CASE STUDY: SUGAR INDUSTRY

Version 1

NOSA (PTY) LTD

Version 1

CASE STUDY: SUGAR INDUSTRY

N/CS/001-v1

NOSA (PTY) LTD

CASE STUDY: SUGAR INDUSTRY

Version 1

All rights reserved NOSA (PTY) LTD

Copyright in the literary, artistic and other works capable of copyright protection contained within these materials vests in NOSA (PTY) LTD. These materials or any part thereof may not be reproduced, adapted, published, performed in public, broadcast or transmitted in any form without the express permission of NOSA (PTY) LTD. Should you carry out any of these actions in relation to any of the works contained within these training materials without permission, you may be liable for civil law copyright infringement as well as criminal prosecution.

Visit: www.nosa.co.za Version 1 2011

NOSA (PTY) LTD

Version 1

CASE STUDY: SUGAR INDUSTRY

NOSA Overview
NOSA Overview .............................................................................................................. 4 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Introduction .......................................................................................................... 5 NOSA Auditing....................................................................................................... 5 NOSA Support Products ...................................................................................... 11 A comparison between the NOSA CMB150 and OHSAS 18001 .......................... 17 NOSA A Practical Example ................................................................................ 21

NOSA (PTY) LTD

CASE STUDY: SUGAR INDUSTRY

Version 1

1.

Introduction

NOSA was established in 1951 and is a leading supplier of occupational risk management products and services that enhance a clients business performance, while creating a safe environment for employees and the community. From its humble beginnings sixty years ago, NOSA has expanded into a global business, providing services to thousands of clients across all major industry sectors. NOSAs products and services are recognised as an international benchmark in the management of Occupational Health, Safety and Environmental HSE risks by multi-national organisations operating in Africa, South America, the Far East and Australia. Certification, consultation and training services are tailor-made according to clients specific needs and risk profiles and include areas such as occupational health, safety, hygiene, environment, quality, behaviour, HIV/AIDS, corporate governance and corporate social responsibility. This study will first give an overview of the NOSA products and services and thereafter goes into some detail on the practical benefits of implementing the NOSA system. A large multi-national client of NOSAs is used as a case study.

2.

NOSA Auditing

NOSAs products and services have been pivotal at improving the risk management performance of companies across the globe and have proven to be the most effective systems at reducing workplace incidents. The 60 years of success is due to the companys highly flexible approach , providing services and support products that are tailor-made according to the clients specific needs and risk profile. NOSA offers a holistic range of certification services, from basic legal compliance audits to integrated safety, health and environmental management system audits.

NOSA (PTY) LTD

Version 1

CASE STUDY: SUGAR INDUSTRY

2.1

NOSA Audit Process

2.1.1 Baseline Audit

This is the first audit conducted by NOSA and is used as a basis to identify deviations between the clients management system and that of NOSAs. The baseline audit serves as a consultation exercise and whilst the client will receive a detailed site report no star grading will be allocated. The audit focuses largely on HSE risks, with little emphasis placed on the efforts scores, which is covered in the Star Grading Audit.

2.1.2 Star Grading Audit

This is an audit conducted to determine the status of a client's risk management system and compliance with the applicable NOSA protocol. This audit is conducted annually or more frequently if requested by the client. The result of the audit is displayed as a NOSA Star Grading. The NOSA audit team provides an independent audit outcome to clients in the quest to uphold the best principles of risk management in everyday business operations. The NOSA audit process should be viewed from a risk driven perspective. Measurement and evaluation of standards should be measured in accordance with process/site specific risks rather than fixed and/or invariable criteria. The audit should identify a companys strengths, weaknesses and opportunities for improvement in the day-to-day management of their safety health and environmental risks. The NOSA Integrated Five Star System (CMB253: Health, Safety and Environmental) and the NOSA Five Star System (CMB150: Health and Safety) contain 5 sections and 72 elements, which are detailed below:

NOSA (PTY) LTD

CASE STUDY: SUGAR INDUSTRY

Version 1

2.1.3 Element Index

ELEMENT 1.00 1.11 1.12 1.13 1.14 1.15 1.21 1.22 1.23 1.24 1.25 1.26 2.00 2.10 2.11 2.12 2.13 2.14 2.15 2.16 2.17 2.18 2.21 2.22 2.23 2.30 2.31 SECTION / ELEMENT PREMISES AND HOUSEKEEPING Buildings and floors Lighting: Natural and artificial Ventilation: Natural and artificial Sanitation, plant hygiene amenities for personal hygiene Pollution risk control Aisles, storage and keep accessible areas demarcated/signposted Good stacking and storage practices Factory and yard: Tidy Waste management Colour coding: Plant equipment and pipelines Resource conservation MECHANICAL, ELECTRICAL AND PERSONAL SAFEGUARDING Plant and equipment maintenance Machine guarding Lock-out system Labelling of electrical switchgear and critical valves Ladders, elevated platforms, stairs and scaffolding Lifting machines and lifting tackle Boilers, pressure vessels and compressed gas cylinders Hazardous chemical substances (HCS) control Motorised equipment: Checklist, licensing Portable electrical equipment Earth leakage (E/L) relays: Use and check General electrical installations and electrical machinery in hazardous locations Hand tools: E.g. hammers, chisels and trolleys Ergonomics 7

NOSA (PTY) LTD

Version 1 2.40 2.41 2.50

CASE STUDY: SUGAR INDUSTRY Personal protective equipment (PPE) Hearing conservation Notices and signs: Electrical, mechanical, protective equipment, traffic signs, symbolic safety signs MANAGEMENT OF FIRE AND OTHER EMERGENCY RISKS Management of fire risks Fire emergency equipment accessible and visible Maintenance of fire protection equipment Storage of flammables/chemicals and explosive material Emergency alarm system Fire fighting drill and instruction Security system Emergency planning INCIDENT RECORDING AND INVESTIGATION SHE incident records Internal incident investigation Statistics SHE risk financing Incident recall ORGANISATIONAL MANAGEMENT SHE policy SHE risk and impact assessment Legal requirements and/or standards Corporate standards SHE objectives and targets SHE plan System review Responsibility of Chief Executive Officer Appointments SH&E representatives

3.00 3.01 3.02 3.04 3.05 3.06 3.07 3.08 3.09 4.00 4.11 4.12 4.13 4.22 4.23 5.00 5.01 5.02 5.03 5.04 5.05 5.06 5.07 5.10 5.11 5.12

NOSA (PTY) LTD

CASE STUDY: SUGAR INDUSTRY 5.13 5.14 5.15 5.16 5.21 5.22 5.23 5.24 5.25 5.30 5.32 5.33 5.39 5.40 5.41 5.42 5.43 5.50 5.51 5.52 5.60

Version 1

Committees Communication First-aider and occupational health service facilities First-aid training Awareness and promotion SHE experience and star grading board Suggestion scheme Reference resources Annual report Training Medical services Selection and placement Environmental monitoring Inspections and action Bi-annual self-audits Design specifications: Manufacturing, purchasing and engineering control new plant and modifications Contractor and contracts control Written safe work procedures: Issued and used Planned job observations Work permits Off-the-job SHE

During the audit a detailed audit scoresheet will be completed, whereby each NOSA element is scored. A spreadsheet draws from the score information together with the weighting allocated to each element to calculate a total effort score for the company (an example of a score sheet is reflected in the case study below). The effort score along with the Disabling Incident Frequency Rate DIFR will determine a companys star rating as per the matrix below.

NOSA (PTY) LTD

Version 1

CASE STUDY: SUGAR INDUSTRY

Example:
(1 x fractured arm + 1 x gas inhalation + 1 diagnosed case of asbestosis) x 200 000 Jan 100 000 + Feb 150 000 + Mar 150 000 = 3 x 200 000 400 000 = 600 000 400 000

DIFR = 1.5 Incidents = injuries + illnesses + diseases = total number of disabling incidents

NOSA (PTY) LTD

10

CASE STUDY: SUGAR INDUSTRY

Version 1

NOSCAR status is above a five star grading and is the ultimate achievement in HSE management. NOSCAR companies represent approximately 6% of all companies running the NOSA Programmes, an indication of how difficult it is to achieve. NOSCAR companies are recognised by NOSA on an annual basis, at the NOSCAR Awards Banquet.

3.

NOSA Support Products

In order to assist a company implement and maintain their NOSA system, NOSA has over the years developed a number of support products. These include:

3.1

NOSA System Kit

The System Kit is a set of tools which assists with the implementation and improvement of the Integrated Safety, Health and Environmental Risk Management Programme. These tools are flexible, easy to use and time efficient. The kit comprises: NOSA Integrated Five Star System Guide Provides clarity on the interpretations of the Integrated Five Star System through: The definition of key words contained in the intent statement Orientation words to assist customisation Links to other relevant clauses, which ensures total risk management Links to legislation, which ensures legal compliance Implementation Standards Framework No need to develop system documentation from scratch Guides practitioners to conformance Provides flexibility for customisation Provides links for system integration Eases document control
NOSA (PTY) LTD

11

Version 1

CASE STUDY: SUGAR INDUSTRY

Registers Provides a means of legal compliance Simplifies equipment maintenance management All equipment covered in one document Document layout provides ease of use Paperwork reduced by 90% Register Control Documents All inspections recorded in one document Provides record of inspections performed and registers kept Identifies areas for attention or improvement Can be used in the smaller enterprises as registers Consists of weekly, monthly and annual inspection checklists and 28 equipment register monitoring documents Appointment Documents Consists of 36 appointment letters HSE Planner Breaks down the SH&E policy into measurable objectives Provides an overview of the status of the SH&E management system Enables the organisation to monitor progress Provides ownership of activity Increases awareness of SH&E in the organisation Incident Investigation Documents All incidents are recorded Incidents are documented and defined in a formal system Causes of incidents are determined in a structured manner Legal implications of incidents are defined and addressed Consists of SH&E incident investigation dockets (10), minor incident investigation register, SH&E incident register, Annexure II summary

NOSA (PTY) LTD

12

CASE STUDY: SUGAR INDUSTRY

Version 1

3.2

RiskWorks

RiskWorks offers Safety, Health, Environment, Quality, Liability and Security Information Technology systems and support. The product is an easy to use system for integrated risk management assessments and effective control. The system proactively alerts key users on essential risk management activities and is compatible with standard ISO and NOSA system specifications. The modules, which are indicated in the screen shot below include, an incident register, personal compliance planner, integrated audit wizard, task scheduler, equipment inspection register and a detailed reporting tool. Additional information on the product is available on the RiskWorks website (www.riskworks.co.za).

NOSA (PTY) LTD

13

Version 1

CASE STUDY: SUGAR INDUSTRY

3.3

NOSA Media Sales

NOSA has a range of off the shelf products that assist a company at increasing awareness around occupational risks management in the workplace. These products, which are customised for specific industries, include: DVDs Posters Registers, Books, Manuals and Planners Legislation Flags and Grading Board Items NOSA Toolbox NOSA Promotional Items

3.4

NOSA Managed Services

NOSA Managed Services offers a complete range of consulting services which add value to a business, assisting in both the implementation and management of the system, whether it is ISO9001, ISO14001, OHSAS18001 or any of the NOSA systems. NOSA Managed Services will ensure that it understands a business processes and will implement and customise a solution to best suit the companys needs and requirements. Products and Services: Diagnostic Review / Situational Assessment Review of SHE competencies / training needs Risk Assessments Management System Development, implementation and ongoing support

NOSA (PTY) LTD

14

CASE STUDY: SUGAR INDUSTRY Management System Optimisation Management System Integration Capacity Building Performance Reporting Monitoring of environmental stressors Legal Services On Site SHEQ Management

Version 1

3.5

NOSA Training

The following courses are presented by experienced, qualified and accredited full-time training facilitators. The training is either provided as public training through one of NOSAs 40 training academies or provid ed directly to the client on an in-house basis. A detailed overview of each course and the course outcomes is available on the NOSA website (www.nosaworld.com). General Introductory Courses Applying SHE Principles and Procedures Environmental Awareness HSE Induction Introduction to Occupational SHE Basic SHE Inspections Office Health and Safety HSE Representative / Supervisory Courses SHE Representative Functions Preliminary Incident Investigation Safety for Supervisors Training Course SHE Representative Course Introduction to Occupational Health and Safety Act COID Act Training Course

NOSA (PTY) LTD

15

Version 1

CASE STUDY: SUGAR INDUSTRY

Specialised and Advanced HSE Courses Fire-Fighting First-Aid Level 1 First-Aid Level 2 First-Aid Level 3 Working at Heights - Module 1A: Safety at Height Working at Heights - Module 1C: Safety at Height - Electrician Working at Heights - Module 1E: Safety at Height - Marine Offshore Working at Heights -Module 2: Rescue training Course Working at Heights - Module 1AS: Safety at Height Working at Heights - Module 2AS: Rescue training Course Working at Heights Fall Protection Plan Development Lifting Tackle Inspector Workshop Management and Technical Lifting Tackle Workshop Basic Slinging and Inspection Course Procedures and Observations Incident Investigation Level 3 Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment Advanced Occupational Health and Safety Act From A-Z: OHS Act 85 of 1993 NOSA Auditors Course NOSA Integrated Five Star System Navigator NOSA HSE System Documentation Tools Introduction to SAMTRAC SAMTRAC ITIS Train-the-Trainer Strategic Risk Planning NEBOSH International General Certificate (IGC) NEBOSH International Construction Certificate (ICC) NEBOSH International Diploma NEBOSH National Environmental Certificate (IEC) RiskWorks Miracles Course Theory and Principles of Behaviour Based Safety

NOSA (PTY) LTD

16

CASE STUDY: SUGAR INDUSTRY Executive Level Courses Safety for Senior Executives Corporate Governance: An Insight into Strategic Risk management Climate Change Management Course Courses Specialised for the Mining Industry Applying SHE Principles and Procedures for Mining SHE Representative for Mining SAMTRAC for Mining Mine Health and Safety Act (MHSAct) Course Namibian SAMTRAC for Mining SAMTRAC for Mining: Bridging Course Accredited Auditor and HSE Management System Training ISO 9001:2008 Introduction ISO 9001:2008 QMS Internal Auditors Course ISO 9001:2008 QMS Implementation ISO 14001 Introduction ISO 14001 Implementation ISO 14001 EMS Internal Auditors Course OHSAS 18001 Introduction OHSAS 18001 Implementation OHSAS 18001 Internal Auditors Course

Version 1

4.

A comparison between the NOSA CMB150 and OHSAS 18001

There are ongoing discussions between HSE practitioners about which system is better, the NOSA Five Star System or OHSAS 18001, or whether the NOSA Integrated Five Star System or dual certification on the OHSAS 18001 and ISO 14001 standards would be a better option. This exercise compares the two standards and thereafter will conclude its findings.

NOSA (PTY) LTD

17

Version 1

CASE STUDY: SUGAR INDUSTRY

NOSA FIVE STAR SYSTEM Firstly the auditor must determine if the organisation has identified and assessed occupational health and safety hazards and risks associated with all the processes, activities and major installations of the organisation.

OHSAS 18001 Firstly the auditor must determine if the organisation has identified and assessed occupational health and safety hazards and risks associated with all the processes, activities and major installations of the organisation.

Secondly the auditor must determine if a Secondly the auditor must determine if a formal (documented) system is in place formal (documented) system is in place to manage the occupational health and to manage the occupational health and safety risks associated with all the safety risks associated with all the identified risks. identified risks. Thirdly the auditor must check that the Thirdly the auditor must check that the organisation is complying with its organisation is complying with its documented formal occupational health documented formal occupational health and safety system. and safety system. Up to this point, there is clearly no difference between a NOSA and an OHSAS 18001 audit, except that OHSAS has clauses and NOSA has elements. In principle the clauses and the elements cover the same basic issues namely risks to a persons health and safety. The OHSAS auditor does not have to At this point the NOSA auditor has to evaluate the EFFECTIVENESS of the additionally evaluate the effectiveness implemented system of the implemented system. Each of the 72 elements clearly states an intent, e.g. to reduce the severity and frequency of incidents. The auditor now has to ask the very important question of the whether the implemented system effectively meets the intent of the element OHSAS 18001 does not take the The NOSA auditor also has to determine incident frequency rates into account the different incident frequency rates for when recommending certification. different types of incidents such as: Theoretically a company can have an For safety Incidents extremely high frequency of disabling Fatality Incident Frequency Rate incidents and even fatalities and still Permanent Disability Incident Frequency be certified on OHSAS 18001. Rate Lost Day Case Rate Restricted Work- Day Case Rate
NOSA (PTY) LTD

18

CASE STUDY: SUGAR INDUSTRY

Version 1

If the OHSAS auditor does not identify any major non-conformances with relation to any of the clauses, he or she will recommend that the organisation is certified to have a formal system in place. OHSAS auditors do not score the implemented system but simply determine if there are major or minor non-conformances. The OHSAS auditor may also record findings which do not constitute a non-conformance. Thus the outcome of an OHSAS 18001 audit can have only two possible outcomes, namely: Recommend for certification No recommendation for certification

Medical Treatment Case Rate First-aid Treatment Case Rate For Health Incidents Fatality Incident Case rate Irreversible Diagnosed Disease Rate Reversible Diagnosed Disease Rate Noise Induced Hearing Loss Case Rate Different specific rates will exclude an organisation from obtaining an excellence rating that could be anywhere from zero to 5 stars depending on the different disqualifiers in terms of the accident frequency rates as well as the score obtained during the audit The NOSA auditor now has to score each of the elements as prescribed by the audit protocol and allocate a score to each element of 100%, 90%, 75%, 65%, 50%, 45%, 25%, 15% or 0% based on the level to which the implemented system meets the intent of each one of the elements. Risk, System, Compliance and Effectiveness is considered for each of the 72 elements and scored as explained above. The outcome of the NOSA audit has 7 possible outcomes, namely: 0 Stars - system not certifiable 1 Star - Poor 2 Star - Weak 3 Star - Good 4 Star - Very good 5 Star - Excellent NOSCAR Special recognition

NOSA (PTY) LTD

19

Version 1

CASE STUDY: SUGAR INDUSTRY

Objective: To measure whether a formal OHS management system is in place AND the level of effectiveness of the implemented system in meeting the OHS objectives of the organisation.

Objective: To measure if a formal OHS Management system is in place

Whilst the above comparison only touched on the critical differences between OHSAS 18001 and the NOSA Health and Safety protocol it can be summarised as follows: Any OHS management system is as comprehensive as the people in the plant or workplace who implement and maintain the system. One is unable to say that an OHSAS 18001 audit is better than a NOSA grading audit the intensity of the system is determined internally by the organisation and should normally be determined by the OHS risk profile of the organisation. OHSAS 18001 measures whether a formal OHS risk management system has been implemented and gives recognition by issuing a certificate that the requirements of the standard have been met. NOSA measures whether a formal OHS risk management system is in place and is done in conjunction with the CMB150 protocol, which measures the level of excellence of the implemented system. This allows companies with multiple sites to benchmark and gain an understanding of where their greatest exposures lie. NOSA recognises excellence in OHS risk management by awarding a star rating.

NOSA (PTY) LTD

20

CASE STUDY: SUGAR INDUSTRY

Version 1

5.
5.1

NOSA A Practical Example

Abstract

The following practical example will analyse the impact of the implementation of the NOSA CMB253 system on a leading multi-national company in the sugar industry. The company shall be referred to throughout this study as Company A. The study will not only evaluate and investigate the risks within the industry, but will determine whether the implementation of the NOSA Integrated Five Star System has created a safer, healthier and more environmentally friendly workplace. Company A focuses on growing cane, sugar milling, refining and packaging at its operations throughout the Southern Africa region and implemented the NOSA Integrated Five Star System at all its operations in 2001.

5.2

Objective

To determine whether the NOSA CMB253 system has had an impact on: a. The Disabling Incident Frequency DIF time lost in the workplace where employees have been absent and unable to work for any length of period due to an occupational accident/injury, however severe. The Disabling Incident Frequency Rate DIFR the total number of fatal injury cases, permanent disability cases, lost workday cases, health fatality cases, irreversible diagnosed disease cases and reversible diagnosed disease cases times 200 000 divided by the number of hours worked over the exposure period. Costs related to workplace injuries.

b.

c.

NOSA (PTY) LTD

21

Version 1

CASE STUDY: SUGAR INDUSTRY

5.3

NOSA Implementation

The integrated HSE Management system within Company A was specifically designed to: Minimise, manage and monitor SHE risks and impacts associated with contaminants, waste and pollution. Identify and manage the risks associated with the safety of people. Optimise the consumption of natural resources. Effectively monitor the micro and macro environment and to trigger corrective actions when required. Ensure there are procedures in place to control workplace SHE risks at their source. Promote sustainable farming practice. Occupational health and safety issues that may be specifically associated with sugar manufacturing operations include the following: Physical hazards Exposure to dust and biological hazards Exposure to chemicals including gases and vapours Exposure to noise and vibrations. Unfortunately without the correct training and a sound HSE understanding many hazards are only realised once an incident, injury or fatality occurs. The industry specific auditing, training and consulting services that NOSA offers are designed to provide employees at all levels of business with both the correct tools and knowledge to recognise potential hazards, and the systems to prevent these potential future risks. The following table illustrates some of the everyday hazards faced by Company A in the sugar industry.

NOSA (PTY) LTD

22

CASE STUDY: SUGAR INDUSTRY

Version 1

5.4

Audit outcomes

Each site of Company A that is audited by NOSAs auditors will rece ive the following:

5.4.1 Site Report

The site report is compiled by the audit team and contains the findings pertaining to each of the 72 elements indicated on page 2 and 3 of this document. At the end of each day the auditor will score the audit findings in relation to risk, system, compliance and effectiveness as indicated in the detailed score sheet below. The reference number in the first column comprises the initials of the auditor who made the finding and the finding number. This ensures that any queries on a finding can be directed to the apropriate auditor. In circumstances where multiple audit outcomes are requested by the client, such as OHSAS18001 and/or ISO14001, an additional column is added where the clause number is linked to the element number. This allows for multiple outcomes (NOSA Five Star, OHSAS18001, ISO14001 and ISO9001) in a single audit.

NOSA (PTY) LTD

23

Version 1

CASE STUDY: SUGAR INDUSTRY

Example of Findings Raised During an Audit

Ref No. BC1 Element No 1.11 Details of finding raised

Hot water pipes leaking at the entrance to the Pan Floor from the Boiler house creating a burning risk. The standard for element 2.16 still refers to the old Vessels Under Pressure Regulations and does not address the new legislative changes. The pneumatic machines sampled were identified on the hand tool register collectively however it could not be established which tool was defective e.g. the pneumatic ratchet was not numbered. Risks associated with chemical compatibility have not been identified and included in the site standard. The site SHE standard states that monthly communication is conducted however this is done on a quarterly basis. The following permits 2807, 2806 and 1786 were not signed off by the authorising permit holder as per procedure. The permit conditions did not adequately identify the specific PPE to be worn during the operation in question. The permit documentation for working at heights did not identify the risk of adverse weather conditions when working at heights.

BC8 2.16 BC9

BB15

3.05

GD23

5.13

GD24 GD25 5.52

NOSA (PTY) LTD

24

CASE STUDY: SUGAR INDUSTRY

Version 1

5.4.2 Audit Score Sheet

When the auditors score a site, they will score each element against health, safety and/or environment (depending on whether it is applicable to that element) using the score guideline on page 20. In terms of the risk, system, compliance and effectiveness, the auditor will: firstly analyse whether the risk has been identified for that specific element for health, safety and environment thereafter he will determine whether there is a system in place to address and mitigate the risks. The auditor will also determine whether the control factors have been taken into consideration The auditor will then conduct a sample of activities to verify compliance to what is stated in the clients system and procedures Finally, the auditor will review the effectiveness of the controls and procedures in place to manage the risks

Example
If one reviews the findings above on element 5.52: Work Permits it is clear that the operation has identified working at heights as a risk, however, the auditor has identified that inclement weather conditions are not included in the risk assessment. Accordingly, the risk rating for both health and safety on the score sheet has been reduced to 90 as not all risks associated with the task have been identified. There is a work permit in place to control the activity of working at heights, however, the operation failed to consider the appropriate use of PPE in mitigating the risk. The score for safety system was therefore reduced to 90.

NOSA (PTY) LTD

25

Version 1

CASE STUDY: SUGAR INDUSTRY

Although there was a permit to work system in place, when a sample of work permits was taken, the auditor found that they were not adequately signed off as per the procedure. The score for compliance on safety was therefore reduced to 90. If the activity could have resulted in adverse health and/or environmental effect, then the health and/or environmental score would also have been adversely affected. Finally, the effectiveness of the system and controls is scored and in the example, both health and safety scores were reduced to 90. This is due to the fact that by failing to identify the appropriate PPE, the activity would have had an adverse effect on the employees health and the fact that permits were not signed off could result in a safety breach.

NOSA (PTY) LTD

26

CASE STUDY: SUGAR INDUSTRY

Version 1

Score Sheet
SCORE S RISK SYSTEM COMPLIANCE EFFECTIVEN ESS ELEMENT TOTAL: 75 100 100 75 H 100 100 100 100 E 100 100 100 100 TOTAL 85 ACTUALS S 2.03 4.05 6.08 8.10 20.25 H 0.23 0.45 0.68 0.90 2.25 E 1.58 3.15 4.73 6.30 15.75 3.83 7.65 11.48 15.30 38.25

INTENT: Structural integrity through appropriate maintenance of buildings and structures SCORE S RISK SYSTEM COMPLIANCE EFFECTIVEN ESS 100 90 90 90 H 100 90 100 90 E 100 90 100 90 TOTAL ACTUALS S 1.60 2.88 3.89 5.76 14.13 H 0.80 1.44 2.16 2.88 7.28 E 1.60 2.88 4.32 5.76 14.56 4.00 7.20 10.37 14.40

35.97 ELEMENT TOTAL: 90 INTENT: SHE risks associated with pressurised systems, vessels and containers are identified, assessed and managed. SCORE S RISK SYSTEM COMPLIANCE EFFECTIVEN ESS ELEMENT TOTAL: 100 75 100 90 H 100 75 100 90 E 100 75 100 90 TOTAL 84 ACTUALS S 4.00 6.00 9.00 14.40 33.40 H 2.00 3.00 4.50 7.20 16.70 E 2.00 3.00 4.50 7.20 16.70 8.00 12.00 18.00 28.80 66.80

INTENT: Safe storage of potential SHE dangerous substances. SCORE S RISK SYSTEM 100 90 H 100 90 E 100 90 ACTUALS S 1.32 2.38 H 1.32 2.38 E 1.36 2.45 4.00 7.20

NOSA (PTY) LTD

27

Version 1
COMPLIANCE EFFECTIVEN ESS ELEMENT TOTAL:

CASE STUDY: SUGAR INDUSTRY

100 90 100 90 100 90 TOTAL 91 3.56 4.75 12.01 3.56 4.75 12.01 3.67 4.90 12.38 10.80 14.40 36.40

INTENT: To create a participative forum to discuss and action SHE related matters. SCORE S RISK SYSTEM COMPLIANCE EFFECTIVEN ESS ELEMENT TOTAL: 90 90 90 90 H 90 100 100 90 E 100 100 100 100 TOTAL 91 ACTUALS S 1.19 2.14 2.89 4.75 10.97 H 1.19 2.38 3.56 4.75 11.88 E 1.36 2.72 4.08 5.44 13.60 3.74 7.23 10.53 14.94 36.45

INTENT: Control over execution of potential dangerous tasks.

Score Guideline

NOSA (PTY) LTD

28

CASE STUDY: SUGAR INDUSTRY

Version 1

5.4.3 Executive Report

The Executive Report is compiled by the audit team and is delivered to the clients senior management. The Executive Report is reviewed by the NOSA Technical Review Panel prior to distribution to ensure that there are no inconsistencies between the audit findings and the score sheet. Once the Technical Review Panel is satisfied with the report, the final star grading outcome is communicated to the client. The Executive Report summarises the key findings identified during the audit and reported in the site report. A summary of the score per section, along with a Manhattan graph indicating the score per element is also included. The Executive Report will identify both critical areas of concern or major findings and will also commend the client on their positive achievements. The Executive Report allows management to make key decisions on their HSE exposures, enabling them to allocate budgets to areas that require urgent attention.

An example of an executive report is reflected on the following page.

NOSA (PTY) LTD

29

Version 1

CASE STUDY: SUGAR INDUSTRY

NOSA INTEGRATED FIVE STAR SYSTEM EXECUTIVE REPORT FOR

[COMPANY AND SITE NAME]

PROJECT NUMBER: QAED 1316

[AUDIT DATE]
THIS REPORT WAS PREPARED BY: [Auditors name] NOSA PO BOX 1665 WANDSBECK 3631 Tel Fax Cell E-mail E-mail Website : : : : :

www.nosa.co.za

AUDIT PROTOCOL CMB253

NOSA (PTY) LTD

30

CASE STUDY: SUGAR INDUSTRY

Version 1

INTRODUCTION
A NOSA Integrated Five Star System grading audit was conducted at [COMPANY AND SITE NAME] on [DATE]. The scope of the audit included Safety, Health and Environmental management. The following activities/ processes were covered: cane cutting, cane yard, extraction, pan floor, laboratory, boilers, packing station and all workshop areas. No areas were excluded from the scope of the audit. During the exit meeting the following key findings and trends were presented.

CRITICAL CONCERNS
No review of the management system has taken place. A chemical compatibility study has not been conducted and raises the risk of a fire Outstanding earth leakage measurements. Outstanding load tests for several items of lifting gear.

AREAS FOR IMPROVEMENT

SHE risk assessments did not identify vibration and non ionising radiation exposures in all relevant departments. Earth leakage testing was not conducted individually per distribution board as per system requirements. The permit requirements for working at heights were not adhered to. Previous audit findings should be closed out. Identification of applicable SHE legislation linked to all aspects. Appointment of a SHE Management Representative.
NOSA (PTY) LTD

31

Version 1

CASE STUDY: SUGAR INDUSTRY

Several SHE training certificates require revalidation. The current Emergency Plan should address the MHI requirements further. A fire risk assessment is outstanding. Incident reporting of non disabling incidents is inadequate.

ACHIEVEMENTS
Management commitment on the day of the audit was commendable. Occupational hygiene surveys that were conducted were of a high standard. Premises and housekeeping was of a high standard.

Based on the above mentioned trends, the following recommendations serve to improve the effectiveness of the current SHE Management Programme: SHE risk assessments need to be revised to ensure all vibration and non ionising radiation exposures in relevant departments are identified. Earth leakage testing need to be revised to address all units individually, per distribution board as per system requirements. The permit requirements for working at heights to be reviewed.

NOSA (PTY) LTD

32

CASE STUDY: SUGAR INDUSTRY

Version 1

EFFORT SCORES Premises & Housekeeping Safeguarding Fire & Emergency Incident Management Organisational Management 94.31% 93.44% 92.85% 91.94% 93.87% Safety Health Environmen t Total Points Scored 93.83% 92.57% 92.75% 2789.99 3000.00 Risk System Compliance Effectiveness Total Effort Score 92.76% 93.35% 93.38% 92.47% 92.99%

CURRENT OUTCOME Rating 5 Platinum Star Status No Peer Reviewer: Graham Kings In line for NOSCAR: No Date: 23.07.10

Current NOSCAR company:

INCIDENT EXPERIENCE Date from/to Employees/contracto rs S/F: 0 01 July 2009 - 31 June 2010 423 employees Months Man hours DIFR: 0.34 H/F :0 H/IDD :0 H/RD D: 0 NIHL :1 ENV/MAJ: 0 12 1 185 318

Number of Disabling Incidents: 2 S/PD:0 S/LWD: 1 S/RWD: 0

LEGEND FOR DISABLING INCIDENT ABBREVIATIONS S/ F Safety, Fatality E/ MAJ Environment, Major H/ F Health, Fatality

S/ LWD Safety, Lost Work Day Diagnosed Disease S/ RWD Safety, Restricted Work Day Diagnosed Disease S/PD Safety, Permanent Disability Hearing Loss

H/ IDD

Health, Irreversible

H/ RDD

Health, Reversible

H/NIHL

Health, Noise Induced

NOSA (PTY) LTD

33

Version 1

CASE STUDY: SUGAR INDUSTRY

PREVIOUS OUTCOMES OUTCOME OF THE PAST 2 YEARS GRADING RESULTS Outcome 01-30.07.2009 Outcome 11-13.08.2008 DIFR = 0.21 DIFR = 0.62 Effort = 92.2% Effect= 91.2% Star Rating = 5 Platinum Stars Star Rating = 5 Platinum Stars

100.00

MANHATTAN PER ELEMENT

80.00

60.00

5.4.4 Star Rating

Upon communicating a sites final star rating to management, a certificate reflecting the grading is sent to the site. Examples of the certificates are reflected below. In addition, the site is entered into the NOSA Regional and National Awards. Both the site and the individuals responsible for the sites performance compete against their peers and are recognised at the annual awards banquets.

NOSA (PTY) LTD

5.60 5.52 5.51 5.50 5.43 5.42 5.41 5.40 5.39 5.33 5.32 5.30 5.25 5.24 5.23 5.22 5.21 5.16 5.15 5.14 5.13 5.12 5.11 5.10 5.07 5.06 5.05 5.04 5.03 5.02 5.01 4.23 4.22 4.13 4.12 4.11 3.09 3.08 3.07 3.06 3.05 3.04 3.02 3.01 2.50 2.41 2.40 2.31 2.30 2.23 2.22 2.21 2.18 2.17 2.16 2.15 2.14 2.13 2.12 2.11 2.10 1.26 1.25 1.24 1.23 1.22 1.21 1.15 1.14 1.13 1.12 1.11

34

CASE STUDY: SUGAR INDUSTRY

Version 1

NOSA Certificates

5.3.5 Analyses of the Results and Conclusion

Substantial improvements have been made since the use of NOSAs products and services by Company A in 2001, with both the South African and International Operations showing an improved HSE performance. As reflected in the graph below, Company A reported 303 Disabling Incidents in 2001, with the number falling to 55 in 2010.
NOSA (PTY) LTD

35

Version 1

CASE STUDY: SUGAR INDUSTRY

Figure 1.1
Disabling Incidents

DI's for "Company A"

400 300 200

100
0 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 304 255 114 88 55 62 53 52 55

LTI's 303

Similarly, the DIFR has fallen from 1.55 (2001) to 0.1 in 2010. This is a notable reduction and a further indication of the success of the NOSA system. The decline has had a positive impact on staff morale and has resulted in significant cost savings.
Figure 1.2
Disabling Incident Frequency Rate

DIFR for "Company A"

1.5 1 0.5 0 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 0.1 0.09 0.1

LITIFR 1.55 1.41 0.91 0.43 0.38 0.21 0.13

It is clear from figures 1.1 and 1.2 that the systems implemented and the training provided by NOSA has been extremely successful, as the disabling incidents have fallen dramatically. Whilst the DIs increased slightly during 2002; this does not mean that the NOSA system was unsuccessful in the second year of implementation, but is more an indication that all incidences were being recorded and classified correctly.

NOSA (PTY) LTD

36

CASE STUDY: SUGAR INDUSTRY Benefits to Company A: 1. 2. 3. 4.

Version 1

Company A has clearly managed their HSE risks more effectively The NOSA system has reduced the costs related to injuries and maintenance through the mitigation of problems and risks. It has improved labour relations and productivity, with employees being more confident that they will return home safely. It has allowed Company A to benchmark all its sites, allowing it to place more focus on sites that have achieved a low star grading.

Other Benefits of implementing the NOSA Five Star System and NOSA Integrated Five Star System: A Risk based measurable system. Critical issues and OHS/SHE risks are easily identified. Risks can be prioritised and addressed in a systematic manner. Enables all categories of staff to participate. Compatible with existing organisational management systems, e.g. ISO 9001:2000, ISO 14001 and OHSAS 18001 systems, as well as legislative requirements. Proven correlation between the DIFR of a company and its NOSA star rating status. Reduces absenteeism, claims and insurance assessments. Addresses moral, legal and financial issues related to occupational health and safety management. Enhances employer/employee relationships and marketing integrity both locally and abroad. Boosts morale, productivity, standards of living and profits. Improves commitment to health and safety that are as integral to operations as production and quality standards. Improves commitment to sound environmental management
NOSA (PTY) LTD

37

Version 1

CASE STUDY: SUGAR INDUSTRY

Implementation can start virtually overnight as NOSA can supply all the necessary back-up documentation, examples of forms, registers and other technical data. Recognition is given in the form of a grading certificate and grading board at the entrance of the plant for all to see employees, public and competitors. Could be incorporated into sustainable reporting. Reflects perceptions as well as realities as built into corporate reputation.

NOSA (PTY) LTD

38