slide1 n.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Johnson Space Center & White Sands Test Facility Best Practices PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Johnson Space Center & White Sands Test Facility Best Practices

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 16

Johnson Space Center & White Sands Test Facility Best Practices - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 130 Views
  • Uploaded on

Johnson Space Center & White Sands Test Facility Best Practices. Unique Measures for Changing Times. 2013 NASA Safety Directors & Occupational Health Managers Meeting March 28, 2013. David Loyd, Safety & Test Operations Stacey Menard, Safety & Test Operations

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Johnson Space Center & White Sands Test Facility Best Practices' - skule


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.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
slide1

Johnson Space Center

& White Sands Test Facility

Best Practices

Unique Measures for Changing Times

2013 NASA Safety Directors & Occupational Health Managers Meeting

March 28, 2013

David Loyd, Safety & Test Operations

Stacey Menard, Safety & Test Operations

Sean Keprta, Occupational Health

Don Hall, WSTF Safety & Mission Assurance

HOUSTON, TEXAS

LAS CRUCES, NEW MEXICO

safety health goal measures
Safety & Health Goal Measures

Leadership

Prevention

Improve employee participation in prevention activities.

EXAMPLE MEASURES:

  • S&H Training Delivery
  • Close Call Submission & Acceptance
  • BITS Completion

Continue to encourage safe behaviors, attitudes, and employee involvement.

EXAMPLE MEASURES:

  • S&H Topic & Forum Participation
  • Center & Individual Recognitions
  • JSAT Sponsorship

LEADING MEASURES

Issue Resolution

Reaction

Assure response to challenges reflect thoughtful approach to risk mitigation.

EXAMPLE MEASURES:

  • Minimized Issue Impact
  • Feedback on Issue Response
  • Effectiveness of Corrective Actions

Reduce mishaps and improve investigation response.

EXAMPLE MEASURES:

  • Mishap Rate vs. Industry vs. NASA Target
  • Event Rate Performance
  • Mishap Timeliness Metric

TRAILING MEASURES

2012 final performance measures are comparisons with 2011
2012 Final Performance(Measures are comparisons with 2011)

Acceptable performance

Improvement needed

Immediate risk

Prevention

Leadership

SEE DATA

SEE DATA

  • Close Call response satisfaction is high (pg 26)
  • Close Call total submittals stabilizing (pg 27)
  • S&H mandatory training is greater than 94% (pg 29-30)
  • BITS completion average is at 87% (pg 31-32)
  • 2012 Facility Baseline Documentation assessments indicate 98% hazard control resolutions (pg 33-34)
  • Senior Staff Topic Participation is limited (pg 13)
  • Safety Forum & Awareness is stable (pg 14, 15)
  • Successful JSAT sponsorship (pg 16)
  • “Safe, Not Sorry” recognition program shows consistent participation (pg 17)
  • JLT Safety Pulse Check is STRONG (pg 19)
  • 2012 survey indicates JSC’s Safety Culture is STRONG (pg 20)

Reaction

Issue Resolution

SEE DATA

SEE DATA

  • EAP utilization is down, but cautionary (pg. 35)
  • JSC Clinic visits are within acceptable range (pg 36)
  • CY12 JSC TEAM Recordable Rate 54% below industry standard (pg 39) – Lowest rate ever at JSC
  • Injury severity has been reduced (pg 39)
  • Health Complaint trend is down (pg 41)
  • Damage mishap value is down ~60% (pg 42)
  • Mishap investigation timeliness meets agency standards (pg 43)
  • Budget impacts pose risk to workplace safety and health (pg 44)
  • JSC Integrated Risk Review has proven to be effective at encouraging cross-organizational risk identification and mitigation planning (pg 44)
  • JSC Emergency Response is meeting standards for on-scene timeliness (pg 45)
  • HATS processing is addressing facility hazards (pg 46)
the cxp cancellation hump

Johnson Space Center

Safety & Mission Assurance

The CxP Cancellation “Hump”

JSC Civil Servant TCIR is 87% below the Federal Government rate of 2.9.

JSC Team TCIR is 80% below the Private Industry rate of 3.8.

  • Volatility in injury rate evident following CxP cancellation.
  • Injury rate grew ~100% from 1st Qtr to 3rd Qtr 2010.
  • Labor hours reduced ~24% from 1st Qtr ’10 to 1st Qtr ‘12.
  • Injury prevention efforts improved with greater awareness of physical stresses (MSDs & Ergonomics).
  • Management provided frequent communication concerning program developments and milestones.

Federal Government = 2.9

~100% rise in injury rate

JSC Team Injury Rate by Quarter

JSC “Team” = 0.79

NASA = 0.58

JSC Civil Servant = 0.39

slide6

Reaction - Employee Assistance Program Visits

BACK

Actual Number

≥ 2%

1.90-1.99%

EAP utilization shows a subtle trend down, indicating reduced anxieties following concerns associated with Agency program changes.

≤ 1.89%

Metrics Summary: Employee Assistance Program (EAP) metrics for a one-year period from April 2010 to December 2012. Data shows percentage of employees utilizing the EAP per month. If the number is in the yellow or red range, investigation and corrective action quad charts are generated. EAP responds to acute workplace issues. Trending and analysis is conducted on monthly basis. Metric is based on a site population of 10,000.

leadership senior staff topic participation 2012

BACK

Leadership – Senior Staff Topic Participation 2012
  • S&MA
    • Vapor Trap - The Xcel Energy Confined Space Penstock Fire
    • From Rockets to Ruins -The PEPCON Solid Rocket Fuel Plant Explosion
    • Leading Measures to Reduce the Risk of Catastrophic Mishaps
    • Fire Protection
    • Driving Safely is Everyone's Mission - NASA Vehicle Safety
    • Safety and Health for Everyone
    • “What’s happening?” The Loss of Air France Flight 447
    • Distracted Driving
    • Home-Based Worksites
    • “Stay Sharp, Stay Safe” - Motor Vehicle Safety
    • The Poldercrash: Turkish Airlines Flight 1951
    • Building Inspection and Required Safety Training Status
    • Spider Bites
    • Lawn Mower Safety
    • Southeast Texas Severe Weather Awareness Week
    • Safe, Not Sorry (SNS)
    • Texas Tech University Laboratory Explosion
    • Porthole to Failure: The Sinking of the Ocean Ranger
fire protection systems success story

Johnson Space Center

Safety & Mission Assurance

Fire Protection Systems Success Story

Reducing operating costs while improving fire protection system reliability

  • By pro-actively removing redundant devices, the device inventory has been reduced by ~20%, allowing 100% testing and saving testing costs in out-years.
  • Reduction of outdated device technologies and improvements in system proof test precision has resulted in significant improvement in system reliability.
  • The combination of device reduction and improved device reliability has resulted in a 47% reduction in alarm incidence.

100% SPT Starts

Sensitivity Testing Starts

Yearly Alarm Device Reliability

Annual Evacuations due to Automatic Alarm

Average prior to Detector Removal Project (DRP)

47%

reduction

Average after(DRP)

evacuation cost avoidance due to alarm system improvements

Johnson Space Center

Safety & Mission Assurance

Evacuation Cost Avoidance Due to Alarm System Improvements

Fire Protection Systems Success Story

Improved fire protection system reliability reduces business interruptions and saves $s

Estimated Annual Cost

Avg. Annual Evacuation Rate

Prior to Device Reduction Program

Following Device Reduction Program

Cost estimate applied only to the 10 highest occupancy buildings at JSC. Estimate considers 10-25 minutes compensated time for building occupants for each building evacuation.

injuries vs close calls in fy12

BACK

Injuries vs. Close Calls in FY12

Robust awareness and prevention

efforts are evident where close calls significantly outnumber injury events.

Many ergonomic concerns have been successfully addressed with routine supervisory interventions.

slide11

Safety Pulse Check

July - Sept 2012

BACK

45%

9%

STRONG

  • The “People Hurt” comparison assessment:
    • Any drop in rate, up to a 10% rise, is considered favorable
    • A rise from 10% to 25% is of concern – factors influencing the rise are identified to determine if action is necessary
    • A rise of greater than 25% is alarming
  • The “People Engaged” comparison assessment:
    • Any rise in count, down to a 10% drop, is considered favorable
    • A drop of 10% to 25% is of concern
    • A drop of greater than 25% is alarming
prevention facility safety risk assessment
Prevention –Facility Safety Risk Assessment

BACK

  • Analysis over 2006 to 2010 period indicated 80% of damage mishaps occurred in FBD prioritized facilities.
  • Facilities were risk ranked as:
    • Hosting Hazardous operations not normally within the standard workplace environment.
    • Critical to JSC’s overall mission.
    • Hosting very Complex operating systems.
  • Analysis for 2012 indicates damage mishaps are down to 21% for FBD prioritized facilities
  • Nonconformances identified at facility assessment are input to JSC’s Hazard Abatement Tracking System (HATS)
  • S&MA is working with facility authorities to mitigate identified risks
  • 98% of HATS resulting from 2010 FBD assessment have been successfully addressed
prevention facility safety risk assessment results

BACK

Prevention– Facility Safety Risk Assessment Results

Characteristic Assessment Key

Characteristics

~98% of HATS resulting from 2010 FBD assessment have been successfully addressed.

* In most instances non-conformances represented potentially uncontrolled RAC 3 or 4 hazards.

Ellington

Field

Mission

Operations

Engineering

IRD

COD

slide14

Johnson Space Center

Safety & Mission Assurance

Facility Safety Management Concept of Operations

Facility Safety Management Program Plan addressing:

“…Required life cycle safety program tasks for facilities judged as hazardous, criticalor complex as a result of risk assessment.”

High-Risk Facilities

Facility Risk Criteria

Low-Risk Facilities

  • Hazardous:
  • Facilities, by their standard operation/mission, subject personnel to risks/hazards that are not normally seen in the standard workplace environment.
  • Critical:
  • Unique, irreplaceable facilities that support space flight activities.
  • Facilities supporting unique facilities that provide utility services.
  • Facilities which contain historically significant national treasures.
  • Complex :
  • Require multiple organizations to conduct facility mission.
  • Require extensive employee training.
  • Have integrated systems using specialty and prototype equipment.
  • Contain equipment that is specifically designed and high value.

Office

occupancies

Places of assembly

  • FSM process requirements for hazardous, critical, or complex facilities:
  • Organizational responsibilities,
  • Personnel training,
  • Operating procedures,
  • Configuration management,
  • Maintenance,
  • Resources, schedules and milestones,
  • Integration with other program engineering and management activities.

Facilities which do not meet the hazardous, critical, or complex criteria are subject to compliance with regulatory standards and national consensus codes.

slide15

Johnson Space Center

Safety & Mission Assurance

BACK

Reaction – Cost of Property Damage Mishaps

  • Total value of Institutional/Aircraft damage mishaps down ~ 60% from 2011
  • 55% of Property Damage Events are below the Close Call level (< $1000)
  • High-risk facility damage incidents are reduced significantly below 2006-2010 levels
  • Facility and vehicle-related incidents continue to represent the greatest proportion of damage mishaps
  • Reassessed “Other” in 2012, resulting in increases in alternate categories (Facilities, GSE, etc.)
  • Remaining “Other” - e.g., minor spills, office equipment, etc.
s ma in acquisition training
S&MA in Acquisition Training
  • The objective of the training is to:
  • Improve SMA professional knowledge of the acquisition process;
  • Optimize ability to integrate pertinent SMA requirements into acquisitions; and
  • Objectively assess contractor performance.

Over 20 hours of course material produced.

  • Draft material was subjected to review with:
  • NASA Technical Fellows;
  • STEP community;
  • NASA procurement; and other agency reps.

Available through SATERN:

“SAFETY & MISSION ASSURANCE IN THE ACQUISITION PROCESS”

Course number SMA-SS-WBT-0023

Currently provided through MediaSite web-based delivery for STEP 4 credit.