Today OSHA announced that they have placed International Paper (IP) into their Severe Violator Enforcement Program (SVEP) following a combustible dust ignition incident involving fly-ash at one of their facilities. This development is HUGE in the respect that IP was once one of OSHA’s top participants in the Voluntary Protection Program. To go from one of OSHA’s top performers to the SVEP is quite a shock to a safety pro who sort of grew up stealing IP safety programs for use at Westvaco. I can still remember the very first VPP Star site I ever visited was an IP plant and I was so impressed it left a lasting impression on me to this very day. I always morn the loss of life, especially when it was a workplace accident that could and should have been prevented, but to place a company in the SVEP implies they are a “severe violator” and how can a company be such a presence in the VPP and be in the SVEP. (FYI… in 2013 IP had 49 VPP sites). I get the SVEP and believe in it’s need for OSHA to effect change in workplace safety; and I even could see the rationale behind DuPont… multiple fatalities at multiple facilities over a several year period. But how does a company with 49 VPP sites in 2013 make it to the SVEP in 2015? I understand IP had four (4) employee fatalities and one (1) contractor fatality in 2014 and this is UNACCEPTABLE, but when your using OSHA measurements and your rates are:
- Recordable Injury Rate: 0.86
- Restricted or Lost Day Injury Rate: 0.34
- Lost Day Injury Rate: 0.18
- Occupational Disease Rate: 0.04 (these were predominately hearing and ergonomic related injuries)
- Lost Day Rate: 6.51 (my comment – the 2013 Industry Avg was 0.8, so this LT rate is 6.5X’s the industry rate!)
Source: IP’s own reporting
One has to wonder if this company can be placed in the SVEP, is this program really for “severe violators”? One has to guess the five fatalities and a LTA rate 6.5X’s the industry average had to play a role – but then should this program be called something else? This is poor end results performance and not “violations based”. Maybe I am slipping in my old age and just missed all the OSHA inspection cases involving IP?!?!?
Final comment… OSHA issued Willful’s based on IP…
- not providing Flame Retardant Clothing to the worker as he was changing out filters in a fly-ash dust collector (1910.132)
- not training the workers on the IP SDS sheet for the fly-ash which states it has an NFPA rating of 1 and “dust/air mixture may ignite or explode” (1910.1200)
And one (1) repeat citation for 1910.269 for not conducting “periodic inspections” on the LOTO procedures in the Power House.
For a complete break down of the citations, I will be breaking them down this weekend or you can go here:
https://www.osha.gov/ooc/citations/InternationalPaperCitations.pdf.
DISCLOSURE: IP is NOT a client, nor do they have a Corporate Membership at SAFTENG. There are currently no IP employees with an active membership and I have never bid on, nor am I anticipating the chance to bid on work at IP. This posting is just how I see it and I’m not defending IP or blaming OSHA, just shining on a light on the fact that OSHA now has one of their best VPP companies in their SVEP.