· Going beyond the defined scope in a case where an ongoing program that supports the process or
facility under review but which is outside the scope of the review, presents potential problems. If
the team is to make a judgment that operations can be conducted safely and it requires investigation
at the interface of the process/facility with the supporting program, then going beyond the defined
scope is proper.
· Define the graded approach as it applies to each CRAD as specifically as possible.
· POST-ORR CORRECTIVE ACTIONS
Although the ORR/RA follow-up corrective actions are not the responsibility of the Team Leader, line
management may ask for input and advice as to the necessary action(s) to correct the issues identified
during the ORR/RA. The value and effectiveness of the ORR/RA can be significantly decreased by
ineffective corrective actions to resolve the issues identified during the ORR/RA. The Team Leader,
through interest in the effectiveness of the overall ORR/RA process, retains an interest in the post-
ORR/RA corrective actions. In general, the following items need attention:
· Facility management sometimes starts taking immediate action to correct the symptoms identified by
the ORR/RA team without adequate attention to understanding the root cause and programmatic basis
of the issue. As a result, the corrective action taken may be incomplete, shallow, and short-lived.
· DOE line management review of the status of the contractor ORR/RA corrective actions should
require corrective action closure packages for the contractor ORR/RA that meet the requirements of
DOE-STD-3006-2000, section 5.7.3. In that way, the contractor may more effectively evaluate their
own corrective actions before reporting readiness to proceed to DOE.
· When DOE line management forwards the DOE ORR/RA to the responsible contractor, the actions
expected as to the contractor's corrective actions should be clearly stated. Unclear or unstated
expectations result in false starts and failure of the responsible contractor to meet DOE's expectations.
This in turn has resulted in delays and incomplete actions following several ORR/RAs.
· In those cases where issues have been identified as the responsibility of a DOE field organization,
DOE-HQ should formally communicate corrective action expectations to the responsible field
organization. The expectations should include corrective action plans and closure packages.
6.10 MISCELLANEOUS LESSONS LEARNED
Engage a technical editor, if at all possible, during the second week of the review. The final report
left at the closeout briefing, although a draft, is the site or facility's first encounter with the full
results of the review and as such warrants a technical editing. This person should stay until all
Forms 1, Forms 2, and summaries have been approved, the executive summary edited, and the final
report formatted, collated, and printed. The introductory material (cover sheet, background, scope,
etc.) can be written before the review is started, thus reducing the workload during the review and
allowing the team to concentrate on issues at hand.
Do not assign any CRADs to the Team Leader, however technically qualified.
Identify an Assistant Team Leader or Senior Advisor. Having an Assistant Team Leader/Senior
Advisor can greatly improve efficiency in the conduct of the ORR/RA. An Assistant Team
Leader/Senior Advisor is particularly beneficial during the labor intensive ORR preparation phase.
If possible, include at least one trainee on the ORR team so that the pool of experienced readiness
review team members continues to increase.
Select a Review Coordinator with previous experience in the ORR/RA process, as this function is
essential in the assimilation of the data provided by the team members. Without accuracy and
timeliness in this function, conclusions are subject to question.