forestry log haulage registered code of...log haulage registered code of practice (flhrcop) will be...

Forestry Log Haulage Registered Code of Practice – Risks and Key Issues Final Report

June 2018

Australian Forest Contracts Association Final Report EY i

Table of contents

1. Executive Summary ....................................................................................................... 2

1.1 Overview of objectives and approach ......................................................................... 2

1.2 Overview of findings ................................................................................................ 4

2. Background and objectives ............................................................................................. 5

2.1 HVNL and Industry specific guidelines ....................................................................... 5

2.2 Safety & log haulage ................................................................................................ 6

2.3 Objectives of EY engagement.................................................................................... 6

3. Approach to developing the FLHRCoP ............................................................................. 7

3.1 Overview of methodology ......................................................................................... 7

3.2 Outputs of preliminary research & consultation .......................................................... 8

4. Risks identified .............................................................................................................. 9

4.1 Determining risks in scope ........................................................................................ 9

4.2 Risks selected for inclusion and analysis .................................................................. 10

4.3 Overview of risk severity ........................................................................................ 11

5. Detailed risks analysis .................................................................................................. 12

5.1 Rollover ................................................................................................................ 12

5.2 Third party collision ............................................................................................... 18

5.3 Loss of control of the vehicle .................................................................................. 21

5.4 Partial loss of load ................................................................................................. 26

5.5 Loss of control of log during loading or unloading ..................................................... 32

5.6 Load shift .............................................................................................................. 37

5.7 Loss of Debris ........................................................................................................ 39

5.8 Manual handling .................................................................................................... 41

5.9 MHE crash or crush ................................................................................................ 44

6. Insights....................................................................................................................... 46

Appendix A Stakeholders engaged ...................................................................................... 47

Appendix B Overview of methodology ................................................................................. 49

Appendix C Risk workshop agenda ...................................................................................... 51

Appendix D Wrap up workshop agenda ................................................................................ 52

Appendix E Risks identified but excluded from analysis ......................................................... 53

Australian Forest Contracts Association Final Report EY 2

1. Executive Summary

The Australian Forest Products Association (AFPA), with funding and support from industry, is leading the development of an industry specific code of practice for safe log haulage operations. AFPA have endorsed the Australian Forest Contractors Association (AFCA) to manage the project on behalf of the industry. The Forestry Log Haulage Registered Code of Practice (FLHRCoP) will be developed in line with the Guidelines for Preparing and Registering Industry Codes of Practice (‘the Guidelines’), prepared by the National Heavy Vehicle Regulator (NHVR). The FLHRCoP will sit under the Master Code of Practice (MCoP), which is currently being developed, and will address risks which are specifically associated with forestry log haulage and not covered in the MCoP. This report details the outputs from risk consultation and risk analysis steps undertaken by AFCA and EY in preparation of the FLHRCoP.

1.1 About EY

EY is a global professional services organisation working with clients to deliver quality work across numerous, and varied, industries. Within our Australian Climate Change & Sustainability Services team, we have a Work, Health & Safety and Environment team, with over 35 dedicated WHS professionals across Australia. At the forefront of innovation, our team has some of Australia's leading thinkers and practitioners of safety with experience in high risk industries, H&S operations, organisational culture, strategy, and psychology and change management.

EY was engaged by AFCA to facilitate the development of the code of practice, in line with the Guidelines, leading the research, consultation and risk analysis phases, and was responsible for the delivery of this report detailing the process. While this report will inform the code of practice, EY will not be assisting in the writing of the code.

1.2 Overview of objectives and approach

The Guidelines outline that, as the Developer of the FLHRCoP, AFCA is required to consult comprehensively with the industry sector to demonstrate that regulatory, technical and operational advice and experience is incorporated. Furthermore, as the FLHRCoP is a voluntary standard, AFCA believes that extensive consultation in the development of the code is required to ensure industry participation and implementation.

EY was engaged to assist AFCA in undertaking research and consultation in order to:

► Outline the current state of log haulage operations, legislation and standards, including variations across states and regions.

► Identity gaps and inconsistencies in existing frameworks/policies/standards. ► Provide examples of better practice. ► Outline considerations for the development of the FLHRCoP in a preliminary report. ► Identify health and safety risks specific to log haulage. ► Use qualitative and quantitative data to conduct a risk assessment of key risks. ► Outline this analysis of risks and considerations for the FLHRCoP in a final report.


In order to do so, EY undertook the following activities outlined in Figure 1.

Figure 1: Project approach


1.3 Overview of findings

Consultation with industry, research, and incident data analysis was used to identify the key risks to be addressed in the development of the FLHRCoP. There were a large number of risks identified through the workshops, however, only risks that were agreed as being within the scope of the Guidelines were analysed. Risks were considered in scope if they were identified as being a risk type (rather than risk event) and a risk that is specific or unique to log haulage. Figure 2 outlines the key risks that met this criteria and were assessed.

Figure 2: Average risk assessment results for key log haulage risks

During the risk assessment workshops individual participants were asked to score the consequence and likelihood of each risk. Figure 3 outlines these results for the key risks. This ranking of consequence and likelihood is based on a perceived risk rating collected from individual participants in the risk assessment workshops. As such, the data is a qualitative risk measure rather than purely quantitative. The workshop data ranking and validation of risks to be included in the FLHRCoP was supported by industry incident data and additional consultation with stakeholders.

Figure 3: Average risk assessment results for key log haulage risks

Lik

elih

oo

d

Consequence

Insignificant Low Moderate High Extreme

Hig

hly

u

nlike

lyU

nlike

lyP

oss

ible

L

ike

ly

Alm

ost

ce

rta

in Rollover

Third party

Loss of control

Partial load loss

Log roll

Load shift

Loss of debris

Manual handling

MHE crash/crush


2. Background and objectives

Log haulage is a specialised and high risk heavy vehicle transport industry. Management of risk and safety has been driven at a regional and state level, with limited national documentation and guidelines. The unique nature of the operations means that standard heavy vehicle guidelines do not sufficiently cover all the associated risks. EY has been engaged by AFCA to support the development of an overarching code of practice specifically for log haulage operations. The aim is to achieve safer outcomes for the industry across Australia.

2.1 HVNL and Industry specific guidelines

The Heavy Vehicle National Law (HVNL) was introduced across Australia1 in 2013 for heavy vehicles over 4.5 tonnes GVM. Prior to this there were numerous and overlapping jurisdictions with general health and safety laws. As such, the HVNL aimed to deliver safety benefits, reduce the compliance burden for business, increase Australia’s international competitiveness, and make it easier for business to operate across state and territory borders.

The HVNL established the NHVR (the Regulator). The industry is in the process of developing a master code of practice to aid the safe operation of the heavy vehicle industry. This master code will provide generic guidance regarding compliance with the HVNL specifically addressing fatigue, mass dimension and loading, speed and vehicle standards, and maintenance. There was recognition that the master code will not address all risks specific to sub-industries. As such, the NHVR established guidance for heavy vehicle operations, such as log haulage, for the development of complimentary codes of practice that will address industry specific risks.

The forestry industry currently operates under a varied environment of guidance documents and codes of practice that have been developed haphazardly across the country in response to regional or state based initiatives. There is also an abundance of different company specific standards and interpretations. EY reviewed log haulage guidance documentation to understand the gaps, inconsistencies, and variations that exist.

2.1.1 National

At a national level, heavy vehicle guidance consisted of the National Transport Commission’s Load Restraint Guide (2004) which is currently in the process of being updated. More specific to log haulage, Safe Work Australia developed a 2014 national guide to managing risks of log haulage, which includes potential hazards and examples of control mechanisms. In addition, ForestWorks produced a log haulage manual in 2014 which details best industry practice for log haulage operations.

2.1.2 State

Generally, states have their own heavy vehicle road safety handbooks, with some having produced specific log haulage guidance documents. These include, but are not limited to:

► Code of practice for forest harvesting operations, WorkCover NSW, 2002. ► A guide to restraining logs and timber, VicRoads, 2003. ► Forest safety code, TAS, 2007. ► Forest harvesting code of practice, QLD, 2007.

1 Excluding Western Australia and the Northern Territory


2.1.3 Regional

Some regions have taken this a step further and developed region specific guidance for log haulage, such as the following:

► Best practice guide, Central Gippsland VIC, 2006. ► Best practice guideline, Forest industry council, Southern NSW, 2008. ► Best practice guide, Forestry Corporation, North NSW, undated.

Whilst the intent was to create a safer work environment, the guidance documents reviewed are outdated and do not provide a consistent approach to the safe operation of log haulage. The most comprehensive document at present is the log haulage manual developed by ForestWorks with industry.

2.2 Safety & log haulage

The forestry industry has unique safety and risk factors around log haulage in comparison with other heavy vehicle operations and will benefit from an industry specific code of practice. The log haulage process for the purpose of this engagement includes the loading of logs from the forest operation through to unloading and delivery of the logs to the processor. This does not include the felling of the trees or the saw mill process of the logs.

The forestry and logging industry is classified as a high risk industry with a number of high risk events, serious injuries, and fatalities having occurred across Australia. The log haulage component of this industry is the highest risk interface between the industry and the general public and is the focus of this code of practice. The risk factors include the challenging road environments and conditions in which log haulage operators must drive to reach the, often times remote, forest coupes, and the organic nature of the load which creates variation in load balance and stability. Key incidents that have occurred include truck roll overs, vehicle accidents, and loss or partial loss of load.

2.3 Objectives of EY engagement

AFPA, with support from AFCA, has commenced the development of an industry specific code of practice, and has completed the notice of intent process with the NHVR. AFCA engaged EY for assistance in predominately undertaking Stage 2 which includes the following steps:

1. Research and consult with industry.

2. Set out the purpose and scope of the industry code of practice.

3. Develop the content using a risk management process.

4. Identify the risk types.

5. Assess the risks.

6. Suggest measures to control risk.

The outputs of this process will directly inform the design of the FLHRCoP to be submitted to the NHVR. Currently the industry is challenged in terms of navigating what is safe and compliant. This code of practice will be developed as a guide for driving nationally consistent better practice of how to comply with the HVNL. The primary objective being to achieve the best result for industry with safer outcomes for everyone involved.


3. Approach to developing the FLHRCoP

EY has taken a strategic planned approach to develop understanding of the current state and key safety issues of the log haulage industry. The approach of consulting with industry experts, using appropriate language and maximising consultation across the supply chain is necessary to achieve considered, valuable, and safer outcomes for the industry.

3.1 Overview of methodology

EY applied a phased approach as detailed in Figure 1. The first phase involved strategic planning and research to identify key stakeholders, developing a consultation plan, and reviewing key existing documentation. The second ‘discovery’ phase, involved assimilating information from the desktop research, undertaking stakeholder interviews with key industry members, and ‘day in the life of’ site visits. This approach enabled EY to direct each part of the process and categorise key areas for discussion and verification. The third phase consisted of a discovery workshop with stakeholders to validate outcomes of the first two phases. The preliminary research and consultation was summarised in a preliminary report that outlined the key issues and factors to be considered in the Code of Practice. Following the preliminary analysis, extensive stakeholder and risk investigation was conducted via risk assessment workshops and collation of supplementary data. In addition, a wrap up workshop was conducted with the project steering committee and working group to validate the bow ties produced and identify examples of better practice across the industry. For a list of stakeholders engaged in the workshops please see Appendix A, for a full summary of methodology, please see Appendix B and for agendas of the workshops please see Appendix C and Appendix D.


3.2 Outputs of preliminary research & consultation

A preliminary report was prepared outlining the outcomes of preliminary research and consultation. The purpose of was to identify the key considerations and factors to be addressed in the FLHRCoP. An overview of the issues for consideration are detailed below.

Driver training, competency, and attitudes Log haulage requires a different skillset to normal heavy vehicle operations. Driver competencies, experience, and training are key for safe operation. Load construction, fatigue management, driver attitude, driver skill, and driver attention can all contribute to critical risk events such as rollover, loss of load, and loss of control.

Loading, unloading and construction Loading processes, load configuration, construction, and the understanding of chain of responsibility are key for the safe operation of the log haulage industry. Load construction and mass is important for managing rollover risks. Facilities and processes may involve multiple stakeholders and may not be always fit for purpose with regards to load type and trailer configuration.

Load restraint systems Load restraint systems (straps vs chains) and the types of tensioning (automatic vs manual) are key for the safe operation of the log haulage industry. Variations in load types and driving conditions, and the implementation of different systems have resulted in mixed approaches to load restraint performance assessment.

Driving environment and conditions Driving environment and conditions experienced by drivers during log haulage operations are highly variable and have a significant impact on the safety of operations. Operations often occur in rural and regional areas, with a mixture of public and private roads, often narrow and windy. This impacts driver skills and awareness, and maintenance practices.

Equipment Log haulage equipment is highly specialised and is made fit for purpose. Nationally there is significant variation, with a relatively old fleet. Cost of retrofitting is challenging and expensive.

Consignment practices and Chain of Responsibility (COR) The contractual and operating conditions and expectations established by the landowner/ forest manager/ operator/ processor/ forest contracting business can influence all aspects of safety. Consignment practices can result in variations in safety systems nationally.

Community Forestry operations often occur in and around small regional communities with small and narrow roads. In some instances community expectations require routing log haulage vehicles through back roads or around restricted times of operation (i.e. not during school bus drop-off/pick-up times). There are negative community perceptions of log truck safety given the visibility of incidents and perception of incident rates. Operations often occur in areas with higher levels of self-drive tourism.


4. Risks identified

4.1 Determining risks in scope

A broad range of risks were identified by stakeholders, however, only a number were selected for a detailed risk assessment and analysis. Risks were assessed if they met the requirements outlined in the Guidelines and excluded for one of three key reasons, as outlined below:

Not industry specific: The FLHRCoP is designed to fit as a supplement to the master code of practice. As such, the scope of the FLHRCoP is to address risks that are either unique to log haulage or require different management approaches in comparison to general heavy vehicle transport. For example, ‘fall from cabin’ was identified as a risk by stakeholders in the workshops, but was assessed to be a risk non-specific to the log haulage industry.

Not in scope: The Guidelines require the FLHRCoP to identify types of risks rather than specific risk events. There were a number of risk events identified that were assessed as being either risk events or operational risks that should be identified and managed under an individual organisation’s operational risk management system. For example, stakeholders identified the risk of falling from height following an operator climbing on a load to fix a load restraint complication. It was agreed that such a scenario is a risk event that should be addressed via an organisations own Safe Operating Procedures.

Not a risk – contributing factor or consequence: There were several ‘risks’ identified in workshops that were assessed to actually be contributing factors or consequences of other events. While these factors are to be considered within the FLHRCoP, they are not risks in and of themselves. For example, ‘loss of social licence to operate’ was identified. However, following discussion with stakeholders it was agreed that it is actually a consequence of other risk events.

The risks originally identified in the workshops were analysed based on data collected during the workshops. The risks were then circulated to the steering committee, working group and broader industry. Final decisions on risks in scope was based on industry consultation and incident data analysis.

A list of risks that were identified but excluded from assessment, and the reasoning behind the decisions, are outlined in Appendix E.

Those risks that were included in the analysis, and assessed by stakeholders in the Risk Assessment Workshop, are detailed in Table 1 below (ordered by consequence).


4.2 Risks selected for inclusion and analysis Table 1: Risks specific to log haulage

Risk Description and justification for inclusion

Rollover with or without full loss

of load.

This risk includes trailer and/or cab rollover. Rollover also includes events which result in total loss of load. The two risks have been assessed together as they are very similar in terms of contributing factors, controls, and consequences, as full loss of load is almost always a result of rollover. This risk is specific to log haulage due to the dynamic nature of the load, road conditions, trailer design requirements, and Static Rollover Threshold (SRT).

Third party collision

Third party collision is not unique to log haulage in that there are risk events that are common across all heavy vehicle transport. However, the risk has been included as a number of incidents occur in environments and situations specific to log haulage, particularly in that many operations are based in remote/rural locations with small/narrow/winding roads, with high levels of tourism. This can also be on privately operated roads. Furthermore, in these contexts there are controls that operators can put in place to mitigate risks, such as route management, blocking public access to private roads and signage.

Loss of control of the vehicle

This is specific to log haulage due to the dynamic nature of the load, road conditions, trailer design requirements, and SRT.

Partial loss of load

This risk is defined as loss of single or multiple logs, but not an entire bay. While very similar to full loss of load, it is viewed as a different risk profile. This is included as load restraint requirements are unique due to the organic nature of the load and equipment type/design.

Loss of control of log during

loading/ unloading

This includes rolling logs during loading and unloading, and the risk of log fall during unlashing. While the risks are slightly different, they have been clustered as there is a high level of similarity. This risk is considered due to the very specific loading and unloading requirements of the load, and the environment/conditions under which the activities are undertaken.

Load shift This risk considers any shift of the load from under restraint straps during transport. This is included as load restraint requirements are unique due to the organic nature of the load and equipment type/design.

Loss of Debris This risk considers loss of bark, branches, rocks or other foreign matter during driving, which is specific to log haulage due to the organic nature of the load and loading environment.

Manual handling

This risk is specific to load restraint manual handling risks only. Other manual handling risks (such as replacing a tyre) are not specific to log haulage.

MHE crash/ crush

This risk considers crash or crush involving loader/unloader/forklift. This is specific to log haulage due to the nature of the loading equipment, loading environment, landing management, and the nature of the load.


4.3 Overview of risk severity

Risks that were identified in workshops were assessed by participants using live voting technology to rate the likelihood and severity. Results were collated and presented in real time to the group for discussion. Voting results were retained to inform the risk assessment scores outlined in this report. It should be noted that the below risk scores are based on the perceptions of attendees, and require additional data analysis to determine actual likelihood and consequence. However, the below analysis in Figure 4 provides an overview of each risk relative to each other and therefore assists in identifying the risks most critical for management. Figure 4: Average risk assessment results for key log haulage risks

Lik

elih

oo

d

Consequence


Hig

hly

u

nlike

lyU

nlike

lyP

oss

ible

L

ike

ly

Alm

ost

ce

rta

in

Rollover

Third party

Loss of control

Partial load loss

Log roll

Load shift

Loss of debris

Manual handling

MHE crash/crush


5. Detailed risks analysis

5.1 Rollover

Based on consultation with stakeholders, risk assessment data, and industry incident data, rollovers were one of the highest rated risks both in terms of frequency and severity. They are also one of the key risks that the industry is focusing on addressing. The risk assessment included both trailer and cab rollovers, and full loss of load. This was due to full loss of load generally occurring as a result of a rollover. While some operators may classify rollovers differently if the cab remains upright, for the purpose of this report, all types of rollovers have been classified as a universal risk. Rollovers require specific consideration by the forestry industry due to the nature of the load which results in a different Static Rollover Threshold (SRT). SRT is the level of lateral acceleration that a vehicle can sustain without rolling over during a turn. SRT is affected by characteristics such as trailer deck heights, trailer lengths, suspension types, and most importantly the load centre of gravity. Log haulage operators are generally working with a higher centre of gravity and therefore have a lower tolerance compared to general heavy vehicle transport.

Factors affecting risk

There are a range of factors that affect the risk, including, road conditions, driver fatigue, SRT, load construction, driver behaviour, competency, and speed. Driver unfamiliarity with the route also contributes to driver error. A summary of factors contributing to risk, controls, and consequences are outlined in Figure 5: Figure 5: Rollover contributing factors, controls and consequences

Industry incident data identified the two key contributing factors as speed and driver distraction, highlighting the importance of driver training, attitudes, and behaviour. The driving environment is often more challenging than standard heavy vehicle operations with road conditions and routes requiring drivers to frequently evaluate speed and steerage. While rollovers happen across the transport industry, the critical difference for log haulage is that the centre of gravity is higher due to the load, which impacts the SRT, making log haulage vehicles more sensitive and vulnerable to


rollovers. Poor load construction and improper weight balance further decreases the SRT which can contribute to a rollover event occurring. With two manufactures who design and build trailers specifically for the log haulage industry, there is a high level of engineering maturity with regards to understanding best-practice design. However, log haulage trailers tend to remain in operation for longer than a general fleet, so there is a large number that do not have lowered centre of gravity. Also, some operators retrofit and/or repurpose general fleet equipment for log haulage. As such, there is a broad range of equipment in operation.

Statistics related to risk events

Data analysed indicated that there was a wide range of consequences resulting from rollovers, from minor equipment damage through to fatal incidents. Of the data received, rollovers were the fourth most frequent risk event of those assessed. Other than third party incidents, it was the most frequent cause of fatal incidents, and one of the most frequent injury-causing incidents. However, in some instances, there was no resulting injury. This was reflected in the workshop analysis displayed in Figure 6, with broad responses to the consequence rating (standard deviation of results).

Figure 6: Rollover risk assessment workshop outputs

Lik

elih

oo

d

Consequence


Hig

hly

u

nlike

lyU

nlike

lyP

oss

ible

L

ike

lyA

lmo

st

cert

ain

Launceston Melbourne Gympie Average


Key considerations for the management of this risk

There are a number of considerations that should be made with respect to managing risk of rollover. Some of the key controls identified include:

Driver training & capability: Driver training has been demonstrated to reduce rollover risks through increased awareness of SRT and how this changes as a result of higher loads. Drivers should also be aware of the specific SRT of the vehicle they are using as this changes depending on the design and load type or construction. Log haulage vehicles require a different skillset, behaviour, and understanding of load and environment. It is important to recognise that experience driving non-log haulage vehicles does not necessarily translate into competencies required for operating log haulage vehicles. The CoP should address the role of driver training and competency assessment in achieving better practice. Trailer design: Trailers designed specifically for log haulage take into consideration the higher centre of gravity and are therefore more effective at managing rollover risks. Operators who do not have fit for purpose equipment and retrofit general freight trailers must take this into consideration when assessing rollover risks. Trailers with a higher SRT are being considered by a range of contractors and forest owners, with Forestry SA having mandated drop deck trailers in certain regions. However, fit for purpose equipment is generally more expensive so contractors and drivers must be educated on the benefits of higher SRT builds.

Engineering controls: There are a number of engineering controls and truck monitoring systems that can be implemented to manage risk of rollover, including stability systems, g force monitoring, electronic braking systems (EBS) and speed limiters. These engineering controls should be considered as part of procurement of new equipment.

Load construction: The construction of the load is fundamental to the safe haulage of logs as this can have an influencing factor on the SRT of the vehicle. Logs need to be ‘built’, rather than loaded in order to be stable, secure, and weight balanced. Training is essential for safe construction of loads. The FLHRCoP needs to consider the management of load construction which may include the delivery of training and coaching on what constitutes a safe load.


Examples of better practice

Educating drivers to better understand rollover risk

Alan Pincott provides training and education to the Australian trucking industry. This training aims to reduce truck rollovers and crashes through educating drivers about identifying risky locations and the impact of loading and road conditions. It also highlights to drivers the narrow margin between standard driving behaviour and rollover conditions. Alan has reported that following delivery of training there is 40% reductions in rollovers in the first year with drivers having roughly a 10 times lower rate of rollovers. Drivers themselves have commented that the training has provided an increased awareness about the small margin between their normal driving practices and rollover risk events.

Specific examples include: • One group in Victoria went from an average of 7 rollovers per year prior to participating

and have just clocked up 13 months rollover free. • Another went from a rollover every 700,000kms on average and are now at around 6

million kms rollover free. • An area in NSW averaged around 4 rollovers per year and are now 20 months rollover

free. The benefit has been widely accepted by industry as an example of best practice training. VicForests has mandated that all drivers and contractors undergo rollover training and regular refresher training as a condition of operating in VicForests.


Establishing industry specific driver competencies

VicForests recognises that heavy vehicle experience does not necessarily equate to competencies for operating log haulage vehicles safely. In order to ascertain driver competencies, VicForests requires a training plan be developed for all new drivers and principle haulage contractors. The training plan will assess the competency of drivers, and identify specific shadowing and training requirements. Drivers will be shadowed for a period of time prior to driving solo. All new drivers and principle haulage contractors whom commence with VicForests are required to attend mandatory “Truck Rollover Training Accreditation”. VicForests require proof of accreditation and they have a compliance portal system which tracks expiry of the rollover training. Since implementing these requirements there has been a drop in rollover occurrence. The compliance portal is used to track and manage compliance data and basic safety requirements including: • GPS systems • Annual roadworthiness/NHVR maintenance program • Mass management accreditation • Evidence of EBS braking • Driver accreditations & annual rollover training • Hitch inspections/quarterly on pup trailers • Proof of insurance • Subcontractor engagement It is the responsibility of contractors to self-manage the submission of this compliance data. Implementing the compliance portal has minimised the risk of operators operating without valid

and current safety conditions such as rollover training.

Shifting the culture of compliance

HVP Plantations and FCNSW have recognised that there is a broader cultural issue that is required to shift in order to promote a culture of compliance and risk management. As such they have implemented various interactions with drivers and contractors to change attitudes and promote behaviour change. These interactions include:

Driver ‘drop in’ sessions

Toolbox meetings

Driver health checks

Staff in trucks New year start up meetings/BBQ’s

Loader driving training

Rating of drivers & matching to routes

Celebrating successes & recognising good performance

Ergonomic assessment of cabs Implementation has required genuine senior management support and involvement as

implementation requires time and resources to facilitate.


COR factors for consideration

Consignment practices impacting on driver behaviour: Scheduling by the consignor can impact on driver behaviour. Inefficient or unrealistic scheduling can result in driver fatigue, or incentivise risk taking behaviour (i.e. speeding). Furthermore, the consignment/dispatch systems are often not responsive to unexpected issues that may arise during the work period such as a breakdown or delay. The impact of consigner practices must be considered as part of the risk management process and addressed under COR where required. Road maintenance and design: Routes in private forests may include poorly maintained and/or designed roads. While drivers must drive to condition, and report route risks when they occur, road maintenance and design may be outside of the control of log haulage operators.


5.2 Third party collision

Third party collision, where the heavy vehicle operator is not at fault, is not unique to log haulage in that it is a risk category that is common across all heavy vehicle transport. However, the risk has been included as environments and situations specific to log haulage impact contributing factors and increase risk. Incidents involving a third party (regardless of fault) was also the most frequently reported incident, with the potential for fatal consequences, which requires the industry to apply measures of control where possible.


Log haulage vehicles often operate in regional and rural areas with higher levels of tourism. Roads may be narrow and without room for vehicles to pull over or pass safely. Roads may also be winding with limited visibility. Tourists may not be familiar with Australian road rules and may undertake unsafe driving behaviour. While driver behaviour and competency may affect their ability to mitigate or reduce the consequences, operators may not have an opportunity to undertake evasive manoeuvres. A summary of factors contributing to risk, controls, and consequences is outlined in Figure 7:

Figure 7: Third party collision contributing factors, controls and consequences


Looking at data across VIC, TAS, SA, QLD, and NSW the occurrence of third party incidents with log trucks compared to rollovers is not only greater in number but a greater percent (4% rather than 2%) have resulted in fatalities. Workshop data analysed indicated third party collisions are perceived to have the most severe consequences which aligns with this incident data received from stakeholders. Figure 8 depicts the average risk rating recorded at each workshop and indicates some spread of the data. This could be attributed to the large range of consequences experienced by operators.


Figure 8: Third party collision risk assessment workshop outputs


While there may be a perception that third party collisions are largely outside of the control of log haulage operators, there are a number of controls that can be put in place to manage and mitigate risk. Some of the key controls identified include:

Driver training & evasive driving techniques: The CoP could address the role of driver training in achieving better practice and improved skill in evasive driving techniques. Training could involve how to identify hazardous driving of third parties and precautionary measures that could be taken to avoid dangerous driving. Training could also include providing drivers an opportunity to undertake emergency procedures in a safe or simulated environment. Route risk assessment & planning: Log haulage operators should risk assess the route to identify potential risks from third parties. This could include identifying route sections with limited visibility or manoeuvrability, blind turns, and zones where there may be increased community activity (such as school zones). The risk assessment should include consideration of time of day variations. A risk management plan could include selection of alternative routes and implementation of scheduling restrictions (e.g. not travelling in high risk zones during school zone hours, or implementation of self-imposed speed restrictions).

Lik

elih

oo

d

Consequence


Hig

hly

u

nlike

lyU

nlike

lyP

oss

ible

L

ike

ly

Alm

ost

ce

rta

in



Community signage: Identification of log haulage activity can provide notice to other road users that log haulage activity is occurring, identify and communicate specific hazards (such as narrow roads), and may also provide guidance about safe behaviour. This signage could be more general around trucks using particular roads not only log haulage vehicles.



Community awareness & engagement: There is an opportunity for log haulage operators and forestry stakeholders to work with local community and government in order to increase public awareness of how third parties and log haulage heavy vehicles can safely share the road. This could include activities to promote consultation and hazard reporting, and increase public awareness. For example, many members of the public may not be aware of safe separation distances for pedestrians and other road users. Open days, attendance at community fairs, and school education are all opportunities for increasing community awareness. Public access to private roads: Some log haulage routes are through forests that allow access to other users for recreational activities, such as bushwalking, hunting and horse-riding. As operators of private roads, forest owners are in a position to close or restrict public access where it is deemed high risk.

Embracing new technologies

Safety features of heavy vehicles have improved significantly in the past decade. There are new anti-collision technologies being used to provide alerts and information to drivers to reduce risk of third party collision, including regarding lane departure alerts and blind spot sensors that enable awareness of third party activity in blind spots. This gives drivers extra assistance for avoiding collisions with 3rd party road users. While drivers must be educated and made aware to ensure acceptance and use, implementing such technologies at purchase can provide drivers with additional controls for reducing risk of third party collision. Key considerations around use of these technologies includes cost, driver acceptance/ training in using the systems and ability of older trucks to use new technologies.


5.3 Loss of control of the vehicle

Loss of control of the vehicle was one of the highest rated risks both in terms of frequency and severity in risk assessment data and industry incident data. Though loss of control of the vehicle can occur in any general heavy vehicle transport, this is deemed specific to log haulage due to the load and road conditions. The dynamic nature of the load results in lower SRT thresholds as discussed in section 5.1. In addition, forestry roads are often windy and not sealed leading to more challenging conditions than standard highway heavy vehicle driving. The contributing factors for rollover and loss of control of the vehicle are quite similar. However, while the risk event may be affected by a whole range of similar factors, a rollover is largely driven by SRT whereas loss of control of the vehicle is not. As such, these have been included as separate risks in this analysis.


There are a range of factors that affect the risk, including, driver fatigue, competency and skill, load construction, suitability of equipment, environment/road conditions, and other road users. As with rollover, driver unfamiliarity with the route also contributes to driver error. A summary of factors contributing to risk, controls and consequences is outlined in Figure 9: Figure 9: Loss of control of the vehicle contributing factors, controls and consequences

Suitability of equipment has two key components worth consideration. Firstly appropriateness of the equipment to the specific load being carried and secondly the maintenance of the equipment. Log haulage operations often take place in rough and challenging conditions which increase the wear and tear on the trucks beyond standard heavy vehicle operation. Therefore, following the standard maintenance schedules of vehicles is not likely to be sufficient for log haulage operators to reduce the risk of mechanical failure. This mechanical failure may include decoupling which was identified by stakeholders as a risk, however was not present in the incident data shared by industry. Different driving environments also increases the need for drivers to have sufficient skills to navigate difficult and varying terrains. Particularly on unsealed roads and in the remote locations of forest coupes the road conditions and weather can change significantly over a short timeframe. As such the driver may need to adjust their speed or approach to sections of road, even those which they may consider familiar. Furthermore, though not a common incident cause, industry incident data did


identify beast strike as a reason behind some incidents. Overall driving in these environments and driving at different times of the day needs consideration of the weather, wildlife, and road conditions that drivers are facing and whether they are well equipped to respond safely.


Analysis of data received from industry revealed loss of control of the vehicle to be the second most frequent risk event of those assessed, only just behind third party collisions. However it was the 5th most severe risk event when discounting incidents which did not result in personnel harm. This being a very commonly occurring incident with majority of outcomes on the low severity end of the spectrum is not directly reflected by the workshop data. Figure 10 details high consequence and moderate frequency as the perceived outcome of these events. This is likely a result of the high profile of incidents with a severe outcome compared to those which are a near miss. This highlights the need to address this issue as the frequency of occurrence could translate into more frequent severe outcomes.

Figure 10: Loss of control of the vehicle risk assessment workshop outputs

Lik

elih

oo

d

Consequence


Hig

hly

u

nlike

lyU

nlike

lyP

oss

ible

L

ike

ly

Alm

ost

ce

rta

in




There are a number of considerations that should be made with respect to managing risk of loss of control of the vehicle. Some of the key controls identified include:

Driver training & capability: Driving conditions for log haulage operators are generally different compared to standard heavy vehicle operations. Roads may be narrower, winding, poor quality, and travel through small rural communities. Vehicles are often required to travel on privately maintained forests roads, where there may be poor maintenance or unsealed roads. Safe driving in such environments requires a more advanced skillset. At present there is no standard for assessing driver capabilities and skills appropriate for log haulage operations. The CoP should address the role of driver training and competency assessment in achieving better practice. Fleet specifications: There is a perception that log haulage equipment is generally older relative to the rest of the transport industry. While there are a number of engineering control’s that are now available, they may not have been implemented in the existing fleets as the cost of retrofitting may be prohibitive. There is also no standard specifications. So while there are a number of operators that procure equipment specifically designed for log haulage, some operators retrofit or re-purpose standard equipment. Maintenance: Log haulage equipment undergoes greater wear and tear compared to general freight. Conducting maintenance as per the manufacturer guidelines may not be sufficient in managing the risk of mechanical failure. Operators should take a risk based approach to maintenance scheduling and management. The role of Auditing and assurance: Verifying the implementation of controls via audits and inspections (internal and third party) can promote a culture of compliance. Discussions with stakeholders indicated that there is a varied level of compliance with safe systems of work. For example, while installation of EBS is compulsory in some operations, in some instances, incident investigations have found that the systems have been disabled.



Driver accreditation, training and competency

The ARBRE Forest Hub is a cooperative formed by major forest owners/managers in Tasmania and their membership includes contractors. In response to identification of the importance of driver skills and capabilities as a control for managing rollover and loss of control risks, they developed and piloted an accreditation program for professional log haulage truck drivers. The program was developed in collaboration with a registered RTO and involved:

► Half day in classroom theory. ► In-cab driver assessment. ► In-coupe truck loading assessment. ► National competency units (vehicle inspection, transportation of forestry logs) The program was set up to assess current drivers and identify deficiencies which can then be addressed by additional training. Further development of the program is necessary to be set up as a framework for training new drivers. This program has required a whole-of-industry focus and specifically qualified and accredited assessors for professional driving and log loading. The pilot had been completed just prior to the development of this report, so performance outcomes were not yet available, however 37 of 39 driver completed the program and the successful pilot has resulted in ARBRE planning to mandate the use of the program by all log haulers employed by ARBRE log haulers.

Risk based approach to maintenance

The most effective truck maintenance systems observed in the industry have a risk based approach to maintenance. Rather than designing a program that is reflective of the workload and minimum standards stipulated by the manufacturer, better practice would take into consideration the higher level of wear and tear that logging trucks undergo as a result of operating conditions. For example, one company has a cycle of regular maintenance with an agenda for each service. Each service also has a specific focus on fatigue points of suspension and identification of cracks. Roughly 80% of the maintenance items follow manufacture specifications with the other 20% following logging truck specific timeframes. Within this cycle there is generally a number of “mini maintenance” services and one major “whole day off the road” service. There is evidence that following a program cycle of maintenance results in positive operational and safety outcomes. One particular company which started a regimented schedule found that in a 24h day and 6 day week operation the number of calls due to truck issues reduced from 2-3 per night to 2-3 across the whole week. Unscheduled breakdowns and maintenance can cause significant disruption to operators, particularly small businesses, so prevention has both safety

and operational benefits.



The COR factors for consideration in development of the FLHRCoP are similar to those addressing the risk of rollover. Specifically:

Consignment practices impacting on driver behaviour: Scheduling by the consignor can impact on driver behaviour. Inefficient or unrealistic scheduling can result in driver fatigue or incentivise risk taking behaviour (i.e. speeding). Furthermore, the consignment/dispatch systems are often not responsive to unexpected issues that may arise during the work period such as a breakdown or delay. The impact of consigner practices must be considered as part of the risk management process and addressed under COR where required. Road maintenance and design: Routes in private forests may include poorly maintained and/or designed roads. While drivers must drive to condition, and report route risks when they occur, road maintenance and design may be outside of the control of log haulage operators.

Embracing new technologies - EBS

The use of electronic braking systems (EBS) and other technologies can have a positive impact on the management of truck safety. Monitoring EBS can tell how well the trailers are managed and also provide data driven performance management. For many fleets it’s mandatory to have EBS installed. Fennell Forestry downloads the EBS system every month to look at the data, this data is then used to determine if there are any problems. From here issues are communicated and steps taken to rectify. Another technology being explored by industry is working with an EBS supplier to establish an EBS activation alert system. This will be able to provide more real time tracking and response

capability.


5.4 Partial loss of load

This risk is defined as the loss of single or multiple logs off the truck, but not an entire bay. The risk is included as load restraint requirements are unique due to the dynamic nature of the load and the design of the equipment required to carry the load. There are similarities to full loss of load in terms of threats, however a partial loss of load is viewed as a different risk profile.


There are a range of factors that affect the risk, in particular the load construction and restraint system however also the driver behaviour particularly around checking the load. A summary of factors contributing to risk, controls and consequences is outlined in Figure 11:

Figure 11: Partial loss of load contributing factors, controls and consequences

The propensity for partial loss of load is particularly due to the dynamic nature of the load and is largely a result of the restraint system used, the load construction, and behaviour of the driver.

Using purpose built log haulage trailers and restraint systems appropriate to the load is acknowledged as important by industry however the definition of what is an appropriate system is highly debated. The industry debate includes discussion of the suitability of straps vs chains, auto-tensioning vs manual tensioning, and how many restraint devices are necessary. The key issue appears to be that very few operators have assessed their restraint systems with regards to meeting the HVNL Performance Standards. Many operators use personal experience of regionally accepted restraint systems to determine the appropriate system, rather than verifying the performance with testing. As such, operators may not be meeting their lawful obligations. While strap systems may function under normal operations, there are a number of operational environments that they may not meet the performance standards, such as within a crash situation. In these cases the straps or webbing stretches and logs can be lost from under the strapping system. Even within a single operation, due to the highly variable nature of the load, gaining confidence that each load meets the performance based standard is challenging.

Load construction is a further contributing factor, as improper crowning or weight balance can increase the chance of not only partial load loss but also increase the chance of a different risk event occurring.


Driver behaviour and fitness for work also plays a part in the management of this risk. For example, if a driver has a shoulder injury or soreness from manual handling, they may not be able to restrain the load appropriately, or conduct tensioning checks throughout the journey. If these factors are not considered the risk of insufficient load restraint is greater and could lead to a partial loss of load.


Partial loss of load occurred somewhat frequently, around mid-range in both the workshop results and industry incident data. Figure 12 depicts the workshop outputs revealing that there is a greater range in perceived consequence than likelihood. Though this is not directly supported by industry incident data where there is limited range in incident consequence, with no recorded incidents resulting in injuries. The high profile of logs impacting third parties is likely to have led to this high variance in perception. There may also be an issue with the underreporting of lost logs.

Figure 12: Partial loss of load risk assessment workshop outputs

Lik

elih

oo

d

Consequence


Hig

hly

u

nlike

lyU

nlike

lyP

oss

ible

L

ike

ly

Alm

ost

ce

rta

in




There are a number of considerations that should be made with respect to managing risks of partial loss of load. Some of the key controls identified include:

Restraint systems: The most critical control to be considered is that the restraint system implemented meets the HVNL Performance Standards for load restraint. Restraint systems which will meet these forward, rear, and sideways force limits (based on likely forces in a collision or emergency braking scenario) should be used. The ability to provide evidence that the restraint systems do meet these forces must also be considered. The industry currently has a poor understanding regarding how the HVNL Performance Standards are to be demonstrated and met, and there is a resistance to migrating to systems that have higher performance standards. There is also a range of different opinions across industry about what restraint systems are appropriate, and there are different operating requirements stipulated across different regions and forest owners. Due to the very high level of operational variation (roads, terrain and load type) there is no ‘one-size-fits-all’ solution and numerous different opinions and requirements across the industry. In determining better practice, the industry may consider systems that address the following: 1. Lashing stretch: a low lashing stretch (e.g. chains) is generally required for

meeting the force limits. While auto tensioning systems used with webbing can maintain tension, it is difficult for webbing to achieve the required tension due to catching on the top logs of the load. It is understood that manual tensioning systems are not able to ensure that consistent tensioning for adequate load restraint can be achieved throughout the entire truck journey.

2. Log friction: the friction of logs varies depending on a number of factors including: type of log/species, sap content, seasonal changes, moisture level (if it’s been raining), and whether or not it has bark. The range in friction makes it difficult to determine the optimum restraint system and as such a number of risk mitigation methods need be considered.

3. Headboards: a headboard contributes to meeting the load restraint performance standards only if it is mounted on the trailer. Prime mover mounted systems (i.e. cab guards) do not provide sufficient restraint, and can result in load loss when the trailer jackknifes as they no longer align with the load. Also, due to the distance between the logs and cab, momentum can be gained in an emergency braking scenario, resulting in greater force. Better practice would also see a headboard mounted to the rear trailer, where operational requirements permit.

4. Load Configuration: it is accepted across industry that crowning is required for load restraint performance when forward, rearward, and sideways restraint is not provided by physical structures. However, there is a range of operational discipline and competencies across industry. As such, the code of practice should consider processes and requirements for training, supervision and auditing of loader operations to ensure implementation of better practice.

5. Trailer specifications: additional specifications can be implemented to improve load restraint performance, such as high grip bolsters. Consideration of mounts and additional features need to be tested to understand the impact on performance outcomes.

6. Minimum requirements: Due to the complexity of factors affecting performance standards of restraint systems with different products and in different operating conditions, it is unreasonable to expect drivers to be able to assess each load as meeting performance standards. As such, to achieve consistently safe operations, the industry may consider implementing minimum requirements for achieving performance, and easily comprehensible guidance for how to apply the requirements to different contexts.


Trailer design: Trailers designed specifically for log haulage take into consideration the dynamic nature of the load and requirement for load restraint and are therefore more effective at managing loss of load risks. Operators who do not have fit for purpose equipment and retrofit general freight trailers must take this into consideration.

Manual handling risks: While chain restraint systems generally meet a higher performance standard, they bring their own risk from manual handling. Historically, operators moved away from chain systems due to the high number of manual handling injuries for drivers. Implementation of chain restraint systems must consider and mitigate risks resulting from changes to operations.

Use of rear boards: In order to reduce the risk of the load being lost, rear boards can be used as a load restraint device. Rear boards provide protection at the back of the load and an additional perception of greater safety by the public. For example, in Tasmania it was made mandatory to use a rear board when transporting short debarked eucalyptus plantation wood. Consideration should be made as to whether this is necessary to assist with meeting the HVNL Performance Standards. It should be noted that implementation of rear boards increases the tare weight of a trailer, reducing the payload capability of the fleet. While this alone is not a justifiable reason to not install rear boards, it may result in some resistance to implementing this control. Load construction: The construction of the load is fundamental to the safe haulage of logs – logs need to be ‘built’, rather than loaded in order to be stable, secure, and with balanced distribution of weight. Training is essential for safe construction of loads. The FLHRCoP needs to consider the management of load construction which may include the delivery of training and coaching on what constitutes a safe load. Driver behaviour & attitude towards compliance: Many operators use manual tensioning systems which require regular checks to ensure tension is maintained through the journey as logs ‘settle’. It is important that drivers check load and tensioning throughout the journey not simply at the start. Industry feedback suggested that some drivers are less diligent than others. Some organisations have GPS systems which log when the drivers stop however this doesn’t indicate whether the tensioning was checked. The FLHRCoP should consider what training and monitoring requirements are required to ensure that safe behaviours are demonstrated. Implementation of auto-tensioning systems reduce the risk significantly, and reduce the risk of manual handling.



Developing new load restraint systems

There is an emerging technology currently undergoing testing known as Dyneema, which is a rope manufactured from polyethylene fibre and is extremely strong, light to handle and has very low stretch. If assessed as appropriate for log haulage restrain systems, the implementation would address some of the key issues with current restraint systems – specifically, it would reduce manual handling issues associated chains while still achieving the higher clamping force. The high cost of this rope however may be prohibitive to some operators without subsidies. In addition there is a lack of acceptance across individual operators that there is an issue with load restraint systems currently used.

Regardless of the outcomes of the pilot, the process that is being used to test and develop the system is considered better practice. Those piloting are consulting with users and stakeholders, and conducting field based trials to identify any unforeseen issues or risks. Importantly they are undergoing performance testing with engineering input to determine if the system can consistently achieve forward and sideways force limits. Rigorous testing in a wide variety of operational contexts will be required in order to satisfy industry that the product meets performance standards.



Loader operator: There are a range of practices regarding loading of logs – in some instances the driver will load his own vehicle, however there may also be a loader employed on site. In instances where there is a separate loader, there are COR responsibilities. The FLHRCoP should consider how loaders are trained and accredited to ensure better practices, and there is appropriate communication between driver and loader. Load product: Consigners and those in control over the harvest may request or provide a specific product that is of higher risk with regards to loss of load. Log species, length, form, and diameter can all affect the friction of the logs and associated performance of the restraint system. Providing drivers/haulage operators with information about the load means the right trailer configurations and load restraints can be brought to the site. Landing and pile management: Those with responsibility for landing management can affect loading and load construction through pile construction and landing layout. Where the landing is well set out, the logs are easier to load in an appropriate configuration. For example, where a loader has access to various piles, and space to rearrange logs, they are better positioned to make decisions and selections that result in a better build. Cost of meeting performance standards: There may be a large number of operators who will be required to test their restraint systems to assess meeting of performance standards. There may also be a number that will be required to implement new systems in order to meet standards. Implementation and transition to the FLHRCoP needs to consider how to assist industry in negotiation of costs. Consignment practices impacting on driver behaviour: Scheduling by the consignor can impact on driver behaviour. Inefficient or unrealistic scheduling can result in driver fatigue, or incentivise risk taking behaviour (i.e. speeding). The impact of consigner practices must be considered as part of the risk management process and addressed under COR where required.


5.5 Loss of control of log during loading or unloading

The loss of control of a log during the loading and unloading operations includes rolling logs while loading and the risk of a log falling during unlashing. While these risks are slightly different, they have been clustered as there is a high level of similarity. This risk is considered as applicable to the CoP due to the very specific loading and unloading requirements for the load, the organic nature of the load, and the environment/conditions under which the activities are undertaken.


There are a range of factors that affect the risk, including, design of the landing, loader operator competency, equipment and type of load. A summary of factors contributing to risk, controls and consequences is outlined in Figure 13:

Figure 13: Loss of control of log during loading/unloading contributing factors, controls and consequences

The skill of the loader operator, equipment being used, and type of load being loaded all play a part in the risk of a log rolling. Where the operator is well trained in load configuration, there is a lower chance that a log will fall during lashing or unlashing. This feeds back into the design of the landing and can have a significant impact on the ability of the loader operator to select appropriate logs and not cause a rolling log from the log pile. In addition the weather can impair vision and cause logs to be slippery which also increases the risk of a rolling log. Landing and pile management plays a significant role. Having the space and the layout for piles to be managed safely, including the transfer and rearrangement of logs in preparation for loading, is an important factor for consideration.


There is a significant variation in consequence in workshop data which is supported by a range of consequences in the industry data. The industry data placed rolling log to be the third most frequent risk event however the workshop risk assessment identified it as one of the least likely risk events. The high level of range in the workshop outputs seen in Figure 14 highlights uncertainty around severity and how frequently this risk event occurs.


Figure 14: Loss of control of log during loading/unloading risk assessment workshop outputs


There are a number of considerations that should be made with respect to managing risks. Interestingly, rather than controls that prevent the risk occurring, there are a number of controls that can be put in place to reduce the consequences when they do occur. Some of the key controls identified include:

Exclusion zones & safe systems of coupe operation: Implementation of exclusions zones and other operational restrictions while loading ensures the physical removal of the driver and other site personnel from the areas where the loss of control of a log is most likely to occur. Other considerations are limiting the number of equipment that can be operated in certain zones (e.g. only one machine per pile), and implementing an in-cab/out-cab loading rule (see below ‘location of driver’). There are a number of accepted procedures and requirements for exclusion zones which the FLHRCoP should consider standardising. Better practice ensures that landings consider exclusions zones in their design.

Communication: Communication (radio/signage etc.) between the landing manager, loader operator, and the driver is critical to ensuring the safety of the loading/unloading process. For example identifying where there are shorter logs between larger logs in the load and ensuring that the driver remains outside of exclusion zones.

Lik

elih

oo

d

Consequence


Hig

hly

u

nlike

lyU

nlike

lyP

oss

ible

L

ike

ly

Alm

ost

ce

rta

in



Location of driver: Across the industry there is variation around whether or not the driver should remain in the cab during loading. Each has its own risks and benefits which should be managed appropriately in operational procedures. Remaining in the cab is beneficial as some electronic scales are located in cab and can be easily monitored. If on a slope, the driver can also employ additional braking. The driver is also less likely to be exposed to other site traffic risks. However, there is additional risks in that:

There is a risk to the driver if the cab is impacted by a log during loading. This can be managed by the installation of an appropriate cab guard or headboard.

If in an older vehicle, the driver will likely be rocked as the trailer is loaded However, out of cab is preferred by some, as being located in a safe zone can allow the driver to supervise the load construction, and provide alternative guidance to the loader. This does expose the driver to risks of load fall, and there is an additional risk that drivers may start strapping while loading is still being undertaken. If a site employs an out of cab rule, strict requirements to remain outside the exclusion zone must be adhered to. Working alone: It was identified that loading can occur at times when the driver is also the loader operator and is working alone. If a risk event were to occur, the driver may be unable to seek assistance. The FLHRCoP should consider outlining a requirement for establishing a working alone policy wherein drivers are not allowed to load themselves when alone, at night, or in a remote location. This means that if an incident is to occur the driver won’t be left injured with no emergency response for an extended period of time. Engineering controls: The use of unloading infrastructure and protective barriers (even the loader itself) is a lower order of control as it protects the driver rather than preventing the risk event from occurring. However is important as it can significantly decrease the consequence of the risk event and as such should be considered in the FLHRCoP. Loader barriers: Standard operating procedures for loading/unloading equipment can result in reduction of risks. For example, if the loader is always operating between the pile and the driver, this can form a protective barrier. Similarly, some operations use the unloader to prop against the bay while the driver unlashes, again forming a protective barrier against load spring or roll. Loader barriers are a beneficial control in situations where permanent engineering controls are not available. Trailer design & height of load construction: Currently guidance directs that logs are not loaded more than half a diameter beyond the height of the trailer stanchions. For smaller log diameters, better practice may be to have no part of the log higher than the stanchions. However, in efforts to achieve a greater load and reach the weight limit, there is incentive to load logs higher than the stanchions or extend stanchions to their maximum height which may exceed the capability of unloading machines at smaller sawmills. As such, suitable guidance needs to consider the whole process and equipment being used.



Hyne timber has implemented unbinding stations at a number of their sites during 2017. These stations provide a protective barrier to prevent logs from striking the driver when the restraint system is released. Due to the recent implementation of these stations performance data is not yet available. However the stations are deployable anywhere as they can be used for fixed length and full tree length logs. While the implementation of unbinding stations has cost and reduced log yard space considerations, they act as a higher order control in that they prevent the risk of log roll or spring.



Unloading infrastructure: Unloading infrastructure provided at the unloading station is generally the responsibility of the unloading facility operators. The use of unloading bays and other protective infrastructure is effective at mitigating risk, however there is a cost to implement, so they are not standard across all unloading facilities. Loader operator: There are a range of practices regarding loading of logs – in some instances the driver will load his own vehicle, however there may also be a loader employed on site. In instances where there is a separate loader, there are COR responsibilities. The FLHRCoP should consider how loaders are trained and accredited to ensure better practices, and that there is appropriate communication between driver and loader.

Pile and landing design and management: The management of the pile is conducted by the forest coupe harvester and as such is outside the control of the log haulage operator, however it is important to be considered in the management of rolling logs during log loading. Definition of better practice needs to be considered, particularly with regards to identifying what is reasonably practicable where sites are temporary. Time pressure: Time pressure can be enforced through scheduling and need to meet particular times at either end of the haulage operations. Poor scheduling and site design can also result in other drivers having to wait, putting pressure on loaders to process loads efficiently. As a result loader operators may rush and cut corners, thereby not producing a safe load.


5.6 Load shift

This risk considers any shift of the load under the restraint straps during transport which does not result in logs lost off the trailer. The risk is included as load restraint requirements are unique due to the dynamic nature of the load and the design of the equipment required to carry the load. There is a high level of similarity to partial loss of load, however a load shift is viewed as a different risk event.


There are a range of factors that affect the risk, much like partial loss of load the load construction and restraint system are key and driver behaviour around checking the load can identify issues prior to it becoming an incident. A summary of factors contributing to risk, controls and consequences is outlined in Figure 15:

Figure 15: Load shift contributing factors, controls and consequences

The risk of load shift is particularly influenced by the dynamic nature of the load and effectiveness of the restraint system. As discussed in section 5.4, determining appropriate equipment and restraint that meets the performance standards outlined in the NHVR’s load restraint guidelines is challenging. The construction of the load contributes to this as if it is not constructed with proper crowning and weight balance, the restraints won’t be as effective thus increasing the chance of load shift or even a different risk event occurring. Lastly driver fitness for work and behaviour around reviewing their load and driving to conditions can increase risk.


The workshop data revealed the perception of risk around load shift to be greater than that of partial loss of load. This is not supported by the industry data where partial loss of load was reported almost twice as often as load shift. Load shift is also theoretically less likely to result in severe consequences. However load shift was not risk assessed at the Melbourne workshop. When looking across the board the Melbourne workshop data is consistently rated lower than the Gympie and Launceston results. As such when Melbourne workshop data is removed these two risks become very similar with partial loss of load now being slightly more frequent than load shift, aligning with the industry incident data. Figure 16 reveals some spread in the perception of load shift which indicates the potential for varied consequences.


Figure 16: Load shift risk assessment workshop outputs


Majority of the considerations that should be made with respect to managing the risk of load shift are the same as those for partial loss of load detailed in 5.4. However one additional item to consider is:

Use of headboards: In order to reduce the risk of load shift impacting on the cab, headboards can be used as a load restraint device. This provides an additional layer of protection for the driver from the load and consideration should be made as to whether this is necessary to assist with meeting the performance standards outlined in the NHVR’s load restraint guidelines. If only using a cab guard but no headboard then when the truck turns a corner the logs have no forward guard which impacts on both load shift and partial loss of load. This also adds a consideration as to whether there should be head boards on both bays of logs rather than just the front log bay.


COR considerations that should be made with respect to managing the risk of load shift are the same as those for partial loss of load detailed in 5.4.

Lik

elih

oo

d

Consequence


Hig

hly

u

nlike

lyU

nlike

lyP

oss

ible

L

ike

ly

Alm

ost

ce

rta

in

Launceston Gympie Average


5.7 Loss of Debris

This risk considers the loss of bark, branches, rocks or other foreign matter while driving. This is considered applicable as a result of the organic nature of the load. While loading this foreign material is caught up in the load and then dislodged through the vibrations and settling of the load once driving.


There are a range of factors that affect the risk, in particular the load composition, landing configuration and loader competency. A summary of factors contributing to risk, controls and consequences is outlined in Figure 17:

Figure 17: Loss of debris contributing factors, controls and consequences

Where the load is composed of broken logs or logs with loose bark and/or the landing terrain and management lends itself to the presence of debris, there is a greater risk of debris being included in the load. While the driver can play a role in managing the risk of debris through load inspection and reporting of loss of debris, the likelihood of the load being contaminated is largely controlled by the coupe operator.


Data analysis revealed low severity of occurrence in both the industry data and the workshop data. The industry data further revealed low occurrence of reported incidents which is counter to the high frequency in the workshop data. Discussion in the workshops indicated that it’s likely that debris is lost more frequently than reported which explains the high frequency in the perceived results. Furthermore this may explain the high range in values seen in Figure 18 as workshop discussion indicated that not only is this likely to be occurring frequently and not reported but also debris such as rocks could cause a severe incident with a third party.


Figure 18: Loss of debris risk assessment workshop outputs


The main considerations for managing this risk lies with coupe operators. However one potential control is:

Checking the load: Drivers should be checking the load prior to leaving the forest coupe and removing any debris they can sight. Some drivers will also manually strip loose bark from the load as part of the loading process.


Landing & harvest management: Management of the landing is a key consideration for the reduction of debris caught up in the load during loading. Good landing management can reduce bark, rocks, and broken logs. Identifying and managing broken logs reduces the chance of them contaminating the load. Keeping log piles well managed and tidy reduces the chance of rocks being caught between logs. Harvest management in addition to landing management can deal with the removal of bark and segregation from the log pile to reduce the chance of debris being caught up in the load. Contractors have a significant role to play in minimizing the risk, and should be educated about product type, landing and coup management practices can affect the risk.

Lik

elih

oo

d

Consequence


Hig

hly

u

nlike

lyU

nlike

lyP

oss

ible

L

ike

ly

Alm

ost

ce

rta

in

Launceston Melbourne Average


5.8 Manual handling

For the purpose of this analysis this risk is specific to load restraint manual handling risks only. Other manual handling risks (such as replacing a tyre) are not specific to log haulage and as such are not in the scope of the FLHRCoP. Manual handling while implementing load restraint is specific to log haulage due to the particular nature of the load restraint requirements.


There are two key factors which impact this risk, the restraint system in use and the driver fitness for work. A summary of factors contributing to risk, controls and consequences is outlined in Figure 19:

Figure 19: Manual handling contributing factors, controls and consequences

Restraint systems in use vary depending on the haulage operator and the load in question. Where chains or manual ratcheting is used, the manual handling risk is greater. Industry is also concerned that with an aging workforce, manual handling will become an increasing issue as throwing heavy chains or manually ratcheting is more likely to result in an injury.

Though manual handling injuries generally don’t reach the level of severity a rollover can, an injury such as a sore shoulder may mean drivers can’t restrain their load properly, or check it as frequently as they should. This has implications in that it increases the risk of a more significant event such as a loss of load.


In the workshop data manual handling was considered to be mid-range in terms of frequency but the lowest in terms of severity of outcomes. However data analysis of industry data put manual handling injures as the second highest frequency in terms of number of incidents which caused an injury however were low on the absolute number of incidents that had occurred, suggesting that few near miss or non-serious incidents are reported. This indicates a high percent of incidents result in an injury but these injuries were not particularly severe in line with the workshop risk data. Figure 20 reveals low spread in the perception of this risk.


Figure 20: Manual handling risk assessment workshop outputs


There are a number of considerations that should be made with respect to managing risks of manual handling injuries while restraining the load. Some of the key controls identified include:

Loading aids: The use of loading aids such as the loader to bring the chain over the load eliminates the need for throwing. While the driver will still need to move and tension the chain this is less strenuous than throwing a restraint system over the load. Though the risk is greater with heavy restraints there is still a chance of injury with light restraints as such this control can be implemented regardless of the particular restraint system in use.

Restraint systems: The use of lighter restraint systems such as straps decreases the weight of material which requires manual handling to restrain the load. With there being much debate in industry over the suitability of different restraint systems it is worth considering the manual handling risks while also ensuring the restraint system meets the force requirements. The FLHRCoP should consider the inclusion of a provision around either use of loading aids or lighter restraint systems so to reduce the level of strain placed on the driver.

Driver fitness for work: Ensuring the driver is fit for work and physically able to conduct minor manual handling tasks safely is low on the hierarchy of controls but is an important consideration. Warming up prior to undertaking physical activities can reduce the chance of an injury and should be encouraged as a control measure.

Lik

elih

oo

d

Consequence


Hig

hly

u

nlike

lyU

nlike

lyP

oss

ible

L

ike

ly

Alm

ost

ce

rta

in




COR factors for consideration.

Consignment practices impacting on driver behaviour: Scheduling by the consignor can impact on driver behaviour. Inefficient or unrealistic scheduling can incentivise drivers to throw the restraint systems themselves rather than use a loader and not do warm up stretches as a means of saving time. The impact of consigner practices must be considered as part of the risk management process and addressed under COR where required.

Developing alternate restraint systems

Although it’s only in the trial stage the use of Dyneema rope as discussed in section 5.4 has come about due to the need for a restraint system that has a low stretch and greater restraint capacity than webbing. In addition it doesn’t have the manual handling risks of heavy chains.

Reducing manual handling risk with loading assistance

One operator has reduced the risks associated with manual handling of chains by utilising loaders to draw the chains overs the load. This is done to eliminate the task of throwing the chains over the bed of the load. While there are still some manual handling risks associated with tightening the load, the primary manual handling risk has been eliminated. This control impacts on the coupe operation, and takes slightly longer, so requires the support of operators and the forest owner/coupe operators.


5.9 MHE crash or crush

This risk considers a crash or crush involving another vehicle on the loading or unloading site such as a loader, unloader, or forklift. This is specific to log haulage due to the nature of the loading equipment, loading environment, landing management, and the nature of the load.


There are a range of factors that affect the risk, including, landing design, MHE drivers, and other workers on site. A summary of factors contributing to risk, controls, and consequences is outlined in Figure 21: Figure 21: MHE crash/crush contributing factors, controls and consequences

The design of the landing and management of the landing as well as the other personnel on site increases the risk if the area is not managed well or other personnel are not sufficiently skilled for the work required.


Analysis of data from the workshops reveals that MHE crash/crush was perceived to have the lowest likelihood and mid-range severity. This is supported by the industry incident data as the frequency of occurrence was mid-range however none of the recorded incidents caused an injury. The lack of injury causing incidents will reduce the perceived view of this risk event. As can be seen in Figure 22 there is some range in workshop perceptions particularly around the likely consequence.


Figure 22: MHE crash/crush risk assessment workshop outputs


There are a number of considerations that should be made with respect to managing risks, however they are primarily in the control of the site operators. Log haulage operators are to be mindful of adhering to site rules and reporting hazards particularly as there are currently different standards being applied at different sites. COR factors for consideration

Design and layout of the site: With a clear layout and physical separation of people and plant, such as through exclusion zones, the chance of a MHE crash/crush is reduced. This does not eliminate the need for personnel management and site protocols, however, it does ensure easier management and response to a potential MHE crash/crush event. Management of personnel on site: This may include induction and training of site personnel on traffic management plans, exclusion zones, and communication protocols. Development, implementation and monitoring of protocols and plans for the site are critical. This is particularly important when landing sites are constrained by the forest location and other environmental factors such as a steep hills influencing visibility and site layout.

Lik

elih

oo

d

Consequence


Hig

hly

u

nlike

lyU

nlike

lyP

oss

ible

L

ike

ly

Alm

ost

ce

rta

in

Launceston Gympie Average


6. Insights

The identification and assessment of risk is a step towards the development of a code of practice, however there is an ongoing journey for all stakeholders as the code is developed, approved, and then implemented. Importantly, there is an ongoing journey towards compliance, and supporting the industry to comprehend and transition towards safe operations. Throughout the consultation and risk assessment process, key issues have been identified that may impact or influence the successful implementation of the FLHRCoP. These considerations include:

1. Supporting a culture of compliance: Our observation and feedback from participants of the workshops, as well as broader stakeholder interaction would indicate that the industry is still at an early stage in terms of the development of an overall industry approach to safety. For some, safety is seen as a cost and ‘rules that need to be followed’ rather as a value system for protecting themselves, their employees, and the community. This could be summarised as “Compliance is about not getting caught”, rather than a more mature view of seeking to build a safe place to work. Organisations with low levels of safety maturity may be challenged by the new code of practice as they do not have the culture, systems, skills, or infrastructure to enable compliance. It is very important that implementation of the code considers the role of the regulator and industry bodies in educating and engaging the industry to support the maturing of operators. That said, the industry should also be considering the role of auditing and assurance frameworks in gaining comfort that safe systems of work are implemented and operational on site.

2. The importance of training and driver assessment: Currently, the only requirement for driver competency is the holding of an appropriate licence. However, the consultation and risk assessment process has identified that log haulage operations demand a higher level of driver education and competency than that of other transport operations. Industry must consider how they establish a minimum competency standard in order to achieve safer operations.

3. Addressing the exceptions: Equipment that is fit-for-purpose and designed for log haulage is also a critical control that has been identified across multiple key risks. The key factor being load restraint equipment and whether it meets the NHVR restraint guidelines, this includes design and specifications of trailers being built for purpose. While there are some stand out examples of better practice across industry, there is also a population of retrofitted/not fit for purpose equipment which poses significant risks. Further, while some operators will procure fit-for-purpose equipment, they may also have older fleet that is considered functional and operational but does not have the same safety features. Implementation of the FLHRCoP needs to consider how these exceptions will be identified and addressed.

4. Identifying those who control and influence: There are a number of controls and threats that are either directly or indirectly influenced by those along the chain of responsibility. There are some controls that are within the direct control of consigners, forest owners, and harvest operators, and these have been identified and need to be considered within the development of the code. However, there are also a number of complex factors that are less discrete, and are difficult to distil as defined responsibilities of individual parties. For example, driver behaviour and fatigue may be affected by the interaction between the consignment practices of the consigner, the scheduling practices of the operator, and the design and operation of landings. Processes which identify the interaction and influence of these activities is required.

5. The cost of transition: The FLHRCoP will establish new expectations for log haulage heavy vehicle operators. While some may already be demonstrating best or better practice, there is no doubt that for some there will be a significant cost of transition. For others the perception of an increase of costs may exist but the reality may in fact be different. Understanding these potential costs, and the perceptions around this issue will be important in making the case for the importance of, and the benefits delivered by the introduction of such a code of practice. This will also require understanding what assistance operators may require in bringing together various stakeholders, including consigners and forest owners to understand the shared requirements of compliance.


Appendix A Stakeholders engaged

Table 2: Stakeholder attendance at Risk Workshops, Gympie (22nd November 2018), Melbourne (30th November 2018) and Launceston (11th December 2018).

Name Organisation Location

Aaron Moeller NHVR Gympie, Melbourne and Launceston

Adan Taylor GMT Logging Gympie

Alwin Goetze Moreland Holdings Melbourne

Andrew Curry Curry Haulage Melbourne

Andrew Plank Norske Skog Paper Mills (Australia) Ltd Melbourne

Belinda Lengenberg Hyne Timber Melbourne

Bernard Raspin Forico Pty Limited Launceston

Brett Eastley PF Olsen Australia Launceston

Brodie Frost Timberlands Pacific Launceston

Charles Stanfield VicForests Gympie

Chris Mangan Mangan Haulage Melbourne

Cory Kennedy Kennedy Trailers Melbourne

Craig Green AG/KJ Green, CA/KL Green Launceston

Craig Morgan Kevin Morgan Pty Ltd Launceston

Darian Schultz PFOlsen Australia Melbourne

Darren Herd Forico Melbourne

Darryn Crook PF Olsen Australia Launceston

Dave Blackwood Forestry Contractor (Vic) Gympie

David Bennett PF Olsen Australia Melbourne

David Murtagh Hyne Gympie

David Scott Langan Investments/DTS Transport Launceston

Dean Venturoni Retreev Pty Ltd Melbourne

Dirk Koeppen Sunchip Gympie

Dwayne Kerrison Orana Enterprises Launceston

Emma Pyke Calder Contracting Pty Ltd / Logging Launceston

George Lane BR & KF Muskett & Sons Launceston

Graeme Elphinstone Elphinstone Engineering & Weighing Systems Melbourne

Greg Stuckey HQPlantations Gympie

Heath Blair Smartfibre Launceston

Jack Barnes HVP Plantations Melbourne

James Asher Ashers Gympie

Jason Rak Perotti Brothers Launceston

Jim Herbohn Masondales Gympie

John Cominski HQPlantations Gympie

John Love HVP Plantations Melbourne

John Webb Norske Skog Launceston

Keith Davidson GM Fibre Resources Melbourne

Kelvin Moreland Moreland Holdings Melbourne

Linda Maddern OneFortyOne Plantations Melbourne

Louise Bourke Forestry Corporation NSW Melbourne

Luke Woodhouse Timber Haulage Tasmania PTY LTD Launceston

Marius Heymann Timber NSW Melbourne

Mark Gauthier HPV Plantations Melbourne

Mark Hitchins Forestry Corporation NSW Melbourne

Max Jones Seamax Pty Ltd Launceston

Melissa Hayward HR Forestry Pty Ltd Melbourne

Michael O'Neill North Haul Melbourne

Mick Brady Forestry Contractor (Vic) Gympie

Mick Theobald OneFortyOne Plantations Melbourne


Natasha Moore Ashers Gympie

Nick Roberts Forestry Corporation NSW Melbourne

Paul Morgan Kevin Morgan Group Launceston

Paul Woodhouse Timber Haulage Tasmania PTY LTD Launceston

Peter Elliot Australian Logistics Council Gympie, Melbourne and Launceston

Peter Kingston BR & KF Muskett & Sons Pty Ltd Launceston

Peter Williams Sustainable Timbers Tasmania Launceston

Rafe Cornwall Cornwall Logging Gympie

Ray Walker AFCA Launceston

Ricky Leeson Leesons Logging and Haulage Melbourne

Robert Buchanan AKS Forest Solutions Launceston

Sean Carlson Engistics Gympie

Stacey Gardiner AFCA Gympie, Melbourne and Launceston

Tijmen Klootiwjk Forestry corporation of NSW Melbourne

Tim Lee HQPlantations Gympie

Tim Pyke Calder Contracting Pty Ltd / Logging Launceston

Tom Hanson HQPlantations Gympie

Tony Johnson FCNSW Melbourne

Table 3: Attendance at the Wrap Up Workshop in Melbourne 19th March 2018.

Name Organisation

Barry Fennell Fennell Forestry

Chris Mangan Mangan Haulage

Cory Kennedy Kennedy Trailers

Daniel Pfrunder HQPlantations

Danielle Read VicForests

Graeme Elphinstone Elphinstone Engineering & Weighing Systems

Greg Hickey STT

John Love HVP Plantations

Louise Bourke FCNSW

Matt Mangan Mangan Haulage

Ricky Leeson Leesons Logging and Haulage

Stacey Gardiner AFCA


Appendix B Overview of methodology

Preliminary research and consultation

The preliminary research consisted of a review of key documents provided by AFCA and a research discovery phase to understand elements of better practice. Documentation reviewed varied across jurisdictions and included Codes of Practice, best practice guidelines, standard operating procedures, industry practice manuals, brochures, handbooks, and workshop notes in efforts to identify gaps and deficiencies across Australia in addition to examples of better practice.

The preliminary consultation included twelve discovery interviews with key industry stakeholders, ‘day in the life of’ (DILO) site visits and a discovery workshop. The discovery interviews provided insights around the diversity of codes of practice and operating procedures in place across Australia, key risks, incidents and their causes and examples of better practice. Three DILO site visits were undertaken in Launceston, Oberon, and New Norfolk (Tasmania) to build EY’s understanding of the industry, to inform the code of practice with industry terminology and language, and to ensure it is reflective of the wide variety of operating environments and activities. Lastly the discovery workshop was held on 30th October 2017, using telepresence technology that enabled participation from the Perth, Melbourne, Brisbane, Canberra, and Sydney EY offices. Through this preliminary findings were presented and feedback from stakeholders received.

Risk assessment workshops

Following the preliminary analysis, risk assessment workshops were hosted in Gympie (Queensland), Melbourne (Victoria), and Launceston (Tasmania). In order to collect data in the workshops the stakeholders split into groups for a number of different activities. Firstly using butchers paper stakeholders were asked to brainstorm risks faced by the log haulage industry. Following this, discussion as a room determined which risks were considered the key safety risks for the remaining activities. Each group worked on elements of the bow tie risk assessment for one of these selected risks by writing down the threats, consequences and key controls. Following each activity there was a shared discussion around the room to see if any further insights could be captured.

In addition to brainstorming and discussion EY used a tool called Resolver to collate data to assess risk. Each key safety risk event was presented to the workshop attendees, who were asked to vote on likelihood and consequence using remote control voting clickers. Results were collated and presented in real time to the group for discussion. Voting results were retained to inform the risk assessment scores outlined in this report. As individual scores were recorded, by combining the results from all three workshops EY was able to present an analysis based on the overall average and standard deviation of scores. Where the phrasing and risk inclusions were different between workshops the most appropriate fit was used for combining data.

Overall data from Resolver and the comments collected during the workshop on butches paper was consolidated and analysed to understand the threats, consequences, controls and perceived likelihood and consequence of various risks specific to log haulage.

Analysis

Further to the results from the risk assessment workshops, AFCA and EY requested incident data from stakeholders. Hancock Victoria Plantation (HVP Plantations), TAS Department of State Growth, HQPlantations Pty Ltd, Forestry Corporation of NSW (FCNSW) and VicForests provided their incident data across a variety of date ranges. This data was reviewed and collated to determine which incident events were occurring more frequently and of these which were having the more severe consequences. Review of the data involved allocation of incident events to a risk event category which in some cases were done by the provider of data and in some cases by EY. Following this the frequency across the data set for a particular risk event could be determined and severity could be assessed by looking at how many risk events resulted in injury and what level of injury it was


categorised as. These results were factors considered in assessing the inclusion and definition of risks for final assessment.

Additional consultation

Throughout this process EY hosted two teleconference meetings, one in December and one in February, with the steering and project working group to present the results and validate the risks being included. After each meeting a briefing paper was circulated and feedback requested from the committee and industry members. Following this a wrap up workshop was held in Melbourne with the steering committee and project working group on Monday 19th of March.

Other individuals were directly contacted for specific information such as incident data and data around better practice examples. This additional consultation was used to confirm and support the inclusions around risks and examples of better practice.


Appendix C Risk workshop agenda

Table 4: Agenda for risk workshops

Risk Workshop Agenda

Objective Present and validate key risks, identify additional risks

Risk Assess: Identify severity and likelihood using live voting technology

Identify contributing, aggregating and causal factors.

Identify controls for reducing and mitigating risk.

Purpose The workshop will drive the following response for the participants. Think:

EY is helping to adequately identify hazards, risks and top events in our Industry.

The CoP will work for me because it focused on the right things

The CoP will result in safer outcomes Feel:

Included /listened to in process

Consulted in the process/ representative

As SME’s they are respected and their experience/perspective is considered. Do:

Participate/ contribute

Endorse the process

Location, Date & Time

Gympie, QLD – Wednesday 22nd November 2017, 1:00-4:45pm Melbourne, VIC –Thursday 30th November 2017, 1:30-5:00pm Launceston, TAS - Monday 11th December 2017, 11:00am-4:00pm

EY attendees

Christopher Thorn (Launceston) Sophie Pieters-Hawke (All) Laura Besley (Gympie) Carissa Liddle (Melbourne & Launceston)

Agenda Item Facilitator Times

1. Welcome, Introductions and Housekeeping SPH 5 minutes

2. Icebreaker SPH 5 minutes

3. The Journey to developing the FLHRCoP SPH 10 minutes

4. Introduction to bow tie risk assessment SPH 20 minutes

5. EXERCISE ONE: Identification of hazards & top events SPH 20 minutes

6. EXERCISE TWO: Detailed bow tie SPH 30 minutes

BREAK

7. EXERCISE THREE: Resolver – risk voting technology SPH & CL/LB 1 hour

BREAK

8. EXERCISE FOUR: Controls & barriers SPH 30 minutes

9. Wrap up & thank you SPH 15 minutes


Appendix D Wrap up workshop agenda

Table 5: Agenda for wrap up workshops

Wrap Up Workshop Agenda

Objective To provide industry the opportunity to provide input into the final risks analysed as part of the development of the log haulage industry code of practice.

Purpose The workshop will include: EY presenting the risk analysis for validation from attendees.

Group identification of better practice approaches to managing risk.

Location, Date & Time

Melbourne, VIC –Monday 19th March 2018, 10:30-2:30pm

EY attendees

Christopher Thorn (for beginning) Sophie Pieters-Hawke Carissa Liddle

Agenda Item Facilitator Times

1. Welcome, Introductions and Housekeeping SPH 10 minutes

2. Project update – where we are at SPH 5 minutes

3. Presentation of final risks analysed SPH 10 minutes

4. Group Activity 1: Review of bow ties & critical controls SPH & CL 35 minutes

5. Group Activity 2: Allocation of controls SPH 20 minutes

6. EXERCISE TWO: Detailed bow tie SPH 30 minutes

BREAK

7. Group Activity 3: Better practice examples SPH 1 hour 20 minutes

8. Wrap up & thank you SPH 30 minutes


Appendix E Risks identified but excluded from analysis

Risk Context

Full loss of load Not a top risk – This was considered to be a potential aspect of rollover. Infrastructure failure

Not industry specific – A catastrophic failure (e.g. bridge collapse) is not specific to log haulage and there was no incident data to suggest that the risk should be included.

Bogged vehicle retrieval

Not in scope and not a top risk – generally a consequence of loss of control of a vehicle. Risks associated with vehicle retrieval to be considered within an organisation’s own operating procedures.

Slips/trips Not industry specific. Falls from heights

Not industry specific – falls whilst getting in/out of cabin is a whole of industry risk.

Falls from heights during loading /unloading

Not in scope. This is considered a risk event/operational risk to be covered by an organisation’s safe operating procedures. The CoP may however chose to indicate that this activity should also not be undertaken.

Medical event (e.g. heart attack)

Not industry specific – not a unique top risk, but emergency response procedures may be impacted by remoteness.

Overloading/ load construction.

Not a top risk - While some participants identified overloading as a risk in itself, it has been assessed as a contributing factor.

Site conditions Not a top risk – a contributing factor but not deemed a top risk. Loss of social licence to operate

Not within scope and not a top risk – The loss of social licence to operate is a consequence. Risk of occurrence is an organisational/ strategic risk not a safety risk.

Struck by foreign body

Not within scope – This is a risk event rather than risk category. It is deemed too specific for the CoP.

Environmental damage (e.g. fire)

Not industry specific or a top risk – This event is not specific or significant enough to log haulage. This could be considered a consequence rather than a risk.

Beast strike Not industry specific - While there were a number of incidents reported in industry data provided, the risk is considered to be applicable to all industry.

EY | Assurance | Tax | Transactions | Advisory About EY EY is a global leader in assurance, tax, transaction and advisory services. The insights and quality services we deliver help build trust and confidence in the capital markets and in economies the world over. We develop outstanding leaders who team to deliver on our promises to all of our stakeholders. In so doing, we play a critical role in building a better working world for our people, for our clients and for our communities.

EY refers to the global organisation and may refer to one or more of the member firms of Ernst & Young Global Limited, each of which is a separate legal entity. Ernst & Young Global Limited, a UK company limited by guarantee, does not provide services to clients. For more information about our organisation, please visit ey.com.

© 2018 Ernst & Young, Australia All Rights Reserved.

In line with EY’s commitment to minimize its impact on the environment, this document has been printed on paper with a high recycled content.

Ernst & Young is a registered trademark. Our report may be relied upon by Australian Forestry Contractors Association for the purpose of Research and consultation in preparation for developing the Forestry Log Haulage Registered Code of Practice only pursuant to the terms of our engagement letter dated 2 October 2017. We disclaim all responsibility to any other party for any loss or liability that the other party may suffer or incur arising from or relating to or in any way connected with the contents of our report, the provision of our report to the other party or the reliance upon our report by the other party.

Liability limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards Legislation.

ey.com

forestry log haulage registered code of...log haulage registered code of practice (flhrcop) will be...

Documents