The meeting commenced at 1:05 p.m.
(Performance indicator presentation available as a PowerPoint file.)
Hans Vogel, ES&H Systems Design and Applications Program Office, gave a presentation on the performance indicators that drive the VPP and the tools we use to support this effort.
There are four critical outcomes tied to the Laboratory's fiscal year fee agreement. 20% of the Laboratory's fee is based on the Operational Excellence critical outcome. Under this critical outcome, Performance Indicator 2.1.1, "Worker involvement, knowledge, and culture relative to ES&H," and Sub-Performance Indicator 2.1.1.1, "Staff involvement in work planning, knowledge of requirements and attitude/culture relative to ES&H," are what drive the VPP. This performance indicator measures the interactions between management and workers; the lack of such interactions has been identified as a factor in recent accidents at other DOE sites.
Performance Indicator 2.1.1 is described as follows:
1. In-field assessments of individuals who perform hazardous work are performed
by Division/Directorate.
2. A standardized evaluation tool is used during these
assessments. The interviews last approximately 15 minutes and include management
participation.
3. The assessments are performed during routine field operations.
4. The workers are asked to answer questions and provide comments related to
safety.
5. The evaluator scores the results using rating criteria.
6. The results are used in the Division/Directorate self-assessment program.
The expectations from these assessments are as follows:
1. Scoring is to be used as input to self-assessments.
2. The focus should be on scoring consistently; this supports the validation
effort.
3. Management must be involved in a minimum of 175 assessments.
So far, 80 of these assessments have been performed at the Laboratory. The results indicate that staff are aware of hazards and the responsibilities of their job duties. The downside is found to be that 1) staff are not receiving information of the assessment results fast enough, and 2) consistency in job planning between the 300 Area and the RCHN complex is a problem.
During the question/answer session, Hans stressed that the scores were not as important to the Laboratory as the comments and feedback. Russ Meicenheimer voiced a concern that perhaps the questions didn't go far enough, and that the answers may be different if the individual being interviewed doesn't know the individual conducting the interview. Hans stated that people would be welcome to go on the interviews, but Dave Higby said he would limit this to one extra person.
Vern Madson mentioned that the Employee Involvement subcommittee has developed their own questions to ask staff, but Russ said he needed more questions. Russ stated that he would get the evaluation tool from Hans and will present it to his subcommittee during the next subcommittee meeting. Russ will also assess the results of the 83 interviews his subcommittee has conducted and will present the results to the steering committee.
Peggy Williams pointed out that the assessments were not used for the purpose of "testing" staff. The employee will not impact the Laboratory's fee. Janice Haney stated that she felt a person who was thinking about a raise wouldn't want to bring up concerns to ES&H staff. Drue Collins mentioned that two individuals who've been through the interview process felt that it was more of an evaluation of management.
(The VPP Journey at Pantex available as a PowerPoint file.)
Dick Watkins gave this presentation, which was put together by the Pantex Division Manager. This presentation shows the successful VPP at Pantex, even though Pantex does not have a VPP star. Dick stressed the key to a successful VPP is employee involvement.
Dick showed the structure of the VPP at Pantex, which was formed of an Executive Safety Council, VPP Steering Committee, and a number of subcommittees. The Health and Safety Manager was involved at the level of providing the VPP Steering Committee with support when needed.
VPP first got its start at Pantex in March 1994, when management wrote an application which DOE rejected. Later that spring, a seven-member Continuous Improvement Team formed, and by that fall, a 20-member steering committee was formed.
In Spring 1995, three sites were benchmarked, and by fall, Hazard Identification Teams were formed. In Summer 1996, a pre-onsite visit was conducted by DOE, and that fall an EH-2 assessment was conducted. An application was submitted to DOE-HQ, and by Spring 1997, an onsite visit was scheduled. In Summer 1998, the applicaton was revised and resubmitted to DOE-HQ, and by Spring 1999 the charter and by-laws were developed for the VPP Steering Committee.
Since then, Pantex has developed
Pantex has since
Dick then showed slides that illustrated Pantex's total recordable case rate, lost workday case rate, history of radiation exposures, radioactive material moves and violations, and HE movement occurrences, all of which have dramatically decreased since the VPP took effect.
In summary, Dick stated that the employees did the job (the safety of the plant is the result of the employees); regardless of the frustrations, the Pantex employees stuck with it, and VPP works.
Cameron Andersen attended the Integrated Safety Management (ISM) meeting in Cincinatti, Ohio in mid-May. Cam reported that PNNL has the only validated ISM system in the DOE complex. Cam also felt that PNNL is so far ahead that the other presentations at the meeting were not of value.
Cam did report that Sandia National Laboratory has a preliminary hazard assessment tool that they use for all activities -- each activity, no matter what, goes through this process. Cam said that an individual will be coming to PNNL in a few weeks to show the tool. In addition, Cam said that the RL representatives who attended the meeting were surprised that PNNL didn't get any "press," and they took responsibility for this.
Cam also noted that many of the attendees wore VPP buttons and were working on ties between the ISM and VPP systems.
Region X Conference - Couer d'Alene
Many of the steering team members attended this conference, which had 2 days of break-out sessions and an applications workshop on the third day.
Vern felt that the conference was excellent, and that there were many motivational speakers.
Janice reported on attending a session presented by an especially motivational speaker, Bruce Madsen of High Tech Sports Therapy Associates, Inc., whose specialty is ergonomics. At Potlatch, injury prevention and rehabilitation training is mandatory training for 600 staff. Janice suggested that we invite Bruce to come to PNNL as part of a VPP-sponsored visit, and stated that Potlatch saved over $450 K by working with him. A couple of examples of what Madsen teaches are
Janice also discussed another presenter, Dave Fox of INEEL, a union guy who was initially perceived as a pain in the rear end. Fox was placed in charge of a safety committee, and he got the job done. Some of Fox's philosophies he shared are as follows:
Fox also shared lessons learned and the tools that the safety committee implemented, such as
Janice stated that she would either like to see some of the committee members travel to INEEL and see how they run their operations, or have Fox come to PNNL. She also stated that she didn't think INEEL had employee involvement until Dave Fox came along.
Vern stated that the committee was in touch with Fluor Daniel, who are also interested in bringing the speakers here, to see if we can work together to bring them to Richland.
Joy Rosscup attended the Applications Workshop, which was part of the Region X conference. She was not enthused; the individuals running the workshop could not answer the questions, usually responding "That's DOE's problem."
It was recommended that the subcommittees put together their pieces of the application. It was noted that DOE will accept a section at a time. During November or December, the committee would like to have some good substantial sections written. This action will give the subcommittees some ownership in the process.
Dave Higby mentioned that when the Integrated Management System was being implemented, a lot of background information was placed on the web. This would be a good tool for DOE to concurrently review the sections.
Vern mentioned that he thought the application would consist of a checklist; however, he found out that it is a lot of writing. He agreed that he would like to put the application online with links.
One suggestion for the application was to get in touch with someone who has been successful in this process so that we can be led down the right path. Dave Higby suggested contacting Roy Hobbs (DOE) and requesting an applications workshop.
Janice voiced a concern regarding the documentation of safety committee meeting minutes. Dick felt that if you say you've had a meeting, that's good enough. DOE is not looking for a lot of records, they mostly want training procedures, stop work authority, electronic prep and risk, schedules, etc.
Dick also suggested that we contact someone in Kansas City to witness their reevaluation.
Joy showed the committee an application and pointed out the areas where narrative needs to be placed and the area where Madia needs to sign. Vern felt that it would be good for the subcommittees to meet, since this will be a large task.
Subcommittee Updates
Drue had no update for the Management Commitment subcommittee.
Russ stated that the Employee Involvement subcommittee was getting bigger, and that Larry Casazza, Radiochemical Processing Group, was now a member. Russ felt Larry's input would be valuable. Russ also stated that he wrote up six questions and presented them to staff. He will have recommendations that will need to be made or DOE won't accept them.
Todd Hart had no input for the Worksite Analysis subcommittee.
Rich Garretson and Frank Bittrick had no input for the Safety and Health Training subcommittee.
Cliff Wynn, member of the Electrical Safety Committee, said the charter was approved by the committee but was turned down. The charter has since been rewritten by an ES&H manager and is now coming together. The Electrical Safety Committee wants to meet soon to revisit the charter. Cliff also mentioned that the Lock and Tag Committee has a charter, and he suggests that the external committees get involved in VPP.
The following are recommended travel sites for the VPP steering committee:
A safety expo was recently held out at TRAC. Joy attended, and said that it was packed with families and children. Exhibits included a car accident demonstration, which had a big impact (no pun intended). Joy mentioned that the perception is that "Battelle never does anything like this" and that she would like Battelle to participate next year. Vern agreed to get us into it next year. He also had the feeling we missed an opportunity by not being there.
Dave strongly suggested to get the managers to budget for sending staff to the expo during work time, so that more staff will attend.
Dave stated that he will soon need the budget information. Vern said he and Ross have come up with some ideas and will get them to Dave. These ideas include inexpensive giveaways such as brochures containing management commitments and safety information.
June 16 was the suggested target date for a VPP kick-off. The suggestion was to reserve the softball field and have a pizza feed after work. Many people felt this date was too soon.
Russ stated that it was time to start advertising, since we've been talking about this for 6 months. Vern said he felt it needs more effort. Dave suggested that we talk to Finance about funding for the pizza.
Posters have been created for VPP. Posters from other organizations were simply modified slightly.
It was noted that many people as possible were needed to make the kick-off a success. Lavon Clement suggested that at a staff association event, we have a booth and concentrate on safety items and let the staff association worry about the food.
The meeting was adjourned at 3:30 p.m.
