Slide 22 of 22
Notes:
The conclusions that can be drawn from this verification enhancement review are definitive and are as follows:
- The primary specific purpose for conducting the review was accomplished: The review was successful as an RL verification of contractor readiness to undergo a DOE ISMS verification. This success is evidenced by the overwhelmingly positive responses of Panel A, the RL Upper Management Panel, to the five narrative questions in Part II of the Effectiveness Survey (refer to Appendix G). Success was further evidenced in a post-enhancement review de-briefing with Pete Knollmeyer, sponsor of the project, and his senior staff in which the findings were previewed. The general sense of the group was that the review provided useful information with respect to contractor readiness and, the inclusion of a worker as part of the Review Team, was instrumental for both the success and credibility of the effort.
- The five secondary purposes of the review also were accomplished since the review successfully: a) reinforced management engagement and gauged management commitment and accountability; b) provided “value added” benefit because of direct public involvement; c) provided “value added” benefit because of direct worker involvement; d) provided “value added” benefit because of the panel-to-panel dialogue approach which is integral to the conduct of the process; and, e) demonstrated its utility as a potential method for effectively and expeditiously providing a periodic assessment of ISM status. The above mentioned successes are all evidenced by the decidedly positive responses of panel participants to the five narrative questions in Part II of the Effectiveness Survey (refer to Appendix G).
- Based on the solid proven success of this enhancement review, the final recommendations of the review team are:
- Conduct additional ISM verification enhancement reviews at Hanford, targeting those facilities also scheduled for doe isms verification, whereby a “full range” of safety-related management system questions could be discussed;
- Promote the use of the ISM verification enhancement review process at Hanford, and throughout the DOE complex, as an effective, expeditious, cost-effective process for periodically evaluating the status of ISM implementation in facilities.
- Promote public trust through responsible stewardship: If DOE wants to sustain ISM, annual reviews need to be conducted in a way that build on improving public trust and confidence, and certainly the cost saving process we demonstrated is sensitive to that end. Estimating 2688 person-hours for the ISM verification process versus 120 person-hours for the MSV like process for a ratio of 22/1 is a very serious difference in the use of public funds.
