Our company’s goal has been to build upon our existing risk assessment and employee
consultation processes (using the Dupont model of improving safe behaviour through
involvement) to achieve greater control over occupational risk. The end result is
uSafe:
Maxam’s Safety Management System.
uSafe
is the process of:
- Identifying hazards
- Assessing Risk
- Treating the risk (or controlling the risk)
- Documenting risk treatments in minimal acceptable standards (safe operating procedures)
- Training staff
- Auditing compliance, and
- Continually improving
Maxam’s approach to managing safety is based on the principal that a management
system must be consistent with the objectives and detail of enabling legislation,
such as the various Occupational Health and Safety Acts and be compliant with prescriptive
legislation such as Explosives Regulations. Every person within the company must
be provided with an avenue for actively participating in hazard identification and
risk assessment. Following the model mentioned above, we reviewed all of our documentation
relating to the delivery of explosive services to ensure that our existing risk
management practices and documentation reflected the occupational hazards faced
by our employees and clients. We evaluated our methods of risk management to ensure
that they reflected the best available within our industry.
After setting the context under which the review would be conducted, a six-step
process was followed, as described below:
-
Hazard identification
Employees were provided with a forum in which to “brainstorm” and develop a list
of all occupational hazards particular to the delivery of Maxam services. These
sessions generated a simple listing of distinct hazards covering topics ranging
from the transport and delivery of explosives and product safety to human behavioural
characteristics and physical hazards (such as working at heights, exposure to open
edges on benches and fitness for work).
-
Risk categorisation and assessment
Each hazard was placed into one of three categories (see Figure 1). The risk potential
of every identified hazard was assessed using a semi-qualitative assessment tool
(5 x 7matrixes).All risks were ranked based on the risk score derived from the perceived
Consequence, Exposure and Probability of the risk event occurring. Measurements
ranged from Very High (e.g. exposure to open edges on a shot bench, or explosive
pump malfunction) to Very Low (excessive exposure to UV radiation, sunlight and
minor slips, trips and falls).
-
Risk treatments and controls
Nearly all of the identified risks were subject to existing control measures, such
as the use of fall prevention or protection equipment and explosive pump planned
maintenance schedules. Following the “hierarchy of controls approach,” existing
risk treatments were categorised into either hard or soft controls, soft controls
essentially being those at the bottom of the hierarchy (administrative and personal
protective equipment) and hard controls being those toward the top of the hierarchy
(physical barriers such as guards rails on ISO containers or PDO interlocks on trucks).Where
possible, both a hard and soft risk control was allocated to all medium to high-risk
events.
-
Setting minimal acceptable standards
Our safety management system documentation (every company standard and operating
procedure) was reviewed, and where necessary, amended or re-written to reflect the
revised risk potential and method of risk treatment. In order to ensure that, as
a minimal, uSafe complied with the various state statutory requirements, a "statutory
compliance matrix" was developed, comparing uSafe documentation against the various
state legislative requirements. The uSafe documentation was approved by the
Maxam Management team and released as a “Controlled Document.”
-
Retraining
Maxam conducts annual re-induction training for all employees. This year the induction
focused on the changes to our Safety Management System and the implementation of
uSafe.
The Maxam employee handbook was re-written to reflect the changes to our documentation
and our internal training modules revised to refer to relevant uSafe requirements.
-
Compliance auditing
All Maxam depots and branches are subject to two uSafe audits annually.
The audits are a detailed quantitative assessment where each branch receives a score
out of a possible 500points. This type of assessment provides Maxam management with
an accurate positive performance indicator of safety effort, as opposed to the outcome
based assessment of injury frequency rate.
-
Continually improving
The implementation of remedial actions from compliance auditing completes the management
cycle of Plan, Do, Check and Act, (the uSafe process). The measurement of close
out times for high-risk HIAS (Hazard, Incident, Accident, and Suggestion) reports
and the effectiveness of risk treatments provide us with positive performance indicators
for the measurement of improvement.
What we learnt
During the revision process, every employee within Maxam was provided with a forum
to contribute; all ideas and suggestions were included. This process reinforced
that the most powerful risk management tool within our group is our employees. If
a safety management system is to be effective it must be “owned” by our employees
and actively supported by management. uSafe empowers everybody within the company
to take an active role in reducing occupational risk by fostering a philosophy of
improvement through ownership and accountability. The risk assessment model adopted
by Maxam follows that in Australian Standard 4360.
Summary
Good safety management practices need not be complex, the basic principals of occupational
risk reduction have not changed: Companies who can successfully identify, evaluate
and control hazards, will be those with the better safety performance. At Maxam
the basic principals are evident in all aspects of our safety management system,
uSafe.
Maxam’s commitment to our staff and clients is to continuously improve these services
through actively seeking and nurturing initiative in all aspects of our operations.
Please click here to read the whole article from Quarry
Magazine, September 2002.