ISM Core Function Teams Assessment Plan

January 2008

Appendix 22–CF#3Report Template
Assessment Title / ISM Core Function #3 (Develop and Implement Controls) Independent Assessment (Cycle I)
Date / February 8, 2008 / Assessment # / IA-2008-05
(obtained from QA/CI)
Purpose & Scope:
The purpose of this assessment was to evaluate the effectiveness and identify opportunities for improvement for Core Function #3 – Develop and Implement Controls - 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:
  • Management systems for work control are developed and effectively implemented for work activities that ensure development of adequate hazard controls for performing the work safely and mitigating environmental impact.
  • Line management has established processes for identifying and tailoring controls for hazards associated with all facilities, operations, and work activities.
  • Hazard controls are established based on an analysis of hazards, vulnerabilities, and risks in the work environment (e.g., radiological, chemical. industrial, physical, and natural phenomena).
Inspection Activities:
  • Review work planning and control processes and procedures. Interviewpersonnel including project personnel, group leaders, subject matterexperts, managers, work control managers, foremen, supervisors, environmental, safety andhealth support personnel, and operations/technician personnel.
  • Review selected safety requirements, hazard control plans, samplingresults, permits (radiological work permits, industrial hygiene/industrial safety), workdocuments, procedures, pollution prevention opportunity assessments, and monitoring protocols.Observe work activities.
  • Interview facility managers, projectleaders/supervisors, workers, and ES&H personnel.
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
The following personnel participated in the assessment


Summary of Assessment:
Provide a narrative summary of areas assessed. Description is to include adequate details to enable an independent reviewer to comprehend the depth and breadth of the assessment. Details to include key elements of the assessed activity or process and the status of their acceptability. When applicable, define the status of implementation of actions related to previous issues relevant to the assessed area.
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 standardized hazard controls developed and used in an appropriately graded approachbased on project/work complexity and risk, performance frequency, and hazard analysisresults?
Yes / No / Partially / Not Observed/
Evaluated
FEL
Accelerator
Facilities & Logistics
Engineering
Physics – Hall A
Physics – Hall B
Physics – Hall C
12 Gev
ESH&Q
  • Do controls encompass each phase of work performance and all aspects of the work,including potentially abnormal or emergency situations?
Yes / No / Partially / Not Observed/
Evaluated
FEL
Accelerator
Facilities & Logistics
Engineering
Physics – Hall A
Physics – Hall B
Physics – Hall C
12 Gev
ESH&Q
  • Are the knowledge, skills, and abilities of the work force considered when selecting the formof controls?
Yes / No / Partially / Not Observed/
Evaluated
FEL
Accelerator
Facilities & Logistics
Engineering
Physics – Hall A
Physics – Hall B
Physics – Hall C
12 Gev
ESH&Q
  • Are the types of controls (engineering, administrative, and personal protection equipment)applied in the correct sequence and with an appropriate technical basis?
Yes / No / Partially / Not Observed/
Evaluated
FEL
Accelerator
Facilities & Logistics
Engineering
Physics – Hall A
Physics – Hall B
Physics – Hall C
12 Gev
ESH&Q
  • Are the hazard controls comprehensive and adequate for maintaining planning efficiencywhile ensuring acceptable hazard mitigation or elimination?
Yes / No / Partially / Not Observed/
Evaluated
FEL
Accelerator
Facilities & Logistics
Engineering
Physics – Hall A
Physics – Hall B
Physics – Hall C
12 Gev
ESH&Q
  • Are corresponding training requirements incorporated into controls and hazard assessments?
Yes / No / Partially / Not Observed/
Evaluated
FEL
Accelerator
Facilities & Logistics
Engineering
Physics – Hall A
Physics – Hall B
Physics – Hall C
12 Gev
ESH&Q
  • Are thresholds identified for involvement of ES&H personnel in the tailoring orimplementation of hazard controls?
Yes / No / Partially / Not Observed/
Evaluated
FEL
Accelerator
Facilities & Logistics
Engineering
Physics – Hall A
Physics – Hall B
Physics – Hall C
12 Gev
ESH&Q
  • Are workers/supervisors stop work authorities and responsibilities clearly defined for unexpected hazards or safety concerns?
Yes / No / Partially / Not Observed/
Evaluated
FEL
Accelerator
Facilities & Logistics
Engineering
Physics – Hall A
Physics – Hall B
Physics – Hall C
12 Gev
ESH&Q
  • Do procedures address liaisons and interfaces between organizations to ensure conflicts andoverlapping work activities are properly coordinated and resolved?
Yes / No / Partially / Not Observed/
Evaluated
FEL
Accelerator
Facilities & Logistics
Engineering
Physics – Hall A
Physics – Hall B
Physics – Hall C
12 Gev
ESH&Q
  • Are control sets sufficiently analyzed to ensure they do not conflict or introduce additionalhazards?
Yes / No / Partially / Not Observed/
Evaluated
FEL
Accelerator
Facilities & Logistics
Engineering
Physics – Hall A
Physics – Hall B
Physics – Hall C
12 Gev
ESH&Q
  • Do controls sufficiently provide notification and afford protection to co-located workers whomay either be present or traverse the areas potentially impacted by the activity?
Yes / No / Partially / Not Observed/
Evaluated
FEL
Accelerator
Facilities & Logistics
Engineering
Physics – Hall A
Physics – Hall B
Physics – Hall C
12 Gev
ESH&Q
  • Is independent safety review of the adequacy of controls provided for higher hazardactivities?
Yes / No / Partially / Not Observed/
Evaluated
FEL
Accelerator
Facilities & Logistics
Engineering
Physics – Hall A
Physics – Hall B
Physics – Hall C
12 Gev
ESH&Q
  • Are workers involved in the development of controls?
Yes / No / Partially / Not Observed/
Evaluated
FEL
Accelerator
Facilities & Logistics
Engineering
Physics – Hall A
Physics – Hall B
Physics – Hall C
12 Gev
ESH&Q
  • Are parameters clearly defined and established in appropriate facility procedures? Arehazard controls sufficient to ensure that facility and other operating limits are not exceeded?
Yes / No / Partially / Not Observed/
Evaluated
FEL
Accelerator
Facilities & Logistics
Engineering
Physics – Hall A
Physics – Hall B
Physics – Hall C
12 Gev
ESH&Q
  • Have facility safety requirements been clearly translated into facility, building, system, andequipment specific information that are available and usable by workers within the facility?
Yes / No / Partially / Not Observed/
Evaluated
FEL
Accelerator
Facilities & Logistics
Engineering
Physics – Hall A
Physics – Hall B
Physics – Hall C
12 Gev
ESH&Q
  • Are appropriate hazard controls from hazard analyses and permits included in approved workdocuments and are they adequately implemented?
Yes / No / Partially / Not Observed/
Evaluated
FEL
Accelerator
Facilities & Logistics
Engineering
Physics – Hall A
Physics – Hall B
Physics – Hall C
12 Gev
ESH&Q
  • Are standardized hazard controls developed and used in an appropriately graded approachthat considers work complexity, performance frequency, and magnitude of the risks?
Yes / No / Partially / Not Observed/
Evaluated
FEL
Accelerator
Facilities & Logistics
Engineering
Physics – Hall A
Physics – Hall B
Physics – Hall C
12 Gev
ESH&Q
  • Are work documents complete with adequate procedures, instructions, and/or drawings, andare bounding conditions and limitations clearly specified?
Yes / No / Partially / Not Observed/
Evaluated
FEL
Accelerator
Facilities & Logistics
Engineering
Physics – Hall A
Physics – Hall B
Physics – Hall C
12 Gev
ESH&Q
  • Are permits appropriately tailored, specified and integrated into the work package (e.g.,Lockout/Tagout, radiological work, confined space, hot work, energized electrical, elevatedwork, and asbestos abatement)?
Yes / No / Partially / Not Observed/
Evaluated
FEL
Accelerator
Facilities & Logistics
Engineering
Physics – Hall A
Physics – Hall B
Physics – Hall C
12 Gev
ESH&Q
  • Is the reliability of hazard controls for higher risk activities assessed and failureconsequences determined and considered?
Yes / No / Partially / Not Observed/
Evaluated
FEL
Accelerator
Facilities & Logistics
Engineering
Physics – Hall A
Physics – Hall B
Physics – Hall C
12 Gev
ESH&Q
  • When project/work scope and tasks are changed, are the hazard controls reviewed forimpacts?
Yes / No / Partially / Not Observed/
Evaluated
FEL
Accelerator
Facilities & Logistics
Engineering
Physics – Hall A
Physics – Hall B
Physics – Hall C
12 Gev
ESH&Q
  • Are training requirements for personnel needed to perform the work in accordance withestablished controls clearly defined, specified and implemented?
Yes / No / Partially / Not Observed/
Evaluated
FEL
Accelerator
Facilities & Logistics
Engineering
Physics – Hall A
Physics – Hall B
Physics – Hall C
12 Gev
ESH&Q
  • Are appropriate analytical parameters and data quality objectives included in sampling andanalysis programs?
Yes / No / Partially / Not Observed/
Evaluated
FEL
Accelerator
Facilities & Logistics
Engineering
Physics – Hall A
Physics – Hall B
Physics – Hall C
12 Gev
ESH&Q
  • Are the required administrative and engineering controls in place at locations where waste isgenerated and stored (for example, signs identifying less-than-90-day storage areas) perinternal and external requirements?
Yes / No / Partially / Not Observed/
Evaluated
FEL
Accelerator
Facilities & Logistics
Engineering
Physics – Hall A
Physics – Hall B
Physics – Hall C
12 Gev
ESH&Q
  • Are signs and postings clear and current with regard to hazards and entry requirements?
Yes / No / Partially / Not Observed/
Evaluated
FEL
Accelerator
Facilities & Logistics
Engineering
Physics – Hall A
Physics – Hall B
Physics – Hall C
12 Gev
ESH&Q
  • Is there appropriate linkage between tasks, hazards, and hazard controls in work controldocuments?
Yes / No / Partially / Not Observed/
Evaluated
FEL
Accelerator
Facilities & Logistics
Engineering
Physics – Hall A
Physics – Hall B
Physics – Hall C
12 Gev
ESH&Q
  • Are workers and appropriate environment, safety, and health professionals included onplanning teams and involved in hazard control development? Are minimum thresholdsidentified, based on the hazards and risks, which require the involvement of ES&H and wastemanagement personnel and subject matter experts when developing work packages andduring work activities?
Yes / No / Partially / Not Observed/
Evaluated
FEL
Accelerator
Facilities & Logistics
Engineering
Physics – Hall A
Physics – Hall B
Physics – Hall C
12 Gev
ESH&Q
  • Do environmental, waste management, radiological, health, safety, and operations personnelhave an adequate understanding of each other's requirements and processes to minimize environmental impacts and meet regulatory requirements?
Yes / No / Partially / Not Observed/
Evaluated
FEL
Accelerator
Facilities & Logistics
Engineering
Physics – Hall A
Physics – Hall B
Physics – Hall C
12 Gev
ESH&Q
  • Are the roles and responsibilities for ES&H subject matter experts,and reviewers well documented, and are development and implementation or controlsestablished and understood?
Yes / No / Partially / Not Observed/
Evaluated
FEL
Accelerator
Facilities & Logistics
Engineering
Physics – Hall A
Physics – Hall B
Physics – Hall C
12 Gev
ESH&Q
Ensure that the below narratives identify the appropriate division(s) or that the entry is applicable to all divisions.
Summary of Assessment Activities
Findings
Observations/Opportunities for Improvement
Noteworthy Practices
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

Appendix 221 of 13

CF#3 Report Template Page 1