The essence of the release is shown below. Discussions with industry colleagues suggest that we spend too much time on risks related to occupational hazards without balancing efforts to address vehicle safety and accidents off the job. This is yet one more area where people must “want to” be safe and take responsibility for their own actions.

The NSC information should be shared with everyone and given consideration for company policies related to cell phone use and texting.

National Safety Council Estimates that At Least 1.6 Million Crashes are Caused Each Year by Drivers Using Cell Phones and Texting

Washington, DC – The National Safety Council announced today that it estimates at least 28% of all traffic crashes – or at least 1.6 million crashes each year – are caused by drivers using cell phones and texting. NSC estimates that 1.4 million crashes each year are caused by drivers using cell phones and a minimum of 200,000 additional crashes each year are caused by drivers who are texting. The announcement came on the one-year anniversary of NSC’s call for a ban on all cell phone use and texting while driving.

“We now know that at least 1.6 million crashes are caused by drivers using cell phones and texting,” said Janet Froetscher, president & CEO of the National Safety Council. “We know that cell phone use is a very risky distraction and texting is even higher risk. We now know that cell phone use causes many more crashes than texting. The main reason is that millions more drivers use cell phones than text,” she said. “That is why we need to address both texting and cell phone use on our roads.”

The estimate of 25% of all crashes — or 1.4 million crashes — caused by cell phone use was derived from NHTSA data showing 11% of drivers at any one time are using cell phones and from peer-reviewed research reporting cell phone use increases crash risk by four times. The estimate of an additional minimum 3% of crashes — or 200,000 crashes — caused by texting was derived by NHTSA data showing 1% of drivers at any one time are manipulating their device in ways that include texting and from research reporting texting increases crash risk by 8 times. Using the highest risk for texting reported by research of 23 times results in a maximum of 1 million crashes due to texting; still less than the 1.4 million crashes caused by other cell phone use.

Machine standards typically employ the concept of “A”, “B” or “C” levels. These designations originally come from Europe and are slowly assimilating into the US standards system. Briefly speaking:

Type-A standards (basis standards) give basic concepts, principles for design, and general aspects that can be applied to machinery;
Type-B standards (generic safety standards) deal with one or more safety aspects or one or more types of safeguards that can be used across a wide range of machinery:
Type-C standards (machinery safety standards) deal with detailed safety requirements for a particular machine or group of machines

“A” standards include
• ISO12100-1&2 Safety of Machinery: Basic Concepts, General Principles for Design
• ISO14121 (EN1050), Safety of Machinery: Risk Assessment.
In the US, we do not currently have “A” level safety standards for machinery and equipment (more on this in future blogs). We could think of applicable provisions of OSHA 29CFR1910 and OSHA 29CFR1910.212 General Requirements for guarding machines as having “A” level scope.

“B” level include standards such as:
• ANSI/NFPA70, National Electrical Code
• ANSI/NFPA70E, Electrical Safety Requirements for Employee Workplaces
• ANSI/NFPA79, Electrical Standard for Industrial Machinery
• ANSI Z244.1, Lockout/Tagout of Energy Sources
• ANSI/ASME B15.1, Mechanical Power Transmission Apparatus
• ANSI B11.19, Safeguarding Machine Tools
• And more…

“C” level includes standards such as:
• ANSI B11.1, Mechanical Power Presses
• ANSI B11.2, Hydraulic Power Presses
• ANSI B11.3, Power Press Brakes
• ANSI/RIA R15.06, Industrial Robots and Robot Systems
• And many, many more….

This is the first in what will be a series of blogs to help readers better understand the complex world of voluntary safety standards. Among other things, I will discuss “how” standards are developed, benefits and some new and exciting things happening in the world of B11 general industry safety standards.

For now, I would like to leave you with several thoughts:

1. Practicing lean and safe in daily work promotes sustainable growth.
2. You cannot be lean let alone safe if you introduce hazards into the workplace concurrent with the installation and use of new machinery, equipment and processes
3. Standards are the accepted “safety tool” to identify and eliminate / reduce hazards before they come into the workplace.

At the business level, we buy machinery, equipment and tooling that list conformance to appropriate standards. ANSI B11 (general industry machine safety standards), API (American Petroleum Institute), NFPA, ASTM and UL are only some of the dozens of standards developing organizations in world of industrial safety. We also have standards for procedural things like lockout (ANSI Z244.1) and management system standards (ANSI / AIHA Z10).

As a matter of information that is sometimes a point of confusion, ANSI (American National Standards Institute) does not develop standards. Instead, ANSI accredits over 200 standards developing organizations in the United States and administers the consensus process of development to ensure balance, openness and due process.

In the global arena, we find groups like ISO (International Organization for Standardization) and IEC (International Electrotechnical Commission) that are familiar to many. Less familiar is the fact that far more international standards are developed by organizations such as ASTM International and IEEE. The European Union has CEN standards that are roughly equivalent to ANSI standards in the US.

Voluntary safety standards are a complex and confusing world, and are akin to peeling an onion – there is always another layer – and sometimes you just want to cry. All of us benefit from the untold hours spent by thousands of volunteers who devote time and energy to develop the requirements that will protect the public and employees.

This is the first of what will be a series of blog posts to help HSE pros gain a better understanding by “eating this elephant” one bite at a time. For now, the answer to the questions of “What’s in it for me?” or “Why should I care?” is this:

Without voluntary safety standards:

• Companies would be dealing with a huge number of hazards that should have been addressed in the design phase of products or services.
• HSE pros would have to address increased residual risk because hazards were not eliminated and feasible engineering controls were not used. Achieving acceptable risk would require increased warnings, training, administrative controls and PPE.

Voluntary standards make the world a safer place.

• Have training, audits and attempts to change behavior not yielded the long-term results you desire?
• Do you feel like the safety department is carrying most of the load?
• Are organizational responsibilities understood and people held accountable?
• Is top management integrating safety with production, quality and other major company initiatives?
• Are you searching for an answer to achieving true continuous improvement?

First, let me suggest that you look at your health and safety management system and ask the following:

1. Do you have one?
2. If so, is it integrated into the management system(s) used by top management on a regular basis?

If you can’t answer “yes” to both #1 and #2, you should consider incorporating the following principles into your operations:

• Top management is responsible for leading safety and integrating it into the business.
• A management system is the primary “tool” that allows senior executives to define organizational responsibilities and hold people accountable.
• Safety personnel are there to serve the operations end of the business. Suggest an integrated management system.

Whether you do it in-house or call in a safety consultant, thoroughly assess existing systems and processes and then construct a plan that allows top management and senior operations management to fully integrate safety into their daily business. Then you’ll be on the road to sustainable safety improvement.

We’ve seen the impact in our safety staffing operation. One Friday afternoon we were asked by a major cleanup contractor if we could find 10 safety professionals to put on the job by Monday morning. We were able to oblige.

OSHA reported this week that more than 39,000 workers were involved in the cleanup as well as 6,500 vessels. OSHA itself began deploying staff to the Gulf in late April and now has personnel at all 17 staging areas in Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and Florida.

Depending on their jobs, OSHA said, workers can face hazards from “heat, falls, drowning, fatigue, loud noise, sharp objects, as well as bites from insects, snakes, and other wild species native to the Gulf Coast area. Workers may also face exposure to crude oil, oil constituents and byproducts, dispersants, cleaning products and other chemicals being used in the cleanup process.”

The agency reported that it has made over 1392 site visits, covering vessels and staging areas as well as decontamination, distribution and deployment sites.

OSHA says it is also working to ensure that workers are not exposed to dangerous levels of toxic chemicals. OSHA has reviewed the BP monitoring data and has brought in a team of industrial hygienists to conduct its own independent monitoring both on shore and on the cleanup vessels.

Nelson, who chaired the first Construction Industry Institute task force that researched contractors with few or no injuries, was featured in a recent article on the Safety Daily Advisor website.

The article presents the following checklist, developed by the Institute, of practices followed by “zero injury” organizations.

• The president/senior company management reviews safety reports.
• Top management is involved in injury/incident investigations.
• Management and supervision are evaluated on safety performance.
• Project safety representatives report directly to senior management.
• The company maintains a minimum of one safety representative for every 50 workers.
• Projects have site-specific safety plans.
• Before each task, a task safety analysis/pretask planning meeting is held with the foreman’s crew.
• Safety training is a line item in the project budget.
• Every worker on the project attends a standard orientation training session.
• Safety orientation is formal.
• Workers receive an average of at least 4 hours of safety training each month.
• Superintendents and project managers attend mandatory safety-training sessions.
• All levels of management and supervision receive training in behavior-based safety.
• A structured worker-to-worker safety observation program is in place.
• The company/project supports and maintains an effective, formal near-miss reporting process.
• Workers are encouraged to report near misses.
• Safety recognition/rewards are given to workers at least monthly.
• Family members are included in safety recognition dinners.
• Workers are evaluated on safety performance.
• Subcontractors are required to submit project-specific safety plans.
• Sanctions are imposed when subcontractors do not comply with safety requirements.
• Employee safety perception surveys are conducted.
• Off-site company personnel perform frequent audits.

I am confident that most safety professionals would concur that this extensive list has all the ingredients necessary to create an organizational culture where safety is ingrained in daily operations. However, we are once again overlooking the “why” of safety.

In W. Edwards Deming’s 14 points for management transformation to a sustainable organization (“Out of the Crisis,” 1982), he clearly cites the need to explain “why” to employees.

I keep wondering “why” we in safety keep failing to explain “why” safety should be important to each employee. Typically, everyone is asking, “What’s in it for me?”

Isn’t it about time that we address this fundamental issue?

MWV7DHQVHP6J

Your organizational culture is probably “Safety is responsible for safety.” That is not healthy for any number of reasons, including the fact that you cannot be successful if operations management and supervisors call the Safety Department when guards are off, oil is on the floor, someone didn’t lock out, etc. Floor personnel should be responsible and accountable for safety.

If you are a safety professional and your organizational culture needs to change, here a few steps to consider:

• Talk to the CEO or highest level person at your location. Get his / her concurrence that they are responsible for leading safety.
• Clarify that you are there to support them – don’t ask for support.
• Ask the top executive what they would like done that is not being done now.
• You will probably note many gaps as you listen.
• Tell them that you will get back to them with a plan.

The plan will include your analysis of non-value added work to be eliminated and a proposal to redistribute necessary safety functions, allowing time for the new initiatives. In your plan:

• Carefully analyze whether time spent on floor audits and being a “safety cop”, creating reports or other administrative tasks really add value for the prevention of injury and illness.
• Identify the non-value added things that should be eliminated.
• Lay out a matrix for all the necessary inspections and audits that must be performed (e.g. PPE audits, fork trucks, chains and hoists).
• Consider if others in operations, maintenance, or other staffs are capable of performing the work.
• Develop a matrix of how the load could be redistributed.
• Identify how much time you could free up and how you would use the time for planning and implementation of the executive’s initiatives.
• Present your plan and make adjustments based on their critique.

Your scenario may play out differently but the goal is the same – serve top management and make others directly and personally responsible for safety. When communicating changes to the management team, ask the CEO to voice these words of wisdom to the rest of the organization:

• “If you are not sure if you have a hazard, call safety.”
• “If you have a hazard and are not sure what to do, call safety.”
• “If you have a hazard and know what to do, fix it – don’t call safety.”

Remember, the CEO or top operations person at your location is your primary internal customer. Make sure you are giving them the support they deserve.





]]> http://www.fdrsafety.com/a-recipe-for-shaking-up-the-safety-status-quo/feed/ 1 http://www.fdrsafety.com/deming-a-pioneer-in-the-world-of-safe-and-lean/ http://www.fdrsafety.com/deming-a-pioneer-in-the-world-of-safe-and-lean/#comments Fri, 07 May 2010 17:32:44 +0000 Mike Taubitz http://www.fdrsafety.com/?p=750 I just finished reading an excellent book….

“Out of another @#&*% Crisis – Motivation through Humiliation” (available at ASQ and Amazon) grades US business on how well they stack up against Dr. W. Edwards Deming’s principles. Deming’s 1982 book, ‘Out of the Crisis’ put forth 14 principles for leaders and organizations desiring to improve quality and service. For those not familiar with Deming, I encourage you to do an internet search and find out more about the man and his contribution to quality and a philosophy of management that is perfectly suited to safety.

Deming, a statistician, is credited with starting post-WWII Japan on the path of producing quality in its products. He is regarded as having had more impact upon Japanese manufacturing and business than any other individual not of Japanese heritage. Despite being considered something of a hero in Japan, he was only just beginning to win widespread recognition in the U.S. at the time of his death in 1993.

Deming is also recognized for the concept of PDCA (Plan-Do-Check-Act) for continuous improvement. Many of you will recognize this concept as the foundation of today’s management systems. If you read ANSI / AIHA Z10 – 2005, Occupational Health and Safety Management System, you will find PDCA prominent throughout the entire document. What is less well understood is that Deming’s work in Japan also led to development of the many tools, practices and thinking associated with lean production.

More importantly, Deming’s 14 points hammer home the concepts of leadership and respect for people. With safety as a foundation for respecting people and using lean tools like 5S, value stream mapping, just-in-time, workflow, knowledge folders and a dozen other tools, the organizations practicing lean and safe are doing so because of Deming’s wisdom.

So, you ask, how does US business stack up with Deming. According to Mike Micklewright, author of ”Out of another @#&*% Crisis – Motivation through Humiliation,” US industry has earned mostly “Fs” and “Ds.’” He provides data and observations to support his personal characterization of industry’s performance. Like Micklewright, I too, am a huge fan of Deming. I spent many a Wednesday night in the late ‘80s as part of a Deming workgroup working with UAW colleagues to better understand how we might incorporate Deming’s teachings into health and safety. One of the most notable things we did was to apply statistical process control to the fatality data in General Motors to better understand our constancy of purpose.

At that time, fatality data for large global companies was typically a metric of number fatals million hours worked or 100,000 employees. You could compare performance to other companies or past years but learned little of root cause due to limited sample size. We engaged a statistical expert and gave him 30 years of fatality history.

Cranking the data, we learned something that would drive dramatic improvement in GM and much of industry. Traditionally, GM and the UAW focused on lockout because of the number of machines and injuries related to hazardous motion. What we had overlooked was that 19% of the fatals in a 30-year period came from falls from elevation. Just two common cause issues (lockout and falls) accounted for nearly 50% of the fatalities over 30 years.

Armed with the data, we went to management, and undertook a massive effort related to design, and providing proper fall protection when the hazards could not be designed out. Within a couple of years, we saw significant improvement in reducing fatalities. GM has continued the journey and boasts the best injury/illness record in the automotive industry. The knowledge for the beginnings of that journey came from Dr. Deming.

Apart from the tools of lean and safe, what Deming did best was underscore the value of the human mind. I can’t think of a better mentor to underscore safety as a 24-7 value than Dr. Deming. Companies that follow his principles will truly be on the path to sustainable growth.

Please join us for more discussion about safety and sustainability at the LinkedIn group, SHE, Sustainability and Lean.





]]> http://www.fdrsafety.com/deming-a-pioneer-in-the-world-of-safe-and-lean/feed/ 1 http://www.fdrsafety.com/here-we-go-again-%e2%80%93-osha-on-wrong-path-with-injury-prevention-proposal/ http://www.fdrsafety.com/here-we-go-again-%e2%80%93-osha-on-wrong-path-with-injury-prevention-proposal/#comments Thu, 06 May 2010 18:11:39 +0000 Jim Stanley http://www.fdrsafety.com/?p=747 OSHA has come out with more details about its proposed Injury and Illness Prevention Program and it’s now clear to me that what could have been a good idea is headed down the wrong path.

I agree that OSHA should require every company within its jurisdiction to have a safety and health program. But I think that the guidelines should be broad and that the programs should be judged based on the companies’ safety performance. These programs should require total management commitment and employee involvement, and should hold both workers and managers accountable for following safe work procedures.

What the federal government should not do is lay down detailed specifications for how safety and health programs should be constructed. And that is exactly what OSHA is proposing to do.

Businesses vary so much in their operations that it is unrealistic to think that federal specifications will serve the cause of health and safety. Companies need the flexibility to build programs that match their own circumstances.

Here is an excerpt from what OSHA says it has in mind for a proposed Injury and Illness Prevention Program, which it is calling I2P2 for short:

“Based on OSHA’s experience, the agency believes that an 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).”

Your comments are most welcome.





]]> http://www.fdrsafety.com/here-we-go-again-%e2%80%93-osha-on-wrong-path-with-injury-prevention-proposal/feed/ 3 http://www.fdrsafety.com/5s-getting-your-hands-dirty-to-clean-things-up/ http://www.fdrsafety.com/5s-getting-your-hands-dirty-to-clean-things-up/#comments Thu, 29 Apr 2010 15:50:46 +0000 Mike Taubitz http://www.fdrsafety.com/?p=721 If you read my first two blog posts about 5S, you should have a better understanding of the “what” and “why” of 5S. This blog will help you understand the “how.”

A detailed checklist is helpful to assure that cleaning materials, trash, temporary storage and other necessary items are in place to assure a smooth workshop. Participants report wearing work clothes as 5S requires folks getting their hands dirty.

On the day of the kaizen, (kaizen is Japanese term that equates to continuous improvement) event, the team receives an introduction to 5S and the steps they must follow. After moving to the project site, they spend a few minutes writing a “Purpose Statement” to guide their work. (This is where “effective isn’t perfect” comes into play – - the Purpose Statement might change but it helps organize thought to get going quickly.)

#1 Sort

• Items of no value are immediately trashed
• Items with value but not meeting the purpose of the area being 5S’d are sent to a temporary storage area for later disposition
• Consider the 7 Forms of waste in Sort and all steps of 5S. Remember the acronym COMMWIP:

1. Correction (Errors)
2. Overproduction
3. Motion (people)
4. Material movement
5. Waiting
6. Inventory
7. Process

• Items that are not present but could add value are identified for follow-up.

# 2 and # 3 Straighten and Shine

• Items are organized for easy access
• Everything is deep cleaned (more than a superficial wipe)
• The goal is to organize items most often used to be easy to see and easy to get.
• Steps 2 and 3 are usually done concurrently as dictated by common sense.

#4 Standardize

• Use labels, tape, written instructions and other forms of visual controls (e.g. colored stickers) to enhance understanding. Those who use the area should be able to quickly obtain what they need when they need it.
• This is the step where elements of the standard are written on an 8 ½ x11 sheet of paper adjacent to a plan view diagram of the area itself. This sheet is placed in a plastic protector and affixed to a wall in a convenient and visible location.

5 Sustain

• During the kaizen workshop, another 8 ½ x11 form is completed showing who is to do the inspection along with the second level person who validates that the inspection takes place as prescribed. It, too, is placed in plastic and affixed to the wall.
• The most difficult part of 5S is the ongoing part of sustain where the improvements made are maintained according to the standard.

5S Workshop Summary

• Usually takes 6-8 hours
• 30-80% savings in inventory and floor / shelf space is common
• Tasks associated with the project become faster and easier

The outcome is an organized area, but…
The real value is using 5S to help the team understand how to identify and eliminate waste of which safety of employees is foremost.

For more information on these and similar topics, you may be interested in joining the SHE, sustainability and lean group on LinkedIn





]]> http://www.fdrsafety.com/5s-getting-your-hands-dirty-to-clean-things-up/feed/ 1