1. Welcomes & Introductions
Aundra Richards – DOE BSO Manager
Paul Alivisatos – Deputy Lab Director
Buck Koonce – UC

2. Site Orientation
Howard Hatayama

3. Site-Wide Overviews Organization – Jim Krupnick
ISM Implementation – Howard Hatayama
Current Status
Metrics re: ISM

4. Today’s Agenda 8:30 am Site-Wide Overviews
Organization & Status Jim Krupnick
ISM 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

5. Jim Krupnick, Chief Operating Officer January 6, 2009
Berkeley Lab Overview
Jim Krupnick, Chief Operating Officer
January 6, 2009

6. Founded in 1931 on Berkeley Campus Moved to Current Site in 1940

7. A National Laboratory Next to a University Campus
Berkeley
Lab
UC Berkeley

8. Space Statistics. 390k ASF lab and lab support
Space Statistics 390k ASF lab and lab support 126k ASF shop and shop support 504k ASF office and conference k ASF other M ASF Total
70% of LBNL buildings built before 1970

9. Hayward Fault
Earthquakes are one of the two major risks the Berkeley Lab faces. This illustration shows the laboratory and its location on the edge of the East Bay hills, just above the City of Berkeley and the University of California at Berkeley.
The yellow line represents the location of the Hayward fault – considered one of the most dangerous faults in California. And while the Bay area is accurately called “Earthquake County” because of the numerous faults that criss-cross this area, the Hayward fault is the closest to us.
Being prepared for earthquakes is a smart move. Let’s talk about what earthquakes do, what you can do about them,and where you can get more information.

10. Seismic Probability Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
Source U.S. Geologic Survey

11. Past Ground Accelerations
Predicted 7.0+ Magnitude EQ on Hayward Fault
1906 San Francisco EQ Berkeley, CA Magnitude 7.9 Epicenter: Point Reyes
1989 Loma Prieta EQ Berkeley, CA Magnitude 6.9 Epicenter: Santa Cruz
These slides are historical pictures of what happened in the Berkeley area during two major quakes that happened in the past: The 1906 San Francisco EQ, and the 1989 Loma Prieta EQ. These graphs came from the ABAG (Association of Bay Area Governments) web site, and they show the ground shaking intensity based on several factors: (1) the geological makeup of the area, and (2) the distance from the epicenter. Green and blue indicate less shaking intensity, the red-brown indicates heavy shaking intensity.
The red circle shows where Berkeley Lab is.
Why is it mostly green where the lab sits and beyond? (because these are the East Bay hills, made of sturdier material, and farther from the epicenters)
Why is is red-brown down by the Bay and the Berkeley Marina? (because that is mostly filled land.)

12. UC Seismic Safety Program
GOAL To achieve Life Safety for our building occupants in the event of the Maximum Credible Event.
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

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
2,198
43%
Very Poor (high life hazards)
112 6% 0% 90
100%
1,726
5,101 13

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

15. Berkeley Lab’s Scientific Strengths
Nanoscale Materials and Synthesis
Berkeley Lab’s Scientific Strengths
Earth and Environmental Science
Energy Science and Technology
Quantitative Biology
X-Ray Science and Accelerators
Particle Physics and Nuclear Science
Scientific Computing

16. FY 2008 Costs: $589M Biological and Environmental Research ($106M)
Basic Energy Sciences ($132M)
National Institutes of Health ($43M)
Math and Computing Sciences ($97M)
Work for Others (excluding NIH) ($65M)
Other DOE ($71M)
Physics/Fusion ($75M)
October 2008

17. Berkeley Lab Employees: 3,690
Scientists and Engineers
Faculty*
Postdoctoral Associates*
265
677
355
Graduate Students*
294
Undergraduate Students*
139
Technical
Staff
1364
596
Employees: 3,690 Guests: ,227 Total: ,917
Support Staff
December 2008
*Joint affiliation with UC Berkeley and other campuses

19. Eleven Nobel Laureates
Luis W. Alvarez
Owen Chamberlain
Donald A. Glaser
Melvin Calvin
Steven Chu
Ernest Orlando
Lawrence
Yuan T. Lee
Glenn T. Seaborg
George F. Smoot
Edwin M. McMillan
Emilio G. Segrè

20. Major Scientific Facilities Serving Government, Universities, and Industry
88-Inch Cyclotron
Energy Sciences Network (ESnet)
National Energy Research Scientific Computing Center
Advanced Light Source
Joint Genome Institute
National Center for Electron Microscopy
Molecular Foundry
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 issues
ISM 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

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
From Vera

32. 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
Laboratory Director
Research
Operations
Division Directors
Chief Operating Officer
Department Heads/Group Leaders
Division Directors/Dept Heads
Group Leaders
Supervisors/Work Leads
Supervisors/Work Leads
Researchers/Workers/Guests/
Students/Post-Docs
Workers/Guests

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
Division Director
Howard Hatayama
Deputy Division Director
Don Lucas
Human Resources
Management
Information
Administration
Finance
Training
Security &
Emergency
Operations
Waste
Radiation
Protection
Environmental
Services
Health
Industrial
Hygiene
Occupational
Safety
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

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. Flow Down of ISM Requirements
DOE/LBNL Contract 31
LBNL Regulations &
Procedures Manual
LBNL Integrated Safety
Management Plan
UC Assurance Plan
For 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 Trend

43. Injury Categories and Causes FY08
48 total recordables
48% musculoskeletal injuries due to repetitive motion
No construction recordable injuries

44. Nurturing a Reporting Culture - ORPS
ORPS Categories

45. Nurturing a Reporting Culture - NTS
Fiscal Year

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

47. Safety Culture Survey: Some FY08 Results
Survey Question
Definitely & 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
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

49. Work Planning Control
John Seabury

50. Work Planning and Control Environment, Health and Safety Division
At the Activity Level
John Seabury
Environment, Health and Safety Division
Presented to
HSS Review Team
January 6, 2009

51. 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.”

52. 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

53. Work Planning and Control Processes
Activity Level
Baseline
Supplemental
Institutional JHA
Alternate
JHA Systems
Formal Work
Authorizations
Task-based
Authorizations
Exposure
Assessments
Paper Systems
Analyzed and Authorized
Work
Electronic Systems

54. Baseline Processes JHA 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

55. 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

56. 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.

57. 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

58. 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