For FY 1996, the Office of Fossil Energy, also referred to as Fossil Energy (FE), has identified $87.5M for environment, safety and health activities. This represents 10.9% of the total FY 1996 Fossil Energy operating budget of $802M. The Office of Fossil Energy's environment, safety and health funding profile is broken down as shown in Table 6.4-1.
| Year | FY96 Funds |
| Program | $86.0 |
| Indirect | $1.5 |
| Total | $87.5 |
The Office of Fossil Energy's Planning Process and Assumptions
Fossil Energy is a diverse and widely spread organization with approximately 1,100 Federal employees and over 2,800 Contractor employees located in its Headquarters and field operations. There are essentially three distinct organizations in FE all with different work responsibilities and exposures, the Fossil Research and Development centers; the Strategic Petroleum Reserves; and the Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves. FE employs a line management approach to managing and directing ES&H activities.
The Office of Fossil Energy Complex is currently composed of six facilities:
This is the fifth year in which the Office of Fossil Energy (FE) has participated in this planning process, and with each year FE s ability to use the process to plan and manage ES&H needs has improved, as-has the process itself. Field facilities now see the process as an effective tool by which they can identify ES&H needs, estimate their funds, and prioritize them based on their potential for risk reduction. The process has been useful to the Program Offices and Headquarters organizations because it provides them with information which is otherwise not available on the facilities perceived ES&H needs, their funds, and risk reduction potential. Furthermore, this information helps define and justify the annual budgets, set priorities among the activities, and select activities for appropriate funding.
FE envisions its implementation of the DOE Five Year ES&H Management Plan as more than simply supporting another Departmental initiative. FE has chosen the-Management Planning process as the mechanism by which it can effectively plan and manage its ES&H programs and budgets. The primary functional objectives of the FE ES&H planning process are to:
Provide FE, its field installations, and Management and Operating contractors with the decision-making framework and decision- support tools to consistently define the scope, priorities, and pace of funding of specific ES&H activities. This framework ensures that FE makes the best use of available resources to reduce ES&H risks as well as achieve full compliance with all applicable environment safety and health laws and regulations.
Support the budget decision-making process by delineating: (a), FE-wide strategies, programs, and activities to reduce and manage ES&H risks, and (b), schedules and projected funds to achieve ES&H objectives.
Provide a consistent, familiar reporting format for progress measurement and midstream reallocations.
FE believes the ES&H Management planning process should provide a consistent basis for decision-making; communicating and establishing priorities; managing FE resources; and maintaining control over day- to-day ES&H program improvement. Headquarters (HQ) program managers worked closely with FE facility managers to define the ES&H;programs and establish priorities to ensure that the most important ES&H;initiatives are pursued. The FE facility ES&H plans were produced through a combination of early top-down guidance from DOE-and FE, followed by some bottom-up analyses of needs and management decision- making. FE has required that facilities develop their management plans in accordance with the DOE ES&H Management Plan Guidance.
There were four major steps in the FY 1996-2000 planning process in FE:
Field facilities identified their ES&H needs by assessing the compliance activities which have not been completed as well as, the activities necessary to continue the ES&H programs already established. The needs and their estimated funds were recorded on Activity Data Sheets (ADS) to begin the process. These ads define the scope, and funding of proposed ES&H activities and are the building, "blocks of the planning process . Each ADS is categorized based on the nature of the activity.
The relative priorities of the ES&H activities were established through use of a Risk-Based Priority Model (RPM). The model considered the qualitative risk-reduction afforded by the activity (changes in the types, level and the likelihood of potential adverse consequences expected if the activity were funded and performed) and a RPM score assigned to each activity in an objective and quantitative fashion.
The facilities submitted the list of activities proposed for funding in FY 1996 to the Headquarters program offices. There were varying degrees of success at how well the Program Offices used this ES&H planning intonation as input in developing proposed budgets. In Fossil Energy research and development a minimum risk reduction level was determined above which all proposed activities would be funded and developed a proposed budget to fund them. In reality, the planning information was used to demonstrate which activities and associated risks would be alleviated by the various proposed funding levels, e.g., a 16 million budget would allow facilities to perform ES&H; activities evaluated as having a moderate to high ES&H risk (RPM score of 150 or greater).
Once budgets determinations were made, the available resources were allocated to the activities which provided the greatest potential for risk reduction, based on RPM scores. The activities which could not be performed within the funding allocation were deferred or partially funded, extending the period necessary to achieve compliance.
Current Status of the Office of Fossil Energy's Environment, Safety and Health Program
FE has established a record of good ES&H performance relative to other parts of DOE. As part of their efforts to continuously improve ES&H performance, FE organizations have made several important accomplishments during the past year, some of which are highlighted below.
Injury and illness data indicate that FE has achieved good ES&H program performance at the field level.
NPOSR-CUW, SPR, and NPRC incidence rates are comparable to the DOE average rate but significantly lower than the private sector.
METC has completed 70 percent of Tiger Team corrective actions and none of the remaining activities are behind schedule.
NPR-C and NPR-CUW have completed approximately half of the Tiger Team corrective actions.
NPOSR-CUW has virtually eliminated hazardous waste at its facilities.
The NPRC contractor, Bechtel Petroleum Operations, Inc. is submitting an application to the Department's Voluntary Protection Program.
The SPR re-baselined corrective actions to eliminate non-value added and non-regulatory activities reducing the funding of corrective actions by 50 percent.
FE has actively promoted team building and the improving communications facilitating a sharing of lessons learned throughout the FE organizations. One aspect of this effort is the regular publication of the FE ES&H Pipeline which allows all FE facilities to share ES&H success stories and to keep ES&H personnel informed about ES&H training, conferences, and other developments. Another significant activity which has improved communications vertically and horizontally is the semi-annual ES&H Conferences which are rotated between Headquarters and field locations.
Major Risk Issues and High Priority Activities Addressed in the Office of Fossil Energy's Environment, Safety and Health Plan
No major ES&H issues have been identified at Fossil Energy facilities. Significant progress has been made toward reducing risks. The only item of note is that constrained budgets have required the use of a graded approach to implement a backlog of ES&H corrective actions. No items in the backlog are construed to pose significant or undue risk.
Please send comments to support@tis.eh.doe.gov
Last modified: 02/27/96 16:17:28