Volume
4 Issue 2 |
|||||||||||
| This Issue Feature Article: OAC A Different Approach - the Discussion. 4 Confined spaces
deaths Previous Issues Newswire
Volume 2 Issue 1 Advertising Features Safety Superstore The articles contained in Newswire are summaries only and should not be considered definitive. Appropriate advice must be obtained before proceeding.
Safety Training Courses
Confined spaces
Confined spaces entry
Construction Safety
CDM
Awareness CDM for Designers
(coming soon)
CSR Training & Assessment
Accident Investigations Advising
your CEO Developing Permit Systems
Permit Issuers and Receivers
Risk Assessment
Mail us for details or visit us
Read any good books lately? Have you watched a video, read a book or been on a training course recently that you feel you could write a review of? Please do. Submit to info@web-safety.com and we will consider it for publication on the website. Alternatively if you have written any papers or designed a presentation that you would wish to share with the safety community then forward those to us. We always acknowledge original sources.
Place your advert or article here.
OSHA
Seeking Comments on PPE Requirements (US) OSHA is requesting public comment concerning its proposal to extend information collection requirements in general industry and shipyard personal protective equipment standards. The agency particularly wants to hear suggestions on ways to minimize burdens on employers, and also whether the proposed requirements are necessary to protect workers and whether the collected information is useful.
|
OAC A Different Approach - the discussion A paper
entitled “A Different Approach to Operational Analysis and Control”,
written by Ciaran and Philip McAleenan was presented at NSC 2002. Since that time the authors have been discussing
various aspects with friends and colleagues around the world. In this
issue we present some aspects of the discussion in an effort to further
the debate and promote this safety management method. If
you have not seen the paper An
early question presented to the authors was “Is this really a different
approach?” and we would contend that it is in the sense that it does not
accept that risk management is a sustainable approach to the continual
maintenance of safe working. The process described in the body of the
paper and elaborated upon when presented to National Safety Congress
delegates is not an academic study, rather it is an approach that was
developed within industry, worked since 1997 and refined through
operational experience to the point it is at today. At this point the
authors are content to hold it up to scrutiny, since it is through this
that we will learn more and further develop the model. The model is
dynamic and as such must not be allowed to stand still. Back to basicsOAC is
a back to basics approach in that it goes to the heart of the business and
tests the efficacy of operational controls. What
can cause harm? And what are you doing about it? Are effectively the
analysis of the operation, boiled down to the simplest of terms, however
the nature of the questions should not lead the reader to assume that the
approach is simplistic. Behind these simple questions may lie a complex
response. Asking the questions is the easy part and should be done at all
levels across the business with varying degrees of complexity depending on
the nature and scope of the operation under examination. For instance the
operative on the factory floor, concerned with the workings of his machine
will look to what can cause him harm and make sure that controls; such as
machine guards, are in place to protect him and his co-workers. The
Managing Director/ President, however, examines the workings of the
factory unit to examine how the business can be harmed such as; ·
Workplace accidents, ·
Accident downtime, ·
Citations, ·
Rework, ·
Fines/ workers compensation, ·
Fire losses, ·
Profitability, etc He/ she
will want to have in place controls (safe working procedures, business
continuity plans, quality control etc). While the basics questions are the
same between the operator and the president the outworking from the model
is tempered to suit the situation. Is
it enough? Now turning to the question “Is it enough?” Firstly, it must be emphasised that a work operation without controls to protect the worker is must not proceed, therefore the “is it enough?” question is looking beyond that to areas where safety could be further assured or quality further improved, through the use of better control methods. Examples would include, taking advantage of technological progress or eliminating the hazard at the source rather than introducing personal protection to the receiver. This is vastly different from estimating the chance (risk) that the worker may be harmed and deciding what level is acceptable. In the
worst case accepting a 1:10000 risk of a fatal outcome means that a large
corporation or the entire business community acknowledge that it is
acceptable to bury 1, 2 or more workers per year. (Remember ILO
estimates that each year two million men and women die from work-related
diseases and accidents - a death toll averaging some 5,000 workers a day).
Questions
were raised regarding resources. Managers must have both time and
resources to effectively manage. It is knowing that you have them and
knowing what to do with them to achieve a positive outcome that makes a
great manager. The question is not only relevant but it is essential. Preventing accidents or
mitigating the consequences
The authors were also asked to consider whether the model is designed to prevent accidents or to mitigate the consequences. We would have to say it is the former. Consider the phrases in the table above. The first statement (OAC model) looks towards the improvement of worker safety. The overall objective being; “Safe before you start”. The second statement (risk management approach) is premised on the belief that if the odds appear to be good then you can proceed with the job. Control measures under risk management tend towards the mitigation (i.e. if we work the odds then we only need to introduce control measures to address the lesser anticipated degree harm). Contact the authors if you want to contribute to the debate. Ciaran McAleenan and Philip McAleenan HSE ALERTS EMPLOYERS TO THE DANGERS OF CONFINED SPACES FOLLOWING FOUR DEATHS IN FOUR WEEKSThe Health and Safety Executive (HSE) has reminded all employers who may encounter confined spaces of the dangers involved, following four tragic deaths in four weeks. These deaths follow a series of other confined space incidents in recent months. Three of the deaths, which occurred in two separate incidents all involved an oxygen deficient atmosphere. The other death involved the use of a highly flammable liquid. HSE inspector Graham Watson commented: “It is believed the fatalities occurred soon after entering the confined spaces. This serves to emphasise that the dangers of confined spaces can be lethal no matter how brief the entry is expected to be." The low oxygen levels have been attributed separately to the process of rust formation within a previously sealed vessel, and the use of an inert gas in a welding process. As well as considering other possible causes of an oxygen deficient atmosphere, employers must also consider all the other hazards associated with confined spaces, including:
Other recent confined space incidents have included: two employees of a construction firm being overcome by carbon monoxide fumes when using a petrol powered road cutter in a tented enclosure; and two painters being overcome by paint fumes when applying a solvent-based paint by brush in a confined space. Graham Watson added: “Recent incidents highlight the need to fully consider the impact that any work within a confined space may have on the atmosphere within that the space and the resulting risks to health and safety.” Under the Confined Spaces Regulations 1997 employers must first try to avoid the need to enter a confined space. Where this is not possible, they must:
If you have concerns about confined space then contact Expert Ease International or visit the website World
Day for Safety and Health at Work According to ILO estimates, each year two million men and women die from work-related diseases and accidents - a death toll averaging some 5,000 workers a day. Globalisation is affecting occupational safety and health in a variety of ways, some positive, some negative. A strong safety and health culture in all enterprises is a key step towards both preventing occupational deaths and diseases and tackling related effects of globalisation. The ILO World Day for Safety and Health is bringing tripartite strength to the International Commemoration Day for Dead and Injured Workers organized worldwide by the trade union movement since 1996 and coordinated by the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU). The World Day for Safety and Health at Work is intended to focus international attention on the magnitude of the problem and how promoting and creating a safety and health culture can help to reduce the number of work-related deaths each year. Because decent work is safe work. View
video clips from last years event Lost-worktime Injuries and Illnesses: 2001 (US)The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) reported March 27 that workplace injury and illnesses continued a steady decline in 2001. A total of 1.5 million injuries and illnesses in private industry during 2001 required recuperation away from work, a 7.6 percent drop over the previous year. The report also highlighted a decline of 9.6 percent in musculoskeletal injuries and illnesses. Of the 10 occupations that accounted for nearly one-third of the cases requiring recuperation away from work, truck drivers experienced the most injuries and illnesses with days away from work, as they have in each year since 1993. Of these 10 occupations, non-construction laborers, assemblers, and carpenters showed significant declines in the number of injuries and illnesses from 2000 to 2001. Only stock handlers and baggers showed a significant increase in the same period. Click to see the full release Take the RedR Challenge - Could you cope after a disaster?
On Saturday 5th & Sunday 6th July 2003 at
Sunningdale Park, Larch Avenue, Ascot, Berkshire, ENGLAND Enter, compete,
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
