1992-December-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.