GUIDELINES FOR MANAGING MOBILE PLANT NEAR PEDESTRIANS ON ROADWORK SITES

GUIDELINES FOR MANAGING MOBILE PLANT NEAR PEDESTRIANS ON ROADWORK SITES SPRINGVALE ROAD LCR PEDESTRIAN EXCLUSION ZONE SPOTTER ONLY AUTHORISED DECEMBER 2014

GUIDELINES FOR MANAGING THE HAZARD OF MOBILE PLANT NEAR PEDESTRIANS ON ROADWORK SITES INDEX 1. INTRODUCTION Page 2 1.1 Industry Dependence on Lowest Level Controls Page 2 1.2 Plant Blind Spots Page 3 1.3 Untrained Plant Spotters Page 3 1.4 Limitations of Pedestrians to Detect Approaching Plant Page 4 2. VICROADS EXPERIENCE WITH REVERSING INCIDENTS Page 5 3. PLANT BLIND SPOTS Page 5 4. NEED FOR PLANT SAFETY TRAINING FOR ALL Page 7 PERSONNEL ON SITE 5. SAFE WORK METHOD STATEMENTS (SWMS) ARE MANDATORY Page 7 6. CONTROLS NEED TO ELIMINATE THE PLANT REVERSING Page 7 HAZARD OR SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCE THE RISK VIA THE HIERARCHY OF SAFETY CONTROLS 7. SITE SECURITY PUBLIC SAFETY PROVISIONS Page 8 8. ACTION REQUIRED BY VICROADS CONTRACTORS Page 9 9. RECOMMENDED ACTION BY VICROADS CONSTRUCTION & Page 9 MAINTENANCE PROJECTS 10. EXAMPLE HIERARCHY OF SAFETY CONTROLS FOR THE Page 10 MOVEMENT OF MOBILE PLANT ON SITE (HIGHEST TO LOWEST CONTROLS) 11. EXAMPLES OF CONTROLS SUCCESSFULLY DEPLOYED BY Page 13 VICROADS CONTRACTORS Urban Areas close to public pedestrian traffic, longer term sites. Page 14 Urban Areas pedestrian (public or worker) no go zones, longer term sites. Page 22 Urban Areas mobile plant isolation barriers & worker containment fences within site, longer term sites. Page 22 Rural Areas not close to residential areas, longer term sites Page 25 Rural & Urban Areas, short term sites. Page 25 Plant Tracking/Reversing Aids. Page 26 12. NIOSH INTERNAL TRAFFIC CONTROL PLANS Page 28 13. WORKSAFE POSITION IN RELATION TO DETERMINING Page 36 WHAT IS REASONABLY PRACTICABLE WITH RESPECT TO THE COST OF ELIMINATING OR REDUCING THE HAZARD OR RISK EXAMPLE OF SWMS FOR MOBILE PLANT NEAR PEOPLE Page 37 MOBILE PLANT OPS NEAR PEOPLE HAZARD CONTROL CHECKLIST Page 39 Page 1 of 42 18/12/2014

1. INTRODUCTION Mobile Plant movement in close proximity to workers or public as pedestrians is a high-risk activity as defined in the Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) Regulations 2007. Statistics demonstrate that reversing plant is responsible for many fatalities and serious injuries in road and other civil construction work around Australia and the World. The focus of these guidelines is to improve the management of mobile plant movement within roadwork sites in Victoria, so as to significantly improve the safety of pedestrian workers and public within the worksite. Under OHS Law, systems of work must ensure that no persons are at risk when near or working with moving plant. OHS Legislation requires these risks to be managed, so far as reasonably practicable, in accordance with the OHS Act, Section 20, and the concept of ensuring health and safety and OHS Regulation 5.1.7 Control of Risk, also known as the Hierarchy of Safety Controls. 1.1 Industry Dependence on Lowest Level Safety Controls The industry has depended significantly on lower level administrative / behavioural controls which are the least reliable. Typically the lowest level control depends on pedestrian workers keeping clear of plant with minimum approach distances and outside the swing radius of plant such as excavators. Most incidents happen when workers are close to plant, in plant operator s blind spot/s and when workers are distracted by activities or not looking at the plant. Plant operators are also required to concentrate on their work task and may miss people who are not expected near to their machine. The public can also be at risk if they enter mobile plant operating areas particularly in urban areas. Formalised lower level administrative type controls are traditionally considered the most practical by contractors. However, this reliance on lower level unreliable controls must change in the light of facts which demonstrate these controls are not working and as a consequence do not provide a safe system of work. Because administrative / behavioural controls are the least effective under the hierarchy of safety controls they must be seen as unreliable or the least safe option. Working Above the Line The industry culture needs to change to a process where the concept of applying OHS Regulation 5.1.7 Control of Risk is followed in the specified priority order commencing with (1) Eliminate the risk, or if this is not reasonably practicable (2) (a) Substitution, new activity, procedure, plant, process to reduce risk, (b) Isolation, (c) Engineering Controls, (d) Combination of (a) (b) (c). And only accepting the lowest level Administrative controls (3) if (1) and (2) are not reasonably practicable. The reason should be documented and approved in writing by the contractor s senior manager who has responsibility / control of the works. (The WorkCover definition of Reasonably Practical may be found at the rear of these guidelines). This safety process is often referred to as Working above the Line or Lifting the Bar but is actually fully complying with the regulations. The illustration on the next page illustrates this approach (see also Section 7 forward): Page 2 of 42 18/12/2014

Illustration of the Above the Line approach which fully complies with OHS Regulations. 1.2 Human Factors Considerations - Plant Blind Spots Administrative or Behavioural controls in the context of mobile plant operations are unreliable. Reliance is placed on the plant operator seeing and avoiding pedestrians despite known blind spots on their plant. Most mobile plant has significant operator visual blind spots usually to the rear of the plant but can also include other directions, for example plant such as excavators have more blind spots around them and the bucket and arm can also obscure personnel to the front right of the machine. Some workers may not be aware of the danger presented to them if they stand in the path of or in plant blind spots and the plant moves toward them, sometimes referred to as the Line of Fire. General Plant Awareness Training is now conducted on some of the larger projects, but this is by no means general but should be given the demonstrated mobile plant risk to pedestrian workers. There is an obligation to train personnel in construction site hazards and the movement of mobile plant is statistically the highest risk area on road construction sites. 1.3 Human Factors Considerations - Untrained Spotters Despite the risk presented by mobile plant the industry still tends to rely heavily on untrained personnel commonly described as Spotters guiding mobile plant movement, sometimes without effective communication. Higher level controls are necessary but some may not be reasonably practicable for short term works (e.g. worksites that are established for two or less shifts). Page 3 of 42 18/12/2014

As an industry we need to establish agreed higher level effective minimum safety standards for the mobile plant hazard particularly when mobile plant is reversing or tracking / moving into the plant operator blind spots. 1.4 Human Factors Considerations Limitations of Workers and Public Pedestrians to Detect Approaching Plant Hearing Limitations People depend significantly on their eyesight and hearing to warn them of the hazard presented by approaching plant and vehicles. The mechanical sounds of the plant movement may provide some additional audible warning (noise from excavator tracks for example) but rubber tyre vehicles / plant are usually more silent and the general noise from multiple plant operation can mask the approach of an item of plant which presents an imminent risk of impact This is why operating reversing or tracking alarms are mandated for mobile plant. However, when a number of mobile plant units are in operation the multiple alarms themselves may also mask the warning from closer approaching plant which may present a potential impact threat if a person is in the travel direction of the plant. If a worker is wearing standard hearing protection for their work this may also compromise their detection of an approaching item of plant. It has also been recognized that workers tend to switch-off or become de-sensitized to multiple reversing / tracking alarms if they do not consider they are subject to an immediate risk, in order to concentrate on their work. See also Cognitive Distraction below. Visual Limitations Pedestrians depend on their vision to watch / look out for approaching mobile plant. Some of the lower level behavioral controls require that a minimum clearance be kept from plant. This depends on our ability to look out for mobile plant while concentrating on work when our visual focus is primarily centered on the work task and not an approaching item of plant. General Situational Awareness Our situational awareness requires visual contact to confirm approaching mobile plant and its location and this is usually combined with our hearing to detect the noise produced by the plant. If the plant is quiet or multiple plant operations are conducted in the vicinity this noise may mask approaching plant and when combined with our vision being directed to the work task our alerting senses can be significantly less effective. Cognitive Distraction More complex work tasks requiring significant concentration result in cognitive distraction increasing the likelihood of missing or ignoring sensory warnings of plant approach to pedestrian workers or worker approach to plant. Mobile phone use is a good example of an activity which can result in a cognitive distraction with safety implications while driving or walking near traffic which has been subject to many studies, but can have a similar safety reduction outcome. Contrary to popular belief, the human brain cannot multitask. Page 4 of 42 18/12/2014

2. VICROADS EXPERIENCE WITH REVERSING INCIDENTS Mobile plant has been involved in the majority of significant incidents within road construction and maintenance works. There has been a number of plant reversing / tracking incidents resulting in serious injuries and one fatality over the last decade. There are also many near miss incidents reported that have not resulted in injuries to people but the potential is always there given the large operator blind spots evident in the design of most plant / vehicles. There has been an increase in reporting near miss incidents as awareness of the risk has increased of recent times through a strong VicRoads focus in this area, this has contributed to identifying the essential contributing factors to these incidents. Contractors on VicRoads larger longer term projects have been at the forefront of initiatives to improve mobile plant safety and the contractors concerned have been recognised for initiatives developed to reduce the risk to personnel on site. The public are also vulnerable to reversing mobile plant if they are not excluded from plant operating areas on roadwork worksites and this has also been a VicRoads focus. These initiatives have previously been shared with our contractors on both larger and smaller projects working together to develop controls as shown in these guidelines. Because the major projects works are conducted over a longer duration, higher level controls (working Above the Line ) become more practical to implement and should be mandated, so far as reasonably practicable. More focus needs to be placed on the short term smaller projects which present a challenge in respect to practical high level controls. VicRoads SprayLine and Road Services have also taken initiatives to control the reversing hazard with plant operated by them including broadband reversing alarms and reversing cameras to check the blind spots. Radios are used for communication. Maintenance works are typically short term and for practical reasons depend significantly on behavioural controls which require personnel to keep out of No Entry Zones. Reversing sensors have also been trialled, including automatic sensing, warning and braking systems. Issues with Maintaining Minimum Clearances between People and Plant Recent incidents have reinforced the need to avoid the lowest level behavioural controls which depend on workers maintaining minimum clearances to mobile plant. Incident experience indicates that this is clearly an unreliable control when both plant operators and pedestrian workers are concentrating on their work. The work task requires visual, auditory, physical and mental concentration; the more difficult the task the greater the mental concentration required and this will impact on situational awareness such as a decreasing clearance between workers and mobile plant (or operator awareness of people approaching their plant). 3. PLANT BLIND SPOTS Most plant does not permit the driver / operator to view anything directly behind them because the rear view mirrors have significant blind spots or a significantly restricted view so the driver / operator cannot safely check and clear this area. This should be seen as a serious design fault which may be and is being overcome to a significant degree through the provision of factory or retro fitted Reversing Cameras and other electronic aids such as Ultrasonic Reversing Detectors or newer devices such as the ReverseSmart which also applies the brakes while reversing, should the operator / driver not respond to alarms. Page 5 of 42 18/12/2014

An example of the significant Blind Spots shown in grey above for a typical excavator. Mirrors are not used on this machine and they can reduce but not eliminate blind spots. More examples may be found at: http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/highwayworkzones/bad/imagelookup.html Trucks appear to be the most highly represented item of plant involved in reversing incidents around the world, but most plant used during road construction have Blind Spots and have been involved in serious and fatal incidents with pedestrians. Reversing type incidents where objects are struck represent near miss events which could always have involved a person. Victoria as well as other states has sadly experienced fatalities and serious injuries both during road works and other types of construction work involving mobile plant movement in close proximity to pedestrians. Around the world Traffic Controllers and Spotters appear to be one group who are highly represented in reversing type fatalities probably because they are required to work close to plant whilst directing and watching traffic in front of them and are usually untrained in mobile plant hazards such as blind spots. VicRoads has always required the hazard of reversing plant to be controlled by contractors but the industry has traditionally depended significantly on administrative or behavioural controls which are the least reliable or sometimes may not even be practicable when applied in practice. The traditional controls depend on reversing or movement alarms and even when reversing cameras have been present serious or fatal incidents have occurred (checking the monitor and clearing behind the plant before and during reversing is essential even if people are not expected in the area). Personnel described as Spotters are frequently deployed to direct plant movements. However, they may not be practical in some situations such as when long distance plant movements are involved. Spotters or Mobile Plant Movement Controllers require training to understand the Blind Spot hazards, effective communication via radio and hand signals, and where to place themselves to be visible to the plant operator at all times so they are not at risk. Page 6 of 42 18/12/2014

VicRoads has worked closely with our contractors and the practicalities involved in the protection of pedestrians from the mobile plant hazard. VicRoads has also shared Safety Alerts and innovations applicable to this area via industry forums, VicRoads Worksite Safety Newsletters. Those contractors who have taken up the challenge of protecting pedestrians from the mobile plant hazard and trialled various innovations in this area have been recognised with VicRoads Safety Innovation Awards. Some of these examples are shown via photographs and captions commencing page 12 of these guidelines. 4. NEED FOR MOBILE PLANT SAFETY TRAINING FOR ALL PERSONNEL ON SITE Informal controls generally involving untrained plant movement directors commonly known as Spotters and a workforce rarely trained to understand the risk presented by plant blind spots tend to dominate the industry. This type of control is administrative or behavioural and training is required to comply with general obligations under the OHS Act. Indeed most controls currently used involve some type of behaviour on behalf of the workforce and an understanding of the risks is an essential fundamental requirement. The training needs to include all plant operators / drivers as well as those personnel with plant movement direction / Spotter duties and the workforce in general with respect to mobile plant site safety procedures and expected behaviours on site. Training in this area is becoming more common in our industry but needs to extend to all areas examples of training power point shows are available on request. 5. SAFE WORK METHOD STATEMENTS (SWMS) ARE MANDATORY FOR THE MOVEMENT OF POWERED MOBILE PLANT ON ALL VICROADS WORKS Safe Work Method Statements (SWMS) are mandatory for this activity and assist in ensuring the safety of pedestrian workers and the public where moving plant is in use on site. It is essential that all the relevant hazards such as reversing plant have been identified in consultation with the workforce and that effective hazard controls are practicable, effective and fully in place on site at all times when mobile plant is operating. Their effectiveness and application on site needs regular monitoring and appropriate improvements made where required. However, the credibility of SWMS which contain information not specific to high risk work such as environmental controls or relevant to the high risk hazards and their control is a serious issue in the industry. This has been recognised by safety professionals. It is necessary for workers to be consulted as to the content of the SWMS and keep them to a sensible size. 6. CONTROLS NEED TO ELIMINATE THE PLANT REVERSING HAZARD OR SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCE THE RISK VIA THE HIERARCHY OF SAFETY CONTROLS In developing SWMS the first objective is to eliminate the mobile plant hazard with respect to pedestrians, so far as reasonably practicable (The Victorian WorkCover Authority (VWA) Position in Relation to Determining what is Reasonably Practicable with respect to the Cost of Eliminating or Reducing the Hazard or Risk (OHS Act Section 20 (2)(e)) is appended to these Guidelines. The Regulations classify the Movement of Mobile Plant as High Risk Construction Work so prescribed process following the Regulations is mandatory. Page 7 of 42 18/12/2014

The VWA and their equivalents in other states have issued Safety Alerts, Codes of Practice and other Guidance Material to manage the mobile plant hazard. In particular Workplace Health and Safety Queensland issued the most recent applicable Alert: Working around Mobile Plant During Construction of Roadwork and Related Infrastructure as the result of two fatalities in Queensland, and this has formed the basis of the hierarchy of controls in these guidelines, including controls suggested by other states and trialled by VicRoads contractors on major road construction sites. The following VicRoads guidance is based on this information taking into account the obligation to first seek to eliminate the mobile plant hazard or if this is not practicable to reduce the risk via the hierarchy of safety controls, so far as reasonably practicable. The advice is also consistent with the Safe Work Australia Traffic Management Guide: Construction Work, July 2014. 7. SITE SECURITY PUBLIC SAFETY PROVISIONS Most mobile plant related incidents involve pedestrian workers. However, the public may also be vulnerable if they enter areas where mobile plant is operating. The plant blind spots and other human factors limitations previously described also apply to the public if they enter into worksites and they will be unlikely to understand the risks. See Section 11 forward for examples of site security deployed to keep the public out of mobile plant operating areas. See also the VWA Civil Construction Industry Standard Guide to Managing Safety 2012. Page 8 of 42 18/12/2014

8. ACTION REQUIRED BY VICROADS CONTRACTORS VicRoads requires all contractors to effectively manage the movement of powered mobile plant within the worksite using the highest controls practical. If higher level Green controls are not deemed practicable by a contractor then the reason must be credible and documented in a risk assessment. The following guidance is provided with respect to the identified hierarchy of controls recommended by WorkCover and other state OHS Authorities: a) The first objective must be to eliminate pedestrian exposure to the mobile plant hazard and this is usually achieved by removing pedestrians from plant movement areas creating Pedestrian No Go Zones. These need to effectively remove concurrent pedestrian work activities from the plant operating area / zone. Planning of works must make this a priority. b) If elimination of the mobile plant hazard is not reasonably practicable then the control measures shall be selected in accordance with the hierarchy of controls as described in Section 10, commencing page 10 of these guidelines. Separation of Plant and People should have priority, so far as reasonably practicable. c) Higher order green controls (refer page 9 Section 9 of these guidelines) that substitute, isolate or engineer out the risk shall be selected in preference to the least reliable and effective administrative controls as shown in red in Section 10, page 13 of these guidelines. If higher order green controls are not considered practicable then the reason shall be documented to the satisfaction of the principal contractor s senior manager on site. 9. RECOMMENDED ACTION BY VICROADS CONSTRUCTION & MAINTENANCE PROJECTS VicRoads has a duty of care to its contractor employees because it has some safety responsibilities for contractor safety under Sections 21, and 22 of the Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) Act 2004 and towards other persons such as the general public under Section 23 of the OHS Act 2004. VicRoads manages this through various means including contract specifications, Health and Safety Coordination Plan requirements, safety audits and some surveillance. If the contractor has been appointed as the Principal Contractor by VicRoads (for projects over $250,000) then the contractor have control of the site and have additional responsibilities for preparation of safety documents. Despite this, because of its audit function, VicRoads retains responsibility to ensure that any situations of risk which have arisen on a work site and of which VicRoads becomes aware through its Surveillance Managers or other VicRoads employees, are appropriately addressed in a timely manner. On-site Safe Work Method Statements (SWMS) are a legal requirement for all high risk work as defined in OHS Regulation 5.1.3. Compliance with SWMS requirements is mandatory as described in detail in the Regulations. Under the Regulations the following are required: 1. A SWMS is prepared before the high risk work commences; 2. The work must be performed in accordance with the SWMS; Page 9 of 42 18/12/2014

3. If there is non-compliance with a SWMS the employer must stop that work immediately or as soon as it is safe to do so; and 4. Not resume the work until the SWMS is either complied with or reviewed and, if there is an indication that risk controls measures are not controlling the risks to health or safety adequately, revised. VicRoads' Surveillance Officers have a responsibility to ensure that appropriate SWMS are on each high risk worksite that they visit. If SWMS appropriate to the work that is being undertaken are not present on a particular high risk worksite, then work must be stopped on that site until the relevant SWMS are produced. If a VicRoads Surveillance Officer, or and any other VicRoads personnel becomes aware of any non-compliance with a high risk work SWMS requirement, that person must immediately advise the contractor's supervisory management of the risk and the four obligations above, including the need to stop that high risk work. If the risk posed by the non-compliance gives rise to an immediate risk of a serious or fatal incident to workers or the public, the VicRoads employee must cause the work to be stopped immediately. If a VicRoads Surveillance Officers or any other VicRoads personnel identifies any other situation that seems, on the information available, to pose a risk of a serious or fatal incident to workers or the public, that person must immediately advise the contractor's supervisory management. If the risk posed is immediate, the VicRoads employee must cause the work to be stopped immediately. In each case referred to above, the contractor must be issued with a written noncompliance. If there is any dispute with respect to the requirements (which cannot be resolved through consultation with the contractors in the first instance) then that work shall cease until WorkSafe can attend the site. The Victorian WorkCover Authority (VWA) may be contacted on 132 360 at any time. 10. EXAMPLE HIERARCHY OF SAFETY CONTROLS FOR THE MOVEMENT OF MOBILE PLANT ON SITE (HIGHEST TO LOWEST CONTROLS) ELIMINATION This involves controlling the hazard at the source. Examples may include: Separating pedestrians from mobile plant by preventing access to areas where mobile plant is operating. Operational Safety Zones as per Civil Construction Industry Standard (Plant only Zones / Absolute Pedestrian No Go Zones, Red Zones, etc.). Pedestrian Exclusion Zones to exclude unauthorised people from plant movement areas but understanding that Crane Chasers, Electrical Services Spotters and some Asphalt Workers need to work close to certain plant (but must be located in a position of safety). Eliminate Reversing on site or tracking movements into operator blind spots in the case of excavators or similar plant without a reliable means of Page 10 of 42 18/12/2014

clearing these areas such as eliminating concurrent plant and pedestrian works in the same area. SUBSTITUTION This involves replacing an item of mobile plant with another that has a lower risk. Examples may include: Replacing an item of mobile plant, which has a restricted field of vision to one that has a clear field of vision. Plant with CCTV installed permits operator to readily check blind spots before and during the movement of their plant. The CCTV Monitor needs to be placed in the same operator field of view as the rear view mirror for maximum effectiveness; some monitors are now built into rear view mirrors. Reversing Sensors which alarm when objects of people are detected. WorkSafe in their Guide to Managing Safety in the Civil Construction - Industry Standard 2012, Section 4.9, Mobile Plant Warning Devices states: Mobile plant and trucks should also have audible reversing warning devices fitted. If vehicles are often reversing near workers, consider fitting reversing cameras. Plant with an externally triggered proximity sensor combined with an emergency brake control that will stop the reversing plant/vehicle prior to coming into contact with an object or person. Devices such as ReverseSmart are retrofit able and now commercially available after extensive trials, including construction plant. ISOLATION This involves removing or positively separating people from mobile plant. Examples may include: Deploying barriers and /or security fencing in residential areas to prevent public access. In rural areas a clearance of more than 12 metres to trafficked roads is often provided, and safety barriers are not required in these situations subject to a speed reduction to 80 km/h and frequent speed enforcement by Police. Both of these areas are Pedestrian No Go Zones unless permission is obtained from the lead plant operator via radio to enter the area and plant is stopped until they are placed in a safe area. The pedestrian exclusion zones are enforced and must be clearly designated by signs. Segregating the work processes through distance and construction time; for example allowing earthworks to finish before survey begins. ENGINEERING This involves changing physical characteristics of the plant or work area to remove or reduce the risk. Examples may include: Reversing cameras that provide clear visibility of the area behind the mobile plant and other blind spots. An externally triggered proximity sensor combined with an emergency brake control that will stop the reversing plant/vehicle prior to coming into contact with an object or person. The ReverseSmart is the first example. Proximity detection technology within mobile plant that allows for monitoring of ground crew with personal GPS technology at all times by the plant operator. Page 11 of 42 18/12/2014

Re-design of plant to allow for operator clear line of sight. Audible warning devices activated when the vehicle is reversing. The broad band type warning device is superior to the conventional reversing beeper because of its directional characteristics enabling a person to determine the direction of threat and if they are in the hit zone. Also less environmental noise pollution for night works. COMBINATION OF CONTROLS A combination of controls may be used. Ideally this should include at least one higher level green control but from a practical viewpoint may need to include some behavioral or administrative controls. ADMINISTRATIVE / BEHAVIOURAL CONTROLS This includes policies, procedures, signs and training to control the risk. Note that administrative controls may be least reliable and effective so all personnel on site should be provided with training in the dangers of working near mobile plant such as blind spots and the need to avoid them at all times. Examples may include: Developing and implementing an Internal Traffic Management Plan (Vehicle Movement Plan) for managing mobile plant and pedestrian safety within site including a site specific Vehicle Movement Plan; Delivery, Refuelling and Maintenance Areas. This may be generic but needs to take into account site specific mobile plant / pedestrian hazards. The plan would need to be more detailed on larger projects for any plant and pedestrian movement activities being undertaken. Developing and implementing an OHS Coordination Plan on projects more than $250,000 for the work being undertaken which addresses relevant risks on site including how control measures will be monitored and reviewed. Developing and implementing a Safe Work Method Statement (SWMS) to identify any hazards for plant operation and implement controls measures to prevent or minimise the risk for any workers and public pedestrians and other construction work involving mobile plant. An example may be found on page 36 of these guidelines. Organising, coordinating and monitoring work processes to reduce interaction between workers and mobile plant by: Developing a site access system or permit system that manages the movement of personnel on the worksite and that provides clear and concise communication process with all work groups in relation to risks and controls measures to be implemented. Using trained and competent plant movement controller/s to authorise and monitor the movement of localised mobile plant within site in all circumstances and to control all reversing operations. The controller needs to be in a position that does not place them at risk from contact with the reversing vehicle and the driver must always maintain sight of the controller. Note these personnel have a different role to that of a traffic controller who is responsible for the control of traffic entering, exiting or passing through the workzone or being detoured. Page 12 of 42 18/12/2014

Implementing measures where workers have clear sight of mobile plant operating and operators of mobile plant have a clear line of sight in the direction of travel. Providing equipment such as two way radios that allows clear communication between mobile plant and ground crew. This should include communication protocols relating to the location and direction of mobile plant and measures to manage issues with poor transmission and miscommunication. Conducting pre-start meetings prior to commencing work to discuss all specific work site hazards and risks and control measures including the allocation of safety tasks and responsibilities. Thoroughly checking safety devices and audible working alarms of mobile plant prior to commencing any work. Ensuring people are fit for work; consideration needs to be given to fatigue, heat stress and cognitive ability to function effectively. Ensuring worker training, experience and competency is consistent with the nature and complexity of the tasks being undertaken. Speed restrictions Headlights on when driving within site / dust control / blind corners or hill crests. Where practicable, plant should always move in a forward direction. Plant operators required to hold the relevant certificate of competency including safety training relevant to earth moving equipment including plant operating safety limitations. Designated delivery area. Designated refueling bay. Designated parking area for plant with windrows. Minimum pedestrian approach distances to mobile plant (typically 3 to 5 metres or outside swing radius for plant such as excavators). Note that this control is the least reliable control on its own as demonstrated by the number of incidents where this control was specified. This is the least safe behavioral control. Monitoring Effectiveness and Application on Site Safe Work Method Statements (SWMS) control measures need to be regularly monitored and reviewed to ensure they are practical, applied and effective in preventing or minimising the risk. The workers involved in the activity must be consulted and involved in the development of the SWMS and not just asked to sign a document developed by others. 11. EXAMPLES OF CONTROLS SUCCESSFULLY DEPLOYED BY VICROADS CONTRACTORS Note that the VWA Civil Construction Industry Standard a Guide to Managing Safety supports the initiatives shown in the following examples. The photographs and captions on the following pages illustrate examples of controls implemented on recent VicRoads projects. They have all been implemented to improve mobile plant safety with respect to pedestrians (workers and public). The objective being to improve on traditional industry behavioral safety controls associated with mobile plant and pedestrians: Page 13 of 42 18/12/2014

URBAN AREAS CLOSE TO PUBLIC PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC LONGER TERM SITES Urban areas are more exposed to public contact and increase the risk of unauthorised persons entering and crossing the worksite. Security type fencing and road safety barriers have proven successful in excluding the public and isolating them from plant operating areas. Typically only workers who need to work with the plant such as Electrical Spotters or Dogmen are permitted to work in these areas unless they gain permission by radio from the lead plant operator. Plant is stopped until the visitors are located in a safe position isolated from the plant by barriers or safe clearance. Winslow Project Site Winchelsea barriers on left security fencing on right with footpath. Spotter on left. Cut and Fill Project Site Winchelsea barriers in background and fencing in foreground adjacent to footpath Page 14 of 42 18/12/2014

Winchelsea Winslow Security fencing and footpath for pedestrian traffic. Tulla Sydney Sydney Alliance/Thiess Project Sydney Road barriers with screens on left and barriers with security fencing behind on right. Page 15 of 42 18/12/2014

Another Tulla Sydney Alliance/Thiess Sydney Road Project Site. The primary objective was to prevent unauthorised persons gaining access to the sites but access was also restricted to those who were authorised to work there. Safe footpath provision for public convenience Bus stop access to building line security fencing to prevent public exposure to mobile plant operations and general site hazards. Narre Warren Cranbourne Road Winslow Site. Page 16 of 42 18/12/2014

BMD Project in Berwick Commercial Area utilising security fences to exclude public and unauthorised personnel. McConnell Dowell Springvale Level Crossing Removal Project barriers and security screens to exclude public and unauthorised personnel. Page 17 of 42 18/12/2014

Plastic webbing is prone to weather damage and needs frequent maintenance. It is easy to step over and not as effective as security type fencing in keeping unauthorised persons (children in particular) from entering and crossing through mobile plant operating areas. Bunting flags are even less effective. Both of these controls are the least effective and are the lowest safe control other than nothing at all. Security type fencing is much higher in the hierarchy of safety controls and should be used where reasonably practicable; however, steel fencing is a more effective control than bunting flags or webbing for site security. (Refer to WorkCover Civil Construction Guide to Managing Safety Industry Standard) Shared access pathway (bicycle and pedestrians) behind barriers with barrier deflection allowance to security fence. Narre Warren Cranbourne Road Winslow Site. Note: This was practical at this location due to adequate available space. Page 18 of 42 18/12/2014

URBAN AREAS PEDESTRIAN EXCLUSION / NO GO ZONES LONGER TERM SITES These areas / zones are typically restricted to personnel who are authorised to work there. Any personnel who have a reason to enter the areas for work reasons are required to obtain permission by radio from the lead plant operator, prior to entering the zone. Contact details are shown at zone entry points as well as site hazards. Some zones are Absolute Pedestrian No Go Zones and only plant and their operators are permitted in these areas. Typically the boundaries are constructed from barriers and screens and security type fences which also exclude public entry. These arrangements proved successful on the M80 Leighton Project Sites and more recent longer term projects. Entry Gate to M80 Leighton Pedestrian No Go Zone showing typical signs and details of work activities in the zone. Typical M80 worksite restricted to those carrying radios and with a work reason to enter after gaining permission from lead plant operator. Page 19 of 42 18/12/2014

Minimum approach distance barrier until plant is stopped and lead operator permits entry to area. Absolute Pedestrian No Go Zone Plant and Construction Vehicles Only Page 20 of 42 18/12/2014

Sign example in use on Winslow site specifically highlighting the mobile plant hazard warning to the public. Sign example in use on BMD site with more general exclusion of unauthorised personnel placed at site access points. Page 21 of 42 18/12/2014

URBAN AREAS MOBILE PLANT ISOLATION BARRIERS AND WORKER CONTAINMENT FENCES WITHIN SITE LONGER TERM SITE These examples have been deployed on the Mitcham - Rooks Level Crossing Removal Project at Mitcham. Concrete Safety Barriers have been used to isolate plant movement areas from pedestrian workers in tight work areas such as the cutting excavation to lower the railway lines to below roadway level eliminating the level crossings. Containment Fences are also used to isolate and contain pedestrian work areas and walkways from plant traffic areas. Designated Spotters called Plant Movement Directors have been trained in plant risks, including blind spots, and where to position themselves for their safety have been used on the project. They also wear high visibility clothing with a blue section to indicate their roll and are equipped with radio to communicate with all mobile plant and vehicles on site. Concrete barriers placed between plant access road and works personnel access pathway as a physical isolation control. 10 km/h speed restriction and requirement to use UHF channel 12 in area. Plant Movement Directors use this UHF channel. Page 22 of 42 18/12/2014

Containment Fences to keep works personnel from intruding into plant movement area. Para webbing containment fence walkway to isolate works personnel from plant. Page 23 of 42 18/12/2014

Walkway containment fence on low radius curve. Another example at the Springvale Level Crossing Removal Project Pedestrian No Go Zone containment fence and walkway on left and plant only zone on right. Page 24 of 42 18/12/2014

RURAL AREAS NOT CLOSE TO RESIDENTUAL AREAS LONGER TERM SITES These areas typically involve road duplication projects in rural areas well clear of residential areas, but may also include improvement works such as roundabout construction and general roadwork. Site access requires UHF Radio communication between vehicles and pedestrian workers are restricted to those who must be in the area such as Service Spotters and Dogmen as required under OHS Regulations. Where the new carriageway is well clear (approximately 12 metres with matching speed limits) of the existing road no security type fencing or barriers are provided but barriers are required when the worksite is close to the existing trafficked road for traffic protection and also serve to keep the public out of the closer work area. Sites typically require permission from the Lead Plant Operator, obtained over the required site radio system, to enter the area and this is a good practice. Plant is stopped until the visitors are located in a safe position isolated from the plant by barriers or safe clearance; sometimes they just need to drive past the plant to gain access to other areas of the site. Western Highway Duplication Project with new carriageway under construction well clear of existing highway. SHORT TERM SITES RURAL AND URBAN AREAS The short one to two day duration of these works has traditionally seen a dependence on behavioural or administrative type controls. Higher level controls may be seen as less practical because of the short duration of the works. However, pedestrian workers and the public (less so in rural areas) are potentially still exposed to the mobile plant hazard which is still classified as high risk work under the OHS Regulations 2007. This short term work is usually protected from traffic via the deployment of bollards to delineate the works boundary and often conducted at night when traffic and pedestrian volumes are low. Speed limits within site are typically reduced to 40 km/h or less. Page 25 of 42 18/12/2014

Excluding all pedestrians from the plant operating hazard zone should obviously be the first objective, so far as reasonably practicable. However, it is recognised that some limited personnel such as workers associated with some road surfacing plant and Electrical Spotters and Dogmen may need to be present to comply with other related safety requirements, but must be located in a position of safety. Recent incidents have reinforced the need to avoid the lowest level behavioural controls which depend on workers maintaining minimum clearances to mobile plant. Incident experience indicates that this is clearly an unreliable control when both plant operators and pedestrian workers are concentrating on their work. The work task requires visual, auditory, physical and mental concentration; the more difficult the task the greater the mental concentration required and this will impact on situational awareness such as a decreasing clearance between workers and mobile plant. Short term rural worksite vegetation control includes mobile plant within site and traffic exposure (both high risk areas). Incident statistics show that the work distraction can result in pedestrians and mobile plant coming into contact with serious consequences. There are numerous studies on driver distraction and these can probably be compared to plant operators, but fewer studies are available for pedestrian safety around mobile plant other than pedestrians near traffic / roads using mobile phones. Plant Tracking/Reversing Aids Within site the Internal Traffic Management Plan tends to rely on untrained Spotters to clear the areas behind reversing plant of both workers and the public, and reversing alarms to alert personnel of the approaching hazard. On long sites the practicability of Spotters is debateable unless radios are used and the Spotter has a clear sight of the area behind the plant, which is unlikely. A combination of controls is emerging which shows some promise. These controls include what may be best described as plant operator aids and include electronic devices such as: reversing cameras, reversing sensors, personal proximity warning devices and even a combination of reversing cameras and reversing sensors coupled to automatic braking such as the Reverse Smart. Page 26 of 42 18/12/2014

Where pedestrians are in close proximity to plant and movement into blind spots is frequently necessary consideration should be given to the removal of blind spots through the retro fitting of CCTV cameras so that the plant operator may effectively check for people or obstructions, it is not necessary to reverse / track into blind spots today because the technology is increasingly affordable and like mirrors permits the driver/operator to check and clear the area before and during movement. This is also recommended by the VWA Guide to Managing Safety in the Civil Construction - Industry Standard 2012. The plant operator still has to control their machine in a responsible way and ensure that all agreed safety controls within the applicable SWMS are fully in place at all times and that their plant is not moved if authorised personnel are not visible and clear of the plant or their plant is not moved into blind spots without a safe means of first checking this area is clear. Instead of concurrent plant operation close to pedestrian workers it may be possible to plan / stagger works so that the work area becomes a Pedestrian Worker No Go Zone while plant is in operation. The following table includes higher level GREEN controls which should be considered instead of relying on administrative / behavioural controls which are low reliability and the least safe controls: CONTROL 1. Implement Operational Safety Zones as per WorkCover / WorkSafe Civil Construction Industry Standard. Refer examples in these guidelines. 2. Eliminate Reversing or Tracking into plant blind spots. This is the most frequent cause of serious injury and fatality within site. 3. Install reversing / tracking camera/s onto plant used on site if they are often working near workers as per Section 4.5 Civil Construction Industry Standard. This may be combined with reversing sensors to alert driver / operator if they are distracted by their work. 4. If the above high level controls are not reasonably practicable provide trained Plant Movement Controllers (Signal person or Spotter) to safely direct plant reversing / tracking into blind spots. NOTE: Given that Mobile Plant Near Pedestrians is statistically the highest risk activity in road construction Provide Plant Safety Awareness training for all persons working on site which includes blind spot awareness and safe working procedures around plant. PRACTICAL? IF NOT PRACTICAL WHY NOT? MICHAEL ROSE CFSIA, RSP (Aust) HEALTH & SAFETY ADVISOR VICROADS WORKPLACE HEALTH, SAFETY & WELFARE Page 27 of 42 18/12/2014

11. NIOSH INTERNAL TRAFFIC CONTROL PLANS Similar approach taken in Victoria by some contractors such as site vehicle movement procedures. AN ORIGINAL COPY MAY BE OBTAINED FROM: http://www.workzonesafety.org/files/documents/training/fhwa_wz_grant/itcp.pdf Page 28 of 42 18/12/2014

11. NIOSH INTERNAL TRAFFIC CONTROL PLANS Similar approach taken in Victoria by some contractors such as site vehicle movement procedures. Page 29 of 42 18/12/2014

11. NIOSH INTERNAL TRAFFIC CONTROL PLANS Similar approach taken in Victoria by some contractors such as site vehicle movement procedures. Page 30 of 42 18/12/2014

11. NIOSH INTERNAL TRAFFIC CONTROL PLANS Similar approach taken in Victoria by some contractors such as site vehicle movement procedures. Page 31 of 42 18/12/2014

11. NIOSH INTERNAL TRAFFIC CONTROL PLANS Similar approach taken in Victoria by some contractors such as site vehicle movement procedures. Page 32 of 42 18/12/2014

11. NIOSH INTERNAL TRAFFIC CONTROL PLANS Similar approach taken in Victoria by some contractors such as site vehicle movement procedures. Page 33 of 42 18/12/2014

11. NIOSH INTERNAL TRAFFIC CONTROL PLANS Similar approach taken in Victoria by some contractors such as site vehicle movement procedures. Page 34 of 42 18/12/2014

11. NIOSH INTERNAL TRAFFIC CONTROL PLANS Similar approach taken in Victoria by some contractors such as site vehicle movement procedures. Page 35 of 42 18/12/2014

12. WORKCOVER POSITION IN RELATION TO DETERMINING WHAT IS REASONABLY PRACTICABLE WITH RESPECT TO THE COST OF ELIMINATING OR REDUCING THE HAZARD OR RISK (OHS ACT SECTION 20 (2) (e) Extract from the WorkCover position to How WorkSafe applies the law in relation to Reasonably Practicable November 2007: There must be a clear presumption in favour of safety. Once the likelihood and degree of harm from a hazard or risk is understood, and the availability and suitability of a relevant safety measure to eliminate or reduce the hazard or risk is established, that safety measure should be implemented unless the cost of doing so is so disproportionate to the benefit (in terms of reducing the severity of the hazard or risk) that it would be clearly unreasonable to justify the expenditure. In determining whether a particular level of expenditure is reasonable in the circumstances, the duty-holder must have regard to the: Likelihood and degree of harm of the hazard or risk; and The reduction of the likelihood and/or degree of harm that will result if the control measure is adopted. The greater the likelihood of the hazard or risk concerned eventuating, and/or the greater the degree of harm that would result if the hazard or risk eventuated, the less weight should be given to the cost of eliminating the hazard or risk. If the degree of harm is significant, e.g. death or serious injury is highly likely, then it is extremely unlikely that the cost of eliminating or reducing the risk would ever be so disproportionate to the risk to justify a decision not to implement an available and suitable control measure. Moreover, the question of what is reasonably practicable is to be determined objectively, and not by reference to the duty-holder s capacity to pay or other particular circumstances. If two duty-holders are faced with the same hazard or risk in similar situations, one duty-holder cannot expose people to a lower level of protection simply because it is in a lesser financial position than another dutyholder. If a particular duty-holder cannot afford to implement a control that is not as disproportionate to the risk as to be clearly unreasonable, the duty-holder should not engage in the activity that gives rise to that hazard or risk. If there are options available for eliminating or reducing a risk that achieve the same level of reduction in likelihood or degree of harm, a duty-holder may choose the least costly option. However, choosing a low cost option that provides less protection simply because it is cheaper is unlikely to be considered a reasonably practicable means of eliminating or reducing risk. The costs of implementing a particular control may include costs of purchase, installation, maintenance, operation of the control measure and any impact on productivity as a result of the introduction of the control measure. A calculation of the costs of implementing a control measure must also take into account savings from fewer incidents, injuries and illnesses, potentially improved productivity and reduced turnover of staff. Page 36 of 42 18/12/2014