DOE G 440.1-8, Implementation Guide for Use with 10 CFR Part 851, Worker Safety and Health Programs

NOT MEASUREMENT SENSITIVE DOE G 440.1-8 12-27-06 IMPLEMENTATION GUIDE for use with 10 CFR PART 851 WORKER SAFETY AND HEALTH PROGRAM [This Guide describes suggested nonmandatory approaches for meeting requirements. Guides are not requirements documents and are not construed as requirements in any audit or appraisal for compliance with the parent Policy, Order, Notice, or Manual.] U.S. Department of Energy Washington, D.C. 20585 AVAILABLE ONLINE AT: INITIATED BY: www.directives.doe.gov Office of Health, Safety and Security DOE G 440.1-8 i (and ii) 12-27-06 FOREWORD This Department of Energy (DOE) Guide is available for use by all DOE components and their contractors. Beneficial comments (recommendations, additions, and deletions) and pertinent data that may improve this document should be sent by letter or by submitting the self-addressed Standardization Document Improvement Proposal (DOE F 1300.3) to— Director DOE Office of Worker Safety and Health Policy U.S. Department of Energy Washington, D.C. 20585. This Guide is intended to identify generally acceptable methods for implementing the provisions of 10 CFR Part 851 and DOES NOT ESTABLISH REQUIREMENTS. DOE G 440.1-8 iii (and iv) 12-27-06 ACRONYMS ACGIH American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists AEA Atomic Energy Act AIHA American Industrial Hygiene Association ANSI American National Standards Institute ASME American Society of Mechanical Engineers CBDPP Chronic Beryllium Disease Prevention Program CFR Coder of Federal Regulations CSO Cognizant Secretarial Officer D&D decontamination and decommissioning DEAR Department of Energy Acquisition Regulations ES&H Environment, Safety, and Health ETBA Energy Trace and Barrier Analysis FMEA Failure Modes and Effects Analysis FTA Fault Tree Analysis HSS Office of Health, Safety and Security, Department of Energy HS-11 Office of Worker Safety and Health Policy ISMS Integrated Safety Management System ISO/IEC International Organization for Standardization/International Electrotechnical Commission JSA Job Safety Analysis NDAA National Defense Authorization Act NNSA National Nuclear Security Administration NTS Noncompliance Tracking System MESP Model Electrical Safety Program OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Department of Labor PHA preliminary hazard analysis PPE personal protective equipment TLV® threshold limit value TRADE Training Resources and Data Exchange TWA time-weighted average v DOE G 440.1-8 12-27-06 CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................1 2. GENERAL INFORMATION..............................................................................................5 3. GUIDANCE.........................................................................................................................7 3.1. General Provisions (Subpart A) .......................................................................................... 7 3.1.1. Scope and Purpose (851.1) ......................................................................................7 3.1.1.1. Scope........................................................................................................................7 3.1.1.2. Purpose.....................................................................................................................8

3.1.2. Exclusions (851.2) ...................................................................................................8 3.1.3. Definitions (851.3)...................................................................................................9 3.1.3.1. Closure Facilities .....................................................................................................9 3.1.3.2. Closure Facility Hazard ...........................................................................................9 3.1.3.3. Contractor ..............................................................................................................10 3.1.3.3.1. Under Contract with DOE ............................................................................. 10 3.1.3.3.2. Furtherance of a DOE Mission ...................................................................... 10 3.1.3.3.3. Vendors .......................................................................................................... 10 3.1.3.3.4. Suppliers ........................................................................................................ 11 3.1.3.3.5. Utility Providers............................................................................................. 11 3.1.3.3.6. Commercial Items.......................................................................................... 11 3.1.3.3.7. Landlords of DOE Contractor Leased Off-Site Space................................... 12 3.1.3.3.8. Universities with DOE Cooperative Agreements .......................................... 12 3.1.3.3.9. Off-site Fire Departments .............................................................................. 12 3.1.3.3.10. Academics Working On Site Under Grants................................................. 12 3.1.3.3.11. State and Municipal Highway Departments ................................................ 13 3.1.3.3.12. Work for Others ........................................................................................... 13 3.1.3.3.13. Other Federal Agencies................................................................................ 13 3.1.3.3.14. Visitors at User Facilities............................................................................. 13 3.1.3.4. Covered Workplace ...............................................................................................14 3.1.3.4.1. DOE Property Leased for Private Sector Purposes........................................ 14 3.1.3.5. DOE Site ................................................................................................................14 3.1.3.5.1. DOE Contractor-Owned or -Leased Off-Site Location ................................. 14 3.1.3.5.2. Sites Controlled by DOE ............................................................................... 14 3.1.3.5.3. Contractor in Sold and Leased-Back Building ......................................................16 3.1.4. Compliance Order (851.4) .....................................................................................16 3.1.5. Enforcement (851.5) ..............................................................................................16 3.1.6. Petitions for Generally Applicable Rulemaking (851.6) .......................................17 3.1.7. Requests for a Binding Interpretative Ruling (851.7)............................................17

3.1.8. Informal Requests for Information (851.8)............................................................17 3.2. Program Requirements (Subpart B).................................................................................. 18 3.2.1. General Requirements (851.10) .............................................................................18 3.2.2. Development and Approval of the Worker Safety and Health Program (851.11) .....................................................................19 3.2.2.1. Methods of Complying ..........................................................................................19 vi DOE G 440.1-8 12-27-06 3.2.2.1.1. Subcontractors................................................................................................ 19 3.2.2.1.2. Small DOE Contractors ................................................................................. 21 3.2.2.2. WSHP Coordination [10 CFR 851.11(a)(2)(ii)] ....................................................21 3.2.2.3. WSHP Integration [851.11(a)(3)(ii)] .....................................................................22 3.2.2.4. DOE Evaluation and Approval [851.11(b)]...........................................................23 3.2.2.5. Program Updates [851.11(c)].................................................................................23 3.2.2.6. Labor Organizations [851.11(d)] ...........................................................................24 3.2.3. Implementation (851.12)........................................................................................24 3.2.4. Compliance [851.13]..............................................................................................24 3.3. Specific Requirements (Subpart C) ...................................................................................25 3.3.1. Management Responsibilities and Worker Rights and Responsibilities [851.20] .....................................................................25 3.3.1.1. Management Responsibilities [851.20(a)] .............................................................25 3.3.1.1.1. Policy, Goals, and Objectives [851.20(a)(1)] ................................................ 25 3.3.1.1.2. Qualified Staff [851.20(a)(2)]........................................................................ 26 3.3.1.1.3. Accountability [851.20(a)(3)] ........................................................................ 26 3.3.1.1.4. Employee involvement [851.20(a)(4)]........................................................... 28 3.3.1.1.5. Access to Information [851.20(a)(5)] ............................................................ 30 3.3.1.1.6. Report Events and Hazards [851.20(a)(6)] .................................................... 31 3.3.1.1.7. Prompt Response to Reports [851.20(a)(7)] .................................................. 31 3.3.1.1.8. Regular Communications [851.20(a)(8)]....................................................... 31 3.3.1.1.9. Stop work Authority [851.20(a)(9)]............................................................... 31 3.3.1.1.10. Inform Workers of Rights [851.20(a)(10)] .................................................. 31 3.3.1.1.11. Additional Resources. .................................................................................. 32 3.3.1.2. Worker Rights and Responsibilities [851.20(b)] ...................................................32

3.3.1.2.1. Participate on Official Time [851.20(b)(1)]................................................... 32 3.3.1.2.2. Access to Information [851.20(b)(2)] ............................................................ 32 3.3.1.2.3. Notification of Monitoring Results [851.20(b)(3)]........................................ 33 3.3.1.2.4. Observe Monitoring. [851.20(b)(4)] .............................................................. 34 3.3.1.2.5. Accompany Inspections [851.20(b)(5)] ......................................................... 34 3.3.1.2.6. Results of Inspections and Investigations [851.20(b)(6)] .............................. 34 3.3.1.2.7. Express Concerns [851.20(b)(7)]................................................................... 34 3.3.1.2.8. Decline to Perform in Imminent Risk [851.20(b)(8)].................................... 35 3.3.1.2.9. Stop Work [851.20(b)(9)] .............................................................................. 35 3.3.1.2.10. Additional Resources ................................................................................... 35 3.3.2. Hazard Identification and Assessment [851.21] ....................................................36 3.3.2.1. Identify and Assess Risks [851.21(a)] ...................................................................36 3.3.2.1.1. Assess Workers Exposures [851.21(a)(1)] .................................................... 36 3.3.2.1.2. Document Hazard Assessment [851.21(a)(2)]............................................... 37 3.3.2.1.3. Record Results [851.21(a)(3)] ....................................................................... 37 3.3.2.1.4. Analyze Designs for Potential Hazards [851.21(a)(4)].................................. 38 3.3.2.1.5. Evaluate Operations, Procedures, and Facilities [851.21(a)(5)] .................... 41 3.3.2.1.6. Job Activity-Level Hazard Analysis [851.21(a)(6)] ...................................... 42 3.3.2.1.7. Review Safety and Health Experience [851.21(a)(7)] ................................... 44 3.3.2.1.8. Workplace Hazards and Radiological Hazards [851.21(a)(8)]...................... 44 3.3.2.2. Closure Facilities Hazard Identification [851.21(b)] .............................................45 vii DOE G 440.1-8 12-27-06 3.3.2.3. Hazard Identification Baseline and Schedule [851.21(c)] .....................................45 3.3.3. Hazard Prevention and Abatement (851.22)..........................................................47 3.3.3.1. Hazard Prevention and Abatement Process [851.22(a)] ........................................47 3.3.3.1.1. During Design or Procedure Development [851.22(a)(1)] ............................ 48 3.3.3.1.2. Existing Hazards [851.22(a)(2)] .................................................................... 48 3.3.3.2. Additional Resources .............................................................................................50 3.3.3.3. Hierarchy of Controls [851.22(b)] .........................................................................50 3.3.3.3.1. Elimination or Substitution [851.22(b)(1)] .................................................... 50 3.3.3.3.2. Engineering Controls [851.22(b)(2)] ............................................................. 51 3.3.3.3.3. Work Practices and Administrative Controls [851.22(b)(3)] ........................ 51 3.3.3.3.4. Personal Protective Equipment [851.22(b)(4)] .............................................. 51

3.3.3.4. Purchasing Equipment, Products, and Services [851.22(c)]..................................52 3.3.3.5. Additional Resources .............................................................................................54 3.3.4. Safety and Health Standards (851.23) ...................................................................54 3.3.4.1. Authority Having Jurisdiction (AHJ) and Equivalencies ......................................56 3.3.4.2. Code of Record ......................................................................................................58 3.3.4.3. Previously Granted Exemptions ............................................................................58 3.3.5. Functional Areas (851.24) .....................................................................................58 3.3.6. Training and Information (851.25) ........................................................................59 3.3.6.1. Additional Resources .............................................................................................59 3.3.7. Recordkeeping and Reporting (851.26).................................................................60 3.3.7.1. Hazard Abatement Tracking [851.26(a)]...............................................................61 3.3.7.2. Reporting and Investigating; Analyzing Trends (851.26(b) ..................................63 3.3.8. Reference Sources (851.27) ...................................................................................63 3.4. Variance Process (Subpart D)........................................................................................... 63 3.4.1. Consideration of Variance (851.30).......................................................................63 3.4.2. Variance Process (851.31) .....................................................................................64 3.4.2.1. Variance Application [851.31(a)] ..........................................................................64 3.4.2.2. Defective Applications [851.31(b)] .......................................................................65 3.4.2.3. Content [851.31(c)]................................................................................................65 3.4.2.4. Types of Variances [851.31(d)] .............................................................................65 3.4.2.4.1. Temporary Variance [851.31(d)(1)] .............................................................. 66 3.4.2.4.2. Permanent Variance [851.31(d)(2)] ............................................................... 67 3.4.2.4.3. National Defense Variance [851.31(d)(3)] .................................................... 67 3.4.3. Action on Variance Requests (851.32) ..................................................................67 3.4.3.1. Procedures for an Approval Recommendation - Adequate Applications [851.32(a)]........................................................................67 3.4.3.2. Approval Criteria [851.32)(b)]...............................................................................67 3.4.3.3. Procedures for a Denial Recommendation [851.32)(c)] ........................................68 3.4.3.4. Grounds for Denial of a Variance [851.32)(d)] .....................................................68 3.4.4. Terms and Conditions [851.33] .............................................................................69 3.4.5. Requests for Conferences [851.34]........................................................................69

3.5. Enforcement Process (Subpart E). .................................................................................... 70 3.6. Worker Safety and Health Functional Areas (Appendix A to Part 851) .......................... 70 3.6.1. Construction Safety (Appendix A, Section 1) .......................................................70 viii DOE G 440.1-8 12-27-06 3.6.2. Fire Protection (Appendix A, Section 2) ...............................................................70 3.6.2.1. Authority Having Jurisdiction (AHJ).....................................................................71 3.6.2.2. Life Safety Code ....................................................................................................71 3.6.3. Explosives Safety (Appendix A, Section 3) ..........................................................71 3.6.4. Pressure Safety (Appendix A, Section 4) ..............................................................72 3.6.5. Firearms Safety (Appendix A, Section 5)..............................................................73 3.6.6. Industrial Hygiene (Appendix A, Section 6) .........................................................73 3.6.6.1. Additional Resources. ............................................................................................73 3.6.7. Biological Safety (Appendix A, Section 7) ...........................................................75 3.6.8. Occupational Medicine (Appendix A, Section 8)..................................................75 3.6.8.1. Provide Comprehensive Occupational Medical Services [Appendix A, Section 8(a)]....................................................................................76 3.6.8.1.1. Subcontractors................................................................................................ 76 3.6.8.1.2. Medical Services Provider Credentials [Appendix A, Section 8(b)]............. 76 3.6.8.2. Medical Services Provider Staff Credentials [Appendix A, Section 8(c)] ............77 3.6.8.3. Information Provided to Medical Services Provider and Interaction with Worker Protection Teams [Appendix A, Sections 8(d) and (e)] ...................77 3.6.8.4. Medical Records [Appendix A, Section 8(f)] ........................................................77 3.2.2.1.1 Privacy ............................................................................................................ 78 3.6.8.5. Content of Medical Services [Appendix A, Section 8(g)].....................................78 3.6.8.5.1. Types of Exams.............................................................................................. 78 3.6.8.6. Rehabilitation [Appendix A, Section 8(h)]............................................................79 3.6.8.7. Feedback Medical Results to Mitigate Hazards [Appendix A, Section 8(i)] ....................................................................................79 3.6.8.8. Manage Preventable Morbidity and Mortality [Appendix A, Section 8(j)] ....................................................................................79 3.6.8.9. Assistance and Wellness [Appendix A, Sections 8(k)(1)-(3)]...............................80 3.6.8.10. Immunizations and Biohazards [Appendix A, Section 8(k)(4)] ............................80 3.6.8.11. Emergency Preparedness [Appendix A, Section 8(k)(5)]......................................80 3.6.8.12. Additional Resources .............................................................................................80

3.6.8.12.1. Standards for Electronic Medical Records .................................................. 80 3.6.8.12.2. Psychological Services................................................................................. 82 3.6.8.12.3. Occupational Medicine Services.................................................................. 82 3.6.9. Motor vehicle safety (Appendix A, Section 9) ......................................................82 3.6.10. Electrical safety (Appendix A, Section 10) ...........................................................82 3.6.10.1. Authority Having Jurisdiction (AHJ) for electrical safety.....................................84 3.6.10.2. Exemptions and waivers of electrical safety requirements....................................84 3.6.11. Nanotechnolgy Safety (Appendix A, Section 11)..................................................84 3.6.11.1. Additional Resources .............................................................................................84 3.6.12. Workplace Violence Prevention (Appendix A, Section 12)..................................85 3.7. Appendix B to Part 851—General Statement of Enforcement Policy.............................. 85 Example A: Worker Safety and Health Program Embedded in DOE Integrated Safety Management System Structure at a DOE Nuclear Site Example B: Worker Safety and Health Program Consistent with DOE Integrated Safety Management System at a DOE Non-nuclear Site 1 DOE G 440.1-8 12-27-06 1. INTRODUCTION Section 3173 of the Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act amended the Atomic Energy Act for FY 2003 to add section 234C (codified as 42 U.S.C. 2282c), which requires DOE to promulgate worker safety and health regulations that maintain “the level of protection currently provided to ... workers.” See P.L. No. 107-314 (December 2, 2002). That level of protection was described by DOE O 440.1A Worker Protection Management for DOE Federal and Contractor Employees, dated 03-27-98. Section 234C also makes a DOE contractor with an indemnification agreement under § 170 (d) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, that violates these regulations subject to civil penalties similar to the authority Congress granted to DOE in 1988 with respect to civil penalties for violations of nuclear safety regulations. DOE did not have authority to impose civil penalties for violations of DOE O 440.1A. DOE on February 9, 2006 published Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 851, “Worker Safety and Health Program” (the Rule) pursuant to DOE’s authority under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 and subsequent reorganization acts (available at http://www.nrc.gov/who-we-are/governing-laws.html). The Rule replaces the Contractor Requirements Document of DOE O 440.1A and tailored health and safety contractual agreements. This Guide supersedes DOE G 440.1-1, Worker Protection Management for DOE Federal and Contractor Employees, dated 07-10-97, for contractor employees. DOE O 440.1 and G 440.1-1 remain in effect for DOE federal employees. This Guide was developed consistent with DOE M 251.1-1B Departmental Directives Program Manual which states that Guides: • Provide preferred, nonmandatory, supplemental information about acceptable methods for implementing requirements, including lessons learned, suggested practices, instructions, and suggested performance measures; • Do not impose requirements but may quote requirements if the sources are adequately cited; and

• Provide alternate methods that may be used if it can be demonstrated that they provide an equivalent or better level of performance. This Guide provides supplemental information and describes implementation practices to assist contractors in effectively developing, managing, and implementing a worker safety and health program required by the Rule. It also suggests compliance and performance expectations for contractor worker safety and health programs to comply with Public Law (P.L.) 107-314, Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2003, section 234C [Title 42, United States http://www.nrc.gov/who-we-are/governing-laws.html 2 DOE G 440.1-8 12-27-06 Code (U.S.C.) 2282c], which amends the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (P.L. 83-703) to require that DOE maintain current levels of worker protection. The Atomic Energy Act of 1954 and subsequent acts are available at http://www.nrc.gov/who-we-are/governing-laws.html.) Specifically, this Guide discusses the regulatory requirements of the Rule, provides cross-references to DOE directives, other Agencies’ regulations and literature, and professional organizations’ consensus standards, specifications and guidance for implementing the Rule. This Guide provides explanations, with examples, of how to meet the basic requirements for developing and implementing a worker safety and health program. Also included in this Guide as Attachments 1 and 2 are two different examples (Examples A and B) of worker safety and health programs. Example A consists of a worker safety and health program embedded in the DOE integrated safety management system (ISMS) structure of a nuclear site. This example conveys an overall ISMS program in which worker safety and health is simply one of the many integrated elements. Example B consists of a program that is confined to worker safety and health elements at a non-nuclear site but clearly conveys how the elements link to the DOE integrated safety management system. These examples are meant to demonstrate ways in which a worker safety and health program could be constructed. Many other approaches would be equally valid as long as they address all the requirements of the Rule. These examples DO NOT establish any new requirements and are not the only two approaches for describing a worker safety and health program that is compliant with the Rule. The Rule establishes the framework for an effective worker safety and health program that provides DOE contractor workers with a safe and healthful workplace in which workplace hazards are abated, controlled or otherwise mitigated in a manner that provides reasonable assurance that workers are adequately protected from identified hazards. An acceptable worker safety and health program integrates construction safety, fire protection, explosives safety, pressure safety, firearms safety, industrial hygiene, biological safety, occupational medicine, motor vehicle safety, electrical safety and other functions addressed in 10 CFR 851.24 Functional areas. Supplemental guidance on the implementation of a comprehensive worker health and safety program can be found in paragraph 3.6 of this Guide which addresses Appendix A to Part 851—Worker Safety and Health Functional Areas.

This Guide also presents generally acceptable best practices that are used at DOE sites and at industries having efficient and effective worker safety and health programs. The guidance provided in this Guide allows for contractors to tailor their safety and health programs to effectively implement safety at every organizational level and to integrate safety and other related site-specific worker protection activities into the integrated safety management system [851.11(a)(3)(ii)]. (See Attachments 1 and 2 in this Guide.) This Guide provides DOE’s views on acceptable methods of program implementation and is not mandatory. DOE believes that the Guide can serve as an effective tool in meeting the minimum regulatory requirements of the Rule. Conformance with this Guide will provide reasonable assurance that the employer has complied with the related regulatory requirements. Alternate http://www.nrc.gov/who-we-are/governing-laws.html DOE G 440.1-8 3 (and 4) 12-27-06 methods may be used if it can be demonstrated that they provide an equivalent or better level of performance. In this Guide, the word “must” designates requirements that are specifically required by the Rule. The words “should,” “could,” and “may” denote optional program recommendations and allowable alternatives. DOE’s Office of Health, Safety and Security develops and disseminates technical clarifications of the Rule and other worker protection standards. See paragraph 3.1.8 of this Guide. Requests for interpretation of the Rule that exceed the bounds of technical clarification should be forwarded to DOE’s Office of General Counsel. Confine requests to the Office of General Counsel to clarification of real situations since hypothetical situations are difficult to clarify conclusively . (See paragraph 3.1.7 of this Guide.) This Guide does not establish any requirements legally enforceable pursuant to 10 CFR Part 851. However, it should be noted that the provisions of a contractor’s approved program are enforceable under the Rule. Accordingly, provisions of the Guide that are incorporated into a contractor’s approved program would be enforceable on the contractor’s worksites covered under the approved program. 5 DOE G 440.1-8 12-27-06 2. GENERAL INFORMATION It is DOE policy to provide a safe and healthful workplace for all contractor personnel. These conditions will be ensured by implementing the worker safety and health program established in the Rule. This Guide is organized consistent with the requirements in the Rule. These requirements reflect what the Department considers the essential elements of a successful worker safety and health program: • Management responsibilities and worker rights (851.20); • Hazard identification and assessment (851.21); • Hazard prevention and abatement (851.22); • Safety and health standards (851.23); • Functional areas (851.24); • Training and information (851.25); and • Recordkeeping and reporting (851.26). The Department recognizes that the Rule provides the basic foundation for a worker safety and health program and that some DOE elements or contractors may need or decide to go beyond the Rule’s minimum requirements in establishing programs to protect workers from hazards associated with their activities. Decisions concerning implementation of worker protection measures should be based on the use of a graded approach to ensure that available resources are used most efficiently. The Department also recognizes that the worker safety and health program must be integrated into other related site-specific worker protection activities and with the integrated safety management system [851.11(a)(3)(ii)]. (See Attachments 1 and 2 of this Guide for examples.)

The graded approach, a.k.a. tailoring, refers to developing safety controls fitted to the hazards and the work. Additional guidance on using the graded approach, i.e. tailoring, is found in: • DOE G 450.4-1B Integrated Safety Management System Guide Volume 1, Chapter 1, paragraph 3. Tailoring the ISMS, and • DOE G 450.3-3 Tailoring for Integrated Safety Management Applications. The Rule requires that the heads of DOE field elements review and approve contractors’ worker safety and health programs [10 CFR 851.11(b)]. A DOE Cognizant Secretarial Officer (CSO) issued a Standard Review Plan for field offices to use in reviewing contractor submitted worker safety and health programs. That Standard Review Plan is available at http://www.eh.doe.gov/health/rule851/plan_approval.html for other DOE elements to use as a http://www.eh.doe.gov/health/rule851/plan_approval.html 6 DOE G 440.1-8 12-27-06 model to develop their own review plans. DOE’s Office of Health, Safety and Security will convert the currently available Standard Review Plan into a formal guidance document so that it remains available and accessible for use in the future. 7 DOE G 440.1-8 12-27-06 3. GUIDANCE 3.1. General Provisions (Subpart A) 3.1.1. Scope and Purpose (851.1) 3.1.1.1. Scope The Rule applies to the conduct of contractor activities at DOE sites [851.1(a)]. A contractor means any entity under contract with DOE, or a subcontractor to such an entity at any tier, and includes any affiliated entity such as a parent organization (851.3). (See paragraph 3.1.3.3 of this Guide for clarification of the definition of contractor.) These activities should include design, construction, operation, maintenance, decontamination and decommissioning, research and development, and environmental restoration activities performed by DOE contractors (and their subcontractors) at covered workplaces except for the exclusions described in 851.2 Exclusions. A covered workplace is a place at a DOE site where work is conducted by a contractor to further a DOE mission (851.3). The Rule directs DOE contractors to perform work in a manner that protects the safety and health of workers, without regard to whether the workers are employed by a contractor engaged in a nuclear activity covered by agreements of indemnification under the Price-Anderson Act, 42 U.S.C. 2210(d) or are engaged in a non-nuclear activity. DOE’s authority to impose civil penalties, however, applies only to contractors, and their subcontractors and suppliers, covered by agreements of indemnification under the Price-Anderson Act, which, in turn, requires DOE to include an agreement of indemnification in every contract that has the potential to involve any activity with any risk of a nuclear incident. Hence, DOE can impose civil penalties for violations of requirements of this Rule, but only against contractors covered by an agreement of indemnification and their subcontractors and suppliers. DOE will continue to use contractual penalties to foster compliance with this Rule by contractors and their subcontractors that are not covered by an agreement of indemnification.

DOE’s Office of Enforcement, will use its voluntary Noncompliance Tracking System (NTS), which allows contractors to elect to report noncompliance to provide incentives to contractors for voluntarily reporting instances of noncompliance. (See Appendix B to Part 851—General Statement of Enforcement Policy, IX.5. Self-Identification and Tracking Systems for more information.) The Office of Enforcement currently uses the NTS for noncompliance with requirements for nuclear activities. Title 10 CFR 851 NTS Reporting Thresholds for reporting noncompliance of potentially greater worker safety and health significance into the NTS are available from a link on http://www.eh.doe.gov/enforce/index.html. The NTS is described in the guidance document, Enforcement Program Plan, also available from a link at http://www.eh.doe.gov/enforce/index.html. Contractors are expected, however, to use their own self-tracking systems to track noncompliance below the reporting threshold. The Rule integrates the Chronic Beryllium Disease Prevention Program (CBDPP), established under 10 CFR 850, as an integral part of the worker safety and health http://www.eh.doe.gov/enforce/index.html http://www.eh.doe.gov/enforce/index.html 8 DOE G 440.1-8 12-27-06 program. In addition, to ensure consistency, 10 CFR 850 was amended to clarify that the CBDPP supplements the worker safety and health program under Part 851 and the CBDPP is enforceable under 10 CFR 851. DOE may take steps pursuant to Part 851 to enforce compliance by contractors with any DOE-approved CBDPP. The Rule applies to sites that are the responsibility of DOE’s National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA). 3.1.1.2. Purpose The purpose of the Rule is to establish safety and health requirements that a contractor responsible for a covered workplace must implement through a worker safety and health program that provides its workers with a safe and healthful workplace in which workplace hazards are abated, controlled or otherwise mitigated in a manner that provides reasonable assurance that workers are adequately protected from recognized hazards. The Rule also provides procedures for investigating whether a violation of a requirement has occurred, for determining the nature and extent of any such violation, and for imposing an appropriate remedy [851.1(b)]. The Rule complements DOE’s nuclear safety requirements. Personnel responsible for implementing worker protection and nuclear safety requirements should coordinate and cooperate in instances where the requirements overlap. The two sets of requirements should be integrated and applied to guard against unintended results and provide reasonable assurance of adequate worker protection. For example, control measures to minimize personnel radiation exposure should be reviewed to ensure that the workers are not subjected to life-threatening asphyxiation or fire hazards. 3.1.2. Exclusions (851.2) The Rule applies to the conduct of contractor activities at DOE sites except for sites: • Regulated by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) on or after February 9, 2006, or • Operated under the authority of the Director, Naval Nuclear Propulsions, pursuant to Executive Order 12344, as set forth in Public Law 98525, 42 U.S.C. 7158 note.

The Rule does not apply to an organization that is working at a DOE site but that is regulated by OSHA. Examples of these types of organizations are other federal organizations and organizations conducting work on a DOE site under a Community Re-Use arrangement. DOE contractors should brief the OSHA covered organization’s representatives on the site hazards and the contractor’s worker safety and health program prior to the commencement of work. for the protection of those workers and to avert those workers from creating hazards to DOE contractor workers. The Rule does not apply to— 9 DOE G 440.1-8 12-27-06 • Radiological hazards or nuclear explosives operations to the extent regulated by 10 CFR Parts 20, 820, 830 or 835; or • DOE activities performed away from a DOE site; • Transportation activities to and from a DOE site. The Rule excludes radiological hazards to the extent they are already regulated by the DOE nuclear safety requirements in 10 CFR parts 820, 830, and 835. These existing rules already deal with radiological hazards in a comprehensive manner through methods such as the Quality Assurance Program Plan, the Safety Basis, the Documented Safety Analysis, and the Radiation Protection Program Plan. (The Rule does not exclude non-ionizing radiation.) 3.1.3. Definitions (851.3) Part 851.3 of the Rule establishes definitions and terms used throughout the Rule. Further discussion of several key terms is provided below. Part 851.3(b) clarifies that terms that are undefined in the Rule but are defined in the Atomic Energy Act (AEA) of 1954 have the same meaning as under the AEA of 1954. 3.1.3.1. Closure Facilities The Rule defines closure facility as “a facility that is non-operational and is, or is expected to be permanently closed and/or demolished, or title to which is expected to be transferred to another entity for reuse.” Part 851 permits the head of the appropriate DOE field element, with the concurrence of the Cognizant Secretarial Officer, to accept hazard controls in closure facilities that are not otherwise fully compliant with the Rule. (See 851.21(b).) The Rule’s closure facility provision may not be used to obtain relief from the Rule’s requirements unless the facility is non-operational. Closure facilities may include portions of facilities that are isolated from operations and meet the Rule’s definition of closure facility. A large canyon facility that is no longer operational but contains a small repackaging operation is an example of a portion of a facility that could be designated as a closure facility. Closure facility provisions of the Rule would not apply to the operational portion of the facility. In facilities that are operational (and, therefore, are not closure facilities), contractors may apply for a variance pursuant to Subpart D of the Rule (paragraph 3.4 of this Guide) to seek relief from requirements of the Rule. In addition, contractors may use equivalencies granted by an Authority Having Jurisdiction (see paragraph 3.3.4.1 of this Guide) when applicable to a requirement in a standard or code that contains the Authority Having Jurisdiction and equivalency provisions. 3.1.3.2. Closure Facility Hazard Closure facility hazard refers only to those facility-related conditions within a closure facility involving deviations from the technical requirements of 851.23 of the Rule that would require costly and extensive structural and/or engineering modifications to be in 10 DOE G 440.1-8 12-27-06

compliance. Closure facilities may have other hazards in addition to closure facility hazards. 3.1.3.3. Contractor A contractor is any entity, including affiliated entities, such as a parent corporation, under contract with DOE, including a subcontractor at any tier, with responsibility for performing work at a DOE site in furtherance of a DOE mission. 3.1.3.3.1. Under Contract with DOE The term “DOE contractor” must be read in the context of the additional regulatory definition language: “that has responsibilities for performing work at a DOE site.” (See 851.3.) This language dictates that a “DOE contractor” for purposes of the Rule, must have a contract to perform services, as opposed to merely providing supplies, in order to come within the scope of the Rule. Consequently, a DOE contractor, for the purposes of the Rule, includes any contractor under a contract with DOE to perform services, or a subcontractor to such contractor, at any tier, that performs work at a DOE site “in furtherance of a DOE mission.” Size is not a relevant factor in determining whether an entity is a DOE contractor for the purposes of the Rule. Consequently, an individual can fit within the definition as readily as can a large corporation employing many thousands of people. The definition of contractor includes professional contractors, including entities with DOE contracts entered pursuant to § 8(a) of the Small Business Act, codified at 15 U.S.C. § 637 (a) (cf. 48 CFR Subpart 19.8) as well as all other types of contractual arrangements with those whom DOE has a direct contractual relationship for work to be performed at a DOE site. The definition of contractor also may include other entities that have agreements that are contractual in nature with DOE or its contractors. Consult with DOE’s Office of General Counsel to determine whether parties to agreements with DOE or DOE contractors are considered contractors and therefore within the scope of the Rule. Confine requests to the Office of General Counsel to clarification of real situations since hypothetical situations are difficult to clarify conclusively . 3.1.3.3.2. Furtherance of a DOE Mission The term “in furtherance of a DOE mission” means that the contractor is doing work that DOE authorized. 3.1.3.3.3. Vendors Vendors, delivery persons and others who do not have service contracts with DOE, or who are not subcontractors to such contractors, are excluded from the requirements of Part 851 and their employers are not required to develop and implement a DOE-approved WSHP. 11 DOE G 440.1-8 12-27-06

3.1.3.3.4. Suppliers Sec. 851.5 (a), Enforcement, provides that "A contractor that is indemnified under section 170d of the AEA (or any subcontractor or supplier thereto) and that violates (or whose employee violates) any requirement of this part shall be subject to a civil penalty of up to $70,000 for each such violation." (This regulatory language is consistent with the related statutory provisions at 42 U.S.C. § 2282c (b)(1)). Although the enforcement provisions of Part 851 refer to imposing civil penalties for suppliers who violate the requirements of Part 851, the scope of the regulation indicates that the requirements of the Rule do not apply to suppliers. (See 851.1, Scope: "(a) the worker safety and health requirements in this part govern the conduct of contractor activities at DOE sites. (b) This part establishes the: (1) Requirements for a worker safety and health program that reduces or prevents occupational injuries, illnesses, and accidental losses by providing DOE contractors and their workers with safe and healthful workplaces at DOE sites; and (2) Procedures for investigating whether a violation of a requirement of this part has occurred, for determining the nature and extent of any such violation, and for imposing an appropriate remedy"). "Contractor" is defined at 851.3 as "any entity . . . under contract with DOE, or a subcontractor at any tier, that has responsibilities for performing work at a DOE site in furtherance of a DOE mission." [emphasis added] Since suppliers would, at most, engage in no more than tangential work at a DOE site relating to delivery, installation or repair of the products, suppliers are not considered "contractors" for the purposes of the Rule. Therefore, suppliers (who do not also have contracts with DOE to provide services at a DOE site) cannot "violate[ ]. . .any requirement of Part 851" (see 851.5 (a)) because the requirements do not apply to them. Consequently, as a practical matter, DOE cannot impose civil penalties for suppliers' failure to comply with those requirements. 3.1.3.3.5. Utility Providers Utility providers, such as power or communications providers that may have power or communications lines installed on-site to serve the facility, are covered under 48 CFR (FAR) Part 41 and are not considered service contractors for the purposes of Part 851. They operate under supply contracts rather than contracts for services and, therefore, are not subject to Part 851. As in the case of a soft drink vendor or delivery person, the fact that utility employees must sometimes come on site to service such things as power or communications lines does not convert the contract into a service contract. 3.1.3.3.6. Commercial Items The preamble to the Rule on page 6869 indicates that the definition of contractor in the Rule does not apply to contractors or subcontractors that provide only “commercial items” as defined in the Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR). However, the Rule does not explicitly address providers of only commercial items. The Rule’s definition of contractor, i.e., A contractor is any entity, including affiliated entities, such as a parent corporation, under contract with DOE, including a subcontractor at any tier, with responsibility for performing work at a DOE site in furtherance of a DOE mission, is the controlling definition in any apparent contradiction with the FAR definition. Consult DOE’s Office of General Counsel to clarify if an entity that provides items to DOE or DOE contractors is included in the definition of contractor in the Rule. Confine requests

12 DOE G 440.1-8 12-27-06 to the Office of General Counsel to clarification of real situations since hypothetical situations are difficult to clarify conclusively. Also, see related discussions in paragraphs 3.1.3.3.3. Vendors and 3.1.3.3.4 Suppliers in this Guide. 3.1.3.3.7. Landlords of DOE Contractor Leased Off-Site Space Landlords of off-site space that is leased by DOE contractors for DOE work would not come under the definition of “contractor” for the purposes of the Rule. These landlords provide a facility but do not perform work in furtherance of a DOE mission. 3.1.3.3.8. Universities with DOE Cooperative Agreements A DOE contractor, for the purposes of 10 CFR Part 851, includes any contractor under a contract with DOE to perform services, or a subcontractor to such contractor, at any tier, that performs work at a DOE site in furtherance of a DOE mission. Generally, cooperative agreements are transactions made pursuant to DOE’s “financial assistance” regulation (10 CFR Part 600) and are not procurement contracts. However, it is possible that there are cooperative agreements that have some procurement contract terms. Those particular agreements (if they involve work at a DOE site) should be referred to DOE’s Office of General Counsel for a case-by-case review to determine whether the Rule applies. 3.1.3.3.9. Off-site Fire Departments Off-site local government and volunteer fire departments provide fire and emergency response services for some DOE sites. Some DOE sites use contracts with these groups to obtain fire and emergency response services in which case those providers are contractors and subject to the Rule. The Rule would only apply to those services performed at a DOE site. Often there is some form of agreement other than a contract between DOE or a DOE contractor and the off-site fire departments in which case, depending on the terms of the agreement, those providers may not be considered contractors. DOE field offices may wish to evaluate if they are using the most appropriate arrangement for obtaining these services. DOE field offices may wish to consult DOE’s Office of General Counsel if uncertain whether a particular agreement for fire and emergency services is tantamount to a contract and therefore within the scope of the Rule. Confine requests to the Office of General Counsel to clarification of real situations since hypothetical situations are difficult to conclusively clarify. DOE’s Office of Enforcement addresses enforcement of the Rule with respect to fire and emergency response services providers in their Enforcement Program Plan, available from a link at http://www.eh.doe.gov/enforce/index.html. 3.1.3.3.10. Academics Working On Site Under Grants College and university staff and students working at a DOE site under a DOE grant are not working under a service contract with DOE and are not, therefore, subject to the Rule. DOE contractors should brief academic personnel on the workplace hazards and worker safety and health program prior to commencement of their work in order to protect the academic personnel and to avert those personnel from creating hazards to DOE contractor workers. http://www.eh.doe.gov/enforce/index.html http:3.1.3.3.10 13 DOE G 440.1-8 12-27-06 3.1.3.3.11. State and Municipal Highway Departments State and municipal highway departments on site to maintain roads passing through DOE property are not DOE contractors for the purposes of the Rule.

3.1.3.3.12. Work for Others Contractors at many DOE sites perform Work-for-Others (WFO) activities. These activities are performed under a contract with DOE to perform services at a DOE site in furtherance of a DOE mission and, therefore, are covered by the Rule. 3.1.3.3.13. Other Federal Agencies Federal agencies do not have contracts with DOE and, therefore, are not subject to the Rule. However, other Federal agencies are required under § 19 (a) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, codified at 29 U.S.C. § 668 (a) “to establish and maintain an effective and comprehensive occupational safety and health program” and to “provide safe and healthful places and conditions of employment” for their federal employees. Federal Agencies (“except military personnel and uniquely military equipment, systems and operations”) are also required by Executive Order 12196 to adhere to OSHA regulations promulgated for that purpose (see 29 CFR Part 1960) and may be subject to inspections by OSHA. Contractors working under contract with these agencies would be subject to OSHA unless they are subject to another federal regulator (see OSH Act § 4 (b) (1), codified at 29 U.S.C. § 653 (b) (1): “Nothing in this chapter shall apply to working conditions of employees with respect to which other Federal agencies, and State agencies acting under section 2021 of title 42, exercise statutory authority to prescribe or enforce standards or regulations affecting occupational safety or health.”) Examples of non-DOE federal organizations performing work on DOE sites include the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Defense, the Department of Interior, and the Environmental Protection Agency. When a DOE contractor supports a non-DOE federal organization pursuant to a contract with DOE on a DOE site, the contractor’s work is covered by the Rule. (See 3.1.3.3.12. Work for Others, above).When a non-DOE contractor is performing work for a non-DOE federal organization on a DOE site, that contractor’s work is not covered by the Rule. When a non-DOE federal organization or its non-DOE contractor is performing work on a DOE site, DOE contractors should brief the non-DOE organizations’ representatives on the site hazards and worker safety and health program prior to commencement of their work in order to protect those organizations’ workers and to avert those workers from creating hazards to DOE contractor workers. 3.1.3.3.14. Visitors at User Facilities Many DOE sites host work that private organizations perform in DOE provided facilities. Those private organizations typically are not operating under a contract with DOE and therefore their activities and employees are not within the scope of the Rule. DOE contractors should brief the private organization’s representatives on the workplace hazards and worker safety and health program prior to commencement of their work in order to protect the private organization’s workers and to avert those workers from creating hazards to DOE contractor workers. http:3.1.3.3.11 http:3.1.3.3.12 http:3.1.3.3.13 http:3.1.3.3.12 http:3.1.3.3.14 14 DOE G 440.1-8 12-27-06 3.1.3.4. Covered Workplace Covered workplace means a place at a DOE site where a contractor is responsible for performing work in furtherance of a DOE mission. 3.1.3.4.1. DOE Property Leased for Private Sector Purposes DOE sometimes leases to private sector organizations facilities on DOE property that are used by those organizations for their own purposes. Those facilities are not occupied by DOE contractors engaged in the furtherance of a DOE mission and therefore are not within the scope of the Rule.

3.1.3.5. DOE Site DOE site means a DOE-owned or -leased area or location or other area or location controlled by DOE where activities and operations are performed at one or more facilities or places by a contractor in furtherance of a DOE mission. DOE contractor workers often engage in activities in furtherance of DOE missions at locations that are not owned or leased by DOE. Those activities can be quite diverse, and may occur at other federal and state facilities, private company facilities, educational facilities, in foreign countries, upon oceans and rivers, or at other locations. Even when such activities are in furtherance of DOE missions, most of these locations are not owned, leased, or controlled by DOE or its contractors and therefore these activities are not within the scope of the Rule. See paragraph 3.1.3.5.2 of this Guide for information about what constitutes DOE control of an off-site location. 3.1.3.5.1. DOE Contractor-Owned or -Leased Off-Site Location Space that is owned or leased by a DOE contractor for the conduct of DOE work activities is not a DOE site because it is not owned or leased by DOE with an exception. The exception is that space that is owned or leased by a DOE contractor for the conduct of DOE work activities is a DOE site within the scope of 10 CFR 851 if DOE controls the space. Where DOE does not control the space, it would be outside the scope of the Rule and subject instead to federal OSHA regulations. See paragraph 3.1.3.5.2 of this Guide for more information about DOE control of off-site locations. 3.1.3.5.2. Sites Controlled by DOE As mentioned above in paragraph 3.1.3.5 of this Guide, DOE site means a DOE-owned or -leased area or location or other area or location controlled by DOE where activities and operations are performed at one or more facilities or places by a contractor in furtherance of a DOE mission. “Sites controlled by DOE” refers to other areas or locations controlled by DOE where work is performed by a contractor in furtherance of a DOE mission. Those sites could be outside of DOE-owned or -leased property. DOE exercises its authority under the AEA. The heads of the DOE field elements and their respective CSOs should consult DOE’s Office of General Counsel and coordinate 15 DOE G 440.1-8 12-27-06 with federal OSHA to determine whether DOE can or should exercise the AEA authority for specific off-site facilities. Confine requests to the Office of General Counsel to clarification of real situations since hypothetical situations are difficult to conclusively clarify. Landlord activities for a leased facility would not be within the scope of the Rule because they are not performing work in furtherance of a DOE mission even if DOE exercised its authority under the AEA to regulate worker safety and health at that facility. In addition, workers in facilities, including workers in facilities on DOE property, that have been identified as being under OSHA jurisdiction pursuant to a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between DOE and OSHA established in 1992 (see, e.g., 71 FR 36988, June 29, 2006) are clearly not under DOE control of worker safety and health, and are explicitly excluded from the scope of the Rule (851.2 Exclusions). The 851.2 exclusion only applies to sites and facilities that are regulated by federal OSHA. The Rule does not include exclusions for other state or federal agencies that may have regulations addressing worker safety and health except as listed in 851.2.

Other area or location controlled by DOE. This component of the definition of DOE site refers to locations controlled by DOE where activities and operations are performed at one or more facilities or places by a contractor in furtherance of a DOE mission. The fact that the contractor is performing DOE work is not sufficient to render the location a DOE site. DOE control of an area or location rests on two conditions that both must be met: • the contractor must be performing activities or operations in furtherance of a DOE mission; and • DOE exerts some element of control over the area or location. In general, any work authorized by DOE and performed by a DOE contractor is in furtherance of a DOE mission however, exerting some element of DOE control may be more difficult to determine. On the one hand, DOE may exert no control over a DOE contractor’s arrangement for space in which case worker safety and health at that location would not be within the scope of the Rule. On the other hand, DOE may establish requirements for, and approve, a lease before the DOE contractor signs it in which case DOE exerts a significant level of control over that location and worker safety and health at that location is therefore within the scope of the Rule. Heads of DOE field elements may wish to consult DOE’s Office of General Counsel to determine whether DOE exerts sufficient control over a DOE contractor’s owned or leased space for the Rule to apply. DOE field elements should provide the Office of General Counsel with a description of a real situation for evaluation rather than a generic possible situation. Contractors should assume that their owned or leased space is within the scope of the Rule if DOE exerts any element of control of that space until the Office of General Counsel has made a ruling in order to assure proper protection of the DOE contractor’s employees. 16 DOE G 440.1-8 12-27-06 3.1.3.5.3. Contractor in Sold and Leased-Back Building DOE sometimes sells property to a private company that constructs a building and leases it back to DOE for occupancy by DOE contractors. The construction of the building is not performed under contract with DOE, that work is not within the scope of the Rule and, therefore, its provisions do not apply. Under these circumstances, federal OSHA or the state regulatory agency operating under a federal OSHA-approved state plan would have jurisdiction during construction of the building. Once the facility becomes a DOE- leased facility with DOE contractor employees working in the facility, the operations in the building would be within the scope of the Rule and, therefore, the Rule would apply. 3.1.4. Compliance Order (851.4) Section 851.4 of the Rule describes the purposes of issuing compliance orders. These purposes include identifying situations that violate, potentially violate, or are inconsistent with the Rule and mandating a remedy, work stoppage or other action. The section also clarifies that compliance orders constitute final orders, that modifications or rescissions must be requested within 15 days, and that these requests for modifications do not automatically stay the effect of the order unless formally stayed. The section further establishes the requirement for posting of the compliance order.

It should be noted that the authority established in the regulation to use compliance orders to stop work is independent from contract provisions. Compliance orders by the Secretary represent an exercise of AEA authority. DOE intends, however, that all mandated work stoppages (whether issued through a compliance order or as a result of the lack of an approved program) would be implemented in close coordination with the DOE field office and the contracting officer with proper consideration given to mission and safety critical operations and the continued safety of other workplace activities. 3.1.5. Enforcement (851.5) Part 851.5 of the Rule establishes enforcement provisions for the Rule, which allow DOE to employ either civil penalties or contractual mechanisms such as reduction in fees when a contractor fails to comply with Rule provisions. DOE’s Office of Enforcement can start enforcement of the Rule through civil penalties on February 9, 2007. See Office of Enforcement’s Enforcement Program Plan, available from a link at http://www.eh.doe.gov/enforce/index.html, for additional guidance on enforcement of the Rule. DOE’s Office of Enforcement will use DOE’s voluntary Noncompliance Tracking System (NTS), which allows contractors to elect to report noncompliance. See Appendix B to Part 851—General Statement of Enforcement Policy, IX.5. Self-Identification and Tracking Systems for more information. The Office of Enforcement currently uses the NTS for noncompliance with requirements for nuclear activities. Title 10 CFR 851 NTS Reporting Thresholds for reporting noncompliance of potentially greater worker safety and health significance into the NTS are available from a link on http://www.eh.doe.gov/enforce/index.html. The NTS is described in the guidance http://www.eh.doe.gov/enforce/index.html http://www.eh.doe.gov/enforce/index.html 17 DOE G 440.1-8 12-27-06 document, Enforcement Program Plan, also available from a link at http://www.eh.doe.gov/enforce/index.html. Contractors are expected, however, to use their own self-tracking systems to track noncompliance below the reporting threshold. 3.1.6. Petitions for Generally Applicable Rulemaking (851.6) Section 851.6 of the Rule sets forth procedures for petitions to initiate generally applicable rulemaking to amend or interpret the provisions of the Rule. These procedures are very detailed and describe the right to file petitions; how to file petitions; and the required content of and determination on, petitions. 3.1.7. Requests for a Binding Interpretative Ruling (851.7) Section 851.7 of the Rule provides for requests for interpretive rulings applying the regulations to a particular set of facts and providing an interpretation that is binding on DOE but only with respect to the party requesting the ruling. The Office of General Counsel is responsible for formulating and issuing any binding interpretation of the requirements of the Rule. Section 851.7 provides detailed procedures for requesting binding interpretive rulings. Confine requests to the Office of General Counsel to clarification of real situations since hypothetical situations are difficult to conclusively clarify. 3.1.8. Informal Requests for Information (851.8) DOE’s Office of Worker Safety and Health Policy, HS-11, develops and disseminates technical clarifications of the Rule and other worker protection standards.

Contractors may request informal clarifications of Rule provisions instead of applying for binding interpretive rulings. Informal clarifications offer the benefit of a less formal process to obtain a quicker response. They are appropriate for issues involving clarification of how a technical requirement of the Rule applies in a specific case where the intent of the technical requirement is clear and well established. However, a binding interpretive ruling by the General Counsel (issued under 851.7) would be more appropriate in situations where it is not clear how the requirement of the Rule applies to a unique situation or workplace condition not specifically envisioned in the drafting of the Rule. As provided in the Rule, informal information provided to a contractor under 851.8 would be non-binding on DOE in that DOE’s Office of Enforcement may take enforcement action against the contractor if the contractor’s actions are consistent with the informal information provided to the contractor, but the Office of Enforcement subsequently has determined do not meet Rule requirements. The Standards Interpretations Response Line has been established to provide information on technical safety and health requirements, requirements published by OSHA, and other adopted standards. Contractors who would like clarification of the Rule beyond what is found in this Guide may submit a request to the Safety and Health Standards Response http://www.eh.doe.gov/enforce/index.html 18 DOE G 440.1-8 12-27-06 Line at http://www.eh.doe.gov/rl/. This web site allows users to submit new requests as well as search for and access previous technical clarifications. The responses given by HS-11 are advisory and not binding on DOE. In cases where the information is related to OSHA standards, HS-11 consults the existing body of OSHA interpretations on these standards. HSS also consults with OSHA representatives if OSHA interpretations do not address a unique DOE question or circumstance. 3.2. Program Requirements (Subpart B) 3.2.1. General Requirements (851.10) The Rule requires contractors to provide a place of employment that is free from recognized hazards that are causing or have the potential to cause death or serious physical harm to workers [851.10(a)(1)]. This provision of the Rule was carried over from DOE Order 440.1A and closely parallels the OSHA general duty clause established in Section 5(a)(1) of the OSH Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 654) which establishes OSHA’s general duty clause. Accordingly, in implementing this provision, contractors should consider criteria similar to those established by OSHA for the implementation of the general duty clause. Specifically, in determining whether a workplace condition presents a recognized hazard that is causing or has the potential to cause death or serious physical harm to workers, contractors should consider whether: • The condition presents a hazard to which workers are exposed (e.g., the hazard exists and workers are exposed to the hazard); • The hazard is a recognized hazard (e.g., the hazard is identified and addressed in a recognized industry consensus standard, or other credible industry guidance or documentation); • The hazard is causing or is likely to cause death or serious physical harm; and • Feasible and useful methods exist to correct the hazard.

The terms “feasible” and “serious physical harm” are subjective terms the meanings of which depend on the specific context in which the terms are used. The meanings of these terms in a situation should be determined by DOE line management starting with the head of the DOE field element and progressing to the Under Secretary depending on the impact of the meanings. DOE line managers should obtain input from safety and health professionals and other relevant subject matter experts in making their determinations. The Rule requires contractors to comply with the applicable requirements of the Rule and their approved worker safety and health program [851.10(a)(2)] for the contractor’s workplace. All work performed by contractors or subcontractors in a covered workplace must comply with Subpart C Specific Program Requirements of the Rule [851.13 (a)]. Contractors must establish a written program that describes how the contractor will comply with the requirements in Subpart C of the rule that are applicable to the hazards http://www.eh.doe.gov/rl/ 19 DOE G 440.1-8 12-27-06 associated with the contractor’s scope of work as well as the provisions of any compliance order (see 851.4) issued by the Secretary [851.10 )b)]. In addition, the Rule states at 851.23(b) that nothing in this part must be construed as relieving a contractor from complying with any additional specific safety and health requirement that it determines to be necessary to protect the safety and health of workers. 3.2.2. Development and Approval of the Worker Safety and Health Program (851.11) The Rule establishes the procedures for contractor coordination, submission, DOE approval, updates, and labor organization notification of the written worker safety and health program. The written program must provide the methods for implementing the requirements of Subpart C of the Rule [851.11)(a)]. See paragraph 3.3 of this Guide for more detailed guidance on the requirements of Subpart C of the Rule. The written program should describe integrated management organization and support systems that fully satisfy the requirements of the Rule. It should clearly convey the framework for the program and describe how the program works. All elements of the safety and health program should be included in, or explicitly referenced by, the written program. The Rule at 851.10(b) states: The written worker safety and health program must describe how the contractor complies with the:…. requirements of Subpart C. This description should be a high level description of the program that gives the overall structure of the program and identifies the lower tiered and complimentary policies, programs, and procedures that, combined with the high level description, constitute the full program. Attachments 1 and 2 to this Guide are two different examples (Examples A and B) of worker safety and health programs that are compliant with the Rule. All contractors and subcontractors at any tier are covered under the Rule’s definition of contractor and therefore must be included in some fashion in an approved written worker safety and health program. The components of the written program addressing subcontractors and small DOE contractors may be tailored to the hazards and complexity of the work and the capabilities of the subcontractor or small DOE contractor. 3.2.2.1. Methods of Complying

Contractors, including small direct DOE contractors, can use a variety of generic contract provisions tailored to the work, type and level of hazard, and capabilities, of their organization or their subcontractor’s organization to provide a compliant worker safety and health program for workers while minimizing administrative burdens. 3.2.2.1.1. Subcontractors Prime contractors will find that including the subcontractor’s safety and health program directly in the prime’s WSHP, or including it as a separate component embedded in the prime’s WSHP, is an effective approach to ensuring that the worker safety and health program for subcontractor workers is compatible with the prime’s WSHP and is approved by DOE. The Rule does not prohibit prime contractors from allowing subcontractors to submit their own WSHP to DOE for approval but this approach could result in potential discrepancies between the prime contractor’s and the subcontractor’s WSHPs and 20 DOE G 440.1-8 12-27-06 potential confusion over DOE expectations since DOE holds the prime contractor responsible for the subcontractor’s performance. A subcontractor can be included directly in the prime contractor’s WSHP, the prime contractor can require the subcontractor to prepare and submit a separate WSHP that the prime contractor approves and includes in its submission to DOE, and the prime contractor can develop templates of generic WSHPs tailored for different types of narrow-scope work that are pre-approved by DOE and require subcontractors to accept the relevant generic WSHPs. For example, a prime contractor may have a generic safety and health program that is placed in all subcontracts for specialized radiation contamination surveys that is a component of the prime contractor’s DOE-approved WSHP. Each subcontract that contains this provision would not need additional DOE approval. Prime contractor approval of subcontractors’ WSHPs signifies that the prime contractor is satisfied that all relevant Rule requirements are met but does not constitute the DOE approval required by the Rule. Only DOE can approve a prime contractor’s or subcontractor’s WSHP. Embedding in some fashion the WSHP that applies to subcontractors in the prime contractor’s WSHP allows a DOE-approved WSHP to cover both the prime contractor and subcontractors. Subcontractors must assure that their WSHP is approved by DOE either as part of the prime’s approved WSHP or as a separate WSHP. Subcontractors may be subject to enforcement action [851.5] for failure to comply with 851.11(b)(1) Beginning May 25, 2007, no work may be performed at a covered workplace unless an approved worker safety and health program is in place for the workplace.

Although subcontractors at any tier are responsible for compliance with the requirements of this Rule, it is important that prime contractors include provisions in their subcontract documents to ensure that subcontractors comply with the standards in 851.23 and functional areas in Appendix A as well as other requirements that may be needed to protect workers but were not included in the requirements that flowed down from the prime contractor. Title 48 CFR 970.5223-1 at (h) states that regardless of the performer of the work, the prime contractor is responsible for compliance with the environment, safety and health requirements applicable to the contract. (Prime contractors are not responsible for other prime contractors’, or other prime contractors’ subcontractors’, compliance with the Rule.) Under this procurement regulation requirement, the prime contractor is responsible for flowing down the worker safety and health requirements applicable to the contract to subcontracts at any tier to the extent necessary to ensure the prime contractor’s compliance with the requirements. Prime contractors must determine which program requirements should flow down into contracts with their subcontractors and incorporate appropriate requirements. The prime contractor’s WSHP should describe the approach and process used to flow down its relevant WSHP requirements to subcontractors. All requirements in the Rule must be met, regardless of whether the prime contractor or the subcontractor performs the actual worker protection activity. For example, a prime contractor may provide exposure monitoring and medical surveillance 21 DOE G 440.1-8 12-27-06 for the subcontractor, or the prime contractor may require the subcontractor to conduct its own exposure monitoring and medical surveillance. The Rule states that “The written worker safety and health program must describe how the contractor complies with the requirements set forth in Subpart C of this part that are applicable to the hazards associated with the contractor’s scope of work” [10 CFR 851.10(b)(1)]. Subcontractor’s work is within the prime contractor’s scope of work. Therefore, the prime contractor must inform the subcontractor of the hazards associated with the subcontractor’s scope of work so that the subcontractor is able to provide or adopt a compliant WSHP. The prime contractor also must describe in its WSHP how the subcontractor’s WSHP meets the requirement of the Rule. DOE looks to the prime contractor for ensuring compliance by its subcontractors at the site. If the subcontractor will work to its own WSHP, the prime contractor must review the subcontractor’s program to verify consistency with the parent WSHP and should inform the subcontractor of the Rule’s requirement for DOE approval of the subcontractor’s WSHP (either as a component of the contractor’s WSHP or as a separate WSHP) and relevant enforcement provisions. DOE prime contractors should note that all subcontractors and suppliers of an indemnified contractor are considered indemnified contractors, and as such may be subject to either civil penalties or contract penalties under the Rule. (As a practical matter, DOE cannot impose civil penalties for suppliers’ failure to comply with the Rule. See paragraph 3.1.3.3.4 Suppliers of this Guide for more information about the applicability of the Rule to suppliers.) DOE will consider the specific circumstances in a given case to determine appropriate enforcement actions in cases involving contractors and their subcontractors.

3.2.2.1.2. Small DOE Contractors A small DOE contractor can submit its own WSHP to DOE for approval. DOE elements may find it useful to have templates of generic WSHPs tailored for different types of narrow-scope work and have small DOE contractors accept the relevant generic WSHPs as a condition of their contract. Another option for small DOE contractors is for the contractor to submit to DOE for approval a WSHP that is modeled on the relevant components of the DOE field office’s Federal Employee Occupational Safety and Health Program (FEOSH). In this approach, the small DOE contractor would manage its own WSHP that has components that were “cut and pasted” from the DOE FEOSH Program. 3.2.2.2. WSHP Coordination [10 CFR 851.11(a)(2)(ii)] All contractors and subcontractors must coordinate to ensure clear roles, responsibilities and procedures to achieve an integrated approach to ensuring the safety and heath of the worker consistent with 10 CFR 851.11(a)(2)(ii). When multiple contractors, subcontractors, and federal organizations are working on the same DOE site, resolving safety and health issues between the organizations can be confusing. For this reason, clear statements of roles and responsibilities with respect to compliance with worker safety and health program requirements, and mechanisms for resolution of these issues 22 DOE G 440.1-8 12-27-06 should be clearly defined. Good lines of communication between the affected parties are essential and should be included in agreements between the parties. The nature and extent of the organizational relationships vary from situation to situation. The need for a firmly established agreement between affected parties regarding worker safety and health program requirements is essential. Cognizant Secretarial Officers (CSO) and heads of DOE field elements should evaluate the need for and, where necessary, support the development of formal written agreements between organizations on their sites. Such agreements would outline the respective roles, responsibilities, and authorities of each contractor or organization as they relate to compliance with all components of the worker safety and health program and the resolution of cross-cutting worker protection related issues. Coordination agreements need not be highly detailed as long as roles, responsibilities and procedures are sufficiently addressed to assure that the Rule consistently is implemented. Some common written instruments used at DOE facilities to document and communicate agreements between multiple organizations are the contract, the lease agreement (for tenant organizations), the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA), and the Intraservice Support Agreement (ISA). Authorization Agreements used at high hazard nuclear facilities may also provide a vehicle for clarifying worker safety and health roles and responsibilities. These and other documents are usually prepared to identify roles and responsibilities of respective parties in these shared situations. The roles, responsibilities, and procedures contained in these agreements should be clearly addressed in the written worker safety and health program to ensure that they are adequately communicated throughout the site.

DOE contractor workers sometimes work at other sites operated by other DOE contractors. The WSHP of the contractor that employs the guest worker is applicable to that worker and that contractor should coordinate with the host contractor to ensure that the relevant provisions of both contractors’ WSHPs are consistent for the guest worker’s activities. In addition, the host should require that its WSHP be complied with by guest workers. It is reasonable to expect a high level of consistency between DOE contractor’s WSHPs so simply having the guest worker comply with the host’s WSHP should satisfy the Rule’s requirements for most activities. 3.2.2.3. WSHP Integration [851.11(a)(3)(ii)] The worker safety and health program must integrate the Rule’s requirements with other site worker protection activities and the integrated safety management system (ISMS) [851.11(a)(3)(ii)]. Coordination should be established, maintained, and documented among worker safety and health technical disciplines and other safety and health organizations (e.g., radiation control) at a site to ensure successful implementation of the worker safety and health program. Examples A and B at the end of this Guide provide two different approaches that may be used in describing a worker safety and health program that is compliant with the Rule and consistent with the DOE integrated safety management system structure. Additional information concerning DOE expectations for integrating safety management can be found in Department of Energy Acquisition Regulations (DEAR) clause 48 CFR 970.5223-1, Integration of Environment, Safety and 23 DOE G 440.1-8 12-27-06 Health into Work Planning and Execution (available by searching on http://professionals.pr.doe.gov/ma5/MA­ 5Web.nsf/Procurement/Acquisition+Regulation?OpenDocument), which states at (c) the contractor shall manage and perform work in accordance with a documented Safety Management System (System). The written program also must address and integrate into the worker safety and health program the applicable requirements contained in the worker safety and health functional areas in Appendix A to the Rule (construction safety, fire protection, explosives safety, pressure safety, fire arms safety, industrial hygiene, biological safety, occupational medicine, motor vehicle safety, electrical safety, nanotechnology safety, workplace violence). See paragraph 3.6 of this Guide for more guidance on these functional area program requirements. The contractor should explain the relationship of other documentation that is not directly part of its worker safety and health program but is relevant for integration of the program (e.g., policy, objectives, and operating procedures) and interfaces with other functions (e.g., finance, maintenance, and security). 3.2.2.4. DOE Evaluation and Approval [851.11(b)] Part 851.11(b) provides DOE evaluation and approval procedures including identifying the reviewing and approval authority, the timeline for the approval process and activities and procedures following approval or lack of approval of the program. Transition periods between contractors must be covered by a DOE-approved WSHP. Part 851.11(b)(1) indicates that, “beginning May 25, 2006, no work may be performed at a covered workplace unless an approved worker safety and health program is in place for the workplace.” Possible approaches to addressing this requirement are including a WSHP in the new contract that DOE approves when it awards the contract or including a provision in the new contract that adopts the former contractor’s approved WSHP. Other approaches that meet the 851.11(b)(1) should be acceptable.

3.2.2.5. Program Updates [851.11(c)] Contractors must submit an update to their program to the head of the DOE field element for approval whenever a significant change or addition to the program is made [851.11(c)]. In determining whether a change is significant and an update is warranted, contractors should consider whether the change is needed to ensure the program accurately reflects actual workplace activities and related hazards and controls and approved major program roles and responsibilities. A change should be submitted to DOE if a hazard associated with a change in the worksite or processes, or any newly recognized hazards, is not effectively controlled by the measures in the currently approved worker safety and health program. Examples may include: 1) a new contractor is awarded a contract; 2) a contractor accepts a new scope for a new toxic, reactive, flammable, or explosive chemical which was not addressed in the approved worker safety and health program; 3) the toxicity or explosive hazard, such as chemical storage, has increased where there is a credible accident scenario that would impact the co-located workers or off-site public; or 4) a site not currently using explosives begins a project http://professionals.pr.doe.gov/ma5/MA-5Web.nsf/Procurement/Acquisition+Regulation?OpenDocument http://professionals.pr.doe.gov/ma5/MA-5Web.nsf/Procurement/Acquisition+Regulation?OpenDocument 24 DOE G 440.1-8 12-27-06 involving explosives. Such changes would be considered “significant” and would a require program update and submittal. Changes should not be implemented until approved. The worker safety and health program updates can be embedded in the integrated safety management system program updates as long as the Rule’s update requirements are met. Contractors must submit annually either an updated worker safety and health program for approval or a letter stating that no changes are necessary in the current program [851.11(c)(2)]. The contractor should submit the updated program or letter in advance of the anniversary of the previous approval so that the head of the DOE field element has sufficient time to approve the submittal by the anniversary of the prior approval. 3.2.2.6. Labor Organizations [851.11(d)] For contractors whose workers are represented for collective bargaining by a labor organization, 851.11(d) requires contractors to give the labor organizations timely notice of the development and implementation of the worker safety and health program and bargain concerning implementation of the program consistent with federal labor laws. These requirements are not to be confused with the 851.20(a)(4) requirement that contractors provide mechanisms to involve workers and their elected representatives in the development of the worker safety and health program goals, objectives, and performance measures and in the identification and control of hazards in the workplace. These mechanisms must be included in the contractor’s worker safety and health program but the contractor is not required to involve workers and their elected representatives in the development of the mechanisms unless the mechanisms are subject to bargaining concerning implementation of the Rule. 3.2.3. Implementation (851.12)

This section directs contractors to implement the Rule (851.12) and states that nothing in the Rule precludes a contractor from taking any additional protective action that is determined to be necessary to protect the safety and health of workers. This is consistent with 851.10 (a)(1) of the Rule and DOE O 440.1A, Contractor Requirements Document section 1.A. which states the contractor will…implement a written worker protection program that provides a place of employment free from recognized hazards that are causing or are likely to cause death or serious physical harm to employees. 3.2.4. Compliance [851.13] Contractors must achieve compliance with Subpart C of the Rule and their WSHP by no later than May 25, 2007 or may contractually be required to comply before the Rule’s effective date [851.13]. The Rule states that in the event a contractor has established a written safety and health program, an Integrated Safety Management System (ISMS) description …, or an approved Work Smart Standards (WSS) …, the contractor may use that program, description, or process as the worker safety and health program required by this Part if 25 DOE G 440.1-8 12-27-06 the appropriate head of the DOE field element approves such use on the basis of written documentation provided by the contractor that identifies the specific portions of the program, description, or process, including any additional requirements or implementation methods to be added to the existing program, description, or process, that satisfy the requirements of this part and that provide a workplace as safe and healthful as would be provided by the requirements of this Part [851.13(b). Examples A and B at the end of this Guide provide two different approaches to describing a worker safety and health program that is compliant with the Rule and consistent with the DOE integrated safety management system structure. Table 1 in Example A is one method that can be used to indicate which elements of the ISMS make up the worker safety and health program required by the Rule. Other methods may be acceptable for delineating the ISMS components applicable to, and enforceable under, the Rule. 3.3. Specific Requirements (Subpart C) 3.3.1. Management Responsibilities and Worker Rights and Responsibilities [851.20] 3.3.1.1. Management Responsibilities [851.20(a)] Contractor management is responsible for the safety and health of its workforce. 3.3.1.1.1. Policy, Goals, and Objectives [851.20(a)(1)] The Rule requires contractors to establish written policy, goals, and objectives for the worker safety and health program [851.20(a)(1)]. A contractor’s worker protection policy is the guiding principle or philosophy that provides overall direction for the organization in regard to worker protection. The written policy statement conveys senior management’s commitment and expectations for overall performance. The organization states its commitment to worker protection through a written, clearly communicated policy, which is ultimately its “mission” statement relative to worker protection. The policy places appropriate emphasis on worker protection and should be signed by the highest ranking company official on the site. A concise and clear worker protection policy: • Creates consistency and continuity in safety and health activities; • Provides a point of reference when worker protection conflicts with other company goals; and • Supports supervisors in their enforcement of worker protection rules and safe and healthful work practices.

An example of a worker protection policy might be as follows: 26 DOE G 440.1-8 12-27-06 This organization is committed to providing a safe and healthful workplace for employees. These conditions will be ensured through an aggressive and comprehensive worker safety and health program that is integrated with other site worker protection activities and our integrated safety management system. This organization regards employee protection as a priority and is committed to developing, implementing, and improving safety and health practices that will afford optimal protection to employees and enable continuous improvement of the quality of worker protection performance. The safety and health of employees will take precedence whenever conflicts with production or other objectives arise. An organization’s worker protection policy should flow down into specific goals and objectives, which in turn are reflected in the written program. This should include annual goals used to achieve continuous improvement. The goals and objectives should be measurable for use as indicators of performance. 3.3.1.1.2. Qualified Staff [851.20(a)(2)] The Rule requires contractors to use qualified worker protection staff to direct and manage the worker safety and health program [851.20(a)(2)]. Organizations should seek to hire and retain qualified worker protection professionals needed for the hazards at the site. Examples of these positions are Occupational Safety and Health managers, Safety Engineers, Construction Managers, Industrial Hygienists, Fire Protection Engineers, etc. These individuals may be employed directly, by contract, or as consultants, but they should possess qualifications relative to the particular hazards at the facility. The hiring of certified professionals (e.g., Certified Safety Professionals and Certified Industrial Hygienists) may be appropriate and help to ensure that sufficient numbers of competent staff are in place. Examples of persons that have the specific qualifications to direct and manage worker safety and health programs are available in DOE’s Functional Area Qualification Standards available at http://www.eh.doe.gov/techstds/standard/standard.html. Using a browser’s text searching feature to search for “Qualification Standard” will highlight the available functional area qualification standards. Those technical qualification standards are written for DOE personnel that provide oversight of contractor programs, rather than contractor personnel that implement these programs, but are nonetheless a useful resource for determining a person’s qualifications in a specific safety and health technical area. HS-11 will initiate the development of a technical standard on the qualifications for key worker safety and health contractor staff positions at DOE facilities. 3.3.1.1.3. Accountability [851.20(a)(3)] The Rule requires contractors to assign worker protection responsibilities, evaluate personnel performance, and hold personnel accountable for worker protection performance [851.20(a)(3)]. Managers of sites should clearly communicate roles, responsibilities, and authorities and insist on accountability of workers at all levels. Managers and supervisors should carry http://www.eh.doe.gov/techstds/standard/standard.html 27 DOE G 440.1-8 12-27-06

out their own responsibilities and expect employees to follow safe and healthful work practices. Managers and supervisors held accountable for their worker protection responsibilities are more likely to press for solutions to safety and health problems. Managers are typically accountable for the overall worker safety and health program, including planning and allocating resources for their activities. Supervisors are accountable for ensuring that the worker protection plans, programs, and procedures, including hazard identification and abatement activities, are implemented on a day-to-day basis on the front line. Employee accountability involves following procedures, using safe work practices, and reporting hazards. Holding managers, supervisors, and employees accountable relative to the expectations of their respective positions greatly increases the probability of maintaining safe working conditions. The results of holding people accountable should frequently be communicated and thoroughly documented. The best way to achieve accountability is to include roles, responsibilities, and authorities for worker protection in managers’, supervisors’, and employees’ performance objectives. This can be done by establishing performance goals and objectives for personnel and evaluating the person against those elements periodically. The organization should have a process for measuring each individual’s performance, including worker protection performance. These evaluations should be considered in the individual’s evaluations, ratings, promotions, and bonuses. The safety and health program should include a system for ensuring that employees comply with safe and healthful work practices, which includes provisions for recognition of employees for following safe and healthful work practices, training and retraining programs, disciplinary actions, or any other means to ensure employee compliance with safe and healthful work practices. Top management sets the tone for the work done on site. They should make it known to all employees that worker protection is of vital importance. Moreover, top management commitment to worker protection should be evident in every aspect of site operations. Management can demonstrate their commitment by taking an active role and setting a positive example. They should establish the written worker safety and health program, ensure that it integrates implementation of all provisions of the Rule, and fully support the program. They can also demonstrate commitment through such activities as: • Walking their spaces with workers, supervisors, and worker protection professionals; • Becoming actively involved in worker protection committees; and • Encouraging excellence through recognition programs such as DOE’s Voluntary Protection Program for contractors. The commitment to ensure that all employees understand that the organization regards worker protection as a primary objective is fundamental. Management commitment to worker protection should be evident to the employee and reinforced by genuine efforts to maintain excellence in worker protection. 28 DOE G 440.1-8 12-27-06

3.3.1.1.4. Employee involvement [851.20(a)(4)] The Rule requires the contractor to provide mechanisms to involve workers and their elected representatives in the development of the worker safety and health program goals, objectives, and performance measures and in the identification and control of hazards in the workplace [851.20(a)(4)]. This requirement is not to be confused with the 851.11(d) requirement to give labor organizations timely notice of the development and implementation of the worker safety and health program and bargain concerning implementation of the program consistent with federal labor laws. The mechanisms must be included in the contractor’s worker safety and health program but the contractor is not required to involve workers and their elected representatives in the development of the mechanisms unless the mechanisms are subject to bargaining concerning implementation of the Rule. Employee involvement is an element of many DOE sites’ integrated safety management system and is included in the example worker safety and health programs provided in Examples A and B to this Guide. Employees play a vital role in implementing an aggressive and effective worker safety and health program. Employees are involved in all site operations, have intimate knowledge of potential worker protection hazards, and can contribute as valuable problem solvers. Active and meaningful employee involvement in the worker safety and health program means the workforce is trained to recognize hazards and is involved in correcting them. An indicator of effective employee involvement is enthusiastic employees who understand their role in the program and who are interested in its success. Contractor line organizations should assign and communicate worker protection responsibilities to workers, provide adequate authority and resources to permit them to meet these responsibilities, and hold them accountable for proper performance. Line management should also develop and implement programs to encourage and promote employee involvement and commitment to the worker safety and health program. Contractors should also establish forums for employees to gain an appreciation for the worker safety and health program and to foster communication between management and affected workers. Examples of acceptable and effective mechanisms for employee involvement in safety and health program implementation include, but are not limited to, the following: • Participation on committees and work teams; • Participation in worksite inspections, hazard analysis (especially job hazard analyses (JHAs); see paragraph 3.3.2.1.6 of this Guide), and design control; • Development and review of workplace operating procedures; • Assistance in training; • Conduct of worker protection meetings; and 29 DOE G 440.1-8 12-27-06 • Participation in accident investigations.

Committees. An important component of employee involvement for a worker safety and health program is the establishment of one or more worker protection committees that bring people together in a cooperative effort to promote safety and health at the worksite. Such committees can be used to promote employee involvement in the development of program goals, objectives, and performance measures and in the identification and correction of workplace hazards. Many types of committees exist that address worker protection issues, and no one committee organization fits all occasions and activities. Worker protection functions may be included in the charters of different committees. The charter, decisions, and actions of a worker protection committee should be developed by the committee through negotiations and voting and approved by management. Each worker protection committee should consist of employees and management representatives. In order to assure worker participation, committees should consider having a large proportion of non-managerial members. Note that the organization of any such committee must be consistent with acceptable practices for labor-management relations. The responsibilities of each worker protection committee should be clearly stated in a written charter, and each committee should have clear and specific performance-based goals. These goals should be consistent with the goals and objectives of the worker safety and health program and be responsive to the culture and operations in the worksite. The goals should also be revised as necessary to accommodate changes in operations, technology, and materials and to reflect tasks completed by the committee. Worker protection committees should have access to necessary records (subject to provisions of the Privacy Act), work areas, and personnel to investigate any worker protection concern. Committees should also have access to the training, resources, and technical expertise that will allow them to function effectively. Participation in worksite inspections, hazard analyses, and design control. Employees should be encouraged to perform informal worksite inspections as part of their daily work activities. This includes daily worksite walk-throughs by workers and their supervisors. For work site inspections to be effective, employees should: • Be trained in hazard recognition, analysis, and control; • Have reasonable access to worker protection professionals; • Have access to reference sources (e.g., all applicable worker protection requirements documents, guides, and technical standards); • Be able to suggest abatement methods; and • Be able to track corrective actions. Instructors. Qualified employees make excellent instructors for new employees. Having employees as instructors also enhances worker protection awareness because instructors 30 DOE G 440.1-8 12-27-06 must keep up with requirements to be effective. Employee presentations at meetings are an excellent way for employees to share their experiences and lessons learned.

Accident and incident investigations. Including employees in accident and incident investigations is a worthwhile investment for managers. Worksite employees often can provide valuable insight on actual workplace procedures that could have contributed to an accident and on the effectiveness and practicality of proposed corrective actions. In addition, involvement in accident investigations can increase an employee’s awareness of how workplace hazards can lead to accidents and incidents and, thus, how employees can better protect themselves. One way to involve employees in accident investigations is to establish special-function committees with a specific scope of responsibility and to rotate employee membership on the committee periodically. Selected employees should be trained in accident and incident investigations, be used in the investigations, and be recognized for their contributions. Other avenues for employee involvement. Employee participation activities should ensure employee involvement in the development, review, and revision of worker protection related documents and activities, including: • Performance measures for the worker safety and health program; • Annual goals and objectives; • Job safety analyses; • Operating procedures; • Site inspections and exposure assessments; • Analyses of facilities, processes, materials, and equipment; • Variance requests and hazard abatement plans, along with the development of equivalent, interim, or protective measures for variance requests or abatement plans; and • Participation in the development of worker protection, guides, standards, and procedures (consistent with labor-management agreements). 3.3.1.1.5. Access to Information [851.20(a)(5)] The Rule requires contractors to provide workers with access to information relevant to the worker safety and health program. [851.20(a)(5)]. This information is essential for the success of mechanisms to encourage employee involvement required by 851.20(a)(4) and the exercise of workers’ rights required by 851.20(b)(2). 31 DOE G 440.1-8 12-27-06 3.3.1.1.6. Report Events and Hazards [851.20(a)(6)] The Rule requires contractors to establish procedures for workers to report, without reprisal, job-related fatalities, injuries, illnesses, incidents, and hazards and make recommendations about appropriate ways to control those hazards [851.20(a)(6)]. 3.3.1.1.7. Prompt Response to Reports [851.20(a)(7)] The Rule requires contractors to provide for prompt response to the reports and recommendations made by workers under 851.20(a)(7). The term “prompt” is a subjective term the meaning of which depends on the specific context in which the term is used. The meaning of this term in a situation should be determined by DOE line management starting with the head of the DOE field element and progressing to the Under Secretary depending on the impact of the meaning. DOE line managers should obtain input from safety and health professionals and other relevant subject matter experts in making their determinations. 3.3.1.1.8. Regular Communications [851.20(a)(8)] The Rule requires contractors to provide for regular communication with workers about workplace safety and health matters [851.20(a)(8)]. The contractor should include a system for communicating with employees about matters relating to worker protection, including provisions designed to encourage employees to inform the employer of hazards at the worksite without reprisal. Many of the suggestions in paragraph 3.3.1.1.4 of this Guide are excellent vehicles for regular communications between workers and management on workplace safety and health matters.

3.3.1.1.9. Stop work Authority [851.20(a)(9)] The Rule requires contractors to establish procedures to permit workers to stop work or decline to perform an assigned task because of a reasonable belief that the task poses an imminent risk of death, serious physical harm, or other serious hazard to the workers, in circumstances where the worker believes there is insufficient time to utilize normal hazard reporting and abatement procedures [851.20(a)(9)]. 3.3.1.1.10. Inform Workers of Rights [851.20(a)(10)] The Rule requires contractors to inform workers of their rights and responsibilities by appropriate means, including posting the DOE-designed Worker Protection Poster in the workplace where it is accessible to all workers [851.20(a)(10)]. Training (paragraph 3.3.6 of this Guide) is another vehicle for informing workers of their rights and responsibilities. DOE contractors are expected to post the DOE Worker Protection Poster [10 CFR 851.20(b)(2)(iv)] in a sufficient number of places to permit workers the opportunity to observe the information en route to or from their work place. The poster is available at http://www.eh.doe.gov/health/rule851/851final.html. In addition to the poster, contractors should take other actions to provide relevant information to workers. http://www.eh.doe.gov/health/rule851/851final.html http:3.3.1.1.10 32 DOE G 440.1-8 12-27-06 Other worker protection posting requirements may be applicable to special situations in specific workplaces. For example, OSHA’s confined space standard requires employers to post danger signs or use other equally effective means to inform exposed employees of the existence and location of, and the danger posed by, the confined space. 3.3.1.1.11. Additional Resources. OSHA’s Safety and Health Program Management Guidelines. (FR 54: 3904-3916; 1/26/1989, http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=FEDERAL_REGIS TER&p_id=12909 3.3.1.2. Worker Rights and Responsibilities [851.20(b)] The Rule requires workers to comply with the safety and health standards and directives in the Rule that are applicable to their own actions and conduct [851.20(b)]. It encourages workers to be active participants in their workplace safety and health activities. Workers should also actively take advantage of the worker rights established under the Rule in 851.20(b) in a responsible manner. The Rule provides workers with the rights, without reprisal, described below. Workers should be free of any form of job discrimination because of exercising these rights. 3.3.1.2.1. Participate on Official Time [851.20(b)(1)] Workers have the right to participate in activities described in the Rule on official time. 3.3.1.2.2. Access to Information [851.20(b)(2)] The Rule provides workers with the right to have access to— • DOE safety and health publications [851.20(b)(2)(i)]; • The worker safety and health program for the covered workplace [851.20(b)(2)(ii)]; • The standards, controls, and procedures applicable to the covered workplace [851.20(b)(2)(iii)]. This includes a worker’s right to request information about safety and health hazards in the workplace, precautions that may be taken, and procedures to be followed if the worker is involved in an accident or is exposed to toxic substances; • The safety and health poster that informs the worker of relevant rights and responsibilities [851.20(b)(2)(iv)]. As noted in paragraph 3.3.1.1.10 of this Guide, workers have rights to access additional posted information in special situations in specific workplaces.;

http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=FEDERAL_REGISTER&p_id=12909 http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=FEDERAL_REGISTER&p_id=12909 http:3.3.1.1.11 33 DOE G 440.1-8 12-27-06 • Limited information on any recordkeeping log (OSHA Form 300). Access is subject to Freedom of Information Act requirements and restrictions [851.20(b)(2)(v)]; and • The DOE Form 5484.3 (the DOE equivalent to OSHA Form 301) that contains the employee’s name as the injured or ill worker [851.20(b)(2)(vi)]. 3.3.1.2.3. Notification of Monitoring Results [851.20(b)(3)] A worker must be notified when monitoring results indicate the worker was overexposed to hazardous materials [851.20(b)(3)]. Many of the OSHA substance-specific health standards in 29 CFR 1910, Subpart Z – Toxic and Hazardous Substances (mandated under 851.23(a)), also specifically require that this notification include all workers for whom the results are representative (e.g., 29 CFR Sub-parts 1910.1018, 1910.1025, 1910.1044, 1910.1045 and 1910.95). Where not specifically required, however, contractors should still ensure that all workers covered under representative monitoring are notified when monitoring results indicate that they may have been overexposed to hazards. Furthermore, contractors should also notify workers of results of monitoring for hazardous materials even if no overexposure was detected. In this way, workers are informed and fully aware of ongoing workplace conditions and can observe trends in exposure monitoring results. Unless otherwise specified in a standard under 851.23(a), notification of monitoring results should include the following: • Notification to the affected workers of the results, in writing, within 10 working days after receipt of the results; • Notification should be made personally to the affected worker or posted in a location that is readily accessible to the affected worker, but in a manner that does not identify the individual to other workers; and • A description and explanation of the results with and without any respiratory protection that the worker used during the monitoring. If the monitoring results indicate that a worker’s exposure was at or above an occupational exposure limit (or action level for those hazardous materials with action levels), the contractor should: • Include in the notice a statement that the occupational exposure limit or action level has been met or exceeded; • Include in the notice a description of the corrective action being taken by the contractor to reduce the worker’s exposure; • Notify DOE and the medical services provider of these results; and 34 DOE G 440.1-8 12-27-06 • Report exposures that exceed an occupational exposure limit in a manner consistent with DOE O 231.1A Environment, Safety and Health Reporting using procedures in DOE M 231.1-1A Environment, Safety and Health Reporting Manual. Both are available by searching at http://www.directives.doe.gov/. 3.3.1.2.4. Observe Monitoring. [851.20(b)(4)] Workers have the right to observe monitoring or measuring of hazardous agents and have the results of their own exposure monitoring. This usually involves allowing an affected worker or authorized representative of workers to observe the actual monitoring and providing copies of the individual results in person or by some form of personal mail to the specific workers that were monitored. Contractors should consider making available to affected workers as a group the results of monitoring without identifying the specific workers monitored. This practice protects individuals’ privacy and helps to motivate the work group to minimize exposures.

3.3.1.2.5. Accompany Inspections [851.20(b)(5)] The Rule provides that a representative authorized by employees may accompany the Director (DOE official to whom the Secretary assigns the authority to investigate the nature and extent of compliance with the Rule [851.3]) or his authorized personnel during the physical inspection of the workplace to aid in the inspection. When no authorized employee representative is available, the Director or his authorized representative must consult, as appropriate, with employees on matters of worker safety and health [851.20(b)(5)]. One or more employee representatives should be provided the opportunity to participate in briefings and in the walk-around phase of DOE-conducted enforcement inspections. Note that employee participation also may have to be consistent with binding labor-management agreements that are outside the scope of the Rule. As noted in paragraph 3.3.1.2 of this Guide, DOE expects that workers will exercise these rights in a responsible manner. 3.3.1.2.6. Results of Inspections and Investigations [851.20(b)(6)] Workers have the right to request and receive results of inspections and accident investigations [851.20(b)(6)]. In areas where noncompliance with a DOE-prescribed worker protection requirement is identified during an enforcement inspection, information about the noncompliance must be conveyed to worksite employees. This can be achieved in a number of ways but at a minimum, must include posting of the notice of violation in such areas until the noncompliance is corrected [851.42(e)]. 3.3.1.2.7. Express Concerns [851.20(b)(7)] Workers have the right to express concerns related to worker safety and health without reprisal [851.20(b)(7)]. In addition to relying on enforcement of the Rule, workers that believe they are being denied the rights provided by 851.20(b) or are being subjected to reprisals for attempting http://www.directives.doe.gov/ 35 DOE G 440.1-8 12-27-06 to exercise those rights, may file an employee concern using DOE O 442.1A Department of Energy Employee Concerns Program. (See also 10 CFR Part 708, DOE contractor Employee Protection Plan, for protection of contractor employees from retaliation for disclosure of information concerning danger to public or worker health and safety, among other things). That program requires that employees be encouraged to seek to resolve concerns with their first-line supervisors or use established concern or complaint resolution systems at the site. If these systems are unknown or unavailable, or have not dealt, or cannot deal effectively with a concern, employee concerns program personnel (first local, then Headquarters) can assist concerned employees in determining which processes could be used to evaluate and resolve their concerns. More information is available in G 442.1-1 Department of Energy Employee Concerns Program Guide and at http://your.energy.gov/genempcon.html. 3.3.1.2.8. Decline to Perform in Imminent Risk [851.20(b)(8)] Workers have the right to refuse to perform an assigned task when faced with a reasonable belief that, under the circumstances, the task poses an imminent risk of death or serious physical harm coupled with a reasonable belief that there is insufficient time to use normal procedures to report and abate the hazard [851.20(b)(8)]. 3.3.1.2.9. Stop Work [851.20(b)(9)] Workers may stop work when they discover employee exposures to imminently dangerous conditions or other serious hazards provided that the stop work is exercised in a justifiable and responsible manner consistent with procedures in the safety and health program [851.20(b)(9)].

Any stop work authority should be exercised in a justifiable and responsible manner. All workers, supervisors, managers, and OSH professionals are responsible for being cognizant of the conditions in their workplaces and for being prepared to stop work when these conditions pose an imminent danger of death or serious physical harm. When a “reasonable person” views the circumstances as imminent danger of death or serious physical harm, a stop work order should be issued. The term “reasonable person” is a subjective term the meaning of which depends on the specific context in which the term is used. Whenever workers see a need for a stop work order, they should request one from their supervisors. Before a stop work order is issued, the person issuing it should ensure that the work stoppage itself would not negatively impact the safety and health of workers. Contractors should have procedures in place that address stop work authority, and workers should be trained to those procedures. 3.3.1.2.10. Additional Resources OSHA standards that address informing workers of hazards include, among others, Hazard Communication (29 CFR 1910.1200), Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response (29 CFR 1910.120), Permit-required Confined Spaces http://your.energy.gov/genempcon.html http:3.3.1.2.10 36 DOE G 440.1-8 12-27-06 (29 CFR 1910.146), Blood-borne Pathogens (29 CFR 1910.1030), and the specific Toxic and Hazardous Substance regulations in 29 CFR 1910, Subpart Z. Title 10 CFR 708 describes how contractor employee representatives are protected from acts of discharge, discipline, or other acts of retaliation that result from disclosure of information concerning danger to the public or worker health and safety; refusal to participate in dangerous activities and other specified protected activities. http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=c2a77424cbb1eea7b3975cf9220 84d7a&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title10/10cfr708_main_02.tpl Another guidance document is OSHA’s Safety and Health Program Management Guidelines, http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=FEDERAL_REGIS TER&p_id=12909 3.3.2. Hazard Identification and Assessment [851.21] 3.3.2.1. Identify and Assess Risks [851.21(a)] The Rule requires DOE contractors establish procedures to to identify existing and potential workplace hazards and assess the risk of associated worker injury or illness [851.21(a)]. 3.3.2.1.1. Assess Workers Exposures [851.21(a)(1)] The Rule requires assessment of worker exposure to chemical, physical, biological, and safety workplace hazards through appropriate monitoring [851.21(a)(1)]. For health hazard exposures, this assessment should entail appropriate: • Workplace monitoring (including personal, area, wipe, and bulk sampling; and measuring non-ionizing radiation, noise, vibration, heat and cold extremes, and ergonomic stressors); • Biological monitoring; • Observation; and • Projections of potential exposures based on modeling or product and industry literature searches. Guidance on appropriate workplace monitoring strategies is provided in: • DOE G 440.1-3, Occupational Exposure Assessment, (http://www.directives.doe.gov/cgi-bin/explcgi?4??+%3Cin%3E+series;maxdocs =300;APP=onixdoe;collection=neword,newguide,newmanual,newpolicy,newnoti ce;UP=current.html;INTERFACE=1WINDOW), and

http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=c2a77424cbb1eea7b3975cf922084d7a&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title10/10cfr708_main_02.tpl http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=c2a77424cbb1eea7b3975cf922084d7a&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title10/10cfr708_main_02.tpl http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=FEDERAL_REGISTER&p_id=12909 http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=FEDERAL_REGISTER&p_id=12909 http://www.directives.doe.gov/cgi-bin/explcgi?4??+%3Cin%3E+series;maxdocs=300;APP=onixdoe;collection=neword,newguide,newmanual,newpolicy,newnotice;UP=current.html;INTERFACE=1WINDOW http://www.directives.doe.gov/cgi-bin/explcgi?4??+%3Cin%3E+series;maxdocs=300;APP=onixdoe;collection=neword,newguide,newmanual,newpolicy,newnotice;UP=current.html;INTERFACE=1WINDOW http://www.directives.doe.gov/cgi-bin/explcgi?4??+%3Cin%3E+series;maxdocs=300;APP=onixdoe;collection=neword,newguide,newmanual,newpolicy,newnotice;UP=current.html;INTERFACE=1WINDOW 37 DOE G 440.1-8 12-27-06 • Mulhausen, JR and Damiano, J, A Strategy for Assessing and Managing Occupational Exposures, Second Edition, AIHA Press, Fairfax, VA, 1998. (Available at http://www.aiha.org/webapps/commerce/product.aspx?id=AEAK06-327&cat=Bo oks&subcat=) Guidance on workplace monitoring methods is provided in: • National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods (NMAM), http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/nmam/, and • OSHA Technical Manual, TED 01-00-015 [TED 1-0.15A], http://www.osha.gov/dts/osta/otm/otm_toc.html For exposure to safety hazards, see paragraph 3.3.2.1.5 of this Guide. 3.3.2.1.2. Document Hazard Assessment [851.21(a)(2)] Contractors are required to document assessments for chemical, physical, biological, and safety hazards using recognized exposure assessment and testing methods and accredited and certified laboratories [851.21(a)(2)]. Many DOE guides and technical standards provide specific guidance on the hazard assessment information that should be documented for their respective subject areas. For examples, DOE-STD-6005-01 Industrial Hygiene Practices, section 5.4 Exposure Assessment Documentation provides detailed guidance on the information that should be documented for health hazard exposure assessments. Hazard assessments, the outcome of which determined that the risks were negligible, should also be documented using a graded approach, e.g., a contractor may determine that it is unnecessary to document results of frequent, informal walk-throughs of workspace where no hazards were identified. 3.3.2.1.3. Record Results [851.21(a)(3)] The contractor must record observations, testing and monitoring results [851.21(a)(3)]. Samples should be analyzed by a laboratory that is a successful participant in American Industrial Hygiene Association accreditation or proficiency testing programs, or equivalent laboratory quality assurance programs, for the hazards of concern. DOE’s beryllium rule at 10 CFR 850.24(f) requires samples used for purposes of that rule be analyzed by a laboratory accredited by the American Industrial Hygiene Association (AIHA) or one that demonstrates equivalent quality assurance. One example of an equivalent laboratory quality assurance program is the International Organization for Standardization/International Electrotechnical Commission (ISO/IEC) 17025:2005 General requirements for the competence of testing and calibration laboratories. Other equivalent laboratory quality assurance programs also should be acceptable. Formats for accrediting or certifying the quality of analytic results can be different for results

http://www.aiha.org/webapps/commerce/product.aspx?id=AEAK06-327&cat=Books&subcat= http://www.aiha.org/webapps/commerce/product.aspx?id=AEAK06-327&cat=Books&subcat= http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/nmam/ http://www.osha.gov/dts/osta/otm/otm_toc.html 38 DOE G 440.1-8 12-27-06 obtained in the field rather than in a fixed laboratory as long as fundamental analytic quality assurance principles are observed. The head of the DOE field element determines the acceptability of analytic quality assurance programs. Monitoring results should be recorded with documentation that describes the tasks and locations where monitoring occurred and identifies: • Workers monitored or represented by the monitoring; • Sampling methods and durations; • Control measures in place during monitoring (including use of personal protective equipment); • Job task and location; and • Any other factors that may have affected sampling results. The results of evaluations of workplace exposures and controls and the results of medical surveillance and epidemiology studies provide management with essential feedback for improvement. Management uses this information to upgrade current workplace controls and select controls for future operations. Additionally, this information is used to monitor the workforce for signs or symptoms of occupational disease, to prevent future disease cases, and to base workers’ compensation decisions. Quality assurance records for exposure assessment activities should be maintained and retrievable for the monitoring equipment and analytic methods used. Records including hazard assessment and analysis documents, survey results, essential information gained through interviews, or whatever data is important to characterize the process and workplace safety and health hazards should be recorded, maintained, and retrievable in accordance with the contractor’s Quality Assurance Program Plan consistent with DOE O 414.1 Quality Assurance. 3.3.2.1.4. Analyze Designs for Potential Hazards [851.21(a)(4)] The contractor must analyze designs of new facilities and modifications for potential workplace hazards [851.21(a)(4)]. Incorporating worker protection features and requirements in the design and construction of facilities and equipment is the most cost-effective way to control hazards. Design reviews should include input from a team of engineers, operations managers and employees, and appropriate worker protection professionals. This should be initiated at the earliest design phase and continue throughout the design process to ensure that potential hazards are identified, evaluated, and, to the extent feasible, eliminated or controlled through design features. The formality of the design review for worker safety and health should be tailored to the scope and complexity of the project. DOE O 413.3A Program and Project Management for the Acquisition of Capital Assets provides a formal process that should be followed for significant projects as described directly below. Less formal processes that 39 DOE G 440.1-8 12-27-06 nonetheless follow the same basic principles are discussed following the discussion of DOE O 413.3A.

Guidance for formal analysis of designs for potential workplace hazards is available in DOE O 413.3A Program and Project Management for the Acquisition of Capital Assets. DOE O 413.3A is not a regulatory requirement but it directs DOE officials to include it in DOE contracts that contain the Contractor Requirements Document in contracts making contractors responsible for project execution at DOE-owned or -leased facilities. This Order provides project management direction requirements for the acquisition of capital assets projects having a total project cost or environmental management total project cost for clean-up projects greater than or equal to $20 million for all capital asset, sets forth principles that apply to all projects with a total project cost or environmental management total project cost greater than or equal to $5 million, and sets forth project assessment and reporting system reporting requirements that apply to all projects with a total project cost or environmental management total project cost greater than or equal to $5 million. It contains specific design analysis and review principles, procedures, and approval authorities that are appropriate for large scale projects. Worker protection professionals should be assigned to review and provide input in all four phases of project design: conceptual design, preliminary design, final design, and inspection. Review during the conceptual design phase, the earliest phase of the project, is critical. Hazard analysis methodologies can be applied to facilities, processes, equipment, and operations (including decontamination and decommissioning (D&D)] throughout their life cycle. Methodologies include: • Preliminary hazard analysis (PHA); • Health hazard analysis; • Facility hazard analysis; • Process hazard analysis; and • Safety review. Preliminary hazard analysis has a specific meaning in DOE O 413.3A and DOE-STD­ 1189-2006 (under development) which provides implementation guidance for nuclear facilities safety requirements for facilities rated at certain hazard categories. Preliminary hazard analysis also has a more general meaning when used for non-nuclear worker safety and health hazard analysis. The various uses of this term all follow the same basic principles and are therefore compatible. Preliminary hazard analyses (PHA) provide a broad hazard screening tool that includes a review of the types of operations that will be performed in the proposed facility and identifies the hazards associated with these types of operations and facilities. The results of the PHA are used to determine the need for additional, more detailed analysis, serve as a precursor documenting that further analysis is deemed necessary, and serve as a baseline hazard analysis where further analysis is not indicated. The PHA is most applicable in the conceptual design stage, but it is also useful 40 DOE G 440.1-8 12-27-06 for existing facilities and equipment that have not had an adequate baseline hazard analysis. PHAs are detailed studies to identify and analyze potential hazards associated with each aspect of the facility and related equipment and operations. The analysis should include a systematic review of each facility component and task and should consider: • Facility design characteristics such as electrical installations, platform heights, egress concerns, etc.; • Proposed equipment including types of equipment, location of equipment relative to the other operations and workers, required equipment interfaces, etc.;

• Proposed operations including related hazardous substances and potential exposures, potential energy sources, locations of operations and required interfaces, resulting material and personnel traffic patterns, etc.; and • Facility and equipment maintenance requirements including confined space concerns, electrical hazards, and inadvertent equipment startup or operations hazards. PHAs may identify the need for other more specialized hazard analyses such as exposure hazard analyses (see Mulhausen, JR and Damiano, J, A Strategy for Assessing and Managing Occupational Exposures, Second Edition, AIHA Press, Fairfax, VA, 1998, available at http://www.aiha.org/webapps/commerce/product.aspx?id=AEAK06-327&cat=Books&su bcat= and process hazard analyses (see 29 CFR 1910.119). The following techniques are available to assist in the performance of a general type (rather than the formal type referred to in DOE O 413.3A) of PHA: Safety review is a technique to provide a detailed evaluation of facility operations or processes. It is used to identify hazards associated with conditions, practices, maintenance, and other pertinent aspects of the facility or process. Change analysis is performed to ensure that proposed design or operational changes do not adversely affect the safety of the facility. The analysis identifies differences between the existing and the proposed design or operational change, identifies how the change will affect related features, and evaluates the effects of the differences and relationships on the overall safety of the facility. Change analysis can be used during the design, modification, construction, or renovation phase of the facility to address proposed changes. Energy trace and barrier analysis (ETBA) identifies potential energy sources, traces those sources to a potential hazard, and determines if the proper barriers to the hazard (i.e., controls) are in place. The ETBA provides an effective tool to identify potential hazards for the PHA. http://www.aiha.org/webapps/commerce/product.aspx?id=AEAK06-327&cat=Books&subcat= http://www.aiha.org/webapps/commerce/product.aspx?id=AEAK06-327&cat=Books&subcat= 41 DOE G 440.1-8 12-27-06 Failure modes and effects analysis (FMEA) is a critical review of the system (facility and operations), coupled with a systematic examination of all conceivable failures and an evaluation of the effects of these failures on the mission capability of the system. The FMEA can help avoid costly facility modifications and should be initiated early in the design phase. Once performed, the FMEA provides valuable information if updated throughout the design process. Fault tree analysis (FTA) is a logic tree used to evaluate a specific undesired event. The FTA is developed through deductive logic from an undesired event to all sub-events that must occur to cause the undesired event. The FTA can be applied at any point in the life of a facility. The FTA can be used to support the PHA during facility design. 3.3.2.1.5. Evaluate Operations, Procedures, and Facilities [851.21(a)(5)] The contractor is required to evaluate operations, procedures, and facilities to identify hazards [851.21(a)(5)]. Ongoing hazard identification is accomplished most effectively by workers and their supervisors during the course of daily activities, with technical assistance from worker protection professionals and functional area technical experts, as necessary.

Daily workplace evaluations by workers and supervisors include such things as inspections of tools and equipment, ranging from inspection of manual tools and power tools, forklifts, cranes, slings, and warning systems to inspection of respiratory protective equipment and other personal protective equipment prior to and during use. In addition, workplace conditions, housekeeping, utilization of assigned personal protective equipment, and conformance with procedures, work permits, health and safety plans, and other established criteria should be evaluated. Workers and supervisors should consult with worker protection professionals as necessary to address questions regarding regulatory requirements and compliance or where specific technical expertise is needed. In addition, daily worker and supervisor evaluations should be supplemented by worker protection professional evaluations of the workplace. These routine evaluations should include both informal unscheduled walk-through evaluations conducted during worksite visits and formal, scheduled periodic workplace evaluations. An initial hazard evaluation should be conducted to identify hazards and establish a baseline for future evaluations. The initial evaluation could consist of a comprehensive “wall-to-wall” evaluation, a compilation of results of evaluations that pre-date the Rule and are still valid, or a combination of both. Regularly scheduled evaluations should be conducted at all workplaces, including permanently housed construction workplaces, using a graded approach to set the frequency. For example, office buildings and other low hazard workplaces may be evaluated every three years; shops, laboratories, and warehouses every two years, and high hazard workplaces annually. Fire safety inspections should be conducted on a frequency agreed to by the fire protection Authority Having Jurisdiction (AHJ). (See paragraph 3.3.4.1 of this Guide for more information about AHJ). Evaluations should then be conducted as often as necessary to ensure 42 DOE G 440.1-8 12-27-06 compliance with the Rule (851.21(c), see 3.3.2.3 in this Guide). The evaluations are conducted to identify and document existing and potentially hazardous work conditions and practices that do not comply with worker protection requirements or may otherwise pose hazards to the safety or health of workers. Evaluations should be performed by worker protection professionals with the participation of affected employees and supervisors. An effective approach to accomplishing such an evaluation is to use a team comprised of affected employees and supervisors, as well as the worker protection professionals necessary to evaluate specific workplace hazards. Worker protection professionals required on the team may include: • Safety professionals; • Industrial hygienists; • Occupational medical professionals; • Workers and supervisors; and • Other worker protection professionals, as appropriate for the nature of the workplace and the hazards associated with the activities. Alternatively, the team could include safety and health professionals that are cross-trained in the disciplines applicable to the workplace being evaluated. These cross-trained professionals would consult with functional area experts as needed. The evaluation team should use worker protection hazard abatement information, information from the employee concerns program, results of baseline and previous inspections, and injury and illness data, among others, as tools for determining their strategy for such evaluations.

Other formal methods for the evaluation of specific types of hazards in the work place are available such as the fire hazards analyses and facility related fire safety assessments found in DOE G 440.1-5 (also referred to as G 420.1/B-0 and DOE G 440.1/E-0), Implementation Guide for use with DOE O 420.1 and DOE O 440.1 Fire Safety Program (under revision as DOE G 420.1-3). Detailed information on the selection and use of various hazard analysis methodologies and techniques for chemical hazards is available in the American Institute of Chemical Engineers’ Guidelines for Hazard Evaluation Procedures, second edition, 1992, http://www.aiche.org/apps/pubcat/seadtl.asp?ACT=S&Title=ON&srchText=Guidelines+ for+Hazard+Evaluation+Procedures. 3.3.2.1.6. Job Activity-Level Hazard Analysis [851.21(a)(6)] Contractors must perform routine job activity-level hazard analyses [851.21(a)(6)]. Operations and procedures at the activity level should be analyzed and reviewed to identify potential worker protection hazards and deficiencies. A job hazard analysis http://www.aiche.org/apps/pubcat/seadtl.asp?ACT=S&Title=ON&srchText=Guidelines+for+Hazard+Evaluation+Procedures http://www.aiche.org/apps/pubcat/seadtl.asp?ACT=S&Title=ON&srchText=Guidelines+for+Hazard+Evaluation+Procedures 43 DOE G 440.1-8 12-27-06 (JHA), AKA a job safety analysis (JSA), is the most basic and widely used tool to identify hazards associated with jobs at the activity level. JHAs can satisfy a large portion of the worker protection hazard identification requirements at most workplaces. A JSA is useful for dynamic work environments like equipment repair as well as relatively stable environments such as operating a chemical process. JHAs should be conducted: • For existing operations and procedures that have not been adequately evaluated in the past or when there is no current hazard analysis available; • In response to employee identified potential hazards; and • For existing operations and procedures that have resulted in injuries, illnesses, or near misses. JHAs should be updated periodically to ensure that any new hazards that have been introduced since the last evaluation of the activity are addressed. The principle elements of a job safety analysis are: • Selection of operations and procedures to be analyzed; • Breakdown of operations and procedures to their component tasks; • Identification of hazards associated with each task and the controls necessary to protect workers against those hazards; • Identification and addressing of potential hazards to bystanders and identification of related controls; and • Development of procedures incorporating identified controls. Affected employees and supervisors should participate in the JHA process. Their knowledge of the tasks and associated hazards, and familiarity with the procedures actually used in performing the work, provides information that is more complete during the JHA. In addition, these front-line personnel can assist in determining the feasibility and effectiveness of proposed control measures. Detailed information on the conduct of JHAs is presented in U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, OSHA Publication 3071, Job Hazard Analysis, available at http://www.osha.gov/Publications/osha3071.html, and the DOE NNSA document Activity Level Work Planning and Control Processes -Attributes, Best Practices, and Guidance for Effective Incorporation of Integrated Safety Management and Quality Assurance (link on web site http://www.doeism.org/). The NNSA document addresses activities at all levels of hazard and is particularly useful for work that is not well defined, is unique, or is extremely complex and should be approached carefully and

http://www.osha.gov/Publications/osha3071.html http://www.doeism.org/ 44 DOE G 440.1-8 12-27-06 meticulously to identify and control recognized hazards and plan for a wide range of contingencies that could have significant consequences. This document also describes appropriate use of ISM core functions and guiding principles as well as use of a graded approach to activity-level work planning based on the nature of the hazard. 3.3.2.1.7. Review Safety and Health Experience [851.21(a)(7)] The Rule requires the review of site safety and health experience information [851.21(a)(7)]. Reporting and investigating accidents, injuries, and illnesses and analysis of related data for trends and lessons learned are key components of this review. The collection of detailed, accurate data and information regarding workplace accidents, injuries, and illnesses and the subsequent analysis of the data and information are useful in identifying worker protection problem areas. This type of analysis or trending is used to identify the prevalent types of accidents, injuries, and illnesses and their sources and causes. Information derived from trend analysis can be used to focus worker protection efforts on the actual sources of injuries and illnesses and to help prioritize hazard abatement activities. Necessary components of accident, injury, and illness data collection and analysis include: • A procedure to investigate, find root causes, and report occupational injuries and illnesses (e.g., procedures in (DOE O 225.1A, Accident Investigations, available by searching at http://www.directives.doe.gov/); • Systems and methods to collect, record, compile, and manage accident, injury, and illness data and information (e.g., procedures in DOE M 231.1-1A, Environment, Safety and Health Reporting Manual available by searching at http://www.directives.doe.gov/); including but not limited to, the OSHA 300 log of occupational injuries and illnesses, workers’ compensation data, accident reports, incident reports, industrial hygiene exposure monitoring results, inspection reports and corrective action tracking system entries; • Methodologies to analyze data and information to identify and trend accidents, injuries, and illnesses by type and source; and • A formalized approach to analyze identified trends, to determine root causes, and to develop appropriate control measures. 3.3.2.1.8. Workplace Hazards and Radiological Hazards [851.21(a)(8)] Contractors must consider interaction between workplace hazards (e.g., chemical, physical, biological, or safety hazards) and other hazards such as radiological hazards. Personnel responsible for implementing worker protection and radiation protection requirements should coordinate in instances where the requirements overlap or appear to conflict. The two sets of requirements should be integrated and applied in a manner that prevents undesirable results and provides reasonable assurance of adequate worker protection. For example, control measures to minimize personnel radiation exposure http://www.directives.doe.gov/ http://www.directives.doe.gov/ 45 DOE G 440.1-8 12-27-06 should be reviewed to ensure that the workers are not subjected to life-threatening asphyxiation or fire hazards. Both sets of requirements must be met. Complying with the more protective requirement usually also results in compliance with the less protective requirement if the requirements provide for different levels of protection.

3.3.2.2. Closure Facilities Hazard Identification [851.21(b)] Contractors must submit to the head of the DOE field element a list of closure facility hazards and controls within 90 days of identifying those hazards [851.21(b)]. The head of the DOE field element, with concurrence of the CSO, has 90 days to accept the controls or direct additional actions to achieve technical compliance or provide additional controls. This provision [851.21(b)] provides contractors flexibility in addressing hazards in facilities that are or will be permanently closed, demolished or subject to title transfer consistent with the provisions of 42 U.S.C. § 2282c (a)(3). In such facilities, contractors must submit a list and the established controls for facility hazards that would require costly and extensive structural/engineering modifications to be compliant within 90 days after identifying such hazards. For these hazards, contractors have the flexibility to propose appropriate abatement actions (subject to DOE approval) based on the special circumstances associated with the facilities. Contractors should include their request for approval of the closure facilities that they have already identified as part of the worker safety and health program that must be submitted to the DOE for approval by February 26, 2007. That provides the head of the DOE field element the prescribed 90 days to act upon the request by the Rule’s May 25, 2007 implementation date at which time all work at a covered workplace must be performed under an approved worker safety and health program. Closure facility hazards that are identified too late to be included in the first proposed worker safety and health program should be submitted for approval within 90 days of identification of those hazards. Closure facility hazards should be submitted per 851.21(b) when the hazards discovered are beyond the range of hazards for which controls have previously been identified and utilized with success. Identified closure facility hazards do not require submittal if those hazards will be eliminated or title to the facility will be transferred prior to 90 days from identification. Closed hazardous waste burial sites are not included in the definition of closure facilities. 3.3.2.3. Hazard Identification Baseline and Schedule [851.21(c)] Contractors must perform the hazard identification tasks required by 851.21(a) initially to obtain a baseline and then as often as necessary to ensure compliance with the Rule [851.21(c)]. The baseline information is the information that is obtained by implementing 851.21(a) and (c). The frequency of obtaining the hazard information, including the schedule for the first time an activity or facility is assessed, should be established using a graded approach that reflects the potential degree of hazard, includes consideration of the 46 DOE G 440.1-8 12-27-06 uncertainties surrounding the hazard assessments, and supports a continual improvement process for minimizing hazards.

Initial baseline information is the compilation of information gathered for the first time to meet the requirements of 851.21(a). The scope and level of detail of the information generated should be commensurate with the hazards and risk to workers. This information could come from a variety of assessment activities such as those discussed above in paragraph 3.3.2.1 of this Guide. As suggested in paragraph 3.3.2.1.5 above, the initial evaluation could consist of a comprehensive “wall-to-wall” evaluation, a compilation of results of evaluations that pre-date the Rule and are still valid, or a combination of both. The objective is to obtain hazard information that is sufficient to determine the controls that are commensurate with the hazards. The baseline evaluation [851.21(c)] of an operation or facility documents all the information needed to assess the health and safety risk that its hazards pose to involved and adjacent workers. The evaluation should contain sufficient detail to determine whether current worker protection standards are being met and provide management the information needed to prioritize and estimate the cost of correcting deficiencies. Additionally, the evaluation’s description of current conditions (along with accident, injury and illness information) could be useful for providing effective feedback for improvement and establishing conditions that existed when workers received exposures or injuries. Industrial hygiene. The baseline evaluation provides a key component of an industrial hygiene program as suggested by the National Institute for Occupational Health and Safety: An effective industrial hygiene program involves the anticipation and recognition of health hazards arising from work operations and processes, evaluation and measurement of the magnitude of the hazard (based on past experience and study) and control of hazard. The industrial hygiene program provides information that is necessary for the effective medical surveillance program, which is a periodic evaluation of an employee by a health professional in order to assure that health problems associated with chemical exposures or physical agents are detected early, when there is time to prevent permanent or debilitating injury.” DOE Std 6005-2001 Industrial Hygiene Practices lists the minimum data set to be included in a baseline industrial hygiene evaluation of an operation: • Describe the work or task performed; • Identify the potentially exposed worker; • Identify and describe potential sources of hazardous agents; • Evaluate the controls used to prevent or minimize exposure; 47 DOE G 440.1-8 12-27-06 • Assess the level(s) of exposure; • Include a conclusion, with rationale, whether the identified agent(s), their use(s), and the potential exposures they cause pose a hazard to workers (i.e., generate a positive or negative exposure assessment); • Recommend additional controls for hazardous agents where necessary; and • Recommend the scope and frequency of further exposure monitoring, as appropriate. DOE Std 6005-2001 also discusses methods to produce a comprehensive baseline evaluation of a facility or site.

Industrial safety. The baseline evaluation of an operation’s or facility’s industrial safety hazards needs to collect the information needed to assess compliance with current standards, assess the risk that inadequacies pose, estimate the cost of correcting hazards and prioritize the correction of hazards. Industrial safety baseline data will vary greatly by hazard but generally requires the collection of less detailed information about a worker’s exposure to the hazard than is required for industrial hygiene hazards. Most industrial safety hazards pose little or no future risk from past exposures. Such exposures would include work at heights that could result in falls, electrical shock hazards, working with sharp object that could cause cuts, crush or engulfment situations, thermal burn hazards, fires, explosions, etc. For these hazards, if no immediate injury occurs, there will be no future physical health consequence. Nonetheless, management can use industrial safety baseline data and accident experience (both at the site and published industrial experience elsewhere) to prioritize funding for hazard correction and the design of future controls. 3.3.3. Hazard Prevention and Abatement (851.22) An effective hazard abatement program is essential to ensure that workers are protected from exposure to current and future workplace hazards. The focus of this program must be the control of identified workplace hazards. Where immediate control is not possible, the program must ensure the protection of workers while awaiting final abatement of the hazard. For significant hazards, this should include interim compensatory measures (e.g., limiting activities in the area, installing barriers and signs, providing hazard-specific training, and use of fire watches.). It must provide an efficient mechanism to ensure that all identified hazards are abated in a timely manner. 3.3.3.1. Hazard Prevention and Abatement Process [851.22(a)] The rule requires contractors to implement a process to prevent or abate identified and potential hazards [851.22(a)]. 48 DOE G 440.1-8 12-27-06 3.3.3.1.1. During Design or Procedure Development [851.22(a)(1)] For hazards identified either in the facility design or during the development of procedures, controls must be incorporated in the appropriate facility design or procedure [851.22(a)(1)]. Hazards that are identified in the design phase of new facilities and facility modifications or during the development or modification of procedures should be eliminated or controlled through design or procedure changes. The controls implemented should be commensurate with the risk level identified in the risk assessment process. For example, hazards that pose a serious threat to employee safety and health should be either eliminated or effectively controlled. Proposed design or procedure modifications intended to eliminate or control hazards should be reviewed by worker protection professionals to ensure that the change adequately addresses the hazard and does not introduce new workplace hazards. Alternative control measures should be evaluated to determine the reduction of risk provided by each measure and identify the most effective practical control for the hazard. Where hazards cannot be controlled through design changes, procedural or administrative controls or the use of personal protective equipment should be considered.

3.3.3.1.2. Existing Hazards [851.22(a)(2)] For existing hazards identified in the workplace, abatement actions, which are prioritized according to risk to the worker, should be promptly implemented and interim protective measures must be implemented pending final abatement of the hazards. Workers should be protected immediately from dangerous safety and health conditions. Hazards must be systematically managed and documented through final abatement or control. For existing hazards identified in the workplace, contractors must prioritize and implement abatement actions according to the risk to workers [851.22(a)(2)(i)]. The relative level of risk must be assessed for each identified hazard to ensure that hazard abatement efforts and resources are focused first on addressing the most serious workplace hazards. Conversely, low risk hazards may warrant only minimal abatement efforts and resources and if determined to either be, or have become, sufficiently low should be removed from the category of actively managed hazards. Risk assessment is an essential element of effective risk management. The assignment of risk levels provides a relatively simple and consistent method of expressing the risk associated with worker exposures to identified hazards. A Department of Defense publication and an AIHA publication identified under “Additional resources” below describe risk assessment methodologies acceptable to DOE for meeting the risk assessment requirements of the Rule. Several DOE sites have developed tools for identifying hazards (some of which are automated), analyzing the hazards, and assigning a value to the level of risk of the hazards. These tools are useful for comprehensively reviewing (usually with a complete check list) all possible hazards of an activity, setting priorities for abatement of hazards, and for determining an appropriate level of work 49 DOE G 440.1-8 12-27-06 control to apply to activities that present the hazard. These tools can be very efficient but users should be careful to truly analyze the identified hazards and not simply “check the boxes.” Although important in prioritization and abatement planning, assigning a risk assessment code or level to a hazard should not be an impediment to quick abatement. If a hazard can be fixed immediately, assigning a risk category is not necessary, although organizations may prefer to assign one for trending purposes. The determination of the priority assigned to the abatement of a specific hazard should first be based on the risk of injury or illness the hazard presents to the worker; however, other factors may be considered, including: • Regulatory compliance; • Resources (budget and personnel); • Complexity of abatement; and • The organization’s mission. In some cases, it may be appropriate to address lower-level hazards before higher-level hazards if quick abatement is possible and effective interim protection is in place to protect workers from the higher level hazard until final abatement of the high level hazard can be implemented. For existing hazards identified in the workplace, contractors must implement interim protective measures pending final abatement [851.22(a)(2)(ii)]. In the interval during which an abatement action is being carried out, contractor organizations must protect their employees from the identified hazards. A short-term strategy should be established that provides interim protection to employees. Methods such as administrative controls, work practice modifications, or personal protective equipment may used to provide this interim protection. These measures must provide employees with protection that is equivalent to the permanent protection provided by compliance with relevant standards in 851.23 and Appendix A to Part 851.

For existing hazards identified in closure facilities, the most common approach to controlling worker exposure to closure facility hazards in a “cold and shutdown” closure facility is to control access to the facility. With access control, the closure facility hazards only pose risks to workers who have a need for access (e.g., for surveillance, maintenance, and preparation for decontamination and decommissioning activities). The hazards of those activities must be identified and controlled by the site’s work control process, and the hazards updated as often as necessary to ensure safe access for needed activities. Portions of a facility may be designated as a closure facility as long as the hazards of the closure facility portion are isolated from workers that occupy the balance of the facility. 50 DOE G 440.1-8 12-27-06 The level of risk associated with interim protective measures can be assessed to verify that equivalent protective measures are provided. The assessment of risk associated with interim protection, however, should not be used to lower the priority of final abatement actions. The hazard should be tracked and abated based on the initial risk assessment. For existing hazards identified in the workplace, contractors must protect workers from dangerous safety and health conditions [851.22(a)(2)(iii)]. In the event a dangerous condition is discovered, immediate action must be taken either to correct the condition or to remove all employees from exposure to the condition until the danger has been abated. 3.3.3.2. Additional Resources • MIL-STD-882D, System Safety Program Requirements, Appendix A www.safetycenter.navy.mil/instructions/osh/milstd882d.pdf, and • Mulhausen, JR and Damiano, J, A Strategy for Assessing and Managing Occupational Exposures, Second Edition, AIHA Press, Fairfax, VA, 1998. (Available at http://www.aiha.org/webapps/commerce/product.aspx?id=AEAK06-327&cat=Bo oks&subcat=). 3.3.3.3. Hierarchy of Controls [851.22(b)] The Rule requires that hazard control methods be selected based on the following hierarchy [851.22(b)]: • Elimination or substitution; • Engineering controls; • Work practices and administrative controls that limit worker exposures; and • Personal protective equipment (PPE). When elimination or substitution of the hazard is not feasible and appropriate or does not reduce the associated risk to acceptable levels, these controls may be supplemented with engineering controls. Where engineering controls are not feasible and appropriate or do not reduce the associated risk to acceptable levels, these controls may be supplemented with work practices and administrative controls. Where necessary, these controls may be further supplemented with the use appropriate PPE. PPE should not be considered as a control measure until all other methods of control have been explored. 3.3.3.3.1. Elimination or Substitution [851.22(b)(1)] Elimination or substitution of hazards must be the first choice for controlling hazards. The contractor should verify that potential hazards of the substitution are identified and addressed before deciding to proceed. http://www.safetycenter.navy.mil/instructions/osh/milstd882d.pdf http://www.aiha.org/webapps/commerce/product.aspx?id=AEAK06-327&cat=Books&subcat= http://www.aiha.org/webapps/commerce/product.aspx?id=AEAK06-327&cat=Books&subcat= 51 DOE G 440.1-8 12-27-06

3.3.3.3.2. Engineering Controls [851.22(b)(2)] Engineering controls must be the second choice for controlling hazards after elimination or substitution of the hazard has been implemented to the extent feasible and appropriate. Feasibility analysis should consider characteristics of the technology available for the task; worker acceptance; level of protection provided; hazards, operations and maintenance burdens introduced; and cost. Principal engineering controls include: • Enclosing the hazard; • Locating hazardous operations or equipment in remote or unoccupied areas; • Establishing physical barriers and guards; and • Using local and general exhaust ventilation. 3.3.3.3.3. Work Practices and Administrative Controls [851.22(b)(3)] Work practices and administrative controls must be the third choice for controlling hazards after elimination or substitution of the hazard and engineering controls have been implemented to the extent feasible and appropriate. The effectiveness of work practice and administrative controls depends on the ability of line management to make employees aware of established work practices and procedures, to reinforce the practices and procedures, and to provide consistent and reasonable enforcement. Administrative controls include: • Written operating procedures, safe work practices, and work permits; • Exposure time limitations; • Limits on the use of hazardous materials and monitoring of such operations; • Health and safety plans; • Altered work schedules, such as working in the early morning or evening to reduce the potential for heat stress; and • Training employees in methods of reducing exposure. 3.3.3.3.4. Personal Protective Equipment [851.22(b)(4)] When elimination or substitution, engineering, and work practices and administrative controls have been considered and implemented and are not sufficient to fully protect the worker from a recognized hazard; personal protective equipment must be used to supplement these other controls as appropriate. PPE is acceptable as a control method: • To supplement elimination or substitution, engineering, and work practices and administrative controls when such controls are not feasible or do not adequately reduce the hazard; 52 DOE G 440.1-8 12-27-06 • As an interim measure while engineering controls are being developed and implemented; • During emergencies when elimination or substitution, engineering, and work practices and administrative controls may not be feasible; and • During maintenance and other non-routine activities where other controls are not feasible. The use of PPE can itself create significant worker hazards, such as heat stress; physical and psychological stress; and impaired vision, mobility, and communication. An example would be a worker wearing several layers of protective clothing (for contamination control), a respirator, gloves, and a helmet while welding or cutting. This arrangement of PPE could prevent the worker from being aware of the environment in the event of a fire or other emergency. In these situations, engineering and/or administrative controls (e.g., a fire watch to ensure the safety of the worker as well as the property) should be implemented to supplement PPE. Equipment and clothing should be selected that provide an adequate level of protection. The selection process should involve representatives of the affected safety disciplines (e.g., health physicist, industrial hygienist, fire protection staff, etc.) working in concert with workers and supervisors.

Two basic objectives of any PPE practice should be to protect the wearer from safety and health hazards, and to prevent injury to the wearer from incorrect use or malfunction of the PPE. To accomplish these objectives, a comprehensive PPE program should include hazard identification (hazards that PPE will protect against and hazards caused by the use of PPE); medical monitoring; environmental surveillance; selection, use, maintenance, and decontamination of PPE; and associated training. Respiratory protective equipment, including protective suits that provide breathing air, must be approved by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) or accepted under the DOE Respiratory Protection Acceptance Program if NIOSH-approved respirators do not exist for specific DOE tasks (29 CFR 1910.134 and 10 CFR 850.28). Information about DOE’s Respiratory Protection Acceptance Program is found in DOE-STD-1167-2003 Respiratory Acceptance Program for Supplied-Air Suits available at http://www.eh.doe.gov/techstds/standard/recappts.html 3.3.3.4. Purchasing Equipment, Products, and Services [851.22(c)] Hazards must be addressed when selecting or purchasing equipment, products, and services [851.22(c)]. Provisions should be made for worker protection professional and employee evaluation of pre-engineered or “off-the-shelf” equipment prior to selection and purchase. This evaluation should focus on whether the equipment or procured material (e.g., parts, chemicals, or fasteners) can perform its required task without endangering the health and http://www.eh.doe.gov/techstds/standard/recappts.html 53 DOE G 440.1-8 12-27-06 safety of workers (e.g., use of steel cable adequately rated for the anticipated weight of the loads) given existing facility and operational constraints. Evaluation methods should include: • Review of equipment or material specifications; • Observations of equipment or material demonstrations; • Change analyses; • Operational hazard analyses; • Ergonomic and human factor analyses; and • Checks for suspect or counterfeit parts. Worker protection considerations to be taken into account when reviewing equipment specifications include, but are not limited to— • Health hazards; • Operating noise; • Temperature levels; • Point-of-operation guards; • Lockout provisions; • Presence of hazardous material; • Training requirements for safe operation; • Ergonomic design, worker-to-machine interface; • Maintenance requirements; • Availability and practicality of “add-on” (post-purchase) worker protection equipment; and • Existing facility and operational constraints (e.g., floor loading, hazards from adjacent operations, congested workplaces, etc.). After installation of complex or potentially hazardous equipment, a pre-startup evaluation with affected workers, supervisors, and worker protection professionals should be conducted to verify safe conditions and identify any previously unforeseen hazards. 54 DOE G 440.1-8 12-27-06 3.3.3.5. Additional Resources • Center for Chemical Process Safety, Guidelines for Hazard Evaluation Procedures, 2nd edition, American Institute of Chemical Engineers, New York, NY, 1992. (Available at http://www.aiche.org/apps/pubcat/seadtl.asp?ACT=S&Title=ON&srchText=Guid elines+for+Hazard+Evaluation+Procedures.) • 29 CFR 1910, Occupational Safety and Health Administration. • MIL-STD-882D, System Safety Program Requirements, Appendix A www.safetycenter.navy.mil/instructions/osh/milstd882d.pdf

• Department of Defense Instruction No. 6055.1, Department of Defense Occupational Safety and Health Program, E7. Enclosure 7, www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/i60551_081998/i60551p.pdf, 3.3.4. Safety and Health Standards (851.23) The Rule lists safety and health standards with which the contractor must comply when applicable to site hazards (851.23). The Rule references additional standards in other parts of the Rule that the contractor must comply with when applicable and provides a complete list of all the referenced standards and the sources of those standards in 851.27 Reference sources. Contractors should determine whether additional standards are needed for their workplaces and activities to control recognized hazards. If necessary to protect the safety and health of workers, contractors must include such additional standards in their written worker safety and health program [851.23(b)]. An example of an additional standard that might be needed is the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) B-30 Series, Cranes. When ACGIH TLV®s are used as exposure limits, contractors must nonetheless comply with the other provisions of any applicable OSHA substance-specific health standard. DOE recognizes that OSHA health standards and ACGIH TLV®s often are not expressed in directly comparable formats. Contractors should use their qualified worker safety and health staff (see 3.3.1.1.2 in this Guide) to determine the appropriate exposure limits and applicable provisions and may request clarification from DOE’s HS-11 (see 3.1.8 in this Guide). Users of ACGIH TLV®s should consult Documentation of the Threshold Limit Values and Biological Exposure Indices, 7th Ed., American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists, http://www.acgih.org/store/, to ensure that they understand how to apply the TLV®s properly. The listed OSHA regulations are not dated but the consensus standards are. The current version of OSHA regulations are incorporated into the Rule by reference because they are promulgated pursuant to public rulemaking. Only the versions of consensus standards that were in effect on February 9, 2006 were promulgated pursuant to rulemaking (this http://www.aiche.org/apps/pubcat/seadtl.asp?ACT=S&Title=ON&srchText=Guidelines+for+Hazard+Evaluation+Procedures http://www.aiche.org/apps/pubcat/seadtl.asp?ACT=S&Title=ON&srchText=Guidelines+for+Hazard+Evaluation+Procedures http://www.safetycenter.navy.mil/instructions/osh/milstd882d.pdf http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/i60551_081998/i60551p.pdf http://www.acgih.org/store/ 55 DOE G 440.1-8 12-27-06 Rule) therefore only those specifically cited versions are required by the Rule. Contractors may include successor versions of the consensus standards that provide equal or greater worker protection if included in their DOE-approved worker safety and health program. For example, because the 2005 ACGIH TLV®s are specifically cited in the Rule at 851.27(b)(6) they are therefore required. ACGIH publishes TLV®s every year but successor versions to 2005 are not required by the Rule. Contractors have the option of substituting successor versions of the ACGIH TLV®s as long as those TLV®s are more protective than the 2005 TLV®s and the substitution is included in the DOE-approved worker safety and health program. Users of successor ACGIH TLV®s should consult the corresponding Documentation of the Threshold Limit Values and Biological Exposure Indices to assure that they understand how to properly apply those specific TLV®s.

Contractors can assume that HS-11 will concur with utilizing existing and future OSHA standards interpretations listed on the OSHA website www.osha.gov to evaluate compliance with the requirements of the OSHA regulations listed in 851.23(a)(1) through (a)(8). Contractors also may request validation by HSS that an OSHA standards interpretation applies to a particular situation or request additional technical interpretations of OSHA regulations by submitting questions to the DOE Standards Response Line at http://www.eh.doe.gov/il/question/new.cfm. Part 851.23(a)(1) requires compliance with the Chronic Beryllium Disease Prevention Program (CBDPP) in 10 CFR 850. In addition, to ensure consistency, 10 CFR 850 was revised as part of the same rulemaking effort to clarify that the CBDPP is considered to be an integral part of the Rule and that the CBDPP required under 10 CFR 850 is enforceable under 10 CFR 851. The Rule at 851.23(a)(3) lists 29 CFR Part 1910 Occupational Safety and Health Standards, excluding 29 CFR 1910.1096 Ionizing Radiation. The Rule at 851.23(a)(7) lists 29 CFR Part 1926 Safety and Health Regulations for Construction but does not explicitly exclude 29 CFR 1926.53 Ionizing Radiation which is similar to 1910.1096 and invokes compliance with 10 CFR Part 20. However, 851.2(b) Exclusions excludes radiological hazards . . . to the extent regulated by 10 CFR Parts 20, 820, 830 or 835. Thus, in accordance with this regulatory exclusion, contractors are not required to comply with 29 CFR 1926.53 Ionizing Radiation. Some of the standards cited in the Rule reference additional, i.e., secondary, standards. Contractors are required to comply with secondary standards that are applicable to identified hazards. The primary standards that reference secondary standards usually state how these secondary standards are to be used. For example, 29 CFR 1910.6(a)(1) states the following: The standards of agencies of the U.S. Government, and organizations which are not agencies of the U.S. Government which are incorporated by reference in this part, have the same force and effect as other standards in this part. Only the mandatory provisions (i.e., provisions containing the word "shall" or other mandatory language) of standards incorporated by reference are adopted as standards under the Occupational Safety and Health Act. http://www.osha.gov/ http://www.eh.doe.gov/il/question/new.cfm 56 DOE G 440.1-8 12-27-06 Similarly, mandatory provisions of secondary standards are incorporated by reference in 10 CFR 851 and have the same force and effect as primary cited standards. For example, ANSI Z49.1, Safety in Welding, Cutting and Allied Processes, is incorporated by reference in 851.23. Section 4.2.2.1 of this standard specifies that “filter lenses shall be in accordance with ANSI Z87.1 and the shade shall be selected in accordance with AWS F2.2.” Therefore, 10 CFR 851 requires compliance with ANSI Z87.1 and AWS F2.2 for welding filter lenses and their shade. ANSI Z49.1 also includes references to other codes and standards that provide additional information on particular topics but are not mandatory requirements. Those other codes and standards are not required by 10 CFR 851. 3.3.4.1. Authority Having Jurisdiction (AHJ) and Equivalencies

NFPA 70, The National Electrical Code, is a standard that is explicitly identified in the Rule and that includes provisions for an AHJ. NFPA 70 includes an AHJ with authority to approve equivalencies [NFPA 70 (2005), Annex G 80.9 (C)]. NFPA 70 defines the AHJ as “the organization, office, or individual responsible for approving equipment, materials, an installation, or a procedure.” NFPA 70 contains several provisions that allow the AHJ to approve alternatives that provide equivalent levels of protection, i.e., “equivalencies” to the levels provided by the standard. Other consensus standards that are included in a contractor’s approved WSHP may include the AHJ or similar provisions. The criteria for designating the AHJ have been handled differently in various DOE handbooks and technical standards, and the preamble to the Rule. For implementation of the Rule and to be consistent with DOE Technical Standard 1066-99 Fire Protection Design Criteria and DOE Handbook 1188-2006 Glossary of Environment, Safety and Health Terms (both available by searching at http://www.directives.doe.gov/), the AHJ should be the head of the DOE field element or designee that has the requisite knowledge and abilities or has access to someone that has the knowledge and abilities. Ultimately, the head of the DOE field element is authorized to approve the contractor’s WSHP and therefore can decide whether to personally perform the AHJ function with the help of qualified advisors or designate a qualified person to perform that function, or whether or not the AHJ must be a DOE person. Individuals meeting the requirements of Fire Protection Engineering Functional Area Qualification Standard, DOE-STD-1137-2000, and Electrical Systems Functional Area Qualification Standard, DOE-STD-1170-2003, available at http://www.eh.doe.gov/techstds/standard/standard.html#1001, are examples of persons that have the requisite knowledge and abilities to advise the head of the DOE field element or designee on fire protection or electrical safety equivalencies, respectively. Equivalencies that were granted prior to the promulgation of the Rule, and in accordance with AHJ and equivalency provisions of a code or standard that is included in a DOE-approved worker safety and health program, should continue to be acceptable to DOE and not require a variance. (See paragraph 3.4 of this Guide for information about variances.) Those equivalencies should be identified in the DOE-approved worker safety http://www.directives.doe.gov/ http://www.eh.doe.gov/techstds/standard/standard.html#1001 57 DOE G 440.1-8 12-27-06 and health program. The equivalency process is separate from the variance process outlined in subpart D of the Rule. The following discussion is focused on the AHJ for electrical safety but the principles also apply to fire prevention and any other functional area requirements in the Rule that have AHJ provisions. The Model Electrical Safety Program (MESP) in DOE’s Electrical Safety Handbook (DOE-HDBK-1092-2004) provides an example of an acceptable electrical safety program for DOE contractors. Section 4 of the MESP defines the AHJ as the entity that interprets applicable electrical safety requirements including those established in NFPA 70 and the electrical safety provisions of the OSHA standards. Section 4 of the MESP further states that the AHJ approves electrical equipment, wiring methods, electrical installations, and utilization equipment for compliance. This is only correct for situations in which an AHJ provision applies as explained below.

The Rule, in 10 CFR 851.23, defines mandatory electrical safety requirements as NFPA 70 and NFPA 70E as well as the applicable electrical safety regulations promulgated by OSHA such as Subpart S of 29 CFR 1910 for general industry operations and Subpart K of 29 CFR 1926 for construction operations. DOE’s intent in 10 CFR 851 is that the technical requirements of 10 CFR 851.23 be applied consistent with the provisions of the individual standards as well as the programmatic requirements of the Rule. Specifically, DOE intends for the AHJ provisions discussed in the MESP to apply in full to the implementation of NFPA 70 but only to components of the OSHA regulations that incorporate NFPA standards by reference and include an AHJ or similar provision. DOE’s rationale for this intent is that the AHJ provisions of the MESP parallel those established in NFPA standards such as NFPA 70. For example, Article 90-4 of NFPA 70 establishes that the AHJ has the responsibility to interpret rules, approve equipment and materials, and waive specific requirements of NFPA 70 or permit the use of alternate methods where such methods provide equivalent protection. Thus, in mandating compliance with NFPA 70 in 10 CFR 851.23, DOE adopts the full text of the standard including the AHJ provisions of that standard. On the other hand, Subpart S of 29 CFR 1910 contains some requirements that are affected by NFPA 70 and others that are not. OSHA standards that do not incorporate a consensus standard that includes an AHJ provision do not provide for an AHJ that can permit the use of alternate methods. The Rule provides that such deviations from the letter of the OSHA standards be permitted only if approved through the formal variance process outlined in subpart D of the Rule. DOE encourages the use of an AHJ when permitted by the applicable code or standard in assisting in the proper interpretation of electrical safety requirements. Interpretations of electrical safety requirements in the absence of a code or standard that includes an AHJ provision are not binding on DOE unless issued under the provisions of 10 CFR 851.7, Requests for a binding interpretive ruling. 58 DOE G 440.1-8 12-27-06 3.3.4.2. Code of Record Certain codes and standards provide implementation flexibility in the form of “Code of Record.” Code of Record refers to acceptability of the code that was in effect at the time a facility or item of equipment was designed and constructed rather than the current code or standard. The appropriate version of a Code of Record is the version that was in effect when approvals were obtained for the phase of the project for which the code applied, regardless of the duration of the project. Revised codes do not supersede previous codes for phases of the project that already have been approved. Code of Record provisions that exist in the codes and standards that are explicitly referenced in the Rule in 851.27(b) are considered part of the Rule and can be exercised in implementing the Rule. For example, NFPA 70 indicates that it applies to new buildings but not to existing buildings (NFPA 70 (2005), Annex G 80.13). In addition, the pressure safety codes specify that current code requirements apply only to new design and construction. Similarly, flexibility provisions in codes and standards that are not explicitly identified in the Rule but are included in the contractor’s DOE-approved worker safety and health program can be exercised in implementing the Rule.

3.3.4.3. Previously Granted Exemptions DOE Orders allow the approval of exemptions from requirements in DOE Orders, Notices, and Manuals (DOE M 251.1-1B, Departmental Directives Program Manual, Chapter X, available by searching on site http://www.directives.doe.gov/) and many such exemptions have been granted at DOE sites. The Rule has no provision for these pre-existing exemptions therefore exemptions to requirements in DOE Orders that are superseded by the Rule are not valid as of the Rule’s implementation date of May 25, 2007. The Rule’s variance process (Subpart D) can be used to request relief from a Rule requirement (see 3.4 of this Guide for more information about variances). The Contractor Requirements Document of DOE O 440.1A was superseded by the Rule so exemptions previously granted to requirements in that Order will not be valid as of the Rule’s implementation date. In general, exemptions to DOE Orders other than O 440.1A are not affected by the Rule however, it is possible that the Rule supersedes a worker safety and health requirement of a DOE Directive (Order, Notice, or Manual) other than O 440.1A and exemptions to any such requirements would also not be valid as of the implementation date of the Rule. 3.3.5. Functional Areas (851.24) Contractors must make provisions in their worker safety and health program for the following functional areas that are applicable to the hazards at their site: construction safety; fire protection; firearm safety; explosive safety; pressure safety; electrical safety; industrial hygiene; occupational medicine; biological safety; and motor vehicle safety (851.24). Contractors are subject to all applicable standards and provisions in Appendix A to Part 851. See paragraph 3.6 of this Guide for detailed implementation guidance for the functional area requirements. http://www.directives.doe.gov/ 59 DOE G 440.1-8 12-27-06 3.3.6. Training and Information (851.25) The Rule requires DOE contractors to provide workers with worker protection training [851.25(a)]. Training also should be provided to supervisors, collateral duty safety and health personnel and committee members, and employee representatives that work for the contractor. Training should be included as a component of the written worker safety and health program. The worker safety and health training and information program (851.25) is an integral component of the WSHP. If a subcontractor works under the contractor’s WSHP, then the contractor’s WSHP should describe the approach and process used to flow down the training program requirements to the subcontractor. The training program requirements that flow-down should be consistent with the scope and complexity of the work to be performed by the subcontractor. For subcontractors that will work to their own WSHPs, the contractor should review the training program to verify consistency with the contractor’s program. One acceptable approach would be to require that subcontractor employees be trained through the contractor’s training program. Alternatively, the subcontractor’s own training program should be acceptable once it is verified by the contractor to be consistent with the contractor’s program. 3.3.6.1. Additional Resources

• DOE’s Industrial Hygiene/Occupational Safety Special Interest Group (IH/OS SIG) is a peer-to-peer network of personnel from the U.S. Department of Energy community involved in occupational safety and health training. The IH/OS SIG provides the DOE community with tools for the development, enhancement, and/or implementation of training designed to improve worker safety and health. The IH/OS SIG's Web site (http://orise.orau.gov/ihos/index_DOETSLindexPostings.htm) provides information about the DOE’s Technology Supported Learning (TSL) Index of training products developed by the DOE complex that are available to the DOE community upon request. • U.S. Department of Energy, DOE-HDBK-1074-95, Alternative Systematic Approaches to Training, January 1995, https://www.eh.doe.gov/techstds/standard/hdbk1074/hdb1074a.html • American National Standards Institute, ANSI Z490.1-2001, Accepted Practices for Safety, Health, and Environmental Training, http://webstore.ansi.org/ansidocstore/default.asp • U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration Publication 2254, Training Requirements in OSHA Standards and Training Guidelines, Revised: 1998, http://www.osha.gov/pls/publications/pubindex.list https://www.eh.doe.gov/techstds/standard/hdbk1074/hdb1074a.html http://webstore.ansi.org/ansidocstore/default.asp (http://orise.orau.gov/ihos/index_DOETSLindexPostings.htm) http://www.osha.gov/pls/publications/pubindex.list 60 DOE G 440.1-8 12-27-06 3.3.7. Recordkeeping and Reporting (851.26) The Rule requires contractors to: • Maintain complete and accurate records of hazard inventory information, hazards assessments, exposure measurements, and exposure controls [851.26(a)(1)]; • Report injuries and illnesses consistent with DOE M 231.1-1A, Environment, Safety and Health Reporting Manual, dated 9-9-04 [851.26(a)(2)]; • Comply with the injury and illness recordkeeping and reporting sections of the health standards in 851.23 unless otherwise directed in DOE M 231.1-1A [851.26(a)(3)]; • Neither conceal nor destroy information concerning compliance with the Rule [851.26(a)(4)]; and • Investigate (DOE Order 225.1A Accident Investigations); analyze for trends (DOE Order 210.2 DOE Corporate Operating Experience Program); (both available by searching on http://www.directives.doe.gov/) and report accidents, injuries, and illnesses [851.26(b)]. The hazard inventory required by 851.26(a)(1) must be complete and accurate and should include sufficient detail for reviewers to characterize the hazards retrospectively. Exposure monitoring data should include: • Exposure levels; • The date(s), number, duration, location and results of each of the samples taken, including a description of the sampling procedure used to determine representative employee exposure where applicable; • A description of the sampling and analytical methods used and evidence of their accuracy; • The type of PPE worn, if any; • Name, social security number, employee identification number if different from the social security number, and job classification of the employee monitored and of all other employees whose exposure the measurement is intended to represent; and • The environmental variables that could affect the measurement of employee exposure. http://www.directives.doe.gov/ 61 DOE G 440.1-8 12-27-06

Where it has been determined that no monitoring is required, a record of the objective data relied upon to support the determination that no employee is exposed at or above an action level or occupational exposure limit, as appropriate, should be maintained. Records containing personal identifiers must be maintained consistent with Privacy Act requirements. Contractors should keep exposure monitoring records for 75 years. That is the duration required in the recordkeeping provisions of 10 CFR 850 “Chronic Beryllium Disease Prevention Program” and the duration of records needed to conduct epidemiological studies. Other Objective Data: Objective data records should be kept as long as the contractor relies on this data. The 851.26 (a)(1) requirement to maintain records of hazard inventory information refers to the compilation of information, materials and documents generated from the contractor’s activities under 851.21 Hazard identification and assessment, parts (a), (b) and (c). Summaries or representative information may be sufficient for routine and regularly changing hazards, (e.g., heat stress levels and changes in potential heavy metals exposures at different building demolition locations). Title 10 CFR 850 Chronic Beryllium Disease Prevention Program includes part 850.39 Recordkeeping and use of information. Title 10 CFR 850.39(h) requires contractors to transmit to the Office of Health, Safety and Security an electronic registry of beryllium-associated workers. The registry identifies these workers and includes data on their jobs, exposures and medical status. Procedures for completing and transmitting the data are found in DOE-STD-1187-2005, Beryllium-Associated Worker Registry Data Collection and Management Guidance (http://www.eh.doe.gov/techstds/standard/recappts.html). The Office of Enforcement will use its voluntary Noncompliance Tracking System (NTS), which allows contractors to elect to report noncompliance. See Appendix B to Part 851—General Statement of Enforcement Policy, IX.5. Self-Identification and Tracking Systems for more information. Title 10 CFR 851 NTS Reporting Thresholds for reporting noncompliance of potentially greater worker safety and health significance into the NTS are available from a link on http://www.eh.doe.gov/enforce/index.html. The NTS is described in the guidance document, Enforcement Program Plan, also available from a link at http://www.eh.doe.gov/enforce/index.html. 3.3.7.1. Hazard Abatement Tracking [851.26(a)] Hazard abatement is a component of hazard assessment and control. Hazard abatement management requires a mechanism to track all planned abatement activities through to completion. Therefore, all hazards identified during worker protection evaluations should http://www.eh.doe.gov/techstds/standard/recappts.html http://www.eh.doe.gov/enforce/index.html http://www.eh.doe.gov/enforce/index.html 62 DOE G 440.1-8 12-27-06 be recorded regardless of whether the evaluation was conducted by DOE, contractors, or external agencies such as OSHA. In addition, hazards identified by employees or line management should be recorded if they are not immediately abated. Hazard Abatement Information. Hazard abatement information may be in any format (electronic or paper file), as long as it (1) meets its purpose of documenting identified hazards and associated corrective actions through final abatement, (2) allows for appropriate planning and budgeting decisions, and (3) is retrievable. Electronic records are generally much more convenient than paper records and are preferred.

Contractors may not need to collect and maintain hazard information for hazards that rank low in assessed risk or have been abated quickly and easily. Contractors should establish a risk threshold below which hazard information need not be collected. The following elements should be included in the documentation for each hazard: • Location; • Date found; • Description of hazard; • Referenced standard in 851.23 or Appendix A to Part 851, or other standard included in the DOE-approved worker safety and health program; • Planned corrective action; • Estimated cost of abatement; • Interim protective measures; • Abatement period (number of calendar days); • Scheduled abatement date; • Actual abatement date; • Risk level; and • Record identification number (unique identifying number). In addition, the information should indicate if actual corrective action differs from planned corrective action. Coordination. DOE field elements should be kept informed of the status of abatement activities. The contractor line organization should coordinate this reporting process with the field element to establish reporting mechanisms acceptable to both parties. In 63 DOE G 440.1-8 12-27-06 addition, the field element should establish the ability to request copies of the hazard abatement activity documentation at any time. 3.3.7.2. Reporting and Investigating; Analyzing Trends (851.26(b) Information about accident, injury, and illness reporting and investigating; and analysis of related data for trends and lessons learned; are contained in DOE O 231.1, Environment, Safety and Health Reporting; and DOE O 225.1, Accident Investigations (both available by searching at http://www.directives.doe.gov/). 3.3.8. Reference Sources (851.27) The Rule incorporates by reference a number of American National Standards Institute (ANSI), National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH), American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) consensus standards and DOE Directives. It also indicates where those standards are available for inspection. 3.4. Variance Process (Subpart D) A DOE contractor may apply for a variance (1) if it is unable to comply with a standard by its effective date because of unavailability of professional or technical personnel or materials and equipment needed to come into compliance with the standard or because necessary construction or alteration of facilities cannot be completed by the Rule’s effective date, (2) if it is able to provide workers a place of employment as saf