BENEATH THE SURFACE Safety Awareness and Practices O ne would hope that, by now, virtually every company that works in the field of geodesign and geoconstruction would have a ful l understanding of the importance of making company-wide commitments to developing and insti- tuting comprehensive safety programs. Moreover, we should be well past considering OSHA a “four letter word.” Unfortunately not everyone agrees. By way of perspective, you may be surprised to learn that construction, in all its iterations, is not the number one environ- ment for accidents. Topping the list is farm- ing! There are many reasons for this, not the least of which is that farming is conducted in remote environments, often by people operating large, complex and, often, dangerous equipment with no supervision or support. OSHA, an understaffed agency, has a difficult time monitoring far flung operations of the kind typified by the agricultural industry. While there are specific regulations that apply to machinery operation common in agriculture, this is not where the regulatory action is. OSHA regulations and concerns about citing for potential violations should not be the reason that safety should be foremost on the minds of those whose work environment is fraught with danger. Management should primari ly be concerned about providing a safe working environment as a matter of moral principle. Working safely is good business in the most direct and practical ways imaginable. The humanitarian justification should be enough of a reason to provide a safe working environment. Accidents are not only tragic for the injured party and, often, their families, but in a purely business sense they are also disruptive, morale killers and expensive. Where’s the Beef? Construct ion can be a dangerous occupation. No one is naïve on this point. When we drill down on this a bit more we discover the areas in which most construction-related accidents occur. A report from RedVector, an online education and training company, featured a breakdown of the top 10 OSHA violations that occurred in 2016. The report was posted in the “ENR Customer Connection” e-newsletter on February 27, 2017. That breakdown is as follows: • Fall protection – 6,929 • Hazard communication – 5,677 • Scaffolding – 3,906 • Respiratory protection – 3,585 • Lockout/tag out – 3,414 • Powered industrial trucks – 2,860 • Ladders – 2,639 • Machine guarding – 2,451 • Electrical wiring methods – 1,940 • Electrical, general requirements – 1,704 Events in these categories only relate to reported violations. How about unreported events? Yes, we know that accidents of any magnitude, meaning those resulting in the need for medical attention or lost days on the job, are to be reported to OSHA. However, in reality this doesn’t always happen. While an accident is defined as “an avoidable occurrence,” we know that there are conditions and operations in which they occur, avoidable or not. So, if we agree that a construction site can be a dangerous place, we would like to think that everyone on that site is operating at 100% of awareness. That, however, is not the case. Almost 30 years ago, the American Subcontractors Association issued a report that found that, “conservatively,” at any given time at least 20% of those working on construction sites were impaired by illegal AUTHOR S. Scot Litke, Hon. D.GE drugs, alcohol, sleep depri- vation, emotional stress, or even legal and prescribed medications, all of which compromised motor skills and/or judgment. I would guess that the per- centages haven’t changed much during the last three decades, drug testing and safety training notwithstanding. “Working safely is not a part-time awareness. It must become as normal a part of everyday performance as are the most automatic operations.” Safety is Not Just for Constructors If we focus on the deep foundations and related industries, we find another issue of note — where do design engineers, inspectors and monitoring professionals fit in this equation? If they have an on-site function, they need to have the same kind of safety training as do those who are implementing construc- tion procedures. So, if you are an engineer and so engaged, “note to self,” your company owes you the same kind of training that is expected of those on the purely construc- tion side. It would be easy to just say “heads-up” (or “heads-down”) when on site. Unfortunately, it isn’t that easy. Engineering firms have the respon- sibility to provide safety training for their employees. There is no shortage of safety training materials and experts available to assist with this activity. It takes an awareness and commitment from the top down to make this happen, and certainly many, but not all, engineering firms are so committed. Another aspect of engineers’ safety awareness comes well before construction even commences. This is called “Design for Safety.” Several years ago, ASCE launched DEEP FOUNDATIONS • MAY/JUNE 2017 • 125
