+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| ##  PMG-30                                                            |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

**PRIORITIZATION GUIDE**

(EXCERPTS on ES&H RISK BASED PRIORITY MODEL)

U.S. Department of Energy

## Office of Engineering and Construction Management

## September 2002

**Preface**

This guide was originally developed by the U.S. Department of Energy
(DOE) Office of Field Management now the Office of Engineering and
Construction Management as part of a project to develop a series of
instructional and source materials for better management of all projects
undertaken by DOE. This updated guide provides information on the two
most widely used prioritization methodologies that are commonly
practiced in DOE to rate and rank projects to ensure proper allocation
of limited resources. However, other prioritization methods can be used
that perform to the criteria established within the Real Property Asset
Management Order. It is important to note that the models discussed in
this manual are only tools; they are not intended to replace management
review and judgment.

The intended audience for this guide is field and headquarters
program/project managers, engineers, design engineers, reviewing
committees, and line managers. Personnel involved in facility
maintenance and operations and decontamination and decommissioning may
find applications of these models useful in allocating resources for
these activities.

Suggestions or comments for improving this guide are welcome and should
be sent to the following address.

Nestor Folta

U.S. Department of Energy

####### Office of Engineering and Construction Management

1000 Independence Ave. S.W.

Washington, DC 20585

####### Phone: (202) 586- 4554

####### FAX: (202) 586-4500

E-mail: nestor. folta@hq.doe.gov

### Office of Engineering and Construction Management

Prioritization Guide

**Contents**

**Page**

Preface v

Acknowledgements vi

Acronyms and Abbreviations x

~~Executive Summary xii~~

~~**1. Introduction** 1~~

~~**2. Capital Asset Management Process (CAMP)** 2~~

> ~~2.1 CAMP Process Specification 2~~
>
> ~~2.1.1 Authority 2~~
>
> ~~2.1.2 Program Office Advocates/Assistance 2~~
>
> ~~2.2 Process Attributes/Applicability 2~~
>
> ~~2.2.1 Applicability 2~~
>
> ~~2.2.2 Development Status 3~~
>
> ~~2.3 Approach Summary 3~~
>
> ~~2.4 Process Principles 4~~
>
> ~~2.4.1 Problem/Project Assessment 4~~
>
> ~~2.4.2 Rating Process 4~~
>
> ~~2.4.3 Scoring Process 5~~
>
> ~~2.4.4 Ranking Process 6~~
>
> ~~2.4.5 Review and Adjustment 6~~
>
> ~~2.5 Approval Process 6~~
>
> ~~2.6 Real-Life Examples 8~~
>
> ~~2.6.1 Example 1: Utility System Modernization 8~~
>
> ~~2.6.2 Example 2: Central Supply Facility Construction 10~~
>
> ~~2.7 Measuring for Results 12~~
>
> ~~2.7.1 Performance Objectives 12~~
>
> ~~2.7.2 Performance Criteria 12~~
>
> ~~2.7.3 Performance Measures 13~~
>
> ~~2.8 References/Reading List 13~~
>
> ~~2.9 Definitions 13~~

**3. Environment, Safety and Health Risk Based Priority Model (RPM)** 23

> 3.1 RPM Process Specification 23
>
> 3.1.1 Process Authority 23
>
> 3.1.2 Program Office Advocates/Assistance 23
>
> 3.2 Process Attributes/Applicability 24
>
> 3.2.1 Introduction 24
>
> 3.2.2 Applicability 28
>
> 3.2.3 Development Status 28
>
> 3.3 Approach Summary 29
>
> 3.4 Process Principles 31
>
> 3.4.1 ES&H Activity Scoring and Ranking with the ES&H RPM 31
>
> 3.4.2 ADS Ranking Steps 31

3.4.3 Resource Allocation 35

> 3.4.4 RPM Matrix Impacts and Scoring Examples 37
>
> 3.5 Measuring Results 45
>
> 3.6 References/Reading List 45
>
> 3.7 Definitions 46
>
> 3.8 Training Courses/Program Assistance 47

**Acronyms and Abbreviations**

ADS Activity Data Sheet

ALARA As low as reasonably achievable

ANSI American National Standards Institute

CAA Clean Air Act

#### CAMP Capital Asset Management Process 

CBR Corporate Budget Review

CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act

CSO Cognizant Secretarial Officer

DNFSB Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board

DOE Department of Energy

DOT U.S. Department of Transportation

E&WM Environmental & Waste Management

EH Office of Environment, Safety, and Health

EM Office of Environmental Management

EMAB Environmental Management Advisory Board

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

ES&H Environment, Safety and Health

FTE Full time equivalent

G&A General & Administrative

GPP General Plant Project

H&S Health & Safety

INEL Idaho National Engineering Laboratory

IS Information Systems

M&I Mission & Investment

MC&A Material control and accountability

MEM Management Evaluation Matrix

MIS Management Information System

MSSA Master Safeguards and Security Agreement

MUA Multiattribute utility analysis

NAS National Academy of Sciences

NFPA National Fire Protection Association

###### NNSA National Nuclear Security Administration

NRC National Research Council

OMB Office of Management and Budget

OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration

RBP Risk-Based Prioritization

RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

RDS Risk Data Sheet

REM Roentgen-equivalent-man

RPM Risk-Based Priority Model

S&S Safeguards & Security

##### SC Office of Science

SNM Special nuclear material

TRU Transuranic waste

WBS Work breakdown structure

3\. ENVIRONMENT, SAFETY AND HEALTH RISK-BASED PRIORITY MODEL (RPM)

The Environment, Safety and Health Risk-Based Priority Model (RPM) is
available to facilitate ES&H activity ranking within the DOE ES&H
Management Planning Process.

**3.1 [RPM Process Specification]{.underline}**

**3.1.1 Process Authority**

In November 1991, the Secretary of Energy directed DOE Headquarters
programs to develop a consistent Departmental methodology to identify
and improve management of its environmental, safety, and health
programs. It was recognized that within a tightly constrained budget
environment \"some activities will need to be eliminated, reduced in
scope, or stretched out in time to accommodate new and higher priority
initiatives and enhancements to ongoing programs.\" In response to the
Secretary\'s direction, the Office of Environment, Safety, and Health
(EH) coordinated the development and implementation of a risk-based DOE
ES&H Management Planning Process that defines, prioritizes, and
allocates budget resources to the most important ES&H activities.

**The requirements for the ES&H Management Planning Process have evolved
over the years. The term "ES&H Management Plan" has evolved to mean the
generic process by which each site conducts and reports on its ES&H
planning, programming, budgeting, work commitment making/execution, and
performance evaluation activities on an annual basis. Most
significantly, with the implementation of Integrated Safety Management
(ISM), the process emphasis has shifted away from using a Headquarters
specified data system, towards integration of ES&H planning, budgeting
and work execution processes into the individual site business systems.
As a result, use of the implementing software for the ES&H Management
Planning Process is now optional. However, sites are still expected to
provide risk-based ES&H planning, budgeting, and work commitment
information during the annual Departmental budget process. Planning
information generated through the process is used to support management
decision-making during the Department\'s corporate budget review
process, and ES&H \"crosscut\" budget information derived directly from
the ES&H Management Plan is submitted to the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) and then to Congress in support of the Department\'s budget
request. The ES&H Risk-Based Priority Model (RPM) is the management
\"tool\" specifically developed to facilitate ES&H activity ranking
within the DOE ES&H Management Planning Process.**

**3.1.2 Program Office Advocates/Assistance**

**The Office of Performance Assessment and Analysis of the Office of
Environment, Safety and Health (EH-3), in its missions and functions,
serves as the focal point for collection, analysis and dissemination of
environment, safety, and health program planning, budgeting, and
execution information for the Department. The Environment, Safety, and
Health Management Plan is a process that enables consistent
identification of needed Departmental environment, safety and health
activities; risk-based priority setting; effective budget
decision-making and allocation of environment, safety and health
resources; and improved accountability for environment, safety, and
health performance on the part of DOE line programs and operating
contractors.**

**Frank Tooper, of the Office of PerformanceAssessment and Analysis, is
responsible for the ES&H component of Contract Reform and use of the
ES&H Management Planning process as a critical part of the contract
reform initiative.**

**The principal points-of-contact for obtaining assistance in the
implementation of the ES&H Management Plan and prioritization using the
ES&H RPM are Raymond W. Blowitski, EH-3, 301-903-9878 and Patricia Bean,
EH-3, 301-903-3909.**

**3.2 [Process Attributes/Applicability]{.underline}**

**3.2.1 Introduction**

**ES&H issues and the activities proposed to resolve these issues are
evaluated and ranked using the DOE RPM. The RPM is a multi-attribute
utility model designed to support DOE management decision-making. Issues
can be ranked based on the risk associated with the current situation
(i.e., the level of consequences that might occur if the identified
problem is not mitigated and the likelihood of experiencing those
consequences). ES&H activities developed to address the issues are
ranked based on their risk-reduction potential (i.e., the difference in
expected risk before and after implementation of the activity).**

**ES&H planners use the RPM to derive an ES&H activity score by
assessing the relative level of risk posed by current conditions (before
the activities are performed), and the relative level of risk expected
to remain after the activities are performed. The ES&H activity score is
calculated by taking the difference between the risk score before
performance of the activity and the risk score after performance of the
activity. The figure-of-merit for ranking an ES&H activity using the
RPM, therefore, is the risk reduction expected to be achieved by the
activity. This ensures that the score assigned to an ES&H activity is a
measure of the effectiveness of the work being performed in the activity
in reducing risks, rather than a measure of the magnitude of current
problems or issues that the activities are defined to correct.**

**\"Risk\" is defined as the product of consequence and probability. The
scores assigned to risks by the RPM are derived from numerical weights
that represent various levels of severity of adverse impacts
(consequences). The impact weights are then multiplied by the likelihood
of occurrence (probability) of the impact. Each risk score assigned by
the RPM is, therefore, the product of an impact weight and impact
likelihood.**

**The RPM matrix (depicted in Table I at the end of this process
description) provides the structure for examining both impact and
likelihood and combining them into a risk-based ES&H activity score. The
rows of the matrix define impact levels; the columns define likelihood
levels. Each matrix cell (row and column combination), therefore,
defines a risk level. Each matrix cell contains a numeric weight
corresponding to the product of impact weight and likelihood.**

**The RPM matrix includes impacts in six categories that represent the
major types of risks important to ES&H activities.**

**(1) [Public Safety and Health]{.underline} addresses potential adverse
impacts on the health and safety of the *off-site* population
surrounding a site or facility.**

**(2) [Site Personnel Safety and Health]{.underline} addresses potential
adverse impacts on the safety and health of individuals *inside the site
or facility boundary*, i.e., site workers and visitors.**

**(3) [Compliance]{.underline} addresses failures to comply with laws,
regulations, compliance agreements, Executive Orders, and DOE Orders
related to Environment, Safety and Health. Such failures may adversely
affect the confidence of DOE or other agencies in the ability of the
site or facility to operate while protecting the public, workers, and
the environment.**

**(4) [Mission Impact]{.underline} addresses potential adverse impacts
on the ability to perform the research or production mission of the site
or facility or the ability to carry out important parts of the
mission.**

**(5) [Cost-Effective Risk Management]{.underline} addresses potential
accidental losses to a site or facility\'s capital investment
(buildings, equipment) or an existing opportunity for cost savings, such
as infrastructure upgrades, management systems upgrades, or improved
program development.**

**(6) [Environmental Protection]{.underline} addresses potential adverse
harmful impact on natural resources (air, water, land, wildlife).**

**Each of the six categories includes two or more impacts representing
different levels of impact severity. For example, the Site Personnel
Safety category includes four impacts of decreasing severity:
catastrophic, critical, marginal, and negligible. A detailed description
of the RPM impacts with examples is included in Section 3.4.4.**

**The Cost-Effective Risk Management category differs from the other
categories in that it allows managers to assess the benefits of an ES&H
activity on the organization\'s ability to manage its risks efficiently,
protect its capital investment, take preventive action before risks to
the public, workers, or environment develop, and reduce overall
costs/risks.**

**As shown in Table II at the end of this section, the columns of the
RPM (A through D) represent four likelihood levels used in assessing the
risk reduction benefit of activities. Each likelihood level has an
associated numerical value, which is multiplied by the impact weights to
derive the risk value for each matrix cell in the matrix column
corresponding to the likelihood level. The likelihood levels are as
follows.**

**(1) [A. Very high]{.underline} likelihood indicates an impact already
exists with certainty or is expected to occur at least once per year.
For example, if a site or facility is known to be out of compliance with
a DOE ES&H Order, the likelihood of this impact falls into the *very
high* category. If a condition at a site or facility has historically
resulted in one or more lost-time worker injuries per year and the
condition has not been corrected, the likelihood of this impact also
fits this category.**

**(2) [B. High]{.underline} likelihood indicates that an impact is
expected less frequently than once per year, but more frequently than
once every 10 years. Such impacts are expected to occur within the
operating history of the site or facility, but have not occurred
regularly every year.**

**(3) [C. Medium]{.underline} likelihood indicates that an impact is
expected less frequently than once every 10 years but more frequently
than once every 100 years. Impacts with this likelihood are not expected
frequently within the operating life of a site or facility, but may
occur once in the site or facility\'s life.**

**(4) [D. Low]{.underline} likelihood impacts are unlikely to occur
within the operating life of a site or facility, but are not impossible.
For example, impacts in this category may occur once in the operating
life of one site or facility out of a population of 100 similar
facilities. Impacts with this likelihood are expected to occur less
frequently than once per 100 years, but more frequently than once per
10,000 years.**

**The RPM matrix includes discrete values for severity of impact (the
rows of the matrix) and the likelihood of experiencing these impacts
(the columns of the matrix). These discrete values should be adequate to
support prioritization of ES&H activities in most instances. However, if
more precise risk assessment information is available, the RPM can
accommodate such information. More precise information can be
incorporated in two ways.**

**• Instead of using the discrete likelihood levels, the RPM can accept
any likelihood between 0.0001 and 1.0, and**

**• a consequence multiplier can be applied to each impact to
interpolate between or extrapolate beyond the discrete impacts levels of
the RPM.**

**[Adjusting Likelihood Values]{.underline}. As noted, in addition to
the four discrete likelihood levels included in the RPM, any likelihood
value from 0.0001 to 1.0 may be assigned if sufficient information is
available on which to base a more precise likelihood estimate.**

**Example: A portion of a non-reactor nuclear facility Safety Analysis
Report analyzes a scenario in which an extreme overexposure of workers
could occur. The likelihood of this scenario is estimated to be 10^-3^
per year. A fix has been defined to remove the possibility of this
scenario. In deriving the RPM score for an ES&H activity representing
implementation of the fix, Impact 4 (extreme over-exposure of workers)
applies. Because the estimated likelihood of the scenario falls between
the representative likelihoods for RPM columns C and D (10^-2^ and
10^‑4^), this likelihood value may be entered directly in the
Information System; the risk score for the impact-likelihood combination
representing this scenario is 2 (=10^-3^ times 2000). Note that a
likelihood value other than one of the RPM matrix column likelihoods was
used in this case because specific information was available (i.e., part
of a facility SAR) to support a different value.**

**[Consequence Multiplier Adjustments]{.underline}. A consequence
\"multiplier\" is also included in the RPM to allow a more precise
assessment of impacts beyond that afforded by the discrete matrix row
values. The consequence multiplier can be used to interpolate between
(or extrapolate beyond) the discrete levels of the impacts defined in
the RPM. For example, in scoring impacts in the Public Safety and Health
and Site Personnel Safety and Health categories, the multiplier can be
used to adjust for the number of persons affected by the impact.**

**The consequence multiplier should only be used when sufficient,
documented analysis is available to justify more precise levels. The
consequence multiplier is not intended for application to the
\"Compliance\" category, because the impact scale in this category is
not considered to be continuous.**

**For example, the consequence multiplier that can be applied to the
Public Safety and Health or Site Personnel Safety and Health categories
accounts for the size of the population impacted. The RPM weights in
each RPM matrix cell in these categories have been assigned based on an
assumption that each impact affects 10 persons. If a significantly
higher or lower number of persons is expected to be affected by an
impact, however, different weights are appropriate. Specifically, the
weight should vary proportionally to the number of affected persons.**

**The RPM cell weights may be used exactly as given in the matrix,
without adjustment, if the ES&H activity scorers determine that the
implicit assumption of ten persons being affected by the impact is
sufficient to score an ES&H activity appropriately. If the number of
persons expected to be affected by an impact diverges from this
assumption significantly (either higher or lower), so that the RPM cell
weights do not represent the risk benefits of the ES&H activity
appropriately the ES&H Management Planning process allows for an
additional adjustment factor to be specified to multiply by the RPM cell
weights.**

**The appropriate adjustment factor equals the number of persons
expected to be affected divided by ten. For example, if 100 persons are
expected to be affected by an impact, the multiplier equals 10 (i.e.,
100 persons affected, divided by 10 persons implicit in RPM weights). If
no more than one person is expected to be affected, the multiplier
equals 0.1 (i.e., 1 person affected, divided by 10 persons implicit in
RPM weights).**

**The consequence multiplier can be applied for those impact categories
with continuous impact scales (e.g., number of injuries, risk management
investment dollars) and where additional quantitative risk assessment
information is available to establish a basis for the more precise
values. The multiplier should not be used to interpolate between levels
of compliance.**

**Example: A national laboratory plans a program to reduce lost time
injuries to lab workers. Currently, such injuries occur at a rate of 100
per year. The proposed program intends to reduce this rate
significantly. An ES&H activity is prepared to represent this program.
In scoring this ES&H activity, Impact 6 (lost-time worker injuries)
applies with a RPM likelihood category of A (greater than once per
year). In addition, the number of persons affected by the impact
significantly exceeds the 10 per year assumption implicit in the RPM
weight for Impact 6. The appropriate multiplier for 100 injury victims
per year is 10 (=100/10). This results in a scaled weight for the Site
Personnel category equal to 1000 (Impact 6, Likelihood A RPM weight
equals 100, multiplied by a scaling factor of 10).**

**Through the combined use of the continuous likelihood scale and the
consequence multiplier, site or facility scorers can fully use the
results of any available information from detailed, quantitative risk
assessments. The RPM can reflect the most detailed risk assessment
information available, while still maintaining its simple matrix
structure to facilitate discussion and communication of these risks.**

**3.2.2 Applicability**

**The RPM was specifically developed to support prioritization of ES&H
issues and activities; accordingly, the categories and weights of the
RPM are optimized to rank ES&H programs. However, the RPM has been
tailored to rank site-wide indirect activities at several DOE
facilities, and is the model on which both the Surplus Facilities
Inventory Assessment (SFIA) Threat-Based Priority Model and the
Management Evaluation Process (MEP) that were once used by EM were
developed. Coverage of the RPM includes ranking of ES&H issues and the
proposed/actual work activities to address these issues. The RPM is used
to rank all types of ES&H activities including those funded by direct
funding sources: operating, capital equipment, general plant project, or
line item project, and those funded by indirect or allocable cost
arrangements.**

**The RPM can be used to evaluate site-wide ES&H risks, programs, and
activities from initial issues/hazard ranking, through budget
formulation and decision-making, and ES&H program execution, regardless
of type or funding source. The RPM is used to evaluate issues and
activities of many different types including occupational safety
improvements, capital upgrade projects, infrastructure maintenance,
improvements in conduct of operations, etc.**

**The RPM is used at several DOE facilities located throughout the
United States and by several Headquarters Programs. Facilities using the
process range from small solar energy laboratories and fossil energy
facilities, to large nuclear weapons facilities.**

**3.2.3 Development Status**

**The ES&H Management Planning Process and the RPM are fully developed
processes that have been used successfully through ten complete
Departmental budget cycles. Furthermore, an optional PC database system,
the Environment, Safety and Health Management Plan Information System
(ES&H MPIS), which includes a detailed User\'s Manual, has been
available for over 10 years to support the production, analysis, and use
of ES&H Management Plans and to conduct prioritization using the RPM.
The ES&H MPIS was designed using FoxPro development software and is
distributed to all DOE facilities via the internet as a run-time
application. The user interface consists of menus, windows, dialogues,
and other features that facilitate communication with the database
system. General information on the ES&H Management Plan can be obtained
from the following URL:**

**<http://tis.eh.doe.gov/bps/eshplan.htm>. The ES&H MPIS software can be
downloaded from the following URL:
<http://tis.eh.doe.gov/bps/eshplan/software.htm>. The ES&H MPIS users
manual and other guidance can be downloaded from the following URL:**

**http://tis.eh.doe.gov/bps/eshplan/document.htm.**

**In addition to direct input and update of data, the MPIS provides
powerful but easy-to-use filtering, indexing (sorting), and output
reporting capabilities. The Database System includes an RPM \"Scoring
Screen\" for each issue or activity record and a \"Resource Screen\"
that captures budget costs of an activity in a variety of resource
categories. The ES&H MPIS supports efficient risk-management and
resource allocation by presenting activities in risk-ranked order,
displaying budget cut-off lines and scenarios, and allowing automatic
deferral to later years of less important activities that fall \"below
the line.\" The database system is comprised of four major modules.**

**(1) Assessments, in which users can enter records and provide
information about specific assessments (evaluations, etc.) that spawn
ES&H issues.**

**(2) Issues, in which users can enter records and provide information
about specific ES&H issues identified in the assessments. Many issues
can be linked to an assessment in the database.**

**(3) Activities, in which users can enter records and provide
information about specific ES&H activities defined to resolve the
identified issues. Activities can be linked to issues within the
database and through issues to assessments.**

**(4) Milestones, in which users can enter records and provide
information about the specific tasks or deliverables associated with an
Activity and the due dates for these accomplishments. By linking the
Milestones to Activities (and thereby to Issues and Assessments), this
module allows the MPIS to serve as a powerful, integrated commitment
management and tracking system.**

**In addition, the ES&H MPIS database has an optional infrastructure
module that can be activated to plan for either ES&H related
infrastructure activities, or general (non-ES&H) infrastructure
activities.**

**3.3 [Approach Summary]{.underline}**

**A comparison of priority setting methods is best achieved within the
context of their intended use or management processes. With regard to
the RPM, the DOE ES&H Management Planning Process produces a plan
through a combination of top-down guidance and bottom-up analysis and
decision-making. It is a continuous, risk-based, resource-constrained,
management process designed to improve DOE and contractor use of
available resources to manage ES&H risks. The process is designed to
help managers produce and communicate integrated information necessary
for environment, safety and health strategic planning and operational
management. Both the development and output of the ES&H Management
Planning Information are required annually as part of the Departmental
budgeting process. The major steps of the Plan development process are
the following.**

**(1) Strategic Planning Guidance is provided by the Secretary of
Energy, and key ES&H issues are identified by Cognizant Secretarial
Officers (CSOs), the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA),
and the Assistant Secretary for Environment, Safety, and Health (EH).**

**(2) Headquarters managers provide direction to operating facilities,
including budget targets to be used in preparing field planning data.**

**(3) Field Elements conduct a needs analysis to identify ES&H needs and
risks, identify ES&H activities/programs to address the needs or risks,
and document these ES&H activities. If using the optional software, the
ES&H activities are entered into the ES&H Management Plan Information
System database.**

**(4) ES&H activities are ranked using the DOE ES&H RPM. The ranking is
reviewed by successive levels of management; other planning factors
(such as precedence and coupling relationships between ES&H activities,
strategic factors, etc.) are applied to adjust rankings. (A complete
description of the RPM ranking process is provided in Section 3.2.1).**

**(5) Available resources are allocated to the activities. The ranked
listing of ES&H activities is used to support budget decision-making
during the Department\'s Corporate Budget Review (CBR) process. Less
important activities that cannot be accomplished within prescribed
budget constraints are reduced in scope or deferred to subsequent
years.**

**(6) Corporate budget review decisions are reflected in the ES&H
Management Plans, and an ES&H \"crosscut budget\" is prepared for OMB.**

**(7) Final OMB allowances are reflected in the ES&H Management Plans,
and a revised ES&H \"crosscut budget\" is prepared to accompany the
Department\'s congressional budget request.**

**(8) Budget decisions and planning implications are communicated back
to the operating facilities, and the updated ES&H Management Plans
provide the baseline for incorporation into the ES&H program executed
during the budget year and for the next annual planning and budget
formulation cycle. The ES&H activities that complete the budget cycle
and eventually receive funding and management approval will make up the
execution work plans and become ES&H commitments.**

**The RPM supports but does not replace the expertise of field and
headquarters staff and management. The RPM is viewed as one tool within
an overall management process that structures and focuses management
decision-making. The RPM does not attempt to encompass all factors or
provide all information required to determine the ultimate priority of
an issue or activity. The ES&H planning process is designed to allow
various factors important to the setting of priorities to be
incorporated into the final adjusted ranking. Such factors include
strategic considerations concerning the expected lifetime of the site or
facility, the level of uncertainty in the risk evaluation, or project
management considerations such as precedence relationships among
activities. The RPM is not intended to provide a concise quantification
of risk, but to structure management experience and knowledge (and any
available quantitative risk data) into a defensible and traceable
relative ranking of ES&H issues and activities.**

**3.4 [Process Principles]{.underline}**

**3.4.1 ES&H Activity Scoring and Ranking with the ES&H RPM**

**Available resources may not be adequate to allow full and immediate
implementation of all proposed ES&H programs and activities. Risk-based
ranking of ES&H activities supports management\'s ability to allocate
resources to the set of activities that will most reduce risk during the
planning period. ES&H managers and planners should assess the
risk-reduction benefits of each ES&H activity and rank them
accordingly.**

**The ES&H RPM is the tool provided to produce the initial activity
rankings. Operating organization planners use the RPM to derive
risk-reduction scores for each ES&H activity. This risk-reduction
benefit score is the primary consideration for establishing the relative
ranking of ES&H activities. However, site or facility, Operations
Office, and Headquarters management may adjust the ES&H activity
rankings to account for additional planning factors not considered by
the RPM. In addition, Operations Office and Cognizant Secretarial
Officer (CSO) ES&H planners are responsible for reviewing priorities for
consistent application of the RPM and may adjust ES&H activity scores to
ensure consistency in Departmental prioritization and budgeting for ES&H
activities. After the risk-based priorities are established and
adjusted, management will use the ranked list of ES&H activities to
allocate available resources to the most important activities.**

**3.4.2 ES&H Activity Ranking Steps**

**Three major steps are associated with ranking ES&H activities:**

**(1) Use the RPM to characterize and score the existing risks addressed
by the ES&H activity;**

**(2) Characterize and score the risks that would remain after
implementation of the ES&H activity;**

**(3) Apply other planning factors to adjust ES&H activity scores and
produce the ES&H activity rankings. The difference between the scores in
the first two steps is the risk-reduction score. The last step also
includes Operations Office and CSO adjustments to ensure consistent and
correct application of the RPM.**

**The RPM provides a convenient framework for structuring risk
information and focusing site or facility management and staff expertise
on the assessment of risks related to ES&H issues and activities. It is
strongly recommended that ES&H activity scoring at a site or facility be
performed by an evaluation group with expertise in diverse fields and
extensive experience with a site or facility\'s operations, potential
risks, and operating history. This enhances the quality of the
information used in the activity risk scoring and the validity of the
ES&H activity rankings.**

**The operating organization scoring group should provide documentation
of the basis for RPM scoring as well as the basis for scoring
adjustments by operating organization management, Operations Office
reviewers, and CSO reviewers. Thorough and clear documentation is
essential for effective review and use of the ES&H activity risk-based
rankings by decision-makers as the ES&H planning information is rolled
up. High-quality documentation of the ES&H activity ranking process is
particularly important to support Headquarters budget deliberations and
to provide feedback from Operations Office and CSO reviewers to
operating organizations.**

**Step 1: Assess and score risks before ES&H activity implementation.**

**The ES&H activity scoring group will consider existing risks addressed
by the discrete activities included in the ES&H activity. Each ES&H
activity should include an *appraisal* section, in which the ES&H
activity preparer should document these risks. The scoring group will
consider the risks documented in the ES&H activity along with any
additional risks that apply.**

**For each RPM impact category, the scorers perform the following
steps.**

**(1) Identify all impact levels that could occur because of the current
situation.**

**(2) Estimate the likelihood for all impacts identified in (1) above.
One of the likelihood levels represented by the RPM columns A-D may be
chosen. Alternatively, if information is available to support a
different likelihood value, that value may be specified.**

**(3) If more detailed information is available on the estimated
impacts, specify a consequence multiplier to interpolate between or
extrapolate beyond the impact levels designated in the RPM rows.**

**(4) Select the combination of impact, likelihood, and multiplier that
produces the highest risk score to represent the category in the overall
ES&H activity score.**

**The risk score *before* performance of the ES&H activities is the sum
of the representative risk scores from all categories that are scored by
the scoring team. For example, if the scoring team determined the
"before" score of a hypothetical activity included:**

-   **a very high likelihood for a worker overexposure to radiation (RPM
    Matrix 6.A. = score 100),**

-   **A very high likelihood for a major noncompliance with 10 CFR 835
    that could result in penalties (RPM Matrix 8.A. = score 150), and**

-   **A very high likelihood for serious negative impact on the mission,
    e.g., shut down special nuclear material processing (RPM Matrix
    12.A. = score 150)**

**The total before score would be the sum of these individual scores,
e.g., 100 + 150 + 150 = 400.**

**If using the optional software, the risk score is calculated
automatically in the ES&H Management Plan Information System upon entry
of the selected matrix cells.**

Step 2: Assess and score risks after ES&H activity implementation and
calculate ES&H activity risk reduction score.

**After using the RPM to determine the ES&H activity risk score for
existing risks, the scoring group will consider the effect on site or
facility risks of performing the activities defined by the ES&H activity
and the level of risk remaining after performance of the activities. The
group will consider risks documented in the ES&H activity appraisal
section along with any additional applicable risks. The scorers will
derive the risk scores for the expected condition *after* completion of
the activities in the same manner as they determined the before risk
scores before ES&H activity implementation in Step 1. The risk score for
the ES&H activity *after* completion of the ES&H activities is the sum
of the representative risk scores from all categories that are scored by
the scoring team. For example, if the scoring team determined the
"after" score of the hypothetical activity provided in the previous
example would include the following risk reduction benefits:**

-   **a reduction of the likelihood for a worker overexposure to
    radiation from very high to low (RPM Matrix 6.D. = score 0.01),**

-   **A reduction in the likelihood from very high to low for the major
    noncompliance with 10 CFR 835 that could result in penalties (RPM
    Matrix 8.D. = score 0.015), and**

-   **A reduction in the likelihood for potential for serious negative
    impact on the mission, from very high to low e.g., low likelihood
    for shut down special nuclear material processing (RPM Matrix 12.D.
    = score 0.015)**

**The total after score would be the sum of these individual scores,
e.g., 0.01 + 0.015 + 0.015 = 0.04. Again, if using the optional
software, risk score is calculated automatically in the ES&H Management
Plan Information System.**

**The net ES&H activity risk reduction score is the difference between
the *before* risk score, calculated in Step 1, and the *after* risk
score, calculated in Step 2. Using the previous examples, the risk
reduction score would be the before score, 400, minus the after score,
0.04, = the net risk reduction score = 399.96. The net risk reduction
score would indicate a very effective ES&H activity with regards to risk
reduction. This net risk reduction score is also calculated
automatically within the ES&H Management Plan Information System, if
used. Comparing these risk reduction scores for all ES&H activities at a
site or facility offers a preliminary relative ranking of the ES&H
activities. ES&H activities with high scores represent activities that
are most effective in reducing current risks at the site or facility,
while ES&H activities with low scores offer low benefits in curbing
risk.**

**Step 3: Adjust ranking according to other planning factors.**

**Other factors besides the risk reduction potential of activities may
influence the ranking of ES&H activities. These factors may include
cost, precedence and coupling relationships, and other planning factors.
After the scoring group completes the RPM scoring and ranking using the
RPM, operating organization management and Operations Office and CSO
reviewers may adjust the ES&H activity ranking to account for these
factors. Scoring adjustments may be made by adding to or subtracting
from an ES&H activity RPM score to achieve the desired relative ranking
for the ES&H activity. Scoring adjustments should be thoroughly
documented for the ES&H activity. If using the optional software, this
information is documented in the \"scoring comments\" section in the
ES&H Management Plan Information System.**

**[Cost of Activities]{.underline}. Although the primary objective of
implementing ES&H activities is to remove or reduce major risks, an
additional important objective is to achieve risk reduction as
efficiently as possible. To promote the efficient use of ES&H resources
and the cost-effective conduct of ES&H programs, managers may adjust the
priorities of ES&H activities based on the cost of activities included
in each ES&H activity. Following are examples of situations in which
scoring adjustments based on ES&H activity cost may enhance the ES&H
activity rankings.**

**• Managers should adjust upwards the ranking of low-cost ES&H
activities with substantial risk reduction to ensure such activities are
near the top of the ranked list of ES&H activities.**

**• Managers should reassess each high-cost ES&H activity with a high or
moderate risk reduction score to determine if some subset of activities
in the ES&H activity or some alternative activities could provide
comparable benefits for lower cost. This may require redefinition,
reformulation, or repackaging of corrective actions included in the ES&H
activity.**

**[Precedence and Coupling Relationships]{.underline}. Implementation of
activities in some ES&H activities may not be feasible without previous
implementation of activities in other ES&H activities. If the
prerequisite ES&H activity is ranked below the dependent ES&H activity,
site or facility managers may want to adjust the ranking of the
prerequisite ES&H activity to reflect a realistic priority of
activities. Similarly, two or more activities in separate ES&H
activities may require simultaneous implementation. In this case, ES&H
activity rankings may be adjusted so that the priorities of the
dependent activities allow them to be performed in the same budget
period.**

**[Other Practical Planning Factors]{.underline}. Practical constraints
may change the relative desirability or practicality of certain
activities beyond the rankings provided by the RPM scores. Examples of
planning factors that may merit adjustments in ES&H activity priority
include:**

**• expected life of a site or facility;**

**• changes to site or facility mission;**

**• strategic goals of the Department, EH, or the Program Office;**

**• management workloads and the ability to provide adequate management
and oversight to the activity;**

**• staff loads and ability to hire additional staff;**

**• uncertainties in changing requirements;**

**• uncertainties in obtaining project benefits; and**

**• perception of site or facility risks by the public or other external
stakeholders.**

**After each ES&H activity has received an RPM risk reduction score and
the ranking has been adjusted, the result is a ranked list of site or
facility ES&H activities for use in resource allocation.**

**Operations Office and CSO planners should review the results of
operating organization ES&H activity scoring and ranking to ensure
consistent application of the RPM and proper scoring adjustments. This
review may result in additional ranking adjustments at the Operations
Office or CSO level.**

**As part of their review, responsible managers should assess those ES&H
activities representing significant risks for which effective mitigating
activities have not been identified. This may be the case if ES&H
activity scoring results in both a high *before* and a high *after*
score, indicating that the ES&H activity does not fully address some
significant risk of concern. The low risk-reduction score, if viewed
alone, may result in deferral of the activity. However, if this activity
is deferred, the significant current risk would remain unmitigated. Such
ES&H activities should be evaluated further to determine if alternative
corrective activities would more successfully reduce the risks or if
risk reduction is not practical due to other considerations.
Compensatory actions, which reduce current risks in the near-term while
longer-term solutions are being developed, should always be considered
for high- or moderate-risk situations.**

**3.4.3 Resource Allocation**

**After the risk ranking of ES&H activities has been completed, the next
step in the ES&H Management Planning Process is to allocate available
resources to these activities. This process establishes which ES&H
activities will be funded within target level budgets and the level of
funding associated with each activity. This process also identifies ES&H
activities that cannot be funded under current resource limitations.**

**The allocation of resources to ES&H activities is a multistep process
that involves all levels of the Department. Allocation of available
resources to ES&H activities requires that budget targets (or resource
constraints) be established. Because there are often several different
funding sources for ES&H activities, separate targets may be required to
allocate resources to ES&H activities funded from these different
sources. For example, one funding limitation would be needed for ES&H
activities funded out of the site-wide overhead pool, and a separate
target would be needed for ES&H General Plant Projects (GPPs), which are
funded out of the site\'s GPP appropriation.**

**Targets for programmatic funding should be provided by each CSO as
part of the Departmental budget process. In some instances, these budget
targets are summary (decision unit) level values. In such cases, targets
for use in allocating resources to ES&H activities are derived from
these summary level targets. For activities funded by allocable cost
mechanisms, funding targets must also be derived by operating
organization budget personnel. For example, operating organization
management (with Operations Office approval) is responsible for
determining the size of the overhead pool of resources, and the portion
of the overhead funds that will be allocated to ES&H activities.**

**After targets have been defined, the following major steps should be
followed in allocating resources to ES&H activities for each funding
source.**

**(1) Produce the ranked list of ES&H activities. If using the optional
ES&H Management Plan Information System software, this listing can be
easily produced as a report. This list shows activities in order of
priority and their cumulative cost.**

**(2) Starting with the highest ranking activities on the list,
determine which activities can be supported within the target funding
level (i.e., draw a line on the ranked list where the cumulative cost of
activities in the ranked list equals the target level of funding). This
budget target can be input to, and shown on the output report from, the
optional ES&H Management Plan Information System.**

**(3) Operating organization financial management, ES&H, and senior
management should assess the implications of this first cut at
differentiating funded from unfunded activities. This review should
examine both the funded and unfunded activities. The following questions
should be considered.**

> **\-- Are all essential ES&H programs covered within the current
> funding target?**
>
> **\-- Are any significant ES&H risks not being addressed because the
> proposed activity falls \"below the funding line\"?**
>
> **\-- Are any of the unfunded ES&H activities critical to achieving
> the Department\'s ES&H strategic goals or programmatic missions?**
>
> **\-- Do any of the unfunded ES&H activities represent sound risk
> management investments or provide important preventive benefits that
> will yield long term benefits?**
>
> **\-- Are certain ES&H programs, or parts of these programs no longer
> essential due to changing mission, program needs, etc.?**
>
> **\-- Could any activities \"above the line\" be done more cost
> effectively to free resources to fund some of the currently unfunded
> ES&H activities?**

**(4) After this review, the ES&H activity rankings, funding levels, and
target budgets should be adjusted to reflect management\'s final
decisions. To ensure management\'s ES&H resource allocation decisions
are consistently captured and communicated, the ES&H activities should
be characterized as follows.**

> **\-- Management\'s relative priorities should be reflected by
> adjusting the relative ranking of the ES&H activities. As discussed in
> the previous section, this is accomplished by adding or subtracting
> points from the raw ES&H activity RPM score to move it up or down in
> the relative ranking. The justification for these changes should be
> documented as Scoring Comments.**
>
> **\-- Activities to be funded should be designated as \"Target\". This
> designation is made in the Funding Case field of the optional ES&H
> Management Plan Information System. Activities that management
> determines cannot be funded within the budget target should be
> designated as \"Unfunded.\"**
>
> **\-- The ES&H activity annual cost profile for all funded ES&H
> activities should be consistent with funding decisions and budgets for
> the appropriate fiscal year.**

**3.4.4 RPM Matrix Impacts and Scoring Examples**

**Public Safety and Health**

***Impact 1: Immediate or eventual loss of life/permanent disability***

**This impact should be chosen when a potential result of a condition
being evaluated could lead to permanent disability (loss of limb, sight,
hearing) or loss of life by one or more members of the off-site
population. (It does not address impacts to site workers or visitors.)
This impact includes immediate deaths and disabling injuries, as well as
future cancer deaths or genetic damage and effects that might result
from releases of hazardous or radioactive materials that breach the site
boundaries. Such releases could be the result of accidents that release
hazardous materials within a building combined with failures in building
confinement or containment, accidents during off-site transportation, or
catastrophic events resulting in direct release of materials (e.g.,
fire, explosion).**

**Example: A site or facility has proposed a set of seismic safety
improvement projects to correct structural and equipment deficiencies
that could contribute to building failures during an earthquake. Under
current conditions, there is a high likelihood of structural failure
during a strong earthquake. Structural failure may result in a chemical
release or fire that could spread off-site. Because a number of public
facilities and private residences are close to the site boundary, public
safety could be threatened and fatalities are possible.**

***Impact 2: Excessive exposure and/or injury***

**This impact indicates the potential for excessive exposure or injury
to the off-site population, but without the potential for death or
permanent disabling injury (i.e., recovery from potential injuries is
expected). Excessive exposures to radioactive or hazardous materials are
those that exceed published acceptable limits.**

**Example: The example given for Impact 1 could apply to this impact if
the potential volume of chemicals released were reduced such that death
or permanent injury was not expected. However, public exposures to
hazardous substances that exceed limits would still be expected.**

***Impact 3: Moderate- to low-level exposure***

**This impact indicates the potential for exposure of off-site
population to hazardous or radioactive materials, but these exposures
are no greater than published acceptable limits. Immediate deaths or
injuries are not expected. Rates of cancer incidence in the population
would not detectably increase.**

**Example: A site or facility must purchase modern radiation survey
equipment to comply with Title 10 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 835
Occupational Radiation Protection, DOE Order 231.1, DOE Policy 441.1,
DOE Guide 441.1-1, and American National Standards Institute (ANSI)
N323. Existing survey equipment does not meet requirements for lower
limits of detection for release of equipment or materials from
radioactive materials management areas at the site or facility. Because
of this inadequacy in detection instrumentation, contaminated materials
may be inadvertently released to uncontrolled areas and subsequently
disperse off-site. Because of the nature and volume of the contaminated
materials, however, the potential releases would not constitute a threat
to public health, but could result in a minimal exposure of members of
the public to radioactive material.**

**Impacts 1, 2, and 3 differ in the extent of potential off-site
consequences. In considering the potential consequences of a condition
at a site or facility, the following factors should be considered:**

**(1) the nature of possible accidents that could occur at the site or
facility;**

**(2) the potential for off‑site release of hazardous or radioactive
material in case of an accident;**

**(3) the amount and type of hazardous or radioactive material present;
and**

**(4) the potential for deaths, injuries, or exposures of the off‑site
population.**

**Site Personnel Safety and Health**

***Impact 4: Catastrophic: Injuries/illnesses involving permanent total
disability, chronic or irreversible illnesses, extreme overexposure
(e.g., 1000 rem/yr), or death***

**This impact encompasses potential permanent effects among the site
worker population. Such effects may result from industrial accidents or
excessive exposures to hazardous or radioactive materials. This impact
includes immediate deaths and disabling injuries, as well as future
deaths from latent effects such as cancer.**

**Example: A site or facility has proposed a set of seismic safety
improvement projects to correct structural and equipment deficiencies
that could contribute to building failures during an earthquake. Under
current conditions, there is a high likelihood of structural failure
during a strong earthquake. Persons inside the deficient buildings would
be at risk and fatalities are possible.**

***Impact 5: Critical: Injuries/illnesses resulting in permanent partial
disability, temporary total disability (\> 3 months), or serious
overexposure (e.g., 100 rem/yr.)***

**This impact involves injuries, illnesses, or exposures that result in
lengthy hospitalization and significant recuperation time, but are not
expected to result in death or permanent total disability. This impact
includes exposures to radioactive or hazardous materials that may exceed
published acceptable limits.**

***Impact 6: Marginal: Injuries/illnesses resulting in hospitalization,
temporary reversible illnesses with a variable but limited period of
disability (\<3 months), slight overexposure (e.g., 5-10 rem/yr.), or
exposure near limits (20-100%)***

**This impact involves worker injuries, illnesses, or exposures that
result in emergency room treatment, limited hospitalization, and lost
work time. Time required for recuperation from these effects, however,
is not extensive.**

**Example: A site or facility proposes a Line Item Project to improve
pedestrian and vehicular safety through roadway modifications. This
project will improve sight lines at turns and intersections and widen
narrow portions of site roadways. Under current conditions, the site or
facility experiences about two road accidents per year. These accidents
are typically minor, but do occasionally result in injuries requiring
limited hospitalization.**

***Impact 7: Negligible: Injuries/illnesses that do not result in
hospitalization, temporary reversible illnesses that require minor
supportive treatment, or exposures below 20% of limits (e.g., \< 1
rem/yr)***

**This impact involves worker injuries, illnesses, and exposures that
would be expected to result in no lost work time (unless the exposure
resulted in a cumulative dose exceeding limits). Standard first aid is
expected to be adequate treatment.**

**Compliance**

***Impact 8: Major noncompliance with Federal, state, or local laws;
enforcement activities; or compliance agreements significant to
environment, safety, or health and involving significant potential fines
or penalties***

**This impact includes major violations of laws, regulations, codes,
enforcement actions, compliance agreements, or standards. These
non-compliances have the following characteristics.**

**(1) Violation of the law, regulation, code, enforcement action,
compliance agreement, or standard could result in the imposition of
fines on DOE or the operating organization, imprisonment of DOE or
operating organization personnel, liability for the payment of
significant damages, or other legal penalties.**

**(2) The existing situation must represent a *major, substantive*
non-compliance with the law, regulation, code, or standard. If existing
conditions are substantially in compliance with only minor exceptions,
this impact does not pertain. (See definition of Impact 10 below.)**

**(3) The violated law, regulation, code, or standard must be
significant to environment, safety, or health.**

**If an ES&H activity addresses a major non-compliance with an
environmental law or regulation, such as the Clean Air Act (CAA), the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), or the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), or it
addresses a major non-compliance with a rule subject to penalties under
the Price-Anderson amendments act, Compliance Impact should be 8.**

**In general, non-compliance with a DOE Order should be scored using
Impact 9 or 10 below because fines or criminal penalties do not
typically result from DOE Order non-compliance. Likewise, non-compliance
with an Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) requirement
or a DOE occupational safety and health Order should be scored using
Impact 9 or 10 below unless OSHA has the force of law at a site or
facility (which is currently not the case at most DOE facilities). If an
ES&H activity addresses a major non-compliance with an environmental law
and a DOE Order simultaneously, the applicable compliance impact with
the highest potential risk reduction score should be chosen (in this
case, Impact 8).**

**Example: A site or facility has proposed a project to expand its
hazardous waste storage and disposal capability. Currently, hazardous
waste handling capability is inadequate, so that waste remains in
temporary storage locations for longer than 90 days. This is a violation
of RCRA and the site or facility may be fined by the EPA. Because this
example involves non-compliance with an environmental law, it would be
scored with Compliance Impact 8.**

***Impact 9: Major noncompliance with Executive Orders, DOE
Orders/Notices, or Secretary of Energy Policy Statements that are
significant to environment, safety, or health but do not* involve
*significant potential fines and penalties***

**This impact includes significant noncompliances with any DOE
Order/Notice or policy statement that is significant to ES&H. To
distinguish Impact 9 from Impact 8, noncompliances included under Impact
9 cannot result in fines, imprisonment, or other legal penalties. Impact
9 also includes site or facility noncompliance with laws, regulations,
codes, and standards (e.g., OSHA, NFPA, ANSI, NEC, MSHA) that are
referenced in DOE Orders, but do not have the force of law at the site
or facility.**[^1] **As with noncompliance covered under Impact 8,
conditions of noncompliance included in this impact must be *major,
substantive* noncompliances and must relate to requirements that are
significant to environment, safety, and health. The impact does not
include marginal noncompliances, such as minor administrative
discrepancies (see definition of Impact 10 below).**

**Example: A recent audit finding indicated that the Hazards
Communication Program at a site or facility is not in compliance with
the requirements of DOE Order 440.1. All aspects of the program are
lacking, including surveillance, communications, and recordkeeping. A
site or facility proposes to add five full time equivalents (FTEs) to
upgrade the Hazards Communication Program.**

***Impact 10: Marginal noncompliance with Federal, State, and local
laws; enforcement actions; compliance agreements; Executive Orders; DOE
Orders; or that are significant to ES&H***

**This impact includes *minor* noncompliance with laws, regulations,
codes, standards, Orders, or directives that are significant to ES&H
(the same group of laws and orders that are included in Impacts 8 and
9). It is differentiated from Impacts 8 and 9, which cover major
noncompliance conditions. This impact pertains to conditions in which
current ES&H programs largely conform to the requirements of applicable
laws and Orders, but do not fulfill certain marginal or administrative
aspects of the requirements. For example, if a site or facility has
fulfilled the actual substantive physical requirements of a law or
Order, but has not completed all administrative requirements or paper
work, Impact 10 applies.**

**Example: A site or facility proposes to add one clerical employee to
assist the Industrial Safety Manager in support of the Hazards
Communication Program that was recently upgraded as required by DOE
Order 440.1. The responsibilities of this new employee will be record
keeping and clerical support for visiting assessment teams. Recent
audits have indicated that the program is adequate, but to be in full
compliance the site or facility must keep better records of
communication activities and provide better clerical support for
visiting assessment teams to allow them to obtain a more comprehensive
picture of the state of the site or facility\'s compliance.**

***Impact 11: Significant deviation from good management practices***

**This impact indicates a significant deviation from accepted industry
or DOE standards for the performance of activities in a given area. Such
directives or good practices do not have the weight of a law, DOE Order,
or DOE Policy Statement issued by the Secretary of Energy.**

**Mission Impact**

***Impact 12: Serious negative impact on ability to accomplish major
program mission***

**This impact includes conditions that seriously curtail or prevent
accomplishment of the mission of a major program at a site. The
condition need not shut down the entire site, but must threaten
continuation of at least one of the site or facility\'s major research
or production missions. Under this impact, the interruption of the
affected program mission must be of sufficient duration to pose serious
doubts about the feasibility of accomplishing yearly goals or objectives
set for the program.**

**The program mission impact may be due to regulatory or administrative
shutdown of part of a site or facility, a catastrophic accident
preventing continued activities, or the unavailability of equipment,
staff, or other resources required by the program.**

**Example: Radiological surveys of chemistry laboratories at a site have
revealed previously unknown contamination outside of posted radiological
areas. To fully comply with Title 10 Code of Federal Regulations, Part
835 Occupational Radiation Protection, DOE Policy 441.1, and DOE Guide
441.1-2 as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA) guidelines, the site or
facility proposes to fund systematic, detailed surveys of the
laboratories and management of any contamination discovered. If this
work is not performed, all chemistry division laboratories could be
zoned as radiation areas, which would result in loss of effective use of
the laboratory facilities and prevent progress in major programs that
rely on the facilities.**

***Impact 13: Moderate negative* *impact on ability to accomplish major
program mission***

**This impact includes conditions preventing accomplishment of major
program missions at a site. Program interruptions considered under this
impact are shorter than those included under Impact 12 above.
Interruptions included under Impact 13 may pose risks to the achievement
of set program goals or objectives, but still allow the possibility that
such goals or objectives may be met.**

**Example: A site or facility must institute a site roadway safety and
stabilization program to meet Federal and State safety standards. This
project will stabilize landslides adjacent to roads at the site. Without
this work, the landslides threaten to displace roadways and underground
utilities. If this occurred, access and utility supplies to some site
buildings could be disrupted, interrupting programs in these locations.
Repairs to re-establish access and utilities are not expected to cause
an excessive disruption of progress on these programs.**

**Cost-Effective Risk Management**

***Impact 14: Significant avoidable cost due to degrading
infrastructure, inefficient management systems or program
implementation, accident-related capital loss (total cost \> \$25M or
annual cost \> \$5M), or the opportunity for cost savings***

**Impacts 14 and 15 involve either the loss of DOE capital investment
due to accidents or an existing opportunity for cost savings (such as
infrastructure upgrades, management systems upgrades, or improved
program development). The difference between Impacts 14 and 15 is the
dollar value shown to be at risk or the dollar value of the cost savings
opportunity.**

**For Impact 14, the loss of investment could include loss of buildings,
equipment, materials, finished products, or supplies, in which DOE had
invested greater than \$25 million. Such loss could be incurred by
events such as fire, explosion, human errors, or natural occurrences.**

**In addition to situations involving financial loss due to accidents,
Impact 14 also includes opportunities for cost savings that would have a
positive financial impact. Prominent among such opportunities are
situations in which an immediate preventive investment can help avoid a
potentially greater cost impact in the future. Examples include
neglected site or facility infrastructure for which short-term
expenditures on physical upgrades or increased maintenance or
surveillance can help avoid increased long-term costs due to continued
neglect or degradation or potential catastrophic damage. For Impact 14
to apply, the total cost savings must exceed \$25 million.**

**Impact 14 also includes annual cost impacts greater than \$5 million
incurred as a result of a condition causing losses to a site or
facility\'s capital stock. Similarly, Impact 14 includes opportunities
for recurring annual preventive or other positive financial impacts
exceeding \$5 million. Examples include opportunities to develop
improved ES&H management systems that increase the efficiency of
managing ES&H issues, thereby promoting early identification of
problems; setting appropriate priorities for addressing issues; and
defining cost-effective activities for addressing issues.**

**Example: A site contractor has proposed launching a behavior-based
safety process to improve worker safety and decrease the frequency of
on-the-job injuries. The process includes workplace observation and
feedback to workers to improve the safety of workplace behaviors. In
addition to substantial expected safety improvements, the process is
expected to yield substantial annual cost savings through reduction of
workman\'s compensation expenses. The avoided costs could exceed \$5M
per year.**

***Impact 15: Moderate avoidable cost due to degrading infrastructure,
inefficient management systems or program implementation, or
accident-related capital loss (total cost \<\$25M or annual cost
\$1M-5M)***

**This impact is similar to Impact 14, with the exception of the dollar
amounts, which include smaller investment losses or cost savings
opportunities.**

**Example: A national laboratory and DOE Operations Office ES&H division
propose to develop an integrated issue management and commitment
tracking system to improve the efficiency of ES&H management at the lab,
increase accountability, and allow the Operations Office to perform its
oversight role more productively. Implementation of such a system is
expected to improve the cost-effectiveness of risk management activities
with savings expected to approximate \$1.5M per year.**

**Example: A production site or facility plans to perform a pollution
prevention/waste minimization opportunity assessment on one segment of
the plant\'s process and to implement waste minimization activities
based on the findings of the assessment. Preliminary evaluations
indicated that the resulting waste reduction would substantially reduce
disposal costs. It is estimated that costs could be reduced by around
\$3M per year.**

**Environmental Protection**

**Environmental impacts are defined as damage to a significant public
resource such as: air, water, land, or wildlife. These impacts would
primarily result from accidents involving the release or spill of
radioactive or hazardous materials to the environment.**

***Impact 16: Catastrophic damage to the environment (widespread and
long-term or irreversible effects)***

**This impact includes the most severe environmental effects, those with
both of the following characteristics.**

**• The effects spread or may spread over a wide area and are not easily
containable in a limited area, *and***

**• the effects are irreversible or may only be reversed over a period
of several years.**

**Example: A process at a site or facility involves the use of
industrial solvents. The site or facility has proposed a project to
improve the monitoring of releases from the process. Under current
conditions, solvents may be released, disperse off-site, and contaminate
groundwater that supplies the drinking water for a nearby community. The
water supply would be unusable and an alternative supply would be
needed. Cleanup of the groundwater is thought to require 30 years.**

***Impact 17: Significant damage to the environment (widespread and
short-term effects or localized and long-term or irreversible
effects)***

**This impact includes serious environmental effects that are less
severe than those considered under Impact 16 above. These impacts must
have one of the following characteristics.**

**• The effects spread or may spread over a wide area but may be
reversed in no more than a year\'s time, *or***

**• the effects are confined to a limited area but are either
irreversible or require several years to reverse.**

***Impact 18: Minor to moderate damage to the environment (localized and
short-term effects)***

**This impact includes less severe effects on the environment than those
covered in Impacts 16 and 17 and include both of the following
characteristics.**

**• The effects are confined to a limited area, *and***

**• the effects may be reversed within a year\'s time.**

**Example: A site or facility proposes a project to construct double
containment of feed lines into a diesel fuel tank to help prevent leaks.
Currently, the tank is vulnerable to leaks, which could spill fuel and
contaminate the soil in the area surrounding the tank. Because of the
volume and location of the tank, however, the contamination will not
spread off-site and will not contaminate any water sources. Clean-up
should require only a few weeks.**

**3.5 [Measuring Results]{.underline}**

**ES&H planning information developed and prioritized using the ES&H
Management Planning Process can provide a basis for defining the ES&H
performance measures, objectives and commitments, required annually by
the Department of Energy Acquisition Regulations (DEAR) in Title 48 Code
of Federal Regulations (CFR) Clause 970.5223-1 "integration of
environment, safety and health into work planning and execution", by
which contractor ES&H performance will be evaluated and through which
ES&H accountability will be established. Existing site processes should
be used to propose, review, and establish contractually-binding
performance measures. The ES&H Management Planning process does not
mandate the specific performance objectives, criteria, and measures to
be used, but instead is designed to communicate answers to basic
risk-management questions concerning ES&H activities.**

**• Who, specifically, is responsible and accountable for ES&H
performance at each site, and how is this accountability enforced?**

**• What specific performance measures will be used to evaluate progress
and ensure accountability for ES&H performance?**

**• What is the achieved level of ES&H performance?**

**Award/incentive fee criteria and performance milestones, based on the
performance of ES&H activities, should be incorporated into existing
site incentive systems for the execution year for use with the
Department of Energy Acquisition Regulations (DEAR), Title 48 Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) Clause 970.5215-3 "conditional payment of fee,
profit, or other incentives -- facility management Contracts".**

**3.6 [References/Reading List]{.underline}**

**Department of Energy Acquisition Regulations (DEAR), Title 48 Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) Clause 970.5223-1 (formerly 970.5204-2)
"Integration of Environment, Safety and Health into Work Planning and
Execution"**

**Environment, Safety and Health Guidance for Fiscal Year (Budget Year)
Budget Formulation and Execution**

**DOE Budget Formulation Handbook, Field Budget Process, Chapter IV,
Section 1 "Environment, Safety and Health: Supplementary Budget
Submission Guidance"**

**Department of Energy Acquisition Regulations (DEAR), Title 48 Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) Clause 970.5215-3 (formerly 970.5204-86)
"Conditional Payment of Fee, Profit, or Other Incentives -- Facility
Management Contracts"**

**3.7 [Definitions]{.underline}**

**Allocated (Indirect) Cost/Funding. A cost that is incurred by an
organization for common objectives and that cannot be identified
specifically with a particular project or activity.**

**Commitment. A written declaration by contractors to accomplish certain
activities or meet certain conditions, as described in the ES&H
Management Plan.**

**Direct Costs/Funding. Any costs that can be specifically identified
with a particular cost objective that are directly related to and are
being incurred principally for the benefit of the program receiving the
charges.**

**ES&H Activities. Work conducted whose primary intent is to protect the
health and safety of the public, workers, and the environment.**

**ES&H Management Plan. The generic process by which each site conducts
and reports the results of its annual ES&H planning, programming,
budgeting, work commitment making, and performance evaluation to its
Headquarters and Field Element Managers, the Chief Financial Officer,
and EH in response to the annual budget call.**

**ES&H Management Plan Information System (MPIS). An optional
computer-based system in which the information, obtained through the
application of the ES&H Management Planning Process can be collected,
analyzed, and reported.**

**Program Execution Guidance. Guidance developed jointly by DOE
Headquarters and Operations/Field Offices and issued to contractors that
provides programmatic assumptions, expected outcomes, milestones,
performance measures, financial controls, and reporting requirements; to
be used to develop, implement, and monitor fiscal year operations at a
site.**

**Risk-Based Priority Model (RPM). A methodology for establishing risk
rankings of the ES&H activities at DOE sites. The ranking method relates
likelihood of occurrence of these risks and their adverse potential
effects on the public, site personnel safety and health, compliance
issues, program mission, management investment, and environmental
protection. This method provides the essential information for deriving
ES&H activity priorities.**

**Roll-up. The flow and integration of data at the contractor,
Operations/Field Office, and Headquarters levels.**

**Target Funding Level. The total available funding specified in the
Budget Control Tables provided by Headquarters.**

**Unfunded Activity. ES&H work that is desirable to conduct, but for
which target funding is not anticipated to be provided, based on planned
program direction and budget decision-making.**

**3.8 [Training Courses/Program Assistance]{.underline}**

**Information concerning implementation of the ES&H Management Planning
Process, including prioritization with the RPM, can be obtained from the
following web site: "http://tis.eh.doe.gov/bps/eshplan/index.htm".**

**Questions concerning the ES&H Management Planning Process and the RPM
should be directed to Raymond W. Blowitski, EH-3, at 301-903-9878 or
Patricia Bean, EH-3, at 301-903-3909.**

**TABLE I.**

**ES&H RISK-BASED PRIORITY MODEL (RPM)**

+-----------------------------------------+------+-----+-------+------+
|                                         | **LI |     |       |      |
|                                         | KELI |     |       |      |
|                                         | HOOD |     |       |      |
|                                         | OF   |     |       |      |
|                                         | OCCU |     |       |      |
|                                         | RREN |     |       |      |
|                                         | CE** |     |       |      |
+-----------------------------------------+------+-----+-------+------+
| **IMPACTS**                             | *    | **  | **C** | *    |
|                                         | *A** | B** |       | *D** |
+-----------------------------------------+------+-----+-------+------+
|                                         | **VE | **  | **MED | **L  |
|                                         | RY** | HIG | IUM** | OW** |
|                                         |      | H** |       |      |
|                                         | **HI |     |       |      |
|                                         | GH** |     |       |      |
+-----------------------------------------+------+-----+-------+------+
| **CATEGORY: PUBLIC SAFETY & HEALTH**    | 3000 | 300 | 30    | 0.3  |
+-----------------------------------------+------+-----+-------+------+
| 1\. Immediate or eventual loss of       |      |     |       |      |
| life/permanent disability               |      |     |       |      |
+-----------------------------------------+------+-----+-------+------+
| 2\. Excessive exposure and/or injury    | 300  | 30  | 3     | 0.03 |
+-----------------------------------------+------+-----+-------+------+
| 3\. Moderate to low-level exposure      | 30   | 3   | 0.3   | 0    |
|                                         |      |     |       | .003 |
+-----------------------------------------+------+-----+-------+------+
| **CATEGORY: SITE PERSONNEL SAFETY &     | 2000 | 200 | 20    | 0.2  |
| HEALTH**                                |      |     |       |      |
+-----------------------------------------+------+-----+-------+------+
| 4\. Catastrophic - Injuries/illnesses   |      |     |       |      |
| involving permanent total disability,   |      |     |       |      |
| chronic or irreversible illnesses,      |      |     |       |      |
| extreme overexposure (e.g., 1000 rem),  |      |     |       |      |
| or death                                |      |     |       |      |
+-----------------------------------------+------+-----+-------+------+
| 5\. Critical - Injuries/illnesses       | 200  | 20  | 2     | 0.02 |
| resulting in permanent partial          |      |     |       |      |
| disability or temporary total           |      |     |       |      |
| disability \>3 months, or serious       |      |     |       |      |
| overexposure (e.g., 100 rem)            |      |     |       |      |
+-----------------------------------------+------+-----+-------+------+
| 6\. Marginal - Injuries/illnesses       | 100  | 10  | 1     | 0.01 |
| resulting in hospitalization,           |      |     |       |      |
| temporary, reversible illnesses with a  |      |     |       |      |
| variable but limited period of          |      |     |       |      |
| disability of \< 3 months, slight       |      |     |       |      |
| overexposure (e.g., 5-10 rem), or       |      |     |       |      |
| exposure near limits (20-100%)          |      |     |       |      |
+-----------------------------------------+------+-----+-------+------+
| 7\. Negligible - Injuries/illnesses not | 10   | 1   | 0.1   | 0    |
| resulting in hospitalization, temporary |      |     |       | .001 |
| reversible illnesses requiring minor    |      |     |       |      |
| supportive treatment, or exposures      |      |     |       |      |
| below 20% of limits (e.g., \< 1 rem)    |      |     |       |      |
+-----------------------------------------+------+-----+-------+------+

**TABLE I.**

**ES&H RISK-BASED PRIORITY MODEL (RPM) (Continued)**

  ------------------------------------------ ------- ------ ------- --------
  **CATEGORY: COMPLIANCE**                   150     15     1.5     0.015

  8\. Major noncompliance with Federal,                             
  state, or local laws; Enforcement Actions;                        
  or Compliance Agreements significant to                           
  ES&H and involving significant potential                          
  fines or penalties                                                

  9\. Major noncompliance with Executive     75      7.5    0.75    0.0075
  Orders; DOE Orders; or Secretary of Energy                        
  Directives (Notices or Guidance Memoranda)                        
  significant to ES&H and not involving                             
  significant potential fines and penalties                         

  10\. Marginal noncompliance with Federal,  20      2      0.2     0.002
  State, Local Laws; Enforcement Actions;                           
  Compliance Agreements; Executive Orders;                          
  DOE Orders; or Secretary of Energy                                
  Directives significant to ES&H                                    

  11\. Significant deviation from good       1       0.1    0.01    0.0001
  management practices                                              

  **CATEGORY: MISSION IMPACT**               150     15     1.5     0.015

  12\. Serious negative impact on ability to                        
  accomplish major program mission                                  

  13\. Moderate negative impact on ability   75      7.5    0.75    0.0075
  to accomplish major program mission                               

  **CATEGORY: COST EFFECTIVE RISK            40      4      0.4     0.004
  MANAGEMENT**                                                      

  14\. Significant avoidable cost due to                            
  degrading infrastructure, inefficient                             
  management systems or program                                     
  implementation, or accident-related                               
  capital loss (total cost \> \$25M, or                             
  annual cost \$1M-5M)                                              

  15\. Moderate avoidable cost due to        15      1.5    0.15    0.0015
  degraded infrastructure, inefficient                              
  management systems or program                                     
  implementation, or accident-related                               
  capital loss (total cost \< \$25M, or                             
  annual cost \$1M-5M)                                              
  ------------------------------------------ ------- ------ ------- --------

**TABLE I.**

**ES&H RISK-BASED PRIORITY MODEL (RPM) (Continued)**

  ------------------------------------------ ------- ------ ------- -------
  **CATEGORY: ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION**     2000    200    20      0.2

  16\. Catastrophic damage to the                                   
  environment (widespread and long-term or                          
  irreversible effects)                                             

  17\. Significant damage to the environment 200     20     2       0.02
  (widespread and long-term or irreversible                         
  effects)                                                          

  18\. Minor to moderate damage to the       20      2      0.2     0.002
  environment (localized and short-term                             
  effects)                                                          
  ------------------------------------------ ------- ------ ------- -------

**TABLE II. RPM MATRIX LIKELIHOOD LEVELS**

  ---------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- --------------
                   **A**          **B**          **C**          **D**

  **Likelihood**   **Very High**  **High**       **Medium**     **Low**

  Numerical Value  1.0            0.1            0.01           0.0001

  Expectation       1 in 1 Year  \< 1 in 1      \< 1 in 10     \< 1 in 100
                                  Year,  1 in   Years,  1 in  Years,  1 in
                                  10 Years       100 Years      10,000 Years
  ---------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- --------------

**The likelihood levels are defined in section 3.2.1.**

**A. [Very high]{.underline} likelihood indicates an impact already
exists with certainty or is expected to occur at least once per year.
For example, if a site or facility is known to be out of compliance with
a DOE ES&H Order, then the likelihood of this impact falls into the
*very high* category. If a condition at a site or facility has
historically resulted in one or more lost-time worker injuries per year
and the condition has not been corrected, then the likelihood of this
impact also fits this category.**

**B. [High]{.underline} likelihood indicates that an impact is expected
less frequently than once per year, but more frequently than once every
10 years. Such impacts are expected to occur within the operating
history of the site or facility, but have not occurred regularly every
year.**

**C. [Medium]{.underline} likelihood indicates that an impact is
expected less frequently than once every 10 years but more frequently
than once every 100 years. Impacts with this likelihood are not expected
frequently within the operating life of a site or facility, but may
occur once in the site or facility\'s life.**

**D. [Low]{.underline} likelihood impacts are unlikely to occur within
the operating life of a site or facility, but are not completely
precluded from occurring. For example, impacts in this category may
occur once in the operating life of one site or facility out of a
population of 100 similar sites or facilities. Impacts with this
likelihood are expected to occur less frequently than once per 100
years, but more frequently than once per 10,000 years.**

**(This page intentionally left blank.)**

[^1]: ^1^OSHA may have the force of law at a minority of facilities. At
    these facilities, significant non-compliances with OSHA would be
    included under Impact 8.