102
Copyright 2002 By Raymond J. Godfrey )
| Date post: | 30-Jan-2023 |
| Category: |
Documents |
| Upload: | murraystate |
| View: | 0 times |
| Download: | 0 times |
Copyright 2002
By
Raymond J. Godfrey
)
)
Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science in Building
Construction
OPTIMAL CONTRACTOR SAFETY MANAGEMENT PRACTICES IMPLEMENTED ON SHUTDOWN CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS
By
Raymond J. Godfrey
August 2002
Chair: Jimmie Hinze Major Department: School of Building Construction
This thesis describes a study of safety on shutdown construction projects. The
objective of this study was to examine the different safety methods, practices, and
policies used by general contractors on shutdown projects and to detennine which of
them affect safety perfonnance.
The number of Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)
recordable injuries per 200,000 worker hours was used as the measure of safety
perfonnance. The results identified several variables that were associated with lower
injury rates on shutdown construction projects. Practices that are associated with good
safety perfonnance included planning (pre-project and pre-task), safety education, worker
vi
involvement, evaluation and recognition, subcontractor management, accident/incident
investigations, and drug and alcohol testing. Practices contributing to effective safety
performance, unique to shutdown projects, included worker familiarity, methods used to
buildup the workforce, units of time used in scheduling, workweek schedule and project
duration, work crew size and type of contract.
All the statistically significant factors found to effect injury rates are presented.
Factors that constituted trends with safety performance are also presented.
)
vii
T ABLE OF CONTENTS
AKNOWLEDGEMENTS.. .. . . . . .. . ... .. . .. . ... . . . .. . ... .. . .. . .. . ... .. . .. ... ... . .. . . . . .. . .. . ... III
CHAPTERS
1 INTRODUCTION ....... . ... . ....... .. ......... . ....... ... ....... .. ...... .. .................. . .
4 RESULTS: DESCRIPTI\1E STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF
ABSTRACT. . .. . . . . .. . .. . . . ... . .. . . . . .. . .. ... . .. . .. .. . . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . . . . .. . .. . . . . .. . .. .. .. VI
2 LITERAT~ RE\1IEW.......... ................ ... ... ... ......... . .. . . ... .... ......... . .... 4
Zero Injury Techniques...... . ......... .. .. .. . ... . . . .. . ..... ........ .. .. .... .. ... ......... ... .. 5
3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . . . . .. . .. . .. . . . . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . . 24
Data Collection ... ....... ................... . . . ................. . .. .. . . ........ . ........ ....... 24 Data Analysis..... .. . . ....... .... ..... .. ....... . ........ . ...... ... .. .... . ............ . ......... 27
SAFETY ON SHUTDOWN CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS... . ......... .. ........ .. .. 29
Project Characteristics.. .. . ................ ... . ......... ....... .. . ... ... .. ......... ... . ... ... . 30
5 RESULTS: SIGNIFICANT FINDINGS FOR SHUTDOWN PROJECTS........ .. 58
Unique Aspects of Shutdown Projects ..................................................... 58 Pre-Project and Pre-Task Planning ........ . ..................... . ... .. .. ... ...... ... 65
Worker Involvement........................... . . . ................ . ....... ..... ..... .. ...... 67 \ Worker Evaluation and Recognition/Reward.... . . ..................... . ........ .. ... 68
Subcontractor Management. . .. . . . . .. . .. . .. . . . . .. . .. . .. . .. . . . . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . . . ... . .. 68
/ Accident/Incident Investigation. . . . . .. .... ... ... ... ... .. ...... . .. .. .. .... ..... ... .. .... ... 70 /
Drug and Alcohol Testing.... ..... ..... . . .... ... . ... .. .... .. .. .. ...... ... .... . ......... .... 71 Other.... ... ... ...... .. ..... .. . .. . ..... ..... ........ ..... .. . ............ .... ......... .. . . . ..... 72 No Silver Bullet.... . . .. . ..... .. . ..... . ........ .................. . .. . ... ..... . ...... ... . . .... 73
iv
6 SUMMARY & CONCLUSIONS ..... ...... ......... . ... . ... .... .. . .. ... .... . . . ...... . . ..... 75
7 RECOMMENDATIONS. ..................... . ................ . . .. . . ............... .. ....... 78
APPENDIX
A SAFETY SURVEY OF SHUTDOWN PROJECTS. . .. . .. . ... . ... . . .. . .. . .. . .. . . . . ... . .. 80
B POWER OUTAGE PROJECTS: CURSORY DATA ANALySIS ..... .. . ........... 90
BIBLIOGRAPHy.... ............. .... . .... ..... ..... . . ....... , ........ .. . . . ..... .............. 96
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH.. ... ... ......... .... ....... . .. ...... . .. .... ... . . . . . . ...... ....... 97
v
) /
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION
The construction industry continues to be one of the most demanding and
dangerous industries in the United States. The diversity of construction projects and their
ever changing nature expose workers, unlike any other work setting, to new h?zards
virtually every day. To counteract this, proactive construction personnel have taken
major steps in identifying and eliminating the causes of accidents on job sites. Safety has
become one of the most important aspects of concern on many construction projects.
Construction firms are realizing that the initial investment and the continuous efforts to
maintain a good safety record do pay offby not only reducing injuries on the job site, but
by also contributing to an "on time" and "within budget" project delivery.
As past research was being conducted on large construction projects (Hinze and
Wilson, 1998), it became evident that there was a need to study in greater depth the best
safety practices on shutdown, turnaround, and outage projects. The terms shutdown,
turnaround, and outage are often used interchangeably. While the term "shutdown" may
technically imply that this is an unscheduled or emergency stoppage of plant operations,
it is readily used in place of the term "turnaround" which technically infers that the
stoppage of plant operations has been planned to install upgrades in the equipment,
replace worn out equipment, or to perform required maintenance for which operations
must cease. The term "outage" is most commonly used in power plants, but the term
1
2
shutdown is also understood in that sector of the industry. While there are technical
differences between the terms, they are, as mentioned, frequently used interchangeably in
the field. The term "shutdown" will be used from this point onward, with the
understanding that the other terms might also apply just as well.
Shutdown projects are quite unique when compared to other construction or
maintenance projects. They are more like construction projects when they require
additional workers to be hired to accomplish the work. They are more like maintenance
projects when there are sufficient numbers of on-site workers that can be assigned to
perform the work. Regardless of the type of project they resemble, they are different
from other projects in that the work has a particularly tight timeline. Shutdowns,
depending on the amount of work required, are performed within days or within a matter
of a few weeks. Only very large shutdown projects will take more than two months.
The timelines are understandably tight in that the revenues generated by the plant
or facility come to a halt once the operations are stopped. Thus, it is not uncommon for
some shutdowns to be scheduled with night shifts and work being performed seven days
a week.
Shutdown projects are unique and the achievement of safety on these projects is a
particularly challenging task. Despite this, several firms have mastered the undertaking
of shutdown projects while embracing the Plinciple of zero injuries.
Previous research has covered many areas of construction safety, including what the
leading firms of the industry are doing to minimize worker injuries, but in recent years
) very little has been done in isolating and analyzing the methods and practices used to / achieve strong safety performances on shutdown construction projects.
3
The unique aspects of shutdowns should now be clear. There is a rapid buildup of
the workforce and there is a particularly stringent deadline imposed on the performance
of the work. It is true that conventional construction projects have a period in which the
workforce is built up and there are often penalties imposed if the project is not completed
on time; however, shutdown projects have the workforce built up in an accelerated
fashion and the time restrictions are much tighter. Both of these features can be
problematic if safety is not properly addressed. Having a greater understanding of best
practices that pertain to shutdown projects will provide valuable information to both
contractors and owners. This knowledge will be helpful in ensuring the safety of
shutdown projects, including the short duration shutdowns and the long-term or major
shutdowns. It is the purpose of this research to investigate the safety practices of
shutdown construction projects to identify those practices that make one project safer
than the next.
By identifying methods that have proven effective in reducing worker injuries, the
construction community will be provided with guidance for the effective means to
achieve the lowest possible injury frequency rate.
This study attempted to explore in depth the various means by which contractors
achieve optimal safety management on shutdown projects. The dynamics of shutdown
projects are so different from conventional construction projects that it is not realistic to
include the shutdown data with that of the other projects. A separate effort is needed to
more fully understand shutdown projects, especially in terms of how project safety can be
best assured. )
) \
CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW
Attention to safety in the construction industry has increased dramatically in the
United States over the past few decades. The 1990s can properly be called the 'decade
for construction safety. Several factors have led to the greater emphasis on safety.
Although construction work has become safer, there is still much to be accomplished.
Since there is now a strong concern for safety in the construction community, one can
hope that further improvements will continue to reduce the numbers of fatalities and
serious injuries in the industry (Hinze, 1997). An extensive search of the literature
revealed that no publications have been written on any aspects of safety that relate
particularly to shutdown projects. An expanded effort on shutdown projects appears well
warranted.
A 1979 study conducted by Jimmie Hinze and Charles L. Harrison investigated
safety practices in large construction projects. That study showed a comprehensive view
of what the safety programs of very large construction firms were like at the time.
The Construction Industry Institute (CII) conducted a study in 1993 that contributed
significantly in defining five (High Impact Techniques) safety management practices
needed to be taken in order to achieve optimal safety performance. This study was
followed by a validation study conducted in 1998 (Hinze and Wilson, 1998). Further
study by the Construction Industry Institute conducted under Jimmie Hinze (2002)
4
5
expanded upon the techniques identified by the CII study in 1993 and generated a list ofa
total of nine essential safety techniques to be employed in the construction industry.
Zero Injury Techniques
The Zero Accidents Task Force was formed by the CII to continue research into the
important area of worker safety. Their research (1993) identified five "High-Impact Zero
Injury Safety Techniques" that were being used by contractors to attain the "Zero Injury"
objective. The task force defined "safety excellence" as reaching a 1.00 or less on the
Bureau of Labor Statistics and OSHA Lost Workday Case Incidence Rate (LWCIR).
Both small and large owners and contractors can benefit by including the five practices in
a strong, basic safety program. The high-impact zero injury practices identified by the
task force were:
1. Pre-ProjectlPre-Task Planning for Safety
2. Safety Orientation and Training
3. Written Safety Incentive Program
4 . Alcohol and Substance Abuse Program
5. Accident/Incident Investigations
The results of that study also showed that zero lost workday incidents are
achievable on larger projects . Of the 25 projects studied, eight had zero lost workday
cases, nine had an L WCIR of 1.0 or better (greater than zero and not exceeding 1.0), six
had LWCIR between 1.0 and 2.0, and two had LWCIR of3.40 and 4.37, respectively.
The projects ranged in size from approximately 200,000 to 6,300,000 work hours
completed at the time the research was conducted. The study further defined the projects
6
with LWCIR of less than l.0 as excellent and those greater than l.0 and not exceeding
4.4 LWCIR as "good in safety."
The research was unable to find projects with a L WCIR nearer the BLS/OSHA
1990 national average of6.7. Such "poor safety" projects were not identified for
inclusion in the study. The task force could only compare the "good" to the "excellent"
projects. Doing so, however, resulted in very identifiable differences in the safety
management practices employed. The research clearly showed that the implementation
of the five high-impact techniques should assist companies in improving their safety
perfonnances and achieve zero or near zero LWCIR perfonnances (CII Publication 32-1,
May, 1993).
Zero Injury Techniques Validation
The National Center for Construction Education and Research (NCCER) and the M.
E. Rinker, Sr. School of Building Construction at the University of Florida conducted a
survey to examine the impact of the Zero Injury Techniques report published by the CII
(Hinze and Wilson, 1998).
"Results of this study show that construction finns are implementing a variety of
programs to improve safety perfonnance. More importantly, these programs are effective
in favorably influencing safety perfonnance, whether measured in tenns of recordable
injury incident rates, lost time injury incident rates, or experience modification rates.
) \
While there is some concern regarding the merits of safety incentives, there is a general
agreement that the five high impact techniques playa vital role in safety perfonnance.
Contractors are continuing to devise means by which safety program enhancements can
7
be made. The commitment to safety is clearly sincere. Further developments in safety
enhancement programs can be expected" (Hinze and Wilson, 1998).
The five impact techniques identified by the 1993 ell were expanded upon by the
findings of a 2002 study conducted by Jimmie Hinze. The results of that study revealed
the importance of employing several safety techniques in the construction industry. These
findings were grouped into the following nine categories:
1. Demonstrated management commitment
2. Staffing for safety
3. Planning: pre-project and pre-task
4. Safety education: orientation and specialized training
5. Worker involvement
6. Evaluation and recognition/reward
7. Subcontract management
8. Accident/incident investigations
9. Drug and alcohol testing
Note that the five High Impact Techniques identified in the 1993 study are
included in these nine categories. Some of these continue to play the same role as was
existent in 1993, but others are being implemented with greater sophistication and with
greater effectiveness.
Demonstrated Management Commitment
The safety culture of a company is greatly impacted by the role its management
plays. To have any impact, this role must be noticeable at the project level. Worker
8
safety is emphasized when management makes its presence known in a large project
environment. Through inspections from home office management or participation in
safety initiatives such as training and orientation, accident and incident investigations or
observation tours, management can contribute significantly to the overall safety
performance of the project. It is imperative that top management demonstrates its
commitment to the project level in some manner. Better safety performances were
recognized on projects where someone from the home office made project safety
inspections more frequently.
Top management can also convey its commitment to safety by becoming involved
in some manner in the investigation of worker injuries. Hinze's (2002) findings showed
the importance of top management being involved in the investigation of every injury
accident, including both OSHA recordable or lost workday cases. The projects where top
management was involved with the investigation of every recordable injury had much
lower injury rates than the ones where this involvement was 50 percent or less.
Staffing for Safety
The implementation of a safety program on any project includes the people, means,
and resources utilized to achieve a strong safety performance on a construction project.
The safety staff assigned to the project is one of its most valuable resources. Several
findings (Hinze, 2002) showed the importance of project-level safety personnel, safety
communication tools, and personal protective equipment to the overall safety objective.
)
9
Safety representatives
Most of the projects had full-time safety representatives . The safety representatives
reported to the area safety director in the main company office on more than half of the
projects surveyed (Hinze, 2002). On the majority of the projects, these full-time safety
representatives were employees of the general contractor and were not consultants for the
project(s). However, some of the projects had their safety representatives fulfill
responsibilities on other projects at the same time. Projects where the safety
representatives had responsibilities on other projects reported a higher median injury rate
than those with full-time safety representatives. It follows that projects should have their
full-time safety representatives involved in regular project management meetings and
have the safety representatives copied on information related to the project progress
(costs, scheduling, quality, etc.).
Safety personnel
While not statistically significant, the results of Hinze's (2002) study appear to
support the theory that safety personnel are more effective at reducing injuries when they
are responsible for fewer workers.
These findings seem to imply that when consultants are utilized, the company has
not made a full commitment to the safety mission. Also, the findings suggest that in
house personnel are more effective since they are aware of the safety needs of the project
\ and are more fully focused on that objective.
) It is not sufficient to have a safety representative on the project. The safety
personnel must be effective. How can this be achieved? The research results imply that
10
the manner in which safety personnel are incorporated into the organizational structure
has an influence on safety performance. Specifically, better safety performances were
noted on those projects in which the safety personnel reported directly to someone in the
main office. Safety personnel appear to have greater freedom if they report to someone in
the main office whose primary mission is safety. Line personnel on site have the
intervening objectives of time, cost, and quality that might be viewed as being potentially
in conflict with the safety mission. In addition, safety performances were better on those
projects where safety personnel reported that they were viewed in a positive manner.
Personal protective equipment (PPE)
Safety equipment is one of several resources for safety at the project level. The
majority of the projects studied by Hinze (2002) required their workers to wear hard hats,
safety shoes and safety glasses at all times. Workers are generally required to provide
their own safety shoes, while safety glasses and hard hats are provided by the employers.
How safety is budgeted for may impact safety performance. The projects that have
separate budget allocations for safety, or where a budget is established at the corporate
level, generally have better safety performance records. By having a special budget
allocation for safety, whether at the project or corporate levels, safety expenditures are
probably not seen as an expense that requires any bargaining. A commitment in the
budget for safety means that there is no conflict between safety expenditures and
expenditures for other cost items. )
11
)
Planning: Pre-Project and Pre-Task
Safety programs must be relevant to the jobsite if they are to be effective. One way
this is done is by developing a site-specific safety program. It has been noted that site
specific safety programs are not automatically created for every project, as some firms
have no site-specific safety programs. Hinze's (2002) findings show that the better safety
records are associated with companies that prepare site-specific safety programs on a
greater proportion of their projects. Preplanning was shown to be beneficial for project
safety.
Another important part ofjob site safety consists of conducting a hazard analysis
prior to each major phase of work. There are various terms for this practice including task
safety analysis, safety task analysis, activity safety analysis, pre-task safety planning, and
others. The essence of the practice is that the workers in the crew make a conscious
effort to identify major hazards that are posed by a task to be performed. Prior to
beginning the work on that task, the crew will devise means to eliminate or reduce the
dangers. Hinze (2002) showed that pre-task planning pays dividends in terms of safety
performance. Firms that conduct pre-task safety planning, or that assess the hazards of
each task to be performed, have better safety records .
Safety Education: Orientation and Specialized Training
Training is regarded as one of the core requirements of an effective safety program.
OSHA requires all employers to establish and supervise programs for the education and
training of all employees in the recognition, avoidance and prevention of unsafe
conditions. This includes such typical subjects as electrical lockout; entry into confined
12
)
spaces, trenching operations, back injury prevention, fire protection, blasting, substance
abuse, crane safety and rigging, fall protection and many others.
Toolbox meetings are most often considered the first safety program element to be
implemented. All of the construction firms studied conducted toolbox-safety meetings on
their job sites and the majority (90%) held them weekly (Hinze, 2002). However, 51 % of
contractors did not specify which day of the week they were held and claimed that this
would vary from week to week. Mondays were found to be a common choice for the
contractors and some firms stated they conducted these meetings daily.
The most important training that contractors can provide begins with the orientation
of new hires. Research findings have consistently shown that new workers are most
likely to be injured during the first few weeks of employment. Generally, all new hires
and all workers new to the jobsite should attend orientation sessions, even if they are
experienced and already very skilled.
Training is a key component of the safety programs of most construction firms.
Training generally begins with orientation training for new workers. The companies with
better safety records provided orientation training to all company employees. Safety
orientation helps new hires become familiar with the jobsite layout, company policies and
other types of information ini tially unknown to them when working on an unfamiliar
project. The orientation of salaried personnel was found to also have a measurable impact
on safety performance.
The orientation of workers can follow different procedures. The basic approaches
are sessions that are either formal or informal. Formal orientation is a means by which
there is greater assurance that every worker receives the same standardized information.
I
13
Fonnal orientation has been shown in other research studies to be more effective in
reducing injuries than is infonnal orientation. Most contractors in the Hinze study (2001)
provided their new hires with fonnal orientation.
The need to educate and train workers continues throughout the life of a project.
Training may have to be conducted on confined space entry, lockoutltagout procedures,
fall protection, equipment safety, trenching, flagging, work zone safety, and a diverse
number of other safety-related subjects. Obviously, some workers may need one type of
training while other workers will need training in another subject
Most finns have a policy of providing training to workers during the workday.
Although this is a widely implemented practice, a few finns indicated that this was not
the case. The finns can reinforce the importance of safety and the integral nature of
safety to the jobsite when training is part of the workday, with workers being paid while
they receive training. The results of the Hinze (2002) study also show that this is
associated with better safety perfonnances.
Training effectiveness can be measured to some extent by assessing the knowledge
of those individuals who receive the training. If the "students" learn the material being
taught, then the training is effective. Ifthere is no evaluation of the knowledge imparted,
students are less likely to be focused on the material being presented. Results show that
the companies with better safety records are those that administer a test at the conclusion
of training sessions.
) Most (95%) of the safety training is conducted by in-house personnel. A few of the
respondents had such training conducted by outside personnel. "Better safety records ./
were noted when in-house personnel conduct the training. Certainly, such training is
14
)
probably more applicable and relevant when in-house personnel conduct the
training."(Hinze, 2002) Perhaps in-house trainers are more aware of the specific safety
needs of the firm. Hiring in-house trainers also demonstrates the commitment that the
company has to training. On the other hand, hiring outside personnel may result in
obtaining the services of qualified safety personnel, but the individuals may not be fully
aware of the specific needs of the firm .
While in-house personnel can be effective to reduce jobsite injuries, it may also be
important to recognize when other types of training might be more appropriate. For
example, a specialized class on a particular subject may not be able to be taught as
effectively by in-house personnel. Firms must recognize when their training needs
cannot be adequately met with in-house programs. It was found that safer performances
were associated with firms that used outside classes to provide some of their safety
training.
Most of the firms (98%) in the Hinze (2002) study provided safety
meetings/training sessions for their foremen, with 9% providing them weekly, 24%
providing them monthly, 33% providing them quarterly, 23% providing them annually,
and the remainder providing them at various times such as at milestones, after accidents,
when the phase of work changes, etc. Meetings that are held at supervisory levels tend to
include many important issues, including resolving current health and safety problems,
providing a forum for planning safe construction activities, and planning ahead for
upcoming operations. These trends reflect how serious these firms are in implementing
their safety standards.
15
)
Training may extend beyond company employees. It was found that firms had
better safety records when they also provided orientation training to the subcontractor
employees as they anived on the jobsite. This is a way that the firm can ensure that every
worker on the jobsite has received at least some level of desired safety training.
Much of the training must be tempered with a focus on the specific tasks being
performed on the jobsite. In other words, the training must be relevant. Where does the
training material actually come from? There are many different sources of safety
information. OSHA materials were considered to be a primary source of safety
information by 65% of the firms. The firms utilizing these OSHA materials in their
training efforts had better safety records. Some contractors considered trade journals,
commercially available text materials, and videos as valued sources of safety
information. Companies that used NIOSH materials as a resource also tended to have
better safety records.
In the data analysis, the safety records of firms were compared by taking into
account the number of different resources used for their safety training materials. This
showed that firms using a combination of more resources for safety had lower inj ury rates
when compared to firms that used fewer resources.
Alcohol and Substance Abuse Programs
From the Hinze (2002) research results, a strong dmg and alcohol abuse program
had a significant overall impact on reaching the zero injury objective. The use of dmg
and alcohol abuse programs in constmction has profoundly improved safety in the
workplace. There were many sources for effective program guidelines. Many of the
16
) \
contractor associations offered guidelines for their members. These programs varied
widely in their thrust. "Test sample handling protocol" and the "accuracy of the testing
laboratory" are the most critical aspects of such programs.
Distinctive elements found by the research
There are many elements of drug and alcohol abuse programs. The elements that
were distinctly prevalent in the projects achieving safety excellence were:
* Regular inspections for contraband.
* Screening tests conducted at random.
* Screening tests conducted for alcohol.
* Lower tier contractors required to have drug and alcohol abuse programs.
* Programs administered to ALL employees.
* Screenings done after accidents (post accident).
Accident/Incident Investigation
Conducting rigorous accident/incident investigations sends a message of
management concern to all employees on a project. Failure to investigate accidents sends
a message of management disinterest and apathy toward worker safety. Hinze (2002)
found that contractors who were able to achieve zero or near zero injuries on their
projects had rigorous procedures on all aspects of accident investigations. Such
investigations find the real or root causes of accidents, result in recommendations for
accident prevention and insure that follow up action does occur.
17
)
Worker Involvement
Worker involvement in the safety process is one of the most important aspects of
project safety. Many safety professionals have stated that most injuries are the result of
unsafe actions or behavior and that the unsafe conditions playa minor role. With the
actions of workers being the major cause of injuries, it would appear prudent to take
special notice of them. Behavior reflects attitudes to a large extent. To change behavior
requires innovation. Perhaps the most significant innovations in construction safety in
recent years relate to means by which workers are involved in the safety process. Since
the 1993 elI study, the industry has taken major steps in the delicate area of worker
behavior assessment.
Safety committees
There is no formalized protocol in the construction industry for the formation and
use of safety committees. Thus, many variations will be found on construction sites.
Typically, a safety committee is made up of five to eight workers, possibly a foreman,
and possibly a safety representative. These workers will generally be selected from
different crafts. The role of the committee might initially be to make a job tour each
week to identify unsafe conditions and any noted unsafe behavior. The job safety audit
might take about two hours, but this may vary considerably from project to project.
Projects that employed safety committees tended to have better safety records.
The safety committee is a standing committee that will be active for the life of the
project, but the membership typically will change. For example, in a safety committee of
six workers, one new member might be added to the committee each week as a veteran
18
) ./
committee member "drops off." This will permit the training value received in the safety
committee to be realized by more workers. The veteran will be more "enlightened" about
safety and will continue to be watchful of unsafe conditions and unsafe behavior as the
new committee member becomes more informed about project safety.
Results of Hinze's study (2002) indicate that the means used for the selection of
workers to serve on the safety committee is associated with safety performance. The
better safety records were noted on those projects where workers would volunteer for
service on the safety committees. Workers who volunteer for such service seem to have a
stronger commitment to the mission of the safety committee.
Behavior-based safety
Behavior-based safety techniques usually involve a behavioral checklist to observe
performance and then to give specific supportive and corrective feedback (Geller 1997).
This consists essentially of observations that are made of other workers as they perform
their tasks. After the observation period of a few minutes to a few hours is completed, a
debriefing session is held with the observed worker. This session is to reinforce the good
safety practices that were observed and to address means of making improvements in
those practices that place the worker or others at risk. These techniques have been used
to a limited extent in the construction industry in the past few years. Research results
indicate that projects that implemented a formal behavior-based program had better
safety performances (Hinze, 2021). Better safety performances seem to be realized on
projects where safety observers were employed .
19
J
Projects which have their management and supervisory personnel receive overview
training in behavior-based safety philosophy and concepts makes these supervisory and
managerial personnel a part of the program. This training helps make the program run
smoother and, as a result, improves safety perfonnance.
Most projects employ hourly craft workers on the observation teams (Hinze, 2002).
Typically, the observation team was comprised of five percent of the workforce, with an
average length of training to be an observer consisting of approximately 9.4 hours. The
team observed other workers on a daily or weekly basis. The average time for one safety
observation was approximately 2.5 hours. It was recommended that projects with
behavior-based programs should generate a formal report for each observation.
Management can use the information obtained by the observers in different ways to
implement continuous improvements on their projects.
Most projects do not record the names of workers on the observation fonns. This is
referred to as the "No name, No blame" policy. Better safety performances have been
associated with those projects that record observation reports.
Perception surveys
Worker safety perception surveys are often employed by projects in order to gage the
overall status of safety among the workers. While the specific nature of these surveys
may vary considerably between projects, the following represent areas of interest
included in such:
• The workers' overall feelings of safety I
20
)
• Worker comfort levels around bringing-up safety concerns to someone else's
attention
• Employees' perception of a company's support you if they refused to work in an
unsafe environment
• Support for safety at a first line supervisory level
• The employees' perception of the company's overall commitment to safety
Worker safety perception surveys can provide general feedback on safety. These
surveys can provide projects a good idea on how field employees view safety.
Contractors might conduct these surveys on a weekly, monthly, quarterly or annual basis.
Conducting safety perception surveys has prompted some projects to claim that the
changes they have made (as a direct response to these surveys) resulted in improved
attitudes towards safety. Many of the projects that conduct safety perception surveys
often implement additional hours of safety training as a result of these surveys. Projects
employing worker safety perception surveys were shown to have better safety records
than those projects not conducting such surveys (Hinze, 2002).
Evaluation/Recognition and Reward
Safety incentives have been shown to be beneficial on some construction sites.
Incentives may be established exclusively to reward safety performance or they can be
part of a broader project incentive program that could include schedule, cost and quality.
In this latter case an integrated incentive program will need to be designed by the parties
21
with methods of measurement and milestones established to manage the program with
fairness.
Implementation
"Monetary incentives" were ranked as one of the highest items of distinction
between the "excellent" and "good" projects (ClI Publication 32-1 , 1993). Safety
incentives come in two basic forms: gift items and monetary awards. Historically, "good
safety performance" awards to craft workers have been the "gift" programs using items
such as ball caps, jackets, belt buckles, radios, and various types of gift certificates.
The key result of monetary incentive awards to workers was the way
communications opened up with the start of the incentive program (ClI Publication 32-1,
1993). When incentive money is at stake, employees feel the urgent motivation to insure
that all safety items are highlighted and covered in discussions.
Administration
Once the amount of the incentive is determined, care must be used to insure equity
is established. Frequent payments were found to be commonplace. The typical format
was monthly awards combined with an end of the project award. Awards are typically
based on reaching "Zero" injury goals for a month or quarter. Separate checks given to
each trades person by their foreman is typical. The check amount for each eligible person
) \
is for "hours worked that month" multiplied by the "cents per hour" award. In some of
the projects studied the owners participated in funding the incentive program. In other
cases the contractor funded the program.
22
)
Observations and cautions
The cn project team 160 felt that the expense of a properly structured incentive
program is more than offset by the cost savings in achieving safety excellence and, in
fact, will yield a net profit.
Clear, simple, and concise communication of the incentive program to craft workers
is essential. So that everyone knows how he or she is performing, this communication
should be ongoing. Incentive payments to craft workers need to be at reasonable
frequency, such as monthly or quarterly as the longest interval. They should be paid in a
separate "Safety Incentive" check. The incentive programs were not used to replace other
essential elements of a fully developed safety program. In fact , if an effective safety
program was not already in place, the project team pointed out that monetary incentives
may not yield an improvement. Incentive programs are not easy to administer to the
satisfaction of every single employee. Managing incentive programs will be especially
troublesome when all employees who work on the project are not eligible for the
incentive payments. This can be overcome by careful structuring the incentive program.
Subcontractor Management
Subcontractors played a significant role on many of the projects that were
included in past research. Firms often pre-qualify their subcontractors before considering
them for the contract. Safety is usually factored in as a major criterion in the pre
qualification process. Many projects consider the EMR along with the safety record
(incident rate) of subcontractors when selecting them. Projects that pre-qualify their
23
subcontractors generally have better safety perfonnance records than projects that do not
pre-qualify their subcontractors (Hinze, 2002).
Projects should require their subcontractors to submit project specific safety plans
as this results in lower injury rates (Hinze, 2002). By submitting a project-specific safety
plan, the general contractor has greater assurance that the subcontractor has thought
through the project and is more likely to perfonn the work in a safe manner.
Past research has shown that better safety records were associated with projects
where subcontractors held daily safety meetings (Hinze, 2002). Those conducting daily
"toolbox" meetings are probably those with a pre-task safety-planning program in place.
The most popular day to conduct weekly toolbox meetings is Mondays.
In general, it appears that the general contractors should be pro-actively involved
with subcontractor safety. In other words, the general contractors should not maintain an
"ann's length" approach to subcontractor safety. General contractors should expect the
subcontractors to adapt to the safety standards of the project. Sanctions can be put in
place for subcontractors that do not comply with project safety requirements.
)
)
CHAPTER 3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
The purpose of this study was to explore in depth the various means by which
contractors and owners achieve zero injuries on shutdown projects. The dynamics of
shutdown projects are so different from conventional construction projects that it is not
realistic to include the shutdown data with that of the other projects. A separate effort
was deemed necessary to more fully understand shutdown projects, especially in terms of
how project safety can be best assured. The roles of the facility owners and the shutdown
contractors were the focus of this research.
The 2002 Hinze study identified nine effective safety techniques and since then
many of the companies that lead the ongoing efforts to improve overall safety on the job
site and reduce the number of injuries, have implemented these techniques. However, no
formal effort has been made to subsequently assess the impact of these techniques in
shutdown project settings. This study will examine the extent that these techniques are
used and at the same time determine the overall effect they have on the safety
performance of the shutdown projects where they are implemented.
Data Collection
One study, focused on shutdown construction projects, was conducted. The
questionnaire contained questions about the five high impact techniques suggested by the
24
25
)
ell (1993) study and the additional four techniques further suggested by the Hinze (2002)
study. Questions also were included about the implementation of innovative approaches
not addressed in the prior studies. The interview questionnaire constituted the primary
means for gathering data.
The study of shutdown construction projects was conducted through site visits and
personal interviews. The research instrument consisted of a nine-page survey containing
over 200 questions. The study of the large construction projects was conducted through
interviews because it was felt that more detailed infonnation would be obtained if the
interview approach were used. The response rate was also expected to be very low if this
study had been done through a mailed survey. For this study, personnel from 44 different
shutdown construction projects located in North America were asked to participate in the
study. All agreed to participate, resulting in 100% participation. While most interviews
were conducted in person, 3 were conducted over the telephone.
The 44 shutdown projects included in the study were being constructed by more
than 8 different construction contractors. Most interviews were conducted between May
and September 2001. The projects were located in more than 10 states throughout the
United States.
Survey format
All questions on the survey were addressed to corporate or job-site safety directors.
Since the collection of the data for the shutdown construction projects was through one
on-one interviews with the safety representative (primarily) of the projects, the extensive
fonnat of the survey did not appear to affect the response willingness of the participants,
26
)
i.e., respondents were comfortable in addressing virtually all questions that were asked.
Of the questions in the shutdown construction projects survey, approximately 60 percent
were questions that could be answered by a short answer (such as "yes" or "no") that
could be easily noted or recorded by the interviewer. The remaining questions requested
information that was mostly descriptive or numerical in nature. A copy of the survey,
titled "Safety Survey of Shutdown Projects" can be found in Appendix A.
Safety survey of shutdown projects
This survey covered the five high-impact areas outlined by the 1993 ell study and
the additional four techniques identified by the 2002 Hinze study. In addition to these
nine areas, the survey covered some other shutdown project-related safety issues. The
interview questions related to: safety performance (OSHA recordable injuries, lost-time
injuries, near misses, first aids, damaged equipment), safety personnel, employee build
up, first aid stations, behavior based safety, safety perception surveys, safety incentives,
safety dinners, personal protective equipment, drug testing, worker and management
safety orientation and training, accident/incident investigations, toolbox meetings,
subcontractor safety, site specific aspects of safety and general organization information,
general information about the project, and the involvement of the owner in the safety
related activities. Because the information was sought through interviews, a greater
amount of information could be retrieved and in greater detail. Owner, OSHA
consultation and insurance carrier involvement in project safety are also among the
general areas of project safety that were examined in the shutdown project survey.
27
This researcher conducted 33 of the 44 interviews. Three other individuals
conducted the remaining interviews. Because the questions were modified in the early
stages and since some respondents did not reply to all of the questions, a complete sample
response was not obtained throughout the survey, i.e., replies were not received from all
respondents for all questions.
Data Analysis
A statistical program, Statistical Package for the Social Services (SPSS), was
selected to assist in analyzing the data. The program facilitates data manipulation and
statistics generation. Two files were created to code the information of each survey for
analysis. They are the "data definition file" and the "data file". The data definition file
created a list of variables, which corresponds to each variable in the survey. The data file
contained the raw data.
In the SPSS program the specific test used to assess the relationship of different
variables with safety performance was the Kendall's Correlation Coefficient. The
correlation coefficient measures the strength of the linear relationship between two
variables. The range of the coefficient is the interval between -1.0 and +1.0. A value
approaching +1.0 indicates the strongest possible linear relationship, while a value close
to -1.0 indicates the strongest possible negative linear relationship . A value of 0 shows
no relationship exists between the two variables (Kliemele and Schmidt 1991).
In this research study, the information of particular interest related to those safety
practices that influenced safety performance. Thus, the statistical analysis sought to
identify those safety practices that were significantly correlated with safety performance.
28
Safety perfonnance was measured in tenns of the number of OSHA recordable injuries
incurred per 200,000 hours of worker exposure. For the study, the respondents were
asked to provide infonnation on the number of OSHA recordable injuries and the number
of work hours recorded. From this infonnation, the OSHA recordable injury rate was
computed.
The correlation test generates the level of statistical significance associated with
the comparison between two variables. According to the level of significance of the
association of two variables, one can draw conclusions about the strength of the
relationship between the two variables. Essentially, the level of significance indicates the
probability that the relationship between the variables occurred by chance. As the
significance level approaches zero, the probability becomes smaller that this relationship
occurred by chance. For example, if the level of significance between two variables is
0.005 (0.5%), then there is a probability of 5 in 1000 that the relationship between these
two variables can be attributed to chance. For this research, a correlation was considered
to be statistically significant if the level of significance was below 0.05. Findings with a
level of significance in the interval between 0.05 and 0.10 are considered indicative of a
trend and are also reported.
CHAPTER 4 RESULTS: DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF SAFETY ON
SHUTDOWN CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS
A total of 44 interviews were conducted with safety management personnel on
shutdown construction projects in the U.S. and Canada. The total work hours expended
on the projects sites at the time of the interviews ranged upward to 2.4 million hours.
Project data was provided by several contractors that did not maintain workhour records
on a per shutdown basis. The typical shutdown project included in this study had an
OSHA recordable injury rate that was less than 0.7 injuries per 200,000 hours of worker
exposure and 22 projects reported zero OSHA recordable injuries. Thirty-eight projects
reported zero lost time injuries. From this, it can be stated that the sample projects in this
study were generally very good in terms of safety performance. Clearly, all of these
projects had OSHA recordable injury rates that were well below the national average for
the construction industry. Even with the strong safety performances being reported by
these projects, results still were found that showed which practices were more effective
than others in assisting projects in achieving stellar safety performances.
Because of the recordable injury rate's (RIR) sensitivity to low total work hours, the
projects that had less than 50,000 total work hours expended were excluded from further
analysis. This reduced the sample size by four to a total of37 projects . Note that several
respondents provided data on a series of shutdowns, including routine maintenance work,
and this time was used since the work hours were sufficient to provide a reliable measure
29
30
\
)
of safety performance. Early into the data collection process it became evident that data
were being obtained on two distinct job types, namely shutdowns in process plants
(n=27) and outages at power plants (n= I 0). After data collection was completed the
sample was divided into 10 power and 27 non-power sub-samples. The distinct nature of
the work being performed on the power projects and its small sample size were sufficient
to warrant its exclusion from detailed analysis. Power based projects could best be
described as "outage" projects in the conventional use of the term while the non-power
projects conformed best to the defini tion of "shutdown" being used for the purpose of this
study. For a cursory analysis of the power project related data, see Appendix B.
Project Characteristics
Of the 27 projects being analyzed, 22 were petro-chemical facilities, 3 were paper
facilities and the remaining 2 were manufacturing facilities. The contractor's site safety
manager was most often (n = 20) the individual being interviewed. Three interviews were
conducted with both a contractor safety representative and an owner representative as
participants. Four interviews were conducted with either the project manager or the
superintendent of the primary contractor. The incident data collected related to 18
ongoing projects, while the information from the remaining 9 respondents referred
specifically to past shutdown(s). As noted earlier, shutdown data referred to information
collected over a series of shutdowns (large and small) and this included the routine
maintenance work as well.
For 25 out of27 projects the general contractor had an ongoing maintenance
(blanket) contract on the project with the average number of workers normally employed
31
on site being about 247 (median = 100) workers. All but two of the contractors reported
having virtually exclusive responsibility for performing the shutdown work on their
respective projects. When the contractor had a blanket contract on the site for
maintenance, the average number of foremen on the project was about 23 foremen with
the range being from 1 to 160 foremen on a given project. Of the 25 projects, which
reported a blanket contract on the site, all reported a multi trade representation within the
contractor's workforce throughout the duration of the shutdown. Merit shop was the only
type of project represented by all of the responses (n = 26).
When small shutdowns did occur, the number of workers that might actually have
been employed to perform this type of work ranged from 6 to 1500 workers with a mean
of 217 and a median of 86 workers. For large shutdowns, as many as 3500 workers were
reported to have actually been employed to perform the shutdown work. No clear or
absolute standard was used by the interviewees to distinguish large from small shutdown
projects. The classification of large and small projects was left to the respondent
according to project specific standards.
Of seventeen cases where a specific shutdown was being described, the
employment before the shutdown ranged from 20 to 750 workers with a mean of 171 and
a median of 100 workers. On the small shutdown projects the mean number of days
utilized for employee buildup prior to actual work activity was 9.5 days (median = 2.5).
The mean duration for small shutdown projects was 2.6 weeks (median = 2.0) with a total
range between 1 day and 9 weeks. The average percent of workers, who had worked on
the project before was 72.1 % (n = 22). Small shutdown projects reported that an average
of 5.8 (median = 6.0) days is worked per week and a average of 13 .6 (median = 12.0)
32
hours is worked per day. The average total reported number of hours worked on small
projects was 39,829 (median = 26,712) hours with a range of 400 to 252,000 work hours.
Large shutdown projects had a mean duration of 6.98 (median = 5.0) weeks,
ranging anywhere from 1 to 24 weeks. For these projects, employee buildup began on an
average of26.3 (median = 21 .00) days prior to the scheduled start of the shutdown with
the range of the number of days used to hire workers being between 1 and 100 days. The
average percent of workers that had worked on the project before was 58.0%. (median =
50.0%). Seven days per week was typically worked on large shutdown projects with an
average of 18.8 hours worked per day. The total number of worker hours reported for
large projects ranged from 70 to 673,920 hours with an average of 231 ,031 (median =
104,580) worker hours.
For both small and large shutdown projects, workers that have been on the job site
before are typically recruited onto the project via a combination of transfer from other
projects and a roster of the local labor pool. Workers that are new to these projects are
typically recruited to these projects via word of mouth or a combination of
advertisements in trade journals and word of mouth.
Owner Investment
For 25 out of the 27 projects surveyed, the owner was reported to have aggressively
promoted safety for the shutdown work. Twenty-four of the cases stated that the owner
) \
allocated money for the promotion of a strong safety agenda. The owners committed an
average of about 3 (median = 2) safety personnel from their own safety office to the
shutdown work.
33
)
Scheduling and Contract Arrangement
The most common (n = 24) kind of work schedule prepared for the shutdown work
was the Critical Path Method (CPM) with only one project reporting that a bar chart was
implemented for scheduling work activity. All but one of the projects stated that a
computer was used to do the scheduling. Primavera was the most commonly reported (n
= 16) scheduling software being used, with MS Project being used on 5 of the projects,
and some unknown software being used on the remaining 6 projects.
With respect to the units of time used for the schedule, 13 projects reported
"hours" as being the units of time utilized, while 3 and 5 projects expressed using shifts
and days, respectively.
When asked who prepared the schedule, 12 of the respondents stated that it was a
cooperative activity with planners/schedulers from both the owner and the contractor. On
10 of the projects the lead scheduler from the general contractor was solely responsible
for the generation of the schedule. Three respondents expressed that only the owner's
scheduler or planner was responsible for schedule preparation. The remaining two
projects were unsure as to who prepared the schedule.
Either the owner's or the owner's and general contractor's safety representatives
were involved in the schedule preparation for 15 of the projects. For 10 of the projects no
specific safety representation was involved in the scheduling process. On 23 of the
projects, once shutdown work had begun updating their schedule on a daily basis. One
project updated the schedule weekly.
34
)
Cost plus was the only contract arrangement reported by 25 of the projects .
Seventeen of these projects reported a fee to be received from the owner as dictated in
part on the safety performance of the.
Safety Performance
The average total number of work hours expended, year to date, on the projects
was 477,751 (median = 266,524) hours with a range of 51 ,000 to 2,400,000 hours. An
average of 1.7 (median = 1) OSHA recordable injuries and an average OSHA recordable
incidence rate (RIR) of l.0 (median = 0.7) were recorded on the projects. The average
number of near misses reported was 6.4 (median = 2.0) with a range of 0 to 50 near
misses per project. An average of 0.1 (median = 0.0) lost workdays injuries were
reported. One project reported 2 lost workdays, 1 project reported 1 lost workday and 25
projects reported zero lost workdays. The average number of first aids reported was 41
(median = 6.5).
Safety Personnel
The majority of the projects (n = 25) reported having a full-time safety
representative on the project. Twelve of these safety representatives reported to the site
manager and/or project manager. Ten of the projects' safety representatives reported to
the area safety director in the main company office with one project having the contractor
safety representative report to the owner's safety management personnel. All safety
representatives described were employees of the contractor The majority (19 of 26
projects) of the safety representatives were only responsible for a single project, while
35
seven of the safety representatives reported having responsibilities on other projects in
addition to the shutdown project under review. Most projects (21 of26 projects) had their
safety representatives involved in regular project management meetings, with 15 projects
having safety representatives ' names copied on infonnation related to the project
progress. Only 7 of the projects reported that their safety representatives were considered
in any type of end of the year safety bonus pool. Six projects stated that safety
representatives were involved in the evaluation of end of year bonuses for other
personnel. In addition to the safety representative on site, projects averaged about 2
(median = 1) other safety personnel employed by the general contractor with 11 projects
having them reporting directly to the contractor safety manager/representative. Ten of
these other projects stated that their other safety personnel were involved in regular
project management meetings. All of these individuals had the authority to stop unsafe
work. Other safety personnel were reported as being viewed positively by the other
workers on the site on 14 of the projects. Only one project reported a negative perception
of these individuals .
First Aid Station
All but two of the projects had a nurse and/or an Emergency Medical Technician
(EMT) employed full-time on the project. All of the reporting cases stated that there was
an emergency response team to which the general contractor employees had full access.
36
Behavior-based Safety
The majority of the projects (n = 18) had a formal behavior-based safety program
in place. Of these, 15 developed this program completely with in-house personnel.
Further, 17 of the projects had their management and supervisory personnel receive
overview training in behavior-based safety philosophy and concepts . This overview
training makes the supervisory and managerial personnel a part of the program.
As for safety observers, 16 of the projects utilized observers, and on 14 projects,
these were hourly craft workers. The projects had an average of 12 (median = 7)
observers, with an average length of training to be an observer consisting of
approximately 7.66 (median = 6) hours. On 10 of the projects the observers observed
other workers on at least a weekly basis, and 2 projects had their observers observe other
workers on a monthly basis. The average time for one safety observation was
approximately 2.5 (median = 0.5) hours. On 15 of the projects with behavior-based
programs, a formal report was made for each observation. Management used the
information obtained by the observers to either predict trends or predict trends and
implement additional safety training on 10 of the projects with a behavior-based safety
program. One of the projects with behavior-based programs had management use the
information obtained by the observers to at least implement additional safety training.
The average number of observation reports made on projects with behavior-based
safety programs was 561 (median = 130) reports to date. Six of the projects had their
safety management personnel, in some capacity, review the reports and 2 of the projects
J had these reports reviewed by either the site manager and/or the project manager. /
37
)
Eight of the projects utilized the feedback as a reinforcement and training tool
while the 2 projects used the feedback strictly as a means of tracking trends and
identifying future risks.
Safety Perception Surveys
Eleven of the projects conducted worker safety perception surveys. Most of these
projects (n = 8) used the surveys to generate feedback from the workers regarding
existing safety policies and procedures, while 1 of the projects used the surveys to elicit
suggestions from workers toward improving safety performance on the project. These
surveys were conducted yearly on 6 of the projects. Three projects conducted them twice
per year, and 1 project conducted them on at least a quarterly basis. The average
percentage of workers participating in these surveys was 62.7% (median = 77.5%), with 4
of the proj ects administering the survey reporting 100% worker participation.
On 5 of the projects conducting safety perception surveys, the results ofthe
survey were evaluated on a corporate safety management level in an effort to impact
positive change. Four projects reported that they evaluated the surveys at the project
management level.
Safety Incentives
The majority (n = 22) of the projects awarded incentives to workers for safe
practices. Of these projects, 3 based the incentives on crew performance, 8 based them on
individual performance, and 11 based them on both individual and crew performance.
The criterion which defined whether workers received incentives, or not, was either the
38
)
lack of injuries or the lack of unsafe behavior. Twenty-one of the projects used injury
occurrence as the primary criterion on which to base incentive awards. The remaining 6
projects used a combination of injury occurrences and lack of unsafe behavior as the
criteria on which to base the incentive awards .
Of the projects that awarded incentives to workers, 2 issued them weekly, 2 bi
weekly, 7 monthly, 3 quarterly, 7 on a milestone basis, and 1 at no specified time
interval. Further, 4 of these worker awards were financial in nature, 11 in the form of
gifts ranging in value from $1 to $100, 1 as a combination of cash and gifts, and 1
consisted of paid leave. The projects were equally divided with respect to whether their
worker safety incentives were cumulative or progressive in nature. Progressive referred to
incentives that use the number of injury-free worker hours as the basis for the reward,
i.e., the longer the injury-free period, the bigger the reward. If an injury occurs the
incentive is lost. Cumulative incentives rely on the accumulation of motivating items,
such as coupons, that could be exchanged for gifts. If an injury occurs, the coupon will
not be earned for that period. Additional coupons can be earned in subsequent periods.
About 6 of the shutdown projects had their worker incentives structured, at some
point in time, in a "lottery type" fashion. Additionally, 8 of the projects had a separate
incentive awarded for safe completion of the project. However, 18 of the respondents had
incentives based on a level of performance below a prescribed injury frequency level,
typically set at a OSHA recordable injury rate less than 1.00.
Six of the projects used separate checks (other than the paycheck) as their
procedure for distributing awards . Five awarded them at dinners, 6 presented awards
during toolbox meetings, and 2 projects varied the means by which awards were given
39
)
out. The majority (n = 11) of the projects had their field supervisors and/or safety
managers award these incentives to workers, while 9 of the projects had their site
manager or project manager present the awards.
About half (n = 13) of the projects awarded incentives for safety to personnel
other than field workers. These supervisory level awards were extended on a milestone
basis for 4 of the projects. Eight of the projects awarded these personnel with either cash
and/or a gift with the total value exceeding $50. Five of the projects reported their
salaried personnel as unqualified to receive worker based safety incentives. When asked
about the approximate budget allocation for safety awards and incentives, all (n = 27) of
the respondents stated that their respective project varied the budget allocation according
to contract and they were not able to attach any specific amount to any given shutdown
project.
Most projects (n = 22) evaluated their field supervisors on safety perfonnance. All
but one the projects (n = 26) reported that sanctions for unsafe worker behavior were
imposed. For 24 of the projects a combination of verbal, written and possibly other
disciplinary measures, depending on the severity of the violation, were imposed as a
sanction. On 18 of the projects a workers safety perfonnance record was factored into
considerations for raises.
Safety Dinners
Twenty-five out of the 27 projects sponsored safety dinners for the project
personnel. On 13 of the projects, dinners were scheduled on a milestone basis. For 5 of
the projects these dinners were held on a monthly basis and for 4 of the projects dinners
40
were scheduled quarterly. For two of the projects the safety dinners were held once or
twice a year or at the end of the project. For a majority (n = 22) of the projects, all of the
workers (field, supervisory, management, and administrative) were eligible to attend the
safety dinners. Only two of the projects reported that they restricted the dinners to only
those individuals or crews being rewarded for their safety performance.
The foremen were invited to attend these safety dinners on 23 of the 27 projects.
The project manager always attended these dinners on a majority (n = 23) of the projects.
However, on only one of the projects were family members invited to attend the dinners.
For 10 of the proj ects the company president would attend the safety dinners on all or
some of the occasions. For 2 of the projects, the company president would rarely, if ever,
attend the safety dinners. However, for 3 of these projects, when the company president
does not attend the safety dinners, a vice president and/or corporate safety manager will
often attend.
The majority of the projects (n = 22) did not report having any other method by
which outstanding safety performance by workers was recognized other than safety
dinners. About one fifth of the firms reported other methods of recognition either as
alternatives to or in addition to safety dinners. Such methods included, individualized
lunches or dinners, or public accolades during toolbox meeting, where a gift
certificate(s), may be presented to awardees supplementing other incentive rewards.
) \ Personal Protective Equipment
The majority (n = 25) of the projects required their workers to wear hard hats. All
27 projects required safety shoes, and 26 of them required safety glasses. Due mostly to
41
)
task specific conditions, earplugs, fire resistant clothing (FRC), safety glasses with side
shields, and gloves were used less frequently than the aforementioned personal protective
equipment (PPE). Both safety glasses with side shields and FRCs were always used on
only 15 of the projects. The employers generally provided workers with safety glasses,
hard hats, earplugs, and gloves, while the workers usually provided their own safety
shoes. Almost half of the projects (n = 13) provided for their PPE through either a project
budget or a special corporate budget was accessed to finance the procurement of PPE and
other safety related products. On 9 of the projects the owner of the project established a
contract driven job-safety allocation fund for all necessary PPE.
Drug Testing
Other studies have shown that companies that conduct drug testing on their
projects have better safety records. All 27 of the projects had some type of substance
abuse testing program implemented on the their respective projects. From the questions
asked about components of the drug testing programs implemented, all projects required
preemployment drug screening for all employees new to the project site. Failure to pass
such a test stops further consideration of the applicant for employment, but the individual
is generally permitted to reapply after a designated period of 30, 60 or 90 days. For all
contractors an average 5.5% (median = 4.0%) of their new applicants tested positive on
preemployment drug screening, with a range from 0% to 25% of the applicants testing
positive.
Post-accident drug testing is considered an important drug test that should also be
implemented by contractors. This type of test is conducted immediately after an accident,
42
and should include not only the testing of the injured worker, but all workers closely
associated to the tasks being performed at the time of the accident. Twenty-six of the 27
contractors executed post-accident drug testing as part of their overall drug testing
protocol.
Random testing is another type of test that is self-explanatory to a large degree.
The purpose of random testing is to discourage jobsite workers from abusing drugs,
primarily because there is a reasonable probability of being detected through testing. Like
post-accident testing, all but one of the projects conducted random testing for drug use.
Most projects (n = 24), which conducted random drug testing, did so on at least a
monthly basis, while only three of the firms did so biannually or annually. Twenty-five of
the respondents had 1 % to 10% of their employees tested on random drug tests. For all
cases, all staff and salaried personnel were also included in the pool for random drug
testing. The percentage of workers testing positive on random tests, ranged from 0% to
11 %, with the average percentage of workers testing positive on random tests being 2.4%
(median = 2.0%) of the contractor's workforce.
All but one of the 27 projects conducted drug testing provoked by reasonable
cause. Such testing is initiated when workers seem to be under the influence of drugs,
whether noticed through their behavior and/or by their appearance. Only 4 of the projects
performed blanket testing, a costly approach that involves testing every employee on the
job site at a randomly determined time.
There were several different policies implemented by the contractors when their
) employees failed drug tests. The most common, implemented by 17 of the projects, /
among these was the termination of a worker following a failure of an immediate follow
43
up test to an initial positive test result. Only 4 of the contractors suspended their
employees when they failed a drug test. Only 5 of the projects performed follow-up drug
tests, which are conducted to maintain assurance that the rehabilitated workers remain
drug-free.
Home Office Involvement
Management plays a major role in the safety culture of a company. The influence
of management on the field operations is considerable. The importance of working safely
is emphasized when management makes its commitment to safety known to personnel in
the field. Whether it is through field safety inspections conducted by top managers,
upper level participation in safety initiatives such as training and orientation, or accident
and incident investigations by company leaders, upper management contributes
considerably to the overall safety performance of the project. The key is that top
managers must be actively involved in worker safety at the project level to exert a strong
influence on setting the project safety culture.
The majority of the respondents (n = 18) reported that someone from the home
office would make safety inspections on a given shutdown project on a quarterly to
annual basis. On five of the projects, home office safety inspections were conducted on a
monthly to bimonthly basis. Only one shutdown project reported having safety
inspections being performed by home office personnel on a weekly to biweekly basis
while 1 project reported these types of inspections being performed as infrequently as
once every 2 to 4 years.
44
The majority of the respondents (n = 19) reported that neither the president nor a
vice president of the finn reviewed safety reports generated by the shutdown project(s).
However, 25 of the projects had such reports reviewed by some fonn of home office
safety director.
Safety Committee
There is no fonnalized protocol in the construction industry for the fonnation and
use of safety committees. Thus, many variations will be found on construction sites.
Typically, a safety committee is made up of five to eight workers, possibly a foreman,
and possibly a safety representative. These workers will generally be selected from
different crafts. The role of the committee might initially be to make ajob tour each week
to identify unsafe work conditions and any noted unsafe behavior. The job safety audit
might take about two hours, but this may vary considerably from project to project.
Seventeen of the 27 shutdown projects reported the existence of a safety
committee (zero accident team) with the average size of the committee being 13 (median
= 1l.0) workers. Depending on the size of the project, the safety committee may be
comprised of anywhere from 1 to 50 workers. The safety committee is a standing
committee that will be active for the life of the project, but the membership will typically
change.
On 22 of the projects, safety committees conducted safety tours at least on a
weekly basis while on 3 of the projects the safety committee conducted safety tours at
least once per month. However, for 2 of the projects with safety committees, no fonnal
safety tours were actually conducted. Their function was strictly limited to periodically
45
)
conferring with management regarding safety concerns and expressing suggestions for
improvement. The average length of safety tours conducted by safety committees was
1.73 (median = 1.38) hours.
On 12 of the projects with safety committees the craft makeup of the committee
comprised of at least one worker from each trade represented on the job site. The
remaining projects had both craft worker representation and management
(superintendent, project manager, and/or safety manager) representation on their safety
committees. For 11 of these committees, worker participation was to some degree
voluntary. In some of these cases, assignments to the committee were initiated in an
attempt to cover all of the trades. Only 3 projects reported that safety committee
membership was established strictly by assignment.
While many of the projects did have safety committees, there were significant
differences in the formal authority of committee members to stop work. Eight of the
projects simply used the safety committee to conduct audits, generate reports and make
recommendations, with no authority to stop work. Only five of the projects with safety
committees had extended to this committee, the authority to stop work on a project when
certain violations were witnessed during a safety tour. Nine of the projects with safety
committees had the committee review safety behavior observation reports made on the
project.
Safety Mission Statement and Safety Communications
A cohesive spirit between management and workers can be enhanced through
clear communications. One method is through company newsletters which keep the
46
workers updated about ongoing activities within the company, including descriptions of
projects to be undertaken in the near future, projects being completed, projects that are
being bid, and even information relevant to the company's leisure activities, e.g. sports.
These newsletters can be effective mechanisms for educating workers about the company
and can enhance their team spirit. Research participants were asked if the contractors
published newsletters, and if they included safety as a topic in these newsletters. Only 10
of the projects reported having a company newsletter with the most common (n = 6)
frequency of publication of the newsletter being on a monthly basis followed by quarterly
(n = 2), weekly (n = 1) and biweekly basis (n = 1). On 5 of the projects, 75 to 100 percent
of the newsletter was committed to safety. Twenty-five to fifty percent of the newsletter
was dedicated to safety for 2 of the projects with company newsletters, while for one of
the cases, from 50% to 75% of the newsletter was devoted to safety. For one project only
milestone safety information would be reported.
Communication with families can occur in many ways. Twenty of the projects
revealed that their respective project-contracting firm would communicate the importance
of safety to the workers' families in some manner.
The firms included in the survey were asked to describe the primary means of
communicating the importance of safety to their workers. Sixteen of the respondents did
this through orientation training and regular safety meetings. Three of the projects
utilized regularly scheduled safety training as the primary means to communicate the
importance of safety to workers. While all of the projects had a mission statement for the
) project in which safety was expressed as a priority, only 1 project reported this as being
/ the only means by which the importance of safety was communicated to workers.
47
)
Worker Orientation
Training is considered one of the core requirements of an effective safety
program. According to OSHA, all employers should "establish and supervise programs
for the education and training of all employees in the recognition, avoidance and
prevention of unsafe conditions." This includes such typical subjects as electrical lockout;
entry into confined spaces, trenching operations, back injury prevention, fire protection,
blasting, substance abuse, crane safety and rigging, fall protection and many others.
The most important training that contractors can provide begins with the
orientation of new hires. Research findings have consistently shown that new workers are
most likely to be injured during the first few weeks of employment. Generally, all new
hires and all workers new to the proj ect should attend orientation sessions, even if they
are experienced and already very skilled.
Safety orientation helps new hires to become familiar with the jobsite layout,
company policies and other types of information initially unknown to them when
working on an unfamiliar project. All of the respondents stated that all their employees
received some form of safety training.
The respondents did not describe the nature of safety orientation training.
However, responses to one of the questions indicated that 22 of the proj ects provided
orientation training to all of their new field employees and to their new salaried
employees and 21 proj ects provided orientation to subcontractor employees, new to the
project.
48
There are different procedures that can be followed to orient workers. The basic
approaches are sessions that are either formal or informal. The fundamental differences
between formal orientation and informal orientation are that formal orientation is a means
by which there is greater assurance that every worker receives the same information.
Formal orientation has been shown in other research studies to be more effective in
reducing injuries than is informal orientation. All of the projects provided their new hires
with formal orientation. As a possible sign of management commitment to the
importance of safety, results indicated that for 17 of the projects, the project manager
would always participate in orientation training for new workers. On 11 of the projects
this was done by the project manager giving an introduction speech on the importance of
safety on the project. On three of the projects the project manager was actually involved
in the teaching of some component of the training repertoire.
The training of workers is not completed once they have gone through orientation.
The need to educate workers continues throughout the life of a project. Training may
have to be conducted on confined space entry, lockout/tag out procedures, fall protection,
equipment safety, trenching, flagging, work zone safety, and a diverse number of other
safety-related SUbjects. Obviously, some workers may need one type of training while
other workers will need training in other SUbjects. In addition to orientation training all of
the contractors provided subsequent safety training. This training averaged 6.21 (median
= 4) hours per month. For 22 of the shutdown projects, the specific type of additional
training given varied depending on the relevant tasks being performed.
Training effectiveness can be measured to some extent by assessing the
knowledge of those individuals who receive the training. If the "students" learn the
49
material being taught, then the training is considered effective. If there is no evaluation of
the knowledge imparted, it is presumed that students are less likely to be focused on the
material being taught. Past research results (Hinze, 2002) show that contractors with
better safety records on large construction projects, were those that administered a test at
the conclusion of training sessions. Twenty of the contractors administered a test at the
conclusion of training sessions.
Almost all (n = 26) of the projects had a policy of providing training to workers
during the workday with workers being paid while they received training. It is widely
held that through this policy the contractor reinforces the importance of safety and the
integral nature of safety to the job site.
All of the projects had their safety training conducted by in-house personnel.
While in-house personnel have been shown to be effective in reducing jobsite injuries for
large projects (Hinze, 2002), it may also be important to recognize when other types of
training might be more appropriate. Hiring outside personnel to provide certain types of
safety training may result in obtaining the services, specific to the needs of the project, of
qualified personnel. For most situations, however, in-house trainers may be more aware
of the specific demands and needs of the project. Firms must recognize how their
training needs may best be met.
Accident/Incident Investigations
Accidents involving injuries must be documented for workers' compensation \
) reports, to meet OSHA requirements, and for internal records. In order to prevent
recurrences, it is prudent for an investigation to be conducted to identify the root cause.
50
With an understanding of the root causes of accidents, preventive measures can be
implemented. Who should conduct these investigations? Consideration should be given
to having superintendents or safety representatives involved in them. This is because they
are more removed from the crew activities than the direct supervisor, and therefore may
be able to contribute an additional perspective on the problems and can possibly devise
new and safer strategies for performing the same tasks.
It is important that all accidents be investigated. The information included in the
incident reports can be useful for developing discussion topics for weekly safety meetings
in order to prevent further accidents. The survey of shutdown projects revealed that for
all 27 projects OSHA recordable accidents and lost workday accidents were investigated.
The average length of time spent investigating OSHA recordables and lost workday
accidents was 26.4 (median = 7.5) hours and 146.9 (median = 26.0) hours, respectively.
Near misses were always investigated by most (n = 21) of the projects surveyed.
However, 6 of the firms surveyed would only investigate such incidences when it was
considered "severe" enough to warrant such an investigation. Of those firms, which
investigated near misses, an average of 14.3 (median = 2.0) hours was committed to such
an investigation.
Similar to near misses, first aid cases were always investigated on 14 of the
projects, while 7 contractors investigated first aids only when deemed severe enough.
Each first aid accident investigation consumed an average of 3.3 (median = 1.0) hours.
Only 5 out of the 27 projects stated that incidences involving only damaged
) equipment were always investigated, while 6 of the projects revealed that such accidents I
51
were never investigated, and 4 investigated damaged equipment incidences only when
deemed "severe" enough to warrant such an investigation.
Twenty of the 27 shutdown projects reported that the foremen were assigned,
either alone or with another worker or manager, to investigate accident/incidents. The
safety representative was assigned to investigate accidents/ incidents on 23 of the projects
while for only 5 and 4 of the projects the superintendent or the project manager,
respectively, were rarely assigned to such investigations. Project managers were reported
to have gotten involved in the investigation for only the most severe accidents on 2 of the
projects surveyed.
The reports generated by accident investigations were distributed differently
among the projects; including solely the job files (n = 9), solely the home office (n = 5),
and both the job files and the home office (n = 13). For most of the projects (n = 21) it
was reported that top management would become involved in accident investigations at
some point in time. Of these, 16 of the projects had top management involved in the
investigation of OSHA recordable accidents/incidents. Nineteen of the projects had top
management involved in lost workday investigations. On 23 of he projects regular
accidentlincident summary reports or corporate accident reports were generated.
Although there is a legal requirement for contractors to report injury accidents
involving medical treatment, documenting near misses should also be considered by
contractors. Near misses were usually (n = 23) formally defined as incidents that could
have resulted in an injury had circumstances been slightly different. These are "wake-up"
calls that should be heeded.
52
Documenting near misses can help management to identify the root cause of an
incident and therefore, management can devise means of preventing reoccurrences. This
may prevent a future occurrence of a similar incident in which an injury could occur. All
of the contractors surveyed documented near misses. Contractors are not required to
document near misses, but tracking them may indicate a true commitment to achieving
good safety performance. The categorization of near misses, with respect to severity,
among firms varied from minor to severe. A first line supervisor on 13 of the projects
made the determination of when a near miss had occurred. This was followed in
frequency by any worker who witnessed the incident (n = 7) and the safety
representative/manager on site (n = 6). Similar frequencies were reflected with regard to
whom, on the job site, is authorized to initiate the documentation for a near miss incident.
Near miss investigations were conducted by the safety representative/manager or
a combination of the safety representative along with the worker and/or foreman closest
to the incident on 21 of the projects. For 5 of the projects only first line supervisors were
involved with near miss investigations. In an effort to avoid having near miss
investigations function as a punitive measure, 20 of the 27 projects did not disclose the
names of any employees, who may have been associated with the occurrence. Any
punitive intent perceived by workers may deter them from effectively reporting such
incidences.
SupervisoryfManagement Safety Training
) Twenty-two of the 27 projects surveyed stated that the foremen assigned to the/
project received specific safety training while on the project. An average of 5.84 (median
53
/
= 3.83) hours per month of safety training was offered to foremen. For 7 of the projects
the foremen would receive this training through annual safety training seminars. Weekly
training sessions were conducted for the foremen on 6 of the projects. Attendance at the
safety training sessions for foremen was mandatory on most (n = 19) of the projects. On
14 of the projects, the career enhancement for the foremen was predicated in part by
meeting a minimum requirement for safety training.
On 18 of the projects the superintendents and project managers received safety
training on the project. Seven of these projects conducted this training on an annual basis
for all supervisory and managerial personnel. Supervisory training was held weekly on 5
of the projects, while on 4 projects such training was conducted monthly (n = 2) or
quarterly (n = 2). Also, it was found that 18 of the projects made attendance at the safety
training mandatory for all supervisory and management personnel. It was also found that
13 of the projects stipulated a minimum level of safety training to be received in order for
superintendents and project managers to be eligible for further career enhancement.
During the year the projects would offer an average of3.6 hours of training per month to
each of its superintendents and project managers.
Toolbox Meetings
All of the 27 projects held toolbox meetings on the jobsite as a means of
communicating the importance of project safety to the workers. Most of these meetings
(n = 24) were held at the crew level, with only one contractor having several crews in
attendance at any given meeting and one project at which all of the workers on site
attended the meetings together. On 12 of the projects subcontractors on site would
I
54
conduct their own toolbox safety meetings. However, 7 of the projects would have
subcontractor and general contractor workers attend the same toolbox meetings. The
majority of the projects (n = 15) conducted toolbox meetings on a weekly basis. Seven of
them would hold meetings daily. One of the projects combined daily crew meetings with
weekly site wide meetings. Mondays were the most (n =11) common day on which
toolbox meetings were held, followed by, at the beginning of every shift (n = 6), and
Tuesdays (n = 4). Three of the projects scheduled toolbox meetings throughout the week,
according to crews. Foremen presided over these meetings on 24 of the projects. Two
projects reported having their safety representatives preside over the meetings, while one
had its project manager preside over the toolbox meetings.
Project Pre-Task Safety Planning
All but one of the 27 projects required workers to be involved in pre-task safety
planning prior to performing their work. The majority (n = 21) of the projects used job
hazard analysis (JHA) prior to site mobilization. Over half(n = 16) of the projects had
constructability as a part of the pre-project planning process and all of these projects had
safety as a part of the constructability review. Twenty out of the 27 projects would
perform pre-task planning activities just prior to the beginning of the respective task. Five
projects conducted pre-task planning prior to the beginning of each shift, with one of
these projects also performing pre-task planning prior to the beginning of any "new"
any task judged not to be routine - task. Foremen were primarily responsible for \
) implementing pre-task planning on 18 of the projects. Either the safety manager or the
safety manager and the foremen bore this responsibility on 4 of the projects. On 2 of the
55
projects the workers themselves were held responsible for all pre-task planning. The
topics that may be covered in a pre-task safety-planning meeting are shown in the sample
form in Figure 4-1.
Planning is important on every project. This planning includes addressing
the safety needs of the project. The safety concerns at the project level begin with the job
hazard analysis. Ultimately all the safety concerns and means of addressing them are
included in a project safety program. In order for this to be thorough and useful as a
guiding document, it must be drafted into a formal written program. Past research (Hinze,
2002) has shown that such written site-specific safety programs were effective in
controlling the incidence of injuries on large construction projects. For the shutdown
projects surveyed in this study, 23 projects had a formal site-specific safety program
written for the project. The contractor's safety representative/manager was solely
involved in the preparation of these programs on 11 of the projects and 8 involved an
owner's safety representative. The owner's safety coordinator was solely responsible for
preparing the site-specific safety plan on 4 of these. Four of the projects involved the
contractor corporate safety office in the preparation of the plan.
Thirteen of the responding projects described the site-specific safety plan in place
as being extensive. However, 5 of the respondents considered their respective site
specific safety plans as moderately extensive with some need for improvement. Nine of
the projects reported referencing their safety plans several times per week, and often
daily. Seven of the projects would refer to their site-specific safety plans several times
weekly. For 5 ofthe projects the site-specific safety plans were referred to on either a ) monthly (n = 4) basis or on an as needed basis (n = 1).
-----
-------------
----------------
56
TASK SAFETY ANALYSIS
Date: Project: _____
Foreman:
Task:
Task Description:
-~ .
----'
..J ~
.... )
- )
..J
Crew Members:
TASK SAFETY ANALYSIS
Discuss the following questions for each task:
• How can performing this task hurt
anyone?
• How serious could it be?
• How likely is it to happen?
• How do we prevent it?
Check the hazards listed below that apply to
the described task.
Hazardous Materials --------------------
Emergency Procedures -----------------
Hot Work --------------------------------
Lock, Tag, Try --------------------------
Trenching/Excavation ------.-.---------
SignslBarricades ------------------------
Confined Space -------------------------
Crane Lift --------------------------------
Scaffolds -----------------------------.---
Other -------------------------------------
PPE Required:
Fall Protection --------------------------
EyelFace Protection -------------------
Respirator -------------------------------
Foot Protection ------------------------
Hearing Protection --------------------
Clothing Requirements ----------------
Other -------------------------------------
) ./
Figure 4.1: Sample "Pre-Task Planning" [onn
57
Insurance Carrier
When asked if the contractor' s insurance carrier had been an actively involved in
the safety of the projects only 10 of the respondents said yes. Only 9 of the projects
reported that an insurance representative would make job visits and safety tours. Only 6
of the respondents could recall their insurance representative making a good suggestion
toward improving project safety. Two of the projects reported the insurance
representatives had provided real-time loss data that may have been useful for
implementing project safety initiatives.
OSHA Consultation
Nineteen of the 27 projects did not utilize OSHA consulting services at any point
before or during the project. Of the 8 projects, which had consulted OSHA, seven
expressed that such consultation was helpful to the project.
,,
/ I I
CHAPTER 5 RESULTS: SIGNIFICANT FINDINGS FOR SHUTDOWN PROJECTS
This study identified seven key topic areas that contribute to improved safety
performance. These were consistent with the best practices identified in the Making Zero
Accidents a Reality study (Hinze, 2002). The key impact areas to achieve optimal safety
performance on shutdown projects were noted as follows:
• Planning: pre-project and pre-task
• Safety education: orientation and specialized training
• Worker involvement
• Evaluation and recognition/reward
• Subcontract management
• Accidentlincident investigations
• Drug and alcohol testing
Unique Aspects of Shutdown Projects
The first findings that are presented are those that appear to be unique to shutdown
proj ects. After that, the topics are presented in order of how the development of a safety
scheme might take place.
Shutdowns are characterized by a rapid buildup of the workforce, thus a readily ) available source of locating workers is an ongoing challenge. Most shutdowns occur on
projects where the contractor has a maintenance contract. This demands a steady
58
I
59
employment of workers. Depending largely on the size of the project, this onsite
workforce may range in size from as few as twenty workers to over one hundred workers.
On some small shutdown projects, it may be possible to complete the shutdown within a
period of one or two days with a workforce of only a dozen workers. When this occurs, it
is common for maintenance employees to be assigned to the shutdown work. This
assures that the workers are familiar with the work, which further eliminates the need to
hire additional workers and to provide the associated orientation and training of the
workers.
Not all shutdown projects are small. Some entail a vast amount of work and require
the hiring of a large number of workers. Even with the additional hiring of workers, it is
common for the contractor to assign a considerable proportion of the onsite maintenance
employees to the shutdown work. This is done to ensure that some key personnel are
familiar with the project. Of course additional workers must be hired and this presents a
major challenge to the contractor. The research found that there are basically two means
of locating workers to develop the necessary workforce on large shutdowns. One method
is to hire workers residing locally. Another method used by some contractors was to hire
workers from other similar projects. The preferred method is to transfer their own
employees from other projects in the area. Since the transfer of workers is a fairly
common procedure, it is possible to obtain additional workers who have previously been
on the project site. Worker familiarity with the project, typical of workers transferred in
for shutdown work, was found to be particularly important for project safety. While most
/ 1
contractors employ all methods of building up the workforce to some extent, the most
dominant approaches are represented in Table 5-1 .
60
Table 5-1: How is the workforce developed?
Response Number of
Replies
Mean Recordable Injury Rate
(RIR)
Median Recordable Injury
Rate (RIR) Hired from the area or from
local proj ects 8 2.28 1.82
Transferred from other company projects
16 0.47 0
Correlation coefficient = - 0.55 Level of significance < 0.01
One characteristic of shutdowns is that they must be performed efficiently and
within tight time constraints. Most projects utilize scheduling software programs to
organize and plan their work activities. Results suggest that the type of scheduling
software being used, or whether software is used at all for shutdowns, has an impact on
safety performance (Table 5-2).
Table 5-2: What scheduling software is used on the project?
Response Number of
Replies Mean Recordable Injury Rate (RIR)
Median Recordable Injury Rate (RIR)
Primavera 16 0.64 0.11 M.S. Project 5 0.95 0.75
Other 1 2.92 2.92 CorrelatIOn IS not statlstlcally SIgnIficant
Scheduling efficiency is difficult to measure in an objective manner. However, it
was possible to get some type of assessment of the degree of detail that was used to
schedule shutdown work. For example, it was found that projects were scheduled by
using time units of hours, shifts, or days. It was further determined that projects that used
smaller scheduling units (especially hours) had better safety records (Table 5-3).
)
61
Table 5-3 : What are the units of time used on the schedule?
Response Number of Replies Mean Recordable Injury Rate (RIR)
Median Recordable Injury Rate (RIR)
Days 5 1.51 1.90 Shifts 3 0.68 0.67 Hours 13 0.45 0
CorrelatiOn coefficient = - 0.38 Level of slgmficance < 0.02
The familiarity of the workforce with shutdown work, especially the specific
projects, and units of measure in scheduling were found to be important factors
influencing safety performance. These variables were combined and were found to have
a combined impact on safety performance. The lowest injury rates were noted on projects
that transferred workers to the project for the performance of shutdown work and that
scheduled their shutdown work by the hour. Projects with the highest injury rates tended
to hire workers for shutdowns and they scheduled the work by days (Table 5-4).
Table 5-4: Worker familiarity and scheduling by the hour?
Response Number
of Replies Mean Recordable Injury Rate (RIR)
Median Recordable Injury
Rate (RIR) Workers are hired and scheduling
is by the day 5
l.75 l.75
Workers are hired and scheduling is by the hour
2 1.08 1.08
Workers are transferred and scheduling is by the day
2 1.07 1.07
Workers are transferred and scheduling is by the hour
9 0.28 0.00
Correlation coeffiCient = - 0.58 Level of significance < 0.006
) It was discovered that safety performances were better when shutdown periods were
shorter in duration . That is, projects that were completed in less than two weeks had
better safety records than those which ran two weeks or longer (Table 5-5).
62
Table 5-5: Shutdown duration
Response Number of
Replies Mean Recordable Injury Rate (RIR)
Median Recordable Injury Rate (RIR)
Less than 2 weeks 5 0.45 0.67 Greater than or equal to 2
weeks 14 1.20 0.62
Correlation coefficient = 0.61 Level of significance < 0.01
The build-up up the workforce is an important aspect of shutdown projects. Not
only must additional workers be brought to the site, they must be oriented to the site and
trained for the work. In order for this training to be done effectively, it is usually
necessary to begin hiring before the shutdown actually begins. If all workers were hired
on the day that the shutdown was to begin, the workers could not all be sufficiently
prepared for the work. It was discovered that safety performance was better on those
projects where hiring of workers began considerably before the shutdown work was to
begin, especially for projects of longer duration (Table 5-6).
Table 5-6: Employee build-up and shutdown duration
Response Number
of Replies
Mean Recordable Injury Rate (RlR)
Median Recordable Injury Rate (RIR)
Build-up is 2 or more weeks and duration less than 2 weeks
2 0 0
Build-up is less than 2 weeks and duration is less than 2
weeks 5 0.72 0.00
Build-up is 2 or more weeks and duration is 2 or more weeks
8 0.49 0.11
Build-up is less than 2 weeks and duration is 2 or more weeks
5 1.19 0.84
) Correlation coefficient = 0.33 Level of significance < 0.04
63
Other than the scheduling units used, there are various scheduling aspects that
must be considered when shutdown projects are being planned. Since projects that are
shut down will directly impact the revenue stream of the facility, it is imperative to have
the facility operational as soon as possible. This is why the number of workers is boosted
to the level that is required to deliver the completed facility as soon as possible.
In order to optimize the delivery of the project to operational status, it is common
for shutdown projects to be constructed in shifts with the shutdown workers remaining
fully employed with extensive overtime until the work is completed. Some projects will
organize shutdown work to be performed by workers being scheduled for six twelve-hour
days or even seven twelve-hour days each week. The results of this study indicated that
projects tended to have better safety records when six twelve-hour days were worked
each workweek instead of seven twelve-hour days. Further analysis revealed that these
findings were influenced by project duration. Tables 5-6 and 5-7 show how better safety
performances were realized on shutdowns of shorter duration. The fatigue impact of a
scheduled workweek of 6 or 7 days, over an extended period has a negative impact on
safety performance (Table 5-7).
Table 5-7: Shutdown duration and workweek
Response Number of
Replies Mean Recordable Injury Rate (RIR)
Median Recordable Injury Rate (RIR)
Duration is less than 2 weeks and a 5 day workweek
3 0 0
Duration is less than 2 weeks and workweek> 5 days
5 0.72 0
Duration is 2 or more weeks and workweek> 5 days
6 0.88 0.77 \.
) Correlation coefficient = 0.40 Level of significance < 0.05
64
Build-up of the workforce raises concerns about the productivity of the workers.
While productivity would naturally be compromised when long work hours are worked
and when the workforce is larger than would be considered ideal under normal
circumstances, the impact on safety performance may also be evident when workers are
inadequately supervised. While findings did not disclose any impact on safety
performance when the workforce was large or small, the findings did show a relationship
between the level of supervision offered and safety performance. It was found that safety
performance appears to be better for the smaller work crews or when the ratio of workers
to supervisors was smaller (Table 5-8).
Table 5- 8: What is the typical crew size on the project?
Response Number of Replies Mean Recordable Injury Rate (RIR)
Median Recordable Injury
Rate (RIR) Less than 7 workers 5 0.56 0.00
More than 12 workers
4 1.61 0.87
Correlation is not statistically significant
An owner's commitment to safety can be addressed in many ways. Such
commitment by the owner begins to be demonstrated by the way safety is addressed in
the contract itself. One way that this can be shown is to pay for good safe work
performance. This can be achieved through incentive contracts . Such a contract is one in
which the contractor receives a financial reward or monetary benefit for a specified level
of safety performance on the project. The definition of safe work is generally stated in
terms of a stipulated OSHA recordable injury rate. Failure to deliver the project at the
stated injury rate means a loss of the financial reward or a reduction in the amount.
Safety performance that is not within the stated range parameters will invariably mean a
65
loss of any financial payment for safe performance. Incentivized contracts contributed to
better safety performance on shutdown type projects (Table 5-9).
Table 5-9: What is the type of contract?
Response Number of
Replies Mean Recordable Injury Rate (RIR)
Median Recordable Injury Rate (RIR)
Safety Incentive 17 0.71 0.67 No Safety Incentive 9 l.74 l.56
Correlation is not significant
In addition to the previously noted findings that were unique to shutdown projects,
the results of this study showed support for seven of the nine categories noted in the
findings of the research on Making Zero Accidents A Reality (Hinze, 2002). These
findings are presented in the following sections.
Pre-Project and Pre-Task Planning
)
Pre-project and pre-task planning are crucial components for an effective safety plan
on shutdown projects. Pre-project planning was discussed earlier when unique aspects of
shutdowns were presented. Pre-task safety plans are equally as important since they
ensure the performance of daily tasks with safety as an integral part of the daily work
routine. Most shutdown projects surveyed implemented a well-established pre-task
planning program. Pre-task safety plans are developed with every changing task. This
often results in several such plans being developed by a single crew during a typical
workday. All of these plans are documented and they are monitored by other personnel
(project manager, superintendent, safety representatives) on site. It was found that pre-
task safety plans were employed on those projects with the better safety performances
(Table 5-10).
66
Table 5-10: Is pre-task planning a regular part of the project planning?
Response Number of Replies Mean Recordable Injury Rate (RIR)
Median Recordable Injury Rate (RIR)
Yes 26 0.80 0.62 No 1 6.92 6.92
Correlation coefficient = 0.30 Level of significance < 0.04
Safety Education and Training
Safety education and training are fundamental to effective jobsite safety. Worker
training begins with the orientation session that workers receive when they first arrive at
the project site. Every worker should receive this orientation training. Tables 5-11 and
5-12 show how the safety performances of proj ects that provided orientation training to
all new field workers, and all new salaried employees, were significantly better than
those without this practice. Note that projects providing orientation training to new field
workers also tended to be the same ones that trained salaried employees.
T bl e 5 11 Doa11 new fiIeld employees receive onentatlOn traInIng . ?a
Response Number of
Replies Mean Recordable Injury Rate (RIR)
Median Recordable Injury Rate (RIR)
Yes 22 0.65 0.11 No 5 2.69 l.90
CorrelatIOn coeffiCient = 0.44 Level of slgmficance < 0.01
Table 5-12: Do salaried employees, new to the project, receive orientation?
Response Number of
Replies Mean Recordable Injury Rate (RIR)
Median Recordable Injury Rate (RIR)
Yes 22 0.65 0.11 No 5 2.69 l.90
Correlation coefficient = 0.44 Level of significance < 0.01
\ )
/
The ongoing demands of a project determine the importance of providing additional
training to address changes in jobsite conditions and work activities. Examples of this
type of training include the propagation of information on confined spaces,
67
lockout/tagout procedures, hot work, fire watch, emergency procedures, and so on. The
appropriate level of training must be offered to all jobsite personnel, including training
that is provided for the supervisory and managerial personnel.
Worker Involvement
Involving workers in the process of ensuringjobsite safety is an important element
of a safety program. If workers are involved in the process, they are more inclined to feel
that they are a part of it. Workers that are involved and that participate in the safety
process become a valuable resource. Morale will generally be improved when workers
are allowed and even encouraged to actively participate in shaping their environment.
There are several ways of encouraging worker involvement and participation, including
observations of worker behavior, input through worker safety perception surveys, through
worker service on safety committees, and various others. Worker involvement in the
safety program was found to be associated with those projects with better safety
performances. The inclusion of workers in safety committees is associated with projects
that had better safety records (Table 5-13).
T bl e 5 13 Wha IS the rna k fi t ee.?a - eup 0 fthe proJec sa e y commi tt
Response Number of Replies Mean Recordable Median Recordable Injury Rate (RlR) Injury Rate (RIR)
Each trade is 12 0.58 OAO
represented Only management is
2 2.26 2.26represented Correlation coefficient = 0.54 Level ofslgmficance < 0.01
/
68
Worker Evaluation and Recognition/Reward
Worker evaluations and recognition/reward programs have shown some success
in improving safety performances. The shortcomings of traditional incentive programs
were noted in the study of Making Zero Accidents A Reality (Hinze, 2002) .. The focus
of particularly effective safety incentive programs on shutdown projects was on
addressing both injury occurrences (negative results) and safe worker behavior (positive
results), and not solely on the occurrence of injuries (Table 5-14).
Table 5-14: Are incentives based on injuries or behavior and injury?
Response Number of
Replies Mean Recordable Injury Rate (RIR)
Median Recordable Injury Rate (RIR)
Injury 10 1.79 1.79 Injury and behavior 11 0.30 0
Correlation coefficient = - 0.34 Level of significance < 0.04
Subcontractor Management
Managing the subcontractor workforce must address the issue of subcontractor
safety. Consistency is important when implementing safety programs on a jobsite. All
parties must act in accordance with with the same safety guidelines. In fact, the
employees of the subcontractors should not be viewed differently from the employees of
the general contractor. Better safety performances were noted on those projects that
included every employee of every subcontractor in the same orientation training session
as the employees of the general contractor (Table 5-15).
Table 5-15: Do subcontractor workers, new to the project, receive orientation?
Response Number of
Replies Mean Recordable Injury Rate (RIR)
Median Recordable Injury Rate (RIR)
Yes 21 0.64 0 No 6 2.37 1.73
Correlation coefficient = 0.44 Level of significance < 0.01
69
Just as worker involvement in construction safety was found to contribute to better
safety performance, so too with the direct involvement of subcontractors in the safety
process. Better safety perfonnances were noted when subcontractors were included in the
attendance of regular project safety meetings (Table 5-16).
Table 5-16: Are regular project safety meetings conducted with subcontractor par1"ICIpafIOn.?
Response Number of Replies Mean Recordable Injury Rate (RIR)
Median Recordable Injury Rate (RIR)
Yes 9 0.26 0 No 12 1.65 1.17
CorrelatIOn coeffiCIent = 0.52 Level of sIgnIficance < 0.01
The project safety plan must make no distinction between the general contractor
and the subcontractors. If the safety program is to be effective, it must involve the
subcontractors whereby they are included in the orientation training, the drug testing, the
safety planning, and so on. This unified approach simplifies the safety mission on the
project. The primary issue should not be one of indemnification or shifting liability, but
rather in assuring every employee with a safe and healthy place in which to work.
Accident/Incident Investigation
)
Accident/incident investigations are important for identifying the root causes of
injuries in order to devise effective preventative measures. While these have now
become standard in the construction industry, the proactive firms on safety include near
misses in these investigations. Better safety performances were noted when a clear and
objective definition of a near miss was part of the project's site safety plan (Table 5-17).
70
Table 5-17: How are near misses defined?
Response Number of
Replies Mean Recordable Injury Rate (RIR)
Median Recordable Injury Rate (RIR)
Objectively 24 0.75 0.40 Intuitively 2 3.84 3.84
Correlation coefficient = 0.26 Level of significance < 0.07
Further, particularly good safety records were associated with those projects that
investigated every near miss and that made no distinction on the basis of severity (Table
5-18).
Table 5-18: When are near misses investigated?
Response Number of
Replies Mean Recordable Injury Rate (RlR)
Median Recordable Injury Rate (RIR)
Always 21 0.64 0 Only when determined
to be severe 6 2.37 1.73
CorrelatIOn coefficient = 0.44 Level of slgmficance < 0.01
The results indicate a better project safety performance when both the first line
supervisor and the project safety representative/manager investigate near misses (Table 5
19). The joint participation of management and field personnel may contribute to a more
thorough investigation, which in tum may result in more proactive measures to be
implemented.
Table 5-19: Who conducts the investigations of near misses?
Response Number
of Replies Mean Recordable Injury Rate (RIR)
Median Recordable Injury Rate (RIR)
First line supervisor 5 1.96 0.97 Safety ReplManager 16 0.95 0.67
Combination of first line supervisor and safety
rep.l manager 5 0.17 0)
J CorrelatIOn coeffiCient = - 0.30 Level of slgmficance < 0.04
71
Drug and Alcohol Testing
Drug and alcohol testing is a standard practice on many construction sites. Drug
abusers pose a health and safety risk to themselves and to others, therefore maintaining a
drug free workforce is one means of helping to ensure a safe work environment. Several
findings in this research showed the safety benefits realized through drug testing. The
types of drug testing include pre-employment, random, post accident, for cause, and
follow-up testing. These have generally been shown to positively impact safety
performance. One finding of interest in this study related to random testing. Normally,
random testing is conducted on a monthly basis with perhaps ten percent of the workforce
being tested. On some projects, the tests were conducted at a random time but with 100
percent of the workforce being tested. The projects with 100% of the workforce being
tested were noted as having particularly good safety performance records (Table 5-20).
Table 5-20: What percent of the workforce is tested in random drug tests?
Response Number of
Replies Mean Recordable Injury Rate (RIR)
Median Recordable Injury Rate (RIR)
100% 4 0 0 Most typically 10% 23 l.2 0.75
Correlation coefficient = 0.39 Level of significance < 0.01
Indicating a trend toward statistical significance, safer perfonnances were noted with
projects that did follow-up drug testing (Table 5-21).
T bl a 5-21 s 0 ow-up d d t d?
) e Ifill rug es mg con uc e .
Response Number of Replies
Mean Recordable Injury Rate (RIR)
Median Recordable Injury Rate (RIR)
Yes 5 0.28 0 No 22 l.19 0.76
CorrelatIOn coefficient = 0.24 Level of slgmficance < 0.08 (trend)
72
The rehabilitation of drug abusers would appear to improve the quality of the workforce.
This has not yet become a widely accepted practice in the construction industry. It is a
rarity for a contractor to focus on rehabilitation for workers who test positive on drug
tests, but this too may change in the future.
Other
Safety glasses were a required piece of personal protective equipment (PPE) on
all of the projects involved in the study. However, side shields for these glasses were not
required on 6 of the projects surveyed. Better safety performances were associated with
those proj ects that did require the side shields for their workers' safety glasses (Table 5
22).
Table 5-22: Are safety glasses, with side shields, required?
Response Number of
Replies
Mean Recordable Injury Rate
(RIR)
Median Recordable Injury
Rate (RIR) Yes 15 0.47 0 No 6 l.46 0.76
Correlation coeffiCient = 0.37 Level of Significance < 0.04
Project safety representatives were surveyed about the impact of participation, if
any, by their respective project insurance carriers. Though not statistically significant, the
results suggest, as a possible trend, that improved safety performance was associated with
those projects where the insurance carrier was actively involved in the project (Table 5
23).
73
Table 5-23: Is your insurance carrier actively involved with projects?
Response Number of
Replies
Mean Recordable Injury Rate
(RIR)
Median Recordable Injury
Rate (RIR) Yes 10 0.48 0.11 No 17 1.34 0.84
CorrelatIOn coeffiCient = 0.25 Level of slgl1lficance < 0.08 (trend)
Further, results show that those insurance carriers that were reported as providing good
suggestions on the project had significantly better safety performances (Table 5-24).
Table 5-24: Do those msurance carners, who are active on the project, make good suggestions?
Response Number of
Replies
Mean Recordable Injury Rate
(RIR)
Median Recordable Injury
Rate (RIR) Yes 6 0.11 0 No 3 1.07 0.58
Correlation coefficient = 0.65 Level of significance < 0.02
No Silver Bullet
When examining the question of whether a single practice ("silver bullet") or a
combination of practices leads to better safety performance, it was found that among the
high impact practices identified, no single practice, in exclusion of the others, leads to
optimal safety performance. Because of the small sample size a regression analysis could
not be performed to isolate the individual strengths of the various safety practices.
Instead, in order to evaluate the findings in an aggregate form, variables representing
strong findings from five of the previously identified impacted areas, which had
responses for all variables, were grouped together and formed into a single variable. The
five categories represented included; pre-project planning, subcontractor management,
dmg and alcohol testing, accident/incident investigation, and safety orientation and
74
training. The analysis was conducted to determine how many of the practices were being
implemented by each project. The results were then examined to determine if the
implementation of these practices impacted safety performance. The better safety
performances were associated with those projects, which implemented most, and
especially all, practices from the five categories (Table 5-25). The results did not suggest
the presence of any "silver bullet", a single practice that accounted for most of the
difference in safety performance.
Table 5-25: To what extent are all the practices implemented?
Response Number of
Replies Mean Recordable Injury Rate (RIR)
Median Recordable Injury Rate (RJR)
Implemented all 4 0 0 Implemented most 17 0.79 0.58
Implemented none or few 6 2.37 1.73 Correlation coefficient = 0.41 Level of significance < 0.003
! /
,
) \
CHAPTER 6 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
The most important conclusion that can be drawn from this study is that the
achievement of zero injuries on shutdown projects is a realistic goal. Half of the
participating shutdown projects reported zero OSHA recordable injuries. Part of the
success of achieving zero injuries on shutdown projects is founded in specifically
addressing the unique aspects of shutdown projects. For optimal safety performance,
workers for the shutdown should be familiar with the shutdown work. This can best be
accomplished by first transferring on-site maintenance workers to the shutdown
operations and second by transferring such workers from other similar projects in the
area. Scheduling of the shutdown work is also a key concern when conducting safe
shutdown operations. Best safety results are realized when scheduling is done in greater
detail, scheduling in terms of hours as opposed to scheduling by shift or by days. Better
safety performances are also attained when shutdowns are of shorter duration and when
the workweeks are reduced.
There will always be situations when the shutdown project is such that the duration
cannot be kept to a short period of time or when excess overtime cannot be avoided.
Steps can still be taken to optimally manage the safety performance of the project.
While the unique aspects of shutdowns have to be addressed, the basics of being safe
in any setting caIUlot be ignored. This study found support for most of the findings
75
76
discovered in the Hinze (2002) study on "Making Zero accidents a Reality." The
following is a summary of the significant findings of this study:
• Better safety performances were found on shutdown projects that scheduled
operations by the hour.
• Better safety performances were found on shutdown projects that employed
workers who were familiar with shutdown work.
• Better safety performances were found on shutdown projects that had smaller
work crews.
• Better safety performances were found on shutdown projects that implemented
pre-task planning on all operations.
• Better safety performances were found on shutdown projects that provided
orientation training for every worker on the project (including subcontractor
workers).
• Better safety performances were found on shutdown projects that included craft
workers in proj ect safety commi ttees.
• Better safety performances were found on shutdown projects that included their
subcontractors in regular safety planning meetings.
• Better safety performances were found on shutdown projects that had their worker
incentives based on injury performance and safe work behavior, not exclusively
on injury performance.
• Better safety performances were found on shutdown projects that implemented
well-established drug testing programs.
77
• Better safety performances were found on shutdown projects that conducted
thorough near miss investigations with the involvement of various personnel.
• Better safety performances were found on shutdown projects that had contracts
with incentives for strong safety performance.
This study showed that good safety performances are regularly achieved on shutdown
work. The results also gave good insights into how such safety performance can be best
accomplished. Optimal safety performance can be accomplished by implementing
various practices. There is no single practice that will make all the difference in safety
performance. The project safety plan must be broad based, encompassing various
practices that address the differing needs of the project. The results of this study need
only be applied in an effort to begin to realize the impact that particular safety practices
have on safety performance.
Shutdown work is unique and the factors that make it unique must be addressed to
achieve good safety performance. When properly implemented, shutdown projects can
achieve the zero injury objectives.
/
CHAPTER 7 RECOMMENDATIONS
The large construction companies have generally performed shutdown projects. The
larger companies have generally been the most aggressive finns in pursuing the goal of
zero injuries. Therefore, the safety record and the way safety is structured on shutdown
projects are of great importance to the industry.
All company managers are encouraged to examine the research results and consider
means of implementing techniques that can prove successful on shutdown projects, and
on other type of projects. The most noteworthy observation of the various techniques is
that the level of investment is not exorbitant. The communication of management's
commitment to safety is a simple task as that commitment should be evident in the daily
activities of management.
It is clear that efforts to improve safety perfonnance should not be dormant.
Therefore it is suggested that this type of research be repeated periodically, perhaps every
five to ten years. The wide dissemination of this type of information is also encouraged.
Implementing safety techniques on outage projects, such as in power generation, should
reflect their differences from the typical shutdown project.
The role of project owners in influencing shutdown jobsite safety clearly is one area
that warrants an in-depth study. The role of owners should be examined to determine
what they do to influence jobsite safety and the extent of that influence. Insights from
78
79
such a research effort could be instrumental in helping to drive owners to playa stronger
role in the effort to pursue zero injury on shutdown projects.
-------------------
/
APPENDIX A SAFETY SURVEY OF SHUTDOWN PROJECTS
Title of Person Interviewed:
Information about the project Is the discussion on an upcoming <-) shutdown, a past <-) shutdown,
or <-) generic for several?
Does your construction firm have an ongoing maintenance (blanket) contract on this project?
D yes 0 no
If yes, how many workers does this firm nonnally employ? _________
If yes, is your firm always asked to perfonn the shutdown/outage work on this project? D yes 0 no
If no, how does your firm get selected to perform the shutdown or outage work? o shutdowns (outages) are planned far enough in advance to pennit competitive bidding on this work . o other (explain): _______________
When shutdowns (outages) occur, what is the range in the number of workers that might actually be employed to perform this type of work? (small value)-to___________(Iarge ).
If a specific shut is described, what was the employment before the shutdown? __ What was (or is expected to be) the peak employment on the shutdown? __
How fast is the employee buildup on small projects? In other words, how many days before the shutdown will the hiring begin? __ days
What might be a typical duration of a small shutdown project? weeks How many days are worked each week? days. How many hours are worked each day? hours What might be the total number of worker hours worked? hours
How fast is the employee buildup on large projects? In other words, how many days before the shutdown will the hiring begin? __ days
What might be a typical duration of a large shutdown project? weeks How many days are worked each week? days. How many hours are worked each day? hours What might be the total number of worker hours worked? hours
80
81
On small shutdown (outage) projects, how many of the workers (out of __ workers) will be workers that have worked on the project before? __%
On large shutdown (outage) projects, how many of the workers (out of __ workers) will be workers that have worked on the project before? __%
Where do the workers come from? The ones that have been on the job before? ______________ __ They work on other projects in the area __ We keep a roster of local people and keep them informed about the
shutdowns __ We transfer some workers from other projects in the area
Where do workers come from that are new to the project? _________ __ We advertise in the trade journals __ Word of mouth gets around
Does the owner of the facility aggressively promote safety for the shutdown?
_yes no How is this done?
J
Does the owner allocate money for the promotion of a strong safety agenda?
yes no
How many safety personnel does the owner provide for the shutdown work? __
************************** Scheduling
What kind of schedule is prepared for the shutdown (outage) work? obar chart 0 critical path schedule 0 other: _______
Is a computer used to do the scheduling? 0 yes O no If yes, please explain the software used? 0 Primavera o Suretrak O MS Project What are the units of time on the schedule? o days 0 shifts 0 hours 0 other.-,-:_______________
Who prepares this schedule? _____________
Who gets involved in the schedule preparation? ___________
How often is the schedule updated, once the shutdown (outage) work begins?
***************************************** Contract Arrangement
I
---
---
-------
--------------------
82
What type of contracting arrangement is used on shutdown work? o cost plus 0 cost plus with a guaranteed max
Is the fee received from the owner dictated in part on the safety performance of the project? D yes 0 no
If the contractor has a blanket contract on the site for maintenance: What is the total number of foremen on the project? ___ What are the primary trades on this project (if any)?
Is this primarily a union shop or merit shop project? 0 union 0 merit
Safety Performance How many worker hours have been expended on this project? hrs
How many injuries have been recorded on this project? ___ near misses
OSHA recordable lost workday
Safety Personnel Is there a full time safety representative on this project: _ yes no Who does this person report to? ________ Does this person have any responsibilities on any other projects?
D yes 0 no Is this person an employee of the general contractor: 0 yes 0 no Is this person a consultant for the project? 0 yes 0 no What are the job responsibilities for this person? _____________ Who hired or how was this person hired? _______________ What are this person's qualifications? _________________ What's the typical daily tasks of this person? _____________ Is this person involved in regular project management meetings? 0 yes 0 no Is this person copied on information related to the project progress (costs, scheduling, quality, etc.)? 0 yes 0 no Does this person considered for end of year safety bonus pool? 0 yes 0 no Does this person help evaluate end-of-year bonuses for other personnel? 0 yes 0 no What is the total number of other safety personnel on site? ____ Who do they report to? ____________ Are they all trained in first aid? 0 yes 0 no J What·are their job responsibilities?__________________ Who hired these other safety personnel? What are their qualifications?
------
83
What are their typical daily tasks?
Are they involved in regular project management meetings? 0 yes 0 no Are they copied on information related to the project progress (costs, scheduling, quality, etc.)? 0 yes 0 no Do they considered for end of year safety bonuses? 0 yes 0 no Do they have the authority to stop unsafe work? 0 yes 0 no How are they generally viewed by the other workers on the site? o positive 0 negative
First Aid Station Does this project have a nurse or EMT? 0 yes 0 no If yes, is this a full-time position? 0 yes 0 no What are the typical daily duties that are performed?
Behavior-based safety Is there a formal behavior-based safety program on this project? 0 yes 0 no If yes, was it developed in-house or by a consultant? 0 in-house 0 consultant
Do management and supervisory personnel receive overview training in behavior based safety philosophy and the concepts? 0 yes 0 no
Behavior-based Safety observer Are safety observers used on this project? 0 yes 0 no Are the observers hourly craft workers? 0 yes 0 no, ________ How many safety observers are cunently on the project? _____ What percent of the workers are safety observers? ___% What is the length of training to be an observer? hours How often does a typical observer observe other workers? What is the average time for one safety observation? ______ hours Is a formal report made of each observation? 0 yes 0 no How does management use this information for continuous project improvement?
,
/ 1
Are the names of workers recorded on the observation form? 0 yes 0 no Who reviews the observation reports? ___________ How many observation reports have been made on this project? ____ What is the nature of the feedback given to the observed worker(s)?
***(can we get a copy of a safety observation report?)
Safety perception surveys Are safety perception surveys (worker input) conducted on this project? 0 yes 0 no What type of information is obtained from these surveys? ________ How often are these surveys conducted? ___________ What percent of the workers participate in the surveys? % When were they first administered on this project? ________
-----
----------
84
How often are the surveys repeated? ________ Who evaluates them to impact changes? ____________ Could you give an example of a change made as a result of past surveys?
***(can we get a copy of a safety perception survey?)
Safety Incentives Are safety incentives provided to the workers? 0 yes 0 no If yes,
Is the incentive based on individual or crew perfonnance? o individual 0 crew
Is it based on injuries or safety behavior? 0 injuries 0 safe behavior How often are the incentives given to the workers?
o weekly 0 biweekly 0 monthly 0 quarterly 0 annually oother:
What types of awards are given. Are incentives cumulative or progressive in nature?
ocumulative 0 progressive Are incentives lottery type where only safe workers and crews are potential winners? 0 yes 0 no
Are a separate incentive awarded for safe completion of a project? D yes 0 no
Are incentives based on a level of perfonnance that is based on achieving perfonnance below a prescribed injury frequency level? 0 yes 0 no
If yes, what is the injury frequency goal to beat? ______ Procedure for giving out the awards: Who gives out the award: _______________
Do any other personnel (not field workers) qualify for safety incentives? D yes 0 no o Foremen
What is the approximate value of the incentive? $_____ How often is the incentive given out? __________
o Superintendents What is the approximate value of the incentive? $_____ If the incentive is like a safety bonus, what is the potential value?
__% of one month's salary How often is the incentive given out? __________
o Safety Representative What is the approximate value of the incentive? $_____ How often is the incentive given out? __________
:J Project Manager What is the approximate value of the incentive? $_____ How often is the incentive given out? __________
)
-------------------
---------------------
------------
---
---------------
--------
85
/
o Others: (describe): _________ What is the approximate value of the incentive? $ _____ How often is the incentive given out?
What is the approximate budget allocation for safety awards and incentives? % of the contract amount or other:
Are field supervisors evaluated on safety perfolIDance? 0 yes 0 no What are the results of a strong safety perfolIDance record? _________
Are sanctions imposed for unsafe worker behavior? 0 yes 0 no o verbal 0 written 0 both 0 other: Gi ve an example: ___________________________________ How many sanctions have been issued on this project?
Is the safety perfolIDance record a factor when workers are considered for raises? D yes 0 no
Safety dinners/recognition Does the company sponsor safety dinners for this project? 0 yes 0 no How often are these safety dinners held? ___________________ Who attends these dinners?
o Workers: Which workers are eligible? ___________________ Do family members also attend? 0 yes 0 no
o Foremen: Which foremen receive invitations? oProject Manager 0 Company president
Are there other methods by which outstanding safety perfolIDers are recognized? D yes 0 no If yes, give an example: ___________________________________
Personal Protective Equipment What personal protective equipment is required to be worn by the workers at all
times? o hard hats 0 safety shoes 0 safety glasses 0 other: _________ How does the company pay for personal protective equipment? o project budget 0 special corporate budget 0 special job safety allocation
Drug testing Is there a substance abuse testing program on this project? 0 yes 0 no What types of testing are conducted? opre-employment screening 0 random 0 for reasonable cause o post-accident 0 blanket testing 0 follow-up testing On pre-employment screening tests, what percent have tested positive? __% On random tests,
What percent of the workforce is tested? __% How often are random tests conducted, on average?
Typically, what percent of the random tests are positive? % What is the project policy when a worker tests positive?
--------------------------------
-----
-----------------
---------
------------------
---------------------
86
o suspension of employment and eligible for retesting after days o termination of employment after repeat positive test results o treatment offered at company expense, refusal results in tennination o treatment recommended, but not at company expense o treatment not considered, drug abusers are tenninated o other:
Are staff and salaried personnel also tested in these random tests? 0 yes 0 no
Home Office Involvement How often does someone from the home office make safety inspections on this
project? o weekly 0 biweekly 0 monthly 0 quarterly 0 annually 0 never
Who in the home office reviews safety reports generated by this project? o president 0 safety director 0 vice-president 0 other: _____
Safety Committee Is there a formal safety committee (zero accident team) on the project? 0 yes 0 no
How many workers are on the committee? How often they tour the job? Howlongeachtour? ___________________ How are workers selected to serve on the committee? What is the craft makeup of the committee? What is the formal authority of the committee? __________ Give examples of something they changed: Does the safety committee review the safety behavior observation reports?
D yes 0 no If yes, describe actions they have taken to improve project safety:
Safety in mission statement and safety communications What is the primary means used to communicate the importance of project safety to the workers?
-
Does the company communicate the importance of safety to worker family members? D yes 0 no If yes, explain how: _______________
Does the project have a contractor newsletter? 0 yes 0 no If yes, how often is it published? _________ If yes, what percent is dedicated to safety? %
Worker orientation Who receives orientation training on this project? o new project field employees 0 every worker on the project o new subcontractor employees 0 new salaried workers 0 other: _______ How many trainers are employed by the company? ______ Do project management personnel participate in orientation training? 0 yes C no
/
------------------------------------------
---------------------
87
Ifyes,how? ______________________________________
Who is responsible for orientation training of the subcontractor workers? 0 Safety rep
\
What type of safety orientation training do the new hires receive? o none 0 formal 0 informal
Who conducts the orientation training? o in-house personnel 0 outside hired trainer o outside classes 0 no special training is offered
Are workers given a test after they have received training? 0 yes 0 no What are the key topics addressed by the training that is offered?
Is safety training a line item in the budget for the project? 0 yes 0 no Is there a formal safety training plan for the project? 0 yes 0 no Other than orientation, do workers receive other types of safety training? 0 yes 0 no
If yes, explain: _______________________________ o confined space 0 hot work 0 0 How much additional training do workers receive? __ hours per month Are these training sessions held as workers are being paid? 0 yes 0 no
Accident/Incident investigations What types of accidents are investigated and the time to conduct each?
o near miss 0 OSHA recordable 0 first aid 0 lost workday 0 other: Who conducts these accident investigations?
o foreman 0 superintendent 0 project manager 0 safety rep. How much time is involved in investigating typical accidents? ____________
o near miss 0 OSHA recordable 0 first aid o lost workday __
What happens after the investigation is done? Where is the report sent? 0 job file 0 home office 0 other: ____
Is top management involved in accident investigations? If yes, what percent of the recordable injuries? __% If yes, what percent of the lost workday inj uries? __%
Is a summary or corporate accident report provided to all the jobs? 0 yes 0 no
Are near misses documented on this project? 0 yes 0 no How is a near miss defined? Who determines when a near miss has occurred? Who initiates the documentation? Who conducts the investigation? _____________________ Are the names of workers recorded on the investigation form? 0 yes 0 no How extensive is each investigation? (explain) How is a near miss categorized? 0 severe 0 minor How many near misses have been recorded on this project? _____
-------------------------------------------
88
(can we get a copy of a near miss investigation report?)
SupervisorylManagement Safety Training Do the foremen receive any type of safety training on this project? 0 yes D no If yes, how often is this training provided? 0 weekly 0 biweekly 0 monthly
o quarterly 0 annually 0 other: ____________ If yes, is attendance mandatory? D yes D no If yes, how many hours of training are offered to each foreman each month?
hrs Does career enhancement require that a minimum level of safety training be received? D yes D no
Do general foremen receive safety training? D yes D no If yes, how often is this training provided? 0 weekly o biweekly D monthly
D quarterly 0 annually D other: ____________ If yes, is attendance mandatory? 0 yes 0 no How many hours of training are offered to each general foreman each month?
hrs Does career enhancement require that a minimum level of safety training be received? 0 yes 0 no
Do superintendents and project managers receive safety training? D yes D no If yes, how often is this training provided? D weekly 0 biweekly 0 monthly
o quarterly D annually 0 other: ____________ If yes, is attendance mandatory? D yes 0 no If yes, how many hours oftraining are offered to each person each month? _hrs Does career enhancement require that a minimum level of safety training be received? D yes 0 no
Tool box meetings Are tool box (safety) meetings held on the jobsite? 0 yes D no Are these held at the crew level or do several crews attend the same meeting?
o crew 0 several crews together 0 everyone on the job Do the subcontractors conduct their own safety meetings? 0 yes 0 no If yes, how often are they held? 0 daily 0 weekly 0 biweekly
o other: When are the meetings generally held? 0 Monday 0 Tuesday D Wednesday
o Thursday 0 Friday 0 Varies: _________ Who presides at these meetings? 0 assigned worker 0 foreman 0 safety rep.
o superintendent :::J project manager 0 other: _______________
Project Pre-Task Safety Planning What type of preplanning is used for site mobilization:
------
89
Is a constructability review a part of pre-process planning process? 0 yes 0 no If yes, is safety a part of the constructability review? 0 yes 0 no
Are workers required to be involved in pre-task safety planning prior to perfonning their work? 0 yes 0 no When is the pre-task planning perfonned? Who has primary responsibility for pre-task planning? _______
What documents or resources are most often used for pre-task planning?
What type of work schedule is used on this project? obar chart 0 critical path schedule C milestones 0 none
Site Specific Safety Is there a site-specific safety program on the project? 0 yes 0 no
If yes, who prepared it? _____________ If yes, how extensive is it? ______________ If yes, how often is it referenced on a week to week basis? ________
Was a job hazard analysis conducted for this project? If yes, who prepared it? _____________ If yes, how often is it used on the project? ___________
Is an activity hazard analysis study conducted prior to each major phase of work? D yes 0 no
If yes, explain how it is done: _______________
Insurance carrier Does the insurance carrier have an active involvement in project safety? 0 yes 0 no Does an insurance rep make job visits and safety tours? 0 yes 0 no Do they make good suggestions? 0 yes 0 no Explain: ______________________ Do they provide real-time loss data that is helpful for implementing project safety initiatives? 0 yes 0 no Ifyes,describe: _________________________
OSHA Have OSHA consulting services ever been used on this project? 0 yes 0 no Has OSHA helped in any way on this project? 0 yes 0 no
Explain: ___________________
APPENDlXB CURSORY ANALYSIS OF POWER DATA
The 10 projects recognized as "power" or "outage" projects were separated from
the analysis of the overall shutdown sample. It was believed that these types of projects
were unique in comparison to "shutdown" projects, to the degree that separation of the
data was warranted. Large power projects had average shutdown or outage project
durations of more than 8 weeks compared to about 6 weeks (as a maximum) for non-
power projects. An average of 50 days were required to hire employees before a project
began on power projects as compared to an average of26 days for non-power type
shutdown projects. This suggests a longer build-up time for the workforce.
The following tables illustrate potential trends found after analyzing the power
data.
Table B-1 : Does the construction firm have an ongoing maintenance contract on the . ?proJect.
Yes or No Number of
Replies
Mean Recordable Injury Rate
(RIR)
Median Recordable Injury
Rate (RIR) Yes 6 OAO 0.25 No 3 2.99 2.86
CorrelatlOn coefficIent = 0.74 Level of slglllficance < 0.01
/
90
91
Table B-2: Is your construction finn always asked to perfonn the outage work on this .proJect.?
Yes or No Number of
Replies
Mean Recordable Injury Rate
(RIR)
Median Recordable Injury
Rate (RIR) Yes 6 0.39 0.25 No 3 2.98 2.86
Correlation coefficient = 0.74 Level of significance < 0.01 Table B-3: When large outages occur what is the range in the number of workers that might actually be employed to perfonn this type of work?
Range in number of workers Number of
Replies
Mean Recordable Injury Rate
(RIR)
Median Recordable Injury
Rate (RIR) Up to 500 3 0 0
Greater than 500 9 1.89 1.32 CorrelatIOn coefficient = 0.74 Level of significance < 0.01
Table B-4: How are new workers made aware of aware of upcoming outage projects?
Means of recruitment Number of
Replies
Mean Recordable Injury Rate
(RIR)
Median Recordable Injury
Rate (RIR) Advertise in trade journals 1 2.86 2.86
Combination of trade journal advertisements and word of
mouth 6 0.67 0.69
Word of mouth 1 0 0 CorrelatIOn coefficient = -0.61 Level of significance < 0.04
Table B-5: Does the owner allocate money for the promotion of a strong safety agenda?
Yes or No Number of
Replies
Mean Recordable Injury Rate
(RIR)
Median Recordable Injury
Rate (RIR) Yes 7 0.58 0.50 No 2 3.64 3.64
Correlation coefficient = 0.65 Level of significance < 0.02
Table B- 6: What type of contract arrangement is used on the outage work?
Contract arrangement Number of
Replies
Mean Recordable Injury Rate
(RIR)
Median Recordable Injury
Rate (RIR)_ Cost Plus 6 0.39 0.25
Lump Sum 3 2.98 2.86 CorrelatIOn coeffiCient = 0.74 Level of Significance < 0.01
92
Table B-7: Is the fee received from the owner dictated in part on the safety performance f h .?o t e project.
Yes or No Number of
Replies
Mean Recordable Injury Rate
(RIR)
Median Recordable Injury
Rate (RIR) Yes 5 0.26 0 No 2 2.70 2.70
Correlation coefficient = 0.75 Level of slgI1lficance < 0.03
Table B-8: Does the full time safety representative help evaluate end-of-year bonuses for other personnel?
Yes or No Number of
Replies
Mean Recordable Injury Rate
(RIR)
Median Recordable Injury
Rate (RIR) Yes 4 0.24 0 No 4 1.87 l.28
Correlation coefficient = 0.60 Level of significance < 0.04
Table B-9: When incentives are based on a level of performance below a prescribed injury frequency level, what is that injury frequency level?
Prescribed injury frequency level
Number of Replies
Mean Recordable Injury Rate
(RIR)
Median Recordable Injury
Rate (RIR) IR < or = 1.0 3 0.33 0
IR> 1.5 2 3.05 3.05 CorrelatIOn coefficient = 0.82 Level of significance < 0.04
Table B-1 0: During an outage how many days are worked each week?
Number of days worked each week
Number of Replies
Mean Recordable Injury Rate
(RIR)
Median Recordable Injury
Rate (RIR) 5 1 2.86 2.86 6 2 l.32 1.32 7 6 0.97 0.25
CorrelatIOn coefficient = - 0.55 Level of significance < 0.04
93
Table B-ll: How often are incentives given out to foremen?
Incentive frequency Number of
Replies
Mean Recordable Injury Rate
(RlR)
Median Recordable Injury
Rate (RlR) Weekly 3 0.46 0.50 Monthly 2 2.86 2.86
CorrelatIOn coefficIent = 0.77 Level of sig11lficance < 0.05
T biB 12a e - A rt f th fi 'dspa 0 e Irm s trug es mg . fi 11program IS 0 ow up t d t d?es mg con uc e .
Yes or No Number of
Replies
Mean Recordable Injury Rate
(RlR)
Median Recordable Injury
Rate (RlR) Yes 5 0.51 0 No 4 2.19 1.92
CorrelatIOn coeffiCIent = -0.55 Level of SIgnificance < 0.05
Table B-13: How often does someone from the home office make inspections on the project?
Frequency of Inspection Number of
Replies
Mean Recordable Injury Rate
(RlR)
Median Recordable Injury
Rate (RlR) Monthly!Bi-monthIy 2 0 0 Quarterly! Annually 7 1.62 0.98
Correlation coefficient = 0.56 Level of significance < 0.04
Table B-14 Does t he presl ent review sa ety reports generate dbyth' IS proJect.?
Yes or No Number of
Replies
Mean Recordable Injury Rate
(RlR)
Median Recordable Injury
Rate (RlR) Yes 3 2.75 2.86 No 6 0.51 0.25
CorrelatIOn coeffiCIent = -0.66 Level of Significance < 0.02
Table B-15: Does the project have a contractor newsletter?
Yes or No Number of
Replies
Mean Recordable Injury Rate
(RlR)
Median Recordable Injury
Rate (RlR) Yes 5 1.99 1.67 No 4 0.35 0.25
Correlation coefficient = -0.55 Level of significance < 0.05
93
Table B-ll: How often are incentives given out to foremen?
Number of Mean Recordable Median
Incentive frequency Replies
Injury Rate Recordable Injury (RIR) Rate (RIR)
Weekly 3 0.46 0.50 Monthly 2 2.86 2.86
CorrelatIon coefficIent = 0.77 Level of sigl1lficance < 0.05
T bIB 12 A rt f th fi 'd a e - spa 0 e Irm s t rug es mg . fi 11 program IS 0 ow up t d t d? es mg con uc e .
Number of Mean Recordable Median
Yes or No Replies
Injury Rate Recordable Injury (RIR) Rate (RIR)
Yes 5 0.51 0 No 4 2.19 l.92
CorrelatIOn coefficIent = -0.55 Level of slgmficance < 0.05
Table B-13: How often does someone from the home office make inspections on the project?
Number of Mean Recordable Median
Frequency of Inspection Replies
Injury Rate Recordable Injury (RIR) Rate (RIR)
Monthl y!Bi -monthl y 2 0 0 Quarterly! Annually 7 l.62 0.98
Correlation coefficient = 0.56 Level of significance < 0.04
T bl B 14 D a e - h oes t e presl ent reVIew sa ety reports generate db h' ? yt IS proJect.
Number of Mean Recordable Median
Yes or No Replies
Injury Rate Recordable Injury (RIR) Rate (RIR)
Yes 3 2.75 2.86 No 6 0.51 0.25
CorrelatIOn coefficIent = -0 .66 Level of SIgnIficance < 0.02
Table B-15: Does the project have a contractor newsletter?
Number of Mean Recordable Median
Yes or No Replies
Injury Rate Recordable Injury (RIR) Rate (RIR)
Yes 5 l.99 1.67 No 4 0.35 0.25
Correlation coefficient = -0.55 Level of significance < 0.05
94
a Itt' d d' t d t fi t ?T bl e B-16 What percen age 0 fthe news e er IS e Ica e o sa e y.
% Of Newsletter dedicated to safety
Number of Replies
Mean Recordable Injury Rate
(RIR)
Median Recordable Injury
Rate (RIR) 75% to 100% 1 0 0 25% to 50% 2 1.32 1.32
Small; usually only milestone info
1 2.86 2.86
Correlation coefficient = 0.91 Level of significance < 0.04
Table B-17: How is a near missed categorized?
Near Miss Categorized as Number of
Replies
Mean Recordable Injury Rate
(RIR)
Median Recordable Injury
Rate (RIR) Severe 4 0.25 0 Varies 3 1.42 0.89
Not categorized 1 1.67 1.67 CorrelatIOn coefficient = 0.60 Level of significance < 0.04
Table B-18 : Have OSHA consulting services ever been used on this project?
Yes or No Number of
Replies
Mean Recordable Injury Rate
(RIR)
Median Recordable Injury
Rate (RIR) Yes 4 0.35 0.25 No 5 1.99 1.67
CorrelatIOn coefficient = 0.54 Level of significance < 0.05
T bl e B- 19 Has e pe In any way on t h' IS proJect.?a OSHA hId '
Yes or No Number of
Replies
Mean Recordable Injury Rate
(RIR)
Median Recordable Injury
Rate (RIR) Yes 4 0.35 0.25 No 5 1.99 1.67
CorrelatIOn coefficient = 0.54 Level of significance < 0.05
)
95
Table B-20: If a specific outage is described what was the employment before the outage?
Employment Before Outage Number of
Replies
Mean Recordable Injury Rate
(RIR)
Median Recordable Injury
Rate (RIR) 25 3 0 0 75 1 0.89 0.89 125 3 2.20 1.67
Correlation coefficient = 0.79 Level of significance < 0.02
Table B-21: On small outages what is the largest number of workers actually employed for the project?
Largest Number of Workers Employed
Number of Replies
Mean Recordable Injury Rate
(RIR)
Median Recordable Injury
Rate (RIR) 75 2 0.93 0.93
200 3 0.12 0 CorrelatIOn coefficIent = -0.82 Level of sIgnificance < 0.04
Table B-22: What is the average length of time (in hours) for one safety observation?
Average Number of Hours for One Safety Observation
Number of Replies
Mean Recordable Injury Rate
(RIR)
Median Recordable Injury
Rate (RIR) 0.20 Hours 1 4.42 4.42
1 Hour 4 1.13 0.84 10 Hours 1 0 0
Correlation coefficient = -0.67 Level of significance < 0.05
BIBLIOGRAPHY
The Construction Industry Institute, Zero Accidents Task Force, "Zero Injury Techniques," cn Publication 32-1, May 1993.
Geller, Scott, E., "What is Behavior-Based Safety, Anyway?," Occupational Health & Safety, January 1997, pp. 25-30.
Hinze, Jimmie, and Hamson, Charles, "Safety Programs in Large Construction Firms," Journal of the Construction Division, ASCE, 107, No. C03, Proc. Paper 16509, September 1981, pp. 455-467.
Hinze, Jimmie, Construction Safety, Prentice-Hall, Inc., Saddleback, NJ, 1997.
Hinze, Jimmie, and Wilson, Gary, "The cn Zero Injury Techniques Validation Study," National Center for Construction Education and Research, Gainesville, FL, 1998.
Hinze, 1. "Making Zero Accidents a Reality," RR160-11, A Report to the Construction Industry Institute, The University of Texas at Austin, March 2002
Kliemele, Mark J. and Schmidt, Stephen R., "Basic Statistics - Tools for Continuous Improvement," 2nd Ed., Air Academy Press, Colorado Springs, Colorado, 1991.
96
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH
Raymond Godfrey completed his Bachelor of Science degree in Psychology from
the University of Florida in December 1984. The following ten years he worked in the
community mental health field while completing his Master of Education degree in
Counselor Education at Florida Atlantic University in April 1994. In January of 1999 he
enrolled at the University ofFlorida graduate program in the M.E. School of Building
Construction. He graduated with a Master of Science degree in Building Construction in
August 2002.
)
97
