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