1. Sponsored by Indiana University of Pennsylvania Safety Sciences Department in cooperation with Alcoa Foundation Fatality Prevention in the Workplace Forum Fatality Prevention in the Workplace Forum Effective Risk Assessment Methodologies Breakout Sponsored by Indiana University of Pennsylvania Safety Sciences Department in cooperation with Alcoa Foundation

2. Sponsored by Indiana University of Pennsylvania Safety Sciences Department in cooperation with Alcoa Foundation Effective Risk Assessment Methodologies  Objectives; capture best practices that address inherent risk in the following areas:  Potential impact of ANSI-ASSE Z590 “Prevention through Design”, ANSI Z690 “Risk Management,” and ANSI –ASSE Z10 “Occupational Health & Safety Management Systems”  Identifying human performance aspects or serious injury and fatality prevention, focusing on best practices to manage risk at the operator/group level in the final work planning stages and work execution Systems-based approach requires the organization to assess and prioritize its occupational health and safety management system (OHSMS) on an on-going basis; Hazard-based approach begins with the hazardous characteristics of the materials, environment, or worksite considering the possible activities that may affect them, and the consequences; and Task-based approach begins with a job, breaks the job into specific tasks, identifies the hazards associated with the tasks and then assesses the risks.  Common element throughout the best practices was high level of employee involvement in the risk assessment process.

3. Sponsored by Indiana University of Pennsylvania Safety Sciences Department in cooperation with Alcoa Foundation Layers of Protection (LOP) Laurie Shelby, Alcoa, Inc.

4. Sponsored by Indiana University of Pennsylvania Safety Sciences Department in cooperation with Alcoa Foundation Effective Risk Assessment Methodologies  Alcoa – Layers of Protection (LOP)  Overall fatality prevention process requires location to identify/assess Fatality Risks  Fatality Risks are tracked and communicated in database as unacceptable, marginal, acceptable/controlled  Use simplistic /basic LOP guidelines to move Fatality Hazards to acceptable/controlled level  LOP guidelines outline how to use and group engineered controls, safety devices, warning devices, and administrative controls to reduce Fatality Links

5. Sponsored by Indiana University of Pennsylvania Safety Sciences Department in cooperation with Alcoa Foundation Hazard Identification Risk Assessment (HIRA) Process Jeff Dierdorf, U.S. Steel

6. Sponsored by Indiana University of Pennsylvania Safety Sciences Department in cooperation with Alcoa Foundation Effective Risk Assessment Methodologies 6 ➲ United States Steel - Hazard Identification Risk Assessment (HIRA) Process ➯ Applied globally with a defined risk matrix ➯ Support with 8 hour training session for over 2000 leaders ➯ Engages hourly production and maintenance employees with clear, concise data collection and hazard checklist ➯ Empowers supervisors to work with production and maintenance employees to identify the most severe hazards ➯ Drives accountability to identify and eliminate hazards through performance management system

7. Sponsored by Indiana University of Pennsylvania Safety Sciences Department in cooperation with Alcoa Foundation Formal Risk Assessment HIRAC – lite Pre-Job Briefing (PJB) Stephen Thompson, ArcelorMittal USA Don Westerhoff, ArcelorMittal Weirton

8. Sponsored by Indiana University of Pennsylvania Safety Sciences Department in cooperation with Alcoa Foundation Effective Risk Assessment Methodologies 8 ➲ ArcelorMittal  Task or process area-hazard identification, risk assessment and control (HIRAC) Formal and quantitative, FMEA based Risk assessed with and without controls to evaluate effectiveness  HIRAC-Lite Used for non-routine or infrequent tasks Checklist using red/green/yellow questions to identify hazards and controls Pocket card designed for jobsite use  Pre-Job Briefing (PJB) Similar to HIRAC-Lite Incorporates human performance elements and identifies “Stop” events

9. Sponsored by Indiana University of Pennsylvania Safety Sciences Department in cooperation with Alcoa Foundation ArcelorMittal Risk Assessment Examples 1)Formal Risk Assessment 2)HIRAC – lite 3)Pre-Job Briefing (PJB)

10. Sponsored by Indiana University of Pennsylvania Safety Sciences Department in cooperation with Alcoa Foundation Effective Risk Assessment Methodologies 10 ➲ ArcelorMittal  Task or process area-hazard identification, risk assessment and control (HIRAC) Formal and quantitative, FMEA based Risk assessed with and without controls to evaluate effectiveness  HIRAC-Lite Used for non-routine or infrequent tasks Checklist using red/green/yellow questions to identify hazards and controls Pocket card designed for jobsite use  Pre-Job Briefing (PJB) Similar to HIRAC-Lite Incorporates human performance elements and identifies “Stop” events

11. Sponsored by Indiana University of Pennsylvania Safety Sciences Department in cooperation with Alcoa Foundation ArcelorMittal Formal Risk Assessment Process 11 ArcelorMittal Cleveland - Rail Switching & Securement HIRAC Hazard Identification, Risk Assessment & Control (HIRAC) Formal and Quantitative FMEA based

12. Sponsored by Indiana University of Pennsylvania Safety Sciences Department in cooperation with Alcoa Foundation ArcelorMittal Formal Risk Assessment Process 12 Task or area risk is assessed using a Risk Assessment Code (RAC) RAC = severity x exposure x probability x number at risk x 10 (if a major risk category)

13. Sponsored by Indiana University of Pennsylvania Safety Sciences Department in cooperation with Alcoa Foundation ArcelorMittal Formal Risk Assessment Process 13 Example of the controls implemented to reduce collisions & crushing during securement operations at ArcelorMittal Cleveland Nine different controls were identified in this situation

14. Sponsored by Indiana University of Pennsylvania Safety Sciences Department in cooperation with Alcoa Foundation ArcelorMittal Formal Risk Assessment Process 14 Initial risk is assessed assuming no controls are present. Potential risk is assessed assuming all listed controls are in place. The difference between initial risk and potential risk indicates the effectiveness of the risk reduction (this is helpful in communicating the importance of controls to employees and useful as an audit tool for our shop floor audit/layered evaluation process.

15. Sponsored by Indiana University of Pennsylvania Safety Sciences Department in cooperation with Alcoa Foundation ArcelorMittal HIRAC-lite 15 20 red (watch-out) boxes available, number of red boxes selected indicated risk profile for the task (note: controls must be identified for each red box selected by the team) Used for non-routine or infrequent tasks Pocket card designed for jobsite use

16. Sponsored by Indiana University of Pennsylvania Safety Sciences Department in cooperation with Alcoa Foundation ArcelorMittal Pre-Job Briefing (PJB) * 16 Similar to HIRAC-Lite Incorporates Human Performance elements and identifies “stop” events PJB based on a form used at Alcoa Davenport Works

17. Sponsored by Indiana University of Pennsylvania Safety Sciences Department in cooperation with Alcoa Foundation ArcelorMittal Contacts Stephen Thompson, MPH, CSP, CIH Manager Health & Safety Compliance ArcelorMittal USA 219.787.2605 Stephen.Thompson@ArcelorMittal.com Don Westerhoff, CSP Manager Safety ArcelorMittal Weirton 304.797.3335 Donald.Westerhoff@ArcelorMittal.com 17

18. Sponsored by Indiana University of Pennsylvania Safety Sciences Department in cooperation with Alcoa Foundation Catastrophic Potential Incident Review Process Thomas Baldauff, PPG industries, Inc.

19. Sponsored by Indiana University of Pennsylvania Safety Sciences Department in cooperation with Alcoa Foundation Effective Risk Assessment Methodologies  PPG - Catastrophic Potential Incident Review Process  All OSHA injuries, all fires and all spills meeting a predetermined threshold are evaluated to determine potential for:  Significant injury or fatality  Significant off-site adverse environmental or health impact  Fire or explosion causing significant loss of production or inventory  Spreadsheet is generated from our incident database  Six member review team  Incidents designated a Potentially Catastrophic are further evaluated:  Category or Risk or “Incident Precursor”  Investigation quality  Action item quality  Value of EHS Alert to all facilities  Top 3 precursors = 60% of incidents (fire/explosion, forklift or industrial truck, motor vehicle accident)  Potentially Catastrophic Incidents are Tracked to Closure:  All actions have been completed  EHS Alert sent, if appropriate  Review status is tracked in PPG’s incident database  Near misses and minor incidents brought into the process by team members and others, informally, as identified.

20. Sponsored by Indiana University of Pennsylvania Safety Sciences Department in cooperation with Alcoa Foundation Major Incident Studies to Determine Activities With Most Acute Exposure Potential to SIF Ryan Ott, Chevron

21. Sponsored by Indiana University of Pennsylvania Safety Sciences Department in cooperation with Alcoa Foundation Effective Risk Assessment Methodologies  Chevron  Conducted internal studies to understand what activities in the Chevron Enterprise have most acute exposure potential to SIF  Utilized major incident studies across the enterprise to focus on one thematic opportunity Failure to recognize the hazard or anticipate consequences Routine work (work done on frequent basis/normal operations)  Field Guide intended to be used by front line workers to help them identify hazards and take action  Utilize existing internal tools (Hazard Identification Wheel) to reinforce the identification of high-energy sources and barriers to mitigate the hazards.

22. Sponsored by Indiana University of Pennsylvania Safety Sciences Department in cooperation with Alcoa Foundation Effective Risk Assessment Methodologies  Gap Identification/Areas for Future Research  Organizations in the breakout session recognized most best practices lacked an effective tool for worker / supervisor / planner risk assessment at the critical step level.  Systems  Hazard  Task  Critical Step  Critical step can be defined as the: Unrecoverable step in your task, which if it fails results in a SIF These five best practices will be available in detail on the IUP website.