Questions and Answers: Order 450.1 Environmental Protection Program Workshop

The Order 450.1 Environmental Protection Program Workshop was held on February 25-26, 2003, in Washington, D.C. This interactive workshop was telecast to 20 DOE sites across the complex. The interactive nature of the workshop gave the audience the opportunity to ask questions and provide relevant comments. Questions and Answers from the workshop are provided below.

Question/Comment	Response
Elements of EMS, Will Garvey, EPA
If a site has achieved formal ISO 14001 certification, and a number of DOE sites have done so, does this mean that they have an EMS?	Will Garvey, EPA: As far as the Executive Order is concerned, it is up to the agency to decide whether it is a valid EMS. We are looking at protocols for how you declare if you have an EMS, as there are a number of facilities that aren't going to get registered to ISO 14001. So it will be up to each agency, but I would say the default is certainly "yes".
If a site has been using objectives and targets as part of a normal management program, and, for example, an objective of energy reduction has been set but an EMS has not officially been implemented, does this mean that you don't have an EMS?	Will Garvey, EPA: Yes, an EMS is not already in place because you haven't touched that base. I would say, "That's ok" because you can back track into the EMS process, pretend you don't have any objectives and targets and look at your activities. That way you can make sure that the objectives and targets aren't missing any relevant materials (e.g., regulatory compliance). The process and the loop allow you to go both ways because eventually you can get back around to looking at objectives and targets. The EMS should reflect the desire of the organization and facility.
COMMENT: DOE facilities that fully meet DOE Order 5400.1 probably contain about 70-80% of EMS requirements.	Will Garvey, EPA: That's correct but a gap analysis will have to be performed to ensure that the other 20-30% is met. It's important for people to "take off the hat" of "we already have an EMS" and start from scratch to see if there are pieces missing. That's what they call a gap analysis.
Describe the long-term roles and responsibilities of the Executive Order 13148 Interagency Working Group and the expectations of other agencies?	Will Garvey, EPA: E.O. 13148 [Greening the Government Through Leadership in Environmental Management] was written by a group of Federal Agencies for the type of things that need to be addressed. The Interagency Working Group gives DOE and other Federal Agencies an equal voice in developing policy and guidance on implementing E.O. 13148, including EMS. The scorecard issued last June didn't make sense to the Federal Community and we went back to [Federal Environmental Executive] John Howard to develop new metrics that we would be happy to report on every year. We wanted to keep the metrics the same so we know what our target would be year-in year-out. Mr. Howard stated that that he thinks the "practitioners should drive the system." Members can influence the outcomes. There is a lot of support across Federal agencies for implementation of EMSs.
EMS Implementation at Other Federal Agencies, John Coho, DoD
What about the Army Corps of Engineers? Do they have an EMS at their installations?	John Coho, DoD: Yes, EMS has been implemented in the Corps of Engineers.
Is there a need for an EMS at a closure facility?	John Coho, DoD: If an EMS is installed and well maintained it will bring structure and good management. The closure process can take years, and in some cases it may never happen.
EMS Implementation at Other Federal Agencies, Mike Green, NASA
Describe the typical cost of developing and implementing an EMS at a NASA site as published in a recent NASA report.	Mike Green, NASA: According to the report the per capita cost (federal and contractor employees) is around $120 per employee, including training. This per capita costs includes three hours per full time employee, (including contractors). One full time employee is required to maintain the system.
P2 Requirements including ODS, Jane Powers, HS-20
In order to convince the Field Manager of the importance of Pollution Prevention (P2), the Order states that the Field Manager must include this as a part of the budget, is this correct?	Jane Powers, HS-20: Yes, that is correct. [DOE O 450.1, Section 5 (d)(7), DOE Operations/Field/Site Office Managers] "Ensure site annual budgetary processes include the funding and resources needed to implement this Order, including P2 program implementation and monitoring."
The Office of Environment, Safety and Health (EH) took over the Office of Environmental Management (EM) P2 program. Is there going to be allocated funding?	Jane Powers, HS-20: No. Sites will have to request funding from the Field Manager. [DOE O 450.1, Section 5 (d)(7), [DOE Operations/Field/Site Office Managers] (sic) "Ensure site annual budgetary processes include the funding and resources needed to implement this Order, including P2 program implementation and monitoring."
Will there be a P2 conference?	Jane Powers, HS-20: No.
Monitoring, Surveillance and Data Quality, Jim Bachmaier, HS-20
Are there lessons to be learned from the Ground Water Protection Working Group, and what have we learned from implementation of pump and treat technology?	Jim Bachmaier, HS-20: Yes, there have been lessons learned, that is the main reason why we have this working group. Ground water pump and treat systems work sometimes, but not always. We try to identify where ground water pump and treat technology is no longer effective and it's time to move to a passive remediation system that involves monitored natural attenuation and containment. It is time to move to a new system. Sites are moving to this. We have a website and ask people to contribute their lessons learned. We also have a newsletter and are intending to prepare guidance that describes a lot of the elements and criteria that I've just spoken about.
You mentioned performance analysis of environmental monitoring, that there were comments about establishing clear guidance and clear requirements. Could you comment on DOE's plans for providing guidance in environmental monitoring? Are you planning to update the EH guidance 0173T[Environmental Regulatory Guidance for Radiological Effluent Monitoring and Environmental Surveillance, January, 1991] or planning on providing other kinds of guidance documents in the near future?	Jim Bachmaier, HS-20: Yes, we're planning to update 0173T, which covers radiological monitoring primarily. We would like to supplement guidance and are interested in the needs of the field for additional guidance. We also will try to provide guidance that is specific to DOE Order 450.1, EMS approach.
When will this be done?	Andy Wallo, HS-20: COMMENT: For 173T, we're taking input for the meteorological section. Savannah River is responsible for updating the water-monitoring portion. This update will be completed this year. We have to look at the priorities and get feedback from the field. We would be happy if anyone wants to help with these updates or volunteer themselves to be on a focus group or work group. We're not only looking for good ideas but qualified folks to help us with this. We'll circulate this guidance to the field.   Andy Lawrence, HS-20: COMMENT: We are working on a schedule of guidance pursuant to DOE Order 450.1 and when we get our ideas together we'll circulate that around to get feed back from you to be sure that we are touching on the points that are of most interest to you.
EPA Perspective on EMS, Elliot Gilberg, EPA
The policy statement from EPA Administrator Whitman last May outlines certain principles. What are you doing to work with the States to get them on-board with the principles and EMS?	Elliot Gilberg, EPA: I don't know specifically. We have a number of means of interacting with the States, one of the major ones is ECOS [Environmental Council of the States]. There are periodic meetings with ECOS where EPA is represented. I know there has been discussion at these meetings of implementation of EMS.   Brent Smith, SPR: COMMENT: I was at an EPA National Performance Track Conference a few weeks ago and the States, EPA and some others were involved. Several states offer incentives. Clean Texas is probably the furthest ahead in implementing regulatory incentives. They have draft lists of possible incentives, ones that won't happen and ones that they are still considering. Some other states like Oregon already have implemented permitting efficiencies. In general most states are working on programs that would involve Memorandums of Understanding (MOUs) with EPA headquarters and the EPA region. This usually requires a change in state law and an agreement with the EPA region.
Your presentation stated that one of the benefits of an EMS is improved relationship with the regulators. How does that happen and are there incentives for facilities to implement an EMS?	Elliot Gilberg, EPA: Generally, improved relations occur because the regulators view the EMS positively. Generally if a site has EMS compliance, their performance will improve. There is less risk of enforcement if EMS improves environmental performance. More specifically, Performance Track has incentives built into it, although it is most beneficial to private entities versus the federal government. Incentives for compliance include being moved to the top of the list in expediting permitting. There is a recognition that if you have an active EMS, there may be less need for as frequent oversight by regulators. That's because basically you're doing it yourself. We are more concerned with facilities that are not as far along in terms of implementation of EMS. There are some incentives; I think it is a work in progress. We're trying to analyze some of the results of the Performance Track. It is a process of continual re-evaluation of this program to see if we need to do more to stimulate participation.
What level or what definition of EMS qualifies for consideration under Performance Track?	Elliot Gilberg, EPA: Don't know the answer. I think it requires ISO 14001 certification, but my educated guess is that it needs some equivalencies.   Brent Smith, SPR: COMMENT: This topic was discussed at the National Environmental Performance Track Conference that I attended. The answer is that up until recently, Performance Track membership required meeting criteria that are the same as ISO 14001 with a few additional requirements. Certification is not one of them. However EPA and the States are rethinking this with respect to third party certification.
Panel Discussion: DOE Site Experience
During the process of getting DOE Order 450.1 finalized, some in DOE stated that ISMS equals EMS. The presentations that I've heard today didn't seem to agree with that assumption. What is the Field's perspective that ISMS equals EMS. Should we use ISO 14001 to expand EMS?	Steve Woodbury, HS-20: What was accepted at the last ISMS workshop (Richland, December 2000) was that some sites have included "E" completely in ISMS. Others had focused more on nuclear safety and worker safety aspects and had some gaps with regard to the environment. I think that is still the case. The Department's policy is that ISMS is the umbrella for environment, safety, and health management systems. I think what the Order is going to do is be clear regarding what are the environmental elements that need to be addressed. Whether it's separately identified or fully embedded in the ISMS, DOE Order 450.1 will make sure that the "E" part is there.   Brent Smith, SPR: When ISMS came out, people asked the question "Where was the 'E' in ES&H"? That's one reaction. Beyond that there are elements in common between Integrated Safety Management and ISO 14001. But in general ISO 14001 is a much more comprehensive, auditable standard and more "E" focused than ISMS is. If you tried to do a side-by-side comparison you would find that there are significant items missing from ISMS.
Why is the Savannah River Site not going to renew its ISO 14001 certification?	Ron Peterson, SRS: This was a cost saving decision made by top management. Staff were not involved in the decision-making.
How do ISO 14001 and ISO 9001, the Quality Management Standard, complement each other?	Brent Smith, SPR: Firstly, ISO 14001 was developed from ISO 9001, and they have around 70% of the elements in common, (e.g., management review, audits, policy, communications). Whether you start with ISO 9001 and add ISO 14001 or vice versa, they complement each other. I'll also add OHSA S 18001 is pretty much ISO 14001, instead what you do is say "safety" instead of "environment." It's extremely close, in fact it is closer to ISO 14001 than ISO 9001.   Cliff Clark, Richland: COMMENT: We actually started EMS before ISMS came out. When ISMS came out we felt that they had duplicated a lot of what was in EMS. However they had left out some key things. As many of you who are listening remember, we had a number of discussions with ISMS groups to get "E" into ISMS. The new DOE Order 450.1 will ensure the presence of "E" in ISMS.
Richland's EMS is compliance driven; how do you ensure continual improvement?	Cliff Clark, Richland: Continual improvement is built into the system and is an integral part of it. Annual reviews and audits have to be carried out to ensure that requirements are still current and are meaningful in terms of what we are trying to accomplish and that the system itself is responsive to the various needs that we have to address. We have built the "Plan-Do-Check-Act" cycle into the system.
We heard a little about how NEPA analysis can help identify aspects and impacts. Does it flow the other way from the EMS back to the NEPA process and decisions or analyses that get done in NEPA?	Brent Smith, SPR: The system is designed so it can flow both ways. In general, we do a host of categorical exclusions. If there are any new activities or aspects identified, then that requires incorporation into a NEPA document. This means preparation of a NEPA document when one would not be otherwise required.   Teresa Perkins, ID: To build on what Brent said, an EMS helps with NEPA compliance because it follows up on the commitments made in the NEPA documents that wouldn't necessarily flow into your requirements otherwise. Since the processes are fully integrated, as you're looking at your checklist in our process, you are identifying all of the aspects and impacts which are a part of the EMS. I don't know if you can separate the two, they build on each other.
Migratory Birds, Lee Banicki, HS-20
What is the purpose of the addendum to the Migratory Birds MOU?	Each field office location needs to develop a site-specific MOU.
Long-Term Stewardship and Sustainability, Roselle Drahushak-Crow, NREL
How can the concepts of sustainability in DOE Order 430.2A be integrated with DOE Order 450.1 and EMS?	Randy McConnell, NREL: We used sustainability at NREL to address DOE Order 430.2A and DOE Order 450.1. We can find out more information on this subject.
DOE Order 430.2A and E2/P2 are specifically for building environmental regulations. Are there any efforts at headquarters to also integrate this into DOE Order 450.1?	Andy Lawrence, HS-20: There are a number of other DOE Orders that are relevant for implementation into EMS. An EMS has to identify and include all aspects. For example, DOE Order 5400.5, Radiation Protection of the Public and the Environment. The EMS should incorporate all applicable requirements and systems, and it should be flexible enough to incorporate changes. Specific guidance is needed, and we will be happy to talk about this at the end of the workshop.
Is Energy Star building part of the program at NREL?	Randy McConnell, NREL: This is one of 15 projects at NREL, where we are pursuing a LEEDs (Leadership in Energy & Environmental Design) rating of silver or better. The new laboratory will be built to a platinum rating. We are giving up laboratory square footage to achieve this within existing budgets.
Assessments, Steve Woodbury, HS-20
Does it defeat the purpose of audits/inspections by not having unannounced inspections?	Steve Woodbury, HS-20: No, because of the framework that DOE has established. We have built a system whereby either DOE or a contractor performs a self-assessment so we know how we are doing. They are held accountable for their performance and for knowing how they are performing. The framework is to build quality and trust in at the beginning.
Independent Oversight, Victor Crawford, Office of Independent Oversight, OA
How many independent assessments will you be carrying out over the next few years and are you going to focus specifically on environment?	Victor Crawford, OA: In 2002, there were 9 independent assessments, and in 2003, there will be 6 independent assessments. No, environment is part of our safety management evaluations, and we don't focus specifically on it.
For example, if three people were to audit a facility for one week, that's a lot of man-hours, would this time not be better spent?	Victor Crawford, OA: There are 20 people doing the assessment looking at environment, safety health, and only 2-3 of these people focus on environment. We don't only look at EMS, we also look at DOE Order 435.1 and compliance with RCRA and the hazardous waste regulations.
You said you cover three technical areas- waste management, ground water and environmental radiation. Are you going to expand this to include other areas in DOE Order 450.1?	Victor Crawford, OA: What we do is a sampling of the ES&H program; we do a scoping visit first. We look at environmental, health and safety, and radiation programs. Waste management is a good area to look at as it is a cross cut of several areas of the facility. Depending on the results of the scoping visit, other areas may be looked at.
One of the benefits that EPA and States are looking at for externally certified environmental management programs would be a reduction in the number of assessments or inspection that are performed. Is that something that your office is considering?	Victor Crawford, OA: One of the long-term goals is to start looking at the DOE organization and how they are overseeing the contractor. Our process is evolving to look more at DOE rather than contractors.
DOE as well as contractors could be externally certified in an ISO 14001 perspective. Would that make a difference?	Victor Crawford, OA: We are looking at integrated safety management so it's not just the environmental which prioritizes which sites we go to. Overall, we do look at what we found at the facilities, and for those sites that we found have a good program, there is a longer time period between re-checks. We do take that into account. In the scoping visit, we may decide that some areas require more attention than others.

Click here to return to the Agenda and Presentations.