safety june 25-27, 2014 nashville, tn 1 2014 transmission & distribution benchmarking data...
TRANSCRIPT
Safety
June 25-27, 2014
Nashville, TN
1
2014 Transmission & Distribution BenchmarkingData Review Conference
2013YE 2012YE
Mean Q1 Q2 Q3# of Bars
Mean Q1 Q2 Q3# of Bars
T&DOSHA Recordable Injury Rate: Combined T&D 2.83 1.53 2.37 3.78 10 2.43 1.12 1.81 2.73 17 OSHA Lost Workday Case Rate: Total T&D 1.17 0.49 0.86 1.29 10 0.60 0.23 0.40 0.67 17 OSHA Lost Time Severity Rate: Total T&D 38.96 23.12 41.38 58.75 10 25.98 2.94 20.47 50.57 16 OSHA DART Incidence Rate: T&D Total 1.99 1.07 1.31 2.71 10 1.40 0.94 1.28 1.69 17 Total Frequency Rate of Accidents: Total T&D 10.98 5.31 5.98 13.66 10 7.66 5.62 6.90 7.54 17
Distribution OSHA Recordable Injury Rate: DistLine 4.13 1.99 2.72 3.20 7 2.90 1.45 2.22 3.07 10 OSHA Lost Workday Case Rate: DistLines 0.99 0.27 0.86 1.25 7 0.58 0.26 0.41 0.73 10 OSHA Lost Time Severity Rate: DistLines 46.74 19.28 38.62 65.96 7 29.76 7.05 25.93 39.82 10 OSHA DART Incidence Rate: DistLines 2.01 0.84 1.50 1.59 7 1.69 0.87 1.53 1.82 10 Total Frequency Rate of Accidents: DistLines 7.76 5.89 6.63 10.04 7 10.45 8.49 8.83 11.38 9
Substation OSHA Recordable Injury Rate: T&D Subs 1.86 0.35 0.81 2.16 8 2.00 0.92 1.13 2.92 11 OSHA Lost Workday Case Rate: Subs 0.66 0.09 0.48 0.94 8 0.37 0.00 0.00 0.55 11 OSHA Lost Time Severity Rate: Subs 23.71 0.00 3.88 35.82 8 0.82 0.00 0.00 1.01 10 OSHA DART Incidence Rate: Subs 0.90 0.35 0.62 1.22 8 1.21 0.37 0.79 1.15 11 Total Frequency Rate of Accidents: Subs 20.38 8.06 10.74 18.56 8 6.34 3.66 5.49 8.09 10
Trans OSHA Recordable Injury Rate: Trans Line 1.54 0.51 1.37 2.68 6 0.83 0.00 0.00 1.47 9 OSHA Lost Workday Case Rate: Trans Lines 0.96 0.40 0.70 1.66 6 0.45 0.00 0.00 0.98 9 OSHA Lost Time Severity Rate: Trans Lines 28.87 2.01 15.69 35.08 6 11.33 0.00 0.00 6.22 8 OSHA DART Incidence Rate: Trans Lines 1.30 0.40 1.16 1.94 6 0.71 0.00 0.00 0.98 9 Total Frequency Rate of Accidents: Trans Lines 7.21 3.76 8.19 9.53 6 8.67 4.47 6.53 8.87 7
Safety
2
Guidelines & Data Issues
3
Safety performance Analysis
The RIR reported in the 2nd Draft does not include fatalities. We will be revising this. It only affects 3 companies and doesn’t change their position on the graph.
4
Mean 2.8Quartile 1 1.5Quartile 2: 2.4Quartile 3: 3.8
OSHA RECORDABLE INJURY RATE: COMBINED T&D (Including Fatalities)
OSHA RECORDABLE INJURY RATE: COMBINED T&D
This error in our calculation caused us to check all of our calculations…
Safety Reporting Guidelines
◼ Recordable Injury: This measure includes every occupational death, every non-fatal occupational illness, and every non-fatal occupational injury which involves one or more of the following: loss of consciousness, restriction of work or motion, transfer to another job, or medical treatment (beyond first aid). It measures the total OSHA recordable injury and illness cases based on the exposure of 100 full-time workers, using 200,000 hours as the equivalent (or 100 full-time employees X 2,000 hours per employee per year). The measure is calculated as: Total Number of OSHA cases X 200,000 / Total Exposure Hours.
◼ DART Rate: OSHA lost work day rate includes every non-fatal occupational injury or illness which involves restriction of work or motion, and/or transfer to another job (DART). It measures the total OSHA lost work day case recordable injury and illness cases based on the exposure of 100 full-time workers, using 200,000 hours as the equivalent (or 100 full-time employees X 2,000 hours per employee per year). The measure is calculated as: Total of OSHA lost work day cases X 200,000 / Total Hours Worked.
◼ Severity Rate: This measure includes every non-fatal occupational injury or illness which involves one or more of the following: restriction of work or motion and/or transfer to another job. It quantifies the severity of OSHA incidents that have occurred by looking at the number of lost workdays that can be attributed to an OSHA incident, based on the exposure of 100 full-time workers (using 200,000 hours as the equivalent….or 100 full-time employees X 2,000 hours per employee per year). The measure is calculated as: Total Lost Work Days due to OSHA recordable incidents X 200,000 / Total Exposure Hours.
◼ Lost Workday Case Rate: OSHA lost work day case rate includes every occupational injury or illness which results in a day away from work due and/or fatality. It measures the total OSHA lost work day case recordable injury and illness cases based on the exposure of 100 full-time workers, using 200,000 hours as the equivalent (or 100 full-time employees X 2,000 hours per employee per year). The measure is calculated as: ((Total of OSHA lost work day cases + Fatalities) X 200,000) / Total Hours Worked.
There are, however, some safety reporting issues:◼ Vehicular accidents – Most utilities report all reportable accidents, whether preventable or not and regardless of fault. In
general, we want utilities to include personal vehicles when used on company business.◼ There are some differences in how utilities treat limited duty work, which will not be resolved as part of this benchmarking.
5
Where the Data comes from
Statistic Columns Used
Recordable Incidence Rate: Sum (G, H, I, J)
Non-Fatal “Incidence” Rate: Sum (H, I, J)
DART rate Sum (H & I)
Lost Time Severity Rate: K
Lost Work Day Case Rate aka (Lost Time Case Rate or Lost Time Incidence Rate)
Sum (G, H)
6
All of the data should come from the OSHA form. We need total hours worked by all employees for normalization and the total numbers of each type of case, as well as, the days away and days restricted totals.
OSHA DART INCIDENCE RATE: COMBINED T&D
We always like to verify zeros on the safety charts. We checked with this company (27) and they checked their data: “we did actually have one lost day last year. For 2014 YTD, we have had no lost days and only 2 recordables.” So they are doing very well, but will be correcting this data.
7
Calculation used
( ( S5.2A + S5.3A ) * 200000 ) / S5.1A
Page7
Mean 2.0Quartile 1 1.1Quartile 2: 1.3Quartile 3: 2.7
Manhours vs Days
Question SF10 asked for two different answers, the question asked for “manhours”, the field for data entry asked for “days”. Almost everyone responded with days. So we’d like company 22 to convert their response.
8
DAYS ELAPSED ON AVERAGE FROM INCIDENT UNTIL INVESTIGATION REPORT COMPLETED
For SF140, we aren’t clear about calendar days or working days. We do want working days. Also, we’re looking for average. It’s conceivable that some incidents will be very brief requiring less than an hour to investigate and that others would take longer.
We expect smaller numbers. Companies 35 and 28 seem fairly large.
9
Issues Found: safety
Page # Q # Primary Issue Who
28 SF10 Please convert answer to “Days” 22
54 SF140 Fairly large numbers for an “average” 35, 28
?? SF215 Missing dot table on wellness activities 1QC
?? SF225 Missing dot table on effectiveness of wellness activities 1QC
10 SF5 Update data to match email 27
??? SF5 Add RIR including Fatalities 1QC
10
Analysis and use of Text Answers
11
Looking for Best Practices
We want 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 need to find out who the best performers are. Our methodology is explained on the next pages, but we haven’t yet identified the 2014 best performers.
12
• Compares the 5-year average value to the 5-year change in value
• Compares the 5-year average value to the 5-year change in value
Not Improving
Improving
Total T&D Recordable Incidence Rate
13
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.
Companies want to have good performance and be either stable or improving – putting them in the lower left corner of the chart.
From 2013
Not Improving
Improving
Total T&D lost Workday case Rate
14
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.
Companies want to have good performance and be either stable or improving – putting them in the lower left corner of the chart.
From 2013
Total t&D Safety Ranking - total
TOTAL SCORE IMROVEMENT SCORE VALUE SCORE
Total w/o MVA
Total w/MVA
Total w/o MVA
Total w/MVA
Total w/o MVA
Total w/MVA
Westar Energy 12 13 5 5 7 8
Tucson Electric Power 12 13 7 9 5 4
Exelon - PECO Energy 13 10 6 4 7 6
Oncor Electric Delivery 8 11 3 5 5 6
We Energies 8 11 5 6 3 5
Hydro One Networks 9 9 5 3 4 6
BGE 10 7 6 4 4 3
CenterPoint Energy 1 1 0 0 1 1
CPS Energy 4 2 5 3 -1 -1
B.C. Hydro -4 -7 -3 -5 -1 -2
KCP&L -5 -6 0 -2 -5 -4
Austin Energy -8 -11 -3 -5 -5 -6
15
Putting all of the data together for the 5 measures, we calculated a total for each company. Westar Energy had the highest total score – meaning that they had generally low safety rates and were improving.
Putting all of the data together for the 5 measures, we calculated a total for each company. Westar Energy had the highest total score – meaning that they had generally low safety rates and were improving.
Best Performing companies: 31, 30, 35, 39 (honorable mentions: 37, 27)
From 2013
Total T&D Safety Ranking - Breakdown
RIR DART LTSR LWCR MVA
Tucson Electric Power 2 1 2 2 2
We Energies 2 0 2 1 1
Westar Energy 1 2 2 0 0
Oncor Electric Delivery 0 1 2 0 2
BGE 2 1 2 1 -2
PECO Energy 1 2 2 1 -2
CPS Energy 2 -1 2 2 -2
Hydro One Networks 2 0 2 1 -2
CenterPoint Energy 1 1 -2 0 0
KCP&L 2 -1 -2 1 -2
Austin Energy -2 -1 -2 2 -2
B.C. Hydro -2 1 -2 0 -2
16
Aside from Westar, we also took a closer look at answers from other top performing companies when comparing answers to all of the text questions.Aside from Westar, we also took a closer look at answers from other top performing companies when comparing answers to all of the text questions.
Value Score Improvement ScoreRIR DART LTSR LWCR MVA
Westar Energy 2 2 2 1 1
PECO Energy 2 2 2 1 -1
Hydro One Networks 0 0 2 2 2
Oncor Electric Delivery 0 1 2 2 1
We Energies 0 0 2 1 2
Tucson Electric Power 1 1 2 1 -1
BGE 1 1 2 0 -1
CenterPoint Energy 1 1 -2 1 0
CPS Energy -1 -1 2 -1 0
B.C. Hydro 1 1 -2 -1 -1
KCP&L -1 -1 -2 -1 1
Austin Energy -1 -1 -2 -1 -1
Consistently Good companies: 31, 30, 35, 27 Improving companies: 31, 35, 37, 39
From 2013
Contractor Safety
◼ Two-thirds of the respondents track contractor safety, all but two of the top performing companies do – (SF45, pg 37);
◼ Two-thirds of the respondents do not have incentives or penalties for contractor safety performance, two top performing companies do (31, 39) – (SF50, pg 39);
◼ All but one respondent uses contractor safety as a selection criteria – (SF55, pg 39); ◼ Several top performing companies review contractor safety monthly or quarterly. (30, 31, 35, 37) – (SF60,
pg 40)◼ Several companies include safety expectations in the contract documents (37, 30, 32, 39, 17); most
provide some sort of manual or require contractors to adhere to OSHA guidelines, several have pre-job meetings (37, 28, 32, 17) – (SF70, pg 42)
17ID numbers are color coded: 99 = consistently good; 99 = improving; 99 = both
From 2013
Once we knew who the best performers were, we could look at text answers to see if anything stood out as making a difference. Here’s a slide on contractor safety. Once we knew who the best performers were, we could look at text answers to see if anything stood out as making a difference. Here’s a slide on contractor safety.
1QC Community Key Success FactorsSafety
18
From 2013
From all of the pages where best performers stood out as doing something different, we developed the Key Success Factors list below. For Insights we’ll validate it against this year’s data. What’s your impression of our Key Success Factors for Safety?
From all of the pages where best performers stood out as doing something different, we developed the Key Success Factors list below. For Insights we’ll validate it against this year’s data. What’s your impression of our Key Success Factors for Safety?
Where Are We: 1QC Industry Perspective for Safety
19
From 2013
Last year, we first shared this graphic at the Insights Conference. For Insights we’ll validate it against this year’s data. What’s you’re impression of our SCQA on Safety?Last year, we first shared this graphic at the Insights Conference. For Insights we’ll validate it against this year’s data. What’s you’re impression of our SCQA on Safety?
Other Analysis
◼ We’ll update the trend charts. ◼ We’ll update the ranking analysis
we developed last year◼ We’ll use these to identify
companies that are consistently low or are continually improving.
◼ We’ll also try to correlate the information from all the text questions against the performance measures.
We’ll see what develops.
20
Thank you for your Input and Participation!
21
Corporate Offices
California
400 Continental Blvd. Suite 600El Segundo, CA 90245(310) 426-2790
Maryland
3 Bethesda Metro Center Suite 700Bethesda, MD 20814(301) 961-1505
New York | Texas | Washington | Wisconsin
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
Debi McLain Cook [email protected]
Tim. [email protected]
Dave [email protected]
Dave [email protected]
Your Presenters
Ken Buckstaff [email protected]