Do LANS and LLNS each follow the "quality management principles" or have safety work cultures with sustained safety attributes which trend toward a "Six Sigma Safety" or comparable safety metric?
(If you don't think "Six Sigma" properly quantifies safety metrics, suggest and comment on alternative safety metics please)
https://safety.cat.com/cda/files/3066657/7/6+Sigma+Safety_Williamsen.pdf
Comments
Toyota uses this method for production, not for prototyping or reasearch.
Not to say that assurances, safety culture, and numerical methods in production are not important, but the large investment required to implement
six sigma is overkill for fast paced, transient data-driven research.
Your are a prime example of the "overthink" culture that is so destructive to making the changes that are needed at the labs. You make things to complicated and clumsy. You become blind and lost while those who are more agile and fast win. Toyota is in a brutally competitive businesses of making cars. They do not overthink it, they do it and they do it well all they while making a profit at the same time. There is so much we can learn from successful business. The problem faced by the labs is the overarching culture that that is closed minded and resits changes. You are not in graduate school any more, the world is changing and that is why the labs needed to change. I am saddened when I see the blog and the persistent stubbornness of the lab culture that has caused so many problems through the years.
February 15, 2015 at 7:59 PM
Yeah, bad ignition switches and faulty airbags. Whose "safety" is important to Toyota. Workers? Maybe. Customers? Obviously not. I'm not sure this should be a beacon of safety example to the rest of the world, certainly not organizations involved with nuclear weapons.
February 15, 2015 at 8:24 PM"
There always has to be a snarky comment from some "I know better because I am a scientist" type. Just listen to yourself, see what your culture has done to the labs? They are seriously thinking about a contract change at LANL. This could happen to LLNL soon after that. Do you want to take that chance with your benefits? Congress if fed up with the labs and for good reason. Toyota on the whole works with way more things and people than the labs ever will. Open your mind we can learn from them and other companies that have to compete in the real world. If we do not than the contract might just change. If it gets too bad Congress might just pull the plug on all the NNSA labs. Scientists are like children but we need adults at the labs or at least very strict adult supervision. This is real people.
Snark, snark, snark. This is getting old. What do you hope to accomplish with your snark? People are trying to suggest ways to improve the place and to be realistic about the situation. And all we get from you is just more snark...Sigh
An exception to the down-up safety discussion followed by career reprisal may occur IF the safety concern can be spun as a net positive for the responsible LLNS management chain. However, once the safety concern activity is approved and in play, this is not a likely scenario.
Snark, snark, snark. February 15, 2015 at 9:39 PM
Now, now children, it's past your bedtime. Please go to sleep.
This has nothing to do with the so-called "cowboy culture" of scientists. It has everything to do with the lack of common sense and the zealous adherence to process simple for the sake of it. Some people are too narrow to see reality through the dense fog of procedure.
There are reasons why the national laboratories are cost-ineffective bastions of bureaucratic waste. It's similar to the ever increasing complexity of our tax code. Policy makers keep implementing fixes needed to correct their previous fixes.
1. a LANS employee from taking sloppy "inorganic/organic" notes for the WIPP radiative drums
2. a group of LANS employees from not catching the error in note taking
3. DOE IG "questions about the lab management's oversight of written procedures for handling the waste"
4. DOE IG "Initial reports that followed the incident also blamed a slow erosion of the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant's safety culture"
What you imply is crazy! How can the workforce be against the very company that runs the same place !? Are their fates not shared? LLNS and LANS where brought in to save the labs,..and you have to realize this and be part of this or get out of the way. The lab culture has been a huge problem for many years. If privatization cannot save the labs or change the lab culture than what can? Congress is likely ask this very same question and they may just decide to: change the contract and put someone in who can and is willing to kick the scientists asses and put an end to the goddam cowboy culture. This won't be pretty for anyone. They may decide that one of the problems is the benefits which gives the scientists a feeling that they are special. One solution is to get rid of all benefits and to fire anyone, on any whim, for any reason, at any time. This would sure as hell change this rampant cowboy culture in a hurry and bring in a new workforce that "gets it". You would not see a blog like this talking about the labs lab, and if there was one it would say how great the place is and how the management was top notch. There other option is just to close down all these goddam NNSA labs. Scientist are out of control and cannot be trusted. The point is that you need to STFU and hope LLNs and LANLs can keep the contract and protect you. Do you really want to be in the real world, do you think you can survive in such an environment? You have a good deal here, the managers have a good deal, do not mess this up for us. Think about this very for a long time before you post your next inane snark that the public can see.
Wow, alcohol or crack? One or the other, you need help. Anti-scientist, anti-intellectual, pro-corporate goons. What the hell is "the labs lab"?? You should, in your words, "STFU." You are too stupid to be posting here - go back to Mommy's basement and play some stupid game on your computer (paid for by Mommy).
Given our recent safety history, to say no safety metric applies at the labs, is the wrong approach and a sure path to WIPP repeats.
Are you a new lab employee that thinks this "safety culture" topic doesn't impact you? Consider the budget and employment uncertainty at LANS as a direct result of the WIPP review to LANS employees with no direct or indirect WIPP involvement in the DOE IG WIPP investigation.
Safety is something that can be printed or spoken. Safety-culture is the degree to which we follow through and immerse ourselves in it.
From another post:
"Three Sigma" (level)
-well defined responsibility and accountability at ALL levels
"Four Sigma" (level)
-quality of supervision, attitude toward safety, manager/employee communication, hazard correction, employee involvement, program awareness, support for safety, safety climate, and management credibility"
https://safety.cat.com/cda/files/3066657/7/6+Sigma+Safety_Williamsen.pdf
No it is actually about "walk the talk" and to integrate safety into the work at all steps, as opposed to an afterthought appendage, or viewing safety as a burden.
I recall a 4-wheel drive story told to me years ago about an older man trying to convey the importance of negotiating each off road obstacle with care and patience to a young 4-wheel drive truck owner. As the young listener became visibly unenthusiastic about such a strategy, the older man said, "I know slow is slow, but it is a lot faster than stuck!"
The same principles apply to safety at the labs in that fast, careless, or poorly thought out activities, can lead to a shutdown and zero activity.
The same principles apply to safety at the labs in that fast, careless, or poorly thought out activities, can lead to a shutdown and zero activity.
February 17, 2015 at 12:45 PM
At LANL it is not so much the "fast, careless, or poorly thought out activities" that have led to both shutdowns and zero activity. Rather it is the activities that have happened after someone looked at the safety policy and then determined that it did not apply. Over and over again this happens where the worker is not unaware of the policy, but just does not follow it.
The same holds for security incidents at LANL as well. It is not an issue of informing the workers of the policies, it is instead one of the workers not adhering to the policies.
==================
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory has a mission of strengthening the United States’ security by developing and applying world-class science, technology, and engineering that: enhances the nation’s defense, reduces the global threat from terrorism and weapons of mass destruction, responds with vision, quality, integrity, and technical excellence to scientific issues of national importance.
------
Toyota will lead the way to the future of mobility, enriching lives around the world with the safest and most responsible ways of moving people. Through our commitment to quality, constant innovation and respect for the planet, we aim to exceed expectations and be rewarded with a smile. We will meet our challenging goals by engaging the talent and passion of people, who believe there is always a better way.
==================
So which is better suited for a six-sigma approach to safety/quality management and why or why not...
February 17, 2015 at 1:53 PM
Someone is getting it. There are rules, follow the rules, do not question the rules, do not make a snarky comment about the rules, do not say the rules are stupid, follow the rules or be fired. That is the only thing each of the workers needs to know and follow through with. Instant termination without the possibility of appeal or future employment and any NNSA lab. If such a policy where followed we would see some real changed in the lab cultures. Just something to think about.
Two mission statements.
February 17, 2015 at 3:08 PM
Both are meaningless blather.
To
"...At LANL it is not so much the "fast, careless, or poorly thought out activities" that have led to both shutdowns and zero activity. Rather it is the activities that have happened after someone looked at the safety policy and then determined that it did not apply. Over and over again this happens where the worker is not unaware of the policy, but just does not follow it..."
and to
"...revenge of the C students..."
The story below does not suggest a LANL employee "went rogue" on a procedure, nor does this seem to be a "revenge of the C students" useless safety exercise. The DOE IG findings suggest LANL has systemic and ongoing safety/procedural issues.
"Handwritten note could be source of WIPP incidents"
"...Bad note taking and miscommunication at Los Alamos National Laboratory is what led to the mishandling of the transuranic waste drum that resulted in the Feb. 14, 2014 radiological release at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant..."
"...the Inspector General's report shows that LANL officials do not seem to know when or how the use of organic kitty litter was permitted..."
"...Instead of following the DOE's technical paper, which the LANL procedure writer aid was not provided, a handwritten note with the word "organic" being used was "improperly relied upon to revise the Procedure," the report said..."
"...Before, LANL was using ordinary or inorganic kitty litter or zeolite clay as an absorbent, which is acceptable as an absorbent, but from sometime between July 2012 to August 2012 LANL switched to using the organic kitty litter. This occurred even though the May 2012 technical paper written by LANL didn't mention using "organic" kitty litter as an absorbent..."
"...LANL made a procedural change to its existing waste procedures that did not confirm to technical guidance provided by the Department for the processing of nitrate salt waste," said the report..."
"...The revised procedures LANL used for treating the waste drums did not follow the Department of Energy's direction on the matter either, the report said..."
"...The revised procedures at LANL also, according to the report, did not take into consideration available information on chemical reactions such as the Environmental Protection Agency's 2000 study on waste fuel hazards..."
"...According to the EPA the treatment which LANL used, using the organic kitty litter as an absorbent, could ultimately be hazardous and that common references warn against mixing an organic absorbent with waste fuels..."
"...The Office of the Inspector General's report is consistent with many of the waste processing issues already identified by the Energy Department and the Lab..."
http://www.currentargus.com/carlsbad-news/ci_27508764/handwritten-note-could-be-source-wipp-incidents
What is LANS doing, not just talking about, right now regarding these disturbing DOE IG findings? More well polished safety talking points?
February 18, 2015 at 7:51 AM
Same thing everyone does, or should do, about IG "findings": Nothing.
A sure path to a repeat "WIPP" type episode, more LANS reputation erosion, funding reductions, and job loss. What a naive and reckless response.
February 18, 2015 at 2:04 PM
Only if you believe that the DOE IG hires competent investigators who have intimate, professional-level knowledge of the issues they investigate, and that they aren't easily sidetracked into fruitless activity or irrelevant side-issues, and that they don't have their own agendas. Now THAT'S naive.
You may have valid reservations about the DOE IG track record, but if you want to blankety discard the so far unchallenged DOE IG findings thus far on the WIPP disaster, LANS is in for more of the same micromanagement on its downward spiral to non-existence or extreme baby watching oversight. Choose your destiny carefully. Naive deluxe.
February 18, 2015 at 3:04 PM
Yes, I do challenge them, because nobody else has the guts to do it. And, It is NOT a "disaster." The IG goes away between "findings" and does not follow up or come back. Just their "hair on fire" way of doing business. Ho Hum.
The Inspector General's task is to investigate and report on DOE programs and operations. I don't think you are going to want IG staff camped out more than required at LANL.
It is up to LANS senior management and the next LLC in charge to make the necessary and measurable changes to its tracking, procedures, adherence to DOE guidelines, and to its overall safety culture.
Think of these changes not as a burden to LANL operations, but rather as an insurance policy against the repercussions of a future "WIPP 2.0" level external investigation.
February 19, 2015 at 7:47 AM
I guess you are unaware that the DOE/IG has a permanent office at LANL.
"...I don't think you are going to want IG staff camped out more than required at LANL..." (more than required)
February 19, 2015 at 12:09 PM
No, no one at all wonders about that. Everyone knows the answer quite well.
And yet year after year LANS has to be examined by DOE for subpar activities...sad
I understand. Given your experience, what will materially change when LANL is eventually managed by a different LLC?
Livermore, Los Alamos, and Sandia employ the ONLY people in the world that can ensure that the nuclear weapons in the US arsenal will work when needed, and not work when not needed!
Everything else is a minor distraction, amplified by the press on slow news days.
Except that there is a substantial minority, if not a majority, of employees at all three labs that believe the labs' only reason to exist is for WFO programs,
February 21, 2015 at 3:14 PM
You think it is news to anyone that no one has "demonstrated" performance since testing stopped? Duh. That hasn't been what reliability assessment has been about since then. I think your attitude is "living in the past." And your snide ending comment indicates you resent those who paved the way for the current way of doing business, and even the fact that nuclear weapons still matter and take attention from your little WFO program.
February 22, 2015 at 4:25 AM
Really? So what would you do instead, given that actual nuclear testing is not allowed??