# Presentation: 031479

## 2005 Facility Representatives Workshop

- John Evans
- May 17, 2005

**2005 Facility Representatives Workshop**

**Notes:**
Take a few minutes to go over the highlights of the program – briefly what it’s about, how it got to be where it is, and what we’ll be working on in the future

## Facility Representative Program Mission Statement

**Facility Representative Program ****Mission Statement**

**Notes:**
Like beginning a meal by saying grace or a blessing, I start all presentations on FR program with the mission statement. 
From the Purpose section of the Fac Rep Standard.  

Long sentence contains a few messages:
Day-to-day oversight – FRs in the facilities attending plan-of-the-day meetings, pre-job briefs, facility training, observing evolutions
Contractor operations – There’s no substitute to observing operations and seeing that work is accomplished safely. Programs or procedures can always look good on paper, but seeing how they are implemented is the key.
Provide info to line managers.

## Discussion Topics

-  	Program Status
-  	NNSA Site Reviews
-  	DOE-STD-1063-YR Status
-  	Red Book

## Program Status

-  	Number of Facility Representatives in DOE: 195 (187)
-  	Number if Fully Staffed:  213 (223)
-  	Percentage: 92% (82%)   DOE GOAL: 100%
- QUALIFICATION
-  	Number of Fully Qualified Facility Reps: 168 (173)
-  	Percentage: 86% (93%)    DOE GOAL: 80%
- PERCENT FIELD TIME
-  	Percentage: 46%    DOE GOAL: >40%
- PERCENT OVERSIGHT TIME
-  	Percentage: 72%    DOE GOAL: >60%

**Program Status**

- - as of December 2004

**Notes:**
These numbers are good as of December 2004.  

Key is to get a proper Fully Staffed number and then achieve it. We have detailed guidance on the staffing that sites have used. Refined numbers at some sites that hadn’t had a staffing analysis completed in some time. 

Staffing net gain of 8 FRs from year before. 
Staffing analyses changes: SR went from 35 to 30; SSO went from 12 to 8.

## All-Star Sites

- Sites meeting _all_ DOE FR Program Goals:
- 	STAFFING 100%
-  	QUALIFICATION > 80%
-  	PERCENT FIELD TIME > 40%
-  	PERCENT OVERSIGHT TIME > 60%
- The 9 sites are:
**EM: Carlsbad, Fernald, Miamisburg, Rocky Flats, River Protection, West Valley**
**NNSA: Y-12**
**SC: Pacific Northwest, Princeton**

**Notes:**
These numbers are good as of December 2004. 

## 2004 Attrition

- Attrition Rate for 2004: 8% (down from 20%)
- 16.5 FRs left their positions at sites:
- 	 7.5	 lateral transferred to other DOE organizations
- 	  2	 transferred to FR positions at other sites
- 	  7 	left DOE (5 retired, 2 resigned)

**Notes:**
2004 Info:
   Laterals – Nicole Hernandez, ID (0.5); RL, SR, LASO, LSO (Shawn Graham), OH (John Shine); 2 RF (Westbrook, Grosek)
   Transfers – Cary Bronson; Jody Pugh
   Left DOE – Hernon (IAEA); Jaeger  + 5 retired

Lower than average of 14% attrition. 

2003 Numbers: 
	40 FRs left their positions at sites:
	 26	lateral transferred to other DOE organizations
	  5 	transferred to FR positions at other sites
	  3 	promoted to a higher grade
	  6 	left DOE (5 retired, 1 resigned)

## NNSA FR Program Improvements

- Staffing & Training Improvements - Background
- Use of LASO Staffing Methodology
- DNFSB Letter May 14, 2004
- Amb. Brooks Response of July 13, 2004
- FTCP Letter September 16, 2004 providing staffing guidance
- Jerry Paul October 13, 2004 letter tasking NNSA sites to update staffing analyses & training process
- Morrow & Evans Reviews February – March 2005

**Notes:**
Background:
FTCP reviewing the use of staffing methodology at LASO for broader use. 

Shot in the arm....DNFSB sent a letter to the Secretary on May 14, 2004 describing issues with FR staffing and FR training on hazards. Based on DNFSB staff reviews at 3 NNSA sites. Amb. Brooks responded in July 13, 2004 committing to update the staffing analysis guidance, conduct staffing analyses, and to provide guidance to the sites on training. 

Emil Morrow took the lead to fulfill the commitments to the DNFSB. Dan Hoag led the staffing analysis with Karl Waltzer led updating the training guidance.  

Goals of the staffing analysis guidance: provide more detailed guidance on staffing at non-nuclear facilities and provide a workload analysis step to ensure that the coverage levels assigned to facilities are achievable given all the duties assigned to FRs. 

Goal of the training guidance: FRs will receive training on new hazards, processes, other conditions in their facilities prior to the new hazards, processes being introduced. Sources of training would be from multiple sources: AB people, subject matter experts, 

## Feedback from NNSA Site Reviews

**Staffing**
- All hazardous facilities not analyzed (either singly or as a group of facilities).
- Workload calculation not performed. Sites need to calculate their own Percentage of Time Available to Provide FR Coverage.
- Incomplete hazard identification.
**Training**
- Sites relied too heavily on FRs to identify needed training – should come from multiple sources.
- Tracking FRs who missed training weak.

**Notes:**
Example:
Haz Cat 2 facility, high activity level – Frequent FR coverage needed. What does that mean? Frequent: “FR is present about 1⁄2 the time.” Depends on facility operations. Assume single shift, M-F operations. So, can assume 2 days per week. One FR can be assigned multiple facilities – let’s say 2. That’s where the old methodology stopped. New methodology looks at other duties assigned to the FR to determine if this level is achievable. Calculate Percentage of Time Available to Provide FR Coverage. 

Range of Percentage of Time Available to Provide FR Coverage:
PXSO 0.77		NSO 0.7		LASO 0.62
SRSO 0.77		YSO 0.66 		LSO 0.62
SSO 0.77 

## Good Practices Noted

**Staffing**
- Former FRs maintain their qualifications.  NSO, YSO
- Group facilities according to proximity, common hazards, common mission. NSO, LASO
- Comprehensive list of hazards. SSO
**Training**
- Tracking system for completed training. YSO

**Notes:**
NSO: Tim Henderson
YSO: Ken Ivey, the only Assistant Mgr in DOE maintaining FR quals; Teresa Robbins; Mike Glasman; Jeff Cravens

Benefits: flexibility of staffing, increased technical capability, continued familiarity with operations and facilities. Proficiency standards need to be defined by the FEM. 

## Revision to DOE-STD-1063-2000

-   	Five Year Sunset Review due 2005
-  	Working Group developed initial draft, 	resolved comments for the FR Steering 	Committee
-   	Timeline:
- Apr – June 	DOE-wide review
- July – Aug 	Resolve comments
- September 2005  	PUBLISH FINAL

**Notes:**
Five Year Sunset Review due 2005  From TSPP-09, MAINTENANCE OF DOE TECHNICAL STANDARDS, all DOE standards are to be reviewed within five (5) years of the date that they were last updated [i.e., revised, reaffirmed, inactivated for new design, or reinstated]. This process is commonly referred to as a "Sunset Review."

Facility Rep Steering Committee Involvement This document will be a product of the Facility Rep Steering Committee.  Cumulative thoughts & comments will be considered and reflected in this document. DR-1 will be the preparing activity to keep the project moving forward on its timeline; however, the steering committee should be responsible for the content. 

## Draft Changes in DOE-STD-1063-YR

- 	Added guidance on differing professional opinion 	(Section 4.7)
-  	Added guidance on performance indicators	(Appendix A)
-  	Improved Assessment Lines of Questions 	(Appendix B)
-  	Improved staffing analysis guidance
- 	(Appendix C)
-  	Improved continuing training guidance 	(Appendix D)

**Notes:**
Addition of differing professional opinion guidance – One of the root causes of the February 2003 Columbia Space Shuttle accident identified by the Columbia Accident Investigation Board is that organizational barriers had become established within the NASA that prevented effective communication of critical safety information and stifled professional differences of opinion. FRs, as well as other technical oversight personnel, should provide information to management regardless of whether it may be different from the prevailing view, disagree with a management decision or policy position, or take issue with a proposed or established practice. This information should receive an appropriate level of review for resolution of any issues. If necessary, FRs are encouraged to use existing procedures or follow existing guidance on resolving differing professional opinions. If none exist, Facility Representatives should provide their management written information on their viewpoints, opinions, and recommendations, and management should strive to resolve any issues in a timely manner. 
Addition of Performance Indicator Guidance – especially what types of activities to include in the 40% and 60% calculations. 
Improved to Assessment Lines of Questions – tied lines of questions more closely to shall statements and included references to the applicable sections of the STD.
Improvements to staffing analysis guidance – discussed previously
Strengthening continuing training guidance – Include references to or elements of DOE-HDBK-1118-99, Guide to Good Practices for Continuing Training.

Backup Info: Requalification guidance: requalify every three years.  The Field Element Manager, or designee, may extend the three-year period up to six months for extenuating circumstances.  The purpose of triennial qualification is to ensure the incumbent Facility Representative maintains the knowledge and skills necessary to properly perform Facility Representative duties at the assigned facilities.  At the time of requalification the Facility Representative will be currently fully qualified and meet proficiency requirements at the assigned facility or facilities, and exhibit satisfactory performance as is documented by the past three performance appraisals.   DOE Field Element Managers shall document the requalification process, which shall as a minimum include the following:
a.   Items added to the Facility Representative Qualification Cards since the individual’s last qualification or requalification 
Determination by the Facility Representative’s supervisor what system, process, and facility documentation changes have occurred since qualification (or the last requalification) that are to be included for examination. 
 Any areas of theory or fundamentals, if any, which should be included for examination.
 A written and/or oral examination covering the material included for requalification examination.
 Certification of requalification is granted by the DOE Field Element Manager or designee.

## Red Book

**“****Operations Assessment Field Handbook (June 1994)”**
- Is it widely used?
- Should it be updated?
- Feedback appreciated.

**Notes:**
Part of the EM Operations Assessment Program. Program no longer exists but the handbook lives on. Includes guidance for doing performance-based assessment of operations based on DOE O 5480.19, Conduct of Operations Requirements for DOE Facilities.

Converted into a DOE Limited Standard in 1996: DOE-EM-STD-5505, Operations Assessment. Canceled in October 2001.