Almost!

Back in the UK I have used a type 2 sound level meter to take a sample measurement of the noise to see if we did in fact have an issue. Luckily we didn't, as the noise peaked well below the 1st action level. (Even though no further action was needed the results still need to be recorded).

Had there been an issue, I would have handed over to an occupational hygienist to carry out some more in depth monitoring, possibly using a dosimeter, to see what noise and frequency levels were present.

Hope this helps a little.

Hi Brook,

We have used an existing asset management system to manage items of PPE that either have a shelf life (e.g. Hard hats, Harness), or require regular checks (Climbing equipment, Lanyards etc). Early days yet but we're hopeful that this will help our regulatory requirements for PPE in the same way it would for maintaining items of plant, although the main difference is that plant (hopefully) remains in the same location as you placed it! We have introduced unique identifiers for each item so that we know which ones have been captured.

A previous place of work went to the trouble of carrying out PPE assessments on activities, and providing the results in a simple yet effective way, which was as basic as taking a photo of an individual who was wearing all the right PPE and describing what each item was and duration of use (break through times for chemical resistant gloves, maximum use times for tight fitting masks). As has been mentioned, this can be quite time consuming but the visual nature of the information to the end user can make it all worthwhile.

Good Luck, and keep us posted on how it goes.

In blue to the left of this risk assessment matrix the word moderate has been used to describe the severity of the injury/illness.
Does the word moderate mean the same as in seen in orange?

In a nut shell no, the blue Moderate is solely linked to the hazard (e.g. fall from height) whilst the orange Moderate is the combination of both severity of injury and likelihood of it occurring, or the Risk Rating, which could have been better worded as being medium rather than moderate maybe.

There are other risk Matrix out there, some with number ratings or some with just colours, but they are all reliant on you knowing what the companies appetite for risk is. Here's an example of what may be the approach if the hierarchy of control has already been applied and no further controls are available (residual Risk)

Critical - Job does not get carried out.
High - Work only carried out under permit conditions, high level sign off required.
Moderate - Only carried out by trained/competent individuals, checks carried out regularly, no lone working
Low - Carried out by basic trained individual or under supervision, lesser frequency checks, can be carried out alone
Very Low - No specialist training/supervision needed

The first point to be clear on is that decriminalisation is not legalising. The only changes that would occur are to the criminal status of offenders.

Your current approach on illegal drugs would still cover marijuana and its use.

Thanks for sharing Glenn, any product that looks at adding additional barriers between vehicles and people is never a bad thing.

A couple of thoughts on this, the ability to interact with work outside of core hours can actually improve stress related issues as it allows you not be constrained by the 9-5 working hours, an absolute god send when a pressing issue presents itself unexpectedly at the wrong moment or your time management skills are maybe not as sharp as they could be!

The caveat of course is that this becomes harmful when it is seen as an expectation or the employee fails to manage their time in a responsible way.

The wording of the question worries me, no employee should be seeking the right to turn off their device unless they are an emergency role holder. The default position should always be that devices can be used outside of core working hours in a responsible manner.

The most effective method of changing the negativity around reporting of accidents and incidents that I have seen was to simply tweak the terminology in the metric.

By changing the "Days since an Accident/NM" dashboard to "Days since a lesson learned", the focus of the reporting system immediately changed the perception on what reporting allows the business to do, and encouraged the workforce to look for opportunities for improvements, then working together to achieve them.

The other laggy stuff regarding, LTI's, AFRs, significant NMs, etc are still important and need to be monitored, but maybe not advertised as being more important than the leading stuff.

Not acting on this "guilty knowledge" not only puts workers at risk but can also start to erode what your safety standards are.

This reminds me of a similar incident from the UK which saw a motor vehicle worker killed when he crawled through a hole to gain access to an otherwise fenced (guard) area. The hazard was identified and flagged up during the Risk Assessment process but no action was taken.

In addition to the above, this horrific case shows that human error is just a problem for those working on the shop floor, Machinery Risk Assessments should begin at the design phase and follow through to build, commissioning and use.

Hi, previously I worked for a company who produced a pocket sized booklet giving bullet points on the hazards and controls that you would likely come across as well as information on other hazards that you may see, such as construction work, use of MEWPs etc.
The booklet was there to give a bit of guidance on what to look for in a dynamic assessment (Take 5) but came into its own by providing people with a starting point for holding conversations to support the "We will never walk past an unsafe act" ethos of the workforce. The biggest benefit was that it took the fear away when approaching someone carrying out a task that looked unsafe but the viewer didn't have the level of skill to be sure and didn't want to look foolish.

good call, just to add clarity that these need to be the loose fitting hood or helmet types.
The market currently seems a little light on options for this type of equipment, unless I'm looking in the wrong places.

Apologies if this has already been posted but here is a link to the UKs HSE steer from 2013 following a very similar challenge.

It'll all come down to the Risk Assessment findings. As Andrew says, if the work area is flat, adequately fenced off and there are no voids, or power lines then there's less need than in an area without physical segregation of pedestrians or other traffic, blind corners, undulating land etc.

The lone working aspect and provision of persons at ground level who are able to assist in the event of arrested falls or mechanism failure is another can of worms matter :smile: