**U.S. Department of Energy**

**Review of the**

**Richland Operations Office**

**Safety System Oversight Program**

**Final Report**

**August 2004**

![](media/image1.wmf)

**Assessment Team**

Burton E. Hill,

SSO Team Lead

Mark R. Hahn,

Confinement Ventilation SSO

Richland Operations Office

Gerald C. Bowman,

Assistant Manager for Technical Support,

Federal Technical Capability Panel Agent

Thomas I. Elias,

Alternate Federal Technical Capability Panel Agent,

Idaho Operations Office

**EXECUTIVE SUMMARY**

A Federal Technical Capability Panel (FTCP) team from the DOE Idaho
Operations Office and the DOE Richland Operations Office (RL) reviewed
the RL Safety System Oversight (SSO) Program and its implementation. The
team found that RL had developed an effective SSO Program that met the
requirements of DOE M 426.1-1A, *Federal Technical Capability Panel
Manual*. The program is expected to be fully implemented by September
30, 2004. RL line management and the Assistant Manager for Safety and
Engineering to whom the Safety System Oversight personnel (SSOs) report
demonstrate responsibility and ownership of the RL SSO Program and its
implementation toward the safe operation of RL nuclear facilities.

Several Noteworthy Practices as well as Areas of Improvement were
identified.

**Noteworthy Practices:**

1.  RL provides a web-based location where the SSOs and contractor
    System Engineers (SEs) can go to find a listing of the safety
    systems and assigned SSO and SE personnel (including assigned
    backups). This web site can be accessed through the RL RIMS and is
    accessible to both RL and contractor employees.

2.  RL management encourages professional engineering licenses for SSOs
    and SSO participation in national professional organizations, such
    as ASME.

3.  RL SSOs and FRs work as a team, understanding each other's roles,
    and communicating well with each other. The RL organizational
    arrangement where both groups report to the same manager (Assistant
    Manager for Safety and Engineering) seems to be a major contributing
    factor in this behavior.

4.  The RL SSO Program requires that SSO responsibilities are included
    and maintained in Individual Performance Plans (IPPs). Expectations
    include SSO programmatic responsibilities (e.g., maintaining
    qualification, document reviews, and communication), contractor
    oversight, and teamwork within the RL organization.

5.  RL and the contractor use a joint Integrated Evaluation Plan (IEP)
    for scheduling assessments during each fiscal year. RL prepares its
    annual division level Master Oversight Plan (MOP) and includes it in
    the IEP. The MOP and the IEP are revisited and adjusted quarterly in
    response to emerging issues and changing priorities.

**Opportunities for Improvement:**

1.  Update SSO roles, responsibilities, authorities, and
    accountabilities referenced in the RL Functions, Responsibilities,
    and Authorities Manual (FRAM).

2.  Document the process RL and the contractor use to determine which
    systems are subject to DNFSB Recommendation 2000-2 oversight. The
    decision criteria and basis for making these decisions should be
    documented.

3.  Complete and document the SSO qualification process in a timely
    manner.

4.  Implement a practice of interfacing between the SSO and the
    contractor SE during the SSO qualification process. This practice is
    currently not implemented, and the new RL SSO program does not
    contain this requirement.

5.  Participate more broadly in the contractor assessment processes.
    Currently RL SSO participates only in contractor annual facility
    assessments and do not oversee or participate in contractor
    quarterly walk downs and monthly operability trend reviews.

6.  Clarify and document the expectation for "stop work" authority for
    SSOs with respect to safety systems in the RL SSO Program
    description and RL procedures.

7.  Consider the benefits to be derived from including periodic third
    party technical reviews of the RL contractor System Engineer Program
    and implementation in the RL and contractor joint Integrated
    Evaluation Plan.

**INTRODUCTION**

In May 2004, the Department of Energy (DOE) published DOE M 426.1-1A,
*Federal Technical Capability Panel Manual,* and thus institutionalized
the Safety System Oversight (SSO) Program to monitor the performance of
Vital Safety Systems in DOE nuclear facilities and to evaluate
effectiveness of the Contractor's cognizant System Engineer Program. DOE
M 426.1-1A describes the SSO function, including roles and
responsibilities of SSO personnel (SSO), and defines the knowledge,
skills and abilities to be incorporated into technical qualification
programs for SSOs.

The objective of this review was to evaluate progress by the Richland
Operation Office (RL) in developing and implementing an SSO program. The
reporting format described in DOE M 426.1-1A was used to document
results of the review.

**SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY**

The review was performed by the FTCP Agent for the Idaho Operations
Office (NE-ID) and the NE-ID Alternate FTCP Agent. The RL SSO Team Lead
and the Confinement Ventilation System (CVS) SSO provided assistance on
behalf of RL in the conduct of this review. Criteria and Review Approach
Documents (CRADs) developed by the Federal Technical Capabilities Panel
(FTCP) were used to evaluate actions taken to define and implement the
SSO Program at RL. The CRADs are provided in Attachment A of this
report.

The review was performed by assessment of SSO program documents
developed by RL as well as interviews with line management, SSO
personnel, and contractor personnel responsible for vital safety systems
(VSS). The results of document reviews and interviews are documented in
the "Results" section of this report and broken out by the four CRADs
functional areas: Program (PGM); Training and Qualification (TQ);
Management (MG); and Oversight Performance (OP).

**RECORDS REVIEWED/PERSONNEL INTERVIEWED**

Documents reviewed:

1.  RL Engineering Program

2.  RL SSO Program

3.  SSO Instructions and Exhibits

4.  RL and Contractor Vital Safety System Lists

5.  RL SSO Qualification Program

6.  RL SSO Qualification Standard

7.  Richland System Engineer Program (RLSE)

8.  RLSE Qualification Card

9.  RL SSO Qualification Card (example)

10. RL SSO Program Master Oversight Plans

11. Requirements Record of Decision (ROD) for DOE M 426.1-1A

12. RL Functions, Responsibilities, and Authorities Manual (FRAM)

13. RL Richland Integrated Management System (RIMS) SSO and Integrated
    Evaluation Plan (IEP)

14. Fluor Hanford (FH) System Engineer Program

15. SSO Individual Performance Plans

16. FH System Engineer Program Manager Annual Report

17. HNF-PRO-16331, *System Engineer Program*

18. FH/RL Planned VSS Assessments Listing

Personnel interviewed:

1.  Fire Protection SSO

2.  Confinement Ventilation System (CVS) SSO

3.  RL SSO Team Lead

4.  RL Plutonium Finishing Plant (PFP) Deputy Project Director

5.  PFP Facility Representative (FR)

6.  Fluor Hanford (FH) Chief Engineer

7.  FH CVS System Engineer

8.  FH SE Program Manager

9.  RL Assistant Manager for Safety and Engineering (AMSE)

10. RL Deputy Manager

**RESULTS**

**[Program (PGM)]{.underline}**

[OBJECTIVE]{.underline}

**PGM.1** An effective SSO Program is established by the Field Element
Manager to apply engineering expertise to maintain safety system
configuration and to assess system condition and effectiveness of safety
management program implementation.

**Discussion of Results:**

The RL SSO program was observed to be established and documented in the
Richland Integrated Management System (RIMS). The program fully
describes SSO responsibilities for overseeing vital safety systems (VSS)
to ensure they will perform as required by the safety basis and other
applicable requirements. The RL SSO program underscores the importance
of Integrated Safety Management System (ISMS) processes to help ensure
systems are able to perform their designed safety functions.
Furthermore, the RL SSO Program description clearly states, "Effective
implementation of ISMS relies upon the ability to apply engineering
expertise to maintain safety system configuration and assess system
condition and effectiveness of safety management program
implementation." The RL SSO program includes a complete description of
SSO roles and responsibilities. However, the review team identified an
**opportunity for improvement** to update SSO roles, responsibilities,
authorities and accountabilities referenced in the RL Functions,
Responsibilities, and Authorities Manual (FRAM).

The review team identified a RL **noteworthy practice** of providing a
web-based location where the SSOs and contractor System Engineers (SEs)
can go to find a listing of the safety systems and assigned SSO and SE
personnel (including assigned backups). This web site can be accessed
through the RL RIMS and is accessible to both RL and contractor
employees.

The review team observed that RL and contractor communicate on issues
concerning which safety systems are VSS subject to SSO and SE oversight.
For purposes of Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (DNFSB)
Recommendation 2000-2, all active safety-significant and safety-class
systems, structures and components (SSC) are VSS and will be subject to
SSO oversight. Design features identified as safety-class or
safety-significant in the Documented Safety Analysis (DSA) are often
considered passive and therefore not included in the RL SSO oversight
program. VSS that perform important defense-in-depth functions and are
active systems that protect the health and safety of the public,
workers, and the environment are designated VSS at the discretion of
line management. Although RL and contractor communicate on which safety
systems are subject to DNFSB Recommendation 2000-2 oversight, there is
an **opportunity for improvement** to document this process, including
decision criteria and basis for making these decisions.

The RL SSO program requires that the SSO report potential or emergent
hazards immediately to DOE line management and Facility Representatives
(FR). However, the RL SSO program description does not reflect the fact
that all of the SSOs report to a single supervisor in the RL office of
the Assistant Manager for Safety and Engineering, outside the line
management. This reporting mechanism provides some organizational
independence when raising issues or hazards to line management and
should be discussed in the program description.

**[Training and Qualification (TQ)]{.underline}**

[OBJECTIVE]{.underline}

**TQ.1** SSO personnel and supervisors with responsibilities for SSO
personnel are appropriately trained and qualified, or are in the process
of achieving qualification.

**Discussion of Results:**

**\
**The RL SSOs were initially qualified under the RL System Engineer
(RLSE) qualification program. This program was developed and implemented
approximately two years ago and in response to the DNFSB Recommendation
2000-2. RL anticipated the need to establish and qualify federal system
engineers and developed a RLSE qualification standard. The development
of this standard took advantage of the existing qualification process
for facility representatives (FRs) utilizing existing general and
technical qualification standards and adapting facility specific
standards to reflect assigned safety system criteria. RL has developed a
SSO qualification program and standard compliant with DOE M 426.1-1A and
is currently beginning their implementation. The review team reviewed
the qualification cards of the six RL SSOs and found them to be
compliant with DOE M 426.1-1A. RL is scheduled to complete qualification
of all six SSOs by September 30, 2004. The review team identified an
**opportunity for improvement** to complete and document the RL SSO
qualification process in a timely manner.

When reviewing the qualification process, the review team noted that the
former RLSE program qualification standard and card required that
"...for higher risk systems ...these systems require a detailed system
walk down with the contractor SE." The new RL SSO program does not
contain this requirement and it was apparent during interviews with SSO
and contractor SE personnel that this practice was not implemented.
Accordingly, the review team identified an **opportunity for
improvement** to implement the practice of interfacing between the SSO
and the contractor SE during the qualification process. The interfacing
should include a simultaneous detailed system walk down by both parties.

The RL SSO Qualification Program description encourages that
professional engineering licenses are to be viewed as a significant
demonstration of competence when selecting SSO candidates. Three of the
six RL SSOs are Professional Engineers (PE) as is one of the backups.
The Individual Development Plans for two aspiring candidates for the
Fire Protection SSO position contain language encouraging the attainment
of professional engineering license. During the review team's interviews
with the RL SSOs, it became apparent that RL management was very
supportive of professional engineering licenses and participation in
professional standard-setting bodies such as the American Society of
Mechanical Engineers (ASME). Although this is not a requirement in DOE M
426.1-1A, RL management's encouragement of professional engineering
licenses for SSOs and SSO participation in national professional
organizations is considered **noteworthy**.

**[Management (MG)]{.underline}**

[OBJECTIVE]{.underline}

**MG.1** SSO Supervisors effectively perform their SSO program
responsibilities.

**Discussion of Results:**

**\
**In accordance with the RL SSO Program, SSO personnel report to Senior
Technical Safety Managers and regularly coordinate with the FRs to
ensure operability of specific safety systems. During interviews and
document reviews it became apparent that there was effective interaction
between SSOs and FRs. SSOs focus on the details of safety systems and
operability while FRs focus on the integrated operational aspects of
these systems.

The review team observed that there was a strong teaming arrangement
between the SSOs and FRs. This may be a result of the RL organizational
arrangement where both groups report to the same manager (Assistant
Manager for Safety and Engineering). Routine meetings involving both
groups and the benefits resulting from a common leadership philosophy
and strong commitment to both programs may contribute to the cooperation
and communication. The observed level of understanding of each other's
roles and the commitment to cooperate between RL SSOs and FRs is
**noteworthy**.

The RL SSO Program requires that SSO responsibilities are included and
maintained in individual performance plans. The review team examined the
Individual Performance Plans (IPP) for some of the SSOs. The IPP is a
supervisory performance agreement tailored to each individual and is the
basis for personnel accountability. The SSO IPPs that were reviewed
included clear expectations at the "fully successful" and "highly
successful" levels. Expectations included SSO programmatic
responsibilities (e.g., maintaining qualification, document reviews, and
communication), contractor oversight, and teamwork within the RL
organization. The inclusion of SSO roles, responsibilities and
expectations in the SSO IPP is a **noteworthy practice**.

**[Oversight Performance (OP)]{.underline}**

[OBJECTIVE]{.underline}

**OP.1** Collectively, SSO personnel provide oversight of the
Contractors' System Engineer Program.

**OP.2** SSO personnel are knowledgeable and familiar with assigned
safety systems and/or programs.

**Discussion of Results:**

The RL SSO Program oversight of the contractor is largely premised on
assessing the contractor Independent Assessment (formerly called
Facility Evaluation Boards or FEBs) of facility areas, including VSS.
Annually, SSOs assess (shadow) the Independent Assessment (IA) and
provide a written report to the contractor. These periodic SSO
assessments are scheduled in advance in the Integrated Evaluation Plan
(IEP) using the Master Oversight Plan (MOP, a RL Division Level
document) process. The IEP represents a joint plan by both RL and the
contractor for performing assessments during the fiscal year. The IEP
and MOP are revisited and adjusted once each quarter in response to
emerging issues and changing priorities. The review team reviewed this
process, which provided for annual oversight planning and coordination
with the contractor. The integration of the contractor and RL oversight
process is a **noteworthy practice**.

The RL SSO Program requires that each SSO select a safety system for
assessment during the contractor IA process. The RL SSO rigorously
assesses the performance of the contractor SE, the integrity of the
safety system, and the effectiveness of the IA process. The contractor
conducts quarterly safety system walk downs and monthly operability
trend reviews in addition to the IA of individual facility areas. The
contractor personnel stated that they also maintained system engineer
notebooks, which documented their system engineering work activities.
During interviews with SSOs and contractor SEs, it was determined that
there was an **opportunity for improvement** for RL to participate more
broadly in the contractor self-assessment processes. For example, SSOs
may periodically assess contractor quarterly walk downs.

The review team was not able to find any discussion on "stop work"
authority in the RL SSO Program description. Discussions with RL SSOs
and FRs indicated that some confusion existed on the scope of stop work
authority for imminent hazard to the worker vs. the impending failure of
a safety system. These two outcomes were viewed differently with regard
to exercising stop work authority. In addition, the expectation for stop
work for SSOs with respect to safety systems has not been clarified in
RL procedures. Clarifying stop work authority for SSOs is viewed as an
**opportunity for improvement.\
**

Although the RL contractor seemed to have a comprehensive system to
assess its System Engineer (SE) Program, there were no third party
reviews scheduled as a part of the overall assessment plan. The review
team noticed an **opportunity for improvement** for RL and the RL
contractor System Engineer Program to consider the benefits to be
derived from periodic third party technical reviews of the contractor SE
program and implementation as a part of the Integrated Evaluation Plan
(IEP). Such outside reviews give an independent evaluation, not biased
by those involved in the day-to-day implementation, of programs and
procedures.

**CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS**

DOE-RL (RL) has developed an effective SSO Program that meets the
requirements of DOE M 426.1-1A, *Federal Technical Capability Panel
Manual*. The program is expected to be fully implemented by September
30, 2004. RL line management and the Office of Safety and Engineering to
which the SSOs report demonstrate responsibility and ownership of the RL
SSO Program and its implementation toward the safe operation of RL
nuclear facilities.

Several Noteworthy Practices as well as Areas of Improvement were
identified.

**Noteworthy Practices:**

1.  RL provides a web-based location where the SSOs and contractor
    System Engineers (SEs) can go to find a listing of the safety
    systems and assigned SSO and SE personnel (including assigned
    backups). This web site can be accessed through the RL RIMS and is
    accessible to both RL and contractor employees.

2.  RL management encourages professional engineering licenses for SSOs
    and SSO participation in national professional organizations, such
    as ASME.

3.  RL SSOs and FRs work as a team, understanding each other's roles,
    and communicating well with each other. The RL organizational
    arrangement where both groups report to the same manager (Assistant
    Manager for Safety and Engineering) seems to be a major contributing
    factor in this behavior.

4.  The RL SSO Program requires that SSO responsibilities are included
    and maintained in Individual Performance Plans (IPPs). Expectations
    include SSO programmatic responsibilities (e.g., maintaining
    qualification, document reviews, and communication), contractor
    oversight, and teamwork within the RL organization.

5.  RL and the contractor use a joint Integrated Evaluation Plan (IEP)
    for performing assessments during each fiscal year. RL prepares its
    annual division level Master Oversight Plan (MOP) and includes it in
    the IEP. The MOP and the IEP are revisited and adjusted quarterly in
    response to emerging issues and changing priorities.

**Opportunities for Improvement:**

1.  Update SSO roles, responsibilities, authorities, and
    accountabilities referenced in the RL Functions, Responsibilities,
    and Authorities Manual (FRAM).

2.  Document the process RL and the contractor use to determine which
    systems are subject to DNFSB Recommendation 2000-2 oversight. The
    decision criteria and basis for making these decisions should be
    documented.

3.  Complete and document the SSO qualification process in a timely
    manner.

4.  Implement a practice of interfacing between the SSO and the
    contractor SE during the SSO qualification process. This practice is
    currently not implemented, and the new RL SSO program does not
    contain this requirement.

5.  Participate more broadly in the contractor assessment processes.
    Currently RL SSO participates only in contractor annual facility
    assessments and do not oversee or participate in contractor
    quarterly walk downs and monthly operability trend reviews.

6.  Clarify and document the expectation for "stop work" authority for
    SSOs with respect to safety systems in the RL SSO Program
    description and RL procedures.

7.  Consider the benefits to be derived from including periodic third
    party technical reviews of the RL contractor System Engineer Program
    and implementation in the RL and contractor joint Integrated
    Evaluation Plan.

**\
\
ATTACHMENT:** Safety System Oversight (SSO) Program Implementation
Assessment Criteria Review and Approach Documents (CRADs)

*\-- Original signed by \-- Original signed by*

**Attachment A**

**Criteria and Review Approach Documents**

**(CRADs)**

**Safety System Oversight (SSO) Program**

**Implementation Assessment**

**Criteria and Review Approach Documents (CRADs)**

**Revision 0**

**PROGRAM (PGM)**

[OBJECTIVE]{.underline}

**PGM.1** An effective SSO Program is established by the Field Element
Manager to apply engineering expertise to maintain safety system
configuration and to assess system condition and effectiveness of safety
management program implementation.

> [Criteria]{.underline}

1.  The SSO Qualification Program is part of the Technical Qualification
    Program (DOE M 426.1-1A, Chapter III, Section 1, 2.b (1)).

2.  The SSO Program establishes appropriate training, qualification, and
    performance requirements for SSO personnel and the supervisors are
    held accountable for achieving them (DOE M 426.1-1A, Chapter III,
    Section 1, 2.b (2)).

3.  The safety systems and safety management programs included in the
    SSO Program align with those systems and programs identified in the
    applicable Documented Safety Analysis (DOE M 426.1-1A, Chapter III,
    Section 1, 4.c).

4.  Safety system oversight requirements are defined and implemented,
    for example, functions, responsibilities, and authorities of
    personnel assigned to perform safety system oversight and their
    interface/support of Facility Representatives are clearly defined,
    and SSO staffing needs are identified and there is a plan or process
    to ensure future staffing needs are met and maintained (DOE M
    426.1-1A, Chapter III, Section 1, 2.b (3) & (4)).

5.  Affected DOE and contractor managers understand the SSO role and
    relationship to Facility Representatives and the contractor's
    cognizant System Engineers, and provide the necessary access and
    support (DOE M 426.1-1A, Chapter III, Section 1, 3.d).

6.  Qualifying Officials are assigned to sign site-specific
    Qualification Cards (DOE M 426.1-1A, Chapter III, Section 1, 2.b
    (6)).

7.  The SSO Program contains features to verify that SSO candidates
    possess the required level of knowledge and/or skills to perform
    assessments and investigations to confirm performance of safety
    systems in meeting established safety and mission requirements (DOE
    M 426.1-1A, Chapter III, Section 1, 2.b (5)).

> [Approach]{.underline}
>
> Record Review: Review documentation (e.g., site technical
> qualification program documents, SSO Program Plan, SSO Program
> procedures, qualification cards and/or standards, internal
> memorandums, Documented Safety Analyses, etc.) which establish the SSO
> Program and describe its implementation to determine that the program
> is complete and comprehensive.
>
> Interviews: Interview management personnel with responsibilities for
> implementing and executing the SSO program to determine if they are
> familiar with the role of SSO personnel relative to the Facility
> Representatives and the contractor's cognizant system engineers, if
> they provide adequate resources for training, qualification, future
> staffing, and performance of SSO personnel, and if they appropriately
> qualified to perform their assigned role in the SSO program. Interview
> qualifying officials to determine if they are familiar with their role
> and responsibility, they are currently qualified, and they are
> performing their assigned role.
>
> Field Observation: Evaluate any process used by or directed by the
> Field Element Manager to determine the effectiveness of SSO Program
> Performance.

**TRAINING AND QUALIFICATION (TQ)**

[OBJECTIVE]{.underline}

**TQ.1** SSO personnel and supervisors with responsibilities for SSO
personnel are appropriately trained and qualified, or are in the process
of achieving qualification.

> [Criteria]{.underline}

1.  Supervisors with responsibilities for SSO personnel maintain Senior
    Technical Safety Manager (STSM) qualification (DOE M 426.1-1A,
    Chapter III, Section 1, 2.c (1)).

2.  Site-specific qualification standards and cards have been developed
    and a documented process is implemented to assure that SSO
    candidates meet, at a minimum, the SSO knowledge, skills, and
    abilities specified in the *Federal Technical Capability Manual*
    DDOE 426.1-1A, Chapter III, Section 1, 5.a & 5.b)

3.  All SSO personnel have completed or are completing the General
    Technical Base Qualification Standard (DOE-STD-1146-2001) and one or
    more Functional Area Qualification Standard(s) in a technical area
    linked to their individual job descriptions (DOE M 426.1-1A, Chapter
    III, Section 1, 4.a).

4.  All SSO personnel have completed or are completing the site-specific
    qualification standard associated with assigned safety systems (DOE
    M 426.1-1A, Chapter III, Section 1, 4.a).

5.  SSO Supervisors have established methods to assign initial
    qualification dates, track progress toward qualification, and ensure
    retraining/requalification occurs as required for each SSO candidate
    in the qualification process (DOE M 426.1-1A, Chapter III, Section
    1, 2.c (4) through (6)).

> [Approach]{.underline}
>
> Record Review: Review qualification records to establish that
> supervisors and managers of SSO are qualified as an STSM and that SSO
> personnel are trained and qualified. Review qualification and
> requalification schedules, staffing plans, training plans, travel
> funding, etc. to determine that sufficient resources are provided for
> training, retraining, qualifying, and requalifying SSO personnel.
>
> Interviews: Interview supervisors, training coordinators, SSO
> personnel, and budget personnel to establish that training and
> qualification plans and schedules are being executed as planned and
> that sufficient resources are provided to meet the schedules.
>
> Field Observation: Observe activities associated with the
> qualification process, such as qualification boards, exams, walk
> throughs to determine that the training and qualification process is
> implemented and functioning effectively.

**MANAGEMENT (MG)**

[OBJECTIVE]{.underline}

**MG.1** SSO Supervisors effectively perform their SSO program
responsibilities.

> [Criteria]{.underline}

1.  Site-specific SSO qualification standards and cards are developed
    (DOE M 426.1-1A, Chapter III, Section 1, 2.c (2)).

2.  Supervisors have identified and approved SSO candidate selection
    (DOE M 426.1-1A, Chapter III, Section 1, 2.c (3)).

3.  Supervisors of SSO personnel have established SSO personnel
    qualification schedules and are tracking progress (DOE M 426.1-1A,
    Chapter III, Section 1, 2.c (4)).

4.  Supervisors facilitate SSO qualification (e.g., ensure sufficient
    time and training are provided to complete qualification tasks) (DOE
    M 426.1-1A, Chapter III, Section 1, 2.c (5)).

5.  Supervisors ensure SSO personnel are trained and qualified to
    perform assigned duties (DOE M 426.1-1A, Chapter III, Section 1, 2.c
    (6)).

6.  SSO responsibilities are included and measured in Individual
    Performance Plans (DOE M 426.1-1A, Chapter III, Section 1, 2.c (7)).

7.  Ensure SSO qualifications are maintained current by training and
    assignments planned in Individual Development Plans (DOE M 426.1-1A,
    Chapter III, Section 1, 2.c (8)).

8.  SSO Supervisors periodically evaluate program effectiveness and
    implement corrective actions in a timely manner (DOE M 426.1-1A,
    Chapter III, Section 1, 2.c (9)).

> [Approach]{.underline}
>
> Record Review: Review qualification cards, Individual Performance
> Plans, and other SSO program documents and procedures to establish
> that managers and supervisors are effectively performing their
> responsibilities as defined in the SSO program. Review other
> documentation used by supervisors to establish SSO program
> effectiveness and implementation of corrective actions.
>
> Interviews: Interview supervisors and managers to establish that they
> are familiar with their assigned roles, they perform their assigned
> duties, monitor the effectiveness of the SSO program and ensure any
> identified corrective actions are implemented.
>
> Field Observation: Observe any activities associated with SSO program
> effectiveness evaluations and/or corrective action implementation.

**OVERSIGHT PERFORMANCE (OP)**

[OBJECTIVE]{.underline}

**OP.1** Collectively, SSO personnel provide oversight of the
Contractors' System Engineer Program.

> [Criteria]{.underline}

1.  Oversight performed by SSO personnel establishes that the contractor
    System Engineer Program is effectively implemented with goals,
    objectives, and performance measures (DOE M 426.1-1A, Chapter III,
    Section 1, 2.a (1)).

2.  SSO personnel maintain communication with the contractor's cognizant
    System Engineer (DOE M 426.1-1A, Chapter III, Section 1, 2.a (1)).

3.  SSO personnel monitor performance of the contractor's cognizant
    System Engineer Program (DOE M 426.1-1A, Chapter III, Section 1, 2.a
    (1)).

4.  SSO personnel attend selected contractor meetings with Facility
    Representatives and contractor personnel responsible for system
    performance (e.g., cognizant System Engineers, design authorities,
    and program managers) (DOE M 426.1-1A, Chapter III, Section 1, 2.a
    (3)).

> [Approach]{.underline}
>
> Record Review: Review oversight documentation, such as SSO assessment
> reports, SSO walk throughs, correspondence, SSO activity records or
> logs, corrective action documents, etc. to establish that SSO
> personnel are overseeing implementation and execution of the
> contractor system engineer program. Review the contractor's system
> engineer program to determine whether there are any program weaknesses
> or deficiencies that have not been identified by SSO personnel.
>
> Interviews: Interview SSO personnel, Facility Representatives, and
> contractor system engineers to establish the level of interface
> between SSO personnel and the contractor's cognizant system engineers.
>
> Field Observation: Observe any oversight activities of the
> contractor's system engineer program performed by SSO personnel.

# OBJECTIVE

**OP.2** SSO personnel are knowledgeable and familiar with assigned
safety systems and/or programs.

> [Criteria]{.underline}

1.  A qualified SSO is, in fact, knowledgeable of the system status,
    performance, maintenance, operations, design, and vulnerabilities of
    their assigned systems or programs. This is evidenced by:

    1.  SSO personnel regularly and routinely review periodic system
        health/status reports (DOE M 426.1-1A, Chapter III, Section 1,
        2.a (2)).

    2.  SSO personnel review test results, investigation reports, root
        cause analyses, etc (DOE M 426.1-1A, Chapter III, Section 1, 2.a
        (2)).

    3.  SSO personnel interface with external organizations that can
        provide insights on performance (DOE M 426.1-1A, Chapter III,
        Section 1, 2.a (2)).

    4.  SSO personnel perform assessments, periodic evaluations of
        equipment configuration and material condition and safety
        management program implementation (DOE M 426.1-1A, Chapter III,
        Section 1, 2.a (3)).

    5.  SSO personnel evaluate the effects of aging on system equipment
        and components, the adequacy of work control and change control
        processes, and consider the appropriateness of system
        maintenance and surveillance activities with respect to reliable
        performance of safety function(s) (DOE M 426.1-1A, Chapter III,
        Section 1, 2.a (3)).

    6.  SSO personnel identify technical issues and participate actively
        in the resolution of the issues.

2.  Safety systems and safety management programs have established
    goals, objectives, and performance measures

3.  SSO personnel perform evaluations of contractor troubleshooting,
    investigations, root cause evaluations, and selection and
    implementation of corrective actions, in conjunction with Facility
    Representatives (DOE M 426.1-1A, Chapter III, Section 1, 2.a (4)).

4.  SSO personnel provide support to other Federal employees, as
    appropriate. (DOE M 426.1-1A, Chapter III, Section 1, 2.a (5))

5.  SSO personnel assess contractor compliance with relevant DOE
    regulations, industry standards, contract requirements, safety basis
    requirements, and other system requirements (DOE M 426.1-1A, Chapter
    III, Section 1, 2.a (6)).

6.  SSO personnel confirm configuration documentation, procedures, and
    other sources of controlling information are current and accurate
    (DOE M 426.1-1A, Chapter III, Section 1, 2.a (7)).

7.  SSO personnel report potential or emergent hazards immediately to
    DOE line management and Facility Representatives (DOE M 426.1-1A,
    Chapter III, Section 1, 2.a (8)).

8.  SSO personnel stop tasks, if required, to prevent imminent impact to
    the health and safety of workers and the public, to protect the
    environment, or to protect the facility and equipment and
    immediately notify the on-duty or on-call Facility Representative
    (DOE M 426.1-1A, Chapter III, Section 1, 2.a (8)).

9.  SSO personnel serve, when assigned, as qualifying officials in the
    development or revision of Functional Area Qualification Standards,
    mentor assigned backups, and qualify other candidates to the
    Functional Area Qualifications Standards needed to achieve Safety
    System oversight qualification (DOE M 426.1-1A, Chapter III, Section
    1, 2.a (9)).

10. SSO personnel maintain cognizance of the appropriate funding and
    resources to maintain and improve safety systems (DOE M 426.1-1A,
    Chapter III, Section 1, 2.a (10)).

11. Methods have been established for SSO personnel to routinely
    communicate system/program performance information and issues with
    STSMs and the Field Office Manager (DOE M 426.1-1A, Chapter III,
    Section 1, 2.a (1)).

> [Approach]{.underline}
>
> Record Review: Review oversight documentation, such as SSO assessment
> reports, SSO walk throughs, correspondence, SSO activity records or
> logs, corrective action documents, etc. to establish that SSO
> personnel are performing required oversight. Review contract
> requirements and their flow down through the contract to the safety
> systems and safety management programs to establish the effectiveness
> of SSO personnel oversight that the contractor complies with all
> requirements relative to safety systems and programs. Review a sample
> of the safety system health reports, safety system test reports,
> safety system investigation reports, safety system root cause
> analyses, etc. to determine the effectiveness of SSO personnel
> knowledge and familiarity with this information.
>
> Interviews: Interview SSO personnel to determine their knowledge of
> and familiarity with assigned safety systems and safety management
> programs, and the reports that the contractor may generate in relation
> to the systems and programs.
>
> Field Observation: Observe SSO personnel walk downs and other
> activities in the field to establish the level of SSO personnel
> knowledge and familiarity of safety systems.