"The team found through interviews that there is a widely shared perception among DOE and contractor officials that safety culture is not an overarching contractual requirement, and that formal oversight is limited to contractual requirements. Over the course of this assessment, there has been some progress toward incorporating safety culture into contract requirements."
As such, employees that worked with DOE in good faith to resolve acts of contractor retaliation, were unwillingly brought into a DOE OHA fraudulent process to resolve such matters. Congress needs to resolve this because DOE won't.
Ironic that most of the best practices are from CNS, yet NNSA is canning them for a timecard fraud issue at Pantex that CNS discovered and self-reported.
Zero safety culture at LANL.
but....but......people on this blog and the media say our safety culture sucks.
Most people on this blog think everything related to LLNL/LANL sucks.
8:35, care to elaborate? You know, using data and facts?
7/30/2020 7:14 AM
Case rates, crit issues, the number of nuclear facilities "paused" over the past 5 years (TA-55, WETF, TA-54, etc.), the number of nuclear facilities understaffed with Cog Systems Engineers, RPs, etc. and the list goes on and on. I have worked at 5 DOE facilities over 30 years. LANL nuclear safety culture is poor. I have tried speaking up here and nobody in OPS cares. This isn't cowboy scientists. In fact, except for putting interns in some bad spots a few times the scientists are fairly safe. Its the OPS and maintenance divisions that are unsafe.
Data and facts? You're on the wrong blog.
7/30/2020 4:58 PM
I have worked at 5 DOE facilities over 30 years.
So chronic complainer, not able to hold a job, fired often. Got it.
"Its the OPS and maintenance divisions that are unsafe."
At LANL we all know that nothing can be done about this for political reasons, nothing.
"So chronic complainer, not able to hold a job, fired often. Got it."
So DOE Labs with chronic safety culture failures fire "complainers",
hire new employees, and repeat. All on the taxpayers dime. Got it.
7/31/2020 5:47 PM
More like an Engineer with a particular skill set in weapons that has been promoted throughout the complex. Unlike a generational hanger on who has been at the same lab for 30 years and contributed little. Thin skinned too apparently.
I wonder when people are going to realize that with complex hazardous operations where people are involved with many rules and regulations, there is going to be risk. The key is to minimize the risk through administrative processes and programs combined with engineered controls. When there is an incident or near miss, 99.99% of the time, there is an organizational latent weakness that can be assigned. Rarely will you see incidents where a person intentionally or maliciously ignores a rule.
If DOE guy above with 30 years of experience wants to start firing workers and managers for making mistakes, then you will drive reporting underground. The incidents you read about from your office arm chair are from people actually reporting, which leads to fact findings. Results from fact findings are published and this is when the "non-experts" think they know everything and make judgemental comments. If you are serious about improving the safety culture, I invite you to apply for many of the open managerial positions that have operations in PF-4. Jobs that we can't retain or attract qualified people for because its crap work, high stress, with all the accountability and no authority. My guess is you wouldn't last 2 years.
8/05/2020 11:47 AM
There are accidents, and there are worker errors, and there are equipment malfunctions. None of these necessarily involve lack of "administrative processes and programs combined with engineered controls." Safety isn't a management function. There will never be 100% safety, but situational awareness and careful operation will mitigate risk to a substantial degree.
More like an Engineer with a particular skill set in weapons that has been promoted throughout the complex. Unlike a generational hanger on who has been at the same lab for 30 years and contributed little. Thin skinned too apparently.
8/01/2020 6:53 PM
That is one way of putting it. The other is someone with little skills but a bad attitude that everyone wants to get rid of hence the reason they have moved to five different labs. I don't know your exact story but we have all meet a few people like that in the system. One thing they all have in common is that they have a very high opinion of themselves which is not shared by anyone they work for.
The dead giveaway is that the person looks down on people who have been at the same lab for 30 years yet the most talented and I would say the most important that I have meet over the years are the ones that have been at the same lab 30 or 40 years. Now sure there are some people who have switched labs that are very talented but most who have been in 4 or more different places are usually problematic people. Judging from the the tone of the poster one can get a good idea which category they fall.
Safety isn't a management function. There will never be 100% safety, but situational awareness and careful operation will mitigate risk to a substantial degree.
11:47am
I, the 30 year Engineer, agree. This is my primary concern. The people actually doing the work are not sufficiently situationally aware, do not understand the consequence of their actions, and the support staff around them is thin at best. This IS high risk work and we need the right people with the right knowledge and mindset doing it. Management and administration is a fools error in this case. Culture, culture, culture.
That is one way of putting it. The other is someone with little skills but a bad attitude that everyone wants to get rid of hence the reason they have moved to five different labs. I don't know your exact story but we have all meet a few people like that in the system. One thing they all have in common is that they have a very high opinion of themselves which is not shared by anyone they work for.
The dead giveaway is that the person looks down on people who have been at the same lab for 30 years yet the most talented and I would say the most important that I have meet over the years are the ones that have been at the same lab 30 or 40 years. Now sure there are some people who have switched labs that are very talented but most who have been in 4 or more different places are usually problematic people. Judging from the the tone of the poster one can get a good idea which category they fall.
8/07/2020 1:07 PM
I don't look "down" on anyone. Just trading barbs with someone who apparently looks "down" on people that haven't been at LANL for 30 years and can offer a broader perspective on Nuclear Safety Quality Culture from other labs and production facilities. I'm glad you feel that doing the same thing for 30 years is the grade of "talent" but you are sorely mistaken. Why don't you just try to address the actual topic instead of deflecting from the actual issue.