9
Michael Scharfenstein FAC Review [email protected] .edu October 30, 2007 1 LCLS CONSTRUCTION SAFETY Michael Scharfenstein

Michael Scharfenstein FAC [email protected] October 30, 20071 LCLS CONSTRUCTION SAFETY Michael Scharfenstein

  • View
    214

  • Download
    2

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: Michael Scharfenstein FAC Reviewscharf@slac.stanford.edu October 30, 20071 LCLS CONSTRUCTION SAFETY Michael Scharfenstein

Michael Scharfenstein

FAC Review [email protected]

October 30, 2007 1

LCLS CONSTRUCTION SAFETY

Michael Scharfenstein

Page 2: Michael Scharfenstein FAC Reviewscharf@slac.stanford.edu October 30, 20071 LCLS CONSTRUCTION SAFETY Michael Scharfenstein

Michael Scharfenstein

FAC Review [email protected]

October 30, 2007 2

PROJECT SAFETY EXPERIENCE30 September 2007

Total Project Hours1.37 M Hours worked

SubContractors285 K Hours worked5 Lost Time Injuries1 Recordable Injury

LCLS Collaboration 1.08 M Hours worked 2 Lost Time Injuries

7 Days Without Lost Time

6

3.5

0.4 1 0.60

1

2

3

4

5

6

Project To Date

LCLSContractors

LCLS

Total Project

Construction Industry

DOE Construction

Lost Time Rate

Note: Injury rates based on 200 K hours (100 man years) of effort.

Page 3: Michael Scharfenstein FAC Reviewscharf@slac.stanford.edu October 30, 20071 LCLS CONSTRUCTION SAFETY Michael Scharfenstein

Michael Scharfenstein

FAC Review [email protected]

October 30, 2007 3

Injury Experience

74,397 HoursDART - 0TRC - 0163,087 Hours

DART - 6.13TRC - 7.36

1,082,316 Hours

DART - 0.37TRC - 0.37

LCLS

Turner subs

LCLS Subs

Page 4: Michael Scharfenstein FAC Reviewscharf@slac.stanford.edu October 30, 20071 LCLS CONSTRUCTION SAFETY Michael Scharfenstein

Michael Scharfenstein

FAC Review [email protected]

October 30, 2007 4

Incident Distribution

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

1st Qtr 2nd Qtr 3rd Qtr 4th Qtr 5th Qtr

Procedural

Injuries

Notices

Page 5: Michael Scharfenstein FAC Reviewscharf@slac.stanford.edu October 30, 20071 LCLS CONSTRUCTION SAFETY Michael Scharfenstein

Michael Scharfenstein

FAC Review [email protected]

October 30, 2007 5

Safety Assessment Conclusions

TCCo Safety is responsibility of Safety geeks

TCCo management not accountable for safety

Page 6: Michael Scharfenstein FAC Reviewscharf@slac.stanford.edu October 30, 20071 LCLS CONSTRUCTION SAFETY Michael Scharfenstein

Michael Scharfenstein

FAC Review [email protected]

October 30, 2007 6

Corrective Action Plan

Management Safety Walks

Look-Ahead Schedule

Job Safety Analysis - QA

Page 7: Michael Scharfenstein FAC Reviewscharf@slac.stanford.edu October 30, 20071 LCLS CONSTRUCTION SAFETY Michael Scharfenstein

Michael Scharfenstein

FAC Review [email protected]

October 30, 2007 7

Where Are We Now ?

Apparent Turner Corporate Philosophy

Safety is not a line management responsibility

Safety presence on projects only to satisfy specific clients requests

Reactive vs. proactive

Page 8: Michael Scharfenstein FAC Reviewscharf@slac.stanford.edu October 30, 20071 LCLS CONSTRUCTION SAFETY Michael Scharfenstein

Michael Scharfenstein

FAC Review [email protected]

October 30, 2007 8

Conclusion

Current TCCo safety performance is not acceptable

LCLS providing more prescriptive direction

Page 9: Michael Scharfenstein FAC Reviewscharf@slac.stanford.edu October 30, 20071 LCLS CONSTRUCTION SAFETY Michael Scharfenstein

Michael Scharfenstein

FAC Review [email protected]

October 30, 2007 9

Thank You