On 20 November 2009, Standards Australia announced the public release of the new risk management standard ISO 31000 which replaces the Australian Standard AS4360. The media release is available here and a preview of the risk management standard is available here.
Category: risk
The personal cost of surviving a major hazard explosion
As one gets older, the “where are they now?” columns in the newspapers or the summer magazine supplements become more interesting. The articles of faded pop stars and political one-time wonders are diverting but every so often one makes you stop and think.
OHS is not renowned for “where are they nows?”. The discipline and the profession has few celebrities but there are important people. One such person is Jim Ward. Jim’s story is long and involved but he came to the public’s attention as a survivor of the 1998 gas explosion at the Esso gas plant in Longford Victoria. The blast, which killed 2 workers, crippled the State’s gas supply for almost 2 weeks. A Royal Commission was held into the disaster.
Usually a worker’s evidence may be reported on for a day or two in such an investigation but Jim Ward became more than that primarily due to the attempt, according to some, by Esso Australia (a subsidiary of ExxonMobil) to scapegoat Jim. This attempt was roundly condemned in the Royal Commission.
In the Australasian Mine Safety Journal, Jim Ward has written a short personal account of what happened that day but, more importantly, how that day has changed his life.
After the failure of steel exchanger and before the fatal explosion, Ward writes:
“I raced to a doorway and looked out into the gas plant where I saw a thick white fog rolling down the walkway. This white fog was a cloud of vaporised hydrocarbon. Gas – highly flammable gas.
Out of the fog stumbled two zombie-like creatures. Two men – blackened from head to toe. They were covered in soot which had been blown from the inside of the huge steel exchanger when it violently ruptured. They had their arms out in front of them trying to feel their way through the fog, blinking as if trying to catch some daylight to help guide them to safety.
Over the roar of the jet–engine–like sound of gas spewing into the atmosphere I yelled – I yelled at them to get into the control room. Into the control room and to relative safety. Ninety seconds later the gas found a source of ignition and a second, much louder explosion shook the control room building again.
What followed from that moment on was sheer unadulterated terror.”
In his article he goes on to explain the psychological impact of that day and the diagnosis of his post-traumatic stress syndrome. Ward rightly points out that mental health is poorly understood in the workplace.
Many employers are satisfied if they get through a single day without a problem or complaint but silence is not compliance and there may be mental health issues that require attending to even though they are difficult to identify.
Ward’s article is a timely reminder that the measurement of a successful OHS management system or a more personal “safe system of work” has changed and that business needs to scrutinise OHS auditors on the mental health assessment criteria.
Perhaps, most particularly to Australia, it is necessary to gauge OHS laws through contemporary hazards, such as mental health. The law will exist for decades and need to be able to adapt to emerging hazards, many of them not coming from the physical.
His article also means that workers need to consider colleagues as more than just colleagues and look to their humanity. In the past many of us are inclusive and dismissive when we refer to someone as a work mate. People are more than that.
It may be, as this article is written on 9 November 2009, that Jim Ward’s message has already been learnt by the survivors and emergency workers of the World Trade Center from 2001. But for many outside the United States it is also two days before Armistice Day, the end of the World War which really brought shell-shock or combat stress reaction and post traumatic stress disorder to the public mind.
When remembering the fallen in war and work we should also ask “where are they now?”
Amputations, shocks and burns – court cases
In late October 2009, there were several OHS court cases in Australia that raise issues that need to be kept at the forefront of the thoughts of safety managers, safety professionals, workers and business owners.
Amputation
One case in South Australia identified the need to have sufficient detail in policies and procedures for workers to be safe. The comment of Industrial Magistrate Michael Ardlie is particularly important.
Beerenberg Pty Ltd was fined $A9,000 dollars for breaching OHS law
“The incident happened in May 2007 at the company’s Hahndorf premises. A female employee was operating a mincer as part of the process of producing green tomato chutney.
The court was told that at the conclusion of the task, the employee switched off the machine but noticed a piece of tomato hanging from the mincer plate. She went to flick the piece off, but in doing so lost the tip of her index finger.
SafeWork SA’s investigation concluded that the woman’s finger had gone through one of the holes in the mincer plate and come into contact with the cutting blade behind, which was still winding down after the machine was switched off.
The fingertip could not be reattached, but the woman returned to work with the business after five weeks. Aside from the cosmetic appearance, there remains some numbness in the finger.
In his penalty decision today, Industrial Magistrate Michael Ardlie acknowledged that while there was a safe operating procedure written and a warning sign in place, these measures alone were insufficient.
“(The measures) did not specifically warn employees of the dangers presented by the moving parts of the mincer after the mincer had been turned off… the procedures in place did not go far enough.”
Since the incident, the company has fitted a purpose-built distance guard as well as an interlock that shuts the machine down once the guard is removed.”
Magistrate Ardlie fined the defendant $9,000 this being its first offence.
Crushed Fingers and Guarding
The same Industrial Magistrate as above, McArdlie, had to deal with a very different case. Whereas Beerenberg was facing its first offence, OE & DR Pope are on their fifth.
“SafeWork SA prosecuted OE & DR Pope Pty Ltd after investigating an incident at its Wingfield printing plant in March 2007.
A 34-year-old male employed as a machine operator, suffered crush injuries to three fingers of his right hand, which were caught between moving rollers. While he returned to work after three weeks, he suffered residual sensitivity problems, and left the business in December 2007 for unrelated reasons.
The court was told that the operator had attempted to clean dry spots from a roller without stopping the machine, and was able to gain access to the moving parts through a 70mm gap in the guarding. Furthermore, the employee’s usual assistant was not available leaving him to perform two roles on the machine. The supervisor who also should have been present was elsewhere on the premises at the time.
In his decision on penalty handed down today, Industrial Magistrate Michael Ardlie noted that the machine involved had replaced another involved in a previous injury, but that a risk assessment failed to identify the problem which ultimately occurred:
“Whilst the defendant prior to the incident did assess the machine, installed a guard and introduced a Standard Operating Procedure, the steps it took were inadequate.”
The court was told that this was the company’s fifth offence dating back to 1998, and all previous incidents resulted in similar injuries from similar circumstances.
Therefore, being a subsequent offence under the Occupational Health Safety and Welfare Act 1986, the defendant faced a maximum fine of $A200,000. Magistrate Ardlie fined the company $A40,000.”
Fifth incident in just over ten years – “similar injuries from similar circumstances”. The reduced fine of $A40,000 seems a little odd in this context.
There are several elements that are disturbing in this case – ineffective guarding, excessive or conflicting workload and absent work supervisor.
Overhead Hazards
Just as falling in some workplaces is as “easy as falling of a log”, so it is that many people forget to look up. A court case in Western Australia has fined Shrigley Drilling Contractors $A40,000 after one worker was shocked and another burnt when their drilling rig tilted into high-voltage overhead powerlines in 2006.
“Laurence Victor Shrigley – trading as Shrigley Drilling Contractors – pleaded guilty to failing to ensure that the workplace was safe and, by that failure, causing serious harm to another person and was fined in the Perth Magistrates Court this week.
In May 2006, Western Power had contracted Outback Power Services to perform works and construct a voltage regulator at Eneabba. Outback Power had contracted Mr Shrigley to perform drilling works.
On May 17, Mr Shrigley and an electrical contractor were engaged in drilling holes with a drilling rig underneath power lines. The position in which the drilling contractor chose to place the rig required him to raise the mast very close to the power lines.
In repositioning the rig, the left-hand outrigger was raised and the mast tilted towards the power lines. The mast touched the power lines and Mr Shrigley received an electric shock and was thrown backwards from the drilling rig.
Another man, who was driving the truck that carried the drilling rig and was working with Mr Shrigley on a voluntary basis, also received an electric shock serious enough to set his clothing on fire. He sustained burns to around 60 per cent of his body.
The court heard that no formal pre-start meeting had been held before the work commenced, and no directions were given for the work, with the exception of where the holes were required to be placed.
Mr Shrigley had not checked whether the power lines were live, or attempted to make any arrangements for the power in the area to be isolated.”
The features in this case include contractor management, using a volunteer, inadequate preparation, and inadequate number of workers (apparently, no spotter).
It is understandable that cynicism is rampant in the safety profession when the same work practices lead to injuries in the 21st century just as they did in the 20th and sometimes in the 19th.
Grandad’s disease
Almost as a follow-on from the Matt Peacock podcast the UK’s Health and Safety Executive has given asbestos the feature slot in its October 2009 podcast that has just been released.
The podcast and accompanying campaign is aimed at the recent tradespeople who may be under the impression that, as asbestos was banned in the UK in 2000, that the hazard no longer exists. This is not the case and the podcast pushes this point.
The podcast also mentions how people panic when there is any risk of exposure to asbestos. Strangely, the speakers say that harm from asbestos is more likely to come from prolonged exposure than from a single fibre. This seems to contrast with the asbestos campaigns of the past and given that symptoms of asbestos-related diseases can appear “out-of-the-blue” decades later, the statement sounds odd.
The HSE podcast can be downloaded HERE.
WorkSafe Victoria Awards winners
On 29 October 2009, WorkSafe Victoria held its WorkSafe Awards event at the Palladium Room at Melbourne’s Crown Casino. SafetyAtWorkBlog attended as a guest. All the winners were deserved and there are short profiles of some of the winners below.
The first award was for the Health & Safety Representative of the Year, won by Phyl Hilton. Hilton was clearly honoured by the award and in his acceptance speech acknowledged that good OHS laws are “socially progressive” – a position that is rarely heard outside of the union movement or from non-blue-collar workers. It is an element missing from many of the submission currently being received by Australian Government in its OHS law review.
Hilton presented as genuine and his commitment to the safety of his colleagues was undeniable. Significantly, he thanked several WorkSafe inspectors for their support and assistance. WorkSafe would have been chuffed but the comment which reinforced safety as a partnership.
The Best Solution to a Health and Safety Risk was given to Bendigo TAFE for a machine guarding solution. Guards have become an unfashionable hazard control solution and often now seem to rely on new technology. The chuck key guard was as hi-tech as an interlock device but one that the users of the lathes, almost all young workers, would not need any involvement with. If chuck key remains in the place, the guard is out of position and the machine cannot start. Simple is always the best.
The combination of beer and safety is a heady mix for Australians so the keg handler had a cultural edge on the other award finalists in the category, Best Solution to Prevent Musculoskeletal Injuries. The keg mover and the keg stacker seemed to be two different devices 
and it would have been great to have a single device but the stacking option was particularly interesting. Many pub cellars are cramped and being able to stack beer kegs in a stable fashion is attractive, and sensible. The cross-support that is placed on top of each keg was, perhaps, the standout feature. One can almost see the staring at the top of the keg by the designers and the creative cogs turning. The best solutions always seem to be those where one asks “why didn’t I think of that?”
WorkSafe has placed a lot of attention on safety in the horse racing industry, particularly, as injuries received by jockeys and the killing of injured racehorses are in public view and therefore are highly newsworthy.
The attraction of this winner of Best Design for Workplace Safety is that the inventor has looked beyond PPE for jockeys to what a jockey is likely to hit when falling of a racehorse at speed.
The OHS law drafters should take note that this innovation has come from looking at “eliminating a hazard, at the source”, an important terminology omitted from the last Australia OHS law draft. Would there have been the same level of innovation if the racing industry had done what was “reasonably practicable”? It is very doubtful.
This post has focussed on individual achievement and physical solutions to hazards. The awards for OHS committee and safety management systems are not detailed here as they are more difficult to quantify but for completeness, the Safety Committee of the Year went to RMIT – School of Aerospace, Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering, Bundoora East, the Best Strategy for Health and Safety Management went to the Youth Justice Custodial Services – Department of Human Services, Parkville for its program in Clinical Group Supervision.
Some of these solutions need to be viewed to fully understand their merit and it is hoped that SafetyAtWorkBlog will be able to post the videos of the winners and, more importantly, the other finalists, shortly. Certainly the other finalists in the solutions categories deserve almost as much recognition.
Health and Safety Representative of the Year
Recipient: Phyl Hilton – Toyota Motor Corporation, Altona
Phyl, who works as a toolmaker at Toyota’s Altona Plant, has been a health and safety representative for 10 years. Representing 27 members in the trades department within the Press shop, he takes a leading role in identifying opportunities for safety improvements in his workplace. Using a practical and collaborative approach, Phyl has played an integral part in many initiatives, including the design and construction of weld bay facilities, the procurement of portable fume extractors and the development of press plant policies in English and Japanese. Phyl was also part of the Traffic Management Control Working Party and the Working at Heights and Trades Hazard Mapping projects. He is committed to developing and driving safety knowledge among Toyota apprentices and actively mentors and coaches fellow health and safety representatives.
Best Design for Workplace Safety
Recipient: Bendigo Regional Institute of TAFE, Bendigo
Initiative: Lathe Chuck Guard
Bendigo Regional Institute of TAFE works with students and apprentices to prepare them for the workforce. An incident highlighted the risk of an operator forgetting to remove a key from the chuck on a lathe before turning it on. Working on lathes is a normal part of work in many businesses within the manufacturing industry. The chuck can spin at 1000rpm or more and this could cause the key to fly out from the machine with high force, creating a projectile that could result in serious injury to the operator or others close to the lathe. The Lathe Chuck Guard protects the operator by refusing to close if the key is left in the chuck. The guard is interlocked to ensure the lathe can only be started with the guard closed. Having a guard assists with providing a safe work environment within the TAFE workshop. The Lathe Chuck Guard is a simple, cheap, yet effective, way of reducing the risk of projectile keys. It is adaptable for a range of lathes across industries and will benefit other educational facilities and the wider manufacturing industry.
Best Solution for Preventing Musculoskeletal Injuries
Recipient: Cherry Constructions and Workright Safety Solutions, Seaford
Initiative: Keg Handling System
The Keg Handling System is a mechanical aid system to assist the hospitality industry. It consists of a keg lifter, trolley, ramp and stack safe crosses and is used for handling beer kegs. Keg handling has been a major issue in hospitality for several decades and is traditionally done by hand without the use of mechanical aids. The Keg Handling System seeks to improve the way kegs, which can weigh up to 67kg, are handled and reduce the risk of injury. The keg lifter can lift a keg, manoeuvre it into position and lower it to the floor or on top of another keg with minimal effort from the operator. The trolley can pick up a keg from any position so that it doesn’t have to be moved to meet the trolley. It has a locking device so the keg is fixed to the trolley. The stack safe crosses allow the kegs to ’nest‘ into each other, stopping them from toppling. The major risks associated with handling beer kegs are musculoskeletal injuries to the back, shoulders and arms, and crushing injuries. The automated and easy-to-manoeuvre system is readily used in small spaces and by a range of staff. This design can also be adapted for other industries to aid in lifting and transporting many items including gas bottles, oil drums and even large pot plants in nurseries.
Best Design for Workplace Safety
Recipient: Racing Victoria (Flemington), Dan Mawby and Delta-V Experts (North Fitzroy)
Initiative: Running Rails
Running rails have been a safety issue in the racing industry for many years, causing serious injuries to jockeys and horses involved in collisions. Track staff have also been hurt due to the manual handling required to set up and move rails. Designed and invented by Dan Mawby, tested by Delta-V Experts and used by Racing Victoria, this new lightweight durable UV-rated plastic running rail is a welcome replacement for the solid aluminium rails currently in use. The major improvement is that the horizontal rail doesn’t break from the impact of weight-bearing objects – instead, it elevates, springs and bends on impact. The design and flexibility of this rail system also has the ability to steer a horse back on track should light contact be made, therefore avoiding injury. The new Running Rail is in place at Flemington and Caulfield Racecourse and some training facilities.
Asbestos and corruption as a case study
Australia has been a major supplier of asbestos to the world for decades. It has also been a major corporate beneficiary of the revenue for the sale of this poisonous material.
The latest situation in Melbourne is a good example of all that is wrong with asbestos and worker exposure. According to reports in The Age newspapers in late October 2009, a property developer has allegedly offered $A57,000 to a safety officer on a hospital redevelopment project, allegedly, in order to turn a blind eye to the issue of asbestos at the site. According to the newspaper reports, some in the industry have described this payment as a bribe.
In February 2006, the developer received a report from an independent consultant advising that asbestos be removed prior to demolition. The developer removed most but not all. It is in this patch of remaining asbestos that two workers dug through the concrete with a jack hammer and concrete saw, generating considerable dust from the concrete and the asbestos. The workers were not wearing any protective masks.
Australia is dealing with the corporate immorality of James Hardie Industries, although there is much more that can be down. Wittenoom is closed and has almost disappeared. Companies are required to have an asbestos register for their properties. Tasmania is to become free of asbestos by 2020. There is a lot of activity, so much that the control of this poisonous material should not be handled in an ad hoc manner. Governmental vision is required to commit to the removal of asbestos and the clean-up of contaminated sites.
It is an easy moral call for governments – the toxicity of asbestos is indisputable, the public health risks are known. But it will cost. Governments are in a similar bind as with climate change policy – decades of prosperity at the same time as not considering the health legacy of that wealth.
There is no such thing as an emissions trading scheme for asbestos. It is suspected that, if at all, the government will need to apply surcharges or tax incentives for companies to support any initiative. This always flows back to the consumers paying ultimately. Anti-asbestos advocates can rightly feel angry at the fact that companies have benefited greatly from knowingly selling a toxic material, and the same companies are likely to benefit again through the clean-up. This may simply be the price we must pay for living in a society based on capitalism. God help the new “capitalist” nations like China.
SafetyAtWorkBlog hopes to finalise a podcast with journalist and author, Matt Peacock, by the end of this week. Peacock is the author of Killer Company
Nice comparison on Directors’ complaints
In the Australian Financial Review in October 2009 there was an opinion piece (not available online) from the CEO of the Australian Institute of Company Directors (AICD), John Colvin, expressing concerns about the accountability of directors under legislation including the proposed OHS laws in Australia.
According to a report by Adam Schwab in the Crikey newsletter of 23 October 2009 (also not freely available online), Colvin wrote in the AFR:
“There are more than 660 state and territory laws which impose personal liability on individual directors for corporate misconduct. That is, a director is liable because he is a director, even when he may not have had any personal involvement in the breach…”
Schwab writes
“The AICD noted, the NSW courts have taken a hard-line enforcing the deemed liability laws. According to AICD data, between 2004 and 2008, 144 company directors were found guilty of OHS offences, of which 115 of those prosecutions occurred in NSW.”
Schwab then provides a comparison of risk that I wish I’d thought of:
“That means the proportion of directors convicted over these so-called onerous laws is 0.0068%. To compare, there is roughly a 0.04% chance of someone being struck by lightning. Therefore, based on the AICD’s own data, company directors are six times more likely to be hit by lightning than to be prosecuted. It also shouldn’t be forgotten, directors’ liabilities are almost always covered by indemnity insurance and most prosecutions result in a mere financial penalty.
While the NSW OHS laws result in occasional harsh results, to extrapolate one set of allegedly ill-advised laws across the country is much like a cry of wolf.”
This perspective will be an important one to remember when considering the submissions being lodged with Safe Work Australia on the OHS model laws by 9 November 2009. The corporate submissions particularly but also those from the OHS law firms that spruiker the exposure of company directors ruthlessly whenever OHS and accountability is discussed.
Some of us remember the “glory days” when industrial manslaughter was widely considered in some Australian States. (There is a noticeable absence of controversy of the industrial manslaughter law that is operating in the Australian Capital Territory)
Also important is the point that Schwab makes about indemnity insurance for Directors and Officers, a matter that has been discussed elsewhere in SafetyAtWorkBlog.
The amount of “get-out-jail-free” options available for directors should encourage more attention to alternative, non-financial penalties for breaches of OHS law. Over the last 24 hours the United States has been talking about replacing executive cash remunerations with stocks so that director’s incomes are reliant on the share price of the corporation which, in turn, relates to the quality of leadership from the director.
As long as Australia’s principle OHS penalties involve money, directors can buy their way out of trouble. If Australia’s Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, can face an entire country and apologise for the bad behaviour of others, and the bad policies of other governments in relation to the interaction with indigenous peoples, why should company directors not have a similar obligation when their poor management of a workplace kills someone? If corporate executives are that keen on leadership, let’s see them apply some of the leadership that Rudd showed, and accept responsibility when they should.