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

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 Discussion of overall Project ISM, including ARR’s and preparations for Users. Talk will focus on civil construction. The GC managed work has resulted in recordable injuries (TRCs) that have for the most part become DARTs. This is where our cause of concern lies and will be discussed in this presentation. On a positive note all CF and Technical Systems managed work has been performed w/o injury. Yes, there have been issues – but when immediately addressed positive outcome is achieved. We are working diligently to preserve this record.

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 ISMS Plan provides overarching direction with regard to safety expectations. Work Authorization Procedure – Provides specific direction regarding work planning PO driven / similar to other Lab processes Goal is to ensure that CF1 thru CF5 incorporated into work planning LCLS Project ES&H Plan Sub produces site safety plan which we review to assure they recognize the hazards (CF1 & 2) JSA & Tailgate are further refinements of the analysis process (CF3 & 4) PM/UTRs monitor the entire process (CF4 & 5) TCCo Supposed to follow the same management model used by LCLS

PROJECT SAFETY EXPERIENCE Through 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.

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 Our challenge to ourselves is to maintain Zero!

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 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

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

Previous Review Recommendations 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

Integrated Safety and Environmental Management 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 Reversing the order from slide 2 Goal is Zero!