Patty's Industrial Hygiene, Hazard Recognition. Группа авторов

Чтение книги онлайн.

СКАЧАТЬ may cross the line into RL3; the worker must contact their EHS staff. The reward of an EHS professional receiving a call like this not only provides a solid risk communication foundation provided by the RLBMS for their efforts with workers and their line management, it is reflective of a mutual understanding of professional responsibility and trust for all stakeholders. Achieving this level of communication also provides extraordinary benefits toward achieving a primary prevention of work‐related diseases, illnesses, and injuries over time as it is derived from proactive indicators rather than passive.

      5.2 The Construction Example

An example of this comprehensive multidisciplinary risk communication strategy is found in the established trades that perform their work within the construction sector. By focusing on uniform work categories within the construction industry, the individual chemical, physical, safety, and environmental risk assessment strategies and models were unified and applied within the framework for a Construction Toolbox (33). As an example, the task of jackhammering concrete presents silica and noise exposure to the IH, hazardous energy, and potential bodily impact on the OS, vibration, and musculoskeletal risks to the Ergonomist, as well as airborne dust and waste stream issues to the EA. In addition, most tasks performed in the construction industry are standardized everywhere they are performed so they fit well into the RLBMS mindset of proactively determining the level or risk presented and the commensurate controls necessary to reduce these work‐related risks. In addition, construction is a uniquely appropriate trade to focus on as it is performed throughout the world with its tasks definitively presenting multidisciplinary EHS issues that are consistent and approximately 85% employers globally are SMEs. Therefore, the development of a unified CB strategy that brings together the toolkits across the practical primary prevention spectrum and across the EHS professions has given an opportunity to unite the wealth of solutions‐based initiatives with a depth of control‐oriented research that until now remained formatted within individual professional disciplines.

      Increasingly important to risk communication in the construction industry is focusing on preventive and control methods for common work‐related hazards (34). In shifting the focus to “prevention,” it is vital to transfer information comprehensibly, so workers and employers can understand the hazards and risks, how they apply, and how to use the control measures properly (24, 35). To significantly affect injury and illness rates in the construction industry, a consistent and coordinated message must present a simplified method for ensuring risk assessment, risk prioritization, and workable solutions readily available to workers. Given the similarity of construction hazards and control implementation problems across different countries, a strong case can be made for increased global collaboration and better utilization of limited resources. As construction industry management is often output‐oriented, as long as quality, time, and cost criteria are met, little thought is given to ensure protective measures are used and followed. Often employees decide how the job is done. Therefore, “solutions initiatives” are best aimed at employee and employer (36).

      It is unrealistic to expect most SME employers to distinguish among separate EHS fields. Small construction employers have been shown to view EHS risks as the responsibility of employees instead of something integrated into their company management systems (37). Few understand accident prevention or detailed hazard awareness, often with controls unavailable or opting for the cheapest control measure (38, 39). Regulatory enforcement of control measure use is weakest with construction SMEs, and nearly nonexistent in most countries for accident and ergonomics‐related disease prevention (36, 39, 40). Effective enforcement as a means of promoting control solutions use requires intense and sustained efforts that is unlikely to occur given limited resources and expertise. Consequently, more effective approaches to communicating these risks and simplifying the identification of controls will involve better mechanisms for reaching SMEs with holistic solutions to industry challenges, rather than a reliance on enforcement and punitive strategies.

      To address variability needs, the CB model for construction divides into two sub‐categories: task‐to‐control (T2C) and the more classic EHS professional risk assessment. As with the RLBMS, the key is the worker understanding the line delineating between RL2 and RL3 that divides these two categories. An important point for the use of CB toolkits in T2C activities is the potential to identify the appropriate control measures in the absence of expertise. At a training level, simplification and uniformity reinforce retention, implementation, and the sustainability of prevention. The design of the Construction Toolbox also affords the opportunity to consider these EHS prevention concepts at the planning, design, and engineering stages of construction projects (41). Such “prevention through design” approaches are available in many countries . Some hazards are simply not anticipated. Unnecessary risks may not appear until workers encounter them during the construction process. Therefore, additional risk prevention methods can be found within NIOSH supported research to gather case studies and to provide a conceptual framework for addressing safety and health at the project design phase (44). Utilizing a checklist approach known as the pre‐job hazard analysis (PJHA) for potential EHS severity and probability input factors that use the same risk matrix presented in in (Figure 3, the outcome becomes the project's RL that determines the level of worker and EHS expertise required on the jobsite. The PJHA then becomes a wonderful risk communication tool for pre‐project planning that can assist project managers, workers, and EHS staff in adjusting severity and/or probability input factors to reduce a project RL before work even begins 33). This would enhance the risk management aspect, communicate hazard‐to‐control needs to the worker, and offer field‐based advice to others in a participatory format. The SME manager can begin to consider all opportunities for hazard or task substitution, selecting task parameters to identify controls in advance of work and fine tuning the overall expertise that is required on the jobsite.

6 RISK COMMUNICATION WITH WORKERS

      For workers, their most important understanding of EHS‐related expectations and necessary controls boils down to a simple concept; what do they need to make sure is in their toolbox as they go out and perform a hard day's labor? Teaching workers the basics of the RLBMS approach can be done in as little as five minutes. Using the traffic light concept is the most effective way to begin. Everyone understands red and green, and the yellow light discussion is a great talking point about the need to overcome objectivity in workplace decision making. Acknowledging that checking for the police at a yellow light is a direct comparison for workers looking for the presence of EHS staff when making decisions on whether or not to use controls. It is also an excellent conversation to begin the shift toward building a mutual trust. By splitting the yellow light into RL2 and RL3, and clearly communicating that crossing the line into RL3 requires EHS discipline involvement, this leaves the RL2 tasks as the golden category for workers to prioritize achieving. Workers will fully understand that certain tasks will require a more complete EHS staff review at RL4. In fact, once this RLBMS approach to risk communication is taught, workers often become the best information source for where these highest risk tasks occur and may even have thought about what might be the right controls necessary to reduce these work‐related risks. Once this risk communication language is understood by workers, when the EHS staff identify a given task as RL1–RL4, the workers then will also comprehend what they need to put in their toolbox on any given day.

      RL2 tasks have the potential for problematic work‐related exposure to risk. Therefore, it is understood by workers that a set of established controls that often require EHS staff involvement for establishing appropriate confirmation of the reduction of risk will require the necessary discipline and employee teamwork that is so beneficial for improving workplace safety culture. At times, such as potential chemical exposure monitoring that has not yet taken place, an IH may require a task to be deemed RL3 and the use of respiratory protection must be in place until this monitoring confirms the effectiveness of controls so it can be classified as an RL2 task. This process also cultivates worker and EHS staff communication and the potential to build trust toward achieving the golden RL2 task designation. Discussions with EHS staff and a given working group, industry sector, СКАЧАТЬ