Dust Hazard Learning Review Dust Hazard Learning Review Prepared for the U.S

Dust Hazard Learning Review Dust Hazard Learning Review Prepared for the U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board by Dynamic Inquiry LLC Ivan Pupulidy PhD and Crista Vesel MSc Dust Hazard Learning Review Table of Contents Executive Summary 3 Introduction 5 Barriers to Improvement 7 Normalization of Risk 7 Goal Conflicts 8 Controls 9 Awareness of Risk 9 Hierarchy of Controls Approach 9 Control Through Compliance 10 Safety Defined as an Absence of Explosions 11 Challenges to compliance approach 11 Measurement of Dust 12 Dust Hazard Analysis 12 Dust Collection Systems 13 Housekeeping 14 Reporting 17 Language and Communication 19 Language of the ‘Call to Action’ 19 Communication Within Facilities 20 Language Barriers 21 Learning 21 Pre-work Learning 22 During Work Learning 22 Post-work Learning 23 Strategic or Upstream Learning 23 Who Has to Learn? 24 Learning from Near Miss Events 24 Learning Summary 24 Sharing information 25 Local Sharing 25 Sharing Within and Between Industries 26 Global ‘Summit’ 27 Conclusion and Recommendations 29 Appendix: 30 A: Methods Used for this Report 30 B: Quotes & Ideas from Call to Action responses 32 Page 2 Dust Hazard Learning Review Dust Hazard Learning Review Executive Summary On October 24, 2018 the U.S. Chemical Safety Board, “as part of Respondents recognized the pressures being placed on manu- its investigation into the May 2017 Didion Mill explosion, issued facturing facilities that produce dust. One respondent pointed “Call to Action: Combustible Dust” to gather comments on the directly to a perceived conflict, “Dust is looked at like spending management, control and understanding of combustible dust money on garbage.” Quotes like this were common and point to from companies, regulators, inspectors, safety training providers, the goal conflict between safety and production. Goal conflicts researchers, unions, and the workers affected by dust-related are not easily resolved. Companies are not endowed with limitless hazards.” The objective of this project was to make sense of resources and economic considerations are a very real concern. comments submitted by stakeholders in response to the CSB Call There is a “sense that the cost of full compliance is too high to to Action, regarding the hazards of combustible dust. The vehicle sustain a competitive position.” While the two most common goal for analysis and sensemaking was the Learning Review process, conflicts named by respondents were between safety and cost, which focuses on understanding the network of influences that and safety and production, other goal conflicts are known to exist surround people’s decisions and actions. in most complex work environments. The CSB Call to Action resulted in 57 total responses, which Controls emerged as a major topic of emphasis. Many comments represented multiple industry perspectives focused on the issue focused on the need for controls to ‘keep us safe’, including rules of the hazards of dust and related topics. The responses submit- and regulations, routines around dust measurement and miti- ted came from varied organizations and manufacturers. Many of gation (e.g. “housekeeping”), audits and Dust Hazard Analyses the responses went beyond the original questions from the Call to (DHA’s). An equal number of comments challenged the ability of Action and revealed many industry assumptions and challenges, facilities to comply with typical regulations and processes. Almost as well as suggestions for improvement. every response noted that it may be impossible to remove all dust from facilities. Respondents expressed concern over the lack of Several major topics emerged during the sensemaking phase: awareness of the risks related to dust and the lower importance Barriers to Improvement, Controls, Reporting, Language & that dust took to other primary safety concerns. Dust explosions Communication, Learning, and Sharing information. Each of these are rare events and it is human nature to highlight the events that topic areas is addressed in detail in the report. are most recent or prevalent. Barriers to improvement explores how individuals and organi- For many safety events, Hierarchy of Controls has direct applica- zations approach risk. Respondents identified the inability to bility at the most effective levels (remove or replace the hazard achieve a dust free environment. Sensemaking revealed that and/or isolation of people from the hazard). Respondents reported the longer operations proceed without injuries or accidents, that dust did not fit into either of these control areas, mainly due the greater the belief that mitigation strategies are working to its constant presence in the system. The presence of dust is and that the system, itself, is safe. The common term used a major concern and is dealt with through dust removal. Yet, re- by respondents to describe this was complacency, however, spondents reported that regulations and guidance do not address this can also be seen as a normalization of risk. Significant dust control systems or the companies that install them. The upsets resulted in challenges to the acceptance of status quo. burden of dust removal falls on the manufacturing workforce who This represented learning moments for the organizations that are responsible for detection, monitoring, control and mitigation. experienced the upset and, in some cases, nearby facilities who performed similar operations. This learning was expressed Housekeeping represented the most utilized control of dust as an increase in both operational scrutiny and organizational hazards, regardless of the industry or location. Yet, there was desire to seek better techniques for risk management. It should a repeated concern that workers are not fully aware of the dust be noted, the desire to implement simple solutions or singular risks. Respondents were concerned that a ‘one size fits all’ causal statements contributed to the normalization of risk. approach to housekeeping would not be applicable across indus- When simple solutions are accepted, workers and leadership tries, nor even in the same facility. It was suggested that other can point to specific failures and, either, rationalize that they industries could learn from the food and medical manufacturers, did not share the same attributes or conclude that the problem where the handling of dust is a necessity for quality control and has been solved. contamination, as well as hazard reduction. Page 3 Dust Hazard Learning Review Dust Hazard Learning Review Executive Summary The honest reporting of issues at facilities is an expected part where learning is emphasized in normal work events as well as of operations, ranging from something a worker feels ‘is just accidents and incidents, may help the workforce feel a sense of not quite right’, to concrete safety issues and fires. Supervisors connectedness and importance, thus increasing the likelihood of and safety managers often expect that workers who see sharing information and learning from each other. something, will say something. This is actually a complex issue influenced by a number of interactive factors. Prescriptive Sharing information between companies, industries and reg- methods of demanding reports from workers were reported to ulators was reported to be infrequent – yet this was also the be largely ineffective. most desired goal stated by Call to Action respondents. Having a platform to share information and experiences openly, without The Call to Action revealed important problems with the language fear of reprisal or punishment, would offer the best path forward used to describe combustible dust and its mitigation, suggesting to learn from others regarding dust hazard mitigations and it be presented as a distinct hazard, not simply as an “issue of best practices. Some industries reported having made striking tidying up the place”. Changing the common term ‘housekeeping’ improvements, this platform could serve as the medium to share to something that implies a serious hazard may have a generative critical safety information. effect on the safety of facilities. In addition, it was clear that all levels of communication need to improve within facilities that U.S. based and international respondents called for a world-class have combustible dust. specialized annual conference (global summit) with expert panels, training courses, and workshops, where multiple industries can Learning is a function of the willingness to share information and share information and create networks of learning. Combustible the openness to change assumptions. Respondents identified a dust is an international problem, which demands the “opportunity difference between training and learning as a significant issue. to learn from all sectors, nations, levels and approaches.” A global Most training programs were reported to be compliance-based combustible dust summit would give industries a chance to learn and lacked practical application. Recommendations around from professionals, regulators, inspectors, investigators and each training included the creation of scenario or dialogue forms of other, resulting in a collaborative approach that could contribute instruction. to positive long-term change. Sharing information was the most reported topic in the Call to In summary, the responses from the Call to Action captured a Action and naturally divided into three areas. Local Sharing (inter- number of industry wide insights into the issues, concerns and nal communication) is an important way for companies to learn opportunities

Load more