Report - hdbk3027990100

DOE-HDBK-3027-99

(2). A useful technique to enable the team to understand the approach to ISMS, is to

ask the facility managers to explain in their presentations what has changed in the

administration of the facility to support ISMS implementation. Further discussions on

the effectiveness of the results of the efforts of continuous feedback and the

effectiveness of determining root causes for problems are also useful. Reference to

any gap analysis which may have been developed during implementation is helpful.

(3). The facility should allow sufficient time to prepare for the review. It is important

that the presentations at the beginning of the review be well prepared. FB-Line did

this well. Their success can be attributed to conducting several briefing dry runs with

site personnel knowledgeable of ISMS. FB-Line personnel still felt they had

insufficient time to get ready. Site ISMS knowledgeable personnel should assist the

facility in ensuring that key site ISMS issues are understood at the facility level prior

to the Phase II verification. The facility suggested that two weeks be allowed to

prepare for the visit following the initial team visit. This appears to be reasonable.

(4). The schedule followed for this review was intense with a lot to be accomplished

in a short time. The facility had difficulty supporting the record reviews, interviews,

and observations in conjunction with normal operations. Requirements for stationing

Senior Supervisory Watches and demonstrating a newly established facility process

caused difficulties in supporting the interview schedule. While this review is not an

ORR, a review of ISMS implementation will involve the majority of facility

operations, maintenance, and support personnel. It should be recognized by the team

and the facility that the verification will significantly impact the normal routine.

5. Report. A report similar in form to an ORR Report was drafted to document the team

findings. Form 1s (Assessment Forms ) were utilized to provide results from the record reviews,

interviews, and observations. No Form 2s (Deficiency Forms) were used. Issues, where

identified, were listed in the Form 1s. The Executive Summary selected the more important

issues identified as "Noteworthy Practices" or "Opportunities for Improvement."

6. General Recommendations

a. This Phase II verification did not develop issues that were significantly different from those

identified in the Phase I review. This may be indicative of the mature safety management

infrastructure that exists at SRS. In cases where the infrastructure is less mature or just being

established, this may not always be the expected result. For verifications following the review

of a site ISMS Description, where a mature infrastructure is in place, it may be possible to

conduct the Phase II verification using established site/DOE Operations Office evaluations in

conjunction with routinely scheduled evaluations. The Facility Evaluation Board (FEB) at

SRS, which is a formally established and effective evaluation process, could conduct this

review with local DOE oversight. It would be necessary for some external review of the local

DOE office ISMS in conjunction with the facility review. This external review should only

involve one or two persons to evaluate the local DOE functions.

b. The review phase for this verification was too short. Since a day was allotted for facility

and DOE presentations, this only permitted three days for the record review, interviews, and

A-5-16