Overview Effective and efficient safety programs rely upon accurate and consistent risk assessments. Underestimate risk, and our safety and health programs become ineffective, as employees whose risk was underestimated continue to perform their duties with the risks unabated. Overestimate risk, and our programs become inefficient, as limited resources are wasted on risk controls where none were needed. In general industry, formal risk assessments are often made qualitatively, using a matrix approach with severity and likelihood of harm as key inputs (Figure 1). Accurate and consistent risk assessments require selection of the correct severity and likelihood inputs. In particular, a clear understanding and assessment of the adequacy of controls is critical for selection of the correct likelihood input parameter and is therefore a critical determinant for the accuracy and consistency of risk assessments. Techniques developed to support formal layer of protection analysis (LOPA) in the process industries hold promise for improving our understanding of controls used in general industry. In particular, LOPA concepts may be able to increase our understanding of the strength and reliability of various options in the hierarchy of controls. LOPA is a semi-quantitative approach to risk assessment. It uses order-of-magnitude control layers as basic building blocks to systematically understand the risk controls that are in place, and whether adequate protection is provided for a particular scenario outcome. The LOPA control-layer building blocks are called independent protection layers (IPLs). IPLs are very similar in concept to layers of protection in the commonly used "Swiss Cheese" hazard control model (Figure 2), and their relative strength corresponds roughly with the traditional hierarchy of controls. However, there are rigorous rules for their proper validation and use. Understanding IPLs and the rules for their use may provide promising opportunities for improving the accuracy and consistency of general-industry, matrix-based qualitative risk assessments.

Introduction Eliminating or reducing risk of injury or illness in the workplace is critical to maintaining a safe and healthful environment. It is already known that the most beneficial risk-reduction solutions are implemented according to Prevention through Design (PtD) hierarchy of controls (ANSI/ASSE Z590.3-2011). This project examined existing hazards and determined, through visual observations and sampling results at hand-welding stations, that most welding fumes are not captured using the current strategies. While various alternative solutions were identified and evaluated, a new engineering control was implemented, representing a higher level on the PtD hierarchy of control of any current risk-reduction strategies. These engineering controls reduced the risk of Hexavalent Chromium (Cr VI) exposure to welders in an exhaust tailpipe and muffler assembly facility. The ergonomic risks were also addressed. The project ended by determining the business case associated with that solution or, more succinctly, "what was the value to the company for implementing this solution." Introduction to the PtD Business Case Model What Is the SH&E Business Case? A business case in occupational safety and health can be defined as a structured method used to justify a project (intervention or solution) for decision-makers. It captures the effects of implementing programs or activities on employee health (injury or illness), hazards present, risk level, risk management, and the business process. The effects include customary financial business metrics, such as net present value (NPV), internal rate of return (IRR), return on investment (ROI), and payback period (PbP), which are meaningful to business management. The effects also include non-financial measures, those that cannot be directly or easily monetized, such as changes in customer satisfaction, corporate social responsibility, product defects, presenteeism, turnover rate, process cycle efficiency (PCE), and corporate reputation. Finally, the business case presents the health and business risk analysis by explaining opportunities, threats, strengths, and weaknesses associated with identified hazards. In reality, the business case answers the question: What's in it for the company?

An Overview of Risk Assessment and the Importance of the Process This paper will focus on deploying a risk assessment process to reduce risk and effectively minimize incidents. Safety professionals need to move away from purely conducting hazard identification and implementing corrective action to a format of assessing the risks associated with task completion. We have seen many organizations make the move to conduct risk assessments in some fashion. The next step is to effectively deploy these documents into an integrated process to align with the business process. The paper will include a brief case study of two organizations' success in the deploying a risk assessment process to minimize risk. Importance of this Topic Over the last ten plus years, we have received many opportunities to learn the risk assessment methodology. There are numerous assessment techniques. Using the techniques will depend upon the organization's goals and objectives, and the acceptance of residual risk. Safety and health professionals are being asked to step out of the compliance box and become partners in the business environment. Deploying a robust risk assessment process beyond regulatory requirements will require a strategic approach in place of the tactical efforts of the past. What Is a Risk Assessment? Risk assessments have been used by various disciplines for many years. The terminology is not new to the safety profession, although it may have been somewhat misused. Many safety professionals referred to the hazard identification process or to safety inspections as "risk assessments." To their credit, they were on the right track, but they did not assess as much as identify hazardous conditions or hazardous activities. There are several definitions of the term "risk assessment" including the following: "Risk Assessment is the overall process of risk identification, risk analysis and risk evaluation. Risks can be assessed at an organizational, at a department level for projects, individual activities or specific risks. Different tools and techniques may be appropriate in different contexts.

Introduction Not all high-consequence events make the news and capture national attention, like the Deepwater Horizon explosion or the release of methyl isocyanate in Bhopal, but by definition they cause serious, life-altering damage, injuries and deaths, affecting not only the persons involved, but their families, friends and coworkers, and in severe cases, the local community. At the very least, businesses are likely to suffer damage to their reputations, and the consequences may be much worse. According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), 40 percent of businesses do not reopen after a disaster, and another 25 percent fail within one year of reopening. A large number of these events had an extremely low probability of occurring, and yet they did. Nicolas Taleb refers to these types of occurrences as "black swan" events, and describes them as outliers, with extreme impact, and retrospective (though not prospective) predictability. Current approaches to risk assessment are based on a determination of the probability and severity of incident outcomes. In addition to evaluating normal operating conditions, more sophisticated risk assessments often also evaluate the outcome of interruptions to normal operations (upset conditions). However, simple probability and severity analysis may not be adequate in evaluating low probability, high-consequence events. Accident Causation Theories In order to start understanding low-probability/high-consequence events, we want to look first at theories of how accidents are caused. One of the earliest theories is the Domino Theory, developed by H.W. Heinrich in 1932. As depicted below, it posits that accidents occur when the linkage for a chain reaction lines up like dominoes on end. Each of the factors in the chain is dependent on the preceding factor.

Introduction Preventing fatal and life-changing injury events moving forward will require a different approach than what the safety profession has been doing for most of the last 80 years. Heinrich's safety pyramid approach could only take us so far with its frequency-of-incidents approach. To get beyond that, we must look deeper into an organization's climate (or culture) to address the precursor events that lead to those situations that have the potential to result in a fatal or life-changing injury. Eastern Alliance Insurance Group, a worker's compensation insurance carrier, has developed an approach to address the critical cultural elements that must be in place to help an organization identify and address their risk factors, and implement proper controls to reduce the likelihood of fatal and life-changing injuries. Our approach to preventing fatal and life-changing injury events is called N3L3®, an acronym we use to identify the "culture" that needs to be in place to impact the potential for bad outcomes. N3L3 is derived from " the N ext Three Seconds – Protects Your L ife, Your L oved Ones and Your L ivelihood "®. It combines elements like: changing the perception of an employer as to what risk is; engaging them to be actively involved in identification of their potential exposures and managing them through various deeply ingrained practices that are intended to ensure every worker is aware of what needs to be done to accomplish each task safely; and empowering them without fear of reprisal to speak up when they have concerns. The N3L3 acronym was chosen, because it would be easy for workers to remember. N3L3 is intended to define a way of thinking and a mindset to help protect workers both at and away from work. Getting workers to think through a task and consider the potential consequences before they act, because in addition to protecting their L ife, their L oved Ones and their L ivelihood ; the Next Three Seconds, could be your Last Three seconds ®. Prevention of fatal and life-changing injuries requires changing how we think about risk: We must understand there is risk in everything we do; it can be negative, positive, minimal or great, but it is always there. Several key elements are incorporated into the N3L3 culture, including: understanding that the past does not always accurately predict the future when dealing with those events that seem to occur at random; conscious vs. intuitive thinking; actively assessing risks; pre-work planning; stop-work.

Summary This paper and the presentation will demonstrate - via The Plan, Do, Check, Act cycle (PDCA) - how to use ISO 45001 to get H&S risk management on your business agenda. We will demonstrate how to drive enhanced business excellence by integrating H&S risk management into the overall business framework in such a way that H&S risk management becomes part of the normal business processes of the organisation and second nature i.e. BUILT IN BUT NOT BOLTED ON! The process is one of evolution, not revolution, as the Standard provides a template that focuses on the positive aspects of effective business management, such as: Leadership; Planning; Support Mechanisms; Operational Management; Performance Evaluation and Continuous Improvement. The key parts of the Standard will be examined, and the presentation will highlight the PDCA cycle, and the goodness of fit between H&SRM systems and an overall business excellence model. The implementation of ISO 45001 into organisations will not only improve H&SRM, but will also enhance the way organisations conduct their operations, with increasingly organisations realizing that the management of H&S risks must be at the top of their agenda Accredited businesses will have a leading edge over their competitors which in turn results in business excellence, whilst not-for-profit organisations can be reassured that the management of their H&S risks will improve their operations and reduce the risks to their workers. Globally figures from the International Labour Organisation show there are annually: 2.3 million people killed by work accidents and disease 6,300 workplace deaths per day (one every 15 seconds) 313 million non-fatal work accidents 160 million people with occupational disease Clearly more needs to be done to reduce worker deaths' injuries and occupational ill-health, and the clear way forward is to adopt and implement a business focussed and integrated health and safety management system. The new ISO 45001 Standard will assist the global awareness of this business focussed and integrated approach, which will support the drive towards business excellence, coupled with other key business management methods.

Introduction The declining health status of today's workforce has decreased the predictive value of risk assessment practices in Occupational Health and Safety (OHS), and has contributed to an emerging issue threatening workforce safety. Common risk assessment practices used across industries do not consider today's escalation in debilitating medical conditions among workers and the resulting increase in likelihood and severity of injury for the general workforce population. This paper will serve to expand the OHS professional's knowledge base regarding workforce health and raise awareness of this issue. Risk assessment is an essential component of any comprehensive safety and health program. This practice has been effective in reducing the likelihood of injury, illness or accident before such an adverse event is experienced. This fundamental practice has contributed to the standardization of safety practices through attempting to address the multitude of factors contributing to potential injury, illness or accident. Although necessary and utilized widely, the process of identification of potential harm to workers through risk assessment practices is losing effectiveness. This is a bold statement; however, we must acknowledge there is a glaring omission across the most commonly used risk assessment practices today: the underlying health status of the worker. A critical contributor, underlying health, is not considered in any of the commonly used risk assessment practices and therefore the physical and mental condition of the worker is assumed a constant in risk prediction. Yet this single unaccounted for factor is quite varied across individuals and one of the largest contributors to injury, illness and accident in the workplace. Underlying Health as a Deterrent to Workforce Safety and Productivity Health risk factors are physiological conditions or lifestyle habits, such as hypertension or smoking, which can negatively impact physical or cognitive functioning. Underlying health risk factors are associated with the increased incidence of declining health and the onset of diseases such as diabetes, heart disease or mental health issues. These health risk factors and diseases have an impact on basic human function such as potential decreased cognitive function or declining physical capacity. As a result underlying health and the presence of health risk factors are major determinants of both performance at work, and the likelihood and severity of workplace injury and illness.

Risk Assessment Process Risk assessment processes have been around for a number of years. The first time I can remember using one was in the early 1960's. Yes, I'm aware this is almost ancient history but it has a place in this discussion. We were looking at all the ways one could be hurt while performing welding and assembly operations while building an agricultural tool called a roller Harrow. You would have a hard time finding a roller harrow today because technological advances have made it all but obsolete. Back then there was a big demand for the product and it was a difficult product to produce. Lots of heavy lifting, difficult weld positions and so many pinch points you couldn't count them all. We had few safety regulations but not many and OSHA was still years away. We had many injuries and we knew we had a problem. We had to do something. So, we sat down as a team and listed each step of the job and tried to determine any exposure that could cause an injury. Exposures like sharp edges, pinch points, hot material, heavy lifts, etc. Much like an early version of a Job Hazard Analysis or a job safety analysis. The basic risk matrix might look like Exhibit #1 below. I've taken the liberty to have five levels of risk represented, signified by the colors red, orange, yellow, beige, lime green and green. Most of the risk assessments I've seen have only three colors and of course 3 risk levels. Essentially, we looked at the likelihood of something happening (Very Likely, Likely and Not Likely). Then we looked at the severity possibility if that something happened. We wanted to know how serious the injury might be (Very Serious, Serious or Not Serious). While this isn't rocket science, it is a system intended to create better awareness, and eliminate a situation we termed unacceptable risk. We use this system even today and for good reason. This system is simple and it gets us to increase our awareness and correct obvious issues. The logical conclusion is that high probability and high severity required significant action to lower both severity and probability, while low probability and low severity would likely not require any or very little corrective action. Well, this all sounds good but there is an effectiveness issue because it is based only on two dimensions – likelihood and severity. Even back then I knew something was missing in the way the risks were assessed. What about miss-calculation, errors in judgement, issues with skill deficiencies or even simple human error. The risk assessment ignores any of these variables or others for that matter.

Overview An innovative process for managing hazards with higher potential to result in fatalities or serious injuries (FSI) is significantly reducing risk in a multinational company. After nearly four years of sustained implementation at over 200 manufacturing sites, successes and opportunities alike have been experienced. Data collected from over 60,000 risk assessments has provided a rich opportunity to tease out leading indicators of both performance and quality of risk reduction programs. The strategy that our company has adopted to deal with infrequent yet severe incident outcomes integrates a common approach to risk assessment, prioritization and management. It embodies a systematic evaluation of safeguards meant to control those hazards that have a high potential to result in fatal or otherwise severe outcomes. This approach in 3M is called Risk Assessment and Prioritization (RAP). The RAP process is embedded in the company's Worldwide Incident Management System (WIMS). Background The RAP process is used as an investigative tool following actual incidents but it is most beneficial in risk reduction and incident prevention when used for analysis of near miss events and potential FSI events. The initial risk levels of hazards are systematically prioritized based upon how effectively (or not) the safeguards are found to be performing. The assessment results are then used to define the most effective and efficient mitigation strategy when further risk reduction is warranted. A final hazard risk assessment is performed after mitigation is complete so that overall risk reduction can be quantified. When adequate hazard controls are in place, attention is directed at maintaining their effectiveness through a routine monitoring process. This approach to risk management supplements rather than replaces existing hazard management tools. When used to its fullest potential, the approach can incorporate the results of other hazard-specific techniques into the determination of how effective the "system" actually is at controlling hazards with severe consequence potential. Without question, the implementation of this tool has effectively lowered risk levels associated with many higher hazard tasks and activities to acceptable levels in a well-documented, defensible and quantifiable manner. The opportunity to understand performance and define the quality attributes of the risk management process has become a critical driver in the success of the program.

Introduction It is important for the safety professional to understand the role of the insurance/risk manager within their organization. Although the disciplines overlap they are often operating in silos and don't do a good job working with each other to optimize results and effectiveness. The session will cover the following items. Understanding Risk Managers Goals and Mindset Perspectives of those outside the profession on what a risk manager does and worries about. The risk management function, items risk managers get involved in and what they influence Enterprise Risk Management Strategic Risks Financial Risks Operational Risks Hazard Risks The comparison of the risk manager and safety roles Risk Manager Risk Avoidance Risk Reduction Risk Transfer Risk Retention Safety Manager Navigation, interpretation, and application of regulations Risk assessment/audit Design of engineering, work practice, and administrative controls Training and communication Goals of the risk manager Ideally be integral component of all business operations Minimize premium and insurance costs while maximizing insurance coverage Manage claims and related expenditures Regulatory compliance (SOX, OSHA, DOT, EPA, ACA, EEOC, FMLA, etc.) Favorable Contract Terms (Risk Transfer) Minimize impact of lawsuits Crisis Management

Introduction Many companies have embraced the importance of conducting risk assessments as a good safety practice; while others still rely on the findings of incident investigations and regulations to approach risk reduction. Unfortunately, doing the latter can have numerous ‘blind spots’, which can prevent comprehensive understanding of hazards, risks, and necessary actions to prevent and/or mitigate risk events from occurring. There are different techniques available for conducting risk assessments to identify hazards, risks and barriers. These techniques range from brainstorming sessions, utilizing the Swiss cheese method, and conducting bowtie assessments. All of these methods add value to the risk assessment process; but the bowtie method is perceived to be the most thorough. The first ‘real’ bowtie diagrams appeared in 1979, but how and when the method found its exact origin is not completely clear. After the catastrophic incident on the Piper Alpha platform in 1988, the oil and gas industry was urged to gain more insight in the causality of seemingly independent events and conditions and to develop a systematic/systemic way of assuring control over these Hazards. In the early nineties the Royal Dutch / Shell Group began utilizing bowties, followed quickly by the other oil and gas industry leaders. Recently other industries have started to use bowties as well including aviation, mining, maritime, chemical and health care. (CGE Risk Management Solutions B.V., 2015) Where Does a Bowtie Fit into the Risk Management Process? The risk management process is generally comprised of four main phases, which repeat on a regular basis to support continuous improvement efforts. The four main phases of the risk assessment process are outlined below: Identify Risks Assess Risks Respond Monitor and Review

Introduction Frequency rates of severe injury, including fatality, as well as occupational diseases, are notably higher in construction than other industries. Studies also indicate that the safety performance of the construction industry is always under challenge due to various factors, including the inherent nature of high-risk activities, deployment of large number of unskilled people, and use of heavy machinery, as well as various demographic factors. Construction workers keep moving from one place to the other to pursue their profession. Prior to joining the trade, a miniscule number of them receive some formal skill training and safety training, which are essential for safe working. Consequently, a large portion of them get set to pick up the trade skills on-the-job, which compounds the challenges of ensuring safe working at site. In this study, spanning 18 months' duration, involving over 20,000 workers from multiple project sites, factors associated with "risk perception," emerge as one of the most common causative contributors for various recordable injury cases. The study highlights that misplaced risk perception by the individuals associated with the activities at various levels have acted as the "trigger," directly or indirectly, leading the event chain to injury outcome. Subsequently, focused efforts are planned for mitigation by improving risk awareness among all concerned team members through various methods, including on-the-job, classroom training, and experiential learning associated with activity-related hazards and consequences. This paper will describe facets of risk perception, and its role in risk mitigation, and demonstrate the effectiveness of awareness programs, as well as other initiatives in optimizing risk perception for incident prevention. Risk can be quantified and is a product of probability and consequence of the event. Any activity beyond an acceptable risk level needs to be treated with suitable mitigation measures to bring the risk to within as low as reasonably practicable limits.

Introduction Worker injuries resulting from inadequate electrical administrative controls can be debilitating and even fatal. It is the safety professional's responsibility to guide employers on their obligations to maintain a safe work environment through administrative hazard controls. NFPA 70E electrical safety code provides guidance for workplace electrical safety program establishment and implementation. These programs are intended to reduce arc flash and shock risk to qualified persons. Outlined are practical ideas for developing and implementing programs that are organization and operation specific. Key elements from NFPA 70E (Standard for Electrical Safety in the Workplace®) as it relates electrical safety program requirements are outlined forthcoming. NFPA electrical safety codes including NFPA 70 (National Electrical Code®), NFPA 79 (Electrical Standard for Industrial Machinery), and NFPA 70B (Recommended Practice for Electrical Equipment Maintenance) provide guidance for engineering controls to electrical hazards. NFPA 70E (Standard for Electrical Safety in the Workplace) requires the employer to implement and document an overall electrical safety program that is appropriate to the risk associated with electrical hazards and as part of EOHS Management System. The program requirements apply to situations where the worker will be exposed to energized electrical systems at some point during servicing and maintenance activities. Seven Steps to a Proactive Program All too often health and safety programs are established and are filed in a binder or electronic folder and are rarely accessed for safety program guidance as intended. NFPA 70E (2015 Edition) Article 110.1 outline the required components of the electrical safety program. Outside the usual writing and filing of a safety program, the following steps outline recommendations for a proactive electrical safety program in accordance with 70E Article 110.1.

Introduction Our world today operates at a much different pace from a hundred years ago. Through the advent of automation and technology, we are able to reach out to the world in real time. We can work from home, our car, the office, or the coffee shop at any time, day or night. We may work flexible shifts, extended shifts, night shifts, rotating shifts, split shifts, swing shifts or simply 9–5. The reality is, today's world operates in 24 hours. What we do with those 24 hours predicts what we'll be able to do in the next 24 hours and beyond. From an organizational perspective, it is imperative to understand how they utilize their workforce to meet the 24 hour demands of society and a global economy. Unfortunately many businesses believe that simply having a body present with (hopefully) their eyes open is enough to fill the roster and get the work done. What they fail to understand is that being awake does not necessarily equate to alertness and subsequently, optimal performance. Furthermore, management often assumes that fatigue is controllable by the individual and out of the hands of the employer. This is a short-sighted and a misguided belief. There is nothing simple about fatigue. It is very much a complex issue thus requiring a multilevel approach that is driven by a formal management system. Introducing a Fatigue Risk Management System (FRMS) A management system is a set of guiding principles that form the strategic framework for your fatigue management program. Incorporating a systems approach is a switch from the more traditional "person" approach. The person approach concentrates on human error and tends to lay blame on worker behaviours such as forgetfulness, inattention, carelessness, and neglection of procedures.

Introduction Worldwide, the problem of motor vehicle fatalities tends to surpass the prevention efforts from governments, institutions, and industry in general. Fatalities and injuries in traffic crashes do not seem to reduce significantly; on the contrary, they maintain their trend to increase year after year, becoming a social and economic problem burden. The Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC) reported that the region presents one of the highest mortality rates due to traffic crashes. The burden of motor vehicle crashes has a significant impact on the society due to their high direct and indirect costs. Additionally, this type of event significantly targets working-age populations, with a subsequent impact on countries' competitiveness. In these countries, the estimated loss in gross domestic product oscillates between 1.6 and 3.0% per year. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), approximately 1.25 million lives are lost each year because of traffic accidents, and between 20 and 50 million people suffer non-fatal injuries, including any form of disability (WHO, 2015). Although these numbers remain steady since 2013, the high number of fatalities associated with traffic risk is a matter of concern. Factors, such as the increase in population and in the use of the motor vehicle, compared to other forms of transport, make the population in general more and more vulnerable. According to the scale of this problem, it is necessary to focus efforts in identifying new or improved methodologies able to effectively manage the risks associated with transit in all sectors. The objective of this paper is to present a model that manages the road-traffic accidents, through the implementation and development of an integrated risk assessment and management system that uses a logical and systematic process based on continuous improvement. Data from Colombia and the Region According to the National Institute of Forensic Medicine, in Colombia in 2015 were reported 52,690 cases from motor vehicle accidents. In these accidents, 6884 people died, representing 13.07% of the total number of accidents. As of December 2016, there were 6,800 fatalities in events associated with traffic accidents, which do not represented a significant reduction in comparison to previous years (Graph 1).

Introduction Many companies have embraced the importance of conducting risk assessments as a good safety practice; while others still rely on the findings of incident investigations and regulations to approach risk reduction. Unfortunately, doing the latter can have numerous ‘blind spots’, which can prevent comprehensive understanding of hazards, risks, and necessary actions to prevent and/or mitigate risk events from occurring. There are different techniques available for conducting risk assessments to identify hazards, risks and barriers. These techniques range from brainstorming sessions, utilizing the Swiss cheese method, and conducting bowtie assessments. All of these methods add value to the risk assessment process; but the bowtie method is perceived to be the most thorough. The first ‘real’ bowtie diagrams appeared in 1979, but how and when the method found its exact origin is not completely clear. After the catastrophic incident on the Piper Alpha platform in 1988, the oil and gas industry was urged to gain more insight in the causality of seemingly independent events and conditions and to develop a systematic/systemic way of assuring control over these Hazards. In the early nineties the Royal Dutch / Shell Group began utilizing bowties, followed quickly by the other oil and gas industry leaders. Recently other industries have started to use bowties as well including aviation, mining, maritime, chemical and health care. (CGE Risk Management Solutions B.V., 2015) Where Does a Bowtie Fit into the Risk Management Process? The risk management process is generally comprised of four main phases, which repeat on a regular basis to support continuous improvement efforts. The four main phases of the risk assessment process are outlined below: Identify Risks Assess Risks Respond Monitor and Review

Introduction As professionals, managers or engineers working in the field of safety at work, what we want is a work environment with no accidents. But we have to perform in an area where absolute perfection is rarely achieved, and we have to expect that risk will sometimes arise from a hazard (equipment failure, negligence or inattention of a worker, a bad maintenance program, lack of knowledge, etc.). Even when the risk is very low, an accident could occur. This can be a troubling thought for many people, and especially for those dedicated to prevention. We know that risk can never be entirely eliminated from an activity unless the activity is completely stopped, and we must prioritize certain prevention activities over others to maximize security. In this paper, the author presents some practices in risk management that can help in making choices that ensure the best possible safety level for workers. How can managers and professionals reach acceptable and tolerable levels of risk? In our personal lives, public policies or workplaces, can we use concepts like probabilities, the precautionary principle, ALARA, or acceptable risks to justify the risk level we can morally and legally accept? Safety should be more about putting energies on known and proven dangers than on eliminating hypothetical and rare risks. As we all know, the resources that can be devoted to health and safety are not infinite. We have to be able to advise stakeholders to focus less on eliminating minuscule, hypothetical risks that distract workers and employers from the known and proven threats. We must intensify our efforts in prevention, but we must also help the management team to make the best decisions possible and act where it counts and where we can expect the best results in safety.

A Fresh Approach to Risk Safety Professionals are asked by their employers to prevent injuries, from first aids to fatalities. This causes safety professionals to focus on the lagging indicators of outcome based safety measurements. But what if safety professionals stopped focusing on injury outcomes and instead focused on reducing the behaviors that cause injuries? If the behaviors related to injury reduction and prevention are measured, front-line supervision will have better information to recognize, address, and reduce the frequency of reoccurrence. Better yet, if the behaviors related to injury reduction and prevention are both measured and also have a severity rating applied, this allows employers and its front line supervision to focus on causal behaviors with the highest potential injury severities. This paper looks to examine the below. The difference in the measurement of behavioral direct causes versus injury outcomes Why employers and safety professionals should be critical of outcome based safety measurements Why it's important to challenge the concept of risk and its measurement Why better categorization of hazards equals better corrective measures Why consistent severity rankings are critical. How behavioral focused measurements can help front-line supervisors drive reduction in frequency of exposure.

Overview A great number of resources are used by companies to create a safe and healthful workplace. Strategies are defined, programs are written, processes and equipment are assessed, audits and inspections take place, measurements are taken, and results from any number of metrics are analyzed and reported to management and employees in order to drive continuous improvements in injury and illness reduction. This presentation describes an innovative methodology for fatality and serious injury (FSI) risk assessment and reduction. It explores the key challenges and success factors that have been identified during its global roll-out of the new approach to risk assessment of activities related to higher hazards in the workplace. The solution integrates a uniform manner to risk characterization, prioritization, and management with a systematic evaluation of safeguards, controls and layers of protection (LOP) for all common hazard identification inputs. This method is applied to the evaluation of incidents, near misses and potential hazards. Hazard risks are systematically prioritized based upon the analysis of the holistic effectiveness of all intended safeguards. This look at all LOP, safeguards and controls is used to define the most effective and efficient improvement strategy when gaps are identified. When improvement steps have been completed, a final hazard risk characterization is performed so that overall risk reduction can be quantified. Corporate policies in all cases require that we work to maintain safe & healthy operations that comply with applicable rules and standards. The process described here is designed to help identify and prioritize improvement opportunities, and reinforces the well-established advantages of engineering controls over administrative and PPE. Its use is especially helpful for understanding the need for additional LOPs for high hazard activities. Through on-site workshops, data analysis and frequent communications, this practical approach to risk management of activities associated with higher hazards has been rolled out on a global scale to sites across the corporation and has become a key tool in hazard management used by the sites.

Introduction Preventing fatal and life changing injury events moving forward will require a different approach than what the safety profession has been doing for most of the last 80 years. Heinrich's safety pyramid approach could only take us so far with its frequency of incidents approach. To get beyond that we must look deeper into an organization's climate (or culture) to address the precursor events that lead to those situations that have the potential to result in a fatal or life changing injury. Eastern Alliance Insurance Group, a worker's compensation insurance carrier, has developed an approach to address the critical cultural elements that must be in place to help an organization identify and address their risk factors; and implement proper controls to reduce the likelihood of fatal and life changing injuries. Our approach to preventing fatal and life changing injury events is called N3L3 ® – an acronym we use to identify the "culture" that needs to be in place to impact the potential for bad outcomes. N3L3 is derived from " the N ext Three Seconds – Protects Your L ife, Your L oved Ones and Your L ivelihood " ®. It combines elements like; changing the perception of an employer as to what risk is; engaging them to be actively involved in identification of their potential exposures and managing them through various deeply ingrained practices that are intended to ensure every worker is aware of what needs to be done to accomplish each task safely, and empowered without fear of reprisal to speak up when they have concerns. The N3L3 acronym was chosen, because it would be easy for workers to remember. N3L3 is intended to define a way of thinking and a mindset to help protect workers both at and away from work. Getting workers to think through a task and consider the potential consequences before they act, because: in addition to Protecting their L ife, their L oved Ones and their L ivelihood ; the Next Three Seconds, could be your Last Three seconds ®. Prevention of fatal and life changing injuries requires changing how we think about risk – we must understand there is risk in everything we do; it can be negative, positive, minimal or great; but it is always there. Several key elements are incorporated into the N3L3 culture, including: understanding that the past does not always accurately predict the future when dealing with those events that seem to occur at random, conscious vs. intuitive thinking, actively assessing risks, pre-work planning, stop-work authority and root cause analysis by teams. Each of these elements must be in place to support the culture and ensure that those high risk activities (precursors) are identified in the workplace and are treated appropriately when the situations are encountered. The maturity of the safety culture is measured for each of those precursors based on the organization's knowledge of their potential risks, competency of the training for their workforce, resources dedicated to managing their exposures, auditing to ensure adherence to policies, and feedback systems to close the loop on corrective measures and integrate into the day to day operations.