1. SHE Monthly Communication Deck
November 2016

2. How is our Safety Performance?
Loss Prevention System
As the year draws to a close and we enter our last quarter for the year it is important to stay vigilant and have a presence out in the field. Some of our workloads maybe increased due to projects but its important to remain focussed and to ensure safety observations are being complete. It is also important to meet our KPI’s which are:
1 x LPO for every 200 man hours
1 x PSV for every 200 man hours
1 x Hazard ID for every 200 man hours
100% DTR on all LPO’s
Management MUST steward these expectations with no exceptions or excuses. Now is the time to ensure we will meet expectations. Remember to report and communicate your hazards not just into the LPS system also to your supervisor and fellow workers. Your noticing of a hazard could save others getting injured. Together we can then actively manage any hazard to ensure no incident occurs.

3. Toolbox Talk - Contractor Injury, Reading, UK
Date / Time
City /
Country
Incident Type
Incident Description
RCAF
Causal Factors
Aug. 4th 2016
15:00 BST
Reading/ United Kingdom
LTI
Workscope of project was to install bollards on a site that was undergoing Underground Storage Tank replacement.
The Injured Party (IP) and the Site Supervisor (SS) were beginning the activity of installing a bollard-unit. The unit (43kg / 94 lbs.) was to be positioned in a pre-dug hole in the ground [Pic 1].
At the start of the activity, the SS was called away. The IP decided to continue the job on his own. The IP attempted to lift the bollard-unit into position while standing with his left foot on the lower ground and his right foot on concrete 150mm higher [Pic 2].
At that moment, his left knee became weak under the weight causing the IP to fall onto the concrete. The bollard-unit slipped and fell on top of his right leg [Pic 3]. The IP was taken to hospital where a cracked femur bone was diagnosed. The next day, IP underwent surgery and a plate was put into his leg. The IP has been released from hospital and will continue physiotherapy until able to return to work. 6 2 4 3
JF6 – Inadequate communication of expectations regarding procedures or standards: Insufficient planning or time for explaining before start of job. More manual handling/lifting required vs previously installed bollards.
PF2 - Correct way takes more time and/or requires more effort
IP decided to continue task on his own.
PF4- In the past no incident occurred: Inadequate last minute risk assessment after the circumstances changed . Lack of understanding of SH&E risks associated with task. Body positioning increased load on left knee, which was weakened by injury 15 years before.
PF 3 - Shortcutting procedures : SS had carried the bollard on his own to the work location before the job started. On leaving work area, SS did not clearly communicate to IP not to carry out task on his own.
Bollard design
IP Foot positioning ~ 150mm level difference
Extended bollard unit
The entire bollard unit, 43 kg, fell onto IP’s leg
Training history of individual:
IP has 13 years of experience with current employer but had not worked on an Esso site previously.
Site induction July 4th 2016.
IP has level 1 H&S qualification (UK PIA), but received limited EM specific training
IP had valid EMSP dated July 27, 2016
Re-enactment with lighter bollard
IP positioning
Lessons Learned/Follow up actions:
Investigation indicates isolated violation by this contractor. Reviewing across broader network to ensure contractor compliance with established procedures & practices.
Share lessons learned bulletin
Factors Influencing Risk Tolerance:
Role models accepting risks (RF10)/ Overestimating physical capability (RF1)/ Seriousness of the outcome (RF3)
OIMS System: 5.1/ 8.1
Installed bollard unit

4. Follow up
Share this deck at your next H&S Meeting by 31st November 2016
At all branches
Complete a topics and attendance list (Attached)
If you have any Questions , please Ask
Any Feedback is Welcome