Complete Issue 1992-December
DOE/EH-0245 December 1992 - Special Edition
THE SAFETY CONNECTION
Assistant Secretary for Environment, Safety and Health
U.S. Department of Energy
Washington, DC 20585
To encourage safety awareness and information exchange on OSH activities,
the Office of Safety and Quality Assurance (EH-30) will distribute The
Safety Connection quarterly. This publication will provide information on
new Departmental directions in OSH and will highlight activities and
programs related to occupational safety.
1992 DOE ANNUAL OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY CONFERENCE "LAUNCHING SAFETY IN DOE"
More than 400 professionals, managers, representatives of labor, and
other employees from throughout the DOE system met in Orlando, Florida,
for the DOE Annual Occupational Safety Conference. The Conference, which
was held on November 4-6, 1992, provided an excellent opportunity for
Headquarters, field, and contractor personnel to exchange information on
programs, issues, and initiatives in occupational safety and health (OSH).
DOE's Conference was held in conjunction with the National Safety
Council's (NSC) 1992 Congress and Exposition and Occupational Safety
and Health Administration's (OSHA) 47th Annual Federal Safety and
Health Conference in Orlando. Through this first-time coordination of
the three conferences, DOE participants exchanged information with a broad
range of professionals from throughout government and the private sector.
A number of people in Orlando for the NSC and OSHA gatherings joined the
DOE meeting.
The Conference provided opportunities for participants to hear about
topics of broad interest at the Plenary Sessions, discuss specific
subjects at the Breakout Sessions, and mix informally. Additionally, EH's
exhibits presented information on 17 OSH topical areas, including
construction safety, fire protection, and pressure safety.
WRITE TO US!
If you have any comments or suggestions for improving The Safety
Connection, or if you are interested in submitting an article,
announcement, or information on a resource to be published in future
newsletters, please write to us at the following address:
The Safety Connection
Safety Performance
Indicator Division
EH-31.4 GTN
U.S. Department of Energy
Washington, DC 20585
For distribution changes, additions, or deletions, please call (615)
576-3482.
PLENARY SESSIONS
The Conference began with opening remarks by Roy E. Gibbs, Acting
Director, Office of Occupational Safety. Mr. Gibbs noted that the
Conference's theme, "Launching Safety in DOE," with its symbol of the
space shuttle in flight, emphasizes DOE's agenda for its occupational
safety and health program. Beyond a massive commitment to achieve a
launch, the effort must be maintained, and course corrections made to
ensure a successful flight. Similarly, DOE's establishment of an
institutional OSH program requires both substantial effort to get it
started and continuing work to maintain and improve it.
"The Department of Energy's Occupational Safety Program--
Progress and Challenges"
by Paul Ziemer, Ph.D.,
Assistant Secretary for Environment, Safety and Health
Dr. Ziemer hailed the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) as an "early pioneer
in worker safety," but noted that the secrecy of its work resulted in
isolation of the AEC and its successors from advances in safety. He
observed, however, that "for...occupational safety and health, the last
three years have proven to be the bellwether of change." In 1990, Admiral
Watkins identified OSHA compliance as a key item, insisted on excellence
rather than mere compliance, and initiated the Tiger Teams and invited
OSHA to participate in workplace inspections.
The current challenge identified by Dr. Ziemer is to "launch safety"
in DOE "toward a goal of excellence, while at the same time instituting a
complete cultural change in how OSH programs are administered and
oversight conducted." DOE's strategy to meet this challenge is twofold:
(1) a monitoring program to identify and attend to those operating
contractors who lack basic program elements of workplace safety, and (2) a
secretarial "excellence" program to reward contractor initiatives that
lead to continued improvements in workplace safety programs beyond minimal
compliance.
The Department defined four specific goals with corresponding OSH
program initiatives and objectives:
(1) Achieving OSH compliance.
(2) Establishing a Voluntary Protection Program (VPP).
(3) Using EH as a catalyst to promote change and improve the
capabilities of line management in OSH.
(4) Promoting line management accountability.
In looking to the future, the Assistant Secretary remarked that,
"while we have our own house to get in order ... we cannot lose sight of
the potential resource that DOE can be to the nation in workplace safety
and health." He challenged those present to work toward making the
Department that resource--to launch safety in a new direction, "one that
will once again make DOE a leader in occupational safety and health."
"Carrying Out the Secretary's Initiatives
to Strengthen Occupational Safety and Health in DOE"
by Joseph E. Fitzgerald, Jr.,
Deputy Assistant Secretary, Safety & Quality Assurance, DOE
Mr. Fitzgerald provided a perspective of where DOE is in its OSH program.
His observations were derived from 35 Tiger Team assessments, six followup
reviews, several comprehensive OSH reviews, and over 60 EH Site
Representative evaluations. He also offered an outline of our agenda for
the coming year.
o Workplace risk levels
Injury and illness rates that are lower than private industry are
not necessarily a badge of success.
o Hazard abatement
Nothing more fundamental; without an effective system you expose
your workers to unnecessary risk.
o Accountability for OSH compliance
If you must be compelled to act, then you do not have it.
o Workplace surveillance
If you do not regularly "walk your spaces," you cannot measure the
quality of your OSH program.
o Continuing improvement
If you are working on only Tiger Team OSH fixes, your "snapshot" is
getting old.
o Employee involvement
The worker is the ultimate stakeholder for safety.
o OSH resources
Knowledge empowers line management; DOE is challenged to match
sufficient OSH staff resources and capabilities with our growing
missions.
Mr. Fitzgerald also recognized the following "DOE success stories in
the making."
o VPP plan at the Pantex Plant, Mason and Hanger-Silas
o Ergonomics Task Force at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
o Plant Employee-management Safety Committees at Kansas City Plant,
Allied-Signal
o Site-wide baseline OSH audit at Westinghouse, Savannah River
o Pinellas Safety Leader Program at Pinellas, Martin Marietta
o Construction safety initiatives at the Superconducting Super
Collider Office
o Compliance Assessment Program at the DOE Nevada Field Office
In conclusion, Mr. Fitzgerald said "our workers will rightfully
demand safety programs that not only compare favorably with private
industry, but will ultimately exceed them... because this is the Federal
Government and we must assume a leadership role and set the example for
others to follow."
GUEST SPEAKER
John E Plummer,
Director, Office of Federal Agency Programs, U.S. Department of Labor
Mr. Plummer commended DOE for its actions while noting challenges that
arose from them. He regarded the development of DOE Order 5483.XX as a
good step, but noted that building consensus takes time. He found the
study of OSH issues at Portsmouth good, but it documented problems already
known to exist.
Mr. Plummer also identified issues he thought important to DOE:
time spent in the workplace by OSH personnel; risks to workers during
cleanup operations; and the opportunity to export cleanup technologies.
"Occupational Safety at the Magic Kingdom"
Donald C. Caton,
Senior Safety Administrator, Walt Disney World, Orlando, FL
Disney World's operation in Orlando includes hotels, recreational
facilities, production studios, and support services. With thousands of
workers and millions of visitors each year, the importance of an effective
safety program can hardly be exaggerated. Mr. Caton provided examples of
some of the OSH challenges encountered by Disney World: ergonomics,
weather, and separation of visitors and show-people.
Mr. Caton emphasized the importance of avoiding hazards by involving
safety personnel early in the design process, as well as the ability to
respond promptly to hazards when they are identified.
"Revised DOE Contractor Occupational Safety and Health Program Draft DOE
Order 5483.XX"
by Joseph A. Hopkins, Jr., Director, Phillip J. Wilhelm, Physical
Scientist, and Terry E. Krietz, Safety & Health Manager, Policy and
Standards Division, Office of Occupational Safety, and Roy Gibbs, Acting
Director, Office of Occupational Safety
Panel members provided a chapter-by-chapter overview of the Draft Order,
then opened the session to discussion. The participants expressed concern
for the availability of resources for implementation and the likely
impacts of the new administration. Panel members expressed confidence
that adequate resources will be available, but the mechanism for providing
them must await some policy decisions.
Informal review of the Draft Order by Program Secretarial Officers
is now complete, and revisions are being made in response to the comments
received. The final version of the Order will be released soon for formal
review.
BREAKOUT SESSIONS
The Conference included 13 Breakout Sessions that addressed specific
topics. Following short presentations, each group discussed recent
developments, problems and solutions, and other subjects of interest to
those present.
DOE Enforcement of HAZWOPER
This session provided an overview of the statutory requirements of Section
3131 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 1992 and
1993, Public Law 102-190. It requires the Secretary of Energy to impose
monetary penalties on DOE contractors for noncompliance with OSHA's
Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Preparedness (HAZWOPER) standard.
The Secretary's "Enforcement" Task Group is addressing training,
certification, and procedures for civil penalties.
Contact: David Smith, EH-31.1, (301) 90-4669
Overview of Legislation Impacting
DOE Occupational Safety and Health Programs
The OSHA Reform Bills introduced in the 102nd, Congress (S 1622 and HR
3160) would make OSHA, rather than DOE, responsible for enforcement of OSH
standards at DOE facilities. These bills would make contractors subject
to fines and penalties for noncompliance with OSHA standards.
Contact: Joe Hopkins, EH-31.1, (301) 903-5619
DOE Electrical Safety Program--The Shocking Truth
Electrical safety deficiencies are collectively one of the major
categories of noncompliance with Federal regulations identified by safety
and health assessments. The DOE Electrical Safety Program assists DOE
line programs in assuring safe operations through guidelines, program
reviews, training, inspector certification, technical assistance, and the
DOE Electrical Safety Committee.
Contact: Pat Tran, EH-31.3, (301) 903-5638
DOE Voluntary Protection Program--Recognizing Excellence
DOE's VPP is an initiative designed to recognize excellence in DOE
contractor OSH programs. Programs will be judged according to management
commitment, labor involvement, training, and hazard control. Discussion
centered on how contractor organizations will be recognized, criteria for
identification and evaluation, and DOE's involvement in the VPP
Participants' Association.
Contact: Ron Elmer, EH-31.2, (301) 903-2927
Sanji Kanth, EH-31.2, (301) 903-4516
DOE Occupational Safety and Health Interpretations and "800" Response Line
The Interpretations Guide to OSH Standards contains compliance directives,
DOE-prescribed OSH standards, DOE-adopted OSHA standards, DOE-adopted
consensus standards, and General Duty Standards. To avoid inconsistent
interpretations of OSH standards, DOE and contractor personnel may call
1-800-292-8061 from 8:00 AM until 4:00 PM MST. Most questions can be
answered in a single telephone call. New questions will prompt
development of new interpretations and additions to the Guide.
Contacts: Ron Elmer, EH-31.2, (301) 903-2927
Ray Rogers, EH-31.2, (301) 903-7331
Firearms Safety--Issues and Answers
The Firearms Safety Committee continues to refine administrative changes,
additions, clarifications, and other improvements to Draft Order 5480.16A,
Firearms Safety. The Committee also addresses related issues such as the
conflict of standards for impact noise levels.
Contact: Ed Patigalia, EH-31.3, (301) 903-3972
Richland Management Involvement for Accident Prevention
Coding of injury/illness reports at Richland allows contractor
organizations and programs to be identified with responsible Richland line
management. Accident data now receive action by Richland line management
officials responsible for program success. Coding could be expanded to
include the Headquarters Program Secretarial Officers to whom the field
office reports.
Contact: Russell Nelson, Richland Field Office (509) 372-0685
Occupational Safety and Health Worker Protection Pilots
The OSH Worker Protection Pilot initiative will use stronger contractor
OSH programs as models to facilitate development of OSH programs
throughout the DOE system. Consideration of programs for inclusion as
pilots extends through December 1992; selection of programs and receiving
sites is scheduled to occur in January 1993.
Contact: Mike Moore, EH-31.3, (301) 903-5770
Construction Project Safety and Health Management
The Construction Safety Advisory Committee is nearing completion of its
review and response to comments received on Draft Order 5480.9,
Construction Project Safety and Health Management. Other components of
the DOE Construction Safety Program include a DOE Construction Safety
Reference Guide, technical assistance visits, and training.
Contacts: Pat Finn, EH-31.3, (301) 903-9876
Kevin Sikora, EH-31.3, (301) 903-6523
EGGstend Yourself
"EGGstend Yourself" is a 10-minute stretching program performed by
employees at their work stations in the Administration Department at EG&G
Idaho. The program contributes to injury reduction, stress reduction, and
increased productivity.
Contact: Delwin Allred, EG&G Idaho, Inc. (208) 526-2039
Explosives Safety
DOE's Blast Design Manual (DOE/TC-11268) incorporates new design methods.
Other support available for explosives safety include training for the DOE
Explosives Safety Manual (DOE/EV/06194); technical safety appraisal
participation and support; and availability of new research and blast
design aids.
Contact: Gerald Meyers, EH-31.3, (301) 903-3190
Redesign of SPMS
The Environment, Safety, and Health Technical Information System (ES&H
TIS) will be introduced in mid-1993. It will include many databases
currently maintained on the Safety Performance Measurement System (SPMS),
additional ES&H reference information, such as OSHA standards and DOE
interpretations of those standards, and expanded information processing
capabilities for accident and injury/illness analyses.
Other databases will be added to meet users' requirements. ES&H TIS will
eventually replace the SPMS.
Contact: Steve Simon, EH-31.4, (301) 903-5615
Fostering Employee Involvement in Occupational Safety Programs
The Safety Leader Program at Pinellas complements managerial efforts by
having trained volunteer-employees develop and deliver monthly safety
presentations. Injury rates at the plant have declined since the program
began. The program costs approximately one dollar per employee per month.
Contact: Kathy Ferguson, Pinellas Plant, (813) 545-6767
EXHIBITS
Exhibits were on display at the Conference. These included the EH
exhibit, which provided information on the following key OSH initiatives:
Hoisting and Rigging -- Firearms Safety -- DOE Order 5483.XX --
Electrical Safety -- Transportation and Packaging -- Fire Protection
-- ES&H Technical Information System -- Chemical Safety --
Explosives Safety -- Construction Safety -- Assistance Visits --
Interpretations Guide -- Lockout/Tagout -- Natural Phenomena --
Counterfeit Parts -- OSH Training -- Pressure Safety
Components of the EH exhibit were also displayed at the NSC
Exposition. About 200 people attending the NSC exhibit requested
additional information on OSH programs.
For more information on availability of the exhibits for events,
call Eleanor Crampton at (301) 903-3732.
The Management Information Systems Unit from EG&G Idaho, Inc.
provided information and a hands-on demonstration of SPMS, an interactive
computer system that provides accident/incident information and trend and
causal factor analysis. It assists in risk assessments and provides
information and communication throughout DOE.
Martin Marietta Energy Systems displayed some equipment available to
protective forces personnel. The exhibit featured firearms, protective
equipment such as vests, and devices for safe, realistic training.
CONFERENCE EVALUATION
Over 400 respondents gave the Conference an overall effectiveness
rating which averaged 8.2 on a 10-point scale. Many participants thought
holding the Occupational Safety Conference in conjunction with NSC's and
OSHA's conferences was beneficial because it allowed significant contact
with industry professionals, both inside and outside the federal
government.
Sixty-five percent of the conference attendees were DOE contractors;
35 percent were DOE employees. Seventeen percent worked in a safety line
organization, 26 percent in safety management, 6 percent in fire
protection, 24 percent in safety oversight, 9 percent in industrial
hygiene, 2 percent in health physics, and the remaining 16 percent in
other fields. These statistics were derived from about 60 conference
evaluation cards.
Respondents requested topics for future conferences in every aspect
of the safety field. Most respondents "just want to be kept informed" on
all safety initiatives.
1993 OSH CONFERENCE
The 1993 Conference will be held the week of October 4, 1993, in Chicago,
Illinois, in conjunction with the NSC's Congress and Exposition and OSHA's
conference.
EH staff plan to make next year's gathering even better by expanding
the conference an additional day, adding more breakout sessions for
specific topics, including more information on occupational health, and
increased participation by field office and contractor personnel.
Preliminary information regarding the 1993 Annual OSH Conference
will be sent to PSOs and field personnel (DOE and contractors) early next
year. This announcement will provide specific information concerning the
1993 Conference and request possible papers, success stories, and topics.
THE SAFETY CONNECTION
Safety Performance Indicator Division
EH-31.4, Room J-117 GTN
U.S. Department of Energy
Washington DC 20585
Speech given at DOE's Annual Safety Conference on November 5, 1992.
THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY'S OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY PROGRAM --
PROGRESS AND CHALLENGES
Paul L. Ziemer
Assistant Secretary for Environment, Safety and Health
U.S. Department of Energy
It is a great pleasure to welcome you to DOE's Annual Occupational
Safety Conference, here, in Orlando, Florida. This Conference is unique
from past conferences in DOE. For the first time, a conference like this
has Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) as its focus. For the first time,
a DOE conference is being held in conjunction with two national safety
conferences -- the National Safety Council's 1992 Congress and Exposition,
and the OSHA's Annual Safety and Health Conference. I believe this DOE
Conference -- and your participation -- is symbolic of a number of
"firsts" that you will hear about today and tomorrow.
But most importantly, it symbolizes that the Department has broken
out of its former isolation on matters of safety and health. We, as a
Department, are beginning to reach out to each other and to other
professionals in the nation to assure that our workers benefit from the
collective expertise and experience that exists. This is not our safety
and health conference; it is yours -- whether you are a DOE employee,
contractor manager or union representative. And the common goal that
binds us together is fostering safe and healthy workplaces for our
workers. So, again, welcome to Orlando.
The theme of this Conference is "launching safety in DOE." For
those who have been administering or overseeing safety programs in the
Department, this may seem a bit trite or condescending. After all, the
Department's predecessor was an early leader in workplace safety and
health dating back to the Manhattan District days during World War II.
Our current injury and illness rates average about one-half that of
industry at large. The budgeting for safety-related activities and
upgrades at DOE facilities annually exceed a billion dollars. So, what do
we mean by "launching safety?"
To answer that question and to better understand the challenges that
face us, we all need to revisit -- if briefly -- the history that provides
both the origins and context for the OSH issues that challenge us today.
Historical Origins
In the Department, most facilities are government-owned, but
contractor-operated, with occupational safety and health requirements
enforced by binding contract. This approach is a longstanding one. It
dates back to the wartime Manhattan District days when private companies
and academic laboratories supported the Federal Government at places like
Los Alamos, New Mexico, and Oak Ridge, Tennessee.
Given the incipient dangers of working with highly hazardous
materials like plutonium and enriched uranium, the then Atomic Energy
Commission (AEC) was one of the early pioneers in worker safety. The
maturity of the AEC's Worker Safety Program at the time was acknowledged
in the legislation that created OSHA in 1970. The OSH Act permits DOE to
prescribe and enforce OSH requirements, which DOE has made the same as or
more stringent than those found in OSHA regulations. Again, it was
acknowledged by Congress that the then AEC had a unique national security
mission -- the production of nuclear weapons -- for which specialized and
secure environment, safety and health oversight was called for. This
mission predominated through all of the successive transitions between the
AEC to the Energy Research and Development Administration (ERDA), in 1975,
to DOE, in 1977, with additional new missions in energy research and
development.
While a sound premise at the time, what transpired over the next 15
years demonstrates the dangers of managing such programs behind a veil of
secrecy and total discretion. The Department became very insular -- cut
off from the rest of the country and what was going on with the
environmental movement, as well as the advances being made in workplace
safety. As standards were promulgated and tightened in the outside world,
DOE's contractors largely maintained the status quo when it came to
compliance. This is not to say, for example, that worker risks were not
identified and controlled -- they were -- however, rigor and management
accountability were lacking. And DOE management, in the throes of an arms
race, sent the clear message in the 1970's and early 1980's that
production of nuclear materials took precedence over environment and
safety.
Another factor is the age of the facilities that I mentioned
earlier. Those familiar with the challenges facing the "smokestack"
industries over the past 30 years, in terms of competitiveness and
environmental issues, will be familiar with DOE's dilemma. DOE's defense
complex -- its laboratories, its nuclear reactors and production factories
-- are mostly of 1950's vintage. By definition, most of these facilities
did not have the engineered safeguards -- the guard rails, the electrical
wiring, the machine guarding -- that are the standards for worker
protection today. However, unlike commercial industry, the Department was
not exposed to the outside pressures, particularly those stemming from
regulation, that would have led to a deliberate goal of continual
improvement. In short, DOE and its contractor operations did not keep
pace with industry in the environment, safety, and health arena.
As with so many things, the Department's culture of secrecy and
isolation did not change overnight. But for environmental protection,
nuclear safety and, finally, occupational safety, and health, the last 3
years have proven to be the bellwether of change.
When Admiral James Watkins became Secretary of Energy early in 1989,
one of his first acts was to single out compliance with OSHA regulations
as one of his key agenda items. He insisted that minimum compliance was
not a goal, but an expectation; that excellence would be the mandate that
would guide the Department's OSH Program. The Secretary then translated
this vision, these goals, into a series of initiatives designed to open up
the Department's OSH Program: to have it undergo full scrutiny; to
challenge it to an extreme that would dispel the embedded culture and
bring about change.
First, he inaugurated what are called environment, safety, and
health "Tiger Teams" at all of DOE's major facilities to ascertain the
status of compliance. Then he invited OSHA to participate in workplace
inspections, which they did at three key facilities. Results from the
first three inspections confirmed that DOE's facilities were substantially
out of compliance with OSHA's requirements. Secretary Watkins decided
with then Labor Secretary Dole that a more effective use of OSHA's
expertise would be what became a comprehensive OSHA review of DOE's
management of worker safety.
This review, which took place during the latter half of 1990, found
that the Department lacked the necessary management commitment, resources,
and programs to satisfy the Secretary's goal of excellence in OSH. The
OSHA report recommended that "DOE consider major organization changes,
changes in priorities, and the development of operationally meaningful
safety and health goals and objectives together with the accountability
systems necessary to measure progress."
Proposed Response Strategy
As observed by OSHA in its evaluation report, no DOE sites demonstrated
occupational safety and health performance that could be considered
"excellent" as defined by the Secretary's Ten-Point Initiatives or OSHA's
Voluntary Prevention Program guidelines. In terms of performance, GOCO
safety and health programs ranked as "average" when compared with similar
industries -- as described by OSHA, "not among the worst that we [OSHA]
see, nor are they among the best."
So, therein, lies the challenge. To "launch safety" in the
Department of Energy toward a goal of excellence, while at the same time
instituting a complete cultural change in how OSH programs are
administered and oversight conducted.
The obvious question is how are we approaching this challenge? What
is our strategy? Let me, first, outline the strategy that we presented to
the Secretary over a year ago, which continues to be the driving force
behind the Department's initiatives and many of the programs you will hear
about at this Conference.
Simply put, the Department's strategy is two-fold: first, a
monitoring program to identify and focus attention on those operating
contractors who lack the basic program elements of workplace safety.
Second, a Secretarial "excellence" program to promote and reward
contractor initiatives that lead to continued improvements in workplace
safety programs beyond minimal compliance. The former would serve to
close the compliance gap that currently exists in the DOE complex through
a combination of incentives and penalties, training, technical assistance,
expanded or refocussed resources, and heightened onsite surveillance and
program review. The latter approach -- which may sound familiar to many
of you -- mirrors OSHA's Voluntary Prevention Program, which seeks to
promote and reward performance "excellence" through public acknowledgement
and deemphasized regulatory attention.
OSH Response Goals
Based on the preceding premise, the Department defined four specific goals
with corresponding OSH program initiatives and objectives.
1. The first goal is to achieve OSH compliance through a phased
process of defining programmatic expectations, establishing
facility compliance status, and determining necessary training
and resource commitments.
The premise behind this goal is that DOE sites had been applying OSH
requirements in an ad hoc manner; making judgements on applicability
without a systematic interpretation process or controlled DOE variance
procedure. The OSH knowledge base within line management and the
workforce was lacking and, not surprisingly, many sites had not conducted
necessary baseline compliance inspections.
A number of steps have been taken to address this issue. One you
may be familiar with is the ongoing revision to the existing DOE
Directives governing OSH. The purpose here is to make our programmatic
requirements clear and consistent. These proposed Directives also dictate
the frequency, scope, and depth of workplace inspections that are
required, a major concern identified in the OSHA review. To bolster the
OSH capabilities of both line and oversight organizations, both the line
programs and EH have been supporting a broad spectrum of OSH training for
various target groups, including supervisors, OSH professionals and the
general employee. The Safety and Health Five-Year Plan, whose process my
office developed for use by the line, is one of several measures which
have been initiated to enable OSH resource needs to be defined and
prioritized.
2. The second goal cited in the OSH strategy is to embrace a goal
of establishing a Voluntary Protection Program modelled after
OSHA within DOE. This would support an overall OSH strategy
that will enable at least one DOE operation to qualify for
formal recognition by the end of FY 1994.
The premise here is to foster a goal of continuing improvement
regardless of the compliance status of a particular site. While some
contractors have obviously lagged behind in administering effective OSH
programs, others have been actively applying OSHA's VPP management
criteria in their programs. Because DOE contractors are not regulated by
OSHA, participation in OSHA's formal recognition programs has not been
possible. So we see this as a way for the Department to encourage and
recognize those contractors who exemplify standards of OSH excellence.
Another initiative you will hear more about this week is the Worker
Protection Pilots. These are model programs piloted at selected sites in
various OSH program areas, such as hazard abatement or lockout and tagout,
which are designed to foster information and experience exchange: to
provide a ready means to "bootstrap" substandard programs and help develop
acceptable "templates" for OSH programs in the field.
3. The third goal we identified over a year ago is to utilize the
EH organization as a catalyst to promote change and improve
the capabilities of line management in OSH. The idea here is
to elicit a team approach within the Department to take
advantage of existing OSH resources.
In this role, EH has acted as a catalyst for improvement by helping
to instill understanding and acceptance by line programs of their OSH
responsibilities. We have provided guidance, workshops, direct technical
assistance, as well as an interface with OSHA through a recently signed
MOU. In essence, we have tried to be a "clearinghouse" for expertise and
experience both internal and external to DOE. An important facet of this
role is what has been an active interchange with organized labor. Through
the National Tripartite Committee at Headquarters and through discussions
with various union safety and health representatives, we have opened up an
effective avenue for communication on OSH policies, programs and
oversight.
4. The fourth goal is to promote line management accountability
through a set of specific incentives and penalties, directed
at the individual level as well as at the organizational
level. The premise behind this goal was OSHA's observation
that an inherent conflict exists in line administration of OSH
oversight.
This has proven to be the toughest goal to achieve. Apart from the
establishment of VPP and an internal awards program aimed at OSH
performance, changes to the one available DOE incentive -- the Cost-
Plus-Award-Fee System -- are difficult without assuming the line manager's
role in making award decisions. While the overall ES&H proportion of the
award fee has been set upwards of 51 percent by the Secretary, the
leverage afforded OSH has not been uniformly defined or administered,
although improvements are being made.
The legislation of civil enforcement authority for the Secretary
under section 3131 of the 1992 Defense Authorization Act for
"certification of emergency response personnel" establishes a precedent
for OSH enforcement whose implications will need to be seen. This issue
is under active study much in the same vein as administration of internal
Price-Anderson Nuclear Enforcement Authority is being pursued.
Progress And Implications
So after a year of activity, where do things stand?
Extensive occupational safety and health expertise has been brought
into both Headquarters and the field. However, the distribution of this
expertise, both at the DOE and contractor level, does not yet match DOE's
program needs in a uniform way. One area of challenge is DOE's Waste
Management and Environmental Restoration Program. It represents the
fastest growing program in the Department; from a safety standpoint,
thousands of cleanup workers will need to be trained and protected from
unique and highly hazardous toxics. The enormity of this need, like that
in the commercial cleanup industry, has strained what is a small pool of
available professionals within DOE.
Obviously, personnel numbers are not the only challenge.
Considerable effort has gone into OSH training at all levels of the
Department. First, the Secretary issued specific OSH training
requirements in January 1992. These requirements are being implemented by
the line programs with provision for needed resources. An OSH training
resource directory has been drafted to better identify available training
programs. In the past 18 months, my office has sponsored 55 OSH training
courses at 30 DOE locations, with over a thousand trainees. These
courses, which are in addition to existing contractor or vendor courses,
have been targeted to specific categories of personnel with OSH
responsibilities, while others have addressed specific OSH topics such as
machine guarding, construction safety, and recordkeeping. Through our
interface with OSHA, we have also secured enrollments at the OSHA Training
Institute in Illinois.
One particular problem that has challenged DOE is the conduct of
workplace safety surveillance and followup to identified hazards. The
Tiger Team assessments demonstrated the lack of routine facility
surveillance, hazard recognition, and abatement at most DOE sites. In
fact, the Tiger Teams and other reviews have repeatedly taken action to
stop work or require immediate hazard abatement at various DOE sites that
were visited. This suggests both a lack of knowledge of and
accountability to basic OSH requirements, as well as unfamiliarity to what
it takes to implement an effective in-plant OSH surveillance program.
Given the significance of this issue to fundamental worker safety,
we have chosen a multifaceted strategy to bring about change.
First, the new OSH Order provides clear specifications and
objectives for in-plant surveillance, inspection, and hazard abatement.
It also provides accompanying guidance on how to prioritize hazards and
establish an accountable system for abatement. On this point, it is
surprising how many sites can identify hazards, but have no system for
assuring that the most significant ones are fixed promptly.
Second, my office is performing extended assist visits to selected
sites to help local management bring about change in the way business is
conducted in this area. On a practical level, these visits self-examine
existing practices, identify needed changes, and "walk" individuals
through actual surveillance techniques and abatement processes. To date,
we have been to Fernald, SPRO, Portsmouth, and have scheduled Paducah, the
Naval Petroleum Reserve, and Morgantown Energy Technology Center.
Finally, the various DOE line programs and my office have conducted
a number of comprehensive OSH assessments at DOE sites to followup on
progress being achieved in the wake of the Tiger Team compliance issues.
In all, is DOE better off in OSH compliance programs than a year
ago? The answer is yes, but not unexpectedly, progress has been spotty
and concerted efforts will need to continue to keep the momentum going.
However, it is clear that the past culture of complacency on OSH is giving
way, as it has, historically, in environmental protection and nuclear
safety.
Vision For The Future
I wanted to close this morning with a few thoughts and considerations for
the future: to go beyond the site-specific compliance issues and program
development efforts that occupy our energies at the moment:; to leave you
with a possible vision for DOE's Occupational Safety and Health Program
and to personally challenge those in the DOE family.
I started my talk with an observation that the Department's
predecessor entity, the Atomic Energy Commission -- its research
laboratories and operations -- was a pioneer in workplace safety. It had
to
be at the time, given the imperatives of the Cold War and the then
primitive nature of policies governing environment, safety, and health.
To some measure, we lost that leadership role because the Agency "took its
eye off the ball," and became complacent about the rigor and rising
standard of excellence in occupational safety and health to which the
commercial sector has become increasingly committed.
What I want to outline for you this morning is a renewal of the same
vision. This Department remains on the cutting edge of technology
research and development. Our national laboratories represent a resource
which is already being tapped in national public health initiatives such
as the human genome study, development of passively safe nuclear reactor
technology, and development of environmental cleanup technology. Experts
from our facilities sit on any number of national and international safety
standards committees. The Secretary has made it abundantly clear that
the Department's goals are nothing short of excellence in environment,
safety, and health.
So, while we have our own house to get in order with respect to
assuring compliance and pursuing upgrades, we cannot lose sight of the
potential resource that DOE can be to the nation in workplace safety and
health. I challenge each of you here today, whatever your role in the DOE
complex, to put the Department in a position to be that resource -- to
join with us in launching safety in a new direction, one that will once
again make DOE a leader in occupational safety and health.
THE SECRETARIAL OSH INITIATIVES - WHERE ARE WE?
Joseph E. Fitzgerald, Jr.
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Safety and Quality Assurance
Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. I want to join with Dr. Ziemer
in welcoming you to this, the Department's first conference devoted to
Occupational Safety and Health (OSH). The Assistant Secretary has just
given you a perspective of the vision and goals upon which the Secretary's
OSH initiatives are based. What I would like to do now is provide a
perspective of where the Department is in occupational safety and health
-- a sort of "State of the Union" as it pertains to actual progress in OSH
programs.
The key issues I want to talk about this morning are not presented
in order of importance; actually, they represent an amalgam of what we
found across the DOE complex. These observations are borne of 35 Tiger
Team Assessments, half a dozen followup reviews, several comprehensive OSH
reviews, and finally, over 60 EH site representative evaluations. I offer
these issues as "food for thought" and as an outline of what I believe
ought to be our collective agenda this coming year.
And at the end, I want to share with you a number of success stories
at our sites that do not often get the attention they deserve.
Issue #1: DOE Workplace Risk Levels -- Injury and Illness rates that are
lower than private industry are not necessarily a badge of success.
In 1990, the last year of record, DOE's occupational injury and
illness rates were substantially lower than those of the private sector in
some areas, and approximately equal in others. For construction
activities, DOE contractors have an injury/illness rate that is less than
50 percent that of the private sector. DOE production workers have a rate
that is less than 25 percent that of manufacturing workers in general.
The average injury/illness rate for DOE service contractor employees is 18
percent below the average private sector rate. DOE research contractors,
on the other hand, are 7 percent above their private sector counterparts.
Prior to 1990, these numbers would have been suspect since DOE was
not applying the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) criteria at the time.
Back then, DOE had highlighted statistics that were factors of 4-5 below
industry averages. These had been touted as evidence that DOE had
exemplary OSH programs. The conversion to BLS in 1990, however, led to
an immediate factor of two increase in our injury/illness rates. And, we
find now that the Department's statistics are trending upwards, in part,
due to better reporting. Thus, overall, the statistical gap with
commercial industry has become considerably smaller.
The cautionary note here is that we need to avoid making injury and
illness data a surrogate for OSH performance. As a relative measure of
workplace trends, such data can help tell us where accidents are occurring
and foster inquiries into systemic problems. As exclusive performance
indicators, however, this same data can mask broad OSH program
deficiencies and lead to complacency.
In this regard, too often the question is posed: "If injuries or
accidents are down, irregardless of program inadequacy, why bother
penalizing an operator?" Simply put, because such a program is ripe for a
serious accident -- one for which no safety net will exist because good
procedures, training, supervision, and hazard abatement do not happen.
Skilled and experienced workers can keep you out of trouble for an
amazingly long time until someone makes a very human mistake. All of the
accidental fatalities this past year in DOE -- seven deaths in three
accidents have been of this kind.
And, yes, our safety statistics looked good at each operation
involved. But how do you tell that to the families of the employees that
were killed?
Issue #2: Hazard Abatement -- Nothing more fundamental; without an
effective system you expose your workers to unnecessary risk.
In its 1990 evaluation, OSHA observed at one DOE facility that "some 5000
hazards had gone uncorrected for at least a year because area supervisors
did not recognize these items as a major priority." OSHA observed at
another location that "inadequate ventilation and improper electrical
wiring were uncorrected for approximately 6 years." Between the Tiger
Teams, outside reviews, and contractor inspections, most DOE sites have
hundreds, if not thousands of identified, but backlogged corrective
actions. One field office has recently observed that upwards of 100,000
OSH deficiencies have been identified for resolution, with about half
abated. At another DOE site, a year ago, a baseline OSH compliance
program has generated over 10,000 deficiencies without an established
abatement process to address them.
The issue here is a two-fold one with an obvious solution. First, a
hazard recognition and survey program is important, but at its best, it
still only represents half of the answer. While DOE contractors have made
noteworthy progress in baselining facilities for OSH deficiencies, line
management has struggled mightily with the other half, i.e., how to
effectively manage the abatement process. Second, the significance of
this issue from a risk standpoint is not always appreciated. Our reviews
have shown that an appreciable percentage of identified hazards have gone
unabated for long lengths of time, thereby unnecessarily exposing workers
to continuing risk. Too often, we see simple hardware fixes consigned to
the multiyear Federal budget process rather than being handled as routine
maintenance.
There is also another dimension to abatement action. It relates to
the significance attached to what can be classified as "imminent danger"
and "willful violations" in the commercial sector under OSHA regulation.
Willful violation is defined to exist "where the evidence shows either an
intentional violation of the [OSH] Act [of 1970] or plain indifference to
its requirements." Simply stated, the employer was aware of a hazardous
condition and its violation of OSH requirements and, regardless of intent,
did not make a reasonable effort to eliminate the hazard. I might add
that this is the provision under which the owner of a chicken processing
firm in North Carolina was recently sentenced to 20 years in prison for
negligence in a fatal fire last year.
The Tiger Teams, line program reviews, and other assessments have
found repeated instances of unabated hazards which could qualify as
willful violations under an enforcement regime. The message here is don't
put the implementation of an effective hazard abatement program on your
"10-year" OSH corrective action plan.
It is a now issue for all of us. It is unconscionable to permit our
workers to be exposed to serious risks that can be avoided, abated or
compensated.
A number of approaches exist for assessing workplace hazards and
assigning priorities for abatement action. We know of several good
initiatives being undertaken at DOE sites in this regard. The efforts of
my office are reflected in the draft DOE OSH Order that has been
circulated for review. That Order would require risk-based hazard
abatement using a Risk Assessment Code, or RAC. But let me emphasize,
again: Use this new Order as guidance, but do not wait for a final
directive. A working hazard abatement program is the law and is already
required by DOE Orders.
Issue #3: Accountability for OSH Compliance -- If you must be compelled
to act, then you do not have it.
The concept of management accountability is the central focus of the
Secretarial Directives, new Orders and initiatives that have been taken
over the past 3 years. It is the "right stuff' that has been inculcated
into the Nuclear Safety Program in this country and been popularized by
the Total Quality Management movement. For occupational safety and health
it means many things. But for DOE and its contractors, accountability can
be reduced to a few telling indicators. One is the proactiveness of the
OSH program. Another is the degree to which management is involved,
provides resources, and conducts reality checks on program results.
We have found a number of DOE contractors taking initiatives to
establish VPP-type programs, to risk-rank abatement actions and to perform
aggressive baseline workplace surveys. These companies recognize that
accident prevention is where the payoff is.
Not unlike the private sector, however, we also find that some DOE
offices and contractors remain in a reactive mode to OSH. Their
management still relies on outside inspections and accident investigations
to calibrate their performance. Too often, symptomatic deficiencies
occupy limited OSH resources. What is needed is a preactive approach to
establish programs and systems that would mitigate against such hazards in
the first place.
In my opinion, line management accountability is as basic as this:
Enforce the OSH requirements and conduct sufficient workplace inspections
to give you confidence that reality matches with expectations. If it
takes the threat of regulatory enforcement action to do the right thing,
then such a threat will become a self-fulfilling prophecy. The pending
legislation being considered in Congress to apply OSHA enforcement at DOE
sites is a final response to the past inattention given OSH compliance.
Regardless of the outcome, however, I firmly believe that oversight alone
will never assure safety. The essence of the VPP program is that
management and workers together provide that answer.
Issue #4: Workplace Surveillance -- If you do not regularly "walk your
spaces," you cannot measure the quality of your OSH program.
This is a precept that governed the Nuclear Navy under Admiral Rickover
and has become one of the core values in the Department's operations over
the past several years. It also happens to be one of the tenets of Total
Quality Management; that is, the need for measuring the quality of
delivered services or products. While a number of initiatives have been
taken (e.g., the assignment of facility representatives at many sites),
too often we find the old syndrome of the desk-bound manager or safety
professional. This is basic. Safety assurance is not merely provided by
the paper we produce, although policies and procedures are important. It
is the proper implementation of these same policies and procedures that
make the difference. If you do not look, you are flying blind. If you do
not find the deficiencies, they will most assuredly find you. And often,
unfortunately, at the cost of a worker's life.
This has historically been a problem at DOE and continues to be one
in the occupational safety and health area. We have issued guidance on
surveillance and self-assessment, are providing DOE-wide training and are
conducting DOE-wide assist visits, as noted by Dr. Ziemer. However, it
ultimately falls to the line managers and safety staff to make it a part
of DOE's day-to-day culture.
Issue #5: Continuing Improvement -- If you are working on only Tiger Team
OSH fixes, your "snapshot" is getting old.
In July 1992, the Department completed its 35th and final Tiger Team
Assessment at the Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserve. The Tiger Teams
represented an unprecedented Secretarial initiative to baseline the ES&H
compliance status of DOE's major facilities. It served to expose the
weakness that existed in DOE's Occupational Safety and Health Program. It
led to OSHA's 1990 evaluation and the subsequent workplace safety
initiatives. However, one challenge that confronts DOE today is not to
view the Tiger Team assessments and corrective action plans as a "clean
bill of health" for OSH.
Nothing could be further from the truth. The many OSH
noncompliances that were identified, sometimes in the hundreds, will
quickly reoccur unless the adequacy of the programs and systems,
themselves, are addressed. The category I and II hazards which, in most
cases, were promptly corrected at the time, will once again present
themselves unless awareness is built up through training and experience,
and a working hazard abatement program.
Issue #6: Employee Involvement -- The worker is the ultimate stakeholder
for safety.
One of the legacies of DOE's past isolation from the mainstream of
occupational safety and health is a sometimes antiquated approach to
employee involvement in OSH programs. A top-down, command-and-control
philosophy for safety is still employed at many plants. Safety policies
are dictated by, and safety issues continue to be the sole province of
management.
Fortunately, this approach is increasingly recognized as a throwback
to an era where safety and health was an adversarial issue: one to be
negotiated over a bargaining table. Employees have intimate insight and
knowledge of worksite conditions and are most at risk of potential
exposure to OSH hazards. Experience has demonstrated that workers can be
valuable problem solvers and are more likely to support programs to which
they have provided input.
We are seeing some exciting initiatives at a number of DOE sites to
increase employee involvement in OSH. The "Safety Leader" Program at
Pinellas, which I want to touch on later, is a fine initiative in this
direction. However, we still have a few sites where it is clear employees
fear reprisal for reporting unsafe conditions, or for reporting personal
injuries and illnesses. Likewise, the Department is challenged by
persistent confrontations at a few sites between the workforce and
management over workplace conditions, including safety.
The OSH initiatives that the Secretary has mandated become very
hollow unless we achieve credibility with the very people that we seek to
protect. With increasing enforcement authorities and the new
Whistleblower Rule, it is clear that management recalcitrance on this
issue will not be tolerated.
Issue #7: OSH Resources -- Knowledge empowers line management; DOE is
challenged to match sufficient OSH staff resources and capabilities with
our growing missions.
When OSHA conducted its DOE-wide evaluation in 1990, the management review
team concluded that the operating contractors by and large had sufficient
OSH staff resources. At the same time, OSHA found a paucity of OSH
staffing at all but one DOE Field Office and at Headquarters. A year
later, we find that the level of OSH staffing has increased within some
Headquarters programs and Field Offices, but not others. Some have
increased staffing, but due to security and training requirements have yet
to deploy them effectively. Still others face hiring ceilings that
accompany what will be a shrinking federal bureaucracy.
This issue goes beyond just personnel numbers. The Department is
also challenged to define the type of OSH expertise it needs to fulfill
its missions now and in the future. While better definition of OSH
program requirements helps, DOE finds itself at the threshold of programs
of an unprecedented nature: ones that will severely challenge even the
current notion of OSH management and resources.
Consider for a moment, a nationwide, 30-year cleanup program for
highly hazardous waste, that will ultimately involve tens of thousands of
workers. Consider the extensive decontamination and decommissioning
program for older DOE weapons plants that is an outgrowth of the end of
the Cold War. Consider, too, the construction of a 50-mile-around
underground accelerator ring. All of these will require innovative and
expanded expertise in worker protection if these programs are to succeed
with credibility.
I am here to tell you that the OSH expertise and capability that the
Department needs goes well beyond maintaining day-to-day compliance
programs. We can no longer afford to relegate such staffing to a
long-term plan or goal. Occupational safety and health programs are and
will be critical paths for all of these DOE initiatives.
DOE OSH success stories in the making.
Before I close this morning, I want to switch gears a bit and spend a few
minutes talking about what I would call DOE OSH "success stories in the
making" -- about those in the DOE community who have accepted the
challenge of the OSH initiatives and are making a difference for our
workers. Sometimes amidst the many Tiger Teams, OSH inspections and
policy initiatives, we do not give enough credit to what line management
is accomplishing at many of our sites. Initiatives that are being taken
without fanfare to improve worker safety and health where it counts.
At Pantex Plant, Mason and Hanger-Silas is establishing a 5-year VPP
plan to achieve the equivalent of star status, the highest category
recognized by OSHA. Active management involvement in OSH programs; a
computerized, risk-based compliance tracking system; and a vigorous
self-assessment program are some of the attributes of the Pantex OSH
Program.
At Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, an ergonomics task force
is addressing the issue of repetitive motion injuries. This has been
coupled with a case management program to review disabilities and injuries
with a goal of reducing them.
At DOE's Kansas City Plant, Allied-Signal was recently recognized
by the National Safety Council with an award of merit for reducing
reported lost workday cases over the past year. Allied-Signal is adopting
OSHA's Voluntary Protection Program objectives, a key feature of which is
its plant employee-management safety committees.
At Savannah River, Westinghouse has made considerable progress in
increasing industrial hygiene staffing, particularly with respect to field
monitoring technicians. An extensive site-wide baseline OSH audit has
been an "eye opener" for management and various upgrades are proceeding as
a result.
At Pinellas, Martin Marietta has made employee participation and
empowerment a hallmark of their workplace safety program. In the Pinellas
Safety Leader Program, begun in 1990, the idea was to involve employees
directly in the safety program. Voluntary safety leaders are recruited
for at least 1-year terms to develop monthly topical training programs.
These are intended to increase their coworkers' awareness of ES&H and to
inform and train them in specific safety knowledge and skills. The
response to the program has been extremely positive, with 65 employees
volunteering last year, and 80 this year. You can hear more about this
noteworthy initiative in one of tomorrow's sessions.
The Superconducting Super Collider Office is actively pursuing the
best safety approaches to what will be one of the world's largest
construction projects, the construction of the 50-mile-in-circumference
underground accelerator ring in Texas. Part of their planning included
sponsorship this past July of a construction safety symposium where the
world's experts convened to share their expertise and experience.
The DOE Nevada Field Office established a program last year called
the Compliance Assessment Program (CAP). It was designed to combine the
various safety and health assessments into an integrated baseline review
of site conditions. Notable features include a deliberate process of root
cause analysis and the application of a risk assessment code to set
priorities for abatement of OSH concerns. Of 4700 validated deficiencies,
500 are being addressed in formal hazard abatement plans.
I realize I have probably missed somebody, but even from this short
list we ought to take pride in what is already being accomplished in OSH
programs at DOE.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the Department continues to be challenged by its legacy in
occupational safety and health. The credibility issue that needs to be
overcome is no different than that faced by all of DOE's programs. It is
clear we will need to demonstrate by deeds, not merely by words, that our
commitment to workplace safety and health is sincere and actions are
effective; these actions will be judged by the workers themselves. They
will be the first to know whether real change is taking place or not.
Which brings me to my final point; all of us have watched, with a
certain degree of wonderment, as the former Soviet Union unraveled and the
Cold War ended. I think it gave us all a new appreciation of the power of
ideas. Once "Perestroika" and "Glasnost" were put into place by one
critical individual, they unleashed an unstoppable wave of change that
swept away an entire regime and its philosophy.
On a much (much) smaller scale, I believe we find ourselves at a
similar juncture in the Department's safety program. All of the old
paradigms have been swept away, and we are struggling to adopt a new
vision. Not surprisingly, we have pockets of resistance to change and
situations where the spirit is willing, but the know-how or resources are
lacking. But it should be clear that the old way of doing things in OSH
is gone forever. The momentum of this program, like other ES&H
initiatives before it, no longer relies on the Secretary of Energy or
external forces, although these important influences remain. No longer
the isolated program of the past, DOE's operations now operate in the
public eye, shoulder to shoulder with American industry. Our workers will
rightfully demand safety programs that not only will compare favorably
with those of private industry, but will ultimately exceed them. Why?
Because this is the Federal Government and we must assume a leadership
role and set the example for others to follow -- not the other way around,
as has been the case in the past.
So, we will all need to get used to the mix of daunting challenges,
constrained resources, frustrating progress and occasional triumphs that
have become our lot in safety. New regimes are not created easily, nor
overnight. But believe me, it is happening in occupational safety and
health.
Welcome to all of you and thank you for your support for DOE's
Occupational Safety and Health Program.