# Presentation: 335924

## ES&H Inspection at LBNL

- Scoping Visit
- December 3-4, 2008

## Office of Independent Oversight

***Office of Independent Oversight***
***Environment, Safety and Health Inspection***
***at the***
***Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory***
***Scoping Visit***
***December 3, 2008***

**Chief Health, Safety and Security Officer**

** ****Deputy Chief**
**for Operations**

** ****Deputy Chief for**
**Enforcement and **
**Technical Matters**

**HS-1**

**HS-1**

**Glenn S. Podonsky**

**Michael A. Kilpatrick**

**C. Russell H. Shearer**

**Office of**
**Health and **
**Safety**

**HS-10**

**Patricia R. Worthington**
**Director**

**Office of**
**Nuclear Safety, Quality Assurance**
**and Environment**

**HS-20**

**Andrew C. Lawrence**
**Director **

**Office of**
**Corporate Safety Analysis**

**HS-30**

**William H. Roege**
**Director **

**Office of**
**Enforcement**

**HS-40**

**Arnold  E. Guevara**
**Director**
**Martha S. Thompson**
**Deputy Director**

**National**
**Training **
**Center**

**HS-50**

**Jeffrey P. Harrell**
**Director**

**Office of**
**Environment, **
**Safety and Health **
**Evaluations**

**Office of**
**Independent**
**Oversight**

**Office of**
**Security **
**Evaluations**

**Office of**
**Cyber Security**
**Evaluations**

**Office of**
**Emergency**
**Management **
**Oversight**

**HS-60**

**HS-61**

**HS-62**

**HS-63**

**HS-64**

**William A. Eckroade**
**Director**

**John Hyndman**
**Acting Director**

**John Boulden III**
**Director**

**Steven Simonson**
**Director**

**Thomas Staker**
**Director**

**Office of**
**Security **
**Policy**

**HS-70**

**Richard L. Donovan**
**Deputy Director**

**Barbara R. Stone**
**Director**

**Office of**
**Security Technology **
**and Assistance**

**HS-80**

**Larry D. Wilcher**
**Director**

**Office of**
**Classification**

**Andrew P. Weston-Dawkes**
**Director**

**Page 2 of 11**

## Independent Oversight Offices

_**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

## Overall Inspection Goal

**Page 4 of 11**

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

## ES&H Inspection Topics 

***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)

## Onsite Planning

***Onsite Planning***

- Meet Counterparts
- Tour Facilities
- Meet With Site Process Owners
- Discuss Ongoing and Planned Activities/Initiatives
- Confirm Inspection Scope
- Obtain and Review Documents

## Data Collection Visit

***Data Collection Visit***

- Observe Activities/Facility Walkthroughs
- Interviews and Discussions
- Document Reviews
- Keep Counterparts Informed of Observations
- Daily Meetings to Discuss Observations and Status

## Report

***Report***

- Summary Report and Validation Appendixes
- Opportunities for Improvement
- Findings
- Ratings

## Validation and Closeout

***Validation and Closeout***

- Informal Validation with Counterparts and Responsible Individuals
- Formal Validation Meeting
- Formal Closeout
- Final Factual Accuracy Review

## Sequencing

***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**

## Next Steps

- Assign Counterparts
- Issue Inspection Plan
- Schedule Activities for Planning Visit

***Next Steps***

**Page 11 of 11**

## DOE Berkeley Site Office

##  HSS Pre-VisitBSO Overview

**Aundra Richards**
**Site Manager **
**December 3-4, 2008**

**Notes:**
Welcome, I appreciate you being here but first I need to point out where the exits are and general safety information for events such as earthquakes and fire alarms. 

## Outline

**BSO Background and History **
**Past**
**Present**
**BSO Mission and Responsibilities**
**BSO Organization **
**BSO Management System**
**BSO  Continuous Improvements**

**Notes:**
To understand where we are today, you will need to understand where we have come from over the past few years.  I will cover both background and history of the BSO; briefly describe how we are organized; how we manage; and conclude with what we see as needed improvements.

##  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)**

**Notes:**
The Berkeley Site Office has gone through tremendous change with the dissolving of the Oakland Office, and undertaking new and increased responsibility at the site office level. So in a relatively short time, BSO has moved  from limited responsibility, limited field presence to a Site Office with complete Contract and Oversight responsibilities.

## 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)**

**Notes:**
As we have changed to meet the new expectations, we have also focused on getting the right people with the right skills to meet those expectations.  You will see that we have many new staff and in many cases new procedures and processes to ensure compliance with current requirements.

## 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**

**Notes:**
As the Site Manager I am the CO responsible for the contract with UC.  This site has an unusual arrangement with the buildings owned by the Department and sitting on UC land.  The lease arrangement is also unique because there is a separate leasehold around each building.  

##  BSO Organization

- PROJECTS & FACILITIES
- DIVISION
- Vacant
*Division Director*

- ENVIRONMENT, SAFETY and HEALTH DIVISION
- Mary Gross
* **Sr. General Engineer / Division Director*
- Vacant
*Management Analyst*

- CONTRACTS & BUSINESS  DIVISION
- Charles Marshall
* **Sr. Contracting Officer/ Division Director*
- Dana Coleman
*Business Management Specialist*

** ****BSO Organization**

- Aundra Richards
*Site Manager*
- Vacant
*Deputy Site Manager*
- Vacant
*Senior Technical Advisor*

- Jacolyn Byrd                             Joe Krupa
*Reimbursable Tech Specialist    Program Analyst*
- Douglas Low	                       John Muhlestein
*Budget Analyst**	**                       Program Analyst*
- Maria Robles 	                        Paul Sibal* *
*Contracting Specialist/Officer    Business Management **	**                       Specialist**	*
- Donna Spencer
*Quality Assurance Engineer**	*
*	**	**	** *
- Rodney Royster*	**                       *Lauren Martinez
*Information Security Specialist  Public Affairs Specialist*
- (shared with SSO)                     (shared with SSO)
*	**	*	 *	** *	*	**	*
*	**	*
*	*

- Kim Abbott	        Mike Carr
*Environmental Engineer   Safety Engineer*
- Kevin Hartnett                 Julie Henderson* Physical Scientist               Physical Scientist*
* **	*
- Salma El-Safwany
*General Engineer*
*	*
*============================*
- John Saidi**	           Scott Wenholz**
*Fire Safety &**	**           Health Physics*
*Emergency Mgmt**	**          **(SSO employee)*
*(SSO employee)*

- Hemant Patel          Katherine Johnescu
*Environmental Eng     General Engineer*
*Federal Project Dir     Federal Project Dir*
- Barry Savnik             Suzanne Suskind
*General Engineer       General Engineer Federal Project Dir    Federal Project Dir**	*
- Warren Yip
*General Engineer*
*Federal Project Dir**	*
- 	           *==========================                                                                       *
- Request FTE Vacant
*Facility Manager*

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

**Notes:**
My organization has three divisions.

## 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**

**Notes:**
A key component of ISM is continuous improvement.  We have conducted an extensive self assessment of BSO and have either completed corrective actions or are in the process of completing actions to resolve the issues found.  We have also put an added emphasis on increasing safety oversight  provided by our federal project directors and program analyst in order to obtain their perspective on the overall “Sense of the Laboratory”.  With the use of tracking and trending of our oversight data in ORION and better integration of our ES&H resources, we believe that this will greatly strengthen our oversight and continuous improvement programs.

## 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**

**Notes:**
We still have work to do to qualify the staff.  We will continue to rely on the Integrated Service Center for support. You will see that we have many new procedures and processes and that implementation is, in some instances, is in its infancy.  We are using more self assessments and effectiveness reviews, using these new systems and  processes, to drive their maturity and our overall improvement process.

## 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.**

**Notes:**
In Summary, I want BSO to value safety and seek to improvement in safety and all other areas of responsibility.  I look forward to your review, as I do any  review, because your feedback will help us reach our overall goal.  Any questions?

## Integrated Safety Managementat LBNL

- Dr. Steven Chu

## Steven Chu, Laboratory Director
December 3, 2008

- 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

## INTEGRATED SAFETY MANAGEMENT &  SCIENCE EXCELLENCE

- 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.

- 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.

## Substantive Safety discussions lead off every Division Director Meeting 
In the September, 2008 annual senior management retreat, we made safety a major focus.

- 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 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”

##  Evidence 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

- 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

**Focus on Ergonomic Injury Prevention**

##  Evidence 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”

## 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 implementation 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

## Slide 38

## LBNL welcomes the HSS review, and we look forward to learning from your feedback.

## Slide 40