Eighteen years of recommendations to prevent industrial chemical incidents: results and lessons learned of the US Chemical Safety Board

被引:5
作者
Tinney, V. A. [1 ]
Anenberg, S. C. [2 ]
Kaszniak, M. [1 ]
Robinson, B. [1 ]
机构
[1] US Chem Safety & Hazard Invest Board, 2175 K ST NW,Suite 400, Washington, DC 20037 USA
[2] Environm Hlth Analyt LLC, Washington, DC 20052 USA
关键词
Occupational health; Environmental health; Chemical incidents;
D O I
10.1016/j.puhe.2016.04.011
中图分类号
R1 [预防医学、卫生学];
学科分类号
1004 ; 120402 ;
摘要
Objectives: The US Chemical Safety Board (CSB), a federal agency that investigates significant chemical incidents and hazards, is interested in determining the impact of the recommendations resulting from its investigations, and how to better more effective recommendations to prevent chemical incidents. Study design: This is a descriptive study of the US Chemical Safety Board's safety recommendations. Methods: The CSB coded and analysed its safety recommendations according to potential impact on reducing incidents, implementation status, purpose and recipient type. Results: As of March 31, 2015, the CSB has issued 733 recommendations, 75% (548) of which are closed and 25% (185) of which remain open. For recommendations categorised as having high, medium, and low impact, 38% (78), 76% (160), and 78% (245) were implemented, respectively. Conclusions: CSB recommendations have led to important and lasting safety changes through regulations, industry guidance and voluntary consensus standards, and individual companies; however, coding recommendations by potential impact do not fully capture the influence of CSB recommendations. While this methodology serves as a preliminary way to determine the effect of recommendations, further data are needed to determine the extent to which these safety changes have reduced the frequency or severity of industrial accidents. (C) 2016 The Royal Society for Public Health. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:183 / 188
页数:6
相关论文
共 11 条
[1]   An NTSB for Health Care - Learning From Innovation: Debate and Innovate or Capitulate [J].
Denham, Charles R. ;
Sullenberger, Chesley B., III ;
Quaid, Dennis W. ;
Nance, John J. .
JOURNAL OF PATIENT SAFETY, 2012, 8 (01) :3-14
[2]  
Fielding E., 2011, Journal of Investment Management, V9, P17, DOI DOI 10.2139/SSRN.1695781
[3]   RAGAGEP 101 [J].
Long, Lisa A. ;
Lay, James R. ;
Marshall, Michael L. ;
Wanko, Jeffrey J. .
PROCESS SAFETY PROGRESS, 2014, 33 (02) :156-161
[4]  
McGarity Thomas., 2010, Workers at risk: Regulatory dysfunction at OSHA
[5]  
National Research Council, 2012, US STOR METH IS MIC
[6]   Could safety boards provide a valuable tool to enhance the safety of reproductive medicine? [J].
Scott, Richard T., Jr. ;
De Ziegler, Nathalie .
FERTILITY AND STERILITY, 2013, 100 (06) :1518-1523
[7]  
Steinzor Rena., 2011, Behind Closed Doors at the White House: How Politics Trumps Protection of Public Health, Worker Safety, and the Environment
[8]  
U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board, 2015, 22 US CHEM SAF HAZ I
[9]  
U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board, 2007, 200504ITX BP US CHEM
[10]  
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2014, RISK MAN PLAN RMP RU