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

**PRIORITIZATION GUIDE**

U.S. Department of Energy

## Office of Engineering and Construction Management

## November 2003

**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.

Ed Dailide

U.S. Department of Energy

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

1000 Independence Ave. S.W.

Washington, DC 20585

####### Phone: (202) 586- 5422

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

E-mail: ed.dailide@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

### Executive Summary

This updated prioritization guide was developed by the U.S. Department
of Energy (DOE) Office of Engineering and Construction Management for
program/project mangers, engineers, and designers. This guide provides
information for consistently applying prioritization methodologies that
allocate budget resources to the most important activities.

The two models discussed in this guide are:

 Capital Asset Management Process Prioritization (CAMP),

 ES&H Risk-based Prioritization Model (RPM),

Each of these models is a risk-based system that measures the severity
of a problem. Both systems can be used to evaluate a large number of
diverse activities. Both systems cover worker health and safety,
environmental management, the safeguarding and security of materials,
mission activities, projects that are good investments, and the care and
feeding of our aging infrastructure. All systems involve rating,
scoring, and ranking procedures and are reviewed by field and
headquarters management.

CAMP is a simple and direct method of ranking proposed capital projects.
It uses four major rating categories to span a wide variety of problems
and issues facing the Department. The CAMP method does not
[require]{.underline} the user to estimate probabilities, but allows
probabilistic input when relevant. A well-established and tested system
in use since 1991, the CAMP model was updated in 1996 to reflect current
DOE strategic plans and missions.

The most widely used model for solving ES&H problems is probably RPM.
RPM is the only model directly linked to the Department\'s budget
process. The RPM 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. This score measures the effectiveness
of the activities/solution in reducing risks. RPM permits management to
adjust RPM rankings to account for cost, precedence, and coupling
relationships.

The scope of this guide includes the authority for using each model;
program office points-of-contact for additional information and
guidance; process attributes and applicability including what each model
covers, when and where to use the process, and the model\'s current
development status. Each model is discussed in a separate section that
addresses the details of rating, scoring, ranking, and review and
adjustment using real-life examples. Finally, in keeping with the advent
of performance based contracting and the prioritization requirements in
the Real Property Asset Management (RPAM) Order , requirements,
performance objectives, criteria, and measurements are provided.

Each discussion of the four models includes an individual
reference/reading list, list of definitions, and description of training
courses or tools.

The guide does not recommend which prioritization model or methodology
to use when rating and ranking projects. With the new RPAM order,
Program Offices are responsible for developing, documenting, and
maintaining a prioritization system for the acquisition of physical
assets. The models discussed in this guide are used by Program Offices
to meet this requirement. Any prioritization model that meets the
requirements of the Real Property Asset Management Order can be used.
Program/project managers should consult their respective operations
offices or program officials in determining which method to use.

Prioritization of projects has become a very critical and valuable tool
for program/project managers in allocating the Department\'s resources
in a preferred order that is credible, consistent, auditable, and
technically sound. All the guide models meet these requirements.

1\. **INTRODUCTION**

This project management guide describes and illustrates the various
prioritization systems used by the Program Offices for rating and
ranking line item, infrastructure, and major expense projects. This
guide provides an overview of the two most widely used risk‑based
prioritization (RBP) processes in the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)
for determining the preferred order for allocating limited resources to
solve problems. As stewards of DOE\'s assets, managers should plan,
acquire, operate, maintain, and dispose of their assets in a cost
effective manner. Any model that determines this preferred order must be
credible, consistent, auditable, and technically sound. The two models
presented in this guide satisfy these criteria. The two systems are:

 Capital Asset Management Process Prioritization (CAMP),

 ES&H Risk‑based Prioritization Model (RPM),

Current direction on prioritization is found in the RPAM order. This
Order requires \"a method for the prioritization of infrastructure
requirements,\" asset management performance measures that address these
methods, and a prioritization method for evaluating infrastructure needs
associated with operation and maintenance of physical assets. Program
Offices are to develop, document, and maintain a system to prioritize
the acquisition of programmatic physical assets, including upgrades of
site assets.

This guide explains the structure, usage, and applicability of each
process. It is not intended to be a comprehensive description of each
process or to serve as a training document for any process. The guide
provides recommendations on when each method should be used, but it does
not recommend a specific methodology to use. DOE O 430.1B gives that
responsibility to the Program Offices. Consult your Program Office or
Operations Office before selecting and starting any prioritization
process. The two methodologies provide points of contact to call if you
have any questions.

**2. CAPITAL ASSET MANAGEMENT PROCESS (CAMP)**

The Capital Asset Management Process (CAMP) prioritization model is
available for prioritizing proposed capital projects at DOE sites.

2.1 [CAMP Process Specification]{.underline}

2.1.1 Authority

DOE 4320.2, *Capital Asset Management Process*

This Order was replaced by the Life Cycle Asset Management Order (DOE O
430.1) in August 1995 which in turn was replaced by the Real Property
Asset Management Order in September 2003.

2.1.2 Program Office Advocates/Assistance

Ed Dailide Office of Engineering & Contract Management (ME-90) (202)
586-5422

Barry Sullivan Office of Science (SC-82) (301) 903-8438

Kim Loll National Nuclear Security Agency (NN- 52) (202) 586-6895

Under DOE O 430.1B, Real Property Asset Management, Program Offices
develop, document, and maintain a prioritization model to use for
capital projects and infrastructure needs.

2.2 [Process Attributes/Applicability]{.underline}

2.2.1 Applicability

CAMP is used in prioritizing proposals for what are generally referred
to as capital projects. These may include line item construction,
expense‑funded construction, general plant projects, and capital
equipment projects for capital projects. This process is used at
Environmental Management, National Nuclear Security Administration, and
Office of Science sites for capital projects, landlord facilities, and
infrastructure needs.

The prioritization process methodology is intended to achieve
consistency in the allocation of resources within the same funding
source, project reporting, and the accomplishment of DOE goals. Projects
are compared by each program only within the same "pot of money" or
source of funds. Projects are not compared across programs.

The users or project requestors perform the first step on all types of
capital projects in the CAMP rating process. They identify all
construction and equipment projects necessary to accomplish site
missions. They perform the initial ratings on all line item and major
expense projects with planned new starts in the budget year and the
budget year plus one. Projects rated and submitted previously are not
rated again unless revisions to the project have occurred that would
change the rating.

The CAMP prioritization process can be used for Line Item and major
expense projects planned for the out years and for other types of
projects such as Major Items of Equipment (over \$1M), General Plant
Projects, Productivity Improvement Projects, Accelerator Improvement
Projects, maintenance (operating expense) projects, Capital Equipment
Acquisitions (under \$1M), and any related pre-decisional activities.
Because of the diversity from one site to another, users may have to
develop a site-specific, implementation prioritization procedure.

The most important thing to remember is that the process is only a tool,
and it is not intended to replace management review and judgment.

2.2.2 Development Status

The CAMP model matrix was initially developed in 1990-91 at the Y‑12
plant in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, with input from a wide cross-section of
DOE and M&O staff involved in capital projects, under the auspices of
the DOE Albuquerque Capital Assets Task Group. In 1994, a subcommittee
was formed from the CAMP Planning and Analysis Group to update the
matrix to reflect the Department\'s current values and culture. Recent
improvements to the model include the addition of
subcategories---Infrastructure, Business Benefits, National Business
Strategies/ Partnerships, and Asset Condition---reflect these changing
values. This subcommittee consisted of users, contractors, and DOE
personnel with broad participation from M&O contractors, Field and
Operations Offices, and Headquarters Program Offices (Defense Programs;
Energy Research; Field Management; Environment, Safety and Health
(ES&H); and Environmental Management). This subcommittee plans to meet
biennially to update the matrix as necessary to reflect Department goals
and strategic plans.

2.3 [Approach Summary]{.underline}

The CAMP prioritization model is a systematic, risk-based method of
establishing priorities for proposed capital projects at DOE facilities.
The method is organized around a priority rating system for
capital-related problems and issues that are benchmarked according to
four major categories.

• Health and Safety (H&S),

• Environmental and Waste Management (E&WM),

• Safeguards and Security (S&S), and

• Mission and Investment (M&I).

Proposed capital projects are rated by means of the CAMP model by
placing them directly on a scale on or near existing benchmarks.
Benchmarks are organized within a major category in subcategories to
facilitate the rating process. Each major category with its
subcategories and benchmarks is organized into four CAMP Prioritization
Matrices. (See the matrices located at the end of Section 2. An
additional matrix covering all four major categories has been provided
in Table V.) Because the need for capital projects may stem from a
variety of sources that are not readily comparable and that may not be
similarly quantifiable in terms of risk, the CAMP Prioritization Process
is a simple and direct method for locating projects on a risk-weighted
scale without the requirement to estimate probabilities when this is not
possible or appropriate.

Weights have been integrated into the structure and scaling of the
benchmarked matrices. The categories, subcategories, and benchmarks
reflect current DOE priorities for capital projects based on the
problems and issues these projects are designed to solve.

Proposed projects that are rated in more than one of the four major
categories receive extra credit for solving problems in multiple areas
through the CAMP prioritization model. This process results in the
assignment of numerical priority scores\--one per project\--by which
proposed capital projects can be compared. Projects are normally rated
in groups by site and then reviewed for consistency among the rating
matrices and with judgment regarding priorities. Project rankings may be
modified relative to the numerical ratings to factor in considerations
of cost, special site requirements, and other circumstances. DOE field
offices further review projects and adjust rankings or even ratings
where appropriate. All rating adjustments are constrained by the
benchmarks on the rating scales. Further reviews are conducted at the
Headquarters level prior to establishing final funding recommendations.

2.4 [Process Principles]{.underline}

The steps in the CAMP prioritization process are: (1) problem/project
assessment, (2) rating, (3) scoring, (4) ranking, and (5)
review/adjustment.

2.4.1 Problem/Project Assessment

**Problem/project assessment** is the process of characterizing the need
for and scope of a proposed capital project in terms of the problems or
issues it is designed to address, the degree to which those
problems/issues are actually solved by the capital project, and the
impact of not funding the proposed project or delaying it. Typically,
each site prepares documentation for proposed capital projects as part
of its overall capital planning function. This documentation is
generally sufficient to allow for prioritization within the CAMP system.

2.4.2 Rating Process

The **rating** of proposed projects requires the use of the four major
category matrices provided at the end of this section. The arbitrary
numerical scale used in the system ranges from 20 (which represents good
condition with few problems) to 80 (which represents extremely serious
and near-term problems). For many of the subcategories within a matrix,
the benchmarks do not extend to 80, either because the priority of a
severe problem in that specific area is less than the priority for other
areas, or capital construction does not represent a viable solution to
such a serious and immediate problem.

The initial rating step is to evaluate the relevance of the major
categories. When a major category is relevant, one or more subcategories
are selected as most applicable to the proposed project. For a
subcategory, benchmarks are shown on the matrix that describe the
condition and give its numerical rating. The proposed project is
\"placed\" on the scale within a subcategory on or near existing
benchmarks. For each appropriate subcategory, a project may be rated in
5-point intervals, which allows the person performing the rating to
interpolate between the given benchmarks as desired. Within a major
category, the overall category rating is selected from the highest
subcategory rating identified on the matrix. The rationale here is that
the subcategories are considered to be different aspects of the same
general problem (such as a health and safety problem), and projects
should not receive extra weight for scores in multiple subcategories
within the same major category. This also discourages \"gaming\" of the
system.

2.4.3 Scoring Process

With regard to overall project **scoring**, a scoring rule is provided
that does give projects additional credit for scores in multiple major
categories. The rationale here is that the major categories represent
fundamentally different problems, and that projects that solve several
different problems should have higher priority than projects that solve
only one, other things being equal.

The scoring rule combines ratings in each of the four major categories,
with a default score of 20 for any category that has not been scored. If
a project is rated in only one major category, its overall score is the
same as that category rating. Each additional category may credit the
overall project score up to 3 points (up to 9 points total if all four
major categories are involved). The full 3 points are awarded if the
additional major category rating is equal to or near the highest major
category rating. Less credit is awarded on a pro rata basis depending on
the additional category rating relative to the highest category rating.
Major categories that are rated low or defaulted at a 20 rating generate
no additional points for the overall score.

The calculation for the CAMP prioritization score is as follows.

> OVERALL SCORE =
>
> HIGHEST MAJOR CATEGORY RATING +
>
> 3 x (NEXT CATEGORY RATING - 20)/(HIGHEST CATEGORY RATING - 20) +
>
> 3 x (NEXT CATEGORY RATING - 20)/(HIGHEST CATEGORY RATING - 20) +
>
> 3 x (NEXT CATEGORY RATING - 20)/(HIGHEST CATEGORY RATING - 20)

2.4.4 Ranking Process

The initial **ranking** of projects follows directly from the numerical
scores obtained in the scoring process described above.

To minimize bias and provide consistency during the project rating and
ranking, the process must include management participation. As an
*option*, management could establish a focal point and a rating or
review committee. These personnel would form the nucleus of the line
management review and should promote consistency, equitable application
of ratings, and fair and accurate comparisons.

These same steps or a variation should occur during DOE review. This
starts with the DOE at the installation and progresses to the Operations
Office and finally to Headquarters. DOE involvement and participation
including upper management will lead to the formalization of a capital
budget, which is used to implement projects that are carried out to
correct prioritized deficiencies.

2.4.5 Review and Adjustment

The **review** and validation step is necessary to ensure that projects
have been credibly and reasonably scored and that overall project
rankings are in line with expectations, or that differences are well
understood. The first step in the review is to look at projects as a
set, examining each project score for reasonableness and performing
pairwise-comparisons to determine if relative rankings are reasonable as
well. This review involves both a project-by-project review as well as a
score \"crosscut,\" which is used to examine all projects in a certain
scoring range. This review process may result in either changes to the
score for a project or simply changes in the ranking (without changing
the score).

Project score changes should be well-justified and are always bounded by
the benchmarks on the matrices. Any project with a high score must be
considered higher priority than all benchmarks with lower numerical
values. Sometimes, the relative ranking of a set of projects may be
altered without changing the numerical scores simply by identifying
considerations at the site, field office, or Headquarters level, which
may not have been adequately factored into the overall prioritization.
The validity of a recommended ranking change will, of course, be
evaluated carefully by higher levels of management.

2.5 [Approval Process]{.underline}

Once a project has been rated and ranked, it proceeds through an
approval process that includes the sites, the field office, and
Headquarters. The following paragraphs describe this process. It is
important to note that the process described is not consistent for every
DOE level of management from the site all the way to Headquarters, but
could be labeled as typical.

[DOE at Site]{.underline}. DOE oversight at an installation/site should
always include management review and approval of the site\'s project
rating and rankings. This management review and approval process may
include contractor project and program manager presentations of each
project and justification for the rating selection. Some sites have a
DOE representative as a voting member on the contractor\'s rating
committee. This DOE representative can then brief DOE management on the
justification for the project ratings and validate the project rating
scores. These are examples of DOE site involvement, and there are
probably many other procedures that would be equally acceptable.

[DOE Field Office]{.underline}. The DOE Field Office priority rankings
should always include management\'s review and approval of the site\'s
project rating and rankings. Some Field Offices have a Rating Committee
that rates projects based on presentations from the site\'s contractor
program and project managers. This Rating Committee is almost a
necessity if the Field Office is responsible for many sites involving
multiple contractors. The Rating Committee provides the first step in
the line management review of projects. The first management review
begins the project normalization process to ensure that projects from
the various sites can be compared. The second step for Field Office
management review may include an upper management review council. The
Field Office CAMP Coordinator would present, the Rating Committee\'s
rankings to this review council prior to obtaining the Field Office
Manager\'s approval. The Field Office Manager\'s approval would be the
last step in this review process. All of the various levels of DOE
management review and approval for the project rankings will help
minimize bias and tend to normalize all the projects across the various
sites.

[DOE Headquarters]{.underline}. Headquarters may re-rate and will
re-rank each proposed \"new start\" line- item project. Headquarters
program offices base their rating scores on the project justifications
developed and stated on the project documentation provided by the sites.
Therefore, it is very important to have an excellent justification
document that gives the significant reasons that support the identified
rating criteria subcategory \"drivers.\" Headquarters program offices
value the CAMP rating process because it minimizes bias and results in a
consistent and objective rating for all projects DOE-wide.

\_

2.6 [Real-Life Examples]{.underline}

Two rating examples are provided below. Very detailed explanations have
been provided to facilitate understanding. These are actual projects
that have been generalized slightly for illustrative purposes.

2.6.1 Example 1: Utility System Modernization

[Description and Justification]{.underline}. This project will replace
parts of an essential utility system (electrical) for a large
multipurpose DOE site. The utility system is the only source of
electricity for the site, which contains one-of-a-kind facilities for an
ongoing national defense mission as well as one-of-a-kind waste disposal
facilities serving the entire DOE complex.

The utility system is connected to the electricity source through two
switching stations that have experienced frequent outages over the past
3 years. Some essential major components of the switching stations are
so old that suppliers no longer stock parts. Failure of one of these
major components, an event judged likely within the next 10 years, could
close down the entire site for several weeks until replacements could be
located and installed, resulting in delays in meeting mission
assignments, particularly at the defense facility.

[Step 1 - Identify the Relevant Rating Categories and
Subcategories]{.underline}. The CAMP prioritization system does not
restrict the number of subcategories that can be rated and it is in the
interest of project proponents to rate all subcategories that apply.
Each subcategory should be systematically examined to determine if it
applies to the problem being remedied by the proposed project. Looking
first at the Health & Safety prioritization matrix sheet, for example,
does this utility system modernization deal with a problem of **H&S:
Compliance with Orders and Laws**?[^1] No. Does the project deal with a
problem of **H&S**: Technological Base? No. Does it deal with **H&S**:
Industrial Hygiene? The process is continued until all subcategories
that apply have been identified.

Not until we reach **H&S: Infrastructure** do we get close to a
situation that may represent a problem. The utility system is
infrastructure. However, both from the category heading and from the
prototypical descriptions within the subcategory, it is clear that the
intent of that subcategory is to identify situations in which an
infrastructure problem may cause injury or death. The description of
this project does not mention this possibility and for the purpose of
this example, we will assume that the justification has all the relevant
information. In real life, some relevant information may have been
omitted from the justification; systematic review of all subcategories
will help to surface such omissions so that the additional information
can be added to make the description complete.

Turning to the environmental and waste management subcategories within
the Environment & Waste Management Prioritization Matrix Sheet, each is
found to be irrelevant until we reach **E&WM: Infrastructure**. (Each of
the categories has a subcategory called Infrastructure, with the only
difference being the type of secondary impact that infrastructure
inadequacies may cause.) Failure of the electrical system could have an
impact on the waste disposal operation at the site. Continuing in a
similar manner through the remainder of the subcategories, only one
more, **M&I: Infrastructure**, is identified as relevant. This is found
in the Mission & Investment Prioritization Matrix Sheet The utility
system modernization project will be given rating scores on these two
subcategories.

[Step 2 - Assign Rating Scores to Each Relevant
Subcategory:]{.underline} Subcategory scores are assigned by comparing
the severity of the situation described in the project justification
with that of the prototypical situations on the subcategory scale. The
real life situation is unlikely to correspond exactly to any of the
prototypical ones, but usually one can use the prototypes to bracket the
real situation being rated.

Working first with **M&I**: **Infrastructure,** it should be determined
whether this problem is as severe as the prototypical 70: \"System
failure highly likely, with associated loss of critical/strategic
mission capability.\" The national defense facility meets the definition
of a strategic facility (see Glossary); it is an essential facility in
the accomplishment of a strategically-important national mission. Yet
the project does not rate a 70 because the subcategory does not
represent a \"highly likely\" system failure that would result in
\"loss\" of \"mission capability.\" At worst, failure of the switching
station would cause delays.

Does the project rate a 60: \"System failure likely, with associated
inability to meet overall mission assignment\"? The probability
language, likely, is a match, but the consequence is delay, which is not
likely to jeopardize an overall mission assignment. How about 50:
\"System failure possible, with occasional inability to meet some
significant mission requirements\"? This consequence, occasional
inability to meet some significant mission assignments, is in concert
with the delay described in the project description/justification.
However, the probability of failure of this electric system is
\"likely,\" higher than the \"possible\" described for a 50 rating.
Thus, the rating is higher than 50 and lower than 60; this subcategory
rates a 55.

A similar procedure should be followed to assign a rating for the
**E&WM: Infrastructure** subcategory. The score will be lower because
only failures causing violations or excessive waste generation or severe
environmental impact score points. Failures of this electric system may
cause delays in the acceptance of wastes from other DOE sites, delays
approximately equal to the length of the system outages. If these
delays, days to weeks at most, cause additional violations of waste
storage permits at shipping sites, then the project could score 40 (at
most) in this subcategory. One could argue that even a 40 is too high,
unless the system failures cause \"numerous occasional\" violations;
however, as will be seen in the next section, the computation is not
very sensitive to whether we assign a value of 30 or 40 to this
subcategory.

[Step 3 - Compute the Aggregate Rating Score]{.underline}. According to
the CAMP aggregation rules, the category scores are as follows.

H&S: 20 (the default for unrated categories)

E&WM: 40

S&S: 20

M&I: 55

The category scores are combined by adding to the highest category score
(55 in this case) up to 3 additional points for each rated category,
according to the formula 3 \* (secondary category score - 20)/(highest
category score - 20).

The two category scores, 55 and 40, should be combined according to the
CAMP formula.

M&I: 55

E&WM: [+2]{.underline} \[3 \* (40-20)/(55-20)\]

Total Score 57

2.6.2 Example 2: Central Supply Facility Construction

[Description and Justification]{.underline}: This project is to design,
procure, and construct a Central Supply Facility for a large DOE site to
replace existing deteriorated facilities scattered throughout the site.
Functions of the facility will include receiving, storing, distribution,
property management and shipping of general supplies, hazardous
materials, and records.

The supply facilities are responsible for storing all records for the
site and currently provide inadequate fire separations/enclosures in the
storage area. Condition assessment survey findings based on DOE\'s
CAS/CAIS system cited deteriorating sprinkler systems in the existing
supply facilities, resulting in a potential for extensive fire damage,
property loss, possible injury/death to personnel, and consequently a
disruption of operations and services. The current facilities violate
the American Disability Act regulations; industrial hygiene is adversely
affected due to friable asbestos in the exterior building enclosure of
many of the buildings; lighting and ventilation systems are inadequate,
and the electrical and mechanical systems are unprotected and constitute
a safety hazard.

Accountability of material, equipment, and staff time is compromised
because records are stored in various buildings, inviting misplacement
of records and theft and loss of equipment. The current facility hampers
the efficient circulation and moving capabilities of property,
equipment, and staff resulting in an inefficient operation that impairs
the facility\'s ability to meet requirements and missions of the
operating division.

[Step 1 - Identify the Relevant Rating Categories and
Subcategories]{.underline}. The CAMP model does not restrict the number
of subcategories that can be rated and it is in the interest of project
proponents to rate all subcategories that apply. Each subcategory should
be examined systematically to determine if it applies to the problem
being remedied by the proposed project. Does this central supply
facility deal with a problem of **H&S: Compliance with Orders and
Laws**? Yes. Does the project deal with a problem of **H&S:
Technological Base**? No. Does it deal with **H&S: Industrial Hygiene**?
Yes (and so on).

As a result of step 1, the following subcategories are selected.

H&S: Compliance with Orders and Laws

H&S: Industrial Hygiene

H&S: Industrial Safety

H&S: Fire Protection

S&S: Protection of Property from Theft and Loss

M&I: Mission Capability, Capacity, and Quality

[Step 2 - Assign Rating Scores to Each Relevant
Subcategory]{.underline}. Subcategory scores are assigned by comparing
the severity of the situation described in the project justification
with that of the prototypical situations on the subcategory scale. The
real-life situation is unlikely to correspond exactly to any of the
prototypical ones, but usually one can use the prototypes to bracket the
real situation being rated.

Beginning with **H&S: Compliance with Orders and Laws**, the continuous
violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act are judged to be
\"minor,\" rating a 40. The rating for **H&S: Industrial Hygiene** is
based on the asbestos. The situation is not as bad as 50, which
indicates \"Frequent violation\...leading to minor injuries - no
controls in place\"; however, it is worse than 30, and does not provide
\"Routine acceptable performance.\" The situation can be mitigated
because the asbestos is in the exterior building shell so that exposure
potential only exists when maintenance work penetrates the shell, in
which case administrative controls can prevent exposure. Thus, the
situation corresponds to 40, \"Prevent against frequent violation of
exposure standards only through administrative controls.\"

The **H&S: Industrial Safety** rating is based on the unprotected
electrical and mechanical systems. This situation does not meet
\"established internal objectives,\" so is worse than 30. However, the
Description and Justification does not mention any injuries, so the
situation is not bad enough to rate a 40 and is assigned a 35. **H&S:
Fire Protection** is harder to peg. It is not as bad as a 60 because no
losses are noted in the Description and Justification and the 60
prototype says \"significant property losses routine.\" It clearly rates
higher than 30, which is described as \"acceptable risk.\" A 40 rating,
associated with \"Events with minor injury likely,\" is probably not
high enough because the Description and Justification says \"possible
injury/death.\" The situation in the existing supply facilities appears
close to that described at a rating of 50, \"serious injury moderately
likely\...occasional significant property loss.\"

The subcategory **S&S: Protection of Property** is assigned a rating of
35; existing facilities are apparently not quite up to \"standard
industrial protection\" standards, which would rate a 30, but no losses
have yet occurred, a requirement for a 40 rating. The subcategory,
**M&I: Mission Capability, Capacity, and Quality** is rated a 40,
\"Adequate\...; problems likely.\"

[Step 3 - Compute the Aggregate Rating Score]{.underline}. According to
the CAMP aggregation rules, the highest subcategory rating in a major
category becomes the category rating. The category scores are as follow.

H&S: 50

E&WM: 20 (the default for unrated categories)

S&S: 35

M&I: 40

The overall score is computed by adding to the highest category score
(50 in this case) up to 3 additional points for each rated category,
according to the formula 3 \* (secondary category score - 20)/(highest
category score - 20).

Combining according to the CAMP formula, the total score is:

H&S: 50

M&I: +2 \[3 \* (40‑20)/(50‑20)\]

S&S: [+2]{.underline} \[3 \* (35‑20)/(50‑20)\]

Total Score 54

2.7 [Measuring for Results]{.underline}

Two types of \"results\" are discussed here: (1) successful
implementation of a prioritization methodology designed to rank proposed
capital projects in a consistent fashion, and (2) actual selection of
proposed capital projects which accurately reflect department
priorities.

2.7.1 Performance Objectives

With respect to the capital prioritization method itself, the objective
is to implement a risk‑based method which creates an environment in
which effective and consistent project selection can take place. The
CAMP Prioritization model meets this objective.

Regarding the subsequent selection of capital projects, the objective is
to identify and rank proposed projects which effectively address
problems and issues at DOE sites based on DOE values and priorities. The
CAMP Prioritization model provides a mechanism for accomplishing this,
especially through the inclusion of factors from four diverse major
rating categories.

2.7.2 Performance Criteria

Performance criteria for establishment of the capital project
prioritization method relate to site adoption and implementation of an
adequate method; DOE field and headquarters understanding and use of the
method; and ability of DOE to integrate site results into DOE‑wide
project priorities where appropriate. There is no current assessment
available of the degree to which these criteria are being achieved with
the CAMP Prioritization model, since DOE is in a transition between the
requirements of the CAMP Order and those of the LCAM Order.

A performance criterion regarding actual selection of capital projects
is the ability to validate capital project rating scores and their
linkage to benchmarks. The existence of explicit benchmarks with the
CAMP Prioritization model allows for this validation to occur, with
differing results from different DOE sites, depending on the degree of
understanding of the model and the aggressiveness with which it has been
applied.

2.7.3 Performance Measures

Measures for the prioritization method itself tend to be qualitative,
and include whether an approach has been selected and implemented at a
site (or field or headquarters); the degree to which that approach meets
requirements that an approach be risk‑based and consistent with
Departmental values and priorities; and whether the implementation is
adequately utilizing the features on the chosen method. Measures such as
these are now under consideration regarding capital project
prioritization as it relates to the implementation of the LCAM Order.

Possible measures for the actual selection of capital projects include
the results of review and validation exercises which examine the extent
to which project rankings change when ranked by an independent group
using the same method, and a comparison with judgment‑based orderings
for small numbers of proposed projects. The latter approach has been
used in the development and refinement of the CAMP Prioritization
methodology. The independent rankings approach is encouraged on an
ongoing basis for CAMP Prioritization model implementation and may be
used at the Headquarters level in integrating project recommendations.

2.8 [References/Reading List]{.underline}

DOE Order 430.1, *Life-Cycle Asset Management Order*.

*Capital Asset Management Process Handbook*, Section 8 - Prioritization
Process; Suggested CAMP Prioritization Procedure, Appendix I

DOE Order 4320.2A, *Capital Asset Management Process*.

Memorandum from K.C. Baker (FM-20), November 18, 1994, *Supplemental
Prioritization Information*. Contains guidance and background on use of
recently updated prioritization matrices.

Capital Asset Management Process Prioritization Training Handouts, DOE
FM-20 training materials for CAMP prioritization.

*Department of Energy Capital Asset Management Process: Risk Based
Prioritization System*, Martin Marietta Energy Systems Y/GP-154, October
1991. Contains development history and analytical background for
methodology of the system prior to 1994 updating.

*Summary Report on CAMP Prioritization Update Support,* SAIC, September
1994. Provides description of the update process and rationale.

*Summary Comparison of Key DOE Risk-Based Prioritization Approaches*,
SAIC, March 1994. Provides comparison of main features of five selected
DOE prioritization methods, before recent CAMP update.

2.9 [Definitions for Terms Used in Prioritization Matrix]{.underline}

**ALARA (As low as reasonably achievable).** An approach to radiation
protection to control or manage exposures (both individual and
collective to the workforce and general public) so that they are as low
as social, technical, economic, practical, and public policy
considerations permit. ALARA is not a dose limit but a process, which
has the objective of dose levels as low as reasonably achievable.

**Capacity and Capability.** Related terms for describing mission
readiness; capability refers to the ability to perform while capacity
refers to the achievable production rate.

**Criticality.** The assembly of fissile material in a quantity and
configuration that causes a self sustained nuclear chain reaction.
DOE\'s program to avoid accidental nuclear criticality is defined in DOE
Order 420.1, FACILITY SAFETY.

**Infrastructure**. Utility and other support systems on the DOE site
that support the category specific equipment and facilities. For
example, the site electrical distribution system is infrastructure that
supports the operation of radiation monitors (Health and Safety
category), waste processing facilities (Environmental and Waste
Management category), perimeter detection and alarm systems (Safeguards
and Security category) and production facilities (Mission and Investment
category).

**MSSA (Master Safeguards and Security Agreement)**. A formal agreement
requiring the joint approval of the Field Element manager and the
cognizant Program Secretarial Officers for the levels of protection of
graded safeguards and security interests from theft, sabotage, and other
malevolent acts associated with special nuclear material (SNM) or vital
assets that may adversely affect national security or the health and
safety of the public.

**Pairwise-Comparisons.** Pairwise-comparisons are comparisons of
proposed projects two at a time. This is dones to better understand
relative rankings.

**Payback (Simple Payback).** The length of time required to pay for an
investment from the resulting stream of savings or revenue. Simple
payback is an undiscounted measure of costs relative to benefits,
computed as the ratio of one time cost to annual savings. For projects
with more complicated cost and savings streams (e.g., recurring costs or
declining savings), it will be necessary to compute a discounted present
value cost and an annualized revenue or savings stream before computing
the simple payback period. See OMB Circular No. A-94 Revised,
"Guidelines and Discount Rates for Benefit-Cost Analysis of Federal
Programs."

**Probability and Frequency Language**s. The languages used in the
benchmark rating criteria for all four major categories (see Tables I
through IV) and their respective subcategories have many different
terms. Standardized languages and algorithms minimize the possibility of
misinterpreting benchmark rating criteria for all four major categories
and their respective subcategories. Definitions of these terms are
subject to different interpretations among the various users. Those
standards and their corresponding ranges are shown in the tables below.

  ----------------------------------- -----------------------------------
  **PROBABILITY LANGUAGE**            

  **Standardized Terms**              **Range (Events/Year)**

  **Essentially Impossible**          **(\<10^-8^)**

  **Extremely Unlikely**              **(10^-8^-10^-6^)**

  **Unlikely**                        **(10^-6^-10^-3^)**

  **Slightly Likely**                 **(0.001-0.1)**

  **Possible**                        **(0.01-0.1)**

  **Moderately Likely**               **(0.1-0.4)**

  **Likely**                          **(0.4-0.7)**

  **Highly Likely**                   **(0.7-1.0)**
  ----------------------------------- -----------------------------------

  ----------------------------------- -----------------------------------
  **FREQUENCY LANGUAGE**              

  **Standardized Terms and Synonyms** **Frequency Range (Context
                                      Dependent)**

  **Consistent(ly), continuous,       **\>98% of the time**
  almost always**                     

  **Routine(ly), generally**          **\>90% of the time**

  **Frequent(ly), often, common**     **12 to 120 per year**

  **Many, numerous**                  **10 to 100 per year**

  **Some, several**                   **5 to 50 per year**

  **Occasional(ly), few**             **1 to 10 per year**
  ----------------------------------- -----------------------------------

**REM (Roentgen-equivalent-man)**. A measure of the biological effect of
ionizing radiation, one REM is a dosage of ionizing radiation that will
cause the same biological effect as one roentgen of x-ray or gamma-ray.

**SNM (Special Nuclear Material)**. The acronym for \"special nuclear
material and/or tritium,\" consistent with colloquial usage in some
parts of the DOE complex. The Atomic Energy Act of 1954 defines
\"special nuclear material\" to include uranium enriched in the isotope
233 or in the isotope 235, and plutonium. By Atomic Energy Act
definition, tritium is \"by-product material.\"

**SNM Accountability.** A program set up to assure a high level and
uniformity of protection for nuclear material. Program safeguards
include those measures required to prevent, detect, and/or deter threats
of diversion, theft, sabotage, and/or accidental or inadvertent loss of
SNM. The criteria involved in the material control and accountability
(MC&A) systems and procedures can be found in DOE Order 5633.3B.

**Strategic Facilities.** Facilities that are essential for meeting
goals of programs of national strategic importance, typically but not
necessarily involving national security.

**Technological Base (R&D).** A subcategory of each of the four matrix
categories that refers to research and development opportunities to
expand the technological base available for solving the problems in that
category.

**Attachments: Major Category Matrices**

Attached are the four major category rating matrices.

+---+--------+---------+-------+------+------+-------+-------+------+
| * |        |         |       |      |      |       |       |      |
| * |        |         |       |      |      |       |       |      |
| I |        |         |       |      |      |       |       |      |
| . |        |         |       |      |      |       |       |      |
| H |        |         |       |      |      |       |       |      |
| E |        |         |       |      |      |       |       |      |
| A |        |         |       |      |      |       |       |      |
| L |        |         |       |      |      |       |       |      |
| T |        |         |       |      |      |       |       |      |
| H |        |         |       |      |      |       |       |      |
| a |        |         |       |      |      |       |       |      |
| n |        |         |       |      |      |       |       |      |
| d |        |         |       |      |      |       |       |      |
| S |        |         |       |      |      |       |       |      |
| A |        |         |       |      |      |       |       |      |
| F |        |         |       |      |      |       |       |      |
| E |        |         |       |      |      |       |       |      |
| T |        |         |       |      |      |       |       |      |
| Y |        |         |       |      |      |       |       |      |
| R |        |         |       |      |      |       |       |      |
| A |        |         |       |      |      |       |       |      |
| T |        |         |       |      |      |       |       |      |
| I |        |         |       |      |      |       |       |      |
| N |        |         |       |      |      |       |       |      |
| G |        |         |       |      |      |       |       |      |
| C |        |         |       |      |      |       |       |      |
| R |        |         |       |      |      |       |       |      |
| I |        |         |       |      |      |       |       |      |
| T |        |         |       |      |      |       |       |      |
| E |        |         |       |      |      |       |       |      |
| R |        |         |       |      |      |       |       |      |
| I |        |         |       |      |      |       |       |      |
| A |        |         |       |      |      |       |       |      |
| S |        |         |       |      |      |       |       |      |
| U |        |         |       |      |      |       |       |      |
| B |        |         |       |      |      |       |       |      |
| C |        |         |       |      |      |       |       |      |
| A |        |         |       |      |      |       |       |      |
| T |        |         |       |      |      |       |       |      |
| E |        |         |       |      |      |       |       |      |
| G |        |         |       |      |      |       |       |      |
| O |        |         |       |      |      |       |       |      |
| R |        |         |       |      |      |       |       |      |
| I |        |         |       |      |      |       |       |      |
| E |        |         |       |      |      |       |       |      |
| S |        |         |       |      |      |       |       |      |
| * |        |         |       |      |      |       |       |      |
| * |        |         |       |      |      |       |       |      |
+---+--------+---------+-------+------+------+-------+-------+------+
| * | **Comp | **T     | **In  | **   | **Fi | **Hea | **Cri | **   |
| * | liance | echnolo | dustr | Indu | re** | lth** | tical | Infr |
| S | with** | gical** | ial** | stri |      |       | ity** | astr |
| c |        |         |       | al** | **   | *     |       | uctu |
| o | **     | **Base  | *     |      | Prot | *Phys |       | re** |
| r | Orders | (R&D)** | *Hygi | **   | ecti | ics** |       |      |
| e | and    |         | ene** | Safe | on** |       |       |      |
| * | Laws** |         |       | ty** |      |       |       |      |
| * |        |         |       |      |      |       |       |      |
+---+--------+---------+-------+------+------+-------+-------+------+
| * | **In   | **      | *     | *    | **   | *     | *     |      |
| * | compl  | Develop | *Very | *Few | Prop | *Effe | *Devi |      |
| 2 | iance, | new     | effe  | c    | erty | ctive | ation |      |
| 0 | but    | appr    | ctive | once | loss | ALARA | **─** |      |
| * | up     | oaches, | pr    | rns, | e    | prog  | minor |      |
| * | coming | tech    | ogram | with | x­tre | ram** | c     |      |
|   | pr     | niques, | to    | oc   | mely |       | hange |      |
|   | oblems | and     | limit | casi | unli |       | from  |      |
|   | sl     | method  | exp   | onal | kely |       | app   |      |
|   | ightly | ologies | o­sure | m    | or   |       | roved |      |
|   | li     | to      | below | inor | of   |       | condi |      |
|   | kely** | improve | s     | inc  | tri  |       | tions |      |
|   |        | health  | tanda | iden | vial |       | or    |      |
|   |        | and     | rds** | ts** | val  |       | proce |      |
|   |        | safety  |       |      | ue** |       | dures |      |
|   |        | opera   |       |      |      |       | (Cat  |      |
|   |        | tions** |       |      |      |       | egory |      |
|   |        |         |       |      |      |       | 1)**  |      |
+---+--------+---------+-------+------+------+-------+-------+------+
| * | **     | **      | **Ro  | *    | **   | **Mod | **I   |      |
| * | Consis | Develop | utine | *Mee | Stan | erate | nfrac |      |
| 3 | tently | new     | accep | ting | dard | exp   | tion* |      |
| 0 | in     | methodo | table | est  | in   | osure | *─**s |      |
| * | compl  | logies, | p     | ab­li | dust | to    | ignif |      |
| * | iance, | pro     | erfor | shed | rial | the   | icant |      |
|   | with   | cesses, | ­mance | inte | pro  | p     | c     |      |
|   | occa   | and     | in    | rnal | tect | ublic | hange |      |
|   | ­sional | tec     | m     | obje | ion, | sli   | from  |      |
|   | minor  | hniques | ainta | ctiv | with | ghtly | app   |      |
|   | devi   | to      | ining | es** | ac   | l     | roved |      |
|   | a­tion; | i       | exp   |      | cept | ikely | condi |      |
|   | not    | mprove/ | o­sure |      | ­able | (1-5  | tions |      |
|   | best   | enhance | at/   |      | r    | REM   | or    |      |
|   | man­a   | health  | below |      | isk; | /yr); | proce |      |
|   | ge­ment | and     | s     |      | some | exp   | dures |      |
|   | prac   | safety  | tanda |      | prop | osure | but   |      |
|   | tice** | mission | rds** |      | erty | to    | no**  |      |
|   |        | cap     |       |      | lo   | wo    |       |      |
|   |        | ability |       |      | sses | rkers | *     |      |
|   |        | and     |       |      | ex   | up to | *real |      |
|   |        | effi    |       |      | pect | 1     | istic |      |
|   |        | ciency; |       |      | ed** | R     | way   |      |
|   |        | high    |       |      |      | EM/yr | to**  |      |
|   |        | R&D     |       |      |      | moder |       |      |
|   |        | risk**  |       |      |      | ately | **    |      |
|   |        |         |       |      |      | lik   | cause |      |
|   |        |         |       |      |      | ely** | a     |      |
|   |        |         |       |      |      |       | cri   |      |
|   |        |         |       |      |      |       | tical |      |
|   |        |         |       |      |      |       | ity** |      |
|   |        |         |       |      |      |       |       |      |
|   |        |         |       |      |      |       | *     |      |
|   |        |         |       |      |      |       | *(Cat |      |
|   |        |         |       |      |      |       | e­gory |      |
|   |        |         |       |      |      |       | 2)**  |      |
+---+--------+---------+-------+------+------+-------+-------+------+
| * | **Fr   | **      | **Pr  | **M  | **Ev |       | **    | **Sy |
| * | equent | Develop | event | inor | ents |       | Event | stem |
| 4 | minor  | ne      | ag    | inju | with |       | with  | fr   |
| 0 | violat | cessary | ainst | ries | m    |       | p     | eque |
| * | ions** | methodo | fre   | ex   | inor |       | robab | ntly |
| * |        | logies, | quent | ceed | in   |       | ility | in   |
|   |        | pro     | viol  | goa  | jury |       | app   | adeq |
|   |        | cesses, | ation | ls** | like |       | roxi­m | uate |
|   |        | and     | of    |      | ly** |       | ately | or   |
|   |        | tec     | exp   |      |      |       | 10^   | oc   |
|   |        | hniques | osure |      |      |       | -8^** | ca­si |
|   |        | in      | stan  |      |      |       |       | onal |
|   |        | support | dards |      |      |       |       | fail |
|   |        | of      | only  |      |      |       |       | ­ure, |
|   |        | c       | th    |      |      |       |       | with |
|   |        | ritical | rough |      |      |       |       | nume |
|   |        | health  | admi  |      |      |       |       | rous |
|   |        | and     | nistr |      |      |       |       | as   |
|   |        | safety  | ative |      |      |       |       | soci |
|   |        | mission | contr |      |      |       |       | ated |
|   |        | obje    | ols** |      |      |       |       | m    |
|   |        | ctives; |       |      |      |       |       | inor |
|   |        | high    |       |      |      |       |       | inju |
|   |        | R&D     |       |      |      |       |       | ries |
|   |        | risk**  |       |      |      |       |       | like |
|   |        |         |       |      |      |       |       | ly** |
+---+--------+---------+-------+------+------+-------+-------+------+
| * | **Freq | **      | **Fre | **M  | *    | **    |       | **Sy |
| * | uently | Develop | quent | inor | *Ser | Conti |       | stem |
| 5 | in     | new     | viol  | inju | ious | nuous |       | fai  |
| 0 | compl  | method  | ation | ries | in   | low-  |       | lure |
| * | i­ance, | ologies | of    | f    | jury | level |       | p    |
| * | but    | to      | exp   | requ | mo   | exp   |       | os­si |
|   | s      | i       | osure | ent, | dera | o­sure |       | ­ble, |
|   | eri­ous | mprove/ | stan  | or   | tely | to    |       | wi   |
|   | viol   | enhance | dards | ser  | lik  | the   |       | th** |
|   | ations | health  | le    | ious | ely; | p     |       |      |
|   | occa­si | and     | ading | in   | stan | ublic |       | *    |
|   | on­ally | safety  | to    | jury | ­dard | l     |       | *ser |
|   | o      | mission | minor | mo   | in   | ikely |       | i­ous |
|   | ccur** | cap     | injur | dera | dust | (     |       | inju |
|   |        | ability | ies** | tely | rial | .01-1 |       | ry** |
|   |        | and     | ─     | like | pro  | REM   |       |      |
|   |        | effi    | **no  | ly** | tec­t | /yr); |       | **mo |
|   |        | ciency; | con   |      | ion; | high  |       | d­er­a |
|   |        | acc     | trols |      | oc   | exp   |       | tely |
|   |        | eptable | in    |      | ca­si | o­sure |       | like |
|   |        | R&D     | pl    |      | on­al | to    |       | ly** |
|   |        | risk**  | ace** |      | sig  | wo    |       |      |
|   |        |         |       |      | nifi | rk­ers |       |      |
|   |        |         |       |      | ­cant | sli   |       |      |
|   |        |         |       |      | prop | ghtly |       |      |
|   |        |         |       |      | er­ty | l     |       |      |
|   |        |         |       |      | lo   | ikely |       |      |
|   |        |         |       |      | ss** | (1    |       |      |
|   |        |         |       |      |      | 0-100 |       |      |
|   |        |         |       |      |      | REM/  |       |      |
|   |        |         |       |      |      | yr)** |       |      |
+---+--------+---------+-------+------+------+-------+-------+------+
| * | **S    | **      | *     | *    | *    | *     | **V   | **Sy |
| * | erious | Develop | *Pote | *Ser | *Ser | *Exce | iolat | stem |
| 6 | viol   | ne      | ntial | ious | ious | ssive | ion** | fai  |
| 0 | ations | cessary | s     | in   | in   | exp   | ─**co | lure |
| * | fre    | methodo | ubsta | jury | jury | osure | ntinu | lik  |
| * | quent, | logies, | ntial | like | lik  | to    | ation | e­ly; |
|   | or     | pro     | d     | ly** | ely; | the   | of    | ser  |
|   | some   | cesses, | an­ger |      | sig  | p     | act   | ious |
|   | cont   | and     | to    |      | nifi | ublic | ivity | in   |
|   | inu­ing | tec     | site  |      | cant | sli   | would | ju­ry |
|   | minor  | hniques | pers  |      | prop | ghtly | sig   | like |
|   | devi   | in      | onnel |      | erty | l     | nifi­c | ly** |
|   | ations | support | th    |      | lo   | ikely | antly |      |
|   | with** | of      | rough |      | sses | (     | inc   |      |
|   |        | c       | expo  |      | r    | 5-100 | rease |      |
|   | **sh   | ritical | sure; |      | outi | REM   | p     |      |
|   | utdown | health  | near  |      | ne** | /yr); | robab |      |
|   | poss   | and     | -term |      |      | w     | ili­ty |      |
|   | ible** | safety  | a     |      |      | orker | of    |      |
|   |        | mission | ction |      |      | exp   | c     |      |
|   |        | obje    | requi |      |      | osure | ritic |      |
|   |        | ctives; | red** |      |      | above | ality |      |
|   |        | acc     |       |      |      | regul | (Cat  |      |
|   |        | eptable |       |      |      | atory | egory |      |
|   |        | R&D     |       |      |      | l     | 3)**  |      |
|   |        | risk**  |       |      |      | imits |       |      |
|   |        |         |       |      |      | l     |       |      |
|   |        |         |       |      |      | ikely |       |      |
|   |        |         |       |      |      | (5-10 |       |      |
|   |        |         |       |      |      | REM/  |       |      |
|   |        |         |       |      |      | yr)** |       |      |
+---+--------+---------+-------+------+------+-------+-------+------+
| * |        |         | **S   | **Fa | **Fa | **Mod | **    | **   |
| * |        |         | ubsta | tali | tali | erate | Event | Life |
| 7 |        |         | ntial | ties | ties | exp   | cre   | -thr |
| 0 |        |         | d     | po   | po   | osure | dible | eate |
| * |        |         | anger | ssib | ssib | to    | with  | ning |
| * |        |         | to    | le** | le** | the   | p     | sy   |
|   |        |         | perso |      |      | p     | ossib | stem |
|   |        |         | nnel; |      |      | ublic | ility | fai  |
|   |        |         | fatal |      |      | l     | 10^   | lure |
|   |        |         | ities |      |      | ikely | -6^** | hi   |
|   |        |         | possi |      |      | (1-5  |       | gh­ly |
|   |        |         | ­ble** |      |      | REM/  |       | like |
|   |        |         |       |      |      | yr);  |       | ly** |
|   |        |         |       |      |      | w     |       |      |
|   |        |         |       |      |      | orker |       |      |
|   |        |         |       |      |      | fat   |       |      |
|   |        |         |       |      |      | ality |       |      |
|   |        |         |       |      |      | sli   |       |      |
|   |        |         |       |      |      | ghtly |       |      |
|   |        |         |       |      |      | lik   |       |      |
|   |        |         |       |      |      | ely** |       |      |
+---+--------+---------+-------+------+------+-------+-------+------+
| * |        |         | **L   | **   | **Li | **Lif | **C   |      |
| * |        |         | ife-t | Life | fe-t | e-thr | ritic |      |
| 8 |        |         | hreat | -thr | hrea | eaten | ality |      |
| 0 |        |         | ening | eate | teni | ing** | or    |      |
| * |        |         | situ  | ning | ng** |       | near  |      |
| * |        |         | ation | s    |      | *     | c     |      |
|   |        |         | h     | itua | **s  | *situ | riti­c |      |
|   |        |         | ighly | ­tion | itua | a­tion | ality |      |
|   |        |         | lik   | hi   | ­tion | h     | (     |      |
|   |        |         | ely** | ghly | hi   | ighly | Cat­e­g |      |
|   |        |         |       | like | ghly | lik   | ories |      |
|   |        |         |       | ly** | like | ely** | 4 and |      |
|   |        |         |       |      | ly** |       | 5)**  |      |
+---+--------+---------+-------+------+------+-------+-------+------+

<table style="width:100%;">
<colgroup>
<col style="width: 5%" />
<col style="width: 11%" />
<col style="width: 13%" />
<col style="width: 9%" />
<col style="width: 9%" />
<col style="width: 8%" />
<col style="width: 9%" />
<col style="width: 10%" />
<col style="width: 9%" />
<col style="width: 10%" />
</colgroup>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td colspan="10"><strong>II. ENVIRONMENTAL and WASTE MANAGEMENT RATING
CRITERIA SUBCATEGORIES</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><strong>Score</strong></td>
<td><p><strong>Compliance with</strong></p>
<p><strong>Orders and Laws</strong></p></td>
<td><p><strong>Technological</strong></p>
<p><strong>Base (R&amp;D)</strong></p></td>
<td><p><strong>Liquid and</strong></p>
<p><strong>Hazardous</strong></p>
<p><strong>Waste</strong></p></td>
<td><p><strong>Solid and</strong></p>
<p><strong>Hazardous</strong></p>
<p><strong>Waste</strong></p></td>
<td><p><strong>Airborne</strong></p>
<p><strong>Pollutants</strong></p></td>
<td><p><strong>Waste</strong></p>
<p><strong>Minimization</strong></p></td>
<td><p><strong>Environmental</strong></p>
<p><strong>Restoration</strong></p></td>
<td><p><strong>Corrective</strong></p>
<p><strong>Activities</strong></p></td>
<td><strong>Infrastructure</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><strong>20</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>Develop new approaches, techniques, and methodologies to
improve environmental and waste management operations</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>Consistently meets requirements</strong></td>
<td><strong>Process generates relatively little waste</strong></td>
<td><strong>Decontamination and decommissioning (D&amp;D) at sites with
no present imperatives</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><strong>30</strong></td>
<td><strong>Consistently in com­pliance, with occa­sional minor devia­tion;
not best man­age­ment practice</strong></td>
<td><strong>Develop new methodologies, processes, and techniques to
improve/ enhance environmental and waste management mission capability
and efficiency; high R&amp;D risk</strong></td>
<td><strong>Occasional discharge exceeding material goals</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td><p><strong>Emissions currently within permitted levels, but
hard</strong></p>
<p><strong>to maintain</strong></p></td>
<td><p><strong>Process generates</strong></p>
<p><strong>more waste than an efficient process</strong></p></td>
<td><strong>Remedial actions/ D&amp;D needed to reduce risk, promote
compli-ance, or maintain mission continuity</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><strong>40</strong></td>
<td><strong>Occasional/or frequent minor violations</strong></td>
<td><strong>Develop necessary methodologies, processes, and techniques
in support of critical environmental and waste management mission
objectives; high R&amp;D risk</strong></td>
<td><strong>Occasional violation of discharge limit</strong></td>
<td><strong>Occasional in-adequacy of permitted storage/handling/
transport/pack-aging/disposal capacity</strong></td>
<td><strong>Emissions occasionally exceed permitted levels by a small
amount</strong></td>
<td><strong>Process generates excessive waste</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>System frequently inadequate or occasional failure, with
numerous occasional environmental per-mit violations</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><strong>50</strong></td>
<td><strong>Frequently in compliance, but serious violations
occasionally occur</strong></td>
<td><strong>Develop new methodologies to improve/enhance environmental
and waste management mission capability and efficiency; acceptable
R&amp;D risk</strong></td>
<td><p><strong>Many or immedi-ate violations; lack of adequate
storage/treatment/handling/</strong></p>
<p><strong>transport/pack-aging facilities</strong></p></td>
<td><strong>System capacity frequently inadequate</strong></td>
<td><strong>Emissions frequently exceed permitted levels by a large
amount</strong></td>
<td><strong>Process generates waste that exceeds regulatory
limits</strong></td>
<td><p><strong>Remedial actions/</strong></p>
<p><strong>D&amp;D required by in-force agreements</strong></p></td>
<td><strong>Out-of-compliance with require-ments, but no signed
agreement</strong></td>
<td><strong>System failure possible, asso-ciated with occas-ional
serious environmental vio-lations or frequent excessive waste
generation</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><strong>60</strong></td>
<td><p><strong>Serious violations</strong></p>
<p><strong>frequent; violation of law with potential serious civil or
criminal problems</strong></p></td>
<td><strong>Develop necessary methodologies, processes, and techniques
in support of critical environmental and waste management mission
objectives; acceptable R&amp;D risk</strong></td>
<td><strong>Offsite discharge extremely high on occasion (not
life-threatening)</strong></td>
<td><strong>System inadequate with likely serious environmental impact;
shutdown possible</strong></td>
<td><strong>Emissions extremely high on occasion (not
life-threatening)</strong></td>
<td><strong>Process generates excessive waste such that severe
environmental impact is likely</strong></td>
<td><p><strong>Actions required</strong></p>
<p><strong>as part of a signed interagency agreement</strong></p></td>
<td><strong>Actions required as part of a signed inter-agency
agreement</strong></td>
<td><strong>System failure likely, with associated frequent serious
violations of environmental regulations or law</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><strong>70</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td><p><strong>Offsite discharge extremely high on occasion
(life-threatening</strong></p>
<p><strong>possible)</strong></p></td>
<td><strong>System inadequate with highly likely serious environmental
impact; near-term significant risks</strong></td>
<td><strong>Emissions extremely high on occasion (life-threatening
possible)</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td><p><strong>Remedial actions/</strong></p>
<p><strong>D&amp;D required to protect from near-term significant
risks</strong></p></td>
<td><strong>Actions needed within 1 year to prevent significant
risks</strong></td>
<td><strong>System failure highly likely, ex-pected to result in severe
environ-mental impact or extremely high emissions</strong></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

+---+--------+----------+------+------+-------+-------+-------+------+
| * |        |          |      |      |       |       |       |      |
| * |        |          |      |      |       |       |       |      |
| I |        |          |      |      |       |       |       |      |
| I |        |          |      |      |       |       |       |      |
| I |        |          |      |      |       |       |       |      |
| . |        |          |      |      |       |       |       |      |
| S |        |          |      |      |       |       |       |      |
| A |        |          |      |      |       |       |       |      |
| F |        |          |      |      |       |       |       |      |
| E |        |          |      |      |       |       |       |      |
| G |        |          |      |      |       |       |       |      |
| U |        |          |      |      |       |       |       |      |
| A |        |          |      |      |       |       |       |      |
| R |        |          |      |      |       |       |       |      |
| D |        |          |      |      |       |       |       |      |
| S |        |          |      |      |       |       |       |      |
| a |        |          |      |      |       |       |       |      |
| n |        |          |      |      |       |       |       |      |
| d |        |          |      |      |       |       |       |      |
| S |        |          |      |      |       |       |       |      |
| E |        |          |      |      |       |       |       |      |
| C |        |          |      |      |       |       |       |      |
| U |        |          |      |      |       |       |       |      |
| R |        |          |      |      |       |       |       |      |
| I |        |          |      |      |       |       |       |      |
| T |        |          |      |      |       |       |       |      |
| Y |        |          |      |      |       |       |       |      |
| R |        |          |      |      |       |       |       |      |
| A |        |          |      |      |       |       |       |      |
| T |        |          |      |      |       |       |       |      |
| I |        |          |      |      |       |       |       |      |
| N |        |          |      |      |       |       |       |      |
| G |        |          |      |      |       |       |       |      |
| C |        |          |      |      |       |       |       |      |
| R |        |          |      |      |       |       |       |      |
| I |        |          |      |      |       |       |       |      |
| T |        |          |      |      |       |       |       |      |
| E |        |          |      |      |       |       |       |      |
| R |        |          |      |      |       |       |       |      |
| I |        |          |      |      |       |       |       |      |
| A |        |          |      |      |       |       |       |      |
| S |        |          |      |      |       |       |       |      |
| U |        |          |      |      |       |       |       |      |
| B |        |          |      |      |       |       |       |      |
| C |        |          |      |      |       |       |       |      |
| A |        |          |      |      |       |       |       |      |
| T |        |          |      |      |       |       |       |      |
| E |        |          |      |      |       |       |       |      |
| G |        |          |      |      |       |       |       |      |
| O |        |          |      |      |       |       |       |      |
| R |        |          |      |      |       |       |       |      |
| I |        |          |      |      |       |       |       |      |
| E |        |          |      |      |       |       |       |      |
| S |        |          |      |      |       |       |       |      |
| * |        |          |      |      |       |       |       |      |
| * |        |          |      |      |       |       |       |      |
+---+--------+----------+------+------+-------+-------+-------+------+
| * | **Comp | *        | **S  | **   | **    | **    | **    | **   |
| * | liance | *Technol | NM** | Prot | Prote | Prote | Prote | Infr |
| S | with** | ogical** |      | ecti | ction | ction | ction | astr |
| c |        |          | **   | on** | of**  | of**  | f     | uctu |
| o | **Ord  | **Base   | Acco |      |       |       | rom** | re** |
| r | ers,** | (R&D)**  | unta | **of | **C   | **Pro |       |      |
| e |        |          | bili | S    | lass. | perty | **Ho  |      |
| * | **Re   |          | ty** | NM** | Inf   | f     | stile |      |
| * | gulati |          |      |      | o.,** | rom** | Act   |      |
|   | ons,** |          |      |      |       |       | ion** |      |
|   |        |          |      |      | **T   | **    |       |      |
|   | **Pol  |          |      |      | echno | Theft |       |      |
|   | icies, |          |      |      | logy, | and   |       |      |
|   | MSSA** |          |      |      | and** | L     |       |      |
|   |        |          |      |      |       | oss** |       |      |
|   |        |          |      |      | **    |       |       |      |
|   |        |          |      |      | Parts | *     |       |      |
|   |        |          |      |      | (     | *(Non |       |      |
|   |        |          |      |      | Non-S | -SNM, |       |      |
|   |        |          |      |      | NM)** | No    |       |      |
|   |        |          |      |      |       | n-Cla |       |      |
|   |        |          |      |      |       | ssifi |       |      |
|   |        |          |      |      |       | ed)** |       |      |
+---+--------+----------+------+------+-------+-------+-------+------+
| * | **     | *        | **   | **   |       | *     |       |      |
| * | Consis | *Develop | Cons | Very |       | *Some |       |      |
| 2 | tently | new      | iste | sec  |       | small |       |      |
| 0 | in     | app      | ntly | ure* |       | l     |       |      |
| * | com­pl  | roaches, | m    | *─** |       | osses |       |      |
| * | iance, | tec      | eets | only |       | expec |       |      |
|   | with   | hniques, | sta  | rem  |       | ted** |       |      |
|   | some   | and      | ndar | ote, |       |       |       |      |
|   | minor  | metho    | ds** | unli |       |       |       |      |
|   | deviat | dologies |      | kely |       |       |       |      |
|   | ions** | to       |      | s    |       |       |       |      |
|   |        | improve  |      | cena |       |       |       |      |
|   |        | sa       |      | rios |       |       |       |      |
|   |        | feguards |      | cou  |       |       |       |      |
|   |        | and      |      | ld** |       |       |       |      |
|   |        | security |      |      |       |       |       |      |
|   |        | oper     |      | **s  |       |       |       |      |
|   |        | ations** |      | ucce |       |       |       |      |
|   |        |          |      | ed** |       |       |       |      |
+---+--------+----------+------+------+-------+-------+-------+------+
| * | **Rou  | *        | **   | **T  | **    | **Sta | *     |      |
| * | tinely | *Develop | Freq | heft | Theft | ndard | *Safe |      |
| 3 | in     | new      | uent | or   | or    | indus | and   |      |
| 0 | compl  | method   | or   | d    | dive  | trial | se    |      |
| * | iance, | ologies, | m    | iver | rsion | pr    | cure; |      |
| * | with   | pr       | inor | sion | pos   | otect | n     |      |
|   | some   | ocesses, | p    | pos  | sibil | ion** | ormal |      |
|   | minor  | and      | robl | sibi | ities |       | conce |      |
|   | devia  | te       | ems, | liti | nor   |       | rns** |      |
|   | ­tions; | chniques | but  | es** | mally |       |       |      |
|   | not    | to       | comp |      | c     |       |       |      |
|   | best   | improve  | ensa | **ac | ounte |       |       |      |
|   | man­a   | /enhance | tory | cept | red** |       |       |      |
|   | ge­ment | sa       | meas | ably |       |       |       |      |
|   | prac   | feguards | ures | cou  |       |       |       |      |
|   | tice** | and      | ava  | nter |       |       |       |      |
|   |        | security | ilab | ed** |       |       |       |      |
|   |        | mission  | le** |      |       |       |       |      |
|   |        | ca       |      |      |       |       |       |      |
|   |        | pability |      |      |       |       |       |      |
|   |        | and      |      |      |       |       |       |      |
|   |        | eff      |      |      |       |       |       |      |
|   |        | iciency; |      |      |       |       |       |      |
|   |        | high R&D |      |      |       |       |       |      |
|   |        | risk**   |      |      |       |       |       |      |
+---+--------+----------+------+------+-------+-------+-------+------+
| * | **Freq | *        | **Ac |      |       | **    |       | **Sy |
| * | uently | *Develop | coun |      |       | Occas |       | stem |
| 4 | in     | n        | tabi |      |       | ional |       | fr   |
| 0 | compl  | ecessary | lity |      |       | s     |       | eque |
| * | iance, | method   | d    |      |       | ignif |       | ntly |
| * | but    | ologies, | iffi |      |       | icant |       | in   |
|   | s      | pr       | cult |      |       | loss; |       | adeq |
|   | erious | ocesses, | wi   |      |       | fre   |       | uate |
|   | viol   | and      | thin |      |       | quent |       | or   |
|   | ations | te       | re   |      |       | minor |       | oc   |
|   | occasi | chniques | ason |      |       | l     |       | casi |
|   | onally | in       | able |      |       | oss** |       | onal |
|   | occur  | support  | resp |      |       |       |       | fail |
|   | for    | of       | onse |      |       |       |       | ure, |
|   | clas   | critical | t    |      |       |       |       | with |
|   | sified | sa       | ime, |      |       |       |       | as   |
|   | inform | feguards | but  |      |       |       |       | soci |
|   | ation, | and      | re   |      |       |       |       | ated |
|   | techn  | security | solu |      |       |       |       | freq |
|   | ology, | mission  | tion |      |       |       |       | uent |
|   | and    | obj      | mo   |      |       |       |       | m    |
|   | p      | ectives; | dera |      |       |       |       | inor |
|   | arts** | high R&D | tely |      |       |       |       | sec  |
|   |        | risk**   | like |      |       |       |       | urit |
|   |        |          | ly** |      |       |       |       | y/sa |
|   |        |          |      |      |       |       |       | fegu |
|   |        |          |      |      |       |       |       | ards |
|   |        |          |      |      |       |       |       | pr   |
|   |        |          |      |      |       |       |       | oble |
|   |        |          |      |      |       |       |       | ms** |
+---+--------+----------+------+------+-------+-------+-------+------+
| * | **S    | *        | *    | **T  |       | **    | **C   | **Sy |
| * | erious | *Develop | *Ser | heft |       | Occas | annot | stem |
| 5 | viol   | new      | ious | or   |       | ional | reaso | fai  |
| 0 | ations | metho    | p    | d    |       | major | nably | lure |
| * | fr     | dologies | robl | iver |       | l     | a     | p    |
| * | equent | to       | ems; | sion |       | oss** | ssure | ossi |
|   | for    | improve  | ac   | p    |       |       | p     | ble, |
|   | clas   | /enhance | coun | ossi |       |       | rotec | with |
|   | sified | sa       | tabi | bili |       |       | tion; | oc   |
|   | inform | feguards | lity | ties |       |       | se    | casi |
|   | ation, | and      | u    | th   |       |       | rious | onal |
|   | techn  | security | ncer | at** |       |       | i     | ser  |
|   | ology, | mission  | tain |      |       |       | njury | ious |
|   | and    | ca       | wi   | **e  |       |       | possi | secu |
|   | parts, | pability | thin | vade |       |       | ble** | rity |
|   | or     | and      | re   | i    |       |       |       | viol |
|   | many   | eff      | ason | niti |       |       |       | atio |
|   | cont   | iciency; | able | al** |       |       |       | ns** |
|   | inuing | ac       | resp |      |       |       |       |      |
|   | violat | ceptable | onse | **d  |       |       |       |      |
|   | ions** | R&D      | ti   | etec |       |       |       |      |
|   |        | risk**   | me** | tion |       |       |       |      |
|   |        |          |      | s    |       |       |       |      |
|   |        |          |      | yste |       |       |       |      |
|   |        |          |      | ms** |       |       |       |      |
+---+--------+----------+------+------+-------+-------+-------+------+
| * | **Freq | *        | **   | **Ca | *     |       | **C   | **Sy |
| * | uently | *Develop | Nume | nnot | *Loss |       | annot | stem |
| 6 | in     | n        | rous | re   | of    |       | reaso | fai  |
| 0 | compl  | ecessary | SNM  | ason | cl    |       | nably | lure |
| * | iance, | method   | viol | ably | assif |       | a     | like |
| * | but    | ologies, | atio | as   | ied** |       | ssure | -ly, |
|   | SNM    | pr       | ns** | sure |       |       | p     | with |
|   | viol   | ocesses, |      | prot | **in  |       | rotec | as   |
|   | ations | and      |      | ecti | forma |       | tion; | soci |
|   | occasi | te       |      | on** | tion, |       | se    | ated |
|   | onally | chniques |      |      | t     |       | rious | ser  |
|   | o      | in       |      |      | echno |       | inj   | ious |
|   | ccur** | support  |      |      | logy, |       | ury** | vi   |
|   |        | of       |      |      | or    |       |       | olat |
|   |        | critical |      |      | parts |       | **lik | ions |
|   |        | sa       |      |      | is    |       | ely** | or   |
|   |        | feguards |      |      | l     |       |       | i    |
|   |        | and      |      |      | ikely |       |       | nabi |
|   |        | security |      |      | (int  |       |       | lity |
|   |        | mission  |      |      | entio |       |       | to   |
|   |        | obj      |      |      | nal** |       |       | re   |
|   |        | ectives; |      |      |       |       |       | ason |
|   |        | ac       |      |      | **or  |       |       | ably |
|   |        | ceptable |      |      | u     |       |       | as   |
|   |        | R&D      |      |      | ninte |       |       | sure |
|   |        | risk**   |      |      | ntion |       |       | SNM  |
|   |        |          |      |      | al)** |       |       | prot |
|   |        |          |      |      |       |       |       | ecti |
|   |        |          |      |      |       |       |       | on** |
+---+--------+----------+------+------+-------+-------+-------+------+
| * | **Many |          |      | **Re |       |       | *     | **Sy |
| * | s      |          |      | ason |       |       | *Terr | stem |
| 7 | erious |          |      | able |       |       | orist | fai  |
| 0 | viol   |          |      | s    |       |       | a     | lure |
| * | ations |          |      | cena |       |       | ttack | hig  |
| * | for    |          |      | rios |       |       | or    | h-ly |
|   | clas   |          |      | lik  |       |       | ho    | lik  |
|   | sified |          |      | ely; |       |       | stage | ely, |
|   | i      |          |      | d    |       |       | situ  | with |
|   | nfor-m |          |      | evia |       |       | ation | nume |
|   | ation, |          |      | tion |       |       | l     | rous |
|   | techn  |          |      | or   |       |       | ikely | SNM  |
|   | ology, |          |      | t    |       |       | with  | vi   |
|   | and    |          |      | heft |       |       | fatal | olat |
|   | parts; |          |      | path |       |       | ities | ions |
|   | many   |          |      | ways |       |       | possi | or   |
|   | SNM    |          |      | ap   |       |       | ble** | dev  |
|   | viola  |          |      | pare |       |       |       | iati |
|   | tions; |          |      | nt** |       |       |       | on/t |
|   | per    |          |      |      |       |       |       | heft |
|   | vasive |          |      |      |       |       |       | path |
|   | lack   |          |      |      |       |       |       | ways |
|   | of     |          |      |      |       |       |       | ap   |
|   | comp   |          |      |      |       |       |       | pare |
|   | liance |          |      |      |       |       |       | nt** |
|   | with   |          |      |      |       |       |       |      |
|   | SNM    |          |      |      |       |       |       |      |
|   | r      |          |      |      |       |       |       |      |
|   | egulat |          |      |      |       |       |       |      |
|   | ions** |          |      |      |       |       |       |      |
+---+--------+----------+------+------+-------+-------+-------+------+
| * | **E    |          |      |      |       |       |       |      |
| * | xtreme |          |      |      |       |       |       |      |
| 8 | threat |          |      |      |       |       |       |      |
| 0 | to SNM |          |      |      |       |       |       |      |
| * | or     |          |      |      |       |       |       |      |
| * | per    |          |      |      |       |       |       |      |
|   | manent |          |      |      |       |       |       |      |
|   | (      |          |      |      |       |       |       |      |
|   | highly |          |      |      |       |       |       |      |
|   | lik    |          |      |      |       |       |       |      |
|   | ely)** |          |      |      |       |       |       |      |
+---+--------+----------+------+------+-------+-------+-------+------+

+---+--------+--------+---------+---------+--------+--------+--------+
| * |        |        |         |         |        |        |        |
| * |        |        |         |         |        |        |        |
| I |        |        |         |         |        |        |        |
| V |        |        |         |         |        |        |        |
| . |        |        |         |         |        |        |        |
| M |        |        |         |         |        |        |        |
| I |        |        |         |         |        |        |        |
| S |        |        |         |         |        |        |        |
| S |        |        |         |         |        |        |        |
| I |        |        |         |         |        |        |        |
| O |        |        |         |         |        |        |        |
| N |        |        |         |         |        |        |        |
| a |        |        |         |         |        |        |        |
| n |        |        |         |         |        |        |        |
| d |        |        |         |         |        |        |        |
| I |        |        |         |         |        |        |        |
| N |        |        |         |         |        |        |        |
| V |        |        |         |         |        |        |        |
| E |        |        |         |         |        |        |        |
| S |        |        |         |         |        |        |        |
| T |        |        |         |         |        |        |        |
| M |        |        |         |         |        |        |        |
| E |        |        |         |         |        |        |        |
| N |        |        |         |         |        |        |        |
| T |        |        |         |         |        |        |        |
| R |        |        |         |         |        |        |        |
| A |        |        |         |         |        |        |        |
| T |        |        |         |         |        |        |        |
| I |        |        |         |         |        |        |        |
| N |        |        |         |         |        |        |        |
| G |        |        |         |         |        |        |        |
| C |        |        |         |         |        |        |        |
| R |        |        |         |         |        |        |        |
| I |        |        |         |         |        |        |        |
| T |        |        |         |         |        |        |        |
| E |        |        |         |         |        |        |        |
| R |        |        |         |         |        |        |        |
| I |        |        |         |         |        |        |        |
| A |        |        |         |         |        |        |        |
| S |        |        |         |         |        |        |        |
| U |        |        |         |         |        |        |        |
| B |        |        |         |         |        |        |        |
| C |        |        |         |         |        |        |        |
| A |        |        |         |         |        |        |        |
| T |        |        |         |         |        |        |        |
| E |        |        |         |         |        |        |        |
| G |        |        |         |         |        |        |        |
| O |        |        |         |         |        |        |        |
| R |        |        |         |         |        |        |        |
| I |        |        |         |         |        |        |        |
| E |        |        |         |         |        |        |        |
| S |        |        |         |         |        |        |        |
| * |        |        |         |         |        |        |        |
| * |        |        |         |         |        |        |        |
+---+--------+--------+---------+---------+--------+--------+--------+
| * | **Comp | **Busi | *       | **      | **A    | **Infr | **Na   |
| * | liance | ness** | *Techno | Mission | sset** | astruc | tional |
| S | with** |        | logical | Capabi  |        | ture** | Busi   |
| c |        | **Bene | Base**  | lity,** | *      |        | ness** |
| o | **Ord  | fits** |         |         | *Condi |        |        |
| r | ers,** |        | **      | **Ca    | tion** |        | **S    |
| e |        |        | (R&D)** | pacity, |        |        | trateg |
| * | **In   |        |         | and     |        |        | ies/** |
| * | itiati |        |         | Qu      |        |        |        |
|   | ves,** |        |         | ality** |        |        | **Pa   |
|   |        |        |         |         |        |        | rtners |
|   | **and  |        |         |         |        |        | hips** |
|   | Direct |        |         |         |        |        |        |
|   | ives** |        |         |         |        |        |        |
+---+--------+--------+---------+---------+--------+--------+--------+
| * | **In   |        | **      | **A     | *      |        | **High |
| * | com­pl  |        | Develop | dequate | *Good* |        | like   |
| 2 | iance, |        | new     | to meet | *─**pe |        | lihood |
| 0 | but    |        | appr    | mission | rforms |        | of     |
| * | up     |        | oaches, | require | to     |        | mo     |
| * | coming |        | tech    | ments** | or     |        | derate |
|   | pr     |        | niques, |         | iginal |        | growth |
|   | oblems |        | and     |         | specs  |        | over   |
|   | sl     |        | method  |         | with   |        | lon    |
|   | ightly |        | ologies |         | r      |        | g-term |
|   | li     |        | to      |         | outine |        | in     |
|   | kely** |        | improve |         | prev   |        | direct |
|   |        |        | opera   |         | entive |        | jobs   |
|   |        |        | tions** |         | m      |        | and    |
|   |        |        |         |         | ainten |        | ec     |
|   |        |        |         |         | ance** |        | onomy; |
|   |        |        |         |         |        |        | DOE    |
|   |        |        |         |         |        |        | invol  |
|   |        |        |         |         |        |        | vement |
|   |        |        |         |         |        |        | re     |
|   |        |        |         |         |        |        | quired |
|   |        |        |         |         |        |        | due to |
|   |        |        |         |         |        |        | tech   |
|   |        |        |         |         |        |        | nology |
|   |        |        |         |         |        |        | hur    |
|   |        |        |         |         |        |        | dles** |
+---+--------+--------+---------+---------+--------+--------+--------+
| * | **     |        | **      | **A     | **Adeq |        | **High |
| * | Consis |        | Develop | dequate | uate** |        | like   |
| 3 | tently |        | new     | to meet | ─**but |        | lihood |
| 0 | in     |        | methodo | mission | cannot |        | of     |
| * | compl  |        | logies, | requir  | p      |        | mo     |
| * | iance, |        | pro     | ements, | erform |        | derate |
|   | with   |        | cesses, | but     | to all |        | growth |
|   | occa   |        | and     | impro   | or     |        | over   |
|   | sional |        | tec     | vements | iginal |        | nea    |
|   | minor  |        | hniques | warr    | specs; |        | r-term |
|   | devia  |        | to      | anted** | some   |        | or     |
|   | ­tions; |        | i       |         | corr   |        | large  |
|   | not    |        | mprove/ |         | ective |        | growth |
|   | best   |        | enhance |         | maint  |        | lon    |
|   | man­a   |        | mission |         | enance |        | g-term |
|   | ge­ment |        | cap     |         | requ   |        | in     |
|   | prac   |        | ability |         | ired** |        | direct |
|   | tice** |        | and     |         |        |        | jobs   |
|   |        |        | effi    |         |        |        | and    |
|   |        |        | ciency; |         |        |        | ec     |
|   |        |        | high    |         |        |        | onomy; |
|   |        |        | R&D     |         |        |        | DOE    |
|   |        |        | risk**  |         |        |        | invol  |
|   |        |        |         |         |        |        | vement |
|   |        |        |         |         |        |        | re     |
|   |        |        |         |         |        |        | quired |
|   |        |        |         |         |        |        | due to |
|   |        |        |         |         |        |        | tech   |
|   |        |        |         |         |        |        | nology |
|   |        |        |         |         |        |        | hur    |
|   |        |        |         |         |        |        | dles** |
+---+--------+--------+---------+---------+--------+--------+--------+
| * | **Fr   | **P    | **      | **A     | **F    | **     | **High |
| * | equent | roject | Develop | dequate | air**─ | System | like   |
| 4 | minor  | p      | ne      | to meet | **occa | freq   | lihood |
| 0 | violat | ayback | cessary | mission | sional | uently | of     |
| * | ions** | 8-10   | methodo | requir  | sub-st | inad   | large  |
| * |        | years  | logies, | ements; | andard | equate | growth |
|   |        | for    | pro     | p       | oper   | or     | over   |
|   |        | proj   | cesses, | roblems | ation; | occa   | nea    |
|   |        | ects** | and     | l       | ext    | sional | r-term |
|   |        |        | tec     | ikely** | ensive | fa     | in     |
|   |        | **with | hniques |         | corr   | ilure, | direct |
|   |        | cont   | in      |         | ective | with   | jobs   |
|   |        | inuing | support |         | m      | asso   | and    |
|   |        | need** | of      |         | ainten | ciated | ec     |
|   |        |        | c       |         | ance** | fr     | onomy; |
|   |        |        | ritical |         |        | equent | DOE    |
|   |        |        | mission |         |        | minor  | invol  |
|   |        |        | obje    |         |        | impact | vement |
|   |        |        | ctives; |         |        | on     | re     |
|   |        |        | high    |         |        | o      | quired |
|   |        |        | R&D     |         |        | perati | due to |
|   |        |        | risk**  |         |        | on/mis | tech   |
|   |        |        |         |         |        | sion** | nology |
|   |        |        |         |         |        |        | hur    |
|   |        |        |         |         |        |        | dles** |
+---+--------+--------+---------+---------+--------+--------+--------+
| * | **Freq | **P    | **      | **Mod   | **P    | **     |        |
| * | uently | roject | Develop | erately | oor**─ | System |        |
| 5 | in     | p      | new     | likely  | **cons | f      |        |
| 0 | compl  | ayback | method  | not to  | istent | ailure |        |
| * | iance, | 4-7    | ologies | meet    | sub-st | pos    |        |
| * | but    | years  | to      | mission | andard | sible, |        |
|   | s      | for    | i       | require | p      | with   |        |
|   | erious | proj   | mprove/ | ments** | erform | occa   |        |
|   | viol   | ects** | enhance |         | ance** | sional |        |
|   | ations |        | mission |         |        | ina    |        |
|   | occasi | **with | cap     |         |        | bility |        |
|   | onally | cont   | ability |         |        | to     |        |
|   | o      | inuing | and     |         |        | meet   |        |
|   | ccur** | need** | effi    |         |        | some   |        |
|   |        |        | ciency; |         |        | signi  |        |
|   |        |        | acc     |         |        | ficant |        |
|   |        |        | eptable |         |        | m      |        |
|   |        |        | R&D     |         |        | ission |        |
|   |        |        | risk**  |         |        | re     |        |
|   |        |        |         |         |        | quirem |        |
|   |        |        |         |         |        | ents** |        |
+---+--------+--------+---------+---------+--------+--------+--------+
| * | **S    | **P    | **      | *       | **Poo  | **     |        |
| * | erious | roject | Develop | *Cannot | r**─** | System |        |
| 6 | viol   | p      | ne      | meet    | operat | f      |        |
| 0 | ations | ayback | cessary | mission | ions/m | ailure |        |
| * | fre    | 0-3    | methodo | capa    | ission | l      |        |
| * | quent, | years  | logies, | bility; | thre   | ikely, |        |
|   | or     | for    | pro     | or      | atened | with   |        |
|   | many   | proj   | cesses, | unique  | or at  | asso   |        |
|   | cont   | ects** | and     | cap     | risk** | ciated |        |
|   | inuing |        | tec     | ability |        | ina    |        |
|   | minor  | **with | hniques | in      |        | bility |        |
|   | devi   | cont   | in      | jeo     |        | to     |        |
|   | ations | inuing | support | pardy** |        | meet   |        |
|   | with   | need** | of      |         |        | o      |        |
|   | sh     |        | c       |         |        | verall |        |
|   | utdown |        | ritical |         |        | m      |        |
|   | poss   |        | mission |         |        | ission |        |
|   | ible** |        | obje    |         |        | assign |        |
|   |        |        | ctives; |         |        | ment** |        |
|   |        |        | acc     |         |        |        |        |
|   |        |        | eptable |         |        |        |        |
|   |        |        | R&D     |         |        |        |        |
|   |        |        | risk**  |         |        |        |        |
+---+--------+--------+---------+---------+--------+--------+--------+
| * |        |        |         |         | **Crit | **     |        |
| * |        |        |         |         | ical** | System |        |
| 7 |        |        |         |         | ─**str | f      |        |
| 0 |        |        |         |         | ategic | ailure |        |
| * |        |        |         |         | faci   | highly |        |
| * |        |        |         |         | lities | l      |        |
|   |        |        |         |         | inoper | ikely, |        |
|   |        |        |         |         | able** | with   |        |
|   |        |        |         |         |        | asso   |        |
|   |        |        |         |         |        | ciated |        |
|   |        |        |         |         |        | loss   |        |
|   |        |        |         |         |        | of     |        |
|   |        |        |         |         |        | critic |        |
|   |        |        |         |         |        | al/str |        |
|   |        |        |         |         |        | ategic |        |
|   |        |        |         |         |        | m      |        |
|   |        |        |         |         |        | ission |        |
|   |        |        |         |         |        | capabi |        |
|   |        |        |         |         |        | lity** |        |
+---+--------+--------+---------+---------+--------+--------+--------+
| * |        |        |         |         |        |        |        |
| * |        |        |         |         |        |        |        |
| 8 |        |        |         |         |        |        |        |
| 0 |        |        |         |         |        |        |        |
| * |        |        |         |         |        |        |        |
| * |        |        |         |         |        |        |        |
+---+--------+--------+---------+---------+--------+--------+--------+

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  **V. CAMP                                                                            
  SUMMARY                                                                              
  CRITERIA**                                                                           
  ------------ ----------------- ---------------- ----------------- ------------------ ----------------
  **Score**    **Summary for     **Manager\'s                                          
               Action**          Summary                                               
                                 Criteria**                                            

                                 **Health &       **Environmental & **Safeguards &     **Mission &
                                 Safety**         Waste Mgmt.**     Security**         Investment**

  **20**       **Few problems.   **In compliance  **Consistently    **Consistently     **Asset adequate
               Few identified    with             meets regulatory  meets SNM          for mission
               opportunities for toxicological    requirements.     ac­countability     requirements.
               improvement.**    and radiological Remedial actions  standards. SNM     R&D would
                                 exposure         not justifiable   very secure. No    improve
                                 standards. Safe  on the basis of   credible threat    operations.
                                 workplace with   risk reduction.** from hostile       Promotes
                                 occasional minor                   action.**          moderate
                                 incidents.**                                          economic growth
                                                                                       long term.**

  **30**       **Minor           **Occasional     **Regulations     **Not best         **Asset adequate
               improvements are  minor violations difficult to      management         for mission
               warranted to      of toxicological meet. Occasional  practice. Frequent requirements but
               enhance           or radiological  excessive toxic   minor problems     cannot meet all
               fulfillment of    exposure         or radioactive    meeting SNM        original specs.
               mission           standards. Site  releases.         accountability     Corrective
               requirements and  personnel        Remedial actions  standards.         maintenance
               to further reduce exposed to       could reduce risk Possibility of     needed.
               slight risks to   acceptable       or promote        theft of SNM       High-risk R&D
               workers and the   risks. Slight    compliance or     acceptably         could enhance
               public.**         likelihood of    mission           countered. Secure  mission
                                 moderate         continuity.       against hostile    capability.
                                 exposure to the  Efficiency        action.**          Promotes
                                 public.**        improvement could                    moderate
                                                  reduce waste.**                      economic growth
                                                                                       near term.**

  **40**       **Improvements    **Excessive      **Occasional      **SNM              **Occasional
               needed to ensure  reliance on      releases of toxic accountability     substandard
               ability to meet   administrative   or radioactive    difficult within   operation.
               mission           controls to      substances in     reasonable         Extensive
               requirements and  prevent frequent excess of         response time.     corrective
               to reduce minor   minor            regulatory        Serious violations maintenance
               risks to workers  toxicological or limits. Waste     occasionally occur needed. High
               and the public.** radiological     handling capacity for classified     risk R&D needed
                                 exposure         occasionally      information,       to support
                                 violations.      inadequate.**     technology, or     critical
                                 Minor injuries                     parts. Occasional  objectives.
                                 likely. 1E-8                       losses of ordinary Promotes rapid
                                 probability of                     property.**        eco­nomic growth
                                 criticality.**                                        near term.
                                                                                       Project payback
                                                                                       by 10 years.**

  **50**       **Improvements    **Minor injuries **Frequent        **Serious problems **Consistent
               needed to avoid   frequent or      releases of toxic with SNM           substandard
               failure to meet   serious injury   or radioactive    accountability.    performance.
               mission           moderately       substances far    Undetected theft   Failure to meet
               requirements and  likely.          exceeding         of SNM possible.   mission
               to reduce serious Continuous low   regulatory        Inadequate         requirements
               risks to workers  level exposure   limits. Waste     protection against moderately
               and the public.** to the public.   generation        hostil****e        likely. R&D with
                                 High exposure to exceeds           action; serious    acceptable risk
                                 workers slightly regulatory        injury possible.   could enhance
                                 likely. Frequent limits.           Serious violations mission
                                 violations of    Inadequate waste  frequent for       capability.
                                 exposure         handling          classified         Project payback
                                 standards.**     facilities.       information,       within 7
                                                  Remedial action   technology, or     years.**
                                                  required.**       parts**            

  **60**       **Near-term       **Serious injury **Severe          **Cannot           **Overall
               action needed to  likely. Frequent environmental     reasonably assure  mission at risk.
               prevent serious   serious          impact likely     protection of SNM; Unique
               injuries and      violations of    (not life         numerous           capability in
               protect the       toxicological or threatening).     violations.        jeopardy. R&D
               ability to meet   radiological     Frequent serious  Inadequate         with acceptable
               mission           exposure         violations of     protection against risk could
               requirements.**   standards.       environmental     hostile action;    support critical
                                 Potential danger regulations or    serious injury     mission
                                 to site          law. Remedial     likely. Likely     objectives.
                                 personnel.       actions required  loss of classified Project payback
                                 Excessive        by signed         information,       within 3
                                 exposure to the  interagency       technology, or     years.**
                                 public slightly  agreement.**      parts.**           
                                 likely.**                                             

  **70**       **Immediate       **Worker         **Occasional      **SNM theft        **Critical
               action needed to  fatality         off-site          likely. Terrorist  strategic
               avoid worker      slightly likely. releases,         attack likely;     facilities
               fatalities and    Multiple         possibly life     fatalities         inoperable.
               serious risk to   fatalities       threatening, of   possible. Many     Further loss of
               the public.**     possible. Likely toxic or          serious violations strategic
                                 moderate         radioactive       for classified     mission
                                 exposure of the  substances.       information,       capability due
                                 public to toxic  Highly likely     technology, or     to
                                 or radioactive   serious           parts. Pervasive   infrastructure
                                 substances. 1E-6 environmental     SNM                failure highly
                                 probability of   impact.**         noncompliance.**   likely.**
                                 criticality.**                                        

  **80**       **Many lives at   **Life           **Not available   **Highly likely    **Not available
               stake. Act now.** threatening      for rating.**     extreme threat to  for rating.**
                                 situation highly                   SNM or             
                                 likely. Near                       personnel.**       
                                 criticality.**                                        
  -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

**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.**[^2] **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^For convenience, the notational convention is adopted in which
    category and subcategory are shown in bold type separated by a colon
    (**Category: Subcategory**). Categories are abbreviated: H&S for
    health & safety; E&WM for environmental & waste management; S&S for
    safegurards and security; M&I for mission & investment.

[^2]: ^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.