CY A O S H R S L - United States Navy · Individual Commands also develop and implement initiatives that place further emphasis ... (CA-7) 78.10% . 85.27% . 90.85% +6.5% . 86.71%

CY 2016 ANNUAL OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY & HEALTH REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF LABOR AGENCY NARRATIVE OF SELF-EVALUATION

Agency Name: Department of the Navy (United States Navy and United States Marine Corps) Address: 1000 Navy Pentagon, Washington, DC 20350 Number of federal civilian employees covered by this report: 196,2561 DASHO Mr. Steven R. Iselin, Acting Assistant Secretary of the Navy, Energy, Installations and Environment 703-693-4527 [email protected]

Department of the Navy Safety Executive Mr. Paul W. Hanley, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Safety 703-614-5179 [email protected]

OSH Manager Mr. Anthony J. Militello, Director, Occupational Safety and Health 703-614-5530 [email protected]

I. ASSESSMENT OF OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY & HEALTH PROGRAM ACTIVITIES AND EVENTS.

a. Presidential Initiatives & Evaluation Metric(s). Motor Vehicle Safety Department of Defense traffic safety policy2 and Navy and Marine Corps service-specific instructions3,4 detail comprehensive traffic safety program requirements designed to prevent motor vehicle-related mishaps through the application of risk management strategies. These strategies include, but are not limited to: vehicle design standards; operator duty time limitations; fatigue management evaluations; incentive programs; safe drive councils; pre-departure briefings and vehicle inspections; individual travel risk planning (TRiPS); motorcycle and all-terrain vehicle training; government and private motor vehicle operator education and training; installation traffic codes and enforcement; distracted and impaired driver policies; passenger and child restraint system requirements; program and policy awareness campaigns; and mishap reporting, recordkeeping, investigations, and analysis. Local Commanders may institute policy that is more stringent and develop initiatives that are directly applicable to local driving conditions to support a comprehensive system that includes the risk management process and accountability to prevent the loss of personnel and equipment due to traffic mishaps and reckless driving behavior.

1 https://www.osha.gov/dep/fap/statistics/fedrprgrms_stats16_final.html 2 DODI 5100.04, DOD Traffic Safety Program, Change 2, January 23, 2013 http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/605504p.pdf 3 OPNAVINST 5100.12J , Navy Traffic Safety Program, 26 June 2012 https://doni.daps.dla.mil/Directives/05000%20General%20Management%20Security%20and%20Safety%20Services/05-100%20Safety%20and%20Occupational%20Health%20Services/5100.12J.pdf 4 MCO 5100.19F, Marine Corps Traffic Safety Program (DRIVESAFE), 29 November 2011, http://www.marines.mil/Portals/59/Publications/MCO%205100.19F.pdf

AGENCY NARRATIVE - PAGE 1 OF 20

mailto:[email protected]



https://www.osha.gov/dep/fap/statistics/fedrprgrms_stats16_final.html

http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/605504p.pdf

https://doni.daps.dla.mil/Directives/05000%20General%20Management%20Security%20and%20Safety%20Services/05-100%20Safety%20and%20Occupational%20Health%20Services/5100.12J.pdf

https://doni.daps.dla.mil/Directives/05000%20General%20Management%20Security%20and%20Safety%20Services/05-100%20Safety%20and%20Occupational%20Health%20Services/5100.12J.pdf

http://www.marines.mil/Portals/59/Publications/MCO%205100.19F.pdf


Training and education represent a cornerstone of motor vehicle safety efforts. Navy and Marine Corps training requirements address: specific vehicle type, including varying passenger and cargo capacities; installation, state, and host nation traffic policies; initial and refresher training duration, content, timing and frequency; quantity of supervised driving experience; certification procedures; driving restrictions for operators awaiting training and certification; and remedial training for observed undesirable driving behaviors. Policies and information taught during formal education and training sessions are augmented by service-wide promotional material and media campaigns with ever-evolving information. These regularly recurring announcements and ad campaigns featuring Navy and Marine Corps leadership are designed to sustain a continual awareness of motor vehicle related hazards. Navy and Marine Corps personnel, both fleet and non-fleet drivers, whether operating or riding in official vehicles, or in or on private conveyances, benefit equally from targeted national and service-specific driver safety campaigns and programs. Promotional material and media such as permanent road signs, electronic marquees, posters and pamphlets emphasize topics such as seatbelt use, distracted driving, driving under the influence, fatigue and distracted driving awareness, and aggressive driving, among others. Examples of campaigns advertised during calendar year 2016 include the following: National 3D (Drunk, Drugged, Driving) Keep What You’ve Earned That Guy Click-it-or-Ticket Drunk Driving over the Limit Drive Drunk Get Nailed Distracted Driving Month (April) Arrive Alive Alive at 25 (National Safety Council program) Individual Commands also develop and implement initiatives that place further emphasis on targeted motor vehicle safety issues. These initiatives include: traffic safety summits; installation traffic safety working groups; motor vehicle studies; safety stand-downs; emphasizing road safety during the “101 Critical Days of Summer”; holiday safety messages; designated driving and free taxi rides during liberty periods, and promotion of driver improvement programs. Navy and Marine Corps installation Commands play a vital role in enforcing safe driving behaviors and compliance with all motor vehicle safety policies. Compliance is enforced by police officers either on patrol or at the gates upon entry and exit. Individuals who receive citations on base, in addition to standard local ticketing policies, are required to go through a Command traffic court where a point system is used to suspend or revoke driving privileges. Driver Improvement training can be recommended at this time, and is required for infractions occurring on base. All personnel, military and civilian, convicted of serious moving traffic violations (e.g., reckless driving, impaired driving, speeding,



following too closely, or failure to yield) or who have been found at fault in a traffic mishap while operating a government-owned or leased vehicle, on or off a Department of Defense installation, must complete driver improvement training. Motor vehicle safety program reviews occur annually through the occupational safety health program self-assessment process and triennially through upper echelon Command oversight inspections. Identified safety gaps are translated into action plans aimed to mitigate the motor vehicle safety program deficiencies. Compliance with Executive Orders 13043 and 13513 The Department of the Navy (Navy and Marine Corps) implements traffic safety requirements and guidance found in Executive Orders 130435 and 135136. Navy and Marine Corps service specific traffic safety policies require all persons, military or civilian, operating or riding in any government motor vehicle, on or off base, to wear seatbelts. In addition, all persons, military or civilian, operating or riding in any private motor vehicle on a military installation must wear seatbelts. Seatbelt use is aggressively monitored and enforced on all Navy and Marine Corps installations. Installations conduct random and frequent seat belt surveys, which are a joint effort among safety, installation law enforcement, and transportation dispatch personnel. In addition, each major Command is required to submit a consolidated annual seat belt survey report to the Commander, Naval Safety Center and the Director, Commandant of the Marine Corps Safety Division. Compliance is near 100% for both services; violators are often visitors to the installation. Navy and Marine Corps motor vehicle safety policies strictly prohibit the use of cell phones and texting while driving. Users are required to safely pull over to the side of the road and stop before answering or using a hand held device. The hand held devices policy and compliance is an agenda item discussed prior to each holiday and/or liberty period, and during safety stand-downs held by units. Regular training and public awareness campaigns are conducted at all installations to raise traffic safety awareness. Specific awareness initiatives include base newspaper articles, safety stand-downs, and regular driver safety messages from supervisors. Policy related to handheld device use and compliance is highlighted prior to each holiday and liberty period, as well as the two required semiannual safety stand-downs/operational pauses held by each unit. The policy prohibiting use of hand held devices when operating a moving vehicle is also monitored and enforced during the seat belt surveys. Navy and Marine Corps personnel operate an array of official vehicles including special purpose vehicles, tactical vehicles, passenger vehicles and vans, emergency vehicles, school buses, heavy equipment, etc. Operator training intensity varies with the type of vehicle and level of risk associated with its operation. For example, fleet passenger vehicle operators who drive passenger cars as their primary duty (8 or more hours a week) attend an approved course of driver improvement instruction at no cost to the individual.

5 Executive Order 13043, Increasing Seat Belt Use in the United States, April 16, 1997 6 Executive Order 13513, Federal Leadership on Reducing Text Messaging While Driving, October 1, 2009



Number of Motor Vehicle Accidents The Department of the Navy dedicates significant resources to reducing motor vehicle accident risk to all its personnel. During calendar year 2016, the Navy reported an increase of 66% in civilian Lost Time Case (LTC) motor vehicle incidents from nine in 2015 to fifteen in 2016. The Marine Corps reported no change between 2015 and 2016 with only two civilian LTC motor vehicle mishaps. The Marine Corps reported an increase of 2% in total motor vehicle mishaps from 54 reported in 2015 to 55 reported in 2016. The Navy reported a decrease of 7% from 29 in 2015 to 27 in 2016. 1) Evaluation Metric(s). The Protecting Our Workers and Ensuring Reemployment (POWER) initiative7 was enacted in 2010 to extend prior federal workplace safety and health efforts by setting more aggressive performance targets, encouraging the collection and analysis of data on the causes and consequences of frequent or severe injury and illness, and prioritizing safety and health management programs that have proven effective in the past. The initiative was originally designed to target fiscal years 2011 through 2014, but in absence of a new initiative, federal agencies have been encouraged to continue using the POWER goals to evaluate their performance. The Department of the Navy continues to use the POWER goals as a benchmark against which to evaluate certain performance measures of their occupational safety and health and worker’s compensation programs. The Department of the Navy’s aggressive approach to improve worker safety and health has so far produced the desired results as demonstrated by improvement in six out of seven POWER goals. Table 1 summarizes the FY2016 performance when compared with the targeted goals and FY2015 performance. Noteworthy are the outcomes of efforts that targeted Goals 1, 4, 5 and 6. Mishap reduction efforts resulted in Total Case Rates that bettered the FY2016 target by greater than 9% and improved upon FY2015 rates by greater than 10%. Consequently, similar successes have also been realized in the reduction of lost production days, which bettered the FY2016 target by greater than 24% and the FY2015 performance by greater than 14%.

POWER Goal Baseline FY2016

Target

FY2016

Actual

Target vs.

Actual (%)

FY2015

Actual

Change from

FY2015 (%)

1 Total Case Rate 1.99 1.97 1.78 -9.6% 1.99 -10.5%

2 Lost Time Case Rate 1.05 1.04 1.07 +2.9% 1.05 +1.9%

3 Analysis of Lost Time

Injury and Illness Data -No numerical goal-

4 Timely Filing of

Worker’s Compensation

86.48% 95.00% 96.97% +2.1% 88.40% +9.7%

7 http://www.dol.gov/owcp/dfec/power/


http://www.dol.gov/owcp/dfec/power/


Notices (CA-1 & 2)

5 Timely Filing of

Wage-loss Claims (CA-7)

78.10% 85.27% 90.85% +6.5% 86.71% +4.8%

6 Lost Production

Days 34.6 32.18 24.2 -24.8% 28.4 -14.8%

7 Return to Work 90.37% 97.60% 93.35 -4.4% 91.30% +2.2%

Table 1. Department of the Navy FY2016 POWER Initiative Performance Summary Injury and Illness POWER Goals

Goal 1 – Reducing total injury and illness case rates (TCR) Goal 2 – Reducing lost time injury and illness case rates (LTCR)

The Department of the Navy continues to show remarkable progress in reducing TCR and LTCR over time. Evidence of a continuous and relentless all-hands focus on mishap reduction across the Department of the Navy can be seen by the steady downward trends depicted in Graph 1, which illustrates a 57.6% decline in TCR and a 48.8% decline in LTCR since FY2002. The Department of the Navy has shown that mature and aggressive policies and programs, supported by strong leadership and an engaged workforce, and overseen by dedicated safety and occupational health professionals, significantly reduces the number and severity of personnel injuries and illnesses.

Graph 1. Department of the Navy FY2002-FY2016 Total Case and Lost Time Case Rates Goal 3—Analysis of Lost Time Injury and Illness Data

4.20

1.78

2.09

1.07

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

4.50

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Cas

e R

ate

(cas

es p

er 1

00 c

ivili

ans)

Fiscal Year

TCR LTCR



An analysis of injury and illness statistics8 for FY2016 reveals a continuation of the trends noted in previous annual reports. The three categories contributing most frequently to mishaps during FY2016 were the handling of tools or instruments, falls, including falls on or from, and Slips/Trips/Twists – not falling. The leading categories of injures were combined from Sprain/Strain Of Ligament, Muscle, Tendon, Not Back and Back Sprain/Strain, Back Pain, Subluxation, and intervertebral disc Disorders; Laceration; Contusion, and Pain/Swelling/Stiffness/Redness In Joint. Injury and Illness Notification and Claim Management POWER Goals

Goal 4—Timely Filing of Worker’s Compensation Notices (CA-1 & 2) Goal 5—Timely Filing of Wage-loss Claims (CA-7)

As indicated in Table 1, the Department of the Navy met the FY2015 targets for POWER Goal 4 - Timely Filing of Worker’s Compensation Notices (CA-1 & 2), and performance has improved since the establishment of the goal benchmark. Filing of wage-loss claims improved slightly during FY2016 compared with the FY2015 performance and improved significantly, when compared with the benchmark, to meet Goal 5. Department of Defense and Department of the Navy policy direct Injury Compensation Program Administrators (ICPAs) to use the Department of Labor’s Employees' Compensation Operations & Management Portal (ECOMP) system. Use of this tool is promoted during training of ICPAs, supervisors, and employees, as well as other promotional venues, and is expected to improve the case management process. Lost Production Day and Return to Work POWER Goals

Goal 6—Lost Production Days Goal 7—Return to Work

The reduction of lost time cases coupled with the lost production day rate is evidence of a decrease in mishap severity, which has resulted in a saving of greater than 3,900 lost production days and greater than $9M in worker’s compensation costs during FY2016 when compared against FY2015. Despite the progress in lowering the lost production day rate, there is still room for improvement, and maturation of safety management systems across the Department of the Navy will produce the desired progress towards the ultimate goal of zero mishaps. In terms of case management and the return to work of injured employees, Department of the Navy human resources personnel leverage a number of available policies, processes, and procedures designed to help Commands recognize and capture the contributions of skilled employees recovering from on-the-job injuries. These programs provide restricted duty assignments, outreach programs to educate the local medical community about return to work options, use of Department of Labor’s Office of Workers’ Compensation Program nurses for home visits, multi-disciplinary teams (HRO/ICPA, Medical, Safety, Line Management, etc.) to review cases, and access to Department of Defense Pipeline Reemployment Program. Supervisors are encouraged to maintain

8 Force Risk Reduction (FR2), https://fr2.safety.army.mil


https://fr2.safety.army.mil/


contact with employees to ascertain their needs and to monitor their recovery. When limited or permanent medical restrictions render the employee unable to return to his or her position of record, safety managers (working with supervisors, ICPAs, and occupational health care providers) advise management on reassignment strategies to place the employee in an appropriate position. Goal 8: Electronic Filing of Compensation Form (CA-1, CA-2 and CA-7) The Department of the Navy uses the Employees' Compensation Operations & Management Portal (ECOMP) system to electronically submit notices of traumatic injury, occupational disease and wage loss compensation. Previously Injury Compensation Program Administrators (ICPAs) used the Federal Employee Compensation Act Electronic Data Interchange to submit claims electronically.

b. Illnesses, Injuries, Fatalities & Catastrophic Events.

1) Prevention of Slips, Trips, Falls and exertion injuries

The Department of the Navy is acutely aware that falls are avoidable and, based on the steady and significant number of fall-related injury claims, there is a clear need to maintain a deliberate focus on fall prevention in the civilian workforce. During CY2016, the Department of the Navy DASHO strongly encouraged the Vice Chief of Naval Operations and Assistant Commandant of the Marine Corps to join OSHA’s national safety stand-down to prevent falls in construction May 2 – 6 2016. The Department of the Navy focus on fall prevention expanded beyond just falls associated with construction and included falls from heights and same level falls. The campaign targeted an audience of over 800,000 military and civilian employees of the Department of the Navy as well as hundreds of thousands more Reservists, family members and contractor partners. Information is located at the Naval Safety Center website (http://www.public.navy.mil/navsafecen/pages/index.aspx). The emphasis during the week of the national campaign as well as the rest of the year was a critical measure to heighten awareness; especially as FY2016 saw a 24% increase in the number of fall related mishaps in the workplace. There are multiple initiatives in place across the Department of the Navy to prevent slips, trips and falls and exertion injuries including the following examples: • Naval Facilities Engineering Command:

o Developed and published a comprehensive Hazard Awareness Campaign, which described common factors in a number of recent NAVFAC Contractor fatalities. The Campaign information highlighted lessons learned and was distributed throughout the Department of the Navy

o Developed a web based training for slips, trips, and falls prevention that is given as part of the new employee orientation and on a periodic basis as needed

o Spearheads the Department of the Navy’s Fall Protection Working Group, a very active and professionally executed Center of Excellence for Fall Protection. Working Group members include subject matter experts and


http://www.public.navy.mil/navsafecen/pages/index.aspx


safety managers from the Department of the Navy’s main mission areas including aviation, afloat, and shore/ground, as well as members from the other military services and federal agencies. The group meets semi-annually and consistently develops initiatives to target ongoing fall challenge areas.

• Naval Sea Systems Command:

o Continues to emphasize situational awareness o Uses Stretch and Flex and similar programs to increase resiliency o Implements a robust Fall Protection program to prevent falls from heights o Continues to emphasize ergonomics programs to reduce exertion injuries o Naval Shipyards use an analysis tool to communicate to production and

departments actual injuries by body locations to facilitate operational risk management discussions that lead to prevention

o Established the Naval Shipyard Ergonomics Community of Practice that is developing new ways to address shipyard processes that will reduce strains and ergonomic illness

The Marine Corps routinely stresses personnel safety, to include slip, trip and fall prevention, exertion and dehydration injuries, use of proper protective equipment, and situational awareness. These measures are the focus of attention during Safety Stand-downs, Back-in-the-Saddle training, Command-directed Operational Pauses, Command formations, Command/unit/section physical training sessions, unit/section safety briefs, pre-holiday safety briefs, Command promotional material, Command safety bulletins, holiday messages, and safety grams. Slips, trips and falls, and twisting and lifting resulted in 93 reported sprains, strains and tear injuries during CY2016. This was a decrease of 16.9% in similar injuries compared against CY2015. Mitigation strategies include enhancements to ergonomics training, more attentive oversight by supervisory personnel, enhanced supervisor and employee training including efforts to improve employee attentiveness, improved reporting, and enhanced trends analysis by safety managers and unit safety representatives.

2) Injury and Illness Summary An analysis of FY2016 data identified the Top 5 Cause of Injury categories as:

• Falls • Handling Tools or Instruments • Slip/Twist/Trip–Not Falling • Strike Against Material or Equipment • Handling Manual Equipment



Chart 1. Department of the Navy FY2014-FY2016 Top 5 Causes of Injury

The Top 5 Nature of Injury categories include the following: • Sprain/Strain of Ligament, Muscle, Tendon–Not Back • Back Sprain/Strain, Back Pain, Subluxation and IVD Disorders • Lacerations • Contusions • Pain/Swelling/Stiffness/Redness in Joint

Chart 2. Department of the Navy FY2014-FY2016 Top 5 Nature of Injury

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

2014 2015 2016

Perc

enta

ge o

f Inj

urie

s

Fiscal Year

Striking Against MaterialEquip

Fall On Floor/WorkSurface/Aisle

Falls

Slip/Twist/Trip - Not Falling

Handling Tools orInstruments

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

2014 2015 2016

Perc

enta

ge o

f Inj

urie

s

Fiscal Year

FRACTURES

CONTUSIONS

LACERATIONS

BACK SPRAIN/STRAIN,BACK PAIN, SUBLUXATION,IVD DISORDERS

SPRAIN/STRAIN OFLIGAMENT, MUSCLE,TENDON, NOT BACK



The number of claims submitted during the six-year period has decreased 8.5% and 13.3% between FY2015 and FY2016. “Cause Unknown” consistently accounts for thousands of lost production days each year – despite the decrease in the number of overall claims that indicate “Cause Unknown.” Inaccurate or incomplete data significantly handicaps targeted mishap reduction initiatives and risks misdirecting investments of scarce resources; however, these data have significantly improved allowing for more targeted mishap prevention strategies.

Key observations include: • In FY2016, total case rate decreased by 10.6% compared to FY2015 while the

lost time case rate increased by 1.9% when compared to FY2015. The total number of injury and illness cases dropped 10.6%.

• In FY2016, total case rate and lost time case rates decreased by 22.3% and10.1%, respectively, compared to FY2012, while the total number of accepted new injury and illness claims decreased 23.5%.

• In FY2016, injury and illness claims filed with “Cause Unknown” decreased 25% from FY2015. This continued improvement in data fidelity allows for better targeting of mishap prevention strategies.

• Sprain/Strain Of Ligament, Muscle, Tendon, Not Back, and Back Sprain/Strain, Back Pain, Subluxation, IVD Disorders accounted for 33% of injury and illness claims in FY2016, but decreased since FY2012 when they represented 66% of total claims.

• In FY2016, the number of reported civilian lost work days decreased 6.8% when compared to FY2015. This reduction of 3,818 days has a direct positive impact on mission readiness for the Department of the Navy.

• The Top 5 nature of injury categories remain the same between FY2015 and FY2016, with the Top 2 being muscle strains and sprains.

1) During CY2016, the Department of the Navy did not experience any work-related

fatalities involving United States Navy or United States Marine Corps civilian employees.

Neither the United States Navy nor United States Marine Corps reported a catastrophic or other reportable event in CY 2016.

c. 29 CFR 1960 Requirements.

1) Organization of Agency Safety and Health Mission

The Secretary of the Navy and his leadership team, the Assistant Secretaries of the Navy, the Chief of Naval Operations (CNO), and the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC), are staunch supporters of safety and health for all Sailors, Marines, Department of the Navy civilian personnel, their families, and supporting contractor personnel. The Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Energy, Installations and Environment is the Department of the Navy’s Designated Agency Safety and Health Official (DASHO). The Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Safety reports to the DASHO and is responsible for the policy, advocacy, and oversight of the



Department of the Navy’s Safety and Occupational Health program, and serves as the Functional Community Leader for the Safety and Public Safety Communities. Department of the Navy is the only one of the three Department of Defense military Departments to have a senior executive assigned solely to the safety mission at the Secretariat level. The CNO and CMC each have a senior, direct-report official for Safety on their respective staffs; the Navy Surgeon General is a direct report to the CNO for Occupational Health matters. These same senior personnel serve in an “additional duty” status to the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Safety to ensure that solutions for safety, occupational and environmental health matters address the needs of the Department as well as the individual services. It is through these three individuals and their supporting organizations that the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Safety communicates to the Navy and Marine Corps higher headquarters leadership and safety managers. Within each senior headquarters Command, safety managers oversee subordinate activity safety programs and personnel.

The Department of the Navy expends substantial resources on safety and health for its personnel throughout the life cycle of its activities from capability definition, requirements establishment, acquisition, manpower development and training, operations and sustainment, to demilitarization and/or demobilization and materiel disposal. Safety and health functions are clearly defined and integrated across the Department of the Navy, beginning with the recently updated Department of the Navy Safety



Program Policy9. Both the Navy and Marine Corps have well established safety and health policies, with the safety and health roles, responsibilities and authorities, including budget authorities, clearly articulated at headquarters and subordinate Commands.

The Department of the Navy is a risk management organization. Hazard awareness and the reporting and abatement of hazards are required of all Department of the Navy activities and represent the cornerstone of the Department of the Navy’s continuously improving safety and health record over time. Navy and Marine Corps Base safety and health personnel collaborate with personnel at all levels of the Command structure, from the Commanding Officer, to his staff, managers, supervisors, contract officer representatives, employee representatives and employees. This cooperation ensures hazards are communicated and avenues and funding for their abatement put in place.

Employees at the front lines are instructed to use the chain of command to report safety issues to their immediate supervisor and if that is not satisfactory then they use the Unsafe/Unhealthful reporting process. Unsafe/Unhealthful reports are investigated by cognizant supervisors and safety staff. Many Navy and Marine Corps activities track hazard abatement in the Enterprise Safety Applications Management System (ESAMS), which is a safety information management system that facilitates the execution of the Department of the Navy’s safety management systems. The scope and magnitude of hazards determine the level within the organization at which risks are mitigated and hazards are ultimately abated. The preponderance of hazards within the Department of the Navy are abated at the local level, or immediate higher headquarters. Infrequently hazards need financial support beyond the ability of the individual military Service.

2) Field Federal Safety & Health Councils

The Department of the Navy strongly encourages membership and participation in Field Federal Safety and Health Councils (FFSHCs). During 2016, in response to a request for FFSHC encouragement by the Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Safety emphasized the value of active participation in those councils in a Memorandum to the Commander, Naval Safety Center, and Director, Commandant of the Marine Corps Safety Division.

In CY2016, FFSHC participation and membership varied according to location, from extensive engagement to occasional attendance at FFSHC meetings. Navy and Marine Corps representation included military service members and civilians from:

• Commander, Pacific Fleet (COMPACFLT) • Fleet Cyber Command (FLTCYBERCOM)

9 SECNAVINST 5100.12K, Department of the Navy Safety Program, 12 May 2015, https://doni.daps.dla.mil/Directives/05000%20General%20Management%20Security%20and%20Safety%20Services/05-100%20Safety%20and%20Occupational%20Health%20Services/5100.10K.pdf


https://doni.daps.dla.mil/Directives/05000%20General%20Management%20Security%20and%20Safety%20Services/05-100%20Safety%20and%20Occupational%20Health%20Services/5100.10K.pdf

https://doni.daps.dla.mil/Directives/05000%20General%20Management%20Security%20and%20Safety%20Services/05-100%20Safety%20and%20Occupational%20Health%20Services/5100.10K.pdf


• Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command (SPAWAR) • Naval Supply Systems Command (NAVSUP) • Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR) • Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA) • United States Navy Bureau of Medicine and Surgery (BUMED) • Commander, Navy Reserve Forces Command (COMNAVRESFOR) • Naval Facilities Engineering Command (NAVFAC) • Naval Education and Training Command (NETC) • Naval Special Warfare Command (NAVSPECWARCOM) • Commander, Navy Installations Command (CNIC) • Commander, U.S. Fleet Forces Command (USFF) • Commander, Naval Safety Center (COMNAVSAFECEN) • Marine Forces Command (MARFORCOM) • Marine Forces Pacific (MARFORPAC) • Marine Forces Special Operations Command (MARFORSOC) • Marine Corps Logistics Command (MARCORLOGCOM) • Marine Corps Installations East (MCI-E) • Marine Corps Installations West (MCI-W)

All Commands listed above cite some level of participation in their local FFSHC either directly or through subordinate Commands, including several Department of the Navy safety and occupational health professionals, who chair their respective FFSHC councils. All Commands strongly encourage full-time and collateral duty safety personnel to participate in the councils and attend council meetings by allowing personnel to devote time to the meetings, with some Commands also covering travel expenses. As in 2014 and 2015, several Commands indicated that participation has decreased as a result of limited funds, personnel shortages and increased operational tempo.

3) Inspection of the Safety and Health Management System

The expansion of Safety and Health Management Systems (SHMSs) across the Navy ensures auditing/inspection by internal and external entities through established self-assessment and oversight activities. The Department of the Navy has a number of Safety Management Systems in place already, to include OSHA’s Voluntary Protection Program, which collectively incorporate over half (100,000+ employees) of the civilian workforce. The Naval Inspector General, headquarters and regional Commands also perform announced SHMS inspections at various levels throughout the Department of the Navy, although principally these inspectors occur at the headquarter Commands. The inspection of subordinate Commands is traditionally a delegated responsibility. Senior safety professionals augment the Naval Inspector General in performance of safety and health oversight inspections. Marine Corps safety managers from subordinate Commands are invited to participate with the Marine Corps Safety Division in their announced Command Safety Assessments. This collaboration enables sharing of best practices and enhances the professional development of Department of the Navy safety and occupational health managers and



practitioners. Findings and recommendations from these compliance inspections are tracked by both the inspecting and inspected Command. Abatement plans are required to be tracked and updated every thirty days until the identified hazard has been abated or area of non-compliance has been adequately addressed.

OSHA conducted 44 inspections of Department of the Navy (Navy and Marine Corps) establishments in 2016. These inspections were in response to complaints (21), referrals (6), fatalities (1), or were planned (9) or other type inspections (7). As a result of 33 of those inspections, OSHA issued 80 citations to Department of the Navy establishments during CY2016; 66 Serious citations (down 9), 28 Other Than Serious (up 13), and 3 Repeat (up 2). The two repeat findings for the Navy were the outcome of a PLANNED inspection (No. 1189715.015) at Naval Facilities Engineering Command Southwest (NAVFAC SW) and a REFERRAL inspection (No. 11792480.015) at Portsmouth Naval Shipyard (PNSY). The citation of repeat violation at NAVFAC SW was for violation of 29 CFR 1910.0303 (G01) General Requirement. The citation of repeat violation at PSNY was for violation of 29 CFR 1904.0039 (A02), Reporting fatalities, hospitalizations, amputations, and losses of an eye as a result of work-related incidents to OSHA. The Marine Corps’ one repeat finding was an outcome of a UNPROG REL inspection (No.1123102.015) at Marine Depot Maintenance Command (MDMC). The citation found a repeat occurrence of non-compliance with 29 CFR 1910.132(A) General Requirements Standard, for inadequate protection to exposure to H130 1,6-Hexamethylene Diisocyanate Homopolymer. For every internally and externally identified workplace hazard, Commands maintain a hazard mitigation and abatement tracking log, which is used to maintain awareness and archival records of workplace hazards.

The Department of the Navy uses the citations posted on the OSHA website to identify program and implementation areas where improvements are needed and to perform trend analyses. None of the OSHA citations were appealed to the national headquarters of the Department of Labor during CY2016.

Department of the Navy policy requires the prompt reporting of Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) Notices of Unsafe and or Unhealthful Working Conditions arising from OSHA inspections. Notification must include the chain of command, the Naval Safety Center or Commandant of the Marine Corps Safety Division, and the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Safety immediately upon indication of OSHA intent to issue a Notice of an Unsafe or Unhealthful Working Condition. During CY2016 OSHA Direct CPL-02-00-160, Field Operations Manual (FOM), completely revised the citation appeal process. The new procedures, which now involve the DASHO in the appeals process, increase the imperative for prompt and thorough communication of OSHA citations, so they can be addressed appropriately.

4) Occupational Safety and Health Training

Navy and Marine Corps occupational safety and health training and education policies are aligned to legal requirements and with Specific Training Requirements



described in the OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Training Guidelines for Federal Agencies:

Top Management Officials: • Section 19 of the 1970 Occupational Safety and Health Act • 29 CFR 1960, Sub-Part H, Section 54 • Executive Order 12196 • Basic Program Elements for Federal Employees OSHA • Safety orientation and other learning experiences • Department of the Navy safety and health program

Supervisory Training: • Occupational safety and health standards applicable to the assigned workplaces • Procedures for reporting hazards • Procedures for reporting and investigating allegations of reprisal • Procedures for the abatement of hazards • Other appropriate rules and regulations • Written occupational safety and health program applicable to the establishment

(mission-specific) • Section 19 of the 1970 Occupational Safety and Health Act • 29 CFR 1960, Sub-Part H, Section 54 • Executive Order 12196

Collateral Duty Safety Officers and Safety Committee Members • Section 19 of the 1970 Occupational Safety and Health Act • 29 CFR 1960, Sub-Part H, Section 58 • Executive Order 12196 • Department of the Navy safety and health program • Procedures for the reporting, evaluation and abatement of hazards • Procedures for reporting and investigating allegations of reprisal • Recognition of hazardous conditions and environments • Identification and use of occupational safety and health standards • Written occupational safety and health program applicable to the establishment

(mission-specific) • Other appropriate rules and regulations

Employees • Job-specific safety and health training • Occupational safety and health program with emphasis on their rights and

responsibilities • Employee representatives of employee groups (Section 59) • Introductory and specialized training on recognizing hazards and safe and

healthful working • conditions and practices in the workplace • Training to assist in conducting workplace safety and health inspections



• Written occupational safety and health program applicable to the establishment (mission-specific)

Navy and Marine Corps activities use ESAMS to document required training. ESAMS uses the basis of job/duty task evaluations to capture all required training for each task and then assigns these duty tasks to employees. The duty tasks ensure employees receive the appropriate required training based on the task they will perform. The Navy also uses the Navy Training Management and Planning System to identify training requirements, and record and track training for Navy employees.

Training Overseas Federal Employees As of the end of September 2016, the Department of the Navy employed approximately 3,884 civilians overseas in foreign countries and 1,203 in U.S. territories10. All employees working at overseas installations and in U.S. territories are afforded the same level of protection and must comply with the same Department of Defense and Department of the Navy Safety and Occupational Health policy and program requirements as their stateside counterparts. The occupational safety and health programs and pertinent training of overseas employees are administered through local Safety Officers who ensure appropriate coordination with host service providers. In addition to generic safety and occupational health training, personnel overseas receive training to address local hazards as appropriate, including local driving conditions and requirements. Before employees are sent into an active area of operations, they are evaluated to ensure they are medically fit for the environment to which they will be deployed, and to gather baseline medical information for post-deployment comparison. Naval Safety and Environmental Training Center online offerings of several courses at greater frequency have been helpful and have seen an increase in use.

The Naval Hospital Sigonella, located in Sicily, Italy, received the Secretary of the Navy’s equivalent of the OSHA voluntary Protection Program Star Status in August, 2016. This facility provided annual self-assessments and the recommendation for certification comes only after an extremely rigorous on-site inspection of the facilities, workplaces, records, and interviews with employees. The self-assessments revealed dynamic programs which ensured a high level of employee safety and health. The Navy promotes the safety and health of its overseas employees through the Chief of Naval Operations Shore Safety Award process which includes recognition of industrial and non-industrial Commands outside the continental United States.

The Department of the Navy has embarked on a career development program for its safety and occupational health management professionals as part of the Department of Defense Strategic Human Capital Planning initiative. Navy and Marine Corps personnel participated in an Office of Personnel Management and Department of Defense safety and occupational health competency model validation in 2015. The

10 U.S. Office of Personnel Management, FEDSCOPE Federal Human Resources Data; https://www.fedscope.opm.gov/ibmcognos/cgi-bin/cognosisapi.dll



Department of the Navy incorporated the Department of Defense competency model into an expanded model to professionalize safety and occupational health in the Department of the Navy. The competency model is now being integrated into an electronic individual competency evaluation program. During CY2016 personnel assessed their competencies in the tracking program, verified by their supervisor, and obtained training based on the competency gaps that are integrated into an Individual Development Plan. The aggregate results of the assessment will be used to assess the overall competencies of the safety and occupational health workforce, track progress in closing gaps, and inform safety and occupational health training needs for safety and occupational training events. Of note, the Marine Corps and Commander, Navy Installations Command already have well-established career development programs for their safety and occupational health professionals.

The Department of the Navy lists over 200 safety-related courses available to employees on-line or provided in a classroom setting. The greatest advance in training delivery is the expansion of the Navy Safety and Environmental Training Center’s Global On-Line training and also the on-line training available through ESAMS. Personnel can access the system to gauge training effectiveness. The Department of the Navy reviews hazard reports, conducts work task observations, analyzes injury and illness trends, monitors changes in technology, policy, processes and procedures, and examines test scores to identify training areas requiring changes to the training curricula and delivery.

Funding for safety and health training is documented in the payroll system. Navy and Marine Corps budgets allocate prescribed training hours per employee, with greater allotments permitted for those requiring professional credential, certification, or skills training as a condition of employment. For example, safety and occupational health personnel are required to receive a minimum of eight continuing education units (CEU) or equivalent per year.

5) Whistleblower Protection Program

The issue of retaliation has become a central concern to Congressional and Military leadership in recent years. In an effort to protect all complainants, the 2014 NDAA enhanced 10 U.S.C. §1034 to better protect military whistleblowers. Secretary of the Navy Instruction (SECNAVINST) 5370.7D, Military Whistleblower Protection, dated December 4, 2014, was published to strengthen whistleblower protections within the Department of the Navy, and provides policy for all Department of the Navy personnel. This program provides protection by policy from retaliation, discharge or other discrimination for providing to their employer or to the Federal Government information relating to gross mismanagement, a gross waste of funds, an abuse of authority, or a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety. Human Resources Management schedules provide multiple training classes referencing employee rights and protections.



Department of the Navy policy11,12 requires Commands to establish procedures to protect all Navy and Marine Corps personnel from coercion, discrimination, or reprisals for participation in the safety and occupational health program. The policy further requires development of procedures for all personnel to report suspected hazards to their supervisors and safety and health officials without fear of reprisal. This includes ensuring that employees are aware that they may file, anonymously if they prefer, through their appropriate grievance processes, allegations of reprisals for having filed a complaint of unsafe or unhealthy working conditions. All headquarters Commands have policies in place that support and promote this overarching policy. Additionally, protection against reprisal is outlined and reinforced in employee and supervisor safety and occupational health training (initial and annual refresher). During CY 2016, there were no Department of the Navy reprisal allegations as a result of filing reports about unsafe or unhealthy working conditions.

d. Special 29 CFR 1960 Reporting.

Not applicable to the Department of the Navy. II. SAFETY & HEALTH MANAGEMENT SYSTEM SELF-EVALUATION.

Overall Assessment:

Summary of Self-evaluation. The Department of the Navy is making significant strides to implement a Department-wide Safety and Health Management System (SHMS). A number of Navy and Marine Corps commands are implementing SHMS in some form, with a significant number on the road to full implementation. With the promulgation of the Department of the Navy Safety Program13, SHMS implementation is now a Department of the Navy-wide mandate for all Navy and Marine activities. The Department of the Navy SHMS policy does not dictate which specific systems must be used, as long as the fundamental tenets of the SECNAV instruction are met. The Department of the Navy policy is in close alignment with recently published Department of Defense Instruction 6055.1, DoD Safety and Occupational Health (SOH) Program, which mandates the military Departments

11 OPNAVINST 5100.23G, Navy Safety and Occupational Health Program Manual 12 Marine Corps Order, MCO 5370.8, Marine Corps Hotline Program 13 The Department of the Navy Safety Program policy includes “all safety-related policies, programs, and functions including, but not limited to, acquisition safety, environmental health, emergency response, explosives safety, fire and emergency services, industrial hygiene, occupational health, occupational safety, radiation safety, operational safety, and public safety.”

Agency Safety and Health Management System

0 = Does Not Exist

1 = Needs Major Improvement

2 = Needs Minor Improvement

3 = Is Highly Effective NA = Not Applicable

Overall Assessment

Score ☐ ☐ ☐ X ☐



implement SHMS in their activities. Currently, the Department of the Navy SHMS incorporates over half the civilian population. During CY2016 noteworthy outcomes of the deployment and inculcation efforts of the Department of the Navy’s SHMS include continued reduction in the total number of lost time mishaps, over $9M in avoided workers’ compensation costs, a reduction of 3,900 lost production days when compared to CY2015, and the recognition of Marine Corps Air Station Beaufort as an OSHA Voluntary Protection Program Star Site. The Department will continue its dedicated investments and deliberate actions to target progress along this path until it reaches our goal of a workplace with zero injuries, illnesses, and material damage.

III. GOALS.

The top seven Department of the Navy Safety Program improvement goals for CY2017 are: advancing a Risk Management Information system, implementing an enterprise level SHMS, professionalizing the safety workforce, expanding outreach to other organizations, elevated institutional safety awareness, incorporating risk management principles into every step of the acquisition process from concept to delivery, and mitigating the one-of-a-kind perennial safety hazards.

1. Risk Management Information (RMI): In CY2016, the Department continued to develop the Risk Management Information system to report, store, link, analyze, and distribute data needed to effectively manage risk, and allow personnel at all levels of the Department to make more informed risk decisions.

2. Safety and Health Management System (SHMS): With the promulgation of the Department of the Navy Safety Program policy, implementation can begin. To implement the SHMS effort across the entire Department of the Navy, a draft strategic plan describes the two main objectives: developing business cases to enable leadership to make informed business decisions, and establishing measures of performance and effectiveness for safety oversight. Additionally, the key tenets of the Department of the Navy SHMS are to be integrated into an electronic tracking tool to assess implementation progress.

3. Professionalizing the Safety Workforce: The framework for a professional Department of the Navy safety workforce is in place. Competencies have been established, a career tracking tool has been identified (into which the competencies are to be integrated), planning is underway for a “virtual” safety university, and a manpower analysis is also planned. The safety career program will be dependent mainly on technology with a mentoring program to guide and oversee progress. Currently, the focus is on securing funding for an enduring career development program. The effort is one of the Secretary of the Navy’s highest priorities. 4. Safety Outreach: Countless organizations, federal, foreign, public, private, charitable, and profitable care profoundly about safety. The Department of the Navy intends to plumb their wisdom and expertise, share common insights, and benefit from a mutual exchange of knowledge.



5. Elevated Awareness: Safe behavior is a reflection of safety consciousness. The Department of the Navy is committed to infusing its entire education and training culture with the precepts of risk management, as a thread woven through a cloth. 6. Safety in Acquisition: An opportunity exists to avoid billions of dollars in taxpayer costs while ensuring better performance, and improved health, welfare and quality of life for our warfighters by applying system safety engineering and risk management principles early and upfront as well as throughout the Department of the Navy Acquisition lifecycle. Policy, advocacy, and oversight initiatives are being pursued to increase consideration of system safety engineering in the capabilities generation phase, and strengthen the processes for the operation and sustainment phases. 7. Heartbreakers: Perennial, one-of-a-kind, challenges bedevil our efforts to protect our people. Private motor vehicle mishaps, recreational injuries and chronic injuries from helicopter seat design, to name a few, cry out for mitigation. We are making progress on these fronts, but out goal must be zero, and we have yet to reach it.


CY 2016 ANNUAL OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY & HEALTH REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF LABOR

APPENDIX 2 FATALITIES, HOSPITALIZATIONS, AMPUTATIONS, LOSS OF AN EYE REPORT Total number of fatalities: None Total number of hospitalizations: 9

Fatality, Hospitalization, or Other Reportable Event

☐ Fatality ☒ Hospitalization ☐ Amputation ☐ Loss of an Eye Was it work related? Yes ☒ No ☐ Number of employees injured: 1 Date of the Incident: 02/09/2016 Number of employee fatalities: 0 Time of the Incident: 8:15 am Description of workplace operations: Aircraft wing fuel cell leak check Description of the incident: An employee completed the installation of a panel on an aircraft and started to descend the three step ladder attached to the maintenance stand. While descending, the worker slipped between the top and second step and fell backwards, landing on the back of his head. Analysis of workplace cause: Evidence of fuel was found on the hand rail system and employee was discovered to not have used the required personal protective equipment (gloves). Were corrective actions taken? Yes ☒ No ☐

If yes, please describe the actions taken: Supervisors addressed the entire cadre of production line employees to ensure the use of required personal protective equipment during the wet check process (fuel leak detection) and the necessity to conduct pre-operational checks on equipment, including maintenance stands, prior to their use. Were programmatic changes made? Yes ☐ No ☒ If yes, please describe the changes made:

APPENDIX 2 – FATALITIES, HOSPITALIZATIONS, AMPUTATIONS, LOSS OF AN EYE REPORT



☐ Fatality ☒ Hospitalization ☐ Amputation ☐ Loss of an Eye Was it work related? Yes ☒ No ☐ Number of employees injured: 2 Date of the Incident: 3/7/16 Number of employee fatalities: 0 Time of the Incident: 10:00 am Description of workplace operations: Light industrial operations Description of the incident: A FedEx truck provided final delivery of shipping containers, which contained various hazardous materials. Two employees, while offloading a container from the truck, set the container on the receiving area concrete floor. Upon impact with the floor, the container exploded and the top lid struck both individuals in the head and face area. Analysis of workplace cause: Hazardous materials were improperly shipped and no Hazard Communication Plan was provided as required by 29 CFR 1910. 1200 (e)(1) and 29 CFR 1910.1200(f), (g) and (h). Safety Data Sheets (SDS) were not maintained in accordance with 29 CFR 1910.1200(g)(8) or accessible to workplace employees. Were corrective actions taken? Yes ☒ No ☐

If yes, please describe: A written Hazard Communication Plan was developed. Safety Data Sheets were developed and provided to effected workplaces. All personnel associated with the Command that perform material handling tasks were trained to the Hazard Communication Plan and purpose of maintaining Safety Data Sheets. Were programmatic changes made? Yes ☐ No ☒

If yes, please describe the changes made:




☐ Fatality ☒ Hospitalization ☐ Amputation ☐ Loss of an Eye Was it work related? Yes ☒ No ☐ Number of employees injured: 1 Date of the Incident: 3/17/2016 Number of employee fatalities: 0 Time of the Incident: 10:30 Description of workplace operations: Two personnel were working in tandem to store material from a loading dock into an adjacent building. One person was operating a forklift while the other person served as the spotter and ground guide. Description of the incident: The spotter stepped backward off the loading dock and fell to the ground. Analysis of workplace cause: Loss of spatial awareness. The forklift operator called out to warn the spotter of his proximity to the edge of the loading dock. However, the spotter did not hear the warning and/or was not able to reverse course in time to avoid falling from the loading dock. Were corrective actions taken? Yes ☒ No ☐

If yes, please describe the actions taken: A safety stand-down was held to remind all workers of the critical need to remain aware of the room available for their maneuvering on the loading docks. Warning lines were repainted and another set of lines were added to the interior of the original warning lines. Were programmatic changes made? Yes ☐ No ☒




Fatality, Hospitalization, or Other Reportable Event ☐ Fatality ☒ Hospitalization ☐ Amputation ☐ Loss of an Eye Was it work related? Yes ☒ No ☐ Number of employees injured: 1 Date of the Incident: 4/20/2016 Number of employee fatalities: 0 Time of the Incident: 8:15am Description of workplace operations: Wood working operation. Description of the incident: Maintenance Mechanic was assisting a Wood Crafter in cutting a 3/4" sheet of plywood on the table saw. The riving knife detached from the saw and was propelled through the blade guard. The riving knife impacted the right bicep of the injured worker resulting in a severe laceration to the right arm. Analysis of workplace cause: Failure of table saw safety features. Were corrective actions taken? Yes ☒ No ☐ If yes, please describe the actions taken: Table saw was replaced with upgraded equipment that included improved safety features. Were programmatic changes made? Yes ☐ No ☒ If yes, please describe the changes made:




☐ Fatality ☒ Hospitalization ☐ Amputation ☐ Loss of an Eye Was it work related? Yes ☒ No ☐ Number of employees injured: 1 Date of the Incident: 6/15/2016 Number of employee fatalities: 0 Time of the Incident: 09:45am Description of workplace operations: Working on electrical equipment. Description of the incident: High voltage electrician apprentice contacted 12kV while replacing switchgear in the housing area of Naval Air Station Lemoore. While cleaning 600amp T-Body elbow connector (S1C) with cotton t-shirt moistened with alcohol in preparation for installation, individual received shock from 12kV electrical system. Analysis of workplace cause: Contact with live conductor inside 600Amp T-body connector during cleaning with lint free cloth. Employee failed to secure power at circuit breaker. Employee failed to retest switch. The 3 Switch linkage failed in the open position. The vacuum bottle malfunctioned. The employee removed personal protective equipment (high-voltage gloves) to clean connector & apply silicone. Were corrective actions taken? Yes ☒ No ☐ If yes, please describe the actions taken: Supervisor discussed use of proper personal protective equipment for the task. Supervisor ensured Job Hazard Analysis was current for the task. The employee was retrained on procedures to control hazardous energy. Were programmatic changes made? Yes ☐ No ☒ If yes, please describe the changes made:




☐ Fatality ☒ Hospitalization ☐ Amputation ☐ Loss of an Eye Was it work related? Yes ☒ No ☐ Number of employees injured: 1 Date of the Incident: 7/16/2016 Number of employee fatalities: 0 Time of the Incident: 09:00am Description of workplace operations: Equipment lifting and replacement. Description of the incident: During the replacement of a pump at a sewage lift station, an employee performing the installation of the pump attempted to step over the unsecured pump. The employee’s foot became tangled in loose pump wires, and pulled the unsecured pump onto the employee’s leg. Analysis of workplace cause: Employee made decision to step over the pump instead of walking around the pump, despite there being adequate room to navigate safely. The pump was staged in a manner making it prone to tipping. Were corrective actions taken? Yes ☒ No ☐ If yes, please describe the actions taken: The pump replacement procedure was changed to require complete removal of the old pump motor prior to the installation of the new pump motor. This change alleviates the need for unnecessary equipment to be stored in the work area. Were programmatic changes made? Yes ☐ No ☒ If yes, please describe the changes made:




☐ Fatality ☒ Hospitalization ☐ Amputation ☐ Loss of an Eye Was it work related? Yes ☒ No ☐ Number of employees injured: 1 Date of the Incident: 8/3/2016 Number of employee fatalities: 0 Time of the Incident: 12:30 Description of workplace operations: Installing mechanical duct work. Description of the incident: During the installation of an air conditioning duct work panel into a dropped ceiling, the employee lost his grip on the panel, which fell and lacerated his forearm. Analysis of workplace cause: Worker had just recently been promoted to sheet metal mechanic and the updated training for personal protective equipment requirements had not been discussed. Were corrective actions taken? Yes ☒ No ☐

If yes, please describe the actions taken: Employee was trained on the personal protective equipment requirements associated with various tasks the employee will be expected to perform. Were programmatic changes made? Yes ☐ No ☒





☐ Fatality ☒ Hospitalization ☐ Amputation ☐ Loss of an Eye Was it work related? Yes ☒ No ☐ Number of employees injured: 1 Date of the Incident: 11/10/2016 Number of employee fatalities: 0 Time of the Incident: 10:00 Description of workplace operations: Office work. Description of the incident: As employee was walking to her office, she started to experience tingling in her arm and pain in her chest. The employee sat on the ground and then fainted. Analysis of workplace cause: The employee is believed to have been fatigued from working extensive overtime and performing the functions of 3 vacant positions. Were corrective actions taken? Yes ☒ No ☐

If yes, please describe the actions taken: Management reassigned and redistributed work to workers who were temporarily assigned until new employees were hired. Were programmatic changes made? Yes ☐ No ☒




APPENDIX 3 - CERTIFIED SAFETY & HEALTH COMMITTEE REPORT

COMPLETE ONLY IF THE AGENCY HAS A “CERTIFIED SAFETY & HEALTH COMMITTEE” APPROVED BY THE SECRETARY OF LABOR. PLEASE ADDRESS ALL ITEMS AS COMPLETELY AS POSSIBLE.

Agency Name: [Click here to enter text.]

Does the agency have an Occupational Safety and Health Committee (OSHC) at the National level? Yes ☐ No ☐ IF NO, PLEASE DO NOT COMPLETE THIS FORM.

GENERAL INFORMATION Are any of the agency’s employees covered under a collective bargaining agreement? Yes ☐ No ☐ Name(s) of the signatory Union(s) that cover any or all of the agency’s employees under a collective bargaining agreement: [Click here to enter text.] Name and Title of the National OSHC Chairperson: [Click here to enter text.] When did the agency initiate its National OSHC? [Click here to enter text.]

COMMITTEE ORGANIZATION In the past six years, how many individuals have held the chairperson position? [Click here to enter text.]

In the past six years: How many Managers have held the chairperson position? [Click here to enter text.]

How many Non-Managers have held the chairperson position? [Click here to enter text.]

Please provide the names of the agency’s current National OSHC members, the organizational subdivision (agency, bureau, etc.) the member represents (if applicable), his or her managerial status and title, and (for non-managers) the Union the OSHC member represents, if any. Please duplicate as needed. Member Name

Organization Subdivision Manager Title Non-Manager Union

Represented [Click here to enter text.]

[Click here to enter text.] ☐ [Click here to

enter text.] ☐ [Click here to enter text.]

[Click here to enter text.]












APPENDIX 3 – CERTIFIED SAFETY & HEALTH COMMITTEE REPORT

PAGE 1 OF 4


Does the National OSHC have equal numbers of management and non-management members as described in 29 CFR 1960.37(b)? Yes ☐ No☐ Do the OSHC’s non-management members represent both bargaining unit (if some or all employees are covered by a collective bargaining agreement) and non-bargaining unit employees? Yes ☐ No ☐ Describe how the agency appoints or selects National OSHC members (both Managers and Non-Managers): [Click here to enter text.] What is the term of service for OSHC members? [Click here to enter text.] Do OSHC members’ terms overlap? Yes ☐ No ☐ Describe the procedure for selecting the National OSHC’s Chairperson: [Click here to enter text.] What is the Chairperson’s term of service? [Click here to enter text.] Describe the procedure for providing advance notice of OSHC meetings: [Click here to enter text.] Provide the procedure for maintaining and distributing copies of meeting minutes to OSHC members and other employees: [Click here to enter text.]

AGENCY RESPONSIBILITIES TO COMMITTEE Describe what information, data, and materials the agency provides to the National OSHC, as required by 29 CFR 1960.39(a): [Click here to enter text.]

AGENCY-WIDE COMMITTEE STRUCTURE

Does the agency have OSHCs at the Regional level? Yes ☐ No ☐ Does the agency have OSHCs at the Local (below Regional) level? Yes ☐ No ☐ Describe the organizational structure (National and subordinate) of the agency’s network of OSHCs: [Click here to enter text.] Describe how the National OSHC monitors and assists in the development and operation of the agency’s regional or other subordinate OSHCs: [Click here to enter text.] Are all of the agency’s facilities, workplaces, or establishments covered by an OSHC? Yes ☐ No ☐ If “No,” explain why establishments are not covered: [Click here to enter text.]


PAGE 2 OF 4


TRAINING Have all OSHC members received the training required under 29 CFR 1960.58? Yes ☐ No ☐ How does the agency ensure that newly appointed OSHC members receive the required training (per Subpart H) within six months of their appointments? [Click here to enter text.] Does the agency provide regular refresher training? Yes ☐ No ☐

If “Yes,” how often is refresher training provided? [Click here to enter text.] Explain how the agency provides training to OSHC members when it updates OSH-related information, policies, procedures, Etc.: [Click here to enter text.]

COMMITTEE DUTIES

Describe how the National OSHC monitors the agency’s overall OSH performance: [Click here to enter text.] How does the National OSHC use the information it gathers from monitoring the OSH performance to recommend policy: [Click here to enter text.]


PAGE 3 OF 4


Does the National OSHC help to develop, operate, and monitor the subordinate (field, regional, local, Etc.) OSHCs? Yes ☐ No ☐ Other ☐

If “Other,” please explain: [Click here to enter text.] Does the National OSHC provide monitoring of and input on the resources the agency allocates to its OSH program? Yes ☐ No ☐


PAGE 4 OF 4


APPENDIX 4 SAFETY & HEALTH MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (SHMS) SELF-EVALUATION

I. HAZARD ANTICIPATION & DETECTION

0 = Does Not Exist



3 = Is Highly Effective

NA = Not Applicable

1. A comprehensive, baseline hazard survey has been conducted within the past five (5) years.

☐ ☐ ☑ ☐ ☐

The Department of the Navy was established April 30, 1798, and, as a result, the Department of the Navy’s baseline hazard surveys, including hazardous material inventories, were completed, in most cases, much greater than five years ago. New baseline surveys are conducted in accordance with applicable guidance from the United States Navy’s Safety and Occupational Health Program Manual (OPNAVINST 5100.23G) and the Marine Corps Safety Program (MCO 5100.29B) when new hazards are introduced resulting from changes in facilities, processes, equipment or materials. Baseline surveys are traditionally performed by trained and qualified safety and occupational health, industrial hygiene, preventive medicine or occupational health personnel. Noteworthy is the frequent and recurring review and scrutiny of high-risk training evolutions and associated hazards.

2. Effective safety and health

self-inspections are performed regularly.

☐ ☐ ☑ ☐ ☐

The Department of the Navy has established safety and health self-inspection procedures that include inspection of all workplaces and operations by qualified safety and occupational health professionals. Formal self-inspections are conducted on at least an annual basis, while high hazard areas and operations are inspected more frequently. Formal safety and health self-inspections use established checklists, templates, and protocol (e.g., interviews, observations, document review) to help ensure effectiveness. Additionally, industrial hygiene surveys and inspections, fire and life safety inspections, and facility inspections are all conducted on a regular, recurring basis by trained professionals. These additional surveys all serve to inform facility, equipment or operational hazard abatement logs. Formal self-inspections are supplemented by more frequent and less formal self-inspections conducted by supervisors and employees who are diffused throughout the organization and more intimate with given facilities, equipment, hazardous environments, and operations. Informal safety and health self-inspections are often a critical component of beginning new operations involving certain types of equipment, training evolutions or entry into hazardous environments. In both formal and informal safety and health self-inspections, observed hazards are documented and appropriate mitigation actions are taken by either immediate correction or communication with the organization’s safety and health professionals for documentation on the organization’s hazard abatement log.

APPENDIX 4 – SAFETY & HEALTH MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (SHMS) SELF-EVALUATION PAGE 1 OF 23


3. Effective surveillance of established hazard controls is conducted.

☐ ☐ ☑ ☐ ☐

Department of the Navy policy requires the surveillance of established hazard controls, but the process is less formal than safety and health self-inspection and hazard logging processes. Hazard control surveillance is accomplished through a variety of means that depends upon the type of control (e.g., engineering, administrative, personal protective equipment). Surveillance of engineering and administrative hazard controls relies upon the awareness and observations of supervisors and employees throughout the organization who are most intimately associated with the specific hazard and its associated control. Surveillance of personal protective equipment depends on supervisors or other oversight personnel. The effectiveness of the surveillance program is measured through several methods. The inspection process, which includes a review of existing hazard logs and comparison of those logs with observable conditions, is a principle method to verify if implemented hazard controls are in place and being used as intended. The effectiveness of certain types of personal protective equipment (e.g., respirators, exposure monitors) depends upon medical examination and testing results. Those medical evaluations and tests occur regularly and in a specific prescribed manner as part of established hazard specific occupational safety and health programs. Ad hoc evaluation of hazard control effectiveness occurs during mishap investigations or mishap review boards. Communication of the actual implemented controls to effected employees and their supervisors is a key component to the success of an effective hazard control monitoring program. Diligent attention to clear and thorough communication between safety and occupational health professionals and those expected to supervise implemented controls remains a focal point and an area in need of minor improvement.

4. Change analysis is performed whenever a change in facilities, equipment, materials, or processes occurs.

☐ ☐ ☑ ☐ ☐

The Department of the Navy has established policy that requires the evaluation of safety and health implications when changes in facilities, equipment, environments, materials or processes occur. Those evaluations may be deliberate, formal, documented, and performed by qualified safety and occupational health professionals for significant, permanent and enduring changes; or they may be ad hoc, informal, undocumented and performed by supervisors, team leaders, trainers, or employees when operating in dynamic environments where hazards may be changing on an continuous basis.



The Department of the Navy has established policy that requires the evaluation of safety and health implications when changes in facilities, equipment, environments, materials or processes occur. Those evaluations may be deliberate, formal, documented, and performed by qualified safety and occupational health professionals for significant, permanent and enduring changes; or they may be ad hoc, informal, undocumented and performed by supervisors, team leaders, trainers, or employees when operating in dynamic environments where hazards may be changing on an continuous basis. While the formal and informal hazard analysis process is an effective hazard mitigation tool that can be implemented in advance of a well-known and defined change, the nature of many operations within the Department of the Navy necessitates conducting real-time change analysis. The Department of the Navy places tremendous emphasis on baseline and continuing education in Operational Risk Management, which is a process that includes time critical hazard identification, analysis, and control decision making. Hazards identified during safety and health and related self-inspections that are determined to be associated with new configurations, operations, materials or equipment provide insight into the effectiveness of the change management process. Employee observations and identification of hazards and mishap investigations provide ad hoc methods to evaluate the effectiveness of change analysis and implementation of controls to mitigate new or changed hazards.

5. Safety Data Sheets (aka MSDSs) are used to reveal potential hazards associated with chemical products in the workplace.

☐ ☐ ☑ ☐ ☐

The United States Navy and United States Marine Corps have effective hazard communication programs, with field activities at varying levels of compliance; some programs serve as models for others to emulate. Safety Data Sheets are used and stored as required for any chemicals used in the work place. Safety Data Sheets are reviewed to identify appropriate protections for workers who may be exposed to them during their work day, and recommended precautions are provided for incorporation into local work processes.

The annual workplace inspection, as well as the annual industrial hygiene survey, checks the use and availability of Safety Data Sheets on a regular basis. Commands are required to ensure the appropriate safety and occupational health professionals perform a safety and health review of hazardous material proposed for addition to the Command’s Authorized Use List prior to purchase of the hazardous material. Commands are also required to perform a periodic review of the Authorized Users List to eliminate unnecessary hazardous material and substitute less hazardous material if feasible.



Each Safety Data Sheet is reviewed and communicated to employees who may be exposed to hazardous material. Identified hazards are minimized, substituted, controlled, or corrected as appropriate. All installations have implemented employee training to ensure conversion of Material Safety Data Sheets to Safety Data Sheets. Command Safety Officers review Safety Data Sheets for hazardous material used onsite, and to recognize the new format, content changes, and new training requirements. Safety Data Sheet binders covering all hazardous products on hand are place in conspicuous work center areas for all employees. All Command Hazard Communication programs are written programs and current to compliance standards.

II. HAZARD PREVENTION & CONTROL

0 = Does Not Exist




NA = Not Applicable

6. Feasible engineering controls are in place. ☐ ☐ ☑ ☐ ☐

Department of the Navy policy recognizes and directs the application of the hierarchy of hazard controls. When hazard elimination or substitution controls are infeasible, engineering controls that are technically and economically capable of being implemented are used as the principle method of hazard mitigation. Engineering controls include modifications to facilities, equipment, or processes and establish a physical or environmental barrier to separate effected employees from identified hazards. In situations where engineering controls are insufficient to completely mitigate a hazard to an acceptably safe level, additional measures including administrative controls and personal protective equipment are used. The Department of the Navy’s focus on continuous process improvement permeates the operational environment and has often been a catalyst for improving hazard controls from personal protective equipment or administrative controls to engineering controls.

7. Effective safety and health

rules, and work practices are in place.

☐ ☐ ☑ ☐ ☐

Safety and Occupational Health rules and work practices are established and in place in Department of the Navy work environments. Rules and work practices are current and reflect appropriate mitigation of identified workplace hazards. Rules and work practices requirements exist in local instructions, employee handbooks and manuals, standard operating procedures, documents concerning business management system processes; they are provided through visible reminders, signage, labels or other permanently posted materials; and they are communicated to all employees and workplace visitors during orientation or indoctrination, staff meetings, and individual counseling and performance or disciplinary reviews.



When followed correctly, these processes are effective at mitigating potential impacts associated with exposures to workplace hazards. Policy reviews, workplace inspections, mishap investigations, and employee suggestions provide regular, recurring and proactive opportunities to evaluate, and, if necessary, ameliorate safety and health rules and associated work practices to better mitigate hazards in the workplace.

8. Applicable OSHA-mandated programs are effectively in place.

☐ ☐ ☑ ☐ ☐

The Department of the Navy has established policy to amplify Occupational Safety and Health Administration mandated programs and provide specific direction to comply with them. The breadth and diversity of operational environments within the Department of the Navy requires the application of all processes and programs identified within 29 Code of Federal Regulations 1910 – Occupational Safety and Health Standards and 29 Code of Federal Regulations 1915 – Occupational Safety and Health Standards for Shipyard Employment. Specific programs include, but are not limited to: asbestos, blood-borne pathogens, confined space entry, control of hazardous energy, ergonomics, fall protection, hazard communication, hazardous waste operations and emergency response, lead, laboratory chemical hygiene, occupational noise exposure, personal protective equipment including respiratory protection, and powered industrial trucks. Safety and occupational health, industrial hygiene, and preventative medicine professionals work to evaluate workplace operations and associated hazards to determine the specific programs that need to be established. Upon identification of the specific required programs, the following program elements are established: formal designation of responsible persons, creation of controlled-access areas, planning and documentation activities, exposure and medical monitoring, hazard controls, periodic program assessment, recordkeeping, and employee training and information. An integral part of the annual activity self-assessment process is an evaluation of compliance with mandated programs and the effectiveness of the methods used to implement the program requirements. Noted deficiencies in compliance are included in corrective action plans that are regularly reviewed by senior management and actively managed until deficiencies are abated. Triennial oversight inspections validate the accuracy of the annual self-assessments and provide recommendations for corrective actions where the self-assessment or other program monitoring and evaluation processes are inadequate to identify instances of noncompliance. Department of the Navy Commands actively engaged in the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s Voluntary Protection Program have demonstrated that Occupational Safety and Health Administration mandated programs are effectively in place through on site reviews and annual self-assessments.



Finally, collection, review, and analysis of annual mishap data serve as process steps by which Occupational Safety and Health Administration mandated program effectiveness is evaluated and correlated.

9. An effective procedure for tracking hazard correction is in place.

☐ ☐ ☑ ☐ ☐

The United States Navy and United States Marine Corps safety and occupational health policy requires organization officials to take prompt action to track and correct hazards and to implement interim protective measures pending permanent abatement. Hazards can be identified through regular, recurring inspections, mishap investigations, or employee notification. Those hazards assigned Risk Assessment Codes 1, 2, or 3, and needing more than 30-days for correction, are required to be recorded and tracked in a formal hazard abatement plan that includes the following standard data for each hazard (or logical grouping of similar hazards):

(1) Dates of hazard identification (2) Location of the hazard(s) (3) Description of the hazard(s) including reference to applicable standards (4) Calculated Risk Assessment Code or estimated Risk Assessment Code (with hazard

severity, probability of single occurrence, and annual personnel exposure cited separately)

(5) Interim control measures in effect (6) Description of the abatement action, including estimated cost and completion date (7) Abatement priority (8) Closeout statement, indicating completed abatement action and cost, with date of

completed action; or process discontinued or worksite vacated

Many Commands use electronic and web-based information management systems for the recording and administration of all hazard identifications and corrections until the hazards are abated. Such systems allow for simultaneous centralized and decentralized real time review, data analysis, tracking, awareness and evaluation of program information and effectiveness. Few Commands use local electronic or paper media to manage the hazard identification and hazard abatement log. In addition to hazard tracking log review and analysis by safety and occupational health professionals, organizational leadership, safety and health committees, and third-party inspectors, including Occupational Safety and Health Administration compliance officers, regularly review the documentation to ensure timely hazard abatement.



Within the United States Navy and United States Marine Corps, the hazard identification process, implementation of interim controls, and initiation of work orders or execution of permanent solutions are often separate and distinct activities. Employees are encouraged and have been observed to communicate workplace hazards to immediate supervisor, senior management, safety and occupational health officials, or in rare cases inspectors general or Occupational Safety and Health Administration hotlines. The subsequent timely documentation is an effective process and interim controls can and often are put in place by the employees themselves, first line supervisors, senior managers, or safety professionals.

III. PLANNING & EVALUATION

Improvements are needed in the United States Navy and United States Marine Corps process that initiates work orders to correct hazards. Due to the organization and operational nature of the United States Navy and United States Marine Corps installations, there exists an organizational disconnect between the Command of the exposed employee or where the hazard exists and the Command responsible for hazard abatement. Desynchronized information management and work order systems increase the amount of manual entry needed for transmitting a hazard report into a corrective work action. Delays in corrective action initiation unnecessarily prolong hazard abatement.

0 = Does Not Exist




NA = Not Applicable

10. Hazard incidence data are effectively analyzed. ☐ ☐ ☑ ☐ ☐

United States Navy and United States Marine Corps policy requires the reporting, collection and analysis of facility, equipment, process, material, and operational hazards and mishaps data, which resides in dozens of disconnected databases. These databases afford individual Commands an ability to analyze data and enumerate hazard types, detect time trends and spatial patterns, and to determine proportional distributions among operations and personnel. The results of the analyses are subsequently used to set hazard prevention strategies and priorities for the associated Command. Commands analyze hazard data regardless of quantity and frequency. While the data analysis may be less formalized for Command reporting a nominal number of hazards, the identification of each hazard presents an opportunity to analyze and modify the element of the work environment that contributed to the hazard’s creation. The inability to aggregate data from across the entire Department of the Navy severely handicaps the effectiveness of mega-data analysis, most notably the accuracy of the proportional distribution among operations and personnel (e.g., accurately identifying the magnitude and severity of the hazard and aggregate of exposed personnel). This constrains the Department of the Navy’s ability to make data informed strategic decisions and prioritize investments to provide workplaces free of injury and illness.

APPENDIX 4 – SAFETY & HEALTH MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (SHMS) SELF-EVALUATION

PAGE 7 OF 23


11. An action plan designed to accomplish the organizations safety and health objectives is in place.

☐ ☐ ☑ ☐ ☐

United States Navy and United States Marine Corps policy requires that each Command perform an annual self-assessment to monitor its own safety performance. An output associated with the analysis of the annual self-assessment is the development of a specific, measurable, actionable, realistic, and time bound action plan. The action plan traditionally details an annual execution plan for accomplishing short-term and highly specific actions. The individual action statements identify those responsible for the action and the planned completion date, and the plans list all safety and health actions to be accomplished over the upcoming year. The plan is managed by safety and occupational health staff and monitored by Command leadership. These plans exist within every level of the organization, with smaller and lower tier activities having more tactical action plans focusing on single or small numbers of discrete hazards. Higher level Commands and activities aggregate deficiencies and hazards identified by subordinate Commands and produce action plans that are more strategically focused or more organizational and systemic in nature. A succeeding year’s self-assessment analyzes the effectiveness at completing the prior year’s action plan and carrying forward those actions that remain relevant.

12. A review of the overall

safety and health management system is conducted at least annually.

☐ ☐ ☑ ☐ ☐

As noted in the response to Question 11, United States Navy and United States Marine Corps policy requires that each Command perform an annual self-assessment of their overall safety and health management system to monitor their own safety performance. The annual self-assessments review a variety of data – mishap, injury and illness logs, hazard abatement logs, training and medical surveillance completion rates, staffing levels, budget execution, inspection results, employee feedback – to qualitatively and quantitatively evaluate the performance of the safety and health management system. Upon completion of those individual Command self-assessments, senior leadership endorses conclusions, recommendations, best practices and lessons learned, and actions plans are endorsed to the Naval Safety Center and Warrior Preservation Board. Additionally, the results of those self-assessments serve as input and content of the Department of the Navy Annual Occupational Safety & Health Report to the Secretary of Labor.



Policies and documented processes are essential elements of an effective safety and health management system. While local processes may be reviewed annually or more frequently, the magnitude of most Commands in the United States Navy and United States Marine Corps make annual revision of Command or service level polices prohibitive. Most overarching Command, service level, or Department of the Navy policies are reviewed and revised every 3-5 years.

IV. ADMINISTRATION & SUPERVISION

0 = Does Not Exist




NA = Not Applicable

13. Safety and health program tasks are each specifically assigned to a person or position for performance or coordination.

☐ ☐ ☑ ☐ ☐

Safety and health tasks are assigned to and led by qualified safety and occupational health professionals and other designated subject matter experts across the Navy and Marine Corps, consistent with Department of the Navy safety and occupational health policies. Governing policies clearly articulate positions or elements within the United States Navy and United States Marine Corps that are responsible for performing or coordinating specific safety and health program tasks and clearly articulate which program functions (e.g., competent person, qualified person, program manager) are required to be further identified down to the individual level. To add clarity to the responsibility for safety and health tasks, the roles are designated in writing by the head of the organization. The size and complexity of individual organizations influences the size and sophistication of the safety and health program. Consequently, the number and complexity of the safety and health tasks that need to be assigned vary by organizations. Additionally, the size, experience and competency of the safety and occupational health staff and subject matter experts can vary by organization. Large and complex industrial Commands have broadly experienced and qualified safety professionals, typically with advanced degrees and professional certification, and responsibilities are divided equitably among several professionals. Smaller and more administrative organizations have smaller safety and occupational health staff to oversee the execution of the safety and health management system, and the responsibilities may all be assigned to as few as one individual.



14. Individuals with assigned safety and health responsibilities have the necessary knowledge, skills, and timely information to perform their duties.

☐ ☐ ☑ ☐ ☐

United States Navy and United States Marine Corps policies clearly articulate the knowledge, experience, training, practice, and proficiency needed to effectively execute the duties and tasks associated with assigned safety and health responsibilities. Ideally safety and health responsibilities are assigned to individuals that already possess and have demonstrated the minimally required competencies needed to execute assigned responsibilities. Where safety and health responsibilities are assigned to individuals with inadequate or immature competency, individual development plans are developed to identify specific training, education, or experience required to develop the necessary competencies to the required level of proficiency to execute the assigned responsibilities. Annual employee performance reviews assess progress towards completion of identified competency shortfalls and help provide a regularly recurring opportunity for competency assessment and supervisor feedback. Training is one of the predominantly prescribed means to develop the competencies associated with United States Navy and United States Marine Corps safety and health responsibilities. Classroom or on-line training and apprentice programs are formalized delivery methods that provide the necessary structure to ensure standardized development and delivery of content and eventual achievement of desired learning objectives. On-the-job training and mentoring are less formal competency development approaches that help ensure equipment and task specific learning and afford supervisors an ability to provide continuous and real time observation and behavior modification. On-the-job training and mentoring are also delivery mechanisms that afford Commands with the resiliency to develop employee competencies during periods of restrictions on travel, training, or on-site assist visits. Timely information needed to execute required safety and health responsibilities is often undermined by operational tempo that precludes those with designated responsibilities from having adequate time to absorb information. Challenges associated with reduced reaction times are exacerbated by competency gaps. The Department of the Navy is undertaking strategic efforts to identify and correct competency gaps that have the greatest adverse effect on executing safety and health responsibilities.



15. Individuals with assigned safety and health responsibilities have the authority to perform their duties.

☐ ☐ ☑ ☐ ☐

United States Navy and United States Marine Corps policy requires Commands designate a competent safety and occupational health professional with sufficient authority and responsibility to represent and support the headquarters or activity commander in the management and administration of the Command safety program. Those lead safety and occupational health managers are traditionally staff personnel and not considered line management. That distinction is reflected in their general lack of authority over work, resources and subordinates. The assignment of safety and health responsibilities carries the responsibility to advise the Command, managers, team leaders, and employees as to the safety and health requirements for performing associated work. But rarely does the responsible individual have the authority to assign work; their authority rests in stopping work where imminent hazard situations are observed. Traditionally employees or artisans that are exposed to the most significant hazards are union employees for whom specific requirements/policies exist as to who can direct their work. Regarding authority over resources, program managers often have the responsibility to identify the resources to execute their responsibility and are given the accountability to execute and expend those resources by the most effective means. Those performing hazardous work are typically not the direct subordinates of those given safety and health program execution responsibilities. Supervisors are not responsible for performance management or behavior correction, but are often given responsibility for training and informing workers of their safety and health responsibilities. Limitations are typically not realized until there is a shortcoming in the execution of a specific task or responsibility – that is when inadequate authority is truly evident. Such authority restrictions may leave the nominally designated responsible person with insufficient authority to do his job. Position within the organization can influence the overall level of authority. Resources – especially as they relate to travel, equipment, and training, can be scarce or absent and the authority to requisition more in order to execute a compliance program is typically lacking. When program managers are centrally located and responsible for geographically disbursed field offices, their authority to perform their role is impeded by restrictions on travel needed to perform on-site assessments and mitigation strategies.



16. Individuals with assigned safety and health responsibilities have the resources to perform their duties.

☐ ☐ ☑ ☐ ☐

Part of the annual planning process includes ensuring that individuals with assigned safety and health responsibilities have the right resources to perform their duties. The adequacy of the resource estimate is directly linked to an individuals’ knowledge of all the materials, personnel, time, training, and ancillary expenses associated with executing their assigned responsibilities. Where the individuals are experienced and have demonstrated full proficiency in a specific competency, cost estimates and budgets more accurately reflect the bona fide need. Annual program reviews should include analysis of mishap, injury, illness and material loss data, hazard abatement logs, progress in completion of annual safety action plans, fulfillment of training and medical surveillance requirements so as to explain whether the resources were adequate. Increasingly austere funding climates have recently resulted in funding gaps being considered as “risks” that the organization is willing to take. When significant shortfalls are identified or emerging hazards are encountered, mechanisms exist to request additional funds to correct or mitigate the deficiencies.

17. Organizational policies promote the performance of safety and health responsibilities.

☐ ☐ ☑ ☐ ☐

Organizational policies, stated through instructions, Commander Policy Statements, training, performance evaluation components, etc., promote the performance of safety and health responsibilities. Additionally, Command performance management systems include annual performance evaluations, standardized performance requirements for supervisors, annual individual development plans, mishap review boards, fact-finding investigations, and litigation reports, as well as disciplinary actions exercised through the personnel departments. These systems highlight every individual’s unique safety and occupational health program responsibility. Positive indicators include people identifying hazards to their supervisors, reduction of mishaps, and filing Trouble Reports of ship building and repair activities. A shift toward a proactive safety culture that encourages and incentivizes employees is evident. When there is identification of hazards and reporting of near misses, observations of safe (and compliant) behavior, timely abatement of hazards, an employee driven safety committee, leading process improvement initiatives, teaching and training safety courses, mentoring junior employees, etc.



V. SAFETY & HEALTH TRAINING

The Occupational Safety and Health Training Guidelines For Federal Agencies guidelines are available at: http://www.osha.gov/dep/facosh/osha_training_guidelines2014.pdf.

0 = Does Not Exist




NA = Not Applicable

18. Employees receive appropriate safety and health training (including those overseas).

☐ ☐ ☑ ☐ ☐

United States Navy and United States Marine Corps policies address safety and occupational health training requirements for safety and occupational health personnel, top managers, supervisors, and non-supervisory personnel, that is, workers. All United States Navy and United States Marine Corps employees, including those overseas, receive training tailored to address the hazards and exposures in their worksite and the tasks they are expected to perform. United States Navy and United States Marine Corps policies well identify the required training, including the requirement methods, source and duration of delivery, medical surveillance, and personnel protective equipment needed to protect employees from identified hazards. Supervisors are assigned the responsibility of knowing the hazard to which each employee will be exposed and arranging a training plan that ensures compliance with United States Navy and United States Marine Corps policy. Supervisors are also assigned the responsibility of ensuring any required on-the-job training or equipment-specific training is provided prior to employees being exposed to the hazards. Supervisors use individual development and training plans as well as established performance management processes to determine needed training and continuing education and to evaluate the effectiveness of training. Mishap investigations and review boards and annual self-assessments provide an additional opportunity to evaluate the effectiveness of training. That said, three areas of systemic weakness exist among the industrial workforce – equipment specific training; experience, knowledge, competency and proficiency of the individuals delivering the technical training; and the documentation of the effectiveness of the training. There is a growing concern that the equipment (e.g., aerial work platforms, forklifts, power tools, switchgear, boilers, weight handling equipment) training is generic in nature and that the nuances and manufacturer’s specific requirements are inadequately addressed through formal or on the job training. Additionally, when training is delivered on the job, but not through a documented apprenticeship program, the quality of the training is unknown, and effectiveness is not evaluated or documented. Through the use of a formal safety and health management system, increased focus will be placed on training documentation, and certification of competence will be provided through a supervisory validation process.


http://www.osha.gov/dep/facosh/osha_training_guidelines2014.pdf


A final area of note relates to the impact of fiscal austerity. Limited and decreasing financial resources have provoked a transition from classroom and hands-on training and education to e-Learning and online training. This change in training delivery methods is cost effective but reduces the ability of students to retain the desired learning objectives. Basic safety training delivered through on-line media handicaps many industrial workers that are not provided access to government computers.

19. New employee orientation includes applicable safety and health information.

☐ ☐ ☑ ☐ ☐

Command New Employee Orientation provides an overview of United States Navy and United States Marine Corps safety and health policy as well as local Command policy. The information provided to new employees includes all safety topics required by United States Navy and United States Marine Corps policy. At a minimum, however, orientation should cover the agency’s announced safety and health policy, general safety and health rules, major hazards and protections, and emergency procedures. Re-orientation may be necessary when an employee changes job duties, if the change involves significant new hazards, protections, or emergency procedures. New employees receive an overall orientation that includes safety related to their work provided by a safety professional or training specialist and specific training on the safety associated with their job by their supervisor.



20. Supervisors receive training that covers the supervisory aspects of their safety and health responsibilities.

☐ ☐ ☑ ☐ ☐

United States Navy and United States Marine Corps policy requires that supervisory personnel be trained and educated to actively and effectively support their Command safety and health programs and specific safety and health issues related to the hazard exposures of their employees. Training traditionally includes:

(1) Review of applicable United States Navy and United States Marine Corps policy on all relevant aspects of safety

(2) In-depth examination of management's responsibilities in relation to Command safety programs including: the management of specific programs at the work or unit level; hazard and equipment specific training of employees

(3) Compliance procedures, mishap costs and prevention strategies, and employee performance standards and methods for evaluation

(4) Examination of Command specific program goals and objectives (5) Local mishap experience, trends and reduction target areas (6) Current safety emphasis programs as defined by higher Commands (7) How to train and motivate subordinates to recognize hazards, use protective

measures, maintain hazard controls, develop and maintain safe and healthful work practices, manage hazardous materials, and follow emergency procedures

(8) How to incorporate safety into all job related training (9) Methods for mishap reporting and conducting mishap investigations (10) Methods to identify at risk employees through review of industrial hygiene,

safety, fire and other workplace surveys (11) Development and implementation of Job Hazard Analyses

As indicated in the response to Question 18, challenges exist when supervisors oversee industrial employees in multiples trades. Supervisors are often challenged by the breadth of knowledge and experience required to know the task and equipment specific hazards, hazard control methods, and medical surveillance requirements of all of their employees. This lack of a broad spectrum of knowledge prevents supervisors from adequately providing training, oversight and performance management for their employees. Occupational Safety and Health Administration citations at industrial workplaces have confirmed this challenge and shortcoming. Commands continue to focus on adequate supervisory training and oversight over trades and industrial employees.



VI. MANAGEMENT LEADERSHIP

0 = Does Not Exist




NA = Not Applicable

21. Top management policy establishes clear priority for safety and health.

☐ ☐ ☑ ☐ ☐

United States Navy and United States Marine Corps policy requires the demonstration of leadership commitment to continuous safety improvement through clear policy, measurable and attainable objectives, holding personnel accountable for adherence to policies and procedures, and providing the resources that enable successful mission execution. Top management demonstrates a clear priority for safety and health through a new policy statement that articulates their personal safety philosophy and their expectations of the workforce they lead. Dissemination includes: electronic mailing to the workforce; posting of the policy documents on official bulletin boards throughout the workplace; publication in base newspapers; distribution to new employees during orientation; and inclusion in safety videos. Policy statements are published throughout the chain of command from the Secretary of the Navy down to the lowest level Commander. This cascading set of policy statements helps demonstrate cohesion and alignment regarding the safety and health of the Department of the Navy workforce. During interviews and Command climate and perception surveys, employees are able to articulate candidly their perception of senior leadership’s commitment to safety and health.

22. Top management provides

competent safety and health staff support to line managers and supervisors.

☐ ☐ ☑ ☐ ☐

United States Navy and United States Marine Corps policies require Commands to designate a competent safety and occupational health professional with sufficient authority and responsibility to represent and support the headquarters or activity Commander effectively in the management and administration of the Command safety program. Commands are supported either by full-time safety and occupational health professionals, as well as other subject matter experts to augment the Command’s overall safety and occupational health program, or by collateral duty safety officers. Those Commands with no organic safety and health professionals among their staff rely upon installation Base Operating Support safety related services.



As noted in response to Question 20, one significant responsibility of the safety and occupational health professionals and related subject matter experts is to provide advice, counsel, direction, and specific technical support to managers and supervisors to enable them to execute adequately and effectively the organization’s hazard control programs and insure injury and illness prevention among the organization’s employees. Examples of core safety services include: support to military operations and training; traffic safety; safety promotional material; resources, and management for an installation-wide safety program; safety inspections; mishap investigations; personal protective equipment; safety training; safety consultation; and coordination of occupational health services. The provision of qualified, competent, experienced, proficient, educated, credentialed safety professionals is a critical component to a Command’s successful implementation of a safety and health management system. Commands must avoid an over-reliance on the expertise of the safety professional and lack of assumption of responsibility and accountability by line management and supervisors.

23. Managers delegate the authority necessary for personnel to carry out their assigned safety and health responsibilities effectively.

☐ ☐ ☑ ☐ ☐

In the Department of the Navy, the authority and responsibility for creating and maintaining a safe workplace is delegated to the lowest supervisory level, and the responsibility for safe work practices and active participation in the Command’s safety and health program is an expectation of every individual employee. Delegation is accompanied with authority over the work, authority over needed resources, and authority over subordinates in order to execute safety and health responsibilities effectively. Delegation of authority for first line supervisors is often through their position description, while those responsible for specific safety and health program responsibilities often receive a designation letter. Organizational charts, Concept of Operations, Business Plans or other Command policies, instructions or governance documents help articulate the responsibilities and authority for execution of Command safety and health programs.



24. Managers allocate the resources needed to properly support the organization’s SHMS.

☐ ☐ ☑ ☐ ☐

United States Navy and United States Marine Corps policy requires headquarters Commands to ensure safety and occupational health professionals have sufficient authority and responsibility to plan for and ensure funds for the staff, equipment, materials, and the training required to ensure implementation of an effective safety and occupational health program. The current fiscally austere climate allows resources to support the organization’s safety and health management system, but those resources are inadequate to properly support development and implementation of new initiatives and process improvements, fund upper echelon oversight, and validate managers’ internal control programs. Commands are required to examine the adequacy of resource levels during the annual self-assessments, and this area is also evaluated during the oversight process. For instance, medical surveillance requires help from the United States Navy Bureau of Medicine in many cases. But often, due to budget restraints and mission prioritization, Naval Facilities Engineering Command employees do not get timely service, which degrades their effectiveness and risks long term harm due to unmonitored exposures. Resource availability for other safety improvements is contingent on resource availability at upper echelon levels. Staffing shortages prevent all tenant Commands from receiving annual occupational safety and health inspections and many program areas are deteriorating. Processes are in place to regularly review resource allocations and expenditures and identify funding and other resources needed to support contingency plans and emerging and unforeseen needs. For example, the United States Marine Corps has approximately 280 full-time civilian employees executing the Service-wide program. During calendar year 2016, the Marine Corps spent approximately $30,710,000 to administer the Marine Corps Safety Program. As Special Staff Officer to the Commander, the safety officers or managers have the responsibility and authority to ensure the safety office is organized, staffed and funded, and maintains a comprehensive Safety and Occupational Health Management System capable of supporting the Commander’s mission. The effectiveness of organizational resourcing is assessed during the Command Safety Assessment process, United States Marine Corps Inspector General inspections and higher-headquarters led assessments. When significant shortfalls are identified or emerging hazards are encountered, subordinate units may request additional funds to correct or mitigate the deficiencies. During calendar year 2016, Commandant of the Marine Corps Safety Division provided $517,000 in special funding to help unit safety managers correct deficiencies.



25. Managers assure that appropriate safety and health training is provided.

☐ ☐ ☑ ☐ ☐

Department of the Navy policy requires that leadership and senior managers demonstrate its commitment to continuous safety improvement through clear policy, measurable and attainable objectives, holding personnel accountable for adherence to policies and procedures, and providing the resources that enable successful mission execution. Managers are also required to ensure all personnel have the necessary level of education and training to recognize the dangers of hazards to themselves, their colleagues, and operations and an ability to execute the safety and health responsibilities assigned to them. Individual development planning and personnel performance management systems ensure compliance with mandated training and continuing education requirements. Additionally, supervisors are given the authority to manage the financial resources to ensure employees acquire the needed training. Supervisors have the authority to manage and assign work only to those employees that have received the training necessary to perform their work safely. Regular, recurring safety and health committee meetings and other business governance boards review employee training completion and requirements. Management attention is directed to those employees, supervisors, and departments that have not met the training requirements. The annual self-assessment process and mishap investigations are other processes that are used to evaluate safety training completion and compliance. Managers evaluate training compliance, operational tempo, resource availability, and other competing commitments to best analyze workforce training, make good supervisory and work assignments, and accept risk for shortcomings in training – specifically related to the training needed for the oversight of industrial workers.

26. Top management is involved in the planning and evaluation of safety and health performance.

☐ ☐ ☑ ☐ ☐

The Department of the Navy’s Designated Agency Safety and Health Officer is the Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Energy, Installations and Environment. The Designated Agency Safety and Health Officer delegates safety and occupational health management and oversight to the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Safety. Service level safety and occupational health responsibilities reside with the Vice Chief of Naval Operations and the Assistant Commandant of the Marine Corps. These four-star officers are responsible for the management and administration of the safety and occupational health program in the United States Navy and United States Marine Corps, respectively.



The Secretary of the Navy, Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Energy, Installations and Environment, Chief of Naval Operations and Commandant of the Marine Corps receive weekly updates highlighting key tactical activities and achievements from across their respective areas of influence. Additionally they are involved in strategic long range planning for the Department of the Navy and individual services, and that planning includes strategic safety and health goals. Similar involvement in strategic planning and tactical performance evaluation occurs down to the lowest level supervisor across the Department of the Navy. Service level self-assessment processes begin with unit-level assessments of performance and compliance, and the aggregation of those self-assessments up through the organization provides increasing levels of leadership with a site picture on the health and wellness of the safety and health of the organization. Two specific examples of top management involvement follow. The Vice Chief of Naval Operations chairs the Navy Executive Safety Board, which is the United States Navy’s executive level safety council. The Navy Executive Safety Board convenes annually to consider and shape safety and occupational health and behavioral health policies pertinent to service readiness and support of Commanders at all levels to execute effective safety and occupational health programs. The Navy Executive Safety Board comprises United States Navy flag officers, the Director of Marine Corps Safety, and the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Safety. Additionally, the Assistant Commandant of the Marine Corps chairs the Executive Force Preservation Board, which is the United States Marine Corps executive level safety council. The Executive Force Preservation Board convenes semi-annually to shape safety and occupational, environmental and behavioral health policies pertinent to service readiness. Executive Force Preservation Board membership comprises the Deputy Commandants, Commanders of the operational forces, and the various supporting establishment Commands, and the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Safety. The Naval Safety Center recently started publishing a Quarterly Analysis Report, which includes statistical analysis of mishap and hazard reports. This information is shared throughout the United States Navy and United States Marine Corps.



VII. EMPLOYEE PARTICIPATION

0 = Does Not Exist




NA = Not Applicable

27. There is an effective process to involve employees in safety and health issues.

☐ ☐ ☑ ☐ ☐

United States Navy and United States Marine Corps policies strongly encourage direct employee involvement in safety councils and committees to serve as safety representatives and, if necessary, file an anonymous report of unsafe working conditions. Many Commands have found that the most effective safety committees are employee driven. Additionally, as part of the self-assessment process, employees are asked for their input on the effectiveness of their Command’s safety programs. Employees are encouraged to report an unsafe situation or near-miss to both their chain of command and the safety and occupational health professional(s) for their Command. Participation in the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s Voluntary Protection Program has been highly effective at engaging employees to influence safety at their Command. Instead of just providing safety for employees, safety offices work with employees to ensure an optimal safety program focused on continuous improvement. While most input is informal, formal mechanisms exist for employee feedback. Electronic or paper versions of hazard reporting ensure participation by any member of the organization (including those without computer access) in councils and committees, town hall meetings, staff meetings with supervisors, annual self-assessments, employee performance management processes, etc. Feedback typically depends upon the way in which the information was originally received from the employee. While initial feedback or acknowledgement of receipt of the employee’s input is relatively easy, communication traditionally breaks down with progress reports, updates, and acknowledgement of the employee’s concern – especially to confirm that the actual concern was understood and adequately addressed. Collateral duty or department representatives or coordinators facilitate involvement in small groups.



28. Employees are involved in organizational decision-making in regard to the allocation of safety and health resources.

☐ ☐ ☑ ☐ ☐

United States Navy and United States Marine Corps management and employees take this responsibility seriously, and their actions are an example of how an exemplary safety and health management system operates. Employee input and feedback is encouraged through empowerment, so safety and health deficiencies are identified and corrected as they arise. Employees are involved in safety and health teams, meetings, and inspections and employees are encouraged to be directly involved in the Command’s safety committee. They often serve as safety representative for their respective department and if needed any staff member can file an anonymous report of unsafe working conditions. Unions representing employees provide valuable input into the allocation of safety and health resources. The result of this empowerment and involvement is that employees, along with management, are successful in their efforts to continuously improve the safety and health environment. Also, this involvement increases feelings of ownership of and commitment to the overall Command safety program. Examples include selection of personal protective equipment. Commands have robust process improvement programs, and these programs are one method for employees to be involved in the decision making process and have a direct impact on the allocation of scarce resources. Employee feedback is not limited to the expenditure of resources to purchase materials, equipment, and personal protection equipment, but is equally valuable in influencing issues regarding personnel effort, supplies, equipment, facilities, or services.

29. Employees are involved in organizational decision-making in regard to safety and health training.

☐ ☐ ☑ ☐ ☐

United States Navy and United States Marine Corps policy and other statutory requirements well prescribe what safety and health training needs to be provided to the workforce. Those regulatory drivers along with the organization’s safety and health professionals provide the predominant influence in regard to safety and health training. Financial constraints across the organization have severely limited the amount, type and location of training that can be provided in excess of statutory requirements. The individual development plan allows for each employee who requires some type of safety and health training to have a direct influence on when, where, and how the training will occur. Organizationally for group training, managers and supervisors traditionally have the greatest amount of influence upon training topics, who will deliver the training and how, who will receive the training, and when and where the training will occur.



30. Employees participate in the evaluation of safety and health performance.

☐ ☐ ☑ ☐ ☐

Qualified safety and occupational health professionals provide formal analytical analysis of Command safety and health program performance, but ample opportunities exist for employees to actively participate in the evaluation of the safety and health program. Employees and military members are encouraged and empowered to participate by providing input and feedback to Command safety processes, being involved in safety inspections, and joining in safety and health teams and meetings. They are urged to analyze current processes and provide enhancements, and to speak with the Command element regarding safety process enhancement, and issues. Another opportunity is training programs: formal training programs have an element of employee feedback, and as a result, employees are invited to evaluate the performance of the course. As part of the self-assessment process, employees are asked for their input on the effectiveness of their Command’s safety program. Employees are also encouraged to use the web based Enterprise Safety Applications Management System program to report unsafe situations or near misses to both their chain of command and the safety and occupational health professional(s) for their Command. The 60 individuals qualified as Voluntary Protection Program Special Government Employees provide a good example of exceptional employee involvement in safety and occupational health programs.


Documents

CY A O S H R S L - United States Navy · Individual Commands also develop and implement initiatives that place further emphasis ... (CA-7) 78.10% . 85.27% . 90.85% +6.5% . 86.71%