Comments

  • SOP Reviews

    It's difficult to make suggestions without knowing more details of the sites and processes.

    A few general ideas to reduce the number of SOPs or the size/details are:
    1) Are there any identical or near-identical machines and/or processes? They could be lumped into one common SOP with a site-specific section for any unique differences
    2) As Robb mentioned, Safe vs Standard Operating Procedures. If there is common material handling across sites/processes (e.g. chemicals or tools or metal) a SOP for the material could be used with machine or task-specific SOP referencing the material SOP.
  • Falling Object Prevention
    I didn't find that one, I'll check it out.

    I agree 100% that strapping and wrapping the pallets would be the best solution however it's difficult to change the site culture on a dime. I'm arranging a pallet wrapper/strapper for the site to use and working with the supervisors to change the team process. I expect it to take ~12 months before we see a culture change.
  • Falling Object Prevention
    That's a concern also, we have impact barriers on the areas where it's likely the forklift will hit (corners, opposite aisles, vehicle doors, etc). The site space and layout limitations mean it's difficult to separate without a significant layout change which is unlikely to happen at this stage.
  • Restraint of Building Contents
    Hi Sandra,

    Just to clarify, do you mean the restraint of objects on the shelves or the restraint of the shelves themselves?

    The restraint of objects is likely unreasonable unless they are heavy, high, or inherently unsafe (chemicals, box of knives, etc).

    The restraint of the shelves themselves would be reasonable as they are likely of considerable weight and likely to crush someone of the were to fall.

    I'd be interested to know others views on this too.
  • Working at Height
    Bit late to the party but I thought I'd throw my 2 cents in anyway.

    The intent behind the rules and regulations around working at height is to prevent a person from falling a distance which will cause significant injury or death.

    Looking at what guidance there is for what is deemed a height where, if you were to fall, is likely to cause significant injury or death is 1000mm (based on the building code).

    At any height greater than 1000mm, some form of controls are required. Based on the hierarchy of controls, Eliminate is generally impossible, substituting is likely difficult to achieve, engineered controls like fixed barriers are the most common control, then it turns to PPE and administrative controls (harnesses, scaffolding, mobile work platform, PTW, JSEA,etc)

    While it is a broad coverall statement, if the level is greater than 1000mm, a means to prevent falling is required.
  • Should risk registers be signed off by workers?


    Funnily enough, that is a nice way of saying Safety 1 vs Safety 2. (Personally, I think neither is the best way to address safety. Some situations required firm direction for compliance; others required guidance to achieve conformity).
  • Should risk registers be signed off by workers?
    Most are unlikely to know what they're signing off so it's likely a tick box exercise. I find it's more important to include them in the discussion around what risks have been identified and controls developed. I normally record the names of staff I have talked to for the review.

    If there are residual risks that could be reduced further by engineering controls but for whatever reason the site doesn't want to, I ensure those risks and the additional soft controls are in the SOP. The operators read a simple half page on each risk, if there are any, then sign off they are aware and accepting the residual risk. I have have one instance where the operator didn't believe it was acceptable so he doesn't work on that machine.