Safety is Free

If you get a chance, read Philip Crosby's "Quality is free" and replace the word "quality" with "safety". You will be surprised how much quality management and safety management have in common. Review especially the quality management maturity grid (1.Uncertainty, 2. Awakening, 3.Enlightenment, 4.Wisdom and 5. Certainty).

Meike Patten, MPSafetyTraining

Confined Spaces

September 6, 2010. NY: Two workers were killed from a possible fall and/or oxygen deficiency while entering a permit required confined space.

The hazards of confined spaces are underestimated on a regular basis as we do not see the gases that drift in a manhole or in a tunnel. The failure to recognize a confined space as such, as well as the failure to recognize the invisible but deadly hazards, almost always results in asphyxiation.

Why is it so difficult to make workers understand the incredible risk they are taking when they enter a Permit Required Confined Space? Is it complacency or the attitude that “it’ll take only a few minutes to get the job done”, do they think that simply opening the cover of a manhole or the door to a crawlspace under a building is sufficient to flush out the “bad air”?

What can we safety professionals do better? How can we change our own approach to training and make people understand that they risk their lives? And if supervisors and management do not comprehend the severity of the situation, how can we expect the workers to follow standards, regulations and safe work practices? Even if comprehensive classroom and/or hands-on training has been provided, there will still be people who will do all the wrong things a few weeks later when a PRCS is encountered. What is management’s role come in such a situation? If management does not fully understand the need to enforce the rules, and, if necessary, to draw the consequences (disciplinary actions), procedures and training will only sporadically be followed. It always comes down to management commitment and support. The grassroots approach is certainly an important building block, but it can only take you that far.

PRCS come in all sizes and shapes and the hazards are numerous. Constant training sessions are not always the solutions. Workers may over time resent being trained and guided, because they have heard it many times before. One approach may be to seek individual one-on-one communication. It is important that safety professionals have at least a basic knowledge of psychology, because at times he or she will have to “manipulate minds” – ya’know, like the clever wife who manipulates the husband and lets him think it was all his idea… Get a worker’s input. Make sure he or she understands that you really, really want to hear his opinion and how he would approach this particular hazard. Talk to the guys in the field and in the plants, make training more personal.

And never be satisfied with what you achieve. OSHA standards are only minimum requirements and we can do better than that. OSHA is not only about safety and health but also about politics (what an eye-opening statement…), which that means that safety professionals often have to be the forerunners and trailblazers and do more than just what OSHA requires in order to keep folks safe.

Meike Patten, MPSafetyTraining

I2P2

December 7th will be the first meeting of the Injury and Illness Prevention Program workgroup. The idea of the socalled I2P2 is not new. In 1991, California developed its own Injury Prevention Program, and the State of Minnesota, for example, requires "A Workplace Accident and Injury Reduction Program (AWAIR)".

In August 2010, a stakeholder meeting discussed a possible I2P2 based on OSHA's Voluntary Protection Program, Safety and Health Achievement Recognition Program, ANSI Standards and OHSAS 18001 series (by the British Standards Institution), as well as state programs such as CAL OSHA's Injury Prevention Plan. OSHA hopes to be able to present the rulemaking on I2P2 within the next three years.

Consensus standards have been developed by the American National Standards Institute and the American Industrial Hygiene Association. The ANSI/AIHA Z10 standard is based on the Deming cycle (plan-do-check-act) and the concept of continual improvement which is also major part of the ISO 14000 process standard series focusing on Environmental Management Systems. The American Industrial Hygiene Association (AIHA) believes that the component of continual improvement is beyond the statutory limits and that the I2P2 program, although based on the PDCA model, should focus on OHS management.

Another consensus standard, OHSAS 18001, provides guidelines to establish occupational health and safety management systems that can help employers to reduce risks in the workplace. Similar to the ISO standards, the ANSI Z10 standard focuses on continual improvement and employer's efforts to constantly work on further development of environmental, health and safety goals.

An ISO series in regards to occupational safety and health was never developed. In contrast to consensus standards, OSHA regulations do not focus on continual improvement or on seeking new ways to improve workplace health and safety, but to provide standards that employers and employees must adhere to. OSHA standards are, however, only the minimum requirements and leave room for improvement. Using I2P2 as a regulation to force employers to put workers' safety and health into the center of attention, will hopefully over time turn compliance into a habit and bring on permanent change.

Meike Patten, MPSafetyTraining

40 Years

OSHA is turning 40. I sincerely think that a lot has been achieved in the last 40 years. But there is so much more that needs to be done. We should not sacrifice safety on the altar or economy, money and finance.

Many of the standards are still almost 40 years old. Permissible exposure levels (PEL) on a federal level are based on old scientific data. We know now a lot more about the hazardous effects of exposures to toxic chemicals, dust, asbestos, silica, just to name a few, and yet we are hanging on to the old PELs. How can it be that the research results of scientists in our nation and all around the world are not finding their way into the OSHA standards? Is it because as a result of changing standards employers would be constantly required to update their safety program and efforts? Is it because the additional cost for safety design, engineering and work practice controls would need to be covered by the end consumer? Is it because there is too much bureaucracy and we are working inefficiently? Is it because everything boils down to money?

We as safety professionals should not rely on OSHA to come up with more stringent standards. This may happen in the future – in one, two or more years. But in between now and then there will be thousands more of fatalities and injuries. It is our job to be inconvenient and voice our opinion openly. It is our job to NOT be afraid to speak up in our companies and try every angle possible to change our company’s and management’s view of and attitude towards safety. We are the backbone that OSHA needs to rely on doing everything in our power to start a change.

Will that change be always achieved fast? There will be many occasions where there will be no change at all and the safety manager of a company will either start turning grey or pull his/her hair out or decide to move on. Don’t look for your fellow safety professional to take the first step. Never give up. The change starts with each of us.

Meike Patten, MPSafetyTraining