washington metropolitan area transit authority board ... · • cid did dt ihtconsidered...
TRANSCRIPT
TITLE:
Safety Report
PURPOSE:
To present to the Board of Directors a report on the state of safety within Metro, including safety statistics, current actions, action plans on recomendations to audits, policies and other safety related information so the Board may be kept up to date and informed.
DESCRIPTION:
To ensure that safety is the priority within Metro and that necessary actions and policies are implemented to enhance the safety of our employees and customers.
FUNDING IMPACT:
None
RECOMMENDATION:
To present the monthly Safety Report to the Board of Directors.
Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority
Board Action/Information Summary
Action Information MEAD Number: Resolution: Yes No
Page 5 of 37
Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority
SAFETY REPORT
Safety and Security Committee
July 21, 2011July 21, 2011
Page 6 of 37
Purpose
• Provide the Board Committee updated information on Metro’s safety progress relative to:
• Update on National Transportation Safety Board’s (NTSB) Open Recommendations
• Safety Indicators for May 2011
Page 7 of 37
Background on NTSB
• NTSB is an independent investigatory agency placedNTSB is an independent investigatory agency placed within the Department of Transportation (DOT)
• Overall mission is to promote safety in transportationOverall mission is to promote safety in transportation
– Including investigating accidents and making recommendations
NTSB h f l th it t l t f d• NTSB has no formal authority to regulate or fund transportation
C id d i d d t i ht• Considered independent oversight agency
• Over 13,000 safety recommendations to 2,500 different recipients including WMATArecipients, including WMATA
Page 8 of 37
Background on NTSB Recommendations
• WMATA currently has 27 open and acceptable d ti ith th NTSBrecommendations with the NTSB
– 15 are related to Fort Totten Incident
– 12 pre-date Fort Totten Incident
• 11 of the 27 were submitted for closure in June (waiting for a response from NTSB)
• 8 of the 27 NTSB recommendations are hazard classified by WMATA as Category I (unacceptable)by WMATA as Category I (unacceptable)
* = Submitted to NTSB for closure; 1 = Category I (Unacceptable) Hazard Rating; P = In Progress
Page 9 of 37
NTSB RecommendationsPre Fort TottenPre Fort Totten
• WMATA has one open recommendation from the 2006 Woodley Park I id tIncident
– Equip all WMATA rolling stock with roll back protection P
• WMATA has five open recommendations from the 2007 Mount Vernon Incident
– New QA process; proper wheel truing * – New QA process; proper wheel truing
– New car procurement configuration management *
Single point of responsibility within CENV; investigations *– Single point of responsibility within CENV; investigations
– New written procedures; rail point face lubrication *
Replace all #8 turnouts with guarded #8 turnouts 1 P– Replace all #8 turnouts with guarded #8 turnouts 1 P
• 144 of 178 have been completed (81%)
Page 10 of 37
NTSB Recommendations
• WMATA has four open recommendations from the Eisenhower / DuPont Employee Fatalities of 2006DuPont Employee Fatalities of 2006
– Review and update WMATA MSRPH P
• Completed; in-progress to formally closeCompleted; in progress to formally close
– Establish systematic approach for audit checks *
– Perform periodic hazard analyses P
– Develop new technology for automatic alert of workers on or near the tracks P
WMATA has two open recommendations sent to all properties in• WMATA has two open recommendations sent to all properties in 2009
– Modify physical exam and forms; sleep apnea P
– Establish program to identify operators at high risk for sleep disorders P
Page 11 of 37
Fort Totten Incident
• NTSB issued two recommendations prior to theNTSB issued two recommendations prior to the completion of their investigative report, and 13 additional recommendations at its conclusion
– Develop real time loss of shunt detection system 1 P
– Develop program; train control system performance *
– Permanently remove Generation 2 track circuit modules * 1
– Enhance distribution of technical bulletins *
– Remove unnecessary communication systems 1 P
– Conduct safety analysis of Automatic Train Control (ATC) 1 P
– Based on analysis of ATC, develop and incorporate controls 1 P
Page 12 of 37
Fort Totten Incident (continued)
– Implement cable resistance testing * 1Implement cable resistance testing
– Work with TOC to address FTA audit; 8 of 10 complete P
Periodically review operational data *– Periodically review operational data
– Implement non-punitive safety reporting system *
h d 1 P– Review hazard management program 1 P
– Remove all 1,000 series rail cars P
– Ensure lead car has on-board event recorder P
– Develop program to monitor performance of recorders P
* = Submitted to NTSB for closure; 1 = Category I (Unacceptable) Hazard Rating; P = In Progress
Page 13 of 37
KPI: Employee Injury Rate
Why Performance Changed?10.00
• YTD trend is positive compared to same period last year6.00
8.00
0 H
ours
y
• Strains continue to be the number one injury cause
4.00
Per
20
0,0
00
• Struck by replaced slips/falls as the second leading cause
0.00
2.00
Actions
2010 2011
Actions• Continue to educate and inform through various channels proper techniques to avoid strains
as well as being aware of your surroundings at all times
Page 14 of 37
KPI: Customer Injury Rate
Why Performance Changed?5.00
• 17 fewer injuries than last month
3.00
4.00
enge
r Tr
ips
• Fewer escalator injuries this month
• Fewer customer injuries from
2.00
r M
illio
n P
asse
• Fewer customer injuries from Metrobus and MetroAccesscollisions
0.00
1.00Per
Actions
2010 2011
Actions• Continuing to focus rail customers attention in using care in system and continue to monitor,
review and coach Bus Operators through DriveCam and supervision on safe driving techniques and practices.
Page 15 of 37
Corrective Action Plans
91 2742010
27
91
2
1
274
2009
2010
new
61
21
27
8
3
2
2007
2008
2009
27
49
61 8
2005
2006
2007
53
27
22004
2005
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Closed Open
Page 16 of 37
New Corrective Action Plans
The 317 New CAPs comprised of …p
250
300
350
91 33% 14%
5%
150
200
250
2%13%
0
50
100226
40% 6%0
317 Total New CAPs
TOC 2010 Audit (127) Internal Safety (106)
i i ( 3) G l ( 9)
New Open New Closed
Investigations (43) Inspec. General (19)
NTSB (17) VTX Report (5)
Page 17 of 37
28 Open and Unacceptable Hazards
2007 TOC Bethesda2010 Drug and 2007 TOC Triennial, 1
Bethesda Derailment, 1
NTSB, 8Rail
Transportation
VTX Report, 22010 Drug and Alcohol Audit, 1
,Transportation ISA, 2
Rail Maintenance ISA, 3
2010 TOC Triennial, 10
Page 18 of 37
Next Steps
• Continue to provide the Board Committee regular updates on Metro’s progress relative to safety in an effort to strengthen the safety of our customerseffort to strengthen the safety of our customers, employees and surrounding communities while instilling a robust safety culture.
Page 19 of 37
Appendix
Page 20 of 37
Injury Rates Per 200,000 HoursJanuary – May 2011January May 2011
GroupRecordable
Injuries RateAverage Group
Size
Bus Maintenance 18 4 75 909Bus Maintenance 18 4.75 909
Bus Transportation 87 7.18 2,906
Rail Car Maintenance 15 3.70 979
Elevator / Escalator 2 2.35 204
Plant Maintenance 13 3.61 864
Rail Transportation 39 6.32 1,481
System Maintenance 12 2.95 976
Track and Structures 8 3 48 552Track and Structures 8 3.48 552
Page 21 of 37
Rail Passenger Injury Rates
3.00
2.00
2.50
ps
1.50
er M
illio
n T
rip
0.50
1.00Pe
0.00
Escalator Transit Facilities Occupants On-Board
Page 22 of 37
Bus Passenger Injury Rates
148.00
10
12
5 00
6.00
7.00
g C
ollis
ion
s
Trip
s
6
8
3 00
4.00
5.00
fC
ontr
ibu
tin
g
e P
er M
illio
n T
2
4
1.00
2.00
3.00
Nu
mbe
r of
Rat
e
00.00
Other Collision Related 2010 Collisions 2011 Collisions
Page 23 of 37
MetroAccess PassengerInjury RatesInjury Rates
60.00
40.00
50.00
ps
30.00
er M
illio
n T
rip
10.00
20.00Pe
0.00
Other Collision Related
Page 24 of 37
Reportable Rail Vehicle IncidentsJanuary MayJanuary – May
Rail Incidents 2011 Incident Breakdown
8
9
10
5
6
7
44
2
3
444
0
1
2010 20112010 2011
NTD Reportable
Not NTD Reportable
1
Derailment Collision OtherPage 25 of 37
Bus Collision Rates
70.0
50.0
60.0
es
30.0
40.0
er M
illio
n M
ile
10.0
20.0
Pe
0.0
Preventable Non-Preventable
MetroAccess Collision Rates
50.0
40.0
es
20.0
30.0
er M
illio
n M
ile
10.0
Pe
0.0
Preventable Non-Preventable
Page 27 of 37
Pedestrian/Cyclist Incidents
5
4
3
1
2
0
2010 2011
Page 28 of 37
Smoke and Fire Incidents
25
20
10
15
5
0
Smoke Fire
Page 29 of 37
Suicides
4
3
2
1
0
2009 2010 2011
Page 30 of 37
Data TablesEmployee Injury Rates
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Average2010 5.18 7.94 4.03 6.38 5.79 6.82 4.39 5.72 7.76 4.59 6.36 6.24 5.862011 6 92 3 32 5 56 4 44 4 95 5 342011 6.92 3.32 5.56 4.44 4.95 5.34
OSHA Reportable Injuries x 200,000 / Actual Hours
Rail Passenger Injury RatesJan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Average
2010 1.15 2.46 1.08 1.11 1.53 1.23 0.99 1.46 1.12 1.32 1.74 1.09 1.332011 2.13 2.00 1.32 1.71 1.25 1.55
Injuries x 1,000,000 / Passenger TripsInjuries Meeting NTD Reporting Criteria
Bus Passenger Injury RatesJan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Average
2010 2.08 3.66 1.73 1.77 1.84 3.33 2.40 1.61 6.92 1.98 5.91 1.78 2.902011 1 72 0 93 3 38 2 59 2 01 2 892011 1.72 0.93 3.38 2.59 2.01 2.89
Injuries x 1,000,000 / Passenger TripsInjuries Meeting NTD Reporting Criteria
SuicidesJan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total
2009 0 0 2 0 0 3 1 1 2 0 2 0 112010 0 1 0 1 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 52011 0 1 1 0 1 3
Bus Collision RatesJan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Average
2010 47.4 53.0 38.5 47.9 52.4 49.3 47.2 52.0 57.5 49.3 59.9 45.3 49.92011 49 9 43 3 53 8 52 8 49 9 50 12011 49.9 43.3 53.8 52.8 49.9 50.1
Collisions x 1,000,000 / Vehicle Miles
Smoke IncidentsJan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total
2010 4 5 10 8 7 7 12 4 12 9 3 4 852011 8 4 4 5 15 36
Data TablesFire Incidents
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total2010 6 9 10 11 8 10 4 4 8 7 4 5 862011 11 4 4 9 8 36
Pedestrians / CyclistsJan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total
2010 1 0 1 4 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 112011 2 1 2 4 3 12
Total Reportable Rail Vehicle IncidentsJan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total
2010 0 1 1 2 3 0 0 0 1 2 2 2 142011 3 3 0 0 3 9
MetroAccess Passenger Injury RatesMetroAccess Passenger Injury RatesJan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Average
2010 26.18 22.06 21.57 31.55 48.11 46.48 34.47 38.84 24.61 14.45 25.50 20.53 29.822011 16.45 10.55 14.63 32.12 27.41 20.08
Injuries x 1,000,000 / Passenger TripsInjuries Meeting NTD Reporting Criteria
MetroAccess Collision RatesJan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Average
2010 34.1 38.9 37.2 35.0 41.3 46.7 38.8 32.9 26.3 33.6 37.4 46.1 37.22011 33.4 36.0 27.7 34.7 31.4 32.6
Collisions x 1,000,000 / Vehicle Miles
Total WMATA Customer Injury RatesJan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Average
2010 1.67 3.00 1.46 1.54 1.97 2.25 1.69 1.78 3.43 1.65 3.49 1.49 2.092011 2.08 1.66 2.16 2.21 1.69 1.97
All Injuries (Bus, Rail, and MetroAccess) x 1,000,000 / All Passenger TripsInjuries Meeting NTD Reporting Criteria
Page 32 of 37
Description of Measuresp
Employee Injuries and Accidents• Based on required OSHA reporting• Based on required OSHA reporting• Reportable employee accidents / 200,000 hours• Calendar year versus fiscal year• Organization-level; does not impact current individual performance plansg ; p p p• WMATA-wide rate target by end of 2011 calendar year of 5.5 reportable
accidents / 200,000 hours; 2010 actual was 5.86Customer Injuries
• Based on National Transit Database (NTD) reporting• Key requirement – Transport away for medical treatment• Rail passenger injuries per million trips
• On board in facilities escalators• On board, in facilities, escalators• Calendar year 2011 target is 1.26 injuries
• Bus & MetroAccess passenger injuries per million trips• Major = collision related; Minor = all otherMajor collision related; Minor all other• Calendar year 2011 target is 2.62 injuries
Page 33 of 37
Employee Injury Rate
Employee Injury Rate: Normalized number of reportable injuries p y j y p jexperienced per 100 employees, working the course of a normal year • (Total number of reportable injuries x 200 000) / number of(Total number of reportable injuries x 200,000) / number of
hours worked = employee injury rate
Where an OSHA Reportable injury is work related and results in:Where an OSHA Reportable injury is work related and results in:• Medical treatment above first aid• Loss of consciousness
D f k• Days away from work• Restricted duty or job transfer• Death
Page 34 of 37
Customer Injury Rate, Railj y ,
Customer Injury Rate: Normalized number of reportable injuries j y p jexperienced by our customers per million passenger trips.
• (Total number of NTD reportable injuries x 1,000,000) / actual number of trips = customer injury ratep j y
Rail Customer Injury Rate: Normalized (per 1 mil. trips) number of NTD reportable injuries experienced by our rail service customers who were:who were:
• On board a “revenue” transit vehicle or were an intending/de-boarded passenger within a transit facility excluding employees. Includes escalators elevators stairs platformsIncludes escalators, elevators, stairs, platforms…
Where an NTD reportable injury is related to the operation of our system and required immediate medical attention away from thesystem and required immediate medical attention away from the scene for one or more persons
Page 35 of 37
Customer Injury Rate,Bus and MetroAccess
Bus Customer Injury Rate: Normalized (per 1 mil. trips)b f bl d b
Bus and MetroAccess
• Number of NTD reportable injuries experienced by our Bus service customers
M t A C t I j R t N li d ( 1 il t i )MetroAccess Customer Injury Rate: Normalized (per 1 mil. trips)• Number of NTD reportable Injuries experienced by our
MetroAccess Customers
Where the injuries are:• Collision related: Injuries requiring immediate medical attention
away from the scene due to a collision (NTD classifies these asaway from the scene due to a collision. (NTD classifies these as major – regardless of injury severity)
• Other on-board: Injuries related to the operation of a Transit Bus System requiring immediate medical attention away from theSystem, requiring immediate medical attention away from the scene. (NTD classifies these as minor – regardless of injury severity)
Page 36 of 37