Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
SHORT LINE SAFETY
INSTITUTE
SAFETY MAKE $ENSE
TRACK 205 – FINANCE
&ADMINISTRATION
DEFINING A SAFETY CULTURE
ASLRRA 2015 CONNECTIONS
ORLANDO, FLORIDA
MARCH 31, 2015
•
Concept and Process
• Chairman Ed McKechnie announce the concept for the focus on
safety culture at the Annual Meeting in Atlanta
• In January, 2014 in response to Secretary Foxx outreach to short
lines, President Rich Timmons sent a letter setting forth the idea
of establishing a short line safety initiative
• Initially the program will be directed at short lines and regionals
that haul crude through a pilot project
• Over the next few years, it will be expanded to all short lines and
regional railroads
• ASLRRA is working with the FRA, UCONN, and Volpe to
develop the project
Team Lead(s) Role
ASLRRA
Keith Borman Counsel, Program Development
Mike Ogborn Team Leader, Program Development, Stakeholder
Engagement, Liaison With ASLRRA
Jo Strang Program Development, Subject Matter Expert
Stakeholder Engagement
Tom Streicher Program Development. Subject Matter Expert
J R Sampson Coordinator
FRA R&D
Michael Coplen, M.A. Industrial/Organizational Development, Behavioral
and Safety Culture Change, Program Evaluation
Starr Kidda, Ph.D. Job Analysis, Grants Management, Project Evaluation
Volpe
Nicole Boyko, M.A. Safety Culture Measurement
Juna Snow, Ph.D. Program Evaluation, Educational Evaluation
UCONN Janet Barnes-Farrell, Ph.D. Safety Culture Measurement, Job Analysis
3
Short Line Safety Institute Development Team
Context
Short Line Safety Institute Evaluation Framework
Inputs Outputs
• Short line and regional railroads
• Management • Employees • FRA R&D • Other railroads • DOT at-large • Congress • Public
FRA R&D Team Assessment Tools: • Safety culture • Safety compliance • Interview protocols
Educational Materials: • Employees • Managers
Organizational Plan
Outcomes
• Improved safety culture • Fully-functioning Safety
Institute • Reduced accidents and
injuries • Ongoing assessments • Education • Research • Increased safety
conformance • Use of Institute
repository resources
Priority Improve crude-by-rail transportation safety
Mission: Enhance safety culture and safety compliance of short line and regional railroads through voluntary, non-punitive partnerships.
Situation Rapid increase in crude oil production and related incidents
Activities • Needs
assessments • Job analyses • Literature
reviews • Stakeholder
engagement strategies
• Organizational planning
What we invest What we get For whom What we see
FRA R&D Funding • ASLRRA grant • UCONN grant • Volpe grant • Congressional
grant
ASLRRA Team • Onsite assessments • Assessment reports • Participant feedback • Organizational
structure
Context, Input, Implementation, and Impact Evaluation 4
Short Line Safety Institute
Vision, Mission, and Strategic Goals
• Vision: For the short line and regional railroad industry to perform at a superlative level of safety
• Mission: To provide the leadership to enhance the safety culture and safety conformance of short line and regional railroads through voluntary, non-punitive partnerships
• Strategic Goals: To enhance and improve safety practices and to increase the short line and regional railroad industry's culture of commitment to safety through assessing their safety culture, recommending how to improve it, and providing leadership, training and education about safety culture and conformance
Definition Of A Safety Culture
The shared values, actions, and
behaviors that demonstrate a
commitment to safety over
competing goals and demands
10 Core Elements of a Strong Safety
Culture 1. Leadership Is Clearly Committed To Safety
2. The Railroad Practices Continuous Learning
3. Decisions Demonstrate That Safety Is Prioritized Over
Competing Demands
4. Reporting Systems And Accountability Are Clearly Defined
5. There Is A Safety Conscious Work Environment
6. Employees Feel Personally Responsible For Safety
7. There Is Open And Effective Communication Across The
Railroad
8. Mutual Trust Is Fostered Between Employees And The Railroad
9. The Railroad Is Fair And Consistent In Responding To Safety
Concerns
10. Training And Resources Are Available To Support Safety
Compliance vs. Conformance
• Compliance is measured against an immovable standard
Because the standard cannot change, the behavior must
Compliance does not = Safety
• Conformance is measured against a chosen standard
Chosen as a necessity
Chosen as a best practice
If behavior can’t be changed, the standard may be changed.
Short Line Safety Institute Project Timeline
Mission: Enhance safety culture and safety compliance of short line and regional
railroads through voluntary, non-punitive partnerships.
9 Ongoing Implementation and Impact Evaluation
• Pilot: Sample of RRs hauling crude
Jan–June 2015
• Expansion: Additional RRs hauling crude
June 2015– Jan 2016
• Roll-out: RRs handling other hazardous materials
Post-Jan 2016
Pilot Project Launch
Communication Process
Safety Assessment
Team
• Pre-Launch planning with Management Team
Management Team
• Expectation setting and planning with employees
SAT + Organization Stakeholders
• Run pilot with candor and commitment
Pilot Project - Phase 1
• Develop selection criteria for pilot sites - completed
• Choose initial railroads to be assessed -- completed
• Develop templates - completed
• Develop recruitment and training protocols for assessors
- completed
• Recruit, interview, and contract with assessors -
completed
• Train the assessors to conduct the assessments -
completed
• Contact railroads to be assessed and start process – in
progress
Pilot Project – Phase 2
• Prior to on-site assessment, the Coordinator discuss with senior manager the project, its scope, and the process and request safety related information
• All employees will be requested to complete surveys before assessors arrive
• Review will include field observations
• Assessors will review safety culture on the railroad through interviews with senior management, supervisory management, and employees on site
Pilot Project – Phase 3
• Assemble the data and analyze to determine elements to communicate back to railroad
• Assessors will brief management and leadership team on findings and recommendations
• Subsequent to the assessment, the assessors will provide management with written report on findings and recommendations
• ASLRRA Team will work with senior management on implementation plan
• Assessors will conduct follow-up visits
Assessment and Transition
• ASLRRA and R&D will assess the effectiveness of the Pilot Project and make adjustments as needed
• Pilot Project will transition to a permanent expanded program
• Over time the Institute will both conduct
assessments and become an educational and
training source for short lines
• The Institute will also develop data analysis and
research capabilities
Short Line Safety Institute
The Institute will heighten the intensity of the safety focus and involvement of short line and regional railroads and their management
The goal of the Institute is to facilitate the strongest safety culture possible in all short line
and regional railroads
$afety makes $ense
2015 ASLRRA Annual Convention Orlando, Florida
Track 205: Finance & Administration
The 3 P’s of Risk OURS OTHERS
– People X X
– Property X X
– Product X X
Why $afety makes $ense (cents)
PEOPLE
In an unsafe environment:
• We Risk our people
• We put other people at Risk
Example:
• Lac Magantic
• Injuries
• Other (Evacuations)
Why $afety makes $ense (cents)
PROPERTY
In an unsafe environment:
• We Risk our property
• We Risk others property
Example:
• Damaged Track, Bridges
• Equipment
• Rail Cars
Why $afety makes $ense (cents)
PRODUCT
In an unsafe environment:
• We Risk our product (which is our service)
• We Risk others product (our customers products)
Example:
• Service Issues - Delays
• Product we are Hauling
Why $afety makes $ense (cents)
Costs Associated with the “P’s”
PEOPLE
• Injuries – FELA claims
• Medical Costs
• Extra labor while recuperating
• Lawsuits
• Bad Press
• Insurance Costs
Why $afety makes $ense (cents)
Costs Associated with the “P’s”
PROPERTY
• Repair locomotive
• Repair Track
• Repair Cars
• Replace Cars
• Damage to others Property
• Lawsuits
Why $afety makes $ense (cents)
Costs Associated with the “P’s”
PRODUCT
• Loss of Customer Goodwill
• We may become a Questionable Carrier
• Lawsuits
• Lading Losses
• Clean-up Issues, EPA, etc.
• Insurance Costs
Why $afety makes $ense (cents)
Operating in a Safe Environment
Examples:
• Union Pacific – Reports Declines in Derailments (7% in 2014)
– 38% over the past 10 years
– Stock Price (value of company) has ZOOMED:
• 28% in 1 year
• 686% in 10 years
• CSX – Most admired company, but…
– Derailment on February 16, 2015
– Stock Price February 17, 2015: DOWN .6% in one day
– Annualized decline of 219%
Why $afety makes $ense (cents)
A Short Line Story
• Year 1 -Derailment Costs $400,000
• Railroad’s Annual Loss ($259,000)
• One Year Later - NO Derailments
• Railroad’s Annual Profit $527,000
WHY?
• Started Program to Actively Improve Safety Culture
• Better Allocation of Resources
Why $afety makes $ense (cents)
A Short Line Story – Part 2
• Year 1 – (3) Derailments - Costs $600,000
• Reduced Profits
• One Year later - Spent $50,000 on a Safety Program
• NO Derailments
• NO Injuries
WHY?
• Started Program to Actively Improve Safety Culture
• Reduced Transportation Expenses by $300,000
• Better Allocation of Expense Dollars
Why $afety makes $ense (cents)
• Use 45G Tax Credit to Fund Infrastructure Costs which
improves the physical plant and increases Safety
• Begin a Safety program today
• Improve your Bottom Line, by
Protecting your P’s
Why $afety makes $ense (cents)
James A. Bowers
Partner-in-Charge: Railroad Industry
Bowers & Company CPAs PLLC
1700 AXA Tower II, 120 Madison Street
Syracuse, New York 13202
Phone: (315)234-1173
Email: [email protected]
Website: www.bcpllc.com
Contact Information
Safety Culture Change: Case Study Examples of Bottom-Line Benefits
ASLRRA 2015 Connections
Finance and Administration Breakout Session 205 $afety Make $ense: The Short Line Safety Institute
March 31, 2015 Orlando, Florida
MICHAEL COPLEN Senior Evaluator Office of Research and Development Office of Railroad Policy and Development Federal Railroad Administration
1999 Study: Compliance with Railroad Operating Rules and Corporate Culture Influences
32
• Identify, develop, and implement innovative safety culture pilot projects in U.S. railroad industry
• Develop safety culture interventions applicable across different organizations and environments
• Evaluate utilization, impact, and effectiveness of pilot projects
• Where successful, support broad-scale adoption and implementation across industry
Develop a “business case” for safety culture in the railroad industry
Safety Culture in U.S. Railroad Industry Research and Evaluation Strategy, 2001
Approach Carriers Start Date Functions Outcomes
Participative Safety Rules Revision
ACBL, CSXT, KCS, CN-IC
1999 All Operating 30% reduction in reportable injuries
Drop in liability claims
Root-Cause Analysis Problem Solving
Canadian Pacific 2003 Mechanical 50% drop in injury rates (all injuries)
Clear Signal for Action (CSA)
• Peer-to-Peer Feedback
• Continuous Improvement
• Safety Leadership
Amtrak 2001 Station Services
76% drop in injury rates
71% drop in reportable injuries
Union Pacific 2005 Road Crews 79% drop in L.E. decertification rates
81% drop in derailments
Union Pacific 2006 Yard Crews
65% drop in yard-derailment rates
Confidential Close Call Reporting System (C³RS)
Union Pacific Canadian Pacific New Jersey Transit Amtrak
2007 2008 2009 2011
Road & Yard Crews
41% reduction in derailments at 1 site 90% drop in discipline cases
Impact of CSA (P2P) and C3RS in U.S. Railroad Industry
33 33
Current R&D Safety Culture Evaluations:
Company-wide and Industry-wide pilots
• Short Line Safety Institute
• Amtrak Safe-2-Safer
• BNSF Safety Culture Initiatives
• Passenger Ops CSA Training Materials
• C3RS
FRA R&D Safety Culture Selected Bibliography
• Zuschlag, M., Ranney, J., Coplen, M. (2012). Impact Evaluation of an Organizational Change Program for Union Pacific Road and Yard Operations Shows Improved Safety Performance and Safety Culture. Safety Science (submitted for publication).
• Zuschlag, M., Ranney, J., Coplen, M., Harnar, M. (2012, November).Transformation of Safety Culture on the San Antonio Service Unit of Union Pacific Railroad. U.S. DOT Federal Railroad Administration. DOT-FRA-ORD-12-16. http://www.fra.dot.gov/rpd/freight/185.shtml.
• Kath, L., Marks, K. & Ranney, J. (2010). Safety climate dimensions, leader–member exchange, and organizational support as predictors of upward safety communication in a sample of rail industry workers. Safety Science, doi:10.1016/j.ssci.2010.01.016 http://www.fra.dot.gov/downloads/Research/safety_climate_dimensions_preprint.pdf
• Morrow, S. L., McGonagle, A. K., Dove-Steinkamp, M. L., Walker, C. T. Jr., Marmet, M., and Barnes-Farrell, J. L. (2010). Relationships between psychological safety climate facets and safety behavior in the rail industry: A dominance analysis. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 42(5), 1460-1467. http://www.fra.dot.gov/rpd/downloads/PrePrint_Morrow_2009_AAP.pdf
• Coplen, M., Ranney, J. and Zuschlag, M. (2009, September). Decreases in Collision Risk and Derailments Attributed to Changing At-Risk Behavior Process at Union Pacific, U.S. DOT Federal Railroad Administration [RR09-20]. http://www.fra.dot.gov/downloads/Research/rr0920.pdf
• Coplen, M., Ranney, J. and Zuschlag, M. (2009, September). Improved Safety Culture and Labor-Management Relations Attributed to Changing At-Risk Behavior Process at Union Pacific, U.S. DOT Federal Railroad Administration [RR09-19]. http://www.fra.dot.gov/downloads/Research/rr0919.pdf
• Coplen, M. and Ranney, J. (2009, May). Safe Practices, Operating Rule Compliance, and Derailment Rates Improve at Union Pacific Yards with STEEL Process, U.S. DOT Federal Railroad Administration [RR09-08]. http://www.fra.dot.gov/downloads/Research/rr0908Final.pdf
• Raslear, T., Ranney, J. and Multer, J. (2008, December). Confidential Close Call Reporting System: Preliminary Evaluation Findings, U.S. DOT Federal Railroad Administration, December 2008 [RR08-33]. http://www.fra.dot.gov/downloads/Research/rr0833.pdf
• Raslear, T., Ranney, J. and Multer, J. (2008, December). Confidential Close Call Reporting System: Preliminary Evaluation Findings, U.S. DOT Federal Railroad Administration, December 2008 [RR08-33]. http://www.fra.dot.gov/downloads/Research/rr0833.pdf
• Ranney, J., Wu, S., Austin, C., and Coplen, M. (2008, June). Positive Safety Outcomes of Clear Signal for Action Program at Union Pacific Yard Operations, U.S. DOT Federal Railroad Administration [RR08-09]. http://www.fra.dot.gov/downloads/Research/rr0809.pdf
• Zuschlag, M., Ranney, J. and Coplen, M. (2008, June). Promising Evidence of Impact on Road Safety by Changing At-risk Behavior Process at Union Pacific, U.S. DOT Federal Railroad Administration [RR08-08]. http://www.fra.dot.gov/downloads/Research/rr0808.pdf
• Ranney, J. and Nelson, C. (Coplen, M. COTR ). (2007).The Impact of Participatory Safety Rules Revision on Incident Rates, Liability Claims, and Safety Culture in the U.S. Railroad Industry. U.S. DOT Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, DC [Report No. DOT/FRA/ORD-07/14]. http://www.fra.dot.gov/downloads/Research/ord0714.pdf
• Zuschlag, M., Ranney, J. and Coplen, M. (2007, February). Clear Signal for Action Program Addresses Locomotive Cab Safety Related to Constraining Signals, U.S. DOT Federal Railroad Administration [RR07-08]. http://www.fra.dot.gov/downloads/Research/rr0708.pdf
• Coplen, M., Ranney, J. and Zuschlag, M. (2007, February). Behavior-Based Safety at Amtrak-Chicago Associated with Reduced Injuries and Cost, U.S. DOT Federal Railroad Administration [RR07-07].
• Coplen, M. (2007, January). Proactive Risk Management Safety Approaches for Managing Human-Factors-Caused Accidents in the Railroad Industry: Alternatives to Compliance. Pre-conference Human Factors Workshop #141. Transportation Research Board Annual Conference, Washington, D.C. http://www.fra.dot.gov/downloads/Research/rr0707.pdf
• Lee, M. and Ranney, J. (2006). Example of Investigation Best Practices: Interim Findings from an Evaluation of Canadian Pacific Railways' Investigation of Safety-Related Occurrences Protocol (ISROP), U.S. DOT Volpe National Transportation Systems Center, Cambridge, MA. http://www.fra.dot.gov/downloads/Research/ISROPCaseStudy.pdf
• Ranney, J. and Lee, M. T. (2006, September). Canadian Pacific Railway Services’ 5-Alive Safety Program Shows Promise in Reducing Injuries, U.S. DOT Federal Railroad Administration [RR06-14]. http://www.fra.dot.gov/downloads/Research/rr0614.pdf
• Ranney, J. and Lee, M. T. (2006, September). Canadian Pacific Railway Investigation of Safety-Related Occurrences Protocol Considered Helpful by both Labor and Management, U.S. DOT Federal Railroad Administration [RR06-13]. http://www.fra.dot.gov/downloads/Research/rr0613.pdf
FRA R&D Safety Culture Selected Bibliography (cont.)
• Ranney, J. and Zuschlag, M. (2006, September). Behavior-Based Safety at Amtrak-Chicago Associated with Reduced Injuries and Costs, U.S. DOT Federal Railroad Administration [RR06-12].
• Coplen, M. (2006, January). Danger, people working: multi-modal lessons on improving safety through work process observations and process improvement methods. Pre-Conference Human Factors Workshop. Transportation Research Board Annual Conference, Washington, D.C.
• Ranney, J., Nelson, C. and Coplen, M. (2005). The Efficacy of Behavior-based Safety in the U.S. Railroad Industry: Evidence from Amtrak-Chicago. Transportation Research Board 85th Annual Meeting, Pp. P06-0633. http://www.fra.dot.gov/downloads/Research/efficacy.pdf
• Ranney, J. and Nelson, C. (2004). Impacts of Participatory Safety Rules Revision in U.S. Railroad Industry: An Exploratory Assessment. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., pp 156-163. http://www.fra.dot.gov/downloads/Research/TRR1899-020.pdf
• Ranney, J. (2004, January). Safety Rules Revisions Impact on Safety Culture, Incident Rates, and Liability Claims in the U.S. Railroad Industry: A Summary of Lessons-Learned, U.S. DOT Volpe National Transportation Systems Center, Cambridge, MA. http://www.fra.dot.gov/downloads/Research/SafetyRulesRevisionPres.pdf
• Coplen, M. (2003, August). FRA R&D Pilot Safety Initiative: Proactive Preventative Safety. Presentation on behavior-based safety at BNSF labor/management meeting. Alliance, NE.
• Coplen, M. and Ranney, J. (2003, January). The Impact of Safety Rules Revisions on Safety Culture, Incident Rates, and Liability Claims in the U.S. Railroad Industry, U.S. DOT Federal Railroad Administration [RR03-03]. http://www.fra.dot.gov/downloads/Research/rr0303.pdf
• Ranney, J. (2003). Safety Culture: TRB Human Factors in Transportation Workshop 105. Pre-conference workshop presented at the 82nd Transportation Research Board Meeting, January 12, 2003, Washington, DC. http://www.fra.dot.gov/downloads/Research/SafetyCulture.pdf
• Ranney, J. and Coplen, M. (2000). Assessing At-Risk Behavior in Railroad Operations. Presentation at Transportation Research Board Annual Conference. January, 2000.
• Coplen, M. (1999).Compliance with Railroad Operating Rules and Corporate Culture Influences: Results of a Focus Group and Structured Interviews. U.S. DOT Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, DC [Report No. DOT/FRA/ORD-99/09]. http://www.fra.dot.gov/downloads/Research/ord9909.pdf
FRA R&D Safety Culture Selected Bibliography (cont.)
Thanks to our team!
Sponsors (FRA)
Michael Coplen, FRA Office of Research and Development
Tom Raslear, FRA Office of Research and Development
Volpe Center
Joyce Ranney, Ph.D.
Michael Zuschlag, Ph.D.
Nicole Boyko, Ph.D.
Rail Industry Partners
Amtrak
Union Pacific
Canadian Pacific
New Jersey Transit
CSXT
KCS
CN-IC
ACBL
