ES&H Inspection at LBNL Scoping Visit December 3-4, 2008

ES&H Inspection at LBNL

Scoping Visit

December 3-4, 2008

Office of Independent Oversight

Environment, Safety and Health Inspectionat the

Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory

Scoping Visit

December 3, 2008

Chief Health, Safety and Security Officer

Deputy Chieffor Operations

Deputy Chief forEnforcement and Technical Matters

HS-1

HS-1

Glenn S. Podonsky

Michael A. Kilpatrick

C. Russell H. Shearer

Office ofHealth and

Safety

HS-10

Patricia R. Worthington

Director

Office ofNuclear Safety,

Quality Assurance

and Environment

HS-20

Andrew C. LawrenceDirector

Office ofCorporate

Safety Analysis

HS-30

William H. RoegeDirector

Office ofEnforcement

HS-40

Arnold E. GuevaraDirector

Martha S. ThompsonDeputy Director

NationalTraining Center

HS-50

Jeffrey P. HarrellDirector

Office ofEnvironment,

Safety and Health Evaluations

Office ofIndependent

Oversight

Office ofSecurity

Evaluations

Office ofCyber Security

Evaluations

Office ofEmergency

Management Oversight

HS-60

HS-61

HS-62

HS-63

HS-64

William A. EckroadeDirector

John HyndmanActing Director

John Boulden IIIDirector

Steven SimonsonDirector

Thomas StakerDirector

Office ofSecurity

Policy

HS-70

Richard L. DonovanDeputy Director

Barbara R. StoneDirector

Office ofSecurity

Technology and Assistance

HS-80

Larry D. WilcherDirector

Office ofClassification

Andrew P. Weston-DawkesDirector

Page 2 of 11

Page 3 of 11

Office ofIndependent

Oversight

William A. EckroadeDirector

HS-60

Independent Oversight Offices

• Office of Security Evaluations – Evaluates the Effectiveness of Safeguards and Security Policies and

Programs

• Office of Cyber Security Evaluations – Evaluates the Effectiveness of Classified and Unclassified

Computer Security Policies and Programs

• Office of Emergency Management Oversight – Evaluates the Effectiveness of Departmental Emergency Management

Policies, Requirements, and Programs, Including Integration with Security Programs

• Office of ES&H Evaluations – Evaluates the Effectiveness and Implementation of Departmental

ES&H Policies, Requirements, and Programs– Evaluates the Effectiveness of the Implementation of Integrated

Safety Management Systems through Onsite Evaluations

Office ofSecurity

Evaluations

John HyndmanActing Director

HS-61

Office ofCyber Security

Evaluations

John Boulden Director

HS-62

Office ofEmergency

ManagementOversight

Steven SimonsonDirector

HS-63

Office ofES&H

Evaluations

Thomas StakerDirector

HS-64

Overall Inspection Goal

Page 4 of 11

Evaluate ES&H performance including the adequacy of Integrated Safety Management Systems and implementation of these systems.

Page 5 of 11

ES&H Inspection Topics

Integration of Safety Into Work Planning and Execution at the Activity Level

Feedback and Improvement Processes

Select Focus Areas Chemical Management Hazardous Waste Management Worker Rights and Responsibilities Injury and Illness (CARES)

Page 6 of 11

Onsite Planning

Meet Counterparts

Tour Facilities

Meet With Site Process Owners

Discuss Ongoing and Planned Activities/Initiatives

Confirm Inspection Scope

Obtain and Review Documents

Page 7 of 11

Data Collection Visit

Observe Activities/Facility Walkthroughs

Interviews and Discussions

Document Reviews

Keep Counterparts Informed of Observations

Daily Meetings to Discuss Observations and Status

Page 8 of 11

Report

Summary Report and Validation Appendixes

Opportunities for Improvement

Findings

Ratings

Page 9 of 11

Validation and Closeout

Informal Validation with Counterparts and Responsible Individuals

Formal Validation Meeting

Formal Closeout

Final Factual Accuracy Review

Page 10 of 11

Sequencing

January 6-8

Site Comment Period

Onsite Planning

Summary Validation/Closeout

Report Finalized

Jan. 26 – Feb. 5 Onsite Data Collection

February 24-26

March 2-16

April

Establish Scope

Assign Counterparts

Issue Inspection Plan

Schedule Activities for Planning Visit

Next Steps

Page 11 of 11

DOE Berkeley Site Office

U.S. Department of Energy

Office of Science

14


HSS Pre-Visit

BSO OverviewAundra Richards

Site Manager

December 3-4, 2008


Office of Science

15


Outline

• BSO Background and History

Past

Present

• BSO Mission and Responsibilities

• BSO Organization

• BSO Management System

• BSO Continuous Improvements


Office of Science

16


BSO Background and History - Past

• Prior to December 2004, the Berkeley Site Office (BSO) reported to the Oakland Field Office (OFO)

• BSO had no authority for the University of California Contract

• There was limited Environment, Safety, and Health (ES&H) On-Site Presence

• The focus of the Site Office Staff was to Monitor Office of Science (SC-HQ) Programs and Operations

Primarily focused on Contractor Submittals

Limited Field Presence (i.e. Contractor Oversight primarily performed by OFO)


Office of Science

17


BSO History and Background -Present

BSO is a stand-alone Site Office Reporting to SC HQ and is responsible for Contract Management Program and Project Management Federal Stewardship

Staffed with 23 Professionals (3 Vacancies) 3 Divisions 6 ES&H Professionals—plus 2 Shared Staff with Stanford Site

Office (SSO) Only 8 Staff Remain from the Original 2004 Organization All ES&H Division Staff Members are experienced but new to

BSO ES&H Subject Matter Expert Support is obtained from the

Integrated Support Center (ISC)


Office of Science

18


BSO Mission and Responsibilities

• BSO Represents the Department of Energy as the Principal Funding Agency for LBNL Direct Responsibility for the Contract with the University of

California (UC)

Buildings are owned by the federal government, on UC owned land

• BSO Exercises Federal Oversight for Safety and Operations through:

• Focused Reviews

• Assessments

• Walkthroughs


Office of Science

19

PROJECTS & FACILITIES DIVISION

VacantDivision Director

ENVIRONMENT, SAFETY and HEALTH DIVISION

Mary Gross Sr. General Engineer / Division Director

VacantManagement Analyst

CONTRACTS & BUSINESS DIVISION

Charles Marshall Sr. Contracting Officer/ Division Director

Dana ColemanBusiness Management Specialist

BSO OrganizationAundra Richards

Site ManagerVacant

Deputy Site Manager

VacantSenior Technical Advisor

Jacolyn Byrd Joe KrupaReimbursable Tech Specialist Program Analyst

Douglas Low John Muhlestein Budget Analyst Program Analyst

Maria Robles Paul Sibal Contracting Specialist/Officer Business Management SpecialistDonna SpencerQuality Assurance Engineer

Rodney Royster Lauren Martinez Information Security Specialist Public Affairs Specialist(shared with SSO) (shared with SSO)

Kim Abbott Mike CarrEnvironmental Engineer Safety Engineer

Kevin Hartnett Julie Henderson Physical Scientist Physical Scientist Salma El-SafwanyGeneral Engineer

============================John Saidi** Scott Wenholz**Fire Safety & Health PhysicsEmergency Mgmt (SSO employee)(SSO employee)

Hemant Patel Katherine Johnescu Environmental Eng General EngineerFederal Project Dir Federal Project Dir

Barry Savnik Suzanne Suskind General Engineer General Engineer Federal Project Dir Federal Project Dir

Warren YipGeneral EngineerFederal Project Dir

========================== Request FTE Vacant Facility Manager

FTEs authorized/approved: 26 On-board: 23 ** = SSO shared position with BSO November 1, 2008


Office of Science

20


BSO Continuous Improvement

• Oversight Increased Emphasis on Field Oversight of Programs/Projects

Federal Project Directors have Line Management Responsibility for Safety Increased field presence with a focus on ES&H Focus on compliance with applicable directives (i.e. DOE O 413.3

and 226.1A)

Institutional Program Oversight (Sense of the Laboratory) Increased Emphasis on Tracking and Trending to aid in the

Development of Future Oversight Activities Increased integration of Safety into all aspects of BSO oversight


Office of Science

21


BSO Continuous Improvement

• Staffing Increased use of the ISC to:

Provide SMEs Augment Onsite Skills, as needed Serve as a “Fresh Set of Eyes”

Additional Emphasis on completing Technical Qualification Program Requirements

• Processes and Procedures Implementation of new Site Office Processes and Procedures will

be a continued focus as a result of: Adapting to Office of Science Management Systems (SCMS) New Staff in all Divisions Increased Efforts Focused on a Disciplined Operation Feedback and Continuous Improvement


Office of Science

22


BSO Summary

• The overall goal is to have an organization that: Values safety Integrates compliance, safe behavior, and safety

features into all our work processes Replicates successful outcomes Continues improvement

• This review is viewed as a mechanism for BSO to gain feedback that will aid improvement.

Integrated Safety Managementat LBNL

Dr. Steven Chu

Steven Chu, Laboratory Director

December 3, 2008

Integrated Safety Managementat Berkeley Lab

WHY DO WE WORRY ABOUT SAFETY?

1. Our Lives are at stake.

• A subcontractor sheet metal worker has forearm burned from exposed live 480 and 277 volt lines.

• A post-doctoral visitor is hit by a bicyclist at night moving at ~ 20 - 25 mph.

• Nitrogen dewar top hits scientist between the eyes at the Advanced Light Source.

WHY DO WE WORRY ABOUT SAFETY?

2. Training future scientists and engineers.

• LBNL employs ~800 students, grad students & post-docs

• We have a responsibility to train them to embrace a proper safety culture.

• If successful, we will have enormous impact beyond LBNL.

INTEGRATED SAFETY MANAGEMENT & SCIENCE EXCELLENCE

Analyze Hazards

Define work

Develop controls

Perform work

Feedback, improve-

ment

INTEGRATED SAFETY MANAGEMENT & SCIENCE EXCELLENCE

Analyze Hazards

Define work

Develop controls

Perform work

Feedback, improve-

ment

If something unexpected happens,stop and think.

OUR GOAL

A fundamental change in our safety culture

“IF IT ISN’T SAFE, IT ISN’T DONE”

Recent Events

• We had been making improvements in safety, but the rate of improvement was not fast enough.

• The BSO helped us realize that there were (and still are) noteworthy deficiencies in fully implementing ISM.

– Weak at analyzing hazards and developing controls

– Self-assessments and our other assurance mechanisms have let us down.

Positive changes:

• Substantive Safety discussions lead off every Division Director Meeting

• In the September, 2008 annual senior management retreat, we made safety a major focus.

Evidence of effective implementation of ISMEvidence of effective implementation of ISM

• Enhanced visibility of the senior manager ownership of safety

• We have a strong reporting culture • Innovative “near hit” program • Comprehensive program to prevent ergonomic

injuries.• Aggressive construction safety program.• Innovative approach to safety management with

students, post docs and guests - “Work Lead”






• Hired professional ergonomists

• Ergo Advocates in each Division

• On-line computer ergo self-assessment/training

• Ergo equipment lab

• Ergo in design of office furniture

• Ergo in design of software

• Aggressive JGI management response– Month-long stand-down

LBNL FY08 TRC Rate With and Without Repetitive Motion Injuries

1.56

0.78

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

Actual Without Repetitive Motion

Rat

e

DOE Goal 0.65

LBNL FY08 DART Rate With and Without Repetitive Motion Injuries

0.75

0.41

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

Actual Without Repetitive Motion

Rat

e

DOE Goal 0.25

Focus on Ergonomic Injury Prevention






Excellent Construction Safety Record

• 3 years w/o a construction related DART• No TRC or DART in FY08 on 80 projects ($200 M)

involving 80,000 hours of sub-contractor labor.

Evidence of noteworthy weaknesses in the Evidence of noteworthy weaknesses in the implementation of ISMimplementation of ISM

• Nearly 50% of events (e.g. recurring electrical safety and surface penetration) indicate need for improved work planning.

• Discussion of near “hits” confirm our work planning is deficient.

• Self-inspections, walk-throughs, and other assurance mechanisms did not find many existing weaknesses.

Full implementation of ISM throughout the laboratory has not been achieved

LBNL welcomes the HSS review, and we look

forward to learning from your feedback.