safety community insights conference august 22-25, 2014 vail, co 1 2014 electric t&d...

Safety

Community Insights Conference

August 22-25, 2014

Vail, CO

1

2014 Electric T&D Benchmarking

2

Agenda

◼ Overview Industry Perspective (SCQA) 1QC Community Key Success Factors

◼ Performance Profiles & Trends Cost/Service

◼ 2013 Benchmarking Results Functional-specific findings

3

Overview

Situation

• 2010 was a bad year for most companies. Safety trends have improved since then

• Good safety is a primary and universal goal for every company’s management and staff.

Complication

• While there has been improvement, utilities still have not achieved zero incidents.

• Companies have to avoid complacency in their employees while still building a “habit” of safety.

• Continuously reinforcing the message can cause it to be diluted.

Question

• How do we encourage employees to behave in a safe way and follow safe practices?

• How do we maintain cost effectiveness and efficiency while also having a safe work environment and making safety a top concern?

Answer

• Regular, effective communications regarding correct, safe behaviors

• Share safety stories and make it personal

• Demonstrate the consequences of unsafe behaviors

• Understand the root cause of an incident and take action to prevent future incidents

• Adjust processes/procedures to ensure that work is performed safely

• Safety should be every employees first duty.

Where Are We: 1QC Industry Perspective for Safety

4

1QC Community Key Success Factors:Safety

Employee contributions to policy and procedure development increases employee involvement

Leadership needs to be hands-on and in the field regularly to show support and to understand the real issues

Regular communication is essential, but making that communication personal in the form of verbal announcements can make a difference

Lessons learned should be shared throughout the company at all levels

Hold all employees accountable for safety, not just for themselves but for others as well

Involve all levels of employees in field observations

5

6

Profiles & Trends

2013 YE 2012YE

Mean Q1 Q2 Q3 # of Bars Mean Q1 Q2 Q3 # of

Bars

T&D

OSHA Recordable Injury Rate: Combined T&D 2.25 1.05 1.88 2.59 15 2.43 1.12 1.81 2.73 17

OSHA Lost Workday Case Rate: Total T&D 0.91 0.23 0.66 1.11 15 0.60 0.23 0.40 0.67 17

OSHA Lost Time Severity Rate: Total T&D 34.61 14.14 29.02 53.61 14 25.98 2.94 20.47 50.57 16

OSHA DART Incidence Rate: T&D Total 1.68 0.59 1.23 1.59 14 1.40 0.94 1.28 1.69 17

Total Frequency Rate of Accidents: Total T&D 9.89 5.31 6.65 9.57 14 7.66 5.62 6.90 7.54 17

Safety: T&D

7

2013YE 2012YE

Mean Q1 Q2 Q3# of Bars

Mean Q1 Q2 Q3# of Bars

Distribution

OSHA Recordable Injury Rate: Distribution Line 3.70 1.22 1.99 3.03 12 2.90 1.45 2.22 3.07 10

OSHA Lost Workday Case Rate: Distribution Lines 1.43 0.27 0.74 1.47 12 0.58 0.26 0.41 0.73 10 OSHA Lost Time Severity Rate: Distribution Lines 47.28 15.21 30.71 65.96 11 29.76 7.05 25.93 39.82 10 OSHA DART Incidence Rate: Distribution Lines 2.30 0.85 1.43 1.59 11 1.69 0.87 1.53 1.82 10

Total Frequency Rate of Accidents: Distribution Lines 9.95 5.89 8.49 10.04 11 10.45 8.49 8.83 11.38 9

Substations OSHA Recordable Injury Rate: T&D Substations 1.57 0.23 1.03 1.29 11 2.00 0.92 1.13 2.92 11 OSHA Lost Workday Case Rate: Substations 0.56 0.06 0.46 0.71 11 0.37 0.00 0.00 0.55 11 OSHA Lost Time Severity Rate: Substations 19.73 0.43 3.83 19.11 10 0.82 0.00 0.00 1.01 10 OSHA DART Incidence Rate: Substations 0.90 0.47 0.63 1.29 10 1.21 0.37 0.79 1.15 11 Total Frequency Rate of Accidents: Substations 24.49 9.03 14.07 18.82 10 6.34 3.66 5.49 8.09 10

Trans OSHA Recordable Injury Rate: Transmission Line 1.21 0.44 0.77 1.81 10 0.83 0.00 0.00 1.47 9 OSHA Lost Workday Case Rate: Transmission Lines 0.82 0.00 0.42 1.59 9 0.45 0.00 0.00 0.98 9 OSHA Lost Time Severity Rate: Transmission Lines 27.17 0.98 6.35 38.02 9 11.33 0.00 0.00 6.22 8 OSHA DART Incidence Rate: Transmission Lines 1.18 0.29 1.01 1.91 8 0.71 0.00 0.00 0.98 9

Total Frequency Rate of Accidents: Transmission Lines 5.48 2.55 4.29 8.40 10 8.67 4.47 6.53 8.87 7

Safety: T&D

8As the number of employees in a work group get smaller the impact from a single incident becomes larger.

5-YEAR Trends: Total T&D Recordable Incidents

Most companies won’t see improvement over all 5 years. Best performing companies tend to stay in the top quartile.

9

5-YEAR Trends: Total T&D Lost Workday Case Rate

Lost workday case rate increased this year.

10

4-YEAR Trends: vehicle accident Frequency

Vehicle Accidents are trending up for the poorer performing companies.

11

12

Trend Tracking

Trends for the panel can be misleading (RIR and DART appear to be going down), but companies tend to stay within a band of performance. Very rarely do we see a company moving from 4th quartile to 1st. To see drastic improvement, you may need to shake things up.

Consider a site visit to a company that performs well. The differences in culture can become obvious when you immerse yourself in someone else’s culture.

DART Rate: T&D Recordable Injury Rate: T&D

Safety Ranking

13

14

Looking for Best Practices

We wanted to find a way to identify best practices and initiatives in the safety area. One way to do that is to find out what the best performers are doing that other companies aren’t doing. So we needed to find out who are the best performers. We:

1) Gathered safety values on 5 major safety measures* for last 5 years

2) Focused on total T&D since we had the most data available

3) Ranked the 5-year average safety value using quartiles (3-year average for Motor Vehicle Accidents)

4) Calculated change in safety value over last 5 or 3 years (slope)

5) Assigned a score for quartile ranking and slope value

6) Calculated a total score for safety

* Measures included:• Recordable Incidence Rate• Lost Workday Case Rate• Lost Time Severity Rate• Days Away, Restricted or Transferred Rate• Motor Vehicle Accident Frequency

15

• Compares the 6-year average value to the 6-year change in value

Not Improving

Improving

Total T&D Recordable Incidence Rate

Safety RecordGood Poor

Companies want to have good performance and be either stable or improving – putting them in the lower left corner of the chart.

16

Total T&D Safety Ranking: total

TOTAL SCORE IMROVEMENT SCORE VALUE SCORE

Total w/o MVA Total w/MVA



Exelon - ComEd 9 11 6 6 5 5

Tucson Electric Power 9 11 9 9 2 2

Westar Energy 8 11 7 7 4 4

Oncor Electric Delivery 7 10 5 5 5 5

Exelon - PECO Energy 11 8 3 3 5 5

Hydro One 7 7 3 3 4 4

CPS Energy 6 5 5 5 0 0

CenterPoint Energy 3 6 2 2 4 4

Exelon - BGE 6 4 4 4 0 0

PSE&G 0 -1 -4 -4 3 3

KCP&L -1 -2 -1 -1 -1 -1

BC Hydro -2 -4 -3 -3 -1 -1

Austin Energy -7 -10 -6 -6 -4 -4

Putting all of the data together for the 5 measures, we calculated a total for each company. ComEd had the highest total score – meaning that they had generally low safety rates and were improving.

Best Performing companies: 21, 22, 23, 25, 27

17

Total T&D Safety Ranking: Breakdown

RIR DART LTSR LWCR MVA

Tucson Electric Power 2 2 2 1 2

Westar Energy 1 1 2 1 2

Exelon - ComEd 1 0 2 1 2

Oncor Electric Delivery 0 0 2 1 2

CPS Energy 2 2 2 1 -2

Exelon - BGE 2 1 2 1 -2

Exelon - PECO Energy 1 1 2 1 -2

Hydro One 2 0 2 1 -2

CenterPoint Energy 1 1 -2 0 2

KCP&L 1 1 -2 1 -2

BC Hydro 0 1 -2 0 -2

PSE&G 0 0 -2 0 -2

Austin Energy -2 -2 -2 2 -2

Here’s how companies performed on the 5-year average (value) and 5-year trend (slope) scores.

Value Score Improvement ScoreRIR DART LTSR LWCR MVA

Exelon - PECO Energy 2 2 1 1 -1

Oncor Electric Delivery -1 1 2 2 1

Exelon - ComEd 2 1 1 1 0

Westar Energy 1 1 0 1 1

Hydro One -1 -1 2 2 2

CenterPoint Energy 1 0 1 1 1

DTE Energy 2 2 -1 2 -1

PSE&G 1 0 0 1 1

Northwestern Energy 0 0 1 0 2

Tucson Electric Power 0 1 0 1 0

Exelon - BGE 0 0 0 0 0

CPS Energy -1 -1 1 0 1

BC Hydro 0 0 0 -1 0

KCP&L -1 -1 0 0 1

Austin Energy -1 -1 0 -1 -1

Chelan County PUD -1 -1 -1 -1 -1

Consistently Good companies: 21, 22, 23, 25

Improving companies: 21, 23, 25, 27

Benchmarking results

18

Recordable Injury Case Rate: Total T&D

19

Safety Pg 4Source: S5

Mean 2.2

Quartile 1 1.0

Quartile 2: 1.9

Quartile 3: 2.6

Our statistical report shows all of the safety performance measures we track. We’re publishing just a few here. We ask for safety measures for T&D, distribution lines, T&D substations, and transmission lines. Companies are less able to report by functional area and as the groups measured get smaller numbers are less benchmarkable.

ID numbers are color coded: 99 = top performing companies

Recordable Injury Case Rate

20

As we break safety data into functional areas, we get fewer companies able to provide data.

Safety Pg 5-7Source: S5

Distribution Lines

Substations

Transmission Lines


Lost Workday Case Rate: T&D

21


Mean 1.7

Quartile 1 0.6

Quartile 2: 1.2

Quartile 3: 1.6

With the exception of a few outliers, lost time incident rates are fairly low.


Total Frequency Rate of Vehicle Accidents: T&D

22


Mean 9.9

Quartile 1 5.3

Quartile 2: 6.6

Quartile 3: 9.6

The range for Recordable Injuries is 0.5 to 6.5. Vehicle accidents are 5 times that. Many companies are paying increased attention to vehicle incidents.

ID numbers are color coded: 99 = top performing companies 99 – top performers in MVA

23

Vehicle Safety (SF15-SF80)

◼ There is no consensus regarding use of ANSI codes for classifying vehicle incidents - 53% do, 46% don’t – (SF55, pg 29)

◼ 93% of companies track preventable vs non-preventable accidents. Only 5 companies (22, 24, 25, 37) track responsible accidents. 3 track “off-road” accidents separately, but 73% count them as part of the statistics. – (SF20, pg 30)

◼ Many companies do have goals around vehicle incidents, only a couple reported having no goal (359, 32) – (SF25, pg 31)

◼ Companies site these factors as key to achieving their goals: Smith Driving Training (31, 23, 40, 30); Mobile and distracted driving polices and awareness (37, 30, 27); 30 Day Driver Challenge (31); Review and accountability (33) ; Driving demonstrations, driving observation program (23); Actual vehicle hands on driving training (21) – (SF35, pg 32) Note: 37: Mobile Electronic Device Policy (Employees are not permitted

to operate these devices while the vehicle is in motion. No Bluetooth either).


24


◼ New programs added include: 23 - Driving simulators - demonstrate the dangers of texting while driving; 37 - Close quarters maneuvering training; 24 - DriveCam in approx 700 vehicles; 38 - Driver Obstacle Course to support defensive driving training, Driver Observation Program – (SF30, pg 33)

◼ A few hazard recognition programs: 22 – Avoiding Head on Collisions; 28 – core life saving rule around driving conditions; 21 – safety observations; 359 - Set goals for conducting Safety Observations and Feedback, communicate to all employees Human Performance Themes (2014 topics include STOP/TIME OUT, Self - check/Peer - Check, and Critical Step – (SF40, pg 34)

◼ Policies and Procedures for avoiding road distractions include: No cell phone policy including no hands free (31, 28, 23, 30); Hands-free cell phone policy (38, 24, 27, 34, 22, 37); 24: DriveCam – (SF45, pg 35)

(Cont.)


25


◼ Technologies used: Backup cameras 70%; Drive-cams 30% (22, 24); Speed monitoring devices 30% (22, 24, 31); Other 30% (22, 27) – (SF50, pg 36)

◼ Deployment: Telogis has been installed in ALL fleet vehicles; Drive-cams are

installed post responsible vehicle accident (22); Speed monitoring in all vehicles (31) Trying different technologies in varying groups to identify effectiveness (24); GPS tracking device (34)

Back-up cameras: one-man trucks (30, 31); backup cameras in some trucks and in some company vehicles (23); Back up cameras are after-market units installed on all company vehicles (359) – (SF55, pg 37)

◼ Focusing employee attention on safe driving: regular communication & meetings (31, 28, 38, 40, 21, 23, 32, 359); visual reminders/posters (22, 34); training & awareness (33, 34); inspections/observations (31, 23, 34); awards/recognition (22, 30, 24, 37); review of incidents (28, 32) – (SF60 pg 38)

◼ Use of information on unsafe driving practices: changes to policies (22); changes to fleet vehicles (22); feedback/coaching (23, 22, 27, 28, 31, 33, 37, 359); training (27, 23, 28, 31); share at safety meetings (21, 24, 23); track trends (30); company communications (23, 31); develop corrective actions (34) – (SF80, pg 41)

(Cont.)


26

Contractor Safety (SF85-SF100)

◼ Two-thirds of the respondents track contractor safety, most for construction & vegetation mgmt., a few for all contractors (28, 30, 37) – (SF85, pg 42, 43)

◼ Most do not have penalties or incentives. 4 do (22, 25, 30, 31) – (SF90, pg 44)

◼ 87% use safety stats when selecting contractors – (SF95, pg 45)◼ Several companies review contractor safety monthly. (21, 37,

359) – (SF100, pg 45)


27

Leading Indicators (SF75-SF95)

◼ All respondents are tracking "first-aid" events like sprains/strains; cuts and abrasions – (SF105, Pg 47)

◼ 15 of 16 track first-aid events to prevent future events; 9 track it as a leading indicator, and 15 share information about events with other employees – all of these numbers are up from last year – (SF110, Pg 48)

◼ Other answers included: 28: Starting to include in analysis for trending; 38: Track as lagging metric; 24: Depending on severity, we may perform a root cause analysis – (SF110, Pg TBA)

◼ Leading indicators that are tracked are listed below – (SF115, pg 49) - all of these numbers are up from last year. 3 of the 5 best performing companies track all of these – no one else tracks all. Number of Near Miss and Unsafe Condition Reports submitted 94% Numbers of specific types of safety issues identified 75% Number of Field Safety Observations (FSO) completed 100% Numbers of specific types of safety issues identified 69% Hours of safety training completed 81% Safety Action Team projects completed 37%


28

Incentive pay (SF120-SF125)

◼ Incentive pay is impacted by safety statistics for 10 of 16 companies in various ways – (SF120, pg 50)

◼ Many companies reported safety measures used on incentive pay scorecards; only one (24) noted using Motor vehicle accidents – (SF125 pg 51)


29

Initiatives (SF130-SF135)


Initiatives Change since 201321 Zero unsafe acts 22 Soft Tissue Injury Reduction, Safe Driving move to broader scope from team to company23 We encourage our employees to share ideas on safety program

improvements and the prevention of injuries and accidents. Key safety initiatives includes: Footwear program, fall prevention program and enhancements in new employee safety orientations/training and communications.

We added several more safety awareness programs and safety training to our 2014 safety plan based on leading and lagging indicators.

24 Ergonmic Specialist training course, PPE video campaign, Human Performance, video JHA's, Alert Driving

27 Reduction of OSHA recordables, provide training to prevent sprains and strains due to body position

28 Implementing an additional 5 safety taskforce recommendations Current fiscal year's iniatives build on prior years' initiatives (7 of 21 taskforce initiatives implemented and in sustainment).

30 Put together joint management and union teams to work on issues found in the DuPoint report. OSHA incident rate and DART rate

Lower OIR, lower DART rate and lower vehicle frequency rate

31 Increased Field Safety Inspections, Improved Reporting, Investment in Safety & Health technology

Increased focus on leading indicators and communication, Safety named top company core value in 2014

32 To improve and advance Safety Culture in protecting our employees and the public.

Focusing more on behavior and pro-active accountability

33 Continuous improvement in a variety of areas34 Hazard recognition and mitigation / leading indicators such as

observations37 Safety Excellence, Human Performance Improvements, Just Culture

Behavior

38 Safety Training, GHS, Safety Program/Procedure review/development as gaps identified, FMEA

Same topics, more focus on identifying the gaps and developing targeted training/procedures to addressissues

40 Reporting more near misses and buy-in at the grass roots level by all employees

We have started a grass roots culture change methodology.

359 Follow the Human Performance Key Steps: STOP/TIME OUT, Self - Check/Peer - Check, Critical Step.

Focus has moved to a more specific Human Performance Behavior Theme.

30

Response to incidences (SF145-SF155)

◼ Most companies have aggressive reporting policies in terms of the types of incidents to be reported – (SF145, Pg 56): All incidents even if no injury or medical treat 87.50% All incidents resulting in personal injury or property damage 68.75% Near misses 68.75% All incidents except first aid (band-aids) 6.25% Other 6.25%

◼ 100% of companies report incidents to supervisors. With only a few companies reported to some other person as well (24, 25, 27, 30, 31, 32, 40) leaving the reporting of the incident to safety groups in the hands of the supervisor. – (SF150, pg 57)

◼ Injuries/illness needs to be reported immediately (22, 24, 25, 27, 28, 31, 32, 33, 38), by end of shift (23, 30, 34, 359, 38), within 24 hours (21, 37, 40) – (SF155, pg 59)


31

Response to incidences (SF195-SF210)

◼ For many companies Supervisors and Managers are held accountable for injuries that occur on their shift as part of their performance review (25, 22, 37, 30) for others it’s part of the supervisors/managers job to ensure that employees work safely. – (SF195, pg 62)

◼ For many companies crew leaders are held accountable, but usually to a lesser extent. Only a few reported no accountability. – (SF200, pg 63)

◼ A few companies hold other members of the crew accountable if someone is injured – period (21, 24, 27, 30, 34, 40 and perhaps others), typically it is if they contributed or as part of a team. Only a few said not at all - (SF205, pg 64)

◼ Handling of near misses varies: for some it is treated the same as an incident with an injury (28, 33, 40) – (SF210, pg 65)


32

Wellness (SF215-SF225)

◼ Most companies are offering several different types of health programs (100%: Wellness/Health Risk assessment; 80%: Stretching, Health challenges; 67%: biometric screening, Nutrition advice dietician consultations, Weight management) - (SF215, pg 92)

◼ To encourage employees to participate in wellness, A notable practice is a discount related to healthcare costs for attending gyms - (SF220, pg 67)

◼ Most companies measure the effectiveness of wellness activities. 79%: track actual participation; 70%: share success stories; 50%: reduction in medical expenses - (SF225, pg 94)


33

Field Observations (SF235-SF245)

◼ A few companies allow anyone to perform a field observation (21, 27, 32, 37); a few more allow peer-to-peer observations (21, 24, 25, 27, 30, 31, 32, 34); the rest leave it to supervision/management and safety departments. – (SF235, pg 71)

◼ The frequency varies from daily to voluntary: daily (21, 22, 31), weekly (24, 30, 34, 38, 40, 37, 359) – but the question isn’t entire clear on how often an individual employee is observed vs. how often and individual employee observes. – (SF240, pg 73)

◼ Everyone uses of observations to provide immediate feedback to employees. Most use them to determine additional training or updates to policies and procedures. – (SF245, pg 75)


34

Employee Involvement (SF345)

◼ Employees can raise concerns about safety conditions by speaking with supervisor 93.75%; contacting safety council 100%; contacting Union reps 56.25%; Use corporate database or log 31.25%; Company Hotline or 800-number 43.75%; Safety form 62.5%; - (SF350, pg TBA)

◼ Attributes of employee involvement include – (SF355, pg 84): Reporting unsafe conditions 100% Offering suggestions for improvement 100% Communications with Supervisors 100% Review of safety procedures and policies; suggestions 93.33% Process improvement recommendations 93.33% Participate in focus groups 93.33% Reporting near misses 93.33% Discussions with peers 80% Assisted in developing action plans 73.33% Other 13.33%


35

Next Steps

◼ Last year’s text questions allowed enough freedom of answer to identify differences between companies. However, we couldn’t be sure that the differences were there just because the person answering didn’t think to say the same things as someone else.

◼ When we turned last year’s text questions into this year’s check box questions, it became easy for everyone to check the box.

◼ Now we need to rewrite the questions in such a way to find the differences between companies.

◼ Most companies have many of the same practices. It’s the execution and culture that make a difference. We’ll work to find ways to isolate the differences in execution and culture.

Thank you for your Input and Participation!

36

Corporate Offices

California

400 Continental Blvd. Suite 600El Segundo, CA 90245(310) 426-2790

Maryland

3 Bethesda Metro Center Suite 700Bethesda, MD 20814

Ken Buckstaff [email protected]

Tim [email protected]

New York | Texas | Wyoming | Wisconsin

Debi McLain [email protected]

Dave [email protected]

Your Presenters

First Quartile Consulting is a utility-focused consultancy providing a full range of consulting services including continuous process improvement, change management, benchmarking and more. You can count on a proven process that assesses and optimizes your resources, processes, leadership management and technology to align your business needs with your customer’s needs.

Visit us at www.1stquartileconsulting.com | Follow our updates on LinkedIn

About 1QC

Satellite Offices

Dave [email protected]

http://www.1stquartileconsulting.com/

37

Appendix

5-YEAR Trends: Total T&D Lost Time severity Rate

Severity rate increased last year.

38

5-YEAR Trends: Dart Rate

DART rate is the only rate that has shown any real improvement over time.

39

40

Ad Hoc Safety Survey

41

Ad Hoc Safety Survey – Near Miss Tracking & Rate

Do you keep track of the number "of near misses”?

Do you track the “near miss” rate?

Oncor Yes, we enter them into our safety site. No, we do not calculate a near miss rate.TEP We do track near misses when they are

reported. We do not consistently track a near miss rate but we do look at the numbers on an annual basis. Safety concerns are more predominant than near misses in the reporting aspect.

Westar Yes No

NWE Yes, we track the number of formal near miss reports (we call those incidents “close calls”) on the incident spreadsheet

No. We have a lot of near misses reported at the local level (such as in a division) which are discussed locally that are never formally reported, so they aren’t officially “tracked”. We are really striving to have more near misses reported and have seen gradual increases in both the numbers and types (again, both formal reports and informal reports).

BC Hydro Yes We can convert this to a rate (by employee, by revenue, by size of group that tracks, etc) if needed. BC Hydro tracks the number of “near miss” reports. Our definition of a Near Miss is a loss of control that could have credibly resulted in an injury, or in an injury greater than that sustained (in other words, we can have an injury attached to a Near Miss incident, if the credible potential injury is greater). We do not track the near miss rate.

Chelan PUD

Yes it is a metric in our Balanced Scorecard. We call them “close calls”

KCP&L Yes No. We set a goal to increase near miss, safety incident and safety recommendation reporting 15% each year.

Austin Yes No

CNP No No

42

Ad Hoc Safety Survey – Near Miss Severity

Do you rate “near misses” by severity?

If yes, how do you define the levels? No.

Westar Yes Near miss reports are reviewed by Incidents and Close Calls. Incidents involve damage to property or equipment and Close Calls do not result in damage. However, we still do not track these in "rates" just the number of near miss reports. Near Miss report investigation types are categorized in the following categories: no category, vehicle, equipment, property, unsafe act or condition, operating or maintenance error, or Process Safety Management.

BC Hydro Yes Yes, the near miss severity rates are as follows: · Level 1 - Involves an event that could have credibly resulted in a

fatality or permanent disability. · Level 2 - Involves an event that could credibly have resulted in a

Level 2 injury (where a level 2 injury is classified as a person received professional medical treatment beyond first aid or certain diagnostic tests and/or missed next scheduled work shift due to injury)

· Level 3 - No injury but involves a loss of control that could credibly result in a Level 3 injury. Where a Level 3 injury is a person received first aid treatment and includes certain diagnostic test by metrical professionals.

Note: A near miss is that the event “could have” happened but it didn’t. If it did happen, it would be classified as a Safety Incident.

NWE No However, we do spend more time discussing and analyzing the near miss reports that could have had much greater consequences than some of the more minor ones. Our manager committees discuss all of the formal near miss reports and do a very good job at understanding the potential consequences of near misses.

Chelan PUD

No If we feel its warranted they could trigger an Incident Analysis.

KCP&L No All are treated equally: Report, Investigate, Correct, Communicate. No CNP, Austin, Oncor, TEP

43

Ad Hoc Safety Survey – Vehicle Accident Severity

Do you rate “vehicle accidents” by severity?

If yes, how do you define the levels?

CNP Yes Levels are based upon point system and monetary value of damage: · One (1) point each: Any preventable vehicle collision

that results in combined property damage of $0 - $499, considering all property damaged in the collision. Actual expenditure of money to fix the damage is not necessary to assess points.

· Two (2) points each: Any preventable vehicle collision that results in combined property damage of $500 - $999, considering all property damaged in the collision. Actual expenditure of money to fix the damage is not necessary to assess points.

· Three (3) points each: Conviction for any hazardous traffic violation that does not contribute to a traffic collision.

· Four (4) points each: Citation for any hazardous traffic violation that contributes to a traffic collision; and/or any preventable vehicle collision that results in combined property damage of $1000 or greater, considering all property damaged in the collision, or personal injury. Actual expenditure of money is not necessary to assess points.

· In all cases described directly above, the Company will have sole discretion to determine the value of the combined property damage and/or the existence of personal injury.

· Five (5) points each: Conviction for operating any vehicle under the influence of drugs and/or alcohol.

Note: In the event a single occasion results in multiple infractions, only the infraction with the highest associated point value will count toward the ten (10) point total.

· Employee’s driving record indicates fewer than ten (10) points, but in the opinion of the employee’s supervisor, the driving record is unacceptable.

44

Ad Hoc Safety Survey – Vehicle Accident Severity

Do you rate “vehicle accidents” by severity?

If yes, how do you define the levels?

Westar Yes Near Miss report investigation types are categorized in the following categories: no category, vehicle, equipment, property, unsafe act or condition, operating or maintenance error, or Process Safety Management.

Chelan Yes Vehicle accidents severity is measured by dollar amount. If the employee is at fault and the dollar amount is over a certain threshold (determined by judgment) Fitness for Duty testing could be triggered.

BC Hydro Yes · Yes, follows the same classifications as question 2 but the event actually happened (as opposed to “could have resulted in”) in a vehicle.

· There is also a Level 4 which is damage to vehicle only (e.g., fender bender)Note: A near miss is that the event “could have” happened but it didn’t. If it did happen,

it would be classified as a Safety Incident.KCP&L No We classify them by Accident Type, Unsafe Act and Chargeable/Non-Chargeable.NWE No We do try to track all direct costs associated with vehicle incidents, and, similar to the

discussion point on near misses, all preventable vehicle incidents are discussed in the appropriate manager committee where the severity (or the potential of what could have happened) is covered.

No TEP, Austin, Oncor

(Cont.)

safety community insights conference august 22-25, 2014 vail, co 1 2014 electric t&d...

Documents

osha lost workday case

osha dart incidence

osha lost time severity

total td34

total td0

total td9

td substations1

td total1