second safety council meeting april 10 and 11, 2014 | lsst project office n550

1Name of Meeting • Location, Location • Date DateName of Meeting • Location • Date - Change in Slide Master

Project Office Safety Progress Integrating Safety into the Project –January 6 to Present Chuck GessnerSafety Manager

April 10, 2014

Second Safety Council MeetingApril 10 and 11, 2014 | LSST Project Office N550

2Name of Meeting • Location, Location • Date DateSecond LSST Safety Council Meeting • Steward N550 • April 10 and 11, 2014

Objective

The purpose of the LSST Safety Council is to consult on safety, health, and environmental issues, provide policy advice, evaluate program effectiveness, and make recommendations to the LSST Director. Specific to this review the LSST Safety Council shall:

1. Determine if the safety actions and strategy of the LSST Project Office are effective and adequate for the project at this time on the project schedule.

2. To review the Dome system process and determine if the Telescope and Site Subsystem group has satisfactorily incorporated the Hazard Analysis and other safety management processes.


January 6, 2014


Safety Council Webpage


Final Design Review CommitteeDecember 2-6, 2013

Sixteen panel members with experience in managing large projects including a safety manager from LBNL- Jack Salazar.

Included in the Charge to the FDR Committee:f. Is there an adequate plan for monitoring to ensure continued

environmental compliance, regulatory management, and attention to health and safety?

Committee Findings:The project has established an effective and comprehensive ESH program that is integrated and managed within the overall project structure of LSST. Senior Project Management and other key LSST personnel exhibit strong commitment to ESH through individual actions and setting of priorities.


Final Design Review CommitteeDecember 2-6, 2013

Recommendation: Maximize the effectiveness of the external LSST Safety Council by involving this group further in the review of ESH program and hazard review activities. The collective expertise of the Council would be particularly well suited to offer independent review and feedback of site-specific safety plans for work at off-site locations as well as technical input into the hazard analysis process.

Project Response: The Project agrees. The Project will utilize the expertise of the Safety Council to review and suggest improvements to all safety documentation and activities. The next meeting is planned for this Spring 2014.


LSST Safety Web Pages

− LSST Safety Website - with the objective to have useful information and information for people traveling and working at various sites


Docushare

− Populated the new “Safety and Environmental Assurance” database in Docushare,


Docushare

with a file for Incidents, Accidents and other Safety Events


Docushare


JIRA

“Blocking progress on an element of the project”


JIRA


JIRA – Closed Safety Issues

14Name of Meeting • Location, Location • Date Date

Change Control

Safety Manager is a member of the Change Control Board, requiring safety “approval” for all changes.

Most to date are “No Safety Impact Anticipated”

LSST Change Control Board

Meeting Minutes March 12, 2014

Attendance:

Members Guests Angeli – Chairman Axelrod (NP) Hascall

Claver Gessner Krabbendam Gressler Juric Long Ivezic Nordby McKercher Jacoby Ritz (NP) Selvy Kantor Sebag Kurita

(NP) = not present

Agenda: 1. LCR-179: Correction of Rate Source in EPO Plan 2. LCR-171: Correct Table Reference in Cost Estimating Plan (LPM-81) 3. LCR-175: Update to LSE-80 Mechanical, Thermal, and Access Interface between

Camera and Telescope 4. LCR-181: Correction of Missing Factors on T&S Tasks 5. LCR-180: Set Resource Assignments to Linear 6. LCR-174: Update to LSE-18 Cam-Telescope Mechanical Interface Drawing 7. LCR-173: Proposed Change to LPM-49 (Hazard Analysis Procedure) 8. Any Other Business

Discussions: Meeting began at 10 am Pacific.

1. LCR-175: Update to LSE-80 Mechanical, Thermal, and Access Interface between Camera and Telescope

o Support Documents in Collection-3376

o The LCR proposes to remove several TBRs from this ICD.

o B. Selvy explained that the TBRs were included in the previous release in order to ensure the requirements were flowed down properly before release of the Hexapod/Rotator procurement. That has been done subsequently, so the TBRs can now be removed.

o J. Sebag objected to the removal of the TBR from CA-TS-MEC-ICD-0050 Camera Underside Access. The specification text refers to use of “temporary scaffolding that does not require fall protection.” He said this is not a viable option and removal of the TBR would imply that it is; therefore he believes this TBR should remain.

o C. Gessner confirmed that he does not know of any available technical solution that allows for temporary scaffolding without fall protection tie-off.

o B. Selvy proposed recommending approval of the LCR with the condition that the TBR for requirement CA-TS-MEC-ICD-0050 Camera Underside Access remain.


Change Control and Proposed Changes to LPM-49LCR-173: Proposed Change to LPM-49 (Hazard Analysis Procedure)Support Documents in Collection-3359− The LCR proposes adding a risk acceptance component to LPM-49. The component

describes the project’s method of managing serious to high residual risks discovered by the hazard analysis process. Residual risks are those that remain after all risk management measures have been implemented.

− N. Kurita expressed concern that the proposed language and definitions don’t agree with the Camera team’s hazard analysis document, which is controlled by the DOE, therefore, she doesn’t have the authority to approve the changes if they affect the camera document.

− V. Krabbendam recommended C. Gessner edit the proposed changes to explicitly state it applies to the NSF funded portion of the project and to refer to the camera team’s document as the policy for the DOE funded portion of the project.

− N. Kurita agreed that this should be done, but she also would like to have C. Gessner and F. O’Neill from SLAC work out compromises to have both documents’ definitions agree more.

− G. Angeli proposed deferring a decision until the next CCB meeting to allow C. Gessner and F. O’Neill to develop a version of the document section that is both acceptable to the DOE and addressed the needs of the NSF side.

− No objections or further comments.

https://www.lsstcorp.org/groups/ccb/node/314

https://docushare.lsstcorp.org/docushare/dsweb/View/Collection-3359


Change Control LMP-49

Proposal to ManageResidual Risk duringThe Hazard Analysis Process

Proposed changes to LPM-20 and LPM-49

The purpose of this change is to describe the method of managing residual risks discovered by the Hazard Analysis Process.

1.1 REVIEW AND ACCEPTANCE OF RESIDUAL RISK

LSST expects and attempts to reduce the mishap risks that are identified in the hazard analysis process to low as possible and to an acceptable level of risk.

The risks that remains after all risk management measures have been implemented during the hazard analysis process are considered residual mishap risks. Residual mishap risks are documented along with the reason(s) for incomplete mitigation for risks noted in the LSST Hazard Analysis Forms –Registers (spreadsheet).

LSST recognizes and plans for interdependencies but approaches each risk class differently to allow an appropriate level of analysis and tracking. Hazards that have unresolved mitigations or continue to represent a risk to the project are referred to the Project Risk Register for high level tracking; they are also kept in the Hazard Register for detailed handling.

For those risks that cannot be eliminated or controlled with engineering, the project will accept residual risks in the design at the levels of Low to Medium Mishap Risk Category depicted in Table X-1. The project will work to further mitigate those risks through procedural methods or possible design modifications.

Table X-1 Risk categories and mishap risk acceptance levels

Mishap Risk Assessment Value

Mishap Risk Category

Mishap Risk Acceptance Level

1 – 5 High AURA/SLAC/ NSF/DOE*

6 – 9 Serious LSST Director/Project Manager

10 – 17 Medium Safety Manager and Subsystem

Manager

18 – 20 Low Acceptable without Review

* High values are generally not acceptable for the LSST Project.

All serious and high category risks must be elevated to the Project Director and Project Manager and accepted as a project level risk. The Subsystem Manager is responsible to elevate and report these residual mishap risks through entry on the LSST Project Risk Register. The Project Manager may apply additional resources or other remedies to help resolve these hazards and mitigate them to a lower level. Those hazards that continue at the serious or high level are then processed by the Project Manager. The Project Manager has the responsibility to document that the appropriate authorities have formally accepted the Serious or High residual risks classifications. The Project Manager, Safety Manager, System Engineer, and Subsystem Manager will jointly monitor the status of these elevated hazards through the regular Risk Management Plan described in LPM-20.

As noted in Table x-1, hazard items that continue at a “High” level are generally not accepted for the LSST Project. Any such items will be considered a significant priority for resources to mitigate through redesign. Further, in some cases, individual institutional terms and conditions specifically do not allow residual assessments in the “high” category and must be resolved to a lower level before proceeding further with the project.


LSST Safety Evaluation Sheet

From the FDR:Recommendation: Deepen relationships with collaborating institutions in the area of ESH, and focus on establishing assurance mechanisms for the project to ensure that all work is being carried out safely and in an environmentally responsible manner.

Project Response: The Project fully agrees with this recommendation. With the full engagement of safety professionals, the Camera team and the Telescope and Site team are complying with the requirements of LPM-18 and have a solid culture of valuing safety. Now that the LSST Safety Manager is full time, he is charged to further develop the safety relationship with our other partners and contractors as well as to execute a plan to validate safety and environmental compliance at all collaborating institutions.


LSST Safety Evaluation Sheet

Organization Name Address Funding ES&H Website PM Contact ES&H Contact Relationship TypeDescription of

WorkAURA S&H Questionnaire

Satisfactory?Formal Contact

Made?ES&H Management

Review?Are LSST Personnel Traveling to the Site

Entry on the LSST Project website?

Significant Events

NotesRevision

Date

Caltech770 South Wilson Avenue

Pasadena, CA 91125

Mariela Silva205 382

[email protected]

Steve Heathcote

x+@

Hernan Bezamat C.+56 2 2382 6177

[email protected]

Facilities Services in Chile

Data Center

LSST Facilities Construction

Telescope Mount

Assembly

DomeConstruction

Contract

Secondary Mirror Polishing

3/13/2014

La Serena Base Facility

YesDale Zajac

[email protected]

Exelis800 Lee Road Rochester, NY 14606-

0488Contract with

LSSThttp://www.exelisinc.com/company/corpresp/Pages/Employees-and-Workplace.aspx

Michael J. Engle585-269-7359

[email protected]

Construction Contract

Contract Prior toQuestionnaireRequirements


Princeton Princeton, New Jersey 08544 USA

http://www.princeton.edu/main/administration/safety/

Infrared Processing and Analysis Center (IPAC) http://www.ipac.caltech.edu/page/28Construction

Contract

National Center for Supercomputing Applications1901 S. First Street, Suite A, Champaign,

Illinois 61820

University of WashingtonSeattle, Washington Construction

Contract

Yes

National Optical Astronomy Observatory CTIO/AURA Inc. Casilla 603. La Serena,

Chile NSF http://www.ctio.noao.edu/noao/ MOA Yes

Yes Yes

Yes

Arcadis ChileAvda. Antonio Varas 621

ProvidenciaSantiago

Contract with LSSTC

http://www.arcadis.cl/ Service ContractContract Prior to

QuestionnaireRequirements


Contract Prior toQuestionnaireRequirements

Yes

Camera

M1M3 Polishing

Facility Architectural &

Eng. Design

Kenagy, Karen (520) 621-8337

[email protected] Toledo S+56 2 2382 6394

[email protected]

ES&H performance mandated by DOE 2/27/2014

Steward Observatory Mirror Lab527 N National Championship Dr.

Tucson, AZ 85721Contract with

LSSTChttps://www.as.arizona.edu/safety

Frank G. O'Neill650-926-5300

[email protected] National Accelerator Laboratory

2575 Sand Hill Road, Menlo Park, California DOE http://www-group.slac.stanford.edu/esh/ Partner Not Needed Yes

Project is Nearing Completion 2/27/2014Yes

Creating relationships with Partners and Collaborators – the LSST Safety Evaluation Sheet. Progress continues, next step are the Safety Management Reviews.


Monthly LSST Safety Report

Rolls into the LSST Monthly Report and theQuarterly Report

Monthly LSST Safety Report

February 2014

Recent Progress and Status This month, LSST Head of Safety C. Gessner has been focused on improving and adding LSST’s safety policies, procedures and tools. His activities include:

Continuing to update the LSST Safety pages on the project website to provide useful information for general safe travel and working at various sites.

Organizing the next Safety Council meeting, which will likely be in April or May.

Proposing a risk acceptance component to be added to the Hazard Analysis Plan LPM-49.

Drafting proposed guidelines for safety personnel responsibilities of the three major entities in Chile, AURA-O, NOAO-S, and LSST.

Recommending improvements to the Chilean emergency plan and other documentation that will be linked to the LSST safety website pages and in both Spanish and English.

Investigating insurance options during the construction of LSST such as international builder's risk and worker compensation.

Providing safety management recommendations for the planned movement of the Calypso survey telescope that will be removed from Kitt Peak and relocated at NOAO-N for refurbishing before being shipped to Cerro Pachon.

Preparing to obtain inland-marine insurance for the M1M3 when accepted from the University of Arizona and then moved to a storage facility in Tucson.

Near Term Plans C. Gessner will be drafting two documents to improve communications during an emergency the "Notification to Key Stakeholders and Regulatory Authorities of an Accident" and to evaluate partner, contractors, and collaborators safety performance with the "LSST Safety Evaluation Spreadsheet".

C. Gessner will continue to improve and add information to the LSST safety web pages.


M1M3 and M2 Safety, Logistics Plan, and Insurance

Rochester March 10 to 12M2 Movement and Polish


Trip to Chile March 24 to 28

Beginning the Conversations and Actions to Safely Build LSST in Chile.

Safety Responsibilities and Management Meeting

March 27, 2014

11:00 am to 12:30 pm

CTIO Main Conference Room

Agenda

March 27

11:00-11:30

A review of newly (November 2013) promulgated Chilean safety legislation and other developments

Herna Bustos/Rodrigo Venegas

11:30-12:00 Comments and suggestions related to the LSST Interpretation of the Responsibilities of Safety Personnel in Chile draft document.

Chuck Gessner/Chris Smith

12:00-12:30

Near term plans for construction including medical services and long term inside/outside the dome model for safety responsibilities.

General Discussion


Safety Planning for the Calypso Calibration Telescope Movement planned for May

Logistics and Lift Plans


Summer Student

Louis Stokes Alliance for Minority Participation

IINSPIRE ProgramMission

The IINSPIRE Alliance goal is to double the number of underrepresented minority (URM) STEM graduates in the alliance within five years to 350 graduates and to build a foundation for greater increases in future years. Because students from populations historically underrepresented in STEM disciplines are a growing segment of the region’s population, there is statewide urgency to remove the barriers to progress in developing a diverse STEM workforce. IINSPIRE-LSAMP will serve as a model for Midwest colleges and universities. This will be accomplished through the following strategies: Grow the pool of college-ready, STEM-prepared URM high school students.−Increase the number of URM students who choose STEM at each IINSPIRE Alliance institution.−Improve retention at all IINSPIRE Alliance institutions.

Industrial Engineering for LSST

June 10, to August 05 2014 Our intent for the candidate is to have a positive engineering experience related to astronomy and contribute to the design of LSST. The following are a few suggested tasks, noting there might be time to complete one of the task:

Work with engineers and contractors to develop a safety and logistic plan for the movement of the $20 million M1M3 LSST mirror from the U of A mirror lab to a storage facility located by the Tucson Airport. From an industrial engineering point of view, verifying that the logistics plan is reasonable and safe to achieve project goals and insurance requirements. The final deliverable result would be a report and presentation to the LSST Project office including a description of the industrial engineering methodology incorporated in the logistics plan and personal learning's from the experience.

With the Current Hazard Analysis in hand and engineering support, conduct a safety/human factor/ergonomic analysis of the anticipated maintenance of the dome and its subsystems. Time permitting, starting with a subsystem of the dome. The final deliverable result would be a report and presentation to the LSST Project office including a description of the industrial engineering methodology for the analysis, findings that support the current plan, suggested human factor hazards that are currently not included in the hazard analysis spreadsheet, and personal learning's from the experience.

Alternatively, model, camera maintenance with the telescope mount access platforms to verify that safety/human factor/ ergonomic standards comply with the current proposed methodology. The final deliverable result would be a report and presentation to the LSST Project office including a description of the industrial engineering methodology for the analysis, findings that support the current plan, suggested human factor improvements that are currently addressed, and personal learning's from the experience.


More Later

Tomorrow I will discuss Actions needed for Site Specific Actions