Why are so many fearing OSHA’s I2P2

In the past several years OSHA has renewed their efforts in trying to get their “Injury and Illness Prevention Plan” (I2P2) on the table for discussion/rule making. To many safety professionals this may be a “new movement”, but in reality this effort dates all the way back to 1995. Recently, OSHA has said they are hoping to have a formal rule making effort going by September 2014 and this much needed “plan” is causing quite the stir in all industries and professions. It is my humble belief that in 1995 when OSHA first proposed this on the national level, that the atmosphere was just too burdened because we had just gotten PSM in 1992 and all the “higher risk” facilities were already working on a “management system” as they implemented PSM. However, most facilities in the USA do not deal with PSM so most of these businesses do not have a FUNCTIONING safety management system. If asked, most would say they DO HAVE a system in place, but as most seasoned safety professionals know this “system” is not really a living and breathing safety management system. Heck even some VPP sites struggle with an all encompassing and functioning safety management system. What OSHA is proposing is a MUST HAVE in my eyes! Whether we do it on our own using ANSI Z10 (which is OUTSTANDING by the way) or we wait for OSHA to require it, it is a MUCH need step to get us towards world-class safety. Ask yourself, or better yet ask your management team, what would happen tomorrow if the safety manager (or safety team) won the lottery and did NOT show up to work next week? What would happen to “safety”? Would anyone on the management team outside of the safety group have any idea what is “due to be done” over the next several weeks/months/quarters while they replace the safety team. If ONLY the safety team knows what is happening, what is scheduled to happen, and what has to be done to meet the “Lowest Safety Denominator” (i.e OSHA compliance) then we are just fooling ourselves into believing we have a functioning “safety management system”! I2P2 is meant to make safety a FUNCTION of “management” and not just the “safety manager” so it just makes me shake my head when I am at a safety conference and here safety professionals speak ill of the I2P2.  Here is the background of I2P2 and what we can expect…

In October of 1995, OSHA held the first series of stakeholder meetings to discuss preliminary ideas for a safety and health program rule and the significant issues that would be raised by such a rule. Many small businesses and organizations representing small businesses attended the stakeholder meetings. Staff members from the Office of Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA) were also present at the stakeholder meetings.

In 1998, OSHA developed a draft proposed rule that would have required employers in general industry and maritime workplaces to establish safety and health programs. The program in the draft proposed rule had five core elements, including: Management leadership and employee participation; hazard identification and assessment; hazard prevention and control; information and training; and evaluation of the program’s effectiveness. In developing the draft proposed rule, OSHA worked extensively with stakeholders from labor, industry, safety and health organizations, State governments, trade associations, insurance companies, and small businesses.

On October 20, 1998, OSHA convened a Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) Panel for the draft Safety and Health Programs proposed rule. The Panel provided small entity representatives (SERs) with initial drafts of the rule, a summary of the rule, the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, a summary of the benefits and costs of the rule as it affected firms in the small entity representative’s industry, OSHA’s draft enforcement policy for the rule, and a list of issues of interest to panel members.

A proposed Safety and Health Program rule was never published, and the rulemaking effort was removed from the Regulatory Agenda on August 15, 2002. However, the effort in the 1990s showed the interest of OSHA, the States, employers, employees, OSHA’s advisory committees, and others in a systematic process that proactively addresses workplace safety and health hazards. It demonstrated that OSHA was not alone in believing that these processes work to save lives and to prevent injuries and illnesses in the workplace.

In the past decade, consensus standards have been developed that address safety and health management systems. The American Industrial Hygiene Association published a voluntary consensus standard, ANSI/AIHA Z10-2005 Occupational Safety and Health Management Systems, based on the “Plan-Do-Check-Act” cycle. The Z10 standard places an emphasis on continual improvement and systematically eliminating the underlying root cause of hazards. In addition, the Occupational Health and Safety Assessment Series (OHSAS) Project Group, which is an international association of government agencies, private industries, and consulting organizations, developed OHSAS 18001–2007 Occupational Health and 
Safety Management Systems in response to customer demand for a recognized occupational health and safety management system standard against which their management systems could be assessed and certified. The OHSAS 18001 is published by the British Standards Institute.

Here is a simple checklist we can use to determine if our “safety management system” measures up to the “Lowest Safety Denominator”.  See if we have DOCUMENTED systems/procedures/measurements in place that address these six (6) key functions.

• Management Leadership
  • Establish clear safety and health goals for the program and define the actions needed to achieve those goals. 
    • This is a WRITTEN SAFETY PLAN that defines the goals for each year, ideally looking out 3-5 years.  it is one thing to say out goal is 3.0 OSHA Rate and a 1.0 Lost-Time Rate and it is something ENTIRELY DIFFERENT when we include a PLAN in what activities will be taking place in order to ACHIEVE these goals.  
  • Designate one or more individuals with overall responsibility for implementing and maintaining the program.
    • Usually the facility will have one person designated as the safety leader, but we have to remember that if this person is not equal to other members of management they will be one step behind the bus right out of the gate!  
  • Provide sufficient resources to ensure effective program implementation.
    • This comes down to the facility/site/plant manager!  He/she has to be FULLY ENGAGED in this management system and DRIVE ACCOUNTABILITY to his/her staff when functions are not being executed or they are being executed POORLY.
• Worker Participation
  • Consult with workers in developing and implementing the program and involve them in updating and evaluating the program.
    • Nothing better than a functioning SAFETY COMMITTEE made up of hourly workers.  I have written several articles about how this committee should be chaired by an hourly employee and the ratio of hourly to salaried should be at least 60:40 – hourly to salaried.  Salaried personnel’s function on the committee is SUPPORT and GUIDANCE.  NEVER loose sight that the safety efforts are FOR THE WORKERS in the facility and the BUSINESS gets to reap the rewards of fewer incidents.
  • Include workers in workplace inspections and incident investigations.
    • BASIC FUNDAMENTAL need for a breathing safety process.  In PSM we call this “employee participation”.  I would also mention that “temporary workers” or contractors who work in the facility on a regular basis MUST be incorporated into the safety process!
  • Encourage workers to report concerns, such as hazards, injuries, illnesses and near misses.
    • I take this quite a bit further and suggest we have a FUNCTIONING HAZARD SPOTTER written program.  I even set monthly goals for each department to IDENTIFY HAZARDS, report them and we TRACK THEIR RESOLUTION in our EHS Action List system.
  • Protect the rights of workers who participate in the program.
    • This is hard for me to grasp, as I have never worked in a facility where safety was confrontational and workers rights were infringed upon because they reported hazards or called OSHA.  We actually REQUIRED participation and workers could actually get into trouble for lack of participation.  It is a function of TOP MANAGEMENT, as well as the safety leader, to ensure the safety effort has credibility!  Workers are highly observant and can spot a “joke” from a mile away.  if the safety leader and management do NOT walk the talk and we force employees to participate in a “joke” then we have confrontation and finger pointing!
• Hazard Identification and Assessment
  • Identify, assess and document workplace hazards by soliciting input from workers, inspecting the workplace and reviewing available information on hazards.
    • This is a FORMAL internal audit/assessment program.  We have a means to identify task(s) that need to be assessed, we have an assessment tool, and we train everyone to use that tool.  Then we MEASURE the utilization of that tool by setting goals requiring so many assessments be done each month/quarter.  Putting out a box with a sign that reads “Employee Suggestions” is FAR from what is needed!
  • Investigate injuries and illnesses to identify hazards that may have caused them.
    • ABSOLUTELY CORE to a successful safety management process!  Not only just the action of investigating, but actually identifying TRUE causes and contributing factors; then developing action plans that ADDRESS each cause/factor in the accident.  A real investigation and action plans will extend FAR BEYOND the actual spot where the accident occurred!  Applying learning’s and corrective actions across department lines (and even at other locations in different states/countries) is a sign of a fully functional investigation process.  Ask yourself, has anyone who leads investigations been to a formal Root Cause training course?  Investigations are one of those elements that can be a stepping-stone to excellence or to failure!  Too often management wants to believe that somehow they had nothing to do with the incident and therefore there is no need for change, other than to the individuals involved.
  • Inform workers of the hazards in the workplace.
• Hazard Prevention and Control
  • Establish and implement a plan to prioritize and control hazards identified in the workplace. 
    • How many facilities have a risk matrix they use to establish how quickly they must respond to varying hazards that get identified?  These are very common in PSM facilities, as most all PHA’s will utilize some type of risk matrix to priorities their PHA recommendations.  Another item that needs to be discussed with this topic is “interim measures”!  Sometimes the complete fix is very costly and of such a scale that it will take months/quarters/years to fully implement; but that is NO EXCUSE to allow the hazard to remain at its current status!
  • Provide interim controls to protect workers from any hazards that cannot be controlled immediately.
    • As stated above, we may not be able to COMPLETE the fix, but we can take protective measures while the fix is being implemented.  A perfect example is respirators.  We find through our IH Exposure Plan that we have a workstation that needs local exhaust ventilation.  At the very best timing we can have this LEV installed and working in 5 months.  Do we just let the exposure occur for the next five months????  NO – we respond by placing the workers in the respirator program until we have the engineering control in place!  We can even use administrative controls such as reducing the time the worker(s) is exposed to the contaminated atmosphere until the engineering control is in place.  But how many of us have a written document that HOLDS the facility accountable to utilizing the hierarchy of controls when dealing with controlling hazards and interim measures?  How many in management even know what the hierarchy of controls even is?
  • Verify that all control measures are implemented and are effective. 
    • This to me is an inspection program, as well as an internal auditing program.  Control measures may sound like a great idea to the “investigation team” or “safety team” only to fall flap on its face when put in the plant.  This goes BACK TO EMPLOYEE INVOLVEMENT!  The best safety ideas I have every seen came from workers who were in engaged in their safety!  Sure there are times they want nothing to do with “change”, but we cannot merely pry open their mouths and pour in our “safety”.  I can bet that industry has spent billions of dollars in the past 20 years on safety measures that may even still be in the plant but have never been used!  I am sure everyone reading this can recall some safety effort that was costly and timely to implement a few years back and now the “fix” is nothing more than a boat anchor!  I like to use my Safety Committee members as auditors and EACH month one of their functions is to AUDIT CLOSED ACTION ITEMS.  A perfect example, which I have written about before, is closing out an audit finding of a “blocked fire extinguisher”.  The supervisor closed the item as he personally moved the trashcan; however, that was ALL he did.  Three months later a safety committee member goes to this location and guess what they find…. the same trash can block the fire extinguisher!  Obviously we need a bit more of a “control measure” to ensure the emergency critical device is ACCESSIBLE!  A trust me when I tell you that if we have fire extinguishers being blocked on a repeated basis in one department, I will bet anyone a burger and a beer that we could find the exact same issue in other departments!
  • Discuss the hazard control plan with affected workers.
• Education and Training
  • Provide education and training to workers in a language and vocabulary they can understand to ensure that they know: 
    • Procedures for reporting injuries, illnesses and safety and health concerns.
    • How to recognize hazards.
      • PLEASE train your workers in the DIFFERENCE between a HAZARD and a NEAR MISS.  I always was questioned as to why we had TWO separate programs for HAZARDS and NEARMISS Reporting.  Simple, a hazard and a nearmiss MAY be interrelated, but in many cases that are COMPLETELY separate from one another.  Take for example a hose lying across a walking path… is this hose a hazard or a nearmiss?  It is of course a hazard – UNTIL someone comes along and trips over the hose and almost falls, thus now making the slip a NEARMISS.  But we can have the same NEARMISS on a set of steps/stairs and if no one trips over the hose we would not have a nearmiss; but this is NOT to say the hose is NOT a hazard.  So differentiating between hazards and nearmisses MOVES US into the thought process that will prepare our work forces for Behavior Based Safety.  So I encourage you to consider having BOTH a HAZARD SPOTTER PROGRAM and a NEARMISS REPORTING PROGRAM – one looks at stagnant hazards and one looks at dynamic actions that present hazards to the workers.  I will also put a plug in for SAFTENG membership.  The 13,000+ unsafe act and condition photos make for some fun safety meetings; however, there was never a month that went by where I would have workers ask me “what’s wrong with that photo?”  Meaning they can identify unsafe acts others do, but they may be BLINDED by their very own unsafe acts.  Remember, it was most likely known to be unsafe the FIRST TIME the worker committed the act; however, over time and repeatedly successful conduct of the act has led the worker to believe what they are doing is no longer “unsafe”.
    • Ways to eliminate control or reduce hazards.
    • Elements of the program.
    • How to participate in the program.
  • Conduct refresher education and training programs periodically.
• Program Evaluation and Improvement
  • Conduct a periodic review of the program to determine if it has been implemented as designed and is making progress towards achieving its goals. 
    • To me this is the MEASUREMENT aspect of a functioning safety management system.  We set goals for EACH activity and then we track activity against those goals.  Each month management will review the measurements and personnel MUST be held accountable for their performance!  I have also recently about going Gauge R&R analysis where we “test” the data we are collecting to validate it.  In other words are we “pencil whipping” the activities to merely meet some number goal so management will “get off our backs”.  This is a CRITICAL FUNCTION within any management system; just like the games that get played with injuries rates and numbers, the same “numbers game” can happen within a safety management system.
  • Modify the program, as necessary, to correct deficiencies.
  • Continuously look for ways to improve the program.

I2P2 rule would include the following elements:

1. Management duties (including items such as establishing a policy, setting goals, planning and allocating resources, and assigning and communicating roles and responsibilities);
2. Employee participation (including items such as involving employees in establishing, maintaining and evaluating the program, employee access to safety and health information, and employee role in incident investigations);
3. Hazard identification and assessment (including items such as what hazards must be identified, information gathering, workplace inspections, incident investigations, hazards associated with changes in the workplace, emergency hazards, hazard assessment and prioritization, and hazard identification tools);
4. Hazard prevention and control (including items such as what hazards must be controlled, hazard control priorities, and the effectiveness of the controls);
5. Education and training (including items such as content of training, relationship to other OSHA training requirements, and periodic training); and
6. Program evaluation and improvement (including items such as monitoring performance, correcting program deficiencies, and improving program performance).