HSE Interventions Priority Risks & HSE Strategy ....influence - - PDF document

‘HSE Interventions & Priority Risks’

HSE Strategy

‘………..…..influence organisations to embrace high standards of health and safety……………….’; ‘……………work with business to prevent catastrophic failures’

Bill Callaghan – Former Chairman HSC

So What are HSE’s Priorities

Case Studies:

• …………2 men were killed in a plant bread oven on cup final day 2002…………overcome

by heat exhaustion the men were essentially cooked because appropriate safeguards associated with confined space work including the use of a permit to work were not followed

• …………a contractor received serious head injuries and has ongoing brain damage as a

result of an explosion in a sugar refining plant………another contractor was carrying out unauthorised and uncontrolled hot work on another part of the plant……

• …………………an engineer died trying to realign the belt of a spiral cooler while the belt

while it was in motion………..the crow bar he was using to leverage the belt slipped causing him to fall backwards striking his head on the ground causing fatal head injuries………

• ………………..a hygiene operative received serious pelvic injuries when he was crushed

between the body of a dough mixer and its fixed support frame when cleaning a blockage in a drain within the mixer enclosure……………….the mixer man initiated rotation of the mixer not realising the other party was in the enclosure.

O n e

• r

t w

• c

l u e s t h e r e – H S E i n v

• l

v e d a n d t

• k

a c t i

• n

i n e a c h c a s e

HSE Visits to Allied Bakeries

• Specific review of Isolation/Lock Off, Permits to

Work, Statutory Inspections & Contractor Control

• 4 of the 6 core topics covered by Priority Risk

Audits in AB

• Audit is against AB standards which include

guidance/training/competency tests & records/ appointment of duty holders/monitoring arrangements for each topic

‘This is best practice – send us a copy of your next audit so that I can share with XYZ Company’

Audits Results (Compliance Critical Issues)

Permit to Work CDF GTS GLA LIV ORP STV STP STK WAL W.BR

2 Risk Assessments available

24 24 24 18 15 24 18 9 15 24

3 Permits used on every occasion where required

30 30 30 27 27 30 21 18 24 30

5 Training Records are in place and current

15 30 30 27 21 27 24 27 21 9

6 Permits issued as per standard

24 30 30 27 21 30 21 18 27 30

14 Permits kept for 2 years (30

30 30 30 27 24 30 30 30 24 30

8 Permits fully completed (20

20 16 20 20 10 20 20 18 16 20

Isolation & Lock-off CDF GTS GLA LIV ORP STV STP STK WAL W.BR

2 Current Risk Assessments available

30 21 30 24 15 27 18 9 18 15

5 Isolation used in conjunction with PTW

30 30 30 30 30 27 30 30 24 30

3 Trained Person's Register

18 16 20 20 14 20 20 18 18

4 Training Records

10 20 20 20 14 18 20 18 14

9 Suitable means of isolation on all equipment

16 20 20 20 20 20 14 20 18 20

Statutory Inspections CDF GTS GLA LIV ORP STV STP STK WAL W.BR

2 Written schemes are in place for all Pressure System

30 30 30 24 30 27 30 30 27 27

3 Schedule in place for all Lifting Systems

20 20 20 20 20 20 20 16 20 18

4 Schedule in place for all LEV

20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 18 18

5 All Items inspected to the required frequency

30 30 30 30 24 30 30 30 27 27

7 All appropriate records maintained

30 24 30 30 24 24 27 30 21 30

Audit results collated centrally

Priority Risk Audits (Quarterly) As at 8/08

Total % - Compliance Critical Questions

Cdf Gts Gla Liv Orp Stv Stp Stk Wal W.Br ABGB

P er mit to Wor k 89% 93% 98% 86% 88% 96% 88% 78% 83% 62%

86.1%

Isolation & Lock-off 88% 88% 100% 95% 89% 95% 90% 84% 86% 63%

87.8%

Statutory Inspections 95% 95% 100% 95% 93% 100% 100% 92% 84% 100%

95.5%

P

• wered Trucks

99% 93% 100% 94% 98% 96% 89% 100% 88% 100%

95.7%

Contr actor Management 90% 88% 100% 94% 88% 99% 96% 87% 88% 70%

89.9%

F lour Deliver ies. 100% 93% 100% 95% 84% 88% 91% 89% 87% 98%

92.4%

Logistics Activities 83% 89% 95% 84% 91% 88% 84% 93% 86% 98%

89.0%

Compliance Index Number 92.1 91.4 98.9 91.7 90.1 94.7 91.0 89.0 86.0 84.3

90.9%

90% or above 80 to 89% 79% or below

Audit results collated centrally

Site benchmarking - Compliance Index Number (Average Score) - the KPI

Priority Issues Audits Compliance Index Number

94.8 91.4 90.4 88.6 87.0 86.5 86.5 86.3 84.8 78.0 77.1 50 60 70 80 90 100 G l a s g

• w

G a t e s S t e v e n a g e L i v e r p

• l

S t

• c

k p

• r

t C a r d i f f A B G B A v . W e s t B r

• m

S t

• k

e W a l t h O r p i n g t

• n

Priority Risk Audit Ratings

Priority Risk Audit Ratings - Compliance Rating December 2007

94.8 91.4 90.4 88.6 87.0 86.5 86.5 86.3 84.8 78.0 77.1 50 60 70 80 90 100 Glasgow Gates Stevenage Liverpool Stoc kport Cardiff ABGB Av. West Brom Stoke Walth Orpington

Priority Risk Audit Ratings - Compliance Rating March 2008

97.2 94 92.3 92.1 90.9 89.2 89.1 88.7 86.5 84.6 76.2

50 60 70 80 90 100 Glasgow Stevenage Gates Cardiff Liverpool ABGB Av. Stoc kport Stoke Orpington Walth West Brom

Priority Risk Audit Ratings - Compliance Rating J une 2008

99.2 94.4 92.3 92 90.8 90.7 90.6 90.1 87.6 86.9 76.5 50 60 70 80 90 100

G l a s g

• w

S t e v e n a g e S t

• c

k p

• r

t G a t e s C a r d i f f O r p i n g t

• n

S t

• k

e A B G B A v e r a g e L i v e r p

• l

W a l t h W e s t B r

• m

Priority Risk Audit Ratings - Compliance Rating September 2008

98.9 94.7 92.1 91.7 91.4 91 90.9 90.1 89 86 84.3 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 G l a s g

• w

S t e v e n a g e C a r d i f f L i v e r p

• l

G a t e s S t

• c

k p

• r

t A B G B A v e r a g e O r p i n g t

• n

S t

• k

e W a l t h W e s t B r

• m

Compliance Index - Critical Risks - June 09

98.9 98.5 95.6 95.2 95.1 94.1 93.8 93.4 92.7 92.1 89 90.8 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

G l a s g

• w

S t

• k

e B e l f a s t W e s t B r

• m

S t

• c

k p

• r

t A B G B A v e r a g e G a t e s O r p i n g t

• n

S t e v e n a g e W a l t h C a r d i f f L i v e r p

• l

Result

• Traffic lights highlight non-compliances and drive priorities

for actions

• GM Accountability – 91% Compliance as an objective – red

results in visit to head office – amber requires written explanation

• Track continuous improvement
• 18001 compatible
• In house competition via league table
• Positive response from HSE

Priority Risk Audits As at June 09

94.1%

95.6% 95.2% 92.1% 98.5% 95.1% 92.7% 93.4% 89.0% 98.9% 93.8% 90.8%

Compliance Index Number 93.1%

93.2% 100.0% 95.8% 97.4% 90.5% 90.5% 92.7% 85.3% 96.8% 91.8% 90.5%

Logistics Activities 95.2%

100.0% 100.0% 91.8% 97.6% 94.7% 88.8% 96.5% 85.9% 100.0% 91.8% 100.0%

Flour Deliveries. 92.0%

93.0% 96.5% 91.5% 99.0% 93.0% 91.5% 91.5% 85.5% 100.0% 92.5% 78.0%

Contractor Management 95.8%

97.6% 95.9% 88.8% 100.0% 98.2% 100.0% 92.9% 86.5% 100.0% 96.5% 97.6%

Fork Trucks / Pallet Trucks 97.7%

92.3% 92.3% 100.0% 96.9% 100.0% 100.0% 95.4% 100.0% 100.0% 97.7% 100.0%

Statutory Inspections 91.9%

93.3% 92.5% 88.3% 100.0% 90.8% 91.7% 94.2% 90.0% 97.5% 92.5% 80.0%

Isolation & Lock-off 93.0%

100.0% 89.4% 88.8% 98.2% 98.2% 86.5% 90.6% 90.0% 97.6% 94.1% 89.4%

Permit to Work

ABGB Av.

Belfast W.B. Walth Stoke Stock Stev Orp Lpool Glas Gates Card

Total % - Compliance Critical Questions Red - 84% or below Amber - 85 to 90% Green - 91% or above

Scoring for Critical Questions – June 09

Compliance Index Number

Compliance Index - Critical Risks - June 09

98.9 98.5 95.6 95.2 95.1 94.1 93.8 93.4 92.7 92.1 89 90.8 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 G l a s g

• w

S t

• k

e B e l f a s t W e s t B r

• m

S t

• c

k p

• r

t A B G B A v e r a g e G a t e s O r p i n g t

• n

S t e v e n a g e W a l t h C a r d i f f L i v e r p

• l

ABGB Average - June 08 to June 09

90.9 91.8 94.3 90.6 94.1 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Jun '08 Sept '08 Dec '08 Mar '09 Jun-09

Improving & Sustaining Performance