Accident Prevention e-News
November 2008
|
Volume 3/Issue 11/Nov 2008
|
In this Issue:
|
|
MOL electrical hazards inspection blitz
 This month Ministry of Labour inspectors are checking for electrical hazards during a blitz of industrial workplaces. They’re taking a “zero tolerance” approach to any contraventions of the Occupational Health and Safety Act and its regulations.
Not sure your electrical safety programming is up to the challenge? Don’t even have a program? A new CSA standard, to be published in late 2008 or early 2009, will help you control or eliminate a hazard that, according to the Ministry of Labour, has killed 69 Ontario workers, critically injured 263, and inflicted minor injuries on another 844 since 1998.
Who’s injured, and what they’re doing
About half of these incidents involved people working on electrical equipment while it was energized, says the ministry. This included 28 workers who were killed and 255 who received serious burns from “arc flash” (an electrical explosion).
Only 21% of electrical-related fatalities have involved workers in an electrical trade such as electricians and line workers. The bulk—79%—involved workers in other occupations. Among them, maintenance workers, millwrights, apprentices, labourers, heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) technicians, equipment operators, supervisors, and drivers.
The most common type of electrical work involved in an injury was repair and maintenance. Other causes of injury involved malfunctioning meters, faulty equipment, and using equipment in close proximity to live electricity.
“The main dangers of electrical hazards are electrical shock and burns,” says Dr. Maurice Bitran, director of the ministry’s Occupational Health and Safety Branch.
It’s important that power be shut off before electrical work begins because workers’ tools, such as screwdrivers, wrenches and test instruments, can inadvertently make contact with electrical current, creating a short circuit or arc fault. Portions of conductors and other metallic materials in the path of the arc may explode violently, showering the area with hot molten metal that can cause severe burns or death.”
Why workers don’t shut down power
Wayne De L’Orme, provincial co-ordinator of the ministry’s Industrial Health and Safety Program (IHSP), says inspectors receive a number of excuses as to why power is not shut off before electrical work begins.
Not knowing any better is one of them. “Many workers are just not aware of the inherent dangers,” says De L’Orme. “Victims and witnesses of electrical accidents are often amazed at the violent and explosive nature of electrical energy, the fire balls, bright flashes, acrid smoke and hot molten metal.”
Other common excuses encountered by inspectors include:
- the electrical service can’t be interrupted
- the job must be done quickly
- there’s never been a problem before
Don Brown, an IHSP provincial specialist, says detailed planning can enable almost any piece of electrical equipment to be taken out of service prior to starting electrical work.
“It may take extra time and involve extra costs, but the risk of not doing it may be an accident that results in personal injury or death as well as massive equipment damage,” Brown says. “The time and cost of an accident will far exceed the time and cost of a properly planned outage.”
Blitz focus
De L’Orme says inspectors will focus on the following three priorities:
- ensuring the power supply to electrical equipment is disconnected before work begins so workers don’t work on live equipment. The exception is if you can demonstrate that “de-energizing” equipment will result in more hazards, or de-energizing is not feasible due to equipment design or operational limitations
- ensuring written lockout procedures are in place prior to electrical maintenance work being done with the power supply disconnected and locked out
- ensuring a potential electrical hazard is analyzed to determine, and put into place, adequate protection for workers from both electrical shock and arc flash burn in cases where it isn’t practical to disconnect or lock out before beginning work
Adopting best practices
CSA’s about-to-be-published CSA Standard Z462, Workplace Electrical Safety, will offer users a voluntary best practice standard for use anywhere in Canada. The November/December issue of Accident Prevention magazine will feature an advance look at the standard, by CSA technical committee member Len Cicero, and journalist Charles Craig. What follows is an excerpt from their article.
A greater scope
Previous regulations have targeted electrical workers only. CSA-Z462 will apply to any workers potentially at risk for working in proximity to electrical equipment, whether they’re HVAC technicians, manufacturing workers, engineers, construction workers, or millwrights. The new standards will also define areas within which anybody—including non-electrical workers and onlookers—must follow strict safety precautions that include the use of specialized personal protective equipment (PPE).
The standard is divided into three main clauses:
- Clause 4 applies generally to safety related work practices
- Clause 5 applies to safety related maintenance requirements for electrical equipment and workplace installations
- Clause 6 supplements or modifies Clause 4 with safety requirements for special equipment
Annexes will provide real-life examples for informational purposes, but won’t form part of the requirements of the standard.
Key elements of Clause 4
Clause 4 describes practices and procedures for workers exposed to electrical hazards. Information on specific sub-clauses follows.
- Clause 4.1 provides general requirements for electrical safety-related work practices . It calls for all employers to implement an overall electrical safety program, and references CSA-Z1000-06, Occupational Health and Safety Management, which provides a framework for developing and implementing an OHS management system. The clause cautions that safety-related work practices are just one component of an overall electrical safety program. Included are contractor and employer relationships and responsibilities. It also covers training requirements for qualified and unqualified persons.
CSA-Z462’s Annex E provides an example of a typical electrical safety program procedure, while Annex F provides examples of hazard/risk evaluation procedures.
- Clause 4.2 covers the establishment of electrically safe working conditions , including isolation, lockout, verification and, if applicable, installation of temporary grounds. In this clause, the principles of lockout execution are taken from a sister standard, CSA-Z460, The Control of Hazardous Energy—Lockout and Other Methods.
One important distinction of this clause is a definition of the term “working on,” in reference to energized electrical conductors or circuit parts. The standard defines “working on” as coming in contact with energized electrical conductors or circuit parts with the hands, feet, or other body parts, with tools, probes, or with test equipment, regardless of the personal protective equipment (PPE) a person is wearing.
- Clause 4.3 covers justifications for working energized . Under the standard, energized electrical work would be permitted when the employer can demonstrate that de-energizing introduces additional or increased overall hazards; for example, in working on hospital life-support systems that would threaten the lives of patients if shut down. Energized work would also be permitted where the employer can demonstrate that the task to be performed is infeasible in a de-energized state, due to equipment design or operational limitations.
If electrical conductors or circuit parts were not placed in an electrically safe work condition, work would be performed only after a written permit had been obtained by the worker. This is known as the Energized Electrical Work Permit.
There is an exemption to the Energized Electrical Work Permit: where work performed by qualified persons relates to tasks such as testing, troubleshooting, voltage measuring, etc., provided appropriate safe work practices and PPE are provided and used.
This clause also states that de-energization of circuits is not required for systems of voltage less than 50 volts to ground, such as are found in a 24-volt DC telephone system. Energized work may also be permissible when over current protection is enough to determine that there will be no increased exposure to electrical burns or explosion due to electric arcs.
Hazards of working energized
The standard addresses two electrical hazards involved with working energized: electrical shock and arc flash.
Electrical shock is associated with the possible release of energy caused by contact or approach to energized electrical conductors or circuit parts. Electrical shock due to direct contact causes most deaths and injuries. The standard calls for a shock hazard analysis, which would determine the voltage to which personnel will be exposed, boundary requirements, and the PPE necessary to minimize the possibility of electric shock to personnel.
Arc flash /arc blast is associated with the possible release of energy caused by an electric arc. An arc flash hazard exists when a person interacts with equipment in a way that could cause an electric arc. Such tasks may include testing or troubleshooting, application of temporary grounds, or the racking in or out of large circuit breakers. To address this hazard, the standard calls for an arc flash hazard analysis, a comprehensive study investigating a worker’s potential exposure to arc flash energy.
As well, Clause 4.3 details other areas, such as:
- care of personal and other protective equipment
- rubber insulating equipment test intervals
- protective equipment standards
- factors in selecting protective clothing and equipment, clothing material characteristics, care and maintenance of flame-resistant clothing, arc flash suits, and insulated tools and equipment
Clause 5: regularly scheduled maintenance
Clause 5 covers practical, safety-related maintenance requirements for electrical equipment and installations that are directly associated with worker safety. There are two main North American industry standards for maintenance of electrical power distribution equipment systems:
- NFPA 70B, Recommended Practice for Electrical Equipment Maintenance
- NETA Maintenance Testing Specifications for Electrical Power Distribution Equipment and Systems
These standards are used in conjunction with manufacturers’ individual recommendations to provide an overall quality program.
Clause 6: special electrical equipment
This clause, which supplements and modifies the general requirements of Clause 4, covers
- general requirements
- electrolytic cells
- batteries and battery rooms
- lasers
- power electronic equipment
- safety-related work requirements for research and development laboratories
The CSA-Z462 technical committee strongly recommends that companies adopt the standard proactively. It represents a major cultural change in the way that workplace electrical safety programs will be conducted in Canada, and will serve as an important tool for preventing workplace electrical incidents.
How IAPA can help
- Free downloads, including:
- Training
- Lockout (1/2 day – public classroom or on-site training)
- Lockout/Tagout (self-study training program in DVD format)
Wash your hands to boost health and productivity
 Our mothers’ advice to wash our hands is still one of the most effective and easiest ways to avoid illness as the cold and flu season approaches.
This may be old news to some, but apparently not to all. The Soap and Detergent Association’s 2008 “Clean Hands Report Card” found that fewer people regularly wash their hands. Among the survey’s findings:
- only 85% of respondents say they always wash their hands after going to the bathroom (down from 92% in 2006)
- 46% wash their hands for 15 seconds or less
- 39% seldom or never wash their hands after coughing or sneezing (compared to 36% in 2006)
- 35% don’t always wash before eating lunch (in 2006, 31% failed to wash up before lunch)
Why does this matter? Colds and flus are passed on by direct contact—touching something on which another person has inadvertently deposited a virus. Flu vaccinations protect us for 70% to 90% of the time, but there’s no equivalent for colds.
According to Ontario’s Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care, once you’re down with the flu, you may be off work for two to seven days. As for colds, cough and fatigue can last for several weeks, dragging out a return to full productivity.
So, interrupting the transmission process by washing hands thoroughly and frequently is the best defence against illness and its related consequences on workplace productivity and workload.
What you can do
- Get a flu shot . In Ontario, the vaccination is free.
- Assume that any human contact is infectious .
- Wash your hands at least five times daily . More often if you’re already ill or working near someone else who is ill. The Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety (CCOHS) recommends washing hands
- when they are visibly soiled
- after contact with body fluids, such as using the washroom, changing a diaper, blowing your nose, or sneezing in your hands
- before and after eating or drinking or handling food, especially raw meat, poultry or fish
- after contact with animals or animal waste. Wash up after playing with your pet or changing the kitty litter
- after contact with garbage
- before and after contact with sick people
- Wash your hands properly . Here’s what CCOHS recommends:
- remove rings or other jewellery
- use plenty of warm water and soap to form a lather
- rub your hands, wrists and forearms to create friction, making sure to get under the nails and between the fingers. Do this for as long as it takes to sing "Happy Birthday To You" in your head. Then rinse your hands under running water and dry your hands with a single use towel or air dryer
- dry your hands thoroughly
- turn off the tap with a paper towel or tissue, then throw it in the garbage
- avoid touching possibly contaminated surfaces (e.g., taps, door handles) with your bare hands as you leave the washroom
- Encourage co-workers and family members to do the same.
What employers can do
- Offer flu shots right in the workplace. The province provides the vaccine free of charge. Alternatively, provide workers with information on and time to attend a nearby flu clinic.
- Remind workers to wash their hands . In businesses that post hand-washing reminders, reports The Soap and Detergent Association, 72% of employees wash their hands five or more times a day, and 38% wash their hands more than 10 times a day. By posting reminder signs in bathrooms, kitchens and other communal areas, companies can protect worker health and their own bottom line.
- Make it easier for workers to wash their hands . Ensure workers have ready, close access to hand washing and drying facilities.
- Encourage sick employees to stay home . They won’t be very productive at work, and could further diminish workplace productivity by passing their illness on to others.
Writer Susanne Levine offers the following additional tips in her article, “Guide to Industrial Soap Dispensers” (www.business.com).
- Provide the type of soap dispenser that’s best suited to your workplace :
- pump-style industrial soap dispensers are the most common, and a good choice for settings where you need to offer inexpensive cleanup facilities in quantity. Manual pump soap dispensers can be freestanding or mounted on walls or countertops
- touchless soap dispensers help save money on soap by controlling quantities dispensed. Battery-powered touchless soap dispensers, which use infrared technology to sense the presence of a hand, allow people to wash their hands without touching dispenser handles. This is particularly handy in shop areas, avoiding the need to touch a pump with greasy hands
- foot operated hand soap dispensers use a pressure system to force soap out of a reservoir at the touch of a foot. These are best suited to medical examination rooms, patient rooms, surgery suites and other areas where preventing contamination is a top priority
How IAPA can help
Access these free downloads on infectious diseases:
- Colds and the Flu – Frequently Asked Questions
- Legionnaires' Disease – Frequently Asked Questions
- West Nile Virus
- Business Pandemic Preparedness – Sample Checklist
How employers can help enforce Ontario’s distracted driving act
 Ontario’s proposed Countering Distracted Driving and Promoting Green Transportation Act, introduced on October 28, would make it illegal for motorists to use hand-held wireless communication devices or any hand-held electronic entertainment devices while driving.
Few people disagree that drivers who text, email, dial, or chat on a cell phone are a hazard to themselves or others. Such drivers are four times more likely to be in a crash than a driver who is focused on the road, notes the Ministry of Transportation.
But how do you prevent ambitious, harried, or time-challenged employees from using “downtime” while driving to listen to messages, return calls, or find out what to pick up for dinner on the way home?
Attorney Michael R. Lied has a few suggestions for employers. But first, more about the new act.
What the act says
Unless vehicles are pulled off the roadway or lawfully parked, the proposed legislation would prohibit drivers from
- using hand-held wireless communications devices such as cell phones and smart phones
- using hand-held electronic entertainment devices such as iPods, or other portable MP3 players, or portable games
- texting and emailing
- viewing display screens on devices not required for driving, such as a laptop or DVD player
However, the act would allow
- hands-free wireless communications devices with an earpiece or Bluetooth device
- 911 calls
- pressing the button of a hand-held device to activate hands-free mode for incoming or outbound calls
- GPS units mounted on dashboards
- collision avoidance systems
- use by emergency services personnel such as police, fire and ambulance
- logistical transportation tracking devices used for commercial vehicles
Drivers caught violating the act could face fines of up to $500.
The proposed legislation will not apply to all drivers. Police, fire department and emergency medical services personnel will be permitted to use hand-held wireless communications devices in the normal performance of their duties. The Ministry of Transportation will also consider additional exemptions, such as for certain communications devices used to dispatch, track and monitor commercial drivers.
The proposed legislation would bring Ontario in line with similar laws in Quebec, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and Labrador, several US states, and about 50 countries worldwide.
Why employers should care
"We know these new technologies have created some tremendous conveniences," says Transportation Minister Jim Bradley, “but we know something else: deep down, we all know it is dangerous to use them while driving."
Putting aside employers’ ethical obligation, they may also face a legal obligation. “Drivers whose distraction leads to a collision are typically held responsible by our legal system,” wrote Sudbury lawyer Claude Lacroix in the September issue of Accident Prevention e-News. “But employers take note,” continued Lacroix. “If the distraction is work-related, you too could be implicated.” Read the full article.
What employers can do
Start by taking the act a step further and prohibit drivers from also using hands-free devices, says Doug Annett, director of operations for Skid Control School in Oakville, Ontario. “Research consistently reports no significant difference between hands-free phones versus traditional units in relation to vehicle crashes.”
“We’ve been advising companies and drivers for years that it’s the function of the conversation that creates an inattentive state,” explains Annett. “Hands and feet may operate the controls, but the eyes and brain are what really drive the car. Because many calls surround business, discussions often require a high level of concentration with unfortunate tradeoffs. The best solution for safety is to not make or receive calls when the vehicle is in motion, even with a hands-free unit.”
“Besides,” continues Annett, “over-use of your cell phone while driving represents poor time management or unrealistic workplace expectations. Driving time is not a chance to catch up on calls.”
Attorney Michael R. Lied* offers additional suggestions that may help protect employees and provide a basis for defence if an accident occurs:
- establish a policy that prohibits use of cell phone or other electronic devices while driving, perhaps requiring that cell phones be turned off while vehicles are in motion
- provide training or handout materials dealing with cell phone safety
- place a sticker on company-owned cell phones, warning against talking on the phone while driving
- require employees to sign an acknowledgement of receipt of the company policy on cell phone use
- discipline employees for violating the policy
- if you reimburse for cell phone charges, consider having the employee sign an affirmation that the cell phone has not been used in violation of company policy
- decide whether to seek indemnification for any injuries or death caused by an employee who has violated company policy. As a practical matter, few employees will be able to satisfy a judgment of multiple millions of dollars
Doug Annett has one final suggestion, for all drivers: “Look for the telltale signs of a preoccupied cell phone user: irregular speed, wandering in the lane, slow response to changes in traffic flow, lack of signals, and general sloppiness. Once you’ve spotted such a driver, stay far away.”
How IAPA can help
The distracted driving act, and other elements of driving safety, will likely be the subject of several sessions at Health & Safety Canada 2009, IAPA’s national conference and trade show. As the event approaches, check the conference website for more information.
* Michael R. Lied is an attorney with Howard & Howard Attorneys PC, in Peoria, Ill. His suggestions appeared in “Employer Liability for Employee Cell Phone Use,” Hoosier Banker, September 2004.
Defending OHS programming during an economic downturn
By Stephen Bernhut
 As the global economy continues to take a beating, governments, employers and individuals are all sizing up their expenditures and rethinking goals and objectives. Nothing escapes this scrutiny, including occupational health and safety (OHS).
For executives under pressure to trim their operations, cutting OHS programming and staffing may seem like a necessary evil during an economic slowdown. But to others closer to the front line, such cuts are to be avoided at all costs and under any conditions.
“There is never a good time to make cuts,” says Sandy Ash, health, safety and environment manager for Fugro Airborne Surveys in Mississauga, Ontario. “If safety programs were a good idea when you implemented them, they’re a good idea now.”
Tony Coates, OHS manager at Stratford’s Hendrickson International, agrees. He believes that “companies are starting to understand that an effective safety program can produce a substantial return on investment.”
“Health and safety is definitely not an add-on,” says Guy Chenard, senior health and safety advisor at Ontario Power Generation's Lambton Generating Station. “It must be an integral part of the business and be built into every part of the operation. There can be no such thing as, ‘We’ll take care of safety later.’ For example, when you buy a car today it comes equipped with seat belts and air bags. They’re standard, not optional. So is workplace safety not optional. It’s another component of the business, just like labour or materials. It’s fundamental.”
8 ways to protect your programming
Appearing below are eight steps you can take to protect and sustain your workplace’s OHS efforts.
- Sell the benefits to senior executives , i.e., those ultimately responsible for creating and supporting an OHS culture. “Our general manager is very aware of the results,” says Sandy Ash. “He receives several monthly reports, including lost-time injury reports, so he’s very plugged in to the program.” Adds Marcel Pouliot, vice president of Trimac Transportation, “We’ve got 120 facilities, and we publish and distribute a monthly personal injury report across our entire organization. It includes details such as injury severity and frequency and the number of days off… This kind of reporting reinforces an OHS culture, and is one of the tools that will carry a strong OHS program in hard times. Everyone knows that the OHS program is saving you money.”
- Re-visit and sharpen your business case , to underline the critical role that the programming plays, and its value even during an economic slowdown. “Instead of telling a company not to make cuts just because times are hard, I’ll walk them through the business case and show why they need to have a safety program in the first place,” says Lois Weeks, an IAPA consultant based in London. “I’ll stay away from the warm and fuzzy stuff and just lay out the hard numbers. ‘This is the financial cost of not having a safety program. This is the financial benefit of having one.’ I would encourage managers to take a similar approach. Meet with the people who might want to trim the budget and show them the indirect costs and other implications.”
- Network . “It’s good to know that you’re not in this [slowdown] alone, and getting together and sharing information with other managers can encourage you to a certain degree,” says Tony Coates. “You can network online, but maybe the best way is to join IAPA’s Safety Group. They meet regularly and you can find out what other managers are doing to maintain the full program or how they’re cutting costs without compromising the program.”
- Share costs . When Brian Skipper wanted to send employees to a training session, he found that the travel budget had already been exhausted. “I mentioned this to our IAPA consultant, Lois Weeks, and she got four other companies to send employees who needed the training to come to our plant,” says the continual improvement manager for Stratford’s Baldor Electric Company, which manufactures motors for the resource and utilities industries. “All of us had to pay for the course itself, but holding it here instead of in London enabled us to save travel expenses and the cost of wages that would have to have been paid for travelling to London.”
A variation on cost sharing is to do the next best thing. Brady Wilson, a co-founder of organizational performance consulting firm Juice Inc., based in Guelph, Ontario, suggests that “instead of enrolling an employee in a program that meets once a week for three months, send that employee to a relevant convention for a half or full day, or offer training with a manager in another plant once or twice a month. The important thing is to reassure the employee that you are getting him or her as much training as you can under the circumstances.”
- Improve efficiency . “An OHS manager has a responsibility to deliver programs in the most efficient, cost-effective manner,” says Marcel Pouliot. “It should be understood that looking at ways to deliver programs more efficiently does not mean that you’re going to end up with a lesser program. For example, if you program a session during a weekday afternoon, it’s much less costly than having employees coming in on a Saturday and paying overtime.”
- Be proactive . If it looks as though senior management will insist on cuts to OHS, identify those areas of the operation that may be least affected by a slowdown and then cut the programs or benefits that are least likely to diminish the integrity of your programming. At the same time, identify those areas of the operation that will be most affected by a slowdown and allocate—or re-allocate—resources to address priority health and safety issues. “For example,” says Tony Coates, “a company that’s cutting its workforce may decide to dedicate much of the available OHS resources on automation or ergonomic issues. So an OHS manager should really list priorities in the event that he or she is asked to reduce the program.”
- Work with management , instead of against it. “For starters,” says IAPA consultant Alain Langlais, “whoever is looking after the health and safety program—be it a manager, coordinator or a front-line person who’s been tasked with the responsibility—needs to be able to make a cost-benefit analysis argument for what he or she needs to do. You need to help management see what it’s going to cost with the program versus what it’s going to cost without it. You’re certainly going to get more buy-in instead of that automatic, defensive, ‘Here comes the safety person again, he’s going to want us to spend money and time, and he’s not willing to work with us.’”
- Communicate . Show management that you’ve built a system to manage the safety program, and through data show them that there are capable people in place to manage it. While updating management is always important, it’s vital during downturns. Few senior managers like having to make cuts in such times, but they may feel slightly better if they know that the people reporting to them are managing to perform even with fewer staff or budget reductions. Keeping managers up to date can also work two ways. Says Langlais, “If you have a regular exchange with senior management you may learn things earlier; for example, the company intends to lay off 50 people for a few months. A safety manager can step in and say, ‘Leave them with me for two days and I’ll do all the recurrent training so that when they come back they’re all geared up and ready to go.’ Two days extra salary for 50 or so people could mean that you get a lot of training done that would be very hard to schedule when you get them all back, because simply getting them back again would mean that it’s also very busy again and hard to take people off the floor and put them into a classroom. Under the circumstances, it’s not easy for anyone having them remain on site for two more days, but you can get in a whole lot of safety stuff.”
What are your ideas?
Share your suggestions on how to protect OHS during tough economic times with Accident Prevention e-News readers. Email us at apmag@iapa.ca.
How IAPA can help
- Find out more about IAPA’s Safety Group. IAPA is now accepting applications for 2009. Learn more about IAPA’s Safety Group by
- visiting the Safety Group website
- calling IAPA to speak with a Safety Group consultant, 1.800.406.IAPA (4272)
- Learn how to make a business case for OHS . IAPA offers website visitors two useful tools:
- Business Case for Health & Safety
This online document walks you step by step through the organizational benefits of OHS programming. When making your case, supplement these benefits with illustrations from your own workplace or industry sector
- Small Business Safety Calculator
Now you can calculate real, out-of-pocket expenses for injuries typical of IAPA’s industry sectors, based on sample injury scenarios that have values you can modify to reflect your workplace environment. The results you generate will make an irrefutable addition to any business case
This article is an excerpt from the November/December issue of Accident Prevention magazine. Stephen Bernhut, a business writer and corporate communications professional, is editor of the Ivey Business Journal; Tel: 416.923.9945.
In the News
NSC announces 2008 Campbell Award winners
A US environmental remediation firm and a Middle East petrochemical and fertilizer company are the 2008 recipients of the US National Safety Council (NSC)’s prestigious Robert W. Campbell award. The international award recognizes organizations that demonstrate how the integration of environmental, health and safety (EHS) management into business operations is a cornerstone of their corporate success.
Fluor Hanford received the award for corporations with more than 1,000 employees. The firm is a contractor to the US Department of Energy that manages environmental remediation activities at the department’s Hanford Nuclear Reservation in Washington State. The company, which employs 3,600 people, is engaged in dismantling former nuclear-processing facilities, cleaning up contaminated groundwater, retrieving and processing radioactive and chemical waste, and maintaining the site’s infrastructure.
Gulf Petrochemical Industries Company (GPIC) received the award for corporations with up to 1,000 employees. The firm is a petrochemical and fertilizer company owned by Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Kuwait. GPIC employs 522 workers and up to 300 contractor personnel.
“It is readily apparent that senior management at both companies values the safety and health of their employees as much as they value productivity,” says Janet Froetscher, NSC president and CEO. “Fluor Hanford and GPIC embrace EHS as a core value.”
On receiving the Campbell award, GPIC general manager Abdul Rahman Jawahery said that winning it “is testimony that size does not matter. It is in fact the combination of a strong commitment and determination, coupled with a broad range of EHS initiatives to instill health and safety, that are the modus operandi of the workplace.”
Campbell Award winners undergo rigorous assessments that include site visits and comprehensive evaluations of their commitment to and implementation of EHS practices. For more information on the award program, visit www.campbellaward.org/index.php/site/home. On the same site, you’ll find excerpts from previous award-winning submissions on how they successfully integrate EHS into their business operations.
|