Injury and Illness Prevention Program
Bryan Seal, of the Directorate of Standards and Guidance, introduced the topic of how the Injury and Illness Prevention Program rule should be organized. OSHA has the task of determining what an Injury and Illness Prevention Program standard would look like; Mr. Seal requested stakeholder input on how the standard should be organized so that covered employers and industries will be able to comply with the rule.
Mr. Seal posed the following questions: OSHA has identified six core elements for inclusion in the standard: (1) management duties; (2) employee participation; (3) hazard identification and assessment; (4) hazard control; (5) education and training; and (6) program evaluation and improvement. Are these core elements an effective foundation for this standard? What should the overall standard look like? What additional tools or appendices would be useful? Do you have successful tools or guidance that can assist employers in compliance with the standard?
Stakeholders provided the following comments and recommendations regarding organization of a rule:
Management Duties
■ Participants stated that management leadership is the key for success for an Injury and Illness Prevention Program —all other components should fall in line if management is committed to an Injury and Illness Prevention Program. As such, stakeholders recommended that the OSHA rule should strongly emphasize the duties required of management.
Employee Participation
■ Numerous participants said that the OSHA standard needs to include elements that ensure employee awareness of, and participation in, an Injury and Illness Prevention Program. Some recommended the standard further allow employees to hold management accountable for Injury and Illness Prevention Program violations.
■ Several stakeholders stated that the OSHA rule should place equal emphasis on the employee involvement and management commitment components. They also recommended that employees should be involved in the planning and decision-making process, because employees have a better understanding of the impact an Injury and Illness Prevention Program will have on workplace hazards.
■ One participant suggested encouraging employee participation using eye-catching posters and other messaging tools. This participant also recommended using diagrams and pictures to overcome language and literacy obstacles.
■ Stakeholders expressed concern that employees might initially be suspicious of an Injury and Illness Prevention Program based on the fear that their input could be used against them. These participants suggested that requesting full involvement from employees, including the writing of an Injury and Illness Prevention Program processes, could convey a more trusting and proactive safety culture, ultimately increasing buy-in from employees.
■ A few participants stated that the OSHA rule should emphasize participation from temporary or contingent employees and day laborers, who are often neglected in an Injury and Illness Prevention Program. These employees must have a mechanism for reporting and controlling workplace hazards.
Hazard Identification and Assessment
■ Many stakeholders indicated that an Injury and Illness Prevention Program is most effective when management, supervisors, and employees collaborate to develop the program. These stakeholders asked that the OSHA rule require collaboration between these constituents.
■ Several stakeholders recommended that the OSHA rule require employers to conduct risk-based hazard assessment surveys. Because not all hazards are equal, the stakeholders stated, OSHA must develop a feasible approach to allow employers to reasonably allocate scarce resources and to address the most significant hazards.
■ Stakeholders stated that the OSHA rule should require written documentation of job hazard analyses and employer responses to identified hazards.
■ Stakeholders urged OSHA to include management of change as a part of hazard identification.
Education and Training
■ Several stakeholders recommended that training be interactive and led by an instructor who can respond to questions or concerns. These stakeholders indicated that requiring employees to watch a training video is significantly less effective at conveying an Injury and Illness Prevention Program.
■ Several participants recommended that the OSHA rule include training for temporary and contingent workers, even if these training requirements are different from the requirements for full-time employees.
■ One participant urged that the rule include training requirements for management personnel. Management personnel are also affected by workplace hazards, the participant said.
■ A stakeholder recommended that hazard identification and control be the first topic addressed in safety training. Employees who understand the hierarchy of risk assessment can safely identify hazards and address them accordingly.
■ Participants stated that employee training should include information on how to report complaints, and should detail the method by which complaints are to be addressed.
■ Several stakeholders said that the OSHA rule should consider literacy levels and language barriers during training.
■ One participant said that Injury and Illness Prevention Program training should follow normal craft training, because employees cannot fully understand hazards unless they understand their job and responsibilities.
■ A few stakeholders mentioned that training should be performance-based, not based on watching a video or attending a class. These stakeholders stated that it is important for employees to understand the training material, rather than merely prove they attended.
Program Evaluation and Improvement
■ Stakeholders stated that the OSHA rule should require written documentation of an Injury and Illness Prevention Program evaluation.
■ Participants suggested that employers should regularly post an evaluation metric of the Injury and Illness Prevention Program, to convey to employees the value of setting an Injury and Illness Prevention Program goal and improving safety.
Additional Elements to Include
■ Stakeholders asked OSHA to include helpful program development tools and guidance documents in the Injury and Illness Prevention Program rule. These stakeholders emphasized that small employers, which lack the resources to hire safety professionals, will need tools to develop an effective Injury and Illness Prevention Program.
■ Participants recommended that OSHA consider literacy levels and language barriers in all components of the rule. These participants stated that the success of an Injury and Illness Prevention Program is largely tied to employees understanding all the applicable elements. A participant suggested that unions can help employers overcome language barriers during the development of an Injury and Illness Prevention Program. Another participant suggested the use of hand-held translators or online translation tools.
■ Stakeholders urged OSHA to promote accountability as an element that is equally important to management responsibility.
■ One participant stated that the OSHA rule should emphasize the accurate reporting of injuries and illnesses.
■ Several stakeholders suggested that the OSHA rule should include voluntary appendices. Voluntary appendices are more easily understood and can serve as a starting point for less-savvy employers, the stakeholders said.
Other Standards and Programs
■ One participant mentioned that the most successful Injury and Illness Prevention Program's in California exist at workplaces with employers who display a strong concern for safety. The participant stated that the safest employees are the ones who know they will not be disciplined for expressing safety concerns. This stakeholder said that many of the employees who have been hurt or died either did not express their concerns about a known hazard or spoke out and were hushed by management.
■ One participant mentioned the Department of Energy's 10 CFR Part 851. This rule includes a model implementation guide and provides suggestions for encouraging employee involvement.
■ A stakeholder stated that Appendix A of the Army Corps of Engineers' 385-1-1 Safety and Health Requirements Manual has guidance on how to prepare an accident prevention plan.
■ One participant mentioned that employers subject to the California state standard have kept inadequate documentation. This participant stated that for a performance-based Injury and Illness Prevention Program rule, clear and thorough documentation is highly important, especially for reference during inspections.
■ A participant stated that the OSHA rule should emphasize the rule's interaction with preexisting standards (e.g., state Injury and Illness Prevention Program standards, industry-specific standards).
■ One stakeholder asked OSHA to include, as an appendix, its publication on job hazard analysis.
■ As part of the HAZWOPER standard, the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences developed a non-mandatory appendix with minimum criteria for training requirements, a participant said.
1.4 Economic Impact
Bob Burt from the Office of Regulatory Affairs introduced the topic of economic impacts from the Injury and Illness Prevention Program rule. Mr. Burt explained that OSHA is required to demonstrate that its regulations are economically feasible. Additionally, to facilitate OMB's review, OSHA weighs the economic impacts of regulations using the techniques of cost-benefit analyses. Accordingly, OSHA sought stakeholder information about what the potential costs and benefits of an Injury and Illness Prevention Program rule would be.
Mr. Burt posed the following questions to the stakeholders: What are the costs of starting and maintaining an Injury and Illness Prevention Program? What would be the incremental cost to businesses that already have implemented an Injury and Illness Prevention Program? What approaches could be used to minimize costs? What kind of impact would this standard have on small businesses? How can the benefits or the effectiveness of an Injury and Illness Prevention Program be measured? Mr. Burt also asked stakeholders to refer OSHA to any specific sources of cost or benefit data that they were aware of.
Stakeholders provided the following comments and recommendations regarding economic impacts:
Assessing Costs
■ A participant stated that nonprofit organizations have implemented an Injury and Illness Prevention Program in instances where it is not yet required by rule. The participant said that although these organizations must spend resources to develop an Injury and Illness Prevention Program, the reduction in injuries and illnesses has often saved these organizations money. An Injury and Illness Prevention Program has always dropped incident rates, thus lowering compensation costs.
■ A stakeholder with experience in an Injury and Illness Prevention Program said it can take a company 12 months to implement a program if they have a dedicated employee overseeing the effort. If a company does not have a dedicated employee, implementation can take 18 to 24 months, the stakeholder said.
■ One participant suggested that OSHA speak to insurance companies, which might be willing to provide information on potential savings afforded by an Injury and Illness Prevention Program. This participant stated that OSHA should be cautious when obtaining cost data from existing programs, because OSHA's rule might have different Injury and Illness Prevention Program requirements.
Small Businesses
■ A participant suggested that OSHA should consult with small businesses subject to the California state standard. The participant said that these small businesses would be able to speak to the initial costs and maintenance costs that resulted from the state standard.
■ One stakeholder stated that OSHA needs to convince small businesses that an Injury and Illness Prevention Program can be cost effective. One stakeholder stated that small businesses with no injuries will incur costs, but will see no tangible benefit.
Cost-Effectiveness and Costs vs. Benefits
■ One participant recommended that OSHA should strive for a lower-cost standard, even if that reduces the benefits. This participant noted that OSHA cannot address all safety and health issues in a single rule, so it should focus its resources on higher-priority areas.
■ A stakeholder cited an example of an employer that operates in two different countries, one of which requires an Injury and Illness Prevention Program while the other does not. The stakeholder said that in the county that requires an Injury and Illness Prevention Program the company has experienced 37 percent fewer injuries and illnesses.
■ One stakeholder suggested that OSHA consult with employers (e.g., in California) that have longer-running programs in place, because they might have more information on the long-term costs and benefits of an Injury and Illness Prevention Program.
■ In determining the benefits of an Injury and Illness Prevention Program, a stakeholder said that OSHA should be wary of low incident rates, which might be a result of discouraged reporting. This participant said OSHA should also be wary of the benefits afforded by behavior-based safety programs, because these programs do not emphasize the identification of hazards.
■ A participant mentioned that some occupational illnesses (e.g., workplace asthma) are not documented as such, and will not be captured in cost-benefit analyses.
2 Closing Remarks
OSHA representatives thanked the stakeholders for their participation. Ms. Dougherty emphasized that the stakeholder input would greatly help OSHA formulate the standard. She reiterated that the rulemaking is in the early stages and it is difficult to predict the timing of the release of the standard. Mr. Seymour described the procedure for formally submitting comments. Interested parties can provide documents and other information to OSHA. Any information used by OSHA in the preamble will be added to the docket once it is opened.
No comments:
Post a Comment