|
|
|
|
Assessment of site safety documentation was conducted during the latter half of the construction project. Safety documentation was evaluated on ten of the eighteen sites visited. Safety planAll but one of the ten sites had a documented site safety plan. The safety plans varied considerably in length, detail and presentation. The safety plans were mostly generic and could have been applied to any construction site. Few of the safety plans assessed, contained a management structure with clear delegation of safety responsibilities. In most cases the safety plan had not been updated in accordance with the site development and progression of work. Many of the safety plans had not been "signed off" by the relevant personnel, or in some cases were out of date. Few of the safety plans contained safety statements from the relevant subcontractors. Risk assessments It was evident that one of the sites did not have any documented risk assessments for site activities and associated hazards. For example this particular identified site did not have any risk assessments to address working at heights, scaffolding and ladders, all of which were everyday operations/tasks on the site. In general the risk assessments identified the site hazards, evaluated the risk in association with the people who might be harmed and the severity of the injury. Only one site had suggested documented control measures to reduce / eliminate the identified site hazard. Site specific risk assessments Fifty percent of the risk assessments were not site specific. These risk assessments did not address activities and hazards particular to the site in question. It can be reported that some sites had risk assessment for tasks that were not and would not be part of the scheduled construction work. Although 5 out of the 10 sites had site specific risk assessments, not all of the site activities were addressed. For example, one identified site had a specific risk assessment for working on roofs, however no risk assessment was available for working on scaffolding or using electricity. Accident logbook One site did not have a documented systematic approach to recording site accidents. Two sites did not have their accident logbook available for inspection. The method of accident documentation varied amongst site. Some sites had a formal systematic logbook, which recorded specific accident information e.g. activity and weather conditions. Other sites maintained a "site diary", where reported accidents were logged. This method of documentation and level of detail recorded was at the discretion of the site foreman. In general minor injuries were not recorded. Following inspection of accident logbook it can be reported that sites had few if any documented site accidents. Safety Meetings It was deduced that 5 out of 10 of sites did not have any documented evidence of site safety meetings. The remaining sites indicated that safety meetings were conducted in terms of minutes of site safety meetings. In many cases "safety " was also on the agenda of other site meetings e.g. production, site, company and subcontractor meetings. Reported accidents were generally on the safety meeting agenda. Results from the safety audits were generally not discussed at the safety meetings. Safety Audits Eight of the ten sites had documented site safety audits, generally presented in a checklist format. Both internal and external personnel reportedly conducted the safety audits. The documented audits varied in terms of frequency, detail, audited items, rating scale and audit outcomes. The overall audit score approach was frequently used by external auditors i.e.audit scored/rated out of a total score of 800 points. Many of the sites had scaffolding audits dedicated to inspection of site scaffolding, which utilized the C3R forms. Scaffolding was audited on a regular basis from daily, weekly to monthly. Two of the sites had no documentation relating to their auditing activities. While eight out of the ten sites had audit documentation, which outlined the activity, the hazard and associated risk, few sites had documented improvement suggestions and/or recommended control measures. Very few documented audit outcomes were addressed at the following audit, ensuring that necessary audit items had been remedied. Training Seven of the ten sites indicated safety training had been conducted. This safety training varied from site induction training to specific plant/machinery training. Approximately half of the sites disseminated safety booklets to operatives at the safety induction training stage. In some cases operatives were requested to "sign off", confirming they had either received safety induction training or they had read the information booklet. Great emphasis was placed on maintaining a register of certificates indicating personnel were trained and competent to operate particular machinery and equipment e.g. certificates for crane, fork-lift truck and dumper drivers and scaffolders.
Overall assessment Two of the ten sites received an overall rating of poor, one of which did not have a safety plan. The safety plan on the other site was substandard and they had no documented accident logbook, safety audits, and training. Both sites' risk assessments were not site specific. Three of the ten sites received an overall rating of good as they had documented safety plans. Five of the ten sites received an overall rating of very good as they all had safety plans with site-specific risk assessment. Although this documentation assessment indicates the quantity of safety documentation available on site, it was evident that the majority lacked quality. Safety plans were in general very broad and generic. Safety plans were poorly managed and not updated as the work on the site progressed. Summary Nine out of ten sites had a documented site safety plan. The safety plans were mostly generic and could have been applied to any construction site. Few of the safety plans contained a management structure with clear delegation of safety responsibilities. Fifty percent of the inspected risk assessments were not site specific. These risk assessments did not address activities and hazards particular to the site in question. Few sites documented site accidents. Five out of the ten sites did not have any documented evidence of site safety meetings. In many, however, cases "safety" was on the agenda of other site meetings e.g. production, site, company and subcontractor meetings. Reported accidents were generally on the safety meeting agenda. Eight of the ten sites had documented site safety audits, generally presented in a checklist format. Very few documented audit outcomes were addressed by the time the next audit was carried out. Results from the safety audits were generally not discussed at the safety meetings. Seven out of ten sites indicated safety training had been conducted. The emphasis was placed on maintaining a register of certificates indicating personnel were trained and competent to operate particular machinery and equipment. Overall Document Evaluation Two sites received an overall rating of poor. Half of the ten sites received an overall rating of very good as they all had safety plans with site specific risk assessment. Although this documentation assessment indicates the quantity of safety documentation available on site, it was evident that the majority lacked quality. Safety plans were in general very broad and generic. Safety plan documents were poorly managed and not updated as work on site progressed. Back to Contents This paper appears in the eLCOSH website with the permission of the author and/or copyright holder and may not be reproduced without their consent. eLCOSH is an information clearinghouse. eLCOSH and its sponsors are not responsible for the accuracy of information provided on this web site, nor for its use or misuse. |