Transcript Slide 1

Loss Prevention Presentation
09-10 Mid-Year
Hettrick, Cyr & Associates Inc.
East Hartford, CT
www.hettrickcyr.com
Random Audit Program

Increased to three inspection days per calendar
month by HC&A.

Scorecard created for each inspection.
○ Scores below 80 or “Not in Compliance” with fall protection
require a written response from owner.

Presentation reviews
○ Overall Jobsite Scores & Averages
○ Review of Fall Protection Compliance
○ Examples of “Not in Compliance” Findings
○ Summary & Recommendations
Ba
rre
tt (
3)
Ca
no
py
Co
(2)
ns
.C
ol l
.(4
)
Da
yc
o(3
)
Ea
gle
(5)
Fu
rey
(5)
Gi
lbe
rt(
4)
Go
rm
an
(2
Kle
in(
2)
Je
rse
y( 1
Sp
)
rag
ue
(3)
Ma
rsh
all
(4)
Mc
Ke
nn
NE
a( 4
Ma
)
so
nry
(1)
R&
S(
2)
Ru
ss
ell
(3)
SR
C(
2)
Ch
aff
ee
(1)
Te
ch
( 3)
Bo
stw
ick
( 3)
Random Audit – Year One
July 2007 - April 2008 / 56 Total Inspections)
100
80
98
90
87
81
90
93
94
97
NERI Member
95
96
91
95
95
86
88
79
74
Captive Average 89
97
82
85
75
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Ba
rre
tt (
5)
Ca
no
py
(3)
Da
yc
o(2
)
Ea
gle
(3)
Fu
rey
(2)
Gi
lbe
rt(
5)
Go
rm
an
(6
Kle
in(
3)
Je
rse
y( 4
Sp
)
rag
ue
(3)
Ma
rsh
all
Mc
(3)
Ke
nn
NE
a( 2
Ma
)
so
nry
(4)
Pfi
ste
r(3
)
R&
S(
6)
Ru
ss
ell
(6)
SR
C(
2)
Ch
aff
ee
(2)
Te
ch
( 2)
We
sta
r( 3
Bo
)
stw
ick
( 4)
Random Audit – Year Two
May 2008 - April 2009 / 73 Total Inspections)
100
90
98
94
87
93
92
93
94
86
88
80
NERI Member
89
92
86
95
100
87
89
Captive Average 90
97
90
94
85
79
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Ba
rre
tt (
Ca
5)
no
py
Da (1)
yc
o
Ea (1)
gle
Fa (6)
nia
Fu (2)
rey
(3
Gi
lbe )
rt(
Go
r m 5)
an
(
Kle 3)
in(
2)
Je
rs
Sp
rag ey
Ma ue(2
)
rsh
all
(2
Me
t ca )
Mc
lf( 2
NE Kenn )
a
Ma
so ( 1)
nr
Pfi
stM y(4)
Pfi aint (
2)
stE
ne
r( 1
R& )
Ru S(3)
ss
ell
(2
SR )
Ch C(4
)
aff
ee
(
Te 2)
ch
We ( 3)
Bo star(
3)
stw
ick
( 3)
Random Audits – Year Three
May 2009 – January 6, 2010 / 62 Total Inspections
100
90
99 100
99
95
84
96
93
92
80
NERI Member
95
96
100 100
97
92
97
99
94
Captive Average 93.2
93
98
87
90
81
76
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Three years of consistent
improvement!!
Year 1 Average Score = 89
 Year 2 Average Score = 90
 Year 3 Average Score = 93.2

Scores are consistent with HC&A opinion of
NERI jobsite performance. We have seen
marketable improvement since year one.
Fall Protection Compliance
A review of 96 NERI Scorecard Reports
*Conducted in October 2008
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
49
Compliant
47
Non-Compliant
-
After 1.5 years of inspections, nearly 50% of all projects working in the
captive were found non-compliant for fall protection.
-
Reducing this percentage should be our #1 loss prevention goal.
Fall Protection Compliance
A review of 93 roofing jobsites since “compliant / noncompliant” element was created (November 1, 2009)
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
73
20
Compliant
Non-Compliant
-
Since November 2009, approximately 19% of jobsites inspected have had fall
protection concerns.
-
Significant improvement, but room for improvement still exists. Just under one in
five jobs presently are found “not in compliance” with fall protection requirements.
What are “not in compliance” projects?
Warning lines were not 6’+ away from the roof edge on the right, and with
the use of mechanical equipment 10’+ was required on the left. In
addition, caution tape was used on the left instead of actual flagging.
Tape does not have the required breaking strength.
Not In Compliance
Safety Monitor installing plates
rather than monitor employees.
Employees wearing fall equipment
for show. When they went to work
on the metal edging, they did not
anchor to anything.
Not In Compliance
3:12 pitch, no warning lines or fall
protection. Foreman arrived in
morning, stated first day on job and
didn’t bring flagging thinking it was
on the job already. Knew he needed
it after arriving but made no effort to
obtain it and put employees to work.
Employees working directly next to
skylights (notice gang box location).
Skylights not protected.
Not In Compliance
Crew doing a great job with safety monitor, however monitors
are not permissible at hoist areas. The hot draw pipe is
considered a hoist area. Guardrail or tie-off is necessary.
Not In Compliance
Warning lines moved too close to
the edge.
No fall protection. Absolutely
unacceptable in this program.
Not In Compliance
Failure to inspect equipment.
Not In Compliance
Not enough fasteners in the roof
anchor.
Lifeline set up in a manner which
created significant swing fall hazard.
Random Audit Summary
1. Random Audits scores have been improving
-
Many foreman tell HC&A they operate now knowing they
could be subject to an inspection at anytime.
-
Increased frequency of inspections has helped push awareness.
2. Fall protection has been much improved
-
Scorecard criteria and requirement for ownership to respond in
writing to “not in compliance” jobsites has helped to ensure change
is made.
3. Room for additional improvement exists
Recommendations for Improvement
1.
Raise requirement for written response from a
score of an 80 to 90. The 80 score serves no
purpose.


2.
3.
Extremely difficult to get below an 80 w/o fall violations.
If there are fall violations, a written response is already
required.
Set a captive goal of a 90 for end year scores.
Those below 90 are ineligible for NERI Recognition
Awards.
Improve in-house Documented Jobsite Inspection &
Progressive Disciplinary Programs. Vast majority of
fall violations are related to employee misconduct.
NERI Safety Excellence Recognition
Award Program

LCC has developed a Safety Excellence Recognition Award which
will be awarded to the top five (5) performing members on a yearly
basis.

Award criteria is based on five items of which companies are ranked
by performance in each;
○ Members below their respective Loss Pick
○ MUST HAVE AVERAGE RANDOM AUDIT SCORE OF 90 OR GREATER
○ Number of benchmarks at or below the goal
○ Highest percentage of fall compliant jobsites
○ Highest jobsite average scores
○ Number of SSOP’s in compliance with

Award final scores tallied at the end of July, which allows three
months for claim reporting & development for benchmarking purposes

Awards will be given during the October meetings.
2008/2009 Policy Year
Recognition Award Final
Standings
POINTS:
Jobsite
Avg.
Score
POINT:
SSOP
Comp.
POINTS:
Benchmarks
Below Goal
POINTS:
Highest %
of FallCompliant
Sites
TOTAL POINTS
COMPANY NAME
S.R.C. Roofing
19
11
19.5
13.5
63
Canopy Roofing
17
11
19.5
13.5
61
Furey Roofing
14.5
11
19.5
13.5
58.5
C.G. Bostwick
17
11
16.5
13.5
58
Westar Roofing
21
11
10
13.5
55.5
NERI SSOP Compliance Audit Process
SSOP Compliance Audit Timeline
 HC&A to
begin SSOP compliance audits
in November 2009.
 SSOP
compliance audits to be
completed by the end of March 2010.
SSOP Audit Process
 Comprehensive
review of all NERI SSOP’s
will be conducted for each member.
 In
remaining time, HC&A will conduct as
additional jobsite inspections for the company
being audited.
 A comprehensive
each member.
report will be completed for
Standard Safety Operating Procedures
Compliance (audit period May-October 2008)
20
20
15
10
5
1
0
In Compliance with
all SSOPs
Not in Full
Compliance
Compliance Review 1 yr post SSOP Adoption
Items initial SSOP Audit found NIC
Total of 80 NIC items
12
Pe nalty Pt. Syste m
11
11
Re gulatory Training
Site Inspe ction Program
10
MVR Che cks
8
Ne w-Hire Training
7
Safe ty Comm.
6
Comp. Drug Te st
4
4
Tool Box Talks
Pre -Existing Dam.
3
Council/Discipline
2
Acc. Inve st.
1
1
1
FRI
Criminal Re c.
O SHA 10-Hour
0
5
10
Number of Companies
15
Formula to determine captive compliance percentage:
# of Not In Compliance Findings Each Year
(# of Members X Total # of SSOPs)
08/09 SSOP Comp. Audit:
1. 21 members X 20 SSOPs = 420
2. 80 Not In Compliance Items
3. 80 / 420 = 19% Not in Compliance
4. 100 – 19 = 81% Compliance
100
90
81
80
70
60
50
2008/2009
Overall Compliance with SSOPs
Much better results are expected
for year two!

While we don’t anticipate all members
being in full compliance, we do
anticipate better performance.

HC&A hopes are to see overall
compliance exceed 90%.
HC&A Future Captive Agenda

HC&A has hesitated in recent months to propose many
new changes to our current structure for two reasons;
1.
2.

Concerns that some felt the current SSOP’s were still being melded
into each company. “Too much, too soon” was a worry.
Current economic situation.
While timing may still not be right, HC&A is
recommending the following items be considered;
1.
Defensive Driving (once every two years for listed drivers)
 Pro-active vs. Re-active.
2.
Improved Educational Program
 Implementation of Captive Tool Box Talk Program
 Increased length of Safety Representative Meetings
QUESTIONS??