ISM Core Function Teams Assessment Plan

January 2008

CF#3 Report: Physics Division, Fast Electronics Group
Assessment Title / ISM Core Function #3 (Develop and Implement Controls) Independent Assessment (Cycle I)
Date / February 8, 2008 / Assessment # / IA-2008-05
(obtained from QA/CI)
Purpose & Scope:
The purpose of this assessment was to evaluate the effectiveness and identify opportunities for improvement for Core Function #3 – Develop and Implement Controls - of the Integrated Safety Management System. The expectations for criteria to be evaluated and activities to be conducted to perform the evaluation for this assessment are summarized below.
Inspection Criteria:
  • Management systems for work control are developed and effectively implemented for work activities that ensure development of adequate hazard controls for performing the work safely and mitigating environmental impact.
  • Line management has established processes for identifying and tailoring controls for hazards associated with all facilities, operations, and work activities.
  • Hazard controls are established based on an analysis of hazards, vulnerabilities, and risks in the work environment (e.g., radiological, chemical. industrial, physical, and natural phenomena).
Inspection Activities:
  • Review work planning and control processes and procedures. Interview personnel including project personnel, group leaders, subject matter experts, managers, work control managers, foremen, supervisors, environmental, safety, and health support personnel, and operations/technician personnel.
  • Review selected safety requirements, hazard control plans, sampling results, permits (radiological work permits, industrial hygiene/industrial safety), work documents, procedures, pollution prevention opportunity assessments, and monitoring protocols. Observe work activities.
  • Interview facility managers, project leaders/supervisors, workers, and ES&H personnel.
This assessment was performed in accordance with the assessment plan titled: Jefferson Laboratory, ISM Core Function Teams Assessment Plan (Cycle I) during the period: January 14, 2008 through February 8, 2008
The following personnel participated in the assessment
  • John Kelly, member of Core Function Team #3
  • Chris Cuevas, Group Leader, Fast Electronics Group

Summary of Assessment:
Provide a narrative summary of areas assessed. Description is to include adequate details to enable an independent reviewer to comprehend the depth and breadth of the assessment. Details to include key elements of the assessed activity or process and the status of their acceptability. When applicable, define the status of implementation of actions related to previous issues relevant to the assessed area.
Assessment encompassed Fast Electronics Group (FEG) in the Physics Division. (Org chart attached.) The group designs, builds prototypes, assembles, and installs systems with combinations in-house and “off-the-shelf” commercial component enclosures and power supplies. The application of this equipment is to process detector signals that result from events in the electron beam and target interactions. They service and maintain the systems once they are installed in the experimental halls.
The FEG has its own laboratory/fabrication area in the EELBuilding (90). Senior engineers have office space in CEBAFCenter. The installation, servicing, modification of installed equipment occurs in all three Halls.
The assessment focused primarily on the FEG’s internal processes and hazard controls, but also how the group interacted with other groups that might be working concurrently in the Halls during a shutdown, for example, as well as the prevailing work-safety rules in effect in each of the Halls. The group leader was interviewed for the assessment, and relevant working documents were reviewed (and attached to this summary).
Results:
Define the issues (findings, observations, noteworthy practices) identified during the assessment. All findings require corrective action to eliminate the non-conformance. Cognizant management will decide whether or not to pursue corrective actions for observations. Issues with corrective actions should be documented on a Corrective Action Form (Attachment D) and entered into CATS; the CATS identification number should be included in the report. Identify the status of each issue (open, pending, or closed), issue owner, and estimated completion of required corrective and/or preventive actions. Clearly state all required follow-up actions with due dates and owners.
  • Are standardized hazard controls developed and used in an appropriately graded approach based on project/work complexity and risk, performance frequency, and hazard analysis results?
Hazard “profile” for the FEG is relatively low and static. Standing work-safety methods are understood by group members and are incorporated consistent with the task at hand.
Yes / No / Partially / Not Observed/
Evaluated
Physics - Fast Electronics Group / 
  • Do controls encompass each phase of work performance and all aspects of the work, including potentially abnormal or emergency situations?
Yes / No / Partially / Not Observed/
Evaluated
Physics - Fast Electronics Group / 
  • Are the knowledge, skills, and abilities of the work force considered when selecting the form of controls?
Yes / No / Partially / Not Observed/
Evaluated
Physics - Fast Electronics Group / 
  • Are the types of controls (engineering, administrative, and personal protection equipment) applied in the correct sequence and with an appropriate technical basis?
Yes / No / Partially / Not Observed/
Evaluated
Physics - Fast Electronics Group / 
  • Are the hazard controls comprehensive and adequate for maintaining planning efficiency while ensuring acceptable hazard mitigation or elimination?
Yes / No / Partially / Not Observed/
Evaluated
Physics - Fast Electronics Group / 
  • Are corresponding training requirements incorporated into controls and hazard assessments?
New members of the group complete all relevant JLab SAF training (per ITP). Task assignment is made commensurate with demonstrated skills, experience, and knowledge. In effect, group leader serves as “mentor” for new group members.
Yes / No / Partially / Not Observed/
Evaluated
Physics - Fast Electronics Group / 
  • Are thresholds identified for involvement of ES&H personnel in the tailoring or implementation of hazard controls?
Yes / No / Partially / Not Observed/
Evaluated
Physics - Fast Electronics Group / 
  • Are workers/supervisors stop-work authorities and responsibilities clearly defined for unexpected hazards or safety concerns?
Yes / No / Partially / Not Observed/
Evaluated
Physics - Fast Electronics Group / 
  • Do procedures address liaisons and interfaces between organizations to ensure conflicts and overlapping work activities are properly coordinated and resolved?
FEG has advance coordination meetings with experimental hall work coordinators. These involve other groups and concurrent work as needed. Hall coordinators have ultimate authority for overall safe conduct of work in their respective areas, and this is understood by FEG personnel...
Yes / No / Partially / Not Observed/
Evaluated
Physics - Fast Electronics Group / 
  • Are control sets sufficiently analyzed to ensure they do not conflict or introduce additional hazards?
Yes / No / Partially / Not Observed/
Evaluated
Physics - Fast Electronics Group / 
  • Do controls sufficiently provide notification and afford protection to co-located workers who may either be present or traverse the areas potentially impacted by the activity?
Yes / No / Partially / Not Observed/
Evaluated
Physics - Fast Electronics Group / NA
  • Is independent safety review of the adequacy of controls provided for higher hazard activities?
Yes / No / Partially / Not Observed/
Evaluated
Physics - Fast Electronics Group / NA
  • Are workers involved in the development of controls?
Typically in regular group meeting forum.
Yes / No / Partially / Not Observed/
Evaluated
Physics - Fast Electronics Group / 
  • Are parameters clearly defined and established in appropriate facility procedures? Are hazard controls sufficient to ensure that facility and other operating limits are not exceeded?
Limited interface with facility infrastructure. Facilities Mgmt. & Logistics installs electrical branch circuits when required. FEG equipment presents no hazards to its environment beyond those expected in that type of occupancy with standard JLab fire, life-safety, and other protection measures.
Yes / No / Partially / Not Observed/
Evaluated
Physics - Fast Electronics Group / 
  • Have facility safety requirements been clearly translated into facility, building, system, and equipment specific information that are available and usable by workers within the facility?
Experimental hall safety policies and procedures form high-level requirements. FEG-specific rules are combined as dictated by location and nature of the particular task.
Yes / No / Partially / Not Observed/
Evaluated
Physics - Fast Electronics Group / 
  • Are appropriate hazard controls from hazard analyses and permits included in approved work documents and are they adequately implemented?
Routine ES&H Manual provisions are sufficient for FEG work within their lab area and in the filed. They are subject to OSPs & SOPs governing conduct of work for areas in which FEG staff may enter.
Yes / No / Partially / Not Observed/
Evaluated
Physics - Fast Electronics Group / 
  • Are standardized hazard controls developed and used in an appropriately graded approach that considers work complexity, performance frequency, and magnitude of the risks?
JLab electrical work rules apply, though exposed components have low voltage and limited current. LO/TO required when power cord plugs cannot be controlled by worker. Standing requirement to use 2-person lift methods for heavy components.
Yes / No / Partially / Not Observed/
Evaluated
Physics - Fast Electronics Group / 
  • Are work documents complete with adequate procedures, instructions, and/or drawings, and are bounding conditions and limitations clearly specified?
A representative procedure was reviewed. It demonstrates clear instructions, is well illustrated, and safety content is inserted at the appropriate steps – in effect, a How-To guide.
Yes / No / Partially / Not Observed/
Evaluated
Physics - Fast Electronics Group / 
  • Are permits appropriately tailored, specified, and integrated into the work package (e.g., Lockout/Tagout, radiological work, confined space, hot work, energized electrical, elevated work, and asbestos abatement)?
FEG is subject to RWP, ODH classification, proximity warnings to high-flux magnets, and other equipment-specific precautions in effect in the Halls at the time of their entry.
Yes / No / Partially / Not Observed/
Evaluated
Physics - Fast Electronics Group / 
  • Is the reliability of hazard controls for higher risk activities assessed and failure consequences determined and considered?
Some purchased equipment used by the FEG is made to European or international safety standards. Equivalence to U.S. NRTL is required.
Yes / No / Partially / Not Observed/
Evaluated
Physics - Fast Electronics Group / 
  • When project/work scope and tasks are changed, are the hazard controls reviewed for impacts?
Project Assignment Sheet is subject to modification if necessary. It also provides feedback mechanism to group leader from those who performed the task.
Yes / No / Partially / Not Observed/
Evaluated
Physics - Fast Electronics Group / 
  • Are training requirements for personnel needed to perform the work in accordance with established controls clearly defined, specified and implemented?
Yes / No / Partially / Not Observed/
Evaluated
Physics - Fast Electronics Group / 
  • Are appropriate analytical parameters and data quality objectives included in sampling and analysis programs?
Yes / No / Partially / Not Observed/
Evaluated
Physics - Fast Electronics Group / NA
  • Are the required administrative and engineering controls in place at locations where waste is generated and stored (for example, signs identifying less-than-90-day storage areas) per internal and external requirements?
Laboratory and field activity yields discarded components, circuit boards, and similar products. These are collected in designated container (“Green Bucket”), and are collected by Property for disposal as scrap.
Yes / No / Partially / Not Observed/
Evaluated
Physics - Fast Electronics Group / 
  • Are signs and postings clear and current with regard to hazards and entry requirements?
Lab door has lead-hazard postings.
Yes / No / Partially / Not Observed/
Evaluated
Physics - Fast Electronics Group / 
  • Is there appropriate linkage between tasks, hazards, and hazard controls in work control documents?
Yes / No / Partially / Not Observed/
Evaluated
Physics - Fast Electronics Group / 
  • Are workers and appropriate environment, safety, and health professionals included on planning teams and involved in hazard control development? Are minimum thresholds identified, based on the hazards and risks, which require the involvement of ES&H and waste management personnel and subject matter experts when developing work packages and during work activities?
Limited applicability to FEG relative to many JLab groups.
Yes / No / Partially / Not Observed/
Evaluated
Physics - Fast Electronics Group / 
  • Do environmental, waste management, radiological, health, safety, and operations personnel have an adequate understanding of each other's requirements and processes to minimize environmental impacts and meet regulatory requirements?
Yes / No / Partially / Not Observed/
Evaluated
Physics - Fast Electronics Group / 
  • Are the roles and responsibilities for ES&H subject matter experts, and reviewers well documented, and are development and implementation or controls established and understood?
Limited applicability to FEG relative to many JLab groups.
Yes / No / Partially / Not Observed/
Evaluated
Physics - Fast Electronics Group / 
Ensure that the below narratives identify the appropriate division(s) or that the entry is applicable to all divisions.
Summary of Assessment Activities
Assessment included interview with FEG group leader, review of representative documentation used to define scope of work, methods, and relevant precautions. Experimental hall OSPs screened to confirm inclusion of FEG in review stage where applicable.
Findings
None
Observations/Opportunities for Improvement
Consider adding physical requirements to FEG position descriptions and job postings.
Noteworthy Practices
Project assignment sheet appears to be an efficient and effective way to define scope of work, technical requirements, and ESH aspects of particular relevance to the task.
Effectiveness Evaluation:
State the team’s conclusion on effectiveness of the area or activity assessed. When applicable, discuss the implementation of previous corrective or preventive actions in the assessment effectiveness statement.
Performed by: / J. Kelly / Date: / 2/15/08
Lead Assessor
Reviewed by: / Date:
Manager, QA/CI
Reviewed by: / Date:
Associate Director, Physics - Fast Electronics Group
Approved by: / Date:
Chief Operations Officer
Approved by: / Date:
Director Jefferson Laboratory
Appendix 22 – CF#3 Report: Accelerator - SRF
Assessment Title / ISM Core Function #3 (Develop and Implement Controls) Independent Assessment (Cycle I)
Date / February 8, 2008 / Assessment # / IA-2008-05
(obtained from QA/CI)
Purpose & Scope:
The purpose of this assessment was to evaluate the effectiveness and identify opportunities for improvement for Core Function #3 – Develop and Implement Controls - of the Integrated Safety Management System. The expectations for criteria to be evaluated and activities to be conducted to perform the evaluation for this assessment are summarized below.
Inspection Criteria:
  • Management systems for work control are developed and effectively implemented for work activities that ensure development of adequate hazard controls for performing the work safely and mitigating environmental impact.
  • Line management has established processes for identifying and tailoring controls for hazards associated with all facilities, operations, and work activities.
  • Hazard controls are established based on an analysis of hazards, vulnerabilities, and risks in the work environment (e.g., radiological, chemical. industrial, physical, and natural phenomena).
Inspection Activities:
  • Review work planning and control processes and procedures. Interview personnel including project personnel, group leaders, subject matter experts, managers, work control managers, foremen, supervisors, environmental, safety and health support personnel, and operations/technician personnel.
  • Review selected safety requirements, hazard control plans, sampling results, permits (radiological work permits, industrial hygiene/industrial safety), work documents, procedures, pollution prevention opportunity assessments, and monitoring protocols. Observe work activities.
  • Interview facility managers, project leaders/supervisors, workers, and ES&H personnel.
This assessment was performed in accordance with the assessment plan titled: Jefferson Laboratory, ISM Core Function Teams Assessment Plan (Cycle I) during the period: January 14, 2008 through February 8, 2008
The following personnel participated in the assessment
  • Phil Mutton
  • Bob Rimmer

Summary of Assessment:
The assessment comprises the result of one interview with the department head, attendance at some of the daily morning meetings, and weekly coordination meetings. The reviewer’s general knowledge of some recent activities and existing conditions are also reflected in this report.
Results:
Define the issues (findings, observations, noteworthy practices) identified during the assessment. All findings require corrective action to eliminate the non-conformance. Cognizant management will decide whether or not to pursue corrective actions for observations. Issues with corrective actions should be documented on a Corrective Action Form (Attachment D) and entered into CATS; the CATS identification number should be included in the report. Identify the status of each issue (open, pending or closed), issue owner, and estimated completion of required corrective and/or preventive actions. Clearly state all required follow-up actions with due dates and owners.
  • Are standardized hazard controls developed and used in an appropriately graded approach based on project/work complexity and risk, performance frequency, and hazard analysis results?
Yes / No / Partially / Not Observed/
Evaluated
Accelerator-SRF / 
  • Do controls encompass each phase of work performance and all aspects of the work, including potentially abnormal or emergency situations?
Yes / No / Partially / Not Observed/
Evaluated
Accelerator-SRF / 
  • Are the knowledge, skills, and abilities of the work force considered when selecting the form of controls?
Yes / No / Partially / Not Observed/
Evaluated
Accelerator-SRF / 
  • Are the types of controls (engineering, administrative, and personal protection equipment) applied in the correct sequence and with an appropriate technical basis?
Yes / No / Partially / Not Observed/