DESIGN FOR OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY:MEASURING HAZARD POTENTIAL AND SAFETY PERFORMANCE

MEASURING HAZARD POTENTIAL AND SAFETY PERFORMANCE

To control occupational hazards and related illness and injuries, it is necessary to define their nature and predict when and where they will occur. This requires that some system of hazard detection be developed that can define the frequency of the hazard, its seriousness, and its amenability to control. Traditionally, two parallel systems of information have been used to attain this purpose. One is hazard identification, such as plant inspections, fault-free analysis, and employee hazard-reporting programs, which have been used to define the nature and frequency of company hazards. In this case, action is taken before an injury or illness occurs. The second system is after the fact in that it uses employee injury and company loss-control information to define problem spots based on the extent of injuries and costs to the organization. When pre- and postinjury systems have been integrated, they have been successful in predicting high-risk plant areas or working conditions where remedial programs can be established for hazard control.

Inspection Programs

Hazard identification prior to the occurrence of an occupational injury is a major goal of a hazard inspection program. In the United States, such programs have been formalized in terms of federal and state regulations that require employers to monitor and abate recognized occupational health and safety hazards. These recognized hazards are defined in the federal and state regulations that provide explicit standards of unsafe exposures. The standards can be the basis for establishing an in-plant inspection program because they specify the explicit subject matter to be investigated and corrected.

Research has shown that inspections are most effective in identifying permanent fixed physical and environmental hazards that do not vary over time. Inspections are not very effective in identifying transient physical and environmental hazards or improper workplace behaviors because these hazards may not be present when the inspection is taking place (Smith et al. 1971). A major benefit from inspections, beyond hazard recognition, is the positive motivational influence on employees. Inspec-

tions demonstrate management interest in the health and safety of employees and a commitment to a safe working environment. To capitalize on this positive motivational influence, an inspection should not be a punitive or confrontational process of placing blame. Indicating the good aspects of a work area and not just the hazards is important in this respect. It is also important to have employees participate in hazard inspections because this increases hazard-recognition skills and increases mo- tivation for safe behavior.

The first step in an inspection program is to develop a checklist that identifies all potential hazards. A good starting point is the state and federal standards. Many insurance companies have developed general checklists of OSHA standards that can be tailored to a particular plant. These are a good source when drawing up the checklist. A systematic inspection procedure is preferred. This requires that the inspectors know what to look for and where to look for it and have the proper tools to conduct an effective assessment. It is important that the checklist be tailored to each work area after an analysis of that work area’s needs has been undertaken. This analysis should determine the factors to be inspected: (1) the machinery, tools, and materials, (2) chemicals, gases, vapors, and biological agents, and (3) environmental conditions. The analysis should also determine (1) the frequency of inspections necessary to detect and control hazards, (2) the individuals who should conduct and / or participate in the inspections, and (3) the instrumentation needed to make measurements of the hazard(s).

The hazards that require inspection can be determined by (1) their potential to cause an injury or illness, (2) the potential seriousness of the injuries or illnesses, (3) the number of people exposed to the hazard, (4) the number of injuries and illnesses at a workplace related to a specific hazard, and (5) hazardous conditions defined by federal, state, and local regulations. The frequency of inspections should be based on the nature of the hazards being evaluated. For instance, once a serious fixed physical hazard has been identified and controlled, it is no longer a hazard. It will only have to be reinspected periodically to be sure the situation is still no longer hazardous. Random spot checking is another method that can indicate whether the hazard control remains effective. Other types of hazards that are intermittent will require more frequent inspection to assure proper hazard abatement. In most cases, monthly inspections are warranted, and in some cases daily inspections are reasonable.

Inspections should take place when and where the highest probability of a hazard exists, while reinspection can occur on an incidental basis to ensure that hazard control is effectively maintained. Inspections should be conducted when work processes are operating, and on a recurring basis at regular intervals. According to the National Safety Council (1974), a general inspection of an entire premises should be conducted at least once a year, except for those work areas scheduled for more frequent inspections because of their high hazard level. Because housekeeping is an important aspect of hazard control, inspection of all work areas should be conducted at least weekly for cleanliness, clutter, and traffic flow. The National Safety Council (1974) indicated that a general inspection should cover the following:

1. Plant grounds

2. Building and related structures

3. Towers, platforms, or other additions

4. Transportation access equipment and routes

5. Work areas

6. Machinery

7. Tools

8. Materials handling

9. Housekeeping

10. Electrical installations and wiring

11. Floor loading

12. Stairs and stairways

13. Elevators

14. Roofs and chimneys We would add to this:

15. Chemicals, biological agents, radiation, etc.

16. Ergonomic stressors

17. Psychosocial stressors

Intermittent inspections are the most common type and are made at irregular intervals, usually on an ad hoc basis. Such inspections are unannounced and are often limited to a specific work area or process. Their purpose is to keep first-line supervisors and workers alert to safety considerations and hazard detection. Such inspections do not always require a checklist. Systematic informal in- spections made by first-line supervisors on a daily basis in their work area can be effective in identifying intermittent hazards and also keeping employees aware of good safety practices. Contin- uous inspections occur when employees are aware of safety considerations and detect and report hazards as they occur. Maintenance staff can also play a role in defining hazardous conditions while carrying out their duties of machinery repair.

As indicated above, all employees in an organization can become involved in inspecting for hazards, some formally, some informally. Technical, periodic health and safety inspections should be conducted by the plant medical, industrial hygiene, and safety staff. These persons have special expertise to define and evaluate hazards. That expertise can be supplemented by outside experts from insurance companies, government safety and health agencies, and private consultants. Conducting a formal inspection requires some planning and structure. First it must be determined what, where, and when to inspect. That decision will be based on hazard and illness / injury potential. A determination must be made whether to give prior warning to the employees in the area to be inspected. If hazards are primarily behavioral in nature, the prior warning may reduce the effectiveness of the inspection.

When conducting the inspection, the department supervisor should be asked to identify hot spots or special problem areas. A checklist can be used to identify each hazard and its nature, exact location, potential to cause serious damage, and possible control measures. During the walk-through, employee input should be solicited. Photographs and videotapes of hazards are effective in documenting the nature and potential seriousness of hazards. Once the inspection is completed, a report should be prepared that specifies pertinent information about the nature of the hazards, illness and injury po- tential, and abatement recommendations. This report needs to be detailed and provide step-by-step instructions for instituting hazard-control procedures in a timely manner. First, all potential hazards and their contributors should be listed. Second, the hazard identification analysis should provide solutions to deal with the hazards. The methods used to conduct the hazard identification should produce accurate estimates for the risks of harm to employees. Finally, resources should be allocated for abating the hazards and should be prioritized by those safety improvements that should yield the best results, that is, the best safety performance.

It is not sufficient simply to write up the results; they should be shared with all parties concerned in a face-to-face meeting. This meeting will give the results greater significance and serve as the basis for further interaction and possible modification of recommendations. Such meetings will en- hance employee understanding and allow for in-depth discussions of the findings and recommenda- tions. This makes the entire inspection process more relevant to supervisors and employees and facilitates the favorable acceptance of the results and any subsequent recommendations.

The quality of a hazard-identification system can be evaluated by answering the following four questions (Suokas 1993):

1. How well has the analysis identified hazards and their contributors?

2. How effectively has the analysis produced potential solutions needed in the system?

3. How accurately has the analysis estimated the risks of the system?

4. What is the cost-effectiveness of the hazard identification analysis?

Illness and Injury Statistics

There are four main uses of injury statistics: (1) to identify high-risk jobs or work areas, (2) to evaluate company health and safety performance, (3) to evaluate the effectiveness of hazard-abatement approaches, and (4) to identify factors related to illness and injury causation. An illness and injury- reporting and analysis system requires that detailed information must be collected about the char- acteristics of illness and injuries and their frequency and severity. The Occupational Safety and Health Act (1970) established illness and injury reporting and recording requirements that are mandatory for all employers, with certain exclusions such as small establishments and government agencies. Regulations have been developed to define how employers are to adhere to these requirements (BLS 1978).

The OSHAct requirements specify that any illness or injury to an employee that causes time lost from the job, treatment beyond first aid, transfer to another job, loss of consciousness, or an occu- pational illness must be recorded on a daily log of injuries and illnesses, the OSHA 300 form (previously the 200 form). This log identifies the injured person, the date and time of the injury, the department or plant location where the injury occurred, and a brief description of the occurrence of the injury, highlighting salient facts such as the chemical, physical agent, or machinery involved and the nature of the injury. An injury should be recorded on the day that it occurs, but this is not always possible with MSDs and other cumulative trauma injuries. The number of days that the person is absent from the job is also recorded upon the employee’s return to work. In addition to the daily log, a more detailed form is filled out for each injury that occurs. This form provides a more detailed description of the nature of the injury, the extent of damage to the employee, the factors that could be related to the cause of the injury, such as the source or agent that produced the injury, and events surrounding the injury occurrence. A workers’ compensation form can be substituted for the OSHA 301 form (previously the 101 form) because equivalent information is gathered on these forms.

The OSHA Act injury and illness system specifies a procedure for calculating the frequency of occurrence of occupational injuries and illnesses and an index of their severity. These can be used by companies to monitor their health and safety performance. National data by major industrial categories are compiled by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics annually and can serve as a basis of comparison of individual company performance within an industry. Thus, a company can determine whether its injury rate is better or worse than that of other companies in its industry. This industry- wide injury information is available on the OSHA website (http: / / www.osha.gov).

The OSHA system uses the following formula in determining company annual injury and illness incidence. The total number of recordable injuries is multiplied by 200,000 and then divided by the number of hours worked by the company employees. This gives an injury frequency per 100 person hours of work (injury incidence). These measures can be compared to an industry average.

where The number of recordable injuries and illnesses is taken from the OSHA 300 daily log of injuries.

The number of hours worked by employees is taken from payroll records and reports pre- pared for the Department of Labor or the Social Security Administration.

It is also possible to determine the severity of company injuries. Two methods are typically used. In the first, the total number of days lost due to injuries is compiled from the OSHA 300 daily log and divided by the total number of injuries recorded on the OSHA 300 daily log. This gives an average number of days lost per injury. In the second, the total number of days lost is multiplied by 200,000 and then divided by the number of hours worked by the company employees. This gives a severity index per 100 person hours of work. These measures can also be compared to an industry average.

Injury incidence and severity information can be used by a company to monitor its injury and illness performance over the years to examine improvement and the effectiveness of health and safety interventions. Such information provides the basis for making corrections in the company’s approach to health and safety and can serve as the basis of rewarding managers and workers for good per- formance. However, it must be understood that injury statistics give only a crude indicator of safety company performance and an even cruder indicator of individual manager or worker performance. This information can be used to compare company safety performance with the industry average.

Because injuries are rare events, they do not always reflect the sum total of daily performance of company employees and managers. Thus, while they are an accurate measure of overall company safety performance, they are an insensitive measure at the individual and departmental levels. Some experts feel that more basic information has to be collected to provide the basis for directing health and safety efforts. One proposed measure is to use first-aid reports from industrial clinics. These provide information on more frequent events than the injuries required to be reported by the OSHAct. It is thought that these occurrences can provide insights into patterns of hazards and / or behaviors that may lead to the more serious injuries and that their greater number provides a larger statistical base for determining accident potential.

Incident Reporting

Another approach is for a company to keep track of all accidents whether an illness or injury is involved or not. Thus, property damage accidents without illness or injury would be recorded, as would near accidents and incidents that almost produced damage or injury. The proponents of this system feel that a large database can be established for determining accident-causation factors. As with the first-aid reports, the large size of the database is the most salient feature of this approach. A major difficulty in both systems is the lack of uniformity of recording and reporting the events of interest. The method of recording is much more diffuse because the nature of the events will differ substantially from illnesses or injuries, making their description in a systematic or comparative way difficult.

This critique is aimed not at condemning these approaches but at indicating how difficult they are to define and implement. These systems provide a larger base of incidents than the limited occurrences in injury-recording systems. The main problem is in organizing them into a meaningful pattern. A more fruitful approach than looking at these after-the-fact occurrences may be to look at the conditions that can precipitate injuries, that is, hazards. They can provide a large body of infor- mation for a statistical base and can also be organized into meaningful patterns.