Project to Reduce Ill Health in Paving Road and Highway Work
Steering Group 4th Meeting
Thursday 26th September 2013
Rose Court, London
Attendees
Robert Ellis – Chair – HSE Occupational Hygiene Unit
Keith Harwood– Transport for London
Olav Lawrence –Civil Engineering Contractors Association
Steve Williams – Highways Agency
Paul Bussey – Royal Institute of British Architects
Mike Henderson – Highways Term Maintenance Association
Margaret Sackey – Institution of Civil Engineers
John Banks – Association for Project Safety
Ian Evans – Association for Public Service Excellence (APSE)
Clare Forshaw – HSE
Paul Cushion - HSE
Apologies
Ian Foster – National Joint Utilities Group
1. Actions from previous meeting
a. Document received from Durham CC is used to provide
preconstruction information on and will be passed to the Risk Matrix
group for consideration.
b. Request to include contractors at an earlier stage in the procurement
plan of work had been taken on board and amendments made.
c. Invitation to provide comment on the proposed amendment to CDM
2007 regulations resulted in a submission from ICE that has been
passed on to the relevant part of HSE.
d. Delivery of project plans for the work strands has been completed for
procurement, communications and level playing field’. The health
surveillance work was near completion and a plan of work is therefore
not seen as necessary. The risk matrix plan of work does not currently
go beyond October.
e. Setting up a separate resource/working group to deliver information for
all tasks identified by the risk matrix will wait until further progress is
made with this work.
2. Local authorities feedback
The local authorities’ group feedback is contained at Annex 1. The group
membership has been increased with the assistance of APSE. Current
membership includes the following:










The Highland Council
Inverclyde Council
North Yorkshire County Council
West Dunbartonshire Council
South Lanarkshire Council
West Lothian Council
Durham County Council
Dorset County Council
Cornwall Council (Cormack Solutions Ltd)
Derbyshire County Council
Overall the group are supportive of progress and proposed outputs for all the
working groups. Clarification was sought on whether the representatives were
from direct employees of the local authorities or organisations employed to fulfil
those duties upon the local authorities’ behalf. The Steering Group were informed
that there was a mixture of the two.
3. Risk Matrix Working Group
The working group were sent a progress overview showing the table of activities
and prioritisation together with the project preparation and execution phase table
for paving, lifting and cutting. The working group have prioritised the risks based
on colour coding using red, amber, yellow and white. Due to resource
constraints and the time frame for the project the working group are
concentrating on the following eight tasks:








Breaking out/demolition
Drainage system installation
Excavation/ground digging
Painting
Paving/lifting/cutting
Piling
Road Markings
Surface laying – Bitumen
The prioritisation of the risk is provided in the health hazards identifier table. It
has been acknowledged that the current labels e.g. normal risk, may be
problematic and not communicating what was intended. A move toward
descriptors such as probable, likely and unlikely will be made as a way of alerting
the users to where risk may be present.
The table providing preconstruction and construction phase information may be
broken down further to give tasks within an activity. The information provides
both design and control options. The execution phase gives information on
elimination, control and reduction of risks.
In addition to the risk matrix table there are plans for a template to provide
information for workers.
At this point development of the risk matrix requires deep topic /specialist input
especially with regard to the control options that are appropriate. Once the tables
for all eight of the activities are complete they will undergo a peer review stage.
The visual aspects of the matrix will be built in later. Some additional work on
bridge building risks and controls is required but this is not seen as a major
problem as it will utilise the other task information such as painting.
The Steering Group members consider good progress has been made and that it
is shaping up to be a useful tool. However, alongside the points made at the
local authorities meetings the following comments were made:

Project preparation phase information is good. Overall the tool looks to
be more geared to designers. As with the local authority feedback, how this
will be used and integrated with existing systems needs to be understood
and communicated.

In additions to the consistency of the words used thought needs to be
given to wording that may be contentious such as plastic kerbs.

The health risks need to identify who is at risk: operative, fellow
colleagues and general public.

The information must link in with the relevant legislation. Those who
use the tool will be interested to identify whether their existing work
methods fall above or below the line in terms of compliance.

Thought needs to be given to how the tool is future proofed.

Pictorial information will be critical

Hyperlinks to further information will help.

It will require HSE endorsement

Further information column could be split into Regulation, Approved
Code of Practice and Guidance
The Steering Group were informed that the Surface Markings Association have
offered to host the tool on a new ‘Highway Hub’ web site. Further information is
requested on this option. Steering Group members should consult their
organisation to see if there would be any issues with this.
Action
a. Request information from the Surface markings Association on how
the Risk Matrix will be hosed on the ‘Highway Hub’ (C Forshaw).
b. Members provide a response on whether the organisations they
represent have any issues with the tool being hosted on the Surface
Markings Association ‘Highway Hub’ (all).
4. Logic Model
A Logic Model is being developed for this work to map out the expected
outcomes in the short, medium and long term. This will be used to evaluate the
projects impact. An overview of logic models and how they are used was
presented to the Steering Group. A first incomplete draft was tabled based on
discussion between Rob Ellis and Paul Cushion. The aim is to work toward a
final version that could be signed off at the next Steering Group meeting in March
2014.
The subject area is new to most Steering Group members and it is clear from the
discussion that help will be needed for them to understand and contribute to the
development of the logic model. The draft tabled is partly based on the model
prepared for the RPE project and members commented that it appeared
weighted too much toward this at present so does not adequately reflect the
paving, road and highway work.
To help members understand this work the logic models for the previous kerb,
paving and block cutting project along with the RPE project logic model will be
circulated to them with some further information. It is suggested that it should be
possible to get a draft ready for sign-off by the Christmas break.
Action
Provide information on logic model to Steering Group members
(R Ellis/P Cushion).
5. Health Surveillance and Monitoring Working Group
The draft paper (V8 3 June 2013) tabled at the meeting was near completion.
The flow chart had been produced by Reactec on behalf of the working group.
Reactec are not claiming any ownership of the flow chart content. The final paper
will include:

front page definitions of health surveillance and monitoring;

an image illustrating effects on body in relation to monitoring and
health surveillance;

written description of what monitoring and health surveillance looks like
for each health effect;

case studies for paving, road and highways work;

Decision tree flow chart with written guide
The Steering Group welcomed the latest draft and had the following comments:
a. There needs to be an explanation of how all the parts join up.
b. The health surveillance and monitoring definition reflected their
understanding and was clear.
c. Diagram is extremely helpful and potentially very useful. However,
respiratory risks should include forms other than dust such as mist and
fume.
d. The examples of what each health effect looks like drew the following
comments on noise:


Finding information or manufacturers data needs further
explanation
Taking measurement is too prominent and may to be over used
as presented
e. Health screening should be mentioned if only to make clear it is not
part of the monitoring or health surveillance programme.
f. The flow diagram would work better if notes/instructions appeared on
the same page. A good worked example would illustrate the process
better.
It was explained that under the section on what exposure monitoring and health
surveillance might look like, each bullet list is based on and takes the reader
through a hierarchy of recommendations. However, this not conveyed in the
preceding text and will require explanation to avoid misinterpretation/confusion.
The Steering Group members would prefer the guide make clear what the legal
requirements are. It was suggested low and high risk examples for each health
effect may help.
6. Designer Client and Contractor Working Group
The Steering Group were presented with the three plans of work:
 Procurement
 Communications
 Level playing field
A project brief had also been provided outlining the three work areas.
a. Procurement
The procurement draft paper met the approval of the Steering Group and
will now be published on the web community. The paper will be further
developed based on comments received and then used to engage
procurement users. These discussions will help to identify volunteers to
establish a sub-group to take this work forward in 2014.
The Steering Group are content with the plan of work and the draft paper.
It was noted that the Office of Government Commerce (OGC)
procurement guide is no longer available from the OGC web site.
Hyperlinks will be provided for the papers cited.
b. Communications
The plan of work is based on identifying the good practice in
preconstruction communications and attending meetings to observe this in
practice. From this, case studies as examples of good practice will be
produced. The case studies will be delivered in November 2014 as an
output for this work.
c. ‘Level playing field.
The work will be delivered through a workshop of interested parties to help
formulate recommendations. The workshop would explore what we mean
by a ‘level playing field’ and what the barriers are. Selection of the right
people to attend a workshop will be critical. The first step in the process is
to estimate the costs of a workshop but there needed to be an indication
that financial backing could be obtained before the work could proceed.
Delivery is planned for 2015. If there was little likelihood of obtaining the
finances to run the workshop then the plan would be shelved. Costs
would include a venue, provision of lunch and possibly paying for
professional facilitators.
The Steering Group were informed that Inverclyde Council may be able to
host this event but they indicated a more central location would be better.
There is potential interest from a number of member organisations and it
was suggested that more than one workshop could be held to cover
different regions. Scotland, central England and London are the preferred
options. Members are invited to write in with offers to host/finance the
workshops. The project plan will be amended to include up to three
workshops. HSE will make enquiries to see if they could supply facilitators.
Action
Steering Group members to write in outlining what financial support could be
offered for ‘level playing field work’ strand. (All)
7. AOB and close
a. Meetings
Next meetings of the Steering Group are based on the client and designer
working groups plans of work. According to the plans meetings are
required in March and October 2014. These will be in Rose Court,
London.
Due to the now limited availability of meeting rooms in Rose Court the
project has given an undertaking to seek alternative venues for working
group meetings before considering Rose Court. Any help that can be
provided would be welcome.
b. Communications
A written summary of progress was required by Steering Group members
to be used in management meetings. The Newsletter although
communicating progress well was not suited to this.
It was stated that the existing storyboard could be used by anyone to help
them inform others.
Action
a. Provide regular management communications tool based on written
summary/progress report of Steering Group meetings (R Ellis)
b. Make storyboard available to Steering Group members to aid their
communications (R Ellis).
Annex 1
Steering Group pre-meeting with local authorities September 2013
Attending
Tony Hunter – Durham County Council
Neil Quigley – Durham County Council
Gena Falconer - Highland Council
Martin Gannon – Inverclyde Council
Melanie Adams (for Steve Piper) – North Yorkshire County Council
Greg Powel – Derbyshire County Council
Simon Deacon – Cornwall Council (Cormack Solutions Ltd)
Paul Hooper – Cornwall Council (Cormack Solutions Ltd)
Apologies
Gerry Allan – West Lothian
Brian Gourlay – West Dunbartonshire Council
Charlie Cochrane – South Lanarkshire Council
Andrew Martin – Dorset County Council
Gerry Allan/Tom Ward – West Lothian Council
Overview of local authorities group
Progress with the project was discussed using materials circulated by e-mail on 12th
September 2013. The group has been expanded and now includes representatives
from Cornwall, Derbyshire and Dorset. Overall there is a very positive response to
the progress being made and appreciation on the effort put in so far.
Health Surveillance
The draft paper (V8 3 June 2013) was welcomed by all. The definitions provided on
the first page were easily understood and fall in line with how health surveillance and
monitoring is applied by the local authorities involved in the meeting. The figure
showing the differences between exposure monitoring and health surveillance was
well received and was seen as a very useful tool to help understand and
communicate these terms. The examples of what exposure monitoring and health
surveillance look like was discussed for each health topic and the following
comments made:
Noise
 Under health surveillance recommendations the hearing checks needs to be
expanded to fully explain what is required.
Construction dust
 Familiarity with this health risk and how it is managed varies. It would help to
know what is a regulatory requirement and guidance on good practice. This
could be applied to the whole of the document.
 Recommendation for exposure monitoring was a surprise and caused some
debate as usually a qualitative approach is taken.
 Some local authorities are carrying out lung function tests but not all.
 Questionnaires are used extensively for health surveillance for this and other
health risks. It would help to indicate where this is appropriate and clarity on the
frequency with which this be used.
Hand arm vibration
 Comprehensive
 Would help to know what training or qualifications required to undertake the
health surveillance and diagnosis.
Skin risks
 Focus appears to be on dermatitis but aware of solar radiation issues.
Manual Handling
 Clarification required on what is meant by taking measurements e.g. forces
etc
 In general manual handling assessments are undertaken but this does not
include measurements.
The flow chart was found useful by the majority but time was needed to understand
and read the text that accompanied the chart.
Those with experience will find this guide a helpful back-up to what they routinely
carry out. However, it would be interesting to see how useful it is for those less
experienced. It was suggested the draft could be trialled before it is finalised and
some local authorities may be able to help with this. The figure was seen as being
particularly useful. It was suggested that some of the information could be presented
in pocket card or laminated form.
Risk Matrix
The risk matrix was discussed by referring to the working group progress paper and
table for the project preparation and execution phase for paving, lifting and cutting.
The members were informed that the working group had identified a list of tasks
being carried out and based on their professional judgement prioritised the health
risks for each one. On questioning it was clarified that the prioritisation was not
based on statistical evidence. The sources provided in the further information
column are currently based on what has been identified by the working group
members and will need to be verified.
Some participants indicated prioritisation would help in the management of the
health risks but the view was also expressed that simply identifying the risk would be
sufficient. The following comments were made:
 What is meant by terms such as significant and normal health risks
 The traffic light system usually uses red, amber and green. The use of red,
amber, yellow and white may cause confusion.
 Green is usually interpreted as no need to take action. Is there something
similar here?
 Will the application of controls change the risk prioritisation (colour)?
The tables indicating the health risks associated with the activities and controls are
seen as a very useful tool. Care needs to be taken to ensure what is being
communicated and how the table is used. The following comment was made:
 A brief guide on how to use the tables would help.
 There appears to be some inconsistency in the use of abbreviations.
 It would help if in reading across the table the health risks aligned with
controls
 Do the table colours have any significance?
 How will the risk matrix be used with existing risk management tools?
Client and designer
The working group have produced plans of work for procurement, communications
and ‘level playing field’ areas of work. In addition a draft paper setting out the
thoughts of the working group on procurement has been produced. It was explained
the procurement paper was the first output of the working group and much of the
delivery will be in 2014. The paper on procurement was well received and the only
suggestion is that hyperlinks be provided for the papers cited. It was suggested that
the communications work will be key to the project overall and there was some
support for this as it may lead to engagement with the other project outputs such as
the risk matrix.
There was agreement that the ‘level playing field’ work plan should be delivered by a
workshop and acceptance that if no funding for this can be identified that the work
will be shelved. Inverclyde may be able to host such an event but recognise a more
central venue (in Scotland) would be preferable.