We can all agree that substantial improvements in the Health, Safety and Environmental (HS&E) arena have been quite significant over the past 10 to 20 years. The question is: Were the improvements a result of the regulation or due to the potential losses which could be incurred from non-compliance or negative media coverage?

In all likelihood, the vast majority of improvements are a result of the potential losses organizations are exposed to. Major operators and other Oceaneering customers have seen their potential for loss increase substantially over the years. Increased legal and insurances costs, regulatory fines, imprisonment and potential media coverage are all factors they must consider.

Such exposure has forced our customers to insure that we, their contractors, are in compliance. In doing so they have changed the way we manage HS&E, and have ultimately changed the HS&E culture within our own organizations. In either case, whether the results are due to the regulations or potential for loss, HS&E status and culture has changed forever. That change, regardless of why, has benefited our industries, organizations, employees and our own communities.

More Logs and Forms
How will the new record-keeping requirements affect our industries? We may not know its full impact for some time, but there are a few scenarios we can examine. We should be excited that the rule has been revised. When we look at what may actually result from the revision, however, our excitement will likely be diminished. That is not to say that this rule or other regulations have no value.

Has the new requirement met the goal of minimizing the paperwork burden on employers? Before the change we had the 200 Log and the 101 form. Now we have the 300 Log, and the 301 and 300A forms.

The 300 Log is, in all likelihood, structured better than the 200 Log and will undoubtedly provide more valuable data. However, it requires more information per entry, and with the change in the definition of "recordable," will likely result in three-to-five times the number of entries.

The 200 Log served as an annual summary, while the new standard requires the 300 Log and a separate form, the 300A, to serve as the annual summary.

The 101 and 301 forms are quite similar, but it may be more difficult to substitute the 301 form, requiring the completion of an additional form for those who substituted the 201. Based on the new method used to determine recordability, we will be completing three-to-five times as many 301 forms as compared to the 201 forms. Not only do we have additional forms, we have a significant increase in the number of entries as well as the number of forms to be completed.

What about the increase in Root Cause Analysis (RCA) performed? If your present policy or your customer's expectation is to complete an RCA for every recordable, then the number of RCAs completed by your firm will likely increase by 300 to 500 percent. That's quite an increase considering the time, effort, and resources required to perform an RCA that's of any true value. If that's the case for your firm and you were under-staffed prior to the change, you may need to consider staffing up or change your current policy and/or that of the customer.

Data Quality and Accuracy
Has the newly revised record-keeping requirement improved the accuracy of data collected? The structure and entries required by the new 300 Log would undoubtedly provide more accurate data for entries made, but in no way insure that all required entries occur, nor could either of the rules have done so.

Just as in the past, the accuracy of the data collected will be based on the interpretations and integrity of the individuals and or companies maintaining the log. The original intent of the record-keeping requirement was to establish a uniform system by which employers recorded and reported occupational injuries and illnesses.

Depending on the type services you provide, the record-keeping requirement may have become a measure utilized by the customer to determine whether or not your firm is an acceptable contractor. Over the past 10 years we have witnessed an increasing number of customers not only utilizing this measure to determine if a contractor is acceptable, but continually dropping the minimum acceptable rate by which contractors are selected. In doing so we have witnessed contractors and competitors finding as many creative ways as possible to avoid recording an accident.

Case management has always been of extreme value but seems to have taken on a different meaning in today's environment. In days past it was about how effectively we provided care to the injured employee. In today's world, we not only consider prompt appropriate care, we are forced to consider every option available to prevent recordability. We can't blame that on the customer. Yes, the customer may have set a high standard, but as the contractor becomes more and more creative with the record-keeping requirements, we further increase customer expectations.

The Contractor's Responsibility
Today many customers require the contractor to prove why a case is not recordable, while others expect the contractor to prove why you should record the case. Some expect creativity while others reject it. In some cases the customer's minimum acceptable recordable incident rate is set so low that contractors have become excessively creative, further contributing to the contractor dilemma. It is our reaction, or overreaction, as contractors that further creates even higher expectations. OSHA's intent was to create a uniform standard, which if applied uniformly would provide accurate data and ultimately result in a factual incident rate. It seems now, however, that we are working towards achieving rates and goals that are currently beyond our reach, unless the contractor resorts to creative case management techniques.

Our goals should be no less than Zero Accident, Zero Environmental Incidents, and Zero Harm to People. Such goals are clearly achievable and well within our reach, without manipulation of the standard. As frustrating or difficult as it may seem, we must recognize that without the pressure from regulators or customers we would have never come as far as we have. HS&E's current value, achievements and status can only be accredited to such pressures. As with any expectation, the more we monitor and measure, the more we excel. It is the overly creative, or those individuals or companies lacking integrity, that further enhance the contractor dilemma. Regardless of the expectation, your organization and its HS&E department should view the dilemma simply as a challenge ­ an opportunity to excel. Now that the rules have changed, we can only hope that the revised requirement is followed uniformly. This can only be accomplished by open communication and dialogue among contractors, operators and regulators. If we fail to do so we only hurt ourselves.

Track Your Incident Rate
If you have not already considered tracking your firm's incident rate under both the new and old record-keeping requirements during 2002, then you should consider doing so. Customers that establish minimal acceptable incident rates for their contractors will likely need six to 12 months' worth of new data before they can reestablish a new baseline. With that in mind, it would likely be in your organization's best interest to track all cases under both standards, providing proof that you remain within the customer's selection requirement established prior to the change.

For those who wish to view the new standard or are interested in finding additional resources, a list of OSHA offices is available at www.osha-slc.gov/html/RAmap.html. To find a list of regional record-keeping coordinators who can respond to specific questions about the new rule, visit www.osha-slc.gov/record-keeping/RKcontacts.html. OSHA has also placed a wide array of materials on its record-keeping page at www.osha-slc.gov/recordkeeping/index.html, which includes a brochure to help employers determine if they are covered by the rule, several fact sheets, PowerPoint training programs, and downloadable copies of the record-keeping forms with instructions for completing them. Materials are also available from OSHA's Publications Office at 202-693-1888. UW