultimately, 11 improvement teams consisting of approximately 100 DOE-ID and Lockheed
Idaho employees were established to review work processes in the functional areas. Based on the
two-phase approach, the teams were requested to identify (a) Phase I process improvement
recommendations that would result in near-term savings (those that could be realized during the
Here’s what’s next.
This report can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Report.
Griebenow, B. Idaho Chemical Processing Plant Process Efficiency improvements, report, March 1, 1996; Idaho Falls, Idaho. (digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc669355/m1/6/: accessed September 19, 2018), University of North Texas Libraries, Digital Library, digital.library.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.