Your report should be
according to SMART principles:
Sensible
Measurable
Achievable
Realistic
Time Bound
Above all, it should be sensible
and persuade management to act upon its recommendations.
It is a report and should
therefore be in report format, not a letter or memo or even an
email! Avoid humourous vignettes such
as:
from: S. Afety MIOSH RSP or
to: S. Corpion, King of the
sandplant.
It is not a list of
hazards such as you would have created during your inspection and you
should avoid repetition (there will often be numerous examples of the
same hazards).
Measurable does not mean
giving a risk ranking score, but should give some idea of the risk
quantum. High, medium, low - is quite
acceptable.
Achievable acknowledges
cost-benefit analysis. Some risk
reduction measures may be desirable but they could be simply too costly and
resource could be better deployed – this is what risk assessment is all about.
Realistic reiterates
this. It is not realistic to expect
everything to be put right at once, so prioritization is important. If management can see the elements of an action
plan to improve safety then they are more likely to act upon the
recommendations.
Time bound. It is helpful to suggest timings because it
supports the idea of an action plan. Not
everything can be done at once, after all.
The report should not be unduly
long just a basic introduction
in which the general state of the plant is described. Acknowledge both good and bad features (there
is nothing more off-putting than unmitigated gloom!).
The body of the report
should be a series of headings followed by descriptions of the main items. Don’t try to be too detailed or the reader
will be in danger of “can’t see the wood for the trees” syndrome and your
message will be lost. And it should not
be too long – 6 to 10 paragraphs would be typical in a report of this
kind. At this stage indicate priorities
and acknowledge costs and benefits.
Conclusions and
recommendations should point the way to a structured action plan for
improvement and at the same time convince the manager of the need for
improvements.
Now write your report, based
on your findings. When you have done it,
compare it to the model report following.
Your writing style might differ from the one given, but the content
should be comparable.
To: The
Production Manager (Sandplant)
From: Safety Adviser
Report of a safety inspection of the XYZ
Sandplant Dated – (today’s date)
General comments
The inspection was restricted to the
Sandplant itself and its immediate environs.
Issues such as site security, offices and workshops and general welfare
facilities were not considered. The site
itself is reasonably tidy and well laid out, and generally the machinery is in
good overall condition. The main
concerns are associated with maintenance activity and, in particular,
maintenance of safety systems. Some very
dangerous malpractices were associated with this and you should consider what
control systems you have, or will need to instate, with respect to management
of contractors. (Enquiries revealed that
maintenance is largely carried out by contracted workers).
Specific concerns
1.
The sandheaps.
No barriers prevent workers from straying on to the heaps and there is
also a risk that a maintenance worker could fall from the conveyor system on to
a heap. In the region where the sand is
sinking towards the hopper in the tunnel below it is probable that such persons
would be buried alive. It is impractical
to enclose the heaps with security fencing but a token barrier of posts and
coloured tape, accompanied by warning signs, should be installed and the hazard
explained to all workers on induction to the site. Any maintenance work above the heaps should
be conducted under a permit to work system and any workers should wear safety
harnesses and be clipped on to the conveyor framework. No lone working! These
simple and inexpensive measures should be initiated immediately.
2.
Machinery
guarding. No guards were seen on any of
the drive pulley systems for any of the various motors which drive the
plant. There is evidence that such
guards were originally fitted and it constitutes gross negligence that they
have been removed. This action
contravenes various statutes including the HSW Act 1974 and the Management of
Health & Safety Regulations 1999 laying you open to criminal prosecution
for which you have virtually no defence.
A visiting HSE inspector would undoubtedly serve a prohibition notice on
the plant which would immediately shut it down.
You should, as
a matter of urgency have the guarding reinstated (say within one month)
irrespective of cost and, in the meantime post notices and barriers restricting
access to unauthorized personnel. The
large motors at ground level driving the sand washery should as an interim
measure be physically barriered off as they are very accessible to anybody
passing by.
3. Conveyors.
The belts should be either inaccessible (safe by position) or
guarded. The design of the system is
such that entanglement is possible virtually everywhere on the plant and the
cost of eliminating this risk would probably be prohibitive. Risk reduction is best achieved by
restricting access to the plant and upgrading the guarding where the risk is
greatest. A survey should be undertaken
and a programme of improvements planned for the longer term. (For example, the belt tensioners could
easily be enclosed in fixed mesh guards).
The emergency tripwires had defects or were sometimes missing altogether
and these should be reinstated and repaired with urgency.
4.
Walkways. These should be inspected to ensure
that they are up to standard. At least
one example was seen of inadequate edge protection and the wooden flooring of
one of the walkways presented a trip hazard and also was ominously springy
underfoot. Inspection should be within
one month and remedial action as soon as possible thereafter, but no longer
than three months.
5.
The tunnels.
These should be considered as confined spaces and should only be entered
under permit control. The risk exists of
burial in sand should one of the feed hoppers fail or be disturbed by
maintenance activity, entanglement in the conveyor belt or the chain drive to
the hopper and currently, serious electrical risk due to the unacceptable
condition of the wiring to the lights.
It was also noted that the tripwire system had been poorly repaired and
could fail if actually used in an emergency.
Notices should be posted prohibiting access to the tunnels. Ideally they should be fenced off, with access only via a locked gate -
this should be considered in the longer term.
A detailed risk assessment will be necessary to define a safe procedure
for entry into a tunnel.
6.
Electrical safety. There is an urgent need to improve electrical
safety throughout and a full survey should be carried out by a qualified
electrician as soon as possible and certainly within one month. With immediate effect, all cover panels
should be replaced wherever they are missing.
The wiring in the tunnels is of particular concern and should be
upgraded to an appropriate standard at the earliest opportunity.
7.
Vehicles in danger of falling over an
edge. Roadways should be marked out
using fencing and markers and strategic placing of mounds of soil with a view
to keeping vehicles at a safe distance.
A banksman should be made available if any vehicle has to approach such
an edge. Posts and marker tape could be
installed at the same time as the sand heaps (item 1).
8.
Control of contractors. Activities were observed (repairing a pipe at
height) which indicated that the contractor concerned had no safe system of
work in place. All contract activity
should be assessed by the plant management and an insistence be made on safe
access to height, proper protective clothing for the welders, hard hats etc…
9.
Control room.
The operator in control of the plant sits on a table and operates
switches with a broom handle. He views
some parts of the plant with mirrors propped up with a home-made
arrangement. This activity is critical
to the safety of the plant and it should be emphasized also that the operator
is using a workstation. An immediate
assessment should be made and the obvious improvements should be put in place
as soon as possible.
Conclusions and Recommendations.
There are several sources of serious and
imminent danger on this plant. Most of
them can be made safe quickly and with limited expense and, especially given
that the plant management are open to criminal prosecution or enforcement action
by the HSE, the recommendations of this report should be implemented with
urgency.
The fact that such obvious malpractice exists
and is therefore tacitly accepted implies a lack of management systems and,
importantly, issues of control over contractors. It is recommended that an early review of
safety management should be undertaken with a view to implementing such a
system. The model given in document
HS(G)65 issued by the HSE is strongly recommended.
No comments:
Post a Comment