Summary of campaign results Control of major risks on civil - - PDF document

Summary of campaign results

Control of major risks on civil construction sites (2011/12) Concrete pump and placement boom compliance campaign (2012)

Workplace Health and Safety Queensland

Control of major risks on civil construction sites 2011/12

Background

• Target areas:

– Interaction of workers with mobile plant – Traffic management – Housekeeping

• Purpose:

– Enforce compliance – Gather information about risk management, in particular the Safe Work Method Statement process

• The assessment tool was designed to focus on a single high risk construction activity

within the target areas.

• Using the Safe Work Method Statement and Traffic Management Plans as a

foundation, the assessment aimed to gather information on whether each stage of the process was being completed effectively and, ultimately, whether or not the process was effectively managing risk.

Overview of assessments

Total assessments by area of focus

Worker interaction with mobile plant 427 Traffic management 163

• A total of 590 assessments in 362

businesses

• Represents 10-15% of civil construction

businesses in Queensland

• Construction housekeeping assessed in

all cases in addition to the area of focus

• All types of civil construction work

assessed:

– Road and bridge – Services and utilities – Residential – Non-residential/commercial

The majority of assessments were done on the following work activities:

• Excavating, shifting materials
• Road/building platform construction (grading, bitumen)
• Infrastructure installation (drainage, pipeline)
• Traffic control operations
• Traffic management works adjacent to a road
• Clearing (top soil, foilage)
• Boom lifts/elevated work platforms

Results - Documentation

• Safe work method statements (SWMS) and

traffic management plans (TMP):

– 96% had prepared documents – 92% adequately identified risks – 91% identified adequate controls – 76% implemented controls that had been identified

• 24% of activities were assessed as failing to

implement controls

– Only slightly lower (22%) when looking at major contractors only

The activities most likely to be assessed as failing to identify suitable controls include:

• the installation of public/worker safety systems for traffic management
• concrete placement
• the use of mobile plant in tunnel operations, and
• excavating, shifting materials (tip trucks, bobcats).

This data indicates that a significant number of high risk construction work activities are being carried out with uncontrolled risks to workers (i.e. 17% failed to implement identified controls and 7% accounted for documentation that was absent or insufficient with risks not adequately identified and/or suitable controls not identified). Activities that had a higher than average rate of failing to implement controls for mobile plant activities:

• infrastructure installation (drainage, pipeline, cable)
• clearing (top soil, foliage)
• concrete placement (cement trucks, pumps).

Activities that had a higher than average rate of failing to implement controls for traffic management activities:

• traffic management works being carried out adjacent to a road
• the installation of public/worker safety systems for traffic management.

Results - Communication

Methods used to communicate SWMS/TMP to workers

50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 1:1 Instruction/Training Group/Team Consultation Site specific induction/Daily pre- start meeting Workers given a copy Posted on notice board or in site

• ffice

Not at all

Site and safety managers reported that the most common method of communicating the contents of SWMS and TMP to workers were site specific induction or daily pre‐start meetings, with just over two‐thirds of activities assessed (412) using this method. The next most common methods were group or team consultation (254), followed by one‐ to‐one instruction and training (194). There was minimal variation in the level of compliance with documentation across the three most common methods of communication. Posting the SWMS/TMP on a notice board, however, was slightly less effective.

Results - Monitoring

Methods used to monitor compliance with SWMS/TMP

50 100 150 200 250 300 350 Constant activity monitoring by supervisor Periodic monitoring by supervisor Team leader Individual worker Not at all

Most activities assessed were subject to either constant monitoring (297) or periodic monitoring (250) by a supervisor or manager. Monitoring by a team leader (110) or by the individual worker (91) were also common. Constant monitoring by a supervisor was the most effective method of ensuring compliance with the SWMS/TMP (i.e. controls were implemented). Monitoring by the team leader or the individual worker also both resulted in high levels of compliance. Periodic monitoring did not appear to be effective, with nearly a quarter of activities using this method being assessed as failing to implement controls.

Worker involvement in the development of SWMS/TMP

Not at all 31% Some discussion 7% Detailed discussion 57% Developed by workers 5%

Results – Worker involvement

Greater worker involvement results in increased compliance

Two‐thirds of activities that were assessed had included workers in some form of discussion as part of the development of the SWMS or TMP. Only a very small number

• f SWMS/TMPs were actually developed by workers themselves. In almost a third of the

assessments workers were recorded as having no involvement at all in the development

• f safety documentation.

Documentation that was developed by workers resulted in higher levels of compliance, although the small number of documents reported for this category reduces the significance of this result. Processes that involved either detailed discussion or some discussion performed reasonably, while those with no worker involvement were the least effective.

Results – Worker perspectives

• 83% of workers demonstrated an understanding
• f SWMS/TMP

– Workers 25 years and younger demonstrated a lower level of understanding

• Workers reported:

– 72% of documents were suitable to activity – 31% thought the documents were easy to understand – 21% reported that compliance was enforced/checked

The assessment gathered information on worker understanding of the contents of documentation as well as their perception on its suitability, ease of understanding, and the extent to which it was monitored. Most workers were able to demonstrate an understanding of the contents of the SWMS/TMP as they related to the construction activity (83%), however less than three‐ quarters (72%) believed the documentation was suitable for the activity. Less than a third of assessments recorded that workers thought the SWMS or TMP was easy to understand (31%). Only 21% reported that the documentation was enforced by management. Workers aged 25 years and younger demonstrated a lower level of understanding of the SWMS/TMP compared to their older colleagues. This is an interesting result when compared to workers’ compensation data in Queensland, which shows that younger workers that have lower levels of training and experience also have a higher injury claim rate.

Key messages

• Workers and managers disagree on the

effectiveness of communication and monitoring methods being used

• Workers should be engaged in risk management

and control processes

The campaign assessment required inspectors to gather information from each level of the safety management system. Documentation was evaluated, site and safety managers were asked to report on their expectations, and workers were asked for their perception of how the system was implemented and monitored. A comparison of the data collected from each of these sources assists in identifying common failures as well as providing guidance for future campaigns. Workers and management disagree Workers reported that monitoring was generally not taking place, that documentation was usually not easy to understand, and in a quarter of cases not suitable for the activity. Site and safety managers, on the other hand, reported comprehensive discussion with workers on the development and communication of SWMS and TMP as well as relatively high levels of monitoring. Irrespective of which perception is more accurate, inspectors assessed the result as non‐compliant in approximately a quarter of cases. Engage workers and communicate clearly The campaign data shows that constant activity monitoring by a supervisor is required in

• rder to ensure high levels of compliance with the SWMS or TMP. However, constant

monitoring is not always possible or practical. To achieve similar levels of compliance under periodic monitoring workers must be engaged in the safety monitoring process, through either the development of documentation or through meaningful consultation. Nearly a third of the documentation was completed with no involvement from workers, highlighting a significant opportunity for improvement. Increased worker involvement would likely impact on the other concerning areas of worker perception, suitability for the task and ease of understanding.

Key messages

• Critical information about risks and

controls must be communicated clearly and simply

• Young and inexperienced workers are at

greater risk

Risk to young and inexperienced workers The results from the campaign are also a reminder that safety documentation must be useful, both with respect to how it relates to the activity and how it can be communicated to workers. For a quarter of the activities assessed the workers reported that the SWMS or TMP was not suitable for the task. In addition, even though most workers (92%) were able to demonstrate to the inspector an understanding of the risks and controls relevant to the activity being assessed, only a third of the documentation was reported as easy to understand. This suggests that worker’s are relying on their experience to asses the hazards and risks associated with an activity and the controls that are required rather than the documentation. As well as putting younger and less experienced workers at greater risk, it makes the effectiveness of risk management activities dependent on the workers’ knowledge and experience, which may omit important information specific to the environment or activity (e.g. the condition or capacity of specific items of plant, the location of services).

Concrete pumps and placement booms 2012

Background - how

• Purpose:

– Identify non-compliance – Measure level of hazard and risk management – Provide information and guidance.

• Assessment of:

– Documentation and procedures – Condition and operation

Overview of assessments

• 104 assessments completed over 6 months
• Approximately a quarter of the total number of

concrete pump and placement boom units registered with Workplace Health and Safety Queensland

• 60 different pump owners/operators assessed
• Generally very high levels of compliance around

documentation, procedures, operation and plant condition

Focus for industry

1. Inspections

– Ensure annual inspections are carried out – Ensure six yearly strip-down inspections are carried out – Maintain accurate documentation around inspections

2. Risk assessments and safe work procedures are critical where there is a risk of collision with the boom (e.g. overhead powerlines) 3. Short-legging should only be done in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications and a safe working procedure 4. Vehicles that have been modified to include a pump unit or placement boom must have the appropriate Queensland Modification Plate, issued by the Department of Transport and Main Roads