1 Mike Scharfensteinscharf@slac.stanford.edu

1Construction SafetyFAC Status Review of the LCLS Project

Construction Safety

M. Scharfenstein - ES&H Coordinator8 June 2009

2 Mike Scharfensteinscharf@slac.stanford.edu

2Construction SafetyFAC Status Review of the LCLS Project

Project ISM Process & ImplementationCivil ConstructionTechnical Systems Installations

Lab shops, subcontractors and collaboratorsCommissioning w/ transition to Operations = ARR’s

Safety Assessment DocumentAccelerator Safety Envelope

ExperienceOverall and detail statisticsConstruction and Installation experience

Lessons Learned Direct subcontractor management Detailed work planning

Previous Review Recommendations

3 Mike Scharfensteinscharf@slac.stanford.edu

3Construction SafetyFAC Status Review of the LCLS Project

Project-specific ISEMS Implementation SLAC Integrated Safety Management Plan

SLAC Work Planning and ControlFormerly LCLS Work Authorization ProcedureScope / Hazard & Control documentation / Authorization & Release

SLAC ES&H ManualFormerly LCLS Project ES&H PlanGC/sub Site Specific Safety Plan Job Safety AnalysisDaily Tailgate Safety MeetingsPM/UTR manages each subcontractCF-5 / Continuous Improvement / Lessons Learned

Management Walkthrough ProcessFormerly LCLS Safe Performance Observation ProcessFocused walkthru to note & promote safe behavior

4 Mike Scharfensteinscharf@slac.stanford.edu

4Construction SafetyFAC Status Review of the LCLS Project

PROJECT SAFETY EXPERIENCEThrough April 2009

Total Project Hours2.19 M Hours workedDART Rate 1.03

SubContractors

599 K Hours workedDART Rate 3.01 (9 Incidents)TRC Rate 4.01 (3 Incidents)

LCLS Collaboration 1,589 K Hours worked DART Rate 0.25 (2 Incidents)

3.2 3

0.31

0

1

2

3

4 ConstructionIndustry

LCLSContractors

LCLSCollaboration

Total Project

DART Rate

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.

5 Mike Scharfensteinscharf@slac.stanford.edu

5Construction SafetyFAC Status Review of the LCLS Project

April 2009 DART Rate Distribution

LCLS 1.589M HrsDART = 0.25TRC = 0.25

TCCo477K Hrs

DART = 3.8TRC = 5.0

LCLS Subs122K HrsDART = 0TRC = 0

6 Mike Scharfensteinscharf@slac.stanford.edu

6Construction SafetyFAC Status Review of the LCLS Project

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

7 Mike Scharfensteinscharf@slac.stanford.edu

7Construction SafetyFAC Status Review of the LCLS Project

CF CMGC StewardshipOctober ’06 thru April ’07 Ramp Up to Full Production : Procedural Violations

Stand Down of Construction Activities : All Hands MeetingReview of Work Planning Process for field work – JSA process inadequate

PMT changesDeficiency Notices

May ’07 thru November ’07 Full Production : DARTsMulti-day Stand Down of Construction Activities : Corrective Action Plan

Paperwork ineffectively utilized by CM/GC and trade contractorsPMT changesDeficiency Notices & FinesCommunication with Corporate TCCoSafety Stewardship Committee EstablishedFull 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

8 Mike Scharfensteinscharf@slac.stanford.edu

8Construction SafetyFAC Status Review of the LCLS Project

Lessons LearnedCM/GC and/or subcontractor selection criteria

Assessment of EMR and competencies of the PMT

DOE EnvironmentHelp the contractor understand how OSHA is enforcedA CM/GC must closely monitor subcontractor means and methods

Project Safety StandardsClearly define standards that will applyContract clause re most recent standard rev

Initial Work Execution EvaluationInitial work packages are owner reviewed and executed with owner ‘participation’

Partnering and committeesPartnering process at onset of projectSafety StewardshipConflict Resolution Forum

9 Mike Scharfensteinscharf@slac.stanford.edu

9Construction SafetyFAC Status Review of the LCLS Project

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

10 Mike Scharfensteinscharf@slac.stanford.edu

10Construction SafetyFAC Status Review of the LCLS Project

Conclusion

Integrated Safety and Environmental ManagementFollowing 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 LearnedUnderstanding the National Laboratory EnvironmentPartnering for Success

Recommendations valued & all adopted…almost