PLANT MACHINERY & SITE SAFETY STATIC DANGERS Gary Escott, Director of SiteZone Safety discusses how RFID (Radio
frequency identification) proximity warning technology can protect personnel from stationary hazards.
Our safety focus has been on preventing collisions between personnel and plant vehicles and developing our RFID proximity warning systems (PWS) accordingly. However, as the technology evolved into a wireless offering, we realised
that it could be applied in conjunction with standard site safety measures, to protect against dangerous static spaces that pose a risk to workers. With both systems in place, stationary hazards can become much less of a threat.
WHAT ARE HAZARDOUS STATIC RISKS? An RFID proximity warning perimeter, if applied in tandem with other safety protocols on site, can alert and protect workers from harm in construction, remediation, refurbishment and demolition work.
Holes, trenches, unsafe structures: construction sites can be a minefield of materials, debris, trenches and holes in the ground. They are accidents waiting to happen if not signposted or cordoned off clearly. As a project progresses, sometimes trenches and holes remain in-situ for long periods of time. So, until they are ‘filled’, they present a serious trip and fall hazard. Along with standard segregation methods, an RFID perimeter can be set up at key danger spots to warn workers to avoid them.
Crossing zones: On some sites it may not be appropriate to fully deploy RFID proximity warning on vehicles operating on the site. This could be the case were robust and effective segregation systems exist and the main areas of concern are where vehicles and personnel may only interact briefly, such as crossing points.
Toxic hazards: construction and land remediation often mean working around dangerous organics, such as excessive bird faeces, or stagnant ground water that may be harbouring biological contaminants such as rat urine. It’s therefore vital to ensure that workers don’t stray into these quagmires, become
twitter.com/TomorrowsHS
contaminated then spread it, as it can be conveyed clothing or shoes or even on plant vehicles. In areas where there is pooling that requires drainage, supplementary RFID safety perimeters can be set up until the offending area is dried out.
Asbestos: Around 500,000 buildings constructed before 1999 contain asbestos and due to poor or non- compliance, exposure was rife. Until specialist asbestos removal contractors are engaged to extract carefully from a site where it is found, other workers should be segregated from the risk of disturbing it.
Mobile elevating work platforms (MEWPs): Apart from conventional vehicular risks such as lorries, heavy plant, forklifts and diggers, MEWPs provide a unique collision risk. The operator has no clear visual on what or who may be moving around the base of their platform. While an MEWP is not always static, it can remain that way for long periods of time until the operator decides to move it. If they or pedestrians aren’t fully aware that this is about to occur, then collisions happen. Other MEWP hazards include materials falling from height, if the operator is removing high level debris or construction materials for example. Adding an RFID perimeter to the safety measures around the base of a MEWP would audibly warn other RFID tag-wearing workers wouldn’t stray into its path just before or during movement.
NEW THINKING The above examples show that sometimes we need to think differently about risk perception. Collision may not just mean an object moving into you, but that you might stray into the path of something dangerous. Through worker feedback, technological design can evolve to be even better, targeted and relevant. It just means looking with better eyes at a situation, we can often find positive opportunities for change instead of stagnating on risk control.
www.proximitywarning. com
29
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52
