News - Safety Action

®
MAY 2012
News
Temporary Fencing-
Is it good enough?
ALSO THIS MONTH:
‘Proactive’ and
‘Reactive’ Safety
What is a micromort?
Welcome to
Kirill Kouzmin

News
®
What’s News this Month?
We give a formal welcome to a now permanent team member this
month, Kirill Kouzmin, who has helped out Safety Action in the past
and is now a full time part of our admin team, and also get to know
long term team member Phil Kamay a bit better.
Some recent incidents (and observations!) highlight the importance
of maintaining standards for temporary fencing safety. We also show
how taking a proactive approach to safety can really make a
difference both to worker health and safety and liability!
Keep an eye out for more information on our annual benchmarking
survey, which will show you how your business stacks up against
others in both lead and lag safety indicators.
Stay Safe!
Standards for Temporary Fencing
www.safetyaction.com.au
© 2012 Safety Action Pty Ltd ®
4 May 2012
May 2012
There have long been requirements for commercial construction sites to erect temporary safety fencing,
but in recent years residential construction sites now have temporary fencing as well. The aim of such
fencing is to protect the public from any hazards which may be within the construction site and need to
prevent the public from being able to access a construction site.
The Draft National Code of Practice - Managing Risks in Construction Work (relevant to the National
Model WHS Act) is still in review and may change slightly however it states:
When constructing a temporary safety fence, it must be:
• Of a suitable height to deter entry, for example 1.8 metres high;
• Constructed from dedicated materials;
• Difficult to climb;
• Difficult to gain access underneath;
• Stable and able to withstand anticipated loads including storm and wind, and
• Secured by installing gates and joints so there is no weak point for entry.
Gary Rowe, CEO
It also states that locks should be fitted to the gates to prevent unauthorised access, not simply winding
wire to keep the gate shut.
You may have seen temporary fencing with open gaps which a person can walk through, or which have
blown over in the wind. These are inadequate.
Continued over page…
Page 2

www.safetyaction.com.au
© 2012 Safety Action Pty Ltd ®
4 May 2012
® News
May 2012
A Safety Action staff member recently witnessed a
group of children who accessed a site, jumped from
roof to roof on the structures within the site, and were
even playing with electrical cabling on the roof!
Would securing the fencing so it could not be pushed
over have made a difference? Probably not as this kind
of open mesh wire fencing provides plenty of hand and
foot holds for those determined to climb over.
Many sites (including this one) have contact details of the builder and/or fencing provider so that passersby
can report any faults or problems – but by then it could be too late.
Australian Standard AS4687-Temporary Fencing and Hoardings further clarifies the requirements
alluded to in Codes of Practice. It states:
• Fencing/Hoarding must have a minimum height of 1500mm
• Fencing may include mesh and wire fencing both with or without a material covering (e.g. shade
cloth), or solid metal or timber hoarding.
• Have a maximum aperture of 75mm for infill panels – in the case of a wire fence, the openings in
the grid should not allow a 76mm x 76 mm cube to pass through.
• Have bracing if required to prevent the fence system from moving out of alignment or falling over.
A maximum of 3° out of plumb is permitted before bracing is required.
• That a fence shall be capable of supporting 65kg to resist overturning in the event of climbing.
• That a fence shall be capable of withstanding an impact from a moving 37kg object.
• That a fence shall be capable of withstanding force equal to the regional design wind speed
without overturning (see table below) in accordance with AS 1170.2-Wind Actions.
TABLE 4.5 (AS4687)
REGIONAL WIND SPEED
Australian Wind Regions Design Wind Speed (km/hr)
A
e.g. Melbourne, Sydney
B
e.g. Brisbane
C
e.g. Cairns
D
e.g. Karratha
54
64.8
75.6
86.4
Note: Wind Regions of Australia (A,B,C,D) are pre-determined in AS1170.2
Page 3

Unsecured entry gate on an un-braced fence
www.safetyaction.com.au
© 2012 Safety Action Pty Ltd ®
4 May 2012
® News
May 2012
Solid metal or timber hoarding provides the best protection
against unauthorised persons climbing the fence, however a
fabric covering on the external facing of the fence may also
inhibit climbing (as well as providing a strong visual
barrier).
Although gaps in and under fencing are not specified, they
should not allow human access e.g. gaps to be less than
100mm.
For a Fact Sheet on this topic, or further information, call
T. 03 9690 6311 or email enquiries@safetyaction.com.au
Safety Benchmarking Survey – Coming Soon!
Safety Action conducts a survey to benchmark safety performance every year in Australia and New
Zealand, including both positive performance (lead) indicators and loss (lag) indicators. All participants
receive a free copy of the report. Further information will be available in the June newsletter, or if you
have any questions, email enquiries@safetyaction.com.au for more details.
Hearing Loss Claim for Noise Below Legal Limit?
A NSW railway station worker was recently awarded a lump-sum payout for hearing loss, even though
the noise exposures were almost certainly below the legal limit of 85 decibels (dB(A) 8 hour average).
This will come as a surprise to many people, as most organisations have relied on the legal exposure limit
for decades to set their “company standard” for when hearing protection must be worn.
Research shows that a small percentage of the population can
sustain hearing loss even at legal exposure limits. For example,
even the old edition of “Fitting the Task to the Human” by
Grandjean (1997) indicates noise exposures of 90 decibels over
8hrs will result in hearing loss for about 4% of the population
within 5 years, with no recorded loss at 80 decibels even after
20 years exposure.
Legal limits are often a compromise between economics and
political pressure, so we should not be surprised that the
current 85 decibels limit is not totally safe for everyone.
Periodic noise on railway platforms.
The lesson is that legal limits do not always provide adequate protection and we need to check the
authoritative research and adopt best practice e.g. 80 decibels limit for 8 hour exposure without
protection.
Page 4

www.safetyaction.com.au
© 2012 Safety Action Pty Ltd ®
4 May 2012
May 2012
News
®
‘Proactive’ vs ‘Reactive’ Approaches to Safety
Two recent cases highlight the difference that a ‘Proactive’ approach to Workplace Health and Safety can
make when things go wrong.
Proactive Employer Cleared of Liability
In the first case, the employer of a woman who was sexually harassed at work has been cleared of liability
due to the fact that it demonstrated a proactive approach to safety.
While at work, the woman was handed a note by a male colleague that described several actions of a
sexual nature, and reported the incident to the police. She said the contents made her feel “physically
sick”.
The perpetrator was fined $10,000 but the employer was cleared due to the fact that it was able to
demonstrate the reasonable actions it had taken to prevent this sort of behaviour, including regular
training for employees in bullying and harassment issues and requiring workers to personally commit to
the relevant code of conduct.
This case demonstrates that it is not enough to simply have a WHS policy but that the elements of the
policy must be implemented. It is recommended that a record is kept of workers who attend each training
session.
Reactive Employer pays 65% of Damages
In NSW a worker was permanently injured after being thrown from a
faulty gangway. He was thrown down to the wharf with some force
when the gangway sprung to a vertical position and he suffered
serious spinal and head injuries and multiple fractures and was
rendered unable to work.
It was found that a faulty shackle used to secure the gangway was
made of a type of stainless steel which was inappropriate for use in a
marine environment and had become severely corroded.
The employer, Sydney Ports, claimed that it had relied on the
expertise of the supplier who installed the gangway, however
retention of contractor services was not found to satisfy the
employer’s duty of care. Likewise the supplier claimed in its defence
that it had been assured by its own provider that the shackle was
appropriate, and had additionally recommended that Sydney Ports
install an hydraulic ram as an additional measure.
Continued over page…
Page 5

www.safetyaction.com.au
© 2012 Safety Action Pty Ltd ®
4 May 2012
® News
May 2012
However the judge found that reliance on third party recommendations was not sufficient and the
provision of the inappropriate shackle was “an accident waiting to happen” as it was an integral part of
the system. Sydney Ports who was in control of the gangway and its maintenance had not ensured the
structure was safe or implemented any additional measures, despite the fact that the gangway had failed
previously. The judge said that Sydney Ports “took a reactive approach… with bursts of energy and
interest only produced in response to a problem”.
Both parties were found liable and Sydney Ports was ordered to pay 65%, and the supplier 35%, of an
expected total damages bill of $1.65 million.
For information on implementing a safety program,
call Safety Action on T. 03 9690 6311 or email enquiries@safetyaction.com.au
What is a ‘micromort’?
Have you ever heard of a micromort? If you work in health and safety, you may be surprised to realise
that you deal with data relating to micromorts every day!
Defined by Stanford University researchers in the 1970’s a micromort is a unit of measurement
representing a one-in-a-million chance of sudden death. It provides a quantifiable method for comparing
acute and chronic risks in different situations which could otherwise be seen as comparing apples and
oranges. Note: this only includes acute risks, not chronic risks such as long term exposure to chemicals.
An ‘every day standard’ for 1 micromort is the risk of driving about 10km on a motorbike. Of course,
everyone is exposed to some risk on a daily basis. Data from the UK Office of National Statistics
describes a risk of slightly less than 1 micromort per day for each person living in the UK, due to external
causes that you may be exposed to on a day to day basis.
Safe Work Australia published that in
the 2009-2010 financial year, there was a
fatality rate of 1.9 deaths per 100,000
workers (killed while at work,
commuting for work, or due to someone
elses work, but not as a result of
diseases).
This equates to a risk of 19 micromorts
per working day, on average, for an
Australian worker. Of course, the rate is
much higher in certain industries than
others. The chart displays the average
risk of sudden death (in micromorts) to
Australian workers in various industries,
based on the 2009-10 fatality report.
MIcromorts
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
Average risk per worker per day in
Australian Industry
Page 6

Phil Kamay
Associate Director
Ross Gibson
Senior Consultant
Andrea Rowe
Safety & Risk Advisor
Katie Weber
Safety & Risk Advisor
Emily Carter
Graduate Safety
Advisor
www.safetyaction.com.au
© 2012 Safety Action Pty Ltd ®
4 May 2012
Welcome Kirill Kouzmin
® News
We would like to extend a formal welcome to Kirill
Kouzmin, who has been working on-and-off with Safety
Action for a few years. Currently taking up residency at
the front desk, Kirill’s workday typically consists of
drinking coffee, shuffling papers around, and swivelling
on his chair.
May 2012
While keen on fulfilling these essential administrative tasks, Kirill is also likely to be
the friendly voice greeting you if you call us at the Safety Action office.
Have you met – Phil Kamay?
Having been with Safety Action for over 9 years,
Phil is a passionate safety professional who has
helped establish Safety Action as one of the premier
OHS consultancies in Australia. Phil came to Safety
Action with many years of OHS practice in the
private industry prior to joining the team.
Phil with wife Julia and sons
Phil and Lukas
Outside of work life, Phil is married to his lovely
wife of 26 years, Julia, and has two adult sons. He
is a keen gardener, loves reading, listening to
music, and is a bit of a ‘flogger’ as a golfer.
Phil is a Fellow of the Safety Institute of
Australia (SIA), an Associate Member of the
Australian Institute of Occupational Hygienists
(AIOH), and a Member of the Australian Institute
of Management (AIM). He has a certificate IV in
Training and Assessment (TAE) and is a certified
OHS and EMS Auditor.
Is there anything in our newsletter you disagree with?
Is there something different you would like to see added to our newsletter?
Please let us know!
FEEDBACK
enquiries@safetyaction.com.au
or visit
www.safetyaction.com.au/please_complain
Kirill Kouzmin
Phil Kamay
Page 7