# Presentation: 004345

## Facility Safety

**Management System**
**Maturity Evaluation Workshop**
**September 3, 2003**

## Agenda

***  ******Introduction/Driver/Objectives ***
*** ******Overview of ESH&Q and Stakeholders***
*** ******Facility Safety Management System***
*** ******Scoring Process***
*** ******Evaluation & Scoring of the 3 Criteria***
*** ******Summary of the Evaluation***
*** ******Closing***** **

- 2

## Introductions

**MS Steward**
** **Jim Tarpinian, ALD ESH&Q
**MS Point of Contact (POC)**
- Terry Monahan - Safety Engineering
- Steve Hoey - Authorization Basis
**Facilitator**
- Jessie Wilke
**Participants & Observers**

## Facility Safety Management System (MS) Evaluation

**ESH&Q- as the “owning” organization**
**	**_**Mission**_**: To serve the environment, safety, health and quality needs of our internal customers in an effective and efficient manner and to meet or exceed the expectations of our external customers**
**	**_**Scope**_**: Establish processes and controls to prevent/minimize ES&H impact from BNL facility construction, operation and infrastructure support activities**

## Driver 

**Critical Outcome 3.2.1.2 Consensus-based User/Peer Reviewer Maturity Determinations**
**Facility Safety**
**Worker Safety and Health**
**Radiological Control**
**Safeguards and Security**

## Objective: Management System Evaluation

**The maturity process is based on Baldrige Criteria**
**Organizations are viewed as systems**
**System maturity is evaluated in terms of :**
**Definition **
**Implementation**
**Planning, Assessment & Improvement**
**There is no “Pass/Fail” line**
**A continuum of improvement**

## Facility Safety Management System

***Overview***

## Facility Safety Management System

**Purpose**
**Formalize processes to reduce the probability of unwanted facility based operational events and consequences of both routine operations and operational upsets.**
**Ensure that all facilities remain bounded by and operate within their approved authorization basis. **
**Assist facility & research personnel in analyzing risks and aid in developing controls to manage hazards. **
**Address property protection and program continuity.   **

## Facility Safety Management System

**Services **
**Identify & analyze facility hazards and requirements**
**Develop & implement hazard controls**
**Implement & maintain operating boundaries/controls**
**Perform self assessments and facilitate feedback **
**Encompass entire facility/project life cycle  **

## Facility Safety Management System (MS) Evaluation

**Facility Safety Key Functions/Services & Processes**
**Design Review**
**Provides for ESH&Q input during design stage **
**Health & Safety Plan review**
**Contractor programs evaluated prior to construction**
**Readiness Evaluation Processes**
**Cradle-to-grave approach (BORE, ORE, ERE) **
**Higher hazard facilities reviews include ARRs & ORRs**
**BNL ERE process - model for DOE community **

## Facility Safety Management System (MS) EvaluationKey Functions/Services & Processes (Cont’d)

**Facility Authorization Basis:****	**
**	****Program to assure that all facilities, (Nuclear, Accelerator, Radiological, Chemical and Industrial) are properly categorized for the applicable hazards and operated within an approved authorization basis. **
**Provide hazards analysis services and assure safety documentation **
**Determine Facility Hazard Category **
**Develop and assist defining Safety Envelope **
**Documenting the authorization basis for each facility**
**Assuring operations do not violate the approved authorization basis**

## Facility Safety Management System (MS) EvaluationKey Functions/Services & Processes (Cont’d)

**Fire Safety Program:**
**	****Protect workers and the public, property (facility and contents), experimental programs, and the environment from the perils of fire, explosions, windstorm, and collapse. **
**Established to minimize  the occurrences of unwanted fires and the consequences of a fire by;**
**Conducting Fire Hazard Analysis, **
**-  Integrating fire safety concerns into the design review process.**

## Facility Safety Management System (MS) Evaluation

***Management System Description***

## Facility Safety Management System (MS) Evaluation

**How does Facility Safety fit into the SBMS document “hierarchy”**
**DOE Directives and/or regulatory drivers  ********  BNL Policies & Standards**
**BNL Policies & Standards ******** Facility Safety MS**
**FS MS ********  Program Description (Authorization Basis), Subject Areas, Manuals, Legacy Documents**
**Program Description**
**Facility Authorization Basis **
**Subject Areas**
**Facility Hazard Categorization**
**Accelerator Safety**
**Hazards Analysis**
**Operational Readiness Evaluation (ORE)**
**Manuals**
**Nuclear Safety Policy Manual II**
**“****Legacy” ESH Standards**

## Facility Safety Management System (MS) EvaluationSBMS Document “Hierarchy” (Cont’d)

**FS MS relates to, and is integrated with, other Program Descriptions, Management Systems and related subject areas**
**Program Descriptions**
**Hazardous Materials Transportation Manual**
**Occurrence Reporting**
**Radiological Control Manual**
**Management Systems**
**Emergency Preparedness**
**Emergency Response Services**
**Facility Operations**
**Hazardous Material Transportation Safety**
**Radiological Control**
**Science and Technical Program Management**
**Work Planning and Control**** **

## Facility Safety Management System (MS) Evaluation

***Key Stakeholders***
**Plant Engineering (Design Reviews, HASPs, REs, FUAs)**
**Science Programs (Exp Review, OREs, EREs, FHAs, HC)**
**Accelerator Facilities (SAD, ASE, ARRs, FHAs)**
**DOE Area Office (Authorization Agreements, SERs)**
**Nuclear Programs (SARs, USQs, SERs, ORRs, HC)****	**
**Reactors ( HFBR, BMRR, BGRR)**
**Environmental Restoration**
**Waste Management**
**Safeguards and Security**

## Facility Safety Management System (MS) EvaluationMS Description (Cont’d)

- What is the MS doing well?
**Well defined Standards, SA, and Legacy documents**
**Mimic External Requirements when available**
**Provides an innovative approach (absent of consensus standards)**
**Minimizes the probability of negative facility/operation based events**
**Input from line organizations to ensure safety basis**
**Complete set of Facility Use Agreements managed by F&O Directorate (used as AB document for low haz facilities)**
**Cradle-to-grave approach for facility operation**

## Facility Safety Management System (MS) EvaluationMS Description (Cont’d)

- What aspects of MS need Improvement?
**Editorial updates required, to help improve other MS integration. **
**Nuclear Safety Policy needs updating to SA  (scheduled 12/03)**
**Legacy ES&H Standards need conversion to SAs (prioritized schedule)**
**Facility Hazard Categorization Review needs  re-baseline/more formalized documentation.**
**FHAs lagging for less hazardous facilities.**
**Need to update ROD’s (830 Sub B, 1926, seismic and UBC ).**

## Facility Safety Management System (MS) EvaluationMS Description (Cont’d)

- What are the key obstacles to overcome?
**Resources to disposition legacy nuclear/radiological materials **
**Resources for Fire Protection Engineering for FHA development**
**Resources to complete Facility related ADS’ **
**Resources needed to convert from Stds to SAs**

## Facility Safety Management System (MS) Evaluation

***Definition Criteria***

## Facility Safety Management System (MS) Evaluation

***DEFINITION CRITERIA***
_**Documentation**_
**What are the existing and yet to be developed SAs, PDs, legacy documents?**
**FS Management System  Description (complete)**
**Facility Authorization Basis Program Description (complete)**
**Facility Hazard Categorization SA (complete)**
**Accelerator Safety SA (complete)**
**Hazards Analysis SA (complete)**
**Operational Readiness Evaluation SA (complete)**
**19  legacy documents (Summary status included in question set)**
**7 legacy documents to be retired due downgraded nuclear reactor facilities or inclusion in other BNL documents (complete)**

## Facility Safety Management System (MS) Evaluation

_**Documentation**_
**What is overall approach to ensuring MS documentation is kept current:**
**The ESHQ Directorate has a plan that outlines its components in the FS MS subject area development.  That plan maps the creation and revisions of subject areas and elimination of legacy documents.  The priority is based on available existing legacy documents, risk of hazards, and degree of regulatory requirements.  The subject areas developed to date have had external assessment actions, immediate regulatory compliance gaps, or high risks.  Those subject areas under development in FY02 and those under development in FY03 have mid level priority.  The remaining subject areas targeted for FY04 have the lowest risk or have existing legacy documents in full compliance. **
**SBMS Office notices and RODs for external regulatory document**
**Membership on the EFCOG and peer exchanges**
**Periodic reviews of documentation**

## Facility Safety Management System (MS) EvaluationDefinition Criteria (Cont’d)

_**Requirements Management**_
**ROD status?**
**DOE 425.1C completed**
**Several RODs need evaluation and/or completion (830 Subpart B)**
**Process for preparation of RODS?**
**FS POCs and SMEs subscribe to DOE Alert system for new, revised or draft directives**
**Reviewed for applicability to the MS**
**Formal review by Subject Matter Experts (SME) (with field input)**
**Review often started before formal request from SBMS Req. Mgt.**
**ROD is prepared outlining actions required to implement**
**Adjustments, changes in operations, procedures, etc. are developed by SMEs (both within the Division and with other affected organizations)**
**Change implemented once requirements become part of contract **

## Facility Safety Management System (MS) EvaluationDefinition Criteria (Cont’d)

_**Alignment**_
**With it’s primary mission to protect the workers, public and facilities, the FS MS is aligned and interfaces with at least 14 other BNL MS**** **
**The FS MS processes and services affect all phases of a project**
**Conceptual phase**
**Design and Construction**
**Operations**
**Ultimately, decontamination and decommissioning.**
**DRs, REs (about 20 ORE/BOREs + 15 EREs in FY03 )**
**Several methods for aligning with related/supporting management systems**
**Active participation on subject area development teams **
**SMEs involved with other MS POCs (I.e., Transportation Safety )**
**Committee participation**

## Facility Safety Management System (MS) Evaluation

***Implementation Criteria***

## Implementation Criteria

**Awareness – do people know?**
**Implementation – are people doing?**
**Indicators of implementation and performance**
**Acceptance Indicators – feedback/input? **

- 27

**Notes:**
Question 6-15,  Page 15-21

What are we really trying to determine via implementation?

## Facility Safety Management System (MS) Evaluation Implementation Criteria (Cont’d) 

_**Awareness (do people know?)**_
**Responsibilities are assigned to critical functions of the MSD.**
**Building Managers**
**Work Control Managers**
**Experimental Review Coordinators**
**Transportation Safety POC’s**
**Readiness Evaluation Coordinator**
**Plan/Design Review Coordinator**
**Facility Hazard Categorization Coordinator**
**R2A2’s define responsibilities and Subject Areas integrate responsibilities.**
**Training requirements identified for Key personnel.**

**Notes:**
Question 6,  7, 8, & 9, Page 15- 17.,  
Much of the awareness comes from the responsibilities of key individuals and “hooks” in subject areas,  eg., transportation, ORR etc. 

Criticality training for the FHC POC

## Facility Safety Management System (MS) EvaluationImplementation Criteria (Cont’d)

_**Awareness**_
**Visible ****Readiness Evaluation processes (OREs, EREs) via interaction with Dept./Divs. ( i.e., Plant Engineering Design Revs.)**
** ****Facility Hazard Categorization program (Tied to FUA and SBMS  e.g., WP&C, Transportation, Hazard Analysis and Accelerator Safety)**
**Requirements are communicated through, program descriptions, subject areas,  e-mails,  memos, web page and other formal correspondence**
**Effectiveness of communication is indicated by frequent interaction between FS POCs and SMEs and the Lab population, i.e., facility classification and nuclear facility downgrading, DRs, OREs, authorization approvals**
**Nuclear Strategic Planning Team and Excess Rad Materials Working Group interaction with Lab management and stakeholders**

**Notes:**
Question 6,  7, 8, & 9, Page 15- 17.,  
HOW ARE WE ASSURED THAT REQUIREMENTS ARE CARRIED OUT?
Evidence organizations are complying:  
Use of Readiness Evaluation Process: (tripled over last few years)
Exit Readiness - significant benefit to the facility hazard categorization process, helps legacy issues.
Heirichy of facilities based on hazard,  eg. Waste mgt must provide an annual SAR update for DOE approval.  Accelerators required to document changes in ASE using USI process. 
Less hazardous activies the FUA documents the AB and processes to require updates. Grading allows better use of resources. 
Work Planning and control process. 
Annual Facilility hazard categorization review.
Recent mtgs with Emergency Planning to support emergency planning documentation. 

## Facility Safety Management System (MS) EvaluationImplementation Criteria (Cont’d)

_**Implementation/Integration  (are people doing it?)**_
**Processes/activities associated with the MS are not new to the Laboratory**
**Current FS MS SAs were formerly implemented through ES&H  Standards (enhanced through new SA’s)**
**Ongoing conversion of legacy documents will clarify and improve these older processes**
**20 ORE, BOREs and 15 EREs performed in FY03 **
**MS processes are validated through Self Assessments, DOE assessments, peer assessments, safety evaluations, and safety basis approval **
**Requirements Management process ensures close coordination between related/supporting management systems**

**Notes:**
       Questions 10-11 page 17-19.    
   Summarize the feedback received about the system requirements and operation - from customers and other stakeholders.

Input on the system's effectiveness is obtained through interactions with ESH Coordinators and line personnel .  

Thus far, the feedback has been positive. Requirements associated with vacating facilities is burdensome for some organizations in that the required exit evaluation generates legacy hazards/issues that must be addressed.  These hazards and issues require corrective measures to be implemented before the organization is relieved of space charges.  While burdensome, BNL organizations have applauded the process as a reasonable mechanism for defining accountability for operational legacies. 	

## Facility Safety Management System (MS) EvaluationImplementation Criteria (Cont’d)

_**Indicators of Implementation/Integration (validation)**_
_**Confidence is good that MS is implemented;**_
**Recent internal and external assessments have tended to find less programmatic issues and more isolated cases of implementation lapses. **
**Exception is 10/02 DOE CH review of fire protection identified several programmatic areas of concern.**
**Integration with other Management Systems is evolving (e.g., Transportation, Emergency Planning).**
**Authorization agreements in place with DOE approval (SAR, ASE’s, FHC etc.)**
**Increase in readiness program reviews.**

**Notes:**
       Questions 10-11 page 17-19.    
   Summarize the feedback received about the system requirements and operation - from customers and other stakeholders.

Input on the system's effectiveness is obtained through interactions with ESH Coordinators and line personnel .  

Thus far, the feedback has been positive. Requirements associated with vacating facilities is burdensome for some organizations in that the required exit evaluation generates legacy hazards/issues that must be addressed.  These hazards and issues require corrective measures to be implemented before the organization is relieved of space charges.  While burdensome, BNL organizations have applauded the process as a reasonable mechanism for defining accountability for operational legacies. 	

## Facility Safety Management System (MS) EvaluationImplementation Criteria (Cont’d)

_**Acceptance Indicators (feedback/input)**_
**Feedback is solicited from stakeholders**
**Mgmt and Policy Council Mtgs, Standing Committees, ESH Coordinators and Bldg Mgr mtgs etc. **
**Input received from DOE Brookhaven Area Office, Chicago Operations Office and DOE Headquarters.**
**Unsolicited feedback is received in many forms: verbally, formal letters, e-mails and telephone (i.e., DOE quarterly feedback report)**

**Notes:**
Questions 12-15 page 19-21.       
 Is unsolicited feedback received, and through what channels?

Yes, as evidenced in the BAO/BNL quarterly feedback report the following observation was made by BAO
One on one with BNL and DOE Stakeholders have been complimentary of several of the processes, especially the cradle-to-grave approach currently employed at BNL.   As well as group meetings such as ESH Coordinators Meetings, etc.
 Feedback is solicited through various means (Work Permit form, ES&H Coordinator meetings, Building Manager Meetings)
 15.1.        Provide examples where stakeholders have provided recommendations for improvement and describe the involvement of stakeholders in initiating improvements. 
A prime example of stakeholder recommendations being implemented is the Exit Readiness Evaluation (ERE) process.  The need was suggested by BNL’s top management as an Area for Improvement and was implemented by SHSD with incentive provided by the Facilities & Operations Directorate (F&O) Space Charge program.  SHSD worked closely with F&O to develop the scope of the ERE program and incentivizing the program by tying relief of space charges to performing an ERE and reporting the completion of corrective actions for each of an organization’s identified legacy issues and hazards within a vacated facility. 
 Meetings with local DOE regarding NSP (NSP Presentations 1/24/03, &1/27/03, ), facility authorization agreements (BMRR, HWMF, WMF), Safety Evaluation Reports (SERs), nuclear facility categorization  downgrades, etc has provided feedback in helping to shape the future strategies and documentation that meets DOE expectations.  

## Facility Safety Management System (MS) EvaluationImplementation Criteria (Cont’d)

_**Acceptance Indicators (cont’d) (feedback/input)**_
**Stakeholders provide recommendations for improvement**
**Exit Readiness Review process - incentivizing program by tying relief of space charges to performing ERE and completing corrective actions**
**Multiple meetings with DOE, BNL mgmt, operations personnel has shaped the NSP to assure minimal impact on operations while facilitation of the disposal of legacy materials. Provided a “balanced” approach to operations vs. risk. **

**Notes:**
Questions 12-15 page 19-21.       
 15.1.        Provide examples where stakeholders have provided recommendations for improvement and describe the involvement of stakeholders in initiating improvements. 
Exit Readiness Evaluation (ERE) process.  The need was suggested by BNL’s top management as an Area for Improvement and was implemented by SHSD with incentive provided by the Facilities & Operations Directorate (F&O) Space Charge program. 
 Meetings with local DOE regarding NSP (NSP Presentations 1/24/03, &1/27/03, ), facility authorization agreements (BMRR, HWMF, WMF), Safety Evaluation Reports (SERs), nuclear facility categorization  downgrades, etc has provided feedback in helping to shape the future strategies and documentation that meets DOE expectations.  

## Facility Safety Management System (MS) Evaluation

***Planning, Assessment and Improvement Criteria***

**Notes:**
Questions 16-end

## Planning, Assessment and Improvement

**Planning – ongoing planning effort based on Laboratory initiatives, critical outcomes, past performance, stakeholder input**
**Assessment – systematic process, based on objectives and past performance, comparative analysis if appropriate**
**Improvement – process for prioritizing, tracking improvements; peer review, staff input**

## Facility Safety Management System (MS) Evaluation Planning, Assessment and Improvement Criteria (Cont’d)

_**Planning**_
**Improvements identified & prioritized through strategic planning  and based on risk, mission needs, and stakeholder input.   (MS self assessment plan,  ADS’s,  risk assessments, Design Reviews).**
**Collaborating with several Laboratory organizations to estimate, prioritize, and scope a budget request to the DOE Office of Science to address “ Future Environmental Liabilities”. This future year(s) budget planning is reviewed and submitted to DOE by senior Lab management including the Deputy Director for Operations**
**Since the inception of the ADS process, a series of fire protection and legacy reduction related projects were submitted. **
**Design review process engages ORE process to assure implementation and no oversight of requirements**
**Nuclear Strategic Plan submitted to Lab/DOE senior management and  Lab Policy Council.   Several avenues pursued to fund and resource load the plan including ES&H Incremental Budget Request, ADS Process, Issue and Decision Process **
**High-risk legacy issues have been identified and recommended as  priority improvements and incorporated in Critical Outcome Performance Measures**
**External Regulation project identified gaps/deficiencies and cost estimates for improvements necessary to move to ER.**

**Notes:**
Questions 16-18 pages 21-23
Critical outcomes page 30

## Facility Safety Management System (MS) EvaluationPlanning, Assessment and Improvement Criteria (Cont’d)

_**Assessment**_
**MS Self-Assessment Plan identifies MS components that will be evaluated each year. **
**The selection of program elements for assessing is based upon regulatory drivers, risk, exposure and mission needs.  **
_**Required Line Assessments**_
**Annual program assessment by Medical Department Facility Manager of two radiological facilities (801 & BLIP inventories) **
**         **

**Notes:**
Questions 19- 

## Facility Safety Management System (MS) EvaluationPlanning, Assessment and Improvement Criteria (Cont’d)

_**Assessment (con’t)**_
_**Independent Assessments**_
**	****       ****-  Review/validate the line assessments  **
**	****       ****-****	****A high-risk material inventory and characterization was  ****	****performed in concert with preparing an Issue and ****	****Decision Paper that addresses a nuclear strategy for ****	****the Laboratory.**
**External Regulation Self Assessments (OSHA/NRC)**
**     **_**External Assessments**_
**Corporate Authorization Basis Assessment (drove several subject area developments)**
**SMI consultants assessment of existing documentation compliance against 830 subpart B.**
**Upcomming DOE TCEAP assessment (transfer of hazmat)**
**External Regulation OSHA and NRC Assessments**

**Notes:**
Not only validate line assessments but are focused on a specific high priority issue that affects the lab. 

## Facility Safety Management System (MS) EvaluationPlanning, Assessment and Improvement Criteria (Cont’d)

_**Assessment**_** (Cont’d)**
**Conduct **
**The assessments follow the format of: **
**A scoping meeting is held to determine extent of the exercise and facilitate BAO buy-in.**
**A review of regulatory drivers is performed and a compilation of program and field implementation checklists is made. **
**A review is made of the written program. **
**Field observations of implementation by line organizations are made.**
**Analysis**
**The conditions observed are compared to regulatory driver or internal best management practice criteria by stakeholders and SME’s.  Non-conformance is noted in the Assessment report and gap closure mechanisms are identified, implemented, and tracked in the Corrective Action Plan.**** **
**Improvement Actions followed up in corrective action plans and  tracked in ATS or family ATS.**

**Notes:**
This process is a lessons learned from the SAM process and not unique to the FS MSD. 

## Facility Safety Management System (MS) EvaluationPlanning, Assessment and Improvement Criteria (Cont’d)

_**Operational Performance**_
**Less money, less people are trends that consistently present themselves throughout assessments, strategic planning, budget forecasts  **
**Actions associated with the Critical Outcome Measure 3.2.1, Management System Assessment Planning are ongoing or completed and proposed 04 measures agreed to by management & BAO.**
**Effectiveness, efficiency and productivity indicators of any MS is determined by its users**
**Facility Safety  programs and processes are not only communicated through SBMS, but in other ways as well & used to gauge customer satisfaction:**
**Safety Committees, SMEs & POCs, Risk Reduction Initiatives and Plans, Lab-wide interaction and direct customer contact**
**Ultimate gauge of the effectiveness of the Management System is  favorable DOE safety evaluations, hazard analysis concurrence, and authorization agreement approvals**

## Facility Safety Management System (MS) EvaluationPlanning, Assessment and Improvement Criteria (Cont’d)

_**Operational Performance**_** (Cont’d)**
**Customer satisfaction**
**External indicators as evidenced in the BAO/BNL quarterly feedback report recognizing Nuclear Strategic Plan**** **
**Letters, e-mails, verbal and telephone comments indicate a high level of satisfaction**
**20 ORE, BOREs +15 EREs in FY03. Customer Orgs included:**
**Bio, ERD, Medical, NSLS, PE, SHSD, Staff Services, EENS, Rad Con, and Environmental and Waste Division**

**Notes:**
Question 23

## Facility Safety Management System (MS) EvaluationPlanning, Assessment and Improvement Criteria (Cont’d)

_**Improvement**_
**Significant improvements have been made since the MS first went online in 1999**
**SBMS document development**
**Short and long range strategic planning to enhance the overall effectiveness of the MS (NSP, ADS’s). **
**Group established to identify high risk and excess and legacy radiological materials that require special disposition.**
**Three nuclear facilities have been successfully downgraded to radiological facility status **
**Several facilities downgraded to radiological by analysis**
**Interaction with Emergency Planning & Transportation has been enhanced**** **
**The cradle–to-grave (Readiness Evaluation) approach has been refined and better integrated into laboratory culture **
**External Regulation inspection exercise**** (OSHA, NRC)**
**Staffing for FHC/Nuclear and Fire Protection**

## Facility Safety Management System (MS) EvaluationPlanning, Assessment and Improvement Criteria (Cont’d)

_**Improvement**_** (Cont’d)    **
**Planned improvements include:**
**Complete revision of the legacy documents to the SBMS Subject Area format**
**Program and Management System description updates to incorporate organizational and regulatory changes, and to better integrate.**
**SA incremental upgrades i.e., Accelerator Safety**
**Ensure that proper and qualified facility management continues for downgraded nuclear facilities (HFBR, BMRR, BGRR, HWMF)**

## Facility Safety Management System (MS) EvaluationPlanning, Assessment and Improvement Criteria (Cont’d)

_**Improvement**_** (Planned Cont’d):**
**Continued vigilance with the processes that control change/configuration control will need to be addressed i.e., Building Manager program, FUA documents, Run Card program, Tier 1 program and how they impact the requirements for safety AB.**
**Improved**** integration of Facility Safety AB/hazard cat/inventories, etc. with other Management systems, i.e., Waste, Emergency Planning, FUA, Safeguards & Security, Transportation Safety**** **
**ES&H risk reduction and strategic planning (legacy material)**
**Further enhancement and rollout of the Hazard Identification Tool (incorporate lessons learned & expand use)**

## MS Evaluation Process

**Final Product**
**Report of the evaluation includes:**
**Description of the evaluation process**
**Team Members**
**Scores**
**Strengths**
**Areas for Improvement**
**Team Feedback on the process**** **
**MS Steward/POCs responsible for follow-up action on Areas for Improvement**

- 44