<html><head><style type='text/css'>p { margin: 0; }</style></head><body><div style='font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; color: #000000'><br><div style="color:#000;font-weight:normal;font-style:normal;text-decoration:none;font-family:Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif;font-size:12pt;"><div style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; color: #000000"><div style="color:#000;font-weight:normal;font-style:normal;text-decoration:none;font-family:Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif;font-size:12pt;"><style>p { margin: 0; }</style><div style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; color: #000000">All,<br>Here's a summary of what folks reported back to me on the results of their reviews from the Stand Down. I have tried to report comments that appeared in two or more groups as well as those that I thought would resonate with everyone. Also, after working closely with the Division Leadership and ESH&Q we developed some action items that we will track and expand as appropriate. Please take a look and feel free to pass comments back to me or up your management train.<br><br>Overall, I would like to thank everyone for their help in making this
effort successful but more importantly for their day-in and day-out
efforts to work safely with proper work planning. It is quite
extraordinary how many work hours have been put in over the last 18
months and how few incidents there have been. However, as we all know
from our STOP training "all injuries and occupational illnesses" can be
prevented. The key to achieving this goal is in our work planning and
asking ourselves "what could happen if" and then addressing those if's
before they happen. Following our processes and doing the required
paperwork helps us to do this in a systematic and thorough fashion.<br><br>Will<br><br><font size="5"><u>Summary of Actions and Observations from the Engineering Work Planning Stand Down on November 8, 2013</u></font><br><br><ol><li>ATLis <br></li><ul><li>Between 75 & 100 (possibly more) ATLis' were closed (an estimate based on reports and talking to Steve Suhring)<br></li><li>Many were left open and updated with a few new ones being generated</li><li>It was noted that if hazards on an ATLis entry change/need to be updated that only the original author can do it. Others can only comment.</li><li>One group closed ATLis entries that were >12months old and submitted new ones where needed.</li><li>Overall Steve Suhring (and I) considered this part of the exercise well worth the time and effort.</li></ul><li>Cliff Notes</li><ul><li>Helpful and we need more things like this</li><li>Some items were confusing without clear answers</li></ul><li>Work Control Documents/Process</li><ul><li>The turnaround time on written documents (work permits, OSP's, etc) is slow.</li><li>Standard protective measures are still confusing and need further explanation.</li><li>Risk codes are very subjective especially with respect to frequency of occurrence. In general further coaching/guidance is needed division wide for understanding the assignment of risk code levels. It is noted that in general not everyone can be expected to do these assignments and usually supervisors or work coordinators make these judgements.<br></li><li>The need for several OSP's was discovered. Further guidance on when OSPs are required particularly in the context of pre/post mitigation risk codes is needed division wide.</li><li>Strategies for dealing with emerging/emergency work particularly after hours is needed particularly where OSP's or other work permits would be needed. How do we address these requirements and still deal with equipment emergencies in a timely fashion??</li></ul><li>ES&H & SME Support<br></li><ul><li>The ES&H manual needs improvement so that it is more easily applied and used by all levels of staff - "user friendliness".</li><li>Our safety colleagues need to be in the field more so they can get to know/appreciate the work better and not just show up when there is an incident.</li><li>ES&H "help" is quite variable from individual to individual and varies from extremely helpful to inconsistent and out of touch.</li><li>Some SME's who are needed for work control document signoff are inconsistent or seemingly arbitrary with their standards for signoff.<br></li></ul><li>Application of the Shutdown Instructions</li><ul><li>The apparent exemption of Cryo from the Friday stand down was an incorrect decision. Note: they held their stand down on Tuesday 11/12.</li></ul><li>Notes with no catagories:</li><ul><li>One group took the opportunity to review/renew training on: Ladder Safety, Safe Lifting and JTA's.</li><li>One group reviewed how they can design in safety for the systems they are building.</li><li>A nice presentation for the ME Group reviewing training, office safety, OSP/TOSP's and designing for safety is located here: http://www.jlab.org/eng/ME%20Group%20Safety%20Standdown%20Meeting%2020131108.ppsm</li></ul></ol><p><br></p><p><font size="5">From these observations the following Action Items were generated (some of which will turn into CATS items):</font></p><p><br><font size="4">I<b>ssue: Additional guidance on determining risk codes is warranted</b></font><br><br>Action 1: Conduct a series of seminars ("brown bag" or pizza lunch?) to <br>review risk code assignment using specific examples brought by the <br>students <b> Bob May</b></p><p><br></p><p>Action 2: Identify Engineering staff to be "trained" <b>Will Oren</b><br><br><font size="4"><b>Issue: Additional guidance on Work Control Documents (WCDs) for emerging/emergency work is warranted</b></font><br><br>Action: Develop guidance on WCDs for emerging/emergency work <b>Mary Logue</b><br><br><font size="4"><b>Issue. OSP & Work Permit approval cycle is too cumbersome</b></font><br><br>Action: Streamline OSP approval process, apply this new approval process to work permits where possible <b>Steve Smith</b><br><b></b></p><p><br></p><p><font size="4"><b>Issue: Additional ES&H support is needed for the Cryogenics Group in the area of <br>determining risk codes and if OSPs are required for existing processes. </b></font><br><br></p>Action 1: Enlist support from the 12 GeV Safety Manager (Paul Collins) to provide further ES&H support to the <br>Cryo Group on determining risk codes and if OSPs are required. <b>Mary Logue<br></b><br>Action 2: Supply other ES&H staff to the Cryo effort, including technical writing as needed and <br>coordinated through the 12 GeV Safety Manager <b>Bill Rainey</b><br><br>Action 3: Schedule meeting with Cryogenics and Paul Collins and Bill Rainey to further define <br>needs and prioritize. <b> Will Oren</b><br><p><br></p><p><font size="4"><b>Issue. ES&H issues should be tracked and statused with Engineering Leadership</b></font><br><br>Action: Develop template to collect ES&H issues at Engineering <br>Leadership meeting. Provide status updates on these actions (the <br>actions above should be included in this list.) <b>Dick Owen</b></p><p><br></p><br></div></div><br></div></div><br></div></body></html>