Construction Safety

1. Construction Safety M. Scharfenstein - ES&H Coordinator 8 June 2009

2. Project ISM Process & Implementation • Civil Construction • Technical Systems Installations • Lab shops, subcontractors and collaborators • Commissioning w/ transition to Operations = ARR’s • Safety Assessment Document • Accelerator Safety Envelope • Experience • Overall and detail statistics • Construction and Installation experience • Lessons Learned • Direct subcontractor management • Detailed work planning • Previous Review Recommendations

3. Project-specific ISEMS Implementation • SLAC Integrated Safety Management Plan • SLAC Work Planning and Control • Formerly LCLS Work Authorization Procedure • Scope / Hazard & Control documentation / Authorization & Release • SLAC ES&H Manual • Formerly LCLS Project ES&H Plan • GC/sub Site Specific Safety Plan • Job Safety Analysis • Daily Tailgate Safety Meetings • PM/UTR manages each subcontract • CF-5 / Continuous Improvement / Lessons Learned • Management Walkthrough Process • Formerly LCLS Safe Performance Observation Process • Focused walkthru to note & promote safe behavior

4. PROJECT SAFETY EXPERIENCEThrough April 2009 DART Rate • Total Project Hours • 2.19 M Hours worked • DART Rate 1.03 • SubContractors • 599 K Hours worked • DART Rate 3.01 (9 Incidents) • TRC Rate 4.01 (3 Incidents) • LCLS Collaboration • 1,589 K Hours worked • DART Rate 0.25 (2 Incidents) Injury rates based on 200 K hours (100 man years) of effort.DOE/SC Goal is a Reportable Case (TRC) rate of < 0.25 and a Days Away, Restricted, or Transferred (DART) rate < 0.65 per 100 FTEs.

6. CF & Technical Systems Stewardship • Excellent Safety Record • 120K+ hours w/o injury (TRC or DART) • S20, MMF, Injector, Linac TSI, S522, LTU • Project Managers / UTRs / Installation Managers • Direct management of subcontractors • Communicate ES&H Expectations • Guide them to success • Enforcement when needed • Thorough Work Planning and Control • Aggressive ISM management • Issues identified and addressed immediately • Positive Results • Ownership of safety

7. CF CMGC Stewardship • October ’06 thru April ’07 Ramp Up to Full Production : Procedural Violations • Stand Down of Construction Activities : All Hands Meeting • Review of Work Planning Process for field work – JSA process inadequate • PMT changes • Deficiency Notices • May ’07 thru November ’07 Full Production : DARTs • Multi-day Stand Down of Construction Activities : Corrective Action Plan • Paperwork ineffectively utilized by CM/GC and trade contractors • PMT changes • Deficiency Notices & Fines • Communication with Corporate TCCo • Safety Stewardship Committee Established • Full time on-site medic (+30hr OSHA) • UTRs added • December ’07 thru April ’08 : Some progress, then… • Two DARTs associated with one sub • PM removed • Work stopped • May ’08 thru December ’08 : No DARTs • Effective work planning & execution sought • Plan for joint observation developed • Attendance at daily morning work planning meetings • JSA review with workers throughout the day • Identification / monitoring of specific trades or tasks for safe work practices • Must communicate with the worker

8. Lessons Learned • CM/GC and/or subcontractor selection criteria • Assessment of EMR and competencies of the PMT • DOE Environment • Help the contractor understand how OSHA is enforced • A CM/GC must closely monitor subcontractor means and methods • Project Safety Standards • Clearly define standards that will apply • Contract clause re most recent standard rev • Initial Work Execution Evaluation • Initial work packages are owner reviewed and executed with owner ‘participation’ • Partnering and committees • Partnering process at onset of project • Safety Stewardship • Conflict Resolution Forum

9. Continue to support Turner with LCLS resources to reduce the risk of additional safety violations and personnel injuries through the completion of the Turner construction scope. Done – 270 days w/o DART, 184 days w/o TRC LCLS should take the lead in establishing the safety culture the Laboratory Director has targeted for the Laboratory as a whole. Done – Developed Construction ES&H Plan, Work Planning & Control Process, Management Walkthrough Process SLAC safety violations identified during LCLS reviews should be addressed and promptly corrected whether specific to the LCLS project, or SLAC generic. Done – Three specific issues and process in general Track and report the precursors to lost time injuries in order to take corrective actions in time to prevent them. DART statistics are not sufficient if zero lost time injuries is the goal, and it is. Done – had been happening all along project but not communicated The DOE Lessons Learned database should be utilized as a tool to improve JSA preparation. Further, do not underestimate the time required to prepare safety related documentation and the time it takes for the approval process. Agreed, still a challenge Previous Review Recommendations

10. Conclusion • Integrated Safety and Environmental Management • Following SLAC ISEMS Process • SLAC ES&H Manual • Work Planning and Control • Following LCLS ES&H management practices • LCLS Requirement, Specification and Interface Documents • Reviews, Authorizations, Continuous Improvement • Experience and Lessons Learned • Understanding the National Laboratory Environment • Partnering for Success • Recommendations valued & all adopted…almost