[DNFSB
LETTERHEAD]
March 3, 2006
The Honorable Samuel W. Bodman
Secretary of Energy
U.S. Department of Energy
1000 Independence Avenue, SW
Washington, DC 20585-1000
Dear Secretary Bodman:
Last year, the Department of
Energy (DOE) issued DOE Policy 226.1, Department of Energy
Oversight Policy, and
DOE Order 226.1, Implementation
of Department of Energy Oversight Policy. These
new directives define oversight requirements for a broad range of activities
including safety, safeguards and security, cyber security, and business
operations. Recommendation 2004-1, Oversight of Complex,
High-Hazard Nuclear Operations, addressed the development of
these new directives in order to improve federal safety oversight at all levels
of DOE. The order requires implementation
of these new federal oversight requirements at all DOE sites by September 2006.
Recently, the Defense Nuclear
Facilities Safety Board (Board) conducted a review of the technical assessment,
safety system oversight, and management walkthrough programs of the DOE
Savannah River Operations Office (DOE-SR). Based on the Board's review, DOE-SR must fill
a substantial gap if it is to fully implement these new oversight directives by
the required date. Unfortunately, DOE-SR
has taken limited actions to date toward implementing the new policy and order.
In addition, line management often did
not appear to appreciate the philosophical changes reflected in the new
directives, the higher expectations for line management oversight, and the
likely impacts on available resources. The enclosed report documents a number of
strengths and weaknesses in DOE-SR's current implementation of oversight
programs.
The Board is concerned that the
situation at the site office will be exacerbated by the decision to increase the
number of contractors at the site from one to two. The associated increase in the number and
complexity of required management and operating assessments will further stress
an already inadequate situation. The
introduction of additional interfaces between contractors, and more complicated
sharing of responsibilities between contractors will place greater demands on
DOE-SR personnel in order to maintain an acceptable level of safety.
Based on observations at other
sites, the situation at DOE-SR does not appear to be unique in the DOE complex.
DOE should take aggressive steps to
implement the 226 series of directives. These steps could include assigning a lead for
implementing the new requirements, performing a formal gap analysis, and
developing an implementation plan. Without these, or similar positive steps, the
Board has little confidence that the programs will be implemented within the
1-year requirement.
Therefore, pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 2286b(d), the Board requests
that DOE provide to the Board within 90 days of receipt of this letter plans
for implementing DOE Policy 226.1, Department of Energy Oversight Policy,
and DOE Order 226.1,
Implementation
of Department
of Energy Oversight Policy at
DOE headquarters and the individual sites. The DOE-SR portion of the response, in
particular, should specify corrective actions for improving the technical assessment
program, the design review process, the implementation of the Safety System Oversight
program, and the participation in the management walkthrough program.
Sincerely,
A.
J. Eggenberger
Chairman
c: The Honorable James A.
Rispoli
The
Honorable Linton Brooks
Mr.
Jeffrey Allison
Mr. Mark
B. Whitaker, Jr.
Enclosure
DEFENSE
NUCLEAR FACILITIES SAFETY BOARD
Staff
Issue Report
February
14, 2006
MEMORANDUM FOR: J. K. Fortenberry, Technical Director
COPIES: Board Members
FROM: M. T. Sautman
SUBJECT: Oversight Programs of the
Savannah River Operations Office
This report focuses on three
aspects of the oversight programs of the Department of Energy’s Savannah River
Operations Office (DOE-SR). The first is
the current status of DOE-SR’s technical assessment program. Both DOE Policy 226.1,
Department
of Energy
Oversight Policy, and
DOE Order 226.1, Implementation of Department of Energy Oversight
Policy, are
to be implemented in 2006. While DOE-SR
was not required to be in full compliance with these new directives at the time
of this review, the directives were used as a reference to determine the gap
between current performance and what will be expected in the future. In addition, observations concerning DOE-SR’s
progress in identifying and closing this gap are noted. This review, however, is not intended to be a
comprehensive compliance audit or gap analysis. The second aspect examined is the Safety
System Oversight (SSO) program, which was implemented as part of the Defense
Nuclear Facilities Safety Board’s (Board) Recommendation 2000-2, Configuration Management,
Vital Safety Systems. The third aspect is DOE-SR’s
management walkthrough program, which is a key part of operational awareness
and independent oversight.
The review documented in this
report was conducted by the Board’s site representative at the Savannah River
Site (SRS), M. T. Sautman. It was
conducted over a 3-month period and consisted of interviews with DOE-SR
management and staff; reviews of procedures, plans, schedules, assessment
reports, contractor feedback, and other documents; and examination of performance
indicators and database entries. The
above three aspects of the review involved the three line management offices at
DOE-SR―the
Assistant Manager for Nuclear Material Stabilization Project (AMNMSP), the
Assistant Manager for Waste Disposition Project (AMWDP), and the Assistant
Manager for Closure Project (AMCP)―as well as the independent Office of Environment, Safety and
Health (OESH).
The information in this report
is based on documentation and records provided in response to the author’s
requests for documents and information. During interviews conducted for this review,
frequent reference was made to assessments and walkthroughs
that had not been documented as required by procedure or were not in the
Site Issue Management and Technical Assessment System. When this came to light, one manager directed
his staff to write reports for all the undocumented reviews they had performed.
While the author made a reasonable
effort to locate reports, those that existed only in personal files may have
been missed. It is important to note
that the resolution of oversight findings is negatively impacted when the
findings are not documented, are contained in reports that are not readily
accessible, or are not tracked to closure.
Background. DOE
Policy 450.5, Line
Environment, Safety and Health Oversight, heavily emphasized the
establishment of effective contractor self-assessment programs. DOE line management’s oversight function was
to maintain operational awareness, review performance against performance
measures and indicators, and conduct limited assessments (i.e., reviews of
readiness, authorization basis documents, and Integrated Safety Management
System [ISMS] documentation). DOE Policy
226.1, issued in June 2005, establishes the policy for oversight programs
implemented by DOE line management and independent oversight organizations. It places heavier emphasis on DOE organizations
ensuring compliance with requirements and identification of deficient
conditions through the use of inspections, assessments, performance
evaluations, walkthroughs, and other activities. DOE Order 226.1, issued in September 2005,
canceled DOE Policy 450. 5 and provides direction for implementing DOE Policy
226.1. The field offices are given 12
months to implement a new order. A
DOE manual
containing further guidance is under development.
Technical
Assessment Program. DOE’s technical assessments fall
into three categories-facility representative assessments, required
assessments, and evaluations of contractor self-assessments―and can be
planned or reactive. The facility
representative program is not discussed in detail here because of its maturity,
the minor impact of the new requirements on this program, and its observed
effectiveness. Required assessments
apply to 7 of the 20 functional areas defined in DOE-SR’s Standards and
Requirements Identification Document (S/RID). While
required assessments form the foundation of the technical assessment program according
to the DOE-SR procedure, the limited number of assessments required by current
DOE orders and their breadth is likely insufficient to serve as the baseline
oversight program defined in DOE Policy 226.1. For example, the DOE-SR S/RID
indicates that no
assessments are required by applicable DOE standards for configuration
management, engineering, construction, conduct of operations, maintenance,
radiation and fire protection, and nuclear and process safety. These areas will need to be addressed by
DOE-SR-initiated assessments.
Procedurally, the next layer of
the program consists of evaluations of the contractor self-assessment programs,
reflecting the old emphasis of DOE Policy 450.5. This type of assessment forms the vast
majority of planned assessments to be conducted by DOE subject matter experts and
other technical personnel. AMWDP’s calender year 2006 assessment plan invoked the canceled DOE
Policy 450.5 rather than DOE Order 226.1. Given the limitations of the required assessments
and the fact that DOE Order 226.1 requires line management assessments that go beyond
merely evaluating contractor self-assessments, it would be beneficial to
recognize the need for planned assessments involving DOE’s independent
collection and analysis of performance data.
DOE Order 226.1 requires that
line management assessments be planned on the basis of
requirements, analysis of hazards and risks, past performance, and the
effectiveness of contractor assurance systems. Similar guidance is provided for independent
oversight assessments. However, these
expectations are not reflected in the procedure for DOE-SR’s technical assessment
program, which provides little guidance beyond saying that the assessment plans
must include required assessments and evaluations of contractor
self-assessments. Furthermore, these
expectations were not evident in the assessment plans examined for this review
or during discussions with managers about their assessment plans. AMWDP’s assessment plan provides more guidance
than the others, and states that assessment topics should be based on
operations and activities under way, previous issues and findings, and
potential impacts on safety and product quality. Yet the selection of topics is left to the
assessor’s discretion when the scope of the assessment is defined; the plan
itself merely lists broad assessment topics at the facility or project level (e.g.,
engineering design review of the liquid waste program).
Assessment plans tend to be
basic and simply to list generic facility or subject matter reviews at various
frequencies, regardless of whether a program or facility is fairly static or
major changes are expected during the year. Furthermore, the actual completion of assessments
lags significantly behind schedule. During the first three quarters of 2005, the
proportion of planned assessments that had been completed was less than 20
percent for AMCP and AMNMSP, slightly above 20 percent for OESH, and
approximately 55 percent
for AMWDP. This performance is discussed
in more detail in the following paragraphs.
Line
Management Assessments―DOE
Order 226.1 requires DOE line management to implement such oversight processes
as operational awareness activities; assessments of facilities, operations, and
programs; assessments of contractor assurance systems; evaluations of
contractor performance; and self-assessments. While the facility representative program
addresses many of the facility operations requirements, the breadth of
technical assessments performed by the rest of line management is narrower than
the above expectations. In general, DOE-SR
line management performs few technical assessments outside of vital safety
system (VSS) assessments (discussed in a later section) and reviews of
nuclear/criticality safety documentation.
For example, the 2005
assessments performed by AMNMSP’s Nuclear Material Engineering Division (NMED)
can be roughly categorized as follows: 56
percent nuclear safety/safety documentation, 24 percent criticality safety
program, 13 percent
VSS-related, 1 percent design review, and 6 percent other. The latter category includes some very
thorough technical assessments (e.g., electrical safety incidents). The resources available to AMCP affected its
completion percentage and breadth of reviews. For most of 2005, other than facility representatives
and project managers, there was only one person between the two divisions overseeing
deactivation and decommissioning who was available to perform additional
technical oversight. This individual
performed one assessment last year. Considering the number of facilities to be overseen,
the industrial and radiological hazards encountered while dismantling and size
reducing contaminated equipment, and the fact that these hazards can change on
a daily basis, the current resources dedicated to this oversight are very
limited.
AMWDP has a more mature
technical oversight program and appears to have achieved a better balance among
authorization basis reviews, VSS assessments, and other technical assessments, although there are gaps (see below). The assessments that are performed and the corresponding
bimonthly reports to the contractor are thorough. In addition, management has high expectations
for staff and a clear vision of what is to be accomplished.
It is essential for DOE to
ensure that safety is incorporated into a new facility’s design during the
early design stages to avoid the need for later rework and retrofitting. Although the impact of failing to do so is
illustrated by the performance categorization issue at the Salt Waste Processing
Facility (SWPF), DOE is doing much better at overseeing other aspects of the
SWPF design. For instance, DOE has
instituted a number of formal processes for performing technical reviews of
contract deliverables, design changes, test plans, technology development
plans, and the like. In addition, DOE
draws extensively upon the SRS contractor and national laboratory expertise to
supplement in-house resources. If DOE’s
assessments went beyond the design and considered the adequacy of the design
contractor’s programs and processes, oversight would be strengthened. The Glass Waste Storage Building #2 is another
facility where DOE-SR acts as the design authority and has performed thorough
design reviews (e.g., compliance of lightning protection system with fire
codes).
Unfortunately, DOE-SR reviews
the design of new processes and facilities managed by the site Management and
Operating (M&O) contractor with much less thoroughness and rigor. AMNMSP’s Nuclear Material Engineering Division
does not schedule any design reviews, but instead performs design reviews when
requested by project managers. The only
design review documentation from 2005 that was found during the present review
pertained to engineering drawings for the Container Surveillance and Storage
Capability project. The division’s involvement
in technical issues does not appear to be very proactive.
The author reviewed several
dozen documents (e.g., technical assessments by project and engineering staff,
bimonthly reports, emails, memoranda) provided by AMWDP that related to new
facilities (Actinide Removal Process and Modular Caustic Side Solvent
Extraction Unit), major modifications (Saltstone Facility upgrades), and new
processes (Tank 48 remediation).
While AMWDP’s engineering and project
staff perform more reviews of design changes, technical reviews of design
changes have tended to focus on modifications to existing facilities to which SSO
personnel are
assigned (see the discussion later in this report). Most of the documents related to new
facilities address observations from contractor meetings, construction status,
approval of safety basis documents, summaries of contractor studies, or
editorial comments. While there were
some technical comments on designs or test plans, these were limited. There was little evidence that AMWDP planned
and conducted methodical, independent design reviews. The AMWDP engineering organization had little
input into designs until authorization basis documents had been submitted and
had very limited input into technology development plans, test plans, reviews
of test reports, project technical risk assessments, and contractor team
recommendations for addressing technical issues. Earlier input by DOE engineering organizations
could lead to earlier identification of the technical vulnerabilities of a project
and reduce the likelihood of technical issues arising late in the design or
construction process.
Independent
Assessments―DOE Order 226.1 sets forth the
matters on which independent oversight processes should focus. OESH’s Safety and Radiation Protection
Division (SRPD) is responsible for a wide range of programs, including nuclear
safety, radiological protection, industrial safety, quality assurance,
training, and hoisting and rigging. SRPD
has the advantage of having the highest percentage (among the groups discussed
in this report) of senior staff. Free of
the need to review authorization bases or perform safety system oversight, the
SRPD technical staff should, in theory, be in the best position to dedicate
their time to conducting programmatic assessments and identifying safety issues
in the field. Unfortunately, a large gap
between performance and expectations is found here. Through mid-December 2005, the division’s
staff of 15 completed 18 technical assessments, and these tended to be clustered.
For instance, the 18 technical
assessments included 16 occupational safety topics, 1 nuclear safety topic, and
1 assessment of the assessment program. A review of these technical assessments
generated a number of observations:
·
SRPD
has completed some other assessments outside the formal technical assessment
program. For example, SRPD conducted
assessments of the site M&O contractor’s work planning/control and feedback
and improvement programs in late 2005, but these were in response to the Implementation
Plan for the Board’s Recommendation 2004-1. SRPD had not previously planned to conduct any
independent ISMS assessments in 2006, nor have they typically performed any ISMS-focused
assessments to support previous years’ ISMS declarations.
·
Although
SRPD provided the contractor positive feedback on the radiological protection
program throughout 2005, the basis for this feedback was unclear since the most
recent assessment conducted by the two health physicists was in April 2004.
·
SRPD
relied heavily on an independent review of hoisting and rigging commissioned by
the site M&O contractor. SRPD’s own
reviews of the site M&O contractor’s hoisting and rigging program consisted
of two sentences in a year’s worth of assessments.
·
SRPD
conducted an overall training program evaluation in 2004, although a report was
never issued. DOE Standard 1070-94, Guidelines for Evaluation
of Nuclear Facility Training Programs, recommends a 3-year frequency. SRPD conducted no training assessments in
2005, but focused on ensuring that the contractor performed its own training
self-assessments. DOE Standard 1070-94
emphasizes that in addition to overall program evaluations,
DOE field organizations should perform day-to-day evaluations of technical
training and qualification activities, for example, by monitoring classroom and
on-the-job sessions, spot-checking training materials, and reviewing
examination results. A
review of 10 months
of feedback to the contractor revealed one sentence related to observations of
this type.
·
Six
of the occupational safety assessments consisted solely of ensuring that
various contractors were posting a certain required Occupational Safety and
Health Administration form.
A
review of 10 months
worth of SRPD feedback to the site M&O contractor revealed much of it to be
hands off (e.g., summarizing contractor actions, assessment results, and performance
indicators), instead of summarizing findings generated by SRPD staff while performing
their own field observations and reviews. DOE Order 226.1 states that independent oversight
must provide a balance between reviews of documentation and reviews of the
adequacy of implementation through performance tests and observation of work
activities. In conclusion, a more
proactive and comprehensive approach for overseeing the site M&O contractor
will be needed to meet DOE Order 226.1, which states that a balance must be
achieved among evaluations of systems (e.g., DOE’s ISMS), programs (e.g.,
radiation protection), facilities, and implementation of individual system
elements (e.g., specific work activities).
As
was seen with
design reviews, DOE-SR provides relatively more oversight when it has a direct
contract for a facility. For example,
DOE-SR conducted a multidisciplinary technical safety assessment, a combined
Phase I/II ISMS Verification Review, and
periodic safety walkdowns for the Glass Waste Storage Building #2. It is worth noting that while DOE-SR conducted
a follow-up review of the contractor’s corrective actions in response to these
reviews, no apparent follow-up was conducted on the identified issues and
recommendations dealing with DOE’s technical assessment program, project
self-assessments, and project/programmatic safety oversight.
The division’s location in B
area does not help with the staff’s field presence. The OESH manager and the SRPD director each
performed only two management walkthroughs in the first 10 months of 2005. While some of their staff have
very field-orientated disciplines, the safety and occupational health lead performed
only one walkthrough during the first 9 months of 2005. During discussions conducted for the present
review, it was repeatedly mentioned that a large portion of the division’s
resources was spent on generating paperwork in response to external requests,
rather than on conducting planned assessments. Roughly two dozen examples were provided in
which SRPD staff coordinated the development of corrective action plans or
other reports, mainly for DOE-Headquarters. Division management has formulated a draft
technical assessment plan for 2006 that places greater emphasis on field
assessments, especially in such areas as quality assurance, training, and
radiation protection, which were not thoroughly examined in 2005. However, implementation of this more ambitious
plan is uncertain since there has been no change in resources.
OESH lacks the visibility that
an assistant manager would bring. The
office director also cannot issue any direction to the contractor. While in theory, direction to resolve findings
can be issued to the contractor by the deputy manager, this has never been done.
Instead, findings are transmitted
informally to the contractor for information purposes, and fortunately, the
contractor is usually responsive in addressing the findings. This feedback mechanism may have to be formalized
if a new site contractor(s) is more resistant to responding to feedback that is
not backed by formal contract direction.
Self-Assessments―DOE Order 226.1 requires that DOE
organizations perform self-assessments of programmatic and line management
oversight processes and activities to determine whether requirements and
management expectations are being met. The four offices performed a total of eight
self-assessments in 2005, about half of which dealt with the effectiveness of
DOE’s oversight. The calendar year 2006
self-assessment plans are a bit more ambitious and have a broader scope.
In July 2005, DOE-SR conducted a
self-assessment of its technical assessment program, which concluded that
overall, the program “continues to function well”. The results of the present review differ
sharply from this conclusion. DOE-SR has
a Technical Assessment Program Committee that is chartered for the purpose of
monitoring the effectiveness of the program and making recommendations for its
improvement; however, the last meeting of this committee was held in August
2004.
Summary―The
above discussion illustrates the gap that DOE-SR must fill if it is to fully implement
DOE’s new policy and order on oversight within the 1-year requirement. Unfortunately, DOE-SR has taken very limited
action to date to develop an implementation plan for either the policy or
order, although a gap analysis is planned for early 2006. During interviews, line management often did
not appear to appreciate the philosophical changes in the new standards, the
higher expectations for line management oversight, and the likely impacts on available
resources. Furthermore, there was little indication that implementing these new requirements
was a priority of senior management, nor was it clear who would be accountable
for their implementation. While the SRPD
director suggested he would likely be the lead since he owned the technical
assessment program, line management will need to be highly involved since it is
here that most of the responsibilities will lie.
When DOE issues new standards,
there needs to be a formal review of their applicability at the operations
office level, a lead assigned for their implementation, and an implementation plan
developed. In addition, management
support is required to ensure that the necessary resources are available and
that the standards are implemented consistently across the operations office. The current absence of these elements raises
concern that the needed upgrades to DOE-SR’s technical assessment program will
not be completed this year. Furthermore,
the recompetition of the SRS contract could result in
two or more prime contractors in the future. This in turn could cause the number of
contractor programs requiring oversight to multiply and further increase the
resources needed to oversee them.
Safety
System Oversight (SSO) Program. DOE
Manual 426.1-1A, Federal Technical Capability Manual, issued in May 2004 sets forth
the roles and responsibilities of SSO personnel, supervisory
requirements, and SSO training
requirements. All of DOE-SR’s SSO personnel
completed their qualifications in 2005 except for two individuals, who will
qualify in 2006.
The SSO
qualification card
includes all of the knowledge, skills, and abilities required by DOE Manual 426.1-lA,
but a review of the completed cards revealed a few issues. There is a requirement to conduct three
performance-based assessments addressing authorization basis accuracy; system
operation, maintenance, and performance; effects of equipment aging; and the contractor’s
system engineer program. Most of the
assessments cited on the cards are not VSS assessments performed specifically
to meet this requirement, but assessments the candidate performed previously,
such as readiness reviews. The relevance
of the assessments cited on AMWDP’s cards is usually obvious from the assessment
title or notations made on the card. However,
the approving manager for AMNMSP believes the intent of the above requirement is merely to
demonstrate that the candidate knows how to perform assessments in general. As a
result, the relevancy of the assessments listed is often less than obvious. For example, a readiness review may be listed,
but it is not clear whether the candidate’s assigned function related to the
four assessment topics listed in DOE Manual 426.1-1A. Other
examples of questionable relevancy included assessments performed 9 years
earlier or at other sites. In some cases,
none of the listed assessments dealt with the individual’s assigned facility or
VSS.
While the qualification cards
address the VSS assigned to an individual, DOE-SR has implemented a facility
engineer program that could have unintended consequences. In most cases, DOE-SR has chosen to qualify
SSO personnel on all of the VSSs in one or more facilities. DOE Manual 426.1-1A discusses the fact that an
individual may be assigned more than one VSS, but does not address whether
these should be similar systems. However, the Board’s Recommendation 2000-2
included a
subrecommendation to qualify DOE technical staff as subject matter experts for
VSSs. By specializing in one VSS or one
type of VSS (e.g., ventilation systems) across a site, this expertise could be
developed. DOE-SR’s facility-centered approach
has resulted in 9 personnel responsible for SSO for ventilation systems. These individuals are sometimes responsible
for several more VSSs (e.g., emergency power, safety interlocks, leak
detectors, radiation monitors, pressure relief valves).
Because any one individual is
unlikely to have the technical background and time to become a subject matter
expert in all of these systems, DOE-SR’s approach could result in generalists
highly familiar with one facility. This
possibility is illustrated by the fact that few of DOE-SR’s SSO personnel have
specialized, formal training on their assigned systems. DOE-SR has two qualified fire protection
engineers who perform most of the SSO for fire protection VSSs, but they have
been excluded from the SSO qualification program, partly because of where they
reside in the organization. Finally,
engineering team leads were formally qualified for SSO, but rather than being
assigned specific VSSs as required by the manual, they completed a very generic
qualification (similar to qualifying as a facility representative without being
assigned a facility).
DOE Manual 426.1-1A
requires that SSO
personnel perform periodic evaluations of equipment configuration and material
condition. Implementation of this
requirement varies widely across the three line management offices even though
comprehensive, generic lines of inquiry have been developed to facilitate VSS
assessments. AMCP
will not have a
qualified SSO until late 2006, so
no assessments have been conducted to date. AMWDP has
strong management support for the SSO program, which has resulted in
the most mature of the programs. AMWDP
conducts regular VSS
assessments, and a
review of more than a dozen of these assessments found them to be consistent
with the expectations in DOE Manual 426.1-1A.
Furthermore, detailed SSO
responsibilities
are included and maintained in Performance and Development Plans as required by
the manual. Most of the NMED staff in
AMNMSP have completed SSO qualifications, but their SSO
responsibilities
have been neglected so they can focus on performing authorization basis and
criticality safety reviews. While DOE Manual
426.1-lA states that SSO should be the primary function of assigned personnel,
NMED management stated that SSOs spend 75 percent of
their time conducting authorization basis or criticality safety reviews and
only 25 percent of their time performing SSO activities and other technical
assessments. This prioritization is
reflected in the fact that NMED, which has nine personnel assigned to SSO,
performed five VSS
assessments (plus
four unplanned VSS event
investigations) in 2005, although the 2005 assessment plan proposed conducting
quarterly assessments of six active facilities (e.g., H-Canyon, HB-Line) and
semiannual or annual assessments of five facilities with less activity (e.g.,
K-Area Material Storage Facility, F-Canyon). The 2006 plan has similar goals for VSS
assessments, but
discussions with the NMED director gave little reason to believe that the
number of assessments conducted in 2006 will be substantially different from
that in 2005.
Management
Walkthroughs. DOE Order 226.1 requires that
line management perform operational awareness activities, such as facility
tours/walkthroughs and work observation. Because it is considered important for
managers to spend time in the field and be seen, a database was established for
documenting all walkthroughs by personnel at the GS-14 level and above. In addition, performance indicators were
developed to track whether the offices were meeting their set goal (10-20 hours
per month). A review of walkthroughs by
person and office indicated that the implementation of management walkthroughs
varies widely depending on the level of management support for the activity. The strongest support exists in the AMNMSP office, and the weakest in the AMWDP office. The performance indicators, however, can be
misleading since the performance of an office can be greatly biased by one
individual. For example, approximately
45 percent of the walkthroughs performed by both AMNMSP and AMWDP between
January and October 2005 were conducted by a single person in each office. Thus, one division director in AMWDP performed
46 walkthroughs, while the other three division directors performed a combined
6 in the same 10-month period.
Procedural guidance is provided
for the types of things a manager may want to observe. These include comparing plant conditions with
technical limits; reviewing log keeping and shift turnovers; and observing
plant evolutions, such as valve lineups or sampling. Reviews of walkdown descriptions in the
database revealed little evidence that this guidance had been applied. The effectiveness of this program could be
increased by going beyond the objective of management visibility and
familiarization and using the program more as an opportunity to perform
operations oversight.
General
Observations. Many of the above issues have
been documented elsewhere and were freely acknowledged by managers during
interviews conducted for this review. That being said, there was not much energy
being expended to try to improve the programs. There was a perception that these oversight
programs were not a high priority of top managers. Furthermore, comments made during the
interviews indicated there was a belief that any weaknesses were compensated by
facility representative oversight and M&O contractor assessment programs
such as the Facility Evaluation Board. Throughout the review, the author observed a
high correlation between the performance of the programs and the level of
support for them on the part of the immediate managers and the perceived
support by senior management. The
inconsistent implementation of all three programs examined is indicative of
their dependence on the personalities of individual managers, instead of their
being driven by the expectations of top management.
DOE-SR has taken a more proactive
oversight approach with facilities such as SWPF and the Glass Waste Storage
Building #2, where it functions as the
design authority. DOE-SR has taken a
more hands-off approach regarding the design of modifications, new processes,
and new facilities at facilities managed by the site M&O contractor. DOE orders are not as explicit regarding the
need to perform design reviews as they are regarding the oversight of
operations and safety programs, a fact reflected in the belief that these designs
are the site M&O contractor’s responsibility.
As
experience (e.g.,
with in-tank precipitation) has shown, the complexity and lack of maturity of
many of the technologies used at SRS can lead to substantial impacts on the contractor’s
ability to achieve DOE’s goals. DOE
could reduce its exposure to project, technical, and safety risks by taking a
more proactive approach to design and process reviews. Doing so would require that DOE develop and
maintain a cadre of highly trained subject matter experts who can perform these
reviews. DOE’s Training and
Qualification Program is one way of developing this expertise. While the Board’s Recommendation 2000-2 was
aimed at reviewing existing facilities, SSO personnel who specialize in a
system develop the expertise needed to review new facilities. DOE-SR currently has a number of subject
matter experts (e.g., fire protection, electrical) who are drawn upon to
perform detailed design reviews. One
concern is that this pool of available experts will shrink because of attrition or degrade as the SSOs
spread themselves too thin over several disciplines. Meanwhile, the SSO program may not be developing
the next generation of subject matter experts needed to conduct quality design reviews,
but rather generalists. Considering that
DOE-SR has nearly completed qualifying its SSO personnel, DOE-SR might derive
greater benefit from addressing this issue by developing and maintaining
subject matter experts in key disciplines in parallel with the current SSO
program instead of requalifying its engineers.