Risk Tolerance Factor # 8 Confidence in Protection and Rescue Strategies for Understanding and Addressing Risk Tolerance Factor # 8 Confidence in Protection and Rescue Note to Facilitator: The research on this factor – Over confidence in Protection and Rescue – and factor #7 – Over Confidence in the Equipment - are based on the research of Dr. Gerald Wylde and the principles of ‘Risk Homeostasis’. Additional input was gathered from the Avalanche research of Dr. Bruce Jamieson of the University of Calgary.

Confidence in Protection and Rescue 10 Factors That Influence Risk Tolerance Overestimating Capability/Experience Familiarity with the Task Seriousness of Outcome Voluntary Actions and Being in Control Personal Experience with an Outcome Cost of Non-Compliance Confidence in the Equipment Confidence in Protection and Rescue Potential Profit & Gain from Actions Role Models Accepting Risk When we believe that our safety equipment will protect us or that rescue will be immanent if we do get in trouble, our acceptance of risk increases. This factor specifically deals with over confidence in the safety and personal protective equipment we use and the belief that if something does go wrong, our PPE will protect us from harm. This factor also extends to an over confidence that we will be effectively rescued by our peers, emergency services or even ourselves if we get ourselves into a bind or risk situation. In this case the worker knows what the hazard is, understands what could go wrong but is so confident in being rescued that they pursue the task anyway.

Risk Tolerance Factor # 8 Over confidence in the protective equipment and rescue This factor applies to equipment including: Personal Protective Equipment (hard hats, fire resistant work wear, safety boots, gloves, safety glasses) Breathing Apparatus, Detection Equipment Fall Arrest Equipment, life jackets and the believe that rescue from a bad situation will be immanent and successful including: Rescue from a confined space or high angle Emergency response from internal or external resources Self rescue

Confidence in Protection Examples of over confidence in protective equipment British study – workers wearing back belts tend to lift greater weights believing that the belt would prevent an injury 1989, the year that IOR began full time use of fire retardant clothing (FRC), there were more burn injuries than in any other year. Workers who perceive their PPE as ‘armour’ will take more risks. Several formal studies and work place observations have shown that people are prepared to accept more risk when they believe their protective equipment will save them if something goes wrong. The British study on back belts revealed that when workers viewed their back support belts as protective equipment, they believed they could safely lift greater weights ... a greater acceptance of risk. Similar behaviour has been observed within the company. When the company went to full time use of Fire Retardant Work Wear, workers were seen to take greater risks in potential explosive and flammable situations. Incidents occurred when workers would bypass a flame arrestor on a burner, knowing full well that a flash back could occur but believing that their FRC would protect them from burns when that occurred. Current studies are under way on PPE that has ‘armour’ type properties, specially impact resistant gloves. Workers have stated that there is certain jobs they can now do with the impact gloves that they would not have felt safe doing with no gloves or general purpose gloves (i.e. holding a post or hammer wrench for someone else to strike with a hammer).

Confidence in Rescue Examples of over confidence in being rescued Workers in close proximity to emergency services have been seen to take more risks than those where emergency response is more distant. Workers who have practiced confined space rescue techniques and understand the difficulty of performing a timely rescue have been seen to be more diligent about the pre-job checks to prevent a situation that would require a rescue. Solo outdoor adventurers take less risk than those in groups or those in close proximity to rescue services Workers who are aware that a rescue or an emergency service may be a long time in arriving have a lower acceptance of risk than those who believe rescue will be immediate. This applies to work place and recreational activities. This fact can be used to reduce the acceptance of risk at remote work locations by reminding workers that there are no immediate emergency medical facilities. This fact can also be used during certain emergency training such as confined space rescue. If it can be demonstrated to workers that a prompt and successful rescue may not always be possible from a complex space, this will force more attention to be focused on prevention of the adverse situation in the first place. Similar information is available through research on outdoor adventure activities. A lone adventurer becomes aware that there is no one available to perform a rescue and therefore will not take the same amount of risk as a member of a group who is confident that his group will bail him or her out of a bad situation.

Confidence in Protection and Rescue Strategies for addressing over confidence in protective equipment and rescue: Know the limitations of the PPE - the working range of a gas monitor - how FRC works in a flash fire - cut or chemical resistant properties of a glove View PPE as a ‘last line of defence’ and ensure that workers understand that is does not have ‘incident prevention’ properties Know the limitations of a rescue or emergency response. Visualize the risks of the job and how it would be done if the PPE was not available. The quote on the end can be used to reinforce point 4. A previous VP of Production in IOR made the statement that “Every job should be able to be done safely by a 65 year old with a bad back (he was reinforcing the principle to not over exert the body and to find ways of prevent stress on the body) and stark naked!” The point he was making was to consider how you would make the job safe if you were standing there with no PPE on. Would you touch the same things with no glove on your hand? Would you by pass a flame arrestor if you had no PPE on? Would you handle the chemical differently with no gloves or rain suit? Questions like these are meant to get workers thinking about the prevention of the incidents so that we never have to rely on the PPE. “Every job should be able to be done safely by a 65 year old with a bad back and ...” VP Production 2007

What are we going to do about these? Exercise and Discussion on “Confidence in the protective Equipment and Rescue” Do you place your hands in situations when wearing gloves where you would not place them if you had bare hands? Have you had a situation where your protective equipment prevented an injury from occurring? Could the event have been prevented completely? Is there a task you would do differently (or not at all?) if you knew there was no one available to rescue you or medical facilities were a long way off? Do you have any examples of recreational activities where this factor may be at play? The intent of this slide is to generate a group discussion on very specific issues in this work place where this Risk Tolerance Factor may be an issue. Action items to address these should be documented with responsibilities and timing defined. What are we going to do about these?

Stop and Think ... Would I do this task differently if there was no PPE to protect me or no one to save me?