best practices for health and safety technology transfer in construction

SYMPOSIUM REPORT
BEST PRACTICES FOR HEALTH
AND SAFETY TECHNOLOGY
TRANSFER IN CONSTRUCTION

TABLE OF CONTENTS
3 Executive Summary
4 Introduction
5 Featured Panelists and Highlighted Case Studies Descriptions
8 Themes
17 Recommendations
18 Conclusion
18 References
CPWR is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit research and training institution created by the Building and Construction
Trades Department, AFL-CIO, and serves as the research arm of the BCTD. CPWR is uniquely situated to
serve workers, contractors, and the scientific community. A major CPWR activity is to improve safety and
health in the construction industry.
The Best Practices for Health and Safety Technology Transfer in Construction Symposium and this
Symposium Report were made possible by grant number U60-OH009762 from the National Institute of
Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). Its contents are solely the responsibility of the authors and do
not necessarily represent the official views of NIOSH.

BEST PRACTICES FOR HEALTH
AND SAFETY TECHNOLOGY
TRANSFER IN CONSTRUCTION
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Construction work continues to be among the most hazardous occupations in the United States.
In 2010, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that nearly 800 workers in construction-related
fields lost their lives at work. The construction industry also continued to face an injury and
illness rate of 4 reported cases per 100 workers.
CPWR – The Center for Construction Research and Training (CPWR) launched an initiative in
2010 to help ensure that research is applied to address the serious hazards in this industry. A
first step in this “research to practice” initiative was a strategic review and “triage” of completed
CPWR research to identify priority follow-up issues. Through this process, the issue of tech
transfer challenges was identified.
In some cases new health and safety technologies and practices have been successfully
introduced into the marketplace to prevent work-related injuries, illnesses, and fatalities. Still,
there are many barriers to the introduction, commercialization, and diffusion of health and
safety technologies into construction-related workplaces.
In order to better understand the conditions that support and promote the successful diffusion
of health and safety technologies across the construction industry, CPWR organized and hosted
a symposium entitled Best Practices for Health and Safety Technology Transfer in Construction
held on May 30-31, 2012 at the Double Tree Hotel in Silver Spring, Maryland.
The event invited representatives from academia, government, manufacturing, contractor
associations, labor, and the insurance industry to engage in a dialogue focused on identifying
barriers, challenges, and strategic approaches to promoting the increased introduction,
commercialization, and diffusion of health and safety technologies across the construction
industry. Participants were provided a white paper based on a review of the technology transfer
literature, as well as case studies in advance of the symposium.
The symposium kicked off with a poster session acquainting participants with a series of case
studies describing efforts to introduce new health and safety technologies to the construction
industry. This was followed by a panel discussion of these case studies. Subsequent breakout
sessions allowed attendees to share their own thoughts, experiences, and recommendations
related to health and safety technology transfer in construction. Breakout groups reported back
SYMPOSIUM REPORT
| 3
Best Practices for Health and Safety Technology Transfer in Construction

to the larger group of participants on potential strategies to overcome barriers to health and
safety technology transfer in construction.
The following seven recommendations came out of the meeting:
1. Develop and test a “road map” for
technology transfer.
2. Develop and support the testing of a
business case model.
3. Develop additional, more in-depth, case
studies to capture the lessons from each
phase of the program from development,
testing, manufacturing, marketing, and
diffusion.
4. Develop a guide specifically for
occupational safety and health researchers
on patenting and licensing.
5. Improve communication between
researchers and manufacturers.
6. Look into funding sources that can support
the full work that needs to be done to
bring a product into use.
7. Review European certification systems for
engineering equipment.
CPWR committed to support programs for improved safety and health technology transfer in the
construction industry.
4 |
INTRODUCTION
Construction work is still among the most dangerous areas of work in the United States.
Technology transfer, or the process of converting scientific and technological advances into
marketable goods (or services), is one method that has been identified to address construction
workplace hazards. Indeed, the development, introduction, and commercialization of new
health and safety technologies have, in some cases, successfully addressed hazards related to
construction work sites. Noise reduction devices, proximity alert systems, and strain reducing
tools such as the overhead drill are among the examples of technologies that have been
successfully introduced to address safety and health concerns related to construction work.
However, while these tools and technologies work, they are not in widespread use and most
faced difficulties getting into the marketplace at all.
Technology transfer of health and safety innovations has been limited by an array of barriers and
challenges. Much of the difficulty that emerges can arguably be attributed to the fact that the
environment in which technology transfer takes place involves a complex landscape of various
actors with differing motivations and goals. Moreover, the technology transfer environment
related to health and safety presents especially unique challenges, since—at least on a large
scale— employers and management have not traditionally viewed voluntary investments in
health and safety improvements as a primary component to meeting their fiscal goals.
A more comprehensive understanding of the health and safety technology transfer landscape,
the various actors, and their motivations and goals will help to foster increased successful
commercialization and diffusion of health and safety innovations.
Best Practices for Health and Safety Technology Transfer in Construction

FEATURED PANELISTS AND HIGHLIGHTED CASE
STUDIES DESCRIPTIONS
The Best Practices for Health and Safety Technology Transfer in Construction
symposium featured 7 panelists who headed research projects to introduce,
commercialize, and diffuse new health and safety technologies in construction. The
case studies were selected to provide symposium participants with background on
key issues in technology transfer. In order to illustrate the full range of issues involved
in technology transfer, organizers showcased a mix of projects that have reached
transfer success, those still in progress and those facing significant challenges. The
case studies consisted of the following:
Residential Construction Safety Rail System
Dr. Thomas Bobick, Research Safety Engineer, NIOSH – Division of Safety Research
Driven by the prevalence of fatalities and severe injuries caused by workers falling
through roof and floor openings, and existing skylights, the National Institute of
Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) worked with residential carpenters to develop
a multi-functional guardrail system that could be used in numerous work situations to
prevent workers from falling to lower levels. [Transfer in progress]
The Asphalt Partnership
Gary Fore, TRIAD EH&S, The Asphalt Partnership
In the midst of a growing concern over asphalt paving workers’ exposure to toxic asphalt
fumes, stakeholders came together to form the Asphalt Paving Partnership. The Asphalt
Paving Partnership provides a model of how partnerships can play a powerful role in
preventing worker injury and illness. The partnership helped to develop and embrace an
innovative, collaborative approach to reducing worker exposure to asphalt fumes and
achieved the universal voluntary adoption of controls on all new highway class pavers.
Building on its initial success, the partnership continued to pursue other health and safety
efforts including the warm-mix initiative which continued to address exposure to fumes
by reducing emissions at the source. [Transfer success]
| 5
Best Practices for Health and Safety Technology Transfer in Construction

Integrating Health and Safety into Project Management Software
Dr. Jim Platner, CPWR – Center for Construction Research and Training
Critical path management (CPM) software is used for project scheduling on virtually all
medium-to-large construction projects. Although good scheduling has been shown to
correlate with improved safety, no existing CPM software directly incorporated safety
interventions or equipment into the schedule. This effort aimed to develop a software
technology that would help to identify worker safety risks in construction project
scheduling, and assist in making adjustments to promote safer conditions for workers.
[Transfer challenge]
Successes in Research to Practice from the NIOSH Office of Mine Safety and
Health Research
Robert F. Randolph, NIOSH
The Office of Mine Safety and Health Research (OMSHR) has established world-class
research and development capabilities for every major health and safety hazard in mining.
Just as important is the Office’s research to practice (r2p) initiative that facilitates the
transition of technologies from scientific concepts to laboratory prototypes and, finally,
to products and solutions miners use every day. The Office’s efforts have led to a series
of devices that make machines quieter, identify hazardous dust, improve communication
throughout the mine during emergencies, and render potentially explosive atmospheres
safely inert. [Transfer success]
6 |
Inverted Drill Press
Dr. David Rempel, University of California San Francisco
Drilling overhead into a concrete or metal ceiling is punishing work. Construction workers
who frequently perform this task with conventional tools often suffer soft tissue injuries
in the hands, arms, shoulders, and backs. Data compiled shows that the Inverted Drill
Press reduces force to the body by 90 percent, and diminishes fatigue in the neck,
shoulders, hands, arms, lower back, and legs. Additional benefits include decreased
injuries from falls by allowing workers to perform all tasks from ground level, reduced
exposure to silica dust due to the dust collection feature, and potential increases in
productivity. [Transfer success]
Best Practices for Health and Safety Technology Transfer in Construction

Business Case for Implementation Battery-powered Tools for Electric Utility
Workers
Patricia Seeley, Ergonomics Solutions LLC
Common tasks performed by overhead and underground line workers in the electric
power industry often involve the use of manual tools that increase worker injuries and
can decrease worker productivity. Research shows that a quantitative business case that
supports ergonomic recommendations can be a valuable tool to encourage intervention
adoption. [Transfer success]
Autonomous Pro-Active Real-Time Construction Worker and Equipment
Operator Proximity Safety Alert System
Dr. Jochen Teizer, School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology
Typical construction environments are comprised of multiple resources such as
construction personnel, equipment, and materials. A hazardous situation can exist when
heavy construction equipment is operating in close proximity to ground workers. Statistics
specific to proximity issues in construction demonstrate that current safety practices in
construction are insufficient.
The Equipment and Personal Protection Units (EPU and PPU) prototype – a real-time
proximity detection and warning system – has proven capable of alerting construction
personnel and equipment operators during hazardous proximity situations. It also includes
features which allow it to record valuable information about the frequency of proximity
issues at individual sites. [Transfer in progress]
(Note: Full case studies are available on the CPWR Technology Transfer Symposium
website.)
| 7
Best Practices for Health and Safety Technology Transfer in Construction

THEMES
Seven areas emerged as key themes from the Best Practices for Health and Safety Technology
Transfer in Construction Symposium.
1. Identify and involve stakeholders
2. Make the business case
3. Test for usability
4. Understand the pros and cons of patenting and licensing
5. Be prepared for a long-term commitment
6. Consider construction industry culture
7. Consider external factors
8 |
1. Identify and involve stakeholders
Efforts to advance health and safety technology transfer should involve all stakeholders
from the beginning. The symposium participants generally agreed that early and consistent
involvement of multiple stakeholders from various types of organizations is essential to the
successful adoption of new health and safety technologies. Researchers, manufacturers,
insurance companies, contractors, workers, labor unions, and relevant government
agencies were identified as some of the groups that should be considered for involvement
in the process.
The Residential Construction Safety Rail System and Inverted Drill Press case studies
demonstrate that early stakeholder engagement helps to create an active feedback
mechanism to ensure that the technology design addresses barriers to adoption and usability
problems early in the development process. In the case of the Safety Rail System, input from
contractors and workers generated design modifications that led to several versions of the
tool that address special roof conditions workers face in the field. With regard to the Inverted
Drill Press, stakeholder engagement allowed more than 100 workers to test the usability
of prototypes and make suggestions for design improvements. The Inverted Drill Press
experienced 5 iterations before the current, vastly superior design emerged.
In discussing the Asphalt Partnership, Gary Fore emphasized the importance of including
diverse stakeholders expected to be impacted by the introduction of the new technology
innovation early in the development processes. Fore acknowledged that competing interests
among diverse stakeholders can pose challenges. He noted that the stakeholder partners
must be able to agree on, and commit to, a common mission to address the specific health
and safety issue at hand. Other lessons of the Asphalt Partnership related to stakeholder
involvement include the need to “agree to disagree” about contentious outside issues,
emphasizing openness, transparency, and trust and paying attention to relationship building
and group dynamics. 1
1 For more information about the Asphalt Partnership, see CPWR – The Center for Construction Research and
Training, The Asphalt Case Study Summary Report, 2012.
Best Practices for Health and Safety Technology Transfer in Construction

Symposium participants noted that the identification of the “right partners” is a critical
component of involving stakeholders in the processes of technology development and
commercialization. Robert Randolph of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and
Health (NIOSH) Office of Mine Safety and Health Research (OMSHR) introduced a model for
identifying the right partners.
Randolph noted that the OMSHR begins by identifying all of the stakeholders that could
potentially be affected by the introduction of the prospective new technology. OMSHR utilizes
face-to-face networking opportunities to gauge an organization’s interest and commitment to
addressing the health and safety concern. OMSHR assesses candidates to determine if they
possess the characteristics and capacities desired in a partner (e.g., problem-solving skills,
and ample research and development resources). If the candidate organization is deemed
to be a fitting partner, OMSHR develops a proposal for partnership and presents it to the
organization. Randolph emphasized that the process of identifying the right partners requires
an awareness and understanding of the issues that cause a specific organization concern
or grief, and a customer service approach that acknowledges the importance of addressing
these issues as a part of resolving the overall health and safety concern. The Asphalt
Partnership case study also revealed that successful stakeholder partnerships require the
establishment of a clearly defined mission focused on win-win outcomes. Furthermore, it was
noted that who the right partners are may vary depending on the technology.
Academic studies support the perspective that early and consistent involvement of multiple
stakeholders is essential to the successful adoption of new health and safety technologies.
Johnson, Gatz, and Hicks (1997) found that early and regular contact with end users can
help to overcome the social, political, economic, personal or cultural barriers to technology
transfer. Reinke and Smith (2010) adds that close interaction between stakeholders during
the “development, testing and refinement of noise controls” helps to address stakeholder
needs and helps to provide the industry with “faster access to new controls.” Raesfeld (2000)
points out that successful technology transfer in construction requires the involvement of
“those who develop, those who build, those who regulate, and those who use a technology.”
Lastly, Debackere, Leuven and Veugelers (2005) notes that technology transfer is “strongly
influenced by the character and the intensity of the interactions and learning processes
among producers, users, suppliers and public authorities.”
2. Make the business case
Symposium participants commented that uncertainty about return on investment makes
up a significant portion of manufacturer and contractor concerns about adopting a specific
tool. There was a general concurrence that business case studies that demonstrate the
organizational viability and financial benefits of adopting specific safety technologies can
influence management decisions to adopt specific tools. A business case can focus on labor
and materials costs saved, and the time involved to get a return on investment. These cases
can be made by using field trials of products with productivity and health benefits measured.
The Business Case for Implementing Battery-Powered Tools case study served as an
example of how the business case can be used to promote the adoption of health and safety
| 9
Best Practices for Health and Safety Technology Transfer in Construction

10 |
technologies. The case study notes that the lack of a quantitative business case to support
ergonomic recommendations is a frequent reason for non-adoption of interventions. Further,
the case study reveals how data collected pertaining to the association between the adoption
of battery-powered tools and increases in electric utility worker productivity was compiled
and presented to management; ultimately persuading management to make significant
investments in the safer tools. Data gathered during usability and field testing can be used to
make the business case for the new tool or technology.
Although, the other case studies did not specifically mention using a business case approach,
per se, many of the case study panelists noted the value of collecting and using quantitative
data to illustrate positive returns on investment associated with adopting specific tools to
contractors and other end users.
The case study on the Inverted Drill Press mentions productivity testing along with usability
testing. Results of productivity testing can be used to make the business case for adoption.
The Proximity Detector case study discussed the necessity of developing a cost-benefit
analysis as part of the implementation strategy for the device. In addition, symposium
participants noted that the business case should consider including information on the
marketability of a product. The group also raised the idea of using students in the universities’
business schools to develop the business case and do market research for new products.
Participants noted that industry managers are not likely to adopt a new solution based
on injury data and research. They need to see return on investment and a focus on cost,
productivity, quality, and safety. The big manufacturers must be able to project sales in the
tens of thousands of pieces. Smaller niche manufacturers may be better suited for products
that won’t serve a large market.
Literature on the topic of health and safety technology transfer substantiates the position
that private firms are more inclined to adopt a tool when the organizational viability and
financial benefits are clearly illustrated. Entzel, Albers, and Welch (2007) observe that new
technologies addressing musculoskeletal disorders among masons are more quickly adopted
when they clearly demonstrate “financial savings in the form of increased productivity,
decreased labor costs, or reduced workers’ compensation costs.” The authors note the need
for “cost-benefit and return-on-investment analysis to highlight productivity and financial
gains that may be achieved by implementing seemingly cost-prohibitive interventions.”
Similar findings relating to the importance of demonstrating the organizational and financial
practicability related to adopting construction-related health and safety technologies are also
noted in Stout and Linn (2002), Johnson et al. (1997), Rogers (1995), and Pursell (1993).
Other studies, including DeSimmone and Mitchell (2010) and Hasle and Limborg (2006), point
out that small companies operate under different conditions and resource constraints than
their larger counterparts. For example, a literature review by Hasle and Limborg found the
need to take limited economic and human resources into account when trying to work with
small businesses, and the need to disseminate solutions through personal contact. They also
found that small businesses may have a better psychosocial work environment but that the
environment is likely to be dependent on the owner’s behavior. These conditions contribute
Best Practices for Health and Safety Technology Transfer in Construction

to a unique culture that impacts decisions made related to health and safety. This research
suggests these and other unique circumstances need to be taken into consideration in the
development of a business case.
On the topic of marketability, an August 2012 study conducted by Boh, et. al., entitled
University Technology Transfer Through Entrepreneurship: Faculty and Students in Spinoffs
found that “graduate and post-doctoral students are critical participants in university
commercialization efforts” (Virtual Strategy Magazine, 2012). The study reveals that
mechanisms such as entrepreneur education, class assignments, mentoring programs, and
business plan competitions help universities to engage students to help develop “business
plans and create roadmaps for the commercialization of university technologies” without
high costs for the university or the students (Kauffman Foundation, 2012).
3. Test for usability
Usability testing helps to identify and address prototype concerns, and ensure that tools
work as desired. Several of the case studies highlighted the importance of usability testing
via laboratory and/or field-testing as an essential component to increase the success of
tool adoption, and group discussion supported the idea that usability testing is an essential
element of technology transfer. The discussion also revealed that there are many bad
tools being marketed and a history of tools that don’t work. This history has made some
contractors wary of new tools that are promoted as ergonomic or safer.
Tom Bobick (NIOSH) noted that having access to a testing facility where rail system
prototypes could be tested in real-life scenarios by contractors and workers played a
substantial role in identifying safety rail design concerns early on in his Residential
Construction Safety Rail System. This ultimately resulted in the development of several
design offshoots to meet worker needs related to various specific roofing conditions.
David Rempel noted a similar experience in the development of the Inverted Drill Press.
Rempel shared that approximately 100 workers (at 80 sites and by 30 contractors) fieldtested
prototype models of the tool and provided valuable feedback that resulted in 5 design
adjustments, greatly improving the usability and productivity of the tool. The process allowed
construction workers, who will ultimately end up using the tool, to recommend design
features.
The case study focusing on battery-powered tools for electric utility workers unveiled that
adopting new tools can involve unsettling changes in the way tasks are performed. These
changes can impact work organization and workplace culture, and can sometimes conflict
with competing demands (e.g., productivity). Trisha Seeley and other participants noted
that the tools that experience the greatest rates of adoption are those that do not depart
radically from current ways of performing tasks, and/or do not negatively impact worker
productivity. Seeley echoed the sentiments of Bobick and Rempel that field-testing prior
to commercialization helps to ensure that a tool works as desired; thus supporting the
likelihood of widespread adoption. In response to this, the group noted the importance of
demonstrating that the tool will hold up over time and does the task as intended.
| 11
Best Practices for Health and Safety Technology Transfer in Construction

12 |
It is particularly important to ensure that the right people are identified to test the tool/
technology and to be able to demonstrate through testing that worker productivity does not
suffer as a result of the tool’s use. Furthermore, the products must not be promoted until
they have been tested and proven to perform as desired. During both the group discussion
and the breakout sessions, the importance of using union training centers as labs to evaluate
usability and productivity was raised. Union training centers provide hands-on and classroom
training to apprentices and journeymen. One breakout group participant noted that it is
crucial to have the tool representatives go to the training facilities and show the workers how
the tools are supposed to be used. Then the workers can use them and provide feedback.
Another participant encouraged field testing, noting that it is essentially a “free sample” and
gets new products into the hands of workers.
Testing may also be done in simulated circumstances, as in the example provided by Jochen
Teizer in the Proximity Safety Alert System case study. His experiments simulated a typical
construction environment to test the proximity detection devices prior to testing the device
in the field with equipment operators. These experiments led the researcher to conclude that
other parameters and potential influences on the system should be evaluated. These include
the effects of temperature, humidity, and precipitation; mounting positions of the devices on
workers and equipment; and workers’ reaction to using the devices, including the extent to
which the weight of the device impacts their ability to perform tasks.
Other participants pointed to the European Union’s approach to certification of tools as a
model for usability testing. The European Standard specifies a test bench method for the
measurement of the emission rate of a given airborne hazardous substance from machines
using a test bench under specified operating conditions of the machine. The measurement
of the emission rates of any air contaminant, such as silica, can serve to: a) evaluate the
performance of a machine; b) evaluate the reduction of pollutant emissions of the machine;
c) compare machines within groups of machines with the same intended use (groups are
defined by the function and materials processed); d) rank machines from the same group
according to their emission rates; e) determine the state of the art of machines with respect to
their emission rates.
Bob Randolph gave an example of a magnetic mining tool that had worked during
computer simulations. The simulations led to the development of a prototype, yet once
the prototype was tested by users it failed. The users were able to provide feedback for
improvement. He warned of talking about a “great idea” before it is tested and noted that
word of failure can go viral.
The importance of usability testing is also supported by research. Studies such as Farooqui,
Ahmed, Panthi, and Azhar (2009) demonstrate that end users tend to abandon tools
that cause discomfort, impede productivity, and/or negatively affect work quality. Other
studies including Raesfeld (2002) and Johnson et al. (1997) show the early and continuous
involvement of “end users” in the development of new technologies is essential to ensuring
that the new tools adequately consider the concerns of the workers and to promoting greater
rates of adoption.
Best Practices for Health and Safety Technology Transfer in Construction

4. Understand the pros and cons of patenting and licensing
The symposium produced a rich discussion on intellectual property (IP) issues relating to
new health and safety technologies. Participants noted that university and government
technology transfer offices often prioritize securing intellectual property over goals of
spurring safety innovation. This strong emphasis on securing intellectual property can delay
commercialization.
The Residential Safety Rail System case study illustrates the rigorous and lengthy nature
of the patenting and licensing process. Moreover, it reveals that licensing agreements with
manufacturers to commercialize the tool can raise other challenges to getting the safer
product into use. The design for the Safety Rail System had to undergo a thorough evaluation
to determine whether or not a patent would be pursued by NIOSH. Once the decision was
made to pursue a patent, it took four years before the patent was finally issued. An exclusive
licensing agreement was established with a manufacturer, but challenging economic
times caused the manufacturer to delay production. Recently, the licensing agreement was
amended to a nonexclusive status. Other manufacturers have now started to explore the
opportunity to produce the tool. Bobick commented that, while he is proud of the patent,
the process contributed to complications that have delayed the introduction of the Safety
Rail System into the marketplace. He suggested, in some cases, it may be better to consider
giving the design information away for free to promote quicker introduction of safety
technologies into the marketplace.
David Rempel added that health and safety tools already face a challenge with the common
perception that tools of this nature do not necessarily translate into large profits for investors.
Rempel agreed that patents can create an additional barrier to commercialization.
Other symposium participants expressed disagreement with Bobick and Rempel. A
participant noted that companies prefer patents because they provide protection from
competition for a limited time. Without exclusive rights to produce the product, the cost
and risk associated with making the tool are higher. Another participant commented that
patents offer acknowledgement to inventors for their contributions to society. However,
other participants noted that acknowledgement can be achieved through publication
instead of a patent.
Symposium participants generally agreed that researchers would benefit from a more
thorough understanding of intellectual property, and the pros and cons of patenting and
licensing. They should use this understanding to work more effectively with manufacturers to
increase health and safety technology transfer.
Studies also reveal the need for researchers to gain a greater understanding of intellectual
property, and patenting and licensing issues. Speser (2011) notes, “deals between research
institutions and companies or venture capitalists involve transactions between people
who live within different cultural frameworks.” Universities, Speser states, “have a culture
primarily focused on the creation and transfer of knowledge through research, teaching,
and publication. Corporate culture is primarily focused on generating profits.” Thus,
| 13
Best Practices for Health and Safety Technology Transfer in Construction

14 |
understanding how intellectual property is looked at from the different cultural perspectives
will be useful to developing strategies to support quicker commercialization of tools.
In addition, other research points out alternative approaches to patenting and licensing.
These include non-exclusive licenses for startups (DeSimmone and Mitchell, 2010); express
licensing (Casola, 2011); and easy access IP and licensing (Speser, 2011). Awareness of these
alternatives and education about the conditions in which they yield the best results would
also be useful to researchers.
Lastly, researchers would likely benefit from instruction on the recent America Invents
Act – signed by President Obama on September 16, 2011 – that aims to “help American
entrepreneurs and businesses bring their inventions to market sooner” (White House Press
Release, 2011).
5. Be prepared for a long-term commitment
Technology transfer takes time and funding. Bobick’s Safety Rail System has been in the
works for at least eight years. Rempel spent four years on productivity and usability testing
for the Inverted Drill Press. The Asphalt Partnership took about 12 years to achieve reduced
exposure to asphalt fumes on all new highway class pavers. The lesson is that those seeking
to develop and introduce new tools and technologies into the construction market should not
expect to do so quickly. It takes dedication and perseverance.
Many of the elements that were mentioned as those necessary for technology transfer to
work – building successful partnerships, performing usability testing and field tests, then
making the changes based on the feedback received during testing, building the business
case for the tool, and getting patents – all require significant investments of time.
Presenters noted the amount of time it takes to bring a technology or tool from inception to
market. In his presentation, Jochen Teizer stated that organizations often take too long to
provide funding for projects. He noted that timeframes are important with regards to funding
researchers and meeting industry demands.
The case study highlighting the effort to integrate health and safety considerations into
project management software for project scheduling revealed that delays in tool development
resulting from lengthy funding processes can also cause new software-based technologies to
become outdated before they are ready to be introduced into the marketplace. The case study
points out that rapid change in software applications can require unexpected changes and
rapid development of the product. If it takes too long to develop the product, a new version
may be needed to respond to a changing environment.
In an article on putting academic ideas into practice in construction, David Gann (2001) notes
that “technological progress across the [construction] sector is …likely to be slow” since
companies working in science and technology based sectors typically invest more in research
and development than most construction organizations. In addition, the Electrical Power
Research Institute’s web site notes that the Technology Innovation organization within EPRI
plans on a 5-10 year period for technology adoption.
Best Practices for Health and Safety Technology Transfer in Construction

6. Consider construction industry culture
Much of the discussion of the case studies underscored that the values, norms, and
organization of the construction industry can significantly impact dissemination and adoption
of safety innovations. Participants noted in a variety of ways that these cultural factors can
help or hinder the diffusion process. For example, construction tends to be a traditional field,
with crafts handed down from generation to generation (either within families or between
journeymen and apprentices). There can be a resistance to change in the construction
industry, as younger generations of workers often prefer to stick to the proven work practices
handed down to them by their predecessors. Construction is also perceived as a somewhat
closed culture. There is a common opinion expressed that those who don’t “swing a
hammer” (or climb a scaffold, or dig a trench) don’t understand the nature of the work.
Outsiders are not considered experts. Respected champions from within the industry play an
important role.
Participants also emphasized that construction is generally a highly competitive industry,
with many small businesses seeking to maintain a foothold. In this environment, productivity
is paramount, making it difficult for contractors to consider a long-term return on
investment, focusing instead on short term costs of any new equipment or methods. This
can make it difficult for any one contractor to invest in improvements, unless all of his/her
competitors are required to do the same. When a company does adopt a new method that is
advantageous, there may be a tendency to keep the innovation as a competitive advantage,
rather than spread the word.
The role of the construction culture as both a barrier and a driver for adoption of health and
safety interventions is also described in the literature. The fragmented nature of the industry
can inhibit diffusion. The lack of interaction between different trades, subcontractors, and
individuals working as “independent contractors” is often noted, as well as the relative
isolation of small contracting businesses. While larger companies are often kept up to date on
safety innovation through safety professionals they employ, there is no such mechanism for
the vast majority of contractors. On the other hand, the tremendous mobility of the industry,
with workers and subcontractors moving from job to job, contractor to contractor, provides
opportunities to observe and spread innovative practices. A particularly innovative contractor
may have a broad influence in this way (Shepherd et al. 2010).
7. Consider external factors
Economic Climate
Symposium participants noted that the arduous economic climate in recent years has created
an environment where businesses are more reluctant to make investments where quick
investment returns are uncertain. Tom Bobick (NIOSH) shared that the company that initially
obtained the exclusive license to manufacture the Residential Safety Rail System decided to
delay its production of the tool due to the unfavorable market conditions for introducing the
new product. Specifically, in his case study, Bobick advises that one of many questions to ask
regarding external factors is “How is the economy? How dramatically will budget reductions
affect development opportunities – both internally for continuing research activities,
| 15
Best Practices for Health and Safety Technology Transfer in Construction

and externally for companies to accept the challenge and sign a licensing agreement for
future collaboration or to agree to a partnership during an economic downturn?” Another
participant commented that lots of great investment ideas are not pursued by companies for
a variety of reasons, including limited resources, and the current economic situation only
exacerbates the limited availability of investment capital.
Regulations and Standards
Traditional regulations and standards or the possibility thereof are still a driving force for
workplace safety and health improvements, but should not be viewed as the only means to
achieve safety and health improvements. Participants agreed that, historically, government
regulations and standards have played a significant role in addressing workplace health and
safety issues, and are an important part of making a business case. The Inverted Drill Press
case study helps to illustrate this point; the California silica standard helped to increase
employer interest in trying new technology that includes a feature that captures dust
emissions and reduces worker exposure to silica as well as to musculoskeletal disorders and
fall hazards. Gary Fore added that concerns about the potential designation of asphalt fumes
as a carcinogen and of OSHA including it in an update to permissible exposure limits in
construction was also a driver for the formation of the Asphalt Partnership.
Still, multiple participants pointed out weaknesses in an approach that relies on the
establishment of regulations and standards as the sole driving force for change. The process
to establish new regulations in the U.S. is a lengthy one, and therefore fails to address the
immediate safety and health needs of workers. In her case study, Patricia Seeley stated
that without the regulatory driver of an OSHA ergonomics standard, safety and health
professionals need to learn to develop the business case for ergonomic interventions.
Publications confirm that the rulemaking process is too
slow to protect workers who need immediate protection
from hazards. Cranes & Derricks: The Prolonged
Creation of a Key Public Safety Rule, by Public Citizen
(2011), shows that even when a negotiated rulemaking
process (a process designed to speed up rulemaking)
was used it took 12 years for OSHA to issue the Cranes
and Derricks standard. A 2012 U.S. Government
Accountability Office (GAO) report, Workplace Safety
and Health: Multiple Challenges Lengthen OSHA’s
Standard Setting Process (GAO-12-602T) shows that it
has taken OSHA an average of 7 years and 9 months to
develop and issue a standard, and that it has taken as
long as 19 years.
16 |
Best Practices for Health and Safety Technology Transfer in Construction

RECOMMENDATIONS
Several recommendations for CPWR and other organizations to pursue came out of the symposium.
1. Develop and test a “road map” for tech
transfer. Consider developing a web-based,
interactive tool where one could access
more detailed information, references,
resources, and guidance relating to each of
the phases of technology transfer. Seek an
opportunity to test the model – including
facilitation of the partnership process and
building the business case.
2. Develop and support the testing of a
business case model. A business case model
based on the lessons learned presented
at the symposium should be developed.
CPWR should encourage dialogue between
CPWR-funded researchers and business
schools at those universities. At a minimum,
researchers could benefit from relationships
whereby business school students do market
research, help develop a business case, and
develop marketing plans for the researchers’
technologies as part of their programs. CPWR
should also promote the use of diffusion
theory to inform commercialization plans.
3. Develop additional, and more in-depth,
case studies to capture lessons from each
phase of the program from development,
testing, manufacturing, marketing, and
diffusion. Participants commented that the
case studies compiled for the symposium
contained valuable lessons about health
and safety technology transfer. Additional
case studies could highlight lessons from
each phase of a specific tool’s development,
testing, manufacturing, marketing, and
diffusion. This would make it easier to
compare and contrast approaches across the
various case studies and better understand
successful and less successful practices.
4. Develop a guide specifically for
occupational safety and health researchers
on patenting and licensing. Participants
noted a need for researchers to gain a
greater understanding of the patenting and
licensing process. A recommendation was
made to develop an educational resource
that includes information on patenting and
licensing processes, alternative routes to
advance widespread adoption of a tool or
technology, and guidance for researchers to
assist in deciding when a specific approach
may be most appropriate.
5. Improve communication between
researchers and manufacturers. Perform
in-depth interviews with manufacturers to
understand the factors that influence their
decision-making process. In addition, look
for opportunities to learn from one another
by exploring possible venues for bringing
researchers together with manufacturers.
6. Look into funding sources that can support
the full work that needs to be done to
bring a product into use. Participants raised
concerns about funding structures that
result in delays for tool development that
can potentially prolong the introduction
of new technologies into the marketplace
that are designed to decrease construction
worker injuries and fatalities. It was
suggested that there is a need for funding
to support not just the research, but also
the development stage of “research and
development.”
7. Review European certification systems for
engineering equipment. A suggestion was
made to review international certification
systems to explore opportunities for
establishment and implementation of similar
systems in the United States. Specifically
mentioned in one of the breakout sessions
was the work done by the European Union
to set standards for a test bench method for
the measurement of the emission rate of any
given airborne substance from tools under
specified operating conditions.
| 17
Best Practices for Health and Safety Technology Transfer in Construction

CONCLUSION
Investments of knowledge, time, and funding have been made to develop and bring new safer
tools and technologies into the construction marketplace. To date, however, the investment has
not resulted in the market diffusion health and safety specialists have wanted to see. CPWR
brought together those parties having a role in technology transfer in construction to explore
the lessons learned from case examples of both successful and challenging tech transfer
experiences. While significant challenges were noted, the conference identified several key
elements to making the process work. CPWR will contribute to the development of an improved
and sustainable technology transfer function in construction by focusing on these elements.
REFERENCES
Boh, W.F., De-Haan, Strom, R. (2012). University technology transfer through entrepreneurship:
faculty and students in spinoffs. Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation. Retrieved from: http://www.
kauffman.org/uploadedFiles/University-technology-transfer-through-entrepreneurship-faculty-andstudents-in-spinoffs.PDF.
Casola, C. (2011, September 22). Express licensing: the new trend in university technology transfer
[Web log message]. Retrieved from http://blog.foresightst.com/?p=293.
Debackere, K., Veugelers, R., (2005). The role of academic technology transfer organizations in
improving industry science links. Research Policy 34(3), 321-342.
DeSimmone, J., Mitchell, L. (2010). Facilitating the commercialization of university innovation: The
Carolina express license agreement. Kauffman Foundation. Retrieved from: http://www.kauffman.org/
uploadedFiles/UNCagreements_4-19-10.pdf.
Entzel, P., Albers, J. and Welch, L. (2007). Best practices for preventing musculoskeletal disorders in
masonry: Stakeholder Perspectives. Applied Ergonomics 38, 557-566. Viewable here: http://orcehs.org/
wiki/download/attachments/29920052/masonry+art.pdf.
18 |
Best Practices for Health and Safety Technology Transfer in Construction

Farooqui, R., Ahmed, S., Panthi, K., and Azhar, S., (2009).Addressing the issues of compliance
with personal Protective equipments on construction worksites: A workers’ perspective. (Doctoral
candidate paper). Publication Unknown. Viewable here: http://ascpro0.ascweb.org/archives/cd/2009/
paper/CPRT176002009.pdf.
Government Accountability Office (GAO). (2012). Workplace Safety and Health: Multiple Challenges
Lengthen OSHA’s Standard Setting Process. (GAO-12-602T). Retrieved from: http://www.gao.gov/
assets/600/590210.pdf.
Hasle, P., Limborg, H. (2006). A review of the literature on preventive occupational health and safety
activities in small enterprises. Industrial Health 44, 6-12.
Johnson, S., Gatz, E., and Hicks, D. (1997). Expanding the content base of technology education:
technology transfer as a topic of study. Journal of technology Education, 8(2), 35-49.
Public Citizen. (2011). Cranes and derricks: The prolonged creation of a key public safety rule.
Retrieved from: http://www.citizen.org/documents/CranesAndDerricks.pdf.
Pursell, C. (1993). The rise and fall of the appropriate technology movement in the United States,
1965-1985). Technology and Culture, 34(3), 629-637.
Reinke, DC, Smith AK [2010]. From development to evaluating effectiveness in industry:
building a research model for noise control technology efforts. In: Burroughs CB, Maling G, eds.
Proceedings of the National Conference on Noise Control Engineering and 159th Meeting of the
Acoustical Society of America. Indianapolis, IN: Institute of Noise Control Engineering of the USA,
Paper No. NC 10–085.
Raesfeld Meijer, A.M. von (2002). Technology transfer: preaching to the converted or seducing
the disbelievers. In M.K. de Laet (Ed.), Research in science and technology studies: knowledge
technology transfer (Knowledge and society, ISSN 0278-1557, vol. 13) (pp. 127-151). Amsterdam
[etc.]: JAI (ISBN 0-7623-0890-7).
Rodgers, E.M. (1995). Diffusion of innovations. (4th ed.) New York: Free Press.
Shepherd, S. and Woskie, S. Case Study to Identify Barriers and Incentives to Implementing
an Engineering Control for Concrete Grinding Dust, Journal of Construction Engineering and
Management, ASCE, ISSN 0733-9364/2010/11-1238–1248, Vol. 136, No. 11, November 1, 2010.
Speser, P. (2011, August 30). Best practices [Web log message]. Retrieved from http://blog.foresightst.
com/?p=282.
Speser, P. (2011, August 30). Tech transfer in the 21st century [Web log message]. Retrieved from:
http://blog.foresightst.com/?p=280.
Stout, N., Linn, H. (2002). Occupational injury prevention research: progress and priorities in general
database. Injury Prevention (supplemental), 8(4).
Virtual Strategy Magazine. (2012, August 6). Student entrepreneurs critical to commercializing
university startups, Kauffman study shows. Retrieved from: http://www.virtual-strategy.com/2012/08/06/
student-entrepreneurs-critical-commercializing-university-startups-kauffman-study-shows.
The White House, Office of the Press Secretary. (2011). President Obama Signs America Invents Act,
Overhauling the Patent System to Stimulate Economic Growth, and Announces New Steps to Help
Entrepreneurs Create Jobs [Press Release]. Retrieved from: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-pressoffice/2011/09/16/president-obama-signs-america-invents-act-overhauling-patent-system-stim.

CASE STUDIES
BEST PRACTICES FOR HEALTH AND SAFETY
TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER IN CONSTRUCTION

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Residential Construction Safety Rail System, Dr. Thomas G. Bobick, Research Safety
Engineer, NIOSH Division of Safety Research ............................................................................................ 2
The Asphalt Partnership, Gary Fore, TRIAD EH&S, The Asphalt Partnership ................................ 7
Focus Four Personal Digital Assistant (PDA) Audit Tool, Dr. Mark Fullen, West Virginia
University ......................................................................................................................................................... 11
Health and Safety Integration into Project Management Software, Dr. Jim Platner, CPWR –
Center for Construction Research and Training ...................................................................................... 12
Successes in Research to Practice from the NIOSH Office of Mine Safety and Health
Research, Robert F. Randolph, R.J. Matetic, James K. Thompson, David P. Snyder, Gerrit R.
Goodman, Drew J. Potts, Thomas M. Barczak ......................................................................................... 15
Inverted Drill Press, Dr. David Rempel, University of California San Francisco ........................... 19
Business Case for Implementing Battery-Powered Tools for Electric Utility Workers,
Patricia Seeley, Ergonomics Solutions LLC ............................................................................................... 20
Autonomous Pro-Active Real-Time Construction Worker and Equipment Operator
Proximity Safety Alert System, Dr. Jochen Teizer, School of Civil and Environmental
Engineering at the Georgia Institute of Technology .............................................................................. 30
1

Residential Construction Safety Rail System
Dr. Thomas G. Bobick, Research Safety Engineer, NIOSH Division of Safety Research
Relevance
The event – workers falling to a lower level – has been the primary cause of fatalities in
construction since 1992, when the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) began compiling the Census of
Fatal Occupational Injury (CFOI) data. This project was initiated as a result of an analysis of the
CFOI data. Analyses focused on fatalities and severe injuries caused by workers falling through roof
and floor openings, and existing skylights. A pilot study evaluated the strength of guardrails (jobbuilt
and two commercial products) that were built around a typical roof opening by residential
carpenters who served as test subjects. While evaluating the systems, a unique intervention was
developed, which was the initial design of the NIOSH multi-functional guardrail system. The system
was further modified through extensive laboratory testing so it could be used in numerous work
situations to prevent workers from falling to lower levels.
Impact
The impact of using the NIOSH guardrail system is an adaptable fall-prevention system that is
readily available to improve safety conditions for residential and commercial construction workers.
The safety intervention can be installed to protect workers in situations where fall protection is not
normally used. This guardrail system has the capability to provide protection to personnel who
have to work near unguarded (1) roof edges, (2) skylights, (3) roof and floor openings, and (4) on
stairs that have not yet had handrails installed. The easy-to-install fall-prevention system has
been designed to meet OSHA safety requirements for guardrails. Through extensive testing in
NIOSH labs, the final design will support more than twice the OSHA 200-pound top-rail strength
requirement for a worker falling against it.
Currently, the system is being evaluated by two WV residential contractors in an on-going one-year
field study. The contractors are using the system on a variety of homes to meet the requirements
of the OSHA fall-protection standards. Training in the use of the fall-prevention system was
provided by the West Virginia University Safety and Health (WVUS&H) Extension Office through a
contract with NIOSH, using installation instructions developed by the project team. Interestingly,
owners of both contracting firms commented that they normally don't use guardrails during
residential construction. However, after the training session, which included a significant portion of
hands-on practice installing the system on three typical construction situations (sloped, horizontal,
and vertical orientations), all crew members felt very positive about using the system. During the
first three months of the field study, both contractors have used the guardrail system, both
externally on the roof and internally on stairs and for internal edge protection. Thus far, personal
comments indicate high acceptance of this system.
The potential long-term outcome of using the NIOSH guardrail system is a reduction in fatalities
and severe injuries (i.e., those involving days-away-from-work). During the 5-year period 2006-
2010, a yearly average of 1,001 workers died from all causes in the U.S. construction industry. For
the same period, a yearly average of 351 construction workers (35%) died because of falling from
elevated work sites. During the same 5-year period, an average of 126 U.S. construction workers
were fatally injured each year after falling from roofs and unprotected edges, or through
unprotected roof and floor holes and skylights. These are all work situations for which the NIOSH
guardrail system would be most effective.
2

Partnerships
During the 3 1/2-year process to develop and achieve a U.S. Patent for this system (U.S. Patent No.
7,509,702 was issued March 29, 2009), a total of 11 companies were approached about
collaborating with NIOSH/CDC to manufacture and market this system. Engineering design
drawings, which had been developed by the research team, were individually provided to the
companies through a formal Material Transfer Agreement (MTA) process. Three companies were
contacted specifically to provide a reliable estimate of costs to manufacture the five configurations
developed for the system. The other companies were contacted and paperwork was prepared about
collaborating with NIOSH/CDC through a licensing agreement process. During the 2010 American
Society of Safety Engineers Meeting and Expo, held in Baltimore, MD, a safety equipment
manufacturer talked with the research team at the NIOSH booth, where the guardrail system was
installed on a mini-version of a sloped roof and an unfinished staircase. This safety equipment
manufacturer became the 12th and final collaborator to work with the research team through an
MTA. This company, AES Raptor LLC, North Kansas City, MO signed an exclusive licensing
agreement with NIOSH-CDC in June 2011. The NIOSH guardrail system is being marketed under
the trade name of Gorilla Rail TM .
The role of partners in the research process was quite varied. During the initial development, a
former Executive Director of the Construction Safety Council in Chicago and the Vice-President of
Engineering for a manufacturer of a roof edge fall-protection system visited NIOSH to observe and
comment on the guardrail system. Both individuals were supportive and gave encouraging insight.
In fact, the roof edge fall-protection system manufacturer was the first company to sign an MTA to
consider the licensing agreement. The company's small size prevented that licensing opportunity
from being established. Site visits were arranged by the roof edge fall-protection system
manufacturer where the initial design for the roof was modified (in concept) to the second
configuration for use on horizontal surfaces. During discussions with the owner of a residential
home building company, limitations related to where the horizontal configuration could be used
resulted in the third variation for use on vertical surfaces. Another site visit with the roof edge fallprotection
system manufacturer resulted in the vertical configuration being modified to the fourth
design, the vertical component that has a 2 1/2-inch horizontal offset to clear the overhang of
finished stair treads. Internal discussions by the research team resulted in the development of the
fifth and final design - the slide guard variation for roofing work. Another research partner was the
WVUS&H Extension Office, which assisted with recruiting the two construction contractors who are
involved with the current field evaluation study, and developing the training program that was used
during the explanation of the system's uses and installation procedures to the two contractors.
Finally, individuals from the Center for Construction Research and Training (formerly CPWR), the
Laborers' Union, the Roofers' Union, and the National Roofing Contractors Association were all
supportive and offered constructive comments at different times during the development process.
Lessons Learned
Advice for others would be to establish working relationships with appropriate trade unions,
professional societies, and other organizations related to the specific technology being developed or
researched early in the development process. The focus should be on educating the end-users of the
safety or health intervention being developed. Emphasis should involve establishing contacts and
eliciting their input early in the research process to stay focused on what important features the
end-users feel should be included. This would likely encourage them to accept and use the new
technology.
3

This particular project dealt with developing and disseminating new technology. Whether a future
project is focused on developing knowledge, intervention, or technology, it is important to realize
that future success is heavily dependent on a variety of external factors. For example, is there a
perceived need for the intervention? Once an intervention or technology is developed, what is the
perception of its importance from the target industry? Can the intervention be easily used, and
more important, can the technology be commercialized? Finally, how is the economy? How
dramatically will budget reductions affect development opportunities - both internally for
continuing research activities, and externally for companies to accept the challenge and sign a
licensing agreement for future collaboration or to agree to a partnership during an economic
downturn? These are questions that have complicated answers. A combination of these factors will
actually determine the success of future developments.
______________________________________________________________________________
Expand on the above text to include the following, where possible:
1. Did you have any intellectual property barriers, or recommendations to make in this area, such
as working with the university technology transfer office; patent application processes; and use of
exclusive vs. non-exclusive licenses?
This research project dealt with the CDC Technology Transfer Office. After the initial
design of the roof bracket system was developed, an Engineering Invention Report was prepared
and submitted to the Tech Transfer Office in 2004. We provided them information about the
potential effectiveness of and the possible extent of usage in the construction industry for this
guardrail system. The Tech Transfer Office prepared an evaluation report as to whether a patent
for the guardrail system design should be prepared or not. CDC decided to pursue the patent
option and a patent application was prepared. The research team worked with the patent attorney
to develop the unique claims that were applicable for this system’s design. The patent application
was filed with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office during October 2005. The application was
published during April 2007. A U.S. Patent (No. 7,509,702) was issued on March 31, 2009. The
research team had discussions with a number of companies regarding possibly manufacturing and
marketing the guardrail system as part of a licensing agreement with CDC and NIOSH. Eventually
an exclusive licensing agreement was signed between CDC-NIOSH and AES Raptor LLC, North
Kansas City, MO. The NIOSH guardrail system is now commercially available under the trade name
Gorilla Rail TM .
2. What were the usability barriers and how did you assess them and/or address them?: (a) did
you identify expenses related to adopting, operating, and/or maintaining new safety and health
technologies; (b) degree of worker training needed; (c) impact on job performance (i.e., worker
comfort issues, impacts on productivity and/or quality of work); (d) concerns over new safety and
health issues; and (e) adaptability to jobsite conditions
(a) There are expenses related to purchasing the guardrail system. The price list is available from
the licensing partner. This one-time cost can be pro-rated over a number of job site usages.
Costs to use the system are the recurring cost of the fasteners (either 16-penny nails or highstrength
screws). If installed correctly, the 2-by-4 cross pieces (the top rail, midrail, and toe
board) can be re-used from one job site to the next, thus reducing that repetitive (usage) cost.
The system has been designed to be quite durable. Thus maintenance costs should be minimal.
None of these costs, however, were part of this initial evaluation.
(b) Basic training is needed to ensure that the guardrail system is used appropriately and installed
correctly. Each crew member of the two contractors received both formal classroom training
4

and plenty of hands-on practice with installing all five components of the system. Pre- and
post-evaluation tests were part of the training sessions.
(c) Using the guardrail system will improve the safety of the workers who normally work near
roof edges that might only be protected with a slide guard system. Being safer (and feeling
safer) will improve worker performance. The research team has gotten verbal feedback from
workers and management of how much safer they feel when using the guardrail system,
especially on 12-in-12 (45°) roofs.
(d) Trying to bring a new safety intervention onto the market during a severe economic downturn
was bad timing, and resulted in an extremely difficult situation to deal with.
(e) This guardrail system was designed, tested, and modified specifically to be as adaptable as
possible. This multi-functional system can be used on commercial, industrial, and residential
flat roofs, as well as being adjustable to 7 different residential roof slopes (from 6-in-12 [27°]
to 24-in-12 [63°]). In addition, four other variations were developed for installation on flat
and vertical surfaces that are unprotected, including staircases before the handrails are
installed.
3. Did you identify any incentives for adoption, such as: impact of existing regulations on
adoption; and availability and access to financial incentives for research, manufacturing, and
industry adoption (e.g., research funding, subsidized tool evaluation, tax breaks, insurance
premium reductions)?
Interestingly, during December 2010, OSHA issued a new directive for the residential construction
industry (STD 03-11-002) which rescinded the interim fall protection standards (STD 3.1 and STD
3-0.1A) that had been in effect since 1995 and 1999. OSHA will again be enforcing Subpart M (Fall
Protection) of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Title 29 (Labor), Part 1926 (Construction).
This change in the fall protection standards will re-emphasize the requirement of using “personal
fall arrest systems, covers, or guardrail systems” to protect workers who are required to work at
elevations near unprotected holes and edges. The research team thought this might contribute to
interest in purchasing the Gorilla Rail TM system.
For this project, internal NIOSH funding through the NORA process was the sole means by which
the research was conducted for the years FY 2008 through2011. Unfortunately, there were no
financial incentives available for manufacturing and industry adoption.
4. Did you identify any safety equipment marketing issues, such as: challenges in marketing safety
features from research, manufacturing, industry consumer and end user perspective; discussion of
push and pull factors?
The effects of the severe economic recession, which is still continuing (summer 2012) and is
predicted to continue in the residential construction industry until mid-2014, presented an almost
insurmountable challenge. Numerous safety-products companies had discussions with the
research team and a few with the CDC Tech Transfer Office. Difficult decisions were made based on
the depressed state of the residential construction market.
The exclusive licensing partner has been cautious in their marketing of the Gorilla Rail system. The
company did display the Gorilla Rail product at the ASSE 2011 Exposition in Chicago in June 2011.
This was their only “push” in marketing the product. The lack of OSHA pressure has contributed to
a lack of “pull” (or demand) factors.
5. Let us know anything you think you learned about diffusion of innovation, such as: the influence
of on-site “trialability” (i.e., the ability to experiment or test technologies in the field) on successful
technology transfer; do you think there are types of tools that experience greater rates of early
adoption, and did you learn anything about attributes of early adopters
5

The opportunity to conduct trialability of the system in real-world conditions was indeed a major
highlight. A limited field study, which will continue to the fall of 2012, involving two northern West
Virginia residential contractors has been extremely valuable for gathering feedback from workers
and management who are using the system in a limited capacity.
The research team does not have any experience with early adopters. Thus, it is not possible to
comment on what attributes are related to early adopters of innovations. Similarly, the research
team could only conjecture as to what types of tools may experience early adoption by an industry.
6

The Asphalt Partnership
Gary Fore, TRIAD EH&S, The Asphalt Partnership
Background
The remarkable success of the Asphalt Paving Partnership provides a model of how partnerships
can play a powerful role in preventing worker injury and illness. In the original Engineering
Controls partnership, the partnership pioneered an innovative, collaborative approach to reducing
worker exposure to asphalt fumes and achieved the universal voluntary adoption of controls on all
new highway class pavers. 1 Building on its initial success, the partnership continued to pursue
other health and safety efforts. These included the warm-mix initiative which continued to address
exposure to fumes by reducing emissions at the source.
To understand the lessons offered by this successful partnership, the Center for Construction
Research and Training (CPWR) conducted an in-depth case study of the Asphalt Paving Partnership
as part of an overall Research to Practice (r2p) Initiative.
The case study research involved 15 interviews with industry, labor, and government stakeholders
who have been involved in the Asphalt Partnership, as well as a review of background documents
from the Asphalt Partnership, including award applications, trade articles, and research
publications.
What is the Asphalt Partnership?
The Asphalt Partnership is a multi-stakeholder collaboration that aims to improve worker health
and safety in the asphalt paving industry. Over its more than 15 year history, it has included
partners from industry, labor, and government, as well as academic researchers.
Industry
-National Asphalt Pavement Association (NAPA)
-Association of Equipment Manufacturers (AEM)
- American Road and Transportation Builders Association (ARTBA)
Labor
-International Union of Operating Engineers (IUOE)
-Laborers’ International Union of North America (LIUNA)
-Laborer’s Health and Safety Fund of North America
Government
-The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH)
-Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)
-Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
- American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO)
- State departments of transportation (DOTs)
1 Highway-Class Pavers: Large paver equipment over 16,000 pounds
7

Asphalt Fumes
In the early 1990s, at a time of heightened awareness about toxic hazards in occupational health,
concerns about the effects of asphalt fumes, and in particular, their potential to cause cancer among
asphalt paving workers, were gaining momentum. NIOSH had been conducting research on asphalt
fumes and OSHA was also exploring their inclusion in an update to permissible exposure limits in
construction. Labor groups shared these concerns, and the Laborer’s Health and Safety Fund issued
a report on the health effects of asphalt fumes. 2 Additionally, Congress had recently passed
legislation with a requirement to add crumb rubber from scrap tires to asphalt paving mix, and the
FHWA was tasked with investigating the potential health effects.
From the industry perspective, a possible classification of asphalt fumes as an occupational
carcinogen was a serious threat. In addition to adverse health consequences for workers, the
carcinogen label carried potential implications for regulation, legal liability, and public perception.
However, NAPA disagreed with conclusions drawn from existing research linking asphalt fumes to
cancer and initially responded to government and labor’s concerns by contesting the science.
Even as industry was investing substantial sums in research to counter government evidence, a
breakthrough occurred within NAPA. A prominent paving contractor and chairperson of the
association emerged as a champion for a new approach: he recalled thinking, “we’re crazy to fight
this. Why don’t we just get away from exposing our people to these fumes, and then the issue goes
away whether they’re bad or good.” The contractor leveraged his relationships to convince a core
group of contractors and manufacturers to investigate the possibility of reducing worker
exposures. Manufacturers developed prototype control packages, and initial tests suggested that
fairly simple ventilation systems could significantly reduce the level of fumes near workers.
With promising preliminary tests of engineering controls, NAPA began reaching out to other
stakeholder groups. They knew that they needed the collaboration of key government agencies and
labor unions in order to move forward with developing, testing, and implementing the controls.
Challenges to collaboration were substantial, with stakeholders from all sides – labor, government,
and industry – all wary of participation. Leadership at NAPA embarked on efforts to establish trust
and facilitate relationships within the fledgling partnership, a strategy which helped to overcome
partners’ concerns, and pave the way for future success.
What has the Asphalt Partnership accomplished?
In 1997, all six manufacturers signed a Voluntary Agreement with OSHA, FHWA, NAPA, and labor
groups, agreeing to equip all new highway class pavers with engineering controls that capture at
least 80% of the asphalt fumes generated during paving. By the mid-2000s, all such pavers in the
United States included the controls. This timeline stands in contrast to the traditional OSHA
rulemaking procedure in which it can take many years to even initiate the process for establishing a
new health standard, and then typically up to ten years more to complete the process, if at all. 3,4,5
2 Kojola, B. (1994). Construction; An Emerging Issue, Asphalt Fumes. Applied Occupational and Environmental Hygiene,
9(5), 323-329.
3 Public Citizen. (October 2011). OSHA Inaction: Onerous Requirements Imposed on OSHA Prevent the Agency from
Issuing Lifesaving Rules. Available at: http://www.citizen.org/documents/osha-inaction.pdf (Accessed 2/22/2012).
8

Follow-up field testing conducted by the partnership indicated that the engineering controls were
effective at keeping worker exposure to asphalt fumes below the levels recommended by the
American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH). 6
The partnership took protection from fumes a step further through a follow-up effort to develop,
test and disseminate warm-mix asphalt, an achievement which collaborators describe as “the
ultimate success story of the partnership.” Warm-mix asphalt (as compared to traditional “hot mix”
asphalt) can be laid at lower temperatures, so it emits fewer fumes, decreasing worker exposure by
at least 30-50%. 7 The partnership’s investment in innovations to decrease worker exposure also
paid off in other ways: it was soon discovered that warm-mix also has considerable economic and
environmental benefits, and it is now expected to largely replace traditional hot-mix pavements in
the coming years.
In addition to the warm mix initiative, the partnership spun off additional collaborations and
projects such as the testing and development of controls to suppress silica dust on asphalt milling
machines; work-zone safety; and research to assess workers’ dermal exposures to asphalt in the
paving industry.
Lessons Learned
The partnership was able to sustain their health and safety efforts by developing lasting
infrastructure for future collaboration. A variety of elements contributed to the partnership’s
success, and lessons learned from this case study include: 1) having a common vision with clear
goals and concrete deliverables, 2) “agreeing to disagree” about contentious outside issues, 3)
actively involving all stakeholders, 4) paying a high level of attention to relationship-building and
group dynamics, 5) emphasizing openness, transparency, and trust, 6) having facilitators,
champions, and leaders within the partnership. At the core of all activities was a commitment to
rigorous science to support health and safety solutions and to fully integrate the strengths,
resources, expertise, and concerns of all partners through development, testing, and adoption.
Conclusion
The collaboration attained universal adoption of engineering controls to reduce worker exposure to
asphalt fumes faster, with less acrimony, and possibly more effectively, than attempting to advance
a regulatory standard. Furthermore, they did not stop with this initial success but continued the
work on other efforts to protect worker health.
Partners unequivocally believed that their model was transferrable to other areas of construction.
By bringing together the right partners from labor, government, and industry, making the case for
4 National Advisory Committee on Occupational safety and Health (NACOSH). (June 2000). Report and Recommendations
Related to OSHA’s Standards Development Process. Available at: http://www.osha.gov/dop/nacosh/nreport.html
(Accessed 2/22/2012).
5 Skryzcki, Cindy. OSHA Withdraws More Rules than it Makes, Reviews Find. The Washington Post: Oct. 5, 2004; Page E01.
6 Mickelsen, R.L., Shulman, S.A., Kriech, A.J., Osborne, L.V., & Redman, A.P. (2006). Status of Worker Exposure to Asphalt
Paving Fumes with the Use of Engineering Controls. Environment, Science and Technology, 40, 5661-5667
7 Federal Highway Administration, Office of International Programs. (February 2008). Warm-Mix Asphalt: European
Practice. Available at: http://international.fhwa.dot.gov/pubs/pl08007/pl08007.pdf (Accessed 5/9/2012)
9

how a precautionary approach can create win-win situations, enlisting the help of skilled
facilitators and champions, and building strong relationships through trust, transparency, and
openness, real and significant change through “practical research and best practices
implementation” is possible.
10

Focus Four Personal Digital Assistant (PDA) Audit Tool
Dr. Mark Fullen, West Virginia University
West Virginia University (WVU) has developed a dynamic audit program to assess risk for falls in
construction, and adapted that audit for use on a Personal Digital Assistant that was originally used
to measure fall hazard reduction as part of an intensive Fall Hazard Management intervention
research project called “Fall-Safe.” Based on industry interest “wanting the audit tool for their own
use” WVU Technology Transfer supported the development of a for-profit spinoff “BackPocket”
which was formed in 2003 and in 2004 secured a National Institute for Occupational Safety and
Health (NIOSH) Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) grant to develop the PDA application as
a commercial product. Since the SBIR, the BackPocket software development partner dissolved, so
WVU sought out a new partner in the industrial quality control PDA software development
business. This partnership has not resulted in increased dissemination of the product and did not
result in increased usability for the customer.
Since the original Fall-Safe audit tool development WVU has successfully utilized the existing
auditing technology to measure changes in fall hazards pre- and post-intervention in a NIOSH study
focused on Roof Brackets, in a study supported by the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA) Susan Harwood Residential Fall protection grant and to develop and test an
electrical audit tool for worker use to measure electrical hazards over time supported by CPWR
funding.
With lack of funding to support further development and the less than successful with an industry
partner the plan to evolve the product into a full-fledged commercial product has stagnated. The
rapid growth of iOS and Android applications has reinvigorated the project team and they are
currently exploring ways to redevelop the audit tool for iOS and Android devices.
11

Health and Safety Integration into Project Management Software
Dr. Jim Platner, CPWR – Center for Construction Research and Training
Introduction
Critical path management (CPM) software is used for project scheduling on virtually all medium-tolarge
construction projects. The schedule provides a basis for coordination, planning, and adjusting
time frames as the work progresses. Although good scheduling has been shown to correlate with
improved safety, no CPM software incorporates safety interventions or equipment into the
schedule.
Most activities that promote safety and health on the jobsite are tied, in some manner, to the
schedule. For example, if there is an activity in the schedule for “Install Sewer Line”, the safety
manager should verify delivery and availability of trench boxes or shoring materials prior to the
start of this activity. By monitoring progress on the schedule, safety personnel could ensure the
well-being of the on-site workers and the neighboring community. Short term look-ahead
schedules (usually one or two weeks) can also be generated from the master schedule, and are used
by foremen and superintendents to manage the job, and to report back on progress or task
completion to update the schedule.
Typically, ES&H managers do not have access or training to directly modify the schedule electronic
file. Scheduling software has been a tool of the operations personnel, sometimes through a
subcontracted scheduler, or the CM and there is great reluctance to “share” access to modify the
schedule with ES&H personnel
Timeline/History
1996-1997 CPWR and colleagues at the University of Maryland College Park, and in collaboration
with several members of the ASSE Construction group, proposed development of this
software as part of a CPWR Intervention grant. Initial software described as “Safety
CPM/Net Works”. This consisted of two parts: “Safetybase” and a mock-up of “Safety/Net
Integrator”. SafetyBase was a database of construction hazards and check lists associated
with specific Construction Specification Institute (CSI) MasterFormat cost codes. The focus
was on technical safety/hazard control information. Safety/Net Integrator was intended to
flag schedule items associated with certain CSI cost codes associated with high risk tasks.
The software developer returned to India, and left no documented source code. However,
the safety professionals involved were enthusiastic supporters, and encouraged CPWR to
continue the project.
1999 CPWR approached Conceptual Arts and University of Florida. It was recognized by the new
team that this approach required CSI codes be manually inserted into the schedule, which
was not done on many projects at the time. They proposed a process to directly flag
schedule activities that need safety management attention.
2000-2004 Jeff Nelson from Conceptual Arts, and a team assembled by Jimmie Hinzie from the
M.E. Rinker School of Building Construction at the University of Florida proposed a
redefined project which was named “Salus/JSA” and later “SALUS CPM”. Through a codeveloper
agreement with Primavera they developed a very effective software program
which would insert and track safety activities into a Primavera Suretrak schedule. This
developer agreement was critical to assure access to changing Primavera schedule file
formats and software changes. Although the safety professionals were enthusiastic about
this innovative product, in field trials it was immediately apparent that most safety
12

managers did not have access or authority to modify the project schedule on the large
projects where this was most useful.. It appeared that because of the hours invested in
creating and updating the schedule, schedulers were very protective.
2002-2004 A new approach was devised, named “Salus Link”. This worked in parallel with both
Primavera P3 and Suretrak schedules, with read-only access, and regular updates from the
master schedule file. It allowed safety managers their own version of the project schedule,
in which they could link any electronic document or hyperlink to each schedule activity.
These could be check-lists, policies, JSAs, tool box talks, slides, etc. It also provided a
"project wrap-up" function that could be used at the end of the project to archive all of the
linked documents with schedule information.
2006 Conceptual Arts applied for and was awarded a one year NIOSH Small Business Innovation
Research (NIOSH) grant to commercialize this software product. Agreements were reached
to pilot the software on projects with Bechtel, Bovis Lend Lease, and Willis Construction.
2008 Oracle Corporation purchased Primavera and terminated all third-party or external
developer agreements. SBIR funds were returned and project terminated.
Software Development and Maintenance Challenges
Technology transfer related to new software products, or in this case add-ons to existing
commercial software, presents multiple challenges:
1. Multiple platforms, multiple operating systems, complex network access issues. As these
platforms change, software must be continuously updated in order to remain functional,
and users now expect automated checks for updates over the internet. Even on
construction sites, access to internet, WIFI, and cell phones have become an expectation. In
a rapidly changing environment, software products must also be continuously updated to
remain functional across multiple employers and multiple projects. Given that most grant
funding is short term, at least the cost of updates and upgrades must be covered by income
from a commercial product.
2. Rapid changes in applications, in this case Primavera P3 and Suretrak, can require
unexpected changes and rapid development of the product. If you take too long to develop
the product, a new version may be needed to respond to a changing environment.
3. Usability testing is critical, and is the norm. An additional challenge faced with SalusLink
was verifying needs and usability from the perspectives of various positions within an
organization. The product was enthusiastically received by safety managers, who
immediately recognized the value of this tool, and how it would allow them to do their work
faster and better. Until late in the process, the schedulers were not considered as part of the
usability testing, only to find they could delay or block use of the software.
4. The perceived value of the software relied in part on the work that would be saved on
future projects, since many components could be used on other projects with minor
modifications. This initial barrier, of entering information and collecting documents on the
first use, may discourage adoption.
5. Multiple interface formats, can now require redesign of user interface for several screen
sizes (cell phone, tablet, desktop), and several versions of each. This can further increase
the effort and cost of usability testing and updates.
6. Recruiting actual users is a challenge in construction. Scheduling is usually contractually
required on a site by the owner or construction manager, which makes adoption of change
easier. To be most effective schedules must span multiple employers on a project, so
individual subcontractors may have little ability to influence site-wide use. There is limited
research on organizational structures on multi-employer sites.
13

Outcomes/Conclusions
CPM scheduling software, of which Primavera remains the market leader for larger projects, still
offer an opportunity for future improvements in planning and coordination of safety activities. On
large multi-employer projects, which can consist of hundreds of overlapping contracts, paperbased
schedules are often inadequate. Inadequate integration of safety managers into the
construction design and operations teams continues to be an issue on many sites. As Building
Information Management (BIM) software databases grow in popularity, these are a related
opportunity for safety and health managers.
This project failure illustrates several challenges related to software development and updates, and
organizational structures that can allow hoarding or restricting access to critical information
(knowledge is power), and inadequate software security which is needed to increase confidence
that data destroyed or changed by other employees or other employers can be readily recovered.
Sharing requires trust, which can be difficult to develop on a rapidly changing multi-employer work
site.
This project also illustrates the importance of understanding organizational structures and work
processes, as well as technical knowledge. Safety managers and schedulers, for example, may not
agree on the value of change.
Jeff Nelson, Conceptual Arts, Inc. Gainesville, FL
Ryan Evans, Conceptual Arts, Inc. Gainesville, FL
Jimmie Hinzie PhD, PE, University of Florida
James Platner PhD, CPWR
Pierce Jones, University of Florida
Et.al.
Contact: Jim Platner mailto:jplatner@cpwr.com
14

Successes in Research to Practice from the NIOSH Office of Mine Safety
and Health Research
Robert F. Randolph, R.J. Matetic, James K. Thompson, David P. Snyder, Gerrit R. Goodman, Drew J. Potts,
Thomas M. Barczak
Mining has long been one of the most hazardous occupations, but technologies from NIOSH
research have led to marked improvements. Miners now have devices to make their machines
quieter, identify and avoid hazardous dust, communicate throughout the mine to survive
emergencies, and render potentially explosive atmospheres safely inert. These technologies are the
most recent examples of a series of innovations that are being generated by NIOSH’s Office of Mine
Safety and Health Research (OMSHR). The Office has established world-class research and
development capabilities for every major health and safety hazard in mining. Just as important is
the Office’s research to practice (r2p) initiative that facilitates the transition of technologies from
scientific concepts to laboratory prototypes and, finally, to products and solutions miners use every
day.
Transferring technologies to benefit miners is an integral part of the OMSHR mission to eliminate
mining fatalities, injuries, and illnesses through research and prevention. The prevention aspect of
this mission depends on ensuring that the research solutions are implemented in practice. At
OMSHR, this is being done systematically by identifying the most important health and safety
hazards, performing research and development of solutions, partnering with manufacturers to
commercialize the solutions, and verifying that the solutions are effective.
OMSHR’s recent successes addressing hazardous noise illustrate how this process works. The
prevalence of hazardous noise from mining machines has resulted in over 80% of miners becoming
hearing impaired by the time they retire. NIOSH has long advocated engineering controls that
eliminate noise sources or isolate workers from noise as the most effective solution. Although
earplugs and other hearing protection devices had been the dominant solution for mining noise, in
1999 NIOSH initiated a concentrated research effort to develop engineering controls for mining
machines. Also, engineering noise controls are now required wherever feasible under a Mine Safety
and Health Administration (MSHA) regulation that was put into effect in 2000.
NIOSH is systematically addressing noise in each sector of the mining industry, and underground
coal miners benefit directly from NIOSH noise controls. When first beginning to develop
engineering noise controls, NIOSH convened a stakeholder committee consisting of representatives
from mining companies, labor unions, machinery manufacturers, and regulatory agencies. This
Noise Committee and NIOSH reviewed the noise surveillance data and identified continuous mining
machines and roof bolting machines as the primary sources of noise overexposures to underground
coal miners.
Continuous Mining Machine Noise Controls
Implementing solutions for continuous mining machine noise involved several R&D studies and
manufacturing partnerships. Initial studies showed that most of the noise was generated by the
conveying system that moves coal from the machine’s cutting head to the rear of the machine,
where it is captured and hauled away by shuttle cars. NIOSH developed two solutions: Changing the
conveyor chain design to use two drive sprockets instead of one and coating the horizontal metal
flight bars on the chain with a tough urethane material. Both solutions reduced noise caused by
metal-to-metal contact between the moving chain and the stationary conveyor assembly.
15

NIOSH involved manufacturers in the development process early on in the research process. One
manufacturer, Cincinnati Mine Machinery, worked with NIOSH to develop a single-sprocket
urethane-coated chain that is now in production. Joy Mining Machinery (the largest manufacturer
of continuous mining machines) worked with NIOSH to develop the dual-sprocket chain and
created a new production facility to accommodate the new chain configuration. NIOSH evaluation
studies showed that the dual-sprocket chain results in a 3 dB(A) noise reduction, which is a 50%
decrease in sound intensity. Since putting the dual-sprocket chain on the market in 2008, Joy has
received 380 orders worldwide, with 311 of the chains installed on 30% of the continuous mining
machines in the U.S. Joy has also worked with NIOSH to create a combination of a dual-sprocket
chain with a urethane coating. NIOSH testing verified a 4 dB(A) noise reduction for this version and
Joy has recently begun receiving orders for a commercially available model.
Roof Bolting Machine Noise Controls
Developing and implementing noise controls for the roof bolting machine followed a process
similar to that for the continuous mining machine, with some variations. NIOSH found that over
50% of the operator’s noise exposure occurred while drilling holes into the mine roof in
preparation for installing bolts that hold the mine roof safely in place. Furthermore, most of the
sound was radiated from a steel shaft used to drive the spinning drill bit through the rock and coal
layers of the mine roof. NIOSH devised an isolator device that installs between the drill bit and the
shaft to reduce transmitted vibrations that produce radiated sound. Because operators can drill
over 100 holes every workday, it was important to develop a solution that would be durable and
would not interfere with the worker’s drilling procedure. NIOSH partnered with Kennametal Inc. (a
major drilling component manufacturer) and Corry Rubber Corporation (a rubber isolation system
manufacturer) to develop a device that would meet these noise reduction, durability, and usability
goals. After development, a series of field tests under a range of conditions at participating mines
confirmed that the design objectives had been met along with a 3-5 dB(A) noise reduction. The
device is now commercially available and is already being used in mines.
Personal Dust Monitor
To reduce the risk of coal worker’s pneumoconiosis (black lung), NIOSH developed the Personal
Dust Monitor (PDM). The PDM is a mass-based, dust sampling instrument that provides real-time
measurement of respirable dust exposure for mine workers. Under current dust regulations, a mine
worker wears a gravimetric sampling pump to collect a respirable dust sample on a filter that is
then mailed to the MSHA laboratory for processing. MSHA determines the average exposure
concentration and sends the result to the mining company. This process takes one to two weeks,
during which time the mine worker may continue to be overexposed. In a major advancement, the
PDM provides the wearer a measure of his or her respirable dust exposure during the shift so that
corrective actions can be taken to prevent an overexposure from occurring. NIOSH organized a
partnership with industry, labor, and MSHA to help guide decision-making during the development
of the PDM. Results from extensive laboratory testing and in-mine testing at 20% of underground
coal mining sections determined that the PDM performance was equivalent to or better than that of
the current gravimetric sampler. The PDM is commercialized by Thermo Fisher Scientific and has
been certified by MSHA and NIOSH as an approved coal mine dust sampling device under
requirements stipulated in 30 CFR Part 74. The PDM is specified as the compliance dust sampler in
new dust regulations proposed by MSHA, which are expected to be finalized this year. In addition,
approximately 200 PDMs have been purchased by mining companies and are being used to assess
dust exposures and the effectiveness of dust control technologies.
16

Coal Dust Explosibility Meter
An ever-present danger in underground coal mining is the accumulation of combustible coal dust
generated by the mining process. Federal regulations require that an incombustible material, such
as pulverized limestone or dolomite, be applied in all underground areas of a coal mine to mitigate
the propagation of a coal dust explosion by maintaining a total incombustible content (TIC) of at
least 80%. The typical process of collecting samples, shipping them to a remote laboratory,
analyzing them for TIC, and delivering the results to the mine is quite lengthy and leads to long
delays in receiving notice of potentially explosible conditions. The Coal Dust Explosibility Meter
(CDEM) allows immediate determination of the explosibility of a coal and rock dust mixture. In
partnership with H&P Prototyping, Geneva College Center for Technology Development, and
Sensidyne Inc., a handheld device has been successfully developed and commercialized for the
industry. An extensive study in cooperation with the Mine Safety and Health Administration
(MSHA) showed that 97% of the samples identified by the CDEM as being explosible or
nonexplosible agreed with the results of parallel MSHA analyses.
This study strongly supports the use of the CDEM in the underground coal mining industry. To date,
over 200 of these devices have already been purchased by U.S. coal operators to produce real-time
assessments of explosibility of coal and rock dust mixtures, a significant improvement over the
lengthy procedure currently employed. These mine operators use the CDEM to ensure that minimal
inertization requirements are achieved to reduce the hazard of explosion propagation.
In-mine Gas Nitrogen Generating System
Mine seals are used in underground coal mines throughout the United States to isolate abandoned
mining areas from the active mine workings. When a coal mine area is sealed, the atmosphere can
become hazardous due to oxidation of coal and other materials in the sealed area. Methane gas may
also accumulate in the sealed area and create an explosive mixture with the ambient oxygen.
Adding inert gas to a sealed mine area is designed to quickly reduce the oxygen concentration in the
sealed area to a level that will not support combustion. Under a program created by the Mine
Improvement and New Emergency Response Act of 2006, also known as the MINER Act, NIOSH
awarded a contract to On Site Gas Systems to design and construct a reliable in-mine mobile plant
that would extract nitrogen gas from the mine atmosphere and use the gas to create and maintain a
safe sealed mine area. Under this contract, On Site Gas Systems developed an altogether new
pressure swing adsorption sieve bed design that achieves a breakthrough in reducing the size of the
plant while maintaining an effectively high nitrogen output. The nitrogen gas output of the plant
produces 95% purity at 300 standard cubic feet/minute. This unique gas-generating system can be
placed within the mine in close proximity to a sealed area and provides mine operators with the
capability to inert any sealed area for as long as needed. The system is currently available for sale to
the mining industry.
Communication Systems
To improve the chances of surviving a mine emergency, the MINER Act mandates wireless
communications and electronic tracking systems for all underground coal mines. These systems
must be capable of surviving a mine disaster so that miners can use them to coordinate their escape
and emergency response. The systems must also pass MSHA permissibility requirements for safe
operation in a potentially explosive methane environment.
17

The Act required mine operators to include these systems in their Emergency Response Plans by
June 2009, and required NIOSH to conduct the R&D and commercialization of these systems within
that time frame. With only three years to develop and commercialize systems that did not exist
prior to the Act, NIOSH collaborated with labor, industry, and regulatory stakeholders to identify
candidate technologies that had the best chance of meeting the intent of the Act. NIOSH issued a
series of competitive contracts that led to the commercialization of several permissible systems
including the wireless mesh communications and tracking system manufactured by L3
Communications, and an enhanced leaky feeder communications system manufactured by Becker
Mining Systems. All of these systems operate in a conventional radio band and provide the miner
with a wireless communication device that is compact and portable. Nearly all underground coal
mines now use this type of technology to establish a primary communications system.
More recently, NIOSH has developed secondary systems to serve as back-up systems or alternate
communication paths for the primary systems. Unlike primary systems, these secondary systems
operate in non-traditional parts of the electromagnetic spectrum, which reduces the need for
vulnerable infrastructure in the mine and improves their survivability in a mine disaster. The
secondary systems that are now commercially available and were developed in collaboration with
NIOSH include a through-the-earth (TTE) communications system manufactured by Lockheed
Martin and a medium frequency system manufactured by Kutta Technologies.
Summary
NIOSH has actively pursued a systematic r2p process for implementation of its research-based
technologies in the workplace where they can protect miners from health and safety hazards.
Although the processes have differed to some extent because of the technology, hazard addressed,
and participants needed to complete the solution, there are several key commonalities across these
development efforts. In every case, the need for the technology was established through hazard
analysis and stakeholder input at the inception of the development process. Multiple stakeholders
were involved along the way, especially mine operators, organized labor, regulators, and
manufacturers. Actual development was performed by various combinations of NIOSH researchers,
contract organizations, and potential manufacturers, depending on technical complexity and
available resources. Regardless of the specific development path, each technology remained
focused on reducing the targeted hazard, and its performance was evaluated repeatedly in
laboratory simulations and in real-world trials. The successful development of these technologies is
now being used as a model for more efficient development of new technologies that address other
significant hazards in the mining industry.
18

Inverted Drill Press
Dr. David Rempel, University of California San Francisco
Drilling overhead into concrete or metal ceiling is punishing work. Construction workers who
frequently perform this task with conventional tools often suffer soft tissue injuries in the hands,
arms, shoulders and backs. To address the issue, David Rempel set out to design a tool that could
keep workers off ladders when drilling overhead.
The Inverted Drill Press keeps workers safer by allowing them to perform all tasks from groundlevel.
Workers rated the Inverted Drill Press superior in many areas. It reduces force to the body by
90 percent, and diminishes fatigue in the neck, shoulders, hands, arms, lower back, and legs.
Additional benefits include decreased injuries from falls, and potential increases in productivity.
The Inverted Drill Press met and has overcome a series of challenges. Regarding intellectual
property and patents, the University of California, San Francisco Office of Technology Management
determined that the design of the Inverted Drill Press was not patentable because it incorporated
several design features that had already been patented. The patent office does not grant patents for
combined concepts. To overcome this hurdle, the company that ended up building the inverted
drill press (TelPro) added several design features. TelPro has since applied for patents.
During the development process, a partnership including more than 20 contractors and labor
unions provided invaluable input through focus group meetings, prototype development, and field
testing opportunities with more than 100 workers in three states.
Over the course of 4 years, usability and productivity testing helped to identify and resolve many
new safety, cord management, silica dust collection, rapid vertical alignment, transportation and
storage, wheel type, drill stop, bit changing, and other issues. Also considered was worker training
required (very little needed), maintenance (field testing identified failure points), and to some
extent cost. Construction workers were able to recommend design features.
Through research and collaboration, the Inverted Drill Press evolved to have a tripod base on
locking wheels, a telescoping vertical column with a drill-mounting saddle on top, alignment
devices, and gears and a handwheel that extends and retracts the column. It can be assembled onsite
in 30-seconds, weighs 90 pounds with a drill, and is compatible with scissor and other lifts.
Some barriers still exist, such as transportation, storage, seating anchor bolts, and marketing.
To market the technology to tool manufacturers, presentations were given by the primary
researcher at several construction safety meetings, union meetings, and contractor trade
associations. This generated some interest, but manufacturers would be more befitted to develop
more thorough and strategic marketing approaches.
With limited existing incentives to support the development and commercialization of construction
health and safety technologies, the project funding provided by CPWR/NIOSH was essential.
Secondly, the California Silica Dust Standard helped to motivate contractors to try the device.
Construction insurance companies have also been supportive, but they have not offered premium
reductions to date.
19

Business Case for Implementing Battery-Powered Tools for Electric
Utility Workers
Patricia Seeley, Ergonomics Solutions LLC
Common tasks performed by overhead and underground line workers in the electric power
industry often involve the use of a manual tool. A biomechanical analysis revealed that less than 1
% of the general population has sufficient strength to manually perform this common task,
resulting in decreased productivity and worker injury.
Ergonomics work task studies of four distinct line worker populations sponsored by EPRI (Electric
Power Research Institute) revealed that the ergonomic interventions with the greatest
improvement in worker occupational health as well as productivity were battery-powered cutters
and crimpers. However, battery-powered tools of this nature can cost over $3500 each, compared
to less than $300 for their manual counterparts. Often three or more such tools were required per
line crew; unlike manual tools, replacement tools and batteries would be needed at regular
intervals.
These studies were initiated by a request to EPRI for funding from the lead safety consultant and
the occupational health nurse at Wisconsin Electric (now known as We Energies). This request
followed a pilot study of preassembly warehouse operations conducted by Marquette University
and funded internally. Since the first study, EPRI has spent several million dollars each for 3-4 year
studies of overhead, direct bury cable, and cable/conduit line workers; power plant operators,
mechanics, electricians and plant design; utility fleet process, fleet mechanics, vehicle specifications
and design. Each study has included a unique business case. We Energies provided over two million
dollars of in-kind contributions for worker bimonthly meeting time and travel, and time for pilot
field studies in between meetings. By combining funds from up to 32 utilities, these studies have
had a large impact on the occupational health and productivity of several hundred thousand
workers in the industry.
A business case was developed by the corporate ergonomist for the purchase of the first set of
battery-powered tools for overhead line workers. Implementation problems were identified and
subsequently addressed for the succeeding three business cases for direct bury cable,
cable/conduit, and troubleshooter line mechanics. These included: holding workers and managers
accountable for intentional misuse and breakage of tools, purchase of the wrong, insufficient or
excessive number of tools for some work groups, continuation of manual tool usage by workers
who did not want to change. The effects on injuries among the 300 overhead line workers far
exceeded predictions.
The following business cases focused far more on productivity benefits for cost savings and
justification of their purchase. Each business case was tailored to the unique characteristics of the
work group, based on interviews and available data on workers, illnesses, their work tasks. The
business cases resulted in payback periods varying from six to 14 months. As a result of these
business cases, the electric utility spent over $2,000,000 to purchase battery-powered tools for all
of its line mechanic crews.
In addition, some simpler business cases for “no-brainer” interventions were very easy to adopt
due to the labor and material costs saved. These were developed by a team organized by the
outside materials vendor engineer to promote field trials of new products with productivity and
20

health benefits. Ultimately, the manufacturers just sent them to We Energies before launching new
products.
Lessons Learned
Partnerships may include various actors such as trade and research organizations, vendors,
manufacturers, distributors as well as the companies who are the potential customers of new tools,
materials, and equipment. These partnerships offer a mechanism for communication with external
organizations that may have an influence on the successful commercialization of the technology.
Early and consistent communication among these organizations during the development process
can help to identify potential problems before attempting to introduce a technology into the
market.
Partnerships that will get the tools in the workers’ hands may also be pursued by vendors and
manufacturers with the companies who employ these workers and would be their target
customers. For example, We Energies worked successfully with Milwaukee Electric Tools, Huskie
Tools, and Snap on Tools on several projects. We Energies ergonomics worker teams identified
several safety, ergonomic and productivity issues with existing tools. They trialed the tools of
several manufacturers and then went to the companies for modifications. One example was for
Milwaukee Electric to give them a new prototype of their cordless impact tool which was sorely
needed to replace gas powered drills with numerous operational and safety concerns. It was found
to be the best performer among several tested, but line workers needed it to have a ring for hanging
on a lanyard as well as a keyless chuck quick connect. Milwaukee Electric engineers provided a
prototype within one week. It met with instant acceptance. The overhead line workers ergonomics
team presented it to upper management and they requested several hundred be manufactured by
Milwaukee Electric. At this point, the vice president of Milwaukee Electric called the corporate
ergonomist and asked her “just how many utility workers are there in the US?” The company had
always marketed to the construction and residential purchaser, and had never considered that
utilities also perform construction tasks. This led to new marketing, research, and production
opportunities.
Another case study involved Border States Electric, who had the distribution line of business tools
and materials contract with We Energies. An engineer at Border States formed a health and safety
team to review new trends in utility goods. By providing lunch and a convenient meeting place, he
convinced We Energies employees to meet with him on a monthly basis. Two teams were formed:
one for overhead, one for underground operations. They consisted of two engineers, a
representative of supply chain, a health and safety onsite expert, a member of the appropriate
ergonomics team. He presented new and potential applications. In many cases, the engineers were
the naysayers and had to be convinced that the item would meet electrical codes and safety
requirements. The workers would test them in the field and report back. Once the engineers signed
off, the team would prepare a business case of how much time would be saved per application with
the new product or method. A good example was gel wrapped underground cable slices. While the
new—not even on the market—product was quite expensive it saved many minutes over the
traditional heat shrink method and provided substantial health and safety benefits as well. It was
decided by We Energies to purchase them for large storm emergency outage use only when time to
restore service was of the essence. After several months of field usage, the time savings were
proven to make them cost effective for all direct buried cable faults. In one year’s time, the team
saved the company over one million dollars with several recommendations, an amount expanded
substantially in future years.
21

Lack of a quantitative business case to support ergonomic recommendations is a frequent reason
for non-adoption of interventions. Proper documentation and sound methodology can lead to
relatively short payback periods, which can greatly increase the probability of the implementation
of the interventions. The business case process for the battery-powered tools presented in this
manuscript could assist health and safety professionals in their efforts to implement ergonomic
interventions.
Lacking the regulatory impact of an OSHA ergonomics standard--apart from the general duty
clause--occupational health and safety professionals need training in the necessity of and methods
for developing business cases for ergonomics interventions. In addition, they need to learn how to
best present them to the intended audience: supervisors and crew leaders, mid-managers, as well
as top management. All involved need to be receptive to consideration of additional cost savings
apart from workers compensation. Once an ergonomic intervention is approved and purchased,
workers and management need to be champions for addressing implementation difficulties.
Finally, success needs to be marketed, so that cost-effective and readily accepted ergonomic
solutions continue to be communicated across the company and the whole industry, making the
case that ergonomic investment can have a short payback period.
References
Stone, R. Marklin, P. Seeley, and G. Mezei, A collaborative effort to apply ergonomics to electric
utility workers at generating stations (2011). WORK: A Journal of Prevention, Assessment &
Rehabilitation. Volume 39, No. 2, Nov. 2011. pp. 103 – 111.
Seeley, P., Marklin, R., Usher, D. and Yager, J. (2008). Case Study Report: Business Case for
implementing battery-powered tools for direct-bury line workers at an electric power utility.
Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene, 5:D86-D91.
P Seeley, Chapter 4 The Business Case.EPRI (2008) EPRI ergonomics handbook for the electric
power industry: ergonomic interventions for electrical workers in fossil-fueled power plants.
P Seeley Chapter 4 The Business Case .EPRI (2008) EPRI ergonomics handbook for the electric
power industry: ergonomic interventions for plant operators and mechanics in fossil-fueled power
plants.
P Seeley, Injuries getting you down? Move injuries upstream. The Synergist. May 2008, 71-73.
P. Seeley Principal Investigator. EPRI Ergonomics Handbook for the Electric Power Industry:
Ergonomic Design Handbook for Fossil-Fueled Electric Generating Stations. Final report March 2008.
1014942. Electric Power Research Institute.
P. Seeley Making the case for ergonomics. Water Well Journal, March 2007 30.
Stone, A., Usher, D., Marklin, R., Seeley, T. and Yager, J. (2006). Case study for underground workers
at an electric utility: How a research institution, university and industry collaboration improved
occupational health through ergonomics. Journal of Occupational & Environmental Hygiene, 3: 397-
407.
22

P Seeley Chapter 4. The Business Case. EPRI (2005). EPRI ergonomics handbook for the electric
power industry: ergonomic interventions for direct-buried cable applications. EPRI, Palo Alto, CA:
2004. 1005574
P. Seeley. Ergonomics: Preventing Injury. Incident Prevention. 2 (5) September/October 2005, 8-10.
P Seeley Chapter 4 The Business Case. EPRI (2004). EPRI Ergonomics Handbook for the Electric
Power Industry: Ergonomic Interventions for Manhole, Vault and Conduit Applications. EPRI, Palo
Alto, CA: 2004. 1005430.
Marklin, R.W., Lazuardi, L., and Wilzbacher, J. (2004). Measurement of handle forces for crimping
connectors and cutting cable in the electric power industry. International Journal of Industrial
Ergonomics, 34, 497-506.
Seeley, P. and Marklin, R.W. (2003). Cost justification of battery-operated tools for overhead line
workers in the electric power industry. Applied Ergonomics, 34(5), 429-439.
P. Seeley. We Energies reduced repetitive motion injuries. Transmission and Distribution World. 55
(8) August 2003, 98-108.
P. Seeley Chapter 4 The Business Case. EPRI (2001). EPRI Ergonomics Handbook for the Electric
Power Industry: Overhead Distribution Line Workers Interventions. EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: 2001.
1005199.
23

Battery operated
tools: overhead
Battery operated
tools:
underground
Knee pads—
power plants
Pneumatic
“ergonomic” cart
wheels
Platforms for
power plant
access
Business case summaries from selected EPRI studies—applications at We Energies
Data The REAL driver Outcomes
Training
Capital funds that were running out $2 million spent on these tools at We Energies
apprentices,
replacement FPL—same thing—they had Fed $ from Several “knucklehead” workers who had not been on the
workers
Hurricane disaster relief
ergonomics team decided to intentionally break the
cutters—it took the VP to come down on them, retrain
everyone, to hold them accountable. Next time—get buyin
Sick days used for
MSDs
Productivity:
current vs.
proposed labor
Strict cause-effect
relationship
between
occupational hard
surface kneeling
and expensive knee
MSDs
Not perceived by
Mgt as a problem
Many done as
retrofits after
months/years
Worker buyin to no brainer solutions
CAIDI—reliability measure (time to
restore service was cut to 1/3 or less)
No OSHA mandate—yet
Workers don’t like restrictive knee pads
We make them available—they should
use them
Belief that knee injuries are age related
New wheels last a lot longer , are easier
to push/turn, saves money (higher
initial cost—much less effort (time
saved) and longer replacement window
WIN WIN
Regulation
Design company won’t operate the plant
(except for Southern Company)
from all over the company
One worker quit the team when we didn’t recommend what
he liked (1 second faster, 1 lb lighter) , badmouthed efforts.
But tools selected were same brand as overhead with same
ergonomic and productivity benefits as his preference, much
longer warranty, and huge benefit of using the same battery
Found knee pads in pants—always available, comfortable
Workers love them
Now—gel pads permanently in the pants
6 wheeled cart even better
The carts with pneumatic wheels continually “walked off”—
couldn’t find them—even painted bright red—(hidden by
“thieves”)
Retrofit costs 10-40* upfront cost—this is stupid but the
norm
Engineers need
training in how to
design for the
workers
We have engineer
design courses for
ergonomics now
(EPRI—Tailored
collaboration)
States allow only so much in capital plant
design/construction—has to come out of
operating funds
4 engineers had getting this course
designed after it was added to their
annual performance goals. They were
strongly motivated because their pay
increase was hanging on getting this
done.
A few get done—not 1/4 of what is needed
For implementation, need capital funds to complete a few
projects/year
Engineers are using the guidelines and pushing to get their
designs approved
Other utilities are requiring this training
24

Costs from Manual Pressing of Connectors and Manual Cutting of Cable at the Host Utility and Costs that can be Saved by Purchase of
Battery-operate Tools (Based on 123 Cumulative Injuries to Direct Buried Cable Workers at Host Utility from 1999-2003)
Type of Data Description of Data Total Cost from
MSDs 1999-2003
Annual Cost During
1999-2003 period
Annual Cost Savings
projected
WC costs from 123 Medical and
$104,788 $20,958 $6986 (1/3)
injuries
indemnity
Replacement
workers for LWD
Avg. pay rate for
URD installers +31%
benefits=$50/hour
8 hours/day for
LWD, 4 hours for
$74,400 $14,880 $4960 (1/3)
Replacement
workers for RWD
RWD
Avg. pay rate for
URD installers +31%
benefits=$50/hour,
4 hours/day for
RWD
$138,600 $27,720 $9240 (1/3)
Elimination of future
purchase and repair
of manual tools
Productivity—labor
cost—savings from
reduced setup time
and excavation size
Manual and remote
hydraulic tools for
pressing connectors
and cutting cable
1 hour per week
setup, ½ hour/day
excavation for
dedicated URD
crews only
$12,498 (19 mos) $7893 $2,836 (from
replacement/repair
of tools turned in)
$57,200 setup
$143,000 excavation
$200,200
Total annual savings $224,222
25

Cost/Benefit Analysis Summary and Payback Data
Category Annual savings projected Totals Annual Costs
WC $6986
LWD $4960
RWD $9240
Productivity $200,200
Manual tool repair and
$2836
replacement
Purchase of Battery Tools $254,937 $50,987
Repair of battery tools
$20230 $4046
(broken blades)
Total $224,222 annual savings $275,167 $55,033 costs
Payback Period
3 months/year if tools are capitalized over 5 years;
($55,033/$224,222=0.25 years or 3 months)
Payback Period
15 months if paid in lump sum
($275,179/$224,222 = 1.23 years or 15 months
Data for 2 nd Business case for Battery powered tools
In order to determine whether the battery-powered tools would be cost-effective replacements for
the manual press and cutter, the corporate ergonomist for the host utility compiled medical and
other cost data from WC for the OSHA recordable injuries. In addition, the corporate ergonomist
and a specially-appointed implementation team reviewed the following cost data outside the WC
system that were attributed to the 123 cumulative injuries. All of this data is summarized in the
tables
Replacement workers for LWD and a percentage of RWD (light duty days)
Productivity gains from the URD workers and supervisors’ estimates—after nearly two
years’ trial use in the field—on the frequency of use of the .battery-operated tools where
there were reduced times documented. There were two categories of time savings
o reduced setup times as compared to the hydraulic tools This was calculated as 1
hour per week for the dedicated URD crews.
o reduced excavation size. A smaller trench means less hand digging. This not only
reduces time but also can be expected over a period of years to lower the rate of
MSDs due to digging and shoveling. Crews stated that they used the batteryoperated
tools at least 10% of the time or 4 hours per week, though overtime is
sometimes required, it was not involved in the calculations. Troubleshooting crews
would have similar savings. In the end, a more conservative figure of 2.5 hours per
week for a dedicated URD crew was used. No productivity forecasts were included
for the cross-trained overhead/underground crews were included because the
implementation team did not include supervisors and workers from this portion of
the host utility in order to capture the time savings. This can certainly be done in the
near future, but was not necessary to make the business case.
26

Repair or replacement of the existing manual cutters and crimpers. This data was supplied
from the Supply Chain and distributor. Elimination of certain manual tools could be
expected to save these costs as long as they would be turned in when the new tools were
distributed. This was a very controversial issue with the overhead line crews. In the
intervening two years, however, underground crews were well aware of the benefits of use
of battery-operated tools and there were few objections to giving up tools. The only
difficulty was accounting for their location and numbers. Also, since cable sizes and work
practices differ greatly across the utility, which tools were needed before and after the
rollout of battery operated replacements varied widely for trouble or customer restoration
work.
In addition to the cost of the tools, it was learned that there may be additional costs
associated with damaged tools. Investigation of these incidents showed patterns in selected
locations with repeated breakage, particularly with the cutters by workers who chose to cut
items which the tools were not designed to handle. As a result the blades were typically
broken. After one year’s experience, the breakage trickled to a minimum with familiarity.
Hence, a smaller allocation was calculated as a tool cost.
There are categories of data which do not appear in this analysis. Clerical costs and training
costs are not included. New hires acquisition and training required due to replacement of
injured workers were not included. This is because when the host utility was making its
business case, the less intractable data—WC costs, productivity-were more readily available
and made a highly compelling case without the full data set. In addition, the host utility had
already developed an articulated process for ergonomics analysis, recommendations, the
business case and implementation which was predisposed to accept its findings since the
demonstrated benefits of the previously chosen battery-operated tools were so great.
27

Business Case Presentation Lessons Learned
The initial business case was presented to the Ergonomics Steering Committee. While the
committee approved the concept, it was mandated that the implementation team meet with
supervisors in each of the areas in order to review work practices, cable sizes, numbers and types
of tools required. This had not been done in the overhead battery tools rollout and probably
resulted in some of the tool breakage and cultural concerns raised.
Following this presentation, at least one member of the implementation team and a URD
ergonomics team member working on a crew in the area met with area supervisors within a three
week period. This was an extremely tight time schedule mandated by the need to capitalize the
tools during the current calendar year, receiving them from the manufacturer before mid-
December. Experience from the overhead rollout was referenced to get Supply Chain to put out
requests for bids and issue the resulting requisitions in a short time window.
These meetings revealed considerably varying needs. The dedicated URD crews would be getting
one 6.6 ton, 2 ½” jaw opening scissor type battery-operated cutter, one battery-operated scissor
type 6 ton crimper (with a closed jaw to reduce excavation time, otherwise the same as the
overhead crimper) and also an additional, somewhat slower gear driven cutter for use in repairing
service outages with two workers in a trench.
The other crews in the northern portion of the utility’s customer area would receive no additional 6
ton crimpers since they already had them from the overhead rollout. They requested additional 12
ton crimpers (one per service center was previously approved last year and more were needed up
north), and two 6.6 ton cutters. They were unable to use the gear driven cutters due to their typical
cable sizes.
It was vital to ask the supervisors and their workers for their input and to have someone from the
team who had used the various tools over a period of time to explain the relative merits for their
specific work requirements.
Ultimately, the initial request of $217,500 was increased to $254,937 with this input. The tools
were put out for competitive bids and the utility realized some quantity cost savings. The tools
were capitalized over a five year period.
It also needs to be noted that business cases for the host utility are works in progress. Typically
when the presentation is made, there are numerous requests for additional and modified data.
Often the final decision involves a different number and/or type of tools from the initial
recommendation. Furthermore, the utility may find additional cost savings through quantity
purchases. It is highly recommended that utilities review their cost/benefit results in the next
several succeeding years.
28

Descriptions and costs of battery-powered tools for direct-buried cable work
Tool Description OVH 1
or
URD 2
Use
Number
for URD
/OVH
Crews 3
Number
for URD
Crews 4
Total
Number
Estimated
Cost for
Each 5
Total
6.6 ton scissortype
cutter
Gear-driven 2”
jaw cutter
(slower than 6.6
ton cutter)
URD
only
URD
only
10 36 46 $3,033 $139,518
0 27 27 $1915 $51,705
12 ton press URD
only
4 0 4 $3500 $14,000
6 ton press
(dedicated URD
version is closed
jawed, OVH is
open jawed)
URD
and
OVH
0 16 16 $2271 $36,336
Scissor-type
overhead 1 3/16”
dia.
OVH 5 0 5 $2678 $13,390
Total Cost = $254,949
1 OVH = overhead
2 URD = underground residential distribution (direct-buried cable)
3 Cross-trained crews that do both URD and OVH
4 Dedicated URD crews
5 Rounded estimate
29

Autonomous Pro-Active Real-Time Construction Worker and Equipment
Operator Proximity Safety Alert System
Dr. Jochen Teizer, School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology
Introduction
Each construction jobsite has a unique size and set of working conditions. Typical construction
environments are comprised of multiple resources such as construction personnel, equipment and
materials. These resources perform dynamic construction activities in a defined space, and they
often are in close proximity to each other. A hazardous situation can exist when heavy construction
equipment is operating in close proximity to ground workers. Contact collisions between ground
workers and heavy construction equipment can increase the risk of injuries and fatalities for
construction personnel.
Previous research efforts have reported construction statistics on injuries and fatalities due to
collisions between construction equipment and workers. Because construction projects often
involve many repetitive tasks, construction workers can experience decreased awareness and loss
of focus (Pratt et al. 2001). Equipment operator visibility, specifically operator blind spots, also
contributes to contact collisions between construction equipment and ground workers (Fullerton et
al. 2009).
A real-time proximity detection and warning system capable of alerting construction personnel and
equipment operators during hazardous proximity situations is needed to promote safety on
construction jobsites. It is assumed that the construction industry can realize significant
improvements in safety if technology is applied while implementing safety management practices
(Fullerton et al. 2009).
A lack of scientific evaluation data currently exists for new and existing construction safety
technologies. Minimal information exists to demonstrate how commercially-available technology
can be used to warn construction personnel of the presence of hazards in real-time, specifically
proximity issues. Emerging safety technology for construction needs to be thoroughly evaluated
through experiments simulating conditions in the construction environment. Analysis of the data
can reveal the validity and effectiveness of these emerging technologies.
Pro-active safety technologies using secure radio frequency (RF) were reviewed for effectiveness in
the construction environment.
Real-time Pro-Active Proximity Warning and Alert Technology
Pro-active safety technologies implemented on construction jobsites are capable of providing alerts
to construction workers and equipment operators in real-time when a hazardous proximity issue is
present (Teizer et al. 2010). Existing safety technologies can potentially create a safety barrier
providing workers with a “second chance” if previous safety best practices are deficient (Teizer et
al. 2008). This new information and warning system can promote safety in construction and
provide new data sources.
Ruff (2001) found several proximity warning systems including RADAR (Radio Detection and
Ranging), sonar, Global Positioning System (GPS), radio transceiver tags, cameras, and
30

combinations of the mentioned technologies. The study found each of these technologies to have
limitations such as availability of signal, size, weight and feasibility in the construction environment
(Ruff 2001).
The construction industry needs a wireless, reliable and rugged technology capable of sensing and
alerting workers when hazardous proximity issues exist. Teizer et al. (2010) demonstrated that
radio frequency (RF) can satisfy the jobsite safety requirements.
Objective of Evaluating Proximity Warning and Alert Technologies
The objective of this research is to promote and increase construction jobsite safety for workers
during heavy equipment operations by using radio frequency technology for real-time pro-active
proximity warning devices. If two or more construction resources are in too close proximity to one
another, the sensing technology will activate alarms to warn workers through devices called
Equipment and Personal Protection Units (EPU and PPU).
The radio frequency technology was evaluated using two different experimental configurations.
The experiments were designed to measure the performance of the technology in a simulated
outdoor construction environment. The experiment tested the device’s ability to detect and alert
equipment operators of hazardous proximity issues.
Experiments and Results
Each experiment was designed to evaluate the effectiveness of proximity detection technology in
the construction environment. Each experiment attempted to simulate a typical construction
environment and test the proximity detection devices in the created environment. The proximity
detection system utilized for the experiments used a secure wireless communication line of Very
High Frequency (VHF) active Radio Frequency (RF) technology near 700 MHz (Teizer et al. 2010).
Technology Tested
Radio frequency (RF) technology was employed for each of the proximity detection experiments.
The EPU component of the proximity detection device contains a single antenna, reader, alert
mechanism and can be powered by the existing battery on the piece of equipment. The PPU is a
handheld device that can be installed on a hard hat of a construction worker. This device contains a
chip, battery and alert mechanism. A signal broadcasted by the EPU is intercepted by the PPU when
the devices are in close proximity of one another. The proximity range can be manually modified by
the user to lengthen or shorten the range in which an alert is activated. When the PPU intercepts
the radio signal, it immediately returns a signal and both the EPU and PPU alarms are activated
instantaneously in real-time.
These proximity detection devices can have up to three different alarm methods: audible, visual and
vibratory. The proximity detection system selected for this research only provides the equipment
operator a visual and audible alert. The alert is only provided to the equipment operator because
he/she ultimately has control to stop or correct the hazard. Alerts are not provided to ground
workers to prevent double-correction (both operator and worker avoiding the hazard in the same
direction) and to prevent workers from placing themselves in a more hazardous situation.
Equipment operators are warned through audible sounds and visual flashing lights located on the
device inside the equipment cabin. The audible alerts create ample noise so that workers and
31

operators wearing hearing protection are still able to hear the alert. Because construction workers
can become desensitized to audible alerts, the vibration and visual alerts provide more alert
options (Orbitcoms 2010). The visual and audible alert method was received by only the equipment
operator and was held constant for both field trials.
Experiments and Results with Proximity Warning Devices
A proximity detection device system was used based on the safety needs of the construction
industry. This system was evaluated in two different experimental settings, both evaluating the
different capabilities of the system including its ability to perform in the construction environment.
Limitations, Future Work and Application Areas
The stated objective of this research was to evaluate the effectiveness of proximity detection and
alert technologies on heavy equipment in the construction environment. If the devices are found to
be effective in the construction environment, then criteria can be developed on which to base
further investigation. As with all experimental research, each of the proximity detection and alert
experiments had limitations. After evaluating the feasibility of the proximity detection and alert
devices in the construction environment, many other parameters and potential influences on the
system should be evaluated through future experimentation. Future studies should include, but not
be limited to:
Effects of temperature, humidity, precipitation and other ambient influences
Mounting positions of the EPU and PPU devices including location of devices on workers
and equipment
Worker’s and operator’s reaction to using the devices including added weight of the device
and its effect on their ability to complete construction tasks
Future research efforts should also address the following issues, as they were not addressed in the
experiments performed in this paper:
Calibration of the alert distances with respect to each specific piece of construction
equipment including operator reaction and brake distance times as well as equipment
stopping times
Sensitivity analysis can be performed on a detection systems capable of calibration to a predefined
numerical alert distances
Investigate and assign appropriate proximity detection distances for specific construction
activities
Long-term construction field trials should be conducted with the devices
Develop an effective implementation strategy including a cost-benefit analysis for the
technology
Collect and record “close-calls” or “near-misses” data to further educate construction
workers on proximity issues in construction
Accidents on construction jobsites not only involve fatalities or injuries of workers, they can
become very expensive after calculating medical costs, insurance costs, productivity decrease
resulting from time lost, and possible litigation costs.
32

Some of these costs could potentially be avoided by implementing emerging safety technologies
such as real-time pro-active proximity detection and alert systems.
Conclusion
The construction industry desires to eventually obtain an accident free jobsite including a zero
fatality rate for each construction project. Statistics specific to proximity issues in construction
demonstrate that current safety practices in construction are insufficient. The preliminary results
of the described experiments propose that real-time pro-active proximity detection systems can
promote safety in construction.
The proximity detection and alert device prototype demonstrated its ability to detect the presence
of heavy construction equipment. The tested construction equipment included a wheel loader,
forklift, scraper, dozer, excavator, motor grader, personnel mover, articulated dump truck, crane
and pick-up truck. Once detected, the system simultaneously activated an alarm to warn the
workers and equipment operators of the hazardous proximity issue. The system demonstrated its
ability to warn construction personnel that they were too close to other construction resources.
The audible alerts were loud enough to be heard over back up alarms and general construction
noise.
The proximity detection and alert system also demonstrated its ability to measure and record when
a proximity alert is activated. This collected data can later be used to analyze “close-calls” or “nearmisses.”
New safety concepts and training could evolve from the analysis of “near-miss” data
collected from a construction project. Workers could be notified of historical hazardous project
conditions and construction activities.
33