OSHA Strategic Partnership Program<< Back to Department of the Army


Partnership Name
U.S. Army/OSHA Strategic Partnership
 
Purpose of Partnership
In the fall of 2003, the U.S. Army approached OSHA with a desire to use a proactive approach to improve Army civilian workforce safety and health at their installations. The Army recognized that OSHA had valuable expertise in workplace safety and health, and could offer useful tools, such as participation in OSHA Challenge and the Voluntary Protection Programs (VPP), to help achieve the Army’s goal of improved worker safety and health at Army installations/sites.
In return, OSHA recognized that a partnership with the Army allows the partners to focus on a diverse spectrum of workplace safety and health management programs and best practices. The lessons learned from the OSP will be used to further improve safety and health at non-partner Army installations.

The Army and OSHA entered into their first OSHA Strategic partnership (OSP) on October15, 2004 and renewed their commitments to improving occupational safety and health by signing a renewal OSP agreement on August 25, 2008. The OSP is designed to support the goal of the President’s Safety, Health and Return to Employment (SHARE) Initiative to reduce occupational injuries and illnesses by 3% per year; however, this program was terminated October 1, 2009.
 
Goal Strategy Measure
1) Reduce civilian and contractor workforce fatalities, injuries, and illnesses at each participating Army installations by at least 3% each year, consistent with SHARE goals a) Identify top injury, illness and fatality causal factors at each
OSP installation through review of injury/illness data and other supporting documentation

b) Develop a protocol to address top incident causal factors through hazard identification and hazard abatement		 i) Total Case Incidence Rate (TCIR)

ii) Days Away, Restricted, Transferred Case Incidence rate (DART rate)

iii) Number of civilian or contractor fatalities compared to the OSP baseline

iv) Number and analysis of near-misses
2) Expand awareness of the value of effective safety and health management systems (SHMS) a) Complete a baseline assessment for each installation using OSHA’s Challenge tool and/or the Army’s VPP Gap Analysis tool developed by the DoD VPPCX

b) Conduct employee awareness surveys

c) Expand and improve tools to promote safety & health and share best practices (i.e., VPP website, meetings, etc.)

d) Increase training/events to promote safety & health		 i) Number of sites completing baseline assessments

ii) Number/percentage of sites using OSHA Challenge and the data reflecting the status of their participation

iii) Level of safety awareness as rated by worker surveys
3) Expand the Army’s participation in VPP a) Maintaining the number of sites completing baseline assessments

b) Measuring the number/percentage of sites using OSHA Challenge and the data reflecting the status of their participation

c) Rating the level of safety awareness as rated by worker surveys		 i) Number or percent of sites using mentors

ii) Number/percent of sites/installations who have applied for or been approved to VPP

iii) Number of employees covered at sites participating in VPP
4) Share best practices and successes with other Army installations and similar worksites in other industries a) Use OSHA and DoD VPPCX websites to highlight OSP best practices and successes

b) Develop and/or expand internal methods for Army to share best practices and successes with non-participating Army installations 		i) Number of best practices and successes identified and/or posted on the web

ii) Number/percent of non-partner Army sites incorporating best practices at their installations

iii) Number of web hits on the DoD VPPCX website
5) Convey civilian workforce safety & health best practices and injury/illness reduction lessons learned to soldiers where appropriate a) Use DoD VPPCX website and Army newsletters to share/promote best practices i) Number of best practices identified and shared

ii) Number of newsletter articles generated

iii) Summary of feedback from DoD VPPCX website
Anticipated Outcomes
Improve worker safety and health by reducing occupational injuries and illnesses at Army installations/sites. This agreement supports the goal of the President’s Safety, Health, and Return-to-Employment (SHARE) initiative.
 
Strategic Management Plan Target Areas (check one)
Construction X Amputations  
General Industry X    
Strategic Management Plan Areas of Emphasis
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  


Section 1 - General Partnership Information
 
Date of Evaluation Report July 15, 2010
Evaluation Period:
Start Date August 25, 2008 End Date August 25, 2009
Evaluation OSHA Contact Person Al Woodson, 202-693-2589
Partnership Management Team
Members		 Mark Adkins, Department of the Army
Anita Dudley, Army Safety Center
Cynthia Massengale, Army Material Command
Richard Wright, Army Corp of Engineers
Cathy Oliver, OSHA, DCSP, OPR, Director
Jackie Annis, OSHA, DCSP, OPR, Team Leader
Al Woodson, OSHA, DCSP, OPR, Safety & Health Specialist
Lewis Ligon, OSHA, Federal Agency Coordinator
Gregory Tate, OSHA, Region III, OSPP Coordinator
Tom Bosley (replaced Bill Grimes), OSHA, Region IV Compliance Assistance Specialist
Mike Talmont, OSHA, Region VI, OSPP
Coordinator
Originating Office OSHA’s National Office, Washington DC


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 Yes Yes
e. VPP-Focused Activities Yes Yes
f. OSHA Enforcement Inspection No Yes
g. Offsite Verifications Yes See Section 2g
h. Onsite Non-Enforcement Interactions No Yes
i. Participant Self-Inspections Yes Yes
j. Other Activities    
 
2a. Training
Workers received training on the VPP enhanced training program, and additional training on topics such as: Safety Orientation for New Employees, Ergonomic Interventions, and the OSHA 10-Hour Outreach Training Course.
 
2b. Consultation Visits (if performed, provide the following total)
Consultation visits to partner sites NO
Comments/Explanations (briefly describe activities, or explain if activity provided for but not performed)
N/A

 
 
2c. Safety and Health Management Systems (if performed, provide the following total)
Systems implemented or improved using the 1989 Recommended Safety and Health Program Management Guidelines and/or the VPP as a model 35
Comments/Explanations (briefly describe activities, or explain if activity provided for but not performed)
The VPPCX conducted assessments of the installations/sites’ safety and health management systems (See Appendix C).
 
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 Yes
Interpretation/Explanation of Standards or OSHA Policy Yes Yes Yes
Abatement Assistance No No Yes
Speeches Yes
Comments/Explanations (briefly describe activities, or explain if activity provided for but not performed)
The VPPCX team conducted initial gap analysis assistance visits and safety inspections, and provided interpretation of OSHA policies and standards. To provide an understanding of how civilian workers’ and contractors’ injuries and illnesses could be reduced, Region VI gave a presentation to OSP participants on the four main elements of VPP, including: hazard analysis, training, accident reporting and risk assessment.

2e. VPP-Focused Activities (if performed, provide the following total)
  35
Comments/Explanations (briefly describe activities, or explain if activity provided for but not performed)
Five of the 35 individual installations/sites selected to participate in the OSP have applied for VPP participation. During the evaluation period, one installation/site was approved to participate in OSHA’s VPP.

Site participating in OSHA’s VPP
- Army National Guard, Fort Indiantown Gap, PA approved for Star participation (December 19, 2008)

Sites waiting OSHA’s approval for VPP participation
 Crane Army Ammunition Activity, IL was evaluated by OSHA for VPP recognition

- Tooele Army Depot, UT was evaluated for VPP recognition prior to this evaluation period. The VPP report is on hold pending the employer’s abatement of safety and health hazards identified during an enforcement activity which occurred prior to this evaluation period and therefore, is not covered in section 2f (below).

- Corpus Christi Army Depot, TX and McAlester Army Ammunition Plant, OK were pending VPP approval. were
 
2f. OSHA Enforcement Activity (if performed, provide the following totals for any programmed, unprogrammed, and verification-related inspections)
OSHA enforcement inspections conducted 1
OSHA enforcement inspections in compliance 1
OSHA enforcement inspection with violations cited 0
Comments/Explanations (briefly describe activities, or explain if activity provided for but not performed)
Corpus Christi Army Depot underwent a local emphasis program (LEP) inspection (falls in commercial construction) on May 27, 2009 with no violations issued.
 
2g. Offsite Verification (if performed provide the following total)
  0
Comments/Explanations (briefly describe activities, or explain if activity provided for but not performed)
OSHA did not perform the off-site verification of the injury and illness rates provided by the 11 of 35 sites participating in the OSP as the data provided was incomplete.

2h. Onsite Non-Enforcement Verification (if performed, provide the following total)
 Not a requirement of the OSP. See above verification information in section 2g. N/A
Comments/Explanations (briefly describe activities, or explain if activity provided for but not performed)
Non-enforcement onsite verifications were performed by the DoD VPPCX performing their Army Star verifications. The data collected by these verifications was reported to OSHA and has been used for this evaluation.
 
2i. Participant Self-Inspections (if performed, provide the following total)
  N/A


Section 3 - Illness and Injury Information

Installations/Sites Year TCIR DART
2007 2.8 2.4
Watervliet Arsenal, NJ 2008 3.8 3.3
2009 1.4 0.8
3-year average 2.7 2.2
Average percentage change over 3 years -29.3% -42.3%
2007 5.2 4
Letterkenny Army Depot, Chambersburg,PA 2008 3.4 3
2009 3.9 3.9
3-year average 4.2 3.6
Average percentage change over 3 years -13.4% -1.3%
2007 6 2.4
Blue Grass Army Depot, KY 2008 4.3 1.5
2009 2.4 1.2
3-year average 4.2 1.7
Average percentage change over 3 years -36.8% -29.3%
2007 4.5 2.7
Anniston Army Depot, AL 2008 4.4 1.6
2009 4.5 1.6
3-year average 4.5 2.0
Average percentage change over 3 years 0.0% -23.0%
2007 7.3 1.2
Crane Army Ammunition Plant, IN 2008 7.2 2.6
2009 6.9 1.5
3-year average 7.1 1.8
Average percentage change over 3 years -2.8% 11.8%
2007 4.8 0.6
Rock Island Arsenal, IL 2008 4.4 0.9
2009 4.5 0.7
3-year average 4.6 0.7
Average percentage change over 3 years -3.2% 8.0%
2007 7.67 3
Corpus Christi Army Depot, TX 2008 3.26 2.54
2009 2.6 0.7
3-year average 4.5 2.1
Average percentage change over 3 years -41.8% -51.7%
2007 2.6 2.4
McAlester Army Ammunition Plant, OK 2008 2.5 2.1
2009 4.1 2.2
3-year average 3.1 2.2
Average percentage change over 3 years 25.6% -4.3%
2007 4.02 2.95
Pine Bluff Arsenal, AR 2008 4.71 2.67
2009 5.3 2.8
3-year average 4.7 2.8
Average percentage change over 3 years 14.8% -2.6%
2007 2.7 2.1
Red River Army Depot, TX 2008 1.6 1
2009 2 0.09
3-year average 2.1 1.3
Average percentage change over 3 years -13.9% -34.5%
2007 4.6 3.1
Sierra Army Depot, CA 2008 3.6 2.3
2009 3.6 1.8
3-year average 3.9 2.4
Average percentage change over 3 years -11.5% -23.8%
  
Aggregate 3-year average all participants 4.1 2.1
Aggregate percentage change all participants -10.2% -17.5%

The primary causes of occupational injury and illness were:
  • Overexertion/Bodily Reaction
  • Falls
  • Struck-by Objects/Equipment

Section 4 - Partnership Plans, Benefits, and Recommendations
 
Changes and Challenges (check all applicable)
  Changes Challenges
Management Structure of PMT Yes Ni
Participants Yes Noi
Data Collection No Yes
Comments
Management Structure of PMT:
Six months into the agreement, the Army management OSP representative retired.
Participation Changes:
Nine of the original sites were removed (by the Army) from inclusion as they were not able to meet the Army’s requirements for continued OSP participation.
Data Collection Challenges:
OSHA and the Army are discussing the development of enhanced procedures for collecting and verifying injury and illness data as well as other required OSP measurements.
 
Plans to Improve (check all applicable)
  Improvements
Improve data collection Yes
Improve verification protocol Yes
Comments
The development and implementation of consistent verification protocols and processes will be a focus of the PMT during the next year of the OSP.
 
Partnership Benefits (check all applicable)
Reduced Ergonomic related Injuries & Illnesses Yes
Increased safety and health awareness Yes
Improved relationship with OSHA Yes
Improved relationship with employers Yes
Improved relationship with employees or unions Yes
Increased number of participants Yes
Other (specify)
Comments
 
 
Status Recommendations (check one)
Partnership Completed N/A
Continue/Renew Yes
Continue with the following provisions: **

**The PMT should focus on the following areas for improvement:
  • Improving data collection and analysis efforts
  • Measuring the civilian worker/contractor fatalities in comparison to a baseline measurement
  • Identifying a method to measure and communicate near miss incidents and events
  • Developing worker awareness surveys and delivering, and evaluating their results
  • Developing a system for collecting and disseminating various data points unrelated to injuries and illnesses (e.g., number/percent of installations/sites using mentors and numbers of employees covered)
  • Continuing to identify best practices developed and implemented
  • Developing and implementing verification protocols to ensure consistent evaluation of the OSP progress
  • Measuring the use of and feedback from the DoD VPPCX website


APPENDIX A- Participating Installations/Sites during this evaluation
 
OSHA Regions Participating Installations/sites
1 U.S. Army Engineer District, Concord, MA
2 U.S Army Garrison, Military Academy, West Point, NY
2 Watervliet Arsenal, NJ
2 U.S. Army Engineer District, New York, NY
3 U.S. Army Garrison Fort Belvoir, VA
3 AASF#1 Army National Guard, Fort Indiantown GAP, PA
3 U.S. Army Garrison, Fort A.P. Hill, VA
3 U.S. Army Engineer District, Baltimore (Fort Belvoir Construction Office), MD
3 U.S Army Engineer District, (Blue Marsh Recreation Area & Dam), Philadelphia, PA
3 U.S. Army Engineer District, Norfolk, VA
3 Letterkenny Army Depot, Chambersburg, PA
4 Blue Grass Army Depot, KY
4 U.S. Army Garrison, Fort Bragg, NC
4 U.S. Army Garrison, Fort Jackson, SC
4 U.S. Army Engineer District, Louisville, KY
4 U.S. Army Garrison, Fort Campbell, KY
4 Blanchfield U.S. Army Hospital, Fort Campbell, KY
4 Anniston Army Depot, AL
4 Military Ocean Terminal Sunny Point, Southport, NC.
5 Crane Army Ammunition Plant, IN
5 JMTC, Rock Island Arsenal, Il
6 Corpus Christi Army Depot, TX
6 McAlester Army Ammunition Plant, OK
6 Pine Bluff Arsenal, AR
6 Red River Army Depot, TX
6 U.S. Garrison White Sands Missile Range, NM
6 Military Training Area, Camp Robinson, AR
6 U.S. Army Garrison, Fort Polk, LA
7 U.S. Army Garrison, Fort Riley, KS
8 Tooele Army Depot, UT
8 Camp Grafton Training Center, Devils Lake, ND
8 CSMS#2, Army National Guard, Camp Rapid, SD
9 Sierra Army Depot, CA
10 U.S. Army Engineer District, Portland, OR


APPENDIX B - Installations/sites that were subsequently added/removed after the signing of the Partnership agreement
 
OSHA Region Participating Installations/Sites Original Removed Added
1 U.S. Army Engineer District, Concord, MA X
2 U.S Army Garrison, Military Academy, West Point, NY X
2 Watervliet Arsenal, NJ X
2 U.S. Army Engineer District, New York, NY X
2 U.S. Army Garrison – Fort Drum, NY X X
3 U.S. Garrison Fort Meade, MD X X
3 U.S. Garrison Fort Lee, VA X X
3 U.S. Garrison Fort Eustis, VA X X
3 Quartermaster School-Army Management Staff College, Fort Lee, VA X X
3 Transportation Center & School – Fort Eustis, VA X X
3 U.S. Army Garrison Fort Belvoir, VA X
3 AASF#1 Army National Guard, Fort Indiantown GAP, PA X
3 U.S. Army Garrison, Fort A.P. Hill, VA X
3 U.S. Army Engineer District, Baltimore (Fort Belvoir Construction Office), MD X
3 U.S Army Engineer District, (Blue Marsh Recreation Area & Dam), Philadelphia, PA X
3 U.S. Army Engineer District, Norfolk, VA X
3 Letterkenny Army Depot, Chambersburg, PA X
4 Blue Grass Army Depot, KY X
4 U.S. Army Garrison, Fort Bragg, NC X
4 U.S. Army Garrison, Fort Jackson, SC X
4 U.S. Army Engineer District, Louisville, KY X
4 U.S. Army Garrison, Fort Campbell, KY X
4 U.S. Army Garrison, Fort Gordon, GA X
4 Blanchfield U.S. Army Hospital, Fort Campbell, KY X
4 Anniston Army Depot, AL X
4 Military Ocean Terminal Sunny Point, Southport, NC. X
4 Crane Army Ammunition Plant, IN X
4 JMTC, Rock Island Arsenal, Il X
6 Corpus Christi Army Depot, TX X
6 McAlester Army Ammunition Plant, OK X
6 Pine Bluff Arsenal, AR X
6 Red River Army Depot, TX X
6 U.S. Garrison White Sands Missile Range, NM X
6 Military Training Area, Camp Robinson, AR X
6 U.S. Army Garrison, Fort Polk, LA X
6 U.S Army Garrison - Fort Hood, TX X X
7 U.S. Army Garrison, Fort Riley, KS X
7 Chem/MP/Engin/Drill Sgt School, Fort Leonard, MO X X
7 USA Garrison- Ft Leonard Wood, Mo X X
8 Tooele Army Depot, UT X
8 Camp Grafton Training Center, Devils Lake, ND X
8 CSMS#2, Army National Guard, Camp Rapid, SD X
9 Sierra Army Depot, CA X
10 U.S. Army Engineer District, Portland, OR X
10 Bonnevile Powerhouse & , Portland Engineer District, Portland, OR X X


APPENDIX C - Completion rates of the VPPCX Challenge Tool requirements to improve SHMS effectiveness

Installations/sites that completed 50% or more of the Challenge Tool requirements Current % Complete
Fort Indiantown Gap, PA 100%
Tooele Army Depot, UT 100%
Louisville District-Ft Campbell, KY 100%
McAlester Ammunition Plant, OK 100%
Corpus Christi Army Depot, TX 90%
Pine Bluff Arsenal, AR 90%
White Sand Missile Range, NM 85%
Fort Gordon, GA 82%
Red River, TX 82%
Rock Island Arsenal, IL 52%
Letterkenny, PA 52%
Fort Belvoir, VA 50%
Installations/sites that completed between 25% and 49% or the Challenge Tool requirements Current % Complete
Fort Bragg, NC 43%
Fort Jackson, SC 37%
Baltimore District-Ft. Belvoir, MD 35%
Philadelphia District, PA 35%
Anniston Army Depot, AL 32%
Portland District-John Jay Dam, OR 29%
New England District , MA 27%
Norfolk District, VA 27%
Camp Grafton, ND 25%
MTA Camp Robinson, AR 25%
Camp Rapid, SD 25%
West Point, NY 25%
Installations/sites that completed between 0% and 24% or the Challenge Tool requirements Current % Complete
Blue Grass Army Depot, KY 22%
MEDDAC Ft. Campbell, KY 21%
Watervliet Arsenal, NJ 20%
Fort Campbell (USAG), KY 18%
Military Ocean Terminal Sunny Point, NC 15%
New York District, NY 13%
Fort Polk, LA 11%
Sierra Army Depot, CA 10%
Fort Riley, KS 8%
Fort AP Hill, VA 7%
Blue Grass Chemical Activity, KY 0%