Patty's Industrial Hygiene, Hazard Recognition. Группа авторов

Чтение книги онлайн.

СКАЧАТЬ to Health (COSHH) Essentials Technical Basis Online Resources section) which are available on each SDS and Supplier Label for each hazardous chemical. The GHS Classification and Hazard Statements are directly linked by the United Nations (UN) Purple Book; Revision 5 is now in use in North America and Revision 7 (see Online Resources section) is a planned replacement within two years. Combining GHS and these CB models (COSHH Essential e‐Tool and ILO Chemical Control Toolkit) creates objectivity in hazard ranking, removing bias from acute and chronic health hazards in risk assessment processes that may otherwise be a subjective exercise for individual IHs. Field level risk assessments often do not consider chronic and acute health risks, however, combining SDSs available at worksites with CB models will enable a field professional's understanding of these hazards and generally identify potential control approaches associated with the RLs. Combining SDS and CB models turns a subjective process into a standardized, objective process using globally accepted CB principals and a risk communication process that leads to a consistent application of control approaches for chemical agents. In addition, in areas of the world that lack appropriate EHS staffing, an objective hazard ranking can be achieved by associating GHS Hazard Classifications with the CB Hazard Band structures that provide an effective risk communication for workers to understand the relative risk of workplace chemicals.

      4.4 Multidisciplinary Control Banding

      Recent CB expansion of range, beyond bulk chemicals for IHs and into other EHS professions, uses the basic stratification of practical prevention strategies as earlier risk matrices. This includes barrier banding, a strategy utilizing CB concepts for OS rather than IH (28). Barrier banding explores the practicality of addressing safety accident scenarios, implementing barriers, and managing solutions in a simplified manner to achieve injury reduction (11). This approach to takes classification of safety hazards and seeks to offer barrier controls to achieve risk reduction based on accident scenario determinants. Benefits are seen at the SME level where banding strategies in safety present an opportunity to reduce accidents. A tool that can lead decision‐makers to make a priori determinations for the proper hazard‐based safety controls to protect workers is valuable for accident prevention. CB in ergonomics offers comparable approaches for controlling musculoskeletal disorders within worker‐based programs (14, 29).

The use of a qualitative, risk‐based CB strategy for assessment and control of potential environmental contaminants also provides a standardized approach to improve risk communication. The CB model used by EAs is also designed for integration within an OHSMS program to provide the basis for a holistic approach for EHS professionals. The simplified environmental risk matrix is also stratified over four RLs. Examples of qualitative environmental CB strategies have been applied to comply with United States regulations for construction, research activities, facility maintenance, and spill remediation that affect air, water, soil, and waste disposal. These CB risk matrix models collectively provide the basis for a standardized risk communication language that is well positioned to improve communications within and between EHS professionals, workers, and management (30). A somewhat surprising by‐product of the expanding use of CB internationally is that it has been an extremely helpful tool for risk communication not only within the workplace as designed but also within and between EHS professionals (31). The discussion of CB principles and strategies has become an effective means for teaching how IH practitioners think when performing risk assessments and has also played an important role in the growth of the profession in places in the world where it is most needed. Once this risk communication potential was realized, the development and dissemination of CB and related banding strategies began harnessing this important component of risk management and began the process of simplifying risk assessment and control continued across the EHS professions and into EORM.

5 MULTIDISCIPLINARY RISK COMMUNICATION

      With the variety of CB models now available for each of the EHS professions, the opportunity to integrate these qualitative risk assessment approaches became the next step toward providing as standardized, multidisciplinary risk communication language. All involved parties in a given workplace incorporate a graded approach mindset that can also be translated into a risk matrix approach as in Figure 3, offering an outcome of a traditional hierarchy of controls in order to provide a consistent hazard elimination process to mitigate employee risk. Tasks with an RL1 designation outcomes are primarily work performed by the general public and a common‐sense procedure approach is presumed. Tasks with an RL2 designation are commonly performed by industry; however, they may require certain standardized controls to ensure a satisfactory reduction of work‐related risk. If regulatory compliance is a component of ensuring this risk reduction, then RL2 tasks do require some level of documentation that these controls are consistently in place and a supervisor's record of these tasks in a designated logbook can work well. EHS professionals can also audit these activities on occasion with the supervisor during workplace visits, ensuring work performed is within the scope and established controls are in place.

      As RL1 and RL2 activities are most often made up of standardized tasks that pertain to a given profession or industry, this cost‐effective method ensures EHS regulatory compliance by focusing on risk (32). RL1 and RL2 activities also afford workers an opportunity to take credit for their training and job‐specific expertise while minimizing EHS involvement. The RL3 designation is for work relating to either a higher level of potential risk, including potential regulatory noncompliance, or inappropriately characterized exposure potential. RL3 tasks would require the involvement of an EHS professional to certify with a higher level of control documentation, using a standardized one‐page signed “permit” as an example, in justifying the identified controls will satisfactorily reduce risks. For primarily safety‐related risks, such as roof work, confined space entry, welding, or other hot work activities, the permit ensures that potential risks are addressed, controls are in place, and the worker's training is commensurate to the task. For health‐related risks, such as potential chemical exposure requiring respirators in addition to other standardized personal protection equipment (or personal protection equipment (PPE), such as glove selection, clothing, hearing protection, etc.), the permit can also serve as a regulatory compliance document. Health‐related permits include tasks with potential exposures to asbestos, lead, silica dust, carcinogens, and other common industrial tasks or maintenance and support activities. The commonly used construction site checklist is a good example of health, safety, and often environmental RL3 potentials hazards compiled on one list; if the commensurate controls are in place and checked off the list, then the hazards become a documented RL2 outcome. RL4 tasks are for the highest risk tasks and will require the expert advice of one or more EHS professionals in consultation with workers and possibly management to ensure all job hazards are identified, controlled, and documented.

      5.1 Risk Level Based Management System

      Each of the EHS disciplines speaks a different professional language and any one of them can be quite foreign to workers, or completely incomprehensible if more than one tries to communicate control expectations for the same task. The multidisciplinary EORM model outline above is known as the risk level based management system (RLBMS), and it uses CB's effective approach to risk communication to translate EHS expectations and controls into the simplest terms (22, 32). The RLBMS also effectively standardizes its communication within and between EHS professions in the same worker‐friendly language. In addition, this strategy also helps maximize the effectiveness of the often minimalized EHS resources by prioritizing their direct involvement in the workplace to tasks where they are most needed, the highest risk activities at RL3 and RL4. The vast majority of tasks in industry are at the RL1 and RL2 levels, so EHS staff involvement when this work is performed is less necessary and the clear risk communication of expectations helps workers expand their workplace autonomy. Therefore, establishing the RLBMS assists in establishing the essential, but often illusive, bond of trust between workers and EHS professionals. The most essential focus of the multidisciplinary risk communication process is provided by clearly establishing the expectations СКАЧАТЬ