2009 Annual OSHA Strategic Partnership Evaluation Report
February 8, 2011
Preface: OSHA and INVISTA signed an OSHA Strategic Partnership (OSP) on June 19, 2008. Due to severe weather conditions and damages to INVISTA facilities following Hurricane Ike in September 2008, OSHA and INVISTA agreed to postpone the initial start date of the OSP until normal INVISTA operations resumed. Accordingly, an addendum with an effective date of January 18, 2009 was signed by all of the original INVISTA signatories and the former Acting Assistant Secretary of Labor, Thomas M. Stohler. This Annual OSP Evaluation Report (Report) reflects information collected between January 18, 2009 and December 31, 2009. All future evaluations will cover a full one-year period, and the next evaluation period will begin on January 1, 2010 to coincide with the beginning of the calendar year.
| OSP Name | ||
|---|---|---|
| OSHA and INVISTA S.à r.l. (INVISTA) OSP | ||
| Purpose of OSP | ||
| To build on the relationship developed through a previous OSHA Strategic Partnership (OSP) and the Voluntary Protection Programs (VPP) efforts of its parent company, Koch Industries (2003-2009), INVISTA entered into a National OSP with the OSHA with a commitment to develop effective safety and health management systems (SHMS) and to strive toward workplace safety and health excellence. This OSP allows OSHA to reach out to a diverse industry spectrum and to impact safety and health in a meaningful way. The lessons learned from the OSP participating facilities will be used to further impact health and safety globally. | ||
| Goals, Strategies and Measures | ||
| Goal | Strategy | Measure |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Strategic Management Plan Target Areas (check one) | |||
|---|---|---|---|
Construction |
Amputations in Manufacturing |
||
General Industry |
X |
||
| Strategic Management Plan Areas of Emphasis (check all applicable) | |||
Amputations in Construction |
Oil and Gas Field Services |
||
Blast Furnaces and Basic Steel Products |
Preserve Fruits and Vegetables |
||
Blood Lead Levels |
Public Warehousing and Storage |
||
Concrete, Gypsum and Plaster Products |
Ship/Boat Building and Repair |
||
Ergo/Musculoskeletal |
X |
Silica-Related Disease |
|
Landscaping/Horticultural Services |
|||
Section 1 General OSP Information
| Date of Evaluation Report | September 21, 2010 |
||
|---|---|---|---|
| Evaluation Period: | |||
| Start Date | 1/18/2009 |
End Date |
12/31/2009 |
| Evaluation OSHA Contact Person | Christian Wojnar |
||
| Originating Office | Directorate of Cooperative and State Programs (DCSP), Office of Partnerships and Recognition (OPR), Washington, DC |
||
| OSP Coverage | |||
# Active Employers |
7 |
# Active Employees |
3000 |
| Industry Coverage (note range or specific SIC and NAICS for each partner) | |||
Participating Facility |
SIC |
NAICS |
Description |
INVISTA Applied Research Center, Newark, DE |
8731 |
541380 |
Testing laboratories |
INVISTA Athens, Athens, GA |
2281 |
313112 |
Fiber, yarn, and thread mills |
INVISTA Dalton, Dalton, GA |
8731 |
541380 |
Testing laboratories |
INVISTA La Porte, La Porte, TX |
2869 |
325199 |
Chemical manufacturing |
INVISTA Orange, Orange, TX |
2869 |
325199 |
Chemical manufacturing |
INVISTA Seaford, Seaford, DE |
2281 |
313112 |
Fiber, yarn, and thread mills |
INVISTA Victoria, Victoria, TX |
2869 |
325199 |
Chemical manufacturing |
Section 2 Activities Performed
| Note whether an activity was provided for by the OSP and whether it was performed | ||
|---|---|---|
Required |
Performed |
|
a. Training |
X |
X |
b. Consultation Visits |
||
c. Safety and Health Management Systems Reviewed/Developed |
X |
X |
d. Technical Assistance |
||
e. VPP-Focused Activities |
X |
X |
f. OSHA Enforcement Inspection |
||
g. Offsite Verifications |
X |
No |
h. Onsite Non-Enforcement Interactions |
X |
No |
i. Participant Self-Inspections |
X |
X |
j. Other Activities |
||
| 2a. Training (if performed, provide the following totals) | |
|---|---|
Training sessions conducted by OSHA staff |
0 |
Training sessions conducted by non-OSHA staff |
* |
Employees trained |
* |
Training hours provided to employees |
* |
Supervisors/managers trained |
* |
Training hours provided to supervisors/managers |
* |
| Comments/Explanations (briefly describe activities, or explain if activity provided for but not performed) | |
INVISTA conducts computer-based training on a regular basis in addition to monthly safety meetings and toolbox talks. The training subjects cover content applicable to each facility such as Process Safety Management (PSM), ergonomic self-assessments, loading/unloading operations, and job hazard analysis. Also, approved contractors are required to receive a safety and health orientation prior to commencing work onsite. *During this first year of the OSP, worker and supervisor training attendance was not tracked. This is an area identified for improvement and focus for the upcoming year of the OSP. See Section Four of this OSP Evaluation: OSP Plans, Benefits, and Recommendations, Changes and Challenges. |
|
| 2c. Safety and Health Management Systems (if performed, provide the following total) | |
|---|---|
SHMS implemented or improved using the 1989 OSHA Safety and Health Program Management Guidelines |
7 |
| Comments/Explanations (briefly describe activities, or explain if activity provided for but not performed) | |
During the evaluation period some progress was made by the OSP in the development of SHMS for the participating facilities. However, INVISTA’s available resources for this effort were limited due to a number of factors including two of the OSP participating facilities were not active for part of the year due to downturn in economy; many resources being diverted to support Hurricane Ike recovery efforts, and changes in key staff positions at the company. INVISTA’s efforts and corresponding improvements are described below. Compliance Assurance Management System (CAMS) (Employer Designed Assessment Tool) Each year the participating INVISTA facilities evaluate their CAMS which has 7 major elements. These elements, which are similar to OSHA’s VPP elements, are listed below:
Examples of the subject areas covered by the measures as listed in the goals, strategies, and measures matrix of the OSP agreement and CAMS include: job safety analysis, safe work permits, safety training, and incident investigations. During the annual CAMS review, unit operators at all facilities address any observed safety and health issues which are documented. If necessary, action items will be developed and tracked until completion. In addition to the annual evaluation of CAMS, INVISTA takes additional steps to protect its workers: safe work practices are stressed as work permits are audited regularly, and work activities are reviewed by the shift supervisor prior to the start of each shift. Also, work behavior is observed and the results of these internal observations are distributed monthly. Tool box meetings are held at the beginning of each shift and job hazards analyses are conducted when needed. Each facility’s compliance plan uses 20 questions on a checklist for evaluating the safety management system and also uses third party oversight through LYNX. The LYNX database is used to track, monitor, analyze, and report environmental, health and safety, transportation, security, distribution, audit and assessment, investigations, action items and other corporate data. It manages information in three sections, Track (for events), Prevent (for inspections and audits), and Prove (for review of data). Contractor Safety Culture Survey Results The results of the survey are discussed here as the OSP continues to use the results of this survey in their efforts to develop their OSP strategies and measures. Ergonomics INVISTA uses a Discomfort Complaint Evaluation Protocol which is implemented when a complaint is received and triggers a hazard evaluation. The evaluation records ergonomic risk factors and relevant medical information along with trends, and improvements when required. The self assessment program has been vetted to include industry best practices for correct ergonomic workstations. For facilities with minimal ergonomic risk factors, workers are provided with awareness training about ergonomic safety programs during annual safety meetings and monthly reminders are distributed with information on ergonomics. PSM La Porte, TX facility reported the following related to its PSM program:
|
|
| 2d. Technical Assistance (if performed, note type and by whom) | |||
|---|---|---|---|
Provided by OSHA Staff |
Provided by Partners |
Provided by Other Party |
|
Conference/Seminar Participation |
X |
X |
|
Interpretation/Explanation of Standards or OSHA Policy |
X |
X |
X |
Abatement Assistance |
X |
X |
|
Speeches |
X |
||
Other (specify) |
|||
| Comments/Explanations (briefly describe activities, or explain if activity provided for but not performed) | |||
INVISTA shares knowledge and best practices on programs and processes with other facilities through the use of an online intranet system. Also, the Environmental, Health, and Safety (EHS) department holds a teleconference on a quarterly basis with all facilities in North and South America to discuss safety issues and corrective action plans. In those meetings, best practices are identified and shared. INVISTA also has a web driven program on emerging issues. Several facilities have sent representatives to a variety of conferences including Koch Industries/INVISTA (EHS) conferences (2008) and Regional (IV and VI) and National VPP Participants’ Association conferences. OSP participating facilities are utilizing the VPP mentoring model in preparing their facilities for VPP approval. During this evaluation period:
|
|||
| 2e. VPP-Focused Activities (if performed, provide the following total) | |
|---|---|
Partners/participants actively seeking VPP participation |
4 |
Applications submitted |
1 |
VPP participants |
1 |
| Comments/Explanations (briefly describe activities, or explain if activity provided for but not performed) | |
In 2009, initial assessments to collect baseline data at a majority of the OSP participating facilities were conducted in preparation for pursuing VPP. Below is a summary of VPP activity at each participating facility.
|
|
| 2f. OSHA Enforcement Activity (if performed, provide the following totals for any programmed, unprogrammed, and verification-related inspections) | |
|---|---|
OSHA enforcement inspections conducted |
1 |
OSHA enforcement inspections in compliance |
0 |
OSHA enforcement inspection with violations cited |
1 |
Average number of citations classified as Serious, Repeat, and Willful |
1 |
| Comments/Explanations (briefly describe activities, or explain if activity provided for but not performed) | |
INVISTA La Porte, TX: |
|
| 2g. Offsite Verification (if performed, provide the following total) | |
|---|---|
Offsite verifications performed |
1 |
| Comments/Explanations (briefly describe activities, or explain if activity provided for but not performed) | |
As the PMT did not have specific and detailed procedures in place to carry out such verifications on a consistent basis, a verification template was developed during the latter part of 2009 and approved in early 2010. As a result, no offsite verifications were performed for any of the non-VPP facilities during 2009. The Victoria, TX facility is a VPP Star facility and as such, is required to submit an annual self evaluation to OSHA that provides updated OSHA 300 Log data in addition to other safety and health information. OSHA reviewed the site’s 2008 annual VPP self evaluation. |
|
| 2h. Onsite Non-Enforcement Verification (if performed, provide the following total) | |
|---|---|
Onsite non-enforcement verifications performed |
0 |
| Comments/Explanations (briefly describe activities, or explain if activity provided for but not performed) | |
The PMT did not conduct any onsite non-enforcement verifications during 2009 since the verification template for onsite non-enforcement verification visits and offsite verification visits was not finalized During the evaluation period, the PMT began work on the template which consists of a matrix of the OSP Agreement’s goals, strategies, and measures and next to each goal and the person conducting the verification would document how the OSP participating facility is progressing towards each goal. The template was approved early in 2010. Additionally, the PMT will ensure that any necessary modification will be made to the template if needed. |
|
| 2i. Participant Self-Inspections (if performed, provide the following total) | |
|---|---|
Self-inspections performed |
** |
Hazards and/or violations identified and corrected/abated |
** |
| Comments/Explanations (briefly describe activities, or explain if activity provided for but not performed) | |
Every year, per the OSP, each facility is required to perform ergonomic assessment at all of its workstations and material handling activities. The assessment program has been vetted to include industry best practices with respect to correct ergonomic workstations. Enhancements to the assessment process came from Corporate Industrial Hygienist and were vetted by the employer’s EHS management. Also, management provided the monthly housekeeping inspections team with an ergonomic assessment checklist and the enhanced housekeeping inspection process was shared as a best practice throughout INVISTA. ** INVISTA did not report the numbers of self-inspections performed as well as hazards identified and corrected in 2009. The PMT will consider the need to either develop a tracking procedure to document all ergonomic assessments and the hazards identified/corrected or to enhance its data reporting procedures to include such totals. |
|
Section 3 Illness and Injury Information
Explanation of Measures:
- 2009 TCIR and DART: shows the percentage difference between 2009 and 2008 TCIR and DART rates. A positive percentage means that 2009’s is higher than 2008’s.
- 2009 TCIR and DART vs. BLS: shows the percentage difference between 2009’s TCIR or DART and the corresponding industry average as determined for the Bureau of Labor Statistics for the 2009 year. A negative percentage means that the rate is lower than the industry average.
- If the measure shows an asterisk, this means that the percentage could not be computed as zero may not be divided by any number.
Partnership Totals |
|||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Year | Hours | Total Cases | TCIR | DART Cases | DART | Measure | % Difference |
| 2008 | 4,883,223 | 5 | 0.2 | 0 | 0.0 | 2009 TCIR | 60% |
| 2009 | 3,657,986 | 6 | 0.3 | 2 | 0.1 | 2009 DART | * |
| Total | 8,541,209 | 11 | 2 | ||||
Seaford, Delaware (NAICS 313112: Fiber, Yarn, and Thread Mills) |
|||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Year | Hours | Total Cases | TCIR | DART Cases | DART | Measure | % Difference |
| 2008 | 991,740 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0.0 | 2009 TCIR | * |
| 2009 | 370,178 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0.0 | 2009 DART | * |
| Total | 1,361,918 | 0 | 0 | 2009 TCIR vs. BLS | -100% | ||
| BLS National Average for 2009 | 2.7 | 1.6 | 2009 DART vs. BLS | -100% | |||
Dalton, Georgia (NAICS 541380: Testing Laboratories) |
|||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Year | Hours | Total Cases | TCIR | DART Cases | DART | Measure | % Difference |
| 2008 | 104,930 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0.0 | 2009 TCIR | * |
| 2009 | 81,954 | 1 | 2.4 | 0 | 0.0 | 2009 DART | * |
| Total | 186,884 | 1 | 0 | 2009 TCIR vs. BLS | 63% | ||
| BLS National Average for 2009 | 1.5 | 0.8 | 2009 DART vs. BLS | -100% | |||
Athens, Georgia (NAICS 313112: Fiber, Yarn, and Thread Mills) |
|||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Year | Hours | Total Cases | TCIR | DART Cases | DART | Measure | % Difference |
| 2008 | 347,896 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0.0 | 2009 TCIR | * |
| 2009 | 210,070 | 1 | 1.0 | 1 | 1.0 | 2009 DART | * |
| Total | 557,966 | 1 | 1 | 2009 TCIR vs. BLS | -65% | ||
| BLS National Average for 2009 | 2.7 | 1.6 | 2009 DART vs. BLS | -40% | |||
Applied Research Center, Newark, Delaware (NAICS 541380: Testing Laboratories) |
|||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Year | Hours | Total Cases | TCIR | DART Cases | DART | Measure | % Difference |
| 2008 | 112,026 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0.0 | 2009 TCIR | * |
| 2009 | 87,025 | 1 | 2.3 | 0 | 0.0 | 2009 DART | * |
| Total | 199,051 | 1 | 0 | 2009 TCIR vs. BLS | 53% | ||
| BLS National Average for 2009 | 1.5 | 0.8 | 2009 DART vs. BLS | -100% | |||
La Porte, Texas (NAICS 325199: Chemical manufacturing) |
|||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Year | Hours | Total Cases | TCIR | DART Cases | DART | Measure | % Difference |
| 2008 | 307,703 | 2 | 1.3 | 0 | 0.0 | 2009 TCIR | -43% |
| 2009 | 268,501 | 1 | 0.7 | 1 | 0.7 | 2009 DART | * |
| Total | 576,204 | 3 | 1 | 2009 TCIR vs. BLS | -50% | ||
| BLS National Average for 2009 | 1.5 | 0.9 | 2009 DART vs. BLS | -17% | |||
Orange, Texas (NAICS 325199: Chemical Manufacturing) |
|||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Year | Hours | Total Cases | TCIR | DART Cases | DART | Measure | % Difference |
| 2008 | 1,500,000 | 2 | 0.3 | 0 | 0.0 | 2009 TCIR | -42% |
| 2009 | 1,300,000 | 1 | 0.2 | 0 | 0.0 | 2009 DART | * |
| Total | 2,800,000 | 3 | 0 | 2009 TCIR vs. BLS | -90% | ||
| BLS National Average for 2009 | 1.5 | 0.9 | 2009 DART vs. BLS | -100% | |||
Victoria, Texas (NAICS 325199: Chemical Manufacturing) |
|||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Year | Hours | Total Cases | TCIR | DART Cases | DART | Measure | % Difference |
| 2008 | 1,518,928 | 1 | 0.1 | 0 | 0.0 | 2009 TCIR | 13% |
| 2009 | 1,340,258 | 1 | 0.1 | 0 | 0.0 | 2009 DART | * |
| Total | 2,859,186 | 2 | 0 | 2009 TCIR vs. BLS | -90% | ||
| BLS National Average for 2009 | 1.5 | 0.9 | 2009 DART vs. BLS | -100% | |||
The following bullets explain the columns for the two charts below (Figure 1: 2008 OSP Injury and Illness Performance; and Figure 2: 2009 OSP Injury and Illness Performance). The charts present TCIR and DART data in the same manner, so the explanations below apply to both TCIR and DART figures.
- TCIR BLS Rate is the industry average as determined by the Bureau of Labor Statistics
- Facility TCIR Rate is the number of recordable injuries and illnesses at the facility based on the number of hours worked and the TCIR
- # Cases Using TCIR Facility Rate is the number of recordable injuries and illnesses that would occur if the facility was "average" for its industry
- # Cases Using TCIR BLS Rate is the number of recordable injuries and illnesses that the facility would have experienced if the facility and its rate were 'average' for its industry
- % Above or Below indicates whether or not the facility's current year TCIR is above or below the industry average
- # Cases Using TCIR BLS Rate minus # Cases Using TCIR Facility Rate equals the number of incidents prevented
| Site | TCIR BLS Rate | DART BLS Rate | Site TCIR Rate | Site DART Rate | # Cases Using TCIR Site Rate | # Case Using TCIR BLS Rate | % Above or Below | # Cases Using DART Site Rate | # Cases Using DART BLS Rate | % Above or Below |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Seaford | 3.0 | 1.6 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 14.9 | -100 | 0.0 | 7.9 | -100 |
| Dalton | 1.6 | 0.9 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.8 | -100 | 0.0 | 0.5 | -100 |
| Athens | 3.0 | 1.6 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 5.2 | -100 | 0.0 | 2.8 | -100 |
| ARC | 1.6 | 0.9 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.9 | -100 | 0.0 | 0.5 | -100 |
| La Porte | 1.8 | 1.2 | 1.3 | 0.0 | 2.0 | 2.8 | -28 | 0.0 | 1.8 | -100 |
| Orange | 1.8 | 1.2 | 0.3 | 0.0 | 2.3 | 13.5 | -83 | 0.0 | 9.0 | -100 |
| Victoria | 1.8 | 1.2 | 0.1 | 0.0 | 0.8 | 13.7 | -94 | 0.0 | 9.1 | -100 |
| All Partnership Sites | 0.2 | 0.0 | 0.7 | 7.4 | -87 | 0.0 | 4.5 | -100 |
(Figure 1: CY 2008 INVISTA National OSP Injury and Illness Performance)
| Site | TCIR BLS Rate | DART BLS Rate | Site TCIR Rate | Site DART Rate | # Cases Using TCIR Site Rate | # Case Using TCIR BLS Rate | % Above or Below | # Cases Using DART Site Rate | # Cases Using DART BLS Rate | % Above or Below |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Seaford | 2.7 | 1.6 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 5.0 | -100 | 0.0 | 3.0 | -100 |
| Dalton | 1.5 | 0.8 | 2.4 | 0.0 | 1.0 | 0.6 | 60 | 0.0 | 0.3 | -100 |
| Athens | 2.7 | 1.6 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.1 | 2.8 | -63 | 1.1 | 1.7 | -38 |
| ARC | 1.5 | 0.8 | 2.3 | 0.0 | 1.0 | 0.7 | 53 | 0.0 | 0.3 | -100 |
| La Porte | 1.5 | 0.9 | 0.7 | 0.7 | 0.9 | 2.0 | -53 | 0.9 | 1.2 | -22 |
| Orange | 1.5 | 0.9 | 0.2 | 0.0 | 1.3 | 9.8 | -87 | 0.0 | 5.9 | -100 |
| Victoria | 1.5 | 0.9 | 0.1 | 0.0 | 0.7 | 10.1 | -93 | 0.0 | 6.0 | -100 |
| All Partnership Sites | 0.3 | 0.1 | 0.8 | 4.4 | -40 | 0.3 | 2.6 | -80 |
(Figure 2: CY 2009 INVISTA National OSP Injury and Illness Performance)
| Comments | ||
|---|---|---|
Baseline Data
CY 2009 OSP Performance
|
||
Section 4 OSP Plans, Benefits, and Recommendations
| Changes and Challenges (check all applicable) | ||
|---|---|---|
Changes |
Challenges |
|
Management Structure |
||
Participants |
||
Data Collection |
X |
|
Employee Involvement |
||
Verifications |
X |
X |
OSP Outreach |
||
Training |
||
Other (Specify) |
||
| Comments | ||
Data Collection: A review of the reports and data submitted for the CY2009 evaluation period indicated that the data is incomplete as not all of the measures listed in the OSP Agreement have been addressed. However, in 2009, the OSP worked on a dashboard which will provide the reader with a snapshot of safety and health activity at the OSP participating facilities. It is scheduled to be finalized in early 2010 and will be updated on a quarterly basis and provided to the PMT at each quarterly meeting. The PMT will work to ensure that all measures listed in the OSP Agreement are addressed with relevant data. This improvement will ensure that the appropriate information is collected and reported for the OSP evaluation in 2010. Verifications: |
||
| Plans to Improve (check all applicable) | ||
|---|---|---|
Improvements |
N/A |
|
Meet more often |
||
Improve data collection |
X |
|
Conduct more training |
||
Change goals |
||
| Comments | ||
Data Collection: A review of the reports and data submitted for the CY2009 evaluation period indicated that the data is incomplete as not all of the measures listed in the OSP Agreement have been addressed. However, in 2009, the OSP worked on a dashboard which will provide the reader with a snapshot of safety and health activity at the OSP participating facilities. It is scheduled to be finalized in early 2010 and will be updated on a quarterly basis and provided to the PMT at each quarterly meeting. The PMT will work to ensure that all measures listed in the OSP Agreement are addressed with relevant data. This improvement will ensure that the appropriate information is collected and reported for the OSP evaluation in 2010. |
||
| OSP Benefits (check all applicable) | |
|---|---|
Increased safety and health awareness |
X |
Improved relationship with OSHA |
X |
Improved relationship with employers |
|
Improved relationship with employees or unions |
|
Increased number of participants |
|
Other (specify) |
|
| Comments | |
INVISTA reported it continued its efforts to pursue VPP at OSP participating facilities in 2009. These efforts contributed to increasing safety and health awareness among workers at the participating facilities. |
|
| Status Recommendations (check one) | |
|---|---|
Partnership Completed |
|
Continue/Renew |
Continue |
Continue with the following provisions: |
|
Improve data collection to ensure all measures as listed in the OSP agreement are documented and submitted for inclusion in the CY 2010 evaluation. |
|
Terminate (provide explanation) |
|