ISM Core Function Team #1 – Define the Scope of Work
Interview List
Organization
FEL
Division
Gun Test Stand
Accelerator
Operations
Accelerator
SRFINT
Facilities/Logistics Mechanical
Facilities/Logistics Property
Engineering
Mechanical
Engineering
EESIC
Physics
Hall A
Physics
Hall B
Physics
Hall C
12 GeV
ESH&Q
Interviewed
George Neil
Carlos Hernandez-Garcia
Bubba Bullard
Arne Freyberger
Michael Epps
Charlie Reece
Jeff Saunders
Chris Dreyfuss
John Sprouse
John Kelly
Caroll Jones
Mike Sprouse
Scott Weiss (contractor)
John Sprouse
Thomas Briggs
William Brisiel
Will Oren
Butch Dillon-Townes
Larry Munk
Will Oren
Omar Garza
Pete Francis
Kees De Jager
Ed Folts
Hall A technicians
Volker Burkert
Doug Tilles
Tom Carstens
Steve Wood
Walter Kellner
Andy Kenyon
Claus Rode
Jim Parkinson
Tim Witlach
Bob May
Jennifer Williams
Interviewees
Debra Brand
Kelly Tremblay
Byron Golden
John Riesbeck
Byron Golden
John Riesbeck
John Riesbeck
Howard Fenker
John Riesbeck
Howard Fenker
Kelly Tremblay
John Riesbeck
Kelly Tremblay
John Riesbeck
Kelly Tremblay
John Riesbeck
Howard Fenker
Debra Brand
Howard Fenker
Debra Brand
Debra Brand
Howard Fenker
John Riesbeck
Byron Golden
Appendix 20 – CF#1 Report Template
Assessment Title
Date
February 8, 2008
ISM Core Function #1 (Define the Scope of Work) Independent
Assessment (Cycle I)
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 subcontractors utilize systematic
mechanisms to define the scope and schedule of work and identify associated risks and
hazards so that the plan at each successively lower tier reflects an increasingly detailed
description of the work to be performed.

Work control systems and procedures that address definition of work scope are developed
for all types of work activities and are effectively implemented. These processes ensure that
the scope of all work is clearly defined, communicated, and bounded such that activities
necessary to control hazards to workers, the public, and the environment are identified.
Inspection Activities:

Through interviews and document reviews, evaluate the involvement of managers, planners,
and subject matter experts in the planning, review, and approval of work definition for
projects for site, facility, and building work activities.

Review contractor requirements, implementing procedures, guidance, and facility specific
procedures governing work control processes. Review planned and in-progress work and
corresponding technical work documents. Interview managers, subject matter experts, work
package and procedure writers, workers and researchers, and work planning 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.

Are contractor/subcontractor managers and subject matter experts' managers actively involved
in the definition of projects to ensure allocation of resources can be addressed?
Yes
FEL
Accelerator – OPS
Accelerator - SRFINT
F/M Mechanical
F/M Property
Engineering - ME
Engineering - ESSIC
Physics – Hall A
Physics – Hall B
Physics – Hall C
12 Gev
ESH&Q

No
Partially
Not Observed/
Evaluated
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Do project documents, safety envelopes, and permits adequately bound the scope of work
defined in work orders, procedures, and/or instructions? Does the work definition process
include a screening against the safety envelope and/or permits?
Yes
FEL
Accelerator - OPS
Accelerator -SRFINT
X
X
X
No
Partially
Not Observed/
Evaluated
F/M Mechanical
F/M Property
Engineering - ME
Engineering - ESSIC
Physics – Hall A
Physics – Hall B
Physics – Hall C
12 Gev
ESH&Q

X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Is the work observed adequately bounded by approved work packages, procedures, and
permits?
Yes
FEL
Accelerator - OPS
Accelerator -SRFINT
F/M Mechanical
F/M Property
Engineering - ME
Engineering - ESSIC
Physics – Hall A
Physics – Hall B
Physics – Hall C
12 Gev
ESH&Q

Partially
Not Observed/
Evaluated
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Have higher-level work documents, such as project plans, been translated into discrete work
packages and procedures with well-defined boundaries and interfaces?
Yes
FEL
Accelerator - OPS
Accelerator -SRFINT
F/M Mechanical
F/M Property
Engineering - ME
Engineering - ESSIC
Physics – Hall A
Physics – Hall B
Physics – Hall C
12 Gev
ESH&Q

No
No
Partially
Not Observed/
Evaluated
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Is work defined at the task level such that workers, supervisors, planners, and appropriate
environment, safety, and health (ES&H) personnel can readily identify the hazards and risks
associated with both the work activities and the environment/location in which it is performed?
Yes
FEL
Accelerator – OPS
Accelerator - SRFINT
F/M Mechanical
F/M Property
Engineering – ME
Engineering - ESSIC
Physics – Hall A
Physics – Hall B
Physics – Hall C
12 Gev
ESH&Q

Partially
Not Observed/
Evaluated
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Are work activities properly prioritized to allow adequate allocation of resources and
scheduling based on the importance of the work, safety impact, and risk?
Yes
FEL
Accelerator – OPS
Accelerator - SRFINT
F/M Mechanical
F/M Property
Engineering – ME
Engineering - ESSIC
Physics – Hall A
Physics – Hall B
Physics – Hall C
12 Gev
ESH&Q

No
No
Partially
Not Observed/
Evaluated
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Have adequate personnel and equipment resources been identified for the performance of work,
including operations, maintenance, and ES&H support?
Yes
FEL
Accelerator – OPS
Accelerator - SRFINT
F/M Mechanical
F/M Property
Engineering – ME
Engineering - ESSIC
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
No
Partially
Not Observed/
Evaluated
Physics – Hall A
Physics – Hall B
Physics – Hall C
12 Gev
ESH&Q

X
X
X
X
X
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 thresholds identified
for involvement of ES&H personnel in the hazard analysis process?
Yes
FEL
Accelerator – OPS
Accelerator - SRFINT
F/M Mechanical
F/M Property
Engineering – ME
Engineering - ESSIC
Physics – Hall A
Physics – Hall B
Physics – Hall C
12 Gev
ESH&Q

Partially
Not Observed/
Evaluated
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Are tasks for minimizing waste generation and controlling the release of effluents to the
environment adequately defined during work planning?
Yes
FEL
Accelerator – OPS
Accelerator - SRFINT
F/M Mechanical
F/M Property
Engineering – ME
Engineering - ESSIC
Physics – Hall A
Physics – Hall B
Physics – Hall C
12 Gev
ESH&Q

No
No
Partially
Not Observed/
Evaluated
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Are work packages sufficiently detailed, based on work activity and degree of hazard, to
establish a clear understanding of the work to be performed and how safety should be integrated
into that work?
Yes
FEL
Accelerator – OPS
Accelerator - SRFINT
F/M Mechanical
F/M Property
Engineering – ME
Engineering - ESSIC
Physics – Hall A
Physics – Hall B
Physics – Hall C
12 Gev
ESH&Q

No
Partially
Not Observed/
Evaluated
Partially
Not Observed/
Evaluated
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Is worker input integrated into planning activities?
Yes
FEL
Accelerator – OPS
Accelerator - SRFINT
F/M Mechanical
F/M Property
Engineering – ME
Engineering - ESSIC
Physics – Hall A
Physics – Hall B
Physics – Hall C
12 Gev
ESH&Q
No
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Ensure that the below narratives identify the appropriate division(s) or that the entry is applicable
to all divisions.
Findings
o See Appendix # 1 for findings, observations/opportunities for improvement and
noteworthy practices identified for each group.
Observations/Opportunities for Improvement & Noteworthy Practices
o 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 :
Interviewees :
Interviewer :
Date :
Summary :
FEL
George Neil, Carlos Hernadez-Garcia, Steve Benson, and Bubba
Bullard
Debra L. Brand/Kelly Tremblay
1/16/08, 1/22/08, 1/25/08, various e-mail correspondence, 2/12/08
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 todo 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 :
o OSP – Addendum to the OSP is specifically called out along with relevant SOPs.
o 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 :
o 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.
o 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
o 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?
o 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.
o 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?
o The FEList does not roll-up individual FEList items that are required for each
experiment.
o Website Search – FEList and ATLis. The search feature did not provide the
websites. The link had to be provided.
Title :
Interviewees :
FM Mechanical
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 :
o An ESH&Q staff member dedicated to facilities, and integrated into the entire job
planning and or contract procurement process.
o 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 :
o 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)
John Riesbeck, Howard Fenker
February 8, 2008
Interviewer :
Date :
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 :
o Open two way communication at all levels
o STOP work program encouraged by management to staff
o Worker input used in shipping and receiving process to help stream line process
Findings :
Opportunities for Improvements :
o 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 :
Interviewees :
Interviewer :
Date :
Hall A
Kees De Jager, Ed Folts, Technical staff
Kelly Tremblay, John Riesbeck
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.
Noteworthy Practices :
- Implementation of the HAList
- Work package development.
- Hazard analysis for every item within the work package
Findings :
Opportunities for Improvements :
- merging of HAList with ATLis
- Sign offs or acknowledgement for activities in HAList.
- Easy link to the HAList
Title :
Interviewees :
Interviewer :
Date :
Summary :
Hall-B
Volker Burkert, Doug Tilles, Tom Carstens (Hall B Observation)
Howard Fenker, Debra Brand, Kelly Tremblay
January 24 and 29, 2008, Observation Feb. 11, 2008
Hall-B is a physically small hall containing a large number of systems. Work is primarily recurring in nature and
as such has a well established library of standard procedures for routine operations. The technical staff works
closely together with constant communication. Staff is entirely cross-trained and work can therefore be assigned
to (or volunteered for by) the staff available at any given time. All tasks are or have been examined for potential
hazards, and appropriate training, mitigation measures, and PPE are identified and put into place. Work planning
is done using tools such as MS Project and ATLis. These plans are shared with the workers in the hall and they
readily and frequently provide feedback. OSP’s, TOSP’s, the ESAD, and COO provide formal evaluation and
control of activities in the hall.
Noteworthy Practices :
o 90/10 Rule (10% thought given to working safely, 90% doing the work safely)
o Standard installation work procedures exist and more are being drafted.
o At Friday meetings, sometimes an ES&H manual chapter is reviewed and
summarized for all to hear.
Findings :
o
Opportunities for Improvements :
o ESH sign-off of AHA’s is not performed. Will ES&H sign-off be required for the
HBList program?
Title :
Interviewees :
Interviewer :
Date :
Summary :
Hall-C
Steve Wood, Walter Kellner, Andy Kenyon
Howard Fenker, Debra Brand
January 23 and February 5, 2008
Hall-C is regularly reconfigured for different experiments using both the ‘base’ apparatus and specialized
equipment that must be installed/used/removed. As such, the work is almost never routine so that new or unique
tasks are commonly encountered. Work tasks and schedules are defined using MS Project, and ATLis, and a new
Hall-C specific task-tracking framework (based on similar work in Hall-A) is being implemented. The project
plan and task list is posted prominently at the entrance to the hall during major work periods. Warning beacons,
placards, training reminders, and certification documents are presented either at the hall entrance, in the hall
control room, or both. Both users and staff are required to read and sign work- and hazard-control documents
before working in the hall.
Daily work packages for technicians are given verbally by the Work Coordinator, although written procedures
were seen to be in use for one especially sensitive procedure. ES&H, RadCon, and Industrial Hygiene
representatives were observed giving a thorough briefing to the work staff. Interaction with ES&H professionals
takes place at regular weekly meetings and periodically during safety tours or during morning toolbox meetings.
Workers regularly provide suggestions for modifications of work packages or scheduling.
As in all halls, experiment priority is given by the laboratory management. Daily priorities are determined by the
Work Coordinator based on 1) Safety, 2) Hall Infrastructure, and 3) Satisfying experimental needs.
Noteworthy Practices :
o Good housekeeping discipline
o Thorough briefing and interaction with workers before observed task started
Findings :

Opportunities for Improvements :
o Identify those tasks that are recurring in nature and establish standard procedures
for them.
o ESH sign-off of AHA’s is not performed. Will ES&H sign-off be required for the
HCList program?
Title :
Interviewees :
Interviewer :
Date :
Summary :
Accelerator - SRFINT
Charlie Reece, Jeff Saunders, Chris Dreyfuss
Byron Golden, John Riesbeck
February 4, 2008
The SRFINT is a sub-division of Accelerator division, which is divided into two areas R&D
development and Cavity Production areas. While work/tasks in Prod. Group is mostly recurring tasks
with well defined boundaries such as EH&S manual, SOPs, and work instructions. The R&D work tasks
are mitigated by the same SOPs with THAs used for tasks outside of the scope of Prod. SOPs. The
definitions of projects(C-50, ILC, 12GeV) resources are indentified with AWP along with weekly
project planning meetings. With the assistance of project leaders and scheduling software (primavera)
personnel and resources are allocated and indentified for completion of projects. Once resources and
personnel have been indentified, group/project leaders delegate new task and project assignment to line
mangers. It is the line manager’s responsibility to develop new SOPs, THAs and work instructions to
complete the project. This process is done with the assistance of ES&H staff support as well as system
experts and technician staff. If current SOPs and/or work instructions are in place and cover work/tasks
to be performed, line mangers use a “traveler” system to define and control processes/tasks via pansophy
an online web based application for collection, control, distribution of data. Technical staff/worker input
is integrated in activates by assisting in development of SOPs, THAs, work instructions, and attending
weekly planning meeting for tasks generated from various projects.
Noteworthy Practices :
o 90/10 Rule (10% thought given to working safely, 90% doing the work safely)
o SOPs, work instructions exist and more are being drafted.
o Daily Production meetings and weekly project planning meetings
o Friday safety meeting ( various safety topics), 2 week outlook production meeting
o Pansophy
Findings :
Opportunities for Improvements :
o More technical support for R&D group projects
Title :
Accelerator Ops
Interviewees :
Arne Freyberger, Michael Epps
Interviewer :
Byron Golden, John Riesbeck
Date :
January 28, 2008
Summary :
The Accelerator Operations group is responsible for the many different aspects in delivering
high quality electron beams to the end stations for experimental physics studies. Through
AWP activities can be prioritized for operations. Accelerator Ops uses a web-based task list
called “ATLis” which is used to define the scope of work, as well as environmental and
personnel hazards that maybe associated with an assigned task. This task list (ATLis)
generates appropriate training, ES&H and RadCon related hazards before a task is started.
Planned work is defined through weekly Ops meetings and daily updates from Steve Suhring
(Operability Group Leader). Technician/worker input is integrated in activities via ATLis, prejob walk down, and discussion of previous tasks (i.e. lessons learned).
Noteworthy Practices :
o Standard work procedures exist and more are being drafted.
o Weekly Budget and Planning meetings.
o ATlis
o Accel Ops is in the process of integrating ATlis and Ops Documents
o Lesson Learned review of previous task
Findings :
Opportunities for Improvements :
o Clear definition of outsourcing(support, system experts) for specific tasks
Title :
Interviewees :
Interviewer :
Date :
Engineering – Mechanical Engineering
Will Oren, Butch Dillon-Townes, Larry Munk
Kelly Tremblay, John Riesbeck
January 17th, 28th, and 31st , 2008
Summary :
The Engineering division’s Mechanical (ME) group is focused on engineering design and facilitating
the fabrication for the main CEBAF beamline, Hall experimental beam lines, and the FEL beamline.
ME is mainly responsible for the warm region magnets, their support systems, diagnostic designs and
cryomodule design and support. Additionally much of the 12 GeV upgrade design is being handled by
the group.
Requests for the ME group’s services stems from the experimental halls, outside users, OPS and CASA
members. The requestors must have their proposals and upgrades approved by either the Lab
management or PAC approval. Prior to proceeding with any conceptual designs or assigning work to
project engineers, approval from management is sought.
Once a project has been identified, the design team will hold design review meetings, in which diverse
parties from across the lab will be consulted. These reviews ensure that the design will integrate new
and existing hardware and software, meet physics requirements, and address all ES&H requirements...
As the project takes shape, a tracking document and schedule is prepared to monitor progress. A
beamline hardware configuration is developed in conjunction with CASA to represent the beam
physics desired for proposed experiments. This development is an iterative process and converges with
a finalized hardware configuration.
The lead ME engineer hands off the design to a ME project engineer. It is the project engineer’s
responsibility to create a series of drawings and documents to procure off-the-shelf and fabricated
components and systems. Reviews and checks are undertaken within the ME group as the drawings are
developed to ensure the accuracy of the drawings and feasibility of the design. There is a final signoff
of the overall assembly drawings by all the participants in the design review to ensure that requested
specifications have been met.
The drawings are released for bid, at which time a fabrication specialist within the ME department
works with procurement to ensure timely delivery of the materials and components. The ME group will
work with other groups (Installation / Vacuum / Alignment / Operability) to coordinate the installation
in the machine. The group’s procurement specialist also checks to see if the parts maybe existing in the
lab, whether the lab’s machine shop can fabricate the parts, or pulls from a list of qualified vendors to
the parts have manufactured.
Feedback in the form of prior project knowledge base is utilized when undertaking a new design. If
possible, existing components (eg. Cartridges / stands / existing magnets) are used or existing designs
will be slightly modified to save resources and to avoid reinvention.
The group has a weekly meeting and there is a general discussion of on-going projects and information
concerning up coming work.
Noteworthy Practices :
- Design review process – early involvement of interested parties.
- Checking of drawings by two engineers independently to ensure correctness.
- Utilization of procurement’s vendor feedback system.
Findings :
Opportunities for Improvements :
Title :
Interviewees :
Interviewer :
Date :
Engineering – ESSIC
Will Oren, Omar Garza, Pete Francis
Kelly Tremblay, John Riesbeck
Jan 17/25th , Feb 4th , 2008
Summary :
ESSIC primary responsibility is to keep the machine operatable. There are three main ways that work
is assigned. The primary source is through the generation of an OPS PR. This is usually the result of a
component failure, or the request by an operations shift for an investigation. The secondary method for
a work request is through the use of the ATLis task system. This can be created by the technicians in
the group as a response to a particularly large OPS PR where additional guidance is required or created
/ requested by other groups across the lab. The third main way work is defined is through direct
requests from concerned individuals and direct contact with the technician from the group leader or
relevant system owners.
The chain of command for the ESSIC group starts with from Lab management, then in order to Will
Oren, Bill Merz, Omar Garza and then at the technician level. The group leader (and most of the
technicians) attends the 8 am daily operations briefing. From this meeting, informal work may be
requested (3rd request type). The group leader is very confident in the abilities of his staff, and trusts
that they will only engage in work requests that are valid. If there are any questions, the technicians
will ask the requestor to make an official ATLis request or contact the group leader. Technicians are
also very pro-active in making improvements to the machine. If they have an idea for an improvement,
they will create an ATLis task, analyzing the task hazards, and suggesting an appropriate back-out
procedure if there is a failure. They will not proceed until approval for the suggested improvement is
granted by the operability coordinator.
ESSIC minimizes effluents released by following ALARA guidelines. Beamline components are
repaired once they have been released by RadCon. Every effort is made to recycle components to keep
the number of activated components to a minimum.
There is a weekly ESSIC meeting with mandatory attendance. On larger projects resources will be
assigned during this meeting. If the projects are of a longer duration or larger nature, a task hazard
assessment will be undertaken for the project. Daily tasks are left to the OPS coordinator.
Personnel are all experts in one or two systems. Being such, they must make the appropriate hazard
analysis of the work to be performed. ES&H is called in when specifically required (ie: beamline
radiation survey) or if there are any concerns that cannot be resolved by contacting those making the
requests or to be contacted according to the ATLis task. A general procedure in the ES&H manual
(section 6200) covers most of the ESSIC’s activities. The major class of hazard is class 1 mode 1
(voltage is less than 50 volts and low current). Any deviation from this requires a hazard analysis.
SOP’s are written for larger tasks where there is not a covering procedure.
Technicians rely on experience for lessons learned. If a technician is asked to perform work on an
unfamiliar system, he/she will contact the system’s engineer or owner for a thorough explanation of the
system and hazards associated with it.
Noteworthy Practices :
- Use of ATLis task list.
- System owners are experts and pro-active in responding and suggesting operation
improvements.
- Cohesion of OPS and ICS in the maintaining of machine operability using OPS PRs.
- Development of the ICS Wiki as a source of information.
- Trust in the ability of the technical staff.
- Responsiveness to lab mission of keeping the beam operations at the forefront in a safe manor.
Findings :
Opportunities for Improvements :
- Better documentation of lessons learned.
- Initiating / investigate the use of a second person to assist (check for safety concerns) when techs
are called in during the middle of the night.
-Some of the web information is scattered on older pages – suggest one clear site (the EESIC wiki
site).
Title :
Interviewees :
Interviewer :
Date :
Summary :
JLAB 12 GeV Project
Claus Rode, Jim Parkinson, Tim Whitlatch
Debra L. Brand/Howard Fenker
January 23, 24, and 30th Respectfully
The 12-GeV project does not perform work independently. Work is designed through the
three main laboratory divisions (Accelerator, Civil, and Physics). Work is all done through the
other laboratory divisions. Work within each division is controlled by that division’s
documents. Work is scheduled/coordinated through the project office team by using the
overall project schedule. 6-GeV safety practices are being reviewed and incorporated into
future 12 GeV works.
A Control Action Plan (CAP) sheet has been prepared. A work breakdown structure for this
project has been developed as a cost book. The cost book has been imported into a P3
Schedule (Primavera Project Planner® (P3®)). The activities in the schedule indicate logic
relationships and resources for each activity. Scheduling meetings are held on a regular basis.
The schedule has over 6000 activities. A 12 GEV schedule developed in P3 shows planned
work through 2015.
Work flows down from DoE and is developed and revised through the “Project Execution
Plan” (PEP). The latest PEP was revised with DC-2 issued in November 2007. Work is
scheduled based on the PEP. A typical work package for an employee is verbal instruction.
Noteworthy Practices :
o A 12 GEV schedule developed in P3 is shows planned work through 2015.
o Safety – An example is that even though work is mostly being performed by
designers and planners, office ergonomics was highlighted. The lab’s industrial
physician has been brought in to educate workers about good posture, appropriate
furniture and workstation accessories, etc.
Findings :
Opportunities for Improvements :
o Organizational Charts - the 12 GEV organizations chart under Home Page/Division
and Departments is out of date. The correct chart seems to be on the Home
Page/12GEV. Modify linkage or make sure we can update the web pages. PA was
contacted on 1/23 and the work was already in progress. Update has not yet
occurred. All groups are not represented.
o One possible interviewee stated that due to such unfamiliarity with ISM that they
would not be the correct person to be interviewed. Concern about the number of
people who are unfamiliar with ISM.
o Typical Work Package - A typical work package for an employee may be a verbal instruction.
There is no way to track verbal instructions.
Title :
Interviewees :
ESH&Q Health & Safety Programs
Bob May (Associate Director)
Bob May (Health and Safety Manager)
Jennifer Williams (Health and Safety Staff)
Interviewer :
John Riesbeck, Byron Golden
Date :
February 11, 2008
Summary :
The Health and Safety division of ESH&Q covers a large portion of the labs safety
requirements. Through AWP, FSAD, and SAD; activities can be prioritized for allocation of
resources and technical support staff. The ESH&Q division uses EMS programs and
processes, to minimize and control potential environmental hazards. This process is done by
adhering to the EH&S manual as well as support from subject matter experts outside of the
group. Much of the staff is involved in required monitoring and maintenance of the multitude
of environmental and safety requirements. They also provide support as subject matter experts
to support the planning and implementation of the labs operation. The customers are
responsible for requesting support of ESH&Q staff which is done automatically or as part of
standard procedure in most departments. Along with “customer” SOPs the RadCon
(Radiological Control) and IH (Industrial Hygiene) Groups have SOPs that assist in defining
the scope of work to be performed by their own technical staff, as well mitigating hazardous
for a multitude of task throughout the lab.
Noteworthy Practices :
o All procedures and records well documented
o On –line home page contains many links to needed records and information
Observations :
o Clear definition of technical support staff to identify IH related tasks once ESH&Q
staff has identified hazards or potential hazards. ( What I mean by this is what
documentation tells technical staff how to carry out a specific task)
Opportunities for Improvements :
o Clear definition of technical support staff to identify IH related tasks once ESH&Q
staff has identified hazards or potential hazards. ( What I mean by this is what
documentation tells technical staff how to carry out a specific task)
o More technical support staff to assist with mitigating hazards