2020 Safety Benchmarking Report - NAWC

2020 Safety Benchmarking Report

conducted by the

National Association of Water Companies

2001 L Street, N.W., Suite 850 Washington, DC 20036

March 2020

The survey was conducted from February to March of 2020 collecting 2019 data.

910 Clopper Road, Suite 210N Gaithersburg, Maryland 20878 TEL: (240) 268-1262 [email protected]

Table of Contents

Introduction ........................................................................................................ 1 Executive Summary ............................................................................................ 2 Charts .................................................................................................................. 3 Methodology & Description of Statistics ........................................................... 6 Survey Instrument ............................................................................. Appendix A Statistical Tables ................................................................................ Appendix B

1 | P a g e

Introduction The National Association of Water Companies (NAWC) is the voice of the private water industry, including the regulated drinking and wastewater utilities. NAWC is the only organization representing this group of quality service providers, innovation drivers and responsible partners. NAWC represents companies of varying sizes, from large, investor‐owned utilities to smaller companies that serve towns and small municipal entities. NAWC works to promote the private sector as a viable and highly effective solution to developing, financing, and managing water and wastewater projects and systems while ensuring sustainability challenges are met. NAWC members have been at the forefront of water safety and security for years—well before the Federal Government or Congress mandated stringent measures. Regulated utilities and contract operators in the U.S. have strong governance structures and compliance programs. Operating within largely voluntary frameworks, NAWC member companies generate successful, innovative and cutting‐edge approaches to providing consequence‐based risk management practices to protect the communities they serve. The results of the 2020 Safety Metrics Survey show that NAWC members continue to be forward leaning in their approach to worker safety and water security. Almost nine in 10 (88.9%) participants in the survey have a specific safety policy put in place by management. Additionally, two‐thirds (66.7%) of those responding have a written health and safety program that includes disciplinary actions for violations. NAWC is pleased to present the results of the 2020 Safety Metrics Survey it conducted during February and March 2020. The NAWC Safety, Security and Environmental Committee developed the parameters of the study in an effort to obtain information on the sector’s safety and security performance. This survey collected data for CY 2019. Survey information is only one part of the information gathering process, and each company must ultimately make an independent decision as to how survey data will or will not be used. It should be noted that the survey results are subject to the limitations inherent in any survey questionnaire and the reported result should be taken into account with those limitations in mind. Recognizing these limitations is critical to an effective use of the survey results.

2 | P a g e

Executive Summary The questions in the survey focused on the prevalence of health, safety and security programs at the responding companies as well as incidence rates in 2019 using an OSHA metric as a definition. Almost nine in 10 respondents (88.9%) reported that they have a specific health and safety

policy already in place by management. Additionally, a slightly higher percentage (94.4%) of respondents noted that they have a health and safety program.

More than nine in 10 respondents (94.4%) have a policy that defines employees’ accountability for workplace safety. Two thirds (66.7%) of responding companies reported having a written health and safety program that includes disciplinary action for violations.

More than eight in 10 (83.3%) of responding companies have an internal health and safety audit inspection program, and half of those companies conduct safety audits too.

The majority of responding companies communicate safety messaging through structured tailgate‐type talks (94.4%) or routinely scheduled safety meetings (83.3%), and two‐thirds (66.7%) communicate safety messaging through email messaging or periodic newsletter articles.

More than eight in 10 respondents (82.4%) reported having a cybersecurity program/plan in place.

Two‐thirds of the respondents (66.7%) have already begun implementing elements of the NIST cybersecurity framework within their operations.

The DART Incidence Rate average reported by respondents for all operations in 2019 was 1.3, lower than the government rate of 2.8.

The Recordable Incidence Rate average (RIR) of 3.2 for all operations was also lower than the government rate of 4.1 for 2019.

The Lost Time Incidence Rate average reported by all respondents was 0.7 for 2019, much lower than the government rate of 2.0.

3 | P a g e

Charts

COMPANY HAS HEALTH AND SAFETY PROGRAM (2016 – 2017 –2019)

81.2%

95.2%

94.4%

18.8%

4.8%

5.6%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

2016

2017

2019

Yes No

Source: NAWC 2020 Safety Benchmarking Survey

DEDICATED BUDGET FOR HEALTH AND SAFETY PROGRAM (2016 – 2017 –2019)

43.7%

71.4%

77.8%

56.3%

28.6%

22.2%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

2016

2017

2019

Yes No


4 | P a g e

HAVE A SAFETY COMMITTEE (2016 – 2017 –2019)

50.0%

65.0%

76.5%

50.0%

35.0%

23.5%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

2016

2017

2019

Yes No


DART INCIDENCE RATES(2016 – 2017 –2019)

2.5

2.5

2.9

3.0

1.3

2.8

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5

All Operations

BLS (NAICS 2213)

2016 2017 2019


5 | P a g e

RECORDABLE INCIDENCE RATES(2016 – 2017 –2019)

2.7

3.8

4.2

5.4

3.2

4.1

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5

All Operations

BLS (NAICS 2213)

2016 2017 2019


LOST TIME INCIDENCE RATES(2016 – 2017 –2019)

2.2

1.7

1.7

1.9

0.7

2.0

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5

All Operations

BLS (NAICS 2213)

2016 2017 2019


6 | P a g e

Methodology & Description of Statistics A survey invitation was sent to NAWC member companies in February 2020 resulting in a response rate of 72%. Association Research, Inc., an independent survey research organization located in Gaithersburg, Maryland, conducted the Web‐based survey, analyzed the findings, and prepared this report. In this report, the individual data from participating companies, are kept anonymous. Description of Statistics and Formatting Conventions Quartiles: In tables that report rates, responses are described by three quartiles: the first quartile, the median, and the third quartile. These tables show the value of the boundary at the 25th, 50th, or 75th percentiles of a frequency distribution divided into four parts, each containing a quarter of the population. For example, when all reported values are listed from highest to lowest, the third quartile identifies the point on the list that is equal to or greater than 75 percent (three quarters) of the reported values and equal to or less than 25 percent (one quarter). Median (midpoint): The median identifies the point in the distribution of reported values that is equal to or larger than one‐half of reported values and equal to or smaller than one‐half—that is, the mid‐point. In general, the more values that are reported, the more accurately quartiles estimate the distribution of values among all NAWC members. Mean (average): The sum of all values divided by the number of values. It should be noted that if the mean exceeds the median, it is because high values will affect the calculations. It is also possible, especially with a small number of values, for the mean to exceed the third quartile. Percentages in some tables and some graphs may not sum to exactly 100% due to rounding. Experience Modification Rate (EMR): A computation that compares a company’s annual losses in insurance claims against its policy premiums over a three‐year period, excluding the most current year.

7 | P a g e

Other formulas useful in understanding tabular information presented in this report are:

Formulas for Rate Calculations

(1) DART Rate

Total Number of CASES with Days Away from Work,

Restrictions or Transfers X 200,000 ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

Total Hours Worked for Calendar Year

(2) Lost-Time Severity Rate

Total Number of DAYS Away from Work X 200,000

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Total Hours Worked for Calendar Year

(3) Lost-Time Rate

Total Number of Days Away from Work CASES X 200,000

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐Total Hours Worked for Calendar Year

(4) Recordable Incidence Rate

Total Number of all OSHA Recordable CASES X 200,000‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

Total Hours Worked for Calendar Year

Note: Includes Medical Treatment, Restrictions, and Days Away from Work (Lost-Time) cases.

APPENDIX A

1

22002200 SSaaffeettyy MMeettrr iiccss SSuurrvveeyy

(DATA COLLECTED FOR CY 2019)

ASSOCIATION RESEARCH, INC. (ARI), AN INDEPENDENT SURVEY RESEARCH ORGANIZATION, IS CONDUCTING THIS CONFIDENTIAL SURVEY FOR THE NAWC. ALL RESPONSES WILL BE KEPT COMPLETELY CONFIDENTIAL.

PLEASE COMPLETE YOUR SURVEY NO LATER THAN FEBRUARY 10, 2020. IF THERE IS A PROBLEM, PLEASE E-MAIL ASSOCIATION RESEARCH, INC., AT [email protected]

TO COMPLETE THE SURVEY ONLINE, PLEASE GO TO THE FOLLOWING WEB SITE: www2.ari-surveys.com/run/nawcsafety2019

NOTE: PLEASE INDICATE “NA” IF YOU CANNOT ANSWER A QUESTION.

1. Do you track injury rates (DART, EMR, ORIR, etc.) 1. Yes 2. No 2. Please answer information about workplace injuries (do not double count): a. Number of injuries in 2019 that caused the employee to lose time from work: ______________ b. The total number of days lost (not incidents) in 2019 due to workplace injury or illness: ______________ c. Number of injuries in 2019 where employee did not lose time from work but could not perform full duties: ______________ d. Number of injuries in 2019 where there was only professional medical treatment and employee continued to work: ______________ e. Total number of hours worked for 2019: ______________ 3. Does your company have a specific safety policy put in place by management? 1. Yes 2. No 4. Does the policy clearly define employees’ accountability for workplace safety at all levels of the organization? 1. Yes 2. No 5. Does your company have a health and safety program? 1. Yes 2. No 6. Is there a dedicated budget for health and safety programs? 1. Yes 2. No 7. Does your written health and safety program include disciplinary action for violations? 1. Yes 2. No 8. Do you have an internal health and safety audit and inspection program? 1. Yes 2. No a. If yes, does your company conduct external safety audits too? 1. Yes 2. No b. If yes, at what frequency? ______________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________

9. Does your written health and safety program include investigation of all accidents and recommend corrective actions? 1. Yes 2. No

2

10. Does your written health and safety program include proactive safety activities (e.g. near miss/safety observations programs)? 1. Yes 2. No

a. Do you track safety observations, near miss, or hazards? 1. Yes 2. No b. If yes, how many safety observations, near miss, or hazards were reported in 2019? ______________ c. If yes, please indicate the numbers and types of safety observations, near miss, or hazards reported in 2019:

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

11. Do you have a standard definition for “near miss”? 1. Yes 2. No a. If yes, please provide your company’s definition of “near miss”: _____________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ b. If yes, does your company tier/rank “near misses”? 1. Yes 2. No c. If yes, please define the tier/rank your company uses: ___________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

12. Does management set goals and targets for safety performance? 1. Yes 2. No 13. Do you have a safety committee? 1. Yes 2. No 14. What is the annual average number of hours of health and safety training received by employees, excluding

office/clerical? 1. Less than 5 hours 2. 5-10 hours 3. Greater than 10 hours 15. What is your total number of employees? 1. Less than 250 2. 250 – 1,000 3. Greater than 1,000 16. Does your company require employees to conduct site specific Safe Work Plans, Job Hazard Assessments

(or something similar) prior to commencing work? 1. Yes 2. No 17. How does your company communicate safety messaging? (Check all that apply)

Email Messaging Periodic Newsletters/Articles Structured Tailgate-Type Talks

Routinely Scheduled Safety Meetings Annual Safety Conferences Other (please list): ___________________________

18. Do you have a contractor safety program? 1. Yes 2. No 19. Do you have a cybersecurity plan/program in place? 1. Yes 2. No 20. Are you aware of the NIST Framework for cybersecurity? 1. Yes 2. No 21. Have you implemented any of the recommendations outlined in the NIST Framework? 1. Yes 2. No 22. Would you use the results of this survey as a resource to improve, change or inform your processes? 1. Yes 2. No 23. What can NAWC do to improve this survey? Please explain: __________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________________________

THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR COMPLETING THIS SURVEY.

ASSOCIATION RESEARCH, INC.

910 CLOPPER ROAD, SUITE 210N, GAITHERSBURG MD 20878

APPENDIX B

NAWC 2020 Safety Benchmark For 2019 Data

Background

Total

Count Percent Count

All Respondents

Track injury rates Yes

No

Company has specific safety policy put in place by management

Yes

No

Policy defines employee accountability for workplace safety

Yes

No

Company has health and safety program

Yes

No

Dedicated budget for health and safety programs

Yes

No

Written health & safety program includes disciplinary action for violations

Yes

No

Have an internal health & safety audit & inspection program

Yes

No

If yes, does your company conduct external safety audits too?

Yes

No

Written health & safety program includes investigation of all accidents & recommends corrective actions

Yes

No

Written health & safety program includes proactive safety activities

Yes

No

Track safety observation, near miss, or hazards

Yes

No

Do you have a standard definition for

Yes

No

If yes, does your company tier/rank

Yes

No

100.0% 18

82.4% 14

17.6% 3

88.9% 16

11.1% 2

94.4% 17

5.6% 1

94.4% 17

5.6% 1

77.8% 14

22.2% 4

66.7% 12

33.3% 6

83.3% 15

16.7% 3

50.0% 7

50.0% 7

77.8% 14

22.2% 4

66.7% 12

33.3% 6

70.6% 12

29.4% 5

41.2% 7

58.8% 10

57.1% 4

42.9% 3

Page 1


Background (Cont'd)

Total

Count Percent Count

All Respondents

Management sets goals & targets for safety performance

Yes

No

Have a safety committee Yes

No

Annual avg. # of hours of health & safety training received by most employees

5‐10 hours

Greater than 10 hours

Total number of employees Less than 250

250‐1,000

Greater than 1,000

Does your company require employees to conduct site specific Safe Work Plans, Job Hazard Assessments (or something similar) prior to commencing work?

Yes

No

Safety Messaging Communications

Email Messaging

Periodic Newsletters/Articles

Structured Tailgate‐Type Talks

Routinely Scheduled Safety Meetings

Annual Safety Conferences

Other

Have a contractor safety program

Yes

No

Have a cybersecurity plan/program in place

Yes

No

Aware of the NIST Framework for cybersecurity

Yes

No

Have implemented any of the recommendations outlined in the NIST Framework

Yes

No

100.0% 18

77.8% 14

22.2% 4

76.5% 13

23.5% 4

27.8% 5

72.2% 13

22.2% 4

44.4% 8

33.3% 6

50.0% 9

50.0% 9

66.7% 12

66.7% 12

94.4% 17

83.3% 15

38.9% 7

33.3% 6

55.6% 10

44.4% 8

82.4% 14

17.6% 3

76.5% 13

23.5% 4

66.7% 10

33.3% 5

Page 2


All Calculated

2019 Calculated DART Incident

Rate

2019 Calculated Lost Time

Severity Rate


Incidence Rate

2019 Calculated Recordable

Incidence Rate

Average Average Average Average

All Respondents


Yes

No


Yes

No


Yes

No


Yes

No


Yes

No


Yes

No


Yes

No


Yes

No


Yes

No


Yes

No


Yes

No


Yes

No


Yes

No


No


5‐10 hours



250‐1,000

Greater than 1,000


Yes

No


Yes

No


Yes

No


Yes

No


Yes

No

1.3 28.9 .7 3.2

1.4 32.1 .7 3.3

1.2 3.3 .3 1.9

1.4 30.6 .7 3.4

.0 .0 .0 .0

1.4 30.6 .7 3.4

.0 .0 .0 .0

1.3 24.0 .7 2.3

1.3 46.2 .6 6.2

1.5 35.6 .6 2.4

1.0 15.5 .8 4.8

1.6 34.7 .8 2.7

.0 .0 .0 5.4

1.2 20.7 .6 2.0

2.3 53.7 1.2 3.7

1.6 34.6 .7 2.7

.5 9.2 .4 4.8

1.4 28.0 .7 2.6

1.1 30.8 .7 4.4

1.4 28.0 .7 2.6

1.3 37.0 .8 5.3

1.2 28.1 .5 2.0

1.4 26.5 .8 4.1

.8 12.5 .3 1.3

1.8 48.8 .7 2.9

1.4 28.2 .7 2.4

.9 31.4 .4 5.9

1.1 15.2 .4 3.0

1.5 66.7 .8 2.7

1.2 18.6 .9 5.6

1.4 32.9 .6 2.3

.0 .0 .0 4.4

1.9 55.4 1.2 3.4

1.5 13.0 .4 2.1

1.2 20.9 .5 1.8

1.5 37.0 .8 4.6

1.3 13.8 .5 1.9

1.4 47.8 .9 4.8

1.5 32.2 .7 2.7

.7 12.3 .6 6.5

1.2 33.3 .6 3.4

1.5 19.4 .9 2.6

1.3 39.0 .6 2.3

1.2 18.6 .9 5.5

Page 3


All Calculated

2019 Calculated DART Incident

Rate


Severity Rate


Incidence Rate

2019 Calculated Recordable

Incidence Rate

Average Average Average Average

All Respondents


Email Messaging





Other

1.3 28.9 .7 3.2

1.4 28.2 .6 2.1

1.4 35.4 .6 2.3

1.4 30.6 .7 2.4

1.3 22.8 .6 3.4

1.8 32.8 .6 2.7

1.4 29.9 .5 2.1

Page 4


All Calculated

2019 Calculated DART Incident Rate2019 Calculated Lost Time Severity

Rate2019 Calculated Lost Time

Incidence Rate2019 Calculated Recordable

Incidence Rate

Count Average Count Average Count Average Count Average

All Respondents


Yes

No


Yes

No


Yes

No


Yes

No


Yes

No


Yes

No


Yes

No


Yes

No


Yes

No


Yes

No


Yes

No


Yes

No


Yes

No


No


5‐10 hours



250‐1,000

Greater than 1,000


Yes

No


Yes

No


Yes

No


Yes

No


Yes

No

18 1.3 18 28.9 18 .7 18 3.2

16 1.4 16 32.1 16 .7 16 3.3

2 1.2 2 3.3 2 .3 2 1.9

17 1.4 17 30.6 17 .7 17 3.4

1 .0 1 .0 1 .0 1 .0

17 1.4 17 30.6 17 .7 17 3.4

1 .0 1 .0 1 .0 1 .0

14 1.3 14 24.0 14 .7 14 2.3

4 1.3 4 46.2 4 .6 4 6.2

12 1.5 12 35.6 12 .6 12 2.4

6 1.0 6 15.5 6 .8 6 4.8

15 1.6 15 34.7 15 .8 15 2.7

3 .0 3 .0 3 .0 3 5.4

7 1.2 7 20.7 7 .6 7 2.0

7 2.3 7 53.7 7 1.2 7 3.7

14 1.6 14 34.6 14 .7 14 2.7

4 .5 4 9.2 4 .4 4 4.8

12 1.4 12 28.0 12 .7 12 2.6

6 1.1 6 30.8 6 .7 6 4.4

12 1.4 12 28.0 12 .7 12 2.6

5 1.3 5 37.0 5 .8 5 5.3

7 1.2 7 28.1 7 .5 7 2.0

10 1.4 10 26.5 10 .8 10 4.1

4 .8 4 12.5 4 .3 4 1.3

3 1.8 3 48.8 3 .7 3 2.9

14 1.4 14 28.2 14 .7 14 2.4

4 .9 4 31.4 4 .4 4 5.9

13 1.1 13 15.2 13 .4 13 3.0

4 1.5 4 66.7 4 .8 4 2.7

5 1.2 5 18.6 5 .9 5 5.6

13 1.4 13 32.9 13 .6 13 2.3

4 .0 4 .0 4 .0 4 4.4

8 1.9 8 55.4 8 1.2 8 3.4

6 1.5 6 13.0 6 .4 6 2.1

9 1.2 9 20.9 9 .5 9 1.8

9 1.5 9 37.0 9 .8 9 4.6

10 1.3 10 13.8 10 .5 10 1.9

8 1.4 8 47.8 8 .9 8 4.8

14 1.5 14 32.2 14 .7 14 2.7

3 .7 3 12.3 3 .6 3 6.5

13 1.2 13 33.3 13 .6 13 3.4

4 1.5 4 19.4 4 .9 4 2.6

10 1.3 10 39.0 10 .6 10 2.3

5 1.2 5 18.6 5 .9 5 5.5

Page 5


All Calculated

2019 Calculated DART Incident Rate2019 Calculated Lost Time Severity

Rate2019 Calculated Lost Time

Incidence Rate2019 Calculated Recordable

Incidence Rate

Median Mean Median Mean Median Mean Median Mean

All Respondents


Yes

No


Yes

No


Yes

No


Yes

No


Yes

No


Yes

No


Yes

No


Yes

No


Yes

No


Yes

No


Yes

No


Yes

No


Yes

No


No


5‐10 hours



250‐1,000

Greater than 1,000


Yes

No


Yes

No


Yes

No


Yes

No


Yes

No

1.1 1.3 8.5 28.9 .4 .7 2.1 3.2

1.1 1.4 15.7 32.1 .4 .7 2.1 3.3

1.2 1.2 3.3 3.3 .3 .3 1.9 1.9

1.2 1.4 10.4 30.6 .5 .7 2.2 3.4

.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0

1.2 1.4 10.4 30.6 .5 .7 2.2 3.4

.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0

1.1 1.3 8.5 24.0 .4 .7 1.9 2.3

.7 1.3 29.6 46.2 .4 .6 4.3 6.2

1.3 1.5 15.7 35.6 .5 .6 2.1 2.4

.0 1.0 .0 15.5 .0 .8 2.2 4.8

1.5 1.6 21.0 34.7 .6 .8 2.2 2.7

.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 5.4

1.2 1.2 6.6 20.7 .4 .6 2.1 2.0

2.2 2.3 21.3 53.7 .6 1.2 3.0 3.7

1.3 1.6 15.7 34.6 .5 .7 2.1 2.7

.0 .5 .0 9.2 .0 .4 1.5 4.8

1.1 1.4 15.7 28.0 .4 .7 1.9 2.6

1.0 1.1 3.3 30.8 .3 .7 3.2 4.4

1.1 1.4 15.7 28.0 .4 .7 1.9 2.6

2.0 1.3 6.6 37.0 .6 .8 3.4 5.3

.6 1.2 10.4 28.1 .4 .5 1.3 2.0

1.6 1.4 4.7 26.5 .4 .8 2.6 4.1

.5 .8 8.4 12.5 .3 .3 .9 1.3

1.0 1.8 21.0 48.8 .5 .7 1.7 2.9

1.3 1.4 15.7 28.2 .5 .7 2.1 2.4

.0 .9 .0 31.4 .0 .4 3.6 5.9

1.0 1.1 6.6 15.2 .4 .4 2.1 3.0

1.1 1.5 62.8 66.7 .8 .8 2.4 2.7

.0 1.2 .0 18.6 .0 .9 3.0 5.6

1.2 1.4 10.4 32.9 .5 .6 2.1 2.3

.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .7 4.4

1.7 1.9 46.6 55.4 1.2 1.2 2.9 3.4

1.6 1.5 8.5 13.0 .5 .4 1.9 2.1

1.0 1.2 21.0 20.9 .5 .5 1.7 1.8

1.2 1.5 2.7 37.0 .3 .8 3.4 4.6

1.1 1.3 8.5 13.8 .4 .5 1.9 1.9

.7 1.4 28.2 47.8 .4 .9 3.1 4.8

1.3 1.5 8.5 32.2 .5 .7 2.1 2.7

.0 .7 .0 12.3 .0 .6 3.0 6.5

1.0 1.2 6.6 33.3 .4 .6 2.1 3.4

1.1 1.5 10.6 19.4 .3 .9 1.1 2.6

1.1 1.3 13.8 39.0 .4 .6 1.9 2.3

.0 1.2 .0 18.6 .0 .9 3.0 5.5

Page 6


Q2a 2019 DART Incidence Rate - All Calculated

2019 Calculated DART Incident Rate

Mean Median Count

All Respondents


Yes

No


Yes

No


Yes

No


Yes

No


Yes

No


Yes

No


Yes

No


Yes

No


Yes

No


Yes

No


Yes

No


Yes

No


Yes

No


No


5‐10 hours



250‐1,000

Greater than 1,000


Yes

No


Yes

No


Yes

No


Yes

No


Yes

No


Email Messaging





Other

1.3 1.1 18

1.4 1.1 16

1.2 1.2 2

1.4 1.2 17

.0 .0 1

1.4 1.2 17

.0 .0 1

1.3 1.1 14

1.3 .7 4

1.5 1.3 12

1.0 .0 6

1.6 1.5 15

.0 .0 3

1.2 1.2 7

2.3 2.2 7

1.6 1.3 14

.5 .0 4

1.4 1.1 12

1.1 1.0 6

1.4 1.1 12

1.3 2.0 5

1.2 .6 7

1.4 1.6 10

.8 .5 4

1.8 1.0 3

1.4 1.3 14

.9 .0 4

1.1 1.0 13

1.5 1.1 4

1.2 .0 5

1.4 1.2 13

.0 .0 4

1.9 1.7 8

1.5 1.6 6

1.2 1.0 9

1.5 1.2 9

1.3 1.1 10

1.4 .7 8

1.5 1.3 14

.7 .0 3

1.2 1.0 13

1.5 1.1 4

1.3 1.1 10

1.2 .0 5

1.4 1.3 12

1.4 1.2 12

1.4 1.2 17

1.3 1.0 15

1.8 2.2 7

1.4 1.6 6

Page 7


Q2b 2019 Lost Time Severity Rate - All Calculated

2019 Calculated Lost Time Severity Rate

Mean Median Count

All Respondents


Yes

No


Yes

No


Yes

No


Yes

No


Yes

No


Yes

No


Yes

No


Yes

No


Yes

No


Yes

No


Yes

No


Yes

No


Yes

No


No


5‐10 hours



250‐1,000

Greater than 1,000


Yes

No


Yes

No


Yes

No


Yes

No


Yes

No


Email Messaging





Other

28.9 8.5 18

32.1 15.7 16

3.3 3.3 2

30.6 10.4 17

.0 .0 1

30.6 10.4 17

.0 .0 1

24.0 8.5 14

46.2 29.6 4

35.6 15.7 12

15.5 .0 6

34.7 21.0 15

.0 .0 3

20.7 6.6 7

53.7 21.3 7

34.6 15.7 14

9.2 .0 4

28.0 15.7 12

30.8 3.3 6

28.0 15.7 12

37.0 6.6 5

28.1 10.4 7

26.5 4.7 10

12.5 8.4 4

48.8 21.0 3

28.2 15.7 14

31.4 .0 4

15.2 6.6 13

66.7 62.8 4

18.6 .0 5

32.9 10.4 13

.0 .0 4

55.4 46.6 8

13.0 8.5 6

20.9 21.0 9

37.0 2.7 9

13.8 8.5 10

47.8 28.2 8

32.2 8.5 14

12.3 .0 3

33.3 6.6 13

19.4 10.6 4

39.0 13.8 10

18.6 .0 5

28.2 15.7 12

35.4 15.7 12

30.6 10.4 17

22.8 6.6 15

32.8 10.4 7

29.9 8.4 6

Page 8


Q2c 2019 Lost Time Incidence Rate - All Calculated

2019 Calculated Lost Time Incidence Rate

Mean Median Count

All Respondents


Yes

No


Yes

No


Yes

No


Yes

No


Yes

No


Yes

No


Yes

No


Yes

No


Yes

No


Yes

No


Yes

No


Yes

No


Yes

No


No


5‐10 hours



250‐1,000

Greater than 1,000


Yes

No


Yes

No


Yes

No


Yes

No


Yes

No


Email Messaging





Other

.7 .4 18

.7 .4 16

.3 .3 2

.7 .5 17

.0 .0 1

.7 .5 17

.0 .0 1

.7 .4 14

.6 .4 4

.6 .5 12

.8 .0 6

.8 .6 15

.0 .0 3

.6 .4 7

1.2 .6 7

.7 .5 14

.4 .0 4

.7 .4 12

.7 .3 6

.7 .4 12

.8 .6 5

.5 .4 7

.8 .4 10

.3 .3 4

.7 .5 3

.7 .5 14

.4 .0 4

.4 .4 13

.8 .8 4

.9 .0 5

.6 .5 13

.0 .0 4

1.2 1.2 8

.4 .5 6

.5 .5 9

.8 .3 9

.5 .4 10

.9 .4 8

.7 .5 14

.6 .0 3

.6 .4 13

.9 .3 4

.6 .4 10

.9 .0 5

.6 .5 12

.6 .5 12

.7 .5 17

.6 .4 15

.6 .6 7

.5 .5 6

Page 9


Q2d 2019 Recordable Incidence Rate - All Calculated

2019 Calculated Recordable Incidence Rate

Mean Median Count

All Respondents


Yes

No


Yes

No


Yes

No


Yes

No


Yes

No


Yes

No


Yes

No


Yes

No


Yes

No


Yes

No


Yes

No


Yes

No


Yes

No


No


5‐10 hours



250‐1,000

Greater than 1,000


Yes

No


Yes

No


Yes

No


Yes

No


Yes

No


Email Messaging





Other

3.2 2.1 18

3.3 2.1 16

1.9 1.9 2

3.4 2.2 17

.0 .0 1

3.4 2.2 17

.0 .0 1

2.3 1.9 14

6.2 4.3 4

2.4 2.1 12

4.8 2.2 6

2.7 2.2 15

5.4 .0 3

2.0 2.1 7

3.7 3.0 7

2.7 2.1 14

4.8 1.5 4

2.6 1.9 12

4.4 3.2 6

2.6 1.9 12

5.3 3.4 5

2.0 1.3 7

4.1 2.6 10

1.3 .9 4

2.9 1.7 3

2.4 2.1 14

5.9 3.6 4

3.0 2.1 13

2.7 2.4 4

5.6 3.0 5

2.3 2.1 13

4.4 .7 4

3.4 2.9 8

2.1 1.9 6

1.8 1.7 9

4.6 3.4 9

1.9 1.9 10

4.8 3.1 8

2.7 2.1 14

6.5 3.0 3

3.4 2.1 13

2.6 1.1 4

2.3 1.9 10

5.5 3.0 5

2.1 2.1 12

2.3 1.9 12

2.4 2.1 17

3.4 2.1 15

2.7 2.8 7

2.1 1.9 6

Page 10


Q10B Number of safety observations, near miss, or hazards reported in 2019

Number of safety observations, near miss, or hazards reported in 2019

Mean Median Count

All Respondents


Yes


Yes


Yes


Yes

No


Yes

No


Yes


Yes

No


Yes


Yes


Yes


Yes

No


Yes

No


Yes

No


No


5‐10 hours


Total number of employees 250‐1,000

Greater than 1,000


Yes

No


Yes

No


Yes


Yes

No


Yes

No


Email Messaging





Other

2,479.5 304.5 10

2,479.5 304.5 10

2,479.5 304.5 10

2,479.5 304.5 10

3,088.1 1,346.5 8

45.0 45.0 2

2,752.2 391.0 9

25.0 25.0 1

2,479.5 304.5 10

1,763.5 304.5 4

2,956.8 1,242.5 6

2,479.5 304.5 10

2,479.5 304.5 10

2,479.5 304.5 10

2,837.5 1,346.5 6

2,581.0 218.0 3

3,037.0 2,302.0 3

2,638.0 183.0 3

2,748.0 391.0 9

63.0 63.0 1

3,088.4 1,346.5 8

63.0 63.0 1

208.0 208.0 2

3,047.4 1,260.0 8

1,398.7 140.5 6

4,100.8 4,360.0 4

3,498.4 2,302.0 7

102.0 63.0 3

3,525.7 2,302.0 7

38.3 27.0 3

2,479.5 304.5 10

2,138.3 218.0 7

3,762.5 3,762.5 2

1,425.0 200.5 6

25.0 25.0 1

3,088.4 1,346.5 8

3,069.0 1,346.5 8

2,479.5 304.5 10

2,479.5 304.5 10

2,783.5 1,346.5 6

4,100.8 4,360.0 4

Page 11


Q17 How does your company communicate safety messaging?

All Respondents

Count Percent Count

Email Messaging





Other

66.7% 12

66.7% 12

94.4% 17

83.3% 15

38.9% 7

33.3% 6Percentages based on respondents answering this question

Page 12


DART Rate and Lost Time Severity Rate - All Calculated with Quartiles

Total

2019 Calculated DART Incident Rate

10th Percentile

First Quartile 25%

Median 50%

Third Quartile 75%

90th Percentile

Number

Mean

2019 Calculated Lost Time Severity Rate

10th Percentile

First Quartile 25%

Median 50%

Third Quartile 75%

90th Percentile

Number

Mean

.00

.00

1.11

2.24

3.75

18

1.33

.00

.00

8.51

41.66

127.16

18

28.94

Page 13


Lost Time Incidence Rate and Recordable Incidence Rate - All Calculated with Quartiles

Total

2019 Calculated Lost Time Incidence Rate

10th Percentile

First Quartile 25%

Median 50%

Third Quartile 75%

90th Percentile

Number

Mean

2019 Calculated Recordable Incidence Rate

10th Percentile

First Quartile 25%

Median 50%

Third Quartile 75%

90th Percentile

Number

Mean

.00

.00

.44

1.01

1.85

18

.67

.00

1.02

2.14

3.54

9.04

18

3.19

Page 14

Documents

2020 Safety Benchmarking Report - NAWC