r

Reference

NAT'L INST. OF STAND 8. TECH

AlllD

NBS,J^K

Publi"

cations

s Tfl37ss 82-2546('>^j

A Survey of the Standards

I

Activities at the U.S. Department

of Energy

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Bureau of Standards

Office of Product Standards Policy

Washington, DC 20234

May 1982

Issued August 1 982

Prepared for Office of Quality Assurance and Standards

Assistant Secretary for Environmental Protection,

yQ

3ty and Emergency Preparedness

luo

U5b

32-2546

1532

)epartment of Energy

ngton, DC 20545
\I
mAriott*.h

(ir BTVNPABiJB

UMMJkXt

7 198^

- ~ -

\ = T yX ! •' acL

NBSIR 82-2546 U.S " QP^

A SURVEY OF THE STANDARDS

ACTIVITIES AT THE U.S. DEPARTMENT

OF ENERGY

Terrance Troy

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Bureau of Standards

Office of Product Standards Policy

Washington, DC 20234

May 1982

Issued August 1982

Prepared for Office of Quality Assurance and Standards

Assistant Secretary for Environmental Protection,

Safety and Emergency Preparedness

U.S. Department of Energy

Washington, DC 20545

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, Malcolm Baldrige, Secretary

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS, Ernest Ambler. Director

Preface

This report contains information on the standards activities at the highly

decentralized Department of Energy (DOE) and recommendations, made by a Survey

Team from the National Bureau of Standards (NBS), to enhance the DOE Standards

Program. It is intended for use by DOE standards professionals.

The NBS Survey Team thanks the standards professionals and managers who were interviewed during the survey for their cooperation and patience and

acknowledges the contributions made by Mr, Robert Poe and others at DOE, The

survey was conducted under Interagency Agreement EA-77-01-6010, Task Order

A-046 OES.
Abstract

The Department of Energy Standards Program, under the Assistant Secretary for

Environmental Protection, Safety and Emergency Preparedness, is responsible

for promoting standardization, increasing DOE's participation in voluntary

standards bodies and extending the benefits of standardization to the

organizational units in DOE. To assist in designing and implementing needed

programs, a survey was conducted to obtain information regarding ongoing DOE

standards activities. The NBS Survey Team collected data on 17 information

categories from a total of 63 DOE employees and DOE contractors in 36 separate

interviews at 13 field locations and 15 headquarters offices. The Survey Team

found that the flow of standards information within the infrastructure needs

to be accelerated and that efforts must be directed toward providing DOE upper

management with better understanding of standards programs. The data

indicated considerable difficulty in maintaining necessary internal and

external interface relationships and a need for guidelines for standards

committee participation. The Survey Team suggested an "information focus" as

a way for the Departmental Standards Program to help standards professionals

at DOE, whose activities are closely involved in the development of energy

technology, to improve their overall performance.

ii
Table of Contents

Preface i

Abstract ii

Table of Contents ill

Part 1, Summary of Survey

1.1 Background 1

1.2 Information Categories: The Survey Approach 2

1.3 Key Findings and Recommendations 4

Part 2. Results of the Survey: Interpretations and Findings

2.1 Interviewees in the Survey

2.2 Interviewees' Technology, Program, or Support Function

2.3 Technology Assessments to Determine Standards Needs

2.4 Attributes of Standards Activities

2.5 Monitoring of Ongoing Standards Development Activities

2.6 Organizational Structure Employed for Standards Activities

2.7 The Energy Standards Infrastructure

2.8 External Interface Requirements

2.9 Documents and Records

2.10 Standards Activities Commitments: Funding and Manpower

2.11 Standards Information: Sources and Mechanisms

2.12 Internal Standards Policy: Departmental Order DOE 1300.2

2.13 External Standards Policy: 0MB Circular A-119

2.14 Classifications of Standards Programs

2.15 Respondents' Most Important Standards Activities

2.16 Persistent Problems that Diminish Effectiveness of Standards Activities

2.17 Respondents' Recommendations to Improve Standards Program

Appendixes

A. DOE Order 1300.2, Department of Energy Standards Program

B. DOE Standards Activities Interview Worksheet

C. Headquarters Offices and Field Units Included in the Survey

D. List of Acronyms and Abbreviations Used in this Report

iii
I

«

S
1.1 Background

Federal agencies generally recognize the positive contributions of

standardization and related activities. When properly conducted,

standardization increases productivity and efficiency, expands opportunities

for international trade, conserves resources, and improves safety and health.

Federal participation in the activities of voluntary standards bodies (VSBs)

provides incentives and opportunities to establish standards that better serve national needs. The participation of Federal agencies in the development of

voluntary standards and the use of those standards in Federal programs are consistent with Federal policy, as established in 0MB Circular No. A-119,

"Federal Participation in the Development and Use of Voluntary Standards."

Adoption by Federal agencies of voluntary standards (whenever practicable and

appropriate) reduces the Federal costs of developing and using standards and,

thereby, serves the public interest. Federal adoption of voluntary standards

is consistent with the furtherance of the Federal policy of relying upon the

private sector to supply Government needs for goods and services, as enunciated in 0MB Circular No. A-76, "Policies for Acquiring Commercial or Industrial Products and Services Needed by the Government."

The DOE Assistant Secretary for Environmental Protection, Safety and Emergency

Preparedness is responsible for the Department of Energy Standards Program,

which includes considerations for promoting standardization, increasing DOE's

participation in VSBs, and increasing the use and adoption of voluntary

standards in Departmental activities. The purpose of the DOE Standards

Program is to extend the benefits of standardization to the various

organizational units in DOE.

DOE Order 1300.2 (see Appendix A) defines the objective for the DOE Standards

Program: to bring uniformity to the Department's standards activities through

coordinated involvement in standards development and to ensure that

appropriate attention is given to standards use and development in fulfilling

DOE's mission. In order to design and implement programs directed toward

achieving this objective, information regarding current Departmental standards

activities was needed. It was therefore decided that a survey should be

conducted to develop the desired information and to obtain views and

perspectives regarding approaches to addressible objectives. This report

identifies areas where more attention is needed and makes specific

recommendations for program enhancement.

- 1 -
1.2 Information Categories; The Survey Approach

The first objective of this task was to collect data on the standards

activities in DOE in a systematic fashion. Toward this end, general areas

were suggested by the DOE Standards Coordinator who has the responsibility for

the DOE Standards Program. The areas initially emphasized were:

Administration, Communications, Coordination, Formal Agreements, Level of

Effort, Ongoing Activities, Purpose of Standards, Resource Commitment, and

Need for Change.

It was felt that specific information items would be necessary to fully

develop the above-mentioned areas. The information items would help the

Survey Team to pose specific questions for the interviewees and to develop

concrete recommendations in the report. Some examples—under "Administration"

the information items included: records, guidelines, policies, and standards

lists; under "Resource Commitment" information included: funds, support for

outside development, and on-line computer services; under "Ongoing

Activities": technology assessments and monitoring of standards development.

Using the information items that related to the general areas, specific

questions were prepared and regrouped into information categories for the

interviews and this report. The DOE Standards Coordinator and the NBS Survey

Team agreed on 1? specific information categories:

1. Interviewees in the Survey

2. Interviewees’ Technology, Program, or Support Function

3. Technology Assessments to Determine Standards Needs

4. Attributes of Standards Activities

5. Monitoring of Ongoing Standards Development Activities

6. Organizational Structure Employed for Standards Activities

7. The Energy Standards Infrastructure

8. External Interface Requirements

9. Documents and Records

10. Standards Activities Commitments: Funding and Manpower

11. Standards Information: Sources and Mechanisms

12. Internal Standards Policy: Department Order DOE 1300.2

13. External Standards Policy: 0MB Circular A-119

14. Classifications of Standards Program

15. Respondents' Most Important Standards Activities

16. Persistent Problems that Diminish Effectiveness of Standards Activities

17. Respondents' Recommendations to Improve Standards Program

The specific data sought in each information category can be ascertained from

the Interview Worksheet. The final version of the DOE Standards Activities

Interview Worksheet is in Appendix B.

-2 -
It was anticipated that the survey would provide data on standards activities

which relate to the above categories and, equally important, provide for

discussions with a wide variety of standards professionals at all levels of

the organization. It was expected that the Survey Team would determine

current practices and look for problems, issues, and ideas which were of

interest to the interviewees. The NBS Survey Team chose not to restrict

itself to a narrow definition of "standards", but to include any reasonable

meaning attributed to the term by the individual interviewees. This approach

kept the survey flexible and open, and encouraged useful contributions. The

data recorded in this report summarize what was discussed with individuals

generally responsible for standards and standardization activities in their

offices and units. The lists of headquarters offices and field units selected

for the survey are in Appendix C.

The findings and recommendations contained in this report are distilled only

in part from the data in the exhibits. Additional ideas for recommendations

were solicited during the discussions and noted on the interview worksheets,

but were not tabulated. Some of these ideas are reflected in the NBS

recommendations. Other recommendations are based solely on NBS* long-standing

experience with standards development activities, standards information and

management support systems, or other standards expertise related to the

information category under discussion.

-3 -
1.3 Key Findings and Recommendations

A total of 63 DOE and DOE contractor employees participated in 36 interviews

at 28 headquarters offices and field locations. For detailed information,

readers are encouraged to review the results, findings, and recommendations of

the survey for all 17 information categories as set forth in Part 2. In this

section, key recommendations have been summarized from four of those

categories.

The Energy Standards Infrastructure (See Section 2.7.)

According to responses to questions about internal DOE interactions, most

contacts relating to standards are apparently maintained with or within three

areas: 1) the Offices of the Assistant Secretary for Environmental

Protection, Safety and Emergency Preparedness; 2) the Assistant Secretary for

Nuclear Energy; and 3) taken as a group, the DOE national laboratories.

Several respondents identified informal interactions which are maintained

between areas with common interests.

Fifty percent of the respondents specifically included the DOE Standards

Program as an "agency” contacted on a regular basis. The interviewees often

demonstrated either directly or indirectly the need for information. They

need to learn about the standards activities at the department level. Some

standards information services are not reaching those units which could

benefit most from the information. The data suggest that the flow of

standards information within the standards infrastructure needs to be

accelerated.

The interviewees frequently spoke of the lack of adequate understanding and

appreciation of standards programs on the part of higher level management. In

addition to current efforts by the DOE Standards Program to coordinate

standards activities and enhance the effective use of standards, the

Departmental standards coordinators must specifically communicate the

importance of standards to top management. They must convince key DOE

officials of the importance of standards programs to the attainment of DOE

goals and objectives. The Survey Team also sees a need to report standards

successes at the division level.

It is recommended that the Departmental Standards Program take the lead role

in promoting standards activities. This should be discussed at the next

Standards Policy Committee meeting. The importance of standards must get more

visibility within DOE headquarters. This can be achieved by describing DOE’s

involvement in standards and by highlighting the successes and benefits of

standards and standardization activities. The Departmental Standards Program

needs to demonstrate, in writing, how specific standards activities support

the attainment of DOE goals and objectives—preferably by preparing an annual

report for the Assistant Secretaries.

-4 -
The cadre of highly knowledgeable energy standards professionals must be

linked together in a network to facilitate communications and to mutually

enhance their ability to deliver technical support to their program areas. The Departmental Standards Program should develop and distribute a list of all

standards professionals, cross-referenced by their areas of interest and

activities. This list should evolve into a directory that includes committee

assignments, information resource contacts and official DOE representatives,

by standards areas. The Departmental Coordinators must serve as the catalysts

for the development of this information which is necessary for the emergence

of a viable internal communications network. They could, in conjunction with

the Standards Policy Committee, host an annual meeting or conference for the

cadre of energy standards professionals.

External Interface Requirements (See Section 2.8.)

The NBS Survey Team, based on outside contacts maintained by the interviewees,

listed 23 industry associations and professional organizations, 32 domestic

and international standards writing organizations, and 17 Federal Agencies.

Several standards professionals experienced considerable difficulty in

maintaining necessary external interface relationships. Individuals are often

unable to prove a need for government sponsorship of their participation on outside standards writing committees, and almost all standards professionals

find that travel restrictions often interfere with planned standards

activities. The DOE Standards Program is in a position to define criteria for

comparing the relative importance of committee assignments and to seek support

from the appropriate Assistant Secretaries to make priority participation

possible. Even though the authority for participation clearly rests with the

line divisions, someone must ensure that DOE maintains the necessary

representation on committees that vitally affect energy technologies.

It is recommended that the Standards Program, after consulting with and

obtaining the concurrence of key DOE standards officials, issue detailed

guidelines for standards committee participation through the DOE Standards

Policy Committee, which meets on an ad hoc basis for this kind of purpose.

These guidelines should implement requirements of DOE 1300.2 as well as set

forth detailed guidance for DOE participation on outside standards writing

committees. The guidelines should establish procedures for reporting

information and explain the significance of comments or votes in the standards

development process. Guidelines for standards committee participation need to

be spelled-out by the Office of Quality Assurance and Standards (OQAS) , even

if they are only tentative, prior to review by the Standards Policy Committee.

A Standards Personnel and Participation System (SPPS), which is being planned,

should be constructed and implemented expeditiously in order to: 1) promote

effective participation by DOE staff members in standardization activities;

2) assist DOE managers in making decisions about the allocation of DOE resources for these activities; and 3) encourage communication among standards

committee participants. Such a system will also maximize the benefits to be

-5-
derived from a well-managed standards program by providing accurate and timely

information, not only for DOE management officials, but also for industry

associations , standards committees , DOE contractors and individual energy

company officials.

The DOE Standards Program will have to shoulder more of the interface

responsibilities with the private sector. Where high level contacts need to

be established and maintained, the DOE Standards Coordinator should represent

the interest of DOE, persuade other members of the Policy Committee to accept

assignments, or use the influence of his office to make the importance of the

assignments knov;n to the supervisors of key standards professionals. Seeking

and accepting an assignment on the board of directors of a relevant voluntary

standards body is a critical standards activity which mutually enhances both

organizations. This should be high on the list of Standards Program

priorities.

Standards Information: Sources and Mechanisms (See Section 2.11.)

When questioned about the source of standards information and the availability

and adequacy of information tools, fifteen respondents identified other

government agencies as their primary standards information source, seventeen

identified voluntary standards bodies, four named industry, and one named a university. Standards catalogues were used by 93 percent of the respondents,

87 percent had full-text standards collections, and an on-line computer-based

service was available to 17 percent of the respondents. The interviewees

reported that most of the available information tools were adequate, but in

37.5 percent of the instances, the tools were not available or not adequate.

It is highly desirable for design engineers, standards engineers, and

technicians to have: 1) on-line access to, at a minimum, listings of all

mandatory and significant voluntary standards applicable to ongoing projects,

and 2) access to a microform collection of important standards. The DOE

Standards Program should determine the feasibility of providing a means for

on-line title searching and for microform full-text referencing.

As indicated by the respondents, an energy standards data base should also

include comprehensive listings of all standards development activities

relevant to the environmental, safety, health and other regulatory

requirements that could result in new or revised mandatory standards.

Listings of all voluntary standards development activities related to energy

would also be beneficial to the DOE standards professionals.

Many observations confirm the widespread need for improving the basic

information flow among DOE standards professionals. The Survey Team found

that there is insufficient awareness of the existence of the Departmental

Standards Program and the Standards Policy Committee and not enough interest

in DOE standards policy. Standards professionals often lack the information

to "sell” standards to management, knowledge of what their counterparts (DOE

contractors or DOE employers) are doing, and sophisticated informational tools

and systems. A forceful mechanism is urgently needed to coordinate the

standards information that currently exists and to provide a system for

delivering that information to others in the Department.

-6 -
The orientation of the Departoental Standards Program is somewhat top-down,

but open to opportunities to improve its responsiveness. The effectiveness of

the Program can be significantly improved by concentrating resources on the

information needs of the standards professionals whose activities are closely

involved in the development of new energy technologies. This will provide the

Standards Program with sufficient information for maintaining an overview and

for improving its responsiveness and effectiveness. The Departmental

Standards Program should reassign current resources to focus on information

and improve the contribution of standards to productivity in the long term.

Defining details for information management is beyond the scope of this

report, but the MBS Survey Team found two areas that should be given immediate

attention:

o First, all mandatory and DOE recommended standards in all DOE program

areas should be collected. (Two good collections are already known to

exist: nuclear and ES&H. ) Then the standards should be indexed by

those who know their contents and a consolidated, indexed list

distributed to each standards professional in the Department.

o Second, all relevant standards development activities within DOE, other

agencies, and voluntary standards bodies should be identified at the

working level, monitored at OQAS, and subjected to periodic reporting of

standards progress. An index of standards development activities in

which DOE is involved should be published and updated annually. This

index should also be distributed to all DOE standards professionals.

Internal Standards Policy: Departmental Order DOE 1300.2 (See Section 2.12.)

The Standards Order apparently did not have the anticipated impact nor did it

reach the level of implementation expected by the Survey Team. One proffered

explanation is that DOE orders are perceived as too transient and may

therefore engender apathy. Another possibility is the dearth of resources

available to implement the Standards Order. The fact that 54 percent of those

who reviewed the Order had "no comments" might be as significant as the

identification of problems or negative comments. The Survey Team did not

perceive that a sufficient level of "management guidance" was provided by the

Departmental Standards Program, after the Order was issued, to effectively

promote its implementation.

The comments made on the draft Standards Order by many standards managers and

professionals should now be reviewed in light of the data obtained in this

survey.

The Survey Team believes its most significant recommendation is as follows:

The Departmental Standards Program must fully implement Departmental Order DOE

1300 . 2 . This should be accomplished by:

1) preparing a policy implementation plan as soon as possible, then

2) convening the Standards Policy Committee to review and to approve

implementation priorities, schedules, etc.

-7

-
Mere announcement of the Order was found to be insufficient. The Standards

Program should assist individual standards coordinators who wish to phase in

new functions and activities and should furnish consultation and guidance for

other situations. This should be the "first agenda item" for the next

Standards Policy Committee meeting.
Part 2. Results of the Survey: Interpretations and Findings

Table of Contents

2.1 Interviewees in the Survey

2.2 Interviewees’ Technology, Program, or Support Function

2.3 Technology Assessments to Determine Standards Needs

2.4 Attributes of Standards Activities

2.5 Monitoring of Ongoing Standards Development Activities

2.6 Organizational Structure Employed for Standards Activities

2.7 The Energy Standards Infrastructure

2.8 External Interface Requirements

2.9 Documents and Records

2.10 Standards Activities Commitments: Funding and Manpower

2.11 Standards Information: Sources and Mechanisms

2.12 Internal Standards Policy: Departmental Order DOE 1300.2

2.13 External Standards Policy: 0MB Circular A-119

2.14 Classifications of Standards Programs

2.15 Respondents’ Most Important Standards Activities

2.16 Persistent Problems that Diminish Effectiveness of Standards Activities

2.17 Respondents’ Recommendations to Improve Standards Programs

-9 -
2. Results of the Survey; Interpretations and Findings

Part 2 contains the Results of the Survey. There are 17 sections, 2.1 through

2.17, each having four subsections. The first subsection is "The Questions

Asked". For example. Subsection 2.1.1 contains the questions that were asked

relating to information about the intervi ewees . The reader may also wish to

look at the questions as they appeared in the Interview Worksheet. If so, the

questions on interviewees are in Appendix B, Category one. Correspondingly,

the questions on documents and records, for example, the ninth Category in

Appendix B, are in Subsection 2.9.1 of this Part.

The second subsection is "The Responses Received" (from the DOE

interviewees). Both specific responses and related comments are included.

The third subsection is the "Interpretations and Analysis of the Responses".

The fourth subsection contains the "Findings and Recommendations" (made by the

NBS Survey Team). The third subsection which often includes discussions and

ideas, serves as a bridge between the views of the DOE respondents and the

opinions of the NBS Survey Team. For example, the interpretations and

analysis of internal standards policy would be found in Subsection 2.12.3,

followed by the NBS findings and/or recommendations in Subsection 2.12.4.

The findings and recommendations contained in this report are distilled only

in part from the data in the exhibits. Additional ideas for recommendations

were solicited during the discussions and noted on the interview worksheets,

but not tabulated. Sane of these ideas are reflected in the NBS

recommendations. Other recommendations are based solely on NBS’ long-standing

experience with standards development activities, standards information and

management support systems, or other standards expertise related to the

information category under discussion.

- 10 -
2.1 Interviewees In the Survey

2.1.1 The Questions Asked

In this first set of questions, the interviewees were asked to give their job

titles and to provide information as to whether they were DOE employees or DOE

contractor employees. Each was also asked to provide in his or her own words

a short description of his or her primary duty. They were also asked to

estimate the number of years they had been involved with standards. Each

question was not always answered by each employee in a group interview; often, one respondent assumed the role of "primary interviewee", providing one answer

for the group. For example, only 56 of 63 provided information about their

organizational affiliation. In other situations, each question was answered

independently by each respondent.

2.1.2 The Responses Received

The interviewees’ titles included: Director, Program Manager, Branch

Chief—often affixed with Deputy, Assistant, or Acting plus Specialists,

Coordinators, etc. The number of managerial titles and professional

designations were about equally divided.

Thirty-two respondents identified themselves as DOE employees and 24, all from

the field, were employees of DOE contractors. (See Exhibit 2.1.1.) The

organizational affiliation of seven persons was not recorded.

Many respondents, in describing their primary activities in their own words,

used terms that relate to their position or authority, such as "direct",

"manage", etc; interestingly, only six used the word "standards".

The average length of involvement with standards was 12.7 years (see Exhibit

2.1.2) for the 45 who responded to this question: nine claimed 25 or more

years of experience with standards, twenty claimed between eight and twenty

years of experience and sixteen said that they had five years or less

experience.

2.1.3 Interpretations and Analysis of the Responses

The data indicate that standards professionals at all levels of the

organization were involved in the survey; they represent three identifiable

levels of experience. It is surprising that only six used the word

"standards" to describe their primary duties, probably attributable to the

fact that their standards tasks are subordinate to, or an integral part of,

their perceived program activities.

2.1.4 Findings and Recommendations

The NBS Team found the interviewees in the survey to be highly knowledgeable

in technical matters relating to their program areas. However, this cadre of

standards professionals gave no evidence of any linkages (except in a few

- 11-
subsystems such as nuclear and health) which would facilitate the

communication of standards- related information or would mutually enhance their

ability to deliver technical support to their program areas.

Standards work appears to be an essential functional element, but not

especially visible to DOE decision makers. Standards professionals must

assume responsibility for developing management awareness of the importance

and benefits of standards; this "selling" activity should be pursued even where standards work is the only technical activity. Easy exchange of

procedural and policy information related to standards between subsystems and

programs within DOE is also needed.

The NBS Survey Team believes that the DOE Standards Program should develop a closely linked network of standards officials. The first step should be the

development of a comprehensive list of all standards professionals,

cross-referenced by their areas of interests and activities. The next step

should be the publication of a directory of standards professionals Indexed by

appropriate classifications, as identified later in this report.

- 12-
Exhibit 2.1.1

Interviewees in Standards Survey

No. of Total No. DOE Contractor Standards is No . Years

Interviews Interviewees Employees Employees Primary Duty in Standards

1 I 1 1 No 4

2 1 2 1 No 19

3 1 1 1 Yes 3

4 1 2 1 - 25

5 1 1 1 No 5

6 1 2 1 No 30

7 1 2 1 Yes 13

8 1 1 1 No 5

9 1 1 1 - 30

10 1 1 1 - 10

11 1 1 1 No 5

12 1 2 1 No 3

13 1 1 1 No 10

14 1 1 1 No 18

15 1 1 1 No 10

16 1 3 3 3 No 26, 15, 9

17 1 2 1 1 1 Yes, 1 No 31, 30

18 1 1 1 No 4 19 2 3 3 1 Yes, 2 No 25, 2, 1

20 1 1 1 Yes 12

21 1 5 4 1 - 26, 13, 12,

5, 2

22 1 3 2 2 No 5, 5

23 3 14 2 12 1 No 27, 13, 8,

23

24 2 3 2 1 1 Yes, 1 No 15, 10

25 3 3 3 3 No 9, 4, 4

26 1 1 No 15

27 3 3 1 2 3 No 20, 16, 2

28 1 1 1 — 15

NOTE: The total number of interviewees in column three is often larger than

the number of entries in other columns because some interviewees did

not provide information for all questions.

NOTE; Numbers 1-15 are headquarters offices (see Exhibit C.l) and numbers

16-28 are field organizational units (see Exhibit C.2).

- 13-
Number

of

years

of

standards

experience

fora

sample

of

45

DoE

standards

professionals

f-H K)O

to

cr>

CNJ oo

(NJ

(VI

vJS CM

LO

CNJ

CM

to

rj

CMCMo

CM

CTi OO I

CM

YEARS

EXPERIENCE
2.2

Interviewees’ Technology, Program, or Support Function

2.2.1 The Questions Asked

Interviewees were asked to describe briefly (in their own words) the energy

technology developed or supported by their programs, what they do to support

it, and to indicate what current stage of technological development best

describes their program: research, early development, pilot development,

commercialization, ongoing commercial technology, or other.

2.2.2 The Responses Received

Twenty-seven programs were reported to be energy specific or directly related

to one or more energy technologies. Those programs involved fossil, solar,

nuclear, and other related or exotic (biomass, geothermal, etc.) energy

technologies. Most programs were simultaneously at several different stages

of technological development. In describing their Individual programs,

interviewees chose almost three categories each. Sixteen were reported as research and an equal number were reported as early development. For pilot

development there were 18, for commercialization there were 12, and nine were

identified as ongoing commercial technology.

Three of the 27 energy specific programs identified "other" as a description.

These included production, fabrication, and remedial technological

development. The nine who did not characterize their programs as energy

specific or who felt they were broad in scope, crossing organizational lines,

were involved in standards programs which related to automatic data processing

data communication, purchasing, construction, or to quality assurance areas. Exhibit 2.2.1, Descriptions of Technology, Program, or Support Function sets

forth this information. The stages of technical development are shown in

Exhibit 2.2.2.

2.2.3 Interpretations and Analysis of Responses

The responses show a wide variety of energy technologies, run the gamut of

developmental stages, and demonstrate that the Department of Energy is a major

conglcanerate with diverse interests. The breadth and diversity of

technologies, programs, and support functions indicate that the Departmental

Standards Program is probably limiting its attention to a few areas, at least

for the present. However, several patterns of activities are candidates for

effective assistance. Technical projects in many different areas are related

to each other, and programs in almost all areas have functions in common,

hence similar needs. More likely than not, similar standards will be

applicable to more than one technical area in the same stage of development.

For example, procedural standards are needed in many functional areas and

therefore warrant consideration.

2.2.4 Findings and Recommendations

The Departmental Standards Coordinators should review the breadth and

diversity of standards activities on a continuing basis, identifying common elements which can benefit from department-wide assistance. Those who must

- 15-
meet the same environmental safety and health requirements, for example,

should have available the same standards information, as well as shared

standards development responsibilities.

Early in the analysis stage, the Survey Team recognized a need for a stable

mechanism to counter-balance the state of flux attending the Nation's energy

programs. Energy technology elanents were found to have been functionally and

organizationally regrouped and shifted too frequently to achieve the benefits

that accrue when it is probable that relationships will stay constant in the

near term. One key benefit is shared information. Clearly, though, the

information needed by each identifiable segment ought to be maintained no matter how elements are grouped or dispersed. It would be beneficial, at a minimum, for information to be available on a Departmental basis whenever the

data are used by two or more segments. A unified energy standards data base,

designed to reflect the information needs of the identifiable segments and

maintained on a departmental basis, would be stabilizing for the energy

technology elements (and their supporting standards activities) even if they

were to be transferred to another department.

- 16 -
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

Exhibit 2.2.1

Descriptions of Technology, Program, or Support Function

Develop non-engineering/ non-scientific management information system

(MIS) for headquarters. Develop long range MIS plan. Provide all policy

relating to MIS.

Coordinate DOE data communication standards activities, including all

comments on proposed standards. Encourage use of standards and grant

exceptions.

Review major DOE ADP equipment acquisitions over 400K. Develop 5-year

DOE plan for computers. Coordinate use of FIPS standards.

Support DOE design and construction activities. Establish general design

criteria and standards (i.e., fire protection, security, structure, etc.).

Provide general purpose procurement for Headquarters-DOE. (Special

procurements are initiated by Program Office.)

Coordinate and manage activities of 10 regional offices. Influence

states with DOE policy.

Nuclear Reactor Program—coordinate headquarters management for National

Standards Management Center (primarily nuclear).

Fossil fuel-oil, gas shale technology—oversee research programs for

enhanced oil and tar sands.

Solar applications for buildings—support development of voluntary

standards.

Active solar heating and cooling devices, swimming pool heaters, solar

heat pumps—support standards development.

Geothermal energy—support high risk, high pay off R&D and

commercialization. Reduce life cycle costs. Develop supply technology.

Develop and use solar photovoltaic devices.

Research, design, fabricate and test of nuclear weapons (at laboratories).

Radioactive material residue (remedial action program, safety of DOE

Nuclear and Test Reactors) —coordinate activities between DOE and NRC.

Provide coordination focal point for Energy Information Administration

for information and information processing standards and procedures.

Support Nuclear Weapons Program and solar energy development.

Nuclear (50/J), non-nuclear (5056) —support all energy technologies.

- 17 -
18 Photovoltaics, solar thermal, active heating and cooling, reliability and

maintainability of energy process systems.

19 Nuclear (technical integration), waste management; hydro power,

conservation, geothermal, alcohol fuels.

20 Sodium reactor components (pumps, steam generators, heat exchangers).

21 Gasification, combustion, component test development, enhanced oil

recovery, underground coal gasification.

22 Geothermal, conservation, hydrogen technology, chemical energy systems.

23 Weapons testing (50^), waste isolation project and other defense programs.

24 Nuclear energy facilities—field management of Nuclear Standards

Management Center.

25 Synfuels.

26 Transmission lines, high voltage transmission technology.

27a Nuclear ( 10%), defense programs.

27b Liquid metal fast breeder reactor (Fast Flux Test Facility, Fuels

Materials Examination Facility, Fuels Materials Irradiation Test).

27c Nuclear waste, geothermal.

28 Nuclear technology.

Note: Numbers 1-15 are headquarters offices (see Exhibit C.l) and numbers

16-28 are field organizational units (see Exhibit C.2).

-18 -
Exhibit 2,2.2

Stage of Technological Development

Ongoing

Early Pilot Commercial

Research Development Development Commercialization Technology

1

2

3 X

4

5

6

7 X X

8 X

9 X X

10 X X

11 X X

12 X X

13 X X

14

15

16

17 X X

18 X

19a X X

19b X X

20

21

22a

22b X

22c X

23 X X

24

25 X X

26

27a X X

27b X X

27c X

28 X X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

Note: Numbers 1-15 are headquarters offices (see Exhibit C.l) and numbers

16-28 are field organizational units (see Exhibit C.2).

Other

- 19-
2.3

Technology Assessments to Determine Standards Needs

2.3.1 The Questions Asked

The interviewees were asked to what extent their standards activities

significantly entail technology assessments (TA) in determining standards

needs with respect to subsystems, components and materials of each

technology. For example, a coal TA matrix might show mining, transportation,

processing, and consumption arrayed against environmental, safety and health

(ES&H) and other limiting regulatory factors. (See Exhibit 2 . 3 . 1 .) An

important objective of the Department is to ensure that all necessary

standards are in place to avoid delays in commercialization of new energy

technologies

.

2.3.2 The Responses Received

Nineteen respondents indicated that they conduct technology assessments to

determine standards needs, and six of those indicated that they consider TA to

be an important activity. (See Exhibit 2 . 3 . 2 .) For sane, this is only one

aspect of their overall responsibility to provide standards assistance in the

development or commercialization of new energy technologies. For others, TA

is their primary function and the focal point of their standards activities.

Sane interviewees expressed interest in learning more about TA and any other

procedures which might help them to determine where new standards might be

needed.

2.3.3

Interpretations and Analysis of Responses

Technology assessment skills, one vehicle for identifying standards needs in

programs, are not acquired quickly; yet these vital skills appear to be in

short supply in sane areas within the group of DOE employees interviewed. It

takes a protracted length of time for standards programs to develop the

capability necessary to construct a comprehensive matrix containing a complete

set of subsystons, components and materials for an emerging energy technology

or, concomitantly, a detailed set of regulatory-type requirements. It may

take an equal amount of time for the standards professionals to acquire the

conpetencies necessary to examine the matrix (see Exhibit 2 . 3 . 1 ) to discover

gaps which may reflect a need for new standards.

2.3.4

Findings and Recommendatioas

The Survey Team found that many knowledgeable DOE standards professionals are making good use of existing standards to fill standards needs. Sane of the

standards have to be modified or adapted to fill the gaps. Some DOE standards

programs are working effectively in conjunction with voluntary standards

writing organizations to assess standards needs and to determine how to

allocate their own resources when in-house development becomes necessary.

Solar energy is a good example. Voluntary industry standards committees have

- 20 -
helped DOE solar programs to anticipate the need for new standards and to

coordinate much early development activity. The Departmental Standards

Program needs a coordinating mechanism for this type of function. Technology

assessments provide an example of an area where the collection of information

fran those who have the skills and the dissemination of that information to

those who need it, could improve the rate at which new energy technologies are commercialized

.

-21-
Exhibit 2.3.1

A Simplified Technology

Assessment Matrix

Environmental Safety Health

Mining

Transportation

Processing

Consumption

Note: In a detailed matrix each subsystem is broken down into ccxnponents,

materials, etc.; examination of transportation components, for example,

might reveal that certain safety standards are needed.

-22 -
Exhibit 2 . 3.2

Technology Assessments to Determine Standards Needs

Units Conducting

Technology Assessments Comments if Any

7 To a lesser degree than standards development

activities.

16 Done at headquarters program level—Environmental

Readiness Documents.

17 Technical managers are consulted to look for needed

standards and to stimulate their development or adopt voluntary standards.

18 A major effort with their monitoring activities;

they provide direct funding to VSBs.

21a Example: In gasification process evaluation they

check if standards work well. Identify need for

standards that don't exist. There are no formal

procedures.

22 Associate program manager controls program, works

with NBS. Problem: no way to make cost/benefit

analysis of various procedures.

23a Very little by operations office.

23b Very little by test site contractors.

25a Much anticipation of need for new ES&H standards

and (TA for) compliance of new technology with

existing standards.

25b Recommend modifications to several technologies to

assure compliance with environmental standards,

Pollution Control Guidance Document (precursors to

standards)

.

Note: Numbers 1-15 are headquarters offices (see Exhibit C.l) and numbers

16-28 are field organizational units (see Exhibit C.2).

-23-
2.4 Attributes of Standards Activities

2.4.1

The Questions Asked

Interviewees were asked if they use, develop or adopt standards in their

programs, and if their standards activities primarily involve development of

DOE standards, use of DOE standards, development of voluntary standards or the

use of voluntary standards. The term "adopt" was sometimes interpreted in the sense of "modify for use in a program," but not always associated with

mandating standards which were originally voluntary (whether the voluntary

standards were modified or not).

2.4.2 The Responses Received

Twenty one of those interviewed said their programs were concerned with

standards development activities. (See Exhibit 2.4.1.) This group of

interviewees included those who draft standards for or support development of

standards by others. A primary emphasis for six of these interviewees was in

the development of DOE standards, ten were primarily involved with the

development of voluntary standards. (See Exhibit 2.4.2.) These data are inconclusive because interviewers allowed more than one primary emphasis; some respondents said their programs had four. (See questions in Category 4 of the

Interview Worksheet in Appendix B.)

Thirteen said they adopt private sector standards for their programs, and

still others support, encourage, or serve as the transfer agent or depository

for standards developed by others. Seventeen said the primary emphasis was on use of DOE standards and 24 chose use of voluntary standards, but 10 of these

interviewees chose both groups.

2.4.3 Interpretations and Analysis of Responses

For some programs the responsible individuals are unable to develop or update

standards at an acceptable rate. Some fear that much good "front-end"

standards work completed in the past may now be in jeopardy without continued

high level support; others feel that the importance of standards has not been

adequately demonstrated to top management. The Survey Team continually heard

direct remarks that "standards don't sell" and insinuations that standards

activities absorb time and effort conspicuously, but enhance productivity and

results unobtrusively. Developing a voluntary standard often takes industry

five years at a cost around $1,000,000; government costs of developing

standards in-house may be comparable.

The responses seem to suggest that additional opportunities should be opened

to cooperative efforts with the private sector for the development of

voluntary standards of interest to DOE (see DOE 1300.2 Section 6al). Policies

and procedures should encourage the use of non-governmental standards for new

technologies, especially when existing in-house standards may not be adequate.

-24 -
2.4.4 Findings and Recommendations

The Departmental Standards Program should do more to emphasize the advantages

of adopting and using voluntary standards. Management should be regularly

encouraged to involve key professionals in the development of voluntary

standards. In this way, DOE program objectives can be better achieved by

using the resources of the private sector. Additionally, because of the

"multiplier effect", many standards can be developed at relatively low cost by

having DOE and DOE Contractor employees on a few committees each.

The Survey Team found the respondents to be aware of and concerned about the

very high in-house development costs for new standards; many economize by

modifying and using available voluntary standards. Nevertheless, more

effective management control of development costs is warranted. In

particular, the Departmental Standards Program should seek to minimize waste

by reducing duplication or increasing multiple-application. Departmental

Standards Coordinators should search for ways to reduce costs.
Exhibit 2.4.1

Attributes of Standards Activities

Use

1 X

2 X

3 X

4 X

5

6 X

7 X

8 X

9 X

10 X

11 X

12 X

13 X

14 X

15 X

16 X

17a X

17b X

18 X

19 X

20 X

21 X

22 X

23a X

23b X

24a X

24b X

25a X

25b X

25c X

26 X

27a X

27b X

27c X

28 X

Develop* Adopt**

X

X

X X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

* Includes those who draft or support development of standards.

** Can mean "made mandatory" and/or "modified for use".

Note: Numbers 1-15 are headquarters offices (see Exhibit C.l) and numbers

16-28 are field organizational units (see Exhibit C.2).

-26 -

X><5X

XX

XX

X

X

XXX
Exhibit 2.4.2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17a

17 b

18

19

20

21

22

23a

23b

23c

24a

24b

25a

25b

25c

26

27a

27b

27c

28

Primary Emphasis of Standards Activities

Develop DOE

Standards

Use DOE Develop Voluntary Use Voluntary

Standards Standards Standards

X

X

X

X X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

Note: Numbers 1-15 are headquarters offices (see Exhibit C.l) and numbers

16-28 are field organizational units (see Exhibit C.2).

-27-
2.5 Monitoring of Ongoing Standards Development Activities

2.5.1 The Question Asked

The interviewees were asked to describe the degree to which they monitor the

activities of the organizations outside and inside DOE that develop or revise

voluntary standards, mandatory standards, or technical regulations that are of

interest to their programs.

Many private sector standards writing organizations regularly report their

current standards activities, thus making it possible for standards

professionals to be aware of standards development and revision activities

related to their own interests. Some energy standards professionals serve on outside committees that are concerned with the needs of their energy

technologies. For others, monitoring means continuous review of the Federal

Register to identify and influence proposed mandatory standards and technical

regulations that could affect their technologies.

2.5.2 The Responses Received

For 23 of the interviewees who responded to this question, monitoring of

ongoing standards development was a principal activity. (See Exhibit 2.5.1.)

The extent of involvement included checking periodically on the status of the

development of new standards and technical regulations and, at each stage of

the process, reviewing and commenting. At least four of the respondents,

perceived monitoring to be more than just observing, and discussed the

necessity of taking an "active role" as part of the monitoring process (i.e.,

getting their engineers on key standards committees, voting their interests,

and providing funds to assist the development process). Several others were

less enthusiastic about the importance of monitoring.

2.5.3 Interpretations and Analysis of Responses

The Survey Team found that many comments reflected a view of the importance of

monitoring contrary to that anticipated. Based on extensive NBS experience,

participation should be more than merely informative and interesting—it is an important job-related responsibility. Most of the despairing comments were directly related to declining resources, which make it increasingly difficult

to "keep up with the state of the art". Respondents often felt "let down"

when permission to travel to attend and participate was suddenly withdrawn.

If voluntary standards bodies are to be active in developing standards for

development, commercialization and production of energy technologies, it

appears to be highly advantageous and necessary for key technical people to

represent DOE positions on the appropriate industry committees, taking an active role in guiding and expediting new standards through the many steps of

the development process.

-28-
2.5.4 Findings and Recommendations

The Survey Team found several respondents who took the reasonable position

that monitoring the development of standards and technical regulations that

might impact given programs must remain under the control of those programs.

Nevertheless, a centralized (passive only) monitoring system must continuously

cover all areas of interest, continually absorb the monitored information of

the individual standards programs, and periodically provide status reports to

all DOE standards professionals to permit needed access to information. The

relevancy and status of the voluntary and mandatory standards development

projects that are monitored should be determined primarily by the individual

programs, but status determinations must be supplemented where necessary by

the Departmental Standards Program.

-29
Exhibit 2.5.1

Monitoring of Ongoing Standards Development Activities

Units Monitoring

Standards Development Comments

7

9

16

17

18

19

20

21

22a

22c

23a

23b

25a

25b

25c

26

To a lesser degree than standards development

activities.

Track ongoing development, including the

funding of ANSI steering committee.

Safety would be nice to do but no staff.

Health people monitor (for example) "Explosive

Safety Manual".

Periodically monitor "single writer" but not

committee activities unless they have members

or direct involvement.

A major effort, they provide direct funding to

voluntary standards bodies.

This activity is tied to their use of

voluntary standards.

Yes and participate.

Probably covered by contractors no formal

procedure.

Its part of our program, ASTM helped (new

geothermal committee). Cross-adoption more

prevalent than monitoring.

They try to get engineers on key committees.

Review and comment on standards development.

Yes, including (technical regulations) in

Federal Register.

Try to but number of standards monitored small.

In terms of commenting.

Yes.

Thru employees.

Note: Numbers 1-15 are headquarters offices (see Exhibit C.l) and numbers

16-28 are field organizational units (see Exhibit C.2).

-30-
2.6 Organizational Structure Employed for Standards Activities

2.6.1

The Question Asked

The NBS Survey Team asked interviewees to describe the organizational

structure now employed to manage or direct their standards activities,

including authority and responsibilities of the various units, and to discuss

the relationships of their organizations to the standards activities in which

they were engaged. The interviewees were encouraged to discuss how their

organization responded to areas of standards responsibility that crossed

organizational lines.

2.6.2 The Responses Received

Thirteen respondents indicated the lack of formal structure, focus, breakdown,

etc. Twelve suggested that, at best, there is a loosely defined standards

coordination or standards reporting function. (See Exhibit 2.6.1.) The

sampled responses suggest that DOE, as a large, highly decentralized Federal

governmental agency, is characterized by non-unformity in its approach to

standards programs. In some program areas the standards function is

particularly weak. As to those standards areas that have no organizational

focus, the respondents cited examples of relying on their colleagues in other

elements.

2.6.3 Interpretations and Analysis of Responses

In the course of interviews where standards operations were not explicitly or clearly defined, the respondents often expressed concern about gaps between

performance and the level-of-commitment expected by the technical program

manager. Standards professionals often did not know how their effectiveness

would be measured. A common response was that real responsibility resided

elsewhere, either in the field or at headquarters—whichever location was not

their own.

At several interview sites standards activities are integral to the mission,

especially in operations where "everyone does standards." In these cases, it

is understood that the lack of a clearly defined standards program is not

deemed to be relevant; the unity of standards and mission assures

availability of resources for standardization activities. However, the

absence of a clear or explicit standards function or its integration with a non-standards mission sometimes creates the perception that standards programs

are "short-changed."

2.6.4 Findings and Recommendations

The Nuclear Standards Program was found to be one area in DOE with a strong

coordination function. Well managed development activities are conducted in

the appropriate elements. This exemplary technical standards program,

operated jointly by a DOE Contractor and DOE employees, reflected its concern

-31 -
for standards in the organizational structure even though its operations cross many organizational lines. Other standards areas (such as fossil, solar, data

processing, and construction) may benefit from the same kind of focused

leadership.

The Survey Team believes that other headquarters/laboratory combinations can assume the responsibility for taking the lead role for a specific standards

area where, because of their own vital interests, they are already committed

(resources, personnel, expertise, information, etc.). These combinations can pattern a coordination function similar to the one that exists for Nuclear

Standards. An expanded Departmental Standards Program could provide the

assistance necessary to effect this recommendation.
Exhibit 2.6.1

Description of Organizational Structure Employed for Standards Activities

1 None.

2 Responsible to Assistant Secretary for Administration through

Computer Services and Telecommunications Management.

3 See DOE Order 1360.3.

4 Very small office located under Controllers Office—had 13 people

now has only 4.

5 None.

6 NA.

7 Integral element of nuclear energy development. Working group

advisory to Director on NSMC activities. Consists of Standards

Coordinators with nuclear concerns in DOE.

8 No formal structure.

9 None.

10 Headquarters interacts within federal community, NBS is center

for technical expertise, VSBs develop standards, and four

regional centers interface with marketplace.

11 This is Headquarters Office—Labs manage direct standards work.

12 Headquarters monitors, JPL leads centers and SERI does work on task forces.

13 Standards documents, records, indexes are maintained by field

offices.

14 Small organization, no breakdown—has 9 professionals.

15 Division of Energy Data Standardization directs and coordinate

most standards activities; others have some control.

16 DOE is functionally responsible for knowing and applying

standards for technical divisions contractors, at lowest level,

implement requirements on project basis.

17 Standards Coordinator, a staff function, assists engineers

directly.

18 Quality Assurance and Standards is splitting into three highly

decentralized groups.

19 They have a matrix organization that includes Quality, Safety,

Engineering and Technical Publications.

20 Standards Coordinator works through System Engineering

Department, reviews standards and technical specifications and

prepared bids.

21 No person whose focus is standards—it is being considered.

22 Coordinator for Safety—decentralized, no coordination in various

other groups.

23a Safety, Radiological, Quality Assurance, Purchasing are the four

organizations, in decending order, that are structured for

standards activities.

23b F&S has no Standard Coordinator but several people specialize.

Safety standards are coordinated through one person. REECO has

Coordinator for standards information at library.

-33 -
23c

24a

24b

25a

25b

26

27a

27b

27c

28

Note:

Administrator—reviews and updates standards.

Small staff.

See "Guide to the Nuclear Standards Program" —a highly structured

organization.

Division Manager is the Coordinator, provides standards input.

Everyone "does" standards and technical regulations.

Highly decentralized—standards and specifications are written/used all across all levels of organization; suggestions

can come from anywhere. This process leads to free-flowing

consensus decisions.

No Standards Coordinator, no organization focal points.

Coordination across organizational lines accomplished by HEDL

Standards Coordinator.

Not organized to reflect standards, each function is responsible.

Coordination effort, review projects to see if standards are required and are being used.

Numbers 1-15 are headquarters offices (see Exhibit C.l) and numbers

16-28 are field organizational units (see Exhibit C.2).

-34 -
2.7 The Energy Standards Infrastructure

2.7.1 The Questions Asked

The interviewees were asked to name other DOE organizations with which they

normally maintain contact relating to standards and to describe the

relationship. If a respondent did not name the office responsible for the

Departmental Standards Program, he was specifically asked if he had any

interactions with the DOE Standards Program or Standards Coordinators and the

nature of any such contact.

2 . 7.2 The Responses Received

Although a precise count was not possible because some answers covered more

than one unit, one-to-one relationships were tabulated where possible. (See

Exhibit 2 . 7 . 1 .) It was estimated that twelve contacts relating to standards

are maintained with or within three areas: 1) the Offices of the Assistant

Secretary for Environmental Protection, Safety and Emergency Preparedness; 2)

the Assistant Secretary for Nuclear Energy; and 3) taken as a group, the DOE

national laboratories.

Several respondents identified informal interactions which are maintained

between functional, technical, and administrative areas with common interest

or similar responsibilities. For example, many standards engineers who are actively involved with solar energy technologies maintain relationships with

each other.

Fifty percent of the respondents (9 of 15 headquarters offices and 9 of 21

field units) specifically included the DOE Standards Program as an "agency”

contacted both formally and informally on a regular basis. The interviewees

often demonstrated the need for information, either directly or indirectly, by

all concerned. (See Exhibit 2.7.2.) Policy or policy committee activities

and standards review- and-comment work were mentioned most. However, there

seemed to be little or no exchange of information on standards or standardization activities between many field units and the headquarters

Standards Program. One respondent said he did not believe that either the

headquarters or the field can help the other. Several participants expressed

interest in learning more about the DOE Standards Pr*ogram.

2 . 7.3 Interpretations and Analysis of Responses

In essence, many interviewees were obviously unfamiliar with the activities of

the DOE Standards Program; some did not even know of its existence. The data

suggest that the flow of standards information within the standards

infrastructure needs to be accelerated.

Most of the respondents were pleased to know that headquarters was interested

in learning more about their standards activities. Conversely, the

respondents need to learn about the standards activities at the department

level. Some standards information services do not reach those individual

- 35 -
units which could benefit most from information currently available as a standards-activity service from headquarters; for example, the capability of

quickly securing a list of applicable standards for a project or for obtaining

an extensive index on an energy subject.

2.7.4 Findings and Recommendations

A mechanism for the collection and dissemination of standards information in

all areas (administrative, functional, regulatory and technical) should be

established. The Standards Program might first develop a brochure of its

functions and services, later adding centers of expertise in other elements

and disseminating this information throughout the Department.

The frequent reference to the need for "selling standards" to managers not

oriented to the importance of standards suggests that the DOE Standards

Program should augment its current efforts in coordinating standards

activities and enhancing the effective use of standards. The Departmental

Standards Coordinators must specifically communicate to top management the

importance of standards for attaining DOE goals and objectives. The Survey

Team also sees a need to report standards successes at the division level.

It is recommended that the Departmental Standards Program take the lead role

in promoting standards activities. This should be discussed at the next

Standards Policy Committee meeting. The importance of standards can get

needed visibility within DOE headquarters by describing DOE's involvement in

standards and by highlighting successes and benefits of standards and

standardization activities. The Departmental Standards Program needs to

demonstrate, in writing, to top management and to standards professionals how

specific standards activities support the attainment of DOE goals and

objectives. It is recommended that this be accomplished by preparing an annual report for the Assistant Secretaries and a brochure for general

distribution.

Standards professionals cannot depend on others to expound on their standards

achievements and justify their existence; standards professionals at all

levels must assume responsibility and communicate their own standards-program

accomplishments to management.

There is some sentiment for revising the Departmental standards program to

enhance horizontal communications where incompatible data affect DOE

responsibilities. The need for change was frequently discussed or hinted at,

but usually without directly addressing specific techniques for strengthening

bonds among standards professionals. Establishment of a standards information

network may be especially important at this time when some form of agency

disestablishment is being contemplated. Although a few interviewees see little possibility of exchanging help between headquarters and the field, most

standards professionals believe that their programs would benefit from an expanded, working program of information exchange.

- 36 -
The cadre of highly knowledgeable energy standards professionals must be

linked together in a network to facilitate communications and to mutually

enhance their ability to deliver technical support to their program areas. The Departmental Standards Program should develop and distribute a list of all

standards professionals, cross-referenced by their area of interest and

activities. This list should evolve into a directory that includes committee

assignments, information resource contacts and official DOE representatives by

standards areas. The Departmental Coordinators must serve as the catalysts

for the development of this information which is necessary for the emergence

of a viable, internal communications network. They could, in conjunction with

the Standards Policy Committee, host an annual meeting or conference, which

might include seminars and technical papers, for the cadre of energy standards

professionals.

-37 -
Exhibit 2.7.1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

19

20

21

22

23a

23b

24a

24b

25a

25b

26

Note:

Contacts with Other DOE Organizations Relating to Standards

Controller, Procurement, Defense Program, EV, Administration.

With ADP Management Group and ADP Systems. With any DOE Groups

who wants to transmit data.

Controller; Procurement and Contract Management; Defense Programs

through DOE Order 1360.3 —specific responsiblities are assigned

to them.

EV, OES implement higher level policy in facility design such as

in safeguards and security and personal radiation exposure.

None regularly maintained—contact offices which could be

affected by GSA or Military Specifications.

Only as required to transfer programs.

EV Coordination.

EV —Environmental Impact Statement —Health, Safety help develop

policy and review other agency standards.

SERI: EV —DOE standards policy; Regional Solar Energy Centers;

Lawrence Berkley and Los Alamos National Laboratories.

Standard working group from domestic policy review group of

Federal Agencies. Conservation—BEPS, RCS.

Brookhaven National Laboratory Management and research on geothermal. Batelle Pacific Northwest and other divisions

through the Engineering Materials Coordination Committee.

SERI, Sandia, Brookhaven for health and safety, and JPL.

EV, Office of Health and Environmental Research.

A/S Nuclear Energy, Program Manager Office of Nuclear

Energy—clean up work.

Metric Committee, Office of Administration (ADP Standards).

Fusion Energy, Los Alamos and Sandia many technical lines of

communications with programmatic offices.

NSMC, A/S NE, RTT.

Office of Safety, Quality Assurance and Safeguards.

Office of Nuclear Energy, Safety QA and Safeguards.

Headquarters—many areas. Sandia, LBL, and Oak Ridge—conservation and renewable resources. Headquarters, OES.

NRC.

Union Carbide.

NE and EV , Headquarters

.

Other Energy Technology Centes, Fossil Energy at Headquarters,

Office of Basic Energy Science.

Fossil Energy—Environmental Protection & Emergency Preparedness.

None, work with Boeing and Electric Power Research Institute.

Numbers 1-15 are headquarters offices (see Exhibit C.l) and numbers

16-28 are field organizational units (see Exhibit C.2).

-38 -
Exhibit 2 . 7.2

3

4

6

7

8

9

10

13

14

16

17

21

22

23a

23b

24b

25b

25c

27a

27b

28

Note:

Nature of Contacts with the Departmental Standards Program

Work with DOE Policy Committee—review materials as requested and

provide comments.

Informal relating to development and interpretation of criteria,

and more formal relating to wavers of criteria.

Keep contact on routine basis—obtain reports.

Coordination.

Extensive interaction—help develop policy and review standards.

Policy Committee.

Informal and interactive—participated on 1300.2.

Committee Membership.

Policy Implementation.

Audit of field use of prescribed standards.

Coordination with QA standards and metric provide feedback on DOE

Order.

Some contact.

Some interaction.

Request to comment on standards.

Contracts thru Field Offices, QA and others have many interface

activities.

Some coordination.

Contacts safety people and health and environment.

Reviews work for OES.

Review, comment, identify standards needs.

Worked on Recommended Practices.

Coordination.

Numbers 1-15 are headquarters offices (see Exhibit C.l) and numbers

16-28 are field organizational units (see Exhibit C.2).

-39 -
2.8 External Interface Requirements

2.8.1 The Questions Asked

The NBS Survey Team asked the interviewees to identify the contacts they

maintained with industry associations, professional organizations, or companies developing standards, to identify the type of contact (i.e., attends

meetings, participates, contracts, etc.), and to list the names of the

associations

.

Interviewees were then asked what contacts they maintained with voluntary

domestic standards bodies or international standards bodies, the type of

contact and the identifications of the standards bodies.

They were also asked about contacts they maintained with Federal, state or local government agencies, the type of contact maintained, and the names of

the agencies.

2.8.2 The Responses Given

Some organizations appeared in more than one list, for example, ASME (see

Appendix D, "List of Acronyms and Abbreviations Used in This Report") was considered to be both a standards-writing body and a professional

organization. Counts in this subsection were by predominance according to the

respondents, but only stray data were regrouped into the table listing where

they most frequently occur. (See Exhibit 2.8.1.)

Twenty-three industry associations and professional organizations were

identified, including ANS, API and SEIA. Only a couple of individual

companies were mentioned.

Thirty-two domestic and international standards writing organizations were

named: fourteen listed ASTM, twelve listed ANSI, seven ASME, five IEEE, and

four ASHRAE. In the international area, six listed ISO and three listed

IAEA. Seventeen Federal agencies were listed: NBS was mentioned 19 times,

EPA six, Dol four and DoD, GSA, and OS HA three times each.

The standards programs involved a variety of support agreements, domestic

committee assignments, and arrangements with voluntary standards bodies.

Internationally, contacts included written agreements with foreign nations, as well as informal talks with technical peers from other countries. (See

Exhibit 2.8.2.)

2.8.3 Interpretations and Analysis of Responses

Several standards professionals experienced considerable difficulty in

maintaining necessary external interface relationships. Individuals are often

unable to prove a need for government sponsorship of their participation on outside standards writing committees, and almost all standards professionals

find that travel restrictions often interfere with planned standards

activities. The DOE Standards Program is in a position to develop DOE

-40 -
criteria for assessing the relative importance of committee assignments and to

seek support from the appropriate Assistant Secretaries to make priority

participation possible. Even though the authority for participation clearly

rests with the line divisions, someone must ensure that DOE maintains the

necessary representation and the committee chairmanships that vitally affect

energy technologies.

The respondents raised several important issues with regard to committee

participation. For example, one interviewee asked about the current

significance of his comments as standards are developed: are the comments to

be considered to be official in some degree? A second added the suggestion

that information concerning committee assignments should be rapidly available

so he will have a readily accessible DOE contact if he needs to call for

information. Another said that information on international standards should

be available to all. Others stated that the DOE Standards Program will have

to shoulder more of the interface responsibilities with industry through

voluntary standards bodies, which seems to be appropriate.

2.8.4 Finding and Recommendations

It is recommended that the Standards Program, after consulting with and

obtaining the concurrence of key DOE standards officials, issue detailed

guidelines for standards committee participation through the DOE Standards

Policy Committee, which meets on an ad hoc basis for this kind of purpose.

These standards guidelines should implement requirements of DOE 1300.2, as well as set forth detailed guidance for DOE participation on outside standards

writing committees. The guidelines should establish procedures for reporting

information and explain the significance of comments or votes in the standards

development process. Guidelines for standards committee participation need to

be spelled out by the Office of Quality Assurance and Standards (OQAS) , even

if they are only tentative, prior to review by the Standards Policy Committee.

All committee assignments of DOE and DOE- contractor employees who participate

in writing standards should be listed in the directory recommended in

Subsection 2.1.4 and contained in the proposed information system: A

Standards Personnel and Participation System (SPPS) , which is being planned.

This system should be constructed and implemented in order to: 1) promote

effective participation by DOE staff members in standardization activities, 2)

assist DOE managers in making decisions about the allocation of DOE resources

for these activities, and 3) encourage communication among standards committee

participants. Such a system can also maximize the benefits to be derived frcxn a well-managed standards program in that it will provide accurate and timely

information for DOE management officials, as well as for industry

associations, standards committees, DOE contractors and individual energy

company officials.

The DOE Standards Program will have to shoulder more of the liaison

responsibilities with the private sector. Where high level contacts need to

be established and maintained, the DOE Standards Coordinator should represent

the interests of DOE, persuade other members of the Policy Committee to accept

-41 -
assignments, or use the influence of his office to make the importance of the

assignments known to the supervisors of key standards professionals. Seeking

and accepting an assignment on the board of directors of a relevant voluntary

standards body is a critical standards activity which mutually enhances both

organizations. It should be high on the list of DOE Standards Program

priorities

.

-42-

i
Exhibit 2.8.1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

Note:

External Contacts

Federal State/Local

Industry Voluntary International Government Government

COCO None None None None

None None None NBS None

ACMA, EIA ANSI ISO NBS, ADP None

ANS

None

Users Group

GSA/PBS None

GSA, DOD

NSMC, Oak IEEE, ASME IAEA NRC, EPA

Ridge, AIF ANS, ASTM,

AISI, ANSI,

ASNME

None None No formal

relationship

ASHRAE ASTM, ANSI ISO NBS, HUD NCSBSC, NLC

BOCA, SBCC,

ICBO

SMACNA, ANSI, ANSI, lAE HUD, FTC I3CC

SEIA, NASC ASHRAE, GATT NBS, IRS,

ARI ASTM TVA, EPA

ACI, API ASME, ASTM Mexico, Italy, NBS, USGS None

NACE New Zealand and

Japan

SEMA, SEIA ASTM, ANSI NASA, NBS Not much

IEEE DoD, Interior

USCG

ANS ANSI

Committee

EPA, NRC NY, NJ

API, EIA ASTM, ANSI DOC, ADP

Users Group

BMA ANSI, NFPA IAEA NBS, EPA Colorado

ASTM, UBS DoT, OSHA

SES ASHRAE,

ASQC

DCASR FEB

SEIA ASTM, IEEE

ASME, ASHRAE

ANSI, NEC

ISO, lEC NBS, HUD ICC

IEEE, ANSI, NSMC, OSHA 50 States,

ASTM, ASME Universities

None Some VSB None None Ventura and 1 committees counties

Several ASTM, WPCF None EPA, OSHA SBC, City of

companies ASCE Morgantown

See Appendix D, "List of Acronyms and Abbreviations Used in This

Report."

-43 -
22 GRI ACI, NACE, lEA None NY-ERDA

API, ASTM

AGA, EPRI

ASHRAE

23a NFPA, UL NIOSH, EPA,

Comment on Federal

23b AMA, API ANSI, NFPA,

ASTM, AWS,

AWWA, ASQC,

NSC, NCSL

lADC Register

23c AOMA, AAFP, NIOSH, OSHA Medical

EMG and Hospital

Boards

24a Very Very None None None

little little

24b AS ME ASTM, IEEE, None NRC, NBS, None

ANSI, ANS

ASME

DOD, EPA

25 ASTM None NBS, USGS Alleghany

County, PA

Environmental

Resources

26 EPRI IEEE, ANSI lEC State, noise

& Building

Codes

27a None None None Comment on S/L environsafety

standards

mental offices

27b Very ANS, ANSI TC 85 None None

little ASME, AICHE

27c GRC some VSB ISO EPA

28 NACC, ANS, ANSI, IAEA None None

DuPont ASTM

Note: Numbers 1-15 are headquarters offices (see Exhibit C.l) and numbers

16-28 are field organizational units (see Exhibit C.2).

-44 -
Exhibit 2.8.2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23a

23b

23c

24a

24b

25

26

27a

27b

27c

28

Note:

Comments on Types of External Interface Requirements

Expect to contact other Federal agencies.

Should participate in NTIA and NCS but don't.

Industry and International contacts are nominal.

Very little contact with VSBs.

Comment on GSA and DOD standards.

Regional offices may work with State and local government.

Review and comment on standards.

Limited participation, result of individual initiative—not

encouraged by DOE policy.

Participate in committee—provide support.

Training, certification, participation and data exchange.

Committee activity, development.

Informal talks in international area. Working memberships from labs, contacts maintained by others.

Participate on VSB committees—obtain State and local review of

criteria.

Standardize energy terms and definitions.

Attend meetings, help develop standards, review proposed regulations.

Twenty to forty people are on VSB committees.

Attend meetings, serve on committees. State and local may not

continue.

Attend ASTM meetings.

Attend meetings twice a year —provide safety inspectors for

California.

Component testing with industry—VSB memberships.

Attend meetings, participate—research work in international area. Some members are chairman—comment on Federal regulations.

Some industry associations are not really standards related—VSB

memberships.

Review and comment—serve on boards.

Very little—contract people to do it.

Except for NRC other Federal contacts are minor.

Attend on informal basis technical meetings with industry, work with

states on waste disposal.

Serve on several IEEE committees, tied to lEC.

Comment on proposed safety standards in Federal Register—work with

State and local environmental standards.

No contracts with VSBs, some memberships.

Write and review standards for VSBs—correspond with ISO.

Considered participation with industry.

Numbers 1-15 are headquarters offices (see Exhibit C.l) and numbers

16-28 are field organizational units (see Exhibit C.2).

-45 -
2.9 Documents and Records

2.9.1 The Questions Asked

The following questions were asked: Do you have any internal standards

procedures or guidelines in place or in process? Do you have a list of

standards that your program uses or that your program has under development?

Do you have a list of your publications that use or relate directly to

standards? What record-keeping activities, if any, do you use to record money

or time expended in standards work, and who is the individual, if any, doing

the record-keeping?

2.9.2 The Responses Received

Fifty percent of the respondents said that written standards procedures are in

place for their programs, and most said that a variety of guidelines are used. Lists of applicable standards were maintained by 16 DOE offices or agencies, and 14 have standards publications. One laboratory was developing a preferred list of standards recommended for use by their engineers, plus an internal standards manual. Lists of standards maintained by officials at

other Federal agencies were also used by some offices. (See Exhibit 2.9.1.)

Sixty percent of the respondents indicated that they do not record

expenditures for standards work; only 20 percent of those responding said they

keep adequate records. Some data were maintained in specialized cases, such

as when standards are the only products of a project. Some costs of travel to

standards meetings were also recorded. (See Exhibit 2.9.2.)

2 . 9.3 Interpretations and Analysis of Responses

The responses show that important infonnation in standards lists plus other

data in documents and records of specific DOE programs might be readily

available. Optimistic comments suggest that this information could be

updated, edited, and incorporated into an energy standards data base. Other

comments are interpreted as "new lists need to be developed from scratch."

Nevertheless, the lists could serve as the basis for indexing standards titles

by keywords, and the resultant list could then be made available to all energy

standards professionals to assist them in searching for relevant standards.

2 . 9.4 Findings and Recommendations

The existence of many standards documents was noted during the survey; where

they were readily available, they were collected. The balance of those

documents should probably be collected by the DOE Standards Program, and the

Standards Order could be used as the justification to conduct a documents

analysis. This could provide more base line data and additional Insights

concerning DOE standards activities. Standards procedures and guidelines of

the various elements should be examined with reference to current DOE

policies, and illustrative models should be provided for the benefit of those

divisions now lacking standards procedures.

-46 -
Two key issues surfaced during these discussions; What is the value of

tracking detailed standards costs for each project? Should engineers record

standards time or should managers estimate standards costs? The data show

that only seven programs devote the time of a designated individual to collect

and/or maintain records of standards expenditures. None of the seven

volunteered any information that might suggest any benefit to this routine.

There is no evidence to support the suggestion that, perhaps, a departmental

policy should require this type of practice. It is by no means obvious that

benefits gained would exceed the costs of instituting record-keeping where it

does not now exist. The Departmental Standards Program will have to convince

DOE management that aggregating standards expenditures Department- wide is

justifiable.

-47 -
Exhibit 2.9.1

Internal Standards Procedures or Guidelines, List of Standards,

and List of Publications

Procedures or Guidelines Lists of Standards List of Publications

Yes Yes Yes

1 X X

2 X X

3 X X X

4 X

5 X X

6 X X

7 X X

8 X X

9 X X

10 X X X

11 X X

12 X X X

13 X X

14 X X X

15 X X X

16 X X X

17 X X

18 X X X

19 X X X

20 X

21 X X

22 X X

23a X X

23b X X X

23c X X X

24a X X

24b X X X

25a X X X

25b X X X

26 X X

• 27a X X

27b X X X

27c X X X

28 X X

Note: Numbers 1-15 are headquarters offices (see Exhibit C.l) and numbers

16-28 are field organizational units (see Exhibit C.2).

-48 -

XX

XXXXXXX

X

XXXX

X

XX
Exhibit 2 . 9.2

Records of Money or Time Expended in Standards Work

What Kind of Records do you Is a Specific Person

Maintain for Resources Expended? or Office Responsible?

1 None.

2 None.

3 N/A.

4 None.

5 None.

6 None.

7 None, except where standards is the only,

product of a project.

8 None.

9 None.

10 Monthly Account Report on Standards. SERI (eventually).

11 None.

12

13 None. Have to go to field,

offices.

14 None

15 Time and Accountability reporting system

#6081 account code for standards.

Assistant Administrator.

16 Very little. No.

17a None.

17b Some records are maintained for ANL people. Standards Coordinator.

18 None, but standards dollars charged to tasks,

could be estimated.

19 None, all charged to overhead.

20 Timecards have designation for RDT Standards. Accounting.

21 None.

22 None.

23 None—except for travel costs to some standards meetings.

23b None.

23c Ongoing, review of standards is part of

the job.

Administrator.

24a None.

24b None.

25a They track spending by category and could

pick out standard costs.

25b None.

26 None.

27a None.

27b Records for HEDL people are maintained. The Standards Coordinator

27c They use computerized work breakdown

accounting system.

Each Project Leader.

28 Can't separate for standards. No.

Note : Numbers 1-15 are headquarters offices (see Exhibit C.l) and numbers

16-28 are field organizational units (see Exhibit C.2).

-49-
2.10 Standards Activities Commitments; Funding and Manpower

2.10.1 The Questions Asked

With respect to organizational resources committed to standards activities

(i.e., developing, reviewing, commenting, etc), interviewees were asked to

discuss fiscal year (FY) trends, how FY 8l was expected to compare with FY

80. They were asked to estimate funding for personnel, travel,

contracts/grants , and information systems. They were also asked about the

total funding for the program or organization for which the information is

pertinent

.

Similar questions were also asked about programmatic allocation of manpower

including total man years for full-time and part-time personnel, the number of

people devoted solely to standards activities, and the number of people

working part-time on standards. (See item 10 of the Interview Worksheet in

Appendix B.

)

2.10.2 The Responses Received

Twelve departmental elements estimated funding for standards activities in FY

80; many of these were based on approximated manpower allocations. Five

respondents knew that their accounting systems were set up to track standards

costs. (See Exhibit 2.10.1.) Several interviewees said that they are not

authorized to answer funding questions and most others did not have cost data

available. Significant comparisions between FY 8l and FY 80 were not made by

the respondents; there were some comments ("about the same" or "about the same

except for some cuts").

A total of 19 manpower estimates were made for FY 80. The data show that the

man-year totals for standards work generally comprise many fractions of

man-years contributed by a large number of individuals (at one site there were

200 individuals involved) who devote a small part of their time to standards

activities. A few respondents indicated that funding for contracts/grants

could be misleading since there could be a very large expenditure in one year

and nothing the next.

2.10.3 Interpretations and Analysis of Responses

During the discussions in the funding area, a few standards professionals

expressed concern about the resources which might be expended in developing

information systems where consideration has not been given to establishing

mechanisms to utilize the output. Continuous support, said one interviewee,

is the particular need for any standards information system which is to be

funded within the Department. More significant insights came from the

analysis of the manpower data—a very large number of people are devoted to

standards activities on a part-time basis. The Survey Team infers from the

funding and manpower discussions that hundreds of individuals potentially have

contributions to make to, and would be significant users of, a viable

information system.

-50 -
With existing resources, the Departmental Standards Program can help to

establish output delivery mechanisms for interested standards units and secure

guarantees from those standards units for continuous support in providing

input. The availability of many potential participants should influence OQAS

decision makers, and should weigh heavily in considerations by each unit

managers to provide continuing support for an information system. Resource

commitments should feature cost effective mechanisms which cillow energy

standards professionals to utilize the output.

2.10.4 Findings and Recommendations

As noted in Subsection 2.9.4, detailed tracking of expenditures for all

standards activities is not recommended. However, funding commitments in the

form of line items should be established in two areas for each standards

program. It is recommended that line items be established to support the

travel required to sustain active participation in voluntary standards

development activities and to support standards information and data

programs. This is important to help keep management aware of the costs and

significance of energy standards information. Additionally, a line item

should be established for funds to support a Departmental standards

information program.

-51-
Exhibit 2.10.1

Standards Activities Commitments

Cost Data Available Manpower Data Available

1 No No

2 Yes Yes

3 No Yes

4 Yes Yes

5 No Yes

6 No No

7 No Yes

8 No Yes

9 No No

10 No No

11 No Yes

12 No No

13 No No

14 Yes Yes

15 No No

16 Yes Yes

17 No No

18 Yes Yes

19 Yes Yes

20 Yes Yes

21 No No

22 Yes Yes

23 Yes Yes

24 Yes Yes

25 Yes Yes

26 No Yes

27 Yes Yes

28 No Yes

12/28 19/28

Note: Numbers 1-15 are headquarters offices (see Exhibit C.l) and numbers

16-28 are field organizational units (see Exhibit C.2).

-52 -
2.11 Standards Information: Sources and Mechanisms

2.11.1 The Questions Asked

The Survey Team asked where interviewees got most of their standards

information. Interviewees were also asked about the availability and adequacy

of four standards information tools: standards catalogues, in-house standards

collections, technical libraries with a standards collection, and on-line

computer-based standards services. They were first asked to indicate the

availability of such tools and, if they gave a "yes" answer, to indicate the

adequacy of each tool used. If the tool was unavailable or inadequate,

interviewees were asked if they would like to have an adequate information

tool of that type. (See Appendix B, Interview Worksheet, Item 11.)

2.11.2 The Responses Received

Seventeen respondents said DOE Departmental elements were an important source for standards information. Seven of those got most of their standards

information from headquarters offices, with the balance divided between field

offices and DOE contractors. Fifteen respondents identified other government

agencies as their primary information source. (See Exhibit 2.11.1.)

Seventeen respondents said they got most of their standards information from

voluntary standards bodies and from technical, trade, and professional

societies; most frequently mentioned were ANSI and ASTM. For four respondents

a primary information source was industry, and one named a university.

Out of 30 respondents, 28 used standards catalogues and other lists and

indexes provided by standards-writing organizations; 26 had full-text in-house

standards collections; and 25 used the full-text collections at their

technical libraries. An on-line computer-based service was available to 5 of

the 30 respondents. The interviewees reported that most of the available

information systems were adequate. (See Exhibit 2.11.2.) But, in 45 of 120

instances (30 interview situations times 4 information tools), the information

tools were either not available or deemed to be not adequate by the users.

2.11.3 Interpretations and Analysis of Responses

These questions uncovered two significant points. During one interview, a respondent suggested to the MBS interviewer that many of the interviewees

themselves were responsible for standards information in their programs, hence

alleging inadequacy might reflect unfavorably on their own performance.

Another respondent, who judged his information system to be adequate for his

facility, stressed the need for conpatibility of data for interchange among

other research facilities.

The adequacy of the classifications and subject categories in standards

catalogues published by standards writing organizations was questioned. One

interviewee criticized the lack of care in characterization, thereby degrading

-53 -
his ability to identify applicable standards. Another said that the in-house

standards collection at his laboratory is adequate, but he alone is

sufficiently conversant to identify relevant sections within the collection

and he alone knows where to locate elements of the collection which are distributed about the laboratory among the key users at various locations.

It is highly desirable for design engineers, standards engineers, and

technicians to have access to: 1) on-line listings of all mandatory and

significant voluntary standards applicable to ongoing projects, and 2) access

to a microform collection of important standards. The DOE Standards Program

should determine the feasibility of providing a means for on-line title

searching and for microform full-text referencing.

As indicated by the respondents, an energy standards data base should include

comprehensive listings of all standards development activities relevant to the

environmental, safety, health and other regulatory requirements that could

result in new or revised mandatory standards. Listings of all voluntary

standards development activities related to energy would also be beneficial to

the DOE standards professionals.

It is noteworthy that many standards professionals are concerned not only with

the vertical flow of information but, to a much greater extent, with the

horizontal exchange of compatible standards information among related

standards programs. Scxne less experienced standards professionals are concerned about their ability to get basic standards information; they can improve matters by making better use of standards information facilities and

services now available. Respondents at five locations expressed a desire for

an on-line standards system, but at one interview site, where four DOE

contractor employees agreed that an on-line system would be useful, only a single "yes" in the table represents that composite view. (The

Standards-Information-Tools Matrix, Exhibit 2.11.2, contains one vote for each

of 30 interview sites.) One laboratory has started developing an in-house

system. The Survey Team also noted with interest the concerns of those not

desiring an on-line system.

Several who did not desire an on-line system, or who were not sure, offered

meaningful comments. One respondent did not want an autcanated information

system unless it is financially supported from year to year. Implying his

worry that it might not be kept up-to-date. Another said he has beccane

disenchanted because of his previous unsatisfying experience with centralized

on-line ccanputer systems in general. Another questioned whether such a system

could be cost effective within a large decentralized Federal agency. One did

not give a "yes" answer because of his concern for keeping an on-line system

up-to-date; that unit cannot now keep up with the revisions of the nuclear

standards. Another withheld a "yes" answer because he felt that he could not

justify to his management the cost of a terminal. Nevertheless, the NBS

Survey Team, based on its understanding of the DOE standards situations,

believes that the effectiveness of the standards program can be significantly

improved if the Departmental Standards Program concentrates its resources on

an "information focus".

-54 -
2.11.4 Findings and Recommendations

The NBS Survey Team has discussed the many aspects of DOE standards

information and has translated its understanding of this composite picture

into a primary thrust for the Departmental Standards Program: the delivery of

standards information through the decentralized organization to the standards

engineers and technicans at the project level.

Many observations confirm the widespread need for improving the basic

information flow among DOE standards professionals. The Survey Team found

insufficient awareness of the existence of the Departmental Standards Program

and the Standards Policy Ccanmittee and not enough interest in DOE standards

policy. Standards professionals often lack the information to "sell"

standards to management; they lack knowledge of what their counterparts (DOE

contractors or DOE employers) are doing; and they lack sophisticated

informational tools and systons. A forceful mechanism is urgently needed to

coordinate the collecting and cataloging of the standards information that

currently exists and to provide a system for delivering that information to

others in the Department.

The orientation of the Departmental Standards Program is somewhat top-down,

but open to opportunities to improve its responsiveness to the needs of

standards programs in the field. The effectiveness of the Program can be

significantly improved by concentrating resources on the information needs of

the standards professionals whose activities are closely involved in the

development of new energy technologies. This will provide enough information

to maintain an overview of standards activities and to improve the Program’s

responsiveness and effectiveness. As a result, the Departmental Standards

Program’s interactions and policy implementation responsibilities should

beccme more readily accepted by DOE standards professionals. The Departmental

Standards Program should reassign current resources to focus on information

and improve the contribution of standards to productivity in the long term.

Defining details for information management is beyond the scope of this

report, but the NBS Survey Team found two areas that should be given immediate

attention:

o First, mandatory and DOE -recommended standards in all DOE program areas should be collected. (Two good collections are already known to exist:

1) nuclear and 2) environmental, safety and health.) Then the standards

should be indexed by those who know their contents and a consolidated,

indexed list distributed to each standards professional in the Department.

o Second, all relevant standards development activities (voluntary as well

as regulatory) within DOE, other agencies, and voluntary standards bodies

should be identified and noted at the working level, monitored at OQAS,

and subjected to periodic reporting of standards progress. An index of

standards development activities in which DOE is involved should be

published and updated annually. This index should also be distributed to

all DOE standards professionals.

-55 -
These two elements (standards and standards activities) should be the

foundation for the type of energy standards data base needed to coordinate a DOE Standards Information Program. The NBS Survey Team receognized early in

the survey, that a cost-effective coordinative mechanism would be essential to

sustain a focus for the Departmental Standards Program. As it became apparent

that the survey data emphasized information, the Team hypothesized that an Energy Standards Data Base (ESDB) would be the appropriate mechanian.

Although no effort was made to suppress other alternatives, the team attempted

to examine its belief that an ESDB would be an acceptable approach.

An ESDB, based on the existing information systems would not incur heavy

development or maintenance costs and could be flexible enough to permit each

standards program to develop and control its own aspect of the general

systan. The mechanism would ranain stable under future reorganization and

could evolve into an on-line system available to knowledgeable users (including information specialists at each technical library) within two

years. A low- risk start, using some of the 63 respondents who have already

expressed interest, could be initiated in two or three pilot areas immediately.

-56 -
Exhibit 2.11.1

Important Standards Information Sources?

Information Source

1 DOE, NBS

2 FIPS

3 Government agencies, newsletters

4 Standards generating groups, associations, newsletters and

catalogues

5 GSA and Military

6 Program Offices

7 Contractors, National Labs

8 ASTM, Industry, Microfilm service, DOE Library

9 Standards Committees

10 NBS, SERI, ANSI, ISCC

11 NBS, Industry

12 SERI, ANSI, ASTM, IEEE, NEC, Industry

13 Industry

14 Federal Agencies, ANS, ANSI

15 NTIS, ANSI, ADP Users Group

16 Industry, VSMF Service

17 Standards Coordinators, Technical Information Service

18 NBS, VSB, Contractors

19 VSBs

20 Technical Societies, Standards Coordinator, Oak Ridge

21 VSBs, Societies, EPA, NBS, CFR

22 In-house Collections

23a Standards Organizations

23b Standards Organizations, GIDEP

23c ALMA, NIOSH, NV Medical School

24a Oak Ridge Technical Library, Carbide Engineering Library

24b DOE Technical Programs

25a ASTM, Bureau of Mines

25b CFR, Federal Register

26 Committee Members, Power Industry

27a Headquarters

27c Technical Library

28 DuPont

Note: Numbers 1-15 are headquarters offices (see Exhibit C.l) and numbers

16-28 are field organizational units (see Exhibit C.2).

-57 -
Exhibit 2.11.2

Standards Information Tools—Are They Available and Adequate?

Is it Available?

If Available,

is it Adequate?

If Not Available

or Adequate,

Should it be?

Yes 2^ Not Sure Yes No Not Sure Yes No Not Sure

A. Standards Catalogues 28 2 0 24 4 0 0 1 5

B. In-house Standards

Collection

26 4 0 23 2 1 1 3 2

C. Technical Library with

Standards Collection

25 5 0 18 5 2 2 4 4

D. On-line Computer-based

Standards Service

5 22 3 4 1 0 5 12 6

NOTE: Recorded data from 30 locations were used in this matrix.

NOTE: See Appendix B, Interview Worksheet, Category 11.

-58 -
2.12 Internal Standards Policy: Departmental Order DoE 1300.2

2.12.1 The Questions Asked

The interviewees were asked if they had seen the new DOE Order 1300.2;

Department of Energy Standards Program . Those who had seen it were asked if

they had formed any opinions or had any comments.

2.12.2 The Responses Received

All 15 respondents from the headquarters offices and 9 of 19 field respondents

had seen the Order. Seven of the ten who had not seen the document were at

national laboratories or technical facilities. Four respondents (all DOE

employees) praised the document, ten had no comment and seven perceived some

problems. (See Exhibit 2.12.1.)

2.12.3 Interpretations and Analysis of Responses

The Standards Order apparently did not have the anticipated impact. It did

not reach the level of implementation which had been expected by the NBS

Survey Team. One proffered explanation is that DOE orders are perceived as too transient and may therefore engender apathy. Another possibility is the

dearth of resources available to implement the Standards Order. The fact that

54 percent of those who reviewed the Order had "no comments" might be as significant as the identification of problems or negative comment. The Survey

Team was not pursuaded that a sufficient level of "managonent guidance" was provided by the Departmental Standards Program, after the Order was issued, to

effectively promote its implementation.

The Survey Team did not analyze the Order with the intent of offering

criticisms in this report. However, on subsequent review, after analyzing the

responses, it was noted that Subsection 7.b(l) of the Standards Order may not

be adequate to cover the information needs of those standards areas that need

a stronger focal point. In certain functional or technical areas that cross organizational lines, OQAS should be able to assign the responsibility to

managers to take a lead role for defining standards information needs. If

direct action by the Standards Program is lacking, it is likely that each

element will hope that another element will expend its resources and share its

information.

2.12.4 Findings and Recommendations

The comments made on the draft Standards Order by many standards managers and

professionals should now be reviewed in light of the data obtained in this

survey.

The Survey Team believes its most significant recommendation is as follows:

The Departmental Standards Program must fully implement Departmental Order DOE

1300 . 2 . This should be accomplished by:

1) preparing a policy implementation plan as soon as possible, then

2) convening the Standards Policy Canmittee to review and approve

impl ©mentation priorities, schedules, etc.

-59 -
Mere announcement of the Order was found to be insufficient. The Standards

Program should assist individual standards coordinators who wish to phase in

new functions and activities and should consult and provide guidance for other

situations. This should be the "first agenda itan" for the next Standards

Policy Committee meeting.

-60 -
Exhibit 2.12.1

DOE 1300 . 2 , Department of Energy Standards Program

Have You Seen It? Any Comments So Far?

1 Yes Didn' t think EV was interested in area of

Management Information Systems.

2 Yes Unusual place to have responsibility.

3 Yes Order meets our needs.

4 Yes Definition of standards is too broad.

5 Yes None.

6 Yes No comments.

7 Yes No comments.

8 Yes Beautiful document.

9 Yes No comments.

10 Yes Manageable, difficult to observe.

11 Yes No comments.

12 Yes No comments.

13 Yes None.

14 Yes Good document.

15 Yes Needs better definition of standards.

16 Yes Don't have resources or time to implement the

order

.

17 Yes Will be able to comment after one year;

implementation will depend on funds.

18 Yes None.

19 Yes Not specific as to what DOE is trying to do.

20 No

21 Yes No.

22 No Not seen by three interviewees.

23a Yes None.

23b No Sometimes see orders and directives, this one doesn't register.

23c No

24a Yes Needs more specifics to implement.

25a Yes No.

25b Yes No.

26 Yes Totally unwaranteed.

27b Yes No comments so far.

27c No

28 Yes Helped write it, looks good.

Note: Numbers 1-15 are headquarters offices (see Exhibit C.l) and numbers

16-28 are field organizational units (see Exhibit C.2).

-61-
2.13 External Standards Policy; 0MB Circular A-119

2.13»1 The Questions Asked

The interviewees were asked about 0MB Circular No. A-119, "Federal

Participation in the Development and Use of Voluntary Standards," and the

reporting requiranents of the draft implementation guidelines for the

Circular. (See Appendix B, Interview Worksheet, Category 13.) Seven specific

questions (the seventh in four parts) were related to the reporting

requirements. Each question could be answered in terms of degree of

anticipated compliance: yes, no trouble (NT); yes, with little trouble (LT);

yes, with moderate trouble (MT); yes, with a great deal of trouble (GT); no

(N); or the question is not applicable to this division or office (NA) . The

interviewees were only asked to estimate the level of effort required to

gather the data together for an annual report.

For example, for the first reporting requirement, the interviewer posed the

following question: "Could you provide an annual listing of standards

developed by your office/ division or adopted by your unit?" The second item

in the first row of the matrix (See Exhibit 2.13.1) shows that 10 anticipated

little trouble (LT) in responding to this requironent of the Circular. Five

respondees found the question to be not applicable (NA)

.

2.13.2 The Responses Received

Exhibit 2 . 13.1 contains the responses for 33 DOE elements by question and

level of effort required. The exhibit shows that, for every question, some respondents would encounter sane trouble if their units had to meet the

minimal reporting requironents of 0MB Circular A-119. For question "a", a listing of developed or adopted standards, 7 of the 33 respondees said there

would be "great trouble", 9 saw "great trouble" for question "b", on procurement, and 3 expected "great trouble" with "c", on acquisitions. Of 11

applicable instances, 3 interviewees felt that they could not answer questions

"d" and "e" on the replacement of technical regulations and voluntary

standards.

2.13.3 Interpretations and Analysis of Responses

Responses are sonewhat similar to those expected from the private

sector—there are too many reporting and paper work requirements. It appeared

that the strongest responses came from experienced, standards professionals

whether in support or in opposition to the reporting requirements.

Nevertheless, NBS has had in operation for the last five years a reporting

system based on data that are similar to the data needed for reporting

requirements "f" and "g". This system continues to yield valuable information

both to the Bureau managers and to the individual NBS participants.

2 . 13.4 Findings and Recommendations

The NBS Survey Team recommends that DOE collect information on employee

committee assignments to benefit the standards professionals as well as the

Departmental Standards Program. DOE should develop lists of appropriate

-62-
voluntary standards, standards developed or adopted by DOE, and mandatory

standards and technical regulations. It is also recommended that DOE develop

requiranents , for use by all DOE units including contractors, for reporting of

standards activities. These efforts will provide immediate enhancement of the

coordination and management of the standards programs within the Department.

Under 0MB Circular A-119, a Federal policy has been established for Executive

Branch agencies which encourages participation in voluntary standards

activities where such participation "is in the public interest and is

canpatible with the agencies' missions, authorities, priorities and budget

limitations". The 0MB Circular as issued in January 198O established the

policy that directed Federal agencies to "rely on voluntary standards both

domestic and international with respect to Federal procurement, whenever

feasible . . . ."

On April 20, 1982, (after this survey was completed) 0MB published a proposed

revision of A-119 (47 F.R. 16920) which broadens the policy to prcxnote

reliance on voluntary standards in the "procuronent and regulating activities"

of the Federal Government. It appears that there will be little opposition to

the expansion of the policy to include the use of voluntary standards in

regulatory activities inasmuch as this conforms to the Administration's

general philosophy and meets the objectives of regulatory reform.

In view of this new emphasis in Federal agency participation in voluntary

standards activities and use of voluntary standards, the NBS Survey Team

further recommends that DOE immediately begin to implanent the recanmendations

discussed above relating to information on standards and standards activities,

and that DOE also implsnent a standards program which will support and fulfill

the policy directives contained in the 0MB Circular. Implanenting the new Federal voluntary standards policy should result in 1) greater and more

effective agency involvement in voluntary standards activities, 2) a coordinated and well-managed DOE program relating to participation in

voluntary standards activities, 3) the establishment of standardization needs

and priorities, and 4) increased use of voluntary standards in DOE programs.

-63 -
Exhibit 2.13.1

External Standards Policy

Draft implementation guidelines for the 0MB Circular A-119 contain the

following types of reporting requirements.

a. An annual listing of standards developed or adopted by your unit.

b. The total number of voluntary standards adopted for procurement acquisition

purposes by your unit during the previous 12 months.

c. The total number of procurement acquisition standards withdrawn due to

the adoption of voluntary standards by your unit during the previous 12

months.

d. The total number of voluntary standards adopted for regulatory purposes by

your unit during the previous 12 months.

e. The total number of regulatory standards withdrawn due to the adoption of

voluntary standards during the previous 12 months.

f. The number of representatives from your unit participating in the

activities of each of the standards bodies, including the number of

meetings attended and number of days spent on voluntary standards

activities.

g. An annual report on support which your unit provided to each voluntary

standards body in the following categories;

1. Direct financial support (separate estimates for each standards

body) including organizational membership fees paid, contracts given

to standards bodies, and grants to standards bodies.

2. An estimate of administrative support given to standards bodies such

as hosting meetings or providing secretarial support.

3. An estimate of technical support given to standards bodies including

travel costs associated with meetings, costs of reviewing documents,

preparing for meetings, and participating in cooperative testing

programs.

4. An estimate of costs associated with joint planning activities.

Thirty three respondents were asked if they could answer these types of

questions for their unit. Their answers are in the table under the following

headings:

With little Moderate Great deal of

Yes: No trouble / trouble / trouble / trouble No Not Applicable

(NT) (LT) (MT) (GT) (N) (NA)

a. 7 10 4 7 0 5

b. 3 5 2 9 0 14

c. 3 5 3 3 1 18

d. 0 0 4 0 2 27

e. 1 0 2 1 1 28

f. 4 10 12 2 1 4

g. 1 6 13 4 0 0 10

g. 2 6 8 7 4 0 8

g* 3 4 5 10 7 1 6

g. 4 4 6 6 6 0 11

Note : Numbers 1-

16-28 are

15 are headquarters offices

field organizational units

(see Exhibit

(see Exhibit

C.l)

C.2)

.

and numbers

-64 -
2.14 Classifications of Standards Programs

2.14.1

The Questions Asked

The interviewees were asked to categorize the standards used in their program

according to eight areas and to indicate if these were in-house DOE standards

or other types of standards. The categories and the number of

offices/ divisions using each type is reported in Exhibit 2.14.1.

2.14.2 The Responses Received

Thirty four offices/divisions responded, choosing an average of five and a half categories each. Thirteen said they used primarily DCE standards and

five said they used primarily non-DOE standards. Sixteen said they used

both. Exhibit 2.14.2 shows the number of offices/ divisions using each

selected type of standard.

2.14.3 Interpretations and Analysis of Responses

There are many orientations to the Department’s standards activities:

administrative, functional, regulatory and technical. Additionally, the

standards programs generally operate as part of the infrastructure, often

independently of the formal DOE organization, and usually independently of

each other. DOE is a complex, heterogeneous organization. The Departmental

Program may not be able to maintain an overview of all the many types of

standards activities within its structure no matter how it is organized.

2.14.4 Findings and Recommendations

DOE standards activities are many and varied. However, information needs are

not so divergent among standards programs as to be not susceptible to a Departmental solution. There are three basic, information needs:

1) Identification of relevant standards by searching titles, indexes,

etc.;

2) Identification of ongoing standards activities, voluntary as well as regulatory, that are relevant to a specific subject,

including determination of the status of each activity,

the organization responsible for it, and the name of the contact

for further information; and

3) Acquisition of full text copies of standards (proposed as well as final) for review and application.

Quite often standards engineers from diverse Departmental elements are independently and simultaneously searching for similar, or even identical,

standards. This is not only inefficient, but it encourages each decentralized

Departmental elanent to attempt to develop and maintain an independent data

base, which is usually uneconomical.

Considering the broad mixture (administrative, functional, regulatory and

technical) of standards categories, a mechanism of focusing information for

mutual support and enhancement would be highly desirable, capitalizing on the

-65-
fact that the component standards programs are staffed by highly- canpetent

professionals. A unified and well- coordinated energy standards data base

could increase efficiency and effectiveness, at least in pre-selected areas. Departmental coordination of standards and standardization information could

be provided with very few additional resources.

-66 -
Exhibit 2.14.1

Categories of DOE and Non-DOE standards

P R 0 C S

1 N

D X X

2 N

D XXX

3 N

D X X

4 N

D X

5 N

D X

6 N X X X X X

D

7 N

D X X X X X

8 N

D X

9 N XX

D

10 N XX X

D X X

11 N XXX

D

12 N XX

D

13 N

D X X X

H E A Other

Business, Financial

X

X

XXX

XXX

XXX Minor Systems

X X Field

X

XXX

X X

X X Technical

X X

X X

KEY: P - Procurement, R - Regulation, 0 - Operation, C - Commercialization,

S - Safety, H - Health, E - Environment, A - Acquisition of Major

Systems or Facilities, D - In-House DOE, N - Non-DOE

Note: Numbers 1-15 are headquarters offices (see Exhibit C.l) and numbers

16-28 are field organizational units (see Exhibit C.2).

-67 -
P R 0 c s H E A other

14 N

D X X X X

15 N

D X

16 N X X X X X X X X Calibration

D X X X X X X X X Packaging

17 N X X X X X X X X

D X X X X X X X X Design Engineering

18 N X X X X X X Engineering

D

19 N X X X X X X X X

D X X X X X X X X

20 N X X X X X X

D X X X

21 N X X X X X Federal/state

D X X X X X X X

22 N X X X X

D X X X X X X

23a N

D X X X X

23b N X X X X X X X

D X X X X X X X X Calibration

23c N

D X

24a N X X X

D X X X

24b N X X X X X X X

D X X X X X X X

25a N X X X

D X Control

KEY: P - Procurement, R - Regulation, 0 - Operation, C - Commercialization,

S - Safety, H - Health, E - Environment, A - Acquisition of Major

Systems or Facilities, D - In-House DOE, N - Non-DOE

Note: Numbers 1-15 are headquarters offices (see Exhibit C.l) and numbers

16-28 are field organizational units (see Exhibit C.2).

-68-
PROCSHEA other

25b N

D XXX

25c N

D XXX XXX

X X X X SARS, QA

27a N

D

27b N

D

X X

X X

X

X X

X X X X X X

X X X X X X XXX

X X Program

27c N

D X X XXX

28 N

D X X X X X X

KEY: P - Procurement, R - Regulation, 0 - Operation, C - Commercialization,

S - Safety, H - Health, E - Environment, A - Acquisition of Major

Systems or Facilities, D - In-House DOE, N - Non-DOE

Note: Numbers 1-15 are headquarters offices (see Exhibit C.l) and numbers

16-28 are field organizational units (see Exhibit C.2),

-69 -
Exhibit 2.14,2

Offices/Divisions Using Selected Types of Standards

Type of Standards

Health (H)

Safety (S)

Purchasing (P)

Environmental (E)

Operational (0)

Systems/Facilities (S/F)

Commercialization (C)

Regulatory (R)

Other (0)

Number of DOE Units

28

26

25

24

22

20

17

14

13

-70 -
2.15 Respondents* Most Important Standards Activities

2.15.1 The Question Asked

The interviewees were asked to describe the standards- related activities of

major importance to their programs.

2.15.2 The Responses Received

There were 48 responses. (See Exhibit 2.15.1.) In twelve cases, either the

respondents named two activities or the Survey Team fit their responses into

two categories. Standards development was clearly Identified as the most

important standards activity by 10 respondents. Developing, writing and

publishing both in-house DOE and, in coordination with others, non DOE

standards, led the list.

Chosen second, with eight responses, was the adaptation, application, and

implementation of standards. Conducting technology, assessments to determine

standards needs and reviewing or commenting on standards development by others

each received three responses.

Seven respondents reported interaction and coordination with agencies external

to DOE as their most important standards activity. These included

interactions with voluntary standards bodies and other organizations in the

private sector and governmental agencies at all levels. Another seven identified management and coordination of standards activities internal to DOE

as the most important. Four respondents cited their involvement with

requiranents such as standards related DOE policy and Federal laws or regulations (such as ES&H)

.

Six respondents selected activities that relate directly to standards

information or data. Descriptions noted in the interviews included the

preparation of procedures for collecting and reporting data and establishing

ccxnpatibility with research at other facilities, development of model

documents and manuals, and the general interchange of information.

2.15.3

Interpretations and Analysis of the Responses

The discussions clearly revealed that standards activities are perceived by

DOE employees and DOE contractor employees as subordinate to the overall

mission of almost all of the departmental elements contacted, but generally as being well-integrated into most energy programs on an ongoing basis.

These key standards activities are also diverse, hence the Departmental

Standards Program will have difficulty in maintaining an overview of the "most

important" activities. The Standards Policy Committee may even have problems

in defining "most important".

-71-
2.15.4 Findings and Recommendations

The Survey Team found several patterns of standards activities (e.g.,

conducting technology assessments, revising or adapting voluntary standards

for DOE use, etc.) which are important to the individual programs and,

consequently, important to the overall mission of DOE. The data are inconclusive, however, as to whether these similar activities are mutually

enhancing or "going it alone". The Departmental Standards Program should, at a minimum, assist these elCTients in getting to know each other. DOE should

convene a forum to develop or document productive methods and techniques for

enhancing uniformity in the Department’s standards develofment activities.

The Standards Program should expand its coordinated involvonent in standards

activities even though perceived opportunities to bring uniformity to the

Department's standards activities may not be based on clear relationships with

the field.

-72 -
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

Exhibit 2.15.1

Describe Standards Activities of Major Importance to Programs

Review all major MIS Proposals—plan to standardize data elements on

usage, definition and terms.

Facilitate interchange of information through networks connected to

AUTODIN. Ensure that messages comply with standards.

Fortran extension development effort which may result in recommended

standard change through established procedures with ANSI Fortran

Committee and NBS.

Monitor national codes and standards relating to construction.

Review and comment on GSA and Military Specifications and Standards

(distribute to affected DOE offices if necessary).

Transfer agent between programs and regional offices, implement

activities.

Management and coordination of standards development and

application. Encourage consideration by program managers of

standards development and updating.

Identify standards needs (industry contractors go to voluntary

standards bodies for development of standards).

Development of a model solar document, respond to needs of state and

local governments and public.

Development of standards, fund ANSI Steering Committee. Major

activities carried out by using voluntary standards bodies, NBS

codes and SERI.

Work with the private sector.

Work with industry and associations toward standards development;

task force groups formed.

Radiological program is of major importance. Toxic Substances Act

has major impact.

Identify standards needs by site survey, match with existing

standards or develop new standards when necessary; comment on NRC

regulations relating to reactor safety.

Standards procedures, forms, and generic terms;- statistical

guidelines for collecting and reporting on data.

Implementation of appropriate design and construction standards by

contractors thru appraisals and audits.

Implementation of DOE Standards Policy. Make sure applicable

standards are specified and all use same terms.

Identification of needs (functional and marketplace) —the

development of test methods.

Develop "Prefered List of Standards to be used at INEL." Help to

determine need for new standards. Design standards.

Assure compliance with ASME Codes—use RDT standards where higher

level of quality is necessary.

Verify and certify standards—make data compatible with research at

other facilities (as in gasification methods

development) —application of Calibration Standards.

-73 -
22

23a

23b

23c

24a

24b

25a

25b

25c

26

27a

27b

27c

28

Note:

Go to bodies and ask them to be advisors to review programs and

recommendation tests—avoid environmental problems associated with

new systems.

Adopt national standards—develop or modify standards for unique

requirements.

Compliance with established standards. Design to consensus

standards.

Matching available health standards with employees. Input for

Headquarter's and pre-employment exams, physical fitness standards

test for guards.

RDT Standards.

Management and coordination of standards, development for nuclear

energy facilities; publish RDT standards.

Development of analytical methods for intercomparisions of processes.

Support and comment on standards developed by DOE.

Knowing what standards are available, keeping up to date.

Generate unique specifications based on climate and geography and

quality control requirement imposed on vendors.

Monitor contractors activities to ensure compliance with required

standards.

Write RDT and industrial standards, assist engineers to use

standards.

Develop standards to chemically measure liquids in geothermal area. Environment area is key, health and safety is second in order of

importance

.

Work with RDT Standards (assist in development and use them).

Numbers 1-15 are headquarters offices (see Exhibit C.l) and numbers

16-28 are field organizational units (see Exhibit C.2).

-74-
2.16 Persistent Problems that Diminish Effectiveness of Standards Activities

2.16.1 The Question Asked

The interviewees were asked to identify any persistent problons which have

diminished their ability to carry out their standards activities. The

interviewers suggested several possibilities (e.g., money, organization,

literature, staff, policy, travel restrictions, etc.) and asked the

interviewers to describe their most persistent problem. The interviewers

generally encouraged the interviewees to be specific rather than express the

general need for more money, more staff or both. The gist of their statements

are summarized in Exhibit 2.16.1.

2.16.2 The Responses Received

Eight respondents saw no persistent, major, serious or unusual problem.

However, 21 respondents specifically identified inadequate resources, 12

naming funding and nine naming short staff. Information, its availability and

flow, was identified as a persistent problan ten times, organizational

structure was identified seven times, and management problems and problems

relating to policy were each identified four times.

Twelve respondents encountered persistent problems in meeting their external

interface requirements. Seven of those had significant difficulties with

external agencies involving policy, coordination or timeliness. Five were

concerned about being able to participate in standards activities of outside

organizations, with two specifically citing limited travel funds.

Five respondents addressed the need to "sell" standards continually, to

improve their image and to rejustify their existence. In twelve statements,

the persistent problem reflected directly on the ability of the respondent to

do his or her job; six were general in nature and an equal number were more

explicit

.

2.16.3 Interpretations and Analysis of the Responses

The tone of the respondents varied considerably as they described their

problems, some showing extrone concern. However, many statonents can be

interpreted as "nothing unusual". Most of the problems surfaced and were

discussed in earlier sections, but some received added emphasis, such as the

need for information and additional staff. Many respondents, in the

aggregate, merely identified opportunities for the Departmental Standards

Program to improve its effectiveness.

The seven statements relating to external interface activities reflect the

most significant problems distilled by the survey team. Questions of

department-wide significance, such as the suggestion that DOE provide specific

written instructions for participants in standards committee activities,

should be addressed by the DOE Standards Program.

-75 -
2.16.4 Findings and Recormnendations

These statements are quite similar to responses discussed in earlier sections,

but require further examination by the Standards Coordinators to assess their

supplemental value. Quick- fix "solutions" for locally- viewed problans may

have beneficial short-term effects. However, it is instead reccxnmended that

the set of problems be addressed as a whole within the context of an overall

approach.
Exhibit 2.16.1

The Respondents Statements of Persistent Problems

Staff size is inadequate.

Have only one staff person and need 4 to 6.

Getting by, short on staff but no serious problem.

Staff shortage, we have 3 need 6, minimum of 5.

Standards coordination previously done five days per week was not sufficient

it is being cut to one day per week.

There is a Headquarters personnel shortage.

Funding—travel money.

Money for programs to develop and update standards ( parti culairly to update).

Funding constraints.

If industry speeds up program, may need money to speed work to develop codes

and standards.

Budget cuts

.

Too much reporting and documentation.

Reference sources are inadequate.

No one knows what is going on in DOE standards.

Senior management is not aware of standards requirements.

Review and update of lists of required standards should be made twice a year

Distribution of DOE Orders, never got copy of 1300.2.

More substantial empirical data base.

Information is needed for complex technical interactions.

No DOE quality assurance program.

Inappropriate location in organization for this function (inappropriate

emphasis)

.

-77 -
The Respondents Statements of Persistent Problems (Continued)

Organization mitigates against implementing standards. Problems of

organization, reorganization and changing management.

More strength is needed by Headquarters in standards position for areas other

than nuclear energy.

No central activity in DOE for design review in relation to construction

standards.

New decentralization will diffuse contacts; effective coordination of

standards will be lost.

Constant change—need to develop new relationships.

Management perspective is too diverse; middle management favors strong

decentralization.

Must educate each new upper management person.

More direction and funding to determine options and examine alternate

solutions.

Can't anticipate need for development of new standards because of

institutional barriers.

Industry often wants lowest common denominator standards—lowest level

agreeable.

A serious gap exists relating to standards of interior, environmental

quality. As energy requirements tighten, health hazards increase—work must

be done to determine acceptable levels.

Chapter 1 to Order DOE 5480.1 needs revision.

Policy on existing standards support is not consistant.

Standards participation receives low priority in times of funding constraints.

Getting standards in place with State and local governments.

Lack of real support to participate when money is tight.

Specific written instructions should be given for participation in standards

committee activities.

In past standards participation was encouraged now they anticipate budget

problems.

Problems with National Security Agency on data encryption standards.

-78-
The Respondents Statements of Persistent Problems (Continued)

Not completely satisifed with the process of producing FIPS standards.

By the time comments are requested on a proposed government standard they are

so far along that comments aren’t fully considered or can’t be.

Availability of travel funds.

Problem of paying for travel to standards meetings.

Senior management does not endorse or support standards programs with people

and money.

The Standards Coordinator is a ’’step child.”

Image of standards is inadequate.

Must constantly "sell” standards.

Can’t keep up with development; we have 2 standards people, need 4.

Falling behind in maintaining reviewing and updating about 25 RDT

standards—not enough money.

Some things (the need for new standards) will fall thru the cracks.

Standards need to be revised.

Testing is limited and Delphi technique doesn’t always work—standards

developers need more resources.

Ability to meet new standards needs is slipping.

Scope of work packages should include guidance for standards development.

New standards cannot be put into place quickly.

It’s hard to fit new technologies into existing technical regulations,

standards defintions, and worst-case scenarios.

Difficulty implementing standards for certain applications.

Lack of availability of standards—many must be custom made for a project.

Not enough resources in safety area to respond to each specific safety

requirement

.

-79 -
2.17 Respondents* Recommendations to Improve DOE Standards Program

2.17.1 The Questions Asked.

The survey team asked the interviewees for recommendations to improve the

present standards programs and any additional recommendations or suggestions

concerning organizational policies, authority/ responsibility, or support frcxn

DOE, such as standards information services, monitoring of standards

development, or additional resources.

2.17.2 The Responses Received.

Forty-six suggestions and recommendations from the participants have been

roughly characterized into seven areas; other possible sets might be useful

for the interests of other analysts. There are four statements on resources,

eight on information systems, and ten in the information/ccxnmuni cations area. There are seven organizational type suggestions and three concerning the

standards professionals as a group. Seven statements relate to management and

six are characterized as suggestions that relate to Department policy. (See

Exhibit 2.17.1.)

2.17.3 Interpretations and Analysis of the Responses.

Many of the suggestions or recommendations are broad in their outlook, others

deal with a specific problon of a particular respondent. Taken as a whole,

however, they provide a framework for improving the productivity of the

individual DOE standards professional, as well as the effectiveness of the

Departmental standards programs.

Statements generally char act erizable as "policy or management" reflect a desire for more awareness and support by higher managonent, as well as more

management involvement in priority setting at the project level. The

responding DOE standards professionals seem to want clearer directions for

their projects and sharper guidelines for their interactions with the

standards community. Stronger and more explicit policy statonents need to be

developed and implemented. More responsive standards management at

headquarters must pervade the decentralized and widely scattered Departmental

elements

.

Eight respondents suggested that an effective standards information syston is

needed. Such a system should include an energy standards data base with

listings of existing standards and current standards development activities.

It should be available in each technical library, on-line and searchable by

Department standards professionals, and backed up with full text of all

relevant and appropriate standards. The Survey Team believes that many of the

elements of such a system are already in operation in diverse locations and at

moderate levels. The Departmental Standards Program must decide when to act

in this area and how to effectively coordinate these elements.

Communications on standards matters currently appear to be inadequate at all

levels within the Department. Ten respondents stated emphatically that they

want to know, or need to know, much more about each other's activities and

-80 -
programs (i.e., who among their peers are knowledgable in key areas, on

committees of mutual interest or just doing things that they should know

about). The requested information suggests a program that could be

impl«nented in a cost effect manner.

2.17.4 Findings and Recommendations.

A method for incorporating seme of these suggestions into a base for future

action was suggested in the previous section. Moreover, the NBS survey team

finds these suggestions to be representative of a high interest in standards

at DOE and reccamnends to the Departmental Standards Coordinators that they

carefully consider the merits of each suggestion.

-81-
Exhibit 2.17.1

Suggestions and Recommendations to

Improve Present Standard Program

Improve environment by supporting activities of individuals on voluntary

standards bodies.

Better Headquarters staff and funding.

DOE support could help on travel to ASTM geothermal committee.

Ten percent of the RDT standards are too rigorous; more money is needed.

Would like a data bank available to check on existence and sources of

standards.

Full-text of required standards should be disseminated throughout DOE to all

relevant areas.

Need more information on relevant standards in process; monitor ANSI N-Series,

EPA and NRC.

Better centralized information service that can be tapped into, to look for

existence of standards.

Would like a more adequate standards reference library.

Reports on status of standards development are needed in field.

A central monitoring system could cover current standards activities, new and

revisions, but it would not be specific enough for individual programs.

A monitoring system for standards development information and a "needs

identification" program are needed.

Only problem is getting hands on latest revision (we ' 11 have a member on committee if its that critical).

Would like to see a list of who's on which committee doing what in DOE.

Offical channel of communications for non-nuclear is needed.

Need information referencing various standards responsibilities of different

secretaries

.

Improved communications (was not aware of DOE Standards Policy Committee).

More field awareness of Departmental Standards program is needed.

-82 -
Suggestions and Recommendations to Improve

Present Standard Program (Continued)

Need good information program to promote standards.

More information on department wide standards activities would be useful.

Needs to be a way for ADP Management to be more aware of the activities that

EIA and MIS Group in Controllers Office are doing in ADP standards area.

Support annual get-together of working people.

Departmental Standards Program needs to locate expertise for guidance and

comments in drafting of new standards.

Problem of cooperation from other elements: i.e., no comments or criteria,

they are either unwilling or unable to comment.

Use guides at highest level of organization for entire activity.

Packaging of safety requiranents needed and programs to do it. They should be

cited precisely.

Outreach for standards opportunities should be at Headquarters rather than Oak

Ridge.

Need crosscutting of other government agencies to support but not dominate

voluntary standards activities.

Each Operations Office should have a focus for standards coordination.

Well organized monitoring programs, similar to nuclear, are needed for other

technologies.

Need primary office in DOE that coordinates policy and works with industry to

bring standards about.

Continue to use existing systems avoid redevelopment.

More awareness and backing by DOE in standards area, other than Nuclear

Management

.

DOE management should decide who sets priorities and monitors projects.

Improve upper management support and recognition of standards programs;

currently there’s no clout.

If proposed government standard has serious ramification and DOE comment or feels strongly enough to have a meeting on objections or comments, a hearing

should be schedules before finalization.

-83 -
Suggestions and Recommeendation to Improve

Present Standard Program (Continued)

There needs to be a firm positive DOE policy to continue support of programs

that successfully accelerate voluntary standards programs.

Stronger policy by higher management for standards programs within DOE.

Revise DOE 5480.1, Chapter 1.

Specific line items for certain standards could be considered.

Desirability of having voluntary standards developed for energy technology

needs better direction, and priorities set by management.

Fund NSMC directly; fund standards separately not in bits and pieces from

overhead.

Policy is needed to provide program line item on standards development in

program work package.

-84 -
Appendixes

Table of Contents

A. DOE Order 1300.2, Department of Energy Standards Program

B. DOE Standards Activities Interview Worksheet

C. Headquarters Offices and Field Units Included in the Survey

D. List of Acronyms and Abbreviations Used in This Report
. evj'Wt.

' .i' v'< B

'‘:ft t'w*r» ^^^^'v•:'.- «;o s fs IXSS .|)fl0.i,C^ ^

a^-*. 4*^.:i<i*»ii»Aj^''vpl^ter}FstafflaAr.l> jror=^4»-

^ ^^rtdinrta '^5na5no^> iolo altfftf. ^ -'^alHi

t»

S5

b3

- z

1!^ ’»3i0 apo, -,,.i weiV^^EtI«ise|i^i;Joil |CXI .1

EU

I ,

. ^ I

« <b

'^ rm

I'a*- 4'«ij*ii; V,,' « . :.

t*' liilf»yil';®-iiji=

: »--jiii.T- ..

it ..'us^i^

mji

W

<1/

• 56-

: ‘K •' I ,^j t '-f

s.y. .'. <r>n ••/,>%. , TW^

’sS

'4!^

ite,-’

?:«

H- I
APPENDIX A

U.S. Department of Energy ORDER

Washington, D.C.

SUBJECT: DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY STANDARDS PROGRAM

DOE 1300.2

12-18-80

1. PURPOSE . This Order establishes general policy guidelines, authorities

and responsibilities for Department of Energy (DOE) standards programs

and guidelines for participation in private sector standards organizations.

2. SCOPE . The provisions of this Order apply to all Departmental elements,

including the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, and to all DOE contracts which require adherence to Departmental Directives.

3. EXCLUSIONS . This Order does not apply to Federal interagency standards

development , such as automatic data processing and data communication

standards, or to the internal Directives system of the Department.

4. REFERENCES

a. Federal Energy Administration Act 1974 (15 U.S.C. 761) as amended by Public Law 95-70 of 7-21-77 which added Section 32, "Use

of Commercial Standards." Section 32 sets forth requirements for

the Secretary as a condition in using non-Federal commercial

standards in carrying out DOE's regulatory responsibilities

formerly assigned the Federal Energy Administration. This

Act applies only to those DOE functions that originated in the

Federal Energy Administration.

b. Federal Participation in the Development and Use of Volunta ry

Standards . Office of Management and Budget Circular A-119 of

1-17-80 which establishes policies to be followed by executive

branch agencies in working with organizations which plan, develop,

produce, and coordinate voluntary standards. It also establishes

policies to be followed by executive branch agencies in adopting and

using standards for procurement purposes.

5. DEFINITIONS .

a. Standard . A prescribed set of rules, conditions, or requirements

concerned with classification of components; delineation of procedures; specifications of materials, performance, design, or operations; the definition of terms or measurements of quality and

quantity in describing materials, products, systems, services or practices.

DISTRIBUTION:

All Departmental Elements

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

INITIATED BY; Office of Environment
DOE 1300 .2

12-18^80

b. Voluntary Standards (coninercial standards). Those standards that are establisned generally by private sector bodies and are available for

use by any person or organization, private or governmental. Voluntary

standards are also referred to as "industry standards" as well as "consensus standards" (standards developed under due process procedures)

but do not include professional standards of personal conduct, private

standards of individual firms, standards mandated by law, or standards

of individual organizations for their internal use.

c. Government Standards . Federal agency standards and specifications

including proposed or recommmended standards developed by Federal

agency personnel, outside groups under agency regulations, or by

organi zati ons or committees made up solely of Government agency

representati ves.

d. Voluntary Standards Bodies . Nongovernmental bodies which are broadly

based, multimembered, domestic and multinational organizations,

industry associations, and professional or technical societies which

develop, establish, or coordinate voluntary standards activities.

e. Standards-devel oping Groups . Committees, subcommittees, boards or other principal subdivisions of voluntary standards bodies, established by such bodies for the purpose of developing, revising, or reviewing standards, and which are bound by the procedures of those

bodies.

f. DOE Representative . An employee approved by the DOE Designating

Official : (1 ) to work on standards committee assignments by reason of

individual professional or technical expertise to further technical

programmatic objectives of the Department or (2) to serve as an official spokesperson for the Department on boards of directors

governing as policy-developing bodies, including, for example,

management boards of standards developing organizations.

g. Interagency Committee on Standards Policy . A committee established

under the auspices of the Department of Conmerce to coordinate and

provide policy guidance to the heads of Federal agencies on standards. It is comprised of representatives from the major Federal

departments and agencies which have an interest in standards. The

Committee is chaired by the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Product

Standards, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Productivity,

Technology and Innovation, U. S. Department of Commerce.
i DOE 1300 .2

12-18-80

L). Objective . It is the objective of this Order to briny uniformity

to the Department's standards activities through coordinated

involvement in standards development and to ensure tfiut appropriate

attention is given to standards use and development in fulfilling

doe's mission.

/. RESPONSIBILITIES AND AUTHORITIES .

a. The Assistant Secretary for Environment shall:

(1) Develop policies, implementati ng procedures and guidelines

with respect to the Department's standards program

activities, interpret this Order, and make recommendations

for changes as appropriate.

(2) Provide a focal point for the coordination of internal and

external matters relating to the Department's standards

policy and generic program. Such coordination shall include

liaison with other Federal agencies; participation as a member of

the Interagency Committee on Standards Policy; and coordination with voluntary standards bodies, recognizing that

standards development and their coordination is the responsi bi 1 i ty

of the Department's organizational elements.

(3) Maintain an overview of DOE standards activities to identify

generic issues, problems, and proposals for consideration of DOE

management and develop the supporting information necessary

for such consideration.

(4) Be responsible for ensuring the implementation of Office of

Management and Budget Circular No. A-119 by the Department of

Energy. Interface with the Secretary of Commerce in the development of the procedures required by the Circular.

(5) Serve as the -POE Designating Official for the purpose of

designating DOE Representati ves to voluntary standards committees

and international voluntary standards development activities.

Such designations shall be based on the coordinated recommendations of the appropriate DOE organizational elements. (See

7b(5).)

(6) Coordinate contracts and grants to voluntary standards bodies

to preclude duplication.
DOE 1 300 .2

12-18-80

3

6. POLICY AND OBJECTIVE ,

a . Policy

(1) General . The policy of DOE in its procurement, regulatory,

and other program activities is to:

(a) Recognize that standards and their use are integral

to its mi ssion.

(b) Ensure the development of appropriate standards for

regulatory, operational, and commercialization activities; give preference to developing standards through

the consensus process (standards developed under due

process procedures).

(c) Rely on domestic or i nternati onal voluntary standards

when such voluntary standards are adequate and appropriate for the intended application, except when a mandatory government standard applies.

(d) Conduct standards activities consistent with Federal

statutes and policies taking into account, for example,

laws and regulations relating to antitrust, national

security, small business, product safety, the environment, and conflict of interest.

(2) Participation . The Department encourages participation in the

activities of voluntary standards developing bodies consistent

with Office of Management and Budget Circular No. A-119, guidance

provided by the Department of Commerce and Chapter 1 of this Order.

Participation may extend to chairing committees; serving as a DOE

Representative on standards committees, writing groups or task

forces. Participation may also extend to voting in committee

activities consistent with Federal guidance. Participants may not

vote when specifically instructed by the DOE Designating Official,

or if working on DOE program functions formerly assigned to the

Federal Energy Administration. This latter prohibition is in

conformance with the Federal Energy Administration Act, Section

32. In order to maintain the private nature of non-Governrnent

organi zations, DOE representati ves will refrain from decisionmaking involvement in the day-to-day management of such organizations (e.g., selection of salaried officers and employees, and

establishment of staff salaries).
DOE 1300.2

12-18-80

5

(7) Maintain central data base of information on:

(a) Standards program and activities.

(b) Personnel participating in private sector standards

development activities.

(c) Listing of externally developed voluntary standards

adopted or endorsed for use by the Department.

(d) Listing of existing Departmental standards and

those under development to satisfy Department needs.

(e) Resources applied to standards utilizing input from

the Offices of the Controller and Administration.

(8) Assist Departmental elements in establishing appropriate

standards activities, as requested.

(9) Develop an annual report on standards activities to

advise management on the extent and type of involvement

with private sector standards activities, and other

reports as necessary in carrying out these

responsibilities.

b. Heads of Departmental Elements and the Chairman of the Federal

Energy Regulatory Commission shall:

(1) Establish and implement appropriate standards programs and

provide necessary resources in their areas of responsibility

in accordance with this Order to assure that standards are

used and developed as necessary in their assigned areas.

When appropriate, these activities should extend to the

development of a "Standards Program Plan" which describes

strategies for the identification and development, needed

resources and allocations and other selected activities to assure that adequate standards will be available and used

when needed to accomplish mission objectives. The organizational standards program plans and revisions should be

provided to the Assistant Secretary for Environment for

evaluation and comment to reduce overlap, redundancy, and

conflict in program approaches and activities.
6 DOE 1300.2

12-18-80

(2) Observe the following principles in planning, developing and

implementing standards activities:

(a) Work with voluntary standards bodies and qualified

technical experts, including those from small business

and the general public in developing plans for satisfying program standards needs.

(b) Assure utilization of voluntary standards promulgated

by private sector standards bodies, when such standards

are applicable and adequate for the intended use except

when a mandatory Government standard applies, and further

assure that standards adopted for regulatory application

in carrying out responsibilities formerly assigned to the

Federal Energy Administration conform to the requirements

established in the Federal Energy Administration Act,

Section 32.

(c) Provide general support where appropriate to voluntary standards bodies, including direct financial

support, indirect or administrative aide, and

technical support.

(d) Develop interim Departmental or program specific standards only when mandatory Government or voluntary

standards or adequate commonly accepted commercial

standard practices are not available or cannot be

prepared in a useable form on a timely basis.

(e) Utilize the talents and benefits available from

national and international standards organizations.

(f) Encourage the development of appropriate performance

standards recognizing the need for prescriptive or design standards in some applications.

(3) Develop external relationships to work with other Federal

agencies, voluntary standards bodies, or standards setting

bodies of other nations in the development of standards

that meet specific program objectives.

(4) Encourage and support participation of DOE staff members

as representatives in voluntary standards or i nternati onal

standards bodies when it serves the best interest of DOE

and the Federal Government.
DOE 1300 .2

12-18-80

7 (and 8)

( 5 ) Nominate to the Assistant Secretary for Environment repre

sentatives to voluntary standards bodies. (See 7a(5).)

(6)

Report to the Assistant Secretary for Environment, upon

request, data necessary to fulfill the reporting requirements

of Office of Management and Budget Circular A-119 and

Department of Commerce implementing guidance, concerning

program resources applied to standards activities.

(7)

Coordinate with the Assistant Secretary for Environment

contracts and grants to voluntary standards bodies to

preclude duplication.

(8)

Designate a person to serve as organizational representa^

tive with the Assistant Secretary for Environment in

carrying out liaison and coordination activities.

William S. Heffel finger

Director of Administration
-m

fifS-.

*!5 ^ i 'tt fehs),'''?-

S'.

jlUt

U-- S' :KiO»*<‘ ^‘he^‘!2 itgywHv^i*

l^tgt or

* ’ '-Jr

^

.^- _ ;

.' T" •>f»r;«5Tfr

- r--vy h- > i

Ti'iit #v ia!?<2v'*^.^,.'i,^QI|H^^'^

yva: ^.V^'^^vJIImB ^y?,r'’«^i

. . |y 'H>|e£r«%^^Ul'ngj tf<€„ fC'f

«a -

'

' • vl-v'-*'*'-

M

f

N',;-

I^c(iipl*0o of ii 0e^^fPl'ii«SOef;5 ;,

'

• s>jFi>t4jy®'st:^n44r(ls i??a if»terf»t»t:t<iili#|
Appendix B

DOE STANDARDS ACTIVITIES INTERVIEW WORKSHEET

1. Interviewees in the Survey

Name

Title

Office

Primary Duty

DOE

Contractor

Number of Years involved with standards

2. Interviewees' Technology, Program, or Support Function

Please describe briefly the energy technology that is being developed by

your program or the technology you support.

What current stage of technological development best describes this program?

a. Research

b. Early development

c. Pilot development

d. Commercialization

e. On-going commercial technology

f. Other

Remarks
3.

Technology Assessments to Determine Standards Needs

Do these activities primarily involve Technology Assessment to determine

standards needs?

Remarks 4.

Attributes of Standards Activities

Do you use, develop or adopt standards?

Do these standards activities primarily involve:

Development/Use of DOE Standards;

Development/Use of Voluntary Standards?

Remarks

5.

Monitoring of On-going Standards Development Activities

Do these standards activities primarily involve Monitoring on-going

standards development?

Remarks

6.

Organizational Structure Employed for Standards Activities

Please describe your organizational structure now employed for standards

activities. Include authority and responsibility fo the various units.
7. The Energy Standards Infrastructure

What other DOE organization do you normally maintain contact with relating

to Standards? Identify organization, describe relationship and how it is

accomplished.

If Office of Quality Assurance and Standards is not included, ask

specifically if they have any contact. Yes/No.

If Yes, what was the nature of the contact?

8. External Interface Requirements

What contacts do you maintain with the following? What type of contact?

(i.e., attend meetings, participate, contracts, etc.) (List names of

associations, agencies, bodies etc.)

(a) Industry associations or companies developing standards

(b) Voluntary domestic standards bodies

(c) International standards bodies

(d) Federal government agencies
(e) State or local government

9. Documents and Records

Do you have any internal standards procedures or guidelines in place or in

process? Yes/No. (If yes, request copies)

Do you have a list of standards that your program uses? . . . that your

program has under development? Yes/No. (If yes, could we have a copy?)

Do you have a list of your publications that use or relate directly to

standards? Yes/No.

What record keeping activities are now being used, if any, to record money

spent or time expanded in standards work?

Is there one person involved in this record keeping? Yes/No.

Identify

10. Standards Activities Commitments: Funding and Manpower

What resources would you estimate your organization committed to direct

standards activities (i.e., developing, reviewing, commenting, etc.) in

FY80? Would FY81 be materially different? If so, describe.

Estimated $ FY80

Total funding

Project personnel

Travel

Contracts with DOE laboratories

Contracts with companies

Contracts with other government agencies

Grants/contracts with universities

Information System

Total funding for program or organization for which this information is

pertinent
13. External Standards Policy: 0MB Circular A-119

Draft implementation guidelines for the 0MB Circular A-119 contain the

following types of reporting requirements.

Could you answer these types of questions? (Substitute your organization

for DOE or agency.)

Yes, no trouble With little/Moderate/Great deal of or No

trouble trouble trouble

(Y) (LT) (MT) (GT) (N)

NA - Not applicable

a. An annual listing of standards developed or adopted by DOE.

b. The total number of voluntary standards adopted for procurement

acquisition purposes by the agency during the previous 12 month.

c. The total number of agency procurement standards withdrawn due to the

adoption of voluntary standards by the agency during the previous 12

months.

d. The total number of voluntary standards during the previous 12 months.

e. The total number of agency regulatory standards withdrawn due to

adoption by the agency of voluntary standards during the previous 12

months.

f. The number of agency representatives participating in the activities

of each of the standards bodies, including the number of meetings

attended and number of days spent on voluntary standards activities.

g. An annual report on agency support to each voluntary standards body in

the following categories:

1. Direct financial support (separate estimates for each standards

body) including organizational membership fees paid, contracts

given to standards bodies, and grants to standards bodies.

2. An estimate of administrative support given to standards bodies

such as hosting meetings or providing secretarial support.

3. An estimate of technical support given to standards bodies

including travel costs associated with meetings; costs of

reviewing documents, preparing for meetings, participating in

cooperative testing programs.

4. An estimate of costs associated with joint planning activities.
Estimated Manpower for FY80

Total man-years devoted to standards

Number of people devoted solely to standards

Total man-years for full-time to standards

Number of people devoted part-time to standards

Total man-years for part-time people

Total man-years for program or organization for which the above

information is pertinent

11. Standards Information; Sources and Mechanisms

Where do you get most standards information?

Do you use/have available the following and

available, are they adequate:

Yes/No

if you use them or have them

If yes, is it

adequate?

Yes/No

If no, would

you desire?

Yes/No

(a) Standards catalogues

(b) In-house standards collection

(c) On-line computer-based

standards service

(d) Technical library with

standards collection

Remarks

12. Internal Standards Policy; Departmental Order DOE 1300.2

Have you seen the new DOE Order 1300.2 Department of Energy Standards

Program (12-18-80)? Yes/No.

If yes, any comments so far?
14.

Classifications of Standards Programs

Standards in this program are primarily related to:

In house DOE Public

(a) procurement ( ) ( ) (b) regulation ( ) ( ) (c) operation ( ) ( ) (d) commercialization ( ) ( ) (e) safety ( ) ( ) (f) health ( ) ( ) (g) environment ( ) ( ) (h) acquisition of major ( ) ( ) systems or facilities

(i) other ( ) ( )

15.

Respondents' Most Important Standards Activities

Describe standards activities of major importance to your program.

16.

Persistent Problems that Diminish Effectiveness of Standards Activities

Can you identify any persistent problems which have diminished your

ability to carry out your standards activities? Yes/No i.e., money,

organization, literature, staff, policy? Please describe.

17.

Respondents' Recommendations to Improve Standards Program

Do you have any recommendation to improve the present standards programs.

Yes/No Please describe.
If the discussion does not touch the following—ask if there are any

suggestions or recommendation on items below:

(a) Organization policies authority/ responsibilities

(b) Support from DOE

(1) Standards information service

(2) Monitoring of standards development

(3) Other

(c) Additional resources

Name of Person Interviewed

Job Title

Work Address

Work Phone

Would you suggest several others we should talk to in the field.

Interviewers

Date of Interview
Appendix C

Headquarters Offices and Field Units Included in the Survey

The Survey Team selected 15 headquarters offices (see Exhibit C.l). Five of

these offices were under the Assistant Secretary for Managanent and

Administration and four were under the Assistant Secretary for Conservation

and Renewable Energy.

The Survey Team selected 23 organizational units at 13 field locations and met

with both DOE and DOE contractor employees at these locations. (See Exhibit

C.2.) Two of the field locations visited were energy technology centers,

seven were national laboratories, and four were other facilities or institutes. Concurrent interviews were completed for seven DOE field offices

at seven of those locations.

A total of 63 DOE or DOE contractor onployees were interviewed. Four monbers

of the MBS Survey Team conducted 36 separate interviews, lasting fron two to

four hours each. Twenty-one of the interviews were held at 13 field

locations; 15 interviews were conducted at headquarters offices in the

Washington, D.C. area. In many interviews there were two or more employees

present with more than one responding to the questions. Part 2 presents the

data, summarizes the results and sets forth the interpretations and findings.
EXHIBIT C.l

List of Headquarters Offices

1 A/S for Management and Administration

(Information Systems)

2 A/S for Management and Administration

(Telecommunications)

3 A/S for Management and Administration

(ADP Management)

4 A/S for Management and Administration

(Construction)

5 A/S for Management and Administration

(Procurement)

6 A/S Congressional, Intergovernmental

and Public Affairs

7 A/S Nuclear Energy

(Quality Assurance and Standards)

8 A/S Fossil Energy

(Enhanced Oil Recovery)

9 A/S Conservation & Renewable Energy

(Buildings Division Passive Solar)

10 A/S Conservation & Renewable Energy

(Buildings Division Active Solar)

11 A/S Conservation & Renewable Energy

(Geothermal Energy)

12 A/S Conservation & Renewable Energy

(Photovoltaic Energy)

13 A/S Defense Programs

(Military Applications)

14 A/S Environmental Protection, Safety &

Emergency Preparedness

15 Energy Information Administration

(Energy Data Standards)

A/S = Assistant Secretary

These numbers key to Exhibits in Part 2.
EXHIBIT C.2

List of Field Organizational Units

16 Albuquerque Operations Office and

Laboratories

17a Chicago Operations Office

17b Chicago, Argonne National Laboratory

18 Denver, Solar Energy Research Institute

19 Idaho National Engineering Laboratory

& Operations Office

20 Los Angeles, Energy Technology

Engineering Center

21 Morgantown Energy Technology Center

22a New York, Brookhaven National Laboratory

(Conservation)

22b New York, Brookhaven National Laboratory

(Hydrogen Technology)

22c New York, Brookhaven National Laboratory

(Geothermal)

23a Nevada Operations Office

23b Nevada Test Site

(Weapons Facilities)

23c Nevada Test Site

(Medical Group)

24a Oak Ridge Operations Office

24b Oak Ridge National Laboratory

25a Pittsburgh Energy Technology Center

(Analytical Chemistry)

25b Pittsburgh Energy Technology Center

(Environment Safety and Health)

25c Pittsburgh Energy Technology Center

(Liquefaction Project Management)
26 Portland, Bonneville Power Administration

27a Richland Operations Office

27b Richland, Hanford Engineering Development

Laboratory

27c Richland, Pacific Northwest Laboratory

28 Savannah River Operations Office and

Laboratory

These numbers key to Exhibits in Part 2.
Appendix D

List of Acronyms and Abbreviations Used in This Report

ACI

ADP

AGA

AICHE

AIF

AISI

ANL

ANS

ANSI

API

ASCE

ASHRAE

ASME

ASQC

ASTM

AUTODIN

AWS

AWWA

BNL

DCASR

DOD

DOE

DO I DOT

EIA

EPA

EPRI

ESDB

ES&H

ETEC

EV

FE

FIPS

FRC

FTC

GOCO

GSA

HEDL

HUD

IAEA

IEEE

INEL

IRS

MIS

American Concrete Institute

Automated Data Processing

American Gas Association

American Institute of Chemical Engineers

Atomic Industrial Forum

American Iron and Steel Institute

Argonne National Laboratory

American Nuclear Society

American National Standards Institute

American Petroleum Institute

American Society of Civil Engineers

American Society of Heating, Refrigerating & Air-Conditioning

Engineers, Inc.

The American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Inc.

American Society for Quality Control, Inc.

American Society for Testing and Materials

Automatic Digital Network

American Welding Society, Inc.

American Water Works Association, Inc.

Brookhaven National Laboratory

Defense Contract Administration Service Region

Department of Defense

Department of Energy

Department of Interior

Department of Transportation

Electronic Industries Association

Environmental Protection Agency

Electric Power Research Institute

Energy Standards Data Base

Environmental, Safety and Health

Energy Technology Engineering Center

Environment

Fossil Energy

Federal Information Processing Standards

Federal Regional Council

Federal Trade Commission

Government Ownered Contracter Operated

General Services Administration

Hanford Engineering Development Laboratory

Department of Housing & Urban Development

International Atomic Energy Agency

The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc.

Idaho National Engineering Laboratory

Internal Revenue Service

Management Information Systems
NACE

NASA

NASC

NBS

NCS

NE

NFPA

NIOSH

NRC

NSC

NSMC

NTIA

OES

0MB

OPSP

OQAS

ORNL

OSHA

PNL

QA

RDT

SEIA

SEMA

SERI

SMACNA

SPPS

TVA

UL

USCG

uses VSBs

WPCF

National Association of Corrosion Engineers

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

National Association of Solar Contractors

National Bureau of Standards

National Communications System

Nuclear Eneregy

National Fire Protection Association

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health

Nuclear Regulatory Commission

National Safety Council

Nuclear Standards Management Center

Natinal Telcommunications and Information Administration

Office of Environmental Safety

Office of Management and Budget

Office of Product Standards Policy

Office of Quality Assurance and Standards

Oak Ridge National Laboratory

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

Pacific Northwest Laboratory

Quality Assurance

Reactor Development Technology

Solar Energy Industries Association

Speciality Equipment Manufacturers Association

Solar Energy Research Institute

Sheet Metal and Air Conditioning Contractors'

National Association, Inc.

Standards Personnel Participation System

Tennessee Valley Authority

Underwriters Laboratories

United States Coast Guard

United States Geological Survey

Voluntary Standards Bodies

Water Pollution Control Federation
U.S. DEPT. OF COMM. 1. PUBLICATION OR 2. Performing Organ. Report No. 3. Publication Date BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA

SHEET (See instructions)

REPORT NO.

NBSIR 82-2546 August 1982

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

A Survey of Standards Activities of the U.S. Department of Energy.

5. AUTHOR(S)

Terrance Troy

6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION (If joint or other than NBS, see instructions) 7. Contract/Grant No. NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20234

EA-77-01-6010. A-046

8 . Type of Report & Period Covered

CY 81

9. SPONSORING ORGANIZATION NAME AND COMPLETE ADDRESS (Street. City. State. ZIP)

U.S. Department of Energy

Assistant Secretary for Environmental Protection, Safety, and Emergency Preparedness

Office of Quality Assurance and Standards

Washington, D.C. 20545

10.

SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

Document describes a computer program; SF-185, FIPS Software Summary, is attached.

11.

ABSTRACT (A 200-word or less factual summary of most significant information. If document includes a significant

bibliography or literature survey, mention it here)

The Department of Energy Standards Program, under the Assistant Secretary for

Environmental Protection, Safety and Emergency Preparedness, is responsible

for promoting standardization, increasing DOE's participation in voluntary

standards bodies and extending the benefits of standardization to the organizational

units in DOE. To assist in designing and implementing needed programs, a survey

was conducted to obtain information regarding ongoing DOE standards activities.

The NBS Survey Team collected data on 17 information categories from a total of

63 DOE employees and DOE contractors in 36 separate interviews at 13 field

locations and 15 headquarters offices. The Survey Team found that the flow of

standards information within the infrastructure needs to be accelerated and that

efforts must be directed toward providing DOE upper management with better understanding of standards programs. The data indicated considerable difficulty in

maintaining necessary internal and external interface relationships and a need

for guidelines for standards committee participation. The Survey Team suggested

an "information focus" as a way for the Departmental Standards Program to help

standards professionals at DOE, whose activities are closely involved in the

development of energy technology, to improve their overall performance.

12.

KEY WORDS (Six to twelve entries; alphabetical order; capitalize only proper names; and separate key words by semicolon s)

energy, standards, information, data base, technology, policy, survey

13.

AVAILABILITY 14. NO. OF

PRINTED PAGES

Unlimited

I X| For Official Distribution. Do Not Release to NTIS nn Order From Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.

20402. 15. Price

Order From National Technical Information Service (NTIS), Springfield, VA. 22161

USCOMM-DC 6O43-P80
iS3i^ 4

ATitti:tti8t?^^i'01^^ ATiidOt^l/

..3^TIT«U" CiiA aim .>

^.tr m :^. §**' ,-'

‘ -, !^,_2 ,,’/'ta 1 5^4t: Sl^t:i^3: f A^^8O0^kitm _

^ :-.-^ I ,, H m -^ Mrrr'T^T- "-'rr-riritTrT^ iT '•y>- ' i^"*' > 'i wjL- i rwnwmyujWf^jw-^)

Hiii: ^^!T:7n

.c ^4“ 't-T' taj/lOMTU-A;^

^ ‘ «a*iw^ ^0 Ti»a>iT#A<i2 » —nj-KT' 1, « i

‘Jfca

A

j? r3ij-ir**.» v*»” rn-rT^we- -- • —’'—'^w'---. .-

u^, Qju,^tv a tbb't§ijftti^2 bf|6

5^'C> ami

•4*

^iU

Ttrtrrr

'

, trr;-;gf

. - . .- J

ry-my* * *^g:.’

•yvj 1 I I^V^i *

".!?» l*»f " *>'T I fM » \^ f ^ ^ t «« «w w > I ^ :^.-w- - I' t"! tbb'»§bnta2 b(l6

rr

•mi ;m»>S0M»i4i»Uflli^f3 a (M»cSltt^*te Msyft^oO ^^'-

- . ,, A ‘MMh n~g~r • I

wo

Y^^rwrt's-* sS^J

'ln«t» K^iT* ll* YiMSMMlWt TW»i '»fe'XO.‘*‘«00£

,556*11)0*1*1 ebmcbPsiE io ^‘n$<ltf

M ^ *t ««t^ ^l4'^A4>'iAAb(] 'f a

^iS5&Fj m B^&Afsss’ibftr *noMbs|b*i6^di2

6 VjWSiS^'fe^q bsb^n gfitJiibaibiqini- tmA 6«lrt0^bjk

-- ,2skjfvf^0ft stn8biis^2;10t> e^^o^no erifbw-s^ ftbWsanoJj^^ 1^ ‘ ® ^ b^m^U in ?weiv^*int 0€ ar ?r

I r^*_

. ^ bibit .ef. 4fi at nf ^Yrr

f^m ^o;t^9b fl^ 36a;lnibfyp^q Wowo;*

P utob ifibg^R 6 baft ;?3fO^<1Qf36IS^'1 roRlS!4^ft!3 v*'*» - i

*4Ji3eeiit» «»ot wiwe 9i»T .cteft*q(s44lsq owitnfoa

qfsrf ei^ nwigo-tq l6.J<)«iUf6qsO srii •toi.Ysw « ?6 f*®®?? ^l-^.|h^!!l«i^ s%»' bwwjt _^r««f

5

aiUL,»r OWOVOT xiazoi;) «?».»»»

. ^ f f&^;4sv^rw^- . I o;rt.^o95a.\^^9a^M^ :^b9«K^ffvob

wKt^, '

I

- -,j- . ^

-BS

>

f- -u' Kwi^, j’l^' '^^WLwa I I ,

' I I .^j~ '' '~

III'

‘ “*~****^^*TMTM7i!^

iif ,Xi)fo95!.WBfon»l?94- .bM 6J^ .Itpijns

•

>' ** ^ Sy* 49 . .. ^ --

- ... ..-...-

-‘-‘ .-A„, . »>Hai .iiii -If -rriT-^y

'ir

'.SI iMiff»m.afO ni a

Tirrmn :«1_%, a»T^5' «» »0 .<wj»udti«^0 iAiaii^,»o9

' .*4^3<yn^ 1o

-S' ' ? r.

'

e-
I

I
1I *