DOE - EM - SRP - 2010

2nd Edition
Environmental Management

Standard
Review Plan (SRP)
Overview

Technical Framework for EM Projects Critical Decision (CD)

Milestones Review & Approval

March 2010

Office of Environmental Management

U.S. Department of Energy
Washington D. C. 20585
This page intentionally left blank.
Standard Review Plan, 2nd Edition, March 2010

Standard Review Plan Overview

Technical Framework for EM Projects

Critical Decision Milestones Review and Approval

The Office of Environmental Management (EM) is responsible for managing the design,
construction, operation, and eventual disposition of mission-critical projects/facilities. Coupled
with this ongoing mission is the added responsibility for EM to diligently leverage and apply
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) funds to accelerate the completion of its
mission and create thousands of new jobs to revitalize the economy.

Effective management of these projects requires multiple disciplines to be integrated and

engaged at various project lifecycle phases. These disciplines include project management,
engineering, design, safety, environment, safeguards and security, and quality assurance. The
lessons learned to date from ongoing Headquarters (HQ) and Field project reviews, insights
resulting from Construction Project Reviews (CPRs), and institutional experience gained in
managing large-scale projects have highlighted the need for a more focused, technically in-depth,
and standardized approach to project reviews performed at Critical Decision (CD) points.

The Standard Review Plan (SRP) serves as the corporate framework designed to formalize the
Department of Energy (DOE) and EM institutional processes and requirements associated with
the review of project activities in support of CD approvals. The SRP has been developed as a
collaborative effort between EM and the Chief of Nuclear Safety (CNS), Office of the Under
Secretary. It is modeled after similar principles used extensively and successfully by the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (NRC) for evaluating U.S. commercial nuclear industry licensed
activities.

The technical basis and foundation for the SRP are centered on project expectations and
requirements defined in DOE O 413.3A, Change 1, Program and Project Management for the
Acquisition of Capital Assets, DOE-STD-1189-2008, Integration of Safety into the Design
Process, and EM’s internal business management practices. It also leverages the best practices
and lessons learned from the Office of Engineering and Construction Management (OECM),
Office of Science (SC), National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), EM HQ and Field
reviews, existing project review guides and protocols, and consensus standards.

The SRP is developed in a series of standalone Review Modules (RMs) and Topical Reports,
which provide a set of core performance objectives and criteria in addressing specific project
review areas tailored to each CD phase. The Second Edition of the SRP consists of 28 review
modules and Topical Reports. Each RM or Topical Report addresses specific disciplines grouped
by: Project Management; Engineering and Design; Safety; Environment; Security; and Quality
Assurance.

Corporately, the SRP is designed to enhance the transparency and clarity of DOE requirements
and expectations related to capital and construction projects; ensure a technically sound and
rigorous review process; and, most importantly, promote technical consistency and stability in
1
Standard Review Plan, 2nd Edition, March 2010

the decisionmaking process. The key contribution and value added by the SRP to improve
project efficiencies and the likelihood of success is that it provides:

1. Added clarity to, and streamlining of, project roles, responsibilities, accountabilities, and
authorities, both at the HQ and the Field level;

2. Reduced overlaps, redundancy, and duplication in the number and scope of project
reviews;

3. Integrated and synergistic project reviews, resulting in a reduced burden on site resources
and ensuring a technically sound, consistent, and focused review process: which, in turn,
provides the added benefit of ensuring that DOE expectations and review criteria are
clearly conveyed to contractors;

4. An increased likelihood that unforeseen design, construction, operational, deactivation,

and decommissioning issues and risks are identified earlier and addressed before they
impact project progress and success; and

5. A technically objective and defensible basis for Critical Decision approval.

The attachments to this section provide additional information on the overall application of the
SRP:

Attachment 1 illustrates the prerequisite activities for the various CD phases. These activities are
consistent with the requirements of DOE O 413.3A, Change 1, Program and Project
Management for the Acquisition of Capital Assets, and EM expectations.

Attachment 2 provides a listing of key documents to support CD approvals. The key documents
reflect the contractor and DOE documentation, review, and analysis of the prerequisite activities
listed in Attachment 1.

Attachment 3 lists the key management questions to support review and approval of each CD
phase. These questions are intended as a guide for senior management discussions during
project reviews.

Attachment 4 provides a depiction of the applicability of SRP RMs to each CD phase.

Attachments 5 and 6 present the intended audience for the use and corporate application of each
section of the SRP.

Attachment 7 provides a suggested format and content guide for preparing individual review
plans and final reports.

Finally, Attachment 8 acknowledges the individuals who have contributed to the development
and application of the SRP.

2
Standard Review Plan, 2nd Edition, March 2010

Attachment 1

Prerequisite Activities for

Critical Decision Review and Approval

A1-1
Standard Review Plan, 2nd Edition, March 2010

This page intentionally left blank.

A1-2
 Attachment 1
Master Roadmap for EM Capital Projects (Critical Decision Approval Prerequisite Activities)

Approval on Performance Approval on Start of Approval on Start of

Approval on Mission Need Approval on Alternative Operations and Post CD-4
Baseline Construction
Activities
Prepare a preliminary Project Execution Plan Update the Project Execution Plan Verify Key Performance Parameters or Project
Completion Criteria have been met and
Perform Pre-conceptual Planning activities Prepare an Acquisition Strategy Establish Performance Baseline
Update all CD-2 project documentation and mission requirements achieved
Prepare Mission Need Statement Comply with the One-for-One Replacement Employ an Earned Value Management System required approvals to reflect any changes
legislation Perform final administrative and financial closeout
resulting from final Design, including Project
Prepare a Tailoring Strategy if required and prepare a Final Project Closeout Report
Project Approve appointment of the Federal Project
Data Sheet, etc
Management Perform a Mission Validation Independent Director Perform a Performance Baseline Validation External
Perform an External Independent Review for
Prepare a Lessons Learned Report
Project Review Independent Review (OECM) or a Performance
Establish and charter an Integrated Project Team Construction or Execution Readiness (OECM) Conduct Post Implementation Review
Baseline Validation Independent Project Review
Evaluate projects for Information Technology
Approve Long-Lead Procurements, if necessary Develop an Independent Cost Estimate or Initiate a Project Transition to Operations Plan Issue a Project Transition to Operations Plan
elements within the Departmental Enterprise
Architecture framework perform an Independent Cost Review for Major
System Projects

Conduct Technical Independent Review for

Nuclear Projects
Initiate a Checkout, Testing, and Commissioning Complete a Checkout, Testing, and
Prepare a Project Data Sheet Update the Project Data Sheet, if applicable Plan Commissioning Plan
Engineering Conduct Technical Independent Project Review
Prepare a Conceptual Design Report Prepare a Preliminary Design Prepare Final Design
and Design for Nuclear Projects
Conduct Conceptual Design Review Conduct a Preliminary Design Review Conduct Final Design Review
Develop Design Code of Record
Initiate Code of Record Development Update and Control Change to Code of Record Update and Control Change to Code of Record Update and Control Change to Code of Record

Prepare a Safety Design Strategy for projects

Update Safety Design Strategy Update Safety Design Strategy
subject to DOE STD 1189
Prepare a Conceptual Safety Design Report for Prepare the Preliminary Documented Safety Prepare the Documented Safety Analysis with
Prepare a Preliminary Safety Design Report
Hazard Category 1, 2, and 3 nuclear facilities Analysis Technical Safety Requirements
Nuclear and Determine major potential hazards and safety/risk Prepare a Conceptual Safety Validation Report Prepare a Preliminary Safety Validation Report Prepare a Safety Evaluation Report Prepare a Safety Evaluation Report
Facility Safety implication
Prepare a Preliminary Hazard Analysis Report for
Prepare a Hazard Analysis Report and obtain Update the Hazard Analysis Report and obtain Finalize the Hazard Analysis Report and obtain
facilities that are below Hazard Category 3
DOE approval DOE approval DOE approval
threshold
Initiate a Readiness Assessment or an Operational Complete a Readiness Assessment or an
Readiness Review. As a precursor to ORR, Operational Readiness Review. As a precursor to
Implement Integrated Safety Management conduct an Management Self-Assessment ORR, conduct an Management Self-Assessment

Implement Integrated Safety Management (see

Implement Integrated Safety Management Implement Integrated Safety Management Implement Integrated Safety Management
nuclear safety)
Worker Safety None at this CD stage Prepare a Construction Project Safety and
Update the Construction Project Safety and
Health Plan and obtain DOE approval as
Health Plan
defined in 10 CFR 851

Incorporate Preliminary Sustainable Incorporate Sustainable Environmental

Initiate National Environmental Policy Act Document High Performance Sustainable Environmental Stewardship-High Performance Stewardship-High Performance Sustainable
strategy and analyses Building considerations Sustainable Building provisions into the Building provisions into the Final Design and the
Environment preliminary design and design review External Independent Review
Prepare environmental documents including Complete (or obtain approval of) final National Revise the Environmental Management System
National Environmental Policy Act strategy and Environmental Policy Act documentation, which to ensure that it incorporates new environmental Maintain Environment Management System
analyses, and permit applications must be completed prior to the start of final design aspects related to turnover and operations

Prepare a Preliminary Security Vulnerability Update the Preliminary Security Vulnerability Update the Preliminary Security Vulnerability Finalize the Security Vulnerability Assessment
Assessment Report Assessment Report Assessment Report Report
None at this CD stage
Security Finalize the Cyber Security Plan for Information
Prepare an Initial Cyber Security Plan Update the Initial Cyber Security Plan Update the Cyber Security Plan Technology projects and complete the
Certification and Accreditation, as required

Issue an updated Quality Assurance Plan to

Quality Determine that the Quality Assurance Program Determine that the Quality Assurance Program Update the Quality Assurance Program for
None at this CD stage address testing, identified deficiencies, and
Assurance is acceptable is acceptable and continues to apply
startup, transition, and operation activities
operations

January 2010

A1-3
Standard Review Plan, 2nd Edition, March 2010

This page intentionally left blank.

A1-4
Standard Review Plan, 2nd Edition, March 2010

Attachment 2

Key Documents for

Critical Decision Review and Approval

A2-1
Standard Review Plan, 2nd Edition, March 2010

This page intentionally left blank.

A2-2
 Attachment 2
Master Roadmap for EM Capital Projects (Key Documents for Critical Decision Approval Review)

Approval on Start of
Approval on Mission Need Approval on Alternative Approval on Performance Approval on Start of
Operations and Post CD-4
Baseline Construction
Activities
Project Execution Plan Updated Project Execution Plan Updated Project Execution Plan
Detailed Resource Loaded Schedule Updated Detailed Resource Loaded Schedule Documents on verification of Key Performance
Detailed Cost and Schedule Estimates Updated Detailed Cost Estimate Parameters or Project Completion Criteria

Risk Management Plan Updated Risk Management Plan Updated Risk Management Plan Project Transition to Operations Plan

Project Mission Need Statement Alternatives Analysis document Contingency Analysis and Plan Final Project Closeout Report
Updated Value Management and
Management Earned Value Management System documents Engineering Report Lessons Learned Report
Acquisition Strategy Acquisition Strategy/Plan Updated Acquisition Strategy
Documents on operations procedures
Long Lead Procurement documents, if applied Funding Profile documents Updated Funding Profile documents
Post Implementation Review report
Startup Plan, when appropriate Updated Startup Plan, when appropriate
Integrated Project Team Charter
EIR report on Performance Baseline Validation EIR report on Construction Readiness Review

Code of Record Approved Code of Record Approved Code of Record Approved Code of Record
Technology Readiness Assessment Drawings, specifications and design lists Construction planning documents

System Functions and Requirements

Engineering None at this CD stage documents (Design Criteria) Final Design documents, including drawing and
and Design specs Final Design documents for operations
Conceptual Design Report Preliminary Design Report
Conceptual Design Review Report Preliminary Design Review documents Final design review documents
Project Data Sheet for design Updated Project Data Sheet Initial Checkout, Testing and Commissioning Plan Final Checkout, Testing, and Commissioning Plan

Safety Design Strategy Updated Safety Design Strategy Updated Safety Design Strategy Final Safety Design Strategy
Documented Safety Analysis with Technical
Conceptual Safety Design Report Preliminary Safety Design Report Preliminary Documented Safety Analysis report Safety Requirements
Documentation of major potential hazards and Conceptual Safety Validation Report Preliminary Safety Validation Report Safety Evaluation Report Safety Evaluation Report
Nuclear and safety/risk implication as part of Mission Need
Preliminary Hazard Analysis Report for
Statement Hazard Analysis Report (non nuclear) Updated Hazard Analysis Report (non nuclear) Updated Hazard Analysis Report (non nuclear)
Facility Safety non-nuclear project
DOE review of PHA Report DOE review of Hazard Analysis Report DOE review of Hazard Analysis Report DOE review of Hazard Analysis Report
Readiness Review or Operational Readiness
Review Report
ISM documents

ISM documents (same as above) ISM documents ISM documents ISM documents
Construction Project Safety and Health Plan Updated Construction Project Safety and Health Plan
Worker Safety
None at this CD stage Hazard Analysis Report and approval (see Updated Hazard Analysis Report and approval Updated Hazard Analysis Report and approval
Nuclear Safety) (see Nuclear Safety) (see Nuclear Safety)

Permit applications/Compliance
NEPA documents Final NEPA documents
Environment None at this CD stage
High Performance Sustainable Building Final Sustainable Building considerations Environment Management System
Sustainable Building considerations documents
considerations documents documents

Preliminary Security Vulnerability Assessment Updated Preliminary Security Vulnerability Updated Preliminary Security Vulnerability Security Vulnerability Assessment Report, if
Security None at this CD stage Report, if applied Assessment Report, if applied Assessment Report, if applied applied

Initial Cyber Security Plan, if applied Updated Cyber Security Plan, if applied Updated Cyber Security Plan, if applied Cyber Security Plan, if applied

Quality Updated QA Plan

None at this CD stage QA Plan Updated QA Plan Updated QA Plan for construction
Assurance
January 2010

A2-3
Standard Review Plan, 2nd Edition, March 2010

This page intentionally left blank.

A2-4
Standard Review Plan, 2nd Edition, March 2010

Attachment 3

Key Management Questions for

Critical Decision Review and Approval

A3-1
Standard Review Plan, 2nd Edition, March 2010

This page intentionally left blank.

A3-2
Standard Review Plan, 2nd Edition, March 2010

Attachment 3
Key Management Questions for Critical Decision Review and Approval

KEY QUESTIONS FOR CRITICAL DECISION REVIEW AND APPROVAL1 YES NO

CD-0 (Approval of Mission Need)

 Have pre-conceptual planning activities been performed that focus on the
program’s strategic goals and objectives, safety, environment, security, and design?
(all project areas)
 Has a Mission Need Statement been prepared that documents mission technical
and functional requirements, priority, and constraints? (PM)
 Have all significant project issues been identified, resolved, and documented? (PM)
 Has project reviews been completed, including Mission Validation Independent
Project Review and Construction Project Review, as directed by EM
management? (PM)
 If applicable, have the Information Technology elements within the Departmental
Enterprise Architecture framework been evaluated? (PM)
 Have the potential hazards and their safety, security, and risk implications been
identified and documented in the Mission Need Statement? (NFS, E, S)

CD-1 (Approval of Alternative Selection and Cost Range)

 Has a Risk Management Plan been prepared, and are all project risks identified,
analyzed, and determined to be either avoidable or manageable? (all project areas)
 Has an Acquisition Strategy been completed? (PM)
 Has an Integrated Project Team (IPT) been chartered and organized, and is it
functioning? (PM)
 Has the Federal Project Director (FPD) been appointed and certified at the
appropriate level? (PM)
 Has the preliminary Project Execution Plan, including baseline range and
documents, been submitted for approval? (PM)
 Have Long-Lead Procurements been approved, if necessary? (PM)
 Does the project comply with One-for-One Replacement legislation as mandated in
House Report 109-86? (PM)
 Is the Conceptual Design Report complete after design review by the contractor?
(ED)
 Has DOE completed the conceptual design review and prepared a Conceptual
Design Review Report? If it is a nuclear project, has a Technical Independent
Project Review been conducted to determine if the safety documentation is
adequate? (ED, NFS)
 Has EM management directed a project review such as a Construction Project
Review, Technical Authority Review, or Technology Readiness Assessment to
support CD-1 approval? Are the review recommendations being implemented by the
project? (all project areas)
 Has the Project Data Sheet for design been submitted? (ED and PM)
 Has the project established a Code of Record that contains a set of requirements
that are used to design, construct, operate, and decommission a nuclear facility over

1
PM = Project Management, ED =Engineering & Design, NFS = Nuclear Facility Safety, WS = Worker Safety,
E = Environmental, S = Security, QA = Quality Assurance.

A3-3
Standard Review Plan, 2nd Edition, March 2010

KEY QUESTIONS FOR CRITICAL DECISION REVIEW AND APPROVAL1 YES NO

its lifespan? Has DOE reviewed and approved the Code of Record, and has the
contractor placed it under change control (all project areas)
 Has a Safety Design Strategy been prepared, reviewed and approved by DOE?
(NFS)
 Has the contractor developed a Conceptual Safety Design Report (CSDR) per
DOE-STD-1189? (NFS)
 Has DOE prepared a Conceptual Safety Design Validation Report on the review
of the CSDR? (NFS)
 Has a Preliminary Hazard Analysis Report been prepared, if the project is non-
nuclear? (FS and WS)
 Has DOE reviewed and approved the Preliminary Hazard Analysis Report? (FS
and WS)
 Has the Integrated Safety Management process been initiated and documented for
the project? (NFS, WS)
 Have the High-Performance Sustainable Building considerations been evaluated
and documented? (E)
 Have environmental documents been prepared, including National Environmental
Policy Act strategy and analyses, and permit applications? (E)
 Has a Preliminary Security Vulnerability Assessment Report been prepared? (S)
 Has an initial Cyber Security Plan been prepared? (E)
 Is the site-wide Quality Assurance Program acceptable to the project? (QA)
 Has an External Technical Review (ETR) of technical alternatives and the
conceptual design been conducted? (ED)
 Has a Technology Readiness Assessment (TRA) been conducted? (ED)
 Has a Technology Maturation Plan (TMP) been developed? (ED)

CD-2 (Approval of Performance Baseline)

 Has the project established a Performance Baseline? (PM)
 Has a Performance Baseline External Independent Review been conducted by
OECM, including an Independent Cost Estimate? Have the Corrective Actions
been completed? (all project areas)
 Has EM management directed a project review such as a Construction Project
Review, Technical Authority Review, and Technology Readiness Assessment
to support CD-2 approval? Are the review recommendations being implemented by
the project? (all project areas)
 Has a Risk Management Plan been updated to determine if risks have been
identified and properly classified? Are appropriate risk mitigation actions incorporated
into the baseline? (all project areas)
 Has an Acquisition Strategy been updated? Is it consistent with the way the
project is being executed? (PM)
 Has an Integrated Project Team (IPT) been fully staffed and is it functioning
properly? Are there any deficiencies in the IPT that could hinder successful execution
of the project? (PM)
 Is the Federal Project Director’s level of certification still valid? (PM)
 Has the Project Execution Plan been updated? (PM)
 Have a detailed Resource-Loaded Schedule and Total Project Cost and Project
Schedule been completed? (PM)
 Does the Work Breakdown Structure represent a reasonable breakdown of the
project work scope? (PM)
 Has an Earned Value Management System been employed and approved? (PM)

A3-4
Standard Review Plan, 2nd Edition, March 2010

KEY QUESTIONS FOR CRITICAL DECISION REVIEW AND APPROVAL1 YES NO

 Is the Preliminary Design Report completed as part of the contractor’s Design

Review? (ED)
 Are the Systems, Functions, and Requirements documents completed and
included in the Code of Record and are they in the project baseline, including
safety, permits, licenses, and regulatory approvals? (ED)
 Has the Code of Record been reviewed and approved by DOE? Has the contractor
placed the Code of Record under change control? (all project areas)
 Has DOE completed the preliminary design review and prepared a Preliminary
Design Review Report? (ED)
 Has the updated Project Data Sheet for design been submitted? (PM, ED)
 Has a Safety Design Strategy been updated, reviewed, and approved by DOE for
addressing early integration of safety into design? (NFS)
 Has the contractor developed a Preliminary Safety Design Report (PSDR) per
DOE-STD-1189? (NFS)
 Has DOE prepared a Preliminary Safety Validation Report (PSVR) on the review
of the PSDR? (NFS)
 Has the Hazard Analysis Report been updated, if the project is non-nuclear? (FS
and WS)
 Has DOE reviewed and approved the Hazard Analysis Report? (FS and WS)
 Has the Integrated Safety Management process been continuously implemented?
(NFS, WS)
 Have the High-Performance Sustainable Building considerations been
documented and incorporated into the project? (E)
 Have a National Environmental Policy Act document and Record of Decision
been prepared? (E)
 Has a Security Vulnerability Assessment Report been updated and documented?
(S)
 Has a Cyber Security Plan been updated? (E)
 Has the Quality Assurance Program been updated for the design phase? (QA)
 Has an External Technical Review (ETR) of the preliminary design been
conducted? (ED)
 Has a Technology Readiness Assessment (TRA) been conducted? (ED)
 Has a Technology Maturation Plan (TMP) been implemented (ED)

CD-3 (Approval of Start of Construction)

 Has a construction readiness External Independent Review been conducted by
OECM? Have the corrective actions been completed? (all project areas)
 Has EM management directed a project reviews such as a Construction Project
Review, Technical Authority Review, Technology Readiness Assessment,
Construction Readiness Review, or Worker Safety reviews to support CD-3
approval? Are the review recommendations being implemented by the project? (all
project areas)
 Has the contractor prepared a Construction Readiness Plan? Has EM conducted
a Construction Readiness Review besides the OECM External Independent
Review (EIR)? (all project areas)
 Has a Risk Management Plan been updated to determine whether new risks have
been identified in the final design and the risks have been properly classified? (all
project areas)
 Has an Acquisition Strategy been updated? Is it consistent with the way the
project is being executed? (PM)

A3-5
Standard Review Plan, 2nd Edition, March 2010

KEY QUESTIONS FOR CRITICAL DECISION REVIEW AND APPROVAL1 YES NO

 Is an Integrated Project Team (IPT) fully staffed and functioning properly for the
construction phase? Are there any deficiencies in the IPT that could hinder
successful construction execution? (PM)
 Is the Federal Project Director’s level of certification still valid? (PM)
 Has the Project Execution Plan been updated to reflect final design and does it
support the way the project and construction effort is being managed? (PM)
 Have the detailed Resource-Loaded Schedule and Total Project Cost and
Project Schedule updated? (PM)
 Has an Earned Value Management System been continuously employed? (PM)
 Is the Project Transition to Operation Plan being initiated? (PM)
 Is a Final Design Report complete and have its contents been reviewed and
approved by the contractor? ED)
 Has DOE also completed the final design review and prepared a Final Design
Review Report? (ED)
 Are the Systems, Functions, and Requirements documents completed and have
they been added to the Performance Baseline and in the Code of Record, including
safety, permits, licenses, and regulatory approvals? Are changes from the final
design review incorporated into the Performance Baseline? (ED)
 Is the Code of Record under change control by the contractor? (all project areas)
 Has the contractor completed the Construction Project Safety and Health Plan
prior to CD-3 approval, as required by 10 CFR Part 851? Has DOE reviewed and
approved this plan? (WS)
 Has a Checkout, Testing, and Commissioning Plan been initiated prior to CD-3
approval? (ED)
 Has the contractor developed a Preliminary Documented Safety Analysis
(PDSA)? (NFS)
 Has DOE prepared a Safety Evaluation Report (SER) on the review of the PDSA?
(NFS)
 Has a Hazard Analysis Report been updated, if the project is non-nuclear? (FS and
WS)
 Has DOE reviewed and approved the Hazard Analysis Report, if applicable? (FS and
WS)
 Has the Integrated Safety Management process been validated for construction
activities? (NFS, WS)
 Have the High-Performance Sustainable Building evaluations been completed,
integrated to the design, and documented? (E)
 Have NEPA documents been completed? (E)
 Has a Security Vulnerability Assessment Report been updated and documented?
(S)
 Has the Cyber Security Plan been updated? (E)
 Has the Quality Assurance Program Plan been modified for construction activities
and testing? (QA)
 Has an External Technical Review of the final design been conducted? (ED)
 Has a Technology Readiness Assessment (TRA) been conducted? (ED)
 Has a Technology Maturation Plan (TMP) been implemented? (ED)

CD-4 (Approval of Start of Operations)

 Have verifications been performed to determine if Key Performance Parameters or
Project Completion Criteria have been met and mission requirements have been
achieved? (PM)

A3-6
Standard Review Plan, 2nd Edition, March 2010

KEY QUESTIONS FOR CRITICAL DECISION REVIEW AND APPROVAL1 YES NO

 Has a Checkout, Testing, and Commissioning Plan been completed prior to the
start of operations? (PM, ED, and NFS)
 Has a Readiness Assessment or an Operational Readiness Review been
completed, and have all pre-start findings been resolved? (PM, ED, and NFS)
 Has a Management Self-Assessment been performed as part of the commissioning
and readiness review? (PM)
 Has EM management directed additional project reviews such as a Construction
Project Review, Technical Authority Review, or Technology Readiness
Assessment to support CD-4 approval? Are the review recommendations being
implemented by the project? (all project areas)
 Is an Integrated Project Team (IPT) fully staffed and is it functioning properly for the
testing, commissioning, and project readiness phase? Are there any deficiencies in
the IPT that could hinder successful construction execution? (PM)
 Is the Federal Project Director’s level of certification still valid? (PM)
 Has the Construction Project Safety and Health Plan been updated? (WS)
 Has a Project Transition to Operations Plan been developed? (all project areas)
 Has the Documented Safety Analysis (DSA) been finalized and have the
Technical Safety Requirements (TSRs) been established?( NFS)
 Has DOE reviewed and approved the DSA and TSRs and prepared a Safety
Evaluation Report (SER)? (NFS)
 Has the Hazard Analysis Report been finalized and have DOE review and approval
been obtained prior to operations? (FS and WS)
 Are the NEPA documents and the High-Performance Sustainable Building
documents finalized and incorporated into the project’s Environmental
Management System? (E)
 Is the Security Vulnerability Assessment Report finalized? (S)
 Is the Cyber Security Plan finalized? (S)
 Has the Quality Assurance Plan been updated? (QA)
 Has the Code of Record been updated and kept under change control by the
contractor? (all project areas)
Post CD-4 Requirements
 Has a Final Project Closeout Report been prepared? (PM)
 Has a Lessons-Learned Report been prepared and submitted to OECM? (PM)
 Is all of the Operational Documentation completed? (PM)
 Has a Post-Implementation Review been conducted for Information Technology
project? (PM)
 Are there project policies or procedures to ensure that the Code of Record is being
kept under change control for operations and eventual decommissioning? (all project
areas)

A3-7
Standard Review Plan, 2nd Edition, March 2010

This page intentionally left blank.

A3-8
Standard Review Plan, 2nd Edition, March 2010

Attachment 4

Applicability of Individual SRP Review Modules and

Topical Reports to
Critical Decision Phases

A4-1
Standard Review Plan, 2nd Edition, March 2010

This page intentionally left blank.

A4-2
Standard Review Plan, 2nd Edition, March 2010

Attachment 4
Applicability of Individual SRP Review Modules and Topical Reports to
2
Critical Decision Phases

Applicable CD Phase(s)4
SRP
SRP Subsection Post
Section3 CD-0 CD-1 CD-2 CD-3 CD-4
CD-4
Overview of Critical Decision
Framework and Strategy
Overview Suggested Format and Content
Guide for Preparation of Project
Review Plans and Final Reports
Project Execution Plan Review
Module
Risk Management
Integrated Project Team
Earned Value Management
System (EVMS)
Acquisition Strategy
Decommissioning Plan
Site Transition Guidance
Project Facility Transition Plan
Management Deactivation Plan
Long Term Surveillance and
Maintenance Plan
Verification of Key Performance
Parameters and Project
Completion Criteria
Project Transition to Operations
Plan
Lessons Learned
Mission Need
Post Implementation Review
Project Data Sheet
Contract Requirements
Final Project Closeout
Operational Documentation
Conceptual Design
Engineering
and Design Preliminary Design
Final Design

2
Blue: Review Modules and Topical Reports included in 2nd Revision of SRP, March 2010.
Orange: Review Modules under development for inclusion in the planned 3rd Edition of SRP in FY 2010.
3
Consistent with DOE O 413.3A, Program and Project Management for the Acquisition of Capital Assets
4
Definitions: CD-0: Approval of Mission Need; CD-1: Approval of Alternative Selection and Cost Range
(Conceptual Design); CD-2: Approval of Performance Baseline (Preliminary Design); CD-3: Approval on Start of
Construction (Final Design); CD-4: Approval of Start of Operations

A4-3
Standard Review Plan, 2nd Edition, March 2010

Applicable CD Phase(s)4
SRP
SRP Subsection Post
Section3 CD-0 CD-1 CD-2 CD-3 CD-4
CD-4
Construction Readiness
Commissioning Plan
Readiness Review
Seismic Design Expectations
Interim Policy of Nuclear
Facility Code of Record
Technology Readiness
Assessment
External Technical Review
Code of Record Implementation
Guide
Natural Phenomena Design
Expectations (excluding seismic)
Safety Design Strategy (SDS)
Conceptual Safety Design
Preliminary Safety Design
Facility Disposition Safety
Strategy
Construction Project Health and
Safety Plan
Review of SAR for Packaging
Safety
Preliminary Documented Safety
Analysis (PDSA)
Documented Safety Analysis
(DSA)
Hazard Analysis Report RM for
Non-Nuclear Projects
Integrated Safety Management
System
National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA)
Environment
High-Performance Sustainable
Building Design
Safeguards and Security and
Security
Cyber Security
Quality Assurance for Critical
Decision Reviews
Protocol for EM Review/Field
Self-Assessment of Site-Specific
Quality
QAPs/QIPs
Assurance
EM Memorandum on
Commercial-Grade Dedication
Software Quality Assurance for
Critical Decision Reviews

A4-4
Standard Review Plan, 2nd Edition, March 2010

Attachment 5

Intended Audience

A5-1
Standard Review Plan, 2nd Edition, March 2010

This page intentionally left blank.

A5-2
Standard Review Plan, 2nd Edition, March 2010

SRP Content and

Information SRP Section Intended Audience
Description
 Secretarial Acquisition
Executive
 CNS
 EM Acquisition Executive
Prerequisite Activities for  EM senior leadership
Critical Decision Review and Attachment 1 of the Overview  FPDs
Approval Section  IPTs
 Technical Authority Board
(TAB)
 CPR Committees
 Independent review teams
 Contractors
 Secretarial Acquisition
Executive
 CNS
 EM Acquisition Executive
Key Documents required for  EM senior leadership
Attachment 2 of the Overview
Critical Decision Approval  FPDs
Section
Review  IPTs
 TAB
 CPR Committees
 Independent review teams
 Contractors
 Secretarial Acquisition
Executive
 CNS
 EM Acquisition Executive
 Energy Systems Acquisition
Advisory Board (ESAAB)
Key Management
 Environmental Management
Questions for Attachment 3 of the Overview
Acquisition Advisory Board
Critical Decision Review Section
(EMAAB)
and Approval  TAB
 FPDs
 IPTs
 CPR Committees
 Independent review teams
 Contractors
 CNS
 FPDs
Applicability of Individual
 IPTs
SRP Review Modules and Attachment 4 of the Overview
 External review teams
Topical Reports to Section
 TAB
Critical Decision Phases
 CPR Committees
 Contractor

A5-3
Standard Review Plan, 2nd Edition, March 2010

SRP Content and

Information SRP Section Intended Audience
Description
 CNS
 FPDs
Attachment 5 of the Overview  IPTs
Intended Audience
Section  TAB
 CPR Committees
 Independent review teams
 Contractors
 CNS
 FPDs
Corporate Applications of the  IPTs
Attachment 6 of the Overview
Standard Review Plan  TAB
Section
 CPR Committees
 QA review teams
 Contractors
Individual SRP Review  CNS
Modules and Topical Reports.  FPDs
These are grouped by the  IPTs
following disciplines:
SRP Sections on Specific  TAB
(1) Project Management;  CPR Committees
Review Modules and Topical
(2) Engineering and Design;  Independent review teams
Reports
(3) Safety;
 Contractors
(4) Environment;
(5) Security; and
(6) Quality Assurance

A5-4
Standard Review Plan, 2nd Edition, March 2010

Attachment 6

Corporate Applications of the Standard Review Plan

A6-1
Standard Review Plan, 2nd Edition, March 2010

This page intentionally left blank.

A6-2
Standard Review Plan, 2nd Edition, March 2010

A6-3
Standard Review Plan, 2nd Edition, March 2010

This page intentionally left blank.

A6-4
Standard Review Plan, 2nd Edition, March 2010

ATTACHMENT 7

Suggested Format and Content Guide for Preparation

of Review Plans and Reports

A7-1
Standard Review Plan, 2nd Edition, March 2010

This page intentionally left blank.

A7-2
Standardd Review Plaan, 2nd Editioon, March 20010

OFFICE
O OF
F ENVIRO
ONMENTAL
L MANAGE
EMENT

Sugggested Fo
ormat an
nd Contennt Guidee for Prep
paration of Review
Plans and
a Repoorts

M
March 2010

A7-3
Standard Review Plan, 2nd Edition, March 2010

Table of Contents

REVIEW PLANS AND FINAL REPORTS ................................................................ A7-5

I. REVIEW PLANS ................................................................................................. A7-5

a. Introduction/Background ................................................................................... A7-5

b. Purpose ............................................................................................................... A7-5
c. Scope .................................................................................................................. A7-6
d. Review Schedule ................................................................................................ A7-6
e. Team Composition and Responsibilities ........................................................... A7-6
f. Reporting Methods............................................................................................. A7-6

II. FINAL REPORT .................................................................................................. A7-7

a. Executive Summary ........................................................................................... A7-7

b. Introduction ........................................................................................................ A7-7
c. Review Results................................................................................................... A7-7
d. Team Composition and Responsibilities ........................................................... A7-7
e. Review Results................................................................................................... A7-7

A7-4
Standard Review Plan, 2nd Edition, March 2010

REVIEW PLANS AND FINAL REPORTS

This section prescribes the general expectations for preparation of a review plan related to
project reviews that are consistent with the Standard Review Plan (SRP). It also provides a
suggested template for the development of final reports. These documents establish a record of
the approaches and criteria used in project reviews, provide management with a clear
understanding of the findings and observations resulting from project reviews, and provide a
record for DOE and the contractor to implement and track any necessary corrective actions.

I. REVIEW PLANS

The Review Plan guides the review team in the conduct of the review, but it also provides the
Project Managers with information necessary to prepare for and support the review process. The
Review Plan discussion below provides instructions on how to develop such a Plan. It is
intended as a general guide for a Review Team Leader and Team Members in planning and
conducting various project reviews. The main headers listed below are intended to form the
structure of the review plan, but each plan should be tailored to the project being reviewed and
may not contain a particular section.

a. Introduction/Background

The Introduction/Background should briefly state the primary objectives of the review and
describe the project and the facility status that is relevant to the review to be conducted. A
concise description of the project includes the planned facility mission, where it is located
geographically, the intended processes and functions of the facility when complete, and any
expected products to be generated by the facility. Facility process descriptions should also
include sufficient information on material flows and waste streams. Deactivation and
decommissioning projects should include a discussion of the anticipated facility end-state
and future use of the site.

The project history conveys the proper context of the project and provides information that
helps reviewers understand the facility being reviewed. This may include interfaces with
other site operations or facilities being replaced by the new facility project. If the project
involves the modification and use of existing buildings and structures, it is important to
understand any prior operations and hazardous materials that were involved.

The Introduction/Background section should also describe the relationship of the review
team to the project management organization; that is, whether the review is organized by a
contractor using contractor resources or commissioned by the local DOE organization or by a
Headquarters sponsor.

b. Purpose

This section presents the reason for, and objectives of, the project review. This includes the
regulations and DOE directives that identify the need for the review and the area(s) being
reviewed.

A7-5
Standard Review Plan, 2nd Edition, March 2010

c. Scope

The scope of the project review effort should be defined to provide a focus for review team
activities and to aid in the selection of review team members. The scope also helps the
design or construction contractors prepare necessary materials and briefings that are
appropriate to the review scope. This section of the Review Plan should be broken down to
describe the topics covered by the review scope, any necessary assumptions or caveats
considered by the review team, and project documents that are encompassed within the
review (e,g., design documents and supporting safety documents).

The Performance Objectives and Criteria that apply to the review process will also be
selected and presented in this section or attached as an appendix to the Review Plan. These
should be based on Appendix A contained in each individual Review Module.

d. Review Schedule

The project review schedule should be supportive of the Critical Decision milestones and
other reviews scheduled in accordance with DOE O 413.3A. The Review Plan should
address the major review team activities supporting the project review and associated dates
or durations for completion. At a minimum, the schedule should address the issuance of a
Review Plan, the onsite design review, the factual accuracy of the draft report, and the
issuance of the final report.

e. Team Composition and Responsibilities

The members of the design review team and their assigned responsibilities should be
identified in this section. The organizational affiliation should also be presented for each
individual.

The number and composition of technical and safety disciplines assigned to the team will
depend on the type of project being reviewed. The Review Team Leader must ensure that
each team member has the appropriate expertise. A short biography of each team member
should be included as an appendix to the Review Plan.

f. Reporting Methods

This section of the Review Plan should disclose the methods used by the review team to
communicate the results of the project review. This includes planned daily out-briefs or
other meetings with the contractor that are planned during the onsite review. It also includes
the methods used to document results, such as review checklists, and the final report.

A7-6
 Standard Review Plan, 2nd Edition, March 2010

II. FINAL REPORT

The final report should provide team’s assessment of project’s likelihood of success to meet
upcoming CD milestones and comments. These should be based on analysis of observed project’s
strengths and weaknesses that were identified during the review, and provides the review results.

The Report should include the following sections:

a. Executive Summary

The Executive Summary provides a concise synopsis of the activities conducted during the
review, the number of findings, observations, and strengths identified, and a discussion of the
most significant issues identified by the Review Team.

b. Introduction

The Introduction provides the review purpose and drivers, organizations involved, and the
basic process followed.

c. Review Results

The Review Results section provides a summary stating whether the review criteria were met
and a listing of the strengths, findings, and observations identified for each area assessed.

d. Team Composition and Responsibilities

The Team Composition and Responsibilities section lists the review team members and the
areas they assessed.

e. Review Results

Upon completion of the project review, team members shall document their review results and
determine if the review criteria were met. The documentation shall list the records reviewed,
personnel interviewed (by position title, not name), and activities observed during the project
review. Team members shall provide a clear and concise write up for each criterion stating
whether or not the criterion was met and describe the strengths, findings, and observations
identified.

Finding – A noncompliance with a requirement. The requirement may be from a DOE

directive or from a procedure or other site document.

Significant Observation - Deviation from DOE Guides or Handbooks, EM HQ guidance

documents, and other accepted industry practices for which corrective actions are necessary.

Observation – A weakness or opportunity for improvement that cannot be tied directly to a

requirement. Observations can be opinion-based.
A7-7
Standard Review Plan, 2nd Edition, March 2010

Strength – A practice that exceeds assessor expectations.

In circumstances where a team member disagrees with the team’s conclusion(s) or a Team Lead
decision, the member may document this as a dissenting opinion. The dissenting opinion should
include the member’s basis for disagreement. If the dissenting opinion is due to a Team Lead
decision, the Team Lead shall provide the basis for his or her decision.

Prior to issuing a final report, the Review Team Lead should provide a draft of the report to the
assessed organization to review for factual accuracy. The assessed organization should provide
written comments to the Team Lead for disposition. All comments should be resolved prior to
the final report being issued.

Once the factual accuracy comments have been resolved, the Team Lead shall provide the final
report to the official requesting the review for approval and transmittal to the assessed
organization. Approved final reports shall be formally transmitted to the assessed organization
via a memorandum that which includes the requirement for a corrective action plan (if necessary)
within 60 days of report transmittal.

A7-8
Standard Review Plan, 2nd Edition, March 2010

Attachment 8

Principal Contributors to the SRP Development

A8-1
Standard Review Plan, 2nd Edition, March 2010

This page intentionally left blank.

A8-2
Standard Review Plan, 2nd Edition, March 2010

Principal Contributors to the SRP Development

Chief of Nuclear Safety, Office of the Under Secretary

Mr. Richard H. Lagdon, Jr., Chief of Nuclear Safety (CNS)
Dr. Joseph T. (Tim) Arcano, Jr.
Mr. Larry Berg
Mr. Bud Danielson
Ms. Caroline Garzon
Mr. Todd Lapointe
Dr. Stephen M. McDuffie
Ms. Debra Sparkman
Mr. Bill Weaver

Office of Environmental Management

Mr. Dae Chung, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary (EM-2)
Mr. Lowell Ely, Office of Project Assistance and Assurance (EM-11)
Mr. Rodney Lehman, Office of Project Assistance and Assurance (EM-11)
Dr. Steven Krahn, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Office of Safety and Security Program (EM-20)
Mr. Jim Hutton, Office of Safety and Security Programs (EM-20)
Dr. Chuan-Fu Wu, Office of Safety Management (EM-21)
Mr. Terry Krietz, Office of Safety Management (EM-21)
Dr. Robert Goldsmith, Office of Safety Operations Assurance (EM-22)
Mr. Robert Murray, Office of Standards and Quality Assurance (EM-23)
Dr. Larry Perkins, Office of Standards and Quality Assurance (EM-23)
Mr. Robert Toro, Office of Standards and Quality Assurance (EM-23)
Mr. Christian Palay, Office of Standards and Quality Assurance (EM-23)
Mr. Jim Davis, Office of Standards and Quality Assurance (EM-23)
Mr. William Huxford, Office of Standards and Quality Assurance (EM-23)
Mr. David Faulkner, Office of Standards and Quality Assurance (EM-23)
Mr. Karl Goodwin, Office of Safeguards and Security (EM-24)
Mr. Steve Schneider, Office of Technology Innovation and Development (EM-30)
Mr. Bill Levitan, Office of Environmental Compliance (EM-41)
Ms. Yvette Collazo, Office of D&D and Facility Engineering (EM-44)
Ms. Michele Ware, Office of D&D and Facility Engineering (EM-44)
Mr. Andy Szilagyi, Office of D&D and Facility Engineering (EM-44)
Ms. Donna Green, Office of D&D and Facility Engineering (EM-44)
Mr. Lenny Mucciaro, Office of Strategic Planning and Analysis (EM-62)
Ms. Sandra Waisley, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Office of Human Capital and Corporate
Services (EM-70)

Federal Project Directors

Mr. Richard Craun, IWTU
Mr. Guy Girard, WTP
Mr. Gary Riner, Building 3019
Mr. T. Zack Smith, SWPF
Mr. Jack Zimmerman, DUF6

A8-3
Standard Review Plan, 2nd Edition, March 2010

Seismic Lessons-Learned Working Group

Dr. John Ake, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)
Mr. George Antaki, Becht Engineering
Dr. Said Bolourchi, Simpson Gumpertz & Heger
Dr. Carl Costantino, CJC & Associates
Dr. Brent Gutierrez, DOE Savannah River
Dr. Robert Jackson, Schnabel Engineering, LLC
Mr. Jeff Kimball, Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (DNFSB)
Mr. Fred Loceff, Frederick Loceff Technical Services
Dr. Larry Salomone, Savannah River Nuclear Solutions (SRNS)
Dr. J. Carl Stepp, Earthquake Hazard Solutions

Link Technologies, Inc. (CNS/EM Technical Support Service Contractor) 5

Mr. Ali Tabatabai
Mr. Edwin Dodd, III
Mr. Tony Eng
Mr. Peter Kiang
Mr. John Leadmon
Ms. Elaine Merchant
Mr. Eric Monares
Mr. Nick Steele
Mr. Jeff Woody
Ms. Alexandra Zeigler

Special thanks to Mr. Joseph J. DiNunno, former Member, Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety
Board (DNFSB) for his technical contribution, guidance, and never ending passion for the
pursuit of excellence in safety and engineering.

5
The overall technical contribution to, and program management of, the development of the SRP were supported by
Link Technologies, Inc. under CNS/EM Contract Number DE-AT01-07EW07063.
A8-4