<<
Back to Department of the Air Force
OSHA Strategic Partnership Program
Annual Partnership Evaluation Report 2009
October 1, 2008 – September 30, 2009
| Partnership Name |
U.S. Department of Labor (DOL), Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA) and U.S. Department of Defense (DoD), U.S. Department
of the Air Force (USAF) |
| Purpose of Partnership |
To address civilian employee safety and health, reduce injuries and
illnesses and expand the Voluntary Protection Programs (VPP) to all USAF
installations. |
| Goal of Partnership |
| Goal |
Strategy |
Measure |
| Reduce civilian and military workforce injuries and
illnesses at each participating installation by 3% per year, consistent with
SHARE goals |
Identify top I/I causal factors; develop protocols to
address/abate hazards; and develop a system for near miss tracking |
- Changes in TCIR
- Changes in DART Rates
- Number of near misses reported
|
| Expand participation in VPP |
Complete baseline assessment for each installation, conduct
employee awareness surveys, expand and improve tools to promote safety and
health and share best practices, increase training events, facilitate use of
mentors and SGEs |
Number or percent of sites moving through OSHA Challenge;
level of awareness of employees; best practices; percent of monthly safety
meetings conducted and percent workforce participating; number/percent sites
using mentors/SGEs; number/percent sites that achieve VPP |
| Provide mechanism for promoting contractor safety and health |
Provide guidance to contractors to improve their safety and
health performance, require contract work statements to address safety and
health requirements and training as appropriate, track contractor safety and
health performance |
Percent of new, renewed, or completed contractor agreements
modified to include specific safety and health requirements; for applicable
contractors as defined in the CSP, monitor safety and health performance via
submitted injury and illness data. |
| Anticipated Outcomes |
| As VPP begins to take hold at USAF
installations and the culture shifts to more workers involved in the safety
and health management systems (SHMS), increased reporting of both
near-misses and mishaps are anticipated. Locally, a decrease in reportable
injuries and illnesses should be seen which will be moderated by
installations not in VPP, but will eventually impact USAF-wide injury rates.
Finally, the culture change initiated through the implementation of VPP will
naturally spill over to positively impact off-duty activities with an
anticipated reduction in off-duty injury and illness rates. |
| Strategic Management Plan Target Areas (check one) |
| Construction |
|
Amputations in Manufacturing |
|
| General Industry |
✓ |
|
|
| Strategic Management Plan Areas of Emphasis (check all applicable) |
| Amputations in Construction |
|
Oil and Gas Field Services |
|
| Blast Furnaces and Basic Steel Products |
|
Preserve Fruits and Vegetables |
|
| Blood Lead Levels |
|
Public Warehousing and Storage |
|
| Concrete, Gypsum and Plaster Products |
|
Ship/Boat Building and Repair |
|
| Ergo/Musculoskeletal |
|
Silica-Related Disease |
|
|
Landscaping/Horticultural Services |
|
|
|
Section 1 - General Partnership Information
| Date of Evaluation Report |
July 2010 |
| Evaluation Period: |
| Start Date |
1 October 2008 |
End Date |
December 31, 2009 |
Note: Data includes 2009
calendar year data.
| Evaluation OSHA Contact Person |
Diane Price – Project Lead |
| Originating Office |
OSHA’s National Office, Washington DC |
| Partnership Coverage |
| # Active Employers |
1 |
# Active Employees Impacted |
160,000 |
|
See Appendix A for listing of USAF installations |
|
Section 2 - Activities Performed
| Note whether an activity was
provided for by the OSP and whether it was performed |
|
Required |
Performed |
| a. Training |
Yes |
Yes |
| b. Consultation Visits |
No |
No |
| c. Safety and Health Management Systems
Reviewed/Developed |
Yes |
Yes |
| d. Technical Assistance |
No |
Yes |
| e. VPP-Focused Activities |
Yes |
Yes |
| f. OSHA Enforcement Inspection |
No |
Yes |
| g. Offsite Verifications |
Yes |
No |
| h. Onsite Non-Enforcement Interactions |
No |
Yes |
| i. Participant Self-Inspections |
No |
Yes |
| j. Other Activities |
|
|
| 2a. Training (if performed, provide the
following totals) |
| Training session conducted by OSHA staff |
0 |
| Training session conducted by non-OSHA staff |
10 |
| Employees trained |
240 |
| Training hours provided to employees |
4,560 |
| Supervisors/managers trained |
* |
| Training hours provided to supervisors/managers |
* |
| Comments/Explanations (briefly describe
activities, or explain if activity provided for but not performed) |
Provided 10 training courses:
6 - Implementation & Sustainment Courses - 180 total persons trained - 20
hours per course: This course trains USAF members on how to utilize the VPP
criteria to improve their occupational safety and health processes.
4 - Assessor Courses - 60 total persons trained - 16 hours per course : This
course mirrors the OSHA SGE course and trains USAF members to effectively
assess occupational safety and health processes using the VPP criteria.
These courses have direct benefit to the USAF as they allow for the
leveraging of resources making the USAF less dependent on OSHA expertise for
routine safety and health activities.
* Supervisors/managers not specifically broken out. All first-time
supervisors are required to take the USAF Supervisor Safety Training Course.
|
| 2b. Consultation Visits (if performed, provide
the following total) |
| Consultation visits to partner sites |
N/A |
| Comments/Explanations (briefly describe
activities, or explain if activity provided for but not performed) |
|
| 2c. Safety and Health Management Systems (if
performed, provide the following total) |
| Systems implemented or improved using the OSHA’s 1989 Safety
and Health Program Management Guidelines as a model |
8 |
| Comments/Explanations (briefly describe
activities, or explain if activity provided for but not performed) |
The OSP was signed in August 2007. At that
time, there were 20 USAF participating installations. The OSP allows
additional installations to be added or deleted from participation without
modification to the agreement. As of July, 2009 there are 41 installations
in the process of applying for VPP.
To assist the Army and other services within the DoD to expand VPP
participation, the Defense Safety Oversight Council established the DoD VPP
Center of Excellence (DoD VPP-CX). The DoD VPP-CX supports Army
installations/sites participating in the OSP in achieving and maintaining
VPP recognition by providing on-site and remote assistance and delivering
training on VPP and safety and health technical issues. Reported by the
VPP-CX, the following is a summary of their progress towards completing the
VPPCX Challenge tool: six installations are 85% complete; two installations
are 50% complete; four installations are 40% complete; and the remaining 29
are between 20% and 30% complete.
During this evaluation period, an additional six USAF installations
completed the implementation of their safety and health management system (SHMS)
to a level that qualified them, when approved, for VPP Star. A review of
their SHMS was conducted as part of the VPP evaluation. These installations
are listed in Section 2e of this evaluation document.
The following best practices were identified by the VPPCX at the six USAF
VPP Star installations:
- The 88th AFB Wright Patterson’s use of written safety programs and the
assignment of Safety Officers to each operational unit have been used to
address all types of safety, including air, ground and nuclear. This
historically comprehensive approach has been used since the beginning of the
USAF’s safety and health management systems.
- 402 Software Maintenance Group personnel with medical alerts have a
designation on their identification badge. Jewelry, such as medical alert
bracelets, is prohibited in some shop areas, and the badge designation aids
emergency responders.
- The incident investigation report section of the 115th Fighter Wing’s Air
Force Safety Automated System (AFSAS) contained an excellent algorithm for
assessing root cause.
- The Commander of the Aeronautical Systems Center, Command Center has a
team that has the responsibility for keeping safety awareness high and
recognizing worker participation. Recognition is focused on participation,
rather than results.
- The Hanscom AFB Hazard/Near Miss Reporting Tool was developed from a
continuous process improvement initiative to enhance Hansom’s hazard
reporting process. The tool provides a user friendly, web-based interface
allowing any worker with computer access to report workplace hazards or
safety concerns.
- David Grant Medical Center had excellent industrial hygiene records.
- Wright Patterson Medical Center, 88th Medical Group uses the “Good Catch
Program” to reward workers for identifying hazards and near-misses. This
information is used in a non-attribution way to apply root cause analysis to
accidents and near-misses, and to share lessons learned through the
Organizational Improvement Office (OIO).
- 148th Fighter Wing Duluth was found to have effective communication
between union and management through ESOH (Environmental, Safety, and
Occupational Health) Committee and partnership meetings.
The USAF published a guidance document for VPP called a Concept of
Operations Document (CONOPS) which is embedded below. This is a policy and
guidance document for the Major Commands (responsible for multiple
installations) as well as each USAF installation participating in the OSP.
The CONOPS was signed by the highest ranking military member in the USAF
(The Chief of Staff of the Air Force).
To reinforce the guidance in CONOPS, a memorandum signed by Kevin Billings,
then Acting Asst Secretary of the USAF was issued to all installation
Commanders. This memorandum, (see Appendix C) strongly encourages the
commanders to embrace VPP as an industry proven means to make the USAF safer
and to reduce injuries and illnesses.
Additionally, the USAF developed and implemented a contractor policy
document (also embedded below) that was distributed to all installation
commanders. The USAF policy establishes safety and health requirements and
provides guidance and practical techniques for contractors coming onto USAF
installations participating in the OSP. In addition, USAF provided
contracting officers with the CONOPS, which outlines practical techniques to
integrate contracting requirements into installation VPP efforts. The USAF
continues to update this manual as needed to improve its contractor
policies. |
| 2d. Technical Assistance (if performed, note
type and by whom) |
|
Provided by OSHA Staff |
Provided by Partners |
Provided by Other Party |
| Conference/Seminar Participation |
No |
Yes |
No |
| Interpretation/Explanation of Standards or OSHA
Policy |
Yes |
No |
No |
| Abatement Assistance |
No |
No |
No |
| Speeches |
No |
No |
No |
| Other (specify) |
|
|
|
| Comments/Explanations (briefly describe
activities, or explain if activity provided for but not performed) |
| Representatives from the USAF participated in
the DoD meetings and workshops presented at the 25th Annual National VPP
Participants’ Association (VPPPA) Conference in San Antonio, Texas in August
2009. During this conference OSHA provided interpretations of OSHA safety
and health standards and discussed how standards can be applied when
assessing injury and illness accidents. Also, a lengthy discussion was held
between the partners regarding safety and health requirements for the use of
non-prescription and prescription medications. |
| 2e. VPP-Focused Activities (if performed,
provide the following total) |
| Partners/participants actively seeking VPP participation |
41 |
| Applications submitted |
6 |
| VPP participants |
6 |
| Comments/Explanations (briefly describe
activities, or explain if activity provided for but not performed) |
Six USAF installations submitted applications
for VPP in 2009, were approved for participation during this evaluation
period and are listed below. See exec summary language
- 88 Medical Group, Wright Patterson AFB OH: Approved November 7, 2008
- Hanscom Air Force Base/Electronics Systems Center, Hanscom AFB MA: Approved August 3, 2009
- 115 Fighter Wing, Madison WI: Approved September 18, 2009
- 402 Software Maintenance Group, Robins AFB GA: Approved September 18, 2009
Two additional sites submitted their application during the evaluation
period but received their VPP approval just subsequent to the evaluation
period. The information for these sites has been added to this evaluation as
the data supplied by the USAF included the results for these two sites
- David Grant Medical Center, Travis AFB CA: Approved January 6, 2010/
- Aeronautical Systems Center, Headquarters Element, Wright Patterson AFB
OH: Approved November 12, 2009
In accordance with the OSP, these six USAF installations have achieved VPP
status, they will be removed from the OSP in 2010.
|
| 2f. OSHA Enforcement Activity (if performed, provide the
following totals for any programmed, unprogrammed, and verification-related inspections) |
| OSHA enforcement inspections conducted |
22 |
| OSHA enforcement inspections in compliance |
0 |
| OSHA enforcement inspection with violations cited |
22 |
| Average number of citations classified as Serious, Repeat,
and Willful (per inspections) |
1.5 |
| Comments/Explanations (briefly describe
activities, or explain if activity provided for but not performed) |
| The 22 enforcement inspections were conducted
at USAF OSP participating installations. These inspections resulted in the
issuance of 48 citations. Of the 48 citations, 32 were classified as
Serious, Repeat, and Willful. An additional 16 violations were classified as
Other Than Serious. The average number S/W/R citations per inspection at
USAF facilities were 1.5. |
| 2g. Offsite Verification (if performed, provide
the following total) 1.5 |
| Offsite verifications performed |
N/A |
| Comments/Explanations (briefly describe
activities, or explain if activity provided for but not performed) |
|
| 2h. Onsite Non-Enforcement Verification (if
performed, provide the following total) |
| Onsite non-enforcement verifications performed |
5 |
| Comments/Explanations (briefly describe
activities, or explain if activity provided for but not performed) |
Although not defined by the OSP as onsite
non-enforcement verifications, onsite VPP evaluations include site
walkthroughs, document reviews, and employee interviews which mirror many of
the same elements conducted during onsite verifications.
Five of the six installations listed in Section 2a of this evaluation
received their onsite VPP audit during this time. |
| 2i. Participant Self-Inspections (if performed,
provide the following total) |
| Self-inspections performed |
Yes |
| Hazards and/or violations identified and corrected/abated |
N/A |
| Comments/Explanations (briefly describe
activities, or explain if activity provided for but not performed) |
All installations are required by a USAF
directive to perform monthly facility inspections and an annual overall
assessment. Additionally, the USAF Safety Center performed 18 USAF
Inspection Agency evaluations at major commands and direct reporting units.
The USAF also executed 21 VPP-specific engagement and assessment visits.
Although the specific numbers of hazards identified/corrected during the
self audits are not tracked above the installation level. The USAF reported
that with the assistance of the VPP-CX, the installations develop plans for
addressing system deficiencies. The VPP-CX also assists the installations by
providing technical information related to hazards identified. |
| 2j. Other Activities (briefly describe other activities
performed) |
N/A |
Section 3 - Illness and Injury Information
| Comments |
| The USAF has shown some progress in decreasing their
occupational injury and illness rates and experiences. USAF provided OSHA
with injury and illness data for the six VPP installations covered in this
evaluation. In addition, USAF provided OSHA with some additional information
based on data from the VPP-CX E-Tool. The chart below is indicative of a
decrease in injury and illness rate for the six VPP OSP installations. See
Appendix B for details. (These rates do not reflect injury and illness rates
for active duty personnel.) |
| Site Name |
3-yr TCIR |
TCIR BLS Avg |
Percent Below BLS Industry Average |
3-yr DART |
DART BLS Avg |
Percent Below BLS Industry Average |
| 88th Medical Group, Wright Patterson, AFB, OH
|
(2006-2008)
2.5
|
(2007)
7.7 |
(2007)
67% |
(2006-2008)
1.6 |
(2007)
3.0 |
(2007)
47% |
| 115th Fighter Wing, Madison, WS |
(2006-2008)
2.6 |
(2007)
6.2 |
(2007)
58% |
(2006-2008)
0.5 |
(2007)
4.3 |
(2007)
88% |
| 402nd Software Maintenance Group, Robins AFB, GA |
(2006-2008)
0.3 |
(2006)
0.7 |
(2006)
57% |
(2006-2008)
0.2 |
(2006)
0.3 |
(2006)
33% |
| Aeronautical Systems Center, Wright Patterson,
AFB OH |
(2006-2008)
1.2 |
(2006)
2.1 |
(2006)
65% |
(2006-2008)
.58 |
(2006)
1.1 |
(2006)
68% |
| David Grant Medical Center, Travis AFB, CA |
(2006-2008)
1.1 |
(2008)
7.6 |
(2008)
86% |
(2006-2008)
0.7 |
(2008)
2.9 |
(2008)
76% |
| Hanscom Air Force Base, Hanscom AFB, MA |
(2006-2008)
1.3 |
(2007)
6.2 |
(2007)
80% |
(2006-2008)
0.2 |
(2007)
2.6 |
(2007)
92% |
The average percent below the BLS industry average for the six VPP sites listed
above is TCIR 69% and DART 68%. These VPP participants range from 57% to 86%
below the National averages for TCIR and 33% to 92% below for DART rates as
reported by the participants.
Section 4 - Partnership Plans, Benefits, and Recommendations
| Changes and Challenges (check all applicable) |
| |
Changes |
Challenges |
| Management Structure |
✓ |
|
| Participants |
|
|
| Data Collection |
✓ |
✓ |
| Employee Involvement |
|
✓ |
| OSHA Enforcement Inspection |
|
|
| Partnership Outreach |
|
|
| Training |
|
|
| Other (Specify) |
|
|
| Comments |
|
| Plans to Improve (check all applicable) |
| |
Improvements |
N/A |
| Meet more often |
|
|
| Improve data collection |
|
|
| Conduct more training |
|
|
| Change goals |
|
|
| Comments |
|
| Partnership Benefits (check all applicable) |
| Increased safety and health awareness |
✓ |
| Improved relationship with OSHA |
✓ |
| Improved relationship with employers |
|
| Improved relationship with employees or unions |
|
| Increased number of participants |
✓ |
| Other (specify) |
✓ |
| Comments |
Since entering the OSP agreement on August 25,
2008, the USAF has worked together with OSHA and the VPP-CX and has
accomplished activities including enhancements to its installations’ SHMS
and the approval of 8 USAF installations in OSHA’s VPP. In addition, the OSP
allows the USAF to provide common information on the USAF installations in
VPP to OSHA’s National Office and all of the OSHA Regional Offices; there
are participating USAF installations in every OSHA region.
Further, through the OSP, the USAF reports it has been successful in
achieving the culture shift to the implementation of a more worker directed
safety and health management system. Although the USAF reports more workers
have become aware of potential job hazards, there has not been an increase
in the reporting of near-misses at participating installations. |
| Status Recommendations (check one) |
| Partnership Completed |
|
| Continue/Renew |
|
| Continue with the following provisions: |
✓ |
| While the OSP requires the USAF to submit data
for all OSP participating installations, USAF only provided data for the six
installations which attained VPP status during this reporting period. As a
result, the agency’s ability to evaluate the overall impact of the OSP at
the USAF OSP participating installations is limited. During the final year
of the OSP, OSHA and USAF will continue to work together to address safety
and health improvements at participating installations. In addition, OSHA
and USAF will work together to develop a system to facilitate the
transmission of required OSP data so that the impact of the OSP may be fully
evaluated. |
Terminate (provide explanation)
|
|
| |
|
APPENDIX A
| OSHA Regions |
Participating Installations/sites |
Initial Sites Selected to Participate in OSP |
Sites Selected after Signing of OSP |
Sites achieved VPP Status |
| I |
Hanscom AFB, MA |
X |
|
|
| I |
Electric Systems Center, Hanscom AFB, MA |
|
X |
X |
| II |
AF Research Lab – Rome, NY |
|
X |
|
| II |
McGuire AFB, NJ |
X |
|
|
| III |
Dover AFB, DE |
|
X |
|
| IV |
Charleston AFB, SC |
|
X |
|
| IV |
Columbus AFB, MS |
|
X |
|
| IV |
Eglin AFB, FL |
X |
|
|
| IV |
Hurlburt Field, FL |
X |
|
|
| IV |
MacDill AFB, FL |
|
X |
|
| IV |
Pope AFB, NC |
|
X |
|
| IV |
Robins AFB, GA |
X |
|
X |
| IV |
402 Software Maintenance Group, Robins AFB, GA |
|
X |
|
| IV |
Seymour Johnson AFB, SC |
|
X |
|
| IV |
Shaw AFB, SC |
|
X |
X |
| V |
Scott AFB, IL |
|
X |
X |
| V |
88 Medical Group, Wright Patterson AFB, OH |
|
X |
|
| V |
Aeronautical Systems Center, Headquarters Element, Wright
Patterson AFB, OH |
|
X |
|
| V |
AF Research Lab, Wright Patterson AFB, OH |
|
X |
X |
| V |
Wright Patterson, AFB, OH |
X |
|
|
| V |
115 Fighter Wing, Madison, WI |
|
X |
|
| VI |
Altus AFB, OK |
X |
|
|
| VI |
Canon AFB, NM |
|
X |
|
| VI |
Dyess AFB, TX |
|
X |
|
| VI |
Goodfellow AFB, TX |
|
X |
|
| VI |
Holloman AFB, NM |
X |
|
|
| VI |
Kirtland AFB, NM |
X |
|
|
| VI |
AF Research Lab – Kirtland AFB, NM |
|
X |
|
| VI |
Laughlin AFB, TX |
|
X |
|
| VI |
Little Rock AFB, AR |
|
X |
|
| VI |
Sheppard AFB, TX |
|
X |
|
| VI |
Tinker AFB, OK |
X |
|
|
| VI |
Vance AFB, OK |
|
X |
|
| VII |
McConnell AFB, KS |
|
X |
|
| VII |
Whiteman AFB, MO |
X |
|
|
| VIII |
Buckley AFB, CO |
X |
|
|
| VIII |
Grand Forks AFB, ND |
|
X |
|
| VIII |
Hill AFB, UT |
X |
|
|
| VIII |
Malmstrom AFB, MT |
|
X |
|
| IX |
David Grant Medical Center, Travis AFB, CA |
X |
|
|
| IX |
Edwards AFB, CA |
X |
|
|
| IX |
Hickam AFB, HI |
|
X |
|
| IX |
Los Angeles AFB |
X |
|
|
| IX |
Travis AFB, CA |
X |
|
|
| IX |
Vandenberg AFB, CA |
|
X |
|
| X |
Eielson AFB, AK |
X |
|
|
| X |
Elmendorf AFB, AK |
X |
|
|
| X |
Fairchild AFB, WA |
|
X |
|
| X |
Mt Home AFB, ID |
|
X |
|
The above installation NAICS codes are as follows: 481112 for scheduled freight air
transportation; 48819 for other support activities for air transportation; 551114 for corporate subsidiary and regional managing offices;
56121 for facilities support services; 62211 for general medical and surgical hospitals; 92811 for national security.
APPENDIX B
| 1 |
Year |
Partner TCIR |
BLS TCIR |
Partner DART |
BLS DART |
Partner TCIR % above/below BLS Avg for Same Yr |
Partner DART % above/below BLS Avg for Same Yr |
|
88th Medical Group, Wright
Patterson, AFB, OH (NAICS 622110) |
2006 |
3.50 |
8.10 |
1.60 |
3.20 |
-56.79% |
-50.00% |
| 2007 |
2.70 |
7.70 |
2.00 |
3.00 |
-64.94% |
-33.33% |
| 2008* |
1.40 |
7.60 |
1.20 |
2.90 |
-81.58% |
-58.62% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3-year Average |
2.5 |
7.8 |
1.6 |
3.0 |
-67.52% |
-47.25% |
| Avg +/- over 3 years |
-36.8% |
-3.1% |
-13.4% |
-4.8% |
|
|
| 2 |
Year |
Partner TCIR |
BLS TCIR |
Partner DART |
BLS DART |
Partner TCIR % above/below BLS Avg for Same Yr |
Partner DART % above/below BLS Avg for Same Yr |
|
115th Fighter Wing, Madison, WI (NAICS
488190) |
2006 |
2.40 |
6.20 |
0.00 |
3.70 |
-61.29% |
-100.00% |
| 2007 |
3.30 |
6.20 |
1.00 |
4.30 |
-46.77% |
-76.74% |
| 2008* |
2.00 |
4.70 |
0.50 |
2.90 |
-57.45% |
-82.76% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3-year Average |
2.6 |
5.7 |
0.5 |
3.6 |
-54.97% |
-86.24% |
| Avg +/- over 3 years |
-8.7% |
-12.9% |
** |
-11.5% |
|
|
| 3 |
Year |
Partner TCIR |
BLS TCIR |
Partner DART |
BLS DART |
Partner TCIR % above/below BLS Avg for Same Yr |
Partner DART % above/below BLS Avg for Same Yr |
|
402nd Software Maintenance Group,
Robins AFB, GA (NAICS 541511) |
2006 |
0.30 |
0.70 |
0.20 |
0.30 |
-57.14% |
-33.33% |
| 2007 |
0.40 |
0.50 |
0.40 |
0.10 |
-20.00% |
300.00% |
| 2008 |
0.30 |
0.30 |
0.10 |
0.10 |
0.00% |
0.00% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3-year Average |
0.333 |
0.500 |
0.233 |
0.167 |
-33.33% |
40.00% |
| Avg +/- over 3 years |
0.0%* |
-34.5% |
-29.3% |
-42.3% |
|
|
| 4 |
Year |
Partner TCIR |
BLS TCIR |
Partner DART |
BLS DART |
Partner TCIR % above/below BLS Avg for Same Yr |
Partner DART % above/below BLS Avg for Same Yr |
| Aeronautical Systems Center,
Wright Patterson, AFB, OH (NAICS 551114) |
2006 |
0.00 |
2.10 |
0.00 |
1.10 |
-100.00% |
-100.00% |
| 2007 |
1.74 |
1.90 |
0.00 |
0.90 |
-8.42% |
-100.00% |
| 2008* |
1.74 |
1.60 |
1.74 |
0.70 |
8.75% |
148.57% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3-year Average |
1.2 |
1.9 |
0.6 |
0.9 |
-37.86% |
-35.56% |
| Avg +/- over 3 years |
0.0%* |
-12.7% |
0.0%* |
-20.2% |
|
|
| 5 |
Year |
Partner TCIR |
BLS TCIR |
Partner DART |
BLS DART |
Partner TCIR % above/below BLS Avg for Same Yr |
Partner DART % above/below BLS Avg for Same Yr |
|
David Grant Medical Center Travis
AFB, CA (NAICS 622110) |
2006 |
0.70 |
8.10 |
0.70 |
3.20 |
-91.36% |
-78.13% |
| 2007 |
0.70 |
7.70 |
0.70 |
3.00 |
-90.91% |
-76.67% |
| 2008* |
1.80 |
7.60 |
0.70 |
2.90 |
-76.32% |
-75.86% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3-year Average |
1.1 |
7.8 |
0.7 |
3.0 |
-86.32% |
-76.92% |
| Avg +/- over 3 years |
60.4% |
-3.1% |
0.0% |
-4.8% |
|
|
| 6 |
Year |
Partner TCIR |
BLS TCIR |
Partner DART |
BLS DART |
Partner TCIR % above/below BLS Avg for Same Yr |
Partner DART % above/below BLS Avg for Same Yr |
|
Hanscom Air Force Base, Hanscom AFB,
MA (NAICS 561210) |
2006 |
1.3 |
5.90 |
0.10 |
3.00 |
-77.97% |
-96.67% |
| 2007 |
1.50 |
6.20 |
0.00 |
2.60 |
-75.81% |
-100.00% |
| 2008* |
1.00 |
4.30 |
0.50 |
1.80 |
-76.74% |
-72.22% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3-year Average |
1.3 |
5.5 |
0.2 |
2.5 |
-76.86% |
-91.89% |
| Avg +/- over 3 years |
-12.3% |
-14.6% |
0.0%* |
-22.5% |
|
|
| ALL |
Year |
Partners Avg TCIR |
BLS Avg TCIR* |
Partners Avg DART |
BLS Avg DART* |
Partner TCIR % above/below BLS
Avg for Same Yr |
Partner DART % above/below BLS
Avg for Same Yr |
|
Injury and Illness Averages for 6 of
8 VPP sites with reported data |
2006 |
1.37 |
5.18 |
0.43 |
2.42 |
-73.63% |
-82.07% |
| 2007 |
1.72 |
5.03 |
0.68 |
2.32 |
-65.76% |
-70.50% |
| 2008* |
1.37 |
4.35 |
0.79 |
1.88 |
-68.43% |
-58.05% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3-year Average |
1.5 |
4.9 |
0.6 |
2.2 |
-69.36% |
-71.18% |
| Avg +/- over 3 years |
0.2% |
-8.4% |
35.0% |
-11.7% |
|
|
APPENDIX C
The document below is a USAF memorandum to all USAF Commands providing guidance to installations and contractors on
appropriate means for driving down on and off duty injury rates. This guidance incorporates active worker involvement by all parties.
 |
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
WASHINGTON DC |
MEMORANDUM FOR ALMAJCOM/DRU/FOA/CC
SUBJECT: Voluntary Protection Program Implementation and Contracting Activities
The AF has focused on reducing its illness and injury rates by incorporating the
proven industry model of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration
(OSHA) Voluntary Protection Programs (VPP) into our already robust Air Force
Occupational Safety and Health (AFOSH) program and wingman culture. VPP is a
recognition program that requires active employee participation by all parties.
To date, over 60 sites across the Air Force have initiated VPP and two
locations, the 148th FW and the 88th ABW, have been recognized by OSHA as a Star
Site, effectively meeting all VPP criteria.
Two elements of VPP represent the greatest potential for driving down our on- and off- duty injury rates.
The first is active personnel involvement in all elements of safety and health; an "Airmen-owned" safety program
is the goal with all civilians, Airmen and contractors taking an active role. Your installation safety and
occupational health professionals are your technical guides, and your installation/wing leadership, first
line supervisors, and union leaders are responsible for the overall implementation of VPP. The second key
VPP element is contractor oversight. This does not mean our safety and health professionals will be
executing our contractors' safety and health programs, but rather that we will now include safety and health
performance as expected criteria for overall contractor performance.
Installations implementing VPP (see attachment 1, Air Force VPP Implementation Schedule) must develop a
strategy for the phased inclusion of applicable contractors (i.e. contractors whose work force/employees have
worked at least 1,000 hours on an installation in any calendar quarter within the previous 12 months and are
not directly supervised by the installation.) IAW the installation's VPP strategy, any Air Force organization
seeking to award a contract to an applicable contractor should include the attached VPP Elements for Requirements
Documents (Atch 2) whenever applicable. There is no expectation that VPP requirements will be incorporated
by amendment or modification into existing contracts; however, these requirements should be included in any
applicable new or subsequent contracts. Additionally, any installation/organization implementing VPP should
work with the contracting office to notify contractors of its intent to implement VPP. I am confident that
many of our existing contract partners will recognize VPP as an opportunity to improve the safety and welfare of
their employees and will willingly join with the AF to realize this goal. SAF/AQ has developed and will soon
distribute a Contracting VPP Guide to assist the base contracting office in the installation VPP implementation.
Each of us has a responsibility to serve as a wingman for each other. As the Air Force's Designated Agency
Safety and Health Official (DASHO), the health and safety of our total force -Airmen, civilians and contractors-
is critically important to me and to mission success. My time in the private sector taught me that you can
efficiently carry out hazardous jobs safely; injuries should not be a cost of doing business. As a means to
that end, I strongly encourage commanders to embrace VPP as an industry proven means to make our Air Force
safer and to reduce injuries and illnesses both on and off duty.
My POC for VPP Implementation is Mr. Vance Lineberger, 703-693-7706, Vance.Lineberger@pentagon.af.mil.
| |
Kevin W. Billings
Acting Assistant Secretary
(Installations, Environment, & Logistics) |
2 Attachments:
1. Air Force VPP Implementation Schedule
2. VPP Elements for Requirements Documents
cc:
SAF/US/AQ/FM/IE/MR/XC
AF/CV/CVA
AF/A1/A2/A3/5A4/7/A8/A9/SE/SG
ALMAJCOM/CV
|