Members Only
Home
Cart
Contact
One of greatest challenges of the SH&E professional when faced with an unsafe condition or practice is the building of consensus of opinion from both management and employees for recognition, identification and resolution of the problem. The first step is to obtain agreement on what the unsafe conditions are or might become. Corrective actions to be taken are then better understood and more obtainable.
SH&E professionals must be aware when confronted with the task of creating a safe work environment that three distinct forces are at work in this dynamic- the employee(s), the supervisor and the SH&E professional. Each force has inherently different perceptions and agendas, as well as a different level of desire for commitment to the final resolution.
When a hazardous condition or practice has been identified through an accident investigation, employee complaint or management awareness, and has been brought to the SH&E professional, s/he will need to obtain all related information and the associated viewpoints of each group. The challenge is using those viewpoints to determine the problem.
Once the unsafe condition or practice is identified, the most efficient and effective corrective action must be established.
The successful resolution of the problem requires the participation and interaction of both employees and supervisors. The decision-making process cannot be in a sterile environment absent of those directly affected by these actions or those who must implement them. The results will often render these actions less effective.
Although the SH&E professional may be a very competent, expertise in a job lies with those who actually perform or supervise it. Thus, the key resources are those individuals directly involved.
The SH&E professional serves as a guide for groups of employees and supervisors who want to solve a problem. The leadership skills of the SH&E professional will be the primary reason for group cohesiveness and satisfactory resolution of the problem.
The SH&E professional will need an interaction vehicle in place to develop a structure in which the group can effectively interact. S/he must also have the vision to see the desired outcome, so that s/he can guide the groups to this end, without dominating the process and creating inferior results.
Our organization experienced significant success by creating a safety task force on two separate occasions. The first group, the "Slitter Safety Task Force," addressed safety concerns regarding the equipment and process used to slit steel and alloy master coils into multiple smaller coils. The second group, the "Press Safety Task Force," addressed safety concerns for the equipment and process used to stamp auto parts.
Each plant in that division participated in its respective task force and enrolled the operators of that equipment, repair and setup personnel, operations supervisor and the site safety manager.
Each company hosted the entire task force and had its equipment reviewed. With a few substitutions, task force members were the same from the review of the first plant through the review of the last. This helped maintain consistency of operations knowledge, and it provided an additional benefit by developing safety expertise in operations personnel and operations expertise for the safety professional.
Each company committed in advance to supply personnel, time and effort through out the project's length.
At each location visited, a pre-inspection meeting was conducted, which outlined the following information:
A) Vision Statement.
B) Develop procedures, guarding and PPE that will provide maximum effort to prevent personnel injury.
C) Goals and Objectives.
1) Identify past serious personnel injuries during setup, run and teardown operations.
2) Identify all potential personnel injury exposures that exist in setup, run and teardown operations.
3) Research and develop safe practices during setup, run and teardown operations.
4) Identify effective integrated guarding.
D) Today's Situation
1) Severe injuries have resulted when this equipment was operated.
2) Minor injuries-reported/not reported continue to take place frequently.
3) Some operations have inherent conflicts with existing procedures, guarding and PPE.
E) How Did We Get Here?
1) Slitting coils (or auto stamping) is what we do.
2) Much of the equipment was constructed without integrating the operator and setup personnel-lack of effective guarding.
3) Job procedures were developed as a process of maximizing production, not personnel protection.
4) Primary focus has been on adding/ improving PPE, not changing the equipment or practice.
F) Method of Review
1) Divide the review in size categories (e.g., large, medium and small operations equipment).
2) Develop a focus on setup operations.
• Procedures
• Guarding
• PPE
3) Develop a focus on run operations.
• Procedures
• Guarding
• PPE
4) Develop a focus on teardown operations.
• Procedures
• Guarding
• PPE
G) Makeup and Timelines
1) List Large (equipment) Safety Task Force members:
2) First Meeting Date: __ /__ /__
3) Time and Location: ________
H) Recommendations
1) Recommendations for Setup
• Procedures
• Guarding
• PPE
2) Recommendations for Run
• Procedures
• Guarding
• PPE
3) Recommendations for Teardown
• Procedures
• Guarding
• PPE
I) Action Items
1) Identify problem(s) during setup:
• Accident causes and recommendations
• Current conditions
2) Identify problem(s) during run:
• Accident causes and recommendations
• Current conditions
3) Identify problem(s) during teardown:
• Accident causes and recommendations
• Current conditions
J) Conclusion-Per Plant
1) Presentation of Findings
2) Discussion of Findings
3) Recommendations of Findings
• Short-term actions
• Long-term actions
4) Timelines for installation of recommendations
5) Assignment of responsibilities
Note: The same format was used for the medium and small equipment reviewed.
Final Document (per plant)
• PPE requirements-per position
• Equipment guarding requirements-per machine
• Setup safe operation procedures
• Run safe operation procedures
• Teardown safe operating procedures
• Date of compliance for PPE
• Date of compliance for equipment guarding
• Date of compliance for safe operating procedures
The preinspection meeting was a thorough review of the type of equipment inspected and the past injuries experienced on this type of equipment. On the floor, the group was directed to visually inspect each operation and to note conditions or procedures that seemed different or in conflict with their experiences. Potential issues were recorded and photographed.
When operations supervisors began to discuss production issues, task force operators were encouraged to interview the plant operators and question the methods and procedures they employed. They reassured the plant operators that task force members would review any safety concerns and that the group's collective experience would be used to arrive at the best possible solution, not only for this plant, but for other plants as well.
The reviewed operators were more willing to discuss their concerns with a fellow operator, especially when English was not their primary language. Many times, a task force operator fluent in the operator's native language was used to convey a question to the operator or to translate a concern from the operator.
Once the reviews were completed, the group reassembled in the conference room and began the review process. Using an easel or blackboard, various items were noted during the on-floor review, and a media projector was used to show the associated digital picture. (Note: Open discussions about what is reviewed is critical if you want to correctly identify the source cause(s) of that condition or practice.)
With the amount of experience in that task force, the agreed-upon solution was effective and efficient. The task at hand was to continually shape the focus of the group and to seek input from each member. Many times, when I or another member advanced a particular solution, an operator or operations supervisor stated that the solution had been tried and did not work. In each case, through discussions or a field test, a solution was found and implemented.
After all items were addressed and the group convened, the next step was to assemble a document that included both conditions and procedures identified as a safety concern and the corrective solutions. Digital pictures were included to further identify each issue or solution.
The individual plant Safety Task Force Review Document was published for that plant and was supplied to other companies in the division and to senior management. One month later, a compliance sign-off document was sent to the plant's general manager to certify that all items identified were reviewed, conditions were corrected and corrective procedures were implemented.
Once all plants had been reviewed by the task force and their compliance achieved, the task force reconvened. The commonalities of the division were reviewed and discussed, and an agreement was reached on what would be included in the all-encompassing safe practices document.
The document was published a short time later. It now serves as the Safe Operations Guide for that division. A compliance sign-off document also followed for the division general manager or vice president to certify that all items identified were reviewed and corrected and that procedures were implemented. As with the individual plant compliance timeframe, the divisional timeframe was limited to 45 days.
To ensure that all items were addressed appropriately and in a timely manner, an internal (site safety professional) audit was conducted 30 days after the compliance certification document was received. An external, unannounced site safety audit was conducted at each plant within 6 months of the internal audit.
Less than 1 year later, each task force had its recommendations fully integrated to the way in which the operation was performed. They have become standard operating procedures. The conversion was the result of those who participated in the task force and helped integrate their recommendations into their operations and also of senior management who reinforced the integration through site visits and regular updates on the progress during divisional monthly business reviews.
This fall, there are plans to develop a third task force for the Aluminum Extrusion Division, and we plan to develop a fourth group in spring 2007 for robotic weld operations in the Auto Parts Production Division. The same type of commitment and success is anticipated.