9209342

December 13, 2002 15:33 WSPC/177-JCR 00031
Journal of Construction Research, Vol. 4, No. 1 (2003) 7185

c World Scientic Publishing Company
IMPROVED HAZARD IDENTIFICATION FOR CONTRACTORS
IN THE CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY
ROSS W. TRETHEWY
School of Safety Science, University of New South Wales, Sydney, 2052, Australia
r.trethewy@unsw.edu.au
MARIA ATKINSON
Green Building Council of Australia, P.O. Box N413,
Grosvenor Place, Sydney NSW1220, Australia
info@gbcaus.org
BRIAN FALLS
Bovis Lend Lease, Australia Square Tower, Sydney, 2000, Australia
brian.falls@lendlease.com.au
Received 1 June 2000
Revised 28 February 2002
Formal identication of hazards in the workplace is a fundamental basis on which success-
ful safety management is founded and an essential component of occupational health and
safety (OHS) legislation in Australia and other countries. Similarly, successful environmen-
tal management is based on the same theory of identication and control of workplace
hazards.
Yet the ability of contractors to carry out this process in a formal way and document
an appropriate safe work procedure is problematic. Equally the requirement for those who
control a workplace to review the content of such procedures is also problematic.
For some contractors hazards can be so ingrained in their work processes that they
are considered the norm. In addition, more subtle injury mechanisms such a repetitive
lifting may be completely ignored due to the perceived inability of contractors to control
such hazards at source. This paper identies better methods to assist contractors in hazard
identication.
Keywords: Hazard identication; OHS; contractors; safety; environmental management.
1. Introduction
The adequacy of the process of formal identication of specic hazards relevant
to a contractors proposed work package is problematic to better management of
contractors and therefore compliance to both OHS and environment legislation in
Australia and other countries. The principal barrier to improvement in this key
area is that most contractors lack the resources, knowledge or willingness to ade-
quately identify hazards in a formal (documented) way. That is the development of
71
72 R. W. Trethewy, M. Atkinson & B. Falls
a documented Job Safety Analysis or Safe Work Method Statement which identies
medium to high risk hazards associated with their work and appropriate controls
to eliminate or minimize the hazard.
The theory of formal hazard identication and control suggests that most con-
tractors have an understanding of the hierarchy of controls, but do they? It is far
more likely that many contractors survive on the theory of self preservation. That
is, they carry out practical measures to ensure they are not injured on the job and
therefore aect their ability to earn income. Similarly, when it comes to environ-
mental aspects of their work they know not to pour paint residue down a storm
water drain due to the substantial penalties that such carelessness attracts.
Suspicion amongst contractors abounds that documented information may be
used against them in a court of law. In fact the opposite is the case. A number of
both workplace injury and damage to the environment cases in Australia in recent
years suggest that a court of law is far more likely to substantially increase a penalty
for those who have no system of minimizing workplace hazards, over those who can
demonstrate that they have at least attempted to do so.
2. Current Research in the Australian Construction Industry
Recent research in the construction industry at the School of Safety Science, the
University of New South Wales (UNSW) has revealed signicant weakness in the for-
mal process of hazard identication and control by contractors. This weakness was
highlighted through interviews with contractors and further substantiated during
selected appraisal of contractor documentation and construction sites (Trethewy,
2000). Large disparity was identied between submitted safety documentation con-
sidered acceptable by dierent Principal Contractors in control of a workplace and
actual work practices. In addition, the same research revealed that contractor iden-
tication of environment hazards and controls was almost non-existent.
Since the outcomes of the research ndings considerable progress has been noted
amongst medium to large companies in the commercial construction industry in
Australia. Contractors in 2002 are now legally required to submit a formal Safe
Work Method Statement for construction work. While this legislative requirement
does not relate to environment issues, these are nonetheless beginning to be inte-
grated with safety.
To facilitate improvement in the documented hazard identication and risk as-
sessment process for contractors, research in the Construction Industry in Australia
has developed standardized documentation in the form of an OHS assistance pack
(referred to as the Subby Pack) together with a series of hazard proles unique to
construction trades, which assist contractors to identify hazards for selected trades.
These documents are accepted and distributed by most major construction com-
panies and are available for the regulatory authority for OHS, WorkCover NSW
(www.workcover.nsw.gov.au).
Improved Hazard Identication 73
However, the Pack and proles are yet to include environment issues to assist
contractors in better hazard identication. This inclusion is a logical extension given
that the theory of hazard identication, risk assessment and control is identical to
that of OHS. That is, the notion of injury or illness equally applies to damage to
the environment and the downstream aects on those who live in the environment.
Just like safety large penalties also apply to breaches of environmental legislation in
Australia, i.e. up to A$1 million. In addition, contractors bidding for Government
projects where the contract sum exceeds A$10 million must have an environmental
management system and demonstrate compliance with project specic management
plans which detail procedures to eliminate or minimize impacts on the environment.
The present task for industries that predominantly engage contractor labor,
like the construction industry, is to determine how well contractors have identied
(documentation) and controlled hazards associated with their work (actual work
practices). This task presumes that those who review such procedures have an in-
tricate knowledge of the work activity to be undertaken and its associated hazards,
but do they?
3. Case Study in Construction
A recent safety and environment audit of a major high prole construction site
in Sydney, Australia, revealed the need for better review of submitted safe work
procedures prepared by contractors. During the verication stage of the audit, (i.e.
workplace inspection) the audit team observed a structural steel contractor who
had alighted an elevated work platform (boom lift) at a height of approximately
12 meters above the ground. The contractor was seen straddling a steel beam in an
attempt to secure a bolted connection. To make matters worse he had unclipped
his safety harness to undertake the procedure (Trethewy et al., 2000).
The work practice was ceased immediately by site personnel and the submitted
safe work procedure was reviewed by the audit team. The written procedure revealed
that the contractor had in fact stated the intention to alight the boom lift and sit
on the beam to secure connections, contrary to legislative restrictions.
Needless to say a non-conformance was issued by the audit team. However, the
situation highlighted a number of key issues in relation to personnel tasked with
reviewing safety or environment documentation prepared by contractors namely:
Was the documented safe work procedure reviewed at all?
Did the personnel undertaking the review have any knowledge of legislation gov-
erning the use of boom lifts and appropriate fall prevention strategies for this
type of work activity?
For those tasked with reviewing documented procedures submitted by contractors
what level of training or understanding of work practices is sucient to enable a
review to be carried out in a competent manner?
What level of awareness of safety and environment legislation is required?
What assistance is available to help review documented procedures?
What level of supervision was provided in the workplace?
What was the level of training for both the contractor carrying out the work (i.e.
working at height) and workplace supervisors?
4. Improved Identication of Hazards in the Workplace
4.1. Training
As previously mentioned the formal identication of hazards by contractors and
review of this process is problematic. For contractors and those who review submit-
ted procedures a reasonable understanding of safety and environment legislation is
required together with training, in safety and/or environment theory. Irrespective
of who provides training, it typically should involve basic theory aimed at under-
pinning workplace experience to provide personnel with the appropriate knowledge
to identify and address workplace hazards.
The Australian construction industry has identied that one of the better ways
to identify hazards is for contractors to carry out tool box talks that directly involve
those who will carry out the work. This process enables those contractors who
have an intricate knowledge of the work task to discuss the task in an informal
atmosphere, identify hazards related to various job steps and then develop safe
work procedures on-the-job. Procedures developed in this forum are more likely
to be implemented than those prepared by others with little practical knowledge of
the actual work process. Experience has demonstrated that at times it may be
useful to involve an external person in this process to enable ingrained hazards
accepted as the norm to be identied. For example, heavy lifting or paint disposal
is typically overlooked. The Hazard Proles developed by research at the University
of New South Wales assist this type of consultative approach.
Training in forums such as a tool box talk is particularly relevant where con-
tractors do not speak English or English is not their rst language. Most Australian
guidance material for safety and environment hazard identication is in English
which in hardly useful if a contractor has diculty reading the language. The use
of a person of their own nationality who can convene a tool box talk and discuss
safety or environment issues is paramount to improved training and awareness for
contractors and therefore improved hazard identication.
4.2. Guidance information in Australia
4.2.1. Internet
Understanding of where to source information to provide assistance in hazard iden-
tication is critical to improved safe work practises. The Internet now oers compre-
hensive material to assist this process. Typically WorkCover websites in Australia
and other websites around the world now provide useful sources of OHS and envi-
ronment information that can be downloaded. For example:
Table 1. Sample extract for bricklaying Hazard Prole.
Job Activity What Can Harm What Can Causes Which Need to be Managed
(Tasks) You (Hazards) Happen (Risks) (Controlled)
Mixing
mortar and
providing
to the work
face
Electric mixer
and leads
Electric shock
or electrocution
Equipment faulty or damaged
Extensive water use around electrical equipment
Earth Leakage Switch not installed on mains
supply or portable generator
Extension lead faulty
Extension lead not secured above work area
lying in water
Moving parts of
machinery
Finger/s or hand
caught in mixer
drive gear. Shovel
ung out of the
drum
Guard for mixer drive gear missing or damaged
Place shovel into rotating mixer drum ung out
striking laborer
Loose clothing caught by moving parts of machinery
Manual Handing Strains and
sprains; injuries
such as back
damage
Shoveling raw materials into mixer
Lifting barrow lled with mortar
Relocating mixer
Repetitious passing or shovelling mortar up onto
scaold
No job rotation
Standing on
wheelbarrow
sides or on
unstable stacks
of bricks
Fall from
wheelbarrow
or unstable stacks
of bricks
Standing on wheelbarrow sides to shovel mortar up
onto scaold
Wheelbarrow overturns
Standing on stack of bricks or blocks to pass up
material
Brick stack collapses or becomes unstable
Cutting Electric cutting
equipment (brick
saw)
Electric shock or
electrocution
Equipment faulty or damaged
Water saw sitting in water not on a wooden pal-
let, or similar
Earth Leakage Switch not installed on mains
supply or portable generator
Extension lead faulty or damaged
Extension lead not secured above work area
lying in water
Health and safety:
www.workcover.nsw.gov.au This site provides:
Construction Industry Codes of Practice which oer information on hazards
and appropriate controls, e.g. Electrical Practices for Construction Work and
Excavation.
Hazard Proles developed by the University of New South Wales and
the construction industry which provide comprehensive trade based hazard
information in eight key construction trades. A sample is provided in Table 1.
Safety alerts also provide a useful reminder of hazards in the workplace and
these are evident on internet sites across many countries.
www.workcover.nsw.gov.au provides a safety assistance pack (Subby Pack) for
contractors.
Environment :
Useful websites for environmental hazard information can be found at the En-
vironment Protection Authority NSW (www.epa.nsw.gov.au); Environment Aus-
tralia (www.environment.gov.au) and Sydney Water (www.sydneywater.com.au).
In Australia, the above electronic information is regarded as public domain. It
can therefore be used as guidance material in demonstrating how an employer has
or has not satised their Duty of Care responsibility under safety or environment
legislation in Australia, i.e. if a safe system of work has been established based on
well-known workplace hazards. In other words if the information is public domain
it is in the best interests of an organization to use such material as guidance in the
identication of workplace hazards.
4.3. Statistics
Industry statistics are another useful source of general information about hazards
in a particular workplace. For example, Australian statistics for the period 1987 to
June 1998 detailed in Table 2 identify the causes of fatality and non-fatal injuries
in the New South Wales Construction Industry. Whilst the classications are broad
the statistics clearly identify falls, electrical and hit by falling and/or moving objects
as the predominant causes of fatality and non-fatal injuries.
Similarly, other WorkCover NSW statistics reveal that for all industries manual
handling (strains and sprains) represent around 28.5% of injuries and that more than
Table 2. Mechanism of injury/fatality in the NSW construc-
tion sector 1987 to June 1998.
Mechanism % fatal % non fatal
Manual handling
(strains and sprains)
N/A 28.5
Falls from height 30.0 15.5
Falls on the same level N/A 14.0
Contact with electricity 21.0 N/A
Hit by moving object (plant) 19.0 11.5
Hit by falling object (debris) 15.0 7.0
Trapped by object 5.0 6.0
Collapse of objects 5.0 10.0
Other and multiple causes 5.0 7.5
WorkCover NSW DARU (1999)
70% of construction workers who retire from the Australian industry have some form
of hearing impairment (WorkCover NSW DARU, 1999). Clearly, such information is
useful background knowledge for construction industry personnel when identifying
hazards or reviewing safe work procedures prepared by contractors.
Table 3 provides similar statistical information relating to oences brought un-
der environment legislation in New South Wales from July 1998 to June 1999. The
total value of penalties imposed is almost $1.9 million. The value of infringement
notices by Local Government in Table. 3 is almost double that of the Environ-
ment Protection Agency as power has been divested to local agencies (councils) to
issue nes.
4.4. Case study: Clean Waters Act
In 1999 a contractor carrying out paint work on a construction site adjacent to
Sydney Harbour was ned A$3,000 for washing out paint brushes over a stormwater
drain grate. The drain led directly to the Harbour. The same contractor was ned
$30,000 for a second oence some four weeks later resulting in liquidation of the
contractor company.
A major construction contractor was ned A$500,000 in 1999 for allowing oil to
pollute a bay in Sydney Harbour. The potential hazard had been identied in con-
tractor safe work documentation but appropriate controls to eliminate or minimize
the spill were not initiated. In addition, no emergency response procedures such as
a boom had been placed around the works as a precaution.
5. What Hazards Should be Addressed?
Safety and environment legislation suggests that the assessment of the level of risk
associated with a particular hazard is an essential component in the process of risk
management, i.e. managing workplace hazards. The theory behind this approach
suggests that resources, if limited, should be appropriately allocated in managing
medium to high risks whilst low risks may go unresolved.
Research at the University of New South Wales in 1998 identied widely diering
results regarding methods of risk assessment. The research involved twelve demoli-
tion professionals who were asked to provide a risk rating for a signicant number
of demolition hazards in the construction industry. Similar research was conducted
with students of construction safety at the School of Safety Science in 1999 and is
detailed in Table 4. Both studies indicated that if participants had not experienced
the hazard themselves or had not heard of it happening to someone they knew then
the risk rating process resulted in signicantly dierent ndings (Trethewy et al.,
1999). Table 4 illustrates dierent interpretation of risk for construction safety stu-
dents for a number of hazards commonly found on a construction site.
The risk rating process is dictated as an essential component in determining
which hazards to manage in a high risk industry like construction. However, the
Table 3. Environment infringement notices issued 1 July 1998 to 30 June 1999.
Oence Notices issued Notices issued by
by EPA Local Government
Motor vehicles; smoke 2,889 0
Pollution Control Act
Contravene condition of license or approval
Other
269 0
Motor vehicles; noise 187 0
Clean Waters Act
Pollute waters
Cause or permit waters to be polluted
Other
49 1,370
Road and rail transport (Dangerous Goods Act)
Fail to comply
79 0
Waste Minimization and Management Regulation
Fail to comply
35 0
Clean Air Act 12 3
All oences
Waste Minimization and Management Act
Contravene conditions of license
Dispose of water on land
Allow land to be used as a waste facility
5 389
Clean Waters Regulation
Fail to comply with Regulation 21
4 0
Environment Oences and Penalties Act
Deposit refuse in a public place
4 668
Noise Control Regulation
All non-vehicle related oences
1 20
Noise Control Act
Dogs
Other
1 65
Clean Air (control of burning) Regulation
Burn by open re in a Schedule 1 area
Other
0 6
Total number of infringements issued 3,535 2,578
Approximate Total Value of Penalties A$650,217.00 A$1,217,500.00
Source: NSW Environment Protection Authority (1999)
results in Table 4 indicate that the process is very subjective and may therefore only
heighten general awareness surrounding identied hazards and what may happen if
those hazards are not controlled.
Confusion abounds amongst contractors in regard to the use of various risk
rating tools, e.g. the meaning and interpretation of terminology like exposure
and likelihood typically used by such tools. As such the need to undertake a risk
rating in an industry like construction, which is typically regarded as high risk,
is commonly questioned by contractors. The research ndings in Table 4 suggest
that risk is more about reinforcing what could happen as a result of a hazard in
the workplace rather than some arbitrary gure at the end of the process which
suggests that the hazard is high or low risk. Thus, it can be argued that a risk
rating methodology should be no more scientic than the following used by the
Australian construction industry:
Class 1: (High Risk): Does the hazard have the potential to kill, or permanently
disable you or cause long term serious environmental damage?
Class 2: (Medium Risk): Does the hazard have the potential to cause a serious
injury, or illness, which will temporarily disable you or cause temporary environ-
mental damage?
Class 3: (Low Risk): Does the hazard have the potential to cause a minor injury
which would not disable you or cause minor environmental damage?
Table 4. Variations in the perception of risk.
Hazard Participants 17
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Risk Score 1 = High; 2 = Medium; 3 = Low
An untagged power tool (Note: Legislation
requires inspection and tagging)
1 1 1 2 3 3 1
Oxy and acetylene bottles not secured 1 2 1 3 3 1 1
Worker oxy cutting from a scissor lift with
no re extinguisher
2 1 1 2 2 2 1
Penetration cover not secured 1 1 1 1 1 1 2
Perimeter edge protection with no midrail or
toeboard
2 1 2 1 1 1 1
Worker operating a power saw 2 1 2 2 2 1 3
Worker vibrating concrete 3 3 2 2 3 2 2
Worker not wearing a shirt 2 2 1 2 2 1 3
Plant blows hydraulic hose next to waterway 1 1 3 1 3 3 3
6. Eliminating Hazards at Source
6.1. Research and Implication
It is impossible to ignore proper design when dealing with the elimination of haz-
ards in the workplace. In 1988, a major research project by the European Union
investigated the circumstances surrounding 750,000 accidents and 1,413 fatalities in
the construction industry. It concluded that 35% of injuries were attributable to a
failure to properly identify hazards and control risks during the design process. The
same research by the Health and Safety Executive in the United Kingdom in an-
other study of maintenance accidents in the petrochemical industry concluded that
elementary failure to design physical safeguards produced 35% of the causes of fatal-
ities and 20.4% of maintenance accidents in the petrochemical industry respectively
(Totterdell, 1996:152). Further research indicates that poor design contributes in one
way or another to over 60% of all injuries in the construction industry (Churcher
et al. 1996; 29).
If the above gures are correct it is apparent that design is a critical factor
in improved management of health and safety in the construction industry and
many similar project driven industries which predominantly employ contractor la-
bor. Based on the above ndings it is concluded that design and specication is a
major factor with regard to environment hazards as well.
It is important that the impact of design not just look at big picture items.
Architects claim that if safety and environment hazards had been considered in
the design of the major landmark structures then such structures may have never
be erected. But there are many minor decisions made in the design process that
impact on contractors involved in both the construction of a structure and/or its
maintenance, exhibited in the case study below. Equally building design impacts
directly on end users, the slipperiness of oors is a case in point.
6.2. Case study in the construction industry
The authors were recently asked to attend a construction site in Sydney where
work had been stopped over a manual handling hazard. Independent appraisal and
a resolution of the workplace hazard was requested.
In particular, block layers on the site were laying a solid (no voids) concrete block
weighing 7.6 kg dry. The block measured 230 mm long 120 mm high 140 mm
wide and was specied by designers as an inll wall for a foyer to which a stone
veneer was to be secured. The width of the block, its weight and its absence of
voids to enable easier handling resulted in the block laying contractors complaining
of strain injuries.
The hazard and stop work was resolved by rotating the work carried out by the
block layers on the site. The block layers worked for three hours a day only laying
the block in question and then moved to other work being carried out on the site
using dierent inll blocks. In addition, laborers provided a higher than normal
block stack on each scaold to reduce bending by the block layers.
A number of other options were available to designers to eliminate the hazard
at source and therefore not place the block layers at risk. Yet discussion revealed
that the hazard associated with laying this type of block was never considered by
designers.
Further, the block laying contractor in question was unlikely to refuse to lay
such a block due to the competitive economic nature of the contracting in the
construction industry. The case study highlights the impact of poor design on OHS
and the importance of not only looking at big picture items but also those minor
design and specication issues which may directly aect contractors not just end
users and maintenance personnel. To develop awareness amongst designers in the
Australian construction sector an OHS design and implementation tool has recently
been developed and released nationally by WorkCover NSW. The tool, referred
to as the Construction Hazard Assessment Implication Review (CHAIR), can be
downloaded from the WorkCover NSW website (www.workcover.nsw.gov.au).
7. Review of Hazards Identied
Any review of safety and/or environment procedures submitted by contractors to
address identied workplace hazards should encompass a number of standard issues.
As a minimum a safe work procedure should provide admistrative and technical
contents.
7.1. Administrative content
The name of the contractor?
The nominated work activity or task to be undertaken?
The date the document was developed.
The name of the person who developed the document?
The project name and/or number and the name of the Principal Contractor.
Evidence that the document has been reviewed, by who and when?
7.2. Technical content
Are the job steps involved in carrying out the work listed?
Are potential high and medium risk hazards associated with the work and their
job steps listed? see review of technical content below.
Are the controls or safe work procedures to be provided to eliminate or minimise
the potential hazards (i.e. safety or environment) identied by the contractor?
Are the controls as high as practicable on the best to worst control guide
detailed in Fig. 1 (a simplied version of the Hierarchy of Controls)?
Has the name of the person/s responsible for ensuring that the control/s are in
place been provided?
(1) Remove the hazard completely
Remove risk of electrocution by using compressed air driven tools
Eliminate paint wash-out by storing used rollers in air-tight contain-
ers for re-use
(2) Separate people/environment from the hazard
Guards on power tools
Use eective barriers and edge protection
Enclose noisy machinery
Collect brick saw slurry for appropriate disposal
(3) Use an engineered control
Use earth leakage device (safety switch) on electrical power source
Use a machine to lift heavy objects
Use a scaold rather than ladder to reduce the risk of a fall
Use stormwater inlet protectors to prevent sediment entering water-
ways
(4) Change work practices
Training in lifting techniques
Tagging procedures
Use of a non-toxic, biodegradable product
(5) Provide personal protection (PPE) or controls
Hearing protection, eye protection
Silt fence or straw bales to lter runo
Note: PPE should be the last barrier to protect people or the environment
when all else fails
Source: Trethewy (1999).
Fig. 1. Controls should be as high as practical in the Best to Worst guide.
8. Review of Technical Content
When reviewing the technical content of a safe work procedure prepared by a con-
tractor pertinent factors in any review are:
Have all medium to high risk hazards been identied?
Do the controls adequately eliminate or minimize the hazard?
The person carrying out a review of such a procedure cannot hope to have an
intricate knowledge of all work activities carried out by contractors. Tables 5 and 6
provide brief guides to safety and environment hazard identication for contractors
working in the building and construction and/or maintenance sector. The theory
behind this type of approach is to provide triggers designed to stimulate avenues
Table 5. Spotting health and safety hazards in construction activities carried out by contractors.
OHS HAZARD IDENTIFICATION TRIGGERS
Potential Hazard Prompts Control issues
Work at height Safe access (ladder, scaold, boom or other); edge protection;
harness; penetration; working deck
Electricity Inspection and tagging; earth leakage device; lock out proce-
dures; excavation; electromagnetic radiation (EMR); re
Falling objects Edge protection and toeboards, brick guards, housekeeping;
overhead protection, hard hat; plant maintenance (hoisting or
lifting) Structural collapse
Moving objects Machine guarding; working near plant; trac control, plant
maintenance
Rollover of plant or equipment
Mechanical failure, vibration, emergency stop
Excavation or earthmoving Live services; batters and trench support
Lifting and/or repetitive work Strains and sprains; poor design, ergonomics
Use of substances Fitness for purpose; safe use; labeling; storage; exposure and
rst aid; substance categorized as hazardous?
Dangerous goods Storage and safe use
Health UV protection; noise; exposure to hazardous materials, work
related stress
Sunstroke, heat exhaustion, frostbite, hypothermia, conned
space
Other workers Scheduling; interface with other trades
Competency Training; tickets of competency; refresher training; emergency
response
Public protection and access Safe access; housekeeping; adequate exclusion zone; overhead
protection; control of site entry; obstructions outside site
boundaries; slip and/or trip; lighting
Emergency preparedness Emergency response, rst aid, animal bites; re, explosion,
bomb threat, structural collapse
of thought by the person conducting the review. The aim is not to provide a com-
prehensive checklist that will stie imaginative or lateral thinking.
Adequate controls to eliminate or minimize workplace hazards are a key com-
ponent of any review. Too often industries like construction resort to personal
protective equipment (PPE) or environment band aids such as straw bales or
dust screens as the optimum safe solution. As indicated in Fig. 1 personal protec-
tive equipment (PPE) is the last barrier when all else fails. Proper design and/or
engineered solutions/staging are critical in eliminating workplace hazards at source
thereby minimizing the reliance on personal protective equipment as a panacea
for all safety issues or end of pipe solutions with respect to the environment.
Table 6. Spotting environment hazards in construction activities carried out by contractors.
ENVIRONMENT HAZARD IDENTIFICATION TRIGGERS
Issue Project Phase
Design and Construction Operations Management
Noise Construction noise
Trac noise (deliveries, non-residential
routes etc.)
Protection of conservation areas
Management of noise emissions
Releases
to Air
Ozone-depleting substances
Greenhouse gas emitting substances
Dust
Plant, equipment and vehicle emissions
Burning
Avoid/eliminate products such as refriger-
ants that are ozone depleting or greenhouse
gas emitting substances
Avoid/eliminate odorous and hazardous
emissions
Releases
to Water
Contamination of stormwater/groundwater
(oils, fuel, paint, soil, slurry, hazardous
substances etc.)
Discharge from sedimentation basins
Acid sulphate soils (surface run-o)
Contaminated land (surface run-o,
spillages and groundwater pollution)
Sewage discharge
Protection of stormwater
Protection of waterways
Protection of groundwater
Avoid or minimize use of pesticides/
herbicides
Appropriate storage/use of dangerous
goods and hazardous substances
Management of water quality control
devices/ponds, dewatering etc.
Controlled colection from contaminated
areas
Waste
Management
and Disposal
Demolition wastes
Construction wastes
Packaging Wastes
Litter/garbage
Contaminated waste handling and disposal
Solid waste generation
Trade waste
Special wastes
Landscape maintenance
Packaging wastes
Litter/Garbage/Animal Waste
Hazardous
Materials
Dangerous goods/hazardous substances
storage
Re-fuelling storage
Spillage control measures
Availability of MSDS
Impact
on Local
Communities
Community Relations and Neighbours
Access and trac disruptions
Visual impact
Trac through local areas
Times of deliveries
Light spill
Protection of visual amenity
Natural
Resources
Energy usage (construction requirements)
Life cycle impacts of sourced construction
materials e.g. timber, metals, stone
Energy usage
Investigate and select products that are
sustainable
Heritage Identication and protection of features
with heritage signicance
Management of heritage features/items
Habitat Identication of ecosystems including
threatened species
Protection of habitats
Identication of micro-organism risk
Protection of human health
Management of habitat
Ecologically
Sustainable
Development
Lack of incorporation of ESD considera-
tions that uses, conserves and enhances the
communitys resources so that ecological
processes, on which life depend, are main-
tained and the total quality of life, now and
in the future
Balance environment, social and economic
impacts
9. Conclusion
Better documented procedures are required by contractors which are comprehensive
in their identication of work related hazards and the development of controls to
eliminate or minimize those hazards. Identied above are a myriad of resources
available to assist in adequately identifying workplace hazards and developing safe
work procedures for the construction industry.
However, to adequately review these procedures submitted by contractors a
working knowledge of safety and environment issues relevant to an industry sector
is vital. This knowledge will typically be the result of a combination of theoretical
training underpinning practical workplace experience.
For Australia, better inspection and appraisal of the implementation of docu-
mented safety procedures in the workplace is the next logical step in improving the
management of industries dominated by contractors, like construction. In this way
safety, environment and other issues become that of compliance to agreed proce-
dures not just paper theory created to satisfy legal requirements but not referred
to on site. In other words, a compliance mentality with no real commitment to imple-
mentation. Greater scrutiny of actual workplace procedures will ensure documented
procedures will change when the method of carrying out the work changes.
Finally, proper design in eliminating and/or minimizing safety and environment
hazards for contractors is vital to improved safety and environment management.
However, design decisions are often made upstream in the planning process before
contractors carry out their work. Clearly, based on the outcomes of overseas research,
employers or those who control the workplace have a duty to instigate adequate
review and where practicable changes to a design to minimize downstream risk
implications for contractors, end users and the public.
References
Churcher, D. W. and Alwani-Starr, G. M. (1996), Incorporating construction health and safety
into the design process, Implementation of safety and health on construction sites. Proc. 1st
Int. Conf. CIB Working Commission W99, Lisbon, Portugal, Rotterdam, Balkema, 2939.
EPA (1999), Penalty Notices and Prosecutions, Environment Protection Authority, Sydney.
Totterdell, J. M. (1996), The successful management of health and safety, Proc. 2nd Int. Conf.
Loss Prevention and Safety, Bahrain, 1618 October, 151161.
Trethewy, R. W. (1999), Risk Management and Job Safety Analysis for the Roof Tiling Industry,
WorkCover NSW, Sydney.
Trethewy, R. W. (2000), Construction Industry Safe Work 2000 Report, WorkCover NSW,
Sydney 11.
Trethewy, R. W., Falls, B. and Mauger, G. (2000), Audit of Sydney Olympic Games Construction
Site Homebush Bay, Unisearch Ltd., University of New South Wales.
Trethewy, R. W., Cross, J. and Marosszeky, M. (1999), Techniques for risk assessment based on
research in the demolition industry, Proc. 2nd Int. Conf. CIB Working Commission W99,
Honolulu, 2427 March, 909916.
WorkCover NSW (1999), Statistics for Mechanisms of Fatality/Non Fatality in the Construction
Industry, Data Analysis and Research Unit (DARU), Sydney.
Copyright of Journal of Construction Research is the property of World Scientific Publishing Company and its
content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's
express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

9209342

Transféré par

Informations du document

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

9209342

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

December 13, 2002 15:33 WSPC/177-JCR 00031

Journal of Construction Research, Vol. 4, No. 1 (2003) 7185

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi