Our New Blog

Our Blog has Moved...

Please follow this link to be directed to our new up to date blog:
http://allenandyork.wordpress.com/

Our new blog includes the latest news from Allen & York and the sustainabilty industry, plus job information.

Making Health and Safety Work for You - Risk Assessment

Continuing our series of Health and Safety articles by Rod Trippier; this is the first of two exploring Risk Assessment.

Mention risk assessment and the majority of those present will cringe; I’m speaking generally, and not about intrinsically safe enterprises that use far more robust models and methods than are describe here to safeguard there operational and commercial interests, although the principles are exactly the same.

I’ve used that word again; commercial. Health and Safety is commercial, as we said before, its not only about focussing on the people issues, it also includes the design of buildings and structures, the layout of the work-places in and around them, and the plant, equipment and tools used in that work-place by them. Because by getting this right first most of the hazards with the potential to harm people would have been eliminated or reduced to a lower order before the people concerned even got to work in the facility.

Some of you may have been involved with the selection of manufacturing plant; although CE marked, it doesn’t mean to say its fit for your purpose. Yes it complies with current regulation, but as designed will it work for you; often the answer is no. Unless designed specifically to suit how you operate and maintain the plant, particularly during planned shuts, guarding can be a nightmare. Not only can it encourage people to take short cuts, but valuable time can be wasted removing and replacing the guard if fixings and fixing points are inappropriate. And sometimes because its too troublesome, fixings don’t necessarily get put back correctly which can defeat the original function.

This is where the risk assessment comes into its own. An example involving £20M worth of new plant from a few years back springs to mind, this featured isolation mechanisms, interlocks and physical guards. The risk assessment carried out by operational staff identified design failures in a number of areas. When controls were put in place they made the plant safer to operate and reduced maintenance down time, giving an annual pay-back of £25,000.00 from a capital outlay of less than £2,000.00.

Risk assessment, how do we do it?

Well here is the dilemma, as we’re interested in reducing or eliminating significant risk how do we know what significant risk is until we’ve assed it? And this is where I think most of us come unstuck; the amount of time and effort that we think is required looks daunting. But look at it another way, if something did go seriously wrong for the want of a suitable and sufficient risk assessment, the cost, just in terms of time and effort alone would have been a lot more than it would if we’d done the assessment and put in the controls in the first place.

Firstly only select people for your risk assessment teams who are experienced in your business sector, and who have been with you a few years and who know how your organisation functions. And don’t make the mistake thinking that everybody can do a risk assessment without adequate training; they can’t. Risk assessment teams need to be trained in basic techniques; and by someone who is a trained risk assessor. In other words, carry out an assessment first, ensuring that the person you select to undertake the training has the skills and abilities you require.

A risk assessment is an estimation of the people carrying the assessment at that time. The HSE even make the point that a risk assessment team in the same sector, but working for different employers could have a different view on common hazards. I worked with a client team a few years ago, and one of the members insisted that every task they assessed could result in death, the rest of the team members fortunately disagreed. That’s why a risk assessment team should consist of not less than two people who are trained and sufficiently experienced within that sector to discuss the issues and take a realistic and balanced view. If you appoint an untrained team to carry out your risk assessments, as likely as not, either through ignorance or unfamiliarity or both, they will recommend inappropriate control measures.

In HSG 65, it says that it may make life easier if we carry out an initial assessment first, to be honest, it doesn’t just help, so far as I’m concerned it’s essential. By involving operational personnel in this initial assessment process they’ll use their knowledge to say what’s risky in their field because they’ve just as likely as not worked around some of those risks in the past. And this is the danger, becoming accustomed and complacent to risk and accepting it as the norm, this is in itself is a significant risk to the business. But we can cut through any complacency by assembling a team comprising experienced operational personnel to sit round a table and carry out an initial assessment, together with someone from Line Management to act as the “Chair” and give direction.

This can be done in an informal atmosphere, brain storming the issues and getting the team to write down all those things they believe to be a significant risk; it will pay dividends in terms of time saved. Then, all they have to do is run down the list, and review it one last time to make sure everybody agrees which should go forward for team assessment, and when, and in what order of priority. An initial assessment will be very close to the mark, just by the very nature of how it was achieved. Plus, it will only have taken a few people perhaps no more than a day to accomplish. Everybody will have enjoyed themselves (hopefully), getting away from the “day job”; with tea, coffee and biscuits thrown in, plus a free lunch; maybe.


Having prioritised the list and planned the assessment programme all we have to do is nominate trained teams, and if people aren’t trained, train them. Carry out the nominated risk assessments, evaluate if existing controls are adequate or not. If not, agree and record findings and recommend additional controls required to eliminate or reduce the hazards to a lower order, and implement. Then re-assess the controls to make sure they achieve their intended objective; it doesn’t have to be a separate function, it can be done as you work through each assessment. Again, it’s whatever suits you, but to get accuracy you must re-assess at some time during the process. It’s achieving the required standard that matters, not how you do it. Once agreed, prioritise the control implementation programme, not forgetting to consider what’s “reasonably practicable” to achieve.
Doing the risk assessment is only the start; it’s putting the controls in place that helps square the circle. A control measure can be doing something differently; and it can be keeping somebody “safe by position”. That is, preventing people from making contact with dangerous parts of a machine, perhaps by caging them in, this means you don’t have to put a belt and braces physical barrier round the hazard when its operating. In some industries this is achieved with light beams, but do your research first if this is a potential option for you, because systems can fail, particularly electronic guarding systems, so they must be robus, and designed to “fail to safety”.

My back-ground was originally paper making, and a few years ago whilst working in Finland I witnessed the ultimate guarding system. A white line painted down the whole length of the process floor five of six metres from the paper machine; if any anybody walked across that white line when the machine was running they would be dismissed instantly, and visitors would be escorted from the premises, never to return.

When it comes to carrying out risk assessment, some devotees prefer to assess likelihood and severity as a qualitative value, (high medium low), and others as a quantitative value (on a scale, say of 1 to 5, or 1 to 10). My personal preference is quantitative assessment because it is a much more objective and accurate way for a risk assessment team to reach a balanced judgement. But it all depends what people are used to; if whatever you do is fit for purpose and it complies with current regulation and guidance; do it.

In the next article we’ll discuss the practicalities of the risk assessment process, together with a worked example.

Useful reference materials;

Successful Health and Safety Management HSG 65 2nd Edition HSE Books 2000 ISBN 0 7176 1276 7
INDG163 (Rev 2) 5 Steps to Risk Assessment; free down-load from the HSE web-site
Essentials of Health and Safety at Work (Fourth edition) HSE Books 2006 ISBN 0 7176 6179 2
HSE web site; http://www.hse.gov.uk/
Allen & York Health and Safety Recruitment http://www.allen-york.com/

The opinions expressed in this article are not necessarily those of Allen & York.

Risk Management & The Sub-Contractor - by Rod Trippier

CONTINUING THE SERIES OF ARTICLES
WRITTEN FOR ALLEN & YORK
BY - ROD TRIPPIER (FREELANCE - HEALTH & SAFETY ADVISER) - Thank you to Rod for his insight and experience into the world of Health & Safety.

Recently we’ve been discussing the management of risk. So it’s disappointing when the senior executive of a company appears to publicly demonstrate a lack of understanding regarding the safeguards required to manage sub-contracted works.

Especially when the employing company is a global player in a high risk business, where one slip can create major consequences involving personal injury, death, negative commercial outcomes and ecological disaster.

When considering the employment of sub-contract companies, it is incumbent upon the employer, whether client or contractor, to carry out a thorough appraisal of the competence relating to any enterprise sub-contracted to carry out work.

It is essential to ensure that they have the necessary skills, ability and processes to manage work safely. This involves an investigative process to examine internal processes, technologies, competences of managerial and operational personnel, and the finances to deliver.

Following a fire and the death of eleven people, one senior executive was quoted in the press recently as saying, “This was not our accident. This was not our equipment. It was not our people, our systems or our processes this was “X” company’s; their systems, their people and their equipment”.

Maybe, but it is not sufficient for the employer to abdicate responsibility by blaming the sub-contractor when something subsequently goes wrong. Regardless of the contract, the management of health and safety is a joint responsibility led by the employing company.

The question is, would you allow a sub-contract enterprise to dictate the safety standards on your premises, or on one of your projects that if it went wrong, it had the potential to kill some body, potentially putting the CEO and possibly the Board in jail on a corporate manslaughter charge, jeopardising the company’s future and financial standing, and creating an ecological disaster, leaving your company to pick up the pieces?

In Summary..............

Even though a sub-contract enterprise has a duty of care, the appointment of that enterprise does not absolve the employing company of its duty under health and safety law. The employer still has considerable control over any contract, and must ensure that health and safety matters are adequately managed so as to prevent danger.

The employer and the sub-contractor must take joint responsibility for the management of health and safety prior to and during the work, agreeing suitable and sufficient control measures.

These may include, but will not be limited to;

• Scope of Works
• Risk Assessment
• Te use of Method Statements
• Standard Operating Procedures
• Safe systems of Work
• Isolation and Locking Off procedures
• Compliance monitoring
• Accident and incident reporting
• Health surveillance

........ and in some instances carried out jointly.

For construction works under CDM 2007 the duties imposed on the client, the contractor, and any sub-contractor are more specific.

What do you think?  We'd love to hear your comments

(The views expressed in this article, are not necessarily those held by Allen & York)

ASHES TO DASHES - by Rod Trippier

Far be it from me to say, “I told you so”,  as the recriminations and fallout from the fall out begin.

But did anybody think to carryout a risk assessment before knee jerking the world’s airlines and passengers into panic and not inconsiderable inconvenience, and commercial and personal cost.

First rule of the health and safety professional ; if it’s conceivable that something hazardous can occur, you have to assume it will, and act accordingly.

Therefore, as volcanoes erupt throughout the world on a regular basis, and funnily enough, emitting clouds of fine ash into the sky, did anybody think to develop a disaster plan using existing data for this extant volcano? It seems not.

And was Willie Walsh right to take the initiative, galvanize the CAA and others from their slumbers, he certainly was. As mentioned in my earlier article, health and safety is commercial; an intrinsic part of any successful business, not just a bolt-on.

So what went wrong?
First question; who carried out the risk assessment before taking the “no-fly decision”, and where is that vital document now? Was a risk assessment carried out, and if not why not? If it was, was immediate reference made to existing data, if not, why not? Was there any existing data, and if not why not? Was any existing data up to date? Was reference made to the disaster plan,…………. I could go on, but by now you’ve got point.

But I know what you’re thinking; it’s easy to be wise after the event, maybe. But it’s smarter to be wise before the event, and that’s just as easy.

It’s all neatly written down for us in the HSE’s 5 Steps to Risk Assessment; I wonder how many steps

were taken by the authorities that shut down our skies, or were their heads in the clouds?

How would you have managed the incident?

PASSIONATE ABOUT HEALTH & SAFETY

THE FIRST IN A SERIES OF ARTICLES
WRITTEN FOR ALLEN & YORK
BY - ROD TRIPPIER (FREELANCE - HEALTH & SAFETY ADVISER) - The views expressed in this article, are not necessarily those held by Allen & York.

Each of Rod's articles will contain his opinions, anecdotes observations, topical tips and useful references from the world of Health and Safety. And we would like to you to join the discussions and give us your views on the HSE industry.

SO, WHAT IS HEALTH & SAFETY?

Basically it’s human and asset management; with the emphasis on asset. Not because asset safety is more important than human safety. It’s just that if we get the work-place, plant machinery and equipment controls in place, we help remove or reduce a high proportion of the inherent significant risks, leaving us to concentrate on the people risks, i.e., the silly things that are done in the work-place; driving plant on a construction site whilst using a mobile ‘phone springs to mind.

If we were to look at the people issues first we’d be in danger of muddying the waters by mixing work-place and task risks with people risks, struggling to develop “one size fits all” controls, it doesn’t work.

WHAT IS THE JOB OF A HEALTH & SAFETY PROFESSIONAL?

So, as Health & Safety professionals it’s our job to help make a positive contribution to profitability. Do I hear howls of disagreement? Profit from Health & Safety I hear you say, we’re only here to stop accidents. No we’re not, it’s our function to help make the job run safer, smoother, and more profitably; protecting our executives, managers and operatives, and others, often from themselves. Not forgetting the guy who breaks into our premises, falls down an uncovered and unguarded inspection chamber, fractures a leg, and who might successfully claim for negligence.

That’s why a good Health & Safety professional needs to know his/her industry well, and to make valued judgements based on experience of the process, and the business, giving advice and support to all sectors of the enterprise, and to look for ways of solving and resolving Health, Safety and Environmental issues whilst keeping the job going. In this respect, “Reasonably Practicable” is a very powerful tool, it can help us make some very wise decisions, and without the need to issue Red Cards or “Stop Notices” at the first hint of a non-compliance.

RECENT CASE STUDY

On a recent construction project for a very large retailer, the P.C. constructed a temporary stair-case from scaffolding, facilitating access to the first floor whilst dismantling the existing stair-case. Approximately two hours after completion, the P.C’s own health and safety advisor taped off the stairs; didn’t use barriers, just tape, and then stuck condemned stickers in prominent places and walked off, threatening to “Red Card” anybody who dared to use it. Did he involve and consult, and did he say what the issues were? No. This is a poor example of how to implement robust control measures, and a not an untypical example of why Health and Safety gets such a bad press.

So what were the issues? No edge protection. Could this have presented a significant hazard? Unlikely given that the installation was not being worked off and therefore with little risk of tools or materials falling. Might the landing platform be worked off today, or later? Yes, some electrical containment was planned for fitting to an adjacent wall some time later in the week.

Solution; assuming the scaffolders to be off site, have a quick chat to the “chippy”, or to one of “the lads”, to see if there were any spare scaffold planks, quickly fixing them in place. Then, contact the Supervisor, and agree and plan a permanent solution, setting a “reasonable”, achievable time scale for completion. So, by making a “sensible decision” guided by regulation, e.g., a suitable and sufficient risk assessment, and the non-compliance rectified in a “reasonably practicable” time scale. The stair-case did not have to be taken out of service; everybody happy and job done, not forgetting to file the risk assessment, and update the SHE Advisor’s personal daily log.

IT'S NOT ALL CONKERS AND GOGGLES

Health and Safety can also get a bad name because of “knee jerk” reactions from apparently untrained people who rather than making an informed decision, it seems, will make one without consultation with a Health and Safety advisor, or if it was, possibly the H & S advisor got over-ruled. Conkers and goggles spring to mind, or councils that ban hanging baskets where previously hanging baskets had hung for decades without incident. And to see members of the Time Team walking round fields digging up artefacts whilst wearing hard hats at jaunty angles, makes one wonder just how many blocks of frozen urine fall from passing aircraft.

  

The point is, we are all exposed to risk every day of the week, and we’ve all, well almost all, experienced the consequences. But, if you look back, and be honest; we usually didn’t do something we should have done, or did something we shouldn’t.

ASSESS THE 'SIGNIFICANT' RISK

The HSE make the point very strongly; where there are people, there will always be risk. So what is it we are trying to achieve when it comes to managing risk; do we strive to eliminate all risks? No, we’re actually setting out to eliminate, or reduce only the significant ones. And a brief read of RIDDOR will provide the answers, detailing the categories that quantify the word “significant”.

What else can we look at to determine significant risk? Related industry statistics, yes; frequency of different incident types, yes; HSE accident statistics, yes; in-house records, yes. But don’t use data that doesn’t apply to your sector.

There are many people who believe there is no such thing as an accident, simply that it’s a number of un-planned events coming together simultaneously; emphasis on the word un-planned. Therefore, if it is likely that a process can fail, or a person can get harmed, or a piece of plant/machinery/asset can get damaged, it’s our job, to try and prevent it by being our employer’s/client’s conscience.

Therefore, preventing people from getting harmed is not just the preserve of health and safety professionals. Preventing harm is a management function, resulting from tasks and processes being carried out correctly and to time. Good health and safety is achieved through good management systems, processes and practices; and as it happens, it’s also the way to help achieve improved productivity and profitability.

To be a good health and safety professional we have to get involved with the work-force; talk to people, find out what the issues are, and help get them resolved quickly, keeping people “in the frame”, especially if progress is slow. Not only do we have to understand regulation, and be able to apply it effectively, we also have to understand our industry or sector, and be able to empathise with it, and the people who work in it, and be all things to all people at all times, and that includes the HSE/EHO.

WHAT TO DO NEXT

Here’s your “Must Do” for tomorrow;

• If you don’t know who your local HMFI or EHO is, get on the ‘phone, introduce yourself, get him or her round for a chat, and find out what their issues are.
• If you haven’t already done so before, organise a half day training session with your HMFI/EHO as speaker, and invite directors and senior managers to hear what the HSE are majoring in on. You’ll be surprised how quickly attitudes change, particularly if Corporate Manslaughter is discussed.

It’s not the knowing that brings success; it’s the understanding, the application, and the passion.

WHAT DO YOU THINK?  ............Please POST A COMMENT

SPECIALIST SUSTAINABILITY RECRUITMENT IN AUSTRALIA
Leading International Sustainability Recruitment Specialists - Allen & York announce the opening of their new offices in Melbourne, Australia, March 2010.

Allen & York, a UK based company, are specialist recruiters in the Natural and Built Environment, Energy, Engineering, Waste and Health & Safety sectors – having successfully recruited for 17 years for global corporations and consultancies from the UK and further a-field, they have now extend operations to include offices on-site in Melbourne, Australia.

Much success was seen in global business during 2008/09 which has lead to the opening of the first Allen & York office in Australia, their aim to be located nearer to their clients and thereby offer a more responsive and comprehensive service. The main areas of focus are; Waste Management, Environmental Consultancies, Engineering, Energy, Mining and Construction. As well as supporting the wider Sustainability industry as it grows and develops.

“Our international focus has seen our operations move into Australia, Middle East, Europe, Asia and South Africa which is why we feel that it is the right time to spread our expertise to help our clients on the ground with all their recruitment needs and career aspirations. Given the industry that we are in, it is important for us to be forward-focussed, with strong ambitions, amongst which is to maintain our growth and expand our recruitment offices to closely support our clients around the world.” Mark Allen, Managing Director at Allen & York

This is an exciting development for Allen & York, and will make a huge difference to supporting our Sustainabiltiy Clients throughout Australia and Asia Pacific, who include: CH2M Hill, SKM, ERM, AECOM, RPS, Coffey International, Parsons Brinckerhoff and SMEC. The new base also gives them the opportunity to expand relationships with current global corporate clients such as; BP, HSBC, DHL, ERM and Amazon. Allen & York are delighted to be able to offer a full service, to respond quickly to client’s requirements and met face-to-face, without the aid of video conferencing.

Anticipated areas of growth within the global sustainability sector include; Renewable Energy, Low Carbon & CleanTech, Geotechnical Engineering, Sustainable Infrastructure Planning, EIAs and EMS – and Allen & York are there to support Recruitment requirements & HR strategies at all levels from CEO to Junior Graduate.

All the indications from world leaders, within both politics and commerce, are that the world is moving towards a more sustainable future. The UK government predicts that meeting targets within Energy and Climate Change could provide up to half a million jobs in the renewable energy sector alone by 2020.

The Middle East has made substantial new investment within sustainable infrastructure developments in terms of roads, power and water and recently, Allen & York have been instrumental in helping the Abu Dhabi authorities to develop their sustainable capabilities.
They anticipate that within the near future

Allen & York will be expanding sustainable recruitment operations within the area and look forward to working more closely with clients in the Middle East to grow and enhance their current skill-sets and improve the standards of environmental management across the UAE;
Business Manager, Joe Heppenstall confirms their stance: “our aim is not simply to lead in the provision of technical recruitment solutions within the sustainability market - but also to deliver the same quality wherever that market exists.”

As Allen & York grow internationally there are more and more opportunities for connecting individuals and businesses within the sustainable sector at a global level. Their network is extensive and ever growing, which means that there are not only attractive opportunities for employees to travel and work in different countries around the globe, but there are also opportunities for employers to source the best international talent for their businesses.

Allen & York’s offices in Australia are buzzing and they are already looking to expand their environmental recruitment teams with local talent. The ambition is to match their UK reputation for services and delivery, to be the World’s Leading Recruitment Company for the Sustainability Sector.

http://www.allen-york.com/

UK - 0844 371 8986

INT - +44 (0)1202 888 986

AUS - +61 (0) 39823 6294

The Virtual Leaf & the Art of Sustainable Living

At the end of 2009 I was fortunate enough to attend the Seacourt Seminar - 'Sustainability....Moving Forwards'. The seminar promised to look at exciting new movements in sustainable practices, from energy and investments to communications and zero-waste.

Seacourt are a "naturally responsible" print company, who have worked their way to being virtually 100% zero waste over the last 40+ years. As the primary person responsible for moving Allen & York towards being a fully sustainable company, I am always looking for new innovative ideas on how we can reduce, recycle and reuse more of our waste.

The speakers featured David Kidney MP from the Department of Climate Change & Energy, Peter Maddox from WRAP, Stile Jensen from Radley Yeldar (an award winning business communications expert) and Jim Dinnage, the MD of Seacourt - however without a shadow of a doubt the highlight of the day was Professor Jim Barber from Imperial College who expounded the innovative process of creating a bio-fuel using the the 'Artificial Leaf' theory.

Professor Barber is an expert in photovoltaic science and in his lecture to the Seacourt audience he explained the method of 'creating' energy as a leaf would in nature, similar to the process of photosynthesis, in order to produce a renewable source of energy. The process would involve the splitting of Water (H2O) into Oxygen and Hydrogen - the hydrogen then being turned into bio-fuel and the water a harmless bi-product.

According to Professor Barber, if artificial photosynthesis systems could use around 10 per cent of the sunlight falling on them, they would only need to cover 0.16 per cent of the Earth’s surface to satisfy a global energy consumption rate of 20 terawatts, the amount it is predicted that the world will need in 2030.

The main issue is not whether the 'theory' is possible, as it has been proven to work, but rather at there has been a lack of investment given to the development to enable this type of bio-fuel to be produced on a mass scale.

Professor Barber pointed out that the future is not nuclear (you would need to build a nuclear power station every week for the next 10 years to supply the world's energy supply) but instead it could be a truly sustainable solution, such as extracting hydrogen from water!

Professor Barber left us with the Jules Verne quote "I foresee that in the future, water will be used as fuel... water will be the coal of the future." - who would have thought that a 19th Century French science fiction writer would become such a visionary.

For more information about Professor Barber & 'The Artificial Leaf' please visit http://www.bio.imperial.ac.uk/research/barber/people/jbarber.html