1 / 79

This presentation was produced under contract number DE-AC04-00AL66620 with

This presentation was produced under contract number DE-AC04-00AL66620 with. Differing Professional Opinion Program. THE SAFETY VALVE IN THE FEEDBACK PROCESS. What is a DPO?. “A Differing Professional Opinion is a Conscientious expression of a professional judgment that

lealg
Télécharger la présentation

This presentation was produced under contract number DE-AC04-00AL66620 with

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. This presentation was produced under contract number DE-AC04-00AL66620 with

  2. Differing ProfessionalOpinion Program THE SAFETY VALVE IN THE FEEDBACK PROCESS

  3. What is a DPO? • “A Differing Professional Opinion is a • Conscientious expression of a professional judgment that • Differs from the prevailing staff view, • Disagrees with a management decision or policy position, or • Takes issue with a proposed or an established practice • Involving technical, legal, or policy issues that, • In the professional judgment of the submitter, • Adversely affect the environment, and/or the safety and health of the public and/or persons engaged in work at the Plant.” WI 02.04.01.17.04

  4. “People do not always argue because they misunderstand one another; they argue because they hold different goals” William H. Whyte Jr.

  5. What is NOT a DPO? • Issues that are administrative in nature(e.g., procedures for review and comment or Price-Anderson enforcement procedures) • Personnel issues(e.g., performance elements, evaluations and ratings or work assignments by management)

  6. What is NOT a DPO? • Issues that relate to contractsnot relating to technical ES&H issues (e.g., fees or contract negotiations) • Issues related to collective bargaining

  7. What is NOT a DPO? • Issues that are addressed through the grievance process or personnel appeal procedures • Issues that relate to wrongdoing (Differing Professional Opinion Manager (DPOM) refers these to InternalAudit)

  8. What is NOT a DPO? • Issues submittedanonymouslyor for which confidentiality is requested • Issues that have been consideredandalreadyaddressedunder this process unlesssignificant, newinformationisavailable.

  9. What examples of potential, ongoing or historical DPO’s can you think of?

  10. Why a DPO Program? • Genesis within DOE • DNFSB 2004-1 Implementation Plan • Commitment to implement a DPO program within DOE • Action Items 4.a-b: Columbia & D-B Lessons Learned Report • Commitment for DOE contractors to implement a DPO process and adopt in contracts • Action Item 4.c: Columbia & D-B Lessons Learned Report

  11. Columbia & Davis-Besse

  12. Pantex Studied the DOE Columbia/D-B Report in 2006

  13. Absence of DPO Process Prominent in DOE Report

  14. Pantex DPO Program • Timeline • “On radar” as DNFSB 2004-1 Concern • Issue #4 from Anonymous Letter Response Action Plan (PER 2007-0059) • Impact evaluation of DOE M 442.1-1 & added to contract in FEB 07 • DPO Implementation team formed late FEB • Process Development late FEB to early APR • Bulletin, WI & PX Form published 13 APRIL.

  15. Key DPO Building Blocks

  16. Bulletin # 967 • Applies to employees & BWXT subcontractors • Seeks to establish an environment that supports the raising of issues. • Requires impartial, competent evaluation • Recognizes positive outcomes when appropriate.

  17. None of this!! Bulletin # 967 • NO RETALIATION!!

  18. DPO WI 02.04.01.17.04 • Sets clear conditions for acceptance of formal DPO • Requires submitter to attempt resolution through management chain, when possible. • Allows for both accelerated and extended reviews.

  19. “… no time limits for completion of these discussions, no tracking requirements, and no requirements to keep written records….” DPO Preconditions

  20. PX-5476 • Used to evaluate acceptability of a DPO • Submitter provides as much detail as possible • Submitter recommends reviewers for DPO • Can be used for classified DPOs.

  21. DPO Process Overview *Alternate processes available.

  22. DPO’s & the Safety Conscious Work Environment (SCWE) A Strong Combination

  23. DPO &SCWE • A SCWE  safety-conscious-work-environment  describes a workplace in which all employees • Contribute to a priority focus on safety by speaking up about safety concerns • Because they feel comfortable and valued doing so. • At its core, SCWE is about the free flow of information relating to safety

  24. A SCWE Reduces Formal DPOs • Leaders: How SCWE are You? Do you: • Encourage Issues? • Listen? (for both scope and perception) • Act on Issues? • Give Feedback? • Walk the Talk? • Promote the Programs? • Know Your Command Climate?

  25. Team Members … • Are you • Passionate & unguarded in your discussion of issues? • Deeply concerned about the prospect of letting down your peers? • Slow to seek credit for your own contributions, but quick to point out those of others? • Do you • Call out one another’s deficiencies or unproductive behaviors? • Quickly & genuinely apologize to one another when you say or do something damaging to the team? • Challenge one another about your plans and approaches?

  26. How Do We Voice Our Concerns?

  27. When Do We Speak Up?

  28. Why Team Dysfunction Occurs

  29. When Team Dysfunction Occurs … • The DPO Program is the “safety valve” when our information “free flow” fails ortrust falters.

  30. Protection Bankruptcy Unrocked Boat Better defenses converted to increased production Catastrophe Production The “Pinball” Approach to a Safety Culture

  31. Seeking Differences Within a Strong Safety Culture

  32. Pantex DPO Experience • Only 1 formal DPO thus far… • Involved an environmental remediation issue • Good bit of “management consternation” at outset until process was understood • Resulted in Company NOT siding with Submitter, ALTHOUGH … • Improvements to overall program were requested by Ad Hoc Review Panel. • Submitter accepted results.

  33. Wait a Minute! What have we learned so far?

  34. Lessons Learned: Submitter • DPO Program Manager needs to work with Submitter to make sure issue can be understood by independent Final Decision Manager. • Make sure Submitter agrees with stated issue prior to beginning evaluation.

  35. Ad Hoc Review Panel

  36. Lessons Learned: Ad Hoc Review Panel • Appropriate technical credentials essential! • Be Flexible in time lines • Make sure that Ad Hoc Review Panel fully understands issue and has framed it properly before evaluation period begins. • Work with Submitter & Majority-Opinion Holders (Manager, Technical Authority, etc.) to gather pertinent information and analyze issue.

  37. Final Decision Manager The Need for a Solid Reputation & Independence

  38. Recognize Courage & Positive Contributions …

  39. President & General Manager’s Expectations • Informal DPO’s are being actively worked and vetted in each organization. • We all benefit from the act of putting our arguments in writing. • Important technical decisions should not be based solely on verbal discussions or PowerPoint presentations. • “There is no excuse for a manager not understanding the technical details of his or her business.” • Demand debate. Confront difficult issues. • “We should do things so well that no one can criticize us.” • This often requires strong technical, written arguments, both for and against a proposed solution.

  40. The Need for the Differing View • "One must create the ability in his staff to generate clear, forceful arguments for opposing viewpoints as well as for their own. Open discussions and disagreement must be encouraged, so that all sides of an issue will be fully explored. Further, important issues should be presented in writing. Nothing so sharpens the thought process as writing down one's arguments. Weaknesses overlooked in oral discussions become painfully obvious in the written page."  Admiral H.G. Rickover

  41. QUESTIONS?

  42. Supplemental Slides

  43. DPOs: Gone Missing  Seldom Discussed: K-Reactor  Well-Studied: Columbia & Challenger

  44. A Case for the DPO Program A Review of theDecision to RestartK-Reactor(SRS)

  45. K-Reactor Background • Constructed in 1953 • Expected to run for 5 years at 250 MWth • Operated from 1954 to 1988 at 2500 MWth • 1988: K, L, & P Reactors Shutdown due to operator errors and design problems with emergency core cooling systems. • … around the same time… Hanford N-Reactor permanently shut down, Rocky Flats shut down, Fernald shut down.

  46. Primary Coolant Loop Secondary Coolant Loop Primary Coolant Loop Commercial Reactor vs. K-ReactorBasic Design No Secondary Coolant Loop Environment Environment

  47. L-Reactor R-Reactor P-Reactor Savannah River Site K-Reactor Swamp

  48. Reviewer’s Troubling Findings 105-K Area • Inadequate tritium liquid effluent monitoring • Effluent samples monitored only once every 72-hours. • Review team had significant concerns in accepting substandard sampling protocols Reactor Cooling Tower

  49. Outbrief Didn’t Go Well • DOE Pre-Start finding on liquid effluent tritium monitoring • Significant pushback on reviewer from the contractor • Contractor position: Existing and planned improvements “were acceptable” • DOE-SR Customer felt same pressure to proceed on schedule • Quite a dilemma.

  50. A Fateful Decision OR ?

More Related