Project Specifics

A prominent national laboratory operating a critical pulsed-power research facility has been engaged in a multiyear effort to enhance the formality of its operations. This ongoing initiative aimed to reduce safety and operational incidents, continuously improve infrastructure, and increase the operational rigor to meet its mission of conducting complex experiments for governmental and other customers. Recognizing the complexity of its operations, the significant backlog of experiments, and constant pressure for timely performance, facility leadership sought to improve output while bolstering operational rigor. To further this critical transformation, the facility’s leadership requested an independent assessment of their internal progress in these improvements. We were engaged to independently and comprehensively assess, then address, any systemic failings in safety culture and operational rigor at the facility.

Geosyntec Scope of Services

Our client sought an independent perspective to validate their progress, identify remaining gaps, and provide recommendations to solidify the formality of operations as an ingrained part of their culture and daily practice.

Our review addressed the following key issues and contributing factors:

• Inconsistent Operational Rigor: Standards for work control, hazard analysis, nuclear safety reviews, and overall Conduct of Operations were applied inconsistently across experiments.
• Absence of a Formal Continuous Improvement Process: The facility lacked a documented, systematic program for continuous improvement, leading to a reactive approach to lessons learned.
• Training and Qualification Deficiencies: High rates of delinquent training, unclear expectations, and a lack of formal qualification processes raised concerns about workforce competency.
• Unclear Roles, Responsibilities, Accountabilities, and Authorities (R2A2s): Ill-defined R2A2s, especially for critical support groups, led to potential gaps in coordination and accountability.
• Communication Gaps and Workforce Engagement: Technicians felt their input wasn’t consistently valued, which was compounded by concerns about staffing numbers and performance pressure.
• Reactive Safety Metrics: The safety program primarily relied on lagging indicators without sufficient integration of leading indicators or human performance initiatives for proactive prevention.
• Lack of Standardized Abnormal Operations Procedures: The absence of formal procedures for abnormal operating conditions led to ad hoc troubleshooting and an increase in safety risk.

Our experienced team of subject matter experts conducted an independent operational assessment focused on the formality of operations at the facility. The team conducted extensive document reviews, in-depth personnel interviews with key staff across all levels, and walk-throughs and observations of ongoing operations, including the following:

• Safety Programs: Assessing the incorporation of formality principles, understanding, and implementation of the safety program, and clarity of roles and responsibilities
• Field Applications: Observing direct operational practices to evaluate compliance and consistent implementation of formality
• Formality of Operations Effectiveness: Examining the organizational structure, management expectations, workforce engagement, and integration of formality into corrective actions
• Effectiveness and Accuracy of the Training Program: Evaluating training expectations, implementation effectiveness, delinquency rates, and needed improvements

The team also benchmarked best practices against comparable US Department of Energy and National Nuclear Security Administration facilities to identify best-practice approaches in formality training and emergency management. This method helped the team pinpoint actionable areas for future focus.

Notable Accomplishments

Our independent review offered the national laboratory’s pulsed power facility leadership a clear, unbiased evaluation of its operations.

This assessment provided a comprehensive diagnosis of deficiencies and a prioritized, actionable roadmap to drive significant, sustainable improvements in safety performance and operational culture, as follows:

• Validated Progress and Identified Strengths: The assessment acknowledged the significant work undertaken by facility staff, recognizing the positive impact of implementing initiatives that enhanced procedure quality, like dedicated technical writers and integrated project teams.
• Pinpointed Critical Improvement Areas: The review identified several key areas requiring enhanced rigor and effectiveness, including the urgent need for a formal continuous improvement plan across the entire facility, consistent application of formality across all activities, improved inter-group communications, and the development of comprehensive R2A2s for clarity and accountability.
• Assessed the Training Program: The review highlighted deficiencies within the training program and emphasized the need for formalizing training content, coordination, qualification processes, and record-keeping.
• Integrated Leading Indicators: A pivotal area of improvement was the inclusion of leading indicators into the safety program to shift the focus from reactive incident reporting (cure) to proactive prevention.
• Created Roadmap for Sustainable Change: The report provided a detailed, prioritized roadmap of recommendations for both the national entity and the operating contractor. These included reviewing relevant Department of Energy Orders, using benchmarking insights, and implementing improvements across safety programs, field applications, formality effectiveness, training, and strengthening oversight with performance assurance subject matter experts.

What is a Quick Qual?