# Presentation: 031444

## 2004 Facility Representatives Workshop

- John Evans
- May 18, 2004

**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 Rep program continues to be widely recognized as the centerpiece of the Technical Qual Program.

Several reasons for this:
Facility Rep Program Standard DOE-STD-1063-93 provides overall guidance on selection, training, qualification, and expected duties, responsibilities and authorities of Fac Reps. 
Network of Steering Committee members and Sponsors to guide the program
Most importantly the Program is successful because of the efforts of Facility Reps, Steering Committee members and site managers who recognize the value of Facility Reps in safely accomplishing DOE mission. Field office personnel conduct staffing analyses, self-assessments. Senior Fac Reps train and mentor new Fac Reps. Sites have Fac Rep Councils and committees.

## Facility Representative Program Mission Statement

- Facility Representative Program Mission Statement

**Notes:**
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.

## Facility Representative Program Manager Responsibilities

-  	Guide DOE-wide implementation and continuous 		improvement
-  	Monitor DOE-wide implementation performance and 		disseminate information to promote improved 			performance
-  	Sponsor an annual workshop to share lessons learned 		and foster growth of the Facility Representative 		community

- Facility Representative Program Manager Responsibilities

**Notes:**
My role is to support the program and its continued evolution

Guide DOE-wide implementation and continuous improvement: We hold Steering Committee calls about every month. The purpose of these calls is to 

Monitor DOE-wide implementation: Performance indicator report each quarter. Participate on FR program self-assessments.

Sponsor an annual workshop 

## Program Status

-  	Number of Facility Representatives in DOE: 187
-  	Number if Fully Staffed:  228
-  	Percentage: 82%   DOE GOAL: 100%
- QUALIFICATION
-  	Number of Fully Qualified Facility Reps: 173
-  	Percentage: 93%    DOE GOAL: **80%**
- PERCENT FIELD TIME
-  	Percentage: 46%    DOE GOAL: >40%
- PERCENT OVERSIGHT TIME
-  	Percentage: 73%    DOE GOAL: >60%

- - as of December 2003

**Notes:**
These numbers are good as of December 2003.  

Staffing: Percentage is dropping over the last two years: December 2001 – 93%; December 2002 - 89%. Numbers: December 2001 225 FRs in DOE. 
Reductions:
SR  36 to 29 (-7)
RF  16 to 9  (-7)			total = 23
LASO 16 to 11 (-5)
KCSO 4 to 0 (-4)

As staffing percentage drops, some of those leaving were not fully qualified so qual percentage goes up. HOWEVR, as staffing percentage goes up, qualification percentage will go down.  We will probably challenge the 80% goal n 

## All-Stars Sites

- Sites meeting all DOE Goals:
- 	STAFFING 100%
-  	QUALIFICATION > 80%
-  	PERCENT FIELD TIME > 40%
-  	PERCENT OVERSIGHT TIME > 60%
- The sites are:
**EM: Carlsbad, Fernald, Richland, River Protection**
**NNSA: Y-12**
**SC: Pacific Northwest, Princeton**

**Notes:**
These numbers are good as of December 2003.  

Can add West Valley to the list as of March 2004. Field Time < 40% for 4Q 2003.

<100% Staffing: Oak Ridge (EM), MCP, RFPO, SR

< 40% Field Time: MCP, WVDP, Livermore, Los Alamos, Ames, AAO-E, BAO, Fermi, AAO-W

## 2003 Changes in Staffing

- 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)

**Notes:**
Normal attrition rate has been averaging 13% since 2000. In 2003 was a bit higher at 20%. Past years:
2003 – 20%
2002 – 8%
2001 – 12%
2000 – 16%

Making up the 20% were 40 FRs that left their positions at sites – sounds bad. But it really isn’t. Of those 40, 26 were lateral transfers to other DOE organizations (such as program and project management, safety basis review organizations, engineering organizations). 5 transferred to to FR positions at other sites; 3 were promoted to higher grade.

Only 6 left the DOE. 

## Recent Accomplishments

-  	FRs Developed Paper “Information on Use of Personal Digital 	Assistants by DOE Facility Representatives” March 	2004
-  	Simplified Discussion Board – easier to use
-  	Began process to revise DOE-STD-1063

**Notes:**
Info paper: “Information on Use of Personal Digital Assistants by DOE Facility Representatives.”
FRs are a mobile workforce, typically spending 30-50% of their time at work in their assigned facilities, observing day-to-day operations. FRs are also required to perform collateral duties that involve access to their computer workstations. FRs using PDAs report increased efficiency in their ability to effectively perform their primary responsibility while at the same time minimizing the potential impacts of being away from the computer workstation.
- This paper describes the potential beneficial uses of PDAs in the performance of Facility Representative duties, provides a description of common models of PDAs, and suggests factors to consider when purchasing PDAs. Appendix A provides feedback from Facility
Representatives at Oak Ridge, West Valley, and Argonne who are currently using PDAs. Appendix B provides a cost analysis between current PDAs models and a paper planner/organizer commonly used. The paper is intended to assist Facility Representatives and
their managers in determining if PDAs are appropriate and, if so, which type of PDAs would be most beneficial in their work.
-  PDAs useful in non-classified areas. Good for keeping procedures and other reference materials; note taking; dictation; scheduling; picture taking. 
-  FRs participating on effort: Dave Cook, WVDP; Carl Pilj, OR; Gary Clifton, OR; Rick Daniels, OR; Jeff Williams, LASO; Eric Turnquest, AAO-E

FR Discussion Board – Description: FRs can post questions for the rest of the community. When a new question is posted, I send out an email to the community to invite answers.  A few topics added. The one that generated the most discussion was the question asked by Bob Seal recently posted one asking for criteria used at sites to determine “near miss: for ORPS. 

Following ORRs & RAs were advertised for FR participation: 10/2002 Melton Valley LLW Treatment Project; 12/2002 NV Waste Examination Facility & JASPER; 4/2003 ORO SNF Loading activity

## Revision to DOE-STD-1063-2000

-   	Five Year Sunset Review due March 2005
-  	Facility Rep Steering Committee Involvement
-  	Working Group to develop initial draft, resolve 	comments for the Steering Committee
-   	Timeline:
- May 2004	Form Working Group
- June – July 	Develop initial draft
- Aug – Sept 	DOE-wide review
- Oct – Nov 	Resolve comments
- December 2004  	PUBLISH FINAL

**Notes:**
Five Year Sunset Review due March 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. 

## Revision to DOE-STD-1063-2000

- Areas for consideration include:
-  	Improvements to staffing analysis guidance
-  	Guidance for pipeline positions
-  	Strengthening continuing training guidance
-  	Addition of performance indicator guidance

**Notes:**
Areas for consideration:

Improvements to staffing analysis guidance To include < Cat 3 nuclear facilities and non-nuclear hazardous facilities (biohazard, chemical hazards, explosives hazards). Section 5.1 contains detailed guidance on staffing considerations but does not provide guidance for < Cat 3 nuclear and non-nuclear positions. Also addition of workload analysis step to verify that the workload anticipated for FRs is do-able with the available staff. 

Guidance for pipeline positions Consideration for these positions should be included in the staffing section, since it takes ~ 18 months - 2 years to hire and qualify a new FR. 

Strengthening continuing training guidance Include references to or elements of DOE-HDBK-1118-99, Guide to Good Practices for Continuing Training