APPLICATION FOR ACCREDITATION OF SAFETY PROGRAMS BASED ON THE PRINCIPLES OF BEHAVIOR

Transcription

1 APPLICATION FOR ACCREDITATION OF SAFETY PROGRAMS BASED ON THE PRINCIPLES OF BEHAVIOR ACETATE FIBERS DIVISION VORIDIAN DIVISION Eastman Chemical Company September 23, 2003

2 A. Identifying information. Name of organization: Acetate Fibers Division, Voridian, a division of Eastman Chemical Company Location of corporate office: Kingsport, TN Name of company representative in charge of the application: J. Michael Ballard Phone number(s) of the company representative: Address of the representative: P. O. Box 2002, Kingsport, TN address of the representative: mballard@voridian.com B. The background conditions in your company. The divisions of the company involved in PBBS program Acetate Fibers Division Their geographic locations. Kingsport, TN Goods/services provided at each site. Acetate Tow and Acetate Yarn Kinds of jobs in which worker are involved. Chemical manufacturing operations, solvent spinning of cellulose acetate fibers, technical operations support, clerical and management functions Recent non-safety initiatives and company changes Combined 3 manufacturing divisions into the Acetate Fibers Division 2001 Organized company into Voridian Division and Eastman Division Contracted out all packaging jobs 2003 Reduced employee pay and deferred annual wage increase to 2004 Announced a reduction in force Recent non-pbbs safety initiatives. 9/30/03 - Lock Out/Tag Out refresher training 11/13/03 - Ergonomics job assessments 11/21/03 - HSE training for contractors Page 1

3 Page 2

4 Other background factors: Because injury rates were unacceptability high in 1993 a focus team was formed to develop and deliver a Principles of Behavior-Based Safety (BBS) Process. The focus team considered a number of PBBS processes on the market. It was determined that an in-house custom-made process would best fit the culture that existed at that time. Key elements of the original process were: 1. Only operations employees were involved; managers were not involved 2. Quota of 2 observations for safe/unsafe behaviors per month per employee 3. Key measures were percent safe and percent participation both aimed at reducing the OSHA Recordables Rate After two-hours training, operations employees developed a list of At-Risk Behaviors (ARB s) based on their limited knowledge of the BBS processes. The process was then rolled out to one department in November In 1995, the process was rolled out to the other departments. The results reported were 99+ percent safe and 98+ percent participation. The injury rate, although improved, was still much too high. In 1997, employees were surveyed to determine areas where the process could be improved and be more effective. The survey results indicated most of the data were inaccurate and many observations were reported but not conducted. Employees were asked to list suggested changes to the process that would cause them to make observations and participate in the process. Some key changes that were suggested and implemented are: 1. Involve managers as well as operations employees 2. Make observations anonymous 3. Make observations voluntary 4. Develop a user-friendly data base In June 1998, the suggested improvements were implemented. All employees, including managers, were given additional training in off-site workshops. Training was in phases, not all at one setting. In October 1998, benchmarking with other companies was intensified. Best practices were shared with successful organizations. Benchmarking is an important part of our process improvement plan. In 1999, Acetate Fibers Division (AFD) went through an organization change. Employees from other departments in the division were brought into AFD. These employees (340 in all) had been using other BBS processes such as STOP and PRAISE. To gain support and buy-in from the new employees, additional improvements were implemented in January Page 3

5 In January 2000, workshops, led by the Division Superintendent and Department Managers, were implemented for First-Level Managers for training and to get commitment from these key leaders. The outcome was the establishment of quarterly round table discussions among First-Level Managers to share successes and provide support for each other. In 2001, a focus team was formed with operations employees representing all areas. The purpose of the focus team was to look at continual improvement of the PBBS Process. The results were a number of different models for identifying At-Risk Behaviors. This approach gives flexibility to the process while not diminishing its effectiveness. Focus teams are now a part of the system improvement process. In additional training was delivered to employees in their team meetings. 1. How to have an effective safety meeting 2. ABC Analysis & Eastman s Problem Solving Process The targeted audience was first-level managers and operations employees. A number of acronyms are used in the application. The definitions of these acronyms are provided as background for the reader. HSLT Health and Safety Leadership Team In addition to other duties, this team serves as the Behavioral-Based Safety Steering Team. The team members are the Health & Safety Coordinators from each department (5), the Division Health & Safety Coordinator (1), BBS Consultant (1), and the Division Manager responsible for Health & Safety (1). This team meets weekly for 2 hours. ESP Employee Safety Process Employee Safety Process is the name used to describe the Behavioral-Based Safety Process in the Acetate Fibers Division. TEDS Training & Employee Development System This software allows employees to register for classes, take on-line training, and manage an active list of learning activities (employee To Do list). C. Descriptions of the workers 1. Their ages: Median age is Range of ages is years 2. Experience: Median years of experience are years. Range of experience is 5 35 years 3. Training: Operators receive approximately 100 hours each of technical training and on- the-job training. Annual refresher training is delivered on selected health, safety and environment, topics. Mechanics complete an accredited apprenticeship program. 4. Safety Training: (See attachments) Page 4

6 The safety training process in the Acetate Fibers Division includes: The Division Safety Coordinator reviews a proposed HSE training matrix for the coming year with the HSLT. The proposed matrix includes all required company training that applies in Acetate Fibers Division. The HSLT reviews, suggests revisions, decides the training schedule, and gives final approval to the division HSE Training Matrix. The Division Safety Coordinator maintains the HSE training matrix file in the HSE/Unrestricted folder on the intranet. Changes to the matrix are made by request from either the Safety Technologist or the Environmental Technologist. Changes include new training courses added to the matrix during the year. The Division Safety Coordinator communicates division HSE training requirements to those people who work in division buildings/areas but are not in the Acetate Fibers Division organization. Each Department HSE Coordinator is authorized as a TEDS Training Coordinator and follows the HSE Training Responsibilities Flowchart to assign and maintain required HSE training for the department employees. Each employee follows the HSE Training Responsibilities Flowchart to complete training and verify successful TED s completion entry using TEDS Everyone. Problems are reported to the appropriate department HSE Coordinator as soon as possible. The Department HSE Coordinator communicates the HSE Training Process and Flowchart to department employees. They provide assistance to the department by helping individuals with specific problems, entering TED s completion information, initiating and maintaining necessary electronic records of training completions, and communicating training questions or problems to the Safety Technologist or the Environmental Technologist as appropriate. TEDS problems are communicated to the Division TEDS Representative. Note: On occasion, the company requires miscellaneous training on a one-time only basis. Normally, this training is included in the HSE Training Matrix as Non-HSE Training (Initial), and is handled the same as required HSE training. 5. Education: All operators have a minimum of a high school diploma with about 1/3 having 1 or more years of college or technical school training. Business Support and Technicians have 2 year technical training. Business and technical employees have BS or PhD degrees. 6. Health: Employees have access to excellent health care facilities and are provided health care insurance as an employee benefit. An on-site Medical Department is available and staffed with both doctors and nurses. Nurses are available 24/7. Fitness centers are provided at several locations on site. Page 5

7 7. Safety Records : Worker safety records exist in many different formats throughout Acetate Fibers Division. Some records impact large groups/units, local groups and individuals. Following are listings of existing records categorized by topic: Injury/Illness Records Accident Information Management System (AIMS) Incident notifications AIMS Incident classifications Injury/Illness/Near Miss Analysis Injury/ Illness/Near Miss Costs Injury/Illness Individual 5 year history Exposure Assessment Records Noise Exposure Assessment records exists in work areas targeted as high noise and must be included in the Hearing Conservation Program. Chemical Exposure Assessment records exist in work areas that meet or exceed threshold limit values that must be included in the Medical Surveillance Program. Job Hazard Analysis JHA s are required in all operations jobs throughout the division. Once developed, records are incorporated in a technical training manual. Personal Safety Accountability Worksheets - This is a record to gage safety performance between direct report supervisor and individuals. Task Safety Audit - This is a record that identifies additional hazards associated with a specific task within a job from experienced operators and a third set of eyes. Unit, Group and Individual HSE Accomplishments All employees contribute to these and they become a basis for discussions and celebrations in team meetings. D. Safety Concerns. What conditions or events caused you to consider beginning a PBBS Program? In 1993, the Tennessee Operations Kingsport site OSHA Recordable rate was about 7.2 and the Total Injury rate was about 14. The corresponding injury rates in Acetate Fibers Division were 7.6 and This was unacceptable. The company formed a team to benchmark with companies that had better injury rates. The common thread was each successful company had a PBBS Process (see charts in Section G). Page 6

8 E. The PBBS Data. 1. What safety data are particularly important at your work sites? a) Minor Injuries b) OSHA Recordables c) Days Away From Work d) Crew Safety Scoreboard Each Crew maintains a Safety Scoreboard. The Safety Scoreboard contains the safety items and activities that will impact safety in the workplace as well as ensure compliance with OSHA Behavior-Based Safety is a category on the Scoreboard. See Section I for an example. e) New At-Risk Behaviors Identified f) At-Risk Behaviors Retired g) Near Misses 2. Why are these data important? Injury data give an indication of how the PBBS Process is impacting safety in the workplace. Injury data also allow benchmarking with others in the industry. The Crew Safety Scoreboard is important for two reasons: 1) Crews can track and manage required safety training, inspections and audits; 2) Important BBS activities such as the identification and retirement of At-Risk Behaviors can be measured and tracked. New At-Risk Behaviors Identified, At-Risk Behaviors Retired, and Near Misses are proactive measures used to identify and correct unsafe behaviors and unsafe conditions before they contribute to injuries. 3. How do you collect data on each of them? Injury data are collected using the plant-wide database. Input is from all parties involved in the injury investigation process. Data for other measures are collected by crew members and discussed in team meetings. 4. How do you ensure that the data are accurate? An independent third party, Tennessee Operations Kingsport Site Plant Protection Safety Specialist, determines injury classification. Operations, Plant Protection and site Medical Department have input to the classification process with Plant Protection making the final determination. The Crew Safety Coordinator and Team Manager collect and verify data for crew team measures. The data are reviewed in each team meeting and reported to and reviewed by the Department Safety Coordinator and the Department Management Team. Page 7

9 F. Description of major safety initiatives, including the PBBS program and the enhancements to the PBBS program. The various safety initiatives since 1988 fall into five distinct (5) periods of time as indicated in the OSHA-R chart in Section G. The initiatives in each period are described briefly below. 1. Began New Site Initiatives ( ) Appointed full-time Division and Department HSE Coordinators. These additional resources delivered additional employee safety training and improved the injury review process by insuring implementation of corrective actions. Began corporate assessments of Health and Safety processes in the Division. This resulted in the identification and corrective actions on unsafe conditions in the work place. Began external benchmarking on safety performance and safety processes at other chemical plants with good safety performance. A program of Job Hazard Analyses (JHA s) in all departments was initiated. This lead to training about hazards involved in specific jobs. However, these were not systematically used. 2. Began Implementation of Initial BBS Process ( ) Site management issued a blue book with recommendations for improvement in safety performance following external benchmarking. One of these recommendations was for the division to implement a Behavioral-Based Safety Process. A Behavioral-Based Safety Process Focus Team was chartered in the Acetate Tow Division. This team recommended the implementation of PRAISE in the Acetate Tow Department. PRAISE was developed by Eastman Kodak Company, the parent company of Eastman Chemical Company until Key elements of PRAISE were: Two hours of training for all operators Use of a generic checklist for identifying At-Risk Behaviors (ARB s) All operators were required to make 2 observations for safe and unsafe behaviors per month. Observation data were collected in a cumbersome computerized management information system % Safe and % Unsafe measures were utilized By design, management had a very limited role in implementation and no role in execution of the process Page 8

10 3. Completed Implementation of Initial BBS Process ( ) Implemented PRAISE in the remaining departments of the Acetate Tow Division. Implemented numerous ergonomic improvements throughout the division. This included changing tools, equipment, and techniques of various jobs to reduce ergonomic risks for repetitive motion injuries. Operator crew teams developed task specific observation checklists during team meetings. Operators were paid overtime to attend the meetings. Previously developed Job Hazard Analyses (JHA s) of tasks and injury data were used as the basis for identifying the At-Risk Behaviors for the checklists. Crew Team Scoreboards were utilized in a few crew teams to track and measure various safety related activities including observation data. A reinforcement plan for meeting Scoreboard goals was initiated. This has now become a standard on all crew teams. See example in Section I. 4. Division Reorganization ( ) BBS Steering Team leaders visited all 35 crew teams to seek input on improvements to the BBS Process. A list of 10 improvement opportunities was identified. An additional 4 hours of observer training was given to each crew team. An entry-level employee developed a Microsoft Access Database for recording observations for his crew team. The database was soon utilized by all crew teams. Intensified external and internal benchmarking which resulted in numerous ideas for improvement. A division reorganization added Acetate Yarn Department and Fiber Esters Department to the existing Acetate Tow Division to form the Acetate Fibers Division. These departments totaling 325 employees had been utilizing either STOP or PRAISE BBS processes on a very limited basis. The Acetate Fibers Division BBS Process was named the Employee Safety Process (ESP). 5. Enhanced BBS Process (2000 Present) During a management workshop in the fall of 2000, the lack of appropriate management participation in the BBS Process was identified as having a negative impact on the process. The group developed a list of management system changes to increase management participation and visibility in the BBS Process. For example: Mangers began making both informal and formal observations described as Task Safety Audits. First-Level Managers assisted the Crew Safety Coordinator in planning the monthly crew safety meetings. Accountability worksheets were developed to help employees and managers identify personal safety improvement opportunities. These were used by operators and all levels of management. Page 9

11 The Division Leadership Team began devoting 1 hour of meeting time per month to assessing the effectiveness of the BBS Process. Employee Focus Teams were formed to develop several innovative models for making observations and reporting of At-Risk Behaviors. For example: Operators were encouraged to review observations of At-Risk Behaviors in a crew team meeting without discussing names of individuals. This allowed all team members to be made aware of the ARB rather than just the person being observed and to problem solve how to remove the ARB from the work process. An operator took digital pictures or video of a task being performed by his/her co-workers. The crew team reviewed the pictures or video at a team meeting and identified the ARB s. This process is currently used to identify and take action on ARB s. Identifying ARB s and building safe performances in place of ARB s are highly valued and actively reinforced in department and work-team meetings. There are now 16 different models for using the results of observations of ARB s and the list continues to grow. Teams devised innovative ways to track and communicate safe days worked by the crew which builds pride among crew members. This in turn reinforced their participating in the observation process in the workplace to prevent injuries and maintain the safe days worked. Provided training for First-Level Managers which included: How to participate in the BBS Process How to coach operators to increase their participation in the BBS Process Define expectations for the First-Level Managers Build a better understanding of Behavioral-Based Safety principles Workshops were held for First-Level Managers, facilitated by BBS Steering Team members, to share best practices between the various crews. Due to the reorganization and addition of new departments, this was useful to standardize the application of the BBS Process across all departments. It also provided a forum for First-Level Managers, more experienced in the BBS Process, to mentor other First- Level Managers who were just beginning to utilize the process on their crew. Workshops were held for all crew HSE Coordinators to discuss application of the ABC (Antecedent-Behaviors-Consequences) concepts to Behavioral Safety. As a result, they became able to use this important concept for problem solving ARB s and to more effectively conduct incident investigations. Employee training was expanded by having BBS Steering Team members attend monthly crew team meetings. The training consisted of: How to refine the task specific ARB List How to make effective use of recent observation data How to problem solve ARB s Building an understanding of the BBS principles The observation database was enhanced to provide a better method for crew teams to review observation data Page 10

12 Crew teams developed measures for New ARB s Identified and Near Misses Identified as proactive measures. The Maintenance Department responsible for the Acetate Fibers area was moved from the Centralized Maintenance Division to the Acetate Fibers Division. Page 11

13 G. Graphic displays of the data. The primary data of concern are the OSHA Recordables. These are shown below, plotted by years since The vertical dashed marks show the five distinct time periods described above. Also included is a chart with Acetate Fibers Division OSHA-R rate benchmarked with the Tennessee Operations Site OSHA-R rate and with the Bureau of Labor Statistics code SIC 282 OSHA-R rate. Acetate Fibers Division OSHA Recordable Rate Begin Implementation of initial BBS Process Completed Implementation of Initial BBS Process Begin Division Reorganization Enhanced BBS Process Rate Begin New Site Safety Initiatives GOOD Page 12

14 OSHA Recordable Rate Comparison Tennessee Eastman Kingsport Site Acetate Fibers Division BLS SIC Rate 8 GOOD Page 13

15 H. Analysis of the data. The initial site safety initiatives, , were accompanied by considerable improvement in these primary safety data. However, the data were hitting a plateau by 1992 and led to the decision to implement a BBS Process. It is not clear from the data that the initial implementation of the BBS Program in 1992 and 1993 was effective. Safety results improved progressively during 1995 through During , safety in the Division achieved a lower (improved performance) plateau but began to drift upwards (increase in incidents). This led to the enhancements in the BBS Process that are still presently evolving. These changes are yielding safety performance that is superior to what was obtained with an effective but more typical BBS Program. I. Additional Data The Acetate Fibers Division of Voridian also tracks a number or additional data as a means of staying on top of safety performance and ensuring that the enhanced PBBS Process is functioning as intended. New At-Risk Behavior data are used by teams to problem solve ways to minimize or eliminate risky behaviors in the workplace. Implemented improvements fall into three categories; engineering redesign, administrative, and/or personal protective equipment. Near Miss data requires teams to complete a comprehensive incident investigation using root cause failure (why tree) analysis to determine primary cause, inadequate human behaviors and management system failures. Once the investigation is complete, the team schedules a review with department management to drill through the investigation to identify true ROOT causes and implement improvements. Page 14

16 Acetate Fibers Division Minor Incident Rate Rate GOOD Page 15

17 Acetate Fibers Division Total Incident Rate Rate GOOD Page 16

18 0.4 Acetate Fibers Division LTI/DAW Incident Rate Rate 0.2 GOOD Page 17

19 Acetate Fibers Division New At Risk Behaviors Identified Number Page 18

20 120 Acetate Fibers Division Near Miss Incidents Number Page 19

21 Results Three months w/ out injury Three months w/ out loss time injury - off job Month w/ out accidental discharge/fire Planning Scoreboard updated Plan NUT meeting New ARBs identified and shared with all crews Monthly observation data reviewed by crew team Master list tasks reviewed (w/ training documents) 50 At Risk Conditions HSE inspection completed on time Team Manager inspection completed on time Ground cable inspection completed on time New ARC identified and corrected by the team if possible Near miss (ARC related) reported, investaged & reviewed Safety Training/Focus 'Safety Minutes' reviewed each shift 75 Training completed on time MONTHLY TOTAL CUMULATIVE TOTAL st SIX MONTHS GOAL nd SIX MONTHS GOAL 5200

22 Comments by the People of the Acetate Fibers Division The current expanded BBS Program is being continually revised and expanded. For example during October 2003, Voridian staff generated three new models illustrating how an observer might usefully interact with workers over an observation that someone was behaving unsafely. We view the progression of the safety process at AFD during the last 11 years as an evolution of an effective safety culture. This culture is seen as the behaviors that are common in the Division as well as the various methods,practices, and behavioral principles that sustain those behaviors through 1993 was a period of time when trust between operations employees and management was low. Employee morale was also low due to the implementation of work system design changes. A BBS Process was implemented but operations employees received very little training. This BBS Program was an employee only process with management taking a hands-off position therefore creating frustration in the workplace. From 1994 through 1996 morale and trust issues improved. Employees were given an opportunity to have input into the BBS Process. Managers made an effort to build trust by correcting unsafe conditions and by responding to employees safety concerns. From 1997 until the present time, managers, at the suggestion of operations employees, became involved in the BBS Process. Other employee suggestions were implemented and employee ownership of the process became a reality. Today, operations employees assist with design changes and improvements to the process. There exists today a culture of employees at all levels caring for each other and helping each other work safely. In summary, there was progression from a culture where management had total responsibility for safety, to an employee-only safety process, and then to a safety culture in which employees and managers participate in and share the responsibility for safety. This is a culture in which morale and trust have grown and a safer workplace has been achieved. Descriptions of methods thorough enough to allow others to duplicate them are not always included because we fear the result would be so long people wouldn t read it. A reader wishing to know the full details should contact Mike Ballard at mballard@voridian.com, B. H. Collins at bcollins@voridian.com or Chuck Pennington at chuckp@voridian.com.