The number and impact of standards such as ISO-9000 QM systems and ISO 14000 environmental standards have grown dramatically in the past 25 years, not just in North America but across the world. Standardization now encompasses many forms of activity. There is even talk of making English the primary language for trading and of creating a commonly recognized currency.

Implemented effectively, standardization can have a positive impact on the bottom line of a company and country. Standardization simplifies and improves the way we do business and makes it more time- and cost-effective. In terms of safety training, standardization provides a number of advantages including consistency and traceability to the corporate office. This article will examine the overall impact of standardization on North American industry and on safety training in particular.

What Is a Standard?

A standard is developed by stakeholders within an industry and/or country. The representatives share knowledge, experiences and practices in a joint effort to create policies and procedures addressing their common concern. This may be in the realm of quality, services, environment, health and safety or just about anything else.

The standards that emerge from the process are usually voluntary. But as organizations and industries begin to implement them, standards may become recognized as minimum requirements - either de facto or by being incorporated directly into regulation. Standards that are recognized by the international community make up the "International Organization for Standardization" (ISO) standards.

Standards are more prevalent in Europe. But they're gaining greater acceptance as a method of doing business in North America, particularly among manufacturers and processors. Over the past few years, they've also been applied successfully by practitioners in other sectors including education, health care, government, research, mining, petroleum, transportation, repair services and retail. Let's look at some of the key areas of standardization as far as SafetyXChange members are concerned.

Standardization of Environmental Management

Environmental issues such as global warming have become of pressing concern in North America and around the world. Industry has been traditionally resistant to environmental management standards and considers them too costly to adopt. Industry resistance has, however, receded somewhat in recent years. Now the buzzword is "sustainable development."

On the other hand, government resistance to environmental standardization and international initiatives has grown. This is particularly true in Canada and the U.S. where conservative governments have cast a jaundiced eye on international efforts to control global warming through the reduction of industrial emissions of greenhouse gases. If this world is to survive the next 50 years, world environmental standards will have to be accepted and implemented within the next two decades.

Standardization of Safety Training

Industry best practices, health and safety regulations, standards and codes that state the minimum requirement of the material content for the training can very easily be standardized and made applicable to most safety training programs. They can also be standardized within a single company that has multiple locations. For example, for training workers in the operation of mobile equipment, a single standardized procedure can be documented and implemented for all equipment maintenance and safety training at every company location. Each location needs only to document and implement unique work instructions, manufacturer requirements or regulations or standards that are specific to a region or an individual piece of equipment or process.

Yet, companies that have multiple locations in different provinces, states or countries are often reluctant to standardize safety training methods. Instead, they make each location independently responsible for choosing and providing training. The typical explanation:

"Every location operates independently of each other because our operations are all different. Therefore, standardization is not an option."

The sheer number of safety training programs available makes this approach very expensive and time consuming; and it provides little to no traceability to the corporate office.

Legally Mandated Standardized Safety Training

In some cases, standardized safety training is a legal requirement. U.S. and Canadian regulations require workers to take certain safety courses to ensure they have the necessary skills and qualifications to perform specific functions in the workplace such as operate a crane or deliver first aid.

One example is the "First-Aid Training" programs, which in Canada are certified. This type of program provides total traceability to the corporate office and requires documentation of key information like who received the training at each location and when each worker is required to take a training course or receive refresher training.

This same methodology is applied to training programs covering the operation of certain dangerous equipment or machinery like cranes or forklifts.

Conclusion

Next week, I will offer as a case study the standardization of safety training within the Canadian crane industry.

ASK THE EXPERT

Compliance

Thanks for all your questions. I wish I had had time to answer all of them but I didn’t. I hope you find the following to be helpful and I emphasize that while I am a lawyer, I am not allowed or qualified to offer you counsel and that my personal opinions are no substitute for consulting a lawyer who knows you and your situation and is qualified to practice health and safety law in your jurisdiction.

Glenn Demby
Editor-in-Chief
SafetyXChange

*******

WHEN OSHA PASSES THE BUCK

Question:

I'm the safety director of a manufacturing facility in the Midwest. We use reusable containers (called returnables) to ship the parts we make to the customer. The customer owns these returnables.

Last week we received a shipment of empty returnables back from one of our customers that had some kind of a chemical solution on two of the containers that when touched caused redness and itching to the hands and forearms of three of our employees.  One employee had to have medical attention at our clinic. OSHA was informed of the situation and they said this wasn't under their umbrella of responsibility and was not sure how I should proceed. They did mention that maybe I could contact Homeland Security, which I have not done. We have isolated the containers and informed our customer that we want them to investigate this situation, find out what happened, isolate the problem, fix the problem and let us know how they can ensure us that this will never happen again.

We have gotten no response back from them at this time.

Question:  Should I decide to proceed further with this, what avenues do I have?

Since this issue has not been resolved please keep this anonymous.

Answer:

Although it would help to know precisely what the solution was, when employees suffer medical effects of hazardous chemicals as a result of workplace exposure, it generally does fall within OSHA’s "umbrella of responsibility." I strongly suspect that the OSHA representative you spoke to was inexperienced or unqualified to field your query and gave you inaccurate advice. Don’t take what he said at face value. Although I can’t provide you legal counsel, my personal opinion is that you:

1. Follow up with Homeland Security;
2. Document your conversation with the OSHA representative including who he was, when you spoke and precisely what he told you;
3. Call somebody else at your OSHA area office, explain the prior conversation and ask for confirmations;
4. If the official does in fact confirm that this is not an OSHA matter, document the conversation and ask for written confirmation;
5. Ask who does have responsibility for this matter. Trust me, this is a serious matter and some government agency has responsibility for it—most likely, OSHA.

****

THE ELECTRONIC MSDS

Question:

Our company is considering converting MSDS books to an on line service but all employees do not have computer access 24/7 or do not have computer skills. How will a program such as this meet OSHA requirements for employees?

Georgine Snyder
Director of Safety and Employee Health

Answer:

It will be okay as long as it supplements but doesn’t replace your paper system. MSDS’ must be accessible to all employees at all times. An exclusively electronic system won’t satisfy this requirement unless all employees have the necessary computer skills and training to use it. By the way, the rule is the same in Canada.

One more thing: To ensure compliance with HazCom, you’ll need to make sure that you have reliable computer devices that are useable at all times and emergency backup in case your systems go down.

*****

PREDICTING SAFETY SUCCESS

Question:

My question for safety experts is: What are the most predicting indicators of good safety performance in organisations?

Tapani Huovinen
Fortek Oy

Answer:

Tapani, I’d love to help you, but predicting safety success is way out of my area of expertise. I’m just a miserable lawyer. But it’s a fantastic question and I suggest you save it for Wayne Pardy, Mark Hansen or Michael Topf.

*****

'ASK THE EXPERT’ HUMBUG

Question:

Do you know the definition of an EXPERT?

"An X is a has-been, and a pert is a drip under pressure."

One of the pearls of wisdom I learned from my 6th grade teacher 50 years ago.
Another was "NO BUTTS, you are too young to smoke."

I hope you return home each day the way you arrived, healthy and injury free.  Safety begins with us.

Bob Watson
Training Officer

Answer:

Bob. I’m not sure where you’re coming from. But if you’re doubting my credentials for serving as an "Expert" on this panel, all I can do is congratulate you for your perspicacity. I certainly don’t feel like an expert, especially compared to the other esteemed members of the SafetyXChange advisory board. Thank you and I reciprocate your wish for many safe and healthy returns.

*****

Suing the Safety Director

Question:

In this litigious day and age, anyone can sue anybody for just about anything. Realistically speaking though, how much personal accountability does a safety professional have as a salaried employee? In other words, if there is a significant accident at the company that results in injury or death to either a fellow employee or a member of another company or the general public, could the safety professional be sued directly or would his employment with the company protect him from being individually named in a lawsuit?

David Callies  CHST, CPC
Safety Director

Answer:

The answer to your question depends in large part whether the safety director is part of a U.S. or Canadian company.

In Canada, OHS laws are based on what’s called an Internal Responsibility System (IRS)  that makes the various stakeholders jointly responsible for workplace safety. The provincial OHS laws assign duties to different persons—employers, supervisors, workers, etc. The safety director is not one of those named individuals. But the Crown could still prosecute the safety director as an "employer" or "supervisor" under the statute.

This has happened only once, as far as I’m aware. In Nova Scotia, a safety director of a construction company has been charged as an employer in the death of a worker. Nobody else in the company has been charged. There are six charges, all having to do with flaws in the company’s safety program. The case was scheduled for trial in September and I’m keeping a close eye on it.

In Canada, there’s also a law called Bill C-45 which makes persons in control or in a position to control work liable for criminal negligence if they fail to take reasonable steps to protect persons doing or affected by the work and the failure to protect is the product of wanton indifference or recklessness. The C-45 law could be used to prosecute a safety director. But the law is less than two years old and so far there have only been two prosecutions under it, neither involving a safety director.

In the U.S., the IRS is a tax collecting agency, not a basis for OSHA laws. The U.S. doesn’t allocate safety-related responsibilities across the organization the way Canada does. However, as in Canada, a safety director could be charged with an OSHA offense as an employer. I’m not aware of any cases where that has happened.

In addition, in both Canada and the U.S., a person not barred by workers’ compensation who suffers injury as a result of a safety director’s screw up could sue the director for negligence. If the consultant is an independent contractor, the company that hired him might also be able to sue the safety expert for professional malpractice.

*****

May Day

Question:

Ontario brought in new confined space regulations two weeks ago. This is the definition of a confined space.

"Confined space" means a fully or partially enclosed space,
(a)        that is not both designed and constructed for continuous human occupancy, and
(b)        in which atmospheric hazards may occur because of its construction, location or contents or because of work that is done in it;"

I am perplexed by the use of the word "may" in the definition of a confined space, "in which atmospheric hazards may occur ..." What does "may" mean in this context.

Thanks for tackling this one.

Richard Cushing, B.A. CRSP.

Answer:

Lawmakers often use the word "may" to refer both to a right—"an owner may construct a fence. . ."—and a physical possibility—"owner must not construct fence if it may constitute a risk." When the latter happens, like it does in the new Ontario regulation, you need to piece together the meaning of the conditions that can trigger the condition like you would any other word or phrase in the legislation by examining:

1. The intent of the law;
2. The other sections of the law that might amplify or clarify the ambiguous word or phrase; and
3. External materials that may offer a clue as to what the law means, such as the report of the legislature that enacted the bill or the regulatory agency in charge of enforcing it.

In the case of the Ontario regulation, certain precautions are triggered by specific measurements. For example, permitting is required when oxygen inside the space is between certain levels. All of these things, I believe, make it fairly straightforward to determine what the MOL thinks makes a confined space dangerous and thus clarify the definition of "may" in the regulation.

*****

Story Tools:  E-mail this to a friend  Print This Post Top