INTEGRATED SAFETY MANAGEMENT (ISM) & RISK MANAGEMENT A COMPLIMENTARY PAIRING

Abstract - Incorporation of the risk assessment philosophy of Standard for Electrical Safety in the
Workplace, NFPA 70E 2015 into the already proven Integrated Safety Management (ISM) model provides
an enhanced, inclusive, and continuous safety process.

NFPA 70E 2015 risk assessment procedures are a complimentary addition to ISM. NFPA 70E Provides
guidance regarding a qualitative approach for risk assessment, including risk estimation and evaluation
[1]. The process is beneficial in developing the protective measures necessary to improve safety and
reduce injury to workers health. Integrating this process with ISM core functions and guiding principles is
a systematic, common sense approach to performing work safely [2]. Both ISM NFPA 70E risk assessment
processes function to:

1) Enhance the ability to identify hazards

2) Minimize potential injury or damage to health

3) Estimate the level, likelihood, and severity for occurrence of injury

4) Determine if protective risk control measures are required.

The NFPA 70E risk assessment process provides guidance paralleling the ISM core function and together,
they establish a safe work environment and vigorous safety culture. Combining ISM and the risk
assessment from NFPA 70E provides a tool that increases consistency with work planning and execution,
and improves the overall safety culture within our industry. An informed safety culture is served by
implementation of all core functions and guiding principles of ISM, and the cohesive integration of the
NFPA 70E risk assessment. Together, they increase the ability to successfully perform work activities
taking into account all factors that affect risk including enhancements to the ISM by NFPA 70E's
consideration for:

1) The condition of the worker

2) The condition of the environment

3) The condition of the equipment

Index Terms - core functions, guiding principles, implementation, factors that affect risk, real time risk
assessment
I. INTRODUCTION

The ISM process and guiding principles present a philosophy that integrates environment, safety, health
and quality into the work. Using ISM implements tools by creating a safe environment and safety culture
ensure no injury or harm comes to the workers, the public or the environment [2]. Management is
required to create a work environment that ensures the protection of the employees from recognized
health and safety hazards, yet in real time the planning may not be sufficient [3]. In creating that
environment, using the ISM model integrated with NFPA 70E risk assessment tool increases the
awareness from the top down and the bottom up, a real time risk assessment where management and
worker involvement realign. The ISM process works, however it does not take into account the changes
we see during the execution of the work, where risk assessment offers the greatest value [4].

II. INTEGRATED SAFETY MANAGEMENT (RISK) MODEL

The ISM core functions: Define work, Analyze Hazards, Develop Controls, Perform Work, Feedback and
Improvement provide structure to any work scope that potentially affects the safety of workers, the
public, or the environment. A continuous cycle takes into consideration the degree of rigor appropriate
for the type of work and hazards involved. The safety depends on all of the core functions being
completed, thus creating documentation of lessons learned providing key information in future tasks to
be performed. Guiding principles are high-level fundamentals, values, and goals that provide the
backbone for a successful safety culture [2]. The nine Guiding principles start with:

1) Line Management Responsibility for Safety - Protection for the workers, public and environment.

2) Clear Roles and Responsibilities - Identify clear and unambiguous lines of authority for safety at all
organizational levels - company, project and activity.

3) Competence Commensurate with Responsibilities Requiring the experience, knowledge and skills
necessary to perform assigned duties, as well as the correct training and qualifications for their tasks.

4) Balanced Priorities - Work scope, scheduling and cost to deliver work safely.

5) Identification of Safety and Environmental Standards as Defined - Safety and environmental programs
based on federal, state, local codes, national standards and accepted best practices.

6) Hazard Controls Tailored to Work Being Performed Controls developed with a preference for those
least dependent on employee actions, Elimination, Substitution, Engineering, Administrative, and last
PPE.

7) Operations Authorization - Approval of work as planned, Authorization of planned work activities and
Release of work to begin.

8) Worker Involvement - Employees involved in programs designed to incorporate health and safety into
the work planning and execution.

9) Senior Management Involvement - Attendance and participation throughout the ISM process.
These values set the tone for all organizational levels, enabling each individual from senior management
to the worker having ownership and pride in one's safety organization. [8, 9]

Risk assessment provides an overarching process to identify hazards, estimate the potential severity of
hazard or consequence, likelihood of occurrence and the protective measures, when required [5, 6, 7].
While risk assessment is not a foreign concept, the NFPA 70E 2015 edition used this term globally to
replace the term hazard analysis [1]. This concept increases the responsibility that it places on the
worker to understand the hazards involved in their work scope, but also how those hazards could
potentially hurt them as they perform the work [8, 9]. NFPA 70E identifies training requirements that
shall apply to employees exposed to electrical hazards when not reduced to a safe level by applicable
electrical installation requirements. Training shall include the decision making process necessary to be
able to perform the following:

1) Perform the job safety planning

2) Identify electrical hazards

3) Assess the associated risk

4) Select the appropriate risk control methods from the hierarchy of controls identified in Article 110.1
(G) including personal protective equipment

Combining the two processes improves the ability to identify risk associated with the hazards and the
risk control measures for hazard mitigation [4].

Work)

A. The process of defining the work easily becomes a task-based risk assessment. This process breaks the
work into a specific task enabling the risk associated with each task to become easily defined. As the task
changes, so do the risk and the controls necessary for mitigating that risk. [5, 6, 7]

A. Analyze the potential severity of the harm with the hazard class to which the worker will be exposed.
The hazard classification system takes into account potential severity based on the thresholds for injury
[9]

B. Estimate the likelihood of harm by how the worker will be interacting with the equipment and the
hazard. As the level of hazardous work increases the likelihood of an accident increases [9].
C. Analyze the factors that could affect risk, increasing or decreasing the severity or the likelihood of an
incident (e.g. condition of the work/workers, condition of the equipment, and condition of the
environment)[6].

Core function #3 Identify and Document Risk Control Measures (Develop Controls)

A. Evaluate the risk and determine the necessary risk control measures. Document the risk and the risk
control measures with appropriate work control documentation. This includes shock and arc flash risk
assessments [2, 8, 9].

Risk control measures should be based on the following hierarchy of controls [1]:

Core function #4 Verify and Validate Risk assessment & Control Measures (prior to Perform Work)

A. Perform a quality pre-job brief to verify all hazards have been accounted for and to validate the risk
assessment and the risk controls adequately. The risk threshold should always be as low as reasonably
achievable (ALARA). Evaluate work/worker(s), environment, and equipment conditions to ensure
additional control measures are not needed [1,2].

B. Real-Time Reevaluation of Risk assessment and Control Measures (Perform Work) Watch for any
changes or conditions in the work/worker, environment or equipment, continually assessing whether
additional risk control measures are warranted. Pause work as appropriate to ensure that work can
continue safely [1, 1 0].

Core function #5 Measure and Monitor (Feedback and Improvement)

A. Upon completion of the task, share lessons learned, near misses, and unidentified hazards,
emphasizing the ways to improve the next job [2, 10].

B. Share within the organization for continuous process improvement

III. FACTORS THAT AFFECT RISK

While evaluating risk many factors should be considered. Some factors may increase the severity of the
hazard, while other factors may increase or decrease the likelihood of occurrence. Approaching these
factors as one of three categories organizes the way in which the worker factors can be considered
during the risk assessment, and should be utilized during the initial work planning process, while
validating the controls, and evaluating the conditions as the work unfolds [3, 7, 8]. These three
categories are:

A. Condition of the Work and Worker

B. Condition of the Environment

C. Condition of the Equipment

Condition of the Work and Worker

The worker is the cynosure; their understanding of the work to be performed is the key element for
success. The factors listed below have been identified for consideration while performing the risk
assessment, both initial and real time:

- Qualification, Training and Experience of the worker (s)

- Work Schedule/Planning Issues

- Off normal hours, or extended hours o Changes

- Scope, Work Plan, Location of Activity, Work Group, Concurrent Work Activities

- Understanding of Roles and Responsibility

- PPE Concerns • Short TimelinelTime Pressures

- Ergonomics

- Work Turnover

- Communication

- Fit for the Task

- Physically and Mentally Focused

Conditions of the Environment

The environment informs the possibility of an electrical accident. The factors listed below should be
taken into consideration as part of the initial and real time risk assessment.

- Weather

Temperature Water/Moisture

- Infestation

- Lighting

- Noise
- Confined Spaces/Limited Working Space

- Housekeeping

- Radiological Work

- Signage/Barriers

- Conductivity of Work Area

Condition of the Equipment

The importance of considering the condition of equipment has been emphasized in the latest edition of
NFPA 70E. Considering the factors listed below regarding condition of equipment during the risk
assessment process both initial and real time can increase or decrease control measures.

• Accurate Documentation Available

• Installation/Workmanship

• Maintenance

• Age

• Usage/Duty

• Evidence of Impending Failure

• Covers in Place/All Fasteners Secure

• Unused Openings

• Look Alike Equipment

IV. INTEGRATING ISM & RISK MANAGEMENT SAFETY POSTER

With a heavy emphasis on the roles and responsibilities of the management team and the employees
who are performing the work, the expectation for a document that bridges the gap between the initial
planning stages and the performance of the work activities becomes the focus. The mission to illustrate
the factors affecting risk and providing the framework for the real time risk assessment process resulted
in the following poster [4]. This poster heightens the awareness of the thought process involved in real
time risk assessment, importantly; it empowers the worker to be involved.
V. CONCLUSIONS

By taking into account the conditions of the worker, environment, and equipment, NFPA 70E enhances
the Integrated Safety Management (ISM) model. While there are many parallels between both safety
guidelines, NFPA 70E brings the worker, environment and equipment into stark relief when assessing
real-time risks to the work performed illuminating the already necessary evaluation of the predictable
hazards to a task [1]. Combining these two safety methods into one model creates a single, conservative,
and safe approach for workers that allow both management and the workers to have a say in safe work
performance.

Embracing the best practices within these guides and applying the model presented, creates a safer work
environment and enhances the safety culture already being cultivate; Culture that can adapt to any new
risks that are present in the field, long after initial planning.

VI ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

A special thanks to Daniel L. Roberts & Robert J. Spang, for their IEEE papers that assisted in the
development; To Tommy Martinez our lead, and the entire 2015 EFCOG Electrical Safety Working Groups
for their continuous, unbridled efforts to consistently improve our electrical safety culture year after
year.