1. Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory EFCOG – Feedback & Improvement Subgroup Extent of Conditions Extent of conditions (EOC) are generally defined as being the generic implications of an issue, i.e., the potential or actual applicability to exist in other activities, projects, programs, facilities or organizations. Extent of conditions evaluations should be governed by the: - complexity and nature of the issue (scope) - significance (issue category type) - causal factors - other factors

2. Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory EFCOG – Feedback & Improvement Subgroup Extent of Conditions Extent of conditions reviews are a key element of an effective corrective action process. A viable EOC process will support risk reduction, reduce operating costs, and further a safer working environment by correcting and preventing ‘generic’ issues at the appropriate management, functional or organizational level.

3. Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory EFCOG – Feedback & Improvement Subgroup Extent of Conditions Criteria Considerations - Uniqueness What makes issue unique versus potential for occurrence elsewhere? - Recurrence Repetitive and similar issues suggest ineffective corrective/preventive actions and need for an EOC - Seriousness Some lower threshold issues are more serious than others and should be considered for evaluation - Causal Factors Determination of cause is CRITICAL throughout entire corrective action process!!!

4. Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory EFCOG – Feedback & Improvement Subgroup Extent of Conditions INEEL Process Responsible Manager: - Using Extent of Conditions Evaluations guidance, determine whether an extent of conditions evaluation is needed. o Required for Significant Deficiencies, ORPS (OE, 1 & R), and PAAA Reportable Noncompliances (NTS) o Considered for Adverse Deficiencies and Safety Concerns - If not needed, then proceed with CAP development. - If needed, then coordinate this evaluation with the appropriate area and LST-1 company SME(s). - If the evaluation determines that a generic issue may exist, and that other organizations are potentially affected by the issue, then notify the Cognizant Director.

5. Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory EFCOG – Feedback & Improvement Subgroup Extent of Conditions Responsible Manager (Continued): - If the evaluation determines that a generic problem does not exist but that additional examples of the issue were found, then initiate a new issue and assign it to the appropriate Cognizant Director or, if applicable, incorporate the additional examples into the corrective action plan for the original issue. - If the evaluation determines that a generic problem does not exist, then document the basis for this determination in ICARE and proceed with CAP development.

6. Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory EFCOG – Feedback & Improvement Subgroup Extent of Conditions Cognizant Director: - If notified by the Responsible Manager that the deficiency has generic applicability, then transfer responsibility as follows: o If the deficiency was written specifically for the area/organization, then initiate a new issue and assign it to the appropriate Functional Support Director/Manager. Instruct the Responsible Manager to continue CAP development for the original issue. - If the issue was not written specifically for the area/organization, then transfer responsibility for the issue to the appropriate Functional Support Director/Manager.

7. Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory EFCOG – Feedback & Improvement Subgroup Extent of Conditions Functional Support Director/Manager: - If the issue is transferred as a result of an extent of conditions evaluation, then assign a Responsible Manager (normally SME) to begin CAP development.