2005 LBNL Safety Culture and EH

1
2005 LBNL Safety Culture andEHS Satisfaction
Survey

• Peter D. Lichty
• October 24, 2005

2
Survey Details

• Anonymous, online survey using outside vendor
  website (Zoomerang), paper option for Facilities.
• Open from 9/19/05 to 9/29/05 to entire Lab.
• Recruitment
• TABL article 9/19/05 yielded 145 responses
• TABL reminder 9/22/05 increased to 260
• Email to Division Directors 9/26/05 increased to
  777 responses.
• Operations Ice Cream Social incentive
• Limitations
• Multiple completions possible
• Theoretically, outsiders could find the site.

3
Who Answered the Survey?
4
Who Answered the Survey?
About 1/3 each
5
Division
6
Division Response Rates
AF 31 34 GN 8 5
AL 48 56 HR 25 36
CFO 44 23 ITSD 24 13
CH 3 4 LD 27 40
CR 8 6 LS 80 31
EE 47 18 MS 43 23
EG 149 51 NERSC 5 7
EH 52 54 NS 37 39
ES 60 37 PB 9 6
FA 54 19 PH 4 4
7
Typical Response Distribution
8
Safety Culture
Good scores on working in safe environment,
safety as a key value, comfort in stopping work
for safety reasons.
9
Safety Culture
25 Occasional or Less communication of Lessons
Learned
21 Occasional or less Trust there will be
no Negative Repercussions For reporting injury
Training Need Injury Reports should not have
negative repercussions Communication of Lessons
Learned needs improvement
10
Line Management Commitment
87 feel Division Senior Management is personally
committed to supporting safety. 82 feel
Supervisor puts safety concerns first.
11
Line Management Commitment
22 Occasional or Less safety performance Feedback
from supervisor
30 Occasional or Less Supervisor inspects Work
area for safety.
Management Behavior Needs Improvement 1. Give
verbal feedback to employees (good or bad) on
safety performance. 2.Inspect work areas of
immediate reports for housekeeping and safety for
30 minutes per week.
12
Work Group Safety
Good scores overall in reporting hazards, PPE
availability and wearing, training and near miss
reporting
13
Work Group Safety
21 Occasional or Less Safety
Mistake Discussion without Blaming
Management Behavior Needed Ability to discuss
accidents and learn from them without assigning
blame.
14
Policies and Procedures
87 know how to find EHS policies and procedures.
15
Policies and Procedures
Possible Flawed Questions? 1. What level of
ISM Understanding do we want? 2. Does Question
3 above about EHS policies and procedures
reflect a problem? 3. Are EHS databases for
tracking hazards or maintaining good safety
records? If not, how should they be justified?
16
EHS Contribution
86 with opinion feel EHS Staff substantially
contribute to the safety of our workplace.
17
EHS Knowledgeable and Helpful
91 of recent EHS customers find EHS
Knowledgeable and Helpful, Mostly or Definitely
18
Division Safety Coordinators
93 of Respondents find Division Safety
Coordinators Knowledgeable and Helpful, Mostly
or Definitely
19
EHS Training
74 of Respondents Took EHS Training during past
year. 83 of those with opinions found training
valuable and helpful
20
EHS Effectiveness Overall
82 with opinion found EHS to be effective in
helping meet ESH responsibilities!
21
No major difference between Science and
Operations Divisions in safety culture responses.
22
Comments by Category
Category Total Category Total
Specific Suggestion 15 Insult 2
Management 14 Lessons Learned 2
EHS 14 Policy 2
Concern re injury reporting 11 Work load 1
Kudo for EHS, DSCs 9 Positive Reinforcement 1
Training 8 Safety Meetings, Lessons Learned 1
Null 7 Air hoses 1
Ergonomics 7 Disability management 1
Culture 6 Building Concern 1
Balance 6 Disaster Planning 1
Misunderstanding 5
Survey 3 Grand Total 118
23
Summary

• Largest survey on safety culture and EHS has
  been completed.
• Communication of lessons learned needs
  improvement in frequency and content.
• Specific management behaviors need to reinforce
  Labs values of safety and community.
• 30 minutes per week for safety (walkaround to
  identify and track improvements needed).
• Verbal feedback to employees on safety
  performance.
• Support early reporting of ergonomic symptoms.

24
Back-up Slides
25
Response Rate by Division
Responses Population (CFPDRRVPDT) Response Rate
AF 31 92 34
AL 48 86 56
CF 44 188 23
CH 3 79 4
CR 8 130 6
EE 47 258 18
EG 149 295 51
EH 52 96 54
ES 60 162 37
FA 54 278 19
GN 8 156 5
HR 25 69 36
IC 24 186 13
LD 27 67 40
LS 80 259 31
MS 43 187 23
NE 5 70 7
NS 37 94 39
PB 9 146 6
PH 4 112 4
758 3010