Workplace Health and Safety Queensland Summary of campaign results Control of major risks on civil construction sites (2011/12) Concrete pump and placement boom compliance campaign (2012)
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 • A total of 590 assessments in 362 Traffic businesses management 163 • 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 Worker interaction assessed: with mobile – Road and bridge plant 427 – 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 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 Instruction/Training Group/Team Consultation induction/Daily pre- Workers given a Posted on notice Not at all board or in site start meeting Site specific copy office 1:1 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 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 Constant activity Periodic Team leader Individual worker Not at all monitoring by monitoring by supervisor supervisor 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.
Results – Worker involvement Worker involvement in the development of SWMS/TMP Developed by workers 5% Not at all Greater worker 31% involvement results in increased compliance Detailed Some discussion discussion 7% 57% 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 of 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 of 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 of 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 order 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.
Recommend
More recommend
