ISM Core Function Team #1 Define the Scope of Work

ISM Core Function Team #1 – Define the Scope of Work

Interview List

Organization / Division / Interviewed / Interviewees
FEL / Gun Test Stand / George Neil / Debra Brand
Carlos Hernandez-Garcia / Kelly Tremblay
Bubba Bullard
Accelerator / Operations / Arne Freyberger / Byron Golden
Michael Epps / John Riesbeck
Accelerator / SRFINT / Charlie Reece / Byron Golden
Jeff Saunders / John Riesbeck
Chris Dreyfuss
Facilities/Logistics / Mechanical / John Sprouse / John Riesbeck
John Kelly / Howard Fenker
Caroll Jones
Mike Sprouse
Scott Weiss (contractor)
Facilities/Logistics / Property / John Sprouse / John Riesbeck
Thomas Briggs / Howard Fenker
William Brisiel
Engineering / Mechanical / Will Oren / Kelly Tremblay
Butch Dillon-Townes / John Riesbeck
Larry Munk
Engineering / EESIC / Will Oren / Kelly Tremblay
Omar Garza / John Riesbeck
Pete Francis
Physics / Hall A / Kees De Jager / Kelly Tremblay
Ed Folts / John Riesbeck
Hall A technicians
Physics / Hall B / Volker Burkert / Howard Fenker
Doug Tilles / Debra Brand
Tom Carstens
Physics / Hall C / Steve Wood / Howard Fenker
Walter Kellner / Debra Brand
Andy Kenyon
12 GeV / Claus Rode / Debra Brand
Jim Parkinson / Howard Fenker
Tim Witlach
ESH&Q / Bob May / John Riesbeck
Jennifer Williams / Byron Golden

Appendix 20 – CF#1 Report Template

Assessment Title / ISM Core Function #1 (Define the Scope of Work) Independent Assessment (Cycle I)
Date / February 8, 2008 / Assessment # / IA-2008-03
(obtained from QA/CI)
Purpose & Scope:
The purpose of this assessment was to evaluate the effectiveness and identify opportunities for improvement for Core Function #1 – Define the Scope of Work - 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:

Line management ensures that the contractors and subcontractorsutilize systematic mechanisms to define the scope and schedule of work and identifyassociated risks and hazards so that the plan at each successively lower tier reflects anincreasingly detailed description of the work to be performed.
Work control systems and procedures that address definition of workscope are developed for all types of work activities and are effectively implemented. Theseprocesses ensure that the scope of all work is clearly defined, communicated, and bounded suchthat activities necessary to control hazards to workers, the public, and the environment areidentified.

Inspection Activities:

Through interviews and document reviews, evaluate the involvement ofmanagers, planners, and subject matter experts in the planning, review, and approvalof work definition for projects for site, facility, and building work activities.
Review contractor requirements, implementing procedures, guidance, andfacility specific procedures governing work control processes. Review planned and in-progresswork and corresponding technical work documents. Interview managers, subject matter experts, work package and procedure writers, workers and researchers, and workplanning personnel.

Summary of Assessment:
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. Appendix 1 provides details on all assessment activities.
The following personnel participated in the assessment
Debra Brand, Howard Fenker, Byron Golden, John Riesbeck, Kelly Tremblay
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.

Arecontractor/subcontractor managers and subject matterexperts' managers actively involved in the definition of projects to ensure allocation ofresources can be addressed?

Yes / No / Partially / Not Observed/
Evaluated
FEL / X
Accelerator – OPS / X
Accelerator - SRFINT / X
F/M Mechanical / X
F/M Property / X
Engineering - ME / X
Engineering - ESSIC / X
Physics – Hall A / X
Physics – Hall B / X
Physics – Hall C / X
12 Gev / X
ESH&Q / X

Do project documents, safety envelopes, and permits adequately bound the scope of workdefined in work orders, procedures, and/or instructions? Does the work definition processinclude a screening against the safety envelope and/or permits?

Yes / No / Partially / Not Observed/
Evaluated
FEL / X
Accelerator - OPS / X
Accelerator -SRFINT / X
F/M Mechanical / X
F/M Property / X
Engineering - ME / X
Engineering - ESSIC / X
Physics – Hall A / X
Physics – Hall B / X
Physics – Hall C / X
12 Gev / X
ESH&Q / X

Is the work observed adequately bounded by approved work packages, procedures, andpermits?

Yes / No / Partially / Not Observed/
Evaluated
FEL / X
Accelerator - OPS / X
Accelerator -SRFINT / X
F/M Mechanical / X
F/M Property / X
Engineering - ME / X
Engineering - ESSIC / X
Physics – Hall A / X
Physics – Hall B / X
Physics – Hall C / X
12 Gev / X
ESH&Q / X

Have higher-level work documents, such as project plans, been translated into discrete workpackages and procedures with well-defined boundaries and interfaces?

Is work defined at the task level such that workers, supervisors, planners, and appropriateenvironment, safety, and health (ES&H) personnel can readily identify the hazards and risksassociated with both the work activities and the environment/location in which it isperformed?

Are work activities properly prioritized to allow adequate allocation of resources andscheduling based on the importance of the work, safety impact, and risk?

Have adequate personnel and equipment resources been identified for the performance ofwork, including operations, maintenance, and ES&H support?

Do work-planning processes provide for early involvement of workers and ES&H staff to fully define the work and allow effective identification of hazards? Are specific thresholdsidentified for involvement of ES&H personnel in the hazard analysis process?

Are tasks for minimizing waste generation and controlling the release of effluents to theenvironment adequately defined during work planning?

Are work packages sufficiently detailed, based on work activity and degree of hazard, toestablish a clear understanding of the work to be performed and how safety should beintegrated into that work?

Is worker input integrated into planning activities?

Yes / No / Partially / Not Observed/
Evaluated
FEL / X
Accelerator – OPS / X
Accelerator - SRFINT / X
F/M Mechanical / X
F/M Property / X
Engineering – ME / X
Engineering - ESSIC / X
Physics – Hall A / X
Physics – Hall B / X
Physics – Hall C / X
12 Gev / X
ESH&Q / X
Ensure that the below narratives identify the appropriate division(s) or that the entry is applicable to all divisions.
Findings

See Appendix # 1 for findings, observations/opportunities for improvement and noteworthy practices identified for each group.

Observations/Opportunities for ImprovementNoteworthy Practices

See Appendix # 1 for findings, observations/opportunities for improvement and noteworthy practices identified for each group.

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: / Date:
Lead Assessor
Reviewed by: / Date:
Manager, QA/CI
Reviewed by: / Date:
Associate Director, ESH&Q
Approved by: / Date:
Chief Operations Officer
Approved by: / Date:
Director Jefferson Laboratory

ATTACHMENT 1

Title : / FEL
Interviewees : / George Neil, Carlos Hernadez-Garcia, Steve Benson, and Bubba Bullard
Interviewer : / Debra L. Brand/Kelly Tremblay
Date : / 1/16/08, 1/22/08, 1/25/08, various e-mail correspondence, 2/12/08
Summary :
FEL is funded by the Navy on an annual basis through a prioritized work list. The work list is generated through an FEL TOG committee that meets with other national FEL laboratories and provides recommendations to the Navy. This group meets about 5 times during the course of a given year. The FEL has members of the FEL TOG committee. The FEL is paid monthly for work completed like a contractor on percent complete for a given work list activity. The work list from the Navy is broken into multiple activities for cost, schedule generation, and resource management.
When experiments are being performed, the FEL has daily staff meetings at 8:30. The work load may be shifted based on the previous days work. Weekly coordination meetings are conducted to develop a schedule and list of activities needed for individual experiments. Gwyn Williams schedules FEL experiments. Equipment is made ready through inputting a to-do list into FEList. On February 12, 2007, worker observation of FEList Task ID 100750 was performed.
Each lab has a laser safety operations procedure. Each experiment also has its own experiment plan that is kept in the control room. Each experiment plan looks at waste generation and safety. Thresholds for additional safety reviews are triggered by using FEList with check boxes for additional safety awareness, such as laser operating threshold, ODH concerns, electrical work (< 50 volts), etc
Noteworthy Practices :

OSP – Addendum to the OSP is specifically called out along with relevant SOPs.
LSOP – FEL Laser Safety Operations Procedure – Warrants further review. As of January 28, 2008 this document was still in the review process. The LSOP will have final sign-off prior to laser operation. The LSOP is not needed for high voltage processing.

Findings :
Opportunities for Improvements :

Cover sheet for a SOP had typed signatures in one location versus the actual signatures. Is the record keeping process defined clearly enough in the ES&H chapter. Is the typed name OK as long as we have original signatures on the document? ES&H chapter 3310 states “copy of working document”. The signed cover sheet should also be posted. Compliance with ESH Chapter 3310.
When searching for the FEL OSP and SOPs, it was noted that not all of the FEL SOPs have the FEL designation. JLAB policy changed when the FEL became its own division. The FEL designation is not consistent. This appears to be handled by ESH&Q division. Examples include:
A-03-011 Testing Chamber with Quartz Disk – FEL Tech Shop
A-04-007-SOP FEL Linac Maintenance and Safety
A-05-002-L FEL Facility User Lab 6
A-06-001-LSOP High Power Optics, FEL Rm 209
A-06-003-LSOP Drive laser Alignment in Vault for REL, FEL Rm 107

Why does the physics division require the safety warden to sign all work control documents? Is this not needed for every OSP and SOP? The FEL requires safety warden sign-off on ESAFs but not LSOPS. ES&H chapter 3310 Validation and Approval – Is it clear?
I did not see the sign-off sheet for the FEL-07-002 located in the area with the SOP. I may have missed this. Also did not see a copy of the signed cover page in the binder. Compliance with ESH Chapter 3310.
One concern brought up was the backups from ESH&Q for sign-off of work control documents. Who reviews when for instance when Bob May is on vacation?
The FEList does not roll-up individual FEList items that are required for each experiment.
Website Search – FEList and ATLis. The search feature did not provide the websites. The link had to be provided.

Title : / FM Mechanical
Interviewees : / John Sprouse (Facilities & Logistics Manager)
John Kelly (ESH&Q)
Caroll Jones (Facilities Mech. Eng. Manager)
Mike Sprouce (Mech. & Controls Inspector/ Evaluator)
MRI Scott Weiss
Interviewer : / John Riesbeck, Howard Fenker
Date : / February 8, 2008
Summary :
Resource requests are estimated using minimum requirements to maintain facility and projected needs to support Jlab operations based on the Annual Work Plan, Tasks are generated in house for routine and required maintenance of facility, work requests from other groups, and project requests from other groups. ESH staff is involved in all project planning and contract procurement for large projects or unusual tasks. Work requests are entered into an automated system which includes scope of work and hazard analysis. These tasks are assigned to work group supervisor and or SOTR who work together with technicians to ensure that both the scope of work and hazard analysis are complete and accurate, and that all personnel are competent and qualified to perform the tasks. Technicians are involved during pre-job walk through, pre-job meetings, and post job meetings to ensure a two way flow of information. All major facilities contractors are required to have a safety plan that includes procedures for doing routine tasks and all contract staff are bound by Jlab, fed, state, and local regulations and standards. These safety plans are reviewed and approved by ESH&Q.
Noteworthy Practices :

An ESH&Q staff member dedicated to facilities, and integrated into the entire job planning and or contract procurement process.
Large contractors have access to MAXIMO task order system and can review and modify task orders as necessary to update ESH concerns or changes in Scope of Work.

Findings :
Opportunities for Improvements :

There is no obvious system in place to notify effected personnel other than the personal experience of SOTR and technicians ( suggest to be required by customer when initiating work request)

Title :
Interviewees : / John Sprouse (Facilities & Logistics Manager)
Thomas Briggs (Property Manager)
William Brisiel (Technical Materials Manager)
Interviewer : / John Riesbeck, Howard Fenker
Date : / February 8, 2008
Summary :
Technical Materials is a sub-division of F/M Property that handles shipping & receiving and event set up. Their tasks are mostly repetitive and routine. The Scope of Work for shipping and receiving is outlined in the S & R Procedures manual and most safety and environmental concerns are covered in ESH manual. Task orders for services such as event set up are generated through MAXIMO task order system which includes consideration of hazards from the customer. They are also responsible for the storage of lead and have occasion to receive other hazardous materials, although they do not handle hazardous materials beyond the level typical for a common carrier; rather, such items are transported to the end-user’s facility expeditiously.
Noteworthy Practices :

Open two way communication at all levels
STOP work program encouraged by management to staff
Worker input used in shipping and receiving process to help stream line process

Findings :
Opportunities for Improvements :

Define Hazardous material that can not be unloaded at S & R or that needs immediate processing (how do workers know which HAZMATS can be received or delivered directly to customer?)

Title : / Hall A
Interviewees : / Kees De Jager, Ed Folts, Technical staff
Interviewer : / Kelly Tremblay, John Riesbeck
Date : / January 18th, 24th, and February 4th , 2008
Summary :
Hall A is the largest experimental hall at the Lab. Most of the experiments use the electron and hadron spectrometers; however some recent configurations have made use of specialized magnets without using the spectrometers.
Work is directed to the hall based on the experimental schedule. The schedule is determined by the PAC and Lab management. The hall leader and hall coordinator meet on a daily basis to discuss the ongoing activities in the hall.
Hall A’s technical staff primary source of work is maintenance and upkeep of the spectrometers and their detectors. Another main task is the changing of beam targets. Changing of targets is required by reconfiguration of the equipment, target maintenance, or damage caused by beam operations
The hall coordinator attends the daily 8 am operations briefing to keep abreast of the main machines condition and how accelerator operations will impact hall A. He then meets with the hall technical staff to review the days work. During this time workers review procedures, safety requirements and ensure proper PPE and training are current for the daily tasks.
All work activities in the hall and the physics storage building are covered by a work package. Contents of the package include a schedule of tasks, specific tasks hazards for each activity, a copy of the ATLis or HAList filing and relevant LSOP / RWP / SOP / TSOP for specialized work. Dennis Skopik must sign off on the package.
All technicians are specialists in one or more areas of concerns. They rely on experience when performing their duties. Specific work procedures are being written for all tasks as time permits. ES&H staff is regularly consulted to assist if there are any concerns.
Checklists have been prepared for every type of target change out. All documentation is either on the web or is in the process of being written for distribution on the web.