Ozone, UV, and Nanoparticles Mort Sternheim STEM Education Institute [email protected]
Operational Readiness - nri.eu.com Readiness Notes.pdf · MORT SEMINAR The MORT Seminar lilcludes...
346
Operational Readiness n EGs:.G Idaho. Inc. 1
Transcript of Operational Readiness - nri.eu.com Readiness Notes.pdf · MORT SEMINAR The MORT Seminar lilcludes...
Operational Readiness
n ~~ EGs:.G Idaho. Inc.
1
Operational Readiness Questionnaire
Name: ---------------------------
1. Do you have an Operational Readiness problem to work?
DYes o No
2. Do you prefer to work your problem or to work as a team member on another participant's problem?
o o o
Prefer own problem
Prefer to work as a team member on someone else's problem
No preference
3. If you prefer to work your own problem would you prefer to work alone or to have other participants assigned to help you?
o Prefer to work alone
o Prefer to have help
o No preference
4. My special interest is in:
o Process Safety (like nuclear, oi 1) solar, etc. systems)
Specify: ----------------------------
DGeneral Safety (like the areas generally covered by an industrial safety engineer)
DA specialty area (like radiation protection systems, fire, industrial ~ygiene, etc.)
Specify: ----------------------------
3
4
OPERATIONAL READINESS DEMONSTRATIONS
1. Readiness Review, Policies and Procedures - Rockwell Hanford Operations Energy Systems Group
2. Operational Readiness - Albuquerque Operations Office
3. Readiness Review Plan for Purex Startup - Rockwell
"4. TFTR First Plasma Readiness Review Plan - Princeton University
5. Operational Readiness Review System - Battelle, Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Richland, Wasrington
6. Prw-Core 2, Dry Run Cask (Foldout) - Rockwell
7. • Quality Manual Readiness Review - EG&G Idaho, Inc .
• Facility and Process Operational Readiness Review - Exxon Nuclear
• Pre-Operational Survey - Albuquerque Operations Office
a. U03 Facility Ready for Occupancy Use - Rockwell
9. Health Physics Appraisal Program - NRC
10. Safety Division Review Routing Sheet - EG&G Idaho, Inc.
11. Occupancy-Use Readiness Tree - Purex Facility
12. PA Management Consultants Limited, Oil and Gas Division. Windsor House, Aberdeen, United Kingdom
13. Facility Planning - EG&G Idaho, Inc.
14. UNC Safety Instruction Manual - UNC Nuclear Industries
15. Preparation for and Performan~e of Operational Readiness Reviews -DuPont, Savannah River, Georg1a
16. An Integrated Approach to Economical, Reliable, Safe Nuclear Power Production - DOE, Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, New Mexico
5
SSDC Seminars/Workshops
MORT SEMINAR
The MORT Seminar lilcludes traditional safety concepts such as
hazard evaluation, human performance, and risk assessment, aa well
as Innovative safety concepts, such as barrier analysis, change
analysis, and tracing of unwanted energy Iransfers. Particlpanta focus
on three major concsrns: specific oversights and omissions, assumed
risks, and weaknesses In ths management system. 5 days
Designed for:
• Safety Professionals • Tachnlcians
• General and Safety Managars • Systsm A.nalysts
• Safety Support Staff • Quality A.ssurance Personnel
• Engineers and Scientists
Prerequisites:
• There are no formal prerequisites.
• General experience In safety, administration or a technical field Is
desirable.
All WORKSHOP
Subjects Included In tho All Workshop Include analytical methods,
Information collection, risk projection, human behavior, experiences
of certified invostlgalors, the role of specialist, admlnlstratiye
considerations and the structure of the Investigation report. 8 days
Designed for:
• Individuals Involved In accident investigations and/or technical
administrative troubleshooting.
Prerllquisites:
• The MORT Seminar.
All REFRESHER
A course designed 10 rec&rtlfy accident Investigators, after 2 years.
3 daYE
APPRAISAL WORKSHOP
The program will demonstrate techniques which define audit points
In the following are81 of the safety assurance system: 5 days
• Management Implementation • Human Factors
• Hazard Analysis • Information System
• Work Process • Safety Services
Deaigned for:
• Individuals Involved In appraisal snd audit activities.
Prerequisites:
• There are no formal prerequisites.
• General experience in safety, administration or a technical field Is
desirable.
• The MORT Seminar Is desirable but not required.
MORT-All WORKSHOP
Subjecte Included In the MORT-All Workshop includl) MORT
seminar concepts as well as analytical methods, Information
collection, risk projection, human behavior, experiences of certified
Investigators, the role of specialist, administrative considerations and
the structure of the Investigation report. 10 days
Designed for:
• Individuals Involved In accident Investigation andlor technical
admlnstrative troubleshooting.
Prequlsltes:
• There are no formal prerequisites.
All REPORTING WORKSHOP
This two-day workshop presents proven methods of Investigation of
accidents with case studies to practice the techniques. It covers the
requirements of DOE Order 5484 In developing the needed
information and filling out the proper forms.
Designed for:
• Individuals who participate in Investigating accidents
• Individuals who supervise Investigators
• Indlv,duals who review accident reports
• Individuals who Iraln Investigators
Prerequisites:
• ihere are no formal prerequisites.
MEDICAL All WORKSHOP FOR DOE PHYSICIANS
Provide a systematic approach for physicians involved In
consultstlon services on accident Investigation boards. Areas of
expertise and assistance would Involve the 72 hour profile,
psychologic&1 factors, physiological factors, envlronmen:al foctors,
and forensic applications In resolving an accident situation. The
duration is 3 days.
6
Designed for:
• DOE and contractor physicians, psychologists, physlologlsta, and
related lie Ids.
Prereq ulsltes:
• There are no formal prerequisites.
RISK ANALYSIS WORKSHOP
The seminar format uses and discusses the concept 01 Risk
Assessment and Management, understanding and utilizing selected
analytical methods, desIgning of risk assessment applications for the
participants' organizations, and guiding the participants In the
performance development of the risk analyses required for safety
analysis reports. 5 days
Designed for:
• Individuals inVOlved in risk evaluation and loss control programs.
Prerequisites:
• There are no formal prerequisites.
• General experience In safety, administration or a technical field Is
desirable.
• The MORl Seminar Is desirable but not required.
• Background in simple operational statistics Is desirable but not
required.
OPERATIONAL READINESS SEMINAR
The Operational Readiness Seminar will provide cognizant
management a basis for assuring that a project, process or facility Is
ready to operate and occupy. This assurar.ce should be based on the
MORT concepts that minimize overSights and omissions that could
lead to unwanted or undesirable effect.. 3 days
Designed for:
• Individual. involved In operational readiness review for facilities and
processes.
Prerequisites:
• There are no formal prerequisites.
• General experience In safety, administration or a technical field is desirable.
• The MORT Seminar Is desirable but not required.
JOB AND TASK ANALYSIS WORKSHOP
The Job and Task Analysis Workshop Is designed to provide the
attendee an understanding of how job and task analysis provides
input to total systems human engineering. ThIs Is accomplished by
lecture and laboratory where the attendee works a task analysis
problem attempting to provide answers to specific question •• The
attendees spend all the laborstory time actually completing a task
analysis and making conclusions from the analysis. 3 days
Designed for:
• Process Safety Analysts
• General Safety Analysts
• Safety Inspection-Enforcement Personnel
• Personnel performing safety audit, appraisal and review functions
• General and Safety Management Personnel
• Personnel Involved In generation of safety codes, standards and regulations.
Prerequisites:
• There are no formal prerequisites.
• General experIence in safety, administration or a technical field Is
desirable.
• The MORT Seminar Is desirable but not required.
ENVIRONMENTAL RISK MANAGEMENT WORKSHOP
The one week workshop presents methods which are useful In
evaluating environmental problems and programs, finding areas of
weakness, and projecting the consequences of existing programs. It
Is based on the Internationally accepted Management Oversight and
Risk Tree (MORT) program and demonstrates some of Its most useful
techniques In program evaluation and accident investigation. Also
Included aro methods to predict problem environments I areas using
both actuarial data and derived risk projections. Approximately 50%
of the week will be devoted to actual case studies and In doing the
ststistical and graphical methods to predict envlronmentsl problem
areas.
Designed for:
• Environmental Engineers
• Risk Managers
• Environmental Appraisers
• Environmental Regulations
• Hazardous and Radioactive Waste Managers
Prerequisites:
• There are no formal prerequisites.
PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT WORKSHOP
The Performance Measurement Workshop Is designed to guide
safety professionals In the use of modern computerized safety
Information systems. 3 days
Using their own job functions and responsibilities as a basis, the
participant systematically develops strategies and methods for use of
the Department of Energy's Safety Performance Measurement System
(SPMS). Also other local and national computerized systems are
considered that augment the SPMS .
Opportunity Is provided for each participant to Indicate his or her
unfulfilled safety information needs and to offer individual suggestions for SPMS enhancement. It Is not a course In computer mechanics and manipulation.
Designed for:
• Safety professionals who wish to upgrade their capability to utilize computerized safety information systems in a job related way.
7
Program Management
Ray Fielding
SSDC POINTS OF CONTACT
Senior Technical Advisor
Robert Nertney
Seminar/Workshop Scheduling
Jan Brown / Arlo Trost
Seminar/Workshop Content
Accident Investigation and Refresher
John Cornelison
Appraisal
Arlo Trost
MORT
Denny Fillmore
Operational Readiness
John Cornelison
Risk Analysis
Leon Horman
Job and Task Analysis
Leon Horman
Medical & Human Factors in Accident Investigation
Leon Horman
Information Systems
Bill Millet
Document Requests
Marcia Pratt / Course Directors
Document Contents
Authors / Course Directors
SSDC Address: EG&G Idaho, Inc. P. o. Box 1625 Idaho Falls, 10 83415 Phone FTS 583-1357
7/1/87
583-1357
583-1358
583-1397 / 0217
583-2703
583-0217
583-0142
583-2703
583-0752
583-0752
583-0752
583-0141
583-1357
583-1357
Operational Readiness Workshop
Day 1 Day 2 Day 3
- -
08:00 Arrangements 08:00 Homework presentation 08:00 Homework presenta-09:00 Basic Trees 09:00 Flow charting tions and discussions 10:00 Operational Readiness 09:30 Operational readiness on O/R review material
theory matrix 10:00 Administrative con-I
11 :00 Practical considerations 10:00 Information systems sideration in conducting in building operational 11 :00 OR in operating crew operational readiness readiness trees review and risk analysis
12:00 Lunch 12:00 Lunch
1 :00 Laboratory: 1 :00 OR and fellow on Construct an operational 2:00 Laboratory: Begin readiness tree design of O/R review
4:30 Instructor check trees material Homework Modify and complete tree Homework Continue readiness
review material
S2 1423
9
PRR-WO~GUOP - INSTRUCTIONS TO PARTICIPANTS,
1. Read r
o
o
o
o
SSDC-l, Occupancy Use Readiness Manual, Safety Considerations
".51 SSDC~~ Process Operational Readiness and Operational Readiness Follow-on
SSDC-15, Work Process Control Guide
Investigation SSDC-27, The DOC l\ccident/lncident Manual (Reference only) -,0. i,l' ~ J l';/z, f'
:t 2. Pick a problem or an area tha t concerns you as an FSO. C771'1i' <:.?.f
A nagging situation for which there hasn't been a good remedy or something you believe needs to be changed. ~'ake
notes on action(s) that have been taken or planned: controls in use or to be used, and any other facts you consider relev'ant. Bring this material with you. In our business we ought to have a good selection and variety of items.
3. Be prepared to discuss your task or takes someone from Point A to Point z. familiar wi th each of the steps lnvol ved explain the process to others. Think of that could be used to track the status process.
procedure that You should be
60 tha t you can some techniques of the task or
11
A GUIDE FOR CONSTRUCTING
OPERATIONJ\L RRhDINESS HODELS
OVERVIEW. The purpose of this guide is two fold. First, to give you a general idea of what operational readiness (OR) models are and second to provide you wi th a standard method for building one.
DISCUSSION. The OR process is just a method to organize yourresources and job tasks to ensure a base, shop, or
. fact 11 ty is ready to start work correctly. It provides a control system that can be used by individuals or a readiness team. The OR process is completely flexible and the degree of detail needed is determined by the user. The format makes it particularly good for use by aircrews who are used to looking at cockpit or control panel type displays. The OR can work together wi th other types of organized techniques such as HBO, COMPl\S, and fault tree analytical methods.
General Rules. The following rules are based on the graphic sequences shown in Figure 1:
- 'fhe basic goal is to huve any operation in a state of readiness.
Developing 'an anaJytical tree which gets progressiv~ly deeper in detail showing the things needed to be ready to do a job.
The tree is used to def ine a complete set of tasks or f unctions to attain opera tional readiness. The amount of lletail needed can be varied through the various tiers or levels of the tree.
The user has a format or matrix to use so the tasks can be related to the individuals or groups who are to do them.
The, matrix is used to track the status of the specific tasks. This results in a churt displaying the state of readiness.
PROCEDURAL STEPS
STEP 11 Building an Operational Readiness Tree
12
-This is a multi-tiered ·objective· tree.
The basic objective at the highest point of the tree or apex is to have the mission, shop, or project ready to operate correctly.
The first tier of the tree always contains three basic ftblocks" in a state of readiness:
Mission or unit and hardware
Mission or unit personnel
Mission or unit procedures
The tiers of the tree may be bui 1 t to any desired degree of detail and show at each level the condition needed to reach the next higher level. Figures 2 and 3 further ~ show this expansion.
- Use the sequences of acti vi ties depicted by the tree to establish implementation responsibili ties, and to build the required methods of implementation, i. e., work sheets, flow charts, etc.
STEP 2:
To ensure management has good information and to help track readiness, you draw a continuous line across the tree from the "box to box" shO\;ling the complete set of tasks and funct.ions needed to be in "go" or readiness post tion. 'l1lis line ~hif.t from tier to tier within the tree but must cross the tree completely. In areas where greater depth or detail is needed, the line is carried througb lower tier boxes. If minimal detail is all that is needed use just the upper tier boxes. See figures 1a, 2 and 3.
Identify the individual(s) or working group th2.t have the responsibilities for completion of the items covered by the boxes.
STEP 3: Set up a two dimensional matrix, as shown in Figure IB (lower right corner). On one side are the tasks established in step 2 and on the other side, the individual or working team who has responsibili ty for completion of the item(s). It's just a general purpose worksheet designed to control the readiness process.
13
STEP 41 Place a blue diamond shaped Bymbol indicating "don't know status" in each box where you don't have the answer. Let I S you know there's more work to do in these areas before you're in a "go~ situation.
STEP 5: Establish a status reporting responsibility for each individual or working team for any matrix box. The
raon or team muat have sufficient information to elill complete evaluat on and ·clear~ all aspects of the box for which tbey are responsible.
STEP 6. diarncndl
As statUB reports come in, overlay on the blue
A red triangle for "not ready."
A green circle for "ready."
This material is just to give you an idea on how you work the readiness system. Read it over a couple of times and you '11 see it's worth. The Occupancy Use Readiness Manual enclosed in this package is the civilian version of our Operational Readiness and further explains the items discussed in this handout.
14
~n
/ /
/ Work sequence charts
IWhath
L.fwhath
L.{WhaH
Readiness Working
tree
~Whatl
--
C::r. Known not complete o Known complete OStatus unknown
Operational readiness matrix
What
INEL-S-32 716 1.8
15
Getting Things Off to a Good Start-Operational Readiness
51293
17
How does this Workshop Fit Into the Overall MORT Program?
S2 2614 1.2
18
What training programs are utilized?
• The MORT seminars
• The accident/incident investigation workshops
• The program appraisal workshops
• Special subjects (A) Risk analysis (8) Operational readiness review (C) Task and job analysis (D) System performance measurement (E) Medical accident/incident workshop (F) CAIRS
(~ ~'"' (H/Tk v('k.J f4 c c / ItA. ~ 1~'7 (/) k{., J C, ytL---.
52 2615 1.3
19
What This Workshop Will do for You
7·6003
20
How do the ES&H Program Pieces Fit Together?
SPMS Mod I
A Inputs B Analyals C Presentation o Management Decision I E Management Action , Basic Analysis I . Safety - Health
I , . Environmental A.' I , , Change Reports
,
· Risk Loss I · People , · Hardware Acceptability ,
· Procedures-- · Goals-Objectives ,
· Personnel Deatt>- I I Man_gemenf Control Injury
, · Resource Alloca- , A.2 I tion Prioritization , · Property Damage , · Alternative
, ,r -Environmental I I Methods ,
Field Monitoring and ,r ~
Impact , D.' , Observation Findings 14..3 Screening and · Public-Political I t
, Relevance Analysis ... System Analysis .... Risk Loss Analysis ++
, and Projection Reaction , ,
· Fast Action . Specific Factors C., , A.J
, . Accept ,1 Accident-Incident I · Routine Action . Systemic Factors ~ Compare and Colla,e Report Findings I · No Action
. Magnitude · Maximum Potential D. . Direct Change E.' . Trends
B.' B.2 B.3 Single Event Loss
A.J
~~ ~~ · Most Probable Appraisal-Audit Maximum Single
Findings Event Loss
· Mean Annual Loss or Logical Correlations Integrated Loss
· Personnel · Frequency-5everlly
· Hardware Relationships
· Procedures and ! · Special Risks Management Control Hazards Issues
I A.6 · Compliance Data
C.2
Empirical Correlates A.7
System-Performance Statistics A.81
I I
Information from Sources I I
External to DOE A.9 I 82 2733 I 1.4
21
Technical Facility i nforma lion functional
systems operability LTA LTA
501 A 502
Contributory Events
Barriers and controls
LTA (incidents)
5B2
Control LTA
Maintenance Inspection LTA LTA
503 B 504 C
Higher Supervision supervision
LTA services LTA
SOS 50S E
52 1567
22
Operational Readiness Workshop
The objective of this workshop is to provide participants with the tools and application of methods for assuring operational readiness for new or modified energy systems. This will be done through lectures and participative exercises relating to:
• Development of operational readiness analytical trees .
• Use of work flow charts and diagrams .
• Development of operational readiness matrices.
,. Reporting to mangement.
.~.
52 2616 1.6
23
~n
/
I
/ /
Work sequence charts
IWhath
WhatJ'l
L.fWhat~
Readiness Working
tree
~Whatl
-~
6 Known not complete o Known complete OStatus unknown
Operational readiness matrix
What
INEL-S-32 716 2.20
Mods Complete
Operational Readiness Tree (Typical Upper Tiers)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~---~----------- - - ]
------~ J,Ak,;'u.-:. j
PM Complete
Inspections and Checks
Complete , I I I I I
,.. I I I I I
Op. Limits Tech. Specs.
Complete
2
Practices Complete
2
r-------------~ "'------------, I I I I
'" Basic Training
and Certification Complete
Special Training
Complete
I I I I ..
__ To level 1 Matrix
DOP's Complete
2
Op. Manuals letters , Other
lower Tier Complete
2
Note: Details of Tree are Designed Only to Demonstrate Method
,.._ .A ... ·._ · ·
_ To level 2 Matrix
S2 2617 1 .9
25
Maintenance
_L, f , I . I ,. -1..1
and
Operations
Operational Readiness Tree (Typical Lower Tiers)
Other
and r..l------------
r-----.l-----, I I I I L. ___________ ...J
Backup Analytics
.-______ .L ___ _
r----1-----, I , I I L ________ ..J
Hazard Analysis Summary Package
Reviews and
Approvals
Operational Command Literature
52 2618 1.10
26
Flow Chart
Plant and Hardware
Plant Personnel operationally
ready
Procedures 612982
27
Level 1 Matrix
Unit or Ship Hardware Ready 0
Presonnel Ready
Procedures
Code:
0
0 o Status Unknown (blue) 6 Known to be "Not Ready" (red) o Known to be "Ready" (green)
612981
28
DOE
Plant Mods Complete 0 Core Loading Complete 0 PM Complete 0 Inspections & Checks Complete 0 Operating Limits
<>
Standard Practices 0 DOP's 0 Operating Manuals, Letters, etc. 0 Basic Training & Qualification 0 Special Training 0 Job Specific Training & Briefing [)<
Code: <>status Unknown (blue)
6 Known to be "Not Ready" (red)
o Known to be "Ready" (green)
Top Manage.
0 0
0 0
<>
0 0 6
0 0
X
Level 2 Matrix
Staff Divisions Engineering OPS
0 <> 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 6 <>
<> 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 X 0 0 X 0 0 X
0 0 0 6 6
<> 0 0 6 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ><
X 0 0 0 0 0 0 <>
0 0 0 0 0
X 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 6
Note: This Figure is Intended to Demonstrate The "Control Panel" Nature of the Color-Coded Matrix. The Sample Symbols are not Intended to be Logically Consistent
S2 2620 1.12
29
Plant Start-up Readiness Matrix
OA~ .~ f:,.:t c,/"' '/( tJ(~ . ~
~ Organiza-
tion
Function
1. X 2. X 3. X 4. X 5. X X 6. X 7. 8. X 9. X
10. X 11. X 12. X 13. X 14. X 15. 16. X 17. X 18. X 19. X X 20. X 21. X X 22. 23. X 24. X X 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. X X 30. 31. X 32. 33.
X
X X
X
X X
82 0041 1.14
30
Basic Tree Analysis
41070
31
Tree Defined
• A graphic display of information to aid the user in conducting a deductive analysis of any system (human, hardware, or environment) to determine critical paths to success or failure
• It identifies the details and interrelationships that must be considered to prevent oversight and omissions that lead to failure
612980
32
The Basic Logic Tree
Logic class
Inductive Deductive
General
Specific
Logic type
Positive -System works properly
Negative (fault) -System failure
INEL-S-32 717 33
Analytical Tree Uses
1. Display clear thinking
2. Conduct deductive analysis
3. Show relationships and interfaces
4. Identify root causes INEL-S-32 699
Analytical Tree Uses (cont'd)
5. Determine critical paths
6. Identify system status
7. Provide basis for rational decision making
8. Provide reusable visual record INEL-S-32 700
35
Analytical Tree Steps
1. Define top event 2. Know system 3. Construct tree 4. Validate tree 5. Evaluate tree 6. Study trade offs 7. Consider alternatives and
recommend action INEL-S-32 713
36
Tr.ee Construction Principles
1. Common symbols 2. Keep it simple 3. Keep it logical 4. Expect no miracles 5. Clear concise titles 6. "Best fit" logic gates (fit; ~?~ rJ l ~ I:j /; ,j ./(,;> 0.<2
7. Use transfers 8. Sequence from left
INEL-S-32 714
37
Event Symbols
General event symbol
Basic event symbol o <> c==:=J
Undeveloped terminal event
Normally expected event
Constraint symbol
L..-__ ....JK:) Event constraint INEL-S-32 693
38
Analytical Trees Objective
Personnel
------Process
operationally ready
Plant and hardware
INEL-S-32 703
Procedures
39
Fault Tree Car fails
to negotiate curve
~ I I I
Human Environmental Mechanical error condition failure
~ I
I I I
Steering Accelerator Brake failure sticks failure
I I I I I 612979
40
1< ! .
Logic Gates
o And-gate
~ Or-gate
Summation-gate
INEL-S-32 692
41
And-Gate and Or-Gate Logic
I
. Power supply failed
Light 1
Switch
Power off
Switch opened
Light 2 L...-_....,j
Room dark
I------.L.y--~ Both lights burned out
1
Fuse blown
I
Light 1 burned out
y I
Light 2 burned out
INEL·S·32 574
42
J
Personnel
I
Designers
Proper Logic
I
Operational readiness
Plant and hardware
I
I
Procedures
I
Builders Maintainers Supporters
INEL-S-32 711
43
Improper Logic ,,'. '
pperational i readiness
~ I I I 1
Designers Builders 'Maintainers iSupporters I Procedures
41358
44
Tree Numbering System
1. Dewey decimal
2. Alpha numeric 7·8989
45
Example:
1
n I I I I
1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4
n I
I I I
1.2.1 1.2.2 1.2.3
n I
I I
1.2.3.1 1.2.3.2 1.2.3.3 612977
46
Example:
T
n I I I I
A 8 C 0
n I
I " I I --
81 82 83
n I
I I I
a1 a2 a3 612976
47
Personnel
Designers
Transfers perational
readiness
tPlant and hardware
iProcedures
Builders Maintainers Supporters
b
41360
48
Operational Readiness Theory
52 2621 1.15
49
Operational Readiness vs.
Operational Readiness Review 612975
50
Wh
at d
o w
e M
ea
n b
y
Op
era
tion
al R
ea
din
ess?
• R
igh
t pe
op
le
• R
igh
t pla
ce
• R
igh
t time
• R
igh
t en
viro
nm
en
t
• Wo
rkin
g w
ith rig
ht h
ard
wa
re a
cc
ord
ing
to rig
ht
pro
ce
du
res
an
d m
an
ag
em
en
t co
ntro
ls
61
29
72
'.
/" ---
---
51
What do we Mean by Operational Readiness?
• Right people
• Right place
• Right time
• Right environment
• Working with right hardware according to right procedures and management controls
612972
51
What Determines What Is "Right?"
• Will the program operation do as expected?
• Does it comply with applicable codes, standards, regulations?
7·8993
52
Op
era
tion
al R
ea
din
es
s
• P
rep
arin
g a
nd
follo
win
g a
n O
pe
ratio
na
l Re
ad
ine
ss P
lan
• A
ch
ievin
g a s
tate
of re
ad
ine
ss
• M
ain
tain
ing
a sta
te o
f Op
era
tion
al R
ea
din
ess
• ~?~~pa[~~~_~ .. ,~
~/~.~tO!,~~~.~J.~~~~~,~.t~!,~.g, revie
win
g
'.
.~
-~
• O
pe
rate
d b
y c
om
pe
ten
t pe
op
le
• P
rovid
ing
evid
en
ce
of re
ad
ine
ss to
op
era
te to
an
O
pe
ratio
na
l Re
ad
ine
ss B
oa
rd
7-8
99
2
53
Operational Readiness
• Preparing and following an Operational Readiness Plan
• Achieving a state of readiness
• Maintaining a state of Operational Readiness
• Preparin~, monitoring, docurlJenting, reviewing ':. I r ._ i t " J . ... #' , D.? (.!, •. , \.-.0., v;' .,.f !- ~ "t , .' ': /"# .• ,. !· .... '· ···r } / {!~,.~(! ~~:4_ /' d'./.1 ~ 4.,., ;c)- -'~ ~#.~ ':"'~, .f . ~ ~?.(,~ •
• Operated by competent people
• Providing evidence of readiness to operate to an Operational Readiness Board
7-8992
53
I Human
engineering
I Design
Configuration control
Fabricate Installation
Respond to
change
I I Operate Maintain
7·8988
54
Op
era
tion
al R
ea
din
ess R
evie
w
• A
syste
ma
tic m
eth
od
olo
gy u
se
d to
pro
vid
e
rea
so
na
ble
ce
rtain
ty th
at a p
roje
ct w
hic
h h
as
po
ten
tial fo
r sig
nific
an
t sa
fety
risks is
rea
dy
to p
roce
ed
sa
fely
an
d e
ffectiv
ely
• T
he
resid
.ua
l. risks o
f pro
ce
ed
ing
ha
ve b
ee
n
ide
ntifie
d a
nd
ac.c
ep
ted
at th
e a
pp
rop
riate
m
an
ag
em
en
t leve
l .
7·8
99
1
55
Operational Readiness Review
• A systematic methodology used to provide reasonable certainty that a project which has potential for significant safety risks is ready to proceed safely and effectively
• The resid_ual risks of proceeding have been identified and accepted at the appropriate management level
7-8991
55
Operational Readiness Review (cont'd)
• The Operational Readiness Review will provide verification and documentation to ensure:
1. Applicable criteria for design, construction and modification have been completed and safety requirements have been met
2. Required managerial controls have been implemented
3. The process or facility can be operated in accordance with established policy and procedures
4. Operated by competent people 7·8990
56
~
Co
ntro
l su
bje
ct
Va
riab
les
affe
ctin
g F
ee
db
ac
k fo
r Co
ntro
l of
An
yth
ing
Se
nso
r S
tan
da
rd
(Me
asu
res a
ctu
al
(Re
cord
s de
sire
d
pe
rform
an
ce)
pe
rform
an
ce) ~
pe
rform
an
ce
Th
e e
ffecto
rs
----
I P
ub
lish
er
of s
tan
da
rd
-
Co
llato
r
(Co
mp
are
s actu
al
with
de
sired
p
erfo
rma
nce
)
INE
L-5
-32
5
14
1
.19
5'7
~
Control subject
Variables affecting
Feedback for Control of Anything ·
Sensor Standard (Measures actual (Records desired
performance) performance) ~
performance The effectors ......
......
I Publisher
of standard -'
Collator
(Compares actual with desired performance)
INEL-5-32 514 1.19
57
How do we Staff for Review?
Management evaluation
1 System
evaluation 1
Technical evaluation
1 Actual work monitoring
1
Subject S2 2625
1.21
58
Wh
at K
ind
of M
on
itorin
g is
Ne
ce
ss
ary
?
• T
hin
gs
tha
t ca
n b
e d
ete
rmin
ed
by
ins
pe
ctio
n o
f the
co
mp
lete
d s
ys
tem
• T
hin
gs
tha
t mu
st b
e o
bs
erv
ed
an
d re
co
rde
d
at a
n e
arlie
r time
S2
2
62
6
1.2
2
59
What Kind of Monitoring is Necessary?
• Things that can be determined by inspection of the completed system
• Things that must be observed and recorded at an earlier time
S2 2626 1.22
59
How can We Accomplish a State of Readiness?
• Through the use of logical methods of setting down what needs to be done to have:
Plant and hardware People
- Procedures and management controls in a· state of readiness.
82 2627 1.23
60
Wh
at D
oe
s th
is P
roc
es
s L
oo
k L
ike
in a D
iag
ram
atic
Se
ns
e?
S2
2
62
8
1.2
5
lit
What Does this Process Look Like in a Diagramatic Sense?
52 2628 1.25
61
Work Process Schematic Goals ~ Manuals / Policy
Codes-Standards-Regulations
Ha,!wa,e Concepts-Requirements
t Criteria Design-Plan t ,
Worker Participation Fabricate-Install t •
Field Test Occupancy-Use
Fixes
t • Failures
Supervisory Scientific Engineering Craft
~ ~--- Feedback
Recommendations~· Incidents ... ,. ..... -t-- -"r"""-........ Work Performance ~ Observations • Problems '---"""";1;'-----'
INEL-S-32 518 1.24
62
-~
~ ~ -------~---------
Pe
rson
o
n
stre
et -
Se
lectio
n
Pro
ce
sse
s -
(Jo
b)
1.1
Ta
sk-D
ecis
ion
A
ssig
nm
en
t Pro
ce
sse
s
4.0 I
Ta
sk R
ela
ted
Tra
inin
g a
nd
Drill 4
.2
Pe
rso
n re
mo
ve
d fro
m p
oo
l P
ers
on
ne
l Po
ol
it M
ain
ten
an
ce
P
roce
sse
s
1.2
P
ers
on
ne
l Po
ol
"--
(Job
cla
ssific
atio
n)
Ba
sic
Tra
inin
g
Exa
min
atio
n-
RO
S
RO
S
S
T::;
an
d D
rill r--
Ce
rtifica
tion
"'~~t~
~-t~ ~11J
~~~ (Jo
b)
Pro
ce
sse
s
i4i 1:' I:
1.3
(Jo
b)
1.4 S
up
. M
gr.
Pro
c. D
esig
n
Pre
p
{~r.-t t~~~
~{~t ~".J;.
;,oJ ; ••
t\ .. P
ers
on
rea
ssig
ne
d w
ithin
po
ol
11 E
tc.
" M
gm
t ,,"
'-
, 1J .", "
, "
.... /'
"-
Be
ha
vio
ral
Clim
ate
4; 1-S:;'~i;r;a
3.0 -
Co
wo
rke
rs I
rt;;;;1-
I M
ach
ine
-~-;U~ 4.4
M/M
Inte
rface
,"
Inp
ut-F
ee
db
ack
4.3_2 W
ritten
, C
om
m.-C
om
ma
nd
2
.0 O
pe
rab
ility
Lite
ratu
re P
rep
ara
tion
c{ vr I
t a n'e>f
2.1 M
/M F
un
ctio
n
Pt 2.2
De
sig
n &
Ma
int.
I D
esig
n
~
52
3
96
7
63
Person on
street
- Selection Processes I---
(Job)
1.1
Task-Decision Assignment Processes
4.0
-.1 Task Related
Training and Drill
4 .2
Person removed from pool Personnel Pool
it Maintenance Processes 1.2
Personnel Pool ""'""-
(Job classification)
Basic Training Examination-SRO SS T~
~~t{' .. and Drill - C ertifica tion
~-t~ ~'t\r ~~~ (Job) Processes i4i l:' ( 1.3 (Job) 1.4 Sup. Mgr. Proc. Design
Prep (l.t.-t t~~~ ~~~t
Ai· ~~.~
;rJ ;', r! • .-Person reassigned within pool
~ Etc.
"', Mgmt ,.~
"~/ *' " ." " ./ "-
Behavioral Climate
4; 1-SUP~i;r~ 3.0 - Coworkers
:f':.'i I Machine c · ~ , . . ------~
/' ~ 4.4 M/M Interface , Input-Feedback ,~
4.3.2 Written ,
Comm.-Command 2.0 Operability
Literature Preparation L{V/ ,.{aAC9f 2.1 M/M Function
h 2.2 Design & Main!.
I Design
L S2 3967
63
Plant-People-Procedures Relationships
Do the people match the plant and hardware?
People
Plant and hardware
procedures match the
people who use them?
_- Proce~es and management
controls
procedures match the plant and hardware?
64421 1.26
64
Le
t's A
dd
the
Tim
e
Co
ns
ide
ratio
n
52
2
62
9
1.2
7
H5
Let's Add the Time Consideration
52 2629 1.27
65
Personnel
Personnel-procedur.' Intert8c8
Planl-personnel interface
Personnel basically compatible with hardware system
Create detailed procedures
Select basic procedural type and content
Procedural systems
S2 2830 1.28
Plant hardware
Plant-procedural interface
66
Ho
w D
oe
s th
is Lo
ok in
Op
era
tion
al
Pla
nt
&
Ha
rdw
are
Op
era
tion
a lIy
R
ea
dy
Pe
op
le
Wo
rk C
on
trol C
ha
rts P
roce
du
res &
M
gm
t. Co
ntro
ls
Co
mp
are
Re
ad
ine
ss
Re
view
G
rou
p
Re
ad
ine
ss
La
ng
ua
ge
?
Op
era
tion
ally
R
ea
dy
Re
po
rt
• Kn
ow
n C
om
ple
te
• Kn
ow
n In
co
mp
lete
• C
om
ple
te w
ith
wa
ive
r .S
tatu
s u
nkn
ow
n -,
Ma
na
ge
me
nt
De
cis
ion
• Go
• N
o-G
o
i) Info
rma
tion
ii) F
ix
52
2
26
4
1.2
0
67
How Does this Look in Operational
Plant & Hardware
Operationally Ready
People
Work Control Charts
Procedures & Mgmt. Controls
Compare
Readiness Review Group
Readiness Language? Opera tiona Ily
Ready
Report
• Known Complete • Known Incomplete • Complete with
waiver ·Status unknown -:
Management Decision
• Go • No-Go
i) Information ii) Fix
S2 2264 1.20
67
This Process May Include Lots of Different People, Plant,
Procedural Elements
• How can we prevent oversights?
52 2631 1.29
68
Wh
at Is
Ou
r B
as
ic M
od
el?
Pe
rso
nn
el S
ys
tem
O
pe
ratio
na
lly
Re
ad
y
an
d
Pla
nt a
nd
H
ard
wa
re
INE
L-5
-32
7
03
1
.30
Pro
ce
du
res
. "
69
What Is Our Basic Model?
Personnel
System Operationally Ready
and
Plant and Hardware
INEL-5-32 703 1.30
Procedures .
69
The Work Process Control Tree
Establish Testing and Qualification
Process
1.3
ObJective: To establish and maintain adequate work site control
Establish Procass for Evaluating
Current Status of Personnal
1.4
Define Responsibility
3.1.2
Fix Accountability
3.1.4
Validate by Field Tests
3.2.2
S2 2624 1.18
70
Th
is T
ak
es
Ca
re o
f Wh
at
Ne
ed
s to
be
Do
ne
• H
ow
ca
n w
e track th
is in tim
e?
S2
2
63
2
1.3
1
71
This Takes Care of What Needs to be Done
• How can we track this in time?
S2 2632 1.31
General studies, development of data, development of method, etc. 1.
~Ir
Process Development General constraints Baseline configuration
.....--------..., • Plant/hardware General policies, codes, standards,I--_._-•• regulations, etc. -2.
• Personnel procedures &
• Management controls
3.
Methods and Information Reactor-specific
analysis -. 4.
--
• Technical specs • Operating limits
-.
Current system configuration
7.
Operational safety
Safety analysis reports • Preliminary • Final
5.
- • Management controls 1---.. :""-1 -assessment I--~-.. ~ Operational readiness 10. • QA requirements
6. 9.
Specific operating protocol 8.
64420
1.32
-
72
Prep
aration
of P
roced
ures
Pre
pa
re d
ocu
me
nt
revisio
n re
qu
est -
(OR
R)
2.
De
term
ine
ne
ed
for
an
d ca
teg
orize
p
roce
du
re
1. :
I? I'C// j t ,)
f.' /
«D~"'o,·
Write
or m
od
ify
pro
ce
du
re
3.
Ob
tain
fie
ld re
view
4.
I , O
bta
in
ma
na
ge
me
nt
ap
pro
val
5.
Issue
pro
ce
du
re
for fie
ld u
se
6.
Ma
inta
in p
roce
du
re
his
tory
file
7. IN
EL
-S-3
2 6
57
1.3
3
73
Preparation of Procedures
Prepare document revision request ~
(ORR) 2.
Determine need for and categorize
procedure 1. i
I? ~(/I .-', , ,)
f;- / 0..D~ r~:"'1
Write or modify procedure
3.
Obtain field review
4. T ,
Obtain management
approval 5.
Issue procedure for field use
6.
I Maintain procedure
history file 7. INEL-S-32 657
1.33
73
Ol.-lalon ......... COI"I tlou'.I6000.1'1<1 OOC ....... _IC_troi ........ Cont6gu •• 'iorI.ftCI _Coo_ Spl_
-.-
What Do Tracking and Monitoring Systems Look Like
r- -------------------------------------------,
L __ ,-_==.....:.:c...r-- - - ------- --- -- - - --- - -- - - --- ---- - -- ----- - ---- --- - ----- ----------______ ...;
- -- --- -------- ---- ----- - - ----- -- - ... - ---.
r------------------------------------------ -. ~------- - --- --- --- --- - - -- - -- - -- - - ---- - - -- - - - - -"'--=:.;.:;..---::;;.rr
,----------- ----- --- -- - - -- - -- - -- - - - -- - -- ----. ~---------- - - - -- -- --- - - - ---- - -- - - -- - - - -- --- - - '-___ --'0;..).
r--- -- - - - -- - - - - - - - - --- - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --L. _________________________ • ______ ... _______________ ... __________________ _
,.. -- ---- --- -- --- -----_ ... -- - - - ... --- - - - --... - - ......... - - - ...... - - - -- ... - - - - - - -- - -L __________________ • ___________________ ... _ ...... __ _ _____________ _
'-~~~~.---------------------------------------
--------------------------- -~~~~~~ r------ __________________________ r-::::::---c,--,----,
I L ____ _
__________ - __ - - ______ - - ______ - __ I
-- -- - - - - ----- - -- ------- - ---- --'I
-- -- - - -- ----- - --- ---- -- - - -~- - j
- - --- -- - ---- - -- ------- ------- - ---, _____________________________ -J
., -,
L ___ _ 11' ____ -"=-, -- --- -- - --- ---- ------
r-----L ___ _
r_-_-_-_- -_ -- ~======:..::....:....:...:..=...:....:....:..~::..::.:...:...:.:..:..:..:.:..:J- --- - - - -
""-~_.""'e-d SI""'",~rve"'_ coe· c-troIleod Dec_I C __
INEL-s-n 731 1.34
74
Ho
w c
an
We
Dis
pla
y P
rog
res
s?
• T
he
op
era
tion
al re
ad
ine
ss
ma
trix
52
2
63
3
1.3
5
75
How can We Display Progress?
• The operational readiness matrix
S2 2633 1.35
75
~n
/
I
/ /
Work sequence charts
IWhat.h
L..fWhatl-1
L..fWhat~
Working tree
~Whatl
. I--
6Known not complete o Known complete <> Status unknown
Operational readiness matrix
INEL-S-32 809 1.36
76
Ho
w D
oe
s T
his
Lo
ok W
he
n W
e
Pu
t it all To
ge
the
r in O
ne
O
rga
niza
tion
?
82
2
63
4
1.3
7
77
, How Does This Look When We Put it all Together in One
Organization?
52 2634 1.37
77
Basic Occupancy-Use Readiness Tree
Parking lot., Yards, Roadways, Walkways
Office Buildings and Spaces
Uboratorl •• and Shop.
Warehous.s and Storage Facilities
CocI.a Standard.
Basic Structur. and Facility
Functional • RegulaUon.
Int.rnal Stotag., Tran.sport. Handling
He.tlng and Cooling Syslems
Communications
Special Buildings and Enclosures
Electrical Powe,
Written Procedures
CI •• nlng and Was ••
Placards. Sign., NotlfleaUon Systems. Al",ms
Utlllll •• , Other
Training Program
Fire Protection
Supe",lsors. Wardens, elc.
Security and Exclusion
Gener.1 Facility Orientation
III
Training to Written Procedures
- And
Training 10 Placard, Sign, Notification &;
Alarm System
- Tran.f.,
- CotnblnaUon of Element. Sulllel.nt Control
Training 10 Supervisory Controls, Warden Systems, etc.
$2 2635 t.39
78
Th
e R
.ad
ine
ss T
ree
pro
vid
es a
n o
vera
U
pic
ture
of re
sp
on
sib
iJJtie
s (th
e "w
ha
t") w
hic
h a
re in
vo
lve
d In
the
an
aly
tica
l pro
ce
ss.
Sp
ecific
are
.s o
f resp
on
sib
ility a
re lis
ted
o
n th
e R
.ad
ine
ss M
atrix
, alo
ng
with
the
in
vo
lve
d g
rou
ps (th
e ··w
ho
"). T
he
in
de
pe
nd
en
t an
d o
ve
rlap
pin
g re
sp
on
sib
ilities
of th
e g
rou
ps m
ay th
en
be
ind
ica
ted
o
n th
e m
atrix
.
Th
e S
afe
ty O
rga
niz
atio
n's
dis
cip
line
s a
re
liste
d o
n th
e c
ha
rt ve
rsu
s th
is g
rou
p's
crite
ria c
ate
go
ries (e
ne
rgie
s in
vo
lve
d in
th
e F
acility
's op
era
tion
). Oth
er g
rou
ps
wis
hin
g to
use
a dis
cip
lina
ry c
ha
rt wo
uld
lis
t the
ir ow
n g
rou
p's
dis
cip
line
s a
nd
crite
ria c
ate
go
ries.
EA
ch
Sa
fety
dis
cip
line
ha
s its
ap
plic
ab
le
crite
ria e
lab
ora
tely
de
taile
d in
an
an
aly
tica
l tre
e. T
he
tree
s a
re u
se
d b
y th
e S
afe
ty
Org
an
iza
tion
to s
ee
tha
t all g
rou
ps h
ave
fu
lfilled
the
ir sa
fety
resp
on
sib
ilities.
Th
ere
fore
, the
oth
er g
rou
ps s
ho
uld
refe
r to
Ap
pe
nd
ix I to
be
tter u
nd
ers
tan
d th
e s
afe
ty
crite
ria a
ga
inst w
hic
h th
ey a
re e
va
lua
ted
.
Ob
jectiv
e:
Fa
cility
rea
dy fo
r o
ccu
pa
ncy-u
se
Re
ad
ine
ss M
atrix
(se
e fig
. 4)
tree
(s
ee
fig. 2)
::------::t
Stru
ctu
re, S
erv
ice
s,
an
d H
ard
wa
re
Wh
o
Re
ad
y for O
ccu
pa
ncy
Co
nstru
ctio
n E
ng
ring
.
Occu
pa
nt-U
se
r
La
nd
lord
Qu
ality
Assu
ran
ce
Sa
fety
Org
an
iza
tion
Sa
fety
Org
an
iza
tion
D
iscip
lina
ry R
esp
on
sib
ilities
(see
fig
5)
~s
(list~
En
erg
y
1 2
3
(list e
ne
rgie
s)
• Pro
ce
du
res R
ea
dy
4 5
6
...
. -I-
-.... -~--
-. -f--
Occu
pa
nt-U
se
r P
ers
on
ne
l Re
ad
y
7 8
9
~-.-. 1
-.-
. __ . l-
A re
lativ
e tim
esca
le o
f p
rog
ress (th
e "w
he
n") is
o
bta
ine
d fro
m th
e flo
w
ch
art. (F
ig. 3)
f--..., ~
I--
f..-
1
Ma
y de
ve
lop
ow
n
Dis
cip
lina
ry C
ha
rt to
assis
t in th
e
use
of a
na
lytic
al
tree
s.
52
1
41
6
1.3
8
79
Th. R •• dlness Tree provides an overall picture of responsiblJities (the' 'wh.t' ') which are involved in the an.lytlcal process.
Specific areas ot responsibility are listed on the R •• dlness M,atrix .• 'ong with the involved groups (the '·who"). The independ.nt and overlapping responsibilities of the groups m.y then be jndic.ted on the m.trix.
The Safety Organization's disciplines are listed on the chart versus this group's criteria c.tegorles {energies Involved in the Facility's operation}. Other groups wishing to use a disciplinary chari would list their own group's disciplines and criteria categories.
EAch Safety discipline has Its applicable criteria elaboral.,y detailed in an analytical tree. The trees are used by the Safety Organization to see that all groups have fulfilled their safety responsibilities. Therefore, the other groups should refer to Appendix I to better understand the safety criteria against which they are evaluated.
Objective: Facility ready for
Who
Readiness'~-----------I-4----~~~~~,~ __ ~~
Readiness Matrix (see fig. 4)
tree (see fig. 2)
:::------::t Structure, Services,
and Hardware Who Ready for Occupancy
Construction Engring.
Occupant-User
Landlord
Quality Assurance
Safety Organization
Safety Organization Disciplinary Responsibilities
(see fig 5)
~s (list~ Energy
1 2 3
(list energies)
Occupant-User Procedures Ready Personnel Ready
• 4 5 6 7 8 9
..
. - 1-----1---I-- --. 1-.. .. - e--
._- ~
A relative timescale of progress (the "when") is obtained from the flow chari. (Fig. 3)
~ f--+. f..-f--.
l
May develop own Disciplinary Chari to assist In the use of analytical trees.
S2 1416 1.36
79
QO '-',
Pra
ctic
al C
on
sid
era
tion
s in
B
uild
ing
the
Op
era
tion
al
Re
ad
ine
ss
Tre
e
52
2
65
8
1.6
3
81
Practical Considerations in Building the Operational
Readiness Tree
52 2658 1.63
81
What do We Have to Be Careful Of?
• No oversights in dealing with hazards.
• The right specialists look at the right areas in assuring readiness. (A) Do (8) Review
• Criteria
52 2656 1.62
82
Wh
at P
hilo
so
ph
y d
o W
e u
se
in
Se
tting
up
the
Op
era
tion
al
Re
ad
ine
ss A
na
lytic
al T
ree
s?
• U
se th
e s
tan
da
rdiz
ed
mo
de
ls d
irectly
for
stra
igh
tforw
ard
tasks.
• D
eve
lop
sp
ecia
l mo
de
ls fo
r co
mp
lex s
yste
ms.
• R
ela
te o
ur m
od
els
to th
e o
rga
niz
atio
n's
m
an
ag
em
en
t an
d w
ork
co
ntro
l syste
ms.
52
2
65
9
1.6
4
83
What Philosophy do We use in Setting up the Operational
Readiness Analytical Trees?
• Use the standardized models directly for straightforward tasks.
• Develop special models for complex systems.
• Relate our models to the organization's management and work control systems.
52 2659 1.64
83
How Would We Handle the Job of a Custodian Cleaning up
This Room?
52 2660 1.65
Th
e S
tan
da
rd T
ree
Pe
rso
nn
el
Pla
nt a
nd
h
ard
wa
re
Pro
ce
du
res
INE
l-S-3
2 7
03
1
.66
85
The Standard Tree
Personnel Plant and hardware
Procedures
INEL-S-32 703 1.66
85
How do we use existing inspections, reviews, checklists, etc.?
¢ r T I
I I I I
I I r I
Q c;J T T
Checklist Review and 0 inspection 0 findings 0 0
69963
86
Ho
w A
bo
ut P
roc
es
s S
afe
ty fo
r a B
ig H
igh
ly S
en
sitiv
e J
ob
?
• N
uc
lea
r rea
cto
r
• D
rilling
52
2
66
1
1.6
7
How About Process Safety for a Big Highly Sensitive Job?
• Nuclear reactor
• Drilling
52 2661 1.67
·°7 (j
How Could We Handle a Nuclear Reactor?
52 2662 1.68
98 o
.--
Pla
nt E
qu
ipm
en
t Re
ad
ine
ss
Review
M
atrix
Wo
rk T
ree
Re
ad
y fo
r op
era
tion
-------------. I
. I
I I
I I I I I I I I I I
Re
acto
r pla
nt &
ha
rdw
are
I
Pe
rso
nn
el
Pro
ce
du
res &
Do
cu
me
nts
re
ad
y
I re
ad
y
rea
dy
I
I S
y Contin~ed o
n
I I I S
tartu
p
Sa
fety
I S
taffin
g
-I-
Se
lecte
d
au
tho
riza
tion
~ I-
an
aly
sis
ste
m D
esig
n D
escrip
tion
(SO
D)
I re
po
rt
I D
ocu
me
nt T
ree
I
... ------------_ .. O
pe
ratio
na
l Pe
rso
nn
el -
I-
Critic
ality
M
an
ag
em
en
t co
ntro
l I--
Te
ch
nic
al s
pe
cia
lists
ce
rtified
tra
inin
g
syste
m
Pro
ce
du
re
~ I"
-T
este
d
Va
lida
ted
-
I-
Op
era
tion
al S
afe
ty
orie
nta
tion
A
ssu
ran
ce
Do
cu
me
nt
.... S
yste
m
Syste
m
~ I-
Em
erg
en
cy
train
ing
p
roce
du
res
ma
nu
al
Ph
ysic
s
~ -
Pre
-sta
rtup
sta
rtup
sp
ecia
lists
n
otific
a tio
n
Pro
gra
m
~
req
uire
me
nt d
ocu
me
nts
S2
0042 1
.70
89
r-
Plant Equipment Readiness Review Matrix Work Tree
Ready for operation
-------------W I . I I I I
I I I I I I I I I
Reactor plant & hardware I Personnel Procedures & Documents ready I ready ready
I
I Sy COntin~od on
I I I Startup
Safety
I Staffing ~ - Selected authorization -~ analysis stem Design Description (SOD) I report
I Document Tree I ... ------------_ .. Operational Personnel I-- Criticality Management control
~ - Technical specialists certified training system
Procedure -~ Tested Validated I-~ Operational Safety
orientation Assurance Document
-- System System -~ Emergency training procedures manual
Physics - ~ Pre-startup startup specialists notification
Program ~ requirement documents
52 0042 1.70
89
Now Let's Move Down the Hardware Branch of the Tree
52 2663 1.71
90
/ • .J.
(
;---
,r-j /) -I .~ (_".~. P"'<
).:(
CO
D 1
.1.1
.5
Co
re SuppOO
"t S1ructu'.~
CO
D 1.1
.1.8 r.:...
Co
ntro
l 'I!.!t
Ro
d
Dr",.,
CO
D1
.1.S
.2V
:2
Ai, C
oo
t.-d
~ C
on
de
nse
r
CO
D .......
'~: I
[)QIly S
tlte6d
18
nll .
• nd
:'
Co
mp
on
."" S
up
po
rt Sy.,.m
"'.,embl,
Re
ad
ine
ss Re
view
Ma
trix
Wo
rk Tre
e P
lan
t a. Eq
uip
.
P,im
ery C
oo
I_n
' 5
"le
ml.O
ld
Su~y't.m$
Se
ction
~SD01.2
.1 ~ P
' ... u
t. Re
du
ctio
n a
nd
d
...:on
tam
inalio
n sp
ray
.Y
I'em
l
~
SO
D 1
.2.6
Co
n'-'""""! l .. 1t
T .. tS
,I'_
Prim.ryC~nl
p,,,.u'. B
ou
l'Kla
ry V.I .....
coo
1.1 .•
.• P
' ... uriz.,
~
SO
O 1
.2.'
II.!; C
on
qin
man
l 'so
lalion
S I'.'"
Prim
ary C
oo
lan
t P
r •• ,u
,. Bo
un
d •• y
Pip
'"9
~
SOD
1.2.'
I-R.d~ti_ S
hie
ldin
g
S,l
lem
~
$0
01
.2.1
0
Con'-;"'"_"' V
.... I -
p, ..
. u
r. 8o
un
d.ry
S
ys'.'"
~ S
OD
1.2
.'"
Co
nl.8
inm
en
l P
e,so
nn
el
Alrloc:k S
y.le
m
=_S4 :~~n~·;;~.lr.tlons T
hro
ug
h C
on
t.'nm
.n!
V •••• t
~
SO
D 1
.3.1
1
allildln
g T"'~SO
H •• "no. V
en
tilalin
g.
an
d A
i, Co
rtditio
nin
g
5,lle
m (H
V S
yllfln
l 5
.6. a
nd
1)
SO
D 1.3
.13
s.nr~. 8
uild
i ..... ,so
latio
n _rod
P, ••
• u
riutio
n
$IIP
pl, S
yl'e
m
(HV
S
ysle
m 1
0)
FD
D 1
.3 I ........ Foe,m
.. ,
~ H
"lin
g. V
en
lil8.in
g.
2 .n
d A
ir Co
nd
Ition
ing
IO
f Co
ntin
uo
us S
.mp
le,
Mo
nilO
f A, •
• e
nd
ElIh
.us'
to 51.81;:11 S
ys.e
m
(MV
Sy
s.em
l
8 :=o~:;:y C
oo
l.".
-1
r,,'rum
enl.8
1io
n
.nd
Co
n'ro
( Sy
s'em
o E
qu
ip/S
ys
tem
Co
de N
o
__
_ T
en1.8li,.
S2
2
86
4
1.72
91.
· ~.",: , ;,.:
f
d coo 1.t.l . 1
, .. ,. ... 91 Modioli., ICOI, , ~
CDO I . I.I .S IS C9f. Suppotl
SI.uclu'"
COD 1.1.1 .8 Controol .od 0 ........
Readiness Review Matrix Work Tree Plant .. Equip_
Section
I ~uu 1.1 8lowd_n S."I.m
WU I .1.1 Em., ... nc., Coo. Cooling 5 , •• ..,.
P, im.ry COOI.nl S,$Iem, .nd Su~y.l.m~
I (2 p,om.ry Coot.nl Pv:np
Prim.ry Coolenl P ........ .
ItOundery V.hr ••
R': SOD 1.2.' '"' ... ur. AeoductlOf' .nd d-.c:o-nl .... I .... lion .pt'.y .yu .... .
coo ... . ..,~ I ~ AI,Cooleod I "'C Cond..".,
coo t .1. .. . .. Pr"luriz.'
Prlm.ry Coohlnt P,."u'. Bound., ., Pi"tn ..
~ SOD 1.2.14 Conteln ....... t P.t.onn.1 AI.loc. Sy.t.m
r8 :~~~·;;!.".tton. i.- Tl'l rou9 h Conl.ln ....... 1
V ..... I
FDD 1.3 I .. -<.,'''''"
I
® :~o~:~~ Cool,n' - Inll .... m.n!.elion
,neil Conlrol 5y.l.m
o Eq ... lplS."I, ... Cod. NO. ___ T.nlttiw.
52 280" 1.7:2
91
Now What has to be Done for Every Piece of Har'dwa,re?
52 2665 1.73
92
r D
efin
e in
div
idu
al
resp
on
sib
ility fo
r kn
ow
ing
a
nd
ma
inta
inin
g s
tatu
s S
tatu
s o
f
I S
tatu
s o
f mo
dific
atio
n
of p
lan
t or e
qu
ipm
en
t b
ase
line
de
sig
n
I S
tatu
s o
f re
lev
an
t wa
ive
r re
qu
ests
*
Typ
ica
l h
ard
wa
re Ite
m
or s
ub
syste
m
I In
sp
ectio
n a
nd
te
st re
qu
irem
en
ts
an
d re
su
lts
ke
y d
raw
ing
s
Syste
m d
esig
n
de
scrip
tion
s
Qu
ality
assu
ran
ce
re
qu
irem
en
ts &
sta
tus 01
dis
cre
pa
ncy re
po
rts
I In
pu
t to
sa
fety
an
aly
sis
re
po
rt (SA
R) Q
I
De
sig
n lim
its
sp
ecifie
d a
nd
in
clu
de
d in
tech
nic
al
sp
ec
ifica
tion
s,
op
era
tion
al lim
its
r M
ain
ten
an
ce
-ca
libra
te
req
uire
me
nts
a
nd
sta
tus
* P
roce
du
res
req
uire
me
nts
a
nd
sta
tus
Sp
are
pa
rts
req
uire
me
nts
a
nd
sta
tus
• Mu
st b
e O
K to
cle
ar
"Pe
rso
nn
el re
ad
y" a
nd
"P
roc
ed
ure
s a
nd
do
cu
me
nts
rea
dy
" O
pe
ratio
na
lly re
ad
y
52
0044 1.74
I S
tallin
g
an
d
train
ing
*
93
r Deline individuel responsibility for knowing end maintaining status
Status 01
I Sielus 01 modification 01 planl or equipmenl baseline design
I Status of relevant waiver requests
*
Typicel herdware lIem or subsystem
I Inspection and lesl requirements and results
key drawings Syslem design descriptions
Quality assurance requirements & stalus 01 discrepancy reports
r Inpul to safety analysis report (SAR)
Q 1
Design limits specified and included in technical specifications, operational limits
I Mainlenance - calibrate requirements and stalus
* Procedures requirements and status
Spare parts requirements and stalus
• Must be OK 10 clear "Personnel ready" and "Procedures and documents ready " Operationally ready
52 0044 1.74
1 Stalling and training
*
93
Now Let's Lo:ok at the Personnel Branch
82 .2669 1 .7.8
Sy
I
Pla
nt E
qu
ipm
en
t Re
ad
ine
ss
Review
M
atrix
Wo
rk T
ree
~-----------------~
I I
I R
ea
dy fo
r op
era
tion
I
I I
~ I
~ I
I
Re
acto
r pla
nt &
ha
rdw
are
P
ers
on
ne
l P
roce
du
res &
Do
cu
me
nts
re
ad
y
rea
dy
rea
dy
CO.II.t.O. S
tartu
p
Sa
fety
S
taffin
g
~ ~
Se
lecte
d
au
tho
riza
tion
-~
an
aly
sis
ste
m D
esig
n D
escrip
tion
(SO
D)
rep
ort
Do
cu
me
nt T
ree
Op
era
tion
al P
ers
on
ne
l ~ ~
Critic
ality
M
an
ag
em
en
t co
ntro
l ~ -
Te
ch
nic
al s
pe
cia
lists
ce
rtified
tra
inin
g
syste
m
Pro
ce
du
re
~ ~
Te
ste
d
Va
lida
ted
~ -
Op
era
tion
al S
afe
ty
orie
nta
tion
A
ssu
ran
ce
Do
cu
me
nt
I... S
yste
m
Syste
m
-~
Em
erg
en
cy
train
ing
p
roce
du
res
ma
nu
al
-------------------P
hysic
s
~ ~
Pr.s
tartu
p
sta
rtup
sp
ecia
lists
n
otific
atio
n
Pro
gra
m
~
req
uire
me
nt d
ocu
me
nts
S2
0
04
2
1.7
9
95
Sy
I
Plant Equipment Readiness Review Matrix Work Tree
~-----------------~ I I I Ready for operation I I I
~ I ~ I I
Reactor plant & hardware Personnel Procedures & Documents ready ready ready
cOntinted on Startup
Safety Staffing - I- Selected
authorization - I- analysis stem Design Description (SOD) report
Document Tree
Operational Personnel - I-Criticality Management control -~ Technical specialists
certified training system
Procedure P- I- Tested Validated P- - Operational Safety
orientation Assurance Document
-- System System ~ I-
Emergency training procedures manual
------------------~ Physics - I-p,.~startup
startup specialists notification
Program i-requirement documents
S2 0042 1 .79
95
Can we Handle the Procedural, Management Control Branch the
Same Way?
52 2670 1.80
96
Sy
I
Re
acto
r pla
nt &
ha
rdw
are
re
ad
y
c~IJed 0
'
Pla
nt E
qu
ipm
en
t Re
ad
ine
ss
Re
vie
w
Ma
trix W
ork
Tre
e
Re
ad
y fo
r op
era
tion
I r---------------------
I i
I
Pe
rso
nn
el
I P
roce
du
res &
Do
cu
me
nts
re
ad
y
rea
dy
Sta
rtup
S
afe
ty
Sta
ffing
-~
Se
lecte
d
au
tho
riza
tion
-~
an
aly
sis
ste
m D
esig
n D
escrip
tion
(SO
D)
rep
ort
-, I I I I I I I I I D
ocu
me
nt T
ree
Op
era
tion
al P
ers
on
ne
l ~ ~
Critic
ality
M
an
ag
em
en
t co
ntro
l ~ -
Te
ch
nic
al s
pe
cia
lists
ce
rtified
tra
inin
g
syste
m
Pro
ce
du
re
I--
Te
ste
d
Va
lida
ted
..... ~
O
pe
ratio
na
l Sa
fety
o
rien
tatio
n
Assu
ran
ce
Do
cu
me
nt
-S
yste
m
Syste
m
~ ~
Em
erg
en
cy
train
ing
p
roce
du
res
ma
nu
al
Ph
ysic
s
~ -
Pre
-sta
rtup
sta
rtup
sp
ecia
lists
n
otific
atio
n
Pro
gra
m
..... re
qu
irem
en
t do
cu
me
nts
S2
0
04
2
L 1
.80
A
J ----------------------
97
Sy
I
Reactor plant & hardware ready
conuntd on
Plant Equipment Readiness Review Matrix Work Tree
Ready for operation
I r---------------------I i I
Personnel I Procedures & Documents ready ready
Startup Safety
Staffing ~ - Selected authorization ~ r- analysis
-, I I I I I I I I
stem Design Description (SOD) report Document Tree
Operational Personnel -~ Criticality Management control .... -- Technical specialists certified training system
Procedure - r- Tested Validated ~ - Operational Safety orientation Assurance Document
..... System System -- - Emergency training procedures manual
Physics Pre-startup startup specialists -~ notification
Program ~ requirement documents
S2 0042
L 1.80 A J ----------------------
97
How did the Drilling People Handle the Same Problem?
S2 2671 1.81
98
Ho
w d
o w
e b
uild
the
tota
l tree
?
• U
pp
er e
ch
elo
n p
ers
on
ne
l sp
ec
ify th
e to
p
po
licy
, go
als
, ob
jec
tive
s
• L
ow
er e
ch
elo
ns
pro
vid
e lo
we
r lev
el
info
rma
tion
fee
d
61
00
09
101
Th
e B
ig P
rob
lem
s
• Id
en
tifyin
g a
ll ele
me
nts
of th
e s
yste
m
(in p
rop
er d
eta
il)
• Id
en
tifyin
g d
efic
ien
cie
s, d
evia
tion
s,
un
kn
ow
ns
• R
ed
ucin
g th
e ris
k
• C
om
mu
nlc
.. ating
risks to
up
pe
r leve
l m
an
ag
,em
en
t (de
cis
ion
ma
kers)
61
00
08
102
Wh
at a
re th
e A
dm
inis
trativ
e
Co
ns
ide
ratio
ns
?
52
2
67
2
1.8
2
103
Co
nfig
ura
tion
Co
ntro
l An
aly
tica
l Tre
e
All s
ho
p s
ub
syste
ms
in a
cce
pta
ble
co
mp
lian
ce
w
ith a
ll req
uire
me
nts
at
all lim
es
I I
I F
ab
rica
tion
In
itial
insta
llatio
n
I In
sp
ectio
n
de
pe
nd
en
t m
ain
ten
an
ce
-
I r
Initia
l R
esp
on
se
to
de
sig
n
ch
an
ge
s In
re
qu
irem
en
ts
I M
ain
ten
an
ce
01 syste
m s
tatu
s
I I
No
n·in
sp
ec
tion
I F
ield
a
dju
stm
en
t an
d
ma
nip
ula
tion
INE
l..s-n
7
10
1
.'3
de
pe
nd
en
t m
ain
ten
an
ce
I n .. 4 u
~
Oe
.lgn
re
qu
irem
en
ts
kn
ow
n to
d
esig
ne
r
@ 2
.1.1
an
d
I I
Re
qu
irem
en
ts
De
sig
n c
riteria
co
mm
un
ica
ted
d
efin
ed
to
de
sig
ne
r
Re
qu
irem
en
ts
&
co
nve
rted
to
de
sig
n c
riteria
8 I
I
De
sig
ne
rs
Su
pe
rvis
ion
p
ers
on
al
an
d s
up
po
rt e
ffort
&
&
Co
nfig
ura
tion
Co
ntro
l An
aly
tica
l Tre
e
Initia
l d
esig
n
'-~
8 I
L
Oe
.lgn
crite
ria
Re
qu
irem
en
t. Im
ple
me
nte
d b
y
co
nfirm
ed
d
esig
ne
r b
y re
vie
w
~
2.1
.2
an
d
82
. 1• 3
an
d
I I
I I
De
sig
ne
rs
Su
pe
rvis
ion
In
tern
al
Ind
ep
en
de
nt
pe
rso
na
l e
ffort
an
d s
up
po
rt re
vie
w
revie
w
&
&
8 T
o rev~chart
L •
De
sig
n
Op
era
ting
g
rou
p
gro
up
A
A
To
revie
w c
ha
rt
• D
efin
ition
of
au
tho
rity a
nd
re
sp
on
sib
ility
• T
rain
ing
an
d
qu
allfa
tlon
I
De
sig
n
T e
ch
nlc
al
pa
blllty
ca
do
cu
me
nta
tion
d
escrip
tion
Q 2
.1.4
an
d
I I
Dra
win
gs
Sp
ecific
atio
ns
Su
pp
ort
an
aly
sis
INE
L·5
-32
7
05
1
.84
105
I
Fa
bric
atio
n
I In
sta
llatio
n
req
uire
me
nts
kn
ow
n to
in
sta
ller
Re
qu
irem
en
ts
de
li ne
d
Co
mm
un
ica
ted
to
insta
ller
Pro
ce
du
res
Co
nve
rted
to
field
c
om
ma
nd
Su
pe
rvis
ory
co
ntro
l
Tra
in
an
d
qu
allly
Co
nfig
ura
tion
Co
ntro
l An
aly
tica
l Tre
e
I
Initia
l in
sta
llatio
n
I
Re
qu
irem
en
ts
Imp
lem
en
ted
b
y in
sta
ller
8 1
Ins
talle
rs
pe
rso
na
l effo
rts
Su
pe
rvis
ion
a
nd
su
pp
ort
I
Re
qu
irem
en
ts
co
nfirm
ed
b
y insp
ectio
n
8 1
1
Inte
rna
l in
sp
ec
tion
In
de
pe
nd
en
t in
sp
ectio
n
Insta
llatio
n
gro
up
O
pe
ratin
g
gro
up
A
A
To
ins
pe
ctio
n c
ha
rt INE
L-S
-32 7
o,
1.IS
I
As b
uilt
do
cu
me
nta
tion
Dra
win
gs
Su
pp
ort
an
aly
sis
Sp
ecific
atio
ns
106
I I
Op
era
tion
al
Ha
rdw
are
crite
ria
an
aly
ze
d to
d
efin
ed
crite
ria
~
~
• O
pe
ratin
g
gro
up
Co
nfig
ura
tion
Co
ntro
l An
aly
tica
l Tre
e
Ma
inte
na
nce
of
syste
m S
gtu
s
~
Insp
ectio
n
No
n-In
sp
ectio
n
de
pe
nd
en
t d
ep
en
de
nt
ma
inte
na
nce
· m
ain
ten
an
ce
$ I
I I
I I
I In
sp
ectio
n
Insp
ectio
n
Ma
inte
na
nce
M
ain
ten
an
ce
A
de
qu
acy
req
uire
me
nts
In
sp
ectio
n
pro
toco
l de
fine
d
Imp
lem
en
ted
in
co
nfirm
ed
by
de
fine
d in
Im
ple
me
nte
d
resu
lts
in a
cco
rda
nce
a
cco
rda
nce
with
re
view
-a
cco
rda
nce
with
d
ocu
me
nte
d
insp
ectio
n
an
aly
sis
w
ith In
sp
ectio
n
pro
toco
l a
nd
au
dit
A
~
~ $
~ T
o in
sp
ectio
n c
ha
rt •
I •
Su
pp
ort
Op
era
ting
S
up
po
rt g
rou
p
gro
up
g
rou
p
I I
Op
era
ting
S
up
po
rt g
rou
p
gro
up
• •
Op
era
ting
S
up
po
rt g
rou
p
gro
up
Op
era
ting
g
rou
p
I
Su
pp
ort
gro
up
INE
L-$
-32
7
08
1
.86
I
Ma
inte
na
nce
d
ocu
me
nte
d
107
I H
ard
wa
re
pe
rform
an
ce
crite
ria
de
fine
d
I
Op
era
ting
g
rou
p
I
Ha
rdw
are
a
na
lyze
d
Co
nfig
ura
tion
Co
ntro
l An
aly
tica
l Tre
e
I
• In
sp
ectio
n
de
pe
nd
en
t m
ain
ten
an
ce
1 M
ain
ten
an
ce
p
roto
co
l de
fine
d
in a
cco
rda
nce
w
ith a
na
lysis
Su
pp
ort
gro
up
I I
Op
era
ting
g
rou
p
Su
pp
ort
gro
up
Ma
inte
na
nce
of
syste
m s
tatu
s
No
n-in
sp
ectio
n
de
pe
nd
en
t m
ain
ten
an
ce
I
Ma
inte
na
nce
p
roto
co
l d
ocu
me
nte
d
I M
ain
ten
an
ce
p
erfo
rme
d in
a
cco
rda
nce
with
p
roto
co
l
I A
de
qu
acy
co
nfirm
ed
by
insp
ectio
n
an
d a
ud
it
To ,n
s.£;o
n ch
•• ,
INE
L.S
·32 7
07
1
.87
I
Op
era
ting
g
rou
p
I
Su
pp
ort
gro
up
I
Ma
inte
na
nce
d
ocu
me
nte
d
108
I
I
Op
era
tion
al
req
uire
me
nts
kn
ow
n to
p
ers
on
ne
l
I
Au
tho
rize
d
pe
rso
nn
el
Un
au
tho
rize
d
pe
rso
nn
el
I R
eq
uire
me
nts
co
nve
rted
to
op
era
tion
al
co
ntro
ls
Re
qu
irem
en
ts
de
fine
d
Op
era
tion
al
co
ntro
ls c
om
· m
un
ica
ted
to
wo
rkin
g le
ve
l
Pro
ce
du
re
I
Su
pe
rvis
ory
co
ntro
l
pe
rso
nn
el
I
Tra
in
an
d
qu
alify
Co
nfig
ura
tion
Co
ntro
l An
aly
tica
l Tre
e
I
Fie
ld
ad
Ju
atm
en
t a
nd
m
an
ipu
latio
n
I
Op
era
tion
al
co
ntro
ls
imp
lem
en
ted
by
pe
rson
ne
.1
Au
tho
rize
d
pe
rso
nn
el
2.4
I
Pe
rso
na
l e
ffort
Su
pe
rvis
ion
a
nd
su
pp
ort
I
Co
nfirm
ed
by
insp
ectio
n
an
d a
ud
it
To
insp~n ch
art
I
I
Un
au
tho
rize
d
pe
rso
nn
el
I
Pe
rso
na
l e
ffort
Su
pe
rvis
ion
a
nd
su
pp
ort
INE
L·5
-32
1
0_
1
.88
I
Fie
ld
ad
justm
en
ts
do
cu
me
nte
d
8 I
I
As fo
un
d
As le
ft
lu9
Co
nfig
ura
tion
Co
ntro
l An
aly
tica
l Tre
e
I
Dire
ctiv
es
imp
lem
en
ted
by
pe
rso
nn
el
Re
sp
on
se
to
dire
ctiv
es
I
Dire
ctiv
es
co
mm
un
ica
ted
to
pe
rso
nn
el
Dire
ctiv
es
co
nve
rted
to
co
mm
an
d
I C
om
plia
nce
co
nfirm
ed
by
revie
w a
nd
in
sp
ectio
n
Dire
ctiv
es
rece
ive
d a
nd
va
lida
ted
Co
mm
an
d
co
mm
un
ica
ted
to
pe
rso
nn
el
Re
sp
on
se
to
ch
an
ge
s in
re
qu
irem
en
ts
I
Co
mp
lian
ce
d
ocu
me
nte
d
I
Op
era
tion
al
crite
ria
de
fine
d
Re
sp
on
se
to
syste
m
pe
rform
an
ce
e
xp
erie
nce
I
Syste
m
pe
rform
an
ce
a
na
lyze
d to
crite
ria
I
Actio
n d
efin
ed
in
acco
rda
nce
w
ith d
evia
tion
s
Syste
m
pe
rform
an
ce
o
bse
rve
d
De
via
tion
s
rep
orte
d
Actio
n ta
ke
n
in a
cco
rda
nce
w
ith d
evia
tion
s
INE
L-5
-32
7
08
1
.89
110
Ho
w c
an
We
use
the
C
on
figu
ratio
n C
on
trol T
ree
?
• T
o u
nd
ers
tan
d h
ow
we
ach
ieve
initia
l re
ad
ine
ss
• T
o d
escrib
e h
ow
we
ma
inta
in fu
ture
re
ad
ine
ss
52
2
67
3
1.9
0
111
Wh
at a
re th
e C
on
sid
era
tion
s
in S
eo
pin
g th
e O
pe
ratio
na
l R
ea
din
es
s E
va
lua
tion
s?
• P
roc
es
s fu
nc
tion
• P
roc
es
s s
afe
ty
/'
. "
,-.
f" I
,./..
.' I
I t:,O(
-;.. "
't
; ,'1
''''
• G
en
era
l sa
fety
(~l/;~~:f::,~<',~,:l/:V :,r"
," _i
f
-;
,
• D
isc
iplin
ary
are
as
(?.~vd(!.~.-j
(.-;~ ,',-)
• F
ollo
w-o
n
52
2
67
7
1.9
4
112
Ho
w D
oe
s T
his
Lo
ok
in a
n A
na
lytic
al F
orm
at?
Se
rvic
es a
nd
· S
up
po
rt .
Re
ad
y
Syste
m
Op
era
tion
ally
R
ea
dy
S.E
:.&H
t
er
Se
rvic
es
Se
rVice
s a
nd
Su
pp
or' ........ -
----.... a
nd
Su
pp
ort
Re
ad
y R
ea
dy
'
Ba
sic
P
roce
ss R
ea
dy
Op
era
tion
al
Re
ad
ine
ss M
od
els
S3
0
05
0
113
Co
ns
ide
ratio
ns
in D
es
ign
of
Op
era
tion
al R
ea
din
es
s
Pro
gra
ms
52
2
69
4
2.26
114
Wh
at a
re S
om
e o
f the
Th
ing
s to
W
atc
h fo
r in P
erfo
rmin
g O
pe
ratio
na
l R
ea
din
es
s R
eview?
• T
oo
mu
ch
em
ph
as
is o
n d
om
ina
nt h
aza
rds
an
d/o
r
ca
tas
trop
hic
co
ns
eq
ue
nc
e le
ve
ls
• O
ve
rus
e o
r un
de
rus
e o
f form
al te
ch
niq
ue
s
• O
ve
rloo
kin
g p
erip
he
ral h
aza
rd ty
pe
s
• Ite
ms
wh
ich
we
re "re
ad
y" a
nd
late
r "un
do
ne
" (es
pe
cia
lly
item
s p
erfo
rme
d e
arly
in th
e p
roje
ct)
• F
ailu
re to
pro
perly re
late
"un
kn
ow
n s
tatu
s" ite
ms
to
po
ten
tial c
onsequ
_ence~ if th
es
e ite
ms
are
no
t ready
• F
ailu
re to
refe
r risk on
un
kn
ow
n s
tatu
s ite
ms
to p
rop
er
ma
na
ge
me
nt levels
1/0/1:1-o 41J
tVAI
U1o(r;-
• E
ffec
! ~f sc
he
du
le p
res
su
res
on
qu
ality
of w
ork
:V</l !/'.'_e, //~ M
vj ;;-Jc! '(h/~{: <?'F~~lt::'~·~ '~learIY a
ss
ign
res
po
ns
ibilitie
s fo
r kn
ow
led
ge
of
wo
rk sta
tus
S
2
26
95
2.27
11 r" 'J
116
Basic Occupancy-Use Readiness Tree Objective: Facility Ready for Occupancy- Use
I
Structures, Services and Hardware Ready
o I
Buildings and Grounds
Transportation Special Services
o I
Parking Lots, Office Warehouses
Yards, Buildings and
Laboratories and Storage
Roadways, Spaces
and Shops
Walkways
b- t --&
Basic Structure and Facility
I
Codes Standard, Functional & Regulations
Internal Storage, Transport, Handling
Facilities
--& I
Heating and Cooling Systems
I
Communications
Special Buildings and Enclosures
--ih
Electrical Power
Written Procedures
I
Cleaning and Waste
-&
of Branch
Managerial Control System Ready @Ie~~nts
I '----r-----I o Normal Abnormal Operating Operating Conditions Conditions
Iir
Placards, Signs, Notification Systems, Alarms
I
Utilities, Other
-&
Training Program
Fire Protection
1
l Sufficient Control
Supervisors, Wardens, etc.
Security and Exclusion
III L
Personnel Ready
o Training for Normal Situations
Training for Abnormal Situations
General Facility Orientation
Training to Written Procedures
- And
3
- Transfer
Training to Placard, Sign, Notification & Alarm System
- Combination of Elements Sufficient Control
Training to Supervisory Controls, Warden Systems, etc.
S2 2635 1.39
11 7
First D
ay Lab
orato
ry 6
12
97
0
.
119
-Exe
rcis
e
• S
ele
ct a p
roje
ct
• D
esig
n a
n o
pe
ratio
na
l rea
din
ess tre
e
A. P
roce
ss
B. G
en
era
l sa
fety
C. D
iscip
line
are
a
• In
stru
cto
r ch
eck tre
es a
t co
nclu
sio
n o
f lab
ora
tory
• P
rep
are
to p
rese
nt y
ou
r tree
on
se
co
nd
da
y
• D
ay o
ne
tree
will b
e th
e b
asis
for d
ay tw
o la
bo
rato
ry 5
2
2681 1
.98
120
Firs
t ca
sc
ad
e
rea
dy
10'
start up
Pe
rso
nn
el
TOO
L
T'/
; /'
-., T
;
f) ,?
-
10
Pro
ce
du
res
a
nd
a
dm
inis
trativ
e
sy
ste
ms
TOD
L 52
1
0 8
13
121
X-3
00
1
00
Plan
l and
h
ardw
are
X-3
01
2
CT
TF
an
d
RIA
S
ecu
rity
eq
uip
me
nt
X7
72
1
Bldg .
• tructu
r.
N
, •• ,t
122
101.11 Support
equipment
101.11.1 PSB Equipment ~~
101.11.2 MST equipment ....... .,,4~
101.11.3 DOC &.6 101.11.4 ODU &.6 101.11.5 PCOD'&'.6
101.11.6 &.6 Dump cart
101.11.7 EPROC &.6 101.11.8 Machine handling equpt &.6 101.11.9 MIC &.6
101.11.10 Portable read-out equipment &.6 101.11.11 Leak detection equipment &.6
....... ----, Feed cart &.6
L.-.. __ &.6 52 10 912
123
101.11.6
Dump cart
101.11.6.1 (101.11.6.2) (101.11.6.3)
Cart Building Support itself interfaces interfaces
,.. • co ,..---' •
5 .11 Design I ,0 ,..
21 Design review I 31Testing (component))
41 Procurement I 5 Receiving *
Inspection *
7 Functional testing *
Operating methods *
Personnel *
Spares *
\ ~kjv)
11 Process system I 2~Power I 3@ 41Storagel
51 Transport I 61 Environment I
S2 10 9"
124
· -
101 1.6.1
Receiving
Inspection
Functional testin
Training
Operating methods
Personnel
Spares
Ready. Not ready ~
Status unknown ~
Process system
Power
Air
Storage
Transport
ronme
S2 10 907
125
Re
ce
ivin
g
Insp
ectio
n
Fu
nctio
na
l testin
g
Tra
inin
g
Flo
wch
art
du
mp
ca
rt
82
I
I I
Re
fere
nce
1
01
.11
.6.1
-1
01
.11
.6.2
1
01
.11
.6.3
83
8
4
I I
I I
I I
®t
10- 1
. I
®,
0. · I
® •• -
-----
I O
pe
ratin
g m
eth
od
s
® •• ~
----.j--
@
I I I I I I
Re
ad
y e( 1
01
.11
.6 }
3-31
Pe
rso
nn
el
Sp
are
s
Bld
g. In
terfa
ce
s
SP
PT
. Inte
rface
s
--@
+
(--1 0-1-.1-1.-6.--2 )~ I ( 1
01
.11
.6.3
);
82
1
0 8
01
126
DG
o
DN
o g
o
De
scrip
tion
Re
ceivin
g
Insp
ectio
n
Fu
nctio
na
l testin
g
Tra
inin
g
Op
era
ting
me
tho
ds
Pe
rso
nn
el
Sp
are
s
Bld
g. In
terfa
ce
s
SP
PT
. Inte
rface
s
* Sta
tus c
od
e
C -
Co
mp
lete
I -
Inco
mp
lete
U
-U
nkn
ow
n
nla
-N
ot a
pp
lica
ble
C
W -
Co
nlp
lete
with
w
aiv
er
Du
mp
Ca
rt.O.R
. Tra
ckin
g M
atrix
D
ate
(10
1.1
1.6
)
Re
spo
n.
Sta
rllflnls
h
Co
mp
. crite
ria·
Sta
tus·
da
te
1· 2
. e·"~;
.?"
Ma
teria
ls d
lv.
10
-1-8
3
No
tifica
tion
QC
1
0-1
/10
-4-8
3
Sp
eclJlca
tion
#X
ES
-11
1-4
Pro
d. d
lv. 1
0-4
/12
-31
-83
T
est p
roc. #
54
3-2
1
Pro
d. d
lv.
10
-1-8
2/7
-1-8
3 T
rain
ing
va
lida
tion
lest
Pro
d. d
lv. 7
-1-8
2/3
-31
-83
A
pp
rova
l sig
na
ture
s
Em
plo
ym
en
t 11-1-83
All re
qu
isitio
ns fille
d
Ma
lnt. d
lv. 1
0-1
-83
a
e In
sto
ck
10
-1-8
3
10
1.1
1.2
ma
trix
10
-1-8
3
10
1.1
1.6
.3 m
atrix
62
1
0 8
0tt
-~
~.
,',...
/~-. . "
!, ... l~~,. ;.;..<
,.,....
127
Flo
w C
ha
rting
T
rac
kin
g -
An
aly
sis
an
d D
isp
lay
of
Op
era
tion
al R
ea
din
es
s
Info
rma
tion
52
2
68
2
2.2
129
Flo
w C
ha
rting
• F
low
ch
artin
g is
ab
so
lute
ly n
ece
ssa
ry to
d
efin
e p
oin
ts in
time
wh
en
pe
rso
nn
el,
pro
ce
du
res a
nd
pla
nt h
ard
wa
re
mu
st b
e c
om
ple
ted
• U
se y
ou
r pro
gra
m m
an
ag
em
en
t system
, Q
.A. s
yste
m, a
nd
co
nfig
ura
tion
co
ntro
l system
in
de
ve
lop
ing
a flow
ch
artin
g w
ork
co
ntro
l syste
m
7-8
99
4
1i~ 0
Ho
w d
o th
e O
pe
ratio
na
l R
ea
din
es
s T
ree
s R
ela
te to
C
on
ve
ntio
na
l Wo
rk C
on
trol
Syste
ms?
52
2
68
3
2.3
131
@
Ho
w D
o W
e R
ela
te R
ea
din
es
s T
ree
s, F
low
Ch
arts
an
d M
atric
es
?
0 P
lan
t o
pe
ratio
na
lly
rea
dy
( I
Pe
rso
nn
el
@
Pla
nt
ha
rdw
are
@ -
Se
lecte
d
@ -
Se
lecte
d
@ -
Tra
ine
d
@ -
Insta
lled
@ ~
Qu
aU
fied
@
-In
sp
ecte
d
@--
Te
ste
d
@----
Te
ste
d
@
I P
roce
du
res a
nd
m
an
ag
em
en
t co
ntro
l
@ -
@
@ -
g
Se
lecte
d
Writte
n
Re
view
ed
Va
lida
ted
S2
0
71
1
2.4
132
Pe
rso
nn
,el F
low
Ch
art
I Oct
I No
v I D
ec
I Jan
I F
eb
t ® )t-----tJ
-----------, :
I I
I I
I R
eady I
C @
)I---~I----
-'--I -~®----( ill ):
I I
: I
--I
I I
I I
I I
C @
)-l -J 0
Co
de
nu
mb
er
:
82
0
71
4
2.5
Ha
rdw
are
Flo
wc
ha
rt
I Oct
I No
v
I De
c
I Ja
n
I Fe
b
t .
C ®
)I-
-----il-
---------l
: I
I I
I I
I t
I R
ea
dy
I
I C
@)..-----1
I----
............ :--®
-(@):
I :
I I
I I
: ( @
) I--~
: I
: I
I I
I :
( @
)-1-
--I 0
Co
de
nu
mb
er
:
52
0713 2.6
Pro
ce
du
res
an
d M
an
ag
em
en
t Co
ntro
l Flo
wc
ha
rt
I Oct
I No
v I D
ec
I Jan
I F
eb
t--®-31--)-----II----------,
: I
I I
I I
I I
I R
eady'
I
I C
@)t------tl------: -
-~ G
) l I
I I
I I
I
: (@)I--~
~ :
I I
I I
I I
I :
( ® ~_-J
Oe
Od
e n
um
be
r :
S2
0
71
5
2.7
Ma
ste
r pla
n flo
wch
art
Pe
rso
nn
el, P
lan
t ha
rdw
are
, Pro
ce
du
res a
nd
Ma
na
ge
me
nt
I Oct
I Pe
rso
nn
el
I I I
I No
v
Re
ad
y
I De
c
I Jan
I F
eb
o C
od
e n
um
be
r
S2
0
71
2
2.8
136
Wh
y u
se
Bo
th T
ree
s a
nd
F
low
ch
arts
?
• F
low
ch
arts
sh
ow
time
an
d s
eq
ue
ntia
l re
latio
nsh
ips
• F
low
ch
arts
are
ofte
n a
va
ilab
le fo
r wo
rk
co
ntro
l pu
rpo
se
s
• T
ree
s s
ho
w fu
nctio
na
l rela
tion
sh
ips
be
twe
en
co
mp
on
en
ts a
nd
su
bsyste
ms
S2
2
68
7
2.1
8
137
138
Ho
w c
an
We
Tra
ck C
om
ple
tion
?
• O
ne
dim
en
sio
na
l ma
trice
s
• T
wo
dim
en
sio
na
l ma
trice
s
A.
Crite
ria b
ase
d
B.
Co
mm
on
co
mp
letio
n c
riteria
52
2
68
8
2.1
9
139
~n
I / /
/ W
ork
se
qu
en
ce
ch
arts
IWh
at..h
L..{W
ha
!h L..fW
ha
H
Re
ad
ine
ss
Wo
rkin
g
tree
I I
~Whatl . ~
6 Kn
ow
n n
ot c
om
ple
te
o Kn
ow
n c
om
ple
te
<>
Sta
tus u
nkn
ow
n
Op
era
tion
al re
ad
ine
ss m
atrix
INE
L-S
-32
7
16
2
.20
1 ~l 0
Wh
at d
oe
s th
e O
ne
Dim
en
sio
na
l M
atrix
Lo
ok L
ike?
Item
S
tatu
s
"
S2
2
68
9
2.2
1
141
Wh
at d
o th
e T
wo
Dim
en
sio
na
l M
atric
es L
oo
k L
ike
?
Pe
rso
nn
el
Pe
rso
nn
el
Pe
rso
nn
el
. . 0
I d
to b
e d
on
e?
p
rop
erly
q
ua
lified
l IS
Invo
ve
train
ed
in
do
ing
it?
. se
lecte
d
ce
rtified
Pe
rso
nn
el
teste
d
52
2690
2.22
An
oth
er T
wo
Dim
en
sio
na
l Ma
trix
~
CIA
C
on
figu
ratio
n
Te
st
Item
co
ntro
l in
sp
ec
tion
S2
2691
2.2
3
14 ~J
tJ Ie I-f riv'
tic//) w
{; 1.[".( "
.j'r
1'./ ;.l.A
'1.~.t.1-' "
Ho
w d
o W
e d
o th
e W
ho
le T
as
k?
• S
co
pe
ou
r inte
res
t in o
pe
ratio
na
l rea
din
es
s
• C
on
stru
ct a
pp
rop
riate
an
aly
tica
l tree
s
• S
ele
ct a
n a
pp
rop
riate
dis
pla
y / Itvl.~
r.l~. i"r,/)"'~//.<~.,
A.
Tre
e
(;.'<!-, .-' '/
f ;/~t.t";
;. " :.:~;/
B.
Flo
wc
ha
rt C
. M
atrix
52
2692
2.24
144
Wh
at a
re th
e C
on
sid
era
tion
s in
S
ele
ctin
g th
e M
eth
od
for
An
aly
tica
l Dis
pla
y?
• C
larity
-c
om
mu
nic
atio
n
• A
bility
to re
late
de
ficie
nc
ies
to: A
. Fix
es
B
. Co
ns
eq
ue
nc
es
if no
t fixe
d
• A
bility
to track:
A. In
pu
ts ,/' (AJa tv
i..lt1.1
.: 'f :. , r!h.l.:
Y 1~
:' () "",l/-i:::!t-("~ /
:'J ',..
.,.; .. ,(
,~ i"', C
o -,:
I '
-, -:,:';,.
)
B. O
ve
rall e
ffec
ts o
f ch
an
ge
s in
sta
tus
of
su
bs
ys
tem
s a
nd
co
mp
on
en
ts
S2
2
69
3
2.2
5
t·i5
Wh
at d
o th
e W
ork
Sh
ee
ts th
at
Su
pp
ort a R
ea
l Life
Sy
ste
m
Lo
ok L
ike
?
S2
2
68
4
2.9
146
Ba
sic
Occu
pa
ncy-U
se
Re
ad
ine
ss T
ree
Pa
rkin
g L
.ots,
Offic
e
Wa
reh
ou
se
s
Ve
rd.,
Bu
ildin
gs a
na
L
ab
ora
torie
s
an
d S
tora
ge
R
oa
dw
eys,
Sp
ece
s
Wa
tkw
ays B
eslc
S
tructu
re a
nd
F
ecility
en
d S
ho
ps
Inte
rne
I S
tore
ge
, T
ran
sp
ort,
Ha
nd
ling
Co
de
s
Sta
nd
ard
, F
un
ctio
na
l &
Re
gu
latio
ns
Fa
cilitie
s
He
atin
g a
nd
C
oo
ling
S
yste
ms
Co
mm
un
ica
tion
s
Sp
ecie
l B
uild
ing
s a
nd
E
nclo
su
res
Ele
ctric
al
Po
we
r
Writte
n
Pro
ce
du
res
Cle
an
ing
an
d
Wa
ste
Pla
card
s, S
ign
., N
otific
atio
n
Syste
ms
, Ala
rms
Utilitie
s.
Oth
er
Fire
P
rote
ctio
n
Se
cu
rity an
d
Exclu
sio
n
Ge
ne
ral
Fa
cility
O
rien
taliof"1
Tra
inin
g to
T
rain
ing
to
Writte
n
Placard
. Sig
n,
No
tifica
tion
&
Pro
ce
du
res
Ala
rm S
yste
m
-A
nd
-T
ran
sf.r
Co
mb
ina
tion
of
Ele
me
nts
S
uffic
ien
t Co
ntro
l
Train
Ing
to
SU
pe
rvis
ory
C
on
trols
. Wa
rde
n
Syste
ms. e
tc.
52
2
63
5
1,3
9
Oc
cu
pa
nc
y-U
se
Flo
w C
ha
rt
1----0
1 T
op
1
LM
an
ag
em
e:J
i
1 --
-11---
---
---
---
---
---
---
------
---
-------
I co
n.s
truc
.tion
II
De
sig
n to
E
S
pe
cific
atio
ns
I
ng,neerong II
(Inclu
din
g
~ _
_ ~~____
_~n~ _
_
I II
Esta
blis
h
I Oc
cu
pa
nt-U
se
r II B
as
ic
Fu
nc
tion
al
l-_
__
---11
_ ~e~if~n.:.
I 1\
1 L
an
dlo
rd
II
I II
Es
tab
lish
Ba
sic
F
un
ctio
na
l S
pe
cific
atio
ns
(E
sp
. inte
rfac
e)
Re
vie
w D
es
ign
to
Fu
nc
tion
al
----------------
Ye
s
r----
.....
Re
so
lve
D
isc
rep
an
cy
Re
so
lve
D
isc
rep
an
cy
1-----1
1------
--
--
-Ir::--:-=-==~-~
I II
Es
tab
lish
Ba
sic
Q
ua
lity
Qu
ality
A
ss
ura
nc
e
As
su
ran
ce
I
Gro
up
II
Sp
ec
ifica
tion
s
r---il-----I
Sa
fety
II
Esta
blis
h
I Org
an
izatio
n
II B
as
ic S
afe
ty
Sp
ec
ifica
tion
s
L _
__
---ll
Sp
ec
ifica
tion
s
Re
vie
w D
es
ign
to
Sa
fety
S
pe
cific
atio
ns
Re
so
lve
D
isc
rep
an
cy
Re
so
lve
D
isc
rep
an
cy
No
Re
so
lve
D
isc
rep
an
cy
Co
ns
truc
t a
nd
Ins
tall
to S
pe
cs
. 52
2
63
6
1.4
0
1·18
Oc
cu
pa
nc
y-U
se
Flo
w C
ha
rt (co
nt'd
)
Re
view
& T
est
As-B
uilt to
F
un
ctio
na
l S
pe
cific
atio
ns
Re
view
& T
est
As-B
uilt to
F
un
ctio
na
l S
pe
cific
atio
ns
Re
view
& T
est
As-B
uilt to
Q
A
Sp
ecific
atio
ns
Re
view
& T
est
As-B
uilt to
S
afe
ty
Sp
ecific
atio
ns
No
Ye
s
Re
solve
D
iscre
pa
ncy
Re
solve
D
iscre
pa
ncy
Re
solve
D
iscre
pa
ncy
Re
solve
D
iscre
pa
ncy
No
Re
solve
D
iscre
pa
ncy
Re
co
mm
en
d
Re
lea
se
Re
co
mm
en
d
Re
lea
se
Re
co
mm
en
d
Re
lea
se
Re
lea
se fo
r O
ccu
pa
ncy
an
d U
se
I I I I I I -
I _
_
r--:I":.--, I
Exe
rcis
e
I I
De
leg
ate
d
I I
Re
lea
se
I I
Au
tho
rity
I
L..-=...=.c =--=r---...1---, I
Exe
rcis
e
I I
De
leg
ate
d
I I
Re
lea
se
I IL
A
uth
ority
I
---::t=
--'
r-':--L--~-E
xe
rcis
e
I I
De
leg
ate
d
I I
Re
lea
se
I I
Au
tho
rity
I L.. ___ [ __ --'
~--=---L-:~ E
xe
rcis
e
I :
De
leg
ate
d
I I
Re
lea
se
I I
Au
tho
rity
I ... -------'"
52
2
63
7
1.4
1
Op
era
tion
al R
ea
din
es
s M
atrix
Wo
rk S
he
et
(Use
for G
en
era
l Item
s) D
ate
__
__
__
__
_ _
Pa
ge
__
_
No
. D
escrip
tion
R
esp
on
sib
le
Co
mp
letio
n c
riteria
p
ers
on
®
Instru
me
nts
an
d
Co
nn
ors
@
T
est A
sse
mb
ly E
xp
erim
en
tal
co
ntro
l syste
ms
Me
asu
rem
en
t Syste
m
(20
00
) E
van
s (3
00
0)
@
Da
ta A
cq
uis
ition
an
d V
isu
al
La
rso
n
Dis
pla
y S
yste
m
~eadv
(40
00
)
@
Nu
cle
ar In
stru
me
nta
tion
R
ose
S
yste
m
(50
00
)
@
Prim
ary
Co
ola
nt a
nd
Ta
ylo
r In
stru
me
nta
tion
an
d
(60
00
) Co
ntro
l Syste
m
~
Pla
nt P
rote
ctio
n C
ircu
itry
Po
lk
(70
00
)
@
Se
co
nd
ary
Co
ola
nt
Ba
nis
ter
Instru
me
nta
tion
an
d
(80
00
) Co
ntro
l Syste
m
C -
Co
mp
lete
I -
Inco
mp
lete
U
-U
nkn
ow
n s
tatu
s a
t this
time
N
A -
No
t ap
plic
ab
le
CW
-C
om
ple
te w
ith w
aiv
er
Sta
tus
1/90%
C/1
00
%
1/6
0%
1/8
0%
1/8
5%
CW
S2
1
41
9
2.1
4
150
[~ Who
Conners
Evans
J. Larson
Rose
Taylor
Polk
Banister
C - Complete I - Incomplete
Operational Readiness Matrix
What
Instruments and control systems @ Test assembly experimental measurement system <~ Data acquisition and visual display systems I@> Nuclear instrumentation system ~ Primary coolant instrumentation & control system @
Plant protection circuitry ®
Secondary coolant instrumentation & control system
U - Status unknown CW - Complete with waiver N/A - Not applicable
I@
0 .-
0
K Who
II)II)S'" ~ II) II) a; ~ c 'C II)c- ~
C'O .... ~ (,) C ....
~ .g C'O o C'O C'O
II) ~ 2 .... .J: II) Q.(,)u
(,)-.... (,)-o ::J II) ena:::J CD II) .... CD uc.!: zen,s D.. _
-
" ~ ~ C<89.1> I 189.:?) UI89.3·
L.../ ~ ~
~ ~
:E enu_ D.. CD II) - .... CD ~ 0.-
~ 1'89.41
L.../
II) II) (,) C 'iii >.
II) .r:. E 0. ::J .... en--II) VI -CDc Z _ ._
r-\ 1<89.5-
L.../
S2 1422 2.13
151
I
0
Sys- Job description SOD tem numer-No. ical
code
Nuclear 89 instrumentation 1.4.3
system
COfe load nuclear
89.1 instruments 1.4.3.1
C Ready")
NIS process
89.2 SR channels (Nuclear load)
89.3 Pre-crit. test
TIPS 89.4 Pre-crit. test
89.5 NIS physics test Instruments
C· Complete I - Incomplete U - Unknown sbltus at this time N/A - Not applie&ble C/W - Complete with waiver
1.4.3.2
1.4.3.3
1.4.3.4
1.4.3.5
Responsible person
J.A. Rose
Rose
Rose
Rose
-Rose
Rose
Approval Sequence Chart
Date Estlm- Required Config- Install-released ated comple- uration atlon
hours tion control work date system request
I 16.5 I 5000
5.0 C C 5001
4.5 I 05002
4.0 I E 5003 I
1.0 I F 5004
2.0 I G 5005
.J
Quality assur-ance
I
I
C
I
I
I
I
Date
Current % status Complete
I ~
C 100
I 40
U U
I 60
I 50
Final approving authority Slg./Date
LP. Leach
Date
52 1415
2.16
152
Basic Occupancy - Use Readiness Matrix
~ I. Structure Services and Hardware
Ready of Occupancy
Construct or Inspect/Test Who Specification Modify to to
Established Specifications Specifications
Construction CS&R* • • • Engineering Functional* • • •
Occupant-User CS&R • • • Managers and
Supervisors Functional • • • Building C5&R • • •
Custodian Functional • • • Quality C5&R • • (1) •
Assurance Functional • • (1) • Safety CS&R • • (4) •
Organization (3) Functional • • (4) •
(1) QA review during construction/installation. (2) QA auditing of ongoing training; may assist In simulated dry runs. (3) Safety related. (4) Field safety review during construction (as required). (5) Special safety training (as required).
CS&R - Codes, Standards and Regulations (Required). * Functional - Characteristics, design parameters, and other considerations
unique to the construction and operation of this facility.
II. Procedures Ready
Establish Create Procedure Procedures Review
Requirements to Requirements Procedures
• • •
• • • • •
• • •
• •
•
III. Occupant-User Personnel Ready
Establish Train to Training
Requirements Requirements
• •
• •
-(2)
- (2)
• .(5)
• .(5)
Key for status overlays:
-0 Status unknown (blue)
Review Training
--
-• • •
6 Known to be "Not Ready" (red)
o Known to be "Ready" (green)
52 2638 1.42
15 3
154
The Contractor Safety Program
Configuration control system
Acceptable risk level in compliance with all
requirements
System performance measurement sytem
Information management system
Objective: To collect, store, evaluate retrieve, and transmit safety-related Information
Independent safety review system
Personnel performance
Risk evaluation system
55574
155
156
Basic Problem
Information sources
Who? What? When? Where?
... Analysis ~ reduction
... -
Information recipients
Who? What? When? Where?
How to get information to those who need it
How to best use available information 55570
157
Organizational Safety
I
KOR
Accident Incident UOR Audit Appraisal Budget
Information
Safety information
6 Projections
Risk Trends Budget
I Changes
\t. a /., / - . i I S'v ~ h i,- .'
Personnel Hardware Procedures and management control
I Hazards
Type of work Areas Materials
5580
158
Organiz~tional Safety Information (cont'd)
I Goals
Local Field office DOE
Safety i nforma tion
6 Constraints
Policy Procedures Manuals
CYS&R Personnel
I Commitments
Appraisal action All action Management Local
55577
159
Organizational Safety Information (cont'd)
Work identification
Safety information
Best place to spend time Place to audit
New development
Journals Workshops Seminars Bulletin
55576
150
Information Storage and Access
1. Manual
2. Computer
3. Combination
Or you may chose to ignore the information
55582
151
Information Storage
o o
55591
152
Information Storage
I
Manual
Libraries Files Indexes
Storage
6 Memory
I
Computer
Data bases Local National
SPMS RECON TOXLINE etc.
5 5579
163
Information Access
Access
6 I
Manual Memory
Reading Long term Manual search Short term Abstract service
I Computer
Searches Report generation Real time Periodical
5 5578
154
\
I
\
I
Requirements vs. Organizational Level I I
\
I Constraints Goals and KOR objectives
I
What constraints Specific company goals What is the are imposed on and objectives company the company? doing?
What constraints What are company How Is my are Imposed on goals and objectives? unit doing? my unit? What is my part in
fulfilling these goals and objectives?
What constraints \Vhai does the How am I exist on this job company expect doing? for me? from me?
135
Aim For the Proper Level Requirements vs. Organizational Level
Constraints
Constraints on company?
Constraints on my unit?
Constraints on me?
Goals and Objectives
Company goals
Unit goals
Individual goals
KOR
What is the company doing?
How is my unit doing?
How am I doing?
55589
166
Aim for Proper Use
Manager
I I I I
Policy
Performance
Compare Managerial decision
0 l-------------~ 1 IIIII11
~ Health related disciplines
~ Environment related disciplines
Safety related disciplines
Criteria
Proposal or performance
Computer terminal
I Compare r-
~
- - ~
r--
~
Technical decision
Generic information
Facility and process specific
information
Criteria Information
Performance information
5 5573
157
At the Work Place The Work Process
J Energy Source
Targets Barriers Failure Operating
Changes Potential Residual
sources locations and controls modes history consequences risk
Source Organiz- People Kind ations Things
Amount
Places
Processes
- -- -..... "'. , -' " -- ------- -...--- ----- .............. \ // -~.".,."., ---- -------- -- ~"'.... / ~ -- ---. "' \ /~."., -- ---- --... ............ / -~ --- -------- --- -_......, ~ - - _ - _ -r--~----"'---'---"'II::;..."., __ ---_ - --
................ ..,.,---stores
55515
1S8
For the Manager
• Knowledge of results
• Hazard identification
• Hazardous material inventory
• Risk projection
• Risk acceptance
• Constraints
• New development
• Commitments
• Budget information
5 5581
159
Information Needs at Managerial Levels
Lower
Lower
Lower
Planning
Control activity
80 20 Time utilization
20 80
Summarized
Detailed
80 information summarization
20 80
External
Internal
Information sources 55590
170
Design of Safety Information System
I Outside
experience
Safety information
system
In house experience
I Codes, standards and regulations
requirements
55585
171
Data Sources .Outside DOE
Da tali nforma tion sources
outside of DOE
Publications Simple "Umbrella"
and reports computerized computerized
systems systems
Functional computerized
systems
1: ;. jj' 1"/:7 ~: i'C "I) / )
Pe,/' r
Sources of
expertise
5 557.
172
Design of Safety Information System (cont'd)
Unusual occurrence
reports
I Key worded
systems
I
RSO reports*
In house experience
¢ I
Information source indices
I Expert Data
consultant banks index
Accident investigation
reports * Reported significant observation
55584
173
Design of Safety Information System (cont'd)
Codes, standards and regulations
requirements
I Operating-safety
manual index
I Department of Energy
REECO Index ((;
Key word indexed systems
Field office
BEECO Index (Nevada F .0. only)
I Other
natural systems
ENVIRONET CELDS
5 5583
The DOE System The SPMS Information Stores
I [,Cqmputerized I Aqcidentl
Ii Inhident
1\ R~porting \.~stem
1 \ / EflVironmental
; ' .. ~' ta Reporting " S stem
'"
SPMS
I
~R .diatiOn E posure M dule
Comprehensive Action Tracking System
I I
J P'~rsonnel . Expertise
! and
i R-~source \ L)sting
Standards Information Management System _ ".- / I/r::c. ('(7
I Chemical Hazardous Emergency Management System
Unusual Occurrence Reporting System
5 5587
17S
SPMS Display and Communication Elements
SPMS Graphics
SPMS
ES&H Events
and News
ES&H Electronic
5 5588
176
I Requirements
First Tier Events Safety Management Information Tree
(Guideline Document SSDC-9)
Adequate safety Information system
I I I I
Risk Correctlve-Users management preventative action
1 3 5 I 7
Hazard Accident/incident Safety resource . Identification Investigation allocation
Reporting
2 4 6 8
5 5566
177
178
Keeping the System Operationally Ready -
Follow-on Activities 6 10001
. 179
The Nature of the Problem
• Plan
.' Execution
610017
l ~."<O )
MORT
Risks and losses
6 I
Specific factors
n I
I I I I
Hazards Barriers Targets Policy and controls
~aintain a state of operational readiness
I
Management factors
0 I
Policy implementation
Design and plan of followup program
I
Risk evaluation
50846
111
What is operational readiness? • Right people
• Right time
• Right place
• Right hardware
• . Right procedures and management controls
System operationally
ready • Initial • .. Continuing
n I 1
Hardware Personnel Procedures and
management controls 50847
What are some types of readiness?
r -I I I I -I I L~ I I I I I I I L-_
Management
Operational readiness to reduce impact of mishaps:
• Fire fighting • Medical • Nuclear • industrial safety
t Operations r-----------___ J
~ MISHAPS
Existing operational readiness program
Operational readiness
from safety point of view
• Establish readiness • Inspect/Review
Evaluate operational
risks
Analyze state r- of operational
readiness
Analyze previous i- mishap
experience --
I •
Investigation
Operational readiness to investigate
mishaps
4----, I I I I I I I I I __ ..J
69960
133
How do these Elements Fit Together in Operational Mishaps
Program defect
Specific failure
t-------II~ Event MISHAP
Failure to:
• Complete mission • Within budget • On schedule • With acceptable side effects
50848
1°4 .. J
Case study # 1 Upstream Processes The mishap is the result of "upstream processes":
People at the
job site
Procedures and
management controls relating
to the mishap
Hardware
1
Conditions at time
of mishap
/ ~~--------------------------,,---------------------------The "Upstream Processes" 1-2-21
S4 9235 .
Keeping the System in a State of Readiness
System ready
n J
I I r
Major Major Major subsystem subsystem . . . .. .. . subsystem
#1 #2 #N
n I
I I I I
n T
I I I
50853
186
How About the Maintenance of Hardware
• The basic program
• Prioritization
610018
187
138
Operational Readiness from the Viewpoint of the Operator
612958
1'39
Can the System Be Operated and Maintained by the Personnel?
612959 .
._- ~ -
. -190
How Do You Determine the Problems of the Operators?
• Reported Significant Observation (RSO) study
612960
. 191
What Are RSO Studies?
• Obtaining feedback from operators on problems which they have identified at the worker level
612961
.192
Why Do RSO Studies?
• Get feedback from workers on problems PRIOR to start up
612962
193
How to Perform an RSO Study (See. SSOC-S)
. -1. Use interviews or questionnaires
2. Get response from representative number of people
3. Ask each to identify items which they have personally observed which are either good or bad and why
4. Analyze results for problem areas 6 12963
194
au •• tlon .... r.
Design que.llonnaire
Reported Significant Observations
CondUCI Inl • .,,_.
Valldale
Safely organization and involved
organlzallon manag ... · analysis
Safely org. and Involv.d org .
quick validalionJ .... Iysi.
Key word index
------ ---, Feedback I
I I I I
I
t I I I I ________ J
Feedback
File
195
From your experience, think of the most recent situation in which you observed a job or operating situation for which it was not easy to operate or maintain plant equipment in an effective, error-free manner.
1. When and where did this happen (approximate date and place)?
2. What equipment and/or what type of job was involved?
3. Briefly describe the situation at the time (process or machine running, process ot machine shut down, abnormal operating conditions, etc.).
4. Exactly what occurred? (Use other side if necessary.)
5. Why do you classify this as being an especially difficult operational or maintenance job?
6. What might have been expected from more effective plant design or procedures in this situation (e.g., easier to perform, less chance of error, less chance of equip
ment damage, etc.)? 612984
196
Typical Problems Detected by this Method
• Mechanical operability
• Communications system
• Visual access
• Personnel access
• Mechanical maintainability 612964
197
Actual Case Study Indicates That: .
• Operations people are very good at pointing out problems which will eventually cause an accident
• If the problem:s were fi·xed the accidents could have been prevented
• Review agents, designers, management, etc. Should be aware of RSO material if we plevertt=prevent problems
612965
' .
198
Example Case
Accident An individual removed a radioactive wand from a test. Assuming it to be non-radioactive. The hand-held radiation monitor failed to alarm. The health physicist directed the individual to put it back, the individual froze and the HP had to take it away and throw it back. ~ er.:k __ ~
RSO reports prior to accident:
1. Difficulties in identifying hot or cold wand (1 time)
2. Hand-held monitor failed (5 times)
3. Personnel fail to respect to HP directives (3 times) 612966
199
Resume: Sponsor-irradiated fuel pins were taken to one of our hot cells for examination. This was a rush job under combined direction of our people and sponsor representatives.
The pins were taken from the transfer cask and were placed in a wire mesh basket which was resting on a "slotted" working base (like a boardwalk with large cracks between the boards).
The mesh size on the basket was larger than the fuel pin diameter. A pin fell partially through the basket and into one of the slots on the working base. When the basket was moved (using remote manipulations), the pin was bent.
612967
200
Relevant Problems Revealed by RSO Prior to the Event:
1. Conducting work with impaired visual access - windows or periscope (reported 3 times).
2. Conducting work with impaired cell equipment, inadequate equipment for the job to be done, or jury rigging;; 1.1;) / / ';- - )
(reported·5 times). (Juo/tM",dJ
3. Job supplied on short notice (reported twice).
4. Too many companies trying to direct work without organized coordination (reported once).
5. Lack of information on hardware to be worked with (reported 3 times).
6. Too much pressure to work fast and get job out (reported twice).
7. "Handling techniques had to be developed when specimens arrived" (reported once).
8. " ... Iack of patience in following established procedures due in part but not entirely, to the pressure of jobs waiting to be done with partially impaired facilities (cell windows)" (reported once).
6 12968
201
Moral
When you think you are ready to operate . ask those who will be required to perform the work.
612969
202
Laboratory Instructions Second Day
52 2700 2.52
203
1. Utilize the readiness tree prepared during the first day.
2. Layout sample flowcharts to describe the steps required to achieve a state of readiness.
A. Utilize your organization's flow charting - work control methodology or
B. Select an appropriate flow charting technique.
3. Select appropriate work sheets to "track readiness.
A. Utilize your organization's media and methods or
B. Select new media.
4. Select an appropriate method for displaying the state of readiness. This should report status as follows:
A. Known complete as designed and planned.
B. Known complete with waivers.
C. Known incomplete.
D. Status unknown. S2 2701
2.53
204
5. Be prepared to present your example to the group with specific examples of its use tomorrow morning.
6. Diagram a monitoring and review process which can be used in your organization for actually sampling the necessary information. Conducting operational readiness review and in establishing management controls over system startup.
S2 2702 2.54
205
206
The Readiness Review Process
610025
207
Operational Readiness Review
Purpose:
• To determine - That a system or facility is co,nstructed
as designed - That it can be operated safely - That it will perform as designed - That it is functional - That it will be operated by competent people - That everything is documented
612973
208
Some Considerations in Operational Readiness
• Roles of field office and contractor
• Integral design
• How much operational readiness review
• Costs
• Reporting to management 52 10 145
209
The Roles of Field Office and Contractor
• No specific DOE order
• "Do" vs "Review"
• "Review" - Understand and evaluate system - Validate by sampling ((i;{) lidf /;"
• Contractor - Do - Review
• Field office Do
- Review
210
Integral Design
• Types of review /e-:,/ ,;; ~ b (~ "7 - Hardware turnover
I'~?
~ < <'~ 4l/; Le#V_ ! Total system readiness
• Scheduling and timing (~")'- jJ.-~a)
• ~~~~!~~jo,~ofi~!!:~jl - information systems
• Retrofit problems S2 10 146
211
·An Orderly Logical Review Process vs. a "High Tech
Easter Egg Hunt" (
1_ ( \ 11 /I " /1 \ Ve t !. ,"':e"C/J(.~i( / to/,.,(./'.·<.., .-v-,.( )
69977
212
How Much Operational Readiness Review?
• Use of program management and quality assurance systems
• Redundancy
• Proper talents-skills-experience
• Depth and detail - Analytical models - Working models - Reporting models
52 10 136
213
Safety Review Redundancy and Independence Scale
Minimal Redundancy and Independence
Performs primary safety analysis to operational proposals
Specifies proper codes, standards and regulations
High degree of personal Interest In operational Impact of review decisions
Dependent on operating group for funding
Common management or supervision with operating groups or groups performing primary safety analyses
Rewrites proposals to meet review criteria or participates directly In rewrite
Automatically utilizes same analytical methodology as group performing primary safety analysis
Role of Safety Review Agent
~
One Or n,
ore Cr. 10 siler/.
on,e CI. a con, egr IJron, .
ee 'seC!
Complete Redundancy and Independence
Not involved in performance of primary safety analysis
Validated codes, standards and regulations selected by others
No personal interest in operational impact of review decisions
Financially Independent of operating group
Organizationally independent of operating group and groups performing primary safety analyses
Rejects proposals with cause. Does not participate In rewrite
Utilizes different analytical methodology and/or challenges analytical methodology used by group performing primary safety analysis
S2 10 135
214
Potential Consequences
Energy Involved
Electrical
Nuclear
mgh
pv-l\d
KE-linear
KE-f'otatlonal
Corrosive
Explosive-pyrophoric
Toxlc-pathogenlc
Flammable
Thermal
Cl' . (J. y Radiation
Acoustical Radiation
Thermal Radiation
IS HP IH FE RS NS TS
Industrial Safety Health Physics IndustrIal Hygiene Fire Engineering Radiological Safety Nuclear Safety Traffic Safety
Routing Matrix Death or Injury Property Loss
Q!) Q!) FE FE
HP HP RS RS
@) @) @) <ID @) I()~ CIS (TS):::> I( IS (TS):::>
Qs:::> 105:::> ® ®
C!D <ID IS @)
ICE:> IH
@) ~ IS IS
® ® FE
HP HP
@) @) CJE) IH NS
IS CID IH IH FE
QD @)
0= Primary Responsibility
Program Impact Adverse Publicity·
C!D Q!) FE __ FE HP HP RS RS
I@) ® @) ® ® ® CIS (TS):::> ( IS (TS)::::>
(IS:> ®
G~) c:~) @) ®
IS IS
l® CiE)
<IT> @) IS IS
® ® FE FE HP HP
® ® IH NS IH NS
@) <ID IH FE IH FE
® @)
"Type A or B incident
S2 10 134
215
Costs
• Program management and Q/A Systems already exist
• New costs - Review staff costs - Information collection, processing and
presentation
• Reasonable costs
• Exorbitant costs 82 10 147
216
Reporting to Management
• What does management want?
• Analytical models vs reporting models
• R'elatjonship to commitments
• Relationship to risk S2 10 148
21 7
What are Some of the Things to Watch for in Performing Operational
Readiness Review?
• Too much emphasis on dominant hazards and/or catastrophic consequence levels
• Overuse or underuse of formal techniques
• Overlooking peripheral hazard types
• Items which were "ready" and later "undone" (especially items performed early in the project)
• Failure to properly relate "unknown status" items to potential consequences if these items are not ready
• Failure to refer risk on unknown status items to proper management levels
• Effect of schedule pressures on quality of work
• Failure to clearly assign responsibilities for knowledge of work status
S22695 2.27
218
• Compromise of "here and now" readiness
of personnel to operate the system due to
overtime, overwork and other pressures
• Effectiveness of change and configuration
controls A. A s-b u i It i n f or mat i on (t~,J,ff .>0-,' 1 ,/ /;; b~., ,~.-~ . t 4.0 /~ r'~~T " -/.:0 ~ /l/~~;,o-/ t,~~J )
B. Time lags in system
C. Long term systemic changes and system handoffs (e.g., "construction"
to "operations", "old" vs "new" quality assurance programs, etc.)
J J - j / ;' 1'1/1 /(7 ,.. {J 21' / r~'~~N '
S2 2696 2.28
219
How can We Avoid These Problems?
• Assignments of responsibility and use of media to assure that systems designed to achieve both basic process safety and safety considerations in the various disciplinary areas are in a state of readiness.
• Use both formal methods and personal experience and skills to avoid oversights.
• Use appropriate general laundry lists, checklist, etc. to cross check for oversig hts.
52 2697 2.29
22 0
Recommendations on the Review Process
The review group summarized their review by making the following recommendations regarding ORR's in general and our plan in particular. fJr!l-' d" .k. ,,, ... r' /!~,", 6··/;~~ ... , r / {, ~' ~' ,:._ . .J
• Set up systems of administrative controls to handle (1) Component requalifications
(2) I n-service inspections (3) Instrument recalibrations.
• Specify the authority of the ORR review team (see Sections 5.5 and 5.6 of our Plan). Team's role should be advisory only_
S2 3520
221
Recommendations on the Review Process (cont'd)
• A person with operations skills should be added to the Review Team.
• In management procedures, build in a communications system to disseminate public relations information.
• Consider presenting a package to the ORR Review Team in advance of the review.
• In the ORR, do not resolve anything on the spot; just write down the problem and (later) write up the resolution. 52 3521
222
Recommendations on the Review Process (cont'd)
• Prior to the ORR, someone outside the Review Team should have reviewed documentation for adequacy (Review Team will be unable to do this in the time available).
• Review Team should meet for the ORR at least two months prior to operation.
• Consider convening the Review Team for incremental reviews.(Use reviewers only from within their organization'?)
52 3522
22 3
Recommendations on the Review Process (cont'd)
• One to two days is not adequate for an ORR of a complex system.
• Set up rigorous system for control of changes(to sOftware.)
• Establish operator qualifications. Two to four year training period for "shift supervisors" in critical areas; in some cases psychological exams are given; the plant facility manager has the last word in accepting an operator.
S2 3523
224
Recommendations on the Review Process (cont'd)
• Obtain management commitment to support ORR. We have a great amount of ORR work to do - perhaps five to six full time people for the next three months.
• Set up operational controls at a pOint in the testing program prior to first plasma, and control the work thereafter.
• Make a dry run of the ORR presentation.
• Establish methods to control the work and changes after the ORR.
S2 3525
?2r.; 1'-1. ~
Recommendations on the Review Process (cont'd)
• Establish software assessment criteria, set up an independent review of critical software programs, including dry run test.
• For safety readiness, conduct emergency preparedness planning, establish safety limits and periodic monitoring requirements.
• Establish procedures for handling trouble reports.
S2 3524
226
Some Checklists and Considerations Relating to
Operational Readiness
A. Check system for all hazards by energy type
B. Check system for functions which might affect performance
C. Check system for consequences of things which are not or might not be ready
S2 2698 2.30
22 7
228
A. Check System for all Hazards by Energy Type
52 2704 2.31
22 9
Typical Examples of Energy Sources
Electrical
Battery banks Diesel units High lines Transformers Wiring Switchgear Underground wiring Cable runs Service outlets and fittings Pumps Motors Heaters Power tools Small equipment
Nuclear
Vaults Temporary storage areas Receiving areas Shipping areas Casks Burial ground Storage racks Canals and basins Reactor In-tank storage areas Dollies Trucks Hand carry Cranes Lifts Commercial Shops
Hot cells Assembly Areas Inspection areas Test rigs Reactors Critical facilities Subcritical facilities laboratories Pilot plants
Thermal Radiation
Furnaces Boilers Steam lines lab and pilot plant equipment Solar
Mass, Gravity, Height
Human effort Stairs lifts Cranes Bucket and ladder Trucks Slings Hoists Elevators Jacks Scaffolds and ladders Crane cabs Pits Excavations Elevated doors
Canals Vessels
Pressure-Volume/K-Constant-Distance
Boilers Heated surge tanks Autoclaves Test loops and facilities Gas bottles Pressure vessels Coiled springs Stressed members Gas receivers
Kinetic-linear
Cars Trucks Buses Fork lifts Carts Dollies Railroad Surfaces Obstructions Shears Presses Crane loads in motion Pv blowdown Powder assisted driving tools
S2 2705 2.32
230
Typical Examples of Energy Sources (cont'd)
Kinetic-Rotational
Centrifuges Motors Pumps Cooling tower fans Cafeteria equipment Laundry equipment Gears Shop equipment (grinders,
saws, brushes, etc.) Floor polishers
Corrosive
Acids Caustics "Natural" chemicals (soil,
air, water) Decon solutions
Explosive Pyrophorlc
Caps Primer cord Dynamite Powder metallurgy Dusts Hydrogen (incl. battery banks
and water decomp.) Gases-other Nitrates Electric squibbs Peroxides-Superoxides
Toxic Pathogenic
Acetone Fluorides Carbon monoxide Lead Ammonia and compounds Asbestos Trichlorethylene Dusts and particulates Pestlcides-herbicides-insecticides Bacteria Beryllium and compounds Chlorine and compounds Decon solutions Sandblast Metal plating Asphyxiation-drowning
Flammable Materials
Packing materials Rags Gasoline (storage and in vehicles) Lube oil Coolant oil Paint solvent Diesel fuel Buildings and contents Trailers and contents Grease Hydrogen (incl. battery banks) Gases - other Spray paint Solvent vats
Thermal (except radiant)
Convection Heavy metal weld preheat Exposed steam pipes Electric heaters Fire boxes lead melting pot Electrical wiring and equipment Furnaces
Electromagnetic and Particulate Radiation
Canals Plug storage Storage areas Storage buildings Radioactive sources Waste and scrap Contamination Irradiated experimental and
reactor equipment Electric furnace Blacklight (e.g., magniflux) Laser Medical X-ray Radiography equipment and sources Welding Electric arc - other (high
current circuits) Electron beam
Acoustical Radiation
Equipment noise Ultrasonic cleaners
S2 2706 2.33
231
B. Check System for Functions Which Might Affect Human Performance
52 2707 2.34
232
. r.
Task Performance Factors in Industry
Aerospace ~
People
Nuclear Plant hardware
Transportation " Procedures and management control
Utilities --" r
... -"" Interface - factors otIL -'" - -
Physiological
Psycholog ica I
Envi ron menta I
S2 2708 2.35
233
Task Performance Factors
Procedures /Procedure
& Management Control
Hardware & Procedures & People
People
Psychological Factors
Physiological Factors
Environmental Factors
People
52 0043 2.36
23 4
Task Performance Factors
Psychological (mental-emotional stress)
• Family pressure
• Economical pressure
• Management pressure
• Supervisory pressure
• Peer pressure
• Work load 52 2709
2.37
23 5
Task Performance Factors
Physiological (biological stress)
• Fatigue
• Hypoglycemia (diet)
• Drugs
• Alcohol
• Health factors
• Physical stress
• Circadian rhythm S2 2710
2.38
236
Task Performance Factors
Environmental (physical and mental stress)
• Hypothermia • Hyperthermia • Radiation • Pol,lution • Acoustical • Illumination • Hypobarics • Pressure changes • Hyperbarics • Work space 52 2711
2.39
237
Aerospace Industry Personnel Factors
52 2712 2.40
238
Aerospace Industry Personnel Factors
Supervisory Factors Acceptance of Responsibility Qualifications/Intelligence/Experience Training (Including Emergencies) Team Coordination/Crew Discipline Morale Illness/Physical Disabilities Alertness Vertigo/Disorientation/Visual Illusions Responsiveness Perceptions/Human Factors Reactions Sight/Color Blindness Hearing Strength/Fatigue Stress (Physical, Psychological, Physiological) Buddy System Reliance Emotional Stability Communication/Language Difficulty Clothing/Protective Wear Boredom/Complacency/Fixation/Hypnosis Efficiency Capability (Task Loading) Overconfidence 52 2713
2.41 239
Aerospace Industry Hardware and Environmental
Factors
S2 2714 2.42
240
Aerospace Industry Hardware and Environmental Factors
Fire/corker potential Explosion/implosion/overpressure Electrocution/electrical burns Electrical failure/backup power Inadvertent electrical activation Rad iation (ion izi ng/ non ionizi ng) Structural failure Engine failure/emergency power Mechanical/hydraulic failure Humidity Leakage Impact Corrosion/toxicity Acceleration Air/fluid contamination Excessive noise/vibration Extreme cold/heat Flooding/loss of buoyancy Instrument readability/control accessibility
S2 2715 2.43
241
Nuclear Industry Personnel, Procedural and
Hardware Factors
S2 2716 2.44
242
Nuclear Industry Personnel, Procedural and Hardware Factors
• Operator factors in human error incidences
- Fatigue
- Disorientation
. - Distraction
- Motivation
- Forgetting
- Confusion
- Expectancy or set
- Psychological stress
- Inadequate reasoning/problem solving capability
- Inadequate skill levels
- Inadequate knowledge
• Operational factors in human error incidence
- Time constraints
- Interfering activities
- Poor communications
- Excessive workloads
- Environmental stress (noise levels, lighting, levels, temperature, etc.)
• Design factors in human error incidence
- Control/display location
- Control/display arrangement
- Control/display identification or coding
- Control/display operation or response
- Information availability
- Information readability
- Availability of feedback information
• Procedural factors in human error incidence
- Erroneous instructions or directives
- Incomplete or inconsistent instructions
- Confusing directives
• Training factors in human error incidence
- Inadequate knowledge training
- Inadequate skill training
52 2717 2.45
243
Transportation Industry Personnel, Hardware,
Proced.ural Factors
S2 2718 2.46
. 244
Transportation Industry Personnel, Hardware, Procedural Factors
Job assignment Responsibilities Project pressure Reliability of the employee Health Toxic exposures, historical Radiation exposure Driving experience Driving record Normal modes of transportation Fatigue, immediate, and chronic Food Location of incidents Toxic exposures in the vehicle - vehicle condition Driving boredom Worries, on the job Home life Recreation Habits, personal Vehicle control Group exposure (highway miles) Hours of work control - contention Availability of food Availability of beds S2 2719
2.47
245
Coal-Fired Power Plants Personnel, Hardware and
Procedural Factors
52 2720 2.48
246
Coal-Fired Power Plants Personnel, Hardware and Procedural Factors
Second Most important most important
Trainlng1 18 Training
Turnover2 5 Turnover
Equipment Human design3 3 factors
Personnel Discipline selection 3
Root cause analysis 2
1 Increased training
2Reduced turnover
13
5
3
2
Third most important
Equipment design 6
Turnover 5
Supervision 3
31mproved equipment design to reduce error
Overall
Training
Turnover
Equipment design
Human factors
Supervision
Personnel selection
Root Cause analysis
Employee attitudes
Discipline
Scheduling
Vendor instructions
32
16
9
3
4
3
3
3
3
2
2
S2 2721 2.49
247
C. What are the Potential Consequences for Things That are not or Might not be Ready?
52 2699 2.50
248
Practical Risk Management
249
I
250 I
Practical Considerations for Readiness Reviews
(Hanford Experience)
52 10 149
251
• Several prime contractors (UNC, Rockwell, etc.)
• Multiplicity of facilities - N Reactor - Z Plant. (Pu processi.ng) - Nuclear waste vitrification - Nuclear waste storage tanks
S2 10 150
25 2
In My View:
DOE-HQ requirements assign responsibility for controlling:
• Cost
• Schedul.e
• Quality (fitness for intended use) 82 10 138
253
No Formal Requirement to Conduct Documented
Readiness Reviews
S2 10 152
. 254
In God We Trust All Others Pay Cash
52 10 141
. 255
Formal Readiness Reviews Provide Management with Visible Objective Evidence
(Cash) of Readiness
S2 10 164
256
- Durability - Efficiency - Reliability - Etc.
- Safety
Quality (fitness for intended use)
52 10 137
257
Readiness Reviews Help Achieve the Mission as Well as
Guard Against the Hazard
S2 10 140
258
A Field Office and Contractor Procedure should be Issued
Detailing Readiness Mechanisms and or
Requirements S2 10 165
259
Selection of Startups for Formal Review
• Selection should be performed in advance via a formal projection list submitted to senior official for approval
• Normally data for projections should be accumulated by program entity and compiled by safety-type division
52.10 153
260
• Some selection criteria for requiring a formal readiness review could be:
Startup of new nuclear facilities, operations, or processes
- Restart of facilities, operations, or processes that were ordered shutdown for safety reasons or following effluent release to the environment in excess of DOE standards
- Restart of nuclear facilities, operations or processes following modification involving safety questions previously unreviewed by RL
Ii .. /~ lau.~/ S2 10 154
261
• Criteria (continued) Restart of nuclear facilities, operations, or processes that have been shutdown or in standby for an extended period.
- Initiation of D&D projects involving safety questions previously unreviewed
- Initiation of non-routine transport of hazardous materials
- Initiation of new type activities which present an identifiable hazard to employees, the public, or the environment
- Any startup specifically designated by the government
52 10 155
262
• A readiness review should be tailored for particular facilities, contractors or processes
• DOE-RL has generally asked for certain basic elements in a contractor startup review
S2 10 156
263
Basic Elements Are:
• Compilation of a review checklist based upon an analytical method such as MORT or SSDC-1 :
"Do the sum of the pieces add up to the whole"?
52 10 157
264
• State of readiness should be recommended by independent review body to authorizing official, e.g., contractor readiness board recommends to contractor senior official, RL review team recommends to field office manager
S2 10 158
265
• What signatures mean must be documented, e.g., 100 % complete, complete with waiver, etc.
• Meaningful documentation must exist behind each signature, e.g., audit report, surveillance report, training, test result, etc., "Belief without evidence is called faith".
• Portions of the tree or checklist considered N/A or waived should be technically justified,
• e.g., no consequence, consequence IS
acceptable risk as judged by qualified individual.
52 10 144
266
• Signoffs required by system expert with management approval
- Management should be alert for interface problems, e.g., have individual hardware and/or management systems been tested together as well as separately,
- System Operational Test Procedures (OTP's) - Match of procedures with the plant
S2 10 151
26 7
• Incomplete items should be designated pre or post-startup, e.g.,
- Some items will be complete after authorization but prior to startup (PRE)
- Some after actual startup (POST) - If it is ever needed, it is not needed for
startup? If not, why not?
S2 10 143
238
Helpful Hints
• Time for conduct of a readiness review should be incorporated in the startup schedule
S2 10 159
269
• QA certification that background documentation is in place
• Master checklist or tree is maintained by one designated individual
S2 10 160
270
• General problems identified for one readiness review should be fixed for overall site or contractors system and not just facility specific "Band-Aid".
S2 10 161
271
• Approval in stages is often necessary and appropriate.
• The conduct of the readiness review can be hazardous too!
S2 10 162
27 2
• Readiness review is not a guarantee. So, don't turn your brain off!
82 10 139
273
27 4
Facility Occupancy - Use Management Oversight Risk Tree
Fault Free Safety
• Decontamination • Materials Disposal • Environmental Restoration
S2 2641 1.45
2'f5
Means of Egress as per NFPA 101
p. AI·2
52 2642 1.46
276
Coverage
Approved Equipment
Installation
Acceptance Testing
Signs, Labels
Funding
Test Procedures
Inspection
P.A1-2
S2 2643 1.47
2'f7
Watchman Service
Manpower
Training
Frequency
Requirements
Programmatic Impact
Property Damage
Fire Areas
Construct. Materials
Exposures
Exits & Access
Interior Finish
p. AI-4
Wind Operations
Seismic Computers
Flood Heating & Cooling
Electrical
Changes
Common Hazards
Special Hazards
Cutting & Welding
Contract
Funding Restrictions
82 2644 1.48
Owner's Responsibility
p. AI-2
Proper Foot Wet & Dry Volume Candles Bulb Declbles
Temperature
Glare Special Air
Movement Frequency
Shadows Source
Summer & Control Special Winter
Needs Considerations Source
Enclosure Power Supply
Personal Adequacy Protective Equipment
279
Bus Stops
Adequacy
Restrict Other Use
Post SChedule
Loading & Unloading
Designate Loadlngl
Unloading Zones
Passengers
Goods
Government & Personal Car
Parking
Determine Need
Mark Parking Spaces
Make & Post Regulations
Advise Employees
Traffic Flow Pattern
Planning Including Approval
Mark Flow & Parking
Spaces
Set Procedure
to Make Improvements
Keep Employees
Advised
Coordination with City
and Police
Delegate Person-in-
Charge
Coordinate with City
Traffic Safety Board
Problem Handling
With Building Owner
Problem Handling
w/AdJacent Building Owner
Bicycles & Motorbikes
Arrange Facilities
Mark Area Post
Regulations
Advise Employees
Snow Removal Plan
Arrange Notice
when Needed
Accomplish Before
Employees Arrive
Obtain Local Government Approval on Placement
of Snow
Sand Turns & Steps
S2 2646 1.50
280
p .• ~2
• Em.r .... ncy Radio Fr8oq. lor Telephone
• Olh.r. 52 2122
1.51
291 J
ERDA or DOT Approved
Compliance DocumentAl!
Safety Signoff Shipping Paper
Receiver Qualified to
Accept
Multiple Loadings
Approved by Safety
Documentation and Review
p. AI-10 p . AI-13
Use Same Controls as
for Shipment
p. AI-2
Cleared with Reviewer
Special Controls for
Transfers
p . AI-13
Constant Surveillance
S2 2647 1.52
p. A-9
282
Prepared Reviewed
p. AI-11
Storage Process Handling
Approved
p. AI-9
Drawings Available
and Current
Poison Verification Documented
Essential Design Features Verified and Documented
52 2648 1.53
283
p. AI·10 Prepared
Standard Format
Clear Who Applies To
Ambiguities Eliminated
Auditable
Control Area Identified
Storage and Handling Limits (General Terms)
Control Equip. Identified
Special Transfer or Shipping
Receiving
Recordkeeping
Perpetual Inventory
Inspections Equipment
Cautions Warnings
p. AI·10 Reviewed
Safety Review
Management Review
p. AI·10 Approved
Safety Signoff Required
Management Approval
S2 2649 1.54
284
Independent Calculation or
Hazards Identified
Analytical Methods
Assumptions
Applicability
Abnormal Conditions
Hazards Identified
Risks Evaluated
Members Independent
& include Nuclear
Physicist
S2 2650 1 .55
Safely
Management Review Group
Operations Office
Vault SAR Approved
Area Posted
Unauthorized Handling
Prevention
Physical Security
Fire Protection No Water
Signs
Criticality Alarms
Nuclear Accident
Dosimeters
Equipment Labelled
or Identified
Essential Design
Features Verified
Procured
Authorized Personnel
Designated
Authorized Personnel
Trained
Criticality Theory
Control Philosophy
Specific Hardware
Specific Procedures
Emergency Plans
S2 2651 1.56
2'3 6
Personnel
Direct Radiation
Facility
p. AI-2
Radiation Protection
Contamination
Public
Air Activity Effluents
S2 2652 1 .57
237
Internal Transfer and Storage
Shipping and Receiving
Process Work Facilities and
Equipment
p. AI-14 & p. AI-18
Satellite Process Work Facilities and Equipment
External Sources and Causes
Prospective Controls
Operational Controls
p. AI-16 p. AI-16
Communications
S2 2653 1.58
Building Utilities and
Services
288
Communications Training
Bio-Assay Assistance
Prospective Controls p. AI-15
Information
Review Human Factors
Operational Controls p. AI-15
Public Relations
Procedures
Information
52 2654 1.59
289
Control Documents Approved
p. AI-2
52 2855 1.60
Personnel Requirements Reviewed end
Approved
290
U.S. Department of Energy Washington, D.C.
SUBJECT: ENVI RONMENT, SAFETY, AND HEALTH PROGRAM FOR DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY OPERATIONS
ORDER
DOE 5480.1B
9-23-86
1. PURPOSE. To establish the Environment, Safety, and Health (ES&H) Program for Department of Energy (DOE) operations.
2. CANCELLATION. DOE 5480.1A, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, SAFETY, AND HEALTH PROTECTION PROGRAl1 FOR DOE OPERATIONS, 0 f 8-13-8l.
3. SCOPE. The provisions of this Order apply to all Departmental Elements and contractors performing work for the Department as provided by law and/or contract and as implemented by the appropriate contracting officer.
4. REFERENCES.
a. ' DOE OOOO.lA, STANDARD SUBJECT CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM, of 8-14-79, which contains the categories for fil ing records and documents ••
b. DOE 1324.2. RECORDS DISPOSITION, of 5-28-80, which describes the procedures for retention of records and documents.
c. DOE 3790.1A, FEDERAL EMPLOYEE OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH PROGRAM, of 10-22-84, which establishes the policy for the implementation and administration of the occupational safety and health program for Federal employees.
d. DOE 5000.3, UNUSUAL OCCURRENCE REPORTING SYSTEM, 0 f 11-7-84, whi ch ",'I·
establishes a system for reporting unusual occurrences having program-matic significance.
e. DOE 5440.1C, IMPLEMENTATION OF THE NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT, 0 f 4-9-85, which establishes procedures for implementing the National Environmental Pol icy Act of 1969.
f. DOE 5480.5, SAFETY OF NUCLEAR FACILITIES, of 9-23-86, which establishes DOE's nonreactor nuclear facflity safety program.
g. DOE 5480.6. SAFETY OF DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY-OWNED NUCLEAR REACTORS, of '9-23-86. which establishes DOE's reactor safety program. . .
h. DOE 5480.14, COMPREHENSIVE ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE, COMPENSATION, AND ~' LIABILITY ACT PROGRAM, of 4-26-85, which establishes a program to I}
identify and remediate inactive hazardous waste disposal sites, and to control hazardous substance mitigation. (
DISTRIBUTION: INITIATED BY: All Departmental Elements Assistant Secretary for
Environment, Safety, and Health
291
2 DOE 5480.1B 9-23-86
DOE 5481.1B, SAFETY ANALYSIS AND REVIEW SYSTEM, of 9-23-86, which establishes uniform requirements for the preparation and review of safety ana lyses.
j. DOE 5482.1B, ENVIRONMENT, SAFETY, AND HEALTH APPRAISAL PROGRAM, of 9-23-86, which presents the Department's policy and requirements for appraisal of environment, safety, and health programs.
k. DOE 5483.1A, OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH PROGRAM FOR GOVERNMENTOWNED CONTRACTOR-OPERATED FACILITIES, of 6-22-83, which provides guidance and establishes procedures for the government-owned contractor-operated safety and health program.
1. DOE 5484.1, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, SAFETY, AND HEALTH PROTECTION INFORMATION REPORTING REQUIREMENTS, of 2-24-81, which establishes the requirements and procedures for reporting and investigating matters of environmental protection, safety, and health protection significance to DOE operations. °
m. DOE 5610.3, PROGRAM TO PREVENT ACCIDENTAL OR UNAUTHORIZED NUCLEAR EXPLOSIVE DETONATIONS, of 12-18-80, which establishes safety policies and procedures applicable to activities involving nuclear explosives • .
n. DOE 5700.1C, MAJOR SYSTEMS ACQUISITIONS, of 9-6-83, which establishes 0"::\ requirements and objectives and assigns responsibilities and authorities necessary for the acquisition of major systems.
o. DOE 570~4A, PROJECT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM, of 11-7-83, which provides the principles and requirements which govern the development, approval, and execution of DOE's major system acquisitions and major projects.
p. DOE 5700.6B, QUALITY ASSURANCE, of 9-23-86, which establishes OO£IS qual i ty assurance program. °
q. Title 29 CFR 1960, Safety and Health Provisions for Federal Employees, which provides the regulations and guidelines for the implementation of Executive Order 1219~
r. Department of Energy kquisition Regulation, 48 CFR 970.23, and 48 CFR 923.70, which together provide the clauses to be used in contracts where DOE is either required to, or elects to, enforce ES&H requirements.
s. Executive Order 12088, "Federal Compliance with Pollution Control Standards", which establishes requirements and procedures for Federal agencies to comply with environmental legislation and regulations.
292
DOE 5480.1B 9-23-86
3 .
t. Executive Order 12196, ·Occupational Safety and Hea1th Programs for Federal Employees," which establishes the requirement for Federal agencies to provide occupational safety and health programs for their employees.
5. DEFINITIONS.
a. DOE Contractor includes any prime contractor or subcontractor subject to the contractual provisions of 48 CFR 923~70, 48 CFR 970.23, or other contractual provisions where DOE has elected to enforce ES&H requirements by specific negotiated contract provisions.
b. DOE Operations are those DOE-funded activities for which DOE has assumed responsibility for the environment, safety, and health programs.
c. Environment, Safety, and Health Overview is an organized set of activities performed as independent functions. It's purpose is to assure that all aspects of environment, safety and health-related activities at the program, project, and contractor level are adequately addressed. Such activities include: . (1) Establishing Department-wide environment, safety, and health
policies, requirements and standards;
(2) Periodic and timely reviews of program and project documents, activities, actions, and plans;
(3) Appraising the implementation of environment, safety and health programs at the Headquarters, field, and contractor level as appropriatei and
(4) Providing support, assistance e and guidance to Headquarters program offices and field organizations.
d. Environment. Safety, and Health (ES&H) Program encompasses those DOE requirements, activities, and functions in the conduct of all DOE and DOE-controlled operations that are concerned with: controlling air, water, and soil pollution; limiting the risks to the well being of both operating personnel and the general public to acceptably low levels; and protecting property adequately against accidental loss and damage. Typical activities and functions related to this program include, but are not limited to, the following: environmental protection, occupational safety, fire protection, industrial hygiene. health physics, occupational medicine, process and facilities safety, nuclear safety. emergency preparedness, quality assurance, and radioactive and hazardous waste management.
293 -- - ----- -- - --
----------
4 DOE 5480.18
9-23-86
e. Environmental Survey is a documented, multidiscipline assessment (with sampling and analysis) of a facility to determine environmental conditions and to identify environmental problem areas of environmental risk requiring corrective action.
f.
g.
h.
i.
Environmental Audit is a documented assessment of a facility to monitor the progress of necessary corrective actions, to assure compliance with environmental laws and regulations, and to evaluate field organization practices and procedures.
Exception is an interim release from a standard of the type specified under the Occupational Safety and Health Act. An exception is processed in accordance with DOE 5483.1A.
Federal Employee Occupational safet~ and Health Program is that program mandated by Executive Order 12196 an lmplemented by 29 CFR 1960, DOE 3790.1A, and HQ 3790.2.
Generic Exemption is a temporary or permanent release from the requirements of this Order or other Orders in the DOE 5480 series, which extends beyond specific facilities and projects or applies to a category of facilities or activities (see also paragraph 8d(6)).
j. Implementation Plan is a concise description of the approach, resources, and time period planned for implementing Orders that require such plans on a site-wide basis. The plan includes a description of the execution of environmental protection, safety, and health responsibilities and authorities by the field organization, and any proposed generic exemptions -to parts of such DOE Orders.
k. Line Organization is that unbroken chain of command which extends from the Secretary through the Under Secretary, to the Program Senior Officials (PSO) who set program policy and pians and develop assigned programs, to the field organization managers who are responsible to the PSO for execution of these programs, to the contractors who conduct the programs. Environment, safety, and health are integral parts of each program. Accordingly, line management responsibility for ES&H functions flows from the Secretary through the Under Secretary, to the PSO, to the field organization managers, to the contractors.
1. Program Senior Official (PSO) is a senior outlay program manager and includes the Assistant Secretaries for Conservation and Renewable Energy, Defense Programs, Fossil Energy, and Nuclear Energy, the Director of Energy Research, and the Director of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management. For purposes of this Order, this definition also includes the Administrators of the Bonneville and Western Area Power Administrations.
294
DOE 5480.1B 9-23-86
---- - -- - ----- ~
5
m. Standard means a specified set of rules or conditions concerned with the classification of components; delineation of procedures; definition of terms; specifications of materials, performance, design, or operations; or measurements of quality in describing materials, products, systems, services or practices. Standards may be specified by DOE as mandatory (i.e., required) or recommended.
n. Technical Safety Appraisal is a documented, multidiscipline appraisal of selected Department reactors and nuclear facilities conducted by a team selected by the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Safety, Health, and Qual ity Assurance (EH-30). They assure proper Department-wide appl ication of particular safety elements of the ES&H program, nuclear industry lessons learned, and appropriate licensed facility requirements as described in DOE 5482.1B, paragraph 9b.
o. Unreviewed Safety Question. A proposed change, test, or experiment shall be deemed to involve an unreviewed safety question if:
(1) The probability of occurrence or the consequences of an accident or malfunction of equipment important to safety evaluated previously by safety analyses will be significantly increased, or .
(2) A possibility for an accident or malfunction of a different type than any evaluated previously by safety analyses will be created which could result in significant safety consequences.
p. Variance is a release from a standard of the type specified under the Occupational Safety and Health Act which is processed in accordance with DOE 5483.1A.
6. APPLICATION.
a. This Order applles to the ES&H programs at all Government-owned con~ tractor-operated (GOCO) facilities including the occupational safety and health programs fOr DOE contractor employees at GOCO facilities where the contracts include the occupational safety and health contract clause specified in DOE Acquisition Regulations 48 CFR 923.70 and 48 CFR 970.23. This Order also applies to environmental protection programs and programs for the protection against accidental loss or damage to property as provided by law and/or contract and as implemented by the appropriate contracting officer. This Order does not apply to the occupational safety and health programs for non-GOCO contractor employees doing work for the Department or Federal employees as described in DOE 3790.1A (see paragraph 8e of this Order).
b. A partial or complete variance from this Order may be granted when compliance with the Order may be inconsistent with external regulatory, legislative, or judicial requirements imposed on a DOE program. Such
295
6
7.
l l
8.
DOE 5480.1B 9-23-86
variances shall be recorded by means of a memorandum of understanding (MOU) to be signed by the Assistant Secretary for Environment. Safety. and Health (EH-l) and by the requesting Program Senior Official (PSO). The MOU will contain the basis for the granting of the variance. the identification of the specific portion(s) of the Order to which the variance appl ies, and, when appl icable, the alternative measures that will be implemented to accomplish the intent and purpose of the Order's requirements.
POLICY. · It is Department policy to:
a. Assure the protection of the environment and the health and safety of the pub 1 i c.
b. Assure safe and healthful workplaces and conditions of employment for all employees of DOE and DOE contractors as described in paragraph 6, above. .
c. Protect Government property against accidental loss and damage.
d. Assure compliance with applicable statutory requirements affecting Federal facilities and operations and where possible, consist~nt with the Department's mission and supported by appropriate cost/benefit analysis, reduce identified environment, safety, and health risks, even though not mandated by specific requirements.
e. Assure that quality assurance is pursued (i.e. that research, development, demonstration, and production activities are performed in a controlled manner; that components, systems, and processes are deSigned, developed, constructed, tested. operated, and maintained according to industry accepted engineering standards, quality practices, and Technical Specifications/Operational Safety Requirements; and that resulting technology data are valid and retrievable).
f. Require line management to be responsible for effective Environment, Safety, and Health (ES&H) performance in their programs. Through overview, the Assistant Secretary for Environment, Safety, and Health (EH-1) is responsible to assure acceptable ES&H performance for the Secretary and for Program Senior Officials.
RESPONSIBILITIES AND AUTHORITIES.
a. Under Secretary (5-3) has overall responsibil ity and authority for DOE programs and may take necessary management actions to ensure safety. including directing the curtailment and suspension of operations, when in his or her opinion, such operation would result in an undue risk.
b. Program Senior Officials (PSO) are assigned primary responsibility for implementation of the DOE ES&H program. This responsibility includes confirming that DOE and Federal ES&H policies and directives are
296
DOE 5480.1B 9-23-86
----~-
adhered to vigorously in all DOE operations. Including responsibili
ties described in other DOE 5480 series Orders, PSOs shall:
(1) Provide clear and explicit delegations of authority and responsibilities.
J
(2) Ensure that appropriate ES&H requirements, as identified in the DOE Orders, are included in program plans and proposals for deSign, construction, operation, modification, and decommissioning of 00£ operations. .
(3) Take necessary management actions, including the requirement that budget proposals for their assigned functions provide adequate
ES&H resources.
(4) Confirm that applicable ES&H requirements are identified and provided to the contracting officers for inclusion in contracts.
(5) Perform program reviews to confirm effective implementation of DOE
ES&H requirements by program and field organizations. In the execution of this responsibility, maximum use should be made of
the appraisals and other reviews performed by EH, including assuring that recommendations made by EH are addres>ed in a responsive and timely manner.
(6) Provide program and project direction to the field organizations consistent with the ES&H Orders and £S&H policy guidance require
ments relating to ES&H. Program or project direction that is
related to ES&H and affects more than one field organization must
be concurred in by EH-l.
(7) Provide EH-l with copies of field organization implementation
pl ans for DOE 5480 series Orders.
(8) Review and. subsequent to EH-l concurrence, approve implementation
plans for DOE 5480 series Orders submitted by field organizations.
(9) Assume the responsibilities assigned to Heads of Field Organizations in paragraph 8d below for DOE program activities not aSSigned to a field organization for impl ementation.
(10) Take such action as may be appropriate to ensure safety, including
directing the field organization head to curtail and suspend operations when, in their opinion, such operation ~uld result in
an undue ES&H risk.
(11) Ensure that documents generated under this Order and other DOE
5480 series Orders are reviewed for classification where appropri ate.
297
8 DOE 5480.1B 9-23-86
(12) Request EH-1 concurrence in generic exemptions (post implementation plan) from ES&H requir81lents and responsibilities as con-tained in the 00£ 5480 series Orders. .
(13) Participate in selected field organization appraisals, as appropriate, in accordance with DOE 5482.1B.
(14) Ensure that EH-l recommendations on ES&H upgrades are considered in their formulation of budget requests to the Office of Management and Budget and Congress.
(15) Approve the construction and initial operation of reactors and high and selected moderate hazard facilities or modifications thereto involving an unreviewed safety question in accordance with DOE 5481.1 B.
(16) Assure that EH-l ;s provided all infonnation and documentation requested to enable efficient discharge of their overall ES&H responsibilities.
c. Assistant Secretary for Environment, Safety and Health (EH-l) shall: . (1) Develop and establish ES&H policies, standards. guidance, require
ments. and procedures for DOE projects and program operations, including but not limited to those on notification, investigation, and reporting of occurrences having ES&H significance.
(2) Review and concur in ES&H program and project direction issued by a PSO to the field that is directly related to ES&H matters which affect more than one field organization.
(3) Provide advice and assistance concerning ES&H programs to line organizations.
(4) Seek the advice of appropriate field organizations and program offices in detennining ES&H research and technical assistance activities to be undertaken.
(5) Provide a central point for coordination within DOE and liaison with other agencies and groups in the development of ES&H related regulations, standards, and requirements; and resolution of environmental, safety, or health issues appl icable to DOE operations, including review of proposed statutes (where appropriate), regulations, standards, and requirements for their appl ication to and potential impact on DOE activities; and participation in the development and review of general design criteria.
(6) Develop guidelines on the content of field organization Implementation Plans which will be used by all field organizations to ensure a consistent approach to the implementation of the DOE 5480 series Orders where required.
- -----
298
DOE 5480.1B 9-23-86
(7) Review and concur in all field organization Implementation Plans for DOE 5480 series Orders.
(8) Conduct appraisals of the line organization's ES&H programs in accordance with DOE 5482.18 and other DOE 5480 series Orders.
(9) Identi fy needs for research and develoJll1ent to support ES&H programs and recommend appropriate actions.
(10)
(11 )
(12 )
(13 )
(14 )
(15 )
(16 )
(17)
Provide a central point for the collection. retention. evaluation and dissemination of information having ES&H significance.
Render interpretations of this Order and other DOE 5480 series Orders.
Provide independent assurance that safety analyses are prepared and reviewed in accordance with DOE 5481.18.
Concur in generic exemptions from ES&H requirements and responsibilities contained in DOE 5480 series Orders.
Process requests for variances from occupational safety and health standards 1n accordance with the procedures of DOE 5483.1.
Conduct reviews of facilities and operations including. technical safety appraisals of Department reactors and nuclear facilities. environmental surveys. and environmental audits. The planning and conduct of these reviews will be coordinated with the appropriate field organizations and Headquarters program offices to minimize overlap or dupl ication of effort. Appropriate field organizations and Headquarters program offices will be requested to pa rt i c ; pa te.
Participate in selected field organization ES&H appraisals of contractor facilities/operations in accordance with DOE 5482.18. All participation shall be as a full active member and schedul ed for the year at the time of the annual submittal by the field of its proposed appraisal schedule.
Provide an independent prioritization of ES&H corrective actions ' and upgrade projects to the PSO and the Assistant Secretary for Management and Administration (MA-1). for use in initiating and. ultimately. by the Under Secretary. in establishing the Depart~ental budget requested. This input would be based on a number of information sources including ES&H appraisals. environmental surveys. environmental audits. and Field Office Manager's and PSO's recommended budget requests.
299
10 DOE 5480.18 9-23-86
(18) For reactors and high and selected moderate hazard facilities, concurs in accordance with DOE 5481.18, with the safety related aspects of the construction and initial operating authorizations or modifications involving an unreviewed safety question.
(19) Prepare and coordinate Departmental comments on emerging regulations, and policies of other agencies related to ES&H that could impact DOE projects and program operations.
(20) Curtail or suspend operations at DOE facilities, under the conditions described below, when a clear and present danger exists to workers or members of the public. (Clear and present danger is a condition or hazard which could reasonably be expected to cause death or serious harm to plant workers or the public immediately or before such condition or hazard can be eliminated through normal procedures.)
(a) Whenever EH-1, in carrying out his or her responsibilities, determines that the environmental, safety, or health conditions at any DOE facility present a clear and present danger, EH-l shall notify the Under Secretary that such a determination has been made. In addition, notification shall be provided to the Program Senior Official and the Head of the appropriate Field Element. Upon receiving such notification, the Head of the Field Element shall take immediate action to curtail or suspend the operation and to mitigate the danger.
(b) If appropriate action is not taken to curtail or suspend the operation and mitigate the identified danger, EH-l shall advise the Secretary. In the event that the Secretary is unavailavble, EH-l 1s authorized to direct the PSO or field element to suspend or curtail an operation which EH-1 has determined is posing a clear and present danger until the danger has been mitigated.
(c) The authority reflected in subparagraph (20) may not be redelegated or assumed by acting officials and will terminate on 1-31-88, unless specifically renewed.
- " ,
300
---------- - -----
DOE 5480.18 9-23-86 .
11
d. Heads of Field Organizations are responsible for assuring that all operations under their jurisdiction are carried out consistent with sound ES&H practices and in accordance with the ES&H Orders. In carrying out this responsibility the Heads of Field Organizations shall:
(1) Execute programs and assure that contractors and their subcontractors execute programs and policies which utilize appropriate ES&H program elements, as identified in this and other Orders for siting, design, construction, operation, maintenance, modification, deactivation, decontamination, and decolTmissioning of DOE faciliti.es and activities.
(2) Take such action as may be appropriate to assure acceptable environment, safety, and health, including curtailment and
.. suspension of operations when, in ·their opinion, such operation would result in an undue Es&H risk.
(3) In the selection of contractors, ensure the ability of offerors to meet Es&H requirements. Assure that applicable environment, safety, health, and quality assurance requirements are included in contracts.
(4) Execute programs and assure that contractors and their subcontractors execute programs and policies in a manner that complies with mandatory requirements relating to Es&H.
(5) Appraise the programs, projects, and facilities of subordinate field activities in accordance with DOE 5482.18, and other DOE 5480 series Orders.
301
12 DOE 5480.1B 9-23-86
(6) Prepare implementation plans for this Order and other DOE 5480 series Orders.
(a) These plans shall include:
1 The designation of ES&H responsibilities and authorities by the field organization and their contractors; and
2 A concise description of the approach, resources, and time period pl anned for impl ementing Orders that require such plans on a site wide basis, including a description of the execution of ES&H responsibilities and authorities by the field organization, and any proposed generic exemptions to parts of such Orders.
(b) The field organization implementation plans will be reviewed and approved by the cognizant PSO before implementation. This requirement in no way prohibits Heads of Field Organizations from initiating actions of necessity in exercising responsibility for environment, safety, and health activities. Specific exemptions to the requirements of this Order or other ES&H Orders which are dependent on specific facility designs would not be a part of the implementatlon plans but shall be identified in the facility design documentation and safety analysis which will be reviewed and approved in the normal process of facility design and operation and assessed as part of the ES&H appraisal programs.
Note: These procedures for specific exemptions do not apply to Federal regulations (such as the National Environmental Policy kt), Environmental Impact Statements, or Environmental Assessment documents.
(7) Establish and maintain liaison with regional, State, or local officials as appropriate, and advise the responsible PSO of any ES&H requirements issued by these officials that will significantly affect their operations. Concurrently advise EH-1 of all requirements issued that will significantly affect any DOE operation.
(8) Grant exceptions to, and process requests for variances from occupational safety and health standards in accordance with DOE 5483.1.
(9) Request Program Senior Official approval of generic exemptions from ES&H requirements and responsibilities dS contained in the DOE 5480 series Orders.
302 ---- ----- - -
DOE 5480.18 9-23-86
13
(10) Authorize the construction and initial operation of reactors and high and moderate hazard facilities or modifications thereto involving an unreviewed safety question in accordance with DOE 5481.18.
(11) Assure that documents generated under this Order 'are reviewed for classification where appropriate.
(12) Provide EH-l with copies of their prioritized recommendations for major ES&H upgrades and corrective actions included in their budget requests to the PSO.
(13) PrQvide EH-l all infonnation and documentation requested to enable eftlclent dlscharge of EH-l overall responslbilitles.
(14) Assure the establistment, implementation, and maintenance of a Quality Assurance Program, by DOE contractors to whom this Order is made applicable, in accordance with this Order and DOE 5700.68.
(15) Provide for an overview of environment. safety, and health in their organization independent of line management responsibility.
NOTE: The Manager, Pittsburgh Naval Reactors Office, ana the Manager, Schenectady Naval Reactors Office, together with their branch field offices located at DOE Naval Reactor prototype sites, report to the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Naval Reactors because of their unique responsibility solely involved with the Naval Reactors Program. In this regard, the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Naval Reactors will continue to carry out responsi-
'bilities for approving implementation of DOE requirements in such areas as reactor safety, criticality control, radiation protection, and radiological environmental monitoring and protection defined herein and in other DOE Orders for field organization managers.
e. The Director of Administration (MA-2) 1s responsible for the administration and overview of the Federal Employee Occupational Safety and Health Program. In carrying out this function, MA-2 responsibilities and authorities are detailed in DOE 3790.1A. Questions regarding impact on Federal employees shall be addressed to this organization.
f. Deputy Assistant Secretary for Naval Reactors shall:
(1) Be responsible for conducting management appraisals, implementing ODE ES&H requirements, and establishing overviews in such areas as reactor safety, criticality control, radiation protection, and radiological environmental monitoring and protection in the Naval Reactors Program. These appraisals, implementation actions, and overviews are excluded from EH-l responsibility, notification, requirements, and authority.
I; . ' 303
14 DOE 5480\,18 9-23-86
(2) Carry out responsibilities assigned herein and in other DOE ES&H Orders to field organization managers for approving and im~ementing DOE requirements in such areas as reactor safety, criticality control, radiation protection, and radiological euirorunental monitoring and protection.
(3) Carry out the responsibilities and authorities of a' Program Secretarial Officer for activities under 'his cognizance.
ri\ ~
JOHN S. HERRINGTON Secretary
304
---- - - - -
DOE 5480.1B 9-23-86
DOE 5480.1A Cha~ter No.
None
III
V
VI
VII
VIII
IX
X
XI
XII
XIII
REDESIGNATION OF THE CHAPTERS OF DOE 5480.1A*
Title
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, SAFETY; AND HEALTH PROTECTION STANDARDS
HAZARDOUS AND RAD I OACTI VE MI XE 0 WASTE MANAGEMENT
SAFETY REQUIREMENTS FOR THE PACKAGING OF FISSILE AND OTHER RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS
SAFETY OF NUCLEAR FACILITIES
SAFETY OF DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY OWNED REACTORS
FIRE PROTECTION
CONTRACTOR OCCUPATIONAL MED ICAL PROGRAM
CONSTRUCTION SAFETY AND HEALTH PROGRAM
INDUSTRIAL HYGIENE PROGRAM
REQUIREMENTS FOR RADIATION PROTECTION
PREVENTION, CONTROL, AND ABATEMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL POLLUTION
AVIATION SAFETY
Attachm~nt"1 ) Page 1 tand 2
New Order No.
5480.4
5480.2
5480.3
5480.5
5480.6
5480.7
5480.8
5480.9
5480.10
5480.11
5480.12
5480.13
* Individual chapters will remain in effect until replaced by a new Order.
305
306 -- - - - - - - -- -
u~. Department of Energy , Washington, D.C.
ORDER
DOE 5483.1A
6-22-83
SlJBJECT: OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH PROGRAM FOR DOE CONTRACTOR EMPLOYEES AT GOVERNMENT-OWNED CONTRACTOR-OPERATED FACILITIES
1. PURPOSE. To establish requirements and procedures to assure that occupational safety and health standards prescribed pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, and the Department Df Energy Organization Act of 1977, provide occupational safety and health protection for Department of Energy (OOE) contractor employees in Governmentowned contractor-operated (GOCO) facilities which is consistent with the protection afforded private industry employees by the occupational safety and health standards promulgated under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (OSHA), Public Law 91-596.
2. CANCELLATION. DOE 5483.1, OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH PROGRAM FOR GOVERNMENT-OWNED CONTRACTOR-OPERATED FACILITIES, OF 4-13-79.
3. SCOPE. The provisions of this Order apply to all elements of DOE and to DOE contractors whose contracts include the occupat.ional safety and health contract clause specified in DOE Procurement Regulation (PR) 9-50.704-2(a). The provisions of this Order apply only with respect to radiation hazards in the workplace to DOE contractors whose contracts include the radiation protection contract clause specified in DOE PR 9-50.704-2(b).
4. BACKGROUND. Based upon sect i on 4(b) (1) of the Occupat i ana 1 Safety and Health Act of 1970, the provisions of that Act do not apply to the working conditions of DOE contractor employees working in GOGO facilities since DOE exercises statutory authority to prescribe and enforce safety and health standards at these facilities.
5. REFERENCES.
a. "Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970," Public Law 91-596, which establishes Federal requirements for assuring occupational safety and health protection for employees.
b. "Occupational Safety and Health Standards," Title 29 CFR Part 1910, which provide general industry safety and health standards pursuant to Public Law 91-596.
c. "Occupational Safety and Health Standards for Shipyard Employees," Title 29 CFR Part 1915, which provide shipyard safety and health standards pursuant to Public Law 91-596.
d. "Occupational Safety and Health Standards for Agriculture," Title 29 CFR Part 1918, which provide agricultural safety and health standards pursuant to Public Law 91-596.
DISTRIBUTION: INITIATED BY: All Departmental Elements Assistant Secretary,
307 Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (info) Environmental Protection, S~fcty.
and Emergency Preparedness
-------
2 DOE 5483.1A
6-22-83
e. "Safety and Health Regulations for Construction," Title 29 CFR Part 1926, which provide construction safety and health standards pursuant to Public Law 91-596.
f. "Safety and Health Regulations for Longshoring," Title' 29 CFk Part 1928, which provide longshoring safety and health standards pursuant to Public Law 91-596.
g. OSHA Form 200-S, a U.S. Department of Labor form, used to report annual occupational injury and illness survey information on an as requested basis.
h. DOE 1324.2, RECORDS DISPOSITION, of 5-28-80, which provides retention periods for DOE and contractor records.
i. DOE 5480.1A, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, SAFETY, AND HEALTH PROTECTION PROGRAM FOR DOE OPERATIONS, of 8-13-81, which establishes the environmental protection, safety, and health protection program for DOE operations.
, , j. DOE 5484.1, ENV IRONMENTAL PROTECTION, SAFETY, AND HEALTH PROTECT! ON .
INFORMATION REPORTING RE~OIREMENTS, of 2-24-81, which establishes the requirements and procedures for the reporting of information having environmental protection, safety, or health protection significance for DOE operations. . ,
k. DOE F 5480.2, "Occupational Safety and Health Protection," a poster which outlines contractor responsibilities to provide occupational safety and health protection. The Spanish language version is DOE F 5480.3.
1. DOE F 5480.4, "Occupational Safety or Health Complaint," which may be used to report information regarding safety and health hazards and/or situations believed to be in nonconformance with the DOE-prescribed USHA standards.
m. DOE Form EV-I02A, "Summary of DOE and DOE Contractor Occupational Injuries and Illnesses," which is posted in the workplace to notify employees of occupational injury and illness statistics for the previous calendar year.
n. DOE Form EV-632, "Radiation Protection and Nuclear Criticality Safety," a poster which outlines contractor responsibilities to provide radiation and nuclear criticality safety protection. The Spanish language version is DOE Form EV-632S.
o. DOE PR 9-50.704-2(a), which specifies the standard clause used in contracts where DOE elects to enforce occupational safety and health requirements.
p. DOE PR 9-50.704-2(b), which specifies the standard clause used in contracts where DOE elects to enforce radiation protection and nuclear criticality safety requirements.
I
r
308
DOE 5483.1A 6-22-83
6. DE FIN IT IONS.
3
a. Comeliance Inspection. A documented visit to ~nd evaluati~n of a GOCO facility, to 1nclude an examination of the equ1pment, physlcal plant, methods, operations, procedures, and processes, to assess and assure the contractor's conformance with the DOE-prescribed OSHA standards.
b. Complaint. An oral or written communicati?n .by a~ employ~e or r~presentat1ve thereof, alleging that there are condltlons 1n the work enV1ronment which are in violation of the DOE-prescribed OSHA standards or which pose safety or health hazards to employees.
c. Contracting Officer (CO). A DOE official designated by Headquarters to enter lnto or admlnlster contracts between DOE and contractors, and make contract-related determinations and findings.
d. Contracting Officer's Representative. A DOE employee designated in wrl£1ng by the contractlny offlcer to represent the contracting officer for administrative and technical functions regarding the contract between UOE and the contractor.
e. Contractor. For purposes of this Urder, any DOE prime contractor or subcontractor thereto subject to the contractual provisions of DUE PR 9-50.704-2(a) or (b).
f. Contractor Employee. A person who is employed by a contractor.
g. Discrimination. Discharge, demotion, reduction in pay, coercion, restraint, threats, or other negative actions taken against a contractor employee by a contractor, as a result of the employee's exercise of occupational safety and health rights set forth in this Urder.
h. DOE-Prescribed OSHA Standards. Occupational safety and health requirements promulgated under Public Law 91-596 and listed on page 1-1, paragraph 1.
1. Exception. An interim release from a DOE-prescribed OSHA standard, granted after a request for a temporary or penmanent variance. Exceptions shall not exceed 180 days and are not renewable.
j. Field Organization. A DOE field-based office which is responsible for the management, coordlnation, and administration of operations under its purview, and reports to the cognizant program Secretarial Officer(s) or equivalent, through the appropriate program office(s).
k. Government-Owned Contractor-Operated Facility. For the purposes of this Order, a facility owned or leased by DOE or a contractor for the account of DOE in connection with which DOE prescribes and enforces through contractual provisions, occupational safety and health standards pursuant
--- - - ----
309
4 DOE 5483.1A 6-22-83
to the authority in the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974. and the Department of Energy Organization Act of 1977. for contractor employees working therein. A listing of these GOCO facilities is maintained by the Office of Operational Safety .(EP-32).
1. Imminent Danger. Any condition or practice which is such that a hazard eXlsts that could reasonably be expected to cause death or serious physical harm to employees (permanent or prolonged impairment of the body or temporary disablement requiring hospitalization), unless immed.1ate actions are taken to mitigate the effects of the hazard and/or remove employees from the hazard.
m. National Institute for Occu ational Safety and Health. An Agency of the U •• epartment 0 Hea t and uman erVlces, estab lshed under Public law 91-596 with major responsibility to undertake National occupational safety and health research and development activities.
n. Occupational Safety and Health Administration. An Agency of the U.S. Department of Labor, establlshed under PubllC law 91-596 with major responsibilities to promulgate, prescribe, and enforce occupational safety and health standards.
o. Permanent Variance. A release from a DOE-prescribed OSHA standard. Such variances are not time-specified.
p. pro~ram Uffice. A Headquarters organization which 1s responsible for ass sting and supporting field organizations in safety and health, administrative, management, and technical areas, and reports to the cognizant program Secretarial Officer.
q. Program Secretarial Officer. An outlay program manager, which includes the Assistant Secretarles for Conservation and Renewable Energy, Fossil Energy, Defense Programs, and Nuclear Energy, and the Director of Energy Research.
r. Representative of Employees. A person chosen by contractor employees to represent thelr occupatl0nal safety and health related views, interests, and concerns. For purposes of access to an employee's bioassay, monitoring, or radiation exposure records, if the representative is not the recognized/certified collective bargaining agent, then he or she must have the employee's written authorization for such access.
s. Safety and Health Director. The primary field organization staff manager responsible for the overview and coordination of the occupational safety and health program administered by a field organization for its contractor operations.
i
310
DOE 5483.1A 6-22-83
5
t. Temporary Variance. A short-term release from a UOE-pr~scribed OSHA standard. Such variances shall not exceed 1 year, except that in unusual cases a renewal may be granted, not to exceed an aaditional year.
7. RESPONSl~ILITIES AND AUTHURITIES.
a. Under Secretary. Line management responsibility for occupational safety and health at GUCO facilities flows from the Under Secretary to the program Secretarial Officers to the Heads of the F;~ld Organizations.
b. and Emer ency
(1) Promulgates, amends, or revokes, as appropriate, DUE-prescribed OSHA standards for GOCO facilities, and responds to requests for such actions.
(2) Determines the disposition of and responds to requests for permanent variances from the DOE-prescribed OSHA standards.
c. Director of Uperational Safety (EP-32).
(1) Provides reviews for and makes appropriate recommendations to the Assistant Secretary, Environmental Protection, Safety, and Emergency Preparedness, in the followiny areas:
(a) Requests for promulgation, amendment, or revocation of UUEprescribed OSHA standards.
(b) Hequests for permanent variances from the UUE-prescribed USHA standards.
(2) Determines the disposition of and responds to requests for tem~orary variances from the DUE-prescribed USHA ~tandards.
(3) Determines appropriateness of and respond~ to re~uests concerning abatement of violations of DOE-prescribe? USHA standards.
(4) Investigates and responds to requests for resolution of problems associated with field organization investigation of and/or response to complaints.
(5) Maintains a listiny of Uepartmental GUCO facilities.
(6) Coordinates matters regaraing paragraphs 7c(I)-(5), above, with the appropriate safety and health officials of the cognizant IJroyraln office(s).
311 - - - - - - - --------- -----
6 DOE 5483.1A 6-22-83
d. D~rectors of Naval Reactors and Administrative Services, Heads of Field Or anlzatlons, and Officials Uesi nated as Contracting Officers or ontractlng f icer s Representatives.
(1) Determine those contractors that are subject to this Order dnd ddvlse them accordingly.
(2) Review design, engineering, construction, and related pldnniny dOClJ
ments and activities to assure compliance with the UUE-~rescribed OSHA standards in the construction, mOdification, operation, or decommissioning of GOCO facilities.
(3) Provide for and participate in the development of new occupational safety and health standards or modification to existiny standdrds as requi red by Chapter I.
(4) Process requests for promulgation, arnendloent, or revocation of standards, and requests for temporary or permanent vari ances from tl1e DUE-prescribed OSHA standards in accordance with the procedures in Chapter I.
(5) Grant or deny requests for exceptions to UUt-prescribed USHA standards in accordance with the procedures for exceptions in Chapter I.
(6) Assure that compliance inspections of GUCU fdcilities are conducted in accordance with the inspection procedures in Cha~ter I.
(7) Assure that contractor employee complaints are investiyated and handled in accordance with the complaint procedures outlined in Chapter II.
(8) Investigate and take appropriate dctions regarding accidents and allegations of discrimi~ation as set forth in Cha~ter III.
(9) Consider, in contract renewal or in other reviews of contractor performance, violations of the UU~-prescribed USHA standdrds and the timing and manner of correction. Wil lful violation of the stdndards or refusal or failure to abate violations of the standdrds may be justification for contract termination.
(10) Estab 1 ish procedures to adlni t (as a matter of comi ty, for Sd fdy dnd health orientation or consultatiun) officials of the National Institute for Uccupational Safety dnd Health, tl1e Uccupational Sdfety and Health Administration, and the various Stdte sdfety dnd Ilealth agencies, provided they meet field organizdtion re4uirernents. Such visits are to be coordinated with the Uffice of U~erdtional Safety (EP-32) and the cognizant program office(s).
I
312
DOE 54B3.1A 6-22-83
7
(11) Require contractors to:
(a) Furnish to contractor employees, employment and a place of employment which are as free from occupational safety and health hazards as possible.
(b) Establish and implement programs and procedures . in support of this Order which assure that:
1 There is meaningful contractor employee participation in all aspects of the occupational safety and health program.
2 All existing equipment, materials, facilities, and operations are in comp1iance with DOE-prescribed USHA standards.
3 A11 equipment and materials which are to be procured and a11 new faci1ities, modifications, or additions to existing facilities comply with DOE-prescribed OSHA standards.
4 The workplace is monitored for, ard records maintained of, known toxic substances and harmful physical agents which are used or produced at the GUCU facility.
5 Availability and maintenance of, requests for changes to, and requests for variances or exceptions fran, the DOEprescribed OSHA standards are in accordance with Chapter I.
6 Contractor employees are fully informed of their rights, protections, obligations, and responsibilities as required by Chapter 1.
7 Compliance inspections are conducte~ in GOeO facilities, using the inspection procedures of Chapter I as general guidelines.
B Contractor employee safety and health complaints are investigated promptly and resolved equitably according to the requirements of Chapter II.
9 Contractor employees who exercise their rights under this Order are not discriminated against, as requ"ired by Chapter III.
313 -- - ------- -
8 DOE 5483.1A 6-22-83
10 Occupational safety and health record$ dnd information are maintained and posted as prescribed by Chapter III.
11 Accident investigations are conducted as required by Chapter 11 1.
WILLIAM S. HEFFELFINGER Director of Administration
(
314
DOE 5483.1A 6-22-83
TABLE OF CONTENTS -------
CHAPTER I - STANDARDS, INSTRUCTIONS, AND INSPECTIONS
(and ii)
1. DOE-prescribed OSHA Standards................................. 1-1
2. Standards File .••••••...••••••••.•••••.••••••.••...•••••••••• I-I
3. DOE-prescribed OSHA Standards Promulgation, Amendment, or Revocation................................................. I-I
4. Variance and Exception Request, Evaluation, and Response Procedures .•.•••.••.••.••...•••••••••••.•...•••...•.••••••• 1-2
5. Instructions to and Information for Employees •.•.....•.•••••. 1-4
6. Compliance Inspections ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 1-5
CHAPTER II - OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH COMPLAINTS
1. Submission .......................•........................... 11-1
2. Inspection ••••••••••••.•••••.•••••••••••••••.•••••••••••••••• 11-1
3. Imminent Danger Complaints - Submission and Inspection .•••••• 11-2
4. Response to Complainants •••••••••••••••••••••••••••.••.•••••• 11-2
5. Complaint Resolution ••••••••.••.••••.•.•••••.•••.•...•..••••• 11-2
Attachment II-I - DOE F 5480.4, "Occupational Safety or Health Complaint"......................... 11-5
CHAPTER III - NONDISCRIMINATION, INJURY AND ILLNESS INFORMATION, AND ACCIDENT INVESTIGATIONS
1. Nondi scrimi nat ion .•.•....•.......•..•••......••.........•.... I I I-I
2. Recordkeeping •.•.•..••••••••.••••••••.••.•.•.•..•.••••••••••• 111-1
3. Posting ...................................................... 111-2
4. Accident Investigation .•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 111-2
315 -------
316
DOE 5483.1A 1-1
'. · 6-22-83
CHAPTER 1
STANOAROS, INSTRUCTIONS, AND INSPtCTIONS
1. UOE-PKESCRI~ED USHA STANOARUS. As applicable to their work in GOCO
facilitles, contractors shall comply with the following DUE-prescribed OSHA
standards: '
a. "Occupational Safety and Health Standards," Title 29 CFR Part 1910.
b. "Safety and Health Regulations for Construction,1I Title 29 CFR Part 1926.
c. "Uccupational Safety and Health Standards for Shipyard Employees," Title
29 CFR Part 1915,
d. "Safety and Health Regulation for Longshoring," Title 29 CFR Part 1918.
e. "Occupational Safety and Health Standards for Agriculture," Title 29 CFR
Part 1928.
2. STANOARUS FILE. Each contractor shall assure that current copies of DOt
prescribed OSHA standards cited in paragraph 1, above, along with the con
tractor's own safety and health procedures applicable to the workplace, are
available ;n a place and form reasonably accessible to all employees and their
authorized representatives.
3. UOE-PRESCRI~EO USHA STANUARUS PROMULGATIUN, AMENUMENT, UK REVOCATION.
Contractors and contractor employees (or representatives thereof), may submit
written requests to the cognizant CO or CO representative that new standards
be promulgated to cover occupational safety and health hazards not addressed
by the existing OOE-prescribed USHA standards. or that the existing standards
be amended or revoked to assure effective coverage of hazardS. The CU or CO
representative, the safety and health director, and other appropriate elements
of the field organization shall provide a comprehensive review and evaluation
of the reyuest and forward it (along with their recommendation) to the Uffice
of Uperational Safety (EP-32) within 6U days of receipt of the request. EP-32
shall review and coordinate the request and recommendation of the ·field
organization with the appropriate program office(s). Based on an analysis of
the request and supporting information, EP-32 shall recommend to the Assistant
Secretary, Environmental Protection, Safety, and Emergency Preparedness (EP-1),
that Headquarters promulgate, amend, or revoke the standard(s) in question.
EP-1 shall provide a decision in writing through the field organization and
contractor to the requestor, within 60 days of receipt of the request by EP~2.
If the decision is that a new, amended, or revoked standard is not needed,
the requestor shall be so informed and no further action shall be nec~ssary.
However. if the decision is that a new, amended, or revoked standard 1S needed,
a proposed or temporary standard shall be issued by EP-l within 60 days after
such a decision has been made. Field orqanizations, contractors, contractor
317 ~---- --------
---~-
1-2 DOE 5483.1A
6-22-83
employees, and representative thereof, whose working conditions would be affected by the standard, shall have the opportunity to review and comnent on proposed or temporary standards before their promulgation or amendment as final standards. The field organization shall develop and implement procedures for such review and comment so that the results thereof are provided to EP-32 within 90 days of receipt (in the field) of the proposed or temporary standard. EP-32 shall review and coordinate the comments with the appropriate program office(s) and provide a recommendation to EP-l. After consideration of the comments, analyses thereof, and recommendation(s), EP-l shall promulgate a new, amended, or revoked standard within 180 days of receipt of the comnents by EP-3~. EP-32 shall effect DOE-wide notification of the final standard by formal correspondence to appropriate Departmental Elements, contractors, and the requestor of the standard.
4. VARIANCE AND EXCEPTION REQUEST, EVALUATION, ANO RESPONSE PROCEDURES.
a. Temporary Vari ances.
(1) A contractor may apply to the appropriate CO or CO representative for a temporary variance from the DOE-prescribed OSHA ·standards. A request for a temporary variance shall contain:
(a) A specification of the standard from which the contractor seeks a variance.
(b) A representation that the contractor is unable to comply with the standard and a detailed statement of the reasons therefor.
(c) A statement of the steps the contractor has taken and will take to protect employees from the hazard covered by the standard, to include the conditions the contractor must maintain and the practices, means, methods, operations, and processes which must be adopted and utilized to the extent they provide protection equivalent to that of the standard for which the variance is requested.
(d) A certification that the contractor has infonned employees of the application by giving a copy thereof to their authorized representative (where applicable), posting a statement, giving a summary of the request, and specifying where a copy may be examined (e.g., at the place or places where notices to employees are normally posted), and by other appropriate means. A description of how employees have been infonned shal I be contained in the certification. The information to employees also shall inform them that they may comment on the request to the appropriate CU or CO representative.
(e) A statement of when the contractor will be able to comply with the standard and what steps have been taken and will be taken by the contractor to come into compliance with the standard.
I \
318
DOE 5483.1A 6-22-83
1-3
(2) The CO or CU representative, the safety and health manager, and other appropriate elements of the field organization shall review the contractor's request and the employees' comments and submit the field organization's recommendation, together with the contractor's request and contractor employee comments, to the Director of Operational Safety (EP-32) within 30 days of receipt of the request. After review and evaluation of the request, comments, and recommendation, and after coordination with the appropriate program office(s), EP-32 shall approve a temporary variance if the request establishes that (a) the contractor is unable to comply with the standard because of unavailability of professional or technical personnel, materials or equipment, funding needed to come into compliance with the standard, or because necessary construction or alteration of facilities must be completed in order to comply; (b) the contractor is taking all available steps to safeguard employees against the hazards covered by the standard; and (c) the contractor has an effective program for coming into compliance with the standard as quickly as practicable.
(3) A temporary variance may be in effect for no longer than the period needed by the contractor to achieve compliance with the standard or 1 year, whichever is shorter, except that in unusual circumstances (e.g., lack of programmatic funding) such a temporary variance may be renewed not more than once. Such a renewal also shall be in effect for no longer than 1 year. An application for renewal must be filed and processed in the manner specified in paragraph 4a(2), above at least 90 days prior to. expiration of the temporary variance. Employees also shall be given an opportunity to review and comment on a request for a renewal, as outlined on page 1-2, paragraph 4a(1)(d). .
(4) The Oirector of Operational Safety shall inform the field organization of the results of the evaluation of the request for a temporary variance or the extension thereof, within 180 days of receipt of the request.
b. Permanent Variances.
(1) DOE contractors may apply to the appropriate CO or CO representative for a permanent variance from the prescribed OSHA standards. The request for variance shall contain the sam,e information specified on page 1-2, paragraphs 4a(1)(a)-(d). The CO or CO representative, the local safety and health office, and other appropriate elements of the field organization shall review the contractor's request and the employees' comments and submit their recommendation, together with the contractor's request and contractor employee comments, to the Director of Operational Safety (EP-32) within 30 days of receipt of the request. After review and evaluation of the request, comments, and recommendation, and after coordination with the appropriate program office, EP-32 shall submit a recommendation to the Assistant Secretary, Environmental Protection, Safety, and Emergency Preparedness (EP-l), for consideration.
- - - -- ---- - -----
319
I-4
(2)
DOE 5483.1A 6-22-83
If EP-l determines that the contractor has demonstrated that the conditions, practices, means, methods, operations, or processes to be used will provide employment and a place of employment whiCh is as safe and healthful as those whiCh would prevail if the contractor complied with the standard, a permanent variance shall be approved and the requestiny organization shall be notified accordingly, within 180 days of receipt of the request by EP-32.
(3) However, if the permanent variance request is not approved by EP-l, the requesting organization shall be notified of the rationale for the determination, within 180 days of receipt of the request by EP-32.
c. Exceptions. The CO or CO representative may grant exceptions from the DOE-prescribed OSHA standards after evaluation of a contractor's request for a temporary or permanent variance. To provide suctl an evaluation, the CO or CU representative shall consult with the safety and health director and other appropriate elements of the field organization. An exception shall be granted only where the contractor has demonstrated that contractor employees will be provided protection equivalent to that provided by the standard(s) for which the temporary or pennanent variance is being requested. The exception is to be effective only until a "decision on the issuance of a variance is made by Headquarters, but in no case is an exception to be effective for longer than 180 days, beginning with the date of Headquarters' receipt of the request. The exception shall not be renewable.
5. INSTRUCTIONS TO AND INFORMATION FOR EMPLOYEES.
a. All contractor employees snaIl be instructed by the contractor to:
I (1) Observe the UOE-prescribed USHA standards applicable to their work and report promptly to the contractor any condition which may lead to a violation of tnese standards.
(2) Report emergencies and respond to warning signals which may be activated in the event of fire, radiation, or other possible emergencies.
b. All contractor ernployees shall be instructed by the contractor initially and periodically (at least annually) regarding the requirements outlined by the UOE safety and health poster, DOE Forms 5480.2 and 5480.3, or DOE Forms EV-63~ and EV-632S, as appropriate. Questions concerning the DOE poster may be brought to the attention of the contractor or to the field organization.
c. All contractor employees shall be fully informed (at least annually) by the contractor of their rights, protections, and obligations, which include nondiscrimination; the filing of complaints; availability of the
(
320
DOE 5483.1A 6-22-83
1-5
UOE-prescribed OSHA standards and of complaint form DOE F 5480.4 (Attachment II-I); and accompaniment of the DOE inspector during the con
duct of compliance inspections or during the conduct of inspections based
on the filing of complaints.
d. All contractor employees shall be informed that the contractor is required
to monitor the employee's workplace for radiation exposure and known toxic
materials or harmful physical agents which are used or produced at the GOCO
facility, and to maintain records of the data as required by Title 29 CFR
Part 1910.20, "Access to Employee Exposure and Medical Records." Employees
or their authorized representatives are to be provided with an opportunity
to observe monitoring or measuring for toxic materials and harmful physical
agents and to have access to the results thereof. Each employee or former
employee or representative thereof, within 15 days of a written request,
shall be provided access to or copies of any records of cumulative recorded
or.cupational radiation dose or any monitoring or bioassay records relevant
to potential exposure to toxic materials or harmful physical agents during
employment. Employees will be notified of any information indicating that
a radiation dose or an exposure to toxic materials or harmful phYSical
agents may have exceeded the limits specified by the DOE-prescribed OSHA
standards.
e. All contractor employees or former employees shall have access to their
personal safety, health, and medical records consistent with the provisions
of the Freedom of Information Act and the Privacy Act.
6. CUMPLIANCE INSPECTIONS.
a. Occupational safety and health professionals of field organizations shall
conduct unannounced compliance inspections of GOCO facilities, using the
DOE-prescribed OSHA standards as requirements. These inspections are in
addition to occupational safety and health appraisals or audits required
by any other DOE Order, and shall be conducted on a priority basis with
respect to the safety and health hazards involved and the number of
employees affected. The compliance inspection may be a separate visit or
it may be a part of a visit scheduled for other safety and health-related
purposes. The inspection shall be conducted so that a representative
sample (i.e., some large buildings, some small, and a variety of opera
tions, including construction) of each GOCO facility is inspected every
year. Where violations of the DOE-prescribed OSHA standards are noted,
appropriate follow-up actions shall be taken to assure the effectiveness
of corrective actions taken on ,deficiencies noted during initial
compliance inspections.
b. The contractor shall not be notified in advance of compliance inspections,
except for situations involving contractor employee complaint al legations
of imminent danger where DOE may elect to notify the contractor immediately
to assure elimination of the danger and/or removal of employees from the
danger (page 11-2, paragraph 3b) before the inspection is conducted. DOE
personnel may be assisted by third party speCialists when needed. The
contractor shall provide such assistance and information as may be
required by the inspector to aid in the inspection.
321
1-6 DOE 5483.1A 6-22-83
c. The DOE inspector shall meet with the contractor management of the specific operation, building, location, and activity to be inspected to explain the purposes of the visit. The contractor management representative and the representative authorized by the employees shall be gi venan opportunity to accompany the DOE inspector duri ng the inspect ion. DOE shall be responsible for determining that the employee representative is in fact the person designated by the employees. Employees may be represented by a third ~arty of their choice who is not an employee (such as an industrial hygienist or a safety engineer). Where it is impossible for the DOE inspector to determine the authorized employee representative, he or she shall consult with the CO or CO representatives and appropriate elements of the field organization to make a determination. Where there is no representative authorized by employees, the DOE inspector shall consult with a reasonable number of employees concerning safety and health conditions in the workplace.
d. When the inspection party moves from one section of the facility to another, or where the security restrictions would prevent access, a different representative authorized by the employees may accompany the inspector.
e. In the event the inspector discovers a situation which presents an imminent danger to contractor employees' safety and health, he or she shall take immediate and effective remedial action to assure that employees are removed from the danger area and/or that the danger is eliminated. This should be accomplished by worKing closely with the contractor, contractor employees, and representatives thereof, as appropriate. As soon as possible, the DOE inspector also shall notify the CO or CO representative, the safety and health director, and any other appropriate elements of the field organization of the facts and circumstance of the imminent danger situation. The field organization and the contractor shall assure that the matter is investigated and that prompt actions are taken to preclude recurrence of a similar imminent danger situation.
f. Upon completion of the inspection, the DOE inspector shall hold a closeout meeting with the contractor management and, if requested, with the employees or authorized employee representatives to inform them of the inspection findings. A combined meeting may be held if the participants agree. When the inspection discloses a violation of the DOE-prescribed OSHA standards, a copy of the notice of violation with abatement dates will be transmitted fonnally from the CO or CO representative within 30 days after the completion of the inspection. The contractor shall notify the CO or CO representative in writing as soon as practicable, but not later than 30 days after receipt of the written findings, of the planned or completed abatement actions taken in response to the notice of the violation(s). Copies of the notice of violation(s) shall be posted conspicuously by the contractor in the general area of the violation for a period of 5 working days or until the violation is corrected, whichever is longer. Contractor employees or authorized representatives of employees may file written notices with the CO or CO representative in situations where they believe that the time fixed for abatement is unreasonable. The CO or CO representative, the safety and health director, and other
/
322
DOE 5483. 1 A 6-22-83
1-7 (and 1-8)
appropriate elements of the field organization shall review the written
notice and provide a written response thereto within 15 days of receipt.
If not satisfied with the field organization's response, the employee or
representative thereof may refer, in writing, unr.esolved differences to
the Director of Operational Safety (EP-32) for resolution. EP-32 shall
review and evaluate such referrals in consultation with the appropriate
program office(s). Based on their evaluation, a recommended course of
action to resolve the problem shall be provided to the field organization.
Within 30 days of the request, EP-32 shall provide a written response to
the employee or representative thereof which details the actions taken and
the rationale therefor.
g. In a situation where a contractor is unable to correct a violation or
comply with the standards in a reasonable length of time due to funding
limitations or other DOE-imposed restrictions, the contractor shall
provide the CO or CO representative with full details and a, alternate
plan to provide safety and health protection equivalent to that provided
by the standard(s) during the period of noncompliance. In such cases, tne
CO or CO representative shall consult with the safety and health di rector
and other appropriate elements of the field organization. Based upon this
consultation, the CO or CO representative shall determine an appropriate
course of action to be followed and also shall advise the contractor to
notify employees of this course of action through the posting procedure
noted on page 1-6, paragraph 6f.
- - - ---------
323
324
DOE 5483.1A 6-22-83
1. SUBMISSION.
Il-l
CHAPTER II
OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH COMPLAINTS ---------------
a. Initially, contractor employees or representatives thereof should attempt
resolution of their complaints by submitting to their contractor manage
ment, either directly or through their authorized employee representative,
reports of any conditions or practices which they consider hazardous to
their safety or health, or which they believe are in violation of the OOE
prescribed OSHA standards.
b. Contractor employees or their representatives may submit complaints
di rectly ~o the DOE fi e ld organi zation safety and health manager or the
CO or CO representative, particularly in situations where the complainant
wishes to remain anonymous (to the contractor), or where the complainant
believes that unsafe/unhealthful conditions still exist or violations of
standards still remain after being brought to the attention of and addressed by contractor management.
c. Complaints may be submitted to either contractor management or to the DOE
by completing DOE F 5480.4 (Attachment II-I), by sending a letter or tele
gram, or by oral means. Oral complaints shall be recorded on DOE F 5480.4
by DOE and/or the contractor. Irrespective of the means of submission, the
complaint should set forth with reasonable parti,:ularity the pertinent
facts and circumstances involved. In all situations where the complaint is
submitted to DOE and anonymity is requested by the complainant, the [JOE
shall not divulge the complainant's identity to contractor personnel or to
any other persons not essential to the processing and investigation of the
complaint.
2. INSPECTION.
a. Should the contractor receive a complaint from an employee or an authorized
representative, the contractor shall confer with the employee or the
authorized representative and conduct a joint inspection of the conditions
or circumstances identified by the complaint.
b. Should the field organization receive a complaint, the facts and circum
stances of the complaint shall be reviewed and, if determined necessary by
the DOE, an inspection shall be made to investigate the complaint allega
tions within 15 days of receipt of the complaint. However, the inspection
should be made as immediately as is possible. In making the inspection,
the same procedures set forth on pages 1-5 through 1-7, paragraphs 6b-g,
shall apply. Followup compliance inspections shall be conducted, as
appropriate.
325
1I-2 DOE 5483.1A 6-22-83
3. IMMINENT DANGER COMPLAINTS - SUBMISSION AND INSPECTION.
a. Any employee or authorized representative of employees who believes that an
imminent danger exists, shall bring this matter to the attention of the
appropriate contractor, supervisor, o~ designated official. If the
imminent danger is determined to be valid. the contractor shall take
immediate and effective remedial actions to remove employees from the
danger area and/or eliminate the danger. The contractor shall conduct an
inspection as soon as possible thereafter to assure that appropriate
actions have been taken to preclude recurrence of the imminent danger
situation.
b. The employee or the authorized representative also may visit or call the
DOE at the field organization level to request an immediate elimination of
the danger and an inspection of the alleged imminent -danger situation. DOE
shall ascertain immediately whether there is a reasonable basis for the
imminent danger complaint. If the complaint is determined to be valid, DOE
shall take immediate and effective actions to remove employees from the
danger area and/or eliminate the danger. This may be accomplished by
,conducting an immediate DOE inspection and/or by contacting the contractor
immediately. In any event, DOE shall conduct an inspection as soon as
possible to assure that appropriate actions have been taken to preclude
recurrence of the imminent danger situation. In making the inspection, the
same procedures set forth on pages 1-5 through 1-7. paragraphs 6b-g, shall
apply. Followup compliance inspections shall be conducted. as appropri ate.
4. RESPONSE TO COMPLAINANTS.
a. The contractor shall inform each complainant of the results of the
inspection and the actions taken to address and/or correct the safety and
health concerns, problems, and/or violations of the DOE-prescribed OSHA
standards noted by a .complaint filed with the contractor.
b. For complaints filed with DOE, DOE shall provide a written response to the
complainant within 15 days after the completion of the complaint
inspection, except, obviously, in those situations where the complainant's
identity cannot be determined. The response shall be sent to the com
plainant's home address, unless he or she has specifically requested that
mail be sent to his or her place of employment. The response shall provide
the results of the DOE inspection prompted by the complaint, and shall
document all actions taken on complaint-related allegations of unsafe/unhealthful conditions and/or violations of the DOE-prescribed OSHA
standards. If it is determined that no inspection is necessary, DOE shall
respond to the complainant within 15 days of receipt of the complaint, and
state why an inspection was not conducted.
5. COMPLAINT RESOLUTION. Contractor employees or representatives thereof who
are not satisfied wlth the adequacy or effectiveness of the field
326
DOE 5483.1A 6-22-83
11-3 (and 11-4)
organization's investigation of or response to their complaint allegations
may submit a written request for complaint resolution to the Director of
Operational Safety (EP-32). The request must include the pertinent facts
and particulars, and the basis for the request (e.g., inadequate action
taken on violation of a standard, or no employee or representative allowed
to participate in inspection), along with a copy of the original complaint
and the field organization's response thereto. EP-32 shall conduct an
investigation of the situation, in coordination with the appropriate
program office(s). Within 30 days of receipt of the request, EP-32 shall
provide a written response to the employee or representative thereof, and
to the field organization. The response shall indicate the actions taken
or planned as a result of the request for complaint resolution.
- ------
327
DOE 5483.1A 6-22-83
Attachment II-1 Paqe 11-5 (and II~6)
OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY OR HEALTH COMPLAINT
DOI_"'A u.a.~Df' _MY 17&11 COtIfTUt'TOfIIM"'-OYt1
OCCUPAnoNAllAFfTY CMI HlAl Tli COMP\A1In ",.. ........ ,.-...... _ .. ....,DOI_ .......... , __ 1' ............... _ ... 001 ~. ___ ... _II ....... fIo.--... ",,_ ........ _ ... __ .... _. _ _ .......... ___ ._ ... 00 •.
104 IT"' UffNIIIIONIO .. LlIV .. THAT A VIOLATION 0' A DOl ~UI'ATIOHA~ IA-ITY OfI",ALT" ITAIIOAIIO •• .-n AT "T1tI 'LAC" 0' I"'LOV ... IHT IHOICATID IILOW. II.IULTING IN A.IOI IAP"Y OIl ... AL TN NAZAIID TO •• LOY.U.
rc-:a-, 0tII0r [11.- O~ ...... _ o ...-vI
... DOCI THI[ ~~I ~lAnLV T"",IATIIe DCAT" OR .IIIOUII'MYlICAi. _II'" ] VU [lJ NO J . COfoITIIACTOft1i NAME I J . ~~orTtft'· -·Z._' r · ;~~NO. Computer Services, Ltd. Mercurv NV 89023 •. _CIN THe: MRTlCULAII 8UILOIPIG OR _MIll _III: THe: A4.I.oIOlD VIOLAT_ laI.OCATllO. MOIICLUOING ADOII~
Bul1d1no 400X Ne't,da iest Site. Nevada • . KINO 0' ACTIVITV I" NAME IUIO ,..emf NUIirIIUI 01' COIifTIIACTl)1I'I AOIiIl"TIiI IN CMA"G£
COO1puter Center John A. Doe 985-4028 ' I . DUCRIIE 'OIIHLV THE ""lARD WHICH V(lITIINCloVDIIfO T"[ _ROXIUAn_" 0' 'WUI'f~ £>(PORO
TO OR T""£AT[N[O IV IUa. ""lARD. Ic-t _____ If _,'
Books and cOO1puter paper are stored in the hallways, present1no II fire and/or tripping hazard to all 150 employees of the Comouter Center.
t. lilT IV NUM"~ ANO/O" NA"'( TH! 'A"TICULAA OSHA ITANOA"OII' '1IIICIIIIIO IV THI DOI_IC" YOU IEllfVE HAS lEEN VIOloATED: If KNOWN.
Title 29 CFR, Part 1910.36, Occupational Safety and Health Standards
1104 TO vOU~ KNOWL.LOOE , H;OJ; T .. " V 10L.AT10f00 II£[N THE IULJECl Of AAv UNION/IIAHA,Q~"IE"T Q~I[VANC[ OR H"VE VOU (011 ANVONE 'fOU KNOW, OTHERWISE C ... L.LD IT TO TH[ A~HTION O~. O~ OIKUIKO IT WITH. THI[ l["'loO'fER 011 AN'f IIE~REU"TATIV[I (e- .... ,m VU
oNO
•. II' "'YD" 15 CH[CK£O AIIOVL PU:ASE QIVE TH( II~LTI. INCLUCINca AI'O' e:"rolllTl IJV MANAQEMPlT TO COIIIIECT THE VIOLATIDo<.
The situation has been brought to the attention of manaoement, but nothino has been done yet to remove the hazard.
II. ~AIE CHECK ON[ ,
0 I.., _ w"" "'If ... __ I0Il to I ... ~.
II1 ")' ... """"yCt4~t~tM~""',
~g:-------- ~Ad., 1-.,,";1
-- - - -- - - - --~ 1?, 5 Mit:J.t. JAIlll:~ R Smltb
1 ...... 1 .... ' v tc.,., I CT,. ...... .,iMeCIIN ... '
"'fOU AR[ A "E~RI['ENTATIV[ 0' lMPl.Q'f[U. QIVE THE NAfjlE 0' 'fOU~ ORQAHIZATlOf<.
ADDRESS 0' ORQANIZATIOfoo 11t_, Clt,.IUI .. Z. c.o, I T(U_E NO .
328
DOE 5483.1A 6-22-83
CHAPTER III
I II-'
NONDISCRIMINATION, INJURY AND ILLNESS INFORMATION, AND ACCIDENT INVESTIGATIONS
1. NONDISCRIMINATION.
a. No contractor shall discharge or in any manner demote, reduce in pay, coerce, restrain, threaten, or take any other negative actions against any contractor employee as a result of the employee's filing of a complaint. or in any other fashion, exercising on behalf of himself or herself or other~ any right set forth in .this Order.
b. Any employee who believes he or she has been discharged or in any other manner discriminated against, in violation of this Order, may file a complaint with the cognizant CO or CO representative within 30 days after the alleged discrimination, setting forth the nature of the alleged discrimination. The CO or CO representative, the safety and health director, and other appropriate elements of the field organization shall investigate the complaint, and if it is found that such discrimination has occurred, the field organization 'shall assure that appropriate measures are taken by the contractor, including rehiring or reinstatement of the employee, restoration of lost seniority, and back pay. The field organization shall report the dispOSition of the matter to the contractor employee filing the complaint of alleged discrimination within 30 days after receipt of the complaint.
2. RECOROKEEPING.
a. Contractors subject to the provisions of DOE PR 9-50.704-2(a) shall be responsible for recording and reporting recordable occupational illnesses and injuries, as required by DOE 5484.1, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, SAFETY, AND HEALTH PROTECTION INFORMATION REPORTING REQUIREMENTS, of 2-24-81.
b. All contractors shall be responsible for maintaining records of employees' exposures to toxic materials or harmful physical agents, as appropriate. Such records shall be maintained in perpetuity.
c. A central file of all violations of DOE-prescribed OSHA standards noted during inspections (and abatement actions) shall be maintained by field organizations. A central file also shall be maintained by the field organizations of formal employee safety and health complaints and their disposition. Upon request, any of these safety and health violation or complaint-related records shall be made available for review by employees directly affected by such information, or by their authorized representatives. DOE 1324.1, RECORDS DISPOSITION. of 5-28-80. Attachment IV. DOE Records Schedule 25, paragraph 1b, specifies the retention period for these records. .
d. DOE contractors subject to the provisions of DOE PR 9-50.704-2(a) shall respond to requests for injury/illness recordkeeping information from the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, or the Bureau's cooperating State agencies, as appropriate. The information shall be
329
III-2 DOE 5483.1A 6·22·83
returned to the requestor on OSHA Form 200-5 (included with the request) in accordance with the instructions accompanying the request, and a copy thereof shall be provided to the safety and health director of the field organization. The contractor shall include a statement on the OSHA Form 200-S which states: "With respect to work performed under contract with the DOE at (name of contractor and/or GOeO faci11ty) this employer is not subject to the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, under section 4(b)(1) of that Act."
3. POSTING.
a. Each DOE contractor shall post DOE Forms 5480.2 and 5480.3 or DOE Forms EV-632 and EV-632S. as appropriate, and include the information specified.
b. Each year, from 2-1 until 3-1. DOE contractors subject to the provisions of DOE PR 9-50.704-2(a) shall post a completed DOE Form EV-102A.
c. The required forms shall be posted in a sufficient number of places to permit contractor employees working in or frequenting any portion of the GOeO facility to observe the information on the way to or from their place of employment.
4. ACCIDENT INVESTIGATIONS. Accident investigations shall be conducted in accordance wlth DOE 5484.1, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, SAFETY, AND HEALTH PROTECTION INFORMATION REPOKTING REQUIREMENTS, of 2-24-81.
(
330
N)fF 13:25.1 (IZ"')
United States Government Department of Energy
memorandum OATE Februa ry 25, 1987
REPLY TO AITN OF EH-32
SljaJECT: Guidelines for the Use of Readiness Reviews , . .,
!
TO: Assistant Secretary for Defense Programs Assistant Secretary for Nuclear Energy Assistant Secretary for Management and Administration Assistant Secretary for Fossil Energy Assistant Secretary for Conservation and Renewable Energy Director of Energy Research Director of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management Managers, DOE ~erations Offices Directors, Energy Technology Centers
The Office of Quality Assurance has sponsored the development of a guideline for readiness reviews within the Department of Energy (DOE). This guideline was developed by a Task Group composed of staff from Field Offi ces, He adqua rters and contractors. I t has been coord.i nated with the quality assurance professionals at the Field Offices and Headquarters and is transmitted herewith for your consideration. A readiness review is a structured method for determining that an activity is ready to proceed to the next phase.
Your comments are solicited on this concept and on its specific details prior to issuance as guidance. After about a year, the experience gained in using the guideline will be reviewed to detennine if the use of readiness reviews should be expanded and made mandatory (readiness reviews are already required for most nuclear activities). If you have any questions about this proposal, please have your staff contact Dr. Neal Goldenberg (FTS 233-5644) or Mr. Charles Grua (FTS 233-5516) before March 17, 1987.
Attachment
Ch~1 It ~'-~-+L ~ ~~ry L. Wa lKer Assistant Secretary Environment, Safety and Health
, .
331
332
GUIDELINES FOR APPLICATION OF
READINESS REVIEWS
TO DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY ACTIVITIES
PREPARED FOR
ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR ENVIRONMENT, SAFETY AND HEALTH
DIRECTOR, OFFICE Of QUALITY ASSURANCE
JANUARY 1987
PREPARED BY
TASK GROUP FOR READINESS REVIEW
M. Karol, RL, Chairman E. Redden, DP, HQ C. Grua, EH, HQ M. Zamorski, RL Programs D. Rosine, Presearch
\ . . "
333
------
1. Introduction
Readiness Reviews
Table of Contents
............................................ Page
1
II. Purpose ................................................. 2
I I l. Sc ope ..•......•......................................... 2
IV. References .............................................. 2
V. Definitions ,.. ....... .............. ..•.................. 2
VI. Guidelines
VI I. Principles .............................................. 3
3
VIII. Roles and Responsibilities
A. B.
C.
Program Sen; or Offi ci a 1 s •••••••••••••••••••••••••••• As s; stant Secretary for Envi ronment, Sa fety and He a , th ......•.•.••••.•...•..•••.•.•....•......•. DOE Field Organization Managers
IX. RR Performance and Projection
3
4 4
A. Projection of RR Needs •••••••••.••••••••••••••.••••• 5 B. Es tab 1 ; s hment of P rocedu res ......................... 5 C. Planning and Scheduling an RR •••••••.•••.•••.•..•••• 6 D. Organization of Review Teams •••••••••.•.••••...••••• 6 E. RR Structure Determination •••••••••••••••.••••.••.•. 8 F. Verifi cat; on of Readi ness ........................... 8 G. Grant; ng of Exempt; ons .............................. 9
334
DOE GUIDELINES FOR READINESS REVIEW
I. Introduction
Readiness Reviews (RRs) are a systematic approach for determining the
status of a facility, process, system or activity. Presently, the
application of the RR process is mandatory only under certain conditions
that involve unreviewed safety questions or new nuclear facilities
delineated in DOE 5480.5, "Safety of Nuclear Facilities," (9-23-86) and
DOE 5480.6, "Safety of Department of Energy-Owned Nuclear Reactors," (9-23-86) •
The RR process provides management with well organized, visible
objective evidence demonstrating the readiness for the initiation and/or
continuation of an activity (see definitions). The documented objective
evidence provides management increased confidence to authorize the
activity.
The RR process recognizes the many other requirements imposed on DOE
activities such as the Safety Analysis and Review System, National
Environmental Policy Act, environmental permits and reports, other
safety and health reporting requirements, the DOE Project Management
System requirements and the 11ke; as well as the typical industrial
engineering practice of subsystem preoperational checks. The RR proce
dure brings all these requirements and verifications to a focused formal
assurance review prior to proceeding to the next phase of the activity.
An RR program is not intended to replace line management's primary
responsibility for-project completion, quality assurance, technical
adequacy, resolution of safety or process-related considerations, etc.
Rather, a readiness review fulfills a final review function to assure that
all necessary actions by the responsibility line organizations have been
completed.
RRs provide a methodology for assuring all ne~essary activities and
actions have been satisfactorily completed before activity initiation is
authori zed. A RR will enhance: '
- early identification of deSign, construction and operations and pro
duct/component deficiencies which, if not identified as early as practicable, could result in programmatic delays or setbaCKS, and/or
safety problems;
- predictability thru planned start-ups, operations, activity initia
tion or progression to next phase;
- assured total coverage of activity readiness with only known excep
tions clearly identified;
- accountability for activity work and readiness;
- visibl1ity of data demonstrating activity readiness to management;
and
compliance with permitting and reporting requirements of Federal,
State, and local agencies.
\ .
335
2
II. Purpose
To provide guidance, set forth principles, and describe roles and responsibilities for establishing and implementing RRs for DOE activities.
III. Scope
The provisions of these guidelines may be applied to all Departmental Elements and contractors performing work for the Department as provided by law and/or contract and as implemented by the appropriate contracting off; cer.
IV. References
A. DOE 5480.5, Safety of Nuclear Facilities (9-23-86)
B. DOE 5480.6, Safety of Department of Energy-Owned Nuclear Reactors (9-23-86)
C. ERDA 76-45-1, SSDC-l, Occupancy Use Readiness Document which describes development and the process for RR
D. DOE 76-45/14, SSDC-14, Rev. 1, Events and Causal Factors Charting which describes the management oversight and risk tree development and use
v. Definitions
A. Readiness Review - A structured method for detennining that an activity is ready to operate or proceed to the next phase, and includes, as a minimum, comprehensive review of the readiness of the plant and hardware, personnel, and procedures. The review includes a determination of compliance with all DOE requirements.
B. Readiness Review Plan - A document approved by management for a specific activity which defines the management processes for implementing an RR. It delineates the responsibilities and authorities, defines the actions to be taken, establishes the schedule for RR implementation.
c. Activity - A facility, operation, process, system, construction activity or project that may have the RR process applied to determine the readiness for proceeding with start-up or to the next phase of the acti vi ty.
D. Technical Justification - An analysis and evaluation of the basis for requesting an exemption or waiver that fully describes the consequences of the exemption decision and the risk.
336
3
VI. Guidelines
RRs should be applied to processes, systems. facilities or activities which are:
- new or significantly modified;
- reactivated from inactive status;
- assessed for operation resulting from shutdown for cause (significant disruption, accident, etc.);
- operated in a new or significantly different mode;
- considered for authorization to proceed to next phase; and
- designated for review by responsible management.
VII. Principles
RRs should determine if the facilities. equipment, procedures, training. -personnel, and management control systems are ready to fulfill the system's functional objectives.
A. Projections of RR needs should be documented and approved by Senior Management early in the life of the activity. These needs should be scheduled with sufficient time to allow responsible organizations "to correct any deficiencies noted.
B. DOE Field Organizations and DOE Contractors should develop the specific RR plans, procedures. and criteria.
C. RRs, when appropriate. should be developed for discrete. well identified stages or phases, depending on complexity, to assure a comprehensive in-depth review of all aspects, especially interfaCing and possibly overlapping systems/areas. This will also assure that proper attention is given to multiple systems interface areas, and enable conformance to sChedule.
D. EaCh RR stage/phase should be overviewed and accepted by DOE only after contractor worK has been accomplished and recommended for acceptance by Contractor Senior Management.
VIII. Roles and Respons1bilities
The roles of organizations partiCipating in an RR program are identified as follows:
A. Program Senior Official (PSO)
(1) Reviews RR documentation and approves/disapproves action for initiation or continuation of activities, as defined under DOE 5480.5 and DOE 5480.~ or other selected activities, to the Field Office Manag~r\'
337
4
(2) Makes a determination with EH and the appropriate field office during the Phase I construction of systems, facilities, and major modifications which involve moderate hazard (activities that do not spec; fically requ1 re RRs in the DOE Orders), of the RR review and approval level that will be required.
(3) May participate in RR activities or act as an observer during facility start-up activities.
B. Assistant Secretary for Environment, Safety and Health
(1) Reviews RR documentation and other appropriate documentation and indicators of plant status and concurs in approval/ disapproval for initiation of high hazard and selected moderate hazard activities to the appropriate Program Senior Official.
(2) Makes a determination with PSO and the appropriate field office during the Phase I construction of systems, facilities, and major modifications which involve moderate hazard (activities that do not specifically require RRs in the DOE Orders), of the RR review and approval level that will be required.
(3) May participate in RR activities or act as an observer during facility start-up activities.
c. DOE Field Organization Manager
(1) Prepares Order supplements and management directives implementing DOE/HQ Orders and incorporates RR requirements, as appropriate.
(2) Consistent with the provisions of DOE 5480.18, "Safety Analysis and Review System," (9-23-86) has responsibility to have RRs performed. Establish a projection and SChedule of those activities that require an RR and determines the level of DOE authorizations.
(3) Require contractors to establish detailed RR procedures.
(4) Assure via observation, discussion, surveillance or audit, the· adequacy of the contractor RR checklists and activities.
(5) As appropriate, establish DOE review teams to verify a contractor's RR request to proceed with or start-up an activity.
(6) Provides contractor prepared RR documentation and Field Organization recommendations to appropriate Headquarters program offices and EH for review to enable those organizations to meet their responsibilities in regard to facility start-up in accordance wi th DOE 5480.5 and DOE 5480.6 or as requ1 red by the PSO.
\ .
338
5
(7) Subject to Headquarters concurrences identified in the DOE 5480.5 and DOE 5480.6. authorizes contractors to start up or
proceed to the next phase of designated activity.
IX. RR Performance and Projection
A. Projection of RR Needs
(1) On a regular basis (preferably annually or semi-annually) all appropriate activities should be assessed by responsible program officials to establish those programs that require an RR. The assessment should include consideration of activities such
as:
(a) Start-up of new activities.
(b) Restart of activities that have been shut down or in standby status for periods of time in excess of that required for routine maintenance.
(c) Restart of activities after modifications which would change the functioning of safety or effluent monitoring and control features.
(d) Initiation of decontamination and decommisSioning projects.
(e) Initiation of nonroutine transport of hazardous materials.
(f) Initiation of new type activities which may present an identifiable hazard to employees, the publiC, or the environment.
(2) Projections of RR requirements should be initiated by program or project offices and should include scheduled start-up dates. proposed level of management approval required, concurrence requirements, and scoping of contractor and DOE review.
(3) Safety and QA staff should collect and evaluate program projections and coordinate with program office and prepare a consolidated projected start-up list for submission through the program office to the field organization manager for review, comment and/or approval.
B. Establishment Procedures
(1) Written instructions for DOE Field Organization n!sponsibilities developed by the Field Organization in RRs are highly desirable to insure appropriate planning .and consistency of contractor actions.
(2) Contractor RR procedures should be reviewed and evaluated by field offices as an integral part of DOE RR overview.
I '
339
6
C. Planning and Scheduling an RR
(1) Planning is an integral part of the RR process. The analytical techniques (e.g., MORT, Ref. 4) are used to assure total coverage of hardware, personnel, and administrative items and provide a basic planning framework and should be implemented as soon as practical in the life of an activity. Likewise, establishing review boards, deciding the levels of management approvals, etc., are important front end decisions that can drive the timely completion of activity work with a minimum of e"on.
(2) Early issuance of an RR plan by contractors and DOE reviewers respectively should address paragraph C.(1) considerations. Actions described in the RR plan should be integrated into the master activity schedule to identify RR activities as a part of the critical path items toward activity completion rather than an add-on inspection. Figure 1 indicates a typical RR process chronology for a relatively simple activity.
(3) Complex activities (e.g., reactor construction and/or start-up major systems acquisitions) require detailed planning and scheduling. RRs may be conducted on an incremental basis for a specified portion of the activity, rather than delaying approval until total activity is completed. The following principles are paramount if increments are used:
(a) Increments should be well identified units/modules of hardware and/or activities, e.g., systems, portions of facility, definitive design, construction, operational test, etc.
(b) Incremental acceptance should include contractor management and DOE.
(c) DOE acceptance of increments should be provided only after contractor review, comment and/or approval.
(d) Increments should always be open to additional review for verification of interfacing points or should new issues or questions be raised.
D. Organization of Review Teams
(1) DOE Field Organization Guidance
Field Organizations generally provide overall management of the activities in support of issuance of a formal authorization to proceed by the designated DOE approval authority.
(a) A representative of a field office line organization should be designated as the point of contact for interface between DOE and the contractor RR to coordinate review
, .'
340
7
activities and assure that there is an auditable record of DOE activities performed to verify readiness. The representative will also assure that DOE authorization is accompanied by a plan that clearly identifies:
- the specific tasks to be performed to determine readiness;
- the individuals responsible for assuring that these tasks have been completed; and
- justification that exempted/deferred items are not prerequisites to the start of the activity.
(b) When requested, safety, environment and QA staff organizations may perform an independent readiness review to support the operating organization; however, this review will be independent of reviews coordinated with involved program management.
Upon notification by the program organization, Safety and QA s ta f f wi 11 :
- Identify a lead Safety and QA staff member to coordinate the Safety and QA readiness review activities.
- Coordinate visits to contractor worksites with the program organizations.
- Prepare a recommendation with appropriate supporting information when the readiness review is complete and transmit through QA and Safety organization. The basic information should include the documentation prepared by each Safety and QA staff member participating in the readiness review.
Communicate concurrence to appropriate senior management.
(c) In addition to the independent review described in paragraph 9.C.l.(b), the program organization may request Safety and QA staff assistance in performing a readiness review. Safety and QA should participate in a support mode 1f staff resources are available. The Safety and OA member should have some prior knowledge of readiness reviews and perform as an individual contributor supplementing the program organization. Other staff Safety and QA may still perform independent reviews.
(2) Contractor Guidance
The contractor may establi sh a "hands on" start-up team and an
M1ndependent" review board. , . ,
341
8
(a) Start-up Team - a working group who have the responsibility for the activity or who will be involved in the next phase of the activity. The team normally has a multi-discipline membership (e.g., Safety, QA, Construction, Production, Engineering, etc.) and will provide the evidence of the state of readiness to the contractor independent review board and/or the contractor authorizing official. Team members coordinate and obtain support as required for activities beyond their personal expertise. The start-up team chairman may be the individual who will be responsible for the activity after start-up is authori zed.
(b) Readiness Review Board - a group of functional representatives established to independently assess start-up team actions and recommendations, and concur or recommend to the authorizing official that the activity is ready for use. Safety and QA are usually included as members of the board.
E. RR Structure Determination
(1) The RR process may be applied to virtually any activity and, therefore, the scope must be defined in proportion to activity complexity and cost, schedule and safety/quality consequences of activity failure. However, it RlJst first be determined what total·RR coverage means. The use of analytical teChniques such as MORT (Ref. 4) ITI!thodology lends itself to this task as it provides a list of all conceivable hardware, personnel and administrative items that could be checked for adequacy prior to initiating an activity. It is important that the cheCKlist is based on some analytical methodology such as the Occupancy Use Readiness Manual, (a Mort derived methodology) ERDA-76-45-1, (SSDC-l) and be devised by qualified individuals, independent of the RR task.
(2) After cheCKlist development, the contractor start-up team with concurrence of the review board shoul d systematically determine the applicability of checklist items. Additions are usually valid. However, deletions should be subject to thorough consideration, and prior to review board approval of the deletion, should be technically justified and documented. RR checklists and "trees" developed as part of the readiness review should be controlled documents so that revisions, modifications and status are maintained and assured traceable by the start-up team.
F. Verification of Readiness
(1) Expert Approval - the most basic approval of a completion for RR checklist item should be the individual most Knowledgeable
342
9
of the item and is often the cognizant craftsman or engineer.
This approval ITIJst assure the technical adequacy of the item, i.e., does the work item meet the re-determined s ec1fications
and does eVl ence eXlst lndlcating comp iance with the teria.
(2) Management Ap proval - thi s approval can range from fi rst-l ; ne supervisors to senior managers. This approval should extend beyond technical considerations and should encompass careful examination of how specific work items 1ntegrate into total activity readiness. Interfaces between hardware items, hardware and procedures, procedures and personnel, etc., are
especially critical.
(3) Definitions of Signature Approval - expert and management approvals have been discussed above and While these concepts are often well understood by professionals, they must be specifically defined in a readiness review system if consistency, quality, and common understanding 1s to be assured. Failure to
do this can result in readiness being measured against individual opinions of adequacy.
(4) Background Documentation - Sign-off at all levels should indicate that sufficient evidence exists 1n support of the sign-off
signatures (uSUJ11y documentation SUCh as test results, inspection reports, etc.). Individual signatures should pro
vide a note that lists documentation specifically backing the sign-off Signature.
NOTE: Usually such evidence will be readily available as a result of existing quality assurance/safety program implementation.
(5) A focal point for collecting and coordinating approval signatures and supporting documentation such as a quality control person should be designated. Such coordination can significantly expedite the collection of valid documentation, its organization, and the ease and speed with which overviewers (DOE, contractor managers) can complete their tasks.
(6) An appropriate tracking system should be developed to assure that established milestones are met.
G. Granting of Exemptions
There may be instances when checklist items on an RR cannot be
completed at the time the activity is authorized, but are intended
to be complete prior to activity initiation. The quantity of these
·prestart-up~ items should be minimal and a large number may indi
cate that the activity is not ready for authorization to start-up.
As the RR proceeds, it may be determined that some items do not need
I . ,
343
10
to be completed prior to start-up but at some later time. Careful identification. tracking and scheduling for completion of these items must be assured. Such "post start-up" items should be carefully evaluated by management to assure that adequate documented technical justification exists for such exemptions.
344
TYPICAL READINESS REVIEW PROCESS FOR NON-COMPLEX ACTIVITES
nME • ,-
· · · · · · ~.----~ .. ------~~ - ......-
ContrM1or _It Pbnning
· · · · · · · · · · · · · · ~~----------~--------~~ ,...
Peepare H.ctware. ~~nd Penonn~ few Re~iness
· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
~~------.. ~--------~~ -- 4iJIi Contradot- Verific.ation .. OCKuInrnbtion Of "e~" De~iIed DOE MPbnning
· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
~~--------~ .. ------~/ -- $J Sele~ DOE Veritiution .. Fortnal Ac:liWty A~v.1
Non: Few UN.,.. ec:tiwities. the re..te-w ,,0CliHS would indude well iMdentified ~of systesms- pot tior i' of fa<ih6H. definitive ~.~ opeIilUon.t tftb. etc.
(Time periods not to sole,
345
346
