Welcome to the October 2011 OH&S Newsletter
This month we examine the need to focus on complex IT systems increasing risk & job control; consultation & work related death; lung cancer, inspections & maintenance workers; sedentary metabolic disorder & exercise; SWMS & ineffective OHS management systems.
Are your complex IT systems increasing your operational risk?
A study undertaken by an engineering firm AVEVA & the Aberdeen Business School (ABS) called the Health & Safety (HS) Information Gap has found that this gap may be increasing risk for offshore workers. The research gathered information from HS managers, senior managers & engineers in the global oil & gas industry, through an online questionnaire. Respondents’ business types included operating companies, contractors, service companies & suppliers. Confidential critical incident case studies were also carried out in 4 representative businesses, interviewing key individuals able to comment authoritatively on the information aspects of dealing with such incidents.
Whereas internal channels such as Intranets & team meetings did offer access, respondents found that they often searched the internet for relevant information. Half of respondents identified the need for better information systems & a quarter believes that they are not shared information within the company environment. Of the respondents 40% don’t know where to search for safety information. On the whole, there was a strong demand for a shared integrated system to enable better access to all appropriate information. Respondents’ comments support this with examples such as:
- there’s too much information
- information systems are not very user friendly
- information is fragmented & inconsistent
In depth one on one interviews as part of this survey exposed the silos of information & disconnected processes that can contribute to operational risk. The 3 main areas where there were the greatest deficiencies can be found were fragmentation of information, failure to capture & exploit the value of standards, & poor accessibility to data.
The researchers raised concerns that current information systems were not accessible to frontlineoperational personnel (FOP) who were the ones generally exposed to the risks. These IT systems & HS messages were not designed with the needs of FOP in mind. They suggest that existing systems are often so complex that employees frequently turn to informal sources, such as peer networks & 'experts', when faced with too much company information that is not immediately relevant. Having reviewed a great many companies electronic HS management systems this problem is not unique to the offshore industry- does your IT system serve your safety messages or your lawyers pockets?
Do you have enough time & control over your work to prevent injuries?
A new study, has found that job control reduced the likelihood of pain & that stress is a significant risk factor in musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs). The US researchers found work stress was one of the variables with the strongest influence on reported back & arm pain. Workers with arm pain were particularly likely to report they were sometimes, often or always stressed. Workers who reported they had the freedom to decide how to do their work were much less likely to suffer arm pain. Similarly, having enough time to get work done appeared to have a protective effect & resulted in fewer reports of back pain. Job satisfaction also showed up as a significant
predictor of musculoskeletal pain.
The study, conducted by the US National Institute for Occupational Safety & Health, was based on 2 "quality of work life" surveys, & face-to-face interviews with 1564 working adults, who were questioned about back, hand, wrist & shoulder pain. About 28% of interviewees reported back pain & the same percentage reported arm pain. More than 15% reported both back & arm pain, & heavy lifting, repetitive or stressful hand movements & awkward postures were identified as significant risk factors. The likelihood of arm & back pain increased when work stress, repetitive hand movements and heavy lifting were combined.
The researchers said the findings would help identify work factors with a consistent, significant association to work-related MSDs, & enable targeted ergonomic & workplace interventions. How much does job control affect MSD’s and pain in your personnel?
Waters, T et al: Trends in Work-Related Musculoskeletal Disorders: A Comparison of Risk Factors for Symptoms Using Quality of Work Life Data From the 2002 & 2006 General Social Survey. J Occ Env Med, 53 (9) 2011.
Will Australian OHS harmonisation improve consultation with the workforce?
Most jurisdictions in Australia have had consultation enshrined in their legislative processes one way or another for the past 10-20 years & it could be said that there have been mixed results of its effectiveness. The New Model OHS Act has opted for flexible consultation arrangements which may involve health & safety (HS) representatives (HSR), committees (HSC) or anything else that can be agreed with the workforce. This is perhaps where legislation can fall down in improving consultative processes just because we require consultation as part of legislation does it actually mean that it is effective at reducing risk.
Perhaps we should look no further than the UK offshore example. UK Oil companies have been criticised for 'fundamentally failing' to involve workers in HS matters on rigs. This was sparked by the publication last month of a Health and Safety Executive (HSE) review of the effectiveness of the offshore HSR & HSC regulations. Forty one installations were checked last year by the HSE with a total of 18 inspections resulting in formal letters because 'only partial compliance was evident & action was required to bring about improvements.' The report says 'satisfactory evidence of compliance was observed on 23 of the installations', although verbal advice was given at 16 of these sites. The report notes that one area where oil firms 'often failed to involve HSRs was in consultation.' It recommended firms 'should review their own practice on consultation to make sure they maximise the opportunities for HSR involvement in decisions that affect HS.
Some commentators have suggested that although these regulations have been in place for 22 years, for each & every one of those 22 years industry stakeholders have been speaking about ways of improving 'workforce involvement' in HS. What this report shows is the industry is essentially failing to involve workers in HS matters, as the most basic element in the consultative process. Others have suggested that it would appear that duty holders are either reluctant or unwilling to properly consult, with 22 years to get in the way of it! It's therefore time the HSRs were adequately equipped to fully engage with duty holders & compel them to consult with the workforce. How does your organisation plan to consult & how will you know if that consultation in working to reduce risk? What will be your performance indicator?
More meaningful workplace related death reporting with OHS harmonisation?
Could underestimated fatality figures (which do not include all public road vehicle or all aircraft crash fatalities) be a thing of the past with uniform death notification requirements across Australian jurisdictions? Will we get a better reflection of HS performance within Australia? What do we know today?
Currently underreported figures indicate that there were 128 (115 in same period in 09-10) work related notified fatalities (including 19 bystanders compared to 13 in 09-10) between 1 July 2010 and 31 May 2011. Vehicle incidents, including 9 (10 in same period in 09-10 on a public road, caused 21 (25 in 09-10) of the 128 (115 in 09-10) fatalities. The most common cause of work-related fatalities in this period was being Hit by falling object (21 fatalities). Other common causes included Fall from a height (17 fatalities); Crushing (14 fatalities); Pedestrian hit by a vehicle (11 fatalities); and Vehicle incident–not on a public road (11 fatalities). It is possible that more people are dying in work related vehicle incidents but these are not being reported uniformly so our understanding of the extent of this risk is incomplete.
That at the same time as the BHP Billiton Sustainability Report indicates that they were not able to achieve their target of zero fatalities in 2010- 11 The report also estimates 21,464 workers were exposed to levels of noise, silica, manganese, diesel exhaust, fluorides, coal tar pitch, nickel or sulphuric acid mist that exceeded occupational limits. Potential carcinogenic exposure emerged as a significant health risk in 2011. Although the total recordable injury frequency (TRIF) performance of 5.0 per million hours worked improved compared with 2009-10 (5.3) a substantial reduction in total recordable injuries is required to meet their 5 year target of 3.7 in 2011-12. The number of cases of musculoskeletal illness has increased significantly since 2009-10, in 2010-11. They believe this increase is due to cases previously classified as either not work-related illness or as injuries; that are now correctly reported as work-related illnesses. So again reporting issues are clouding the ability of organisations to get a solid grasp on their actual HS risks!
This focus on occupational disease would seem important as the number of people dying as a result of work-related injuries & diseases has soared, the International Labour Organisation (ILO) has found. Figures revealed that between 2003 & 2008, there had been a dramatic increase in deaths from workrelated diseases (WRDs). The number of WRD deaths increased by almost 4%, from 1.95 million to 2.02 million. This equates to more than 6,300 workrelated deaths every day, a net increase of 33,000 deaths a year on the 2003 figure. The ILO reports that the global economic recession (GER) appears to have had a significant impact on workers' OHS & on their working conditions. While it is too soon to tell what long term effect it has had on rates of incidents & ill health, there is evidence that some of the recent advances in terms of promoting OHS are being lost as enterprises struggle to remain productive. What affect are occupational exposures having on your workforce? Is the GER affecting your HS efforts?
Workplace lung cancer exposures!
There seems to be so much more to learn about our occupational exposures & work related disease. Researchers have found that every year in France about 3000 new cases of lung cancer are directly attributable to occupational exposures in such industries as mining, metal manufacturing & viticulture. The study, led by the Centre for Research in Epidemiology & Population Health in Paris, found that men who worked in such sectors were nearly twice as likely as others to contract the disease. The research was based on nearly 6500 lung cancer victims & controls, as well as lists of occupations known or suspected of having an association with lung cancer which were first drawn up in 1982, & continually revised since then. List A (occupations with a known link to lung cancer) included viticulture, mining, ceramic making, asbestos or granite production, iron & steel founding, electroplating, metal manufacturing. coke plant workers, asphalt workers, roofers & painters. List B (occupations with a suspected association) included butchering/meat production, carpentry, printing, rubber & glass industries, mechanics, motor industry welders, transport & laundering.
The researchers found that the risk of lung cancer for men employed in list A occupations was almost twice that of men who never worked in list A or B. Nearly one in five (19.5%) of the diagnosed group had worked in occupations in list A, compared to 11.8% of the control group. Of men who had worked in list B occupations, the risk of lung cancer was higher for butchers & meat workers, carpenters & transport workers. For women, the risk was higher for those in the dry cleaning sector. Lung cancer among meat workers had previously been attributed to curing meat or shrink-wrapping it in plastic, the researchers said. However, the study suggested the association could be due to exposure to the human papilloma virus, related to the high prevalence of warts on butchers' hands.
Strong links to lung cancer were also found for some occupations not included in lists A or B. These included plumbers/pipefitters, welders outside the motor vehicle industry, brick layers, reinforced concreters & cement finishers. For women, associations were shown in the cleaning, electronics production & hairdressing sectors.The researchers noted that in France, lung cancer was the leading cause of cancer mortality in men, & the second leading cause among women. Tobacco smoking was by far the greatest risk factor, they said. How many of your workers are in these industry- how do you manage the risk and how many of them smoke?
Guida, F et al: Risk of Lung Cancer & Occupational History: Results of a French Population-Based Case-Control Study, the ICARE Study. J Occ Env Med 53(9)
How effective are your equipment inspections?
A WA employer that failed to identify a faulty valve during a safety inspection has been fined $90,000, after a worker lost a leg & 3 others were injured whene nThey were sprayed with sulphuric acid. Millennium Inorganic Chemicals Ltd pleaded guilty to filing to minimise risk from dangerous goods over the 2010 incident. The court found that prior to the incident a pipe system, which was designed to carry chemicals with low levels of sulphuric acid, was exposed to a high concentration of acid for an extended period of time, causing a valve diaphragm to dissolve. A subsequent safety inspection failed to identify that the valve had not been replaced. Later, 3 employees who were working on the pipe system were sprayed with acid when the valve failed. One of the workers was so severely burned that one of his legs was later amputated. Three other employees, including one who came to the workers' assistance, also suffered serious burns. This case shows the importance of thoroughly inspecting all systems of work to ensure safety, particularly when making changes. Do you do this?
Do your maintenance workers know what they are dealing with?
A crane maintenance firm has been fined £15 000 (A$24 308) for criminal safety offences after 2 dock workers suffered injuries in a HV electric shock at a Container Terminal in Liverpool. One of the men was temporarily blinded & both were burned in the 6,600 volt surge after climbing up a dockside crane to check the electricity supply. Their employer, Carrylift Materials Handling Ltd (CMH), was prosecuted by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) after an investigation revealed the workers wrongly believed that just 415 volts were running through a junction box on a crane platform 6 m above the ground.
Liverpool Magistrates' Court heard that a 33 yr old maintenance worker at the site, was asked to look at the crane to investigate why there had been a power failure. He decided he needed assistance to fix the fault & climbed back up on the crane platform with 3 electricians. All 4 men thought it was a low voltage crane, similar to the one next to it, & had not been given any information or diagrams that said otherwise. After undoing the bolts on the junction box, the 33 year old used his low-voltage multimeter to test the electricity supply. There was an immediate flash & bang, blinding him for approximately 15 seconds & causing severe burns to his face & hands which resulted in permanent scarring. One of the electricians also suffered minor burns to his face. None of the men had received adequate training or been given sufficient information about the electricity supplies to the dockside cranes. HSE concluded all 4 men could have been killed. CMH admitted 3 criminal breaches of the Electricity at Work Regulations 1989 were fined & ordered to pay £14 568 (A$23 608) in prosecution costs. Could this occur in your workplace?
Do you have sedentary metabolic disorder?
The Science of Sedentary Behaviour is an emerging field of study focusing on inactivity physiology with the thought that too much sitting is creating a new health risk distinct from too little exercise. Humans were meant to move! Early evolutionary science shows that we were walkers travelling over 10-20 km/day in search of food & water.
Several thousand years ago humans began domesticating animals & raising crops. This hard physical labour produced a more stable food supply. The industrial revolution & more mechanized work then reduced the physical demands placed on many workers. This was heralded as a major advancement for humans but as even more work has become automated today, the majority of western workers sit at computers or operate automated systems for work.
The US Dept. of Education estimates that 81% of the US population has internet access at home, & Wikipedia estimated in 2008 that there were a billion computer users globally. Many are knowledge workers who spend much of their time sitting. Not only sitting all day at work on computers, but also sitting at breakfast, on the work commute, all day at work, at dinner, & then sitting to watch TV in the evening. Many are sitting 10 hrs /day, some even more. It appears that even the recommended 30 mins of exercise most days/week will not offset inactivity for the other 15 hrs of waking/day. From 1960–80 US obesity rates were stable at 15% but from 1985–2009 rates have steadily increased with the latest data indicating that 9 states have obesity rates greater than 30%, 24 states above 25% with only 1 state, Colorado, having a rate at or below 20%. According to the US Rand Report on obesity, the health risks of obesity are worse than smoking, heavy drinking, & living in poverty.
We have known for a long timer that too much sitting is hazardous. In 1700’s the Italian physician Bernardino Ramazzini published A Treatise on the Diseases of Workers. He detailed the ill effects of many jobs including “the maladies affecting clerks” suggesting they suffer from general ill health because of constant sitting whilst “potters & weavers, who exercise the arms & feet, are kept in better health.” More recent studies from the 1950’s also indicated this trend with a study of London bus operators finding that bus conductors who climbed up & down the double-decker bus stairs all day had half as many heart attacks as the drivers who spent 90% of their day seated. A 2009 Canadian reported study followed a group of 17,000 Canadians for a period of 12 years. Researchers found that those who sat the most had a 50% increased risk of early death compared to those who sat the least. This increased risk remained even after controlling for age, smoking, obesity, & exercise.
The US National Institutes of Health defines metabolic syndrome as a group of risk factors that occur together & increase the risk for coronary heart disease, stroke & type 2 diabetes. Being a “syndrome” means the causes & mechanisms are not fully understood, but this condition is closely associated with obesity, & now appears to also be associated with inactivity. Researchers from the University of Missouri-Columbia believe that some key fat burning enzymes become inactive within hours of sitting. These enzymes are different from those activated with exercise. Standing, walking & engaging the postural muscles of the leg seem to be effective at restarting these fat burning enzymes. What can an employer do to try to minimise their contribution to this risk:
- Encourage movement; regular posture changes are recommended
- Avoid prolonged static postures either sitting or standing
- Identify standing & walking opportunities in your work. Stand when the phone rings, stand to read documents, walk to speak with colleagues, etc.
- Provide sit to stand accessories or workstations (even if these are shared stations)
- Encourage standing or even walking meetings
What do you do at your workplace to control this risk?
Is too much sitting at work affecting productivity?
Businesses are increasingly concerning themselves with the health & well-being of their staff, with a multitude of lifestyle initiatives urging workers to exercise & eat healthily. Research would suggest however that if firms really want to see the benefits of a fitter workforce, they should give them paid time at work to take the exercises. Researchers from Stockholm University and Karolinska Institute found working out during paid office hours can lead to higher productivity for companies. This comes from people getting more done during the hours they are at work, & from less sickness related absenteeism.
A large Swedish dental organisation took part in the study & employees from 6 workplaces were divided up into 3 groups. One group was asked to devote 2.5 hrs to physical activity, distributed across 2 sessions a week. The second group had the same decrease in work hours but without the obligatory exercise, & a third group maintained their usual 40 hrs work a week. All employees retained the same salaries. The workload of the practice (the number of patients treated), remained the same while the study was being carried out. The study showed that all 3 groups were able to maintain or even increase their production level during the study compared with the corresponding period the previous year.
Those who exercised also reported improvements in self-assessed productivity i.e. they felt they got more done at work and had a greater capacity for work, as well as being absent less often. What affects your workforce’s productivity? Could they benefit from some exercise?
Will you have to be prosecuted to determine your risk assessments are inadequate?
The NSW Roads and Traffic Authority (RTA) has revised its approach to hanging work platforms, after 2 workers were seriously injured in a platform collapse. The employer pleaded guilty to breaching duties of controllers of premises, plant or substances of the NSW OHS Act, & was fined $175,000.
Industrial Court Justice Marks heard that in October 2008 an RTA bridge crew was preparing to upgrade timbers on a heritage listed bridge near Albury, & planned to suspend a 1500kg work platform beneath it. A structural engineer had certified the bridge's monorails as adequate to support this weight, but as the platform was being winched into place, with 2 workers standing on it, the monorail tracks tore loose, & it fell nearly 4 m to the ground. The workers suffered fractures, spinal damage & bleeding.
WorkCover found the monorails had probably torn loose because a bolt securing a bracket had been cut off in late 2007 by a separate RTA maintenance crew, which didn't underst and its structural significance or report the matter. The regulator argued the RTA’s safe work method statement (SWMS) did not provide "adequate guidance" on how to erect work platforms safely, & the risks involved had not been identified by the employer's assessment process.
Inspections had not established how the monorails were connected to the bridge. Justice Marks heard that on the day before the incident the most senior of the injured workers had been instructed to inspect the monorail bolts. He told the Court that he checked what he could see. The missing bolt was obscured by the bridge's kerbing.
The RTA now prohibits workers from riding in work platforms being winched into place, & ensures workers wear safety harnesses when working at height. Its SWMS now states that if workers "can't see and touch" hanger rods, bolts, nuts, washers, plates, anchors or connections on monorails during the erection of scaffolding, then the system must be deemed unsafe. The employer also issued a safety alert to help ensure that all bolts, connectors & fastening devices on bridges are thoroughly inspected before being cut or modified.
Justice Marks found that at the time of the incident the RTA's SWMS did not contain sufficient detail, & that the risk of working suspended from a bridge was foreseeable. He said it was inherently dangerous for the employer to allow work to take place in circumstances where a structure was compromised. How much details are in your SWMS- do they cover foreseeable risks?
Inspector Jones v Roads and Traffic Authority of New South Wales [2011] NSWIRComm 124 2011.
Does your comprehensive health & safety system (HSS) actually work!
John Holland Rail Pty Ltd (JHR) & John Holland Pty Ltd (JH) were fined $120,000 & $135,000 respectively in relation to the partial amputation of a track worker's arm by a rail-mounted excavator. The court found that both companies had well-developed & comprehensive HSS, but these either failed or were not applied with the avoidance of a fatality being more to do with good luck than management.
The Court heard that in November 2006 a subcontractor supplied JH with an excavator & driver to work on the Sandgate rail flyover project. The excavator, which did not have warning lights, a reversing alarm or horn, was reversing down a track when it struck a track worker & its rear wheel severed his arm just above the elbow. The subcontractor, Goldspring's Earthmoving Pty Ltd (GE), was fined nearly $200,000 in August this year for supplying a machine with known safety defects. In convicting GE, Justice Backman noted that John Holland, as overall controller of the site, bore greater culpability for the incident.
The court found that despite JH's detailed provisions governing the movement of plant, pre-work safety briefings for workers, pre-start safety checks for machinery & safety compliance for subcontractors, that these requirements were not complied with or enforced. Instead, the excavator operator reported directly to a supervisor & began work despite knowing the excavator did not have operable warning devices, a rear vision mirror or radio communications. The supervisor also knew the driver had not signed in or attended a pre-work briefing. The court found that JH was "well aware" of the need to ensure the machine was fitted with safety equipment. It was also aware that engineering controls (such as barriers) or administrative controls (such as a spotter & minimum safe working distances) were needed to control the risk to ground workers.
JH argued its "extensive safety measures", plus improvements made since the incident, meant that there was "no need" for general or specific deterrence to be a significant factor in assessing penalty. The two JH companies said their endeavours to ensure a HSS should be given recognition & that this would "act as a general deterrent in the wider industrial community". Justice Haylen said the penalty must send a warning that employers were "not able to rest on their laurels" when it came to HSS. He concluded the site was under the control of both John Holland companies, & that Justice Backman was correct to find they bore more responsibility than GE's, Do you know if your HSS actually works?
Inspector Wade v John Holland Rail Pty Ltd [2011] NSWIRComm 125
Written by Julie Armour