| |
March 2, 1999
The Honorable Michael B. Enzi, U.S. Senator
Chairman, Senate Subcommittee on Employment, Safety, and Training
SR-290 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510-5004
ASSE STATEMENT ON THE SAFE Act (S.385)
Chairman Enzi,
The American Society of Safety Engineers would like to thank you for
the consideration that you and your professional staff have given to our
positions in the past. ASSE maintains its 10/7/97 SAFEAct position statement,
(Attachment #1). However, we are also submitting an additional position
on S.385 as we have new information which should augment additional support
for the use of qualified consultants in a voluntary third party safety
and health audit and evaluation program.
SECTION 3 - THIRD PARTY CONSULTATION PROGRAM
The Society continues its support of the creation of a third party consultation
services program. We believe that the time has come for federal agencies
to work on a closer basis with the private sector, and be able to draw
upon their expertise. We have continued to research the issue and have
attempted to gather additional information on the third party concept
in order to address the issues of concern which were brought up in 1997.
The following were the key issues of concern brought up in 1997 on the
legislation which we identified:
- The integrity and honesty of those consultants performing the audits
and evaluations.
- The concern was that many consultants (ASSE members) could be easily
bought off for financial gain. Employers would use their position of
selecting a consultant as financial leverage against a consultant to
force him/her to provide a positive consultant report.
- Private sector safety and health consultants did not have the overall
level of competence needed to conduct third party safety and health
evaluations.
In order to answer these concerns, ASSE has been involved in an unprecedented
data/information gathering initiative. We have put together a survey (Attachment
#2) and are currently distributing it to our membership of almost 33,000
members. In addition, we circulated the survey to our ASSE Consultants Division
(2,300 members) as a control group, and to another 2,300 safety and health
professionals through "Safety Net" which is an electronic safety and health
messaging system maintained by the University of Vermont. We have received
in excess of 100 replies already, and our hope is that we will eventually
have a return of more than 1,000 surveys. We believe the survey will provide
some of the greatly needed information on this issue. While it would be
premature to release data based findings, it would be appropriate to report
some of the comments and overall feelings obtained thus far and how they
relate to the need for a third party consultation program.
Section 8[A] - Purpose
Most of the comments we received thus far have been very supportive of
a third party consultation program, and would support the basic concept
that the complexity of regulations on many occasions requires the use
of a well-trained safety and health consultant. There were several other
comments that with new technologies there will be an even greater need
in the future for private sector organizations to be able to call on the
expertise of consultants. This legislation is an efficient/effective approach
to the future realities of the workplace and the capabilities of government
agencies such as OSHA.
Section 8[B] - Establishment of Program
ASSE gives its endorsement to the way qualifications of consultants are
addressed. The administrative mechanisms for credentialling/certifying
safety and health professionals have been in place for decades in the
private sector. To assure the health and safety of the American workforce,
the training, education, and experience warranted by these accredited
certifying boards requires private sector certification of the most rigorous
nature. The SAFEAct recognizes that individuals qualified to perform third
party consultation services should earn their credentials from nationally
recognized organizations which in turn are accredited by nationally recognized
accrediting bodies. This language will help ensure high levels of quality
in the program. Our recommendation is that the legislative history in
the report language specify that these accreditation bodies be either
the Council of Engineering and Scientific Specialty Board (CESB) and/or
the National Commission for Certifying Agencies (NCCA).
(4) Limitation Based on Expertise
ASSE learned that while many of the survey comments support the use of
third party auditors and evaluators, there is concern that a consultant
should perform only in areas of his/her competence. During 1997, this
was an issue of concern, and it also appears to be of significance to
many safety professionals. It is for that reason that we support the addition
of this section to the legislation. We maintain that it greatly strengthens
the integrity and reliability of the third party system. ASSE agrees that
there is a need to ensure that consultants only perform in areas where
he/she is competent. However, we would like to point out that on many
occasions there could be a team of consultants involved in the evaluation
to address the different areas/applications on a worksite.
(d) Disciplinary Actions
In the view of ASSE, the issue of ethics of consultants behaving in an
honorable manner became the main concern with the third party concept
during the debate in 1997. We were somewhat disappointed during this debate
to see what pretty much became an attack on the integrity and honesty
of safety professionals, including many ASSE members. Our members have
through membership acceptance sworn adherence to the ASSE Code of Professional
Conduct, and our belief is that there will be very few instances of such
failures. However, to ensure that the integrity of the program is maintained,
ASSE supports significant disciplinary action being taken against those
who do not abide by the requirements of the program.
In our survey we asked several questions on the issue of ethics and
integrity, and the result was interesting in that it mirrors the position
ASSE took in 1997. The safety profession like all other professions, (medical,
accounting, law, etc…) is a microcosm of our Society. We acknowledge that
there will be concerns with the behavior of some consultants, however,
such instances will be rare or infrequent at best. If we were to take
the opposing view to an extreme, the country should also federalize virtually
every profession in the United States today. The bottom line is that no
system is perfect, but in this situation the positives far outweigh the
negatives.
ASSE was greatly puzzled in 1997 why there appeared to be a presumption
that an individual working in government would be more inclined to behave
in a reputable manner than those in the private sector. Our intent is
not to get into a comparison of the ethics history of the private and
public sectors. However, we maintain that working as a private sector
consultant is not an indicator of ingrained dishonesty or evidence of
a sinister employer/consultant relationship. Most of the safety professionals
and consultants responding to the survey commented that it would be a
very imprudent act to circumvent the law for what would basically be minor
financial benefit. If a consultant were to go against the tenets of the
SAFEAct they would be risking prosecution by the federal government, state
prosecution, lost of certification/licensure, civil court action, and
the loss of reputation and livelihood. It is evident that almost all consultants
participating in such a program would be an asset to employers, employees,
government, and the country. Their level of integrity would be an overall
enhancement to safety and health in the workplace. We have not seen anything
which would lead us to believe otherwise.
[c] Safety and Health Registry
ASSE supports the intent of the Registry, but suggests that the following
amendment be considered:
| (c) SAFETY AND HEALTH REGISTRY- The Secretary shall
develop and maintain a registry which includes all consultants that
are qualified under the program under subsection (b)(1) to provide
the consultation services described in subsection (b) and shall publish
and make such registry readily available to the general public. The
Secretary shall also rely upon states having such registries or
other equivalent registries to maintain an acceptable level of qualified
consultants. |
We make this suggestion since there are private sector organizations maintaining
registries which could be used by OSHA. ASSE has worked with the concept
of a registry since 1990, which precedes the SAFEAct. On February 4, 1998
we announced the release of the National Registry of Safety Professionals.
ASSE has rolled out this new program, and all safety professionals regardless
of ASSE membership status are eligible to participate. The registry is an
official record where individuals are enrolled at a fee and their qualifications/credentials
are filed for later verification by a registering authority or association.
The criteria for selection is based on the draft American National Standard,
Z590 Levels of Criteria and Competence in the Safety Profession. The
National Registry of Safety Professionals creates the means and methodology
whereby any qualified safety professional or other registrant meeting the
criteria can elect to be listed in the Registry. Of additional importance
is the fact that the Registry has the capability to be categorized by state
and areas of expertise and would enable agencies such as OSHA to ensure
that safety professionals and other registrants could perform credible safety
and health audits and evaluations in an efficient/effective manner. We have
enclosed a copy of the National Registry of Safety Professionals and
Other Registrants, (Attachment #3). The level of quality in this program
would certainly be of significant assistance in meeting the intent of the
SAFEAct.
SEC. 4. Establishment of Special Advisory Committee
ASSE continues to maintain its 1997 position on the Special Advisory Committee,
but would like to reemphasize its recommendation that appointment to the
Advisory Committee be based on an individual's professional background
and not just solely education. We believe it is important that the importance
of an appointee's overall background be considered and not just the level
of education attainment. As a supplement to our 10/7/97 comment regarding
make-up of the committee, we suggest that another model worth considering
might be that of the National Advisory Committee on Occupational Safety
and Health (NACOSH). NACOSH has a balanced representation of business,
labor, and the professional societies/organizations. We suggest that a
representative from a professional society/organization should serve as
chair of the committee.
CONCLUSION
We hope that the information we have provided will benefit you during
the legislative process. ASSE would also like to keep you, the subcommittee
members, and staff informed of the final survey results which could be
used during your deliberations. We appreciate your thoughtful attention
to this matter. If you have any questions or issues which you would like
to address, please feel free to contact the Society at 847/699-2929.
Sincerely Yours,
Fred F. Fleming, CSP, OHST
Society President, 1998-1999
TF/TRF/CORRS1132
encl.
Click here to go
back to the ASSE Correspondance, Statement, and Testimony page.
|