Writing a Safety inspection report.

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:     I. M. Self,  MD and bar

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 Workshop Manager

From:          Safety Adviser

Report of a safety inspection of the printing and engineering workshops Dated – (today’s date)

General comments

The inspection was restricted to the various workshops and their immediate environs.  Issues such as site security, offices and workshops and general welfare facilities were not considered.  The condition of the various workshops varied remarkably – the engineering workshop was excellent but the print workshop poor and the vehicle repair workshop totally unacceptable.    The lack of any kind of safe system for window cleaning, epitomized by a contractor climbing out on to a ledge and then closing the window behind him in order to  clean it is almost beyond belief and you should consider what control systems you have, or will need to instate, with respect to management of contractors.  You should realize that you are responsible in law for the activities of contractors on your premises and stand the risk of prosecution by the HSE if such malpractices were seen, let alone in the wake of an accident.

Specific concerns

1.                 Fire hazards and the control of chemicals in the print workshop.  The condition of some work areas was unacceptable and posed serious fire hazards.  Improper storage of flammables (the steel storage cupboard should be locked shut and the key only accessible to nominated competent persons) and other chemicals in various insecure containers under sinks and in corridors must be stopped at once.

2.                Health hazards may also arise from the chemicals.  Other than  COSHH sheets displayed on a noticeboard (an example of good practice), there appeared to be little regard for healthy working practices.  Dangers exist from inhalation of vapours – and the darkroom ventilation has been effectively negated by a wooden light cover over the extractor fan.  The COSHH sheet for developer called for 12 – 16 changes of air per hour!  There is also a risk of dermatitis from handling chemicals and the filthy state of the print workarea gave serious cause for concern.  Chemicals should be sorted out at once and the ventilation in the darkroom attended to before any work is permitted there.

    

3.                There are very serious electrical hazards which arise from improper use of sockets – implying a cavalier disregard of safety by those responsible and also from a number of items of portable equipment which were probably brought in as ‘foreigners’ and should be returned whence they came or else disposed of forthwith.  Any portable equipment should be held on a proper maintenance register in accordance with the electricity at Work Regulations 1989.  An electrician should inspect the area immediately as there exists a high risk of electrical injury.

4.                The antique presses should not be used until a risk assessment has be carried out to determine if they are safe.

5.                The engineering workshop was mainly in good order, in complete contrast to the vehicle repair bay which was an utter disgrace and should be closed immediately.  Before it is used again it should be cleared out of all unwanted items, especially a large heap of tyres and that which is required should be moved to proper storage.  The area should then be subject to a deep clean and any structural repairs carried out. The inspection pit should be cleaned out and barriers put in place to prevent persons from falling into it. The electric wiring should also be overhauled.

6.                Machinery guarding and accumulation of lathe swarf made the machines there very dangerous to use and the question arises of competence of those working in the area.  An assessment should be made of the workforce and training needs identified and a training programme set up.

7.                Fire escape and assembly area to the rear of the workshops were obstructed and the presence of skips in such a place is unacceptable.  No smoking rules should be enforced there.

8.                 The LPG store was overloaded and unsecured cylinders were stacked beside it. Unwanted empties should be removed and a policy on ordering should be established to avoid exceeding the capacity of the store.

Conclusions and Recommendations.

There are several sources of serious and imminent danger in these workshops.  Most of them can be made safe quickly and with limited expense and, especially given that as manager, you 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, at least in some areas, 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.