A Worker Dialogue: Improving Health, Safety and Security at the U.S. Department of Energy

A Report by a Panel of the
NATIONAL ACADEMY OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION
for the U.S. Department of Energy
A Worker Dialogue:
Improving Health, Safety and Security at the U.S Department of Energy
2010

The National Academy of Public Administration is a non-profit, indepen-
dent organization of top public management and organizational leaders
who tackle the nation’s most critical and complex public management
challenges. With a network of more than 680 distinguished Fellows and
an experienced professional staff, the Academy is uniquely qualified and
trusted across government to provide objective advice and practical solu-
tions based on systematic research and expert analysis. Established in
1967 and chartered by Congress in 1984, the Academy continues to make
a positive impact by helping federal, state and local governments respond
effectively to current circumstances and changing conditions. Learn more
about the Academy and its work at www.NAPAwash.org
ABOUT THE ACADEMY

A Worker Dialogue: Improving Health, Safety and Security at the Department of Energy
Final Report
i
A Report by a Panel of the
NATIONAL ACADEMY OF
PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION
For the U.S. Department of Energy Office of Health, Safety and Security
November 2010
A Worker Dialogue:
Improving Health, Safety and Security at
the U.S. Department of Energy
PANEL REPORT
PANEL
Daniel Guttman*
Christine Gibbs Springer*
*
National Academy Fellow

Final Report
ii
Officers of the Academy
Kenneth S. Apfel*
, Chair of the Board
Timothy B. Clark*
, Vice Chair
Jennifer L. Dorn*
, President and Chief Executive Officer
Diane M. Disney*
, Secretary
John J. Callahan*
, Treasurer
Project Staff
Lena E. Trudeau, Vice President
Danielle Germain, Project Director
Daniel Honker, Analyst
Matthew Thomas, Research Associate
Mary Krulia, Graduate Associate
The views expressed in this report are those of the Panel. They do not necessarily reflect the
views of the National Academy as an institution.
National Academy of Public Administration
900 7th
Street, N.W.
Suite 600
Washington, DC 20001-3888
www.napawash.org
September 2010
Academy Project Number: 2156-000
*

Final Report
iii
FOREWORD
Today’s government leaders are rapidly recognizing that the difficult challenges of our age require
creative problem solving that breaks down traditional barriers between decision makers and
stakeholders. In the past few years, examples like the Transportation Security Administration’s
IdeaFactory have demonstrated that web-based technologies can help government tap valuable expertise
and ideas from sources such as an organization’s workforce, that have not been as accessible to leaders
in the past. This is a new and evolving model of transparent governance that requires agencies to take
risks and open themselves to criticism, but offers the tremendous opportunity to strengthen trust with
stakeholders in exchange.
A Worker Dialogue was an important example of how government can use new collaborative tools in a
targeted way to inform policy and programs, even on such a specific issue as worker safety at
Department of Energy (DOE) facilities. Over the one month the Dialogue was live, DOE’s Office of
Health, Safety and Security (HSS) received dozens of ideas, informed by first-hand experience, on how
to improve worker safety programs. Moreover, HSS showed a willingness to experiment with an
innovative and inclusive approach and to build its capacity for continuing this engagement in the future.
As the adoption of tools and approaches like those used in A Worker Dialogue becomes more
commonplace in government today, it is important for agencies not just to experiment with them, but to
integrate them into their business and to use them well. This means viewing engagement as a process
rather than an event. It is our hope that the successes and lessons learned from this initiative will not
only bolster future government efforts to ensure workplace safety, but will also inform the next steps in
government’s evolving process of public engagement.
I would like to thank the Academy Fellows who served on the Panel for this project. Their insights and
guidance were extremely valuable. I also extend my gratitude to DOE and HSS for the opportunity to
work on this engagement, and to the National Academy staff for its hard work and dedication.
Jennifer L. Dorn
President and Chief Executive Officer

Final Report
iv
The page left intentionally blank.

Final Report
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACRONYMS................................................................................................................................ vi
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................................... ix
CONSOLIDATED LIST OF RECOMMENDATIONS.........................................................xiii
INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................................... 1
SECTION I. ANALYSIS OF DIALOGUE RESULTS ............................................................. 3
Analysis of Recurring Discussion Themes.............................................................................. 3
Theme 1. Support for In-Person Training vs. Computer-Based Training......................... 4
Theme 2. Favoring Use of Worker-Trainers to Conduct Training...................................... 6
Theme 3. Joint Labor-Management Design and Study of Training Programs .................. 7
Theme 4. Centralizing Training Records.............................................................................. 8
Theme 5. The Need to Mentor and Educate New Workers................................................. 9
Theme 6. Support for an Exchange of Training Ideas ...................................................... 10
Theme 7. Lack of Understanding of Existing Health and Safety Regulations ................. 11
Theme 8. Perceptions of Uneven Regulation Enforcement............................................... 12
Theme 9. The Need for a More Direct Channel to DOE for Reporting Violations .......... 14
Recommendations for HSS Follow-Up ................................................................................. 15
SECTION II. DIALOGUE METHODOLOGY AND PROCESS ANALYSIS .................... 19
Planning and Executing the Dialogue ................................................................................... 19
Analysis of Dialogue Feedback .............................................................................................. 22
Measuring Traffic and Participation .................................................................................... 22
Continuing Engagement......................................................................................................... 27
SECTION III. DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION............................................................... 29
Union Affiliations and Employment in the DOE Complex................................................. 29
Workers’ Trades and Job Categories ................................................................................... 35
Perceptions of Workplace Hazard Levels............................................................................. 37
CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................................... 41
APPENDICES............................................................................................................................. 43

Final Report
vi

Final Report
vii
ACRONYMS
BBWI / BBWI ES&H Bechtel B&W Idaho
CHPRC CH2M Hill Plateau Remediation Company
DOE U.S. Department of Energy
HAMMER Volpentest HAMMER Training and Education Center
HSS Office of Health Safety and Security, U.S. Department of Energy
IAMAW International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers
IBEW International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers
ICWU International Chemical Workers Union
IAFF International Association of Fire Fighters
IGUA International Guards Union of America
National Academy National Academy of Public Administration
NCSP National Council of Security Police
OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration
PGU Pantex Guard Union
Teamsters International Brotherhood of Teamsters
USW United Steel Workers
UAPP United Association of Plumbers and Pipefitters

Final Report
viii

Final Report
ix
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In 2006, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) established the Office of Health, Safety, and
Security (HSS) to consolidate assistance, independent oversight, and enforcement of health,
safety and security regulations at DOE sites, as well as programs for ensuring the health and
safety of the workers, public, and environment across the DOE complex. Central to HSS’s
mission is the need to collaborate with other DOE offices, the network of contractors that
manage DOE sites and the labor unions that represent DOE’s front-line workers.
Since its establishment, HSS has worked to build strong relationships with these partners,
recognizing the value that front-line workers can add as a source of feedback and ideas for
improving health and safety programs. For this reason, HSS partnered with the National
Academy of Public Administration (the National Academy) in 2010 to host an online discussion
that would tap into workers’ first-hand knowledge, experience, and expertise on several topics of
interest to both HSS and labor union representatives. These topics included: worker safety
training, the implementation of DOE’s Worker Safety and Health Program (10 CFR 851, also
known as the 851 Rule), and knowledge transfer for the next generation of workers. This
Internet-based discussion, titled A Worker Dialogue: Improving Health, Safety, and Security at
the Department of Energy,1
(the Dialogue) allowed participants to submit ideas in response to
open-ended discussion questions and refine them in open conversation by rating and commenting
on one another’s suggestions.
Analysis of Dialogue Results
The Dialogue was live from June 14th
to July 11, 2010, during which time 125 users registered,
and over 1,000 people visited the website. Traffic was primarily from workers at only a few
sites, representing a small number of unions. Although the group of participants was not
representative of the population of DOE workers as a whole, Dialogue participants were able to
use the opportunity to offer many constructive ideas for improving worker safety training at
DOE. A Panel of National Academy Fellows directed the analysis of the dialogue and identified
several themes that emerged in the discussion, which respond directly to the Dialogue’s central
questions:
• Participants believe in-person training is more effective for workers than computer-based
training;
• Participants favor the use of worker-trainers2
to conduct training because they are viewed
as a credible source of information and first-hand experience by workers;
• Although there was some disagreement, participants largely support joint labor-
management design and participation in training programs;
• Participants favor greater centralization and standardization of worker training records as
a means to facilitate worker mobility among sites;
1
A Worker Dialogue: Improving Health, Safety and Security at DOE, Retrieved August 23, 2010 from
http://www.workerdialogue.org.
2
A worker-trainer is a trainer who has first hand experience in the actual work for which the training is being
conducted, in addition to having instructor certification.

Final Report
x
• Participants stressed the need to improve mentoring and education of new workers on
safety and health issues; and
• Participants support an exchange of training ideas among sites in order to share best
practices and keep curricula fresh and engaging.
The Panel recommends that HSS consider these ideas in planning any potential changes or
enhancements to worker safety training at DOE sites.
Several other points surfaced during the Dialogue that also merit close consideration by HSS.
These include:
• Participants generally displayed, and sometimes openly admitted, a lack of understanding
of the health and safety regulations that apply to DOE sites;
• Participants expressed the belief that regulations may be unevenly enforced and
sometimes ignored; and
• Participants voiced a need for a more direct channel to DOE for reporting safety
violations.
Although the three issues listed above did not arise in direct response to questions posed in the
Dialogue, and participation may have been greater among employees with a negative perception
of these issues, these viewpoints should be of concern to HSS. The Panel encourages HSS
leadership to take this opportunity to continue the conversation and broaden this constructive
engagement with workers on these critical safety matters.
Recommendations for Follow-Up
A number of the issues participants raised in the Dialogue were essentially claims that HSS can
investigate and either confirm or invalidate. While the National Academy cannot validate the
accuracy of participants’ statements about specific safety practices at DOE sites, the seemingly
serious nature of some of these statements and potential consequences to worker health and
safety—combined with workers’ expressed frustration with the inconsistent implementation of
regulations—suggests that these are issues HSS should investigate further.
Furthermore, participant comments highlighted the need for HSS to evaluate the efficacy of
current worker health and safety communication and education practices. The Dialogue revealed
many knowledge gaps regarding the substance of worker health and safety regulations and
reporting procedures. This should prompt HSS to consider expanding efforts to educate workers
about the requirements of 10 CFR 851 and the means they have for reporting violations. Overall,
the Dialogue results suggested that DOE consider adopting a more comprehensive approach to
educating workers on the communication, reporting and resolution of safety violations.
HSS has made worker and union engagement a high priority in its mission to ensure health and
safety at DOE sites. With this Dialogue, HSS has taken an important step in directly engaging
front-line workers through a constructive and collaborative forum to improve health, safety and
security across DOE. The Panel applauds this initiative and encourages HSS to view this type of
engagement as a long-term process rather than a single event. Further, the Panel supports sharing

Final Report
xi
the results of this Dialogue with employees and communicating next steps—whatever form those
may take.

Final Report
xii

Final Report
xiii
CONSOLIDATED LIST OF RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommendations Based on the Dialogue Results
Recommendation Section Page
HSS should further investigate certain claims made during the
Dialogue regarding health, safety and security violations to determine
whether there is a factual basis for these claims, and if so whether
follow-up action is warranted.
I 15
Based on the numerous comments calling for improved safety
violation reporting processes at DOE sites, HSS should assess the
current state of reporting systems at DOE sites and determine if
improvements should be made.
I 16
HSS should explore ways to educate and more effectively
communicate with workers about the safety regulations governing
their work and about HSS’s role in enforcing them. Moreover, HSS
should assess the degree to which workers lack understanding of how
these rules are applied, identify critical gaps, and undertake training
and education as appropriate.
I 17
Recommendations Based on the Dialogue Process
In future online stakeholder consultations, HSS should develop one
central, compelling question to drive the discussion and avoid
multiple discussion forums in order to spur discussion on interrelated
topics.
II 20
In future online dialogues with stakeholders, HSS should limit the
number of required demographic questions and consider
complementing the dialogue with a traditional survey. This would
help ensure a smoother experience for participants and also enable
HSS to gather richer and more useful information.
II 20
To maximize participation in future consultation efforts, HSS should
consider alternate channels that acknowledge the environments in
which front-line employees work, including their level of access to
and comfort level with computers and email. This would allow HSS
to tailor content more effectively to meet workers’ needs and would
both improve the quality of the interaction among participants, and
the usefulness of the results.
II 22

Final Report
xiv
HSS should view the Dialogue as a starting point for continued
engagement with union workers rather than as a single event. HSS
could undertake several actions that would serve to enhance
communication and build trust:
o Acknowledge workers’ contributions to the Dialogue;
o Communicate the results of the Dialogue to participants,
contractors, and union partners; and
o Articulate and undertake concrete next steps as a direct result
of input received.
II 27

Final Report
1
INTRODUCTION
Among the many agencies and departments that make up the Federal Government, few have a
mission more dependent on high-tech infrastructure and reliable operations than the U.S.
Department of Energy (DOE). With a mandate to be the “innovation engine” of the American
economy, DOE relies on a large, nationwide workforce to design, construct, operate, and
maintain the infrastructure that supports DOE’s operations as well as a coherent organizational
approach to make that infrastructure truly functional in the development and deployment of new
energy and security technology.
Recognizing the need to enhance management of programs relating to the health, safety and
security of its diverse workforce and operations, DOE established the Office of Health, Safety
and Security (HSS) in 2006 to consolidate and coordinate these programs and responsibilities.
According to its mission, HSS “is responsible for policy development and technical assistance;
safety analysis; corporate safety and security programs; education and training; complex-wide
independent oversight; and enforcement.”3
In performing these many functions across such a
large and decentralized department, HSS must work with other DOE offices, the network of
contractors that manage and operate DOE sites and the labor unions that represent front-line
workers at the Department’s sites across the country.
In the four years since its establishment, HSS has worked to build trusting relationships with the
labor unions representing workers at various DOE sites, recognizing that collaboration with these
groups is indispensible for an office with such a broad mission. One forum where these
relationships are built and maintained is the Focus Group, where HSS and other DOE program
managers meet regularly with union representatives at the national level to discuss health and
safety issues affecting their respective workers. While HSS has used forums such as the Focus
Group to engage union leadership in the past, HSS has recognized that reaching out directly to
front-line workers can enable HSS to gain valuable input, feedback, and ideas informed by
workers’ on-the-ground experience. Recognizing this, HSS is proactively building capacity for
consultation and collaboration both within DOE and with its external constituents. In 2009, the
National Academy of Public Administration (the National Academy) recommended actions to
strengthen HSS’s readiness for collaboration. One of these recommendations was to pilot-test a
collaborative tool to engage labor union partners.
HSS recognizes that reaching out to workers directly to obtain feedback and ideas on health and
safety issues holds the potential both to enhance HSS’s ability to deliver on its mission and to
strengthen its relationship with this important group of constituents.
Overview of the Worker Dialogue
In the summer of 2010, HSS partnered with the National Academy to host a time-limited online
discussion with front-line DOE workers called A Worker Dialogue: Improving Health, Safety,
and Security at the Department of Energy (the Dialogue).4
This engagement aimed to augment
and complement results from HSS’s Focus Group with valuable input from workers on the front-
3
http://www.hss.doe.gov/mission_functions.html
4
Site archived online at http://www.workerdialogue.org.

Final Report
2
line, including their thoughts on high priority safety issues and potential solutions. Leveraging
the power of Web 2.0 tools, the Dialogue solicited ideas and feedback from DOE workers on a
variety of topics, including:
• The improvement of worker safety training;
• Standardization of worker safety training programs;
• Implementation of the Worker Safety and Health Program (also known as 10 CFR 851);5
• Workforce Succession Planning and Knowledge Transfer; and
• Workers’ Personal Experience with Workplace Safety and Health.
The goal of the Dialogue was to draw on the ideas of front-line workers to produce concrete,
actionable suggestions for enhancing DOE’s health and safety programs. The Dialogue is based
on the concept of mass collaboration—that members of a large group, in open discussion, can
pool their individual and collective experience and expertise to provide innovative ideas and
valuable insights for decision makers. In this case, the Dialogue offered several benefits not
afforded by more traditional means of stakeholder consultation. First, the Dialogue was not
limited by the number of participants or amount of input, which are frequent constraints during
in-person town hall meetings or listening sessions. Second, the Dialogue was powered by a
platform that enabled workers to suggest ideas, refine and build on them in open discussion, and
rate those they found most compelling.
In addition to these advantages, the Dialogue served as an opportunity to build HSS’s capacity
for online consultation. HSS recognizes the benefits that collaborative technology can offer and
has made a concerted effort to use it to gain from the ideas and perspectives of its constituent
groups. The Dialogue was another step in expanding collaborative opportunities and
demonstrating their value—whether online or in person—to both DOE and government in
general.
Between June 14th
and July 11, 2010, the Dialogue received over 1,000 visits, 38 individual
ideas, and 182 comments6
. The Dialogue platform, open for participation 24/7 during this period,
allowed users to submit ideas in five different discussion forums and to rate, tag, and comment
on other users’ submissions. For six weeks prior to the Dialogue’s launch, HSS and the National
Academy invited workers to the Dialogue site by conducting targeted outreach via labor union
representatives and DOE site managers, relying heavily on viral, word-of-mouth
communications to bring people to the Dialogue. This report contains the National Academy’s
analysis of the Dialogue results, as well as recommendations for HSS follow-up.
5
10 CFR 851, commonly called the 851 Rule, was established in 2006 as the primary rule governing worker health
and safety and contractor activities at DOE sites. More information is available at:
http://www.hss.energy.gov/healthsafety/WSHP/rule851/851preamble.pdf.
6
The Worker Dialogue platform distinguished between “Ideas” and “Comments”. Ideas were long-form, user-
generated feedback limited to 10,000 characters, to which users could apply tags, comments, and ratings. Comments
were short-form, user-generated feedback attached to previously posted ideas. They were intended to continue the
discussion begun within an idea and could not be rated.

SECTION I.
ANALYSIS OF DIALOGUE RESULTS
The Dialogue offered DOE front-line workers an opportunity to submit their ideas for improving
worker safety programs and to discuss them in open conversation with other participants. Unlike
a survey, this open-ended format allowed workers to drive the discussion toward ideas, topics,
and questions of their collective choosing based on their day-to-day work experiences.
The Dialogue consisted of the following five discussion forums, in which participants could
submit ideas and rate and comment on the ideas of others:
• Improving Worker Safety Training.
• Standardizing Worker Safety Training Requirements
• Implementing the Worker Safety and Health Program (10 CFR 851 Rule)
• Workforce Succession Planning and Knowledge Transfer
• Your Personal Experience with Workplace Safety and Health.
At the conclusion of the Dialogue, a Panel of National Academy Fellows directed the analysis of
Dialogue results. This section analyzes recurring themes in the Dialogue and offers
recommendations by the Panel that HSS explore certain issues further. The results of the
Dialogue are subject to self-selection bias and should not be generalized to the population of
DOE workers as a whole. While the online dialogue method allows common trends and areas of
consensus to be observed, conclusions cannot be said to necessarily reflect what the entire
community of DOE workers thinks about a specific issue.
Analysis of Recurring Discussion Themes
Participation in the five discussion forums was extremely uneven. Although the “Improving
Worker Safety Training” and “Implementing the Worker Safety and Health Program” forums
had relatively robust discussion, the “Standardizing Training Requirements” and “Workforce
Succession Planning” forums received fewer than five ideas each. Furthermore, within each
forum, the discussion often touched on topics beyond HSS’s scope. While the uneven forum
participation may have largely been an indication of participant interest in certain topics, many
ideas were submitted in inappropriate discussion forums, and some themes were discussed across
multiple forums. (See Section II for possible reasons for this “mis-categorization” of ideas).
When looking across all the discussion forums, nine general themes emerged, most of which
came in response to the Dialogue’s topic of “Improving Worker Safety Training.” These themes
included:
• Participants believe in-person training is more effective for workers than computer-based
training;

Final Report
4
• Participants favor the use of worker-trainers7
to conduct training, due to their perceived
credibility and first-hand experience in the areas in which they train;
• Although there was some disagreement, participants largely support joint labor-
management design and participation in training programs;
• Participants favor greater centralization and standardization of worker training records as
a means to facilitate worker mobility among sites;
• Participants stressed the need to improve mentoring and education of new workers on
safety and health issues; and
• Participants support an exchange of training ideas among sites in order to share best
practices and keep curricula fresh and engaging.
The Panel recommends that HSS consider these ideas in planning any potential changes or
enhancements to worker safety training at DOE sites. However, several additional points
surfaced in the Dialogue that merit close consideration by HSS. These include the following:
• Participants generally displayed, and sometimes openly admitted, a lack of understanding
of the health and safety regulations that apply to DOE sites;
• Participants expressed the belief that regulations may be unevenly enforced and
sometimes ignored; and
• Participants voiced a need for a more direct channel to DOE for reporting safety
violations.
This section reports on each of the above discussion themes based on the ideas and comments
submitted in the Dialogue and subsequently makes several recommendations on how HSS can
follow-up on some of the issues raised.
Theme 1. Support for In-Person Training vs. Computer-Based Training
Discussion within several ideas across the Dialogue forums showed clear support among
participants for in-person training as opposed to computer or web-based training. Although users
offered different reasons for their support of this idea, the most common rationale was that it is
far too easy for workers to simply “pass” a computer-based training program without gaining any
real knowledge or having the opportunity to ask questions. One example of this criticism came
from the “Personal Experience” forum, titled “Worker Trainers providing classes vs. computer
training”:
“It seems that workers training workers is much more effective that (sic) sitting at a
computer with "do overs" until you get it right. A hands-on approach seems to be a
better environment for learning hazards as well as company policy. Group sessions
seem to work very well also.”
8
-Dialogue participant
7
A worker-trainer is a trainer who has first hand experience in the actual work for which the training is being
conducted, in addition to having instructor certification.
8
http://workerdialogue.org/your-personal-experience-with-workplace-safety-and-health/worker-trainers-providing-
classes-vs-computer-based-training

Final Report
5
The problem pinpointed by this participant was that workers can “game” the training thus
decreasing its usefulness and risking failure in its goal of educating workers. This complaint was
echoed in other comments, in which participants suggested that it is too easy for workers to get
through the training without learning the necessary lessons. In another example, from the
“Improving Worker Safety Training” forum, one participant proposed two reasons why in-person
training is more effective:
“[C]omputer based class lasts a fraction of the time and is too easy to
manipulate. You should consider that not all people are comfortable on a computer.
The stress of the computer combined with having to get a certain number of questions
correct to pass is counter-productive. Instead of a learning experience, it becomes a
stresser (sic).” 9
This participant points out that, because training on a computer takes less time than in-person
training, it may not be as comprehensive. Several comments within the Dialogue echoed this
impression that computer-based training was an inadequate short-cut around more
comprehensive, but time-consuming methods. The participant also suggests that a lack of
comfort with or access to technology may present a barrier for many workers. Multiple
participants mentioned that computer-based training may be an intimidating or ineffective
option, leading some workers to focus on the format of the training as opposed to its substance.
As noted by both HSS and the Focus Group at the outset of this project, most front-line workers
at DOE sites do not regularly use computers at work. If the workers are not comfortable
operating a computer, computer-based training may present challenges that hinder their ability to
gain knowledge from the experience.
Some comments mentioned specific training programs that participants recommended be
adopted at DOE sites, including: HAZWOPER training, application training, the small group
activity method (SGAM), hazard mapping and others. One participant in the “Improving Worker
Safety Training” forum recommended training in groups as opposed to on computers based on
the need to be interactive in asking and answering questions:
“I also have witnessed the group activity technique used on many subjects at many
DOE sites, and the IAM William Winpisinger Education and Technology Center in
Maryland. It does work very well as opposed a computer based training sessions for
subjects that require Q & A.” 10
Upon closer examination of participant feedback, it is clear that many workers at DOE sites
support in-person training as opposed to computer-based programs. Though the National
Academy is not privy to how training is typically conducted at different DOE sites, it seems that
the two approaches provide different benefits to workers and contractors. A hybrid approach that
is mostly online, but with the introduction and/or conclusion of the training delivered in-person
by worker-instructors, might merit exploration. Overall, Dialogue participants seemed to believe
9
http://workerdialogue.org/improving-worker-safety-training/improving-worker-safety-training
10
Ibid.

Final Report
6
that too many training programs are currently computer-based, and that DOE sites could benefit
from greater use of in-person programs.
Theme 2. Favoring Use of Worker-Trainers to Conduct Training
When participants argued in favor of in-person training, the most widely supported idea was for
DOE to use worker-trainers. Participants named several reasons why worker-trainers are most
effective, specifically that their experience with workplace hazards enables them to train more
effectively, and that they are already available at many sites and could be used at minimal cost.
This belief was illustrated in an idea from the “Improving Worker Safety Training” forum:
“The most important aspect of safety is to be able to identify the hazards present in
the workplace…The people that do the job are the best people to educate on hazard
awareness, identification, etc. If hazards can be identified and mitigated or eliminated
before they become an incident, injury or fatality then we could create a work
environment that would allow all of us to work safely.” 11
The participant who submitted this idea identified that he/she felt worker-trainers were more
effective because they had personal experience with the hazards present and the risks they posed.
Often, when this idea was discussed elsewhere, participants expressed the feeling that trainers
hired from outside the ranks of workers were not as knowledgeable or interested in making sure
that workers received the training they needed. On this point, some expressed frustration that
management at DOE sites had moved away from employing available worker-trainers in favor of
hiring outside contractors. As one participant noted:
“[W]e have worker trainers available that are knowledgeable and have many years
experience at the site to facilitate, free of charge, Hazwoper and DOE 10cfr851
training. However, the DOE contractor chooses to pay outside contractors to conduct
this training.” 12
On the same subject, one comment even questioned whether this training was being billed to
DOE:
“[A]fter the contractor pays an outside source are the contractors billing DOE for said
training that should be free?” 13
Regardless of how training programs are funded, this comment reflects confusion in the ranks of
workers, which should prompt HSS to clarify with workers how these programs operate. Before
doing so, it would be beneficial to assess how training by other workers is provided within DOE
11
http://workerdialogue.org/improving-worker-safety-training/mandatory-safety-training
12
http://workerdialogue.org/improving-worker-safety-training/worker-involvement-and-education-of-worker-
trainers
13
Ibid.

Final Report
7
and how workers could best be utilized to conduct training, perhaps in concert with other
methods.
Although the broad support for using worker-trainers suggests that this is an issue DOE may
want to explore further, it should be noted that many of the participants who agreed with this
position stated either in their submission or in their responses to the demographic questions that
they had experience as worker-trainers. While this does not necessarily diminish participant
support of worker-trainers, it is a potential bias.
Theme 3. Joint Labor-Management Design and Study of Training Programs
The suggestion that labor and site management should jointly design and participate in training
programs was one of the most discussed topics in the Dialogue. Participants’ comments reflected
a feeling that if site management were better integrated into the training process, workers could
ensure that training met their needs. Those participants who commented on these issues
expressed a strong desire to see management and labor work together to make the workplace a
safer environment.
This suggestion was the subject of one of the most-discussed ideas, titled, “More Efficient
Training Process” from the “Improving Worker Safety Training” forum:
“The best way to make the training process more efficeint (sic) is to make it a joint
process between management and labor. They should work together to put together a
program that would provide each and every worker with the training they need to do
their job safely. This should include input and training from the union workers and
management jointly.” 14
The point this participant was trying to make was that both workers and contractors need to be
involved in the training design process if workers are to do their jobs safely. By allowing front-
line workers to work with management in designing training programs, both sides could help
improve safety together. In a later post, the same participant argued that including workers in the
safety training design process was a requirement of the 851 Rule:
“Under 851, DOE contractors are required to allow the union to be a meaningful part
of all aspects of the Health and Safety Plan...from the planning on down to the
implementation, this includes training.” 15
In contrast, some participants argued against increasing involvement of site managers in the
design of training programs, mostly due to the divergent interests of labor and management. One
participant voiced concern that site managers’ presumed lack of understanding or concern about
safety issues could dilute the quality of training programs if management were given a greater
role in their design. The author of the two quotations listed above responded by agreeing that
14
http://workerdialogue.org/improving-worker-safety-training/more-efficient-training-process
15
http://workerdialogue.org/improving-worker-safety-training/clarification-on-previous-idea-more-efficient-
training-process

Final Report
8
poor safety practices should be excluded and that DOE should provide guidelines on the core
components of training across sites, whether that be for 10 CFR 851 or for rules specific to
individual sites. Rather, working with management to design training programs could help
contractors better understand what type of training is needed and bring them on board with the
training process so that training implementation would occur more smoothly. Another participant
suggested that, because contractors have significantly different interpretations of safety
regulations, putting “joint design” into practice could be difficult. Responses to these concerns
generally ceded their validity, but reemphasized the potential benefit of joint design. As one
participant put it:
“Sometimes workers and managers fear each other when trying to work jointly on
anything… By working on curriculum needed for a given site utilizing a joint effort,
the fear of each other seems to subside.” 16
Following on this discussion theme, several participants suggested that management should also
participate in regular safety training sessions in order to better understand risks and safety
procedures. In most comments on this topic, participants expressed the belief that, because
managers are not required to participate in the training programs, they cannot recognize the
hazards that exist in the workplace. In one idea titled, “Mandatory Safety Training” from the
“Improving Worker Safety Training Programs” forum, one participant wrote:
“It is important that safety is a joint effort between labor and management. Although
USW training is conducted by union worker/trainers, it is something that everyone
needs to be trained on. It is vital that labor and management work together to create a
safe work environment for everyone. It should never be a union vs. management
when it comes to SAFETY!” 17
Other participants also expressed the belief that including management in the training process
would help ensure that managers and workers recognized the same potential hazards.
Participants also believed that bringing managers into the process could help educate them on
issues that they might have otherwise missed.
Theme 4. Centralizing Training Records
Most of the themes explored above focus on how the design and delivery of safety training could
be improved; however, several themes emerged from the discussion regarding other aspects of
safety training. One of these from the “Standardizing Worker Safety Training Requirements”
forum argued that centralized worker safety training records would enable workers to move
among sites more easily. As one participant wrote:
“Enter the documentation of sub-contractor workers training into the same system as
the site contractor workers training. Maybe even have one electronic system that
16
Ibid.
17
http://workerdialogue.org/improving-worker-safety-training/mandatory-safety-training

Final Report
9
could be accessed by all DOE sites so that if a worker transferred from one site to
another, thier (sic) training would follow… This would help when we move from site
to site. Contractor employees training histories are most of the time available
electronically and many sites even have qual cards for their workers but it is just for
that site.” 18
This idea suggests that, because contractors already keep electronic records of their personnel,
worker training records would be easy to set up and track across sites. Based on the comments
submitted on this idea and other similar ideas, this seems to be a very popular idea among
workers. This participant’s other suggestion, that sub-contractors be included in existing record
systems, was not widely endorsed by other participants.
In one comment listed under the idea “Documentation of Training,” a participant helped
demonstrate how the process could be simplified by giving an example of how this had been
practiced within a smaller organization:
“When the Building Trades Affiliate training courses meet the site training
requirements, we grant an equivalency and the affected workers do not have to take
the class at the site. This is a big time savings to the contractors and eliminates
redundant training for the affected worker.” 19
By keeping track of individual members’ training records and ensuring that their training
programs meet DOE requirements, the Building and Construction Trades Department-AFL-CIO
allows workers to avoid repeating training programs they have already completed, saving both
time and money for workers and contractors. Examples of existing systems for tracking and
recording worker safety training were mentioned in multiple discussions in the Dialogue. These
participants argued that by reducing redundancy and saving time, a centralized safety training
records system could increase mobility for front-line workers and make training programs more
effective.
Theme 5. The Need to Mentor and Educate New Workers
The expected wave of retirements in the near future requires DOE to ensure knowledge is
imparted to younger workers by involving older workers in the process and keeping older
workers current on new safety concerns, regulations and solutions. For this reason, HSS asked
Dialogue participants for their ideas on how to transfer knowledge and skills to the next
generation of workers. Though the forum dedicated to this topic only received a fraction of the
participation seen in other forums, one clear theme emerged from discussion on this subject: the
need to implement mentoring programs for new workers. In multiple ideas, participants agreed
that pairing younger and older workers would help share knowledge and improve safety at DOE
sites. Some participants even discussed ways that such a program could be implemented.
18
http://workerdialogue.org/standardizing-worker-safety-training-requirements/documentation-of-training
19
Ibid.

Final Report
10
One of the most substantive ideas on this topic, titled “Shared Work Experience,” emphasized
the benefit of side-by-side mentoring on the job:
“After the new worker undergoes training and standardized qualification, it is vital that
he/she has the opportunity to work alongside, or on the same team with, the veteran
worker. This is necessary for the newcomer to become ‘grounded’ in their new job.
There is a BIG difference between being qualified to do something and doing it
proficiently!
This ‘side-by-side’ arrangement also provides a chance for the old-timer to share his
experience at the facility, both via oral history and while working on those ‘once every
five to ten year jobs’. There is simply too much that happens over the life of a facility to
capture via official documentation.” 20
One participant commenting on this idea suggested this mentorship could also benefit older
workers who might learn about new solutions or hazards from the younger workers who have
undergone training more recently. Another participant noted that mentorship programs had been
used at some sites in the past, but that many had since been discontinued.
Participants noted that mentorship with more experienced workers would help fill knowledge
gaps in younger workers – gaps that pose serious safety risks. Some comments reflected an
impression that younger workers may either be ignorant of the hazards present on site or may be
fearful of reporting hazards because of job security concerns. One user in particular emphasized
this point:
“We need to be very careful with the stimulus workers and any new workers. They seem
to have a point to prove, that they are very hard workers and in 2012 when the money is
set to run out that they deserve to keep their job. Many do not think about safety and will
do anything to keep this job. Many are young and I have seen many times where they do
not recognize the hazard(s).” 21
The possibility that workers hired under stimulus funding may discount safety in an effort to
keep their jobs after the funds expire could be problematic for worker safety now and in the
future. Partnering new workers with more experienced coworkers could help educate new hires
on workplace hazards and the importance of reporting unsafe conditions. The more new workers
understand the hazards and reporting requirements of their positions, the more inclined they
might be to report a violation when they observe one.
Theme 6. Support for an Exchange of Training Ideas
The large volume of worker-trainers that participated in the Dialogue enriched the discussion
through their personal experience and constructive ideas on how to improve training programs.
These ideas were found primarily in the “Improving Worker Safety Training” forum. One idea
that resonated with these participants was the need for an exchange of training ideas between
20
http://workerdialogue.org/workforce-succession-planning-and-knowledge-transfer/shared-work-experience
21
http://workerdialogue.org/improving-worker-safety-training/training-for-stimulus-workers-and-new-workers

Final Report
11
worker-trainers. Users agreed that sharing training ideas and best practices among this cadre
would help them improve the training they provide to DOE workers. In the idea that started this
discussion, a self-described worker-trainer wrote:
“It occurred to me after reading so many great comments and ideas on this dialogue site
that maybe we should bring all of the worker / trainer folks together for a week to share
and update information about the types of training taking place at their sites, and maybe
exchange curriculum from site to site in an attempt to keep it fresh.
Many instructors and worker trainers struggle each year to keep material fresh and
interesting for the site refreshers. A mix of both classroom activity and a hands-on
approach is very important.
Who knows that better than the folks presenting the training!”22
In the comments that followed, many endorsed this idea as a way to keep training material fresh
so that workers remained engaged in classes. Participants acknowledged that past opportunities
to exchange training materials and practices had helped them refresh and improve the teaching
materials they used. One participant emphasized that building greater community among worker-
trainers would allow them to identify and address barriers to effective education.
Similar to this idea, another self-identified worker-trainer suggested using temporary training
assignments or details at other sites as a way to develop trainers and share training techniques
and lessons across sites. While not exactly the same as convening a large number of trainers to
exchange ideas, allowing trainers to rotate through different assignments might present a
worthwhile alternative that could accomplish similar goals.
Theme 7. Lack of Understanding of Existing Health and Safety Regulations
While some users—mostly self-identified as trainers or workers who recently took a safety
training class—claimed to understand the safety regulations, many users openly discussed their
confusion or ignorance of the regulations in force at DOE sites. One area of confusion appeared
to come from workers’ lack of understanding of the 851 Rule and its distinction from OSHA
regulations. In an idea titled, “Training for 10 CFR 851,” one participant stated:
“So far the only training on 10 CFR 851 I've seen is an introductory class last year. 851
covers worker health and safety. Someone needs to sit down and break it down into more
than ISMS. If I understand 851 right this should be DOE's OSHA regulations to regulate
contractors working at DOE sites. Why are the workers still using OSHA regs to correct
problems.”23
Although this user was knowledgeable about the 851 Rule, he suggested that most of his
colleagues were unfamiliar with it and instead attempt to follow OSHA regulations in regard to
22
http://www.workerdialogue.org/improving-worker-safety-training/national-doe-worker-trainer-exchange-annually
23
http://www.workerdialogue.org/implementing-the-worker-safety-and-health-program-10cfr851-rule/training-for-
10-cfr-851

Final Report
12
workplace safety. In response to this idea, several people submitted comments that discussed
classes which augment the standard training. Many of these classes are organized by individual
unions, but they are offered inconsistently across the DOE complex. In one comment, a
participant who identified himself/herself as a firefighter stated that he/she had not heard of 851
before, but that he/she would like to know how it affects his/her department.
A second pattern that emerged was that participants found the 851 Rule difficult to understand.
The 851 Rule is written (and possibly presented in training sessions) using legalistic language
that is not easily understood. Some participants suggested that the complexity of 851 Rule
language presented a significant barrier to having workers understand it. Because workers found
the 851 Rule so difficult to understand, participants felt it was very important that effective
training be offered to help workers become familiar with it.
These comments suggest that participants felt that the education they have received to date on
the 851 Rule is insufficient, and that programs to educate workers on the Rule are inconsistent
across different sites. While this is understandable given that different management and
conditions exist at each site, workers emphasized the importance for all workers to be equally
and adequately informed about 851 regulations.
Theme 8. Perceptions of Uneven Regulation Enforcement
Across several forums, one theme that emerged was the perception that regulations are not
uniformly enforced at all DOE sites and that workers are not encouraged to report safety
violations. This perception coincided with the belief that contractors frequently ignored aspects
of the 851 Rule that require them to include unions in the development of their Worker Safety
and Health Plans. Participants encouraged DOE to provide a way for workers to confidentially
provide information about safety concerns with a stated commitment to listen and address the
issues in a timely fashion.
Several comments expressed frustration that contractors disregard the 851 Rule’s requirement
that they bargain its implementation with unions upon request. In an idea from the
“Implementing the Worker Safety and Health Program” forum, titled “10CFR851 Rule, It Is
Necessary to Bargain the Impact,” one participant wrote:

Final Report
13
“The 10CFR851 Rule demands that the impact of those changes be bargained with affected
bargaining units, (ie: Firefighters). The 10CFR851 Rule also demands that Bargaining
Unit personnel be involved in the development of implementation plans resulting from
10CFR851.
I have personally seen the willing participation and input solicited from Bargaining Unit
Personnel construed by management and DOE as "Having Bargained The Impact", when
in fact, no such bargaining sessions have taken place.
DOE and Hanford Fire department management have abused this process of "Worker
Involvement" by not following up with meaningful bargaining sessions to Bargain the
impacts of all aspects of 10CFR851 implementation.” 24
While the National Academy cannot verify the claims that management failed to bargain with the
union on the 851 Rule’s implementation and that DOE failed to intercede, the perception among
some workers that aspects of the 851 Rule are not being enforced bears investigation.
In other discussion threads, participants expressed their belief that weak enforcement of safety
regulations was due to management’s incentive to err toward production at the expense of
worker safety. In the idea, “Barriers of Implementation of 851,” one participant wrote:
“[F]or the 851 standard to be successful, you must first have full buy in from the doe
contractor. the workers must perceive the company to follow the rules instead of taking
credit for a program on paper to receive contracts and bonus money…incentives only
create an atmosphere of production over safety, sanitizing problems and retaliation against
workers who are perceived to be slowing down the job for bringing up safety issues.
Implementation of the 851 standard will not be successful until these problems are dealt
with, i (sic) have experienced firsthand all of the above and i dont (sic) believe doe
environmental mgt or the contractor feel there is any real consequence to their action due
to the lack of oversight from the doe enforcement group.” 25
This participant expressed the opinion that, because contractors were incentivized to prioritize
productivity over safety, workers were encouraged not to report safety concerns. The participant
further opined that the Management and Operating contractor construct can complicate DOE’s
ability to vigilantly enforce safety regulations. These concerns were echoed in another idea from
the “Implementing the Worker Safety and Health Program” forum titled, “Site Enforcement
Officer” in which the participant also suggested a possible solution:
24
http://workerdialogue.org/implementing-the-worker-safety-and-health-program-10cfr851-rule/10cfr851-rule-it-is-
necessary-to-bargain-the-impact
25
http://workerdialogue.org/implementing-the-worker-safety-and-health-program-10cfr851-rule/barriers-of-
implementation-of-851

Final Report
14
“[E]stablish a knowledgeable site enforcement officer that can be contacted that is not
influenced by the mission of production bonuses over safety.
doe needs to be the regulator in some instances. DOE EM has a conflict in mission.
production over safety.” 26
The Dialogue results indicate that the perception that contractors are incentivized to place
production over safety was widespread among Dialogue participants.
Theme 9. The Need for a More Direct Channel to DOE for Reporting Violations
Workers participating in the Dialogue expressed concern with the integrity of the reporting
process for safety violations at DOE sites. Participants expressed the need for a more direct line
of communication between themselves and DOE to alleviate their current frustrations over the
perceived scant attention site management gives to these issues. Although DOE facilities have
hazard reporting systems in place, some participants suggested that workers did not believe these
systems were effective in resolving safety violations. DOE should delve into these issues to
determine whether or not these beliefs are justified and whether its communication strategy with
its front-line workforce needs to be improved.
This need for better reporting channels was typically expressed in conjunction with participants’
dissatisfaction with the follow-up that occurs in response to safety violations and incidents. In
the idea, “More Efficient Training Process” from the “Improving Worker Safety Training”
forum, two of the participants, from different sites and different unions, called for improved
feedback to workers as well as clearer reporting and record-keeping of safety violations and
actions in response:
Participant 1: “While training and re-training are very important, without action after the
training is over to identify and report incidents and near misses, making recommendation
for proper fixes to the identified hazards and then follow up to make sure the fixes are
being addressed, safer workplaces will not occur.”
Participant 2: “You are right on the money when speaking on ‘Follow-up’. The entire
process should have a starting point that identifies the incident or occurrence, then a point
of conclusion explaining the action taken, any fixes instituted, and where we are today
after all is said and done. All to (sic) often worker report and never hear another word
about what action was taken.” 27
The other comments in the Dialogue were of a similar nature. Participants did not necessarily
call for a direct line of communication with DOE explicitly, but their desire for the intervention
of a third party implied that DOE should be more involved or at least investigate the validity of
their claims.
26
http://workerdialogue.org/implementing-the-worker-safety-and-health-program-10cfr851-rule/site-enforcement-
officer
27
http://workerdialogue.org/improving-worker-safety-training/more-efficient-training-process

Final Report
15
In another discussion thread, one user suggests workers do not necessarily trust the existing
hazard reporting systems provided by contractors:
“Make sure every worker knows how to tell HSS and their contractor that 851 has been
violated... have HS-10 establish a presence that is undeniable in the workplace,
independent of contractor hotlines, contractor safety reps, etc. A direct route to the top of
the food chain. Too many issues die on their way through the immediate review process.”28
This participant argued that workers be encouraged to contact HSS directly if workplace hazards
are not being addressed. Regardless of this participant’s reason for believing that current
processes are inadequate, his/her clear desire for a more direct communication line to DOE/HSS
should inform HSS in considering changes to reporting systems.
Recommendations for HSS Follow-Up
Dialogue participants used this opportunity to offer many constructive ideas for ways to improve
worker safety training at DOE. However, one cannot ignore the frustration these workers
expressed with the way safety regulations are being implemented, with the current system for
reporting violations, and with the lack of follow-through in addressing worksite problems. While
the Dialogue’s results generally reflect a negative bias by those who chose to participate, these
viewpoints should be issues of concern to HSS.
As the DOE office established to ensure the health and safety of workers at DOE sites, HSS has
a responsibility to investigate further many of the claims and perceptions voiced in this Dialogue.
A number of the issues raised by participants should be researched and either substantiated or
disproven. For example, some users referenced failures in site managers’ follow up on rule
violations. From this feedback, HSS can investigate these claims to determine in what areas, if
any, where safety is not adequately being ensured at DOE sites.
The issues raised by members of the International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF), all of
whom came from the Hanford Site, illustrate this need for follow-up investigation. Firefighters,
which constituted one of the largest groups in the Dialogue with 51 registered users, expressed a
common concern that their workforce may be subject to age discrimination. They also discussed
the lack of staffing at the various stations at Hanford. These are both questions that empirical
data and key metrics can support or refute. For example, HSS could gather data to determine if
DOE sites are in fact increasing physical fitness standards that older firefighter cannot pass, and
could investigate whether incident response times have been increasing due to an under-
resourced fire service. Collecting and analyzing facts that will support or refute these claims is
the logical next step that should be taken.
Recommendation: HSS should further investigate certain claims made
during the Dialogue regarding health, safety and security violations to
28
http://workerdialogue.org/implementing-the-worker-safety-and-health-program-10cfr851-rule/we-need-to-
enforce-all-aspects-of-851

Final Report
16
determine whether there is a factual basis for these claims, and if so whether
follow-up action is warranted.
While HSS may find that many of these issues are questions of policy enforcement, some may
call for solutions focused on improving processes and communicating more effectively with
workers about the requirements for reporting safety violations. Many of the recurring themes
deal with the means workers have to enhance communication with one another and with DOE.
Addressing these issues will require HSS to examine what processes are in place, which ones are
working, where gaps exist, and how to bridge these gaps. For example, on the question of
violation reporting systems, HSS could examine the processes that currently exist at different
sites for reporting safety violations to management, which of these are most effective and
efficient, and where there may be a need for more direct reporting processes. However, HSS
should take care not simply to build a new process or communication channel in response to each
need, as the solution for some challenges may not require new processes. What the Dialogue
seems to call for is a more coherent approach across DOE sites to reporting, communicating and
addressing safety violations in a timely fashion.
Recommendation: Based on the numerous comments calling for improved
safety violation reporting processes at DOE sites, HSS should assess the
current state of reporting systems at DOE sites and determine if
improvements should be made.
Many of the comments in the Dialogue revealed widespread knowledge gaps among workers in
regard to the safety regulations governing their work and HSS’s role in enforcing them. Two
salient examples from the Dialogue stand out as areas requiring HSS’s attention. First,
participants were clearly confused about the distinction between the 851 Rule and OSHA
regulations and where each applies. Second, participants called out for a more direct way to
contact DOE about safety issues; however, HSS’s website and other resources, which DOE
claims are displayed at DOE sites, clearly state that workers can contact HSS directly if they
have a concern.29
That these knowledge gaps exist means past and current attempts to educate
workers on these issues may not have been completely successful. HSS should re-evaluate how
workers are being educated on these issues, with attention to ensure the information is clear and
easy-to-understand and that it is conveyed via channels that will reach workers effectively.
However, there is an important distinction to be made between issues that require more effective
communication, and those that present more acute risks to worker safety. While it is important
for workers to be knowledgeable about the regulatory regime under which they work, it is even
more critical for them to know the actual, on-the-job rules at that site (e.g., what type of
protective equipment should be used under which circumstances). Participants’ discussion in the
Dialogue did not conclusively determine if there is a real lack of understanding in regard to the
practical application of safety rules at DOE sites. Therefore, while HSS should embrace the
opportunity to educate workers about the 851 rule and its requirements, HSS should also
recognize the need to verify workers’ practical knowledge of safety rules at different DOE sites.
29
http://www.hss.doe.gov/HealthSafety/WSHP/rule851/safeworkplace6-07-final.pdf

Final Report
17
Recommendation: HSS should explore ways to educate and more effectively
communicate with workers about the safety regulations governing their work
and about HSS’s role in enforcing them. Moreover, HSS should assess the
degree to which workers lack understanding of how these rules are applied,
identify critical gaps, and undertake training and education as appropriate.
Each of these issues identified by the National Academy—enforcement of safety regulations,
effective reporting processes, and worker education—affect the trust built between HSS and
workers at DOE sites. Following up in these areas will enable HSS to benefit from more fruitful
engagement in the future.

Final Report
18

Final Report
19
SECTION II.
DIALOGUE METHODOLOGY AND PROCESS ANALYSIS
In addition to the ideas offered by DOE workers, the Dialogue offered numerous valuable
findings and lessons about the process of stakeholder consultation that will be useful to HSS, as
well as other Federal agencies, as they continue to build capacity for this type of engagement.
Based on key metrics, this section provides important lessons learned from the planning and
execution of the Dialogue along with analysis of web traffic and participation.
Planning and Executing the Dialogue
In the weeks before the Dialogue’s launch, the National Academy worked with HSS to translate
their goals and objectives for the Dialogue into meaningful content for the website. Equally as
important and done concurrently, was the development of a strategy to reach a broad population
of targeted participants and communicate the potential value of the Dialogue to them. Several
important lessons were learned from this process that will enable HSS to build capacity for
stakeholder consultation in the future.
Content Development and Technology Customization
In the early stages of the project, the National Academy worked with HSS to brainstorm the
critical issues on which HSS needed worker input and synthesize these issues into clear and
concise topics which ultimately became the discussion themes for the Dialogue. Each theme was
given a discussion forum on the Dialogue site where workers would give their ideas. The forums
were:
• Improving Worker Safety Training
• Standardizing Worker Safety Training Requirements
• Implementing the Worker Safety and Health Program (10 CFR 851 Rule)
• Workforce Succession Planning and Knowledge Transfer
• Your Personal Experience with Workplace Safety and Health
These categories ultimately proved confusing to some participants because of the overlapping
nature of several of the forums. For example, the difference between “Improving Worker Safety
Training” and “Standardizing Worker Safety Training Requirements” is not clear, and so some
users may have been confused about where to submit their ideas. Because each forum was
separated from the others, similar ideas in different forums were kept apart, and some ideas may
not have received as much attention as they otherwise would have.
Future consultation initiatives could benefit from using a single discussion forum with a broader
topic (e.g., “Improving Worker Safety and Health at DOE”). In this approach, input would be
analyzed and categorized on the “back end” of the dialogue after it had concluded, rather than
structuring the conversation in separate forums that can pigeonhole ideas and confuse
participants.

Final Report
20
Recommendation: In future online stakeholder consultations, HSS should
develop one central, compelling discussion question and avoid multiple
discussion forums in order to spur discussion on interrelated topics.
The Dialogue was hosted on a web-based discussion platform created by Delib, a leading e-
democracy technology and consulting firm. The Dialogue, online at www.WorkerDialogue.org,
allowed participants to submit their own ideas to open-ended questions, to comment on others’
ideas, and to vote the best submissions to the top. To ensure only DOE workers were able to
participate in the Dialogue, HSS and the National Academy originally made a decision to require
all visitors to enter a uniform password in order to access the website. While the password was
circulated along with outreach materials to union workers, when the Dialogue opened the
National Academy received feedback from several users who confused the password for the
website with their individual password for their user account. As this was a barrier to
participation, the National Academy removed the access password after the first week.
The Dialogue platform enabled HSS and the National Academy to gather demographic
information on registered users when they created a user account. It also required users to set up
an account in order to submit ideas, comments, or rate postings. During this set up step,
participants were asked to respond to eight questions,30
in addition to providing an email address
and creating a username and password. These questions were intended to provide information on
the user’s level of experience, job category and DOE worksite, which would allow for more
complex analysis at the conclusion of the Dialogue. In fact, the ability to collect this data was the
main reason the Delib dialogue platform was selected for this project as opposed to other
commonly available dialogue tools.
While data from these questions was valuable in understanding the participation levels among
unions, trade crafts, experience levels, etc., future dialogues should lessen the number of
demographic questions posed to the user for several reasons. First, as a general rule, the barriers
to entry of an online activity should be as low as possible to encourage participation. According
to the site’s analytics, visitors spent an average of about two minutes on these questions. While
two minutes may not seem like a long time to some, it took valuable time away from users’
offering comments and ideas in the Dialogue itself and may have been long enough to dissuade
some participants from registering in the first place. Second, as discussed in Section III, the value
gained from this data is limited because a dialogue is not intended to yield representative results
that can be analyzed for statistical significance. While HSS has an understandable desire for
survey-like data, a better solution is to consider complementing future dialogues with an actual
survey.
Recommendation: In future online dialogues with stakeholders, HSS should
limit the number of required demographic questions and consider
complementing the dialogue with a traditional survey. This would help
ensure a smoother experience for participants and also enable HSS to gather
richer and more useful information.
30
See Appendix B for the questions asked in each forum.

Final Report
21
Conducting Outreach
From the initial planning stages, HSS and the National Academy worked closely with union
representatives to gain their buy-in for the Dialogue and to enlist their resources in reaching
workers across the DOE complex. Outreach consisted of in-person and teleconference meetings
with union representatives, emails passed through the unions’ networks and a formal written
invitation from Glenn Podonsky, DOE’s Chief Health, Safety and Security Officer to the DOE
Program Secretariat Offices, Field Offices, and Operations Offices. The union representatives
were asked to reach out to their members in meetings, emails, flyers at work sites and union
halls, and by word-of-mouth using materials developed by HSS and the National Academy.
Once the Dialogue began, the National Academy maintained email contact with registered users
to enlist them in spreading the word.
With an estimated population of 50,000 union workers in the DOE system, the Dialogue aimed
to include participation from two to three percent of the DOE front-line workforce, or around
1,000 workers; a statistic in line with past Dialogues conducted by the National Academy.
Though participation fell short of this goal, the outreach process resulted in two lessons for
HSS’s capacity building:
• Knowing how communications operate within the worker community is critical to
effective outreach. At the outset of the project, HSS directed that all outreach go through
the union representatives, since the contractors and site managers who employ the union
workers would not be involved in the Dialogue. As a general rule in outreach efforts,
direct contact with the audience is the most effective method for spreading a message and
stirring interest, but there is no guarantee that an audience will respond. During the
project, HSS and the National Academy learned that few of the national-level union
representatives maintain contact lists of front-line workers/members that work at DOE
sites. Therefore, the National Academy’s outreach strategy had to rely on reaching
workers through the unions’ communication chains. As emails and other means of
contact needed to be passed down several steps to reach front-line workers, the number of
workers who heard about the Dialogue was likely very limited. Further, the National
Academy had no way to measure the effectiveness of outreach beyond examining the
Dialogue’s aggregate traffic and participation metrics. In the future, the exact nature of
the communications channels that exist with the targeted stakeholder community should
be clearly identified at the start of the project. Outreach efforts can then be tailored to the
available options.
• Understanding how workers want to engage with HSS will enhance future
consultation efforts. Both before and during the Dialogue, a lack of knowledge about
how to reach the target audience of front-line workers may have limited the effectiveness
of outreach. Email was the primary media for communicating with workers; however,
many workers may not have regular access to email or computers while at work, which
complicates efforts to bring them to an online event such as the Dialogue. HSS’s future
grassroots efforts would be well served by learning more about front-line workers,
including their level of access to and comfort with computers, and how they would like to
engage with HSS.

Final Report
22
Recommendation: To maximize participation in future consultation efforts,
HSS should consider alternate channels that acknowledge the environments
in which front-line employees work, including their level of access to and
comfort level with computers and email. This would allow HSS to tailor
content more effectively to meet workers’ needs and would both improve the
quality of the interaction among participants, and the usefulness of the
results.
Analysis of Dialogue Feedback
The Dialogue platform included several analytical tools that allowed the National Academy to
cross-reference and sort ideas and comments submitted by workers in response to the discussion
questions. While the ideas with the highest ratings and most comments “float to the top”, the
National Academy looked beyond these metrics in analyzing the discussion. Participants were
able to “tag” ideas with the topics and/or phrases with which these ideas dealt, which offered a
valuable way to categorize similar ideas. The National Academy used these tools to identify
recurring themes and ideas that generated the most discussion in the Dialogue.
Measuring Traffic and Participation
Two broad categories of data about workers’ involvement in the Dialogue were captured: traffic
and participation.
• Traffic metrics generally measure the amount of overall traffic to and activity on the site,
including metrics such as Unique Visitors, Total Visits, and Page Views. The National
Academy used a free Google Analytics tool to capture this information. All traffic
information was collected and reported in the aggregate. Also captured were measures of
visitor engagement with the site, including “bounce rate”—a measure indicating the
“percentage of single-page visits or visits in which the person left [the] site from the
entrance (landing) page.”31
• Participation metrics measure active involvement in the Dialogue. Participation metrics
collected for this dialogue include registered users,32
ideas, comments, ratings, and tags.
In order to provide context for the data presented in this report, examples of comparable
dialogues completed by the National Academy are listed below:
• DCIPS Dialogue—Hosted in spring 2010 to solicit feedback from Department of
Defense employees on the Defense Civilian Intelligence Personnel System (DCIPS). The
DCIPS Dialogue provides a valuable reference point because it engaged internal
employees within the Department of Defense and dealt with similar circumstances as A
Worker Dialogue, including a decentralized employee population and the need for
31
“What does Bounce Rate mean?” Google Analytics.
<http://www.google.com/support/analytics/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=81986> November 19, 2008.
32
A registered user is any individual who creates an account on the dialogue site; registration is necessary in order
to submit, rate, or comment on any ideas on the site.

Final Report
23
privacy and anonymity. Due to the sensitive nature of this dialogue, the site is not
publicly accessible.
• Dialogue on a NOAA Climate Service—Conducted in June 2010 to engage stakeholders
of the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) in the
establishment of a new climate service bureau. The NOAA Dialogue was launched the
same day as A Worker Dialogue (June 14, 2010) and on the same technology platform,
and solicited ideas from stakeholders both inside and outside of NOAA. The site remains
online at http://www.NAPAclimatedialogue.org.
• Recovery Dialogue on IT Solutions—Conducted in Spring 2009 in partnership with the
Office of Management and Budget and the Recovery Accountability and Transparency
Board to engage vendors, thought leaders, informed consumers, and citizens in finding
solutions and priorities for Recovery.gov. The site was built on a closely similar
technology platform as A Worker Dialogue.
Site Traffic
Over the 28 days it was live, the Dialogue website received over 1,000 visits from 429 unique
visitors. As shown in Figure 2-1, visits to the site peaked in the middle of each week the
Dialogue was live, while weekends saw drop-offs in site traffic. Both of these patterns are
consistent with past National Academy efforts.
Figure 2-1. Visits to the Dialogue Site by Day
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Jun 14 (M) Jun 21 (M) Jun 28 (M) Jul 5 (M)
Visits
Denotes days when National Academy staff sent outreach emails to registered users or union lists
Table 2-1 displays key traffic metrics for the Dialogue over the 28 days the site was live and
compares these to the comparable metrics for three other recent dialogues the National Academy
coordinated.

Final Report
24
Table 2-1. Comparison of Site Traffic Metrics across Dialogues
Worker Dialogue DCIPS Dialogue NOAA
Dialogue
Recovery Dialogue
Live Dates
(days live)
6/14-7/11/10
(28)
3/1-4/9/10
(40)
6/14-6/27/10
(15)
4/27-5/4/09
(8)
Visits
(visits/day)
1,035
(37)
8,993
(225)
2,368
(158)
21,000
(2,625)
Unique
Visitors33
(unique
visitors/day)
429
(15)
3,790
(95)
1,304
(87)
13,222
(1,653)
Avg. Page
Views per Visit
11.49 10.17 5.84 7.18
Bounce Rate34
19.71% 18.91% 35.64% 40.39%
Avg. Time on
Site
9:21 12:07 5:38 7:19
Direct Traffic35
90.34% 88.9% 83.78% 34.43%
As seen in Figure 2-2 the Dialogue received visits from 23 states and the District of Columbia.
Washington State, the District of Columbia, Idaho, and Ohio yielded the highest participation.
Figure 2-2. Geographic Display of Visits to the Dialogue Site
Source: Google Analytics
33
Unique visitors (or absolute unique visitors) represent the number of unduplicated (counted only once) visitors to
the website over the course of a specified time period. Although each visitor is identified as unique, it constitutes a
unique visit from an IP address. Thus, an individual could have visited the dialogue site from three separate
computers or IP addresses. In this case, Google would count each visit as a unique visitor.
34
The bounce rate is the percentage of visits that entailed only visiting the first page of the site. This metric provides
an indication of how much users felt enticed to view other pages and engage with the site.
35
Direct traffic measures the percentage of visits to the site that came from users clicking an email link or directly
typing the URL into their web browser.

Final Report
25
Dialogue Participation
During the four weeks that the Dialogue was live, 125 workers registered to participate,
submitting 38 unique ideas and nearly 200 comments across the five discussion forums. Table 2-
2 shows the breakdown of participation by topic forum.
Table 2-2. Participation Metrics by Topic Forum
Forum Ideas Comments
Comments/
Idea
Ratings
Submitted
Improving Worker Safety Training 13 63 4.85 21
Standardizing Worker Safety Training
Requirements 3 11 3.67 2
Implementing the Worker Safety and Health
Program (10 CFR 851 Rule) 11 64 5.82 74
Workforce Succession Planning and Knowledge
Transfer 4 11 2.75 4
Your Personal Experience with Workplace
Safety and Health 7 33 4.71 21
TOTAL 38 182 4.79 122
As seen in Table 2-2, two Dialogue forums saw the most activity: “Improving Worker Safety
Training” and “Implementing the Worker Safety and Health Program,” confirming that these
were the two forum topics that resonated most with participants. However, there is a possibility
that the forum titled “Improving Worker Safety Training” received a high degree of participation
because it was the first discussion forum shown on the website and therefore was first to catch a
participant’s eye. In addition, the National Academy’s analysis showed that several users posted
ideas in one forum that were more relevant to another. This “mis-categorization” may have been
due to user confusion over the categories given that the subject matter of the forums did overlap
somewhat.36
Table 2-3 compares this Dialogue’s participation metrics with metrics from two similar
Dialogues conducted on the same platform.
36
See sub-section titled “Planning and Executing the Dialogue” for details and recommendations on structuring
future dialogues.

Final Report
26
Table 2-3. Comparison of Participation Metrics across Dialogues37
Worker
Dialogue
NOAA Dialogue Recovery Dialogue
Live Dates (days) 6/14-7/11/10
(28)
6/14-6/28/10
(15)
4/27-5/4/09
(8)
Registered Users
(per day)
125
(4)
134
(9)
1,806
(226)
Registered Users as
% of Unique
Visitors
29.14% 10.28% 13.66%
Unique Ideas
(per day, per user)
38
(1, 0.30)
52
(3, 0.39)
542
(68, 0.30)
Comments
(per day, per user)
182
(7, 1.46)
72
(5, 0.54)
1,330
(166, 0.74)
Ratings
(per day, per user)
122
(4, 0.98)
117
(8, 0.87)
2,220
(278, 1.23)
Avg. Comments/
Idea
4.79 1.38 2.45
Avg. Ratings/Idea 3.21 2.25 4.10
As Table 2-3 illustrates, this Dialogue did not experience the high level of participation that the
Recovery Dialogue did; however, those users who did register, participated at a comparable level
with participants from previous National Academy dialogues. While the Dialogue had a lower
volume of registered users, ideas, and comments than the other initiatives, participation was even
with the other dialogues when averaging these metrics per registered user. For example, in Table
2-3, the number of unique ideas submitted per user (0.30) is comparable to that of the NOAA
Dialogue (0.39) and Recovery Dialogue (0.30). This suggests that, although the number of
participants was relatively low, those who participated did so at the same level seen in other
initiatives.
Based on this traffic and participation analysis, a few broad conclusions can be drawn about the
characteristics of this Dialogue:
• A small but active community of workers participated in the Dialogue. While the
Dialogue’s overall level of traffic was lower than expected, those who visited actively
engaged with the content on the site. The Dialogue saw fewer visits and unique visitors
than past National Academy dialogues, a result likely attributable to a smaller, more
targeted audience than other public dialogues and the challenges with the outreach
strategy. This trend is also mirrored in the demographic data gathered, which showed
that, with a few exceptions of robust participation, registrants came from only a small
number of unions and DOE sites. However, the level of engagement was quite high
among these workers. Almost 30% of visitors to the site ended up registering for the
Dialogue, in effect going from “browsers to buyers.” The website site also saw a bounce
rate of less than 20%, meaning that four of every five visitors saw enough value in the
site to click beyond the site’s home page—an exceptional rate in comparison with past
public dialogues.
37
The DCIPS Dialogue is excluded in the comparison of participation metrics because it was hosted on a different
technology platform that enabled substantially different user activities that are not comparable with these metrics.

Final Report
27
• Participants valued the opportunity to contribute. Participation at a per-user level was
comparable with much higher-profile dialogues. The average participant spent over nine
minutes on the site viewing 11 pages per visit, both strong indicators of interest. And
though the Dialogue had fewer unique ideas per day (1) than other dialogues, the volume
of ideas per user (0.30) was comparable to the other previous Dialogues. This suggests
that although the community may have been smaller, DOE workers who participated
were just as interested—if not more so—in contributing to the discussion.
• Workers from several key DOE sites engaged. Although the bulk of participation came
from sites such as Hanford, Idaho National Laboratory, and Portsmouth Gaseous
Diffusion Plant, participants from seven other DOE sites registered for the Dialogue. All
told, the Dialogue received visits from 23 states and the District of Columbia. Not
surprisingly, the majority of visits were from states with large DOE sites.
• Visitors repeatedly took advantage of interaction opportunities. Over 60 percent of
all visits were from returning visitors, and members of this group spent an average of one
minute longer on the site than new visitors. This indicates that many users’ engagement
with the Dialogue increased as they returned to the site.
Continuing Engagement
Central to planning this Dialogue was crafting a clear vision of the initiative’s purpose and
“value exchange,” or what the Dialogue offered users in exchange for their time and
participation. For HSS, worker input would inform and help enhance HSS’s policies and
programs, such as safety training, and would provide grassroots-level backing for any potential
policy changes HSS would spearhead within DOE. From the workers’ perspective, their time and
input would help improve programs and policies that impact their day-to-day activities.
Articulating these mutual benefits was a key component of gaining the buy-in of union
representatives.
However, the Panel believes that the quality of future outreach efforts will depend on HSS’s
reporting out on the results of this process. Having taken the first step in an engagement process
with front-line workers, HSS can build trust by following up with participants on this Dialogue
and communicating the next steps—whether DOE is able to take any concrete actions with the
Dialogue’s results or not. Given the workers’ expressed uneasiness with DOE and the
management at its sites, this is a particularly important point. Failing to continue this engagement
may risk further disenchantment among a population that can offer valuable front-line support,
input and ideas to DOE.
Recommendation: HSS should view the Dialogue as a starting point for
continued engagement with union workers rather than as a single event. HSS
could undertake several actions that would serve to enhance communication
and build trust:
o Acknowledge workers’ contributions to the Dialogue;

Final Report
28
o Communicate the results of the Dialogue to participants, contractors
and union partners; and
o Articulate and undertake concrete next steps as a direct result of
input received.

Final Report
29
SECTION III.
DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION
During the four weeks it was live, 125 DOE workers registered to participate in the Dialogue. To
participate, visitors were required to register for an account by providing an email address,
creating a username and password, and answering a set of questions about their background,
such as their occupation, location, and level of experience. The purpose of gathering this
information was to gain an understanding of participants’ backgrounds beyond what could be
inferred from their ideas and comments. The National Academy collected this information for
the sole purpose of analysis in the aggregate, and users’ responses to these questions were not
visible to any other user on the site.
Although collecting demographic information adds to what can be learned from the Dialogue,
these questions were not intended to serve as a survey, and thus there are several notable
limitations to how the data can be interpreted. First, the results are not representative of the
perspectives of all or even most DOE workers. They are a collection of ideas provided by those
DOE union workers who participated on how worker safety training can be improved. Further,
the Dialogue was a voluntary activity for DOE union workers, and so the results are subject to a
self-selection bias. Finally, because these responses were self-reported, their accuracy cannot be
verified.
Union Affiliations and Employment in the DOE Complex
Union Affiliation
Because DOE’s union workforce is represented by many labor unions, it was important to HSS
and the National Academy to gain an idea of the number of workers participating from each
union. As shown in Figure 3-1, the 125 registered users were affiliated with 10 different
unions.38
Over 80 percent of registered users identified as members of either the United Steel
Workers (USW) (52 users) or the International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF) (51 users).
Of the other 22 registered users, 10 identified as members of the International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers (IBEW) and four as members of the International Association of Machinists
and Aerospace Workers (IAMAW). Six other unions each had one registered user.
38
Registered users from Bechtel B&W Idaho and CH2M Hill Plateau Remediation Co. are not included as union
participants, as these organizations are not affiliated with a union in DOE.

Final Report
30
Figure 3-1. Registered Users by Union Affiliation
United Steel Workers (USW)
52 (41%)
Int'l Assoc. of Machinists and
Aerospace Workers (IAMAW)
4 (3%)
Int'l Brotherhood of Electrical
Workers (IBEW)
10 (8%)
Int'l Assoc. of Fire Fighters
(IAFF)
51 (40%)
Bechtel B&W Idaho (BBWI) - 1 (1%)
CH2M Hill Plateau Remediation Co. - 1 (1%)
Int'l Chemical Workers Union (ICWU) - 1 (1%)
Int'l Guards Union of America (IGUA) - 1 (1%)
Nat'l Council of Security Police (NCSP) - 1 (1%)
Pantex Guards Union - 1 (1%)
Teamsters - 1 (1%)
United Assoc. of Plumbers and Pipefitters (UAPP) - 1 (1%)
Although the distribution of registered users’ union affiliation does not diminish the value of the
ideas and comments that were submitted, it does suggest that the feedback received strongly
reflects the perspectives of USW and IAFF members.
Current Employment Status
The Dialogue asked users to specify their current employment status within DOE. As shown in
Figure 3-2, nearly all (96%) the Dialogue’s registered users had recent or current experience at a
DOE site, while a small proportion (2%) reported working at a DOE site in the past year. Three
users (2%) self-identified as last working in the DOE system more than nine years ago.

Final Report
31
Figure 3-2. Registered Users Employment Status
Currently work
at a DOE site
119 (96%)
Last worked at
a DOE site
within the past
year
3 (2%)
Last worked at
a DOE site
more than 9
years ago
3 (2%)
Current DOE Site
Although registered users in the Dialogue came from 11 different DOE sites across the country,
only three sites supplied more than a handful of workers. As illustrated in Figure 3-3, workers
from Hanford made up over 50 percent of the Dialogue’s participants, with 65 registered users.
The Idaho National Laboratory and Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant each had high
representation with 24 and 12 registered users, respectively. The remaining eight sites each sent
five or fewer registered users.

Final Report
32
Figure 3-3. Registered Users by DOE Site
65
24
12
5 5 4 3 2 2 1 2
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Hanford Idaho
National
Laboratory
Portsmouth
Gaseous
Diffusion
Plant
Paducah
Gaseous
Diffusion
Plant
East
Tennessee
Technology
Park - Oak
Ridge
Kansas City
Plant
Pantex
Plant
Y-12 - Oak
Ridge
Carlsbad
Waste
Isolation
Pilot Plant
HAMMER
Training and
Education
Center
Other*
* “Other” sites included: Uranium Disposition Services and USW (United Steel Workers).
The distribution of participants by DOE site, as illustrated in Figure 3-4, leads to several
observations;
• First, the high turnout from the Hanford Site was primarily driven by high participation
rates from IAFF members. Also notable is the fact that members of the IAFF came only
from Hanford.
• Second, the most diverse union participation from DOE sites was from Hanford. Hanford
users represented five labor unions, which contributed to making Hanford the most active
site in the Dialogue.
• Third, though the USW saw the greatest representation among the unions, members from
this union were the most dispersed, coming from seven DOE sites—suggesting that
efforts to attract USW workers from multiple sites was successful. Users from the IBEW
registered from three locations, also indicating a relatively broad outreach campaign.

Final Report
33
Figure 3-4. Registered Users by DOE Site and Union Affiliation
53
4
22
12
5
5
2
2
6
1
1
4
1
1
1
1
11
11
0 10 20 30 40 50
Hanford
Idaho National Laboratory
Portsmouth Gaseous
Diffusion Plant
Paducah Gaseous Diffusion
Plant
East Tennessee Technology
Park - Oak Ridge
Kansas City Plant
PantexPlant
Y-12 - Oak Ridge
Carlsbad Waste Isolation Pilot
Plant
HAMMER
Other
No. of Registered Users
IAFF
USW
IBEW
IAMAW
CHPRC
Teamsters
BBWI ES&H
UAPP
PGU
NCSP
IGUA
ICWU

Final Report
34
Permanent vs. Transient Workers
DOE’s diverse union workforce is made up of two types of workers: those who are dedicated to
a particular site; and those who divide their time among multiple sites. In the Dialogue, all but
four of the 125 registered users indicated that they were dedicated to work at a single site for at
least half of their time, suggesting that the Dialogue’s results are strongly reflective of workers
stationed primarily at one site.
Experience in Trade
Participants were asked two questions when creating an account to ascertain their level of
experience: were they a journeyman or apprentice in their labor union; and how many years of
experience did they have in their trade. As seen in Figure 3-5, 92 percent reported being
journeymen, while eight percent identified as apprentices, indicating that the results of the
Dialogue strongly reflect the perspectives of more experienced, longer-tenured workers.
Figure 3-5. Registered Users’ Status in Trade
Apprentice
8%
Journeyman
92%
As displayed in Figure 3-6, when registered users were asked how many years they had worked,
nearly two-thirds reported having over 21 years of experience in their trade. While workers with
less experience did participate in the Dialogue—15 percent of users had less than six years in
their trade—this disparity in experience points toward Dialogue results influenced heavily by
older, longer-tenured workers.

Final Report
35
Figure 3-6. Registered Users Years of Experience in Trade
5 3
11 11
6
9
80
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Less than 1
Year
1-2 Years 3-5 Years 6-10 Years 11-15 Years 16-20 Years 21+ Years
Years Experience in Trade
No.ofRegisteredUsers
Workers’ Trades and Job Categories
Registered users were asked to identify their job category, whether they worked in production,
construction, were a first responder, or whether they performed multiple duties. In addition,
workers were asked to specify their trade (e.g., pipefitter, plumber, electrician, or fireman). This
two-tiered approach at gathering this data, the complexity of which probably confused users,
allows one to analyze results either within one category or across multiple categories within the
same trade.
As illustrated in Figure 3-7, workers from production trades (48%) and first responders (44%)
made up the majority of registered users in the Dialogue. Participation from workers in the
construction trades was low with only three users (2%) identifying in this category. Seven users
(6%) reported performing multiple duties, four of which mentioned training as one of their
responsibilities, and three of which identified as maintenance mechanics.

Final Report
36
Figure 3-7. Registered Users by Job Category
Construction
3 (2%)
Multiple
classifications
7 (6%)
First
Responder
55 (44%)
Production
60 (48%)
* Responses to multiple classifications included: Fissile Handler/D&D; Maintenance Mechanic
working Hazardous Materials and HAZWOPER trainer; Maintenance Mechanic/HAZMAT
worker/HAZWOPER Trainer; Maintenance Mechanic/safety and health;
plumber/electrician/maintenance mechanic; trainer; Training Director/Electrician.
Fifty-nine users identified their trades as part of the production category, with the largest
numbers identifying as radiation workers (11), chemical workers (6), and electricians (6).
However, nearly half of the users in production specified a trade outside of the multiple choice
list, a finding that highlights the difficulty of presenting an exhaustive and comprehensive list of
trades.
Table 3-1. Registered Users - Production Trades
Trade
No. of
Registered
Users
Radiation worker 11
Chemical worker 6
Electrician 6
Hazardous materials worker 3
Heavy equipment operator / engineer 2
Pipefitter 2
Machinist 1
Steel worker 1
Other* 27
TOTAL 59
* “Other” production trades specified included: Carpenter, Custodian, D&D Skilled (2), Fuel
Operator (2), Industrial Hygiene and Safety, Labor Union Representative or Official (7),
Maintenance Mechanic (2), Management, Mechanic (sic), Operator, Power Operator, Radiological
Control Technician, Safety & Health Rep, Stationary Engineer, Tool Crib Attendant
One should note that this data may not reflect the true number of each trade represented in the
Dialogue. As seen in Table 3-1, seven users who specified an “other” trade not on the multiple

Final Report
37
choice list identified as labor union representatives or officials. It is possible that the number of
union representatives could have been higher had the Dialogue given users this option as well.
As seen in Table 3-2, only three users identified with a construction trade; these were an
electrician, a laborer, and a tool and die maker.
Table 3-2. Registered Users - Construction Trades
Trade
No. of
Registered
Users
Electrician 1
Laborer 1
Tool and die maker 1
TOTAL 3
Table 3-3 shows that 56 users identified as first responders, almost all of whom were firefighters.
Table 3-3. Registered Users – First Responders39
Trade
No. of
Registered
Users
Firefighter 52
Police and security worker 3
Hazardous materials worker 1
TOTAL 56
Perceptions of Workplace Hazard Levels
Given the Dialogue’s discussion topic of improving health and safety in DOE, it was important
to poll participants on their perceived level of hazard encountered at their workplace. As seen in
Figure 3-8, a majority (58%) of registered users cited a high level of workplace hazard at their
location, while only 6% cited a low hazard level. This high level of perceived hazard is not
surprising for a population comprised largely of firefighters, radiation workers, electricians, and
heavy equipment operators. This result may also reflect the likelihood that workers who
routinely face serious hazards would tend to self-select into a discussion focused on improving
health and safety.
39
There is a discrepancy between the number of users who identified firefighter as their trade (52) and the number
of users who identified as members of IAFF (51) in Figure 3-1. This discrepancy is likely due to self-reporting error.

Final Report
38
Figure 3-8. Perceived Workplace Hazard Level
High
72 (58%)
Medium
45 (36%)
Low
8 (6%)
Figure 3-9 presents workplace hazard perceptions by the 12 labor unions. Not surprisingly, a
majority of IAFF members (firefighters) reported experiencing a high hazard level at their
location. However, perceptions within some of the other unions were more varied. A slight
majority of USW members (56%) reported facing a low-to-moderate hazard level. Most of the
other unions had fewer than five registered users in the Dialogue, limiting the significance of any
differences of viewpoint on this topic.
Figure 3-9. Perceptions of Workplace Hazard Level, by Union
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
IA
FF
USW
IBEW
IA
M
A
W
IG
UABBW
IES&
H
UA
PP
CHPRC
ICW
U
PG
U
Team
sters
NCSP
Union
Low Medium High
As illustrated in Figure 3-10, most sites have a nearly even breakdown between perceptions of
high and medium hazard levels. The exception, however, is Hanford, where the large numbers of
firefighter participants identified facing a high hazard level. Because participation was low from
sites other than Hanford, Idaho, and Portsmouth, other results are not generalizable.

Final Report
39
Figure 3-10. Perceptions of Workplace Hazard Level, by DOE Site
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
H
anford
Idaho
N
ationalLab
Portsm
outh
GaseousD
iffusion
Plant
Paducah
G
aseousD
iffusion
Plant
EastTennesseeTechnology
Park
-O
ak
RidgeK
ansasC
ity
Plant
Pantex
PlantY
-12
-O
ak
Ridge
Carlsbad
W
aste
Isolation
PilotPlant
H
A
M
M
ER
Training
and
Education
Center
O
ther
DOE Site
Low Medium High

Final Report
40

Final Report
41
CONCLUSION
The Dialogue was a significant and successful first step in reaching out to the front-line
workforce as a means to improve health and safety at DOE sites. In the one month the Dialogue
was live, more than 100 workers registered to participate in the Dialogue—a small but active
group that provided concrete ideas and broad perspectives that will be valuable to HSS decision
makers going forward. Moreover, workers voiced clear support for continuing this type of
engagement with DOE and HSS—an important, positive outcome from HSS’s willingness to
experiment with a collaborative approach on such an issue.
The Dialogue also resulted in several lessons that may prove valuable in building HSS’s capacity
for consultation and collaboration with union workers and other partners. In the long term, HSS
should learn more about the workers in DOE and the unions representing them if future
grassroots outreach efforts are to see greater participation. However, in the short term, HSS
should show responsiveness and report out to participants on what is being done with their
input—even if HSS cannot take any significant action based on the results. A collaborative
dialogue such as this should be part of a larger, continuing process of engagement. The success
of future outreach efforts will rely in no small measure on the trust built between parties now.
Aside from providing lessons on the process of engagement, the Dialogue raised several health
and safety issues that should prompt HSS to conduct follow-up research. It was not surprising
that workers raised examples of non-compliance with regulations. However, HSS should view
the results of the Dialogue in light of its own empirical data to determine what the realities are at
DOE sites. Any gaps that exist between health and safety data collected (e.g., incident reports)
and the perceptions expressed in the Dialogue should be identified and actions taken to
determine why such gaps exist. Much of the outcome from this Dialogue will understandably
focus on ensuring reliable means for workers to engage with DOE. However, HSS should not
limit its conclusions only to process-related changes, but rather should use the Dialogue results
as an impetus to review the effectiveness of health and safety programs throughout DOE.
As national energy priorities continue to shift, the work of the Department is going to change,
and health and safety programs will need to be modified accordingly. Looking forward, HSS
should determine what needs its health and safety programs must meet in the future to support
the Department’s mission critical goals.

Final Report
42

Final Report
43
APPENDICES

Final Report
44

Final Report
45
APPENDIX A: PANEL AND STAFF BIOGRAPHIES
Panel Biographies
Daniel Guttman*
— Dan Guttman is a lawyer and professor, who teaches at both Peking
University Law School and Johns Hopkins University. Dan is also a fellow at the Tsinghua
University US/China Center, developing US/China research and teaching programs. Dan served
in the Clinton administration as Executive Director of the Presidential Advisory Commission on
Human Radiation Experiments and Commissioner of the Occupational Safety and Health
Review Commission. He was also special counsel to Senator David Pryor, where he focused on
oversight of government contracting.
As a private lawyer, Dan represented workers in enactment of nuclear workers compensation and
asbestos in school laws, whistleblowers in lawsuits that resulted in hundreds of millions of
dollars of recovery from oil companies and military contractors by the U.S. government, janitors
in litigation resulting in enforcement of the Washington DC Human Rights Act, and public
agencies in energy litigation.
Dan pioneered in the study of government by contract, co-authoring The Shadow Government.
He has testified before Congress and other public bodies, and shared in journalism awards, most
recently for an investigation of $900 billion in Pentagon contracting. Dan was a Fulbright
Scholar in China, and is on the Board of Directors of Shanghai Roots and Shoots.
Christine Gibbs Springer*— Dr. Christine Springer is the Director of the Executive Masters
Degree in Emergency and Crisis Management (ECEM) at the University of Nevada Las Vegas
(UNLV). She is currently involved in doing research on regional infrastructure resilience in
Nevada and developing and operationalizing an internal and external stakeholder interaction
plan, as well as independently reviewing FEMA operations for Congress. In addition to her role
as Director of ECEM at UNLV, Christine also teaches in the graduate school of public
administration and the interdisciplinary graduate program of Ethics (EPS). She has previously
served as Associate Professor at Arizona State University in the College of Public Programs
where she co-founded the Nonprofit Management Center degree program.
Christine is Founder and Principal of Red Tape Limited a strategic management and
communications firm incorporated in 1986, which provides training for CIGNA Healthcare and
their EAP clients. Christine specializes in turning around organizations, capacity building and
intergovernmental collaboration. She has facilitated strategic planning sessions for groups like
the Desert Research Institute and has strategically restructured three Indian tribes and more than
fifty organizations, including EthelM Chocolates, the Waste Board of California and the Las
Vegas Valley Water District. A recognized expert in facilitation, marketing, communications and
management processes, she has authored 10 books and numerous articles on those subjects and is
a columnist in the P.A. Times on Strategic Management issues. Her chapter on leadership and
ethics and government was published by M.E. Sharpe in September, 2007, a National Academy
*

Final Report
46
of Public Administration edited book on leadership in the 21st
Century. She is currently editing a
book on Homeland Security for the Homeland Security Defense Education Consortium.
Christine currently serves on many boards including: The Self-Employment Loan Fund, The
Philharmonic Guild, The Las Vegas Natural History Museum Advisory Board, the American
Diabetes Board, and The Southern Nevada Chapter of ASPA. She is a member of the Institute of
Management Consultants, NAWBO, AFP, EAPA, the American Society for Training and
Development and the Society for Human Resource Management. She is also a Fellow of the
National Academy of Public Administration. Christine received her Ph.D from Indiana
University, her Master of Public Administration from Arizona State University and a Bachelor of
Art from the University of Arizona.
Staff Biographies
Lena E. Trudeau, Vice President—Lena Trudeau leads the National Academy’s service
delivery organization, supervises the conception and execution of strategic initiatives, opens new
lines of business and drives organizational change. Ms. Trudeau is a founder of the Collaboration
Project, an independent forum of leaders committed to leveraging web 2.0 and the benefits of
collaborative technology to solve government's complex problems. Ms. Trudeau’s previous roles
include: Program Area Director, National Academy of Public Administration, Vice President,
The Ambit Group; Marketing Manager, Nokia Enterprise Solutions; Principal Consultant,
Touchstone Consulting Group; Consultant, Adventis Inc.; and Associate, Mitchell Madison
Group. Ms. Trudeau received a Masters of Business Administration from the Richard Ivey
School of Business at the University of Western Ontario and a Bachelor of Social Science in
Political Science and Philosophy from the University of Ottawa.
Danielle M. Germain, Project Director—Danielle Germain is the Director of the National
Academy’s Collaboration Project, an independent forum of leaders committed to leveraging web
2.0 and the benefits of collaborative technology to solve government's complex problems. She
led the National Academy’s successful White House Recovery Dialogue on IT solutions; and the
first of its kind national pilot project on citizen engagement sponsored by the Federal CIO
Council, Office of Management and Budget and the U.S. General Services Administration, titled
“A National Dialogue on Health IT and Privacy.” Ms. Germain’s previous roles include: Chief of
Staff, U.S. General Services Administration; various management positions at the American
Council for Technology/Industry Advisory Council, the Council for Excellence in Government;
the Information Technology Association of America (now TechAmerica), and IBM’s Office of
Governmental Programs; congressional aide to the late Senator Edward M. Kennedy. Ms.
Germain earned her master's degree in International Relations and International Economics from
the Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies and a Bachelor of Arts
degree from Mount Holyoke College.
Daniel R. Honker, Analyst— Daniel Honker is an Analyst with the National Academy of Public
Administration. Mr. Honker possesses a thorough knowledge of government and management
practices gained from a broad array of experiences inside and outside the public sector. Mr.
Honker has played an integral role in the National Academy’s Collaboration Project and in

Final Report
47
various online collaborative initiatives for Federal clients, including the White House,
Department of Homeland Security, and Department of Housing and Urban Development.
Previous positions include: Summer Associate, Federal Strategy and Operations, Deloitte
Consulting, LLP; Graduate Research Assistant, George Washington University; and Planner,
City of Austin Water Utility. Mr. Honker holds a B.A. in Government from the University of
Texas at Austin and an M.P.A. from the George Washington University Trachtenberg School of
Public Policy and Public Administration.
Matthew Thomas, Research Associate—Matthew Thomas is a Research Associate at the
National Academy of Public Administration where he works with National Academy staff to
assist Federal agencies with online stakeholder engagement and collaboration. Mr. Thomas’s
duties at the National Academy include engaging with clients, monitoring online civic
engagement and composing after-action reports. In the past, Mr. Thomas has worked on projects
for the Department of Homeland Security, the General Services Administration and the
Department of Energy. Prior to joining the National Academy, Mr. Thomas worked as an
administrative staff assistant with LogiCom Project Management, an event planning firm, and at
the American Association of Naturopathic Physicians, where he coordinated meetings between
approximately 150 naturopathic physicians and over 50 Congressional offices for a one-day
Federal Legislative Initiative. Mr. Thomas holds a Bachelor of Arts degree in Political Science
from Tulane University.
Mary Krulia, Graduate Associate—Mary Krulia is a Graduate Associate at the National
Academy of Public Administration working primarily with the National Academy’s
Collaboration Project to assist government with online stakeholder engagement and collaboration
initiatives. Prior to joining the National Academy, Ms. Krulia worked for two years as a legal
administrative assistant at Steptoe & Johnson LLP. She has also held various internships in the
public and nonprofit sectors, most recently with Street Sense, where she gained nonprofit
management experience at the organization that produces DC’s street newspaper and raises
awareness about homelessness. Ms. Krulia graduated with a Bachelor of Arts in Political Science
and Broadcasting from Otterbein College in 2007. She expects to complete a master’s degree in
Communication, Culture & Technology from Georgetown University in 2011.

Final Report
48

Final Report
49
APPENDIX B. FORUM DISCUSSION QUESTIONS
Forum 1. Improving Worker Safety Training.
The Department of Energy recognizes that worker health and safety programs are most effective
when they reflect the knowledge and experience of the Department's front-line workers. It is
deeply important to DOE that it does all that it can to keep its front-line workers safe.
• How can DOE improve worker safety training at its facilities to ensure the training is
relevant and thorough?
• In your view, what safety training programs should be made mandatory for workers at all
DOE sites?
• How can we make the training process more efficient?
Forum 2. Standardizing Worker Safety Training Requirements
Different DOE facilities may have different training requirements for performing identical tasks.
In addition, there are different procedures among DOE sites for verifying workers’ training
certifications.
• How can DOE ensure that safety training programs across DOE facilities are consistent?
• What ideas do you have for keeping workers current on safety refresher training?
• How can DOE ensure that workers’ training certifications can easily move with them
from one DOE site to another?
Forum 3. Implementing the Worker Safety and Health Program (10 CFR 851 Rule)
To reduce or prevent occupational injuries, illnesses, and accidents, the 10 CFR 851 rule
establishes the framework for a worker protection program by requiring DOE contractors to
provide their employees with safe and healthful workplaces. The 851 Rule also establishes
procedures for investigating whether a requirement has been violated, for determining the nature
and extent of violations, and for imposing an appropriate remedy and/or violation penalty. For
more information on what activities and processes are required by the 851 rule, visit our About
the Dialogue page.
• What ideas do you have for improving how the 10 CFR 851 Rule is implemented?
• Since the implementation of the 10 CFR 851 Rule, what impact has it had on safety at
your site?
• What aspects of the Rule have proven most effective and necessary, and what can be
improved?
Forum 4. Workforce Succession Planning and Knowledge Transfer
Seventy-six million baby boomers will leave the workforce over the next 10-20 years. This is an
unprecedented change in the nation’s workforce. Studies project that younger generations will be

Final Report
50
more mobile throughout their careers (moving more frequently between employers and work
locations) compared to previous generations.
• In your view, what steps should DOE take to ensure that knowledge and skills are
transferred to the next generation of workers?
Forum 5. Your Personal Experience with Workplace Safety and Health.
Your personal experience with safety issues can provide valuable insight into how programs
should be improved or maintained. Please share any personal experiences you have had that
would demonstrate the strengths and weaknesses of existing programs.
• What worker training programs have you found to be especially worthwhile? If possible,
please provide course name(s), training location and training provider.
• What specific hazards have you encountered at a DOE facility that require better training,
analysis, identification, etc.?
• What other personal experiences you have had related to worker safety that could help
DOE better understand the strengths and weaknesses of the current safety programs?

Final Report
51
APPENDIX C. DEMOGRAPHIC QUESTIONS ASKED OF REGISTERED USERS
1. Username
2. Password
3. Email address
4. Union/Organization Name (e.g., USW, Electrical Workers or IBEW, etc.)
5. Are you currently working at a DOE site? If not, when were you last working at a DOE
site? (Drop-down list – select one)*
• I currently work at a DOE site
• I last worked at a DOE site within the past year
• I last worked at a DOE site between 1-3 years ago
• I last worked at a DOE site between 4-8 years ago
• I last worked at a DOE site more than 9 years ago
6. Current DOE site (or most recent DOE site, if not currently working at one) (drop-down
list – select one)*
• Acid/Pueblo Canyon Site, Los
Alamos, NM
• Amchitka Site, Amchitka, AK
• Ames Laboratory, Ames, IA
• Argonne National Lab - East,
Argonne, IL
• Argonne National Laboratory –
West, Idaho Falls, ID
• Battelle King Avenue, Columbus,
OH
• Battelle West Jefferson, Columbus,
OH
• Bayo Canyon Site, Los Alamos, NM
• Brookhaven National Laboratory,
Upton, NY
• Brush LuckeyPlant, Luckey, OH
• Carlsbad Waste Isolation Pilot Plant,
Carlsbad, NM
• DOE Headquarters (Washington DC
region)
• East Tennessee Technology Park,
Oak Ridge, TN
• Energy Technology Engineering
Center, Ventura County, CA
• Fermi National Accelerator
Laboratory, Batavia, IL
• Fernald, Hamilton, OH
• G.E. Evendale, Evendale, OH
• G.E. Vallecitos Nuclear Center,
Livermore, CA
• HAMMER Training and Education
Center, Hanford, WA
• Hanford Site, Hanford, WA
• Huntington Pilot Plant, Huntington,
WV
• Idaho National Laboratory, Idaho
Falls, ID
• Inhalation Toxicology Research
Institute. Albuquerque, NM
• Kansas City Plant, Kansas City, MO
• Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory,
Berkeley, CA
• Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratory, Berkeley, CA
• Los Alamos National Laboratory,
Los Alamos, NM
• Moab (UMTRA Project), Moab, UT
• Mound, OH
• National Energy Technology
Laboratory, Albany, OR
Laboratory, Fairbanks, AK
Laboratory, Morgantown, WV

Final Report
52
Laboratory, Pittsburgh, PA
Laboratory, Tulsa, OK
• National Renewable Energy
Laboratory, Golden, CO
• Nevada Test Site, Las Vegas, NV
• NNSA Service Center, Albuquerque,
NM
• Oak Ridge National Lab, Oak Ridge,
TN
• Pacific Northwest National
Laboratory, Richland, WA
• Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant,
Paducah, KY
• Pantex Plant, Amarillo, TX
• Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant,
Portsmouth, OH
• Princeton Plasma Physics
Laboratory, Princeton, NJ
• Rocky Flats, Denver, CO
• Sandia National Laboratory,
Albuquerque, NM
• Savannah River Site, Aiken, SC
• SLAC National Accelerator
Laboratory, Palo Alto, CA
• South Valley Superfund Site,
Albuquerque, NM
• Southwest Experimental Fast Oxide
Reactor, Strickler, AR
• Southwestern Power Administration,
Tulsa, OK
• (Same as SLAC)Strategic Petroleum
Reserve, (Bryan Mound, TX; Big
Hill, TX; West Hackberry, LA;
Bayou Choctaw, LA; Richton, MS)
• Thomas Jefferson National
Accelerator Facility, Newport News,
VA
• Tonopah Test Range, Tonopah, NV
• Weldon Springs, Weldon Springs,
MO
• West Valley Demonstration Project,
West Valley, NY
• Western Area Power Administration,
Lakewood, CO
• Y-12, Oak Ridge, TN
• Yucca Mountain, Nye County, NV
• Other (please specify)
7. Are you currently assigned to work at this particular DOE site for at least 50 percent of
your time, or do you move between multiple sites, whether within the DOE system or
outside of it? (select one)
• I am currently assigned to work at this particular DOE site for at least 50 percent of my
time.
• I move between multiple DOE sites
• I move between DOE and non-DOE sites
• I am not currently working at a DOE site
8. Trades and Job Categories – Select a trade from one of the following categories that best fit
your duties and job functions. If you perform multiple trades, use the “Multiple Classification”
category below. Please note that certain trades (e.g., electrician, machinists, pipefitters,
demolition, etc.) are listed under both “Production” and “Construction” categories.
Production Trades (Select one)
• chemical worker
• electrician
• hazardous materials worker
• HAZMAT trainer
• heavy equipment operator /
engineer

Final Report
53
• machinist
• pipefitter
• plumber
• radiation worker
• steel worker
• welder
• other (please specify):
_______________
Construction Trades (Select one)
• bricklayer
• carpenter
• ceiling /partition fixer
• cement mason
• cladder
• demolitions worker
• electrician
• forklift operator
• foundry worker
• gas approved plumber
• heavy equipment operator /
engineer
• HVAC installer, servicer
• iron worker
• joiner
• laborer
• machinist
• painter
• pipefitter
• plasterer
• plumber
• power float / concrete finisher
• riveter
• roofer
• sheet metal worker
• steel worker
• teamster/ truck driver
• tool and die maker
• welder
• other (please specify) :

Final Report
54
First Responders (Select one)
• police and security worker
• firefighter
• medical worker
• hazardous materials worker
• other (please specify) : _______________
Multiple Classification (You perform multiple tasks/trades and do not fit in one category
above. For example you are a chemical specialist working on demolition, decommission, and
decontamination projects)
Brief Description (text entry): __________________
9. Are you a journeyman or apprentice (check box, select one)*
• Apprentice
• Journeyman
• Does not apply
10. Years experience in this trade (drop-down list, select one)*
• Less than 1 year
• 1-2 years
• 3-5 years
• 6-10 years
• 11-15 years
• 16-20 years
• 21+ years
11. What level of workplace hazard do you face while performing your job?* (either drop-
down list or checkboxes, whichever is easier for developers – select one)
• low hazard level
• medium hazard level
• high hazard level

Final Report
55
APPENDIX D. SCREENSHOTS OF THE DIALOGUE WEBSITE
Appendix Figure 1. Screenshot of Dialogue Homepage

Final Report
56
Appendix Figure 2. List of Submitted Ideas within Discussion Forum

Final Report
57
Appendix Figure 3. Idea Submission and Comment Thread

Final Report
58

Final Report
59
APPENDIX E. LEXICON OF DIALOGUE TERMINOLOGY
Average Comments/Idea: The ratio of the total number of comments to the total number of ideas
within a dialogue.
Average Page Views/Unique Visitor: The ratio of the total number of page views to the total
number of unique visitors to a dialogue.
Average Ratings/Idea: The ratio of total number of ratings to the total number of ideas within a
dialogue.
Average Time on Site/Unique Visitor: The ratio of the total time spent to the total number of
unique visitors to a dialogue.
Bounce Rate: The percentage of single-page visits or visits in which the person left the site from
the first page.
Comments: Short-form, user-generated feedback attached to previously posted ideas that are
intended to continue the discussion begun within an idea. Comments cannot be rated. The
number of comments counted is the total number of comments posted by all users during the
given date range.
Conversion Rate: The ratio of registered users to unique visitors expressed as a percentage. This
metric indicates the number of visitors that came to the site and found it valuable enough to
register and join the conversation.
Direct Traffic: The number of visits that came from people typing a web address (e.g.,
www.workerdialogue.org) directly into their browser, rather than clicking a link from elsewhere.
Engagement Metrics: Measurements of how visitors interacted with the site. The National
Dialogue measured: site traffic; time spent on the site; which pages attracted the most visitors;
and other indicators of visitor behavior. Measuring engagement is distinct from measuring
participation in the Dialogue, which deals more with how users contribute to the conversation.
Ideas: Long-form, user-generated feedback. They can be up to 10,000 characters in length and
are typically responding to the overall prompt question or material. The number of ideas counted
is the total number of ideas submitted by all users over the given date range. Unique ideas can
have their own tags, comments, and ratings associated with them.
Page Views: The number of times pages are viewed over a given date range. A visitor can see
multiple pages on a single visit. Each page they view in the site is counted separately.
Participation Metrics: Measure how users contributed to the conversation. These include ideas
and comments submitted, the number and types of tags created, the average number of votes per
idea, and other indicators of visitors’ participation. One key metric of participation is the
conversion rate.

Final Report
60
Ratings: The total number of ratings submitted across all ideas in the dialogue. The platform
used in this dialogue allowed each user to rate each idea once on a 5-star scale. Half-ratings
cannot be assigned. Users can rate as many ideas as they want, and can revise ratings of an idea,
but cannot rate any idea twice and no user can rate his/her own idea. For each idea, an average
of all ratings, as well as the overall number of ratings, is reported on the site.
Registered Users: Denotes the number of users who came to the site and created an account.
Registration was required for most forms of participation (i.e., idea submission, comment
submission, rating, tagging) on this platform.
Tags: One- or two-word phrases describing the themes of an idea. Tags are generally displayed
in a “tag cloud,” which allows users to more easily navigate user-generated activity. The
Dialogue allows users to apply topic tags to their own submissions and the submissions of others.
Unique Visitors: (or Absolute Unique Visitors): The number of unduplicated visitors to the site
over a given timeframe. This is measured by Google Analytics using both persistent and session
cookies, which track visitors by computer or workstation. For example, if one visitor comes to
the site on five separate occasions but from only one computer, this would count for five visits
but only one unique visitor.
Visits: The number of times the site was visited, including multiple visits by the same unique
visitor.

Final Report
61

Final Report
62

A Worker Dialogue: Improving Health, Safety and Security at the U.S. Department of Energy

900 7th
Street, N.W.
Suite 600
Washington, DC 20001-3888
Phone: (202) 347-3190
Fax: (202) 393-0993
www.napawash.org

A Worker Dialogue: Improving Health, Safety and Security at the U.S. Department of Energy

More Related Content

Viewers also liked (10)

Similar to A Worker Dialogue: Improving Health, Safety and Security at the U.S. Department of Energy (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

A Worker Dialogue: Improving Health, Safety and Security at the U.S. Department of Energy