<%BANNER%>

Target Safety: Programs Focused on Preventing Specific Hazards/Injuries

xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID E20101123_AAAAAP INGEST_TIME 2010-11-23T07:20:09Z PACKAGE UFE0011880_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES
FILE SIZE 46371 DFID F20101123_AAAKIK ORIGIN DEPOSITOR PATH madariaga_m_Page_29.pro GLOBAL false PRESERVATION BIT MESSAGE_DIGEST ALGORITHM MD5
a322ddd6228c39c0977d96f5fb5a2cd0
SHA-1
7ad009998fa9e75c3402acadef461955be424a26
6441 F20101123_AAAKDN madariaga_m_Page_02.jp2
6156be373e19056d1b528e04cf9a7ad1
1a53c5ee553516687ae508dc2d6285022746b7ad
28523 F20101123_AAAKIL madariaga_m_Page_30.pro
fcbc847a91530a9214c3809b1f28561d
18be7f93891761c55cdc4fd980b68fcbae870806
62424 F20101123_AAAKDO madariaga_m_Page_03.jp2
0d306c5e4d439807dd149f359675d92d
5a0e48128cda92c1544c53899ad53d0e7f10b665
30292 F20101123_AAAKNI madariaga_m_Page_32.QC.jpg
00ebf5dc2e390bfa9d86c71896d171bc
d99568b59d571602dc0f2a80a1b8f1b35aeeaa45
43942 F20101123_AAAKIM madariaga_m_Page_31.pro
20961de2ad1655c629b843a603ba1757
87a561fa4ceea578ea2f02b5ea744d8517c86e72
1051962 F20101123_AAAKDP madariaga_m_Page_04.jp2
0964cf67ab36f4471f83dea9c30d8381
c9e2f06bad20ce220ade8173a806bff5453bdf08
6326 F20101123_AAAKNJ madariaga_m_Page_52thm.jpg
39bd5ceec56e6fd4105c0e1b95f1a2f9
fb4182cb9cebd6f34c52756170c28776758d8955
48085 F20101123_AAAKIN madariaga_m_Page_32.pro
d20b4c4d11aade17f863f7b73d2b7d41
fd2dfb51453a1131297d26b4b0c8280e78e00a31
488667 F20101123_AAAKDQ madariaga_m_Page_07.jp2
bbafa1e2e0df4a6f51650282e25b2d2f
e10c7b0913f43f5b92d903bfee297649d2fe5490
23515 F20101123_AAAKNK madariaga_m_Page_12.QC.jpg
70c22c37f5ae0b01cd295f776e88b851
59b8598ac8ad018f627b41713c0fbe1cf2f85e00
48456 F20101123_AAAKIO madariaga_m_Page_33.pro
6b7074e85beb2bcfeb72a23b1a7f0a5c
32711479d35b3cc8747deb352e9059338fa4ef67
77658 F20101123_AAAKDR madariaga_m_Page_08.jp2
791f134e34e27077725224eb6f5d4edc
240988f8610e1d345fbd2d0074dfa16c8adc0887
7529 F20101123_AAAKNL madariaga_m_Page_45thm.jpg
80f5ad7495d16e237112a957145383e4
6b3476b758836949652f5d1423b98bd20a20984c
39204 F20101123_AAAKIP madariaga_m_Page_34.pro
364b08f469d9aa61e6b6840007ebb3fa
9b10b735bd5be0c9a3471aff3620c5ca3f505cad
50446 F20101123_AAAKDS madariaga_m_Page_09.jp2
1b9228ab4bb43aecc661b45b52fb64d1
00d24a774ec42dcb9d106e973f33c8931f809b19
8624 F20101123_AAAKNM madariaga_m_Page_07.QC.jpg
df50530f6fc111794514483da26380d0
5a48c8fcf80abae94fa89623abf579562a4d6fd3
47984 F20101123_AAAKIQ madariaga_m_Page_37.pro
0f114188b466e0c937d4866714ee2150
50bbe1f7e162524e23c45fe7b3cf38a240ecb2ac
94269 F20101123_AAAKDT madariaga_m_Page_10.jp2
66f65a256edb5fab99a7d5c0d7331e62
588cdf23bc838b98a163a6258e7f031830b11524
28260 F20101123_AAAKNN madariaga_m_Page_50.QC.jpg
916e914c37867e14ca60ea066f455e69
75a0d39e3ad17a9db02d62908a75f112b66d770f
49480 F20101123_AAAKIR madariaga_m_Page_39.pro
084be24f45540f73361d0d12f2f5fe5e
983fd110c7a2be44623988020f5fbe3c3c6b9011
107412 F20101123_AAAKDU madariaga_m_Page_11.jp2
6693ff0356d22b564e1fdcd0050e1136
0db2cecaec72e3ae68d8f6f582636f0f2f5e1f05
2475 F20101123_AAAKNO madariaga_m_Page_53thm.jpg
1bcef1460c2f85090033898533a19d15
684f7485258ea72e1bdc46bef81b70ae0979515e
33009 F20101123_AAAKIS madariaga_m_Page_40.pro
f55d7e7994b34741a5e6eb68955bedcc
fe2d415c2c400d2ede4870649a34785268bb13a1
75222 F20101123_AAAKDV madariaga_m_Page_12.jp2
0cd8a902b56c1eb3de57348f27ad1951
4d060afe975fd88dad5fc2d066030364b13d49df
7162 F20101123_AAAKNP madariaga_m_Page_31thm.jpg
e0f6a5c6a49306384ce789be285a5a6b
a31cf8d50ecfb8ec80cd54a731635c351c0d2bce
28919 F20101123_AAAKIT madariaga_m_Page_43.pro
ae85cb7cf1e4c861d8f530e778bf46c6
2f2332063e94a34ed931a0917dfd53a9f4bc2d9b
75854 F20101123_AAAKDW madariaga_m_Page_13.jp2
cbde3deb23a0ae48d25cd53c344ef326
f7881f5e261bbf310754648820e31059ddfe9edd
8499 F20101123_AAAKNQ madariaga_m_Page_25thm.jpg
6210a1397cd010881e293c11cdc0989a
ef4156c0e64505efb786372ff9183c9ba7b81040
47100 F20101123_AAAKIU madariaga_m_Page_45.pro
a388e33cd2808fa6459972c18a8abc81
2e891196d405073a74d439a2311321889f549c27
101114 F20101123_AAAKDX madariaga_m_Page_14.jp2
f47dd31cadae6e72ffce2bfe93adc928
353241fe2e71f059d3ff28a04b8c3d1e8d672e83
F20101123_AAAKNR madariaga_m_Page_37.QC.jpg
b52af840fe5c03ade18e36fe8c2ac009
6e8c6a2c97d7071da6b8c8b2024af843e5476c68
103736 F20101123_AAAKDY madariaga_m_Page_15.jp2
041edfff8d98c340ece6f3dc57d54c06
b4c699a873cc5cb6e749bbe6b0fab3f7f67609d7
32683 F20101123_AAAKNS madariaga_m_Page_28.QC.jpg
b8f9c8f332c6e5b631d6c66e8d7a3acb
9c648f3cb185fe4a968f7f1c9c89d480882b3f36
48855 F20101123_AAAKIV madariaga_m_Page_46.pro
fbdf900b031a7a41a74ef4bed7296de4
92d8ed42f7a01b1271c72bd39f73e88cf9080ed0
21152 F20101123_AAAKBA madariaga_m_Page_06.pro
ffde1a0475d04048efbdd069fefaf916
d9f56d81153bca422f5ca0a4346e59c78bd087e2
101795 F20101123_AAAKDZ madariaga_m_Page_16.jp2
404086a4a7d6b2b9f5ea419c20a86fc8
c250bcebae59d73f0789c8ac065e1d8baf7cc064
2918 F20101123_AAAKNT madariaga_m_Page_06thm.jpg
79d1c103a782e3ab3bc1e23eb64e6063
b2ced4f899a0427ad54594704ac73fbda5ddc53e
44629 F20101123_AAAKIW madariaga_m_Page_47.pro
7fccd57a176ecff3a66df03cfe79fef3
ff359395659c916d062523d0524b7e3695926230
1741 F20101123_AAAKBB madariaga_m_Page_20.txt
33155e4607f7bc47f13936f0c04ac063
a70084e67954ca19df280649ea4ff313b04b1edf
8334 F20101123_AAAKNU madariaga_m_Page_17thm.jpg
d653661863080187d85f2757f1ad25b1
1ba430e8dab8daa6345e7aa6d144d2a02ca59520
6826 F20101123_AAAKIX madariaga_m_Page_48.pro
b92bfe81e79414516b51c7644e059668
6391a8d53b48d83e96fb999495ad93b55e5d1ff7
6751 F20101123_AAAKBC madariaga_m_Page_34thm.jpg
e15df11d6454f71fe599a69229e9e1c7
6d55e8042f33d5e4e3866d7f545d50587a6d4da0
31000 F20101123_AAAKNV madariaga_m_Page_33.QC.jpg
32548ac30a7bf6298cc0a4fbc96ad67e
daa29a0aad97bab3f50640411ad73c5079a2830f
1053954 F20101123_AAAKGA madariaga_m_Page_19.tif
27e7e0f3eb24e0eafd51e3dc76e0e477
658a2bebae1ff21378c3bfdc32cda7695b7168b1
52933 F20101123_AAAKIY madariaga_m_Page_49.pro
89fe8d232f5d08e597c34d89775b5f3f
b79d6acc1322b252c12574e0fead799c1c06e7b2
4714 F20101123_AAAKBD madariaga_m_Page_42thm.jpg
7af429fab112f4701134c209154e9bce
bd15bfdd6f33b6357325abec20cdf8487b31c333
8350 F20101123_AAAKNW madariaga_m_Page_37thm.jpg
cc86d2d94e32e073be98b39fc6404d94
21a84b86485998c97400c77623099c17d238c417
51369 F20101123_AAAKIZ madariaga_m_Page_50.pro
6a23c7029e0f2173caa5fdd32823a8e0
9e83788e3537867769cf4e6f3ae4348a84ff675c
16632 F20101123_AAAKBE madariaga_m_Page_56.pro
ae618717458e5fc5143febbfc2620064
736120c9a27dd3e7d118901f112925680d22e8c3
14954 F20101123_AAAKNX madariaga_m_Page_41.QC.jpg
80b7a59637da9d16254e4cf668a29e08
de912d4c61a0d9e7840372fea3fc0fa5a6af5c39
F20101123_AAAKGB madariaga_m_Page_20.tif
c69155ac81d0d08f0e0d9e89d17915af
1a3ddcc05adc69df876f06d51b2e4287d3b6cefc
103927 F20101123_AAAKBF madariaga_m_Page_22.jpg
ed42275892335b3e055302a6fca504d7
2e17c394a9c88a176c5cc72c000586de7ce5999f
709 F20101123_AAAKLA madariaga_m_Page_56.txt
55a0fe61287bf47842d7a0f59d99f31d
4c0be85a8dd68ace3c1f21e1a257573485de7f69
6864 F20101123_AAAKNY madariaga_m_Page_27thm.jpg
fee5ef30cdacf7ce9da7baab27938bdd
0c42a24187a8dd27f137a316a5da098e52215715
F20101123_AAAKGC madariaga_m_Page_21.tif
2259f75eecd1446c7894628cf266817f
0b4ec4be97ee8f69617dbeec53f44f8a7d4fc032
1186 F20101123_AAAKBG madariaga_m_Page_43.txt
4c70581debf56b5732014cc5c16cf7c5
05be05d4705a157b8238c7d786b2ef45e15238bf
2248 F20101123_AAAKLB madariaga_m_Page_01thm.jpg
93a04e7bcfe0a91584abe85e1b7d22ae
d5878eb5d555b4a8b9cc244c25cd5e7842ef5ed9
2531 F20101123_AAAKNZ madariaga_m_Page_07thm.jpg
e331db8ea8423e3100410dce35c70130
064f882c361f5c779418c365375fdedd74a963b6
F20101123_AAAKGD madariaga_m_Page_22.tif
449801b74ec27c0ba3dcb3fc6b159df3
84357274a0e9ded5ee7c2079a3eefcfce5f89d8f
38063 F20101123_AAAKBH madariaga_m_Page_35.pro
9042b82393acb53a032d4a04a757ba6e
dc91f88efe12bbefc747743a61e5e3dad6408469
271532 F20101123_AAAKLC madariaga_m.pdf
2b35a622f739e16d6255f25a51235c07
41313ec4d49f24cdf248e0f5cb03e29d53e49df0
F20101123_AAAKGE madariaga_m_Page_23.tif
878c01bdbf2a748996a74f022f9e8349
03cf7913b2cc17314060424a60406174dece16ff
4943 F20101123_AAAKLD madariaga_m_Page_04thm.jpg
8b06b0ab482837557fd517d02c42111f
a4c103e8e494fefe139b5a863e059df821e89304
F20101123_AAAKGF madariaga_m_Page_24.tif
36d0ce8dd5c4568d83c55262688bdb1a
c12ef54ac5cc86c76b3a532f92a637a2a654af55
90421 F20101123_AAAKBI madariaga_m_Page_38.jpg
b4bf42890846a2407afad84138f699b7
db9f06b1f625445e845b853dd6dd0084c6a284ea
8317 F20101123_AAAKLE madariaga_m_Page_21thm.jpg
3a946f7c5fdc5cd5027bc0c2b4ca9af2
06b1c6f8abf78d32a612ae10065b58553e0f7c4e
F20101123_AAAKGG madariaga_m_Page_25.tif
e89717e7393cc91ab42dab0cda079ee2
36a14b76b5de423eda910daffcc9f9c05312f219
31473 F20101123_AAAKBJ madariaga_m_Page_21.QC.jpg
16ca84c3544c3fe8a2802d03d5d39cf9
c6bcad4e5534a506b8b2aa309a4494f1a2bba5c7
6813 F20101123_AAAKLF madariaga_m_Page_49thm.jpg
b508578488c9054aba267dd0bc8d1aa4
8e155774e88cce1230db047cb4110d58012cb381
F20101123_AAAKGH madariaga_m_Page_26.tif
0ac57869e218732482c4cc781dd79245
9925d2334ca051f3dc491a96a6230c94b67d5afb
15320 F20101123_AAAKBK madariaga_m_Page_09.QC.jpg
064f93510bb8f0b7ce9f036cbc102768
2fa33d57df2e2870e423356ab809ab80805bffb9
F20101123_AAAKGI madariaga_m_Page_27.tif
73a620969bbb5a680b29a2a2f610be86
1917fd43c45bd1c61be162ac55e9b6c77570a646
8640 F20101123_AAAKBL madariaga_m_Page_24thm.jpg
9c37958bcbc7e19979d920dfffd577b6
56ffd073c34cd4575d262432c56d96d7b1b1f71d
20415 F20101123_AAAKLG madariaga_m_Page_40.QC.jpg
14c7fcd3f6eac7ccfd81f96615797b14
0dde80ff315815cd1d18b42d14e3bf571d1e57ff
F20101123_AAAKGJ madariaga_m_Page_28.tif
554fec82271a1a1a06d38d10916672b1
9ea52e1ae6b749da11d13d762870f793dd4c707a
67924 F20101123_AAAKBM UFE0011880_00001.mets FULL
99a6aff0f13d9073150c578b03eb0aa0
c134ce0788485ccecfe42794a8f568c4725f8577
6153 F20101123_AAAKLH madariaga_m_Page_08thm.jpg
5ff0cde454aa7a7a34d67447b687f3aa
b49265c8da3eb926f268ae1fa079bfaafedc53dc
F20101123_AAAKGK madariaga_m_Page_29.tif
97337736f112f460f4ac21518bb033b0
7a08fcc3abba853825b225844b536441c9bc1355
26676 F20101123_AAAKLI madariaga_m_Page_20.QC.jpg
c09cec9e86b8a9319a35063e8ba80ba4
9a8e320542220b1b1f310ebe9fd2983ccb608b80
F20101123_AAAKGL madariaga_m_Page_30.tif
ef204a521233f10ee55f8d3d682eba40
76c571fad18527daf8ac7c11c0d02e311745a610
32850 F20101123_AAAKLJ madariaga_m_Page_23.QC.jpg
86b5e20937a101b0991a0811d0c21aac
bdd400dd914b8f2945017652ab845e18ade8c396
F20101123_AAAKGM madariaga_m_Page_31.tif
2e2c3ceafa78cb38a9e248025ab55751
e67f099dce430c9290ac27190df64fb1fd3eb5e1
26781 F20101123_AAAKBP madariaga_m_Page_01.jpg
7f9bbbcacce728df257bc5cb71a10587
313d643e2e927336f88f4e82a424334fc3329c46
8186 F20101123_AAAKLK madariaga_m_Page_15thm.jpg
61cf2adc3cb52d58b8f9e41204e0aaad
ec3af3f960add197e44a1b81686825816933b265
F20101123_AAAKGN madariaga_m_Page_32.tif
0774c3f6256b1aeaa6fe3cdbd7a63d72
a91651addcec661f24ef87792cdcb8feaecaf30f
18809 F20101123_AAAJZQ madariaga_m_Page_07.pro
f4b65364f23b1b9dc5fe7aad8e39b377
eb2248ea5be96a0ed1f747dcbd613f3d26737fe9
5390 F20101123_AAAKBQ madariaga_m_Page_02.jpg
e4927e152dabbf5eba42e3c07753b559
09b237615c12cc41beae17f55aa433b2421dedea
8306 F20101123_AAAKLL madariaga_m_Page_19thm.jpg
170ec160467ba94771f1a6b6e9cdd8d8
43f49840dec190ad817b69108fdc3d99fb906c0f
F20101123_AAAKGO madariaga_m_Page_33.tif
8c74888c901e403dbe70347b8abd3bff
ba3443be7f062ea27968706c185aca923ac51d36
8423998 F20101123_AAAJZR madariaga_m_Page_36.tif
a8afba47059bd81a172b9f9ea04c44d6
8655ba042fb2603910f2e5dfc7794915e44e73df
59334 F20101123_AAAKBR madariaga_m_Page_03.jpg
0fbe88167e71596d5cba037610728931
371b68481a50ea70b93533f69628c4c483efdc2d
31386 F20101123_AAAKLM madariaga_m_Page_39.QC.jpg
9aa7c250b3f1ae9e91d214457fe51995
59c5c8146fb451561860a01596e03097a781e398
25271604 F20101123_AAAKGP madariaga_m_Page_34.tif
f4b28407ef5b2e45b8961ded91a0561d
20d219863bd9503496d12fa118cb5a549a0c13e7
2110 F20101123_AAAJZS madariaga_m_Page_51.txt
9fddce161db687adfae2de69fba6c07d
86db296dfd3c4171007210a99bee129b291fed8a
83662 F20101123_AAAKBS madariaga_m_Page_04.jpg
0685cfc7b662866550504f890e19795e
5487983f2298eb2cf94404d90cf96efb1a75288c
5998 F20101123_AAAKLN madariaga_m_Page_48.QC.jpg
72e7df5f0d06ae063de848984d89d296
8653f0a2f08368fe9da1a9fd36d86101060d6bbb
F20101123_AAAKGQ madariaga_m_Page_35.tif
dfe56e08b066b71a97d31ea0a2809e7e
be85f1febf54f6b9ff624e8a903c3b0bae5c1ca4
1905 F20101123_AAAJZT madariaga_m_Page_29.txt
56c4d6f094083d553844f319883b0af3
1725451d42c3ea31d13012c48cfc30b8105ec315
45961 F20101123_AAAKBT madariaga_m_Page_05.jpg
3532adc3d9215fee02b5742da02c784f
395d1c14fe452eef7d4ed63db7bf0777b4ca81df
14950 F20101123_AAAKLO madariaga_m_Page_36.QC.jpg
8fba2d88e98393a46ba1f5b3630384df
b04f84d1a8bfdfc56ebff522eb437deaf8c04f76
F20101123_AAAKGR madariaga_m_Page_37.tif
35bbc29171d2109352cc64a435c2508b
a4972e07a03bf3c60b937be1917b3cd6363ff2ae
21796 F20101123_AAAJZU madariaga_m_Page_09.pro
a161d6100809068e4226e12298495f03
650fc2859e46e217864f5f19af6327a1d57e86a9
35201 F20101123_AAAKBU madariaga_m_Page_06.jpg
753ac5e5ee9db9ad05397baab6c1a186
6434e8148ade4dec03316df257e3f3fe12cc4cbd
3916 F20101123_AAAKLP madariaga_m_Page_09thm.jpg
7465228f456068400a6ae2d5a0def85f
51c43468991aaae7dae1e12cd617bded71a6f625
F20101123_AAAKGS madariaga_m_Page_38.tif
6c5f0d2d07de26e9c97c2aff24d7d5e9
5e0524e179c827a4b51acaa762b7e84ba0d668fe
29664 F20101123_AAAKBV madariaga_m_Page_07.jpg
b58e007b50526ead19c88c86f1054a84
87e993da8b04f0d36ec7f667f3f7c4be526b69fa
7898 F20101123_AAAKLQ madariaga_m_Page_46thm.jpg
dc8a183911d6086c4a6d8b89415985a8
f2937124f86165e124d330d71a0ca830b61c6f32
F20101123_AAAKGT madariaga_m_Page_39.tif
2ab32bfb437faaa2f43acd01f83c6fb6
df118f347b9bd5ed393973f7cb75dec2f133e54f
99441 F20101123_AAAJZV madariaga_m_Page_50.jp2
63396ca3753f0cb4ce3cd3fca9c8d335
a78251df5090e8864764bcf630359e885daa58f6
72135 F20101123_AAAKBW madariaga_m_Page_08.jpg
d7e83d2afc125eeb8565df0c36a53952
5219dd83e70f11c256768d59c9e58364e00cd070
F20101123_AAAKGU madariaga_m_Page_40.tif
ecf3e8392c64dbe4aa4e803f430ecf2f
7e2c7a66be3bfccc361c23c55c5f9ac6f325fff6
17498 F20101123_AAAJZW madariaga_m_Page_41.pro
d8cdfadb864da696fcef7d68ae54b733
463a205a1d3f528f1dcf880278159a5e67f24d60
47113 F20101123_AAAKBX madariaga_m_Page_09.jpg
86fa1a4375ef10e7b9e45ead590171c9
5dd8fb94ce0e81b40d6065e27a70274e91fd47f0
27973 F20101123_AAAKLR madariaga_m_Page_51.QC.jpg
dca536b2d27fb5e4bc1b9903d13579c1
8da2bd0d8722c2d0bc8b208377833f7f6547371c
F20101123_AAAKGV madariaga_m_Page_41.tif
1c9b5cac0939f9ef453fd5f31eabb3da
16d72a4f7e9b58562e2e960a1ea74b96524d2d82
106032 F20101123_AAAJZX madariaga_m_Page_18.jpg
223637be24373016286737380700f0c9
ff0eef576e9b0d4ef23da041649c0dd98a7c20d2
88818 F20101123_AAAKBY madariaga_m_Page_10.jpg
12bf4bc8775fdc4d2310a1c20c3cf610
2ac56bef97b34a652012d55fb8bebc164ef73494
28054 F20101123_AAAKLS madariaga_m_Page_55.QC.jpg
42c14a248b4baf1dee384375204c1755
7e491cca0ab01e6483d9ed05219a45e5ad827aa7
F20101123_AAAKGW madariaga_m_Page_42.tif
ddeb614891d6ef068703103b484d9e2b
c9f99ed7ee65754cdd3eeb5180477fd861906021
1699 F20101123_AAAJZY madariaga_m_Page_36.txt
562a165b6844ef25c4a96b5c439d9147
fb39e76ac00040bfd57ed052ae8f95c1c3313d6b
100085 F20101123_AAAKBZ madariaga_m_Page_11.jpg
8dcde35fab7ed129049f2a3f4c27215a
6f7fd571115160d81515002bd389f0fa9ecb46bb
8538 F20101123_AAAKLT madariaga_m_Page_18thm.jpg
beca1cd99f4df1af580d0785f6b10061
3adcdf8e4fdc50f38a31a94e8c5d3bcb587e808e
F20101123_AAAKGX madariaga_m_Page_43.tif
f36d9686570f37417f7c9855ef4329f8
8219830ea953053d0567caedd90a403d3b2c9a19
20544 F20101123_AAAJZZ madariaga_m_Page_36.pro
0e8a23d264520d24d78972b9c44aa2f9
62b602f90edb45bd64def18b264e69bb0bb6fe1d
26415 F20101123_AAAKLU madariaga_m_Page_35.QC.jpg
d26ab1a0649194aa2638700d5a7d5345
3e323d166ff6b9f10d7f2b4315b953cd54407565
F20101123_AAAKGY madariaga_m_Page_44.tif
5b522fb53c291dd2d8ca2ad945f212b3
09aca6fb67af7958745e854bdb021502a3600064
24173 F20101123_AAAKLV madariaga_m_Page_26.QC.jpg
f710bf6cd2c1841c38ba86f0594810a4
8e33a175d213f1982ab33bf24706480091a4d77a
111231 F20101123_AAAKEA madariaga_m_Page_17.jp2
e6a34524bbd1df78a5f7189e3497fbee
83fe2373feb8ecd33bf5b009be5438154729bf39
F20101123_AAAKGZ madariaga_m_Page_45.tif
3773895e8cab4acf388d8e8d6c22888e
5907cc82249f2a5fb56b7e2ab6ae88ae9b090c00
7099 F20101123_AAAKLW madariaga_m_Page_50thm.jpg
aa4f2c54a2037984680119d41502b5e9
00feafebfc5bda23eaafa9154766f391a337854d
112949 F20101123_AAAKEB madariaga_m_Page_18.jp2
5305fd42dceb2ecaac15427737053f4b
e4b89768554d4ef1742255a03447473bac0528a4
29363 F20101123_AAAKLX madariaga_m_Page_14.QC.jpg
def25e518fff0973566645797665b4ef
73f7a2df97f855d3c013c494afb49a1e6710816f
114546 F20101123_AAAKEC madariaga_m_Page_19.jp2
a6476f850737f7a9ea4fb4709e1dfc04
aacae51883fe64f0b80cd529309dde6392283941
47187 F20101123_AAAKJA madariaga_m_Page_51.pro
11ec980edfb1699545f4cf524f6e112f
d1a14b20cd18483044383125c7f1765df6aa847a
5886 F20101123_AAAKLY madariaga_m_Page_12thm.jpg
490f68b514c89319b1f0673feabb08bf
33a1a9329bc28b3f3c2f8fe9551ed0953531ca30
91175 F20101123_AAAKED madariaga_m_Page_20.jp2
e6b2f19395a00690942b55300523056b
3e9d7adcc5c217487322c168abe476bda0411d0f
36313 F20101123_AAAKJB madariaga_m_Page_52.pro
310b64ad3ef9a5e98002410a15f12de9
7a899477bbf7388840959cd9317489e2ce103366
5578 F20101123_AAAKLZ madariaga_m_Page_13thm.jpg
c692941d6d7fab7a82469b98fec767cf
99907fff16fafcf3b6a83b12ce44fcb24a4be86e
8198 F20101123_AAAKJC madariaga_m_Page_53.pro
aa20f1a1185b269ca8f19e6c0058e353
a54bad43e3ee4cc99ebd66d1d02625bbfc07deff
106444 F20101123_AAAKEE madariaga_m_Page_21.jp2
93146eaa5c2e8d6b3946bba87fc9ef7f
d120bbd32d477a6732c3ac902127941fe30fe09e
8572 F20101123_AAAKOA madariaga_m_Page_01.QC.jpg
b8d46b702539e10720c12f3f25f5bf01
7264c1015aa36b7165711bf4315a45a310884154
60326 F20101123_AAAKJD madariaga_m_Page_54.pro
cfb2f1ae41d31529cd96f5578c88f63e
3e9ec1659906cb87ce7b0b360aef87c8d96ed0ac
111611 F20101123_AAAKEF madariaga_m_Page_22.jp2
9ac866dadd1a9b0a537e8b7326b65c6e
f386f02e17e7ca733e31e6f92a66149bfed5cb59
4419 F20101123_AAAKOB madariaga_m_Page_36thm.jpg
5bf921838d8638d44be25ebed1df88e8
f5f93428c96f02585cd20b46e6c09f29d4e3e9da
109100 F20101123_AAAKEG madariaga_m_Page_23.jp2
1b97556a2d8ef917867a6a79da5a32aa
d719a626c9a25f82438c9bed647eea7733ce99c8
7650 F20101123_AAAKOC madariaga_m_Page_16thm.jpg
c45d6f92f15a0bdecb2ea2a53baadb79
8c5c7a3fae0c1447be74abc7aa0b1a73b1106b47
42067 F20101123_AAAKJE madariaga_m_Page_55.pro
e7c6fd208a0db2bc72e042dfffb4b5fd
9430934cc64c2a021459d2af0d9a599733c53713
112768 F20101123_AAAKEH madariaga_m_Page_24.jp2
ad3106bd6b431b6d59a50c935da06d21
15b2c5b3e6cdba1e58cae255fe55c99b83377dce
31468 F20101123_AAAKOD madariaga_m_Page_29.QC.jpg
86017b607e9869a18d528bad6fa947a8
fd31278a62cf339e65846ba69ba98b9503cbbf9f
468 F20101123_AAAKJF madariaga_m_Page_01.txt
b96afe558a8d849e533b7bc54bbde776
6da2df3a1e5ae7d998089c0b47ff29347ce2e77e
113191 F20101123_AAAKEI madariaga_m_Page_25.jp2
1a1d6a3e4d04dde3521e5a24234649a7
1f6f6b92a37355c64a0f526bbef8fd3e3bea6c24
25759 F20101123_AAAKOE madariaga_m_Page_52.QC.jpg
4a5269652f535d9ac24d7e48a369643d
f2a5756e6b6afab9e0b0065a658c8b48a6408efb
128 F20101123_AAAKJG madariaga_m_Page_02.txt
bf7c6fa1370d9c550afd46343000cca5
69ee17778d27944cc62558a405ab0f3875b000b8
82891 F20101123_AAAKEJ madariaga_m_Page_26.jp2
704988eacb60d6801d7bd72c589a1b07
0eabc1f6f58eef4891cbaf97a90b3902ed4c9d45
33771 F20101123_AAAKOF madariaga_m_Page_17.QC.jpg
480c3b20d8547489d72b88b2d677625c
557f30b45b10572ee894bb3da263cd2e1e7f0431
1164 F20101123_AAAKJH madariaga_m_Page_03.txt
22e1cd6cec1e78f52f1836c3a0468dc1
db39fc505f12720351392f04c67eccf3ad2fe966
91126 F20101123_AAAKEK madariaga_m_Page_27.jp2
7bcf859c304e082682d20cf2d8ec8ee6
6cc4ae419250572b957bde11a793d33c5fb60d17
30551 F20101123_AAAKOG madariaga_m_Page_45.QC.jpg
0b32f2ad167937d805da0ea79a003a1c
e6430c88d82a7cf0bb95ebe2019bc9bfb33b8a15
2910 F20101123_AAAKJI madariaga_m_Page_04.txt
f6a626cd5307c31b1a016109dce45797
be66d2f40f2f3176c5766c146eb3411065389bc5
108142 F20101123_AAAKEL madariaga_m_Page_28.jp2
f1898b7b584a180848e6fcba5cb39a99
e97fdea7f1ad7cbf37e8e766e4e1acc14b97c1b0
8023 F20101123_AAAKOH madariaga_m_Page_39thm.jpg
e94185ae52866be5f7a6e347069d6e17
bb6717b0de4f663335e1b07e528e8d77ce702d80
1088 F20101123_AAAKJJ madariaga_m_Page_05.txt
5b1fd5b02913196bf4ebd5ea1dc29b13
f49c5509680e844f013d842c7c57d1544f593bc4
101228 F20101123_AAAKEM madariaga_m_Page_29.jp2
55a83f3cd04e3c89e4aaae299fdf0fe6
8e0249fef0c3c1855c67cfac181d48fb46752308
7443 F20101123_AAAKOI madariaga_m_Page_55thm.jpg
2a5b2a15a3b3faef2eecfcd2762a01c2
d050af95669f3233894f383dc49f0e96fd06256c
918 F20101123_AAAKJK madariaga_m_Page_06.txt
ba82965a01ceeb406b38c5b1720d4f3a
b19b3f4830b586a22380d03e5ee38ecac2ca8627
64646 F20101123_AAAKEN madariaga_m_Page_30.jp2
c5b8635a30aa09fd92a24d8c06cf6f60
868d5114041d6a6013b06d118c4230fc87ceae0c
818 F20101123_AAAKJL madariaga_m_Page_07.txt
bc59136479a6cff0db92eaea0b8ee478
1868ee6a7c37d9a42dd0d9909b2e0cfe41f8ffc2
97353 F20101123_AAAKEO madariaga_m_Page_31.jp2
fdb51cee30c8a2fbbbde822f556c52c1
a5639bbdfbb1a00cdc608d80fdb4512296ffcac7
4938 F20101123_AAAKOJ madariaga_m_Page_03thm.jpg
a298099395ecd8aa9f939de6d05578f8
ad5f16cbf803b70c7834914b164184758bdf0299
1542 F20101123_AAAKJM madariaga_m_Page_08.txt
a20e1a6a14f1061f0130dafbb6166555
5e7d7ef0dba8f10d677af3fb8303418316608612
96972 F20101123_AAAKEP madariaga_m_Page_32.jp2
4412d77aa4142310606d40dea074a479
27c4f2b3044795dd746b56676ab82f307ea7827d
10177 F20101123_AAAKOK madariaga_m_Page_06.QC.jpg
f17e3ed5fa301906d26e651280e9ce8e
510d79da215d7f4de8f272f7adb3c564ad1a2e69
872 F20101123_AAAKJN madariaga_m_Page_09.txt
aeec7dac4e5026ef605da298d3e63616
e6ecbaa7d91cc5c23b1c8f84e7fc9229b549c8b3
101784 F20101123_AAAKEQ madariaga_m_Page_33.jp2
046e307e4654eca877d36e99f719d691
a4c45d8d31fbc482994f1f4cb3181c6f3a5d49fc
4832 F20101123_AAAKOL madariaga_m_Page_30thm.jpg
f29e1aa25182f4f976af3e0090c44e83
17ca373ca26ad1d48b66ff14a224796f8bc8cb8b
1813 F20101123_AAAKJO madariaga_m_Page_10.txt
2fb67b14497477b17f205e951b697662
987c0179168dadb3824d806754cf946902f4b252
883725 F20101123_AAAKER madariaga_m_Page_34.jp2
b6c2763755fe10ced0fd3412eeb897fd
75ddcd60d3cf700cb15bf699d737ae446d5f938b
34902 F20101123_AAAKOM madariaga_m_Page_25.QC.jpg
7e29d23f08f42fe99013eb7b8164e0fd
09c048bdfdd63d1bcb3b83925c58aa4409a61221
1958 F20101123_AAAKJP madariaga_m_Page_11.txt
e905ffc78442941a151fec1857c37d81
6f121aad30888c37eaba37ea4f857367ee25c49b
80719 F20101123_AAAKES madariaga_m_Page_35.jp2
1a659e4e0b6d1e85d375aca232340baa
95e932ecab37d9e37b6bfe5f1ccef7ffa072925e
1332 F20101123_AAAKJQ madariaga_m_Page_12.txt
d9425bbb3d90eaa703bb41a77c5cf757
3d78dee7260ead8d43778562968998cd6ebebc7f
475724 F20101123_AAAKET madariaga_m_Page_36.jp2
2f899c41145ce40467ccfda1d619ef2f
971b3b02890e382931d1c9328f6dd81af2b8dda1
1642 F20101123_AAAKON madariaga_m_Page_48thm.jpg
46b116fbc2f9a9318cbf851f8916959b
8b812f7438f619e3d174d079117801d666a601b7
1984 F20101123_AAAKJR madariaga_m_Page_14.txt
50b1242a228e9ba8b02770b05a963751
98adf9ad4e991c3f1fd8b70d82427ae9edf02fdf
1041616 F20101123_AAAKEU madariaga_m_Page_37.jp2
d254a39ed73998fbd7f64bebd264c5fa
92ccae2e5af2c5fca193edba4db178540e475f97
8434 F20101123_AAAKOO madariaga_m_Page_23thm.jpg
bc899a2849efbe2597795cf1875575f3
65aae0f396eb5b5b81169acb6f73a921c36726d4
1929 F20101123_AAAKJS madariaga_m_Page_15.txt
3ee370d3390103f062887eb8997ceb5a
a79eafeb795bb2db7d9ca2fde5f44c467d97a274
93660 F20101123_AAAKEV madariaga_m_Page_38.jp2
7187c15f7baa2ad063bde5fcf4559e18
92a0507236ddd994db3aa642c2458451edb1033a
7014 F20101123_AAAKOP madariaga_m_Page_20thm.jpg
7871533fa4256259a9a594ec41339e8e
7695acc4e9345f52bfc71d4d0f123574908970ad
2023 F20101123_AAAKJT madariaga_m_Page_17.txt
f06ca57d59ca8f7c75a94fd1d0127612
3e3456147c502187d177a6362864666c6e8604ff
1051930 F20101123_AAAKEW madariaga_m_Page_39.jp2
a81bbede544647826d47d7d181e15018
3150e5afaf4f3a66e92d88a47a4dc6389b407d5f
27963 F20101123_AAAKOQ madariaga_m_Page_27.QC.jpg
77f9cbff72286bb24d95790fed65668f
e3fb3cb0f2c25bfd409b94cb8d247f8a82631c50
2058 F20101123_AAAKJU madariaga_m_Page_18.txt
07aa4cd1776c4e6ce63a4ecc5cc322e8
c55d2b9d0fa7dcdaaeb2aa2cc09f3a732e49082d
70948 F20101123_AAAKEX madariaga_m_Page_40.jp2
3563e8ac300980f492024f4fea6999ae
16054a3e4e4337cca8db199bd3a7a1ace61aa56a
87544 F20101123_AAAKOR UFE0011880_00001.xml
b86d14b11a96d1030fdbdda14c5809cb
d34bd035d2f7e486e4f2fe1ac0524d62f096dadf
F20101123_AAAKJV madariaga_m_Page_19.txt
96063a455184db76f6c149bc61d2d465
16e8de79737e44d24bff092502c2b4e36da11cc3
444611 F20101123_AAAKEY madariaga_m_Page_41.jp2
c14278a2fba4014d325f50d56afb2aae
2f6cf922ffc8907db608dee266af2b394729df06
11538 F20101123_AAAKOS madariaga_m_Page_05.QC.jpg
ad91bf5af97f4ce3ff4f05066c5acfb1
bfd7d9a82e3c4a169c97d7c9b840c205a0229c6f
1959 F20101123_AAAKJW madariaga_m_Page_21.txt
8835685fdec5485311dac2119f2ff9c3
2b763b3232b852090a13be24070777f3da465e29
68912 F20101123_AAAKCA madariaga_m_Page_12.jpg
8025c20823a329db335a1b007eb65a1c
3f52f0ccf260853b730ef9ae99eda48428160a21
589182 F20101123_AAAKEZ madariaga_m_Page_42.jp2
40ccc33f7856365fa260408735e42aa1
e36884ced42ba0d18503b0543fb9c5071a1b8773
33665 F20101123_AAAKOT madariaga_m_Page_22.QC.jpg
e90c82386b98fea924020eeb8d22c8ab
d2b325334c3c427283813bf413b58629723cbd6f
2021 F20101123_AAAKJX madariaga_m_Page_22.txt
05f484b188d2acb2348ae3f25fdad616
f1779937d60f4ddcfa3594b75d4c923e0677b01a
70041 F20101123_AAAKCB madariaga_m_Page_13.jpg
a4e904c821887c72314645bfd6c7ee83
d2361aee77f8cd3eeb88237730b1fcf8356ec295
4151 F20101123_AAAKOU madariaga_m_Page_41thm.jpg
8f8d20a97440ee49de7808fd25f60bbb
47a220491c00b802549d92c60bf9075a4dabb93a
F20101123_AAAKHA madariaga_m_Page_46.tif
e2cd8a787d1830c862abd1392374860c
e20156bf3b01a5cdf16198d8b80a3a305e6a8a4a
1981 F20101123_AAAKJY madariaga_m_Page_23.txt
db46a4342cf8433d736278bd8f86a00c
fcf48315454dfeaef90c041840121d71f6f3165e
95003 F20101123_AAAKCC madariaga_m_Page_14.jpg
336df301380d2fda03c587e18cce299a
2067ac2f9fd93e58f4388df31c6a9c8e4bf9ebe8
31373 F20101123_AAAKOV madariaga_m_Page_46.QC.jpg
78bf4557341e790eaa4b90e37a2f59f7
71296840f10236233cfae051d441c5f2152fc37a
F20101123_AAAKJZ madariaga_m_Page_24.txt
b03446f13083762c9d1efffa67be3ff5
01932a5d8b4cc43c1df0affc5a1f49cc917bc3af
97205 F20101123_AAAKCD madariaga_m_Page_15.jpg
593e39d7416233052e0a2832c8a8f152
f3f51c0bc9395f718a0b7b2e75fd5bea6eaf67d7
26487 F20101123_AAAKOW madariaga_m_Page_49.QC.jpg
6cb6eb1e277e9d0cac82c69ad57be827
6cd72d69b7dfecbf0bdb0d31f5d6862aa35c2a46
F20101123_AAAKHB madariaga_m_Page_47.tif
b70d5a5dabd823961aa297dc1875e792
034d57d13a3bf0952d5fb9471910b1400ca32696
94812 F20101123_AAAKCE madariaga_m_Page_16.jpg
45f612605d3139e848f3beb0e8471e91
1b0a8cd0682b3a6f848e32895e2347e95b910c3d
102884 F20101123_AAAKCF madariaga_m_Page_17.jpg
1a5bfca436916cc2d9350b9272e6bb65
53998675e0347ed178910e3b71bcf9a0ce8e3b96
30831 F20101123_AAAKMA madariaga_m_Page_16.QC.jpg
a2ffc6ef757a206e765b108fcd544b63
87ae672bbbff288408d17619d572e7650621d2d6
F20101123_AAAKHC madariaga_m_Page_48.tif
eebf356bc69835ee1d03c5f557b1f3d7
a64ebc8364508e378c5f65ed5e0b2675439392af
105934 F20101123_AAAKCG madariaga_m_Page_19.jpg
5527c0abd908b4760d7dc04140b725be
73bc61e5da7039ddb5a517a64a0b11456e45b4aa
4678 F20101123_AAAKMB madariaga_m_Page_43thm.jpg
fc32fea93bfd8625bcf5556f1e8611a4
bde43e349a68f4694a9e3f55104882d72f00ca85
F20101123_AAAKHD madariaga_m_Page_49.tif
983cdf9c77b73643d772ec5f8f0607c7
d8edb22bbb8d5256d110a9aa3c8030bac57c0e68
85431 F20101123_AAAKCH madariaga_m_Page_20.jpg
0bb187737efd50d48ddb7dcfb642d6b2
7ddc4f6940c7497d20e786117dbb98cb4eb6cf30
651 F20101123_AAAKMC madariaga_m_Page_02thm.jpg
7965508859eb109d292f232c89d76517
2fe5205ad760af673870f4eb615dd4e45743c3c0
F20101123_AAAKHE madariaga_m_Page_50.tif
3e8ab1bae63252a48d815d32546e1305
eab6f73adee18096b2f35107cc0b95f7b403aae9
98898 F20101123_AAAKCI madariaga_m_Page_21.jpg
77e7ceeadad1b6de3feef5187f24a63d
4e6c0b672940e1a6a691e9eff5c505f8372fc38b
34190 F20101123_AAAKMD madariaga_m_Page_24.QC.jpg
4d82a3c0dab0afa9d9e89d13a6789b33
ee2456e13f469920a1fb9b44d1bcb7453833adde
F20101123_AAAKHF madariaga_m_Page_51.tif
cc7d30c74f4c5653e45ea446ded8119b
86843ddff1ed2c7ae91f5f774c6021f805320cf9
101334 F20101123_AAAKCJ madariaga_m_Page_23.jpg
f68887f442c828d5a276a46cbb1e2f36
1055a2181a46eb9f109e3db2b9abacb94da98738
7618 F20101123_AAAKME madariaga_m_Page_32thm.jpg
1538830dec78a4bc63f9c5bfaa8326be
3efa59abbec0b9eca4aa95c772a2f11632ded80c
F20101123_AAAKHG madariaga_m_Page_52.tif
f257bfbed67f67d54ccf486359b89107
d86d805af2066d3de1f8ca40493c1a297ca00ced
105716 F20101123_AAAKCK madariaga_m_Page_24.jpg
f30ee596bb5f9f2bd806de0410ab925f
dc6e6eca7bf99a49fbd42bb8bfb2e92afb31dc4e
7065 F20101123_AAAKMF madariaga_m_Page_51thm.jpg
1b6529845439c59ae8ac72f327112da8
07a819e4df200dd8d0228fb8bad975405f893782
F20101123_AAAKHH madariaga_m_Page_53.tif
666bde80654cd349d8d4cb07e72991ae
6fd0676133a87871d4dad4c6f1e14acc2a0e72e7
76247 F20101123_AAAKCL madariaga_m_Page_26.jpg
99b9f897eb901dec3a43af34442ee6ad
06cef324e84cbd714fe53db3440e7c737bcfa126
7166 F20101123_AAAKMG madariaga_m_Page_44thm.jpg
87b106594fe671bb575ed04565a4ab58
c2b43b43ec7199604fe9fb1dedba00e60f7bf2a8
F20101123_AAAKHI madariaga_m_Page_54.tif
bd03ddfde06c330ae1c7e470d2dfe419
ae6fb57d5594f4c6c983ec912aec78ef05f9a95b
86582 F20101123_AAAKCM madariaga_m_Page_27.jpg
0bbe660e6d2b3daf8e32477084c324f9
6bbe640fca6a0f8c951a7143775a7b3974ed0ff6
F20101123_AAAKHJ madariaga_m_Page_55.tif
bce7e85ce2f755a083ed1c714685c564
d0dff2187ddbe47aea5c5ddccfd74a4b4d4ab1b2
100505 F20101123_AAAKCN madariaga_m_Page_28.jpg
afc847779a64d7b6ae420f738dd41816
156eb55892ef27201165e46b1d70873a6748bbc5
3249 F20101123_AAAKMH madariaga_m_Page_56thm.jpg
e4e6d33a749b9a26e9e97d0c5c596087
d3f4237e270f7b623b6c3f223a70ee3568ac5283
F20101123_AAAKHK madariaga_m_Page_56.tif
c07cd502afc369f9138e805e2b01f468
b2b8fb3605a33920074c6d63e18d2fe17bd2b905
93786 F20101123_AAAKCO madariaga_m_Page_29.jpg
e559d34e4048d7ce997569b54c92d6a0
009012e54b25989174e94d92d7f4d778ff4e9bdf
28674 F20101123_AAAKMI madariaga_m_Page_31.QC.jpg
2919015b291e0d05f5ffa0732e00edc8
b5291a99642578263bf8faef6b0d8ef46fb736b6
8749 F20101123_AAAKHL madariaga_m_Page_01.pro
54d4285f2d88f62d784a18b325979347
bb76f817b66a927610b3f553d540f5cfd0d787fd
60087 F20101123_AAAKCP madariaga_m_Page_30.jpg
adfa5f7260df4d3eb78021bd2dbd945f
79c88f07370db3db4dbef5af7e0fef08a5372c93
22296 F20101123_AAAKMJ madariaga_m_Page_08.QC.jpg
80ebf1245d8a051f37fef7b1a70621a0
b6f3b3ebc771c277db7fdaaed859db7c328aa736
1410 F20101123_AAAKHM madariaga_m_Page_02.pro
00ee7a8d0fea9fd5f12f608a2869fbf3
b664f0ab5bfbac1c24f4adee2e34226ac4bd04ad
90754 F20101123_AAAKCQ madariaga_m_Page_31.jpg
bc92a9620f00a945ab4225ae71fd1632
8a45c25be632b35107daa6ca6ebddf60231c99ec
19905 F20101123_AAAKMK madariaga_m_Page_04.QC.jpg
28ecfae72fff6a3d504a9dacb1a5c285
0531f39c42d17cc6a443244fe704d4ef7990b817
28070 F20101123_AAAKHN madariaga_m_Page_03.pro
62da8118451a73861f9a30f1c41772ce
6c440bfd862c8aa2e4aa7ebf0f27f0e98cc17c9c
91218 F20101123_AAAKCR madariaga_m_Page_32.jpg
40476661d15f724a6aa5343c5e17c394
8b8a0cd5777c9428f49dcf001795419de52281c7
31605 F20101123_AAAKML madariaga_m_Page_15.QC.jpg
6104dc125b39c805bab53fa95655f823
70b1ab5f30a7f57ea629440e0d840144c0eb41de
70530 F20101123_AAAKHO madariaga_m_Page_04.pro
e36f47081fbc2245276eed1b020997ec
db730934a768146e9bc58d5ce7c60df394844e9e
93593 F20101123_AAAKCS madariaga_m_Page_33.jpg
7e32632b34527289639d0c66c0e92938
6d1d0c4b1bef1359ab59dcd5aeeef44fe34c832f
35740 F20101123_AAAKMM madariaga_m_Page_19.QC.jpg
22cc94f32f1cdc60354625f35eb1727d
ab745d1a34d3056fe4dad5949cec45bc62cc1168
27511 F20101123_AAAKHP madariaga_m_Page_05.pro
0db4f1754ed43a3569dabe6ef9273365
b96653832900504e7468ea4d41f54e8ff2942158
81756 F20101123_AAAKCT madariaga_m_Page_34.jpg
58382101f83dc9e8c299f959ba69d8c5
18a33cc779c35744edcdf6437d3074a2680e723d
28563 F20101123_AAAKMN madariaga_m_Page_54.QC.jpg
b42a09ad472545578e53ee0e31908a71
ef37be8ebde86731173d333a9c33a113abf82f45
34091 F20101123_AAAKHQ madariaga_m_Page_08.pro
ad6368568e144bac71fbbc52461b0a90
7c9d17ccfb5cd07f1dc9de5fb77aadda1fe82f6b
78757 F20101123_AAAKCU madariaga_m_Page_35.jpg
9056a7619350839933101088daaa1817
47d8e122631856de329fbf201b9f63dfaea4ee81
32003 F20101123_AAAKMO madariaga_m_Page_11.QC.jpg
5e03217e67538ee0de23c0d6e8ba01a0
218576ba2c371c793ec33ff57bf40cca3d617c74
43805 F20101123_AAAKHR madariaga_m_Page_10.pro
a7fc12892f0637625293695e01dead16
a8f6d8a668f0f97fd4a4bebe9056ad2c4b7a1e41
97574 F20101123_AAAKCV madariaga_m_Page_39.jpg
af9581504a3039e5ebb22e720ef84cae
20b6e068d97cc57670d37fd6bc9b64491b3404d1
29778 F20101123_AAAKMP madariaga_m_Page_38.QC.jpg
ebc488102f45d08076c09c155f052e45
09b6626f9f63ea7a52f9930a1bef2bd609b38885
49572 F20101123_AAAKHS madariaga_m_Page_11.pro
6d13b48cb312ea0d373fcb892be85f1e
54480aab5605966e7b348c671172b493b60757ab
66128 F20101123_AAAKCW madariaga_m_Page_40.jpg
91d6c271a773ff4158b2beaad01a52b2
968dacee76a17faea8a784df47eefab1d9efad49
7261 F20101123_AAAKMQ madariaga_m_Page_10thm.jpg
40a22888bcba61b00569815fe4067bb7
e268f4b12473aee9bf9a1210b55a822dd4157cd8
33222 F20101123_AAAKHT madariaga_m_Page_12.pro
fa481ea29f8bba73083cc803d785ed9d
a15b5ac2b84146e056ce85ccdf7a1100f5b8f50f
42798 F20101123_AAAKCX madariaga_m_Page_41.jpg
26f2d3109a3080c2f7f7733af68cbf4c
68b7b551a73f4cbd39966f8390a677c0a4f84aed
8426 F20101123_AAAKMR madariaga_m_Page_28thm.jpg
23bdd9efcf1012e82fb4c4d18344b3eb
34385031d547bb220e8714cbf74b837b5d94eece
34425 F20101123_AAAKHU madariaga_m_Page_13.pro
7d3364fac894474a090be21b9ba2c5e1
9d1501f8ff9ed693abb2ca3f1883dbb9cfa59c40
54942 F20101123_AAAKCY madariaga_m_Page_42.jpg
d70d1e70c27351b48ebe288a70c34d89
317091bdacccd9ab62f82594eaf997c33677aa37
5741 F20101123_AAAKMS madariaga_m_Page_40thm.jpg
5fdcac1772536a232de4530d690ab695
fedcb2e1e375eaacebb98404c0e9bb6e80aa5975
48084 F20101123_AAAKHV madariaga_m_Page_14.pro
6b825c67c7a0751fe3c54e3620e05fa4
04d5a698a12109dfe9d8a96ebc2be329144f9dfe
61739 F20101123_AAAKCZ madariaga_m_Page_43.jpg
124a7d365bb1fcbb2f598a1046ae49eb
8e7e715cebf8d5d320a88b84e36a5677c40e0e57
6485 F20101123_AAAKMT madariaga_m_Page_35thm.jpg
f0a3334d889997dbcd5d7af4ac96775c
789e248858611c31c478eb9475a21f6097e16240
47599 F20101123_AAAKHW madariaga_m_Page_15.pro
c6c6b1ebc581e9ae2a77b7950dcbd1d4
cfdbb49283528cbd8bffe0ef0212ea9f937d3962
F20101123_AAAKAA madariaga_m_Page_17.tif
15014e27854d1e30ab88628daf51b994
5c92e2b9027ced6fa0324100ad5f5fb6f29108cc
6082 F20101123_AAAKMU madariaga_m_Page_26thm.jpg
62233ce9f0f04a67e09c30c994ece8c1
8de8d15ef3572abcd0752ba2155cf9e3c793f9a0
46019 F20101123_AAAKHX madariaga_m_Page_16.pro
33366a0a43570b2f33398a8e7ae93433
f4bf6c6ac7951df7adb2b2336066e6aba815b1fa
29418 F20101123_AAAKAB madariaga_m_Page_47.QC.jpg
82b1cfa17832887e46a6448e8b6931ca
80d4f27df2fcfaf9cb0fe29f888b979a62aa6b1c
2813 F20101123_AAAKMV madariaga_m_Page_05thm.jpg
6c0c98c63e2d2870a33167a5f62a1699
c460edbdf0941ec96bc3f69fd5638493ddce706e
50762 F20101123_AAAKHY madariaga_m_Page_17.pro
f900b7656ea2a0082504f142c29f0695
1c680e9115da04dd980e4562522a8048e39a1833
64695 F20101123_AAAKAC madariaga_m_Page_43.jp2
98ca5bceed59c39491ea73ff043b6ee8
9cd26a212ff0954c89a952e08ab53f6c9a5fcb76
7753 F20101123_AAAKMW madariaga_m_Page_33thm.jpg
251e9678005c74dda79bd4637ddd4a1f
fb4accb443a80e6c184116ce19964682d97cf568
93755 F20101123_AAAKFA madariaga_m_Page_44.jp2
2dc03789751a77c96ff6f33fe698c04d
e4e900c403b16ef88d81b08097d492322750500e
52298 F20101123_AAAKHZ madariaga_m_Page_18.pro
b968d52a4d84dad15f53aaa7aa3f274c
ad6ff9ad6b207ac132fabb75c7dd980189d0a41f
1051984 F20101123_AAAKAD madariaga_m_Page_54.jp2
6418ee6fde6221ae65ed0a91b9af19e2
b6215e5c8dfe3894d416cb99baa9fc6fe351bbf7
8381 F20101123_AAAKMX madariaga_m_Page_53.QC.jpg
dad1db0e3b7f1ed9ca57106d02597b21
3b8ea9714d4218ab9eda6542d191b55ae257cfac
102621 F20101123_AAAKFB madariaga_m_Page_45.jp2
71644ecb06354a662152a5e0a5a6eeba
2d6f9f44f7edce365552db40ee5836127887c24d
26880 F20101123_AAAKAE madariaga_m_Page_34.QC.jpg
327a8abe1407119ea35f5ac4c294d238
5854478276878aa80066ca64a914ed2f73cc5cc7
7930 F20101123_AAAKMY madariaga_m_Page_11thm.jpg
8c250b11953d20afd2aa238fd9e14438
c3d0badaad64850b5594585b39f4d4485b276d5a
105240 F20101123_AAAKFC madariaga_m_Page_46.jp2
62e2f4bfc003f50adc543095a2489e97
8cc524168406a113cfcc1a5dae21dfd768a6feca
804137 F20101123_AAAKAF madariaga_m_Page_05.jp2
6e557092ac6ab0b391d61ff03c50d040
9dea96736e1bef7acbe9599c58061e848c72b737
2063 F20101123_AAAKKA madariaga_m_Page_25.txt
c571146310f4cc649e8333e0f9ebc822
e623e57a27770fc3c993af4bb499631fac1f58d7
8754 F20101123_AAAKMZ madariaga_m_Page_22thm.jpg
2a4d306f0feb6d1d85d428f18d346514
06236962463e3afe50a659c1e3b3de14907c2638
97920 F20101123_AAAKFD madariaga_m_Page_47.jp2
29c7744560c7450fc97d5608c5487704
6eb4a1618eab51521bc1c6d23373bed33dfba783
1771 F20101123_AAAKAG madariaga_m_Page_47.txt
fadb616bdaf2cbed32193f1e065c7c44
597073e613dda5da4e0f688f80735158be74fdb8
1482 F20101123_AAAKKB madariaga_m_Page_26.txt
a4f80a0b7bc7fade0a38bcd3784a9218
0468c379f6031f0842f5f0795f0c9e33e977f23d
18213 F20101123_AAAKFE madariaga_m_Page_48.jp2
54394b98fe1c5904563f3c3fec234d8e
0f7fb15b0bb2e068f9b52630b61500657e4eb1c5
102112 F20101123_AAAKAH madariaga_m_Page_37.jpg
d0c72ebc00bf999fd6028b3417b19ec8
5bbcfd6d88443daad3598455f0c702d86207fe8e
1806 F20101123_AAAKKC madariaga_m_Page_27.txt
84f938d3e85790d43904a20361c34274
006ce1ae05bd30deeb46780cb6ab6676cb0b0873
101872 F20101123_AAAKFF madariaga_m_Page_51.jp2
bd2c2355590800d118657fb8f7ef06c3
673c024a0cc20d31388aa3fe2db55ac495cfe157
27968 F20101123_AAAKAI madariaga_m_Page_10.QC.jpg
04210bc37224e997d677dafe98ecb57b
9c5816cd2482006ad3a100a126f6a9b6f952314a
1965 F20101123_AAAKKD madariaga_m_Page_28.txt
3ce1ac25f9b5d01569abe361b1185fe9
d6a9ee79949038eec7c2d9a5a72f9603d60af61d
81733 F20101123_AAAKFG madariaga_m_Page_52.jp2
4f9ddb77e4ab85b5396769ba10ffd53b
b6fc5ae3e8d81a36ec175fced7b9d046f60e50dc
7139 F20101123_AAAKAJ madariaga_m_Page_14thm.jpg
4ef580ebb26557c7e06a862d814fb204
7af7ef4361bcbfe1de408502cb0db36dc5127fda
1138 F20101123_AAAKKE madariaga_m_Page_30.txt
9b743300983a2ff65af346ca87b641a9
7bf9ed20b6cf6f623cf515555e1987d16e1c9af1
22703 F20101123_AAAKFH madariaga_m_Page_53.jp2
785a84844e55ae24ccb1198dac5fb387
54eb8a1ccfff85e274c24927d47c1d8ba18eec6b
1826 F20101123_AAAKAK madariaga_m_Page_16.txt
c70c50e181d92f394d39c88d12750712
0641880c03d68f50a278599cec2717c64a52db3f
1051968 F20101123_AAAKFI madariaga_m_Page_55.jp2
f4025b8b03a6d7ba134bb80e83f1fd2d
1d09b70d73211d114437c8043ff20ecc979e82ce
17945 F20101123_AAAKAL madariaga_m_Page_42.QC.jpg
f4e8de45e2481d8b9c0cfb69322dde4b
e8698e957d36c182ea32d7d7c50c27bb02467c2e
1836 F20101123_AAAKKF madariaga_m_Page_31.txt
a16bd76008b8cf0a41f9f58a4f665021
86e6f27c26d6161d096db8cf116c4e824388f98e
39927 F20101123_AAAKFJ madariaga_m_Page_56.jp2
fbef856463a60ac9052f025246fc903c
e67f8db7f6e3e59479ae0f79e1829294e1ea7a3f
34297 F20101123_AAAKAM madariaga_m_Page_18.QC.jpg
aee8c196a191d7d111a8135e2165e87f
49c8bb0c951c6f8c8f366118205a814674c39402
2117 F20101123_AAAKKG madariaga_m_Page_32.txt
aed476bd96b3e1fd4ca39c86ce9673b2
9e117f3ddaa6a8654efe6965010a9202e56fe90f
F20101123_AAAKFK madariaga_m_Page_01.tif
7ff310372bb311b2bb938c8856d5075a
2ad01e9f9a9e61a0049f45c0697ddd86cae3cbf6
19679 F20101123_AAAKAN madariaga_m_Page_30.QC.jpg
b44c6cdaa976ea6b20255167f116e255
21dd6babd878fef6e22caab2534ee866595ff7ed
1974 F20101123_AAAKKH madariaga_m_Page_33.txt
dfd6d1cce47d278375237b0994e81c89
d49f57edf9ddc3651d4b1f8cecdea010c0903833
F20101123_AAAKFL madariaga_m_Page_02.tif
0a53118c8cf8caf511f59041cf353e42
9195691425d8a9db22f6ef71945a9ec8a6b300cf
42193 F20101123_AAAKAO madariaga_m_Page_44.pro
cb791747d1df6f956049a8512366cedd
d31ac7c7f3ea5f38c18811244364ef33542f266a
1695 F20101123_AAAKKI madariaga_m_Page_34.txt
276934ac6dc76f4c696ed6a95d4d668c
787627354db47cd7dd0b2241002ccf326f9b5b74
F20101123_AAAKFM madariaga_m_Page_03.tif
506e678b684df4c5739207cc7553d869
133a4c5147512e2cd12026498cb14324419d77fb
7224 F20101123_AAAKAP madariaga_m_Page_54thm.jpg
b282ed7335ad2840a6b1fef8446d4f76
ba8c56fdd2a60430e014dcfb928d7909fd4e087a
1666 F20101123_AAAKKJ madariaga_m_Page_35.txt
a6b8f8e523e6816366a90768fc5bb0d7
73147eb8d4fde1cd62ffae24988d96248f908598
F20101123_AAAKFN madariaga_m_Page_04.tif
82cae29816dc1f982d18ee99a5017c5c
fc0189bd5dd0d3a4d33bc31c37075b5827d84d2d
95808 F20101123_AAAKAQ madariaga_m_Page_45.jpg
66307c6c8e9524c4bf59c98775def3d8
8504256c779cf3373a9a568a8813eabbcede377f
2016 F20101123_AAAKKK madariaga_m_Page_37.txt
1931d7ede09a210ad6be449e89102459
4ba6cc81278a539b469fb742d2b8aec74a4c3cb0
F20101123_AAAKFO madariaga_m_Page_05.tif
81c4f1293e472aeeb8b31634a4bb4af6
cf4c338042d801379ef2f6f6d801618498edf9d8
F20101123_AAAKAR madariaga_m_Page_12.tif
3e37120258887ef1c165cc0c27149513
5bd10edfd337a69c4e05199d959be8277d3b0d7a
1873 F20101123_AAAKKL madariaga_m_Page_38.txt
229c3f0b20d778692eda5d0d47dde122
b5a167065227a33abcbce3d344ae724f3b7e97ea
F20101123_AAAKFP madariaga_m_Page_06.tif
19fc8bfa2d6d7c07fa3114a2cf83fdc8
b3f92afa43750de80cfca1d0b762747cd16e8996
105792 F20101123_AAAKAS madariaga_m_Page_25.jpg
2b850db6e61dc8cc49786815d87780d0
5a32d6817b81e40cc03696e135efef6d2da1db9c
1964 F20101123_AAAKKM madariaga_m_Page_39.txt
783ee1e13d56c298b8a342badb35c57d
f66743c7fccdf81fc7d06c32eafb32380a70ef6f
F20101123_AAAKFQ madariaga_m_Page_07.tif
4b98dc090c1ef9c0c74478e518876760
4ad1cd5efb46c61d5c829b370fe838f042e58c00
602610 F20101123_AAAKAT madariaga_m_Page_06.jp2
34f188b2a2c674fb0f13a22622b812f7
d4679cb727dbde329f1c44f2faf98d74327d4a9a
1398 F20101123_AAAKKN madariaga_m_Page_40.txt
c44fb5964152e7eb8231820acee867d6
30e43643bfa077d5c987fe95620355402c098754
F20101123_AAAKFR madariaga_m_Page_08.tif
5ffcbc1bd903bd8cbe6c0fbfacf6d52f
65e7ff07386332546c554c26cd6dd4d1c2341024
95661 F20101123_AAAKAU madariaga_m_Page_49.jp2
b12d4b2acfd044580db6989161fc07e4
7249db9b110e3308e85bc3d40b3c26c9d20bb72a
953 F20101123_AAAKKO madariaga_m_Page_41.txt
8348d529a85321ed6c83e059fa959a61
fe5cf80c98fdc0fb8c9022349d6d8b14f8761101
F20101123_AAAKFS madariaga_m_Page_09.tif
0d7b937a9a48e9c379fefb612f3d2e1c
9180143f20c5a4eee85a52b603bacda45a29d684
1908 F20101123_AAAKAV madariaga_m_Page_02.QC.jpg
fa97a62587c19bb40938dfab9a2f326c
7fce877401bbadb20e1ac3eeb2f13792f76d2f15
1263 F20101123_AAAKKP madariaga_m_Page_42.txt
9788903fc753b03cc3302ad032b721e7
65635e8eace5b5cd477e4edd2b479f08c393c8a2
F20101123_AAAKFT madariaga_m_Page_10.tif
dceda4697fd104c0253a95b2e0326199
53547d20bf11a40d25725eea4f29bd7da2b9e160
1538 F20101123_AAAKAW madariaga_m_Page_13.txt
f7f6c2a3036f060356fc0313c0896d49
8f7b445ac490486b990a5da035ad7ebd112acaee
1764 F20101123_AAAKKQ madariaga_m_Page_44.txt
e5261791efe30dcbea97a5c0e28837a1
0e93a6f3f1a3921debd3613bf7344448f97c34a4
F20101123_AAAKFU madariaga_m_Page_11.tif
57b76139c1a70c06c8527975b10969f6
1c4dd8765eaad1a2ca225500088739f96b3e421e
47441 F20101123_AAAKAX madariaga_m_Page_36.jpg
962a6cbf2bbea9161cdeee454295bc1f
69bdd8c637aa626342a1c2d23686b400a36daa7d
1856 F20101123_AAAKKR madariaga_m_Page_45.txt
7307b50a95bdb7653965b37a7773274c
5ce5dea1590cb1811764355d25c4e7abb9f82480
F20101123_AAAKFV madariaga_m_Page_13.tif
451c6a3504b801bd2c0eea993218c4bf
634e628ac0aa0103bc6079543608da45c89f30c0
43728 F20101123_AAAKAY madariaga_m_Page_38.pro
26fe2154bdec4bb1a4c2caa013b6cf21
7b3ab47f0673c5334edc27911af6e829a7f2e826
F20101123_AAAKKS madariaga_m_Page_46.txt
eecb3b26d7d6d540b007b3d77c0cd3ea
8c73ea2f8e4d7dcbf11f166d6abb868ebbf244cc
F20101123_AAAKFW madariaga_m_Page_14.tif
62a73a2c888d9a4874f55b13d3b8939e
837623d2be4981e7ddc8643b0e85d78fc1aabe43
25557 F20101123_AAAKAZ madariaga_m_Page_42.pro
8c09c1676b77333bd0c4007defc31693
ef256562edc4f2d814430c5d5edcfd9f77ea6f9f
317 F20101123_AAAKKT madariaga_m_Page_48.txt
bb7dbf28db9242af494cca800b7981bb
c0ce75bb3ee75e202f58b060a2dcda2e0b1c0fa2
F20101123_AAAKFX madariaga_m_Page_15.tif
bc719f2b90ddfe7be1e9f81de93e39fc
0f80a44ac0b7d4ddde819e4ba5d51ac1a16bf370
2310 F20101123_AAAKKU madariaga_m_Page_49.txt
bc91ed70d4e6d23b1736294080c167d8
c36826fdd897a863257492136a595bda23f133ad
F20101123_AAAKFY madariaga_m_Page_16.tif
12a7d6274aca054eeb8edecbcb1ac681
ee6c841ee62a8b9961abf3da71d377f1f558207e
2362 F20101123_AAAKKV madariaga_m_Page_50.txt
3e869dfe4f455579c73e25b4b48b4db0
ab3575c001228abf53b44f83c06bfe7c915d2255
1620 F20101123_AAAKKW madariaga_m_Page_52.txt
e370a54e64b5fbe5851f804846903e0e
71738e00585b239c89476cba287e171b61a2dc8f
88362 F20101123_AAAKDA madariaga_m_Page_44.jpg
29d99bf82693d4bb31b9fb89b89ded40
456d5c1799744f94d112810640ff865562dacc46
F20101123_AAAKFZ madariaga_m_Page_18.tif
7c0194a06dabe71116ead02ae8f1389a
1e506f8a11edc84bee64733cbac6cc39278371cb
401 F20101123_AAAKKX madariaga_m_Page_53.txt
a1a15be420bb26402d04288ad88baa88
09b11c228668c1b9f1aa5cd652dc278af786674f
96598 F20101123_AAAKDB madariaga_m_Page_46.jpg
d3bc6694ee55d2110e70d167506e6c94
eaf3a3e265dfbaeb4e4ca10b5310cf55e65bb29d
52923 F20101123_AAAKIA madariaga_m_Page_19.pro
d0bc58f48add752f491fa9aba9277c1e
2e057bbd95dad3048825be9e216440e9c74ac7d2
2404 F20101123_AAAKKY madariaga_m_Page_54.txt
812145524a6db225bcea96649b2b9c01
aaef87c624ea882eb17fe55736a3fe9f3abcd8e0
90964 F20101123_AAAKDC madariaga_m_Page_47.jpg
20d3369d2d981b589f7f298088211e94
34d361f15c4a2bf8e73dcf293cdf9160226ef673
42606 F20101123_AAAKIB madariaga_m_Page_20.pro
c2c7c99632ae1d8443ceed8eabc3c636
1567f6011267556c8b9f6ae9e39af96f8fbba73e
1737 F20101123_AAAKKZ madariaga_m_Page_55.txt
74de82180aedbe4ced3469cc7042cbfc
1528da964b7e14f9814d3d253edd41f1aa906f04
16699 F20101123_AAAKDD madariaga_m_Page_48.jpg
0c3cefd82e9788e2338b9f66b463ba84
658cf5040e6fbc4d1217715b1b8208e33d2c92e8
49594 F20101123_AAAKIC madariaga_m_Page_21.pro
68340d7f37050b8e04f3db3b56211218
130a8d0d71d64a6ce5b74bf9edc690fdeeb30d62
91474 F20101123_AAAKDE madariaga_m_Page_49.jpg
9fa38b27cd47d5712dd6f20eaf20734b
9fb6db210d17f2ab75096816443609d8ada192af
91291 F20101123_AAAKDF madariaga_m_Page_50.jpg
1fd9feb50907ead5099689b183c2bfbb
26ef77edfee88861e2304a6c4197d8cbb957f348
7877 F20101123_AAAKNA madariaga_m_Page_29thm.jpg
bc367a33f11fbf9113c2d5ba94bbb1a2
cc88982325241c7be840640f21d42cdbc2cd3d29
51370 F20101123_AAAKID madariaga_m_Page_22.pro
1568967b7ee6f08f74d6ca1a06f2b2e9
5a5f8e4f7441341e03618a739c5d0e2bc9af7896
99468 F20101123_AAAKDG madariaga_m_Page_51.jpg
213007bac880174318fd865ac1828932
4fa1bb75b4c0bb112d9ef615770e03c411a2c7d1
7620 F20101123_AAAKNB madariaga_m_Page_47thm.jpg
36a72362e5c71b2c3e5df3089bc0f00f
b656fc37f91cb47516ec8f403367234f24f55094
50324 F20101123_AAAKIE madariaga_m_Page_23.pro
33aa0547995ab269387311ec4b86ca58
b4d3d2ae4eed290137f6ba288570d7cafb97553a
86294 F20101123_AAAKDH madariaga_m_Page_52.jpg
4ad78e629cf987a33186d73c8ec538c0
9537fe24c8a79fa25fd78472cea3131bf386d9c9
28640 F20101123_AAAKNC madariaga_m_Page_44.QC.jpg
87e41b40823a45b20998c7e32d987ad3
15e2b00ee9bd9ce1a66fa03fa9e91b9128a5ae9a
51377 F20101123_AAAKIF madariaga_m_Page_24.pro
7984d1f2b9e7a86f13cdb6066ea5b4c2
924f024126c59c9d811454da3922267b5117e344
25731 F20101123_AAAKDI madariaga_m_Page_53.jpg
33cf4e4a709b6641bb7bdcba56c4d291
47e154409c022b2e47c8b2632038f49032c321e1
19475 F20101123_AAAKND madariaga_m_Page_43.QC.jpg
84a1e441e9aacb66ac8bdcf79c41d14b
99f79a6aa63f0b65b28aa99b66f4eb20d8525203
52129 F20101123_AAAKIG madariaga_m_Page_25.pro
010d743600c4d1e98dccc58043361e8a
ae1971235dc39ad5fc5215b887c35767837d7fb5
106412 F20101123_AAAKDJ madariaga_m_Page_54.jpg
1adc98abcd232f14ad70de20cbdde5c8
58ffff4b6cbea969431a404f6cd69f1c6f9dc7c4
22868 F20101123_AAAKNE madariaga_m_Page_13.QC.jpg
3825020850507c00bc74e203c63f5845
8f1e18ec673453e019fb60ce9c598b647db197fd
37045 F20101123_AAAKIH madariaga_m_Page_26.pro
1ba36374eadfb97545e04d266b594ac1
8c7c0cb9e362168a5f0b09f7c30f1b5175b3a0df
94018 F20101123_AAAKDK madariaga_m_Page_55.jpg
a096b9d41f9de2193c1b3bd3f740fe97
b652f2fce4a4302b12282d0f45657dbdc2f70fec
12140 F20101123_AAAKNF madariaga_m_Page_56.QC.jpg
d3f30388e118a67e0c2f748cc3bac53f
cdb8442491240ac4817045e52496437667b9f004
41901 F20101123_AAAKII madariaga_m_Page_27.pro
c1e239e28b9cce738787492678edeaab
54ed7ef7adfa7185e639156f88b5eb7c39d0c229
38282 F20101123_AAAKDL madariaga_m_Page_56.jpg
3a615d63d26461348636963c99665388
d1c07dd88bf855831515bfd3365e03c680b29a1e
7280 F20101123_AAAKNG madariaga_m_Page_38thm.jpg
71e1e8364f65835bad28a01a7dd2a3e5
0c60b5e7e1e41f16bac66c5f7db8c283c5f51bb6
49748 F20101123_AAAKIJ madariaga_m_Page_28.pro
f30c3bf4127f0b4c6f5697484c20fcae
38013199e6fbe4e5f3e4a19673d08606d74ac08b
25909 F20101123_AAAKDM madariaga_m_Page_01.jp2
3319f952cab6c1f660171681e31a33f0
6474fb08254c7b89a266e20fb86d55c58df2008d
19017 F20101123_AAAKNH madariaga_m_Page_03.QC.jpg
5c146aa90775b897d7f7b16bac2d0cd6
c5fb0c6254f439fe9cfb908c0450aae64892a4a8



PAGE 1

TARGET SAFETY: PROGRAMS FOCUSED ON PREVENTI NG SPECIFIC HAZARDS/INJURIES By MICHAEL EDWARD MADARIAGA A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLOR IDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE IN BUILDING CONSTRUCTION UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2005

PAGE 2

Copyright 2005 by Michael Edward Madariaga

PAGE 3

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to thank my parents, wh o tolerated my constant disassembly, alteration, and renovation of: first my tricyc le and years later their home and various automobiles. Although I rarely consulted them before undertaking the effort, these projects enabled me to be a better constructo r, and I am forever grat eful for their patience with me. Additional thanks are in order for my parents, for recognizing my aptitude for construction as a career path and being patient enough to let me discover this for myself. I am most grateful to my loving wife who encouraged me to pursue my passion for construction, even when that translated into less time together. I thank her for being my tool girl in life and for help ing me with the many construc tion projects that I could not have completed alone. I must thank my daughter for serving as an inspiration to complete my thesis before her birth. A big inspiration for this research has been Dr. Jimmie Hinze, and it is only with his gui dance and knowledge that this undertaking has been possible. iii

PAGE 4

TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .................................................................................................iii LIST OF TABLES .............................................................................................................vi LIST OF FIGURES ..........................................................................................................vii ABSTRACT .....................................................................................................................viii CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................1 2 LITERATURE REVIEW.............................................................................................4 What is World-Class Safety? ........................................................................................6 Jacksonville Electric Authority (JEA) ..........................................................................8 Intel Corporation .........................................................................................................10 Bechtel ........................................................................................................................11 Alertness Solutions Fatigue Countermeasures Group ................................................16 3 METHODOLOGY.....................................................................................................18 Introduction .................................................................................................................18 Research Survey .........................................................................................................18 Data Collection ...........................................................................................................20 Data Analysis ..............................................................................................................20 4 DATA ANALYSIS AND RESULTS........................................................................22 Introduction .................................................................................................................22 Respondent Characteristics .........................................................................................23 Safety Performance .....................................................................................................28 Target Programs..........................................................................................................29 5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.....................................................35 Conclusions .................................................................................................................35 Recommendations.......................................................................................................37 iv

PAGE 5

APPENDIX A TARGET SAFETY QUESTIONAIRE......................................................................40 General Project Information .......................................................................................40 Project Work Force and Subcontractors .....................................................................40 Project Safety Performance ........................................................................................41 Specific Safety Programs Project Level ..................................................................41 Programs Implemented on Past Projects ....................................................................43 Possible Programs for Implementation on Future Projects ........................................44 B COVER LETTER FOR PROJ ECT SAFETY PROGRAMS.....................................45 LIST OF REFERENCES ...................................................................................................46 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH .............................................................................................47 v

PAGE 6

LIST OF TABLES Table page 4-1 Descriptive Information about Projects Included in the Study ................................23 4-2 Type of Respondent.................................................................................................24 4-3 Type of Payment Arrangement ................................................................................26 4-4 Type of Insurance .....................................................................................................26 4-5 Descriptive Information about Safety Performance .................................................28 4-6 Safety Performance in Relation to Goal ...................................................................29 4-7 Attributes of Target Programs ..................................................................................30 vi

PAGE 7

LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 4-1 Type Owner Public or Private ..................................................................................25 4-2 Type of Contracting Arrangement ...........................................................................27 4-3 Type of Facility ........................................................................................................27 4-4 Were Workers Involved in Implementation .............................................................32 4-5 Motivation to Develop the Program .........................................................................32 4-6 Focus of Target Program ..........................................................................................33 vii

PAGE 8

Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science in Building Construction TARGET SAFETY: PROGRAMS FOCUSED ON PREVENTI NG SPECIFIC HAZARDS/INJURIES By Michael Edward Madariaga August 2005 Chair: Jimmie Hinze Major Department: Building Construction Safety programs in the construction industry have historically been examined to see how overall safety management is used to pur sue the zero-injury objec tive. Such studies have not examined the details of how specific programs are devel oped or successfully implemented to reduce specific types of injuries While safety culture of a project might be well established, details of the implemen tations of specific programs have not been examined. The purpose of our study was to answer the following question: How do construction firms and projects develop, stru cture, and successfully implement effective programs to prevent specific types of worker injuries? Our study describes in detail those practices of contractors that provide the greatest success in addressing specific types of injuri es. The practices were examined with a specific focus on the procedures used to ensure success in program implementation. viii

PAGE 9

Our study focused on the development and implementation of specific types of programs intended to address specific safety objectives. For example, a particular program might focus on preventing specific injuri es (such as back injuries, fall injuries, hearing loss, eye injuries, hand injuries, or fatigue). A vari ety of focused safety programs were examined. These programs are expected to vary in a number of ways, including the motivation to address the injuries and the manner in which they were addressed. Our study includes the analysis of data collected from construc tion firms that have devised specific programs to target specific types of injuries, whether initiated at the corporate or project level. We particularly focused on pr ocedures used by contractors to effectively implement successful safety practices. ix

PAGE 10

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION The construction industry continues to be one of the most demanding and dangerous industries in the United States. The diversity of constructi on projects and their ever changing nature expose workers, unlik e any other work setting, to new hazards virtually every day. Projects in construction are unique. They are rarely designed or built exactly in the same manner as previous projects and they are always constructed with differing site conditions. Factors such as the landscape, weather, and physical location cause every project to be unique. These factors also have a significant impact upon safety characteristics of each project. While most personnel in the construction industry find this project uniqueness to be an attractive attrib ute for a career in construction, it can have an advers e effect upon their well being. The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported 4,365,200 total n on-fatal recordable cases in 2003 in all industries. They estimate that more than 6.8 of every 100 full-time construction workers experience a work-related injury each year that requires medical treatment. Such injuries are called Occ upational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) recordable injuries. Considering that the constr uction industry employs about 6.5 million people (estimates vary considerably), it can be conservatively estimated that 450,000 OSHA recordable injuries o ccur each year. These inci dents include all injuries and fatalities. In general, the construction workforce is highly mobile. For this reason, some contractors are reluctant to i nvest capital to train those who may soon be someone else's 1

PAGE 11

2 employees. The result is an untrained c onstruction workforce that often does not recognize the consequences of working in an unsafe manner. To counteract this, proactive constructi on companies have taken major steps in identifying and eliminating the causes of accidents on job sites. As a result, safety has become one of the most important aspects of concern on many construction projects. Construction firms are realizing that the in itial investment and continuous efforts to maintain a good safety record do pay off by reducing injuries on the job site, and also by contributing to on time and within budget project delivery. In the past, safety programs in the constr uction industry have been examined to see how overall safety management is used to pur sue the zero-injury objective. These studies have not examined the details of how specific programs are devel oped or successfully implemented to reduce specific types of injuri es. While the safety culture of a project might be well established, the details of im plementation of specific programs have not been examined. Our purpose was to answer a fundamental question, How do construction firms and projects develop, structure, and successfully implement effective programs to prevent specific types of worker injuries? We examin ed in detail those practices of contractors that provide the greatest succe ss in addressing specific types of injuries. The practices were examined with a specific focus on the procedures used to ensure success in program implementation. For example, a particular program might be focused on preventing specific injuries (such as back injuries, fa ll injuries, hearing loss, eye injuries, hand injuries, or heat exhaustion). A variety of focused safety programs will be examined. These programs are expected to vary in a number of ways, including the motivation to

PAGE 12

3 address the injuries and the manner in which they will be addressed. The study includes the analysis of data to be collected from construction firms that have devised specific programs to target specific type s of injuries, whether initiate d at the corporate or project level. Safety practices were examined with a specific emphasis on the procedures used to ensure success in program implementation. Our study focused on the development and implementation of specific types of programs th at are intended to address specific safety objectives. Identifying methods proven effec tive in reducing worker injuries, could provide the construction community with guida nce on effective ways to pursue the zeroincident objective. Since no prior study focuses on preventing specific injuries, our study was undertaken. Sufficient approaches were ex amined so that the information will be of value to firms planning to devise their own programs to address other types of injuries. Our results outline procedures constructi on firms can best implement for programs targeting specific types of injuries. We describe the specific procedural steps to implement successful programs. Where applic able, safety programs to target specific safety hazards were outlined in detail.

PAGE 13

CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW While prior studies have provided consid erable information on ways to enhance safety performance, They have not provided a ny details of how specifi c safety initiatives might be implemented. Since the early 1990s, a series of studies identified practic es successfully implemented in pursuit of the zero-injury objective. The first widely publicized study was conducted for the Construction Industry In stitute (CII 1991). The CII identified 5 high-impact techniques (and th e most significant sub-elements) used on projects that were completed with exemplary safety reco rds (CII 1991). These techniques, included: 1. Safety pre-project/pre-task planning a. Pre-project (safety goals, safety pe rson/personnel, preplacement employee evaluation) b. Pre-task (task hazard analysis, task training) 2. Safety orientation and training a. Owner involved in orientation b. Safety policies and procedures c. Project specific orientation d. Formal safety training 3. Written safety incentive program a. Cents per hour for workers b. Spot cash incentives used with workers c. Milestone cash incentives given to workers d. End of project incentives given to workers 4. Alcohol and substance abuse programs (ASAP) a. Screening done for alcohol and drugs 4

PAGE 14

5 b. Screening conducted at random c. Inspections for contraband conducted d. Post accident screening done for all employees e. All project contractors have ASAPs 5. Accident/incident investigations a. Incidents reported to home office b. Accidents without in jury investigated c. Project accident review team establ ished for all accidents or incidents d. Project work exposure hours and safety statistics reported to home office A 1995 construction safety study of the 400 la rgest construction firms in the United States confirmed the importance of staffi ng for safety, drug testing, worker training, safety meetings, worker recognition & awards, and accident investigations (Eich 1996). A follow-up study to the CII (1991) study wa s conducted to valid ate the original findings. That study showed that the industry c ontinued to use the zero injury techniques, but that the techniques were being implemente d differently than initially reported. For example, the follow-up study found that proactive firms also investigated near misses, not just injury accidents. While the earlier study reported the value of safety incentives, the follow-up study showed that many firms had replaced safety incentives with safety recognition programs. Essentially, this follow-up study showed that the construction industry had matured since the earlier study. The results of this study were used as a justification of repeating th e CII Zero Injury study. The follow-up study identified nine areas of best practices (som e variation of the initial five high-impact technique s, and four new techniques). 1. Top management commitment to safety 2. Staffing for safety 3. Pre-project and pre-task planning 4. Worker training 5. Worker recognition 6. Worker involvement in the safety process 7. Drug testing

PAGE 15

6 8. Incident investigations 9. Subcontractor management An extensive search of available literature resulted in identifying a few articles that addressed the subject of target ed safety programs. Little has been written about the importance of these programs and whether th ese programs are a common practice within the construction industry. Most of the applicable articles were found in industry journals and periodicals (Hinze 2002). Occupational injury rates in the constr uction trades are high compared to the general workforce in the United States. The Bu reau of Labor Statistics (BLS) reported an overall rate of lost time or medical injuries or illnesses of 8.4 per 100 full-time workers in 1994. During the same year, a rate of 11.8 pe r 100 full-time workers was reported among the construction trades as defined by the Sta ndard Industrial Classi fication (SIC) codes 15 (building construction by gene ral contractors). BLS data, the primary source of data on occupational injuries and illnesses in the cons truction trades, are based on a sample of injury reports provided to the Occupational Safety and Health Ad ministration (OSHA) by selected employers. Employment statistics are used to estimate full-time workers. Construction workers not only have highe r overall rates of work-related injuries than other trade groups, but they are also among the most likely workers to experience serious occupational injuries. Fatal and lost work time injuries in the construction trades continue to rank among the highest in the Un ited States, clearly documenting the need for preventive action. What is World-Class Safety? What is world-class safety, and how can companies achieve it? While people may have differing definitions the core attribute is: moving beyond safety compliance toward

PAGE 16

7 safety excellence. The 2003 American So ciety of Safety Engineers Professional Development Conference offered an interesting and timely roundtable discussion on this topic. While the participants answers to the question vari ed, they agreed upon several companies that in their estimati on, defined world-class safety. Three of those companies mentioned (B echtel Group Inc., DuPont and Johnson & Johnson) were chosen as America's Safest Companies by Occupational Hazards for 2003. From the relatively small and safety-oriented Quincy Compressor of Bay Minette, AL ( a small firm recognized for its outstanding safety performance), with its 141 employees, to mighty Johnson & Johnson, with 108,000 employees in 54 countries, what do America's Safest Companies 2003 have in common? They a ll treat safety as a core business value, not a priority. It is not a process, and not a program, but a value. Representatives of several firms that are proactive in safety contributed to the disc ussion of being world class in safety. "When you prioritize something, that means it's not always going to be at the top of your list. A core value is woven into everything you do, every business decision you make," says Kevin S. Berg, principal vice president and manager of Environmental, Safety and Health Services at Bechtel. "Safet y is considered a very essential part of our business functions," reveals Chris Andrews, safety and training coordinator at Bon L Manufacturing of Newnan, GA. In addition, many of the 2003 class of Ameri ca's Safest Companies use safety as a measure of business success. "Safety is a key indicator of organizational excellence. A safe plant typically has high employee mo rale, high productivity and minimal product

PAGE 17

8 defects," says Joseph Van Houten, Ph.D., CSP, worldwide director of planning, process design and delivery, Johnson & Johns on Safety & Industrial Hygiene. Others acknowledge that business success would not be possibl e without a safe workplace and safe workers. James A. Buzzard, the president of MeadWestvaco, calls employees "the most important resource we have and we depend on them for the success of MeadWestvaco. Implementing the processes and systems for safety excellence, and integrating them into our everyday activitie s, develops safe be havior and a safe workplace for our employees." Keith Shumacher, plant manager at Quincy Compressor stated that, safety "is a race with no finish." The firms recognized for their exemplary safety performances are those where safety is aggressively promoted at the corpor ate or top management level. This research was interested in how these ideals were actually transformed into specific approaches that are applied on construction proj ects. A few articles that were identified provided some insights into this process (Blue Book 2004). Jacksonville Electric Authority (JEA) Heat stress is a problem that affects up to an estimated 10 million workers in the United States each year. Workers who regular ly toil in hot, humid, strenuous conditions and those who must wear heavy protective appa rel may know the signs. In severe cases, heat stress can lead to nausea, fainting, colla pse, or even unconsciousness. At any stage in the heat stress continuum, worker productivity and alertness suffers. Other problems commonly caused by heat stress include: in creased accidents, absenteeism, and low employee morale. Dehydration is a prime cau se of heat stress and can quickly occur when workers do not have easy access to fluids. In hot, hardworking conditions, workers can lose up to 1.5 liters of water each hour in the form of sweat. Sweat-laden skin and

PAGE 18

9 clothing reduce the heat dissipation norm ally performed by the body. The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health recommends drinking five to eight ounces of cool fluid (water) every 15 to 20 minutes when working in a heat stress-prone setting. This recommendation can be difficult to satisf y for some workers when water coolers are not nearby or when it is impossible to carry portable water bottles to the jobsite. Worker hydration is a problem that was addressed by the Jacksonville Electric Authority (JEA). As the eighth-largest m unicipal electric utility in the nation, JEA provides electricity, water, and waste water services to more than 750,000 accounts in a 900-square-mile service area in and around Jacksonville, Florida. For the JEA field workers, the biggest issue to getting pr oper hydration was for workers working in trenches that were 6 feet or more in depth, making a quick break for water quite difficult. To solve the problem, JEA implemented a tw o-pronged approach to avoiding dehydration and heat stress. The first prong was a corporat e culture change to a behavior-based safety program. The program effectively standardi zed numerous safety practices across JEA and put in place a training and education component focusing on safety topicsheat stress and dehydration among them. The second prong involved adopting a new tool for staying hydrated, anywhere and any time. Th e tool is a hydration system, a backpackstyle system containing an insulated, 70-ounce drinking reservoir that provides sufficient cool drinking water for 2 or 3 hours. An in sulated tube delivers water via a patented valve mechanism from which users drink by bi ting down and sipping, similar to drinking from a straw. The system is filled with water through a port on the out side of the unit. JEA established a written procedure for protecting employees from hazards associated with work in high-heat atmos pheres and to increase employee awareness of

PAGE 19

10 such hazards. It was deci ded that the specific heat st ress monitoring and work cycle management procedures would be instituted when the temperature exceeds 85 degrees (70 degrees F if the worker was wearing semi -impermeable or impermeable clothing, or an encapsulating suit): meas uring heart rate and temperat ure, interrupting exposure to heat once excessive discomfort is felt or symp toms of heat-related disorders are detected, fluid replacement, personnel protective appare l, including reflective clothing, ice vests, wetted clothing, and water-cooled garments (Occupational Health and Safety). Intel Corporation Intel Corporation has been recognized throughout the world as a leader in the design and manufacture of in tegrated circuits; and recently, Intel has been gaining worldwide recognition as one of the safest pla ces to work. Intels safety performance has achieved world-class status and continues to improve as a result of detailed data collection and analysis and its focu s on three main elements: 1) strong programs, 2) individual commitment, and 3) leadership. Since 1994, the Intel employee recordable injury rates have dropped 84% to a level of 0.18 (2001). Just as impressive is the safety performance improvement that has been rea lized on Intel construc tion Projects. From 1994 to 2001, the recordable injury rates on Intel construction projects dropped 86 percent, to 0.86. To understand the significance of this accomplishment, one has to keep in mind that these rate reductions have o ccurred against the backdrop of phenomenal company growth, including a 200% increas e in construction ac tivity (OH&S). Five-year construction injury data collected on Intel construction proj ects indicated cuts and lacerations were the most freque ntly occurring injury on Intels construction sites. Of these injuries, the vast majority were cuts to the hands or forearms. Based on these data, Intels Project EHS professionals, representing all six Intel regions throughout

PAGE 20

11 the world, developed a plan of action to ach ieve hand injury elimination. Jim Braun, Intel Projects EHS engineer, stated Many cuts are caused by tools, such as utility knives, that some might call i nherently dangerous. There are alternatives that pose little or no risk of causing a cut to the hand or forearm. Our job is to convince construction workers that they should adapt the alternatives. Faced with the knowledge that reducing or eliminating hand cuts would make a dramatic impact on injury rates, Intel cons truction management and Intel Project EHS set about engaging the entire construction commun ity at Intel to solv e the problem. Task forces were formed for each of the six major regional construction projects. These teams, made up of Intel, general contractors, and the trade representatives, initiated a traditional safety approach to assessing and mitigati ng risk. Using six key steps, the teams developed and implemented their plans. These steps included 1. Assessing the risk 2. Developing job hazard analysis 3. Training the foremen and crews 4. Observing the crews 5. Measuring results 6. Repeating the process Blake Devine of Baugh Constr uction explained the proce ss as, We coach our trade contractors that getting rid of the hazard altogether is the best way to prevent injuries (OH&S). Bechtel In the construction sector, serious injuries to the hands occur at almost twice the rate as in all of private in dustry, but not at global giant Bechtel, where the rate is a fraction of the industry average. The fact th at injuries to the hands, wrists and fingers

PAGE 21

12 remain a serious problem for U.S. companie s is probably not news, but what may be surprising is how many of th ese cases are serious enough to cause lost workdays. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistic s in all industries, there were nearly a quarter million injuries (cuts, abrasions, etc.) and illnesses (dermatitis, etc.) to the hands, wrists and fingers involving days away from work in 2002, more than one-sixth of the total for that year. The incidence rate for this type of problem in al l of private industry was 37.2 per 10,000 full-time workers, but it wa s far higher in manuf acturing (55.1) and higher still in construction (67.7). Despite the prevalence of hurt hands in its industry, one construction company, San Francisco base d Bechtel Group Inc., drove its global hand, wrist and finger lost workday case rate dow n to an almost incredible rate of 3.0 per 10,000 full-time employees. Bechtel's enviable record w ith hand protection takes plac e in the overall context of an organization that is committed to achievi ng "zero accident performance," according to Kevin Berg, manager of the company's environm ental, safety and health services. Berg contends that while construction by its nature poses more hazards to the hands, many of the things one must do to protect the hands are simply the hallmarks of any good safety program. "Almost everything we do is actu ally done by people with their hands," says Berg. Roughly 30% of the company's recordable injuries involve the fingers, hands and wrists. When asked about the biggest challenge in hand protection, Berg's unhesitating reply was: worker participation. Worker Part icipation is key to success. In some ways, hand protection is very simple: all the educat ion programs in the world do not amount to much unless workers actually don the gloves. "We can put all the processes in place, but

PAGE 22

13 if the worker isn't engaged, it's only on pape r," asserts Stephen Walter, site safety representative for Bechtel at its Hanford, WA. construction site. "We have to make it come alive for them." Early last year, after performing observations, Walter discovered that during any given 15-minute period, 4% of the 600 workers at Hanford were not wearing hand protection. "That means you have a considerable number of people at risk," he explains. So last June, the four w eekly toolbox meetings were devoted solely to making the case for hand protection. "We cha llenged our supervisors to focus on this so we could see improvement." How can you sp end a month talking about gloves? Walter explained that hand injuries took up one wee k. Workers then learned about the various types of gloves, another week was spent on e xplaining how to use them and in the final week all the points covered were reviewed. The effort paid off: by August, observati ons revealed workers were wearing hand protection 99% of the time when it was require d, and Walter said that number has held up since then. In order to encourage workers to wear appropriate hand protection, Bechtel has adopted a behavior-based observation process that em ploys two perspectives. "We reinforce positive behavior, and question at-risk behavior." Both approaches are essential for the success of the program, according to Phil Williams, a carpenter who works with Walter at Hanford. Many of the craft workers on site at Hanford are not used to working for Bechtel and "are more oriented to production than safety," he explains. Questioning those who should be wearing gloves, but are not, is the most effective way of leading people to internalize safe work habits, according to Williams. Many craft workers are not used to wearing hand prot ection and when questioned, the answer they most often give is, "I forgot," Williams explains. "But if you ask them, 'Why aren't you

PAGE 23

14 wearing gloves?' they will decide for themselv es to put them on. I've seen this several times." At Bechtel's Hanford, Wash. project, elic iting worker participation in safety involves more than performing observations and asking questions, however. Employees are involved in the selection of gloves and Bechtel has a wide variety of styles available, so that workers can choose hand protection that is appropriate to the specific task. "We make an effort to educate workers on the type s of gloves we have available," says Walter. "When you have eight types of gloves, you ha ve something for many different types of activities. If one kind of glove doesn't work, we tell them to try another." As a result of improvements in the design of hand protec tion, Walter contends that, provided many different styles are available, gloves rarely interfere with a particular job. "Fifteen years ago, you didn't have a lot of choice beyond cl oth or leather, but now gloves provide greater protection and are more comfortable," says Walter. Finally, as in any excellent safety program, PPE is used only when engine ering solutions are impractical. "We try to empower workers to make engineering suggestions, instead of wearing PPE," Walter explained. For example, workers had been re quired to wear gloves while doing computer wiring, but after some workers suggested a way to do the work without using box cutter knives, the company decided gl oves were no longer necessary. "Instead of seeing workers as adversaries, where the company tries to force you to work safe, workers are taking responsibility to make improvements with the help of the company," Williams stated. "From a craft point of view, the fact that the company is allowing workers to be part of the solution is the best thing we ha ve going for us out there." From a safety point of view, it ma y also be the best thing going for Bechtel.

PAGE 24

15 When it comes to identifying the biggest challenge for hand safety, Jim Lapping, the vice president for safety, health and environment at Power Maintenance and Constructors in O'Fallon, Ill,. ag reed with his colleague at Bech tel: it is getting workers to wear the gloves. "Being able to wear the gl oves and work effectively at the same time is another way of saying the same thing," e xplained Lapping, whose company does repair and maintenance work at coal-fired power plants "The trend in glove design is to create gloves that more effectively balance comfort and dexterity with the level of protection that is needed," stated Po rtia Yarborough, Ph.D., a resear ch chemist with DuPont in Wilmington, Del. "People seem to want li ghter and thinner gloves with a palm dip to enhance the grip," noted Eli zabeth Parrish, global marketing manager for cut protection in the Advanced Fibers and Composites gr oup at Morristown, N.J.-based Honeywell International. Both women said that progress in developing synthe tic fibers has allowed glove manufacturers to offer workers what th ey want: improved dexterity that does not compromise protection. "Many gloves also have some type of form-fitting stretch component, such as spandex, that also improves dexterity," added Yarborough. Safety managers may want to be aware of something else going on in the hand protection industry. ASTM Intern ational (formerly the Ameri can Society for Testing and Materials) established the cut standards used to determine the level of protection that gloves provide. Effective March 1, ASTM revised its "Standard Test Method for Measuring the Cut Resistance of Protective Apparel" (F1790-04). The changes in test protocol mean that the same glove may receive a lower cut protection performance value as compared to the previous ASTM standar d. "Safety managers should be aware that when buying new gloves, the new numbers may be lower even though the glove

PAGE 25

16 performance hasn't changed," explained Yarborough. "If injuries are occurring, they should take a look at these numbers, but if th ey aren't having injury problems, then it's probably not a concern" (Occupational Hazards 2004). Alertness Solutions Fatigue Countermeasures Group Alertness solutions is a sc ientific consulting firm th at translates knowledge of sleep, circadian rhythms, alertn ess, and performance into prac tical strategies that improve safety and productivity in our 24-hour so ciety. Modern society operates around the clock, but this 24-hour requirement challe nges the human brain and body by degrading the quantity and quality of sleep, disrupting the body clock, and creating fatigue. These factors take a toll on alertness, performan ce, productivity, and safety. Our societyat both the organizational and indi vidual levelscon tinually pays a high price for fatiguerelated risks that result in errors, incidents, and accidents. Alertness solutions creates tailored strategies and comp rehensive approaches that: improve safety, performance, and productivity. In addition they devise innovati ve ways to address the complex and diverse aspects of managing alertness. The mission of Alertness Solutions is to develop and evaluate countermeasures to mitigate the adverse effects of these factors and maximize performance and alertness An international group of scientists identified fatigue as the largest identifiable and preventable cause of accidents in transp ort operations (between 15 and 20% off all accidents), surpassing that of alcohol or drug related incidents in all modes of transportation. Fatigue engendered by sleep loss and circad ian disruption can degrade all aspects of human capability. Significant reductions in operator performance can affect judgment, decision-making, attention, reacti on time, alertness, memory, and mood. These degraded performance factors can increase fatigue-related risks and reduce the

PAGE 26

17 operational safety margin. In spite of these well-documented effects, the contributory or causal role that fatigue may play in an acci dent is often underestimated or potentially ignored. One reason for underestimating its cont ribution is that there is no blood test for fatigue. To include or exclude fatigue as c ontributory or causal in an accident requires the evaluation of two specific aspects of the accident. First, were identifiable fatigue factors present at the time of the accident? Second, if fati gue factors were present, did fatigue-related performance decrements cont ribute to or cause the accident? Four specific physiological factors related to fatigue are: 1. amount of sleep (acute loss and cumulative debt) 2. continuous hours of wakefulness 3. circadian rhythms (time-of-day) 4. sleep disorders Fatigue created by sleep loss and circ adian disruption can decrease waking performance, vigilance, and mood. Thes e decrements are known to affect errors, accidents, and safety. Accident investiga tions frequently find evidence that fatiguerelated performance was contributory or causa l in the accident. The findings include fatigue factors such as: degr aded judgment and decision ma king, cognitive fixation, poor communication/coordination, and reduced reactio n time. By applying these principles, notable reductions have been recorded by recorded by various firms (Rosekind 1996).

PAGE 27

CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY Introduction The objective of this research was to dete rmine how construction firms and projects develop, structure, and successfully implement effective programs to prevent specific types of worker injuries and to protect wo rkers from specific hazards. Safety practices were to be examined with a specific focus on th e procedures utilized to ensure success in program implementation. The study focus was on the development and implementation of specific types of programs that are intended to address very specific safety objectives. The focus area of this study was suggested to CII as a potentia l research topic by another CII project team that ha d participated in a prior safe ty research study. A research proposal on this subject was submitted to C II by Dr. Jimmie Hinze and was funded in June 2004. Shortly after the proposal was funded, CII organized a project team to provide guidance and support for the research e ffort. This team of approximately fifteen individuals met periodically, at least quarterly, to review progress on the research and to provide assistance in data collect ion. It was also during this period that a review of the literature was conducted. Research Survey In early discussions of the CII project team, it was decide d that a large sample size was most desirable for this research effort This was based on the realization that construction firms may implement a variety of safety interventions to address specific hazards (falls, cave-ins, heat, noise, etc.) or specific types of injuries (hand, eye, back, 18

PAGE 28

19 foot, etc.). To accomplish the objective of obtaining a large sample size (over 100 responses) it was decided by the project team that the project team members would play an active role in data collection. To have consistency in the information about specific safety interventions on construction projects, a survey was developed. An initial version of this survey was prepared, and this survey was the central focu s of discussion at the first meeting of the project team. As a result of this discussion, considerable modifications were made to the survey. The survey, considerably changed from the first version, was examined again at the second meeting of the project team at wh ich time the survey was improved further. After the survey was considered reasonably refined, it was decided that a pilot study should be conducted. One of the team member companies (an owner) was sponsoring a safety forum for several of its contractors during the second week of August. The researchers were asked to give a presentation at this forum and were also afforded the opportunity of administering the pilot study with the forum attendees. Participation was voluntary, but 28 attendees provided responses to the survey. After the pilot study was conducted, it was apparent that additional revisions to the survey were needed. By September 2004, the final vers ion of the survey was approved by the University of Florida Institutional Review Board (IRB). Information was sought on a variety of safe ty interventions or programs that were implemented. These programs were expected to vary in a number of ways, including the motivation to address specific issues and the manner in which they were addressed. The final survey consisted of five sections which were as follows: general project information, project work force and subcontract ors, project safety performance, specific

PAGE 29

20 safety programsproject level, and program s implemented on past projects. Surveys asked about descriptive information about the projects (size, t ype contract, labor arrangement, duration, cost, etc.). Most of the survey questions asked for information pertaining to the specific interventions that were implemented to address specific hazards or specific types of injuries. Some questi ons could be answered by simply checking a box or by providing some numerical informati on. Other questions requested open-ended responses. A copy of the survey, titled Tar get Safety Questionnaire, is presented in Appendix A. Data Collection The surveys were provided to all of the C II project team members. In some cases, the project team members distributed the su rveys to their own personnel on construction sites, while some surveys were distributed to companies with some type of affiliation with the project team members. Many surv eys were completed by firms that were not CII members. As a result, the findings of this research are not unique to CII members. Once the surveys were completed, they were se nt directly to Dr. Jimmie Hinze at the M.E. Rinker Sr. School of Building Construc tion at the University of Florida for inclusion in the database. Data Analysis The statistical program, Sta tistical Package for the Soci al Services (SPSS), was selected to analyze the data. This program enables data manipulation and facilitates statistics generation. All of the raw data, as ide from the narrative comments provided in the survey, were included in the data analysis. In this research study, the data of particular interest, relate d to those safety programs that had innovative approaches. In addition, the statistical analysis sought to

PAGE 30

21 identify those practices that were associated with improved safety performances. Safety performance, measured in terms of the TR IR values achieved on the projects, were examined as to the extent that they we re influenced by various practices. SPSS, allowed for rapid analysis of the data. Of particular interest were correlations between specific practices and the perceived effectiveness of the various safety interventions. Reports that were generated by the SPSS program displayed the level of statistical significance associated w ith the comparison of two variables. The level of significance between the correlations of two variables demonstrated the strength of the relationship between the variables. The level of significance indicated the probability that the relationship between va riables occurred by chance. As the significance level approaches ze ro, the probability becomes sm aller that this relationship occurred by chance. For this study, a correlati on was considered statistically significant when the level of significance was below 0.05 (or less than 5 in 100).

PAGE 31

CHAPTER 4 DATA ANALYSIS AND RESULTS Introduction Prior safety studies have not examined th e details of how spec ific programs are developed or successfully implemented to reduce specific types of injuries or to address specific hazards. While the safety culture of a project might be well established, the details of the implementation of specific programs have not been extensively examined. This study captured data of specific program implementation through five different portions of the survey which were as follows: general project information, project workforce and subcontractors, project safe ty performance, specific safety programsproject level, and programs im plemented on past projects. This study identified attributes that contribute to successful target safety programs. A target safety program was defined as a technique, program or approach that was implemented at one or more construction sites to reduce or eliminate specific hazards or to address specific types of injuries. Ther e were initially 225 completed surveys that were received. When these were examined, it was determined that some respondents provided information on programs that did not sa tisfy the description be ing used to define target safety programs. For example, some respondents described programs in which they implemented safety incentive programs on their projects to reduce worker injuries. Surveys that described these types (not focu sed on a specific hazard or particular injury) of programs were eliminated from the sample This resulted in 120 valid and usable responses to the survey. This study sought to identify and un derstand attributes 22

PAGE 32

23 associated with targeted safety programs a nd for this reason, only the 120 responses that dealt with targeted programs were analyzed (i.e., only informati on and data obtained on these programs are displayed in the tables and figures). Respondent Characteristics Before presenting information on the target programs, information will be provided on the types of projects represented by the 120 respondents. This will help to characterize the nature of the projects that are represented in the data. By most standards, the projects could be characterized as bei ng either medium or large. The average budgeted cost of the projects was over $128 million (the median was $38.5M). The median total construction duration was esti mated to be 18 months while the median duration to date was 10 months (55% complete (one project had not begun while 16 were 100 % complete) with 96,000 hours expended to -date). The median number of subcontractors on a project was 12.0 with th ese subcontractors ( 10 projects did not subcontract work out while 20 projects util ized subcontractors for 100% of the work) completing 57.7% of the work (Table 4-1). Table 4-1: Descriptive Information about Projects Included in the Study Case processing summary Mean Median Minimum Maximum Cost ($), n=110 128,200,000 38,500,000 70,000 2,500,000 Total duration (months) 22.4 18.0 2 120 Duration to date (months) 12.9 10.0 0 54 Estimated project hours (#) 827,232 253,000 375 8,000,000 Hours to date (#) 397,840 96,000 0 4,000,000 Percent complete 57.4 55.0 0 100 Percent subcontracted 70.0 57.7 0 100 Number of subcontractors 21.8 12.0 0 300 Percent negotiated 15.9 15.9 0 100

PAGE 33

24 The survey respondents were individuals who were familiar with the programs being implemented on the construction sites. While the survey respondents could be employed by virtually any party associated w ith the construction of the project, it was generally felt that the type of firm represen ted by the respondent would not bias the data. Nearly three-fourth of the respondents repres ented contractors and most of the remaining respondents represented owners. A few responde nts considered their employers role to be that of a contractor/owner client (Table 4-2; Target Safe ty Questionnaire, Question 1). In terms of geographic dispersion of the proj ects, 98% (all but two) were located in the United States while one was located in Eu rope and another was located in South America. Table 4-2: Type of Respondent, n = 118 Typ nt Num % oCont 88 7 Own 28 2 Cont t 2 Construction projects included in this study were constructed for both private and public owners. Respondents were asked to provide information on the type of facility owner. Nearly 70% of the projects were be ing constructed for private owners (Figure 41, Target Safety Questionnaire, Question 2). The payment arrangements on construction pr ojects are carefully addressed in the construction contracts. These arrangements will often have implications on how financial risks are allocated between the contractor and the owner. Under one general scheme, contractors are asked to stipulate a price for which the facility will be constructed (referred to as a lump sum or fi xed price contract). In anothe r, the contractor is asked to carefully document specified construction co sts with the understanding that these costs e of Responde ber f Total ractor 4.6% er Client 3.7% ractor / Owner Clien 1.7%

PAGE 34

25 will be reimbursed, along with an allowance fo r overhead and profit. In the latter case, the contractor is asked to assume less risk. Over 80% of the projects were lump sum projects (Table 4-3, Target Safety Questionnai re, Question 9). Cost plus, as well as time and materials, represents payment arrangement s in which the contractor is reimbursed for construction related costs plus a pre-arranged labor rate and or fee. Cost reimbursable includes what is traditionally referred to as cost plus and time and materials. Private 69% Public Works 31% Figure 4-1: Type of Owner: Public or Private, n=113 Traditionally, every employer on the constr uction site obtains its own insurance coverage for such items as builders risk, workers compensation, general liability, and automotive policies. In recen t years, two alternative approaches to obtaining insurance have emerged. These are arrangements wher eby the insurance for a project is obtained by a single party. During the past decades th e most common arrangement of this type was for the owner to obtain the project insu rance. These were historically known as wrap-up programs, but are now also referred to as owner-controlle d insurance programs (OCIPs). The other arrangement is one in which the contractor obtains the insurance coverage for the project. These are calle d contractor-controlled insurance programs (CCIPs). While these were historically only employed on very large projects (over $1

PAGE 35

26 billion), OCIPs and CCIPs have begun to be employed to a greater extent on smaller projects ($100 million and even less) in recent years as the cost of insurance can be reduced as a result of buying in bulk. Table 4-3: Type of Payment Arrangement, n = 120 Type of Payment Arrangement Number % of Total Fixed Price (Lump Sum) 100 83.3% Cost Reimbursable 20 16.7% This study includes thirty-five projects (of th e 120 total) that were estimated to cost over $100 million dollars and hence the rather large representation of non-traditional insurance programs among the population of this study (Table 4-4, Target Safety Questionnaire, Question 22). Table 4-4: Type of Insurance, n = 118 Type Insurance Nu % oTrad mber f Total itional 7 OCIP 30 CCI 9 66.9% 25.4% P 9 7.6% Projects included in this study were comprised of: new c onstruction (61%), renovation and expansion (16% each), maintenance (3%), and other (4%). There are various forms of contracting arrangements that can be employed for project delivery. The majority of the projects incl uded in this study were undertaken with the general contract format. Some of the other arrangement s utilized on at least some projects included CM at-risk, multiple primes, design-build, CM-agency, joint venture, and direct hire (Figure 4-2, Target Safety Questionnaire, Question 8).

PAGE 36

27 Gen. Contract 59% CM @ Risk 12% Multi-Primes 9% Design-Build 6% CM-Agency 5% Jt. Venture 5% Direct Hire 4% Figure 4-2: Type of Cont racting Arrangement, n=119 The survey questions also asked about the type of facility being constructed on the project site. Projects included in this study were varied in th at virtually all sectors of the construction industry are repres ented (Figure 4-3, Target Sa fety Questionnaire, Question 5). No particular segment of the construction industry dominated in the representation of the surveys. Residential 8% Commercial 23% Manufacturing 3% Petrochemical 5% Infrastructure 9% Process Plant 3% Other 26% Power 18% Civil 5% Figure 4-3: Type of Facility, n=120

PAGE 37

28 Respondents were asked about the type of labor conditions that existed on their projects. The labor force could be union s hop in which the workers are represented by a labor union. An open shop is used to define arrangements whereby the workers are not members of a labor union or that thei r union affiliation does not influence the employer/employee relationship. The analysis of the data indicated that there was a fairly even distribution of projects among union s hops (43%), open shops (34%), and mixed (23%). The projects described as mixed were those in which some employers were signatory to labor agreem ents and some were not. Safety Performance Information was sought on the safety perfor mance that was realized on the various projects (questions 18 to 21). Safety perfor mance is typically meas ured by TRIR. TRIR is the total OSHA recordable injury rate. For 2003 (the most recent year for which data are available) the industry average was 6.81. For sampled respondents in this study the median TRIR was 0.0. A total of 51 projec ts in this study had a TRIR equal to zero. It is evident that the TRIR of the survey part icipants was much be tter than the industry average. The median number of lost time incidents was 0.0 while the median number of first aid cases was 5.0. The median number of full time safety personnel was 1.0 (Table 4-5). Table 4-5: Descriptive Informa tion about Safety Performance Case processing summary Mean Median Minimum Maximum TRIR, n=102 51 projects had a TRIR=0 2.41 0.0 0 35.86 Lost Time Incident Rate, n=114 78 projects had a LTIR=0 0.87 0 0 16 First Aid Incident Rate, n=113 18 projects had a FAIR=0 25.5 11.0 0 400 Full Time Safety Personnel (#), n=117 19 projects had zero FTSP 1.84 1.0 0 12

PAGE 38

29 Safety performance in relation to establis hed goals were: better (27%) and on target (39%) while utilizing target safety programs (Table 4-6). Table 4-6: Safety Performance in Relation to Goal, n = 118 Safety Performance in Relation to Goal Number % of Total Better 32 27.1% On Target 46 39.0% Worse 26 22.0% No Goals Were Set 7 5.9% Do Not Know 7 5.9% Target Programs The purpose of this research was to answer a fundamental question, How do construction firms and projects develop, stru cture, and successfully implement effective programs to prevent specific type s of worker injuries or eliminate/reduce specific types of hazards? This study examined those practices of contractors that provided the greatest success in addressing specific types of injuries or hazards. The practices were examined with a specific focus on the procedures utilized to ensure success in program implementation. For example, many progr ams were focused on the prevention of specific injuries, such as back injuries, hearing loss, eye injuries hand injuries, heat exhaustion, etc. A variety of these focused safety programs were examined. Some programs were focused on specific hazards, such as fall hazards. The programs that were described varied in a number of ways, including the motivat ion to address the injuries/hazards and the manner in which they were addressed. The study examined data collected from construction firms that have devised specific programs to target specific types of injuries/hazards, whether initiate d at the corporate or project level.

PAGE 39

30 Target safety programs are often untried and unproven efforts that are designed to improve safety performance. As a result, sm ooth implementation is not assured. In fact, there may even be barriers to successful implementation. The survey asked about such problems with implementation. Major obstacles to implementation of specific target safety programs were encountered on 59 % of th e projects with target safety programs. The obstacles were noted as follows: Resistance to Initiative or resistance to change (33.3%) Old School Mentality (14.3%) Enforcement Difficulties (11.9%) Difficulties in Training (9.5%) Language Barriers (4.8%) Half of the target safety programs included in this study were init iated at the project level while the others were initiated at the cor porate level. See Table 4-7 for attributes of target programs (Target Safety Questionnaire, Questions 28, 30, 31). Worker involvement in the safety process is one of the most important aspects of project safety. Many safety professionals have stated that most injuries are the result of unsafe actions or behavior and that the unsafe conditions play a minor role. With such a focus on the actions of workers as being the major cause of injuries, it would appear prudent to take special notice of them. Perhaps the most significant innovations in construction safety in recent years relate to means by which workers are involved in the construction process. This is essentially ba sed on the view that workers are not just a valuable resource to be protected but also a resource that can contribute to achieve the goal of zero accidents (Hinze 2002). While one would expect worker involvement in program development to be associated with better safety performance, this was not conclusion was not supported by the data (Target Safety Questionnaire, Question 29).

PAGE 40

31 Table 4-7: Attributes of Target Programs Source of Target Program n=1 % o D M U Cha ented n=1 % o C 4 C 4 C A Sou ram n=117 % o Ot Project 55% O 24% Insarrier 15% P Basic Steps to Im n=116 % of Eon & Training 1% P plement P 1 C 8 orkers were involved in implementation 72 % of the time while no t being involved in n Management commitment for safety is essent ial to convey to others in the firm that the costs, schedule, and quality do not ta ke priority over safety. This can be demonstrated in a variety of ways. The ci rcumstances may dictate those means that are perhaps most feasible. The motivation must be sincere and it must be conveyed to the worker level (Hinze 2002). This motivation to develop the target safety programs tends 10 f Total eveloped from Scratch 37% odified Existing Program 39% sed Existing Program as-is 24% mpion of Program Implem 19 f Total orporate Level Individual 6% orporate Level Individual 3% onsultant 8% d hoc Committee 3% rce of Guidance Prog f Total her Company wner urance C urchased One 6% plementation Total ducati erson Was Assigned to Im 5% romoted the Program 3% ombination of the three above 1% W implementation 28 percent of the time (Figure 4-4, Target Safety Questionnaire, Questio 32).

PAGE 41

32 to come from different sources depending on th e particular project, facility owner, or contractor involved. As shown in Figure 4-5 (Target Safety Questionnaire, Question 27), the motivation to develop the program came from various sources, including contractor mandates (27%), owner mandates (24%), owner and corporate mandates (13%), unacceptable numbers of injuries (21%), and other (15%). Yes 72% No 28% Figure 4-4: Were Workers Invo lved in Implementation, n=112 Contractor Mandate 27% Owner Mandate 24% Unacceptable # injuries/record 21% Other 15% Owner & Corporate Mandate 13% Figure 4-5: Motivation to Develop the Program, n=118

PAGE 42

33 The target safety programs described by re spondents to the survey consisted of numerous and varying accident countermeasures. The most dominant categories, however, were that of falls and personal protective equipment (38% each). Fall prevention programs were primarily focused on establishing a 100% tie-off for workers working at elevations above six feet. Pr ograms on personal protective equipment were focused encouraging workers to wear protec tive equipment such as gloves, eyewear, proper clothing, etc. Other target programs (Figure 4-6, Target Safety Questionnaire, question 25) focused on: Training (12%), Drug programs(2%), Lock-out-tag-out(LOTO) (2%), Hot work(2%), Scaffolding(2%), Confined space(2%), Incentives (2%). Falls 38% PPE 38% Training 12% Incentive 2% Drugs 2% Hot Work 2% LOTO 2% Scaffolding 2% Confined Space 2% Figure 4-6: Focus of Target Program, n=120

PAGE 43

34 Goals or metrics that were establishe d to monitor the program success (Target Safety Questionnaire, Question 34) include: Zero injuries Reduction in number of specific hazards/in juries including la cerations and back injuries Corrective action summary Trend analysis Performance safety audits Documentation of unsafe acts with data Formal documentation of the target safety plan (as a written policy or procedure) occurred on 97 of the 115 projec ts that provided a response (Target Safety Questionnaire, Question 36). Of these 97 projec ts, 40 agreed to furnish a copy of their target safety plan for future study. Other additional comments given on a voluntary basis (Target Safety Questionnaire, Question 37) about target safety programs were as follows: Enabled achievement of zero lost time injuries Contain detailed checks and balances that minimize injury frequency Transformed negative program of pa st into a successful program Beneficial for company and employees Designed by proactive contractor with a goal of setting a positive safety culture

PAGE 44

CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Conclusions The most important conclusion that can be drawn from this study is that the achievement of zero injuries is a realistic go al. On many construction projects, safety has become one of the most important emphasis ar eas and this is clearly demonstrated by the innovative safety programs being implemented. Construction firms are realizing that investments in safety do pay off. Costs associated with lost time injuries and job shut downs as a result of safety mishaps are not covered by insurance. Construction industry firms and managers of construc tion projects have embraced the zero injury objectives and many have achieved this goal. This was clea rly evidenced in this study as half of the firms that implemented target safety progr ams had achieved an OSHA recordable injury rate of zero. Over a decade ago in 1993, many of the companies that led the ongoing efforts to improve overall safety on the job site and reduce the number of injuries had implemented the five basic high-impact zero accidents techniques (safety pre-task / pre-project planning, orientation training, sa fety incentives, alcohol a nd substance abuse programs, and accident investigations). A follow up report in 2002, reconfirmed the importance of several safety methods and techniques empl oyed by the construction industry. However, many of high impact techniques are no longe r being implemented in the manner as reported in the 1993 report. The construction industry has matured in recent years and the safety practices have b ecome more proactive. 35

PAGE 45

36 The 2002 research findings identified th e following general areas of safety: Management commitment Staffing for safety Planning: pre-proj ect and pre-task Safety education: orienta tion and specialized training Worker involvement Evaluation and recognition / reward Subcontract management Accident / incident investigations Drug and alcohol testing The findings of this research indicate that implementation of various types of target safety programs can be successful when initiate d at the project or corporate level. This study identified some methods being employed with particular effectiveness. To insure success in regard to target safety programs workers must be involved in implementation. Perhaps the biggest change in the past decade has been in the area of worker involvement in the safety process. This is evidenced in the worker safety observation programs, worker safety perception surveys, pre-task planning, safety committees, and other programs that seek the direct input of worker s to enhance project sa fety. It would seem logical that workers also be involved in th e development and implementation of target safety programs. This research did not specifically address th e nine basic safety areas, but several of them were still apparent in the study results. Top management commitment has often been reported as being importa nt to the safety agenda. Management must demonstrate its commitment. This can be done in many ways and often relies on the ingenuity of the firm along with a strong corporate commitme nt from its safety managers. Innovative firms are also recognizing the importance of staffing their sites with safety personnel, individuals who are viewed as valued resources by the site managers. Planning continues

PAGE 46

37 to be an important aspect of project safet y, with even greater emphasis being placed on pre-task planning. In addition, if injuries occur countermeasures must be in place to immediately identify hazards that enable ma nagers to change or reduce worker exposure through targeted safety programs. While acci dent investigations are conducted in a similar manner as a decade ago, more firms are focusing on near misses, not waiting for the occurrence of an injurycausing accident. In the analysis of the data, an attempt was made to develop a priority rating of the target safety attributes, but this effort provided no a dditional insights. It is clear that of the effective target safety techniques, there is no silver bullet. Of particular interest was the finding that the success of target ed programs was not influenced by such variables as size of project, duration of project, size of th e workforce, type of labor climate, etc. From this it can be concluded that a target safety program can be successful in virtually any setting. Recommendations Although size was not a factor in the succe ss of target safety programs in this study, the larger construction companies have ge nerally been the most aggressive firms in pursuing the goal of zero accidents. Therefore, the safety record and the way safety is structured in these firms are of considerable importance to the industry. Since the large construction firms have made important stri des toward improving construction safety, it is important for these techniques to be cons idered by firms of all sizes. While some techniques will not be implemented in exactly the same manner, the general intent of the techniques will not be different. The strides made in the improvement in safety performances are so significant that injury frequency levels that were once the goals of

PAGE 47

38 firms have now become unacceptable levels of safety performance for many firms. Much can be learned from these firms. All company managers are encouraged to ex amine the research results and consider means of implementing techniques that can prove successful in other settings. The communication of managements commitment to safety is a simple task as that commitment should be evident in the daily activities of management. Safety managers should examine injury statistic s to determine where target safety programs might be appropriate. They should also examine the data collected through worker observations, site inspections, or pre-task planning meetings to identify problem areas that warrant targeting. It is clear that efforts to improve sa fety performance should not be dormant. Therefore it is suggested that this type of research be repe ated periodically, perhaps every few years. The wide dissemination of this type of information is also encouraged. Ideally a clearinghouse of information will one day exist so that firms upon identifying a hazard can view solutions as determined by ot her firms facing their same dilemma. The study of implementing safety techniques should also extend to smaller firms. Small to medium firms may find that safety is implem ented differently than in large firms and on large projects. In addition companies should track information so that they can easily identify when they have a problem and can rapidly implement a target safety program that minimizes exposure. Insights from such a research effort could be instrumental in helping drive owners to play a stronger role in the effort to pursue zero injuries on construction projects.

PAGE 48

39 Further research is warrante d to obtain more detailed in formation on the best means of developing and implementing successful targ et programs. This information could be obtained through a case study approach in which more details will be obtained.

PAGE 49

APPENDIX A TARGET SAFETY QUESTIONAIRE General Project Information 1. Type of Respondent: contractor n=88 (74.6%) owner/client n=28 (23.7%), other=2 (1.7%) 2. Is the project owner a public agency or a private firm? public works n=35 (31%) private n=78 (69%) 3. Location of project: U.S. n=117 (98.3%) Canada Mexico South America n=1 (0.8%) Europe n=1 (0.8%) Asia Asia Pacific Africa Middle East 4. What type of project is this? new n=74 (61.7%) renovation n=19 (15.8%) maintenance n=3 (2.5%) expansion n= 19 (15.8%) other: n=5 (4.2%) 5. What type of facility is being constructed? Residential n=9 (7.5%) Commercial n=28 (23.3%) Manufacturing n=3 (2.5%) Petrochemical n=6 (5%) Power n=22 (18.3%) Civil n=6 (5%) Infrastructure n=11 (9.2%) Process Plant n=4 (3.3%) Other n=31 (25.8%) 6. Is this an open shop or union project? open shop n=41 (34.2%) union shop n=51 (42.5%) mixed/both n=28 (23.3%) 7. What is the estimated total cost of this project? $__________ million n=110 (range = $70,000-$2.5B) 8. What type of contractin g arrangement is involved? General Contract n=57 (47.9%) Multiple Primes n=9 (7.6%) CM (agency) n=5 (4.2%) CM @ risk n=12 (10.1%) Design-Build n=6 (5%) Joint Venture n=5 (4.2%) Direct Hire (self perform) n=4 (3.4%) Other n=8 (6.7%), combination of above=17 (10.9%) 9. What type of contract is used on the project? Fixed Price (lump sum) n=100 (83.3%) Cost Plus n=11 (9.2%) Time and Materials n=9 (7.5%) 10. What is the expected project duration? ______ months n=119 (mean=22.4 mo.) 11. When did construction work begin on this project? ______ months ago n=115 (mean=12.9 mo.) 12. What is the current percent of completi on (in terms of dollars spent)? _____% n=110 (mean=57.4%) Project Work Force and Subcontractors 13. What percent of the work is subcontracted to other firms? ______ % n=118 (mean=57.8%) 14. How many subcontracts were wr itten on this project? _________ n=111 (mean=21.9) 40

PAGE 50

41 15. Estimated total work hours (including s ubcontractors) for this project? ________ hours n=95 (mean=827,232) 16. How many work hours (including subcontractors) have been expended to date? _____________ hours n=95(mean=416,078) 17. What percent of the site workers do not communicate well in English? _____ % n=116 (mean=15.9%) What practices/methods, if any, are employed to address the non-English speaking workers? _____________________________________________________________________ Project Safety Performance 18. To date, what is the total recordable injury rate (including subcontractors) on this project? n=102 (mean=2.41) TRIR = ______ 19. How does this safety performance compare with the originally established project safety goal? better n=32 (27.1%) on target n=46 (39.0%) worse n=26(22.0%) no safety goals were set n=7 (5.9%) dont know n=7 (5.9) 20. How many lost time injuries (requiring days aw ay from work) have occurred on this project? ______ 21. Approximately how many first aid injuries have been sustained by workers on the project? _______ first aid injuries dont know, no log is kept 22. Who provides the workers compensation insurance on this construction project? Each firm provides their own n=79 (66.9%) OCIP n=30 (25.4%) CCIP n=9 (7.6%) PCIP Not known 23. How many full-time safety personnel are assigned to this project? _____ Specific Safety Programs Project Level 24. Are there any safety programs that were implemented on this project to address specific types of hazards or speci fic types of injuries? yes n=120 no n=105 (not included in analysis) 25. If yes, please name up to two notable progra ms that were implemented on this project to address specific hazards or specific worker injuries? (for exampl e, hand protection, hearing conservation, heat/temperature extremes back injuries, elec trical contacts, eye protection, etc.) a) __________________Figure 4-6 Focus of Target Program _________________ b) ________________________________________________________________ Of these, which program was most memorable? ____________________________________________ NOTE: The following questions relate to this program.

PAGE 51

42 26. Was this program initiated at the project level or by the corporate office? project n=57 (47.9%) corporate n=57 (47.9%), both=5 (4.2%) *Who is a corporate-level contact familiar with the program? ____________________________ 27. What was the motivation to develop th is program? (check all that apply) unacceptable number of specific injuries n=25 (21.2%) owner-required the program n=28 (23.7%) contractor mandate n=32 (27.1%) near miss record, observation data, hazard recognition n=15 (12.7%) other n=18 (15.3%) 28. Who was in charge of developing this program? corporate-level individual: (title): _______________________ n=36 (30.0%) project-level indivi dual (title): __________________________ n=33 (27.7%) consultant n=6 (5.0%) ad hoc committee n=2 (1.7%) existing safety committee n=1 (0.8%) other n=41 (34.8%) 29.Were workers involved in the program development ? yes n=36 (30.8%) no n=81 (69.2%) If yes, please describe: __________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ 30. Were there some other programs (already developed) that helped se t this one up? yes n=72 (62.6%) no n=43 (37.4%) If yes, who provided them? other company project n=18 (29.0%) commercially purchased n=2 (3.2%) other firm n=1 (1.6%) owner provided n=8 (12.9%) insurance carrier n=5 (8.1%) trade association n=1 (1.6%) other n=4 (6.5%) combination=23 (37.1%) If yes, did you modify the program? yes n=36 (62.1%) no, used as is n=22 (37.9%) 31. What steps were taken to implement the progr am in the field? (check all that apply) education and training: ____________________________ n=15 (12.9%)_ ______ promoting the program: ____________________________ n=1 (0.9%)________ assigned responsible party to implement the program: ____ n=6 (5.2%)________ combination=94 (81.0%) 32. Were workers involved in the program implementation ? yes n=81 (72.3%) no n=31 (25.8%) If yes, please describe: _________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________

PAGE 52

43 33. Was there any particular prob lem or obstacle that made it more difficult to develop or implement the program? yes n=46 (41.1%) no n=66 (58.9%) If yes, describe the probl em/obstacle and how it was overcome: ____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ 34. What goals or metrics were established to monitor program success? _____bullets located in Chapter 4 ____________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________ 35. How effective has the program been? (check all that apply) measurable metrics or goals have been met or exceeded n=46 (39.7%) noticeable decline in the targeted injuries n=28 (24.1%) noticeable decline in at-risk behavior good acceptance of the program by workers n=7 (6.0%) general sense on the project that the program is doing well n=6 (5.2%) too early to evaluate n=3 (2.6%) no noticeable impact to date n=1 (0.9%) other (explain): ___ n=25 (21.5%)_ ___________________________________ 36. Is the program formally documented as a written policy or procedure? yes n=97 (84.3%) no n=18 (15.7%) If yes, can a copy of this document be obtained for this study? yes n=40 (53.3%) no n=35 (46.7% 37. Please provide any other comments about this program you would like to share? ______ bullets located in Chapter 4 __________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________ Programs Implemented on Past Projects 38. Can you recall any unique programs that were implemented on past projects that were successful in reducing injuries? yes n=49 (46.7%) no n=56 (53.3%) If yes, please describe the program briefly:

PAGE 53

44 ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ What were the measures of success for this program? ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ Possible Programs for Implemen tation on Future Projects 39. Can you think of any programs you would like to see implemented on this project or on future projects? yes n=31 (28.7%) no n=77 (71.3%) If yes, please describe the program briefly: ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________

PAGE 54

APPENDIX B COVER LETTER FOR PROJ ECT SAFETY PROGRAMS August 5, 2004 To: Project Safety Manager Subject: Survey about Specific Safety Programs We, at the M. E. Rinker, Sr. School of Building Construction at the University of Florida, are conducting a study on the implementation of specific safety programs. The focus of the study is to gather information on how specific programs are initiated, how they are developed, how obstacles are overcome, the extent that the workers are involved in the process, and how the programs are implemented on construction project s. When possible, information is sought regarding documented evidence of the extent of success of specific programs. The survey questionnaire contains a variety of qu estions related to programs designed to address specific types of injuries and specific types of h azards. Many of the questions can be answered by simply checking the applicable answers. Ther e are no risks associated with participating in this study and the survey can be completed in about five to ten minutes. The expected benefits are the eventual reduction in the incidence of construction worker injuries. Naturally, you are asked to answer only those questions that you wi sh to answer. Your participation is voluntary and you may withdraw your consent at anytime without penalty. The results of this study will be compiled and a summary report will be prepared. As a token of our appreciation for participating in the study, we will provide a copy of the summary report to you at no charge. Should you have any questions please feel free to call me at the telephone number provided below or contact me at the email address also shown. Responses provided by specific firms will be kept strictly confidential to the extent provided by law. Research data will be summarized so that the identity of individual participants will be concealed. You have my sincere thanks fo r participating in the valuable study. Yours truly, Jimmie Hinze Holland Professor, Director of Center fo r Construction Safety and Loss Control Phone: (352) 273-1167 Fa x: (352) 392-4537 Email: hinze@ufl.edu" P.S. For information about participant rights, pl ease contact the University of Florida Institutional Review Board at (352) 392-0433 or Email: IRB2@ufl.edu 45

PAGE 55

LIST OF REFERENCES The Blue Book of Building and Constructi on (2004). Contractors Register, Inc., Jefferson Valley, NY. http://www.thebluebook.com/ CII Source Document 88, Zero Acci dents. A report To CII, Oct 1991. Eich, William, Safety Practices of Large Construction Firms, Masters Thesis, University of Washington,Tacoma, 1996. Hinze, Jimmie, CII Safety Plus: Making Ze ro Accidents A Reality, Research Report 160-11 March 2002. Hinze, Jimmie and Wilson, Gary, Moving Toward A Zero Injury Objective, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management ASCE, Vol. 126, No. 5, September/October 2000. Injury Facts. National Safety Council, Itasca, IL. 2001, 2002, 2003. Occupational Hazards. Bechtel Gets a Grip on Hand Protection. 2004. http://www.occupationalhazards.com Occupational Health and Safety. Intels Hand Injury Success Story. Vol. 70, No. 9, 2002. http://www.ohsonline.com Occupational Health and Safety. Safet y Management or Business Management. September 1997. http://www.ohsonline.com Occupational Health and Safety. The Hidden Hazard of Protective Apparel. Vol. 71, No. 1.1999. http://www.ohsonline.com Rosekind, Mark R., Managing Fatigue in Oper ational Settings Journal of Behavioral Medicine, Vol. 21, Winter 1996 p157-165. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Workplac e Injuries and illnesse s in 2002. Washington, D.C: BLS. 2003. http://stats.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/osh.pdf U.S. Department Of Labor Occupational Safe ty and Health Administration. 29CFR Part 1926 OSHA Construction Industry Regulations. 2004. http://www.osha.gov 46

PAGE 56

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Michael Edward Madariaga grew up and sp ent much of his adult life in Raleigh, North Carolina. He went on to receive a B achelor of Science in Agricultural Business Management from North Carolina State Un iversity (Raleigh) in December 2000. He spent 3 years in commercial construction working for Bovis Lend Lease, before returning to school to pursue a graduate degree. He has currently been fulfilling the requirements for his Master of Science in Building Construction at the Un iversity of Florida. Upon graduating in August 2005, he will begin his residential home building career in southwest Florida. 47


Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0011880/00001

Material Information

Title: Target Safety: Programs Focused on Preventing Specific Hazards/Injuries
Physical Description: Mixed Material
Copyright Date: 2008

Record Information

Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
System ID: UFE0011880:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0011880/00001

Material Information

Title: Target Safety: Programs Focused on Preventing Specific Hazards/Injuries
Physical Description: Mixed Material
Copyright Date: 2008

Record Information

Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
System ID: UFE0011880:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text












TARGET SAFETY:
PROGRAMS FOCUSED ON PREVENTING SPECIFIC HAZARDS/INJURIES















By

MICHAEL EDWARD MADARIAGA


A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
MASTER OF SCIENCE IN BUILDING CONSTRUCTION

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA


2005

































Copyright 2005

by

Michael Edward Madariaga















ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to thank my parents, who tolerated my constant disassembly,

alteration, and renovation of: first my tricycle and years later their home and various

automobiles. Although I rarely consulted them before undertaking the effort, these

projects enabled me to be a better constructor, and I am forever grateful for their patience

with me. Additional thanks are in order for my parents, for recognizing my aptitude for

construction as a career path and being patient enough to let me discover this for myself.

I am most grateful to my loving wife who encouraged me to pursue my passion for

construction, even when that translated into less time together. I thank her for being my

"tool girl" in life and for helping me with the many construction projects that I could not

have completed alone. I must thank my daughter for serving as an inspiration to

complete my thesis before her birth. A big inspiration for this research has been Dr.

Jimmie Hinze, and it is only with his guidance and knowledge that this undertaking has

been possible.
















TABLE OF CONTENTS

page

A C K N O W L E D G M E N T S ................................................................................................. iii

LIST OF TABLES ......... ........ ................................... ........... ............ vi

LIST OF FIGURE S ......... ....................... ............. ........... vii

A B STR A C T ... .................... ............................................ ... ....... ....... viii

CHAPTER

1 IN TRODU CTION ................................................. ...... .................

2 LITERATURE REVIEW ........................................................................4

W hat is W orld-Class Safety? ......................................................... ............... 6
Jacksonville Electric A authority (JEA ).................................. ...................................... 8
In tel C o rp o ratio n ................................................................................................... 10
B echtel ............................................... ...............................................11
Alertness Solutions Fatigue Countermeasures Group .............................................16

3 M E T H O D O L O G Y ....................................................................... ........................18

In tro d u ctio n ...................................... ................................................ 18
R e se a rch S u rv ey ................................................................................................... 1 8
D ata C o lle ctio n ..................................................................................................... 2 0
D ata A nalysis................................................... 20

4 DATA ANALYSIS AND RESULTS ............................................................ 22

In tro d u ctio n .......................................................................................2 2
Respondent Characteristics............................................... ............... 23
Safety Perform ance .................. ................................... .............. ... 28
T arg et P ro g ram s .................................................................................................... 2 9

5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS............................................... 35

C o n c lu sio n s ........................................................................................................... 3 5
Recommendations... ..... ....... ..... .............. 37



iv









APPENDIX

A TARGET SAFETY QUESTIONAIRE..... ................. ...............40

G general Project Inform ation ......................................................... .............. 40
Project Work Force and Subcontractors ..........................................................40
Project Safety Perform ance ......................................................... ............... 41
Specific Safety Programs -Project Level ............. ............................................ 41
Programs Implemented on Past Projects ................................................................43
Possible Programs for Implementation on Future Projects .................................44

B COVER LETTER FOR PROJECT SAFETY PROGRAMS ...................................45

L IST O F R E F E R E N C E S ........................................................................ .....................46

BIO GRAPH ICAL SK ETCH .................................................. ............................... 47
















LIST OF TABLES

Table p

4-1 Descriptive Information about Projects Included in the Study ..............................23

4-2 T ype of R espondent ................................................................... ....... .................24

4-3 Type of Payment Arrangement ......................... ........ ..................... 26

4-4 Type of Insurance ......... ................................................................ 26

4-5 Descriptive Information about Safety Performance............................................28

4-6 Safety Performance in Relation to Goal........................ ........ ............... 29

4-7 Attributes of Target Program s............... ........................................ ....................30
















LIST OF FIGURES

Figure page

4-1 Type Ow ner Public or Private...................... .... ............................. ............... 25

4-2 Type of Contracting Arrangem ent ........................................ ....................... 27

4-3 Type of Facility ................................... .. .. ........ .. ............27

4-4 Were Workers Involved in Implementation..................... ..................... 32

4-5 M otivation to Develop the Program ................................ ................................. 32

4-6 F ocu s of T arget P program ............................................................................ .... ... 33














Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School of the
University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements
for the Degree of Master of Science in Building Construction

TARGET SAFETY:
PROGRAMS FOCUSED ON PREVENTING SPECIFIC HAZARDS/INJURIES

By

Michael Edward Madariaga

August 2005

Chair: Jimmie Hinze
Major Department: Building Construction

Safety programs in the construction industry have historically been examined to see

how overall safety management is used to pursue the zero-injury objective. Such studies

have not examined the details of how specific programs are developed or successfully

implemented to reduce specific types of injuries. While safety culture of a project might

be well established, details of the implementations of specific programs have not been

examined.

The purpose of our study was to answer the following question: How do

construction firms and projects develop, structure, and successfully implement effective

programs to prevent specific types of worker injuries?

Our study describes in detail those practices of contractors that provide the greatest

success in addressing specific types of injuries. The practices were examined with a

specific focus on the procedures used to ensure success in program implementation.









Our study focused on the development and implementation of specific types of

programs intended to address specific safety objectives. For example, a particular

program might focus on preventing specific injuries (such as back injuries, fall injuries,

hearing loss, eye injuries, hand injuries, or fatigue). A variety of focused safety programs

were examined. These programs are expected to vary in a number of ways, including the

motivation to address the injuries and the manner in which they were addressed. Our

study includes the analysis of data collected from construction firms that have devised

specific programs to target specific types of injuries, whether initiated at the corporate or

project level. We particularly focused on procedures used by contractors to effectively

implement successful safety practices.














CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

The construction industry continues to be one of the most demanding and

dangerous industries in the United States. The diversity of construction projects and their

ever changing nature expose workers, unlike any other work setting, to new hazards

virtually every day. Projects in construction are unique. They are rarely designed or

built exactly in the same manner as previous projects and they are always constructed

with differing site conditions. Factors such as the landscape, weather, and physical

location cause every project to be unique. These factors also have a significant impact

upon safety characteristics of each project. While most personnel in the construction

industry find this project uniqueness to be an attractive attribute for a career in

construction, it can have an adverse effect upon their well being.

The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported 4,365,200 total non-fatal recordable

cases in 2003 in all industries. They estimate that more than 6.8 of every 100 full-time

construction workers experience a work-related injury each year that requires medical

treatment. Such injuries are called Occupational Safety and Health Administration

(OSHA) recordable injuries. Considering that the construction industry employs about

6.5 million people (estimates vary considerably), it can be conservatively estimated that

450,000 OSHA recordable injuries occur each year. These incidents include all injuries

and fatalities.

In general, the construction workforce is highly mobile. For this reason, some

contractors are reluctant to invest capital to train those who may soon be someone else's









employees. The result is an untrained construction workforce that often does not

recognize the consequences of working in an unsafe manner.

To counteract this, proactive construction companies have taken major steps in

identifying and eliminating the causes of accidents on job sites. As a result, safety has

become one of the most important aspects of concern on many construction projects.

Construction firms are realizing that the initial investment and continuous efforts to

maintain a good safety record do pay off by reducing injuries on the job site, and also by

contributing to "on time" and "within budget" project delivery.

In the past, safety programs in the construction industry have been examined to see

how overall safety management is used to pursue the zero-injury objective. These studies

have not examined the details of how specific programs are developed or successfully

implemented to reduce specific types of injuries. While the safety culture of a project

might be well established, the details of implementation of specific programs have not

been examined.

Our purpose was to answer a fundamental question, "How do construction firms

and projects develop, structure, and successfully implement effective programs to prevent

specific types of worker injuries?" We examined in detail those practices of contractors

that provide the greatest success in addressing specific types of injuries. The practices

were examined with a specific focus on the procedures used to ensure success in program

implementation. For example, a particular program might be focused on preventing

specific injuries (such as back injuries, fall injuries, hearing loss, eye injuries, hand

injuries, or heat exhaustion). A variety of focused safety programs will be examined.

These programs are expected to vary in a number of ways, including the motivation to









address the injuries and the manner in which they will be addressed. The study includes

the analysis of data to be collected from construction firms that have devised specific

programs to target specific types of injuries, whether initiated at the corporate or project

level.

Safety practices were examined with a specific emphasis on the procedures used to

ensure success in program implementation. Our study focused on the development and

implementation of specific types of programs that are intended to address specific safety

objectives. Identifying methods proven effective in reducing worker injuries, could

provide the construction community with guidance on effective ways to pursue the zero-

incident objective. Since no prior study focuses on preventing specific injuries, our study

was undertaken. Sufficient approaches were examined so that the information will be of

value to firms planning to devise their own programs to address other types of injuries.

Our results outline procedures construction firms can best implement for programs

targeting specific types of injuries. We describe the specific procedural steps to

implement successful programs. Where applicable, safety programs to target specific

safety hazards were outlined in detail.














CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW

While prior studies have provided considerable information on ways to enhance

safety performance, They have not provided any details of how specific safety initiatives

might be implemented.

Since the early 1990s, a series of studies identified practices successfully

implemented in pursuit of the zero-injury objective. The first widely publicized study

was conducted for the Construction Industry Institute (CII 1991). The CII identified 5

high-impact techniques (and the most significant sub-elements) used on projects that

were completed with exemplary safety records (CII 1991). These techniques, included:

1. Safety pre-project/pre-task planning

a. Pre-project (safety goals, safety person/personnel, replacement employee
evaluation)

b. Pre-task (task hazard analysis, task training)

2. Safety orientation and training

a. Owner involved in orientation
b. Safety policies and procedures
c. Project specific orientation
d. Formal safety training

3. Written safety incentive program

a. Cents per hour for workers
b. Spot cash incentives used with workers
c. Milestone cash incentives given to workers
d. End of project incentives given to workers

4. Alcohol and substance abuse programs (ASAP)

a. Screening done for alcohol and drugs









b. Screening conducted at random
c. Inspections for contraband conducted
d. Post accident screening done for all employees
e. All project contractors have ASAPs

5. Accident/incident investigations

a. Incidents reported to home office
b. Accidents without injury investigated
c. Project accident review team established for all accidents or incidents
d. Project work exposure hours and safety statistics reported to home office

A 1995 construction safety study of the 400 largest construction firms in the United

States confirmed the importance of staffing for safety, drug testing, worker training,

safety meetings, worker recognition & awards, and accident investigations (Eich 1996).

A follow-up study to the CII (1991) study was conducted to validate the original

findings. That study showed that the industry continued to use the zero injury techniques,

but that the techniques were being implemented differently than initially reported. For

example, the follow-up study found that proactive firms also investigated near misses, not

just injury accidents. While the earlier study reported the value of safety incentives, the

follow-up study showed that many firms had replaced safety incentives with safety

recognition programs. Essentially, this follow-up study showed that the construction

industry had matured since the earlier study. The results of this study were used as a

justification of repeating the CII Zero Injury study.

The follow-up study identified nine areas of best practices (some variation of the

initial five high-impact techniques, and four new techniques).

1. Top management commitment to safety
2. Staffing for safety
3. Pre-project and pre-task planning
4. Worker training
5. Worker recognition
6. Worker involvement in the safety process
7. Drug testing









8. Incident investigations
9. Subcontractor management

An extensive search of available literature resulted in identifying a few articles that

addressed the subject of targeted safety programs. Little has been written about the

importance of these programs and whether these programs are a common practice within

the construction industry. Most of the applicable articles were found in industry journals

and periodicals (Hinze 2002).

Occupational injury rates in the construction trades are high compared to the

general workforce in the United States. The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) reported an

overall rate of lost time or medical injuries or illnesses of 8.4 per 100 full-time workers in

1994. During the same year, a rate of 11.8 per 100 full-time workers was reported among

the construction trades as defined by the Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes 15

(building construction by general contractors). BLS data, the primary source of data on

occupational injuries and illnesses in the construction trades, are based on a sample of

injury reports provided to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) by

selected employers. Employment statistics are used to estimate full-time workers.

Construction workers not only have higher overall rates of work-related injuries

than other trade groups, but they are also among the most likely workers to experience

serious occupational injuries. Fatal and lost work time injuries in the construction trades

continue to rank among the highest in the United States, clearly documenting the need for

preventive action.

What is World-Class Safety?

What is world-class safety, and how can companies achieve it? While people may

have differing definitions the core attribute is: moving beyond safety compliance toward









safety excellence. The 2003 American Society of Safety Engineers Professional

Development Conference offered an interesting and timely roundtable discussion on this

topic. While the participants' answers to the question varied, they agreed upon several

companies that in their estimation, defined world-class safety.

Three of those companies mentioned (Bechtel Group Inc., DuPont and Johnson &

Johnson) were chosen as America's Safest Companies by Occupational Hazards for 2003.

From the relatively small and safety-oriented Quincy Compressor of Bay Minette, AL ( a

small firm recognized for its outstanding safety performance), with its 141 employees, to

mighty Johnson & Johnson, with 108,000 employees in 54 countries, what do America's

Safest Companies 2003 have in common? They all treat safety as a core business value,

not a priority. It is not a process, and not a program, but a value. Representatives of

several firms that are proactive in safety contributed to the discussion of being world

class in safety.

"When you prioritize something, that means it's not always going to be at the top of

your list. A core value is woven into everything you do, every business decision you

make," says Kevin S. Berg, principal vice president and manager of Environmental,

Safety and Health Services at Bechtel. "Safety is considered a very essential part of our

business functions," reveals Chris Andrews, safety and training coordinator at Bon L

Manufacturing ofNewnan, GA.

In addition, many of the 2003 class of America's Safest Companies use safety as a

measure of business success. "Safety is a key indicator of organizational excellence. A

safe plant typically has high employee morale, high productivity and minimal product









defects," says Joseph Van Houten, Ph.D., CSP, worldwide director of planning, process

design and delivery, Johnson & Johnson Safety & Industrial Hygiene.

Others acknowledge that business success would not be possible without a safe

workplace and safe workers. James A. Buzzard, the president of MeadWestvaco, calls

employees "the most important resource we have and we depend on them for the success

of MeadWestvaco. Implementing the processes and systems for safety excellence, and

integrating them into our everyday activities, develops safe behavior and a safe

workplace for our employees." Keith Shumacher, plant manager at Quincy Compressor

stated that, safety "is a race with no finish."

The firms recognized for their exemplary safety performances are those where

safety is aggressively promoted at the corporate or top management level. This research

was interested in how these ideals were actually transformed into specific approaches that

are applied on construction projects. A few articles that were identified provided some

insights into this process (Blue Book 2004).

Jacksonville Electric Authority (JEA)

Heat stress is a problem that affects up to an estimated 10 million workers in the

United States each year. Workers who regularly toil in hot, humid, strenuous conditions

and those who must wear heavy protective apparel may know the signs. In severe cases,

heat stress can lead to nausea, fainting, collapse, or even unconsciousness. At any stage

in the heat stress continuum, worker productivity and alertness suffers. Other problems

commonly caused by heat stress include: increased accidents, absenteeism, and low

employee morale. Dehydration is a prime cause of heat stress and can quickly occur

when workers do not have easy access to fluids. In hot, hardworking conditions, workers

can lose up to 1.5 liters of water each hour in the form of sweat. Sweat-laden skin and









clothing reduce the heat dissipation normally performed by the body. The National

Institute for Occupational Safety and Health recommends drinking five to eight ounces of

cool fluid (water) every 15 to 20 minutes when working in a heat stress-prone setting.

This recommendation can be difficult to satisfy for some workers when water coolers are

not nearby or when it is impossible to carry portable water bottles to the jobsite.

Worker hydration is a problem that was addressed by the Jacksonville Electric

Authority (JEA). As the eighth-largest municipal electric utility in the nation, JEA

provides electricity, water, and waste water services to more than 750,000 accounts in a

900-square-mile service area in and around Jacksonville, Florida. For the JEA field

workers, the biggest issue to getting proper hydration was for workers working in

trenches that were 6 feet or more in depth, making a quick break for water quite difficult.

To solve the problem, JEA implemented a two-pronged approach to avoiding dehydration

and heat stress. The first prong was a corporate culture change to a behavior-based safety

program. The program effectively standardized numerous safety practices across JEA

and put in place a training and education component focusing on safety topics- heat stress

and dehydration among them. The second prong involved adopting a new tool for

staying hydrated, anywhere and any time. The tool is a hydration system, a backpack-

style system containing an insulated, 70-ounce drinking reservoir that provides sufficient

cool drinking water for 2 or 3 hours. An insulated tube delivers water via a patented

valve mechanism from which users drink by biting down and sipping, similar to drinking

from a straw. The system is filled with water through a port on the outside of the unit.

JEA established a written procedure for protecting employees from hazards

associated with work in high-heat atmospheres and to increase employee awareness of









such hazards. It was decided that the specific heat stress monitoring and work cycle

management procedures would be instituted when the temperature exceeds 85 degrees

(70 degrees F if the worker was wearing semi-impermeable or impermeable clothing, or

an encapsulating suit): measuring heart rate and temperature, interrupting exposure to

heat once excessive discomfort is felt or symptoms of heat-related disorders are detected,

fluid replacement, personnel protective apparel, including reflective clothing, ice vests,

wetted clothing, and water-cooled garments (Occupational Health and Safety).

Intel Corporation

Intel Corporation has been recognized throughout the world as a leader in the

design and manufacture of integrated circuits; and recently, Intel has been gaining

worldwide recognition as one of the safest places to work. Intel's safety performance has

achieved world-class status and continues to improve as a result of detailed data

collection and analysis and its focus on three main elements: 1) strong programs,

2) individual commitment, and 3) leadership. Since 1994, the Intel employee recordable

injury rates have dropped 84% to a level of 0.18 (2001). Just as impressive is the safety

performance improvement that has been realized on Intel construction Projects. From

1994 to 2001, the recordable injury rates on Intel construction projects dropped 86

percent, to 0.86. To understand the significance of this accomplishment, one has to keep

in mind that these rate reductions have occurred against the backdrop of phenomenal

company growth, including a 200% increase in construction activity (OH&S).

Five-year construction injury data collected on Intel construction projects indicated

cuts and lacerations were the most frequently occurring injury on Intel's construction

sites. Of these injuries, the vast majority were cuts to the hands or forearms. Based on

these data, Intel's Project EHS professionals, representing all six Intel regions throughout









the world, developed a plan of action to achieve hand injury elimination. Jim Braun,

Intel Projects EHS engineer, stated "Many cuts are caused by tools, such as utility

knives, that some might call 'inherently dangerous."' "There are alternatives that pose

little or no risk of causing a cut to the hand or forearm. Our job is to convince

construction workers that they should adapt the alternatives."

Faced with the knowledge that reducing or eliminating hand cuts would make a

dramatic impact on injury rates, Intel construction management and Intel Project EHS set

about engaging the entire construction community at Intel to solve the problem. Task

forces were formed for each of the six major regional construction projects. These teams,

made up of Intel, general contractors, and the trade representatives, initiated a traditional

safety approach to assessing and mitigating risk. Using six key steps, the teams

developed and implemented their plans. These steps included

1. Assessing the risk
2. Developing job hazard analysis
3. Training the foremen and crews
4. Observing the crews
5. Measuring results
6. Repeating the process

Blake Devine of Baugh Construction explained the process as, "We coach our trade

contractors that getting rid of the hazard altogether is the best way to prevent injuries"

(OH&S).

Bechtel

In the construction sector, serious injuries to the hands occur at almost twice the

rate as in all of private industry, but not at global giant Bechtel, where the rate is a

fraction of the industry average. The fact that injuries to the hands, wrists and fingers









remain a serious problem for U.S. companies is probably not news, but what may be

surprising is how many of these cases are serious enough to cause lost workdays.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics in all industries, there were nearly a

quarter million injuries (cuts, abrasions, etc.) and illnesses (dermatitis, etc.) to the hands,

wrists and fingers involving days away from work in 2002, more than one-sixth of the

total for that year. The incidence rate for this type of problem in all of private industry

was 37.2 per 10,000 full-time workers, but it was far higher in manufacturing (55.1) and

higher still in construction (67.7). Despite the prevalence of hurt hands in its industry,

one construction company, San Francisco based Bechtel Group Inc., drove its global

hand, wrist and finger lost workday case rate down to an almost incredible rate of 3.0 per

10,000 full-time employees.

Bechtel's enviable record with hand protection takes place in the overall context of

an organization that is committed to achieving "zero accident performance," according to

Kevin Berg, manager of the company's environmental, safety and health services. Berg

contends that while construction by its nature poses more hazards to the hands, many of

the things one must do to protect the hands are simply the hallmarks of any good safety

program. "Almost everything we do is actually done by people with their hands," says

Berg. Roughly 30% of the company's recordable injuries involve the fingers, hands and

wrists.

When asked about the biggest challenge in hand protection, Berg's unhesitating

reply was: worker participation. Worker Participation is key to success. In some ways,

hand protection is very simple: all the education programs in the world do not amount to

much unless workers actually don the gloves. "We can put all the processes in place, but









if the worker isn't engaged, it's only on paper," asserts Stephen Walter, site safety

representative for Bechtel at its Hanford, WA. construction site. "We have to make it

come alive for them." Early last year, after performing observations, Walter discovered

that during any given 15-minute period, 4% of the 600 workers at Hanford were not

wearing hand protection. "That means you have a considerable number of people at

risk," he explains. So last June, the four weekly toolbox meetings were devoted solely to

making the case for hand protection. "We challenged our supervisors to focus on this so

we could see improvement." How can you spend a month talking about gloves? Walter

explained that hand injuries took up one week. Workers then learned about the various

types of gloves, another week was spent on explaining how to use them and in the final

week all the points covered were reviewed.

The effort paid off: by August, observations revealed workers were wearing hand

protection 99% of the time when it was required, and Walter said that number has held up

since then. In order to encourage workers to wear appropriate hand protection, Bechtel

has adopted a behavior-based observation process that employs two perspectives. "We

reinforce positive behavior, and question at-risk behavior." Both approaches are essential

for the success of the program, according to Phil Williams, a carpenter who works with

Walter at Hanford. Many of the craft workers on site at Hanford are not used to working

for Bechtel and "are more oriented to production than safety," he explains.

Questioning those who should be wearing gloves, but are not, is the most effective

way of leading people to internalize safe work habits, according to Williams. Many craft

workers are not used to wearing hand protection and when questioned, the answer they

most often give is, "I forgot," Williams explains. "But if you ask them, 'Why aren't you









wearing gloves?' they will decide for themselves to put them on. I've seen this several

times."

At Bechtel's Hanford, Wash. project, eliciting worker participation in safety

involves more than performing observations and asking questions, however. Employees

are involved in the selection of gloves and Bechtel has a wide variety of styles available,

so that workers can choose hand protection that is appropriate to the specific task. "We

make an effort to educate workers on the types of gloves we have available," says Walter.

"When you have eight types of gloves, you have something for many different types of

activities. If one kind of glove doesn't work, we tell them to try another." As a result of

improvements in the design of hand protection, Walter contends that, provided many

different styles are available, gloves rarely interfere with a particular job. "Fifteen years

ago, you didn't have a lot of choice beyond cloth or leather, but now gloves provide

greater protection and are more comfortable," says Walter. Finally, as in any excellent

safety program, PPE is used only when engineering solutions are impractical. "We try to

empower workers to make engineering suggestions, instead of wearing PPE," Walter

explained. For example, workers had been required to wear gloves while doing computer

wiring, but after some workers suggested a way to do the work without using box cutter

knives, the company decided gloves were no longer necessary.

"Instead of seeing workers as adversaries, where the company tries to force you to

work safe, workers are taking responsibility to make improvements with the help of the

company," Williams stated. "From a craft point of view, the fact that the company is

allowing workers to be part of the solution is the best thing we have going for us out

there." From a safety point of view, it may also be the best thing going for Bechtel.









When it comes to identifying the biggest challenge for hand safety, Jim Lapping,

the vice president for safety, health and environment at Power Maintenance and

Constructors in O'Fallon, Ill,. agreed with his colleague at Bechtel: it is getting workers to

wear the gloves. "Being able to wear the gloves and work effectively at the same time is

another way of saying the same thing," explained Lapping, whose company does repair

and maintenance work at coal-fired power plants. "The trend in glove design is to create

gloves that more effectively balance comfort and dexterity with the level of protection

that is needed," stated Portia Yarborough, Ph.D., a research chemist with DuPont in

Wilmington, Del. "People seem to want lighter and thinner gloves with a palm dip to

enhance the grip," noted Elizabeth Parrish, global marketing manager for cut protection

in the Advanced Fibers and Composites group at Morristown, N.J.-based Honeywell

International. Both women said that progress in developing synthetic fibers has allowed

glove manufacturers to offer workers what they want: improved dexterity that does not

compromise protection. "Many gloves also have some type of form-fitting stretch

component, such as spandex, that also improves dexterity," added Yarborough.

Safety managers may want to be aware of something else going on in the hand

protection industry. ASTM International (formerly the American Society for Testing and

Materials) established the cut standards used to determine the level of protection that

gloves provide. Effective March 1, ASTM revised its "Standard Test Method for

Measuring the Cut Resistance of Protective Apparel" (F 1790-04). The changes in test

protocol mean that the same glove may receive a lower cut protection performance value

as compared to the previous ASTM standard. "Safety managers should be aware that

when buying new gloves, the new numbers may be lower even though the glove









performance hasn't changed," explained Yarborough. "If injuries are occurring, they

should take a look at these numbers, but if they aren't having injury problems, then it's

probably not a concern" (Occupational Hazards 2004).

Alertness Solutions Fatigue Countermeasures Group

Alertness solutions is a scientific consulting firm that translates knowledge of

sleep, circadian rhythms, alertness, and performance into practical strategies that improve

safety and productivity in our 24-hour society. Modem society operates around the

clock, but this 24-hour requirement challenges the human brain and body by degrading

the quantity and quality of sleep, disrupting the body clock, and creating fatigue. These

factors take a toll on alertness, performance, productivity, and safety. Our society- at

both the organizational and individual levels- continually pays a high price for fatigue-

related risks that result in errors, incidents, and accidents. Alertness solutions creates

tailored strategies and comprehensive approaches that: improve safety, performance, and

productivity. In addition they devise innovative ways to address the complex and diverse

aspects of managing alertness. The mission of Alertness Solutions is to develop and

evaluate countermeasures to mitigate the adverse effects of these factors and maximize

performance and alertness .

An international group of scientists identified fatigue as "the largest identifiable

and preventable cause of accidents in transport operations (between 15 and 20% off all

accidents), surpassing that of alcohol or drug related incidents in all modes of

transportation. Fatigue engendered by sleep loss and circadian disruption can degrade all

aspects of human capability. Significant reductions in operator performance can affect

judgment, decision-making, attention, reaction time, alertness, memory, and mood.

These degraded performance factors can increase fatigue-related risks and reduce the









operational safety margin. In spite of these well-documented effects, the contributory or

causal role that fatigue may play in an accident is often underestimated or potentially

ignored. One reason for underestimating its contribution is that there is "no blood test for

fatigue." To include or exclude fatigue as contributory or causal in an accident requires

the evaluation of two specific aspects of the accident. First, were identifiable fatigue

factors present at the time of the accident? Second, if fatigue factors were present, did

fatigue-related performance decrements contribute to or cause the accident? Four

specific physiological factors related to fatigue are:

1. amount of sleep (acute loss and cumulative debt)
2. continuous hours of wakefulness
3. circadian rhythms (time-of-day)
4. sleep disorders

Fatigue created by sleep loss and circadian disruption can decrease waking

performance, vigilance, and mood. These decrements are known to affect errors,

accidents, and safety. Accident investigations frequently find evidence that fatigue-

related performance was contributory or causal in the accident. The findings include

fatigue factors such as: degraded judgment and decision making, cognitive fixation, poor

communication/coordination, and reduced reaction time. By applying these principles,

notable reductions have been recorded by recorded by various firms (Rosekind 1996).














CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY

Introduction

The objective of this research was to determine how construction firms and projects

develop, structure, and successfully implement effective programs to prevent specific

types of worker injuries and to protect workers from specific hazards. Safety practices

were to be examined with a specific focus on the procedures utilized to ensure success in

program implementation. The study focus was on the development and implementation

of specific types of programs that are intended to address very specific safety objectives.

The focus area of this study was suggested to CII as a potential research topic by

another CII project team that had participated in a prior safety research study. A research

proposal on this subject was submitted to CII by Dr. Jimmie Hinze and was funded in

June 2004. Shortly after the proposal was funded, CII organized a project team to

provide guidance and support for the research effort. This team of approximately fifteen

individuals met periodically, at least quarterly, to review progress on the research and to

provide assistance in data collection. It was also during this period that a review of the

literature was conducted.

Research Survey

In early discussions of the CII project team, it was decided that a large sample size

was most desirable for this research effort. This was based on the realization that

construction firms may implement a variety of safety interventions to address specific

hazards (falls, cave-ins, heat, noise, etc.) or specific types of injuries (hand, eye, back,









foot, etc.). To accomplish the objective of obtaining a large sample size (over 100

responses) it was decided by the project team that the project team members would play

an active role in data collection.

To have consistency in the information about specific safety interventions on

construction projects, a survey was developed. An initial version of this survey was

prepared, and this survey was the central focus of discussion at the first meeting of the

project team. As a result of this discussion, considerable modifications were made to the

survey. The survey, considerably changed from the first version, was examined again at

the second meeting of the project team at which time the survey was improved further.

After the survey was considered reasonably refined, it was decided that a pilot

study should be conducted. One of the team member companies (an owner) was

sponsoring a safety forum for several of its contractors during the second week of

August. The researchers were asked to give a presentation at this forum and were also

afforded the opportunity of administering the pilot study with the forum attendees.

Participation was voluntary, but 28 attendees provided responses to the survey. After the

pilot study was conducted, it was apparent that additional revisions to the survey were

needed. By September 2004, the final version of the survey was approved by the

University of Florida Institutional Review Board (IRB).

Information was sought on a variety of safety interventions or programs that were

implemented. These programs were expected to vary in a number of ways, including the

motivation to address specific issues and the manner in which they were addressed. The

final survey consisted of five sections which were as follows: general project

information, project work force and subcontractors, project safety performance, specific









safety programs- project level, and programs implemented on past projects. Surveys

asked about descriptive information about the projects (size, type contract, labor

arrangement, duration, cost, etc.). Most of the survey questions asked for information

pertaining to the specific interventions that were implemented to address specific hazards

or specific types of injuries. Some questions could be answered by simply checking a

box or by providing some numerical information. Other questions requested open-ended

responses. A copy of the survey, titled "Target Safety Questionnaire," is presented in

Appendix A.

Data Collection

The surveys were provided to all of the CII project team members. In some cases,

the project team members distributed the surveys to their own personnel on construction

sites, while some surveys were distributed to companies with some type of affiliation

with the project team members. Many surveys were completed by firms that were not

CII members. As a result, the findings of this research are not unique to CII members.

Once the surveys were completed, they were sent directly to Dr. Jimmie Hinze at the

M.E. Rinker Sr. School of Building Construction at the University of Florida for

inclusion in the database.

Data Analysis

The statistical program, Statistical Package for the Social Services (SPSS), was

selected to analyze the data. This program enables data manipulation and facilitates

statistics generation. All of the raw data, aside from the narrative comments provided in

the survey, were included in the data analysis.

In this research study, the data of particular interest, related to those safety

programs that had innovative approaches. In addition, the statistical analysis sought to









identify those practices that were associated with improved safety performances. Safety

performance, measured in terms of the TRIR values achieved on the projects, were

examined as to the extent that they were influenced by various practices.

SPSS, allowed for rapid analysis of the data. Of particular interest were

correlations between specific practices and the perceived effectiveness of the various

safety interventions. Reports that were generated by the SPSS program displayed the

level of statistical significance associated with the comparison of two variables. The

level of significance between the correlations of two variables demonstrated the strength

of the relationship between the variables. The level of significance indicated the

probability that the relationship between variables occurred by chance. As the

significance level approaches zero, the probability becomes smaller that this relationship

occurred by chance. For this study, a correlation was considered statistically significant

when the level of significance was below 0.05 (or less than 5 in 100).














CHAPTER 4
DATA ANALYSIS AND RESULTS

Introduction

Prior safety studies have not examined the details of how specific programs are

developed or successfully implemented to reduce specific types of injuries or to address

specific hazards. While the safety culture of a project might be well established, the

details of the implementation of specific programs have not been extensively examined.

This study captured data of specific program implementation through five different

portions of the survey which were as follows: general project information, project

workforce and subcontractors, project safety performance, specific safety programs-

project level, and programs implemented on past projects.

This study identified attributes that contribute to successful target safety programs.

A target safety program was defined as a technique, program or approach that was

implemented at one or more construction sites to reduce or eliminate specific hazards or

to address specific types of injuries. There were initially 225 completed surveys that

were received. When these were examined, it was determined that some respondents

provided information on programs that did not satisfy the description being used to define

target safety programs. For example, some respondents described programs in which

they implemented safety incentive programs on their projects to reduce worker injuries.

Surveys that described these types (not focused on a specific hazard or particular injury)

of programs were eliminated from the sample. This resulted in 120 valid and usable

responses to the survey. This study sought to identify and understand attributes









associated with targeted safety programs and for this reason, only the 120 responses that

dealt with targeted programs were analyzed (i.e., only information and data obtained on

these programs are displayed in the tables and figures).

Respondent Characteristics

Before presenting information on the target programs, information will be provided

on the types of projects represented by the 120 respondents. This will help to

characterize the nature of the projects that are represented in the data. By most standards,

the projects could be characterized as being either medium or large. The average

budgeted cost of the projects was over $128 million (the median was $38.5M). The

median total construction duration was estimated to be 18 months while the median

duration to date was 10 months (55% complete (one project had not begun while 16 were

100 % complete) with 96,000 hours expended to-date). The median number of

subcontractors on a project was 12.0 with these subcontractors (10 projects did not

subcontract work out while 20 projects utilized subcontractors for 100% of the work)

completing 57.7% of the work (Table 4-1).

Table 4-1: Descriptive Information about Projects Included in the Study
Case processing summary Mean Median Minimum Maximum

Cost ($), n=110 128,200,000 38,500,000 70,000 2,500,000
Total duration (months) 22.4 18.0 2 120
Duration to date (months) 12.9 10.0 0 54
Estimated project hours (#) 827,232 253,000 375 8,000,000
Hours to date (#) 397,840 96,000 0 4,000,000
Percent complete 57.4 55.0 0 100
Percent subcontracted 70.0 57.7 0 100
Number of subcontractors 21.8 12.0 0 300
Percent negotiated 15.9 15.9 0 100









The survey respondents were individuals who were familiar with the programs

being implemented on the construction sites. While the survey respondents could be

employed by virtually any party associated with the construction of the project, it was

generally felt that the type of firm represented by the respondent would not bias the data.

Nearly three-fourth of the respondents represented contractors and most of the remaining

respondents represented owners. A few respondents considered their employer's role to

be that of a contractor/owner client (Table 4-2; Target Safety Questionnaire, Question 1).

In terms of geographic dispersion of the projects, 98% (all but two) were located in the

United States while one was located in Europe and another was located in South

America.

Table 4-2: Type of Respondent, n = 118
Type of Respondent Number % of Total
Contractor 88 74.6%
Owner Client 28 23.7%
Contractor / Owner Client 2 1.7%

Construction projects included in this study were constructed for both private and

public owners. Respondents were asked to provide information on the type of facility

owner. Nearly 70% of the projects were being constructed for private owners (Figure 4-

1, Target Safety Questionnaire, Question 2).

The payment arrangements on construction projects are carefully addressed in the

construction contracts. These arrangements will often have implications on how financial

risks are allocated between the contractor and the owner. Under one general scheme,

contractors are asked to stipulate a price for which the facility will be constructed

(referred to as a lump sum or fixed price contract). In another, the contractor is asked to

carefully document specified construction costs with the understanding that these costs









will be reimbursed, along with an allowance for overhead and profit. In the latter case,

the contractor is asked to assume less risk. Over 80% of the projects were lump sum

projects (Table 4-3, Target Safety Questionnaire, Question 9). Cost plus, as well as time

and materials, represents payment arrangements in which the contractor is reimbursed for

construction related costs plus a pre-arranged labor rate and or fee. Cost reimbursable

includes what is traditionally referred to as cost plus and time and materials.





,Pt/ ,Public Works
S31%




Private
69%



Figure 4-1: Type of Owner: Public or Private, n= 113

Traditionally, every employer on the construction site obtains its own insurance

coverage for such items as builders risk, workers' compensation, general liability, and

automotive policies. In recent years, two alternative approaches to obtaining insurance

have emerged. These are arrangements whereby the insurance for a project is obtained

by a single party. During the past decades the most common arrangement of this type

was for the owner to obtain the project insurance. These were historically known as

wrap-up programs, but are now also referred to as owner-controlled insurance programs

(OCIPs). The other arrangement is one in which the contractor obtains the insurance

coverage for the project. These are called contractor-controlled insurance programs

(CCIPs). While these were historically only employed on very large projects (over $1









billion), OCIPs and CCIPs have begun to be employed to a greater extent on smaller

projects ($100 million and even less) in recent years as the cost of insurance can be

reduced as a result of buying in bulk.

Table 4-3: Type of Payment Arrangement, n = 120

Type of Payment Number % of Total
Arrangement
Fixed Price (Lump Sum) 100 83.3%
Cost Reimbursable 20 16.7%


This study includes thirty-five projects (of the 120 total) that were estimated to cost

over $100 million dollars and hence the rather large representation of non-traditional

insurance programs among the population of this study (Table 4-4, Target Safety

Questionnaire, Question 22).

Table 4-4: Type of Insurance, n = 118
Type Insurance Number % of Total
Traditional 79 66.9%
OCIP 30 25.4%
CCIP 9 7.6%

Projects included in this study were comprised of: new construction (61%),

renovation and expansion (16% each), maintenance (3%), and other (4%).

There are various forms of contracting arrangements that can be employed for

project delivery. The majority of the projects included in this study were undertaken with

the general contract format. Some of the other arrangements utilized on at least some

projects included CM at-risk, multiple primes, design-build, CM-agency, joint venture,

and direct hire (Figure 4-2, Target Safety Questionnaire, Question 8).













Direct Hire
4%
Jt. Venture
5%
CM-Agency
5%
Design-Build
6%
Multi-Primes
9%
Gen. Contract
59%

CM @ Risk
12%





Figure 4-2: Type of Contracting Arrangement, n=l 19

The survey questions also asked about the type of facility being constructed on the

project site. Projects included in this study were varied in that virtually all sectors of the

construction industry are represented (Figure 4-3, Target Safety Questionnaire,

Question 5). No particular segment of the construction industry dominated in the

representation of the surveys.


Residential
Other 8%
26%
Commercial
23%

Process Plant
3% Manufacturing

Infrastructure / 3%
9% \ Petrochemical
Civil Power 5%
5% 18%


Figure 4-3: Type of Facility, n=120









Respondents were asked about the type of labor conditions that existed on their

projects. The labor force could be union shop in which the workers are represented by a

labor union. An open shop is used to define arrangements whereby the workers are not

members of a labor union or that their union affiliation does not influence the

employer/employee relationship. The analysis of the data indicated that there was a fairly

even distribution of projects among union shops (43%), open shops (34%), and mixed

(23%). The projects described as "mixed" were those in which some employers were

signatory to labor agreements and some were not.

Safety Performance

Information was sought on the safety performance that was realized on the various

projects (questions 18 to 21). Safety performance is typically measured by TRIR. TRIR

is the total OSHA recordable injury rate. For 2003 (the most recent year for which data

are available) the industry average was 6.81. For sampled respondents in this study the

median TRIR was 0.0. A total of 51 projects in this study had a TRIR equal to zero. It is

evident that the TRIR of the survey participants was much better than the industry

average. The median number of lost time incidents was 0.0 while the median number of

first aid cases was 5.0. The median number of full time safety personnel was 1.0 (Table

4-5).

Table 4-5: Descriptive Information about Safety Performance

Case processing summary Mean Median Minimum Maximum
TRIR, n=102 2.41 0.0 0 35.86
51 projects had a TRIR=0
Lost Time Incident Rate, n= 114 0.87 0 0 16
78 projects had a LTIR=0
First Aid Incident Rate, n=113 25.5 11.0 0 400
18 projects had a FAIR=0
Full Time Safety Personnel (#), n=117 1.84 1.0 0 12
19 projects had zero FTSP









Safety performance in relation to established goals were: better (27%) and on target

(39%) while utilizing target safety programs (Table 4-6).

Table 4-6: Safety Performance in Relation to Goal, n = 118
Safety Performance in Relation to Goal Number % of Total
Better 32 27.1%
On Target 46 39.0%
Worse 26 22.0%
No Goals Were Set 7 5.9%
Do Not Know 7 5.9%


Target Programs

The purpose of this research was to answer a fundamental question, "How do

construction firms and projects develop, structure, and successfully implement effective

programs to prevent specific types of worker injuries or eliminate/reduce specific types of

hazards?" This study examined those practices of contractors that provided the greatest

success in addressing specific types of injuries or hazards. The practices were examined

with a specific focus on the procedures utilized to ensure success in program

implementation. For example, many programs were focused on the prevention of

specific injuries, such as back injuries, hearing loss, eye injuries, hand injuries, heat

exhaustion, etc. A variety of these focused safety programs were examined. Some

programs were focused on specific hazards, such as fall hazards. The programs that were

described varied in a number of ways, including the motivation to address the

injuries/hazards and the manner in which they were addressed. The study examined data

collected from construction firms that have devised specific programs to target specific

types of injuries/hazards, whether initiated at the corporate or project level.









Target safety programs are often untried and unproven efforts that are designed to

improve safety performance. As a result, smooth implementation is not assured. In fact,

there may even be barriers to successful implementation. The survey asked about such

problems with implementation. Major obstacles to implementation of specific target

safety programs were encountered on 59 % of the projects with target safety programs.

The obstacles were noted as follows:

* Resistance to Initiative or resistance to change (33.3%)
* Old School Mentality (14.3%)
* Enforcement Difficulties (11.9%)
* Difficulties in Training (9.5%)
* Language Barriers (4.8%)

Half of the target safety programs included in this study were initiated at the project

level while the others were initiated at the corporate level. See Table 4-7 for attributes of

target programs (Target Safety Questionnaire, Questions 28, 30, 31).

Worker involvement in the safety process is one of the most important aspects of

project safety. Many safety professionals have stated that most injuries are the result of

unsafe actions or behavior and that the unsafe conditions play a minor role. With such a

focus on the actions of workers as being the major cause of injuries, it would appear

prudent to take special notice of them. Perhaps the most significant innovations in

construction safety in recent years relate to means by which workers are involved in the

construction process. This is essentially based on the view that workers are not just a

valuable resource to be protected but also a resource that can contribute to achieve the

goal of zero accidents (Hinze 2002). While one would expect worker involvement in

program development to be associated with better safety performance, this was not

conclusion was not supported by the data (Target Safety Questionnaire, Question 29).










Table 4-7: Attributes of Target Programs
Source of Target Program
n=110
Developed from Scratch
Modified Existing Program
Used Existing Program as-is


Champion of Program Implemented
n=119
Corporate Level Individual
Corporate Level Individual
Consultant
Ad hoc Committee


Source of Guidance Program
n=117
Other Company Project
Owner
Insurance Carrier
Purchased One


Basic Steps to Implementation
n=116
Education & Training
Person Was Assigned to Implement
Promoted the Program
Combination of the three above


% of Total

37%
39%
24%


% of Total

46%
43%
8%
3%


% of Total

55%
24%
15%
6%


% of Total

1%
5%
13%
81%


Workers were involved in implementation 72% of the time while not being involved in
implementation 28 percent of the time (Figure 4-4, Target Safety Questionnaire, Question
32).
Management commitment for safety is essential to convey to others in the firm that

the costs, schedule, and quality do not take priority over safety. This can be

demonstrated in a variety of ways. The circumstances may dictate those means that are

perhaps most feasible. The motivation must be sincere and it must be conveyed to the

worker level (Hinze 2002). This motivation to develop the target safety programs tends










to come from different sources depending on the particular project, facility owner, or

contractor involved. As shown in Figure 4-5 (Target Safety Questionnaire, Question 27),

the motivation to develop the program came from various sources, including contractor

mandates (27%), owner mandates (24%), owner and corporate mandates (13%),

unacceptable numbers of injuries (21%), and other (15%).




No
28%





Yes
72%



Figure 4-4: Were Workers Involved in Implementation, n=112


Owner &
Corporate
Mandate
13%

Other
15%




Unacceptable #
injuries/record
21%


Contractor
Mandate
27%






Owner Mandate
24%


Figure 4-5: Motivation to Develop the Program, n= 118










The target safety programs described by respondents to the survey consisted of

numerous and varying accident countermeasures. The most dominant categories,

however, were that of falls and personal protective equipment (38% each). Fall

prevention programs were primarily focused on establishing a 100% tie-off for workers

working at elevations above six feet. Programs on personal protective equipment were

focused encouraging workers to wear protective equipment such as gloves, eyewear,

proper clothing, etc. Other target programs (Figure 4-6, Target Safety Questionnaire,

question 25) focused on:

* Training (12%),
* Drug programs(2%),
* Lock-out-tag-out(LOTO) (2%),
* Hot work(2%),
* Scaffolding(2%),
* Confined space(2%),
* Incentives (2%).




Scaffolding
Hot Work
2%0 \ 2% Confined Space
2 \2%
2 0
LOTO Incentive
2% 2% \
Drugs 2%
2%

Training I Falls
12% ... \38%


Figure 4-6: Focus of Target Program, n=120









Goals or metrics that were established to monitor the program success (Target

Safety Questionnaire, Question 34) include:

* Zero injuries
* Reduction in number of specific hazards/injuries including lacerations and back
injuries
* Corrective action summary
* Trend analysis
* Performance safety audits
* Documentation of unsafe acts with data

Formal documentation of the target safety plan (as a written policy or procedure)

occurred on 97 of the 115 projects that provided a response (Target Safety Questionnaire,

Question 36). Of these 97 projects, 40 agreed to furnish a copy of their target safety plan

for future study. Other additional comments given on a voluntary basis (Target Safety

Questionnaire, Question 37) about target safety programs were as follows:

* Enabled achievement of zero lost time injuries
* Contain detailed checks and balances that minimize injury frequency
* Transformed negative program of past into a successful program
* Beneficial for company and employees
* Designed by proactive contractor with a goal of setting a positive safety culture














CHAPTER 5
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Conclusions

The most important conclusion that can be drawn from this study is that the

achievement of zero injuries is a realistic goal. On many construction projects, safety has

become one of the most important emphasis areas and this is clearly demonstrated by the

innovative safety programs being implemented. Construction firms are realizing that

investments in safety do pay off. Costs associated with lost time injuries and job shut

downs as a result of safety mishaps are not covered by insurance. Construction industry

firms and managers of construction projects have embraced the zero injury objectives and

many have achieved this goal. This was clearly evidenced in this study as half of the

firms that implemented target safety programs had achieved an OSHA recordable injury

rate of zero.

Over a decade ago in 1993, many of the companies that led the ongoing efforts to

improve overall safety on the job site and reduce the number of injuries had implemented

the five basic high-impact zero accidents techniques (safety pre-task / pre-project

planning, orientation training, safety incentives, alcohol and substance abuse programs,

and accident investigations). A follow up report in 2002, reconfirmed the importance of

several safety methods and techniques employed by the construction industry. However,

many of high impact techniques are no longer being implemented in the manner as

reported in the 1993 report. The construction industry has matured in recent years and

the safety practices have become more proactive.









The 2002 research findings identified the following general areas of safety:

* Management commitment
* Staffing for safety
* Planning: pre-project and pre-task
* Safety education: orientation and specialized training
* Worker involvement
* Evaluation and recognition / reward
* Subcontract management
* Accident / incident investigations
* Drug and alcohol testing

The findings of this research indicate that implementation of various types of target

safety programs can be successful when initiated at the project or corporate level. This

study identified some methods being employed with particular effectiveness. To insure

success in regard to target safety programs workers must be involved in implementation.

Perhaps the biggest change in the past decade has been in the area of worker involvement

in the safety process. This is evidenced in the worker safety observation programs,

worker safety perception surveys, pre-task planning, safety committees, and other

programs that seek the direct input of workers to enhance project safety. It would seem

logical that workers also be involved in the development and implementation of target

safety programs.

This research did not specifically address the nine basic safety areas, but several of

them were still apparent in the study results. Top management commitment has often

been reported as being important to the safety agenda. Management must demonstrate its

commitment. This can be done in many ways and often relies on the ingenuity of the

firm along with a strong corporate commitment from its safety managers. Innovative

firms are also recognizing the importance of staffing their sites with safety personnel,

individuals who are viewed as valued resources by the site managers. Planning continues









to be an important aspect of project safety, with even greater emphasis being placed on

pre-task planning. In addition, if injuries occur countermeasures must be in place to

immediately identify hazards that enable managers to change or reduce worker exposure

through targeted safety programs. While accident investigations are conducted in a

similar manner as a decade ago, more firms are focusing on near misses, not waiting for

the occurrence of an injury- causing accident.

In the analysis of the data, an attempt was made to develop a priority rating of the

target safety attributes, but this effort provided no additional insights. It is clear that of

the effective target safety techniques, there is no "silver bullet." Of particular interest

was the finding that the success of targeted programs was not influenced by such

variables as size of project, duration of project, size of the workforce, type of labor

climate, etc. From this it can be concluded that a target safety program can be successful

in virtually any setting.

Recommendations

Although size was not a factor in the success of target safety programs in this

study, the larger construction companies have generally been the most aggressive firms in

pursuing the goal of zero accidents. Therefore, the safety record and the way safety is

structured in these firms are of considerable importance to the industry. Since the large

construction firms have made important strides toward improving construction safety, it

is important for these techniques to be considered by firms of all sizes. While some

techniques will not be implemented in exactly the same manner, the general intent of the

techniques will not be different. The strides made in the improvement in safety

performances are so significant that injury frequency levels that were once the goals of









firms have now become unacceptable levels of safety performance for many firms. Much

can be learned from these firms.

All company managers are encouraged to examine the research results and consider

means of implementing techniques that can prove successful in other settings. The

communication of management's commitment to safety is a simple task as that

commitment should be evident in the daily activities of management. Safety managers

should examine injury statistics to determine where target safety programs might be

appropriate. They should also examine the data collected through worker observations,

site inspections, or pre-task planning meetings to identify problem areas that warrant

targeting.

It is clear that efforts to improve safety performance should not be dormant.

Therefore it is suggested that this type of research be repeated periodically, perhaps every

few years. The wide dissemination of this type of information is also encouraged.

Ideally a clearinghouse of information will one day exist so that firms upon identifying a

hazard can view solutions as determined by other firms facing their same dilemma. The

study of implementing safety techniques should also extend to smaller firms. Small to

medium firms may find that safety is implemented differently than in large firms and on

large projects. In addition companies should track information so that they can easily

identify when they have a problem and can rapidly implement a target safety program

that minimizes exposure. Insights from such a research effort could be instrumental in

helping drive owners to play a stronger role in the effort to pursue zero injuries on

construction projects.






39


Further research is warranted to obtain more detailed information on the best means

of developing and implementing successful target programs. This information could be

obtained through a case study approach in which more details will be obtained.
















APPENDIX A
TARGET SAFETY QUESTIONNAIRE

General Project Information

1. Type of Respondent: [ contractor n 88 (74.6%)0 owner/client n=28 (23.7%), other=2 (1.7%)
2. Is the project owner a public agency or a private firm? D public works n=35 (31%)
D private n 78 (69%)
3. Location of project: D U.S. n=117 (98.3%) D Canada D Mexico
D South America n=1 (0.8%) D Europe n=1 (0.8%) D Asia D Asia Pacific
D Africa D Middle East
4. What type of project is this? D new n 74 (61.7%) D renovation n 19 (15.8%)
D maintenance n=3 (2.5%) D expansion n= 19 (15.8%) O other: n=5 (4.2%)
5. What type of facility is being constructed? D Residential n=9 (7.5%) D Commercial n=28 (23.3%)
D Manufacturing n=3 (2.5%) D Petrochemical n=6 (5%) D Power n=22 (18.3%)
D Civil n=6 (5%) D Infrastructure n=11 (9.2%) D Process Plant n=4 (3.3%)
D Other n=31 (25.8%)
6. Is this an open shop or union project? D open shop n=41 (34.2%) D union shop n=51 (42.5%)


D mixed/both n 28 (23.3%)


7. What is the estimated total cost of this project? $ million n=110 (range = $70,000-$2
8. What type of contracting arrangement is involved? D General Contract n=57 (47.9%)
D Multiple Primes n=9 (7.6%) D CM (agency) n=5 (4.2%) D CM @ risk n=12 (10.1%)
D Design-Build n=6 (5%) D Joint Venture n=5 (4.2%)
D Direct Hire (self perform) n=4 (3.4%)
D Other n=8 (6.7%), combination ofabove=17 (10.9%)
9. What type of contract is used on the project? ] Fixed Price (lump sum) n=100 (83.3%)
] Cost Plus n=11 (9.2%) ] Time and Materials n=9 (7.5%)
10. What is the expected project duration? months n=119 (mean=22.4 mo.)
11. When did construction work begin on this project? months ago n=115 (mean=12.9 mo.)

12. What is the current percent of completion (in terms of dollars spent)? %

n=110 (mean=57.4%)


Project Work Force and Subcontractors


13. What percent of the work is subcontracted to other firms?
14. How many subcontracts were written on this project?


_ % n118 (mean=57.8%)
n=111 (mean=21.9)


.5B)










15. Estimated total work hours (including subcontractors) for this project? hours n 95
(mean 827,232)


16. How many work hours (including subcontractors) have been expended to date?
hours
n 95(mean 416,078)
17. What percent of the site workers do not communicate well in English? % n=116 (mean=15.9%)
What practices/methods, if any, are employed to address the non-English speaking workers?



Project Safety Performance

18. To date, what is the total recordable injury rate (including subcontractors) on this project? n=102
(mean 2.41)
TRIR =
19. How does this safety performance compare with the originally established project safety goal?
D better n 32 (27.1%) O on target n=46 (39.0%) & worse n 26(22.0%)
D no safety goals were set n 7 (5.9%) 0 don't know n 7 (5.9)
20. How many lost time injuries (requiring days away from work) have occurred on this project?

21. Approximately how many first aid injuries have been sustained by workers on the project?
first aid injuries D don't know, no log is kept
22. Who provides the workers' compensation insurance on this construction project?
D Each firm provides their own n 79 (66.9%) D OCIP n=30 (25.4%) 0 CCIP n=9 (7.6%)
D PCIP D Not known
23. How many full-time safety personnel are assigned to this project?
Specific Safety Programs Project Level

24. Are there any safety programs that were implemented on this project to address
specific types of hazards or specific types of injuries?
1 yes n=120
D no n 105 (not included in analysis)

25. If yes, please name up to two notable programs that were implemented on this project
to address specific hazards or specific worker injuries? (for example, hand protection,
hearing conservation, heat/temperature extremes, back injuries, electrical contacts, eye
protection, etc.)
a) Figure 4-6 Focus of Target Program
b)


Of these, which program was most memorable?


NOTE: The following questions relate to this program.









26. Was this program initiated at the project level or by the corporate office?
1 project n=57 (47.9%) 1 corporate n=57 (47.9%), both=5 (4.2%)
*Who is a corporate-level contact familiar with the program?

27. What was the motivation to develop this program? (check all that apply)
D unacceptable number of specific injuries n=25 (21.2%)
D owner-required the program n=28 (23.7%)
D contractor mandate n=32 (27.1%)
D near miss record, observation data, hazard recognition n=15 (12. 7%)
O other n 18 (15.3%)


28. Who was in charge of developing this program?
D corporate-level individual: (title):
D project-level individual (title):
1 consultant n 6 (5.0%)
D ad hoc committee n=2 (1.7%)
D existing safety committee n=1 (0.8%)
O other n=41 (34.8%)
29.Were workers involved in the program development?

If yes, please describe:


n=36 (30.0%)
n=33 (27.7%)





yes n=36 (30.8%)
no n=81 (69.2%)


30. Were there some other programs (already developed) that helped set this one up?
i yes n=72 (62.6%) O non=43 (37.4%)
If yes, who provided them?
D other company project n=18 (29. 0%) commercially purchased n=2 (3.2%)
O other firm n 1 (1.6%) O owner provided n=8 (12.9%)
D insurance carrier n=5 (8.1%) O trade association n 1 (1.6%)
O other n=4 (6.5%) combination=23 (37.1%)


If yes, did you modify the program?


yes n=36 (62.1%)


D no, used as is n=22 (37.9%)
31. What steps were taken to implement the program in the field? (check all that apply)
D education and training: n=15 (12.9%)
D promoting the program: n=1 (0.9%)
D assigned responsible party to implement the program: n=6 (5.2%)
combination=94 (81.0%)


32. Were workers involved in the program implementation?


If yes, please describe:


yes n=81 (72.3%)
no n=31 (25.8%)









33. Was there any particular problem or obstacle that made it more difficult to develop or
implement the program? D yes n=46 (41.1%) D no n=66 (58.9%)
If yes, describe the problem/obstacle and how it was overcome:









34. What goals or metrics were established to monitor program success?
bullets located in Chapter 4


35. How effective has the program been? (check all that apply)
D measurable metrics or goals have been met or exceeded n=46 (39.7%)
D noticeable decline in the targeted injuries n=28 (24.1%)
D noticeable decline in at-risk behavior
I good acceptance of the program by workers n 7 (6.0%)
D general sense on the project that the program is doing well n=6 (5.2%)
O too early to evaluate n=3 (2.6%)
D no noticeable impact to date n 1 (0.9%)
O other (explain): n=25 (21.5%)

36. Is the program formally documented as a written policy or procedure?
Syes n=97 (84.3%)
1 no n=18 (15.7%)


If yes, can a copy of this document be obtained for this study?


yes n=40 (53.3%)


1 no n 35 (46. 7%

37. Please provide any other comments about this program you would like to share?
bullets located in Chapter 4







Programs Implemented on Past Projects

38. Can you recall any unique programs that were implemented on past projects that were
successful in reducing injuries? D yes n=49 (46. 7%) no n=56 (53.3%)
If yes, please describe the program briefly:






44








What were the measures of success for this program?



Possible Programs for Implementation on Future Projects

39. Can you think of any programs you would like to see implemented on this project or
on future projects? 1 yes n=31 (28.7%) 1 no n= 77 (71.3%)
If yes, please describe the program briefly:















APPENDIX B
COVER LETTER FOR PROJECT SAFETY PROGRAMS

August 5, 2004

To: Project Safety Manager

Subject: Survey about Specific Safety Programs

We, at the M. E. Rinker, Sr. School of Building Construction at the University of Florida, are
conducting a study on the implementation of specific safety programs. The focus of the study is
to gather information on how specific programs are initiated, how they are developed, how
obstacles are overcome, the extent that the workers are involved in the process, and how the
programs are implemented on construction projects. When possible, information is sought
regarding documented evidence of the extent of success of specific programs.

The survey questionnaire contains a variety of questions related to programs designed to address
specific types of injuries and specific types of hazards. Many of the questions can be answered
by simply checking the applicable answers. There are no risks associated with participating in
this study and the survey can be completed in about five to ten minutes. The expected benefits
are the eventual reduction in the incidence of construction worker injuries. Naturally, you are
asked to answer only those questions that you wish to answer. Your participation is voluntary
and you may withdraw your consent at anytime without penalty.

The results of this study will be compiled and a summary report will be prepared. As a token of
our appreciation for participating in the study, we will provide a copy of the summary report to
you at no charge. Should you have any questions please feel free to call me at the telephone
number provided below or contact me at the email address also shown.

Responses provided by specific firms will be kept strictly confidential to the extent provided by
law. Research data will be summarized so that the identity of individual participants will be
concealed. You have my sincere thanks for participating in the valuable study.

Yours truly,


Jimmie Hinze
Holland Professor, Director of Center for Construction Safety and Loss Control
Phone: (352) 273-1167 Fax: (352) 392-4537 Email: hinze@ufl.edu"

P.S. For information about participant rights, please contact the University of Florida Institutional
Review Board at (352) 392-0433 or Email: IRB2@ufl.edu















LIST OF REFERENCES

The Blue Book of Building and Construction (2004). Contractors Register, Inc.,
Jefferson Valley, NY. http://www.thebluebook.com/

CII Source Document 88, "Zero Accidents." A report To CII, Oct 1991.

Eich, William, "Safety Practices of Large Construction Firms", Master's Thesis,
University of Washington,Tacoma, 1996.

Hinze, Jimmie, CII Safety Plus: Making Zero Accidents A Reality," Research Report
160-11 March 2002.

Hinze, Jimmie and Wilson, Gary, "Moving Toward A Zero Injury Objective," Journal of
Construction Engineering and Management, ASCE, Vol. 126, No. 5,
September/October 2000.

Injury Facts. National Safety Council, Itasca, IL. 2001, 2002, 2003.

Occupational Hazards. "Bechtel Gets a Grip on Hand Protection." 2004.
http://www.occupationalhazards.com.

Occupational Health and Safety. "Intel's Hand Injury Success Story." Vol. 70, No. 9,
2002. http://www.ohsonline.com.

Occupational Health and Safety. "Safety Management or Business Management".
September 1997. http://www.ohsonline.com.

Occupational Health and Safety. "The Hidden Hazard of Protective Apparel." Vol. 71,
No. 1.1999. http://www.ohsonline.com.

Rosekind, Mark R., "Managing Fatigue in Operational Settings" Journal of Behavioral
Medicine, Vol. 21, Winter 1996 p157-165.

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Workplace Injuries and illnesses in 2002. Washington,
D.C: BLS. 2003. http://stats.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/osh.pdf

U.S. Department Of Labor Occupational Safety and Health Administration. 29CFR Part
1926 OSHA Construction Industry Regulations. 2004. http://www.osha.gov.















BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Michael Edward Madariaga grew up and spent much of his adult life in Raleigh,

North Carolina. He went on to receive a Bachelor of Science in Agricultural Business

Management from North Carolina State University (Raleigh) in December 2000. He

spent 3 years in commercial construction working for Bovis Lend Lease, before returning

to school to pursue a graduate degree. He has currently been fulfilling the requirements

for his Master of Science in Building Construction at the University of Florida. Upon

graduating in August 2005, he will begin his residential home building career in

southwest Florida.