Stone Specialist

Health, Safety, Ethical & Environmental : Materials handling

18 February, 2010 , By Eric Bignell

Anywhere there is a potential for someone to crush, cut, graze or break bits of themselves there is a better way of carrying out that task and probably some device to make it easier, or at least some protection to make it safer. NSS takes a look at the problem and some of its solutions

The construction industry lost 3million working days as the result of injuries and industrial ill health last year. The most common cause was materials handling, accounting for nearly a third of reported injuries and many of the musculoskeletal disorders that cause most ill health.

The second most common cause of injuries (22%) were trips and slips, which, like materials handling injuries, are often simply the result of bad housekeeping and work patterns not being well thought through to minimise handling and, where it cannot be avoided, using the right equipment to make it safe.

The figures come from the latest Work-related injuries and ill health in construction report from the Health & Safety Executive (HSE).

And it is not just a question of looking after people. Injuries and ill health are expensive – to employers, to the individuals involved and to the economy as a whole.

Employers face the inconvenience and cost of any disruption to the work programme resulting from an accident or loss of personnel as the result of ill health, and of having to find someone else to cover, which will take at least some management time to resolve. If work is delayed, there could be penalties. And if there is an element of negligence by the employer that led to the injury or ill health there could also be a compensation claim. This should be met by insurers but could well increase the cost of future insurance premiums.

The cost to individuals includes the suffering that the injury or ill health has caused them as well as any loss of earnings that result.

The most serious cases can even result in the loss of life – and construction kills more of its people every year than any other industry – 53 last year. That is to some extent because it employs so many people (more than 2.1million), but even as a proportion of the workforce the death rate is high at 2.5 per 100,000. Only the extractive industry and agriculture has a worse record.

Among employees, the figure is at least lower than the previous year, although for self-employed – and 34% of the labour force in construction are self-employed – the rate increased slightly to 2.4 per 100,000.

The cost to the economy of people injured through work comes not only from the loss of production of the person who is unable to work, but also from the cost of any treatment required and the subsequent loss of production in other areas of anyone who has to care for the person who is injured or ill.

The HSE has calculated that across all industries, the direct cost to the economy of workplace injuries and sickness is at least £3.2billion a year – and that does not include lost production, damaged materials or compensation.

Since 1999/2000 the rate of reported major injuries in construction has fallen but is still the highest of any main industry group at 254.1 per 100,000 employees.

In comparison with other industries, a much higher proportion of all reported injuries within construction are serious – that is, the ratio of fatal and major injuries to over-three-day injuries is higher in construction than in most other industries.

HSE say this could partly be due to under-reporting of less serious injuries. Labour Force Survey (LFS) data indicate a high level of under-reporting, with the LFS central estimate of the rate of non fatal injuries being 1,427 per 100,000 compared with the actual rate reported of 880 per 100,000 (2007/08 figures). If that is right, construction harms even more of its workforce each year than the already high reported rate would indicate.

There are no figures identifying the stone sector’s contribution to the Health & Safety Executive figures. Clearly it does make its contribution, as witnessed by prosecutions following incidents such as the man who had his arm amputated in an emergency roadside operation after slabs he was delivering fell on him from an ‘A’ frame (see NSS November issue).

And that is just the latest incident involving slabs falling from ‘A’ frames. Five people have been killed in such accidents in the past decade and HSE has warned masonry companies not to use ‘A’ frames without modifications to stop slabs toppling from the top and slipping out from the bottom.

But ‘A’ frames are only the tip of the iceberg. There are thousands of cuts, trips, falls, impact and crush injuries of various degrees of severity every year, as well as ill health resulting from strains, vibration (white finger and joint damage) and dust (which can result in silicosis that can be life threatening and will cause breathing problems).

Most of the injuries and work-related ill health that do occur in masonry workshops and on-site could be avoided simply by using some of the ingenious and generally inexpensive materials handling and personal protective equipment (PPE) usually available from the same companies who are supplying your tools and consumables, some of which are listed on the next page.

As Geoff Bowles, Managing Director of Harbro, says: “We do a range of materials handling and personal protective equipment, including some products we sell under the Harbro brand. We sell to the artisan and in order to be a one-stop-shop for them we stock everything they need.”

Harbro have a particularly wide range of materials handling equipment through their association with German-based stone industry wholesalers Weha, who have their own factories making a lot of the materials handling equipment they sell, including their vacuum lifts. The gloves, masks, goggles and other PPE that Harbro sell come from a variety of sources and include well-known brands such as Mouldex and 3M, as well as their own brand equipment.

Geoff believes the Health & Safety Executive are becoming more watchful and says more of Harbro’s customers ask about materials handling equipment and PPE these days. He says sales volumes have fallen in the recession, but he attributes that largely to fewer start-ups rather than a declining interest among existing customers.

An added advantage for stone companies of having natty dollies, carts and lifts on site, as well as appropriate PPE, is that it makes your company look so much more professional. Although Richard Chandler at Combined Masonry Supplies, who sell Aardwolf materials handling products and PPE from companies such as 3M, Safir and Sunstrom, says customers are buying what they need to stay on the right side of the law but there is little discretionary buying currently taking place.

Combined Masonry Supplies have been asking themselves lately if some of their equipment – racks for storing stone slabs, for example – could not be manufactured locally. They have concluded that the answer is often yes.

If materials handling equipment, including PPE, can provide an image-enhancing competitive advantage, it will only do so if the equipment is used properly, and to make sure it is could well involve some training.

It is not just a question of making sure equipment is used properly, it is also a question of motivating your workforce to use it at all.

Health & safety is not a culture that pervades all stone companies. For it to do so everyone has to buy into it and that means those in the factory and on site have to understand that it really does matter to management. This, in turn, means management has to spend some designated time telling staff about materials handling and PPE equipment, making sure everyone knows how to use it and why it benefits them to do so. You might even ask suppliers or manufacturers of the equipment to visit to give a talk about their products to the whole company – including the management.

The best way to get those who have to use the equipment to want it, rather than putting it to one side in case of emergencies (such as a visit from the HSE inspector), is to involve them in the selection of what they use.

When management are dismissive of the fact that people actually die as a result of contracting silicosis from breathing stone dust, it is not entirely surprising that masks hang around necks, if they even get that far, when masons are dry grinding high silica content sandstone, granite and engineered quartz (although almost all stone contains some element of silica).

Admitedly it is not always easy to find useful information for toolbox talks, but the HSE website (www.hse.gov.uk) is a good place to start and some manufacturers’ sites have useful information about legislation and how their products can help you comply with it.

The goal should be to make employees aware of hazards and equip them to perform their tasks with minimal risk. All newly hired employees should receive safety and PPE training, as well as those working with new or updated processes or machinery.

So say glove makers Ansell. They recommend that PPE training programmes address three specific areas: 1) Why and when PPE is needed; 2) How to use the PPE; 3) Proper PPE care and storage.

Whatever methods of training companies choose to use, it should be on-going, say Ansell. They also say companies should consider conducting an internal assessment to determine specific training needs and areas that need to be addressed relative to compliance.

The assessment can be used to examine PPE distribution methods and controls and determine opportunities to standardize products, improve productivity, optimize PPE product inventory and maximize the overall performance of all PPE products.

“Training workers about PPE products is not a hit or miss opportunity that is offered once a year to select employees,” say Ansell. “Rather, this type of training should be part of an on-going and comprehensive safety programme that is designed with specific objectives and targeted to all employees, depending upon their responsibilities and presence on the plant floor.

“While the cost of PPE training is minimal, the benefits are quickly realized through cost savings relative to injuries, lost productivity and compliance. PPE training can also go a long way to boosting morale and instilling a sense of confidence among employees that they are working in a safe environment.”