Construction Safety Middle Ground: Why Are Some Sites Safe?

December 2011

My company recently completed a series of projects across a military base. The tasks involved demolition of an aircraft hangar, renovation of a water tower, miles of trenching, replacement of a large internal air-handling unit 40 feet above the ground, construction of a new building, and removal of a rail line. Not one son or daughter was hurt doing it.

By TJ Lyons

Incident-free sites are common in the construction world but are often unnoticed or overlooked. Based on the work a construction worker must do and the inherent hazards present, incidents are rare but very visible.

This column examines some of the reasons one series of projects were a success, the contributors that helped, and a theory I have on why some sites are safe and others are not.

My Repose Theory

My creed, which I refer to as Lyonetics or "how to keep good people from hurting themselves," is based on three constants:

• Recognition of those who do right and accountability for those who do not
• Sharing and use of best practices and lessons learned
• Accepting that perfectly safe work sites are rare—but hazards can never be life threats

As I traveled through the High Line of Montana last year trying to appreciate country music, I noted grain bins by the thousands scattered across the plains. The farmer in me found it interesting that the slopes of the bin roofs differed. You could easily see that one roof would shed a snow load easily, but another seemed too flat and would fail quickly. So, I started running the angles of those "good" roofs. (Yes, I carry an inclinometer.) In the world of excavations, 34 degrees is the maximum slope (the angle of repose) for an excavation to be safe. And the slopes of the "good roofs" ... 34 degrees! Crazy, I thought, but I am not an engineer and expect that there is significant and unfamiliar science behind that angle.

As I continued along, I wondered whether there was a natural slope to life threats to all the other hazards on a construction site. That evening I ran a program of life threats versus nonthreats on investigations I had completed and then computed that slope—35 degrees. Very cool, but I am not sure what that means yet.

When working in underground mines, one must always listen for roof collapse (things falling from the ceiling). When you're in open-pit mines, you listen for "raveling," the evidence of small stones rolling down a slope. Both indicate that something is failing or will fail—the common natural factor is gravity.

The repose theory acknowledges that somewhere there is a nature-driven level of acceptable risk when humans are involved. If the risk is too steep (too tight a safety system), it will fail and return back to its repose. If it's too shallow a slope (a loose system), then significant events are ready to occur, for that structure is failing.

A tight safety system is where safety is #1, always the focus, workers are scared to make a mistake, and the owner's reaction to an incident includes threats to future work or escalating reactions.

A loose safety system is where safety is not truly an element of the work. The site is a mess, the quality of the work is questionable, and competent persons are not.

The "Safe Site"

When reviewing the safety audits of the incident-free project, it was obvious that items of concern were noted, but life threats were rare. Several of the players stood out in their safety approach, a few were mediocre, and one subcontractor's project manager considered safety irrelevant. When reviewed as a whole, this was a balanced group for a construction site.

Following are the factors that were in play on this successful project (which took more than 2 years) that contributed to an injury-free site.

Recognition

At every opportunity, if someone did something great, that was shared with everyone on the project and the operations leaders overseeing the work. For example, when planning the demolition of a large hangar, the removal of numerous two-ton counterweights for the doors was a concern. These had been suspended since before FM radio was invented, resting on rusting cables and rotten brackets. Everyone was worried about how to handle the counterweights and ensure that the building did not come down if the operation failed. Torches with long handles, shoring up the weights, and erecting physical barriers were considered to devise a plan for their safe removal. At some point, the subcontractor asked, "Why don't we just get a long pair of shears for the excavator and cut those things loose from 80 feet away?" This eliminated risk to those who would have to work on the ground and eliminated the threat of a fire. The operator was well protected in the reinforced cage of the machine. This was a great idea, and that operator and his firm were widely recognized for the approach, not only internally, but also through formal recognition to his firm.

Training

Each time a safety manager visited the site, some level of training was provided. If confined space operations were planned, a lunch-and-learn session was held a few weeks ahead of the work. The safety team covered the cost of the lunches (that is a big deal in the field), and each attendee received a certificate of completion. The owner and subcontractors were always invited and often attended. Personalized training provides clear expectations to specific hazards of the particular work.

Client Expectations

On many construction projects, the actual clients may not be very interested in the safety of the workers; they just want billable space erected quickly. However, when working on federal projects for the U.S. Army, Navy, or Air Force, there is a different level of safety expectations one must recognize and appreciate, thanks in no small part to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, which advocates for safe work sites. In my experience, federal work sites are the safest in the United States. If the client expects high quality and a safe site, it is delivered.

Respect

The respect between subcontractors and the general contractor's supervisors was tangible. If you approached a subcontractor about a safety concern, it was addressed immediately, and more often than not, an apology was offered. These levels of personal accountability validate and give credence to a workforce that cares.

Innovation Was Allowed

The adage "This is how it's always been done" was shelved. If there was a more efficient way to do something, and it was safe, the process or procedure was changed. Several best practices were borne on this project. The following example speaks to the value of allowing those in the field to improvise.

One component of the work was to remove and replace an air-handling unit from the upper reaches of a mezzanine more than 40 feet from the floor. Beams for the roof, railings, and columns suggested the installation of a temporary "dance floor" to set the unit on and then roll it onto the mezzanine—all 40 feet from the ground, all dangerous work. Plans were proposed and rejected until the supervisor for the work came up with an idea. He suspected that a high-reach forklift would be able to simply place the load through the maze of obstruction on the mezzanine floor. So, he built a mock air-handler, rented a forklift, and tested his idea. It fit the first time. This innovation not only eliminated the need for workers to work at height for dozens of hours while building and later dismantling the temporary platform—but also cut the actual time to place the unit from days to several hours.

Accountability

On this project, when someone did something unsafe, that person was personally called out for the incident, and his or her firm was contacted in writing to ensure that the home office knew of the event. Everyone understood that another such incident would not be tolerated. For example, some of the first arriving equipment was in sorry shape and was turned around at the site, basically refused. Contractors then understood that only great equipment would be allowed, and that is what was sent from that point on. However, time was wasted in the process, schedules were affected, and that lesson was learned by all parties. The team then put together an internal Web-based presentation titled "Great Equipment Always" using the lessons gathered on their site. This was shared worldwide with the balance of our other projects.

Using Lesson Learned and Best Practices

The key to this project was the installation of best practices and lessons learned into the accident prevention plan. Following are just a few that contributed to this project's success:

The idea of "Ladders Last" was developed on a project I started earlier in my career. As we put together the building project and the fall prevention plan, we eliminated the use of conventional ladders for the work. This was likely the first such project on a military base in the United States to use mobile work platforms for all the work. If a ladder was needed, it was a platform ladder and only used as a last resort.

Scores of manhole covers required removal for upgrading of the ring or replacement with locking ones. Typically, workers lift these using a shovel and their hands, setting the cover on top of steel-toed boots to achieve a better grip. Instead, a clever device was used that eliminated the need to do this by hand.

Click here to see Big's Easy Lift in action.

To demolish a multi-bay airplane hangar, it was decided that no one would be on the ground when work was under way. This eliminated the hazard of someone being struck by flying debris or moving equipment. The contractor decided that, due to the fire hazard, no heat-producing work would be completed during the dismantling. Instead, machine- or hand-operated shears were used, eliminating the common hazards.

The "Great Job" Approach

Years ago, I took some heat for noting that the Occupational Safety and Health Administration never sends a note to contractors thanking them for incident-free years. I once asked a vice president to recognize a contractor for a year's worth of incident-free projects, and she replied, "Well, let's wait and see how the next project goes." "Thank-you" is uncommon on construction sites.

We should never be reluctant to recognize those who do well, for recognition is the motivator for everyone. When your kindergartener comes home from school with a poster of the sunrise looking like a Rorschach test, he or she likely received an A+ from the teacher, and you hung that art on the fridge for all to see. On this project, the entire site team—from the contractors to supervisors—was recognized for its injury-free work along with letters suitable for framing and hanging in lobbies sent to each subcontractor.

Summary

During incident reconstruction, you always search for the smallest of potential contributors to the event, for there is rarely one cause. For a safe site, you need to introduce those motivators or practices that will help eliminate hazards and strengthen the safety culture of the project.

Elimination of the high-energy hazards is critical, and counting those not wearing safety glasses during an audit is nice but only a gauge of something else. Granted, during audits of this "safe site," items of concern were found, but few were significantly hazardous. Finding hazards on any construction project is a simple task, but the type of hazards found indicates the overall strength of a program. Many good workers have fallen to their deaths wearing safety glasses, safety vests, and hard hats; they were not tied off.

When you put your next project together, consider how to weave best practices into the contract, decide how you will motivate as work progresses, balance that with holding good people accountable, thank them along the way, and you will be pleased with the result.