Construction Safety
M. Scharfenstein - ES&H Coordinator
8 June 2009
Construction Safety
FAC Status Review of the LCLS Project
1
1
Mike Scharfenstein
scharf@slac.stanford.edu
Project ISM Process & Implementation
Civil Construction
Technical Systems Installations
Lab shops, subcontractors and collaborators
Commissioning w/ transition to Operations = ARR’s
Safety Assessment Document
Accelerator Safety Envelope
Experience
Overall and detail statistics
Construction and Installation experience
Lessons Learned
Direct subcontractor management
Detailed work planning
Previous Review Recommendations
Construction Safety
FAC Status Review of the LCLS Project
2
2
Mike Scharfenstein
scharf@slac.stanford.edu
Project-specific ISEMS Implementation
SLAC Integrated Safety Management Plan
SLAC Work Planning and Control
Formerly LCLS Work Authorization Procedure
Scope / Hazard & Control documentation / Authorization &
Release
SLAC ES&H Manual
Formerly LCLS Project ES&H Plan
GC/sub Site Specific Safety Plan
Job Safety Analysis
Daily Tailgate Safety Meetings
PM/UTR manages each subcontract
CF-5 / Continuous Improvement / Lessons Learned
Management Walkthrough Process
Formerly LCLS Safe Performance Observation Process
Focused walkthru to note & promote safe behavior
Construction Safety
FAC Status Review of the LCLS Project
3
3
Mike Scharfenstein
scharf@slac.stanford.edu
PROJECT SAFETY EXPERIENCE
Through April 2009
DART Rate
Construction
Industry
4
Total Project Hours
2.19 M Hours worked
DART Rate 1.03
3
SubContractors
3.2
LCLS
Contractors
3
LCLS
Collaboration
2
599 K Hours worked
DART Rate 3.01 (9 Incidents)
TRC Rate 4.01 (3 Incidents)
Total Project
1
1
0.3
0
LCLS Collaboration
1,589 K Hours worked
DART Rate 0.25 (2 Incidents)
.
Injury rates based on 200 K hours (100 man years) of effort DOE/SC Goal is a Reportable Case (TRC) rate of < 0.25 and a Days Away,
Restricted, or Transferred (DART) rate < 0.65 per 100 FTEs.
Construction Safety
FAC Status Review of the LCLS Project
4
4
Mike Scharfenstein
scharf@slac.stanford.edu
April 2009 DART Rate Distribution
LCLS Subs
122K Hrs
DART = 0
TRC = 0
TCCo
477K Hrs
DART = 3.8
TRC = 5.0
LCLS
1.589M Hrs
DART = 0.25
TRC = 0.25
Construction Safety
FAC Status Review of the LCLS Project
5
5
Mike Scharfenstein
scharf@slac.stanford.edu
CF & Technical Systems Stewardship
Excellent Safety Record
120K+ hours w/o injury (TRC or DART)
S20, MMF, Injector, Linac TSI, S522, LTU
Project Managers / UTRs / Installation Managers
Direct management of subcontractors
Communicate ES&H Expectations
Guide them to success
Enforcement when needed
Thorough Work Planning and Control
Aggressive ISM management
Issues identified and addressed immediately
Positive Results
Ownership of safety
Construction Safety
FAC Status Review of the LCLS Project
6
6
Mike Scharfenstein
scharf@slac.stanford.edu
CF CMGC Stewardship
October ’06 thru April ’07 Ramp Up to Full Production : Procedural Violations
Stand Down of Construction Activities : All Hands Meeting
Review of Work Planning Process for field work – JSA process inadequate
PMT changes
Deficiency Notices
May ’07 thru November ’07 Full Production : DARTs
Multi-day Stand Down of Construction Activities : Corrective Action Plan
Paperwork ineffectively utilized by CM/GC and trade contractors
PMT changes
Deficiency Notices & Fines
Communication with Corporate TCCo
Safety Stewardship Committee Established
Full time on-site medic (+30hr OSHA)
UTRs added
December ’07 thru April ’08 : Some progress, then…
Two DARTs associated with one sub
PM removed
Work stopped
May ’08 thru December ’08 : No DARTs
Effective work planning & execution sought
Plan for joint observation developed
Attendance at daily morning work planning meetings
JSA review with workers throughout the day
Identification / monitoring of specific trades or tasks for safe work practices
Must communicate with the worker
Construction Safety
FAC Status Review of the LCLS Project
7
7
Mike Scharfenstein
scharf@slac.stanford.edu
Lessons Learned
CM/GC and/or subcontractor selection criteria
Assessment of EMR and competencies of the PMT
DOE Environment
Help the contractor understand how OSHA is enforced
A CM/GC must closely monitor subcontractor means and methods
Project Safety Standards
Clearly define standards that will apply
Contract clause re most recent standard rev
Initial Work Execution Evaluation
Initial work packages are owner reviewed and executed with owner
‘participation’
Partnering and committees
Partnering process at onset of project
Safety Stewardship
Conflict Resolution Forum
Construction Safety
FAC Status Review of the LCLS Project
8
8
Mike Scharfenstein
scharf@slac.stanford.edu
Previous Review Recommendations
Continue to support Turner with LCLS resources to reduce the risk of additional safety
violations and personnel injuries through the completion of the Turner construction scope.
Done – 270 days w/o DART, 184 days w/o TRC
LCLS should take the lead in establishing the safety culture the Laboratory Director has
targeted for the Laboratory as a whole.
Done – Developed Construction ES&H Plan, Work Planning & Control Process, Management
Walkthrough Process
SLAC safety violations identified during LCLS reviews should be addressed and promptly
corrected whether specific to the LCLS project, or SLAC generic.
Done – Three specific issues and process in general
Track and report the precursors to lost time injuries in order to take corrective actions in
time to prevent them. DART statistics are not sufficient if zero lost time injuries is the goal,
and it is.
Done – had been happening all along project but not communicated
The DOE Lessons Learned database should be utilized as a tool to improve JSA
preparation. Further, do not underestimate the time required to prepare safety related
documentation and the time it takes for the approval process.
Agreed, still a challenge
Construction Safety
FAC Status Review of the LCLS Project
9
9
Mike Scharfenstein
scharf@slac.stanford.edu
Conclusion
Integrated Safety and Environmental Management
Following SLAC ISEMS Process
SLAC ES&H Manual
Work Planning and Control
Following LCLS ES&H management practices
LCLS Requirement, Specification and Interface Documents
Reviews, Authorizations, Continuous Improvement
Experience and Lessons Learned
Understanding the National Laboratory Environment
Partnering for Success
Recommendations valued & all adopted…almost
Construction Safety
FAC Status Review of the LCLS Project
10 10
Mike Scharfenstein
scharf@slac.stanford.edu