Phase I Lessons Learned

DOE-HDBK-3027-99

PHASE I LESSONS LEARNED

1. Team. The team assembled for the Savannah River Site (SRS) Phase I verification consisted

of DOE-HQ, DOE-SR, and contractor personnel who conducted the review over a four week

period. Most of the team members had recent ORR experience at SRS and were familiar with

site programs in the functional areas assigned. This team composition was adequate for a site-

wide review of this magnitude. A team with lesser experience would not be able to conduct an

effective evaluation in a similar time frame. Continuity of the team through the Phase I review

process is essential.

The following team member experience is considered beneficial in conducting ISMS verifications:

expertise in a functional area; site experience (especially familiarity and understanding of site

programs); assessment experience (Assessment, Audits, ORRs); ISMS training (knowledge of

ISMS Policy, Guide, and Verification Team Leader' Handbook). The verification team will lack

breadth and the review will be of reduced value if the members lack a conceptual understanding

of ISMS. The ISMS training builds on the basic, conceptual understanding of ISMS that each

team member must bring to the team. The ISMS training will not ensure an adequate

understanding unless the individual team members have already reviewed the policy, FRAM, the

DEAR, and the ISMS Guide to gain an appreciation for the principles and functions of ISMS.

2. Tailoring and Functional Areas Selected for Review. Five functional areas were

established for the review. These areas were Business, Budget, and Contracts (BBC), Hazards

Identification and Standards Selection (HAZ), Management (MG), Operations and

Implementation (OI), and DOE Savannah River Site Office (DOE-SR).

These functional areas were selected for a logical grouping of experts for the review. The

Operations and Implementation functional area was further augmented by four Subject Matter

Expert (SME) areas. Areas of SME expertise included maintenance and work control, industrial

safety/industrial hygiene, training, and radiological controls. Additional SME areas considered

but not addressed included quality assurance, criticality safety engineering, configuration

management, and environmental compliance. These areas were not sampled. This tailored

approach eliminated some potential review areas, however, these areas were not expected to

show weaknesses in the establishment of ISMS at the site. The functional areas appeared to be a

good selection and permitted a comprehensive sampling of the safety functions and guiding

principles of ISMS. Subsequent reviews have revealed that functional areas of BBC, HAZ, MG,

and DOE are generally sufficient for a Phase I verification. SME evaluations have generally been

performed in Phase II.

3. Criteria and Review Approach Document (CRAD) Development. The CRADs developed

for this verification were developed in a format similar to CRADs used for Operational Readiness

Reviews (ORRs). These CRADs permitted a thorough review of the ISMS Description. It

should be noted that the CRADs used in subsequent verifications must be individually tailored for

the site, facility, or activity.

4. Review Sequence. A four week period was established to prepare the team, conduct the

review, and prepare the report. An initial site visit by the Team Leader was conducted well

before the start of the review to meet site personnel responsible for ISMS and discuss the conduct

A-5-4