Welcomes & Introductions
description
Transcript of Welcomes & Introductions
Aundra Richards – DOE BSO Manager
Paul Alivisatos – Deputy Lab Director
Buck Koonce – UC
Welcomes & Introductions
Howard Hatayama
Site Orientation
Organization – Jim Krupnick
ISM Implementation – Howard Hatayama
Current Status
Metrics re: ISM
Site-Wide Overviews
4
Today’s Agenda 8:30 am Site-Wide Overviews
Organization & Status Jim KrupnickISM Implementation Howard
Hatayama
9:15 am Work Planning and Control John Seabury
9:45 am Break
10:00 am Chemical Management Paul Blodgett
10:30 am Feedback and Improvement John Chernowski
11:00 am Division Overviews (Working Lunch)
Advanced Light Source Division Jim Floyd Chemical Science Division Wayne Lukens Life Sciences Division Joe Gray Physical Bio-Sciences Division Paul Adams Facilities Division Steve Black
1:30 pm Q&A, Logistics
Berkeley Lab Overview
Jim Krupnick, Chief Operating Officer
January 6, 2009
6
Founded in 1931 on Berkeley CampusMoved to Current Site in 1940
UC Berkeley
BerkeleyLab
A National Laboratory Next to a University Campus
8
Space Statistics390k ASF lab and lab support126k ASF shop and shop support504k ASF office and conference
97k ASF other 1.117M ASF Total
70% of LBNL buildings built before 1970
9
Hayward Fault
10
Source U.S. Geologic Survey
Seismic Probability
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
11
1906 San Francisco EQBerkeley, CAMagnitude 7.9Epicenter: Point Reyes
1989 Loma Prieta EQBerkeley, CAMagnitude 6.9Epicenter: Santa Cruz
http://www.abag.ca.gov/
Past Ground Accelerations
Predicted 7.0+ Magnitude EQ on Hayward Fault
12
RATING SYSTEM Good Some structural and non-structural damage,
life safety not significantly jeopardized
Fair Structural and non-structural damage represent low life hazards
Poor Significant structural and non-structural damage represent appreciable life hazards.
All buildings occupants are briefed of the seismic hazards if a building is rated Poor
Very Poor Extensive structural and non-structural damage represent high life hazards.
A seismic Risk Mitigation Plan (RMP) is developed and implemented for buildings rated Very Poor
UC Seismic Safety ProgramUC Seismic Safety ProgramGOAL To achieve Life Safety for our building occupants in the
event of the Maximum Credible Event.
13
13
Current LBNL Building Condition
UC Seismic Rating Bldgs Area (kgsf) Occupants
Good 7 8% 271 16% 873 17%
Fair (low life hazards) 49 54% 817 48% 2,030 40%
Poor (appreciable life hazards) 27 30% 526 30% 2,198 43%
Very Poor (high life hazards) 7 8% 112 6% 0 0%
90 100% 1,726 100% 5,101 100%
14
Berkeley Lab Mission Solve the most pressing and
profound scientific problems facing humankind
– Basic science for a secure energy future
– Understand living systems to improve the environment, health, and energy supply
– Understand matter and energy in the universe
Build and safely operate leading scientific facilities for the nation
Train the next generation of scientists and engineers
Berkeley Lab’s Scientific Strengths
Scientific Computing
Particle Physics and Nuclear Science
Nanoscale Materials and Synthesis
Quantitative Biology
X-Ray Science and Accelerators
Earth and Environmental
Science
Energy Science and Technology
300 nm300 nm
16
FY 2008 Costs: $589M
October 2008
Other DOE ($71M)
Work for Others (excluding NIH)
($65M)
Physics/Fusion ($75M)
Basic Energy Sciences ($132M)
Biological and Environmental Research
($106M)
Math and Computing Sciences ($97M)
National Institutes of Health ($43M)
17
TechnicalStaff
Scientists and Engineers Postdoctoral
Associates*
Graduate Students*
Undergraduate Students*
Support Staff
December 2008
677 355
294
139
5961364
265
Berkeley Lab Employees: 3,690
Employees: 3,690Guests: 3,227 Total: 6,917
Faculty*
*Joint affiliation with UC Berkeley and other campuses
18
19
Eleven Nobel Laureates
Luis W. Alvarez
Melvin Calvin
Owen Chamberlain Donald A. Glaser
Ernest Orlando Lawrence
Glenn T. Seaborg
Emilio G. Segrè
Yuan T. Lee
Edwin M. McMillan
George F. Smoot
Steven Chu
20
Major Scientific Facilities Serving Government, Universities, and Industry
Advanced Light Source
Molecular Foundry
National Center for Electron Microscopy
National Energy Research Scientific Computing Center
88-Inch Cyclotron
Joint Genome Institute
DENDEN
ALBALBATLATL
Aus.
CERN
AsiaPacSEASEA
SNVSNV
Europe
Japan
CHICHI
DCDC
Japan
NYCNYC
Aus.
MetropolitanArea
Rings
Europe
CERN
Science Data Network
ESnet IP Core
DENDEN
ALBALBATLATL
Aus.
CERN
AsiaPacSEASEA
SNVSNV
Europe
Japan
CHICHI
DCDC
Japan
NYCNYC
Aus.
MetropolitanArea
Rings
Europe
CERN
Science Data Network
ESnet IP Core
Energy Sciences Network (ESnet)
JBEI
21
History of ISM at Berkeley Lab
First ISM Plan submitted 1997, approved by DOE in 1998 and validated in 1999.
Self-assessment program certified by DOE in 2003
ISM plan was updated regularly
Illness and injury statistics showed significant improvement continuously through 2004.
But 2005 was watershed year
22
History of ISM at Berkeley Lab (cont)
New Contract, new Lab Director, new Site Office Manager
Started implementation of DOE Order 226.1
Missed FY05 DOE TRC and DART targets
Dr. Orbach’s December 2005 letter to Chairman of the UC Regents citing “dreadful performance”
BSO (CO) letter putting UC on notice re Lab performance
Initial UC response was to commission a targeted EH&S Peer review in Jan 2006– But, DOE determined that resulting CAP was not
comprehensive enough
23
History of ISM at Berkeley Lab (cont)
McCallum-Turner led full ISM Review in Sept 2006
Corrective Action Plan submitted - May 2007– 7 corrective actions (58 major activities)
Line Management accountability and responsibility for safety
Institutional EHS/ISMS documents Performance Management Corrective Action Management Self Assessment processes Work Planning and Control ISM Elements of our LBNL/UCB Relationship
10 CFR 851 implementation – May 2007
24
History of ISM at Berkeley Lab (cont)
McT CAP led to Key ISM Improvements
– “Work Lead” concept
– Developed and implemented new programs Issues Management Technical Assurance Job Hazards Analysis
– Strengthened reporting culture
– Revised & clarified roles and responsibilities Safety Liaisons Safety Coordinators Safety Review Committee
25
Series of events during FY07 & FY08 Mercury release in Molecular Foundry
Series of DOE safety audits and findings Facility hazard characterization issues Recurring ORPS
– Electrical safety– Subcontractor safety– Maintenance issuesISM Cap efforts coupled with recent events (and encouragement from BSO) has led to a deeper understanding of ISM status at LBNL.
26
Senior management’s response has been an increased urgency in focus on safety in last 6 mos.
– Annual Lab Director’s Strategic Retreat
– Lab Director’s “All-Hands” presentation
– Lab-wide stand-downs
– “Our Safety” campaign to change the culture Goal: long term, sustained improvement in
implementation of ISM
– ISM Improvement Project
27
28
29
Where is ISM at LBNL Now? Per the annual ISM Declaration:
LBNL “… believes that ISM is being effectively implemented … but noteworthy weaknesses … need to
be addressed.”
– Some Work Planning and Control mechanisms are new and not uniformly administered
– Need more rigorous Technical Assurance assessments
– Division Self-Assessments need to be more tailored
– Several ES&H Program areas need improvement
– New PPE policy is in implementation process
30
In closing…
We welcome the HSS review, and look forward to learning from the review team as part of our ongoing Feedback and Improvement efforts.
31
Berkeley Lab Values
Overarching commitment to pioneering science
Highest integrity/impeccable ethics
Uncompromising safety
Diversity in people and thought
Sense of urgency
ISM @ Berkeley Lab: Key Elements, Players and Metrics
Howard Hatayama
Director, EH&S Division
January 6, 2009
33
Line Management Owns and is Responsible for Safety
Chief Operating Officer
Division Directors/Dept Heads
Laboratory Director
Research Operations
Group Leaders
Supervisors/Work Leads
Workers/Guests
Division Directors
Department Heads/Group Leaders
Supervisors/Work Leads
Researchers/Workers/Guests/Students/Post-Docs
34
Work Leads - A Key Element of Safety Line Management
What are Work Leads?– Oversee Workers as part of the Safety Line Management
chain – May or may not be Supervisors– Can be staff, guests, post-docs, graduate students– Same safety management responsibilities as Supervisors
and Managers
Why did we establish this role? – Developed in response to span of control issues
identified in assessments– Reflects the way research and teaching is done
35
Key Player – EH&S Division
Technical support to line organizations– Advice on identifying hazards and appropriate controls– Review of work plans and formal authorizations– Assurance of appropriate procedures and implementation
Policy and procedure development Training Direct services such as waste management Institutional interface on ES&H
– External regulators, DOE-BSO, UC Office of the President
Division Director
Howard Hatayama
Deputy Division Director
Don Lucas
Human Resources
Management Information
Administration Finance
Training
Security & Emergency Operations
Waste Management
Radiation Protection
Environmental Services
Health Services
Industrial Hygiene
Occupational Safety
36
Key Players - Coordinators and Liaisons
Division Safety Coordinators facilitate implementation of ISM in each operating Division– Owned and employed by each Division– Part time to full time depending upon Division’s needs– Moving towards increased technical competence in this role– Support the line in implementing Lab policies and
procedures– Administer the Division’s ES&H program
EH&S Liaisons act as technical resources to the Divisions to assist in implementing ISM– Owned and employed by Environment, Health and Safety– Senior level ES&H professionals– Varies, but generally each Liaison ~20-30% FTE– Liaisons are first contact for Divisions in resolving ES&H
issues, obtain assistance as necessary
37
Key Players - Advisory and Oversight Committees Advisory committees exist to help Line
Management discharge their safety responsibility
– Safety Review Committee advises Lab Director on general safety, ISM issues One representative from each Division Researches and recommends policy, conducts MESH reviews
– Other peer advisory/regulatory committees oversee specific technical areas Radiation Safety Committee Institutional Biosafety Committee Animal Welfare and Research Committee Human Subjects Committee Radioactive Drug Research Committee
38
Key Players - Oversight and Assurance Office of Contract Assurance
– ES&H Self-Assessment program– Issues Management
UC Office of the President– Contract Assurance Council– Contract management and oversight
Berkeley Site Office – Contract management – Reviews and assessments– Operational awareness
39
Key Players - The Worker Lab-wide Worker Involvement
– Laboratory Support Advisory Committee– Business Managers Council– Division Safety Coordinator Committee– Safety Review Committee and sub-committees– Rad Safety Committee– Institutional Bio-safety Committee– Collective Bargaining Units
Division Level Worker Involvement – Division safety committees– Division Near Hit programs– All-Hands meetings– Peer reviews of safety implementation
Employee concerns/suggestions/tips– “Our Safety” website
40
Worker Rights & Responsibilities
Listed in PUB-3000 Section 1.3.3
Based on 10 CFR 851 Tailored for LBNL Posted lab-wide with
Employment Notices Included in New Staff
Orientation (EHS 10) Included in “Safety at
LBNL” pamphlet
41
DOE/LBNL Contract 31
LBNL Regulations &Procedures Manual
Flow Down of ISM Requirements
LBNL Integrated SafetyManagement Plan
UC Assurance PlanFor LBNL
ES&H Implementation Plans• Worker Safety & Health• Chemical Hygiene & Safety• Biological Safety• Radiation Protection Plan• Environmental Management Plan• Waste Management Plan
LBNL Health &Safety Manual
PUB-3000
Division ISM Plans
42
Illness and Injury Rate TrendBerkeley Lab Site-Wide TRC & DART Rates
(Includes all Construction and Service Contractors)
Through November 30, 2008
3.63
2.44
2.17
2.51
1.17
2.05
1.161.07 1.11
0.45
0.61
1.65
1.28
1.811.72
0.61
0.83
0.31
0.680.81
0.65
0.5
0.25
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
FY00 FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09
TR
C &
DA
RT c
ase
s p
er
10
0 e
mp
loy
ees
pe
r ye
ar
Total Recordable C ase Rate
D ART Rate (Days Away, R estricted orTransferred)TRC Goal
D ART Goal
1.17
43
48 total recordables 48% musculoskeletal injuries due to repetitive motion No construction recordable injuries
Injury Categories and Causes FY08
44
Nurturing a Reporting Culture - ORPSLBNL ORPS Report Statistics By Significance Category FY 2005 - 2008
21
13
11
16
2
8
12
01 1 1
1617
22
31
22
10
4
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 FY
2 3
4 R
Total
ORPS Categories
45
Nurturing a Reporting Culture - NTS
Fiscal Year Year
2 21
97 10
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
2005 2006 2007 2008
Nu
mb
er
of
Inc
ide
nt
10CFR 835 10CFR 851since 2006
46
Safety Concerns and Suggestions Total Number of Concerns/Suggestions FY08 = 66 Over 100 in FY09 (Director’s All-Hands Safety Talk 10/10/08)
FY08 Distribution of Employee Safety Concerns
02468
1012141618
Bldg. M
tnc.
Traffi
c Saf
ety
Bus Saf
ety
Bicycl
e Saf
ety
Lab Veh
icle
Saf
ety
Inju
ry R
eporti
ng
Chemic
al S
afet
y
Smoki
ng
Contracto
r Saf
ety
Emerg
ency
Saf
ety
Wild
life
Securit
y Is
sue
Perso
nnel Is
suePPE
Environm
ent Saf
ety
47
Safety Culture Survey: Some FY08 Results
Survey QuestionDefinitely & Mostly
True
I feel confident that I am working in a safe environment 96%
I’m comfortable stopping work if I or my co-workers are at risk of being hurt
90%
I trust there will be no negative repercussions to me or my work group if I report an injury to my supervisor or manager
61%
My Division’s senior management is personally committed to supporting safe work practices
90%
My supervisor gives me feedback on my safety performance throughout the year
66%
It is clear that my supervisor puts safety concerns first 89%
We regularly talk about safety mistakes or near misses as opportunities to learn rather than to find fault or fix blame
70%
48
Current Status of ISM@Berkeley Lab
We have strong Senior Management leadership and commitment to safety
Recent improvements are still taking hold We believe ISM is being effectively
implemented at LBNL and we are addressing our weaknesses through the ISM Improvement Project Plan
Feedback and improvement is the key to effective ISM
Work Planning Control
John Seabury
Work Planning and ControlAt the Activity Level
John SeaburyEnvironment, Health and Safety Division
Presented to
HSS Review Team
January 6, 2009
Work Planning and Control requirements are broadly described in LBNL’s Health and Safety Manual PUB-3000
“As part of the work planning process, principal investigators, managers, and supervisors (work
leaders) are required to consider what hazards, risks, and concerns are present, and to implement
appropriate controls.”
Types of Work Planning and Control Processes
Baseline– Used to analyze and authorize regular or routine tasks
encountered during normal work assignments– Incorporate and describe “Skill of the Craft”– May require more detailed analysis in a supplemental process– All workers have baseline analysis and authorization
Supplemental– Used to analyze and authorize unpredicted, short-term, unusual
or high hazard work, or work that requires a detailed safety envelope
– More detailed analysis of specific tasks
Analyzed and Authorized
Work
Baseline Supplemental
Work Planning and Control ProcessesActivity Level
Electronic Systems
Paper Systems
AlternateJHA Systems
Institutional JHA Formal WorkAuthorizations
Task-basedAuthorizations
ExposureAssessments
Baseline ProcessesJHA System – used by most LBNL workers
– Software based, question/answer format– System identifies “typical” controls (including training),
negotiated between worker and Work Lead– Electronic signatures authorize the work
Equivalent systems (“Equivalence” is reviewed and approved by EH&S Director through a formal review process)
– Construction JHA – used by Construction Subcontractors– Nonconstruction Subcontractor JHA – used by vendors,
service providers, and other nonconstruction subcontractors– ALS, B88 Cyclotron, Alameda County Fire Department– Membership in an equivalent system is assigned by the JHA
System, but content is separate
Supplemental Processes
Formal Authorizations for higher-hazard work (e.g., radioactive, biological, laser, high pressure, etc.)
Task-based JHAs– Maximo system is used by Facilities to analyze/authorize work on
a specific work request basis– Experiment Summary Sheet is used by ALS to authorize
beamline experiments– Accelerators have work control systems for machine physical
and operational changes – Division-specific systems are used for field work
Exposure Assessments
Common Themes
• Analysis is a shared effort between the worker and Line Management.
• Authorization is a Line Management function as executed by the Work Lead (who may be but is not necessarily the payroll supervisor).
• Authorization is contingent upon controls being in place and used. Training is considered a control.
• Analysis and authorization must be in place prior to beginning work.
• Analysis and authorization must be renewed at least annually, and more often if work changes.
Strengths• Consistent interface used by most LBNL workers
provides simplicity• JHA software acts as “hub”
– incorporates most supplemental authorizations– single-point entry– easy data retrieval across the organization (e.g., user
facilities)
• Rigor supports conformance to ISM principles, but also allows sufficient flexibility to meet local needs (e.g., Work Group analysis)
• Specific tasks listed in the JHA allow for automated distribution of relevant Lessons Learned
Opportunities
• Specific authorization of bench-level work is a relatively new cultural change, not yet universally embraced across the organization.
• Several opportunities for system enhancement are in various stages of implementation.
– Electronic systems not yet fully integrated– Users have requested more personalized reports
• Increased rigor in analysis and authorization has uncovered other opportunities for continuous improvement.
– Better descriptions of work will improve analysis– On the Job Training can be better described