Construction Safety M Scharfenstein ESH Coordinator 14 May

Construction Safety M. Scharfenstein - ES&H Coordinator 14 May 2009 Construction Safety DOE Status Review of the LCLS Project M. Scharfenstein scharf@slac. stanford. edu

• 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 Construction Safety DOE Status Review of the LCLS Project 2 2 M. Scharfenstein scharf@slac. stanford. edu

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 Construction Safety DOE Status Review of the LCLS Project 3 3 M. Scharfenstein scharf@slac. stanford. edu

PROJECT SAFETY EXPERIENCE Through March 2009 DART Rate Total Project Hours 2. 16 M Hours worked DART Rate 1. 03 Sub. Contractors 597 K Hours worked DART Rate 3. 02 (9 Incidents) TRC Rate 4. 02 (3 Incidents) LCLS Collaboration 1, 566 K Hours worked DART Rate 0. 26 (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. Construction Safety DOE Status Review of the LCLS Project 4 4 M. Scharfenstein scharf@slac. stanford. edu

Construction Safety DOE Status Review of the LCLS Project 5 5 M. Scharfenstein scharf@slac. stanford. edu

CF & Technical Systems Stewardship • Excellent Safety Record – 120 K+ hours w/o injury (TRC or DART) • S 20, MMF, Injector, Linac TSI, S 522, 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 Construction Safety DOE Status Review of the LCLS Project 6 6 M. Scharfenstein scharf@slac. stanford. edu

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 – – – • December ’ 07 thru April ’ 08 : Some progress, then… – Two DARTs associated with one sub • • • PMT changes Deficiency Notices & Fines Communication with Corporate TCCo Safety Stewardship Committee Established Full time on-site medic (+30 hr OSHA) UTRs added 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 Construction Safety DOE Status Review of the LCLS Project 7 7 M. Scharfenstein scharf@slac. stanford. edu

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 Construction Safety DOE Status Review of the LCLS Project 8 8 M. Scharfenstein scharf@slac. stanford. edu

Previous Review Recommendations Develop a Post-Project Safety Evaluation addressing the project safety organization and Lessons Learned, for the benefit of future BES projects ESH specific Lessons Learned document completed Project Lessons Learned document in-progress Develop and implement an End-of-Construction Safety Plan addressing safety issues unique to GC and subcontractor demobilization from the site Multi-action plan following A. Clobes/NIF process Plan covers more than ESH/safety Construction Safety DOE Status Review of the LCLS Project 9 9 M. Scharfenstein scharf@slac. stanford. edu

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 – Lessons Learned documented – End of CMGC managed construction safety plan Construction Safety DOE Status Review of the LCLS Project 10 10 M. Scharfenstein scharf@slac. stanford. edu

end of presentation Construction Safety DOE Status Review of the LCLS Project 11 11 M. Scharfenstein scharf@slac. stanford. edu