Tipping point: accidents versus Personal Protective Equipment

Antonio Fernando Navarro[1]

Summary:

You don't have information and reliable research that enable or no idea of the

relationship, that can exist between the use of Individual protection equipment (PPE) and

collective (CPEs) by workers, and the percentage of accidents occurring because the workers

are not made use of these devices. This article is not intended to get into the merits of the

absence of complete information obtained in the investigation of the causes of the accidents,

but bring the results of research conducted with the workers about this theme. What brings you

relevant in the article, besides the result of specific research is seeing/perception of the

employee and the reasons leading to these results? Regardless of the Organizational Culture

that only becomes complete when incorporates workers ' culture. By high labor turnover, in

some activities there is no possibility for companies to incorporate information or data from

workers who will leave the company at any time, either due to the termination of services or

contracts, or even spontaneously, when the employee asks for the resignation of a company to

go to another to earn a better salary for him. This is the purpose of the article.

Keywords: PPE, CPEs, culture of safety, accident prevention, risk management.

Introduction:

Before dealing with the issue of risk management applied to job security, with

a view to identifying the lack of employment protection devices against accidents by workers,

it is important to consider, initially, about the affirmative when provocative if mentions the

lack of reliable information, through which one can point to the causal links between the

industrial accidents, and the lack of use of personal protective devices and even the collectives.

Is not the purpose victimize workers and much less be stated that these cause your accidents or

that their companies do not provide the correct PPE's to each activity.

There are a few reasons to show the gap in research and information. The first

is that effectively the environment where the worker will produce should be released to the

beginning of the activities only after the prevention against all risks[2]

. If this is not possible,

the company must employ the said collective protection equipment, to protect workers from

possible risks with equipment, facilities or work areas. If the performances of the company

with respect to the protection of workers are not suitable, should be provided to workers with

personal protective equipment. Occurring in an accident, the company must demonstrate that

the equipment was adequate, that workers were qualified for the job and the company

inspectioned the good use of these protective devices, and if the worker understood the

necessity of such use of PPE. Companies will always be held liable for the occurrence of

accidents in the first place.

The answers to these questions here described a few times are checked, and

don't deserve the attention necessary to be part of special technical articles. Issues such as

these and others should be routinely observed in risk management programs. However, it is

necessary to evaluate the depth of these risk analyses and, especially, the focus of the work.

A risk management program can be as large as required business needs and as comprehensive

as the professional qualification that performs.

In general, acts during the activity of Risk Management the "look" of the

engineer turns to the prevention of losses. In work safety management, practice has shown that

the actions of the professionals evaluate the means of prevention of life of workers, and yet,

these actions are predominantly reactive[3]

. To this end, are evaluated previous accidents

through the statistical analysis of accidents and mortality rates, that is, working hard in the

assessment of compliance with technical standards, accident statistics, aiming at the

identification of regulatory or legal breach, and less specific analyses of accidents, seeking to

identify the primary or basic causes accidents, here if entering employment of PPE.

The concept of Life and prevention of reactive actions is still one of the

paradigms that needs to be figured out for the development of management techniques, time

Life prevention should be linked to preventive actions, or in the jargon of the specialists,

proactive actions, because only so if it blocks the manifestation of accident, or disconnects the

existing risks in the environment with the probable and future accidents. Simply breaks up the

link that binds the "causes" to the "effects". You can also extend the concept to the blocking of

"dangers" arise the "risks". All these factors are always associated with.

Risk Management is much more than just applying formulas or tables for the

dimensioning of losses. Minimally, a risk management begins with activities like:

• identification of potential hazards and or;

• understanding the impact of risks on the premises, so widespread;

• studies of the frequencies of occurrence of risks, is the form of deviations, near-

accidents or accidents involving loss or damage, including to the analysis of

temporality;

• studies of the severity of the damage or loss any probable and possible, as well as those

that have already occurred, as well as the impacts that these could cause in the

productive processes, etc..

These are scenarios that need to be identified, associated or correlated. In this

regard, Association of scenarios, it should be considered that the accident is not "something"

that arises immediately. To this end, favorable scenarios emerge to occurrences of accidents. In

many management processes the activities of professionals are restricted to "reactive action

zone", not obeying the systematic and limited the analyses mentioned statistics of accidents.

These analyses are important because they can provide information relevant to the

establishment of the frequency of occurrences and or the severity of the losses. Thus, there will

always be a need for additional or complementary information, such as:

1a. Reasons for occurrence of accidents;

2a. Repeatability with that similar accidents occur;

3a. Behavior of workers in their working environments;

4a. Influence of workers in cases of accidents;

5a. Behavior of management risk adverse scenarios front;

6a. Actions of management in order to avoid or mitigate adverse risks;

7a. Degree of motivation of workers involved;

8a. Influence that these motivations, General or specific, may represent in reducing

accidents;

9a. Relationship between the working environment and occurrences of accidents;

10a. Levels of planning;

11a. Degree of effectiveness of the plans of actions;

12a. Participation of all stakeholders, especially the workers, in the action planning;

13a. Compatibility between the degrees of knowledge workers and the activities carried out;

14a. Evaluation of workers ' qualification processes;

15a. Form of hiring of the services;

16a. Checking the turnover in the activities, as well as the influence that the occurrences of

industrial accidents;

17a. Characteristic of supervisory processes of tasks;

18a. Verification of the impact or influence of supervisory processes in the behavior of

workers;

19a. Deadline for the implementation of activities;

20a. Difficulties encountered in the work environment that delay the time of execution of

tasks or expose workers to risks identified during the planning phase of the services;

21a. Existence of pressures or awards for workers to complete their tasks more quickly;

22a. Conditions of human support to workers in construction sites;

23a. Provision of appropriate tools and equipment, among other activities.

Accidents never follow pre-established standards or known, because if it were

could be more easily blocked. Blocking actions can take from the moment they are identified

risks.

The routine analyses and even the experiences of managers may not be

directed to a relevant question, the lack of which, under certain circumstances, in different

environments, different also works, workers may be more exposed to suffer accidents, or the

"environment" as a whole can be responsible for the increase in the number of industrial

accidents. So the title refer to "tipping point", an expression subtracted from the mathematical

concept, when then what would the "expected" is no longer to be. Right now, there is a

discontinuity of the normality of a reasoning process. The normal is. But when we treat of

industrial accidents or analyze the degree of safety of an environment we shouldn't consider

possibilities other than planned? Certainly, since if we can plan that at some point we will have

greater probabilities of accidents, why don't we avoid?

Method:

The main methodology used in the presentation of the results follows the

concepts established by Malhotra (2011)[4]

. But, not left off the experiences and or experiences

of the professionals who assisted in the research, given that these, in many circumstances, were

spectators of accident scenarios or participated in these analyses. So, as the time, the

environments, the characteristics of the services, work methodologies, among others, where the

surveys were different, it was used the same technique of approach to talk with workers,

following specific methodology, discussed with security professionals of the work of

contractors and contractor, leading to these professionals, retrospectively, after data had

already been tabulated, the results and the suggestions proposed.

Risk identification should be undertaken by professionals who have

experience and knowledge in the area of processes and risk environments; have high

knowledge of the application of the perception of risks and their consequences, almost always

translated for loss or damage, before same as these will occur; as well as have knowledge of

concepts of probability, statistics and basic calculations to the mathematization of the risks.

The risks are often not adequately perceived by those who do not act in the

activities, object of analysis. In many environments the risks are easily noticeable by everyone,

and even obvious, according to some, while in others, this may not occur easily. For example,

one such area is that of construction. There is no doubt that there are risks when: using a

sledgehammer, because it is a tool with potential to cause losses and reported numerous

accidents; If digging deeper trenches, with reports of collapse of excavated material on

workers; they settle bricks to high heights, with the workers exposed to the risk of falling and

or projection of materials on people or facilities, or to carry out work on energized

environments or high atmospheric pressure. In these activities, the Association of cause and

effect is more evident. Not if you want to go over the concept that under situations of extreme

hazards can have higher risks, is how the frequency of occurrences or expectation of loss or

damage.

Results:

The adoption of best practices can be an efficient and fast means of

improvement of the stocks of companies that must have been the result of the analysis of

results presented by similar companies already in higher levels of practices and certifications,

and internal or external. However, all the changes end being hobbled by "cultures" of the

companies, which make it impossible, at times, that the expected results are not sufficient for

the change of paradigms from the company. Therefore, become necessary adjustments so that

the assimilation of these practices take in smaller periods.

There is no "cultures" to be imposed, but rather concepts and experiences that

merge can turn into a "culture". It is necessary to review the concept of "culture" is something

from a standard or procedure. The "culture" always incorporates values that are followed, and

not adopted by all, from the moment that everyone to follow them.

In a way, there is the fad of "copy" methodologies and practices employed in

other companies, especially when there is the admission of those same companies managers.

However, one must bear in mind that there are always factors predisposed to no immediate

acceptance of these changes, including the managers who are with the company longer. An

idea can be good. But, for that result in positive results have to be taken into account a number

of important considerations, and that does not depend exclusively on the good acceptance by

employees. E.g. should be considered:

• identity of the practices and production processes;

• similar levels of training of workers;

• similarity of production processes;

• identity management processes and even to encourage the workers.

Anyway, you have to consider that even when it comes to companies in the

same industrial sector the final results may not be the same. Reaches sound weird when it

appears that similar activities, similar procedures and workers with the same degree of

experience, can lead to different results when it addresses the issue of the occurrence of

industrial accidents. And, why this occurs? We could devote an entire article to address this

question, but simply put it, we would say that the "times" in which the accidents occur are

distinct. A minimal distraction, a tool employed in the wrong way, a greater pressure for

supervision, tiredness due to a simple flu, plus, you can transform the environment, secure to

insecure.

All of these issues, related or associated with good practices and perceptions

of workers, was reason for research that is presented below. Mislead those that workers do not

realize when there is "monitoring" of the workplace and of the activities developed. This

concern is due to the lack of risk prevention culture by employees, which, in many instances,

may be making detours that lead to accidents, even without having full knowledge of this

Association of deviation vs. accident. Knowing you can be making deviations is afraid of being

monitored.

First Research (AFANP):

Period: nov 2006 to jun 2007 (8 months of research and evaluation)

Objective: Assessment of the level of perception of employees about the existence of working

procedures.

Sample: 583 workers in two companies, in activities to support the construction and Assembly.

The main objective of this research, carried out under the coordination of

AFANP, by two experienced professionals, with more than 20 years of experience in the area

of work safety, was checking whether workers had the correct perception or understanding of

service instructions, of how these were scanned and evaluated, the importance for the

implementation of activities and for the protection of the workers themselves. To this end, no

specific group were evaluated, with the "sample" composed in function of its components

make more procedural deviations than other workers, on average:

• ≤ 23.5 years of age;

• ≤ schooling until the sixth grade completed;

• ≤ 9 months by companies specialized in, and

• ≤ 3.5 years professional experience.

The questions were formulated individually, with simple answers, and

considering that the interview could not exceed 15 minutes. So, these should be self-

explanatory and the limited number of questions, for deeper in specific questions.

Table 1 -Workers' Perception on working procedures and control (AFANP

Questions Responses (%)

Yes No

The Incumbent oversees the fulfillment of working procedure? 8% 92%

The Manager applies checklists in the works? 11% 89%

You weaves prior knowledge of the planning of work? 15% 85%

You feel obliged to follow the procedure of work? 15% 85%

The SMS professional supervises compliance with the working procedures? 18% 82%

You have been instructed about the working procedure? 22% 78%

You know what it means to a misuse of procedures? 25% 75%

Have you seen the SMS professional applying checklists in the works? 27% 73%

There is no formalized planning for the implementation of its activities. 30% 70%

Do you know what a checklist? 30% 70%

Are you aware if there are working procedures? 32% 68%

Do you know what a checklist? 35% 65%

You can associate the diversion committed to an accident at work? 45% 55%

Notes:

1a. Sometimes the questions are asked in another way to test whether the answers are

consistent with what security professionals, who applied the questionnaires came watching

daily.

2a. Initially it is interesting to mention that the group evaluated when questioned about

"deviations", 25% procedural knew what was a misuse of procedure, however, 55% could

not distinguish whether the work could be due to the breach of the procedures (deviations).

3a. 92% of subjects said that her handlers not overseeing to assess whether or not they would

be fulfilling the working procedures.

Before the question the workers were informed about what they were working procedures.

For many of these subjects, the participation of the worker process should be more active,

questioning employees, guiding them or correcting procedural deviations (the workers

prefer to have the responsible "gift", guiding them, than absent, or present, in this case in

order to press them for the completion of tasks). Workers generally don't like to be

pressured for the completion of the tasks, as well as don't like continuous changes in the

methodology of implementing the services.

In addition to these questions asked if the 15 charged if these know assess whether

procedures were either not being fulfilled. Everyone said it evaluated the activities to

identify whether these were compatible with the procedures, that is, the people in charge

sought to identify whether or not the workers were performing the activities correctly and

if the understood as handed down in training.

About 70% of the people in charge had not been able to perform periodic evaluations, and

about 40% had knowledge of the procedures.

4a. 68% of subjects are not aware that the company who work there are working procedures.

Many times the guidelines given by the people in charge, from time to time, are informal

procedures or information contained in formal procedures. In many cases workers

understand these guidelines as clarifications, since the people in charge don't associate

what they say to the employees of the procedures.

5a. 30% of workers said there was a formalized work procedure. However, 15% of those said

to have knowledge of these and just 8% stated that the Responsible fiscalizava service

contained in the procedures, that is, checked if the workers were carrying out procedural

requirements.

In some works it was found that the Responsible acted more in providing inputs to the

fronts of services and in meeting the timelines.

6a. The perception of the deponents, the actions of the professionals of SMS were more

observed than in charge, whether with regard to compliance with the requirements or

procedures implementing checklists.

For the answers, it can be deduced that employees recognize, with more ease,

interventions carried out by third parties, that is, by people who are not, directly, to their

teams. In charge for these is just a co-worker, who ascended after performing the same

activities they carry out. Thus, the actions of the professionals of SMS are perceived or

more observed than in charge.

The fact that in some companies in charge won't be recognized as such may be due to the

posture of the own professional, but also of their upper management, which might not be

valuing appropriately.

In many work environments the workers realize the people in charge as "colleagues" with

other specific obligations, such as providing materials for the fronts of services, provide

the equipment or the replacement thereof, provide the PPE, among others. In part, this

perception is due to the posture of the guardians but also because many have burst these

posts from lower positions, as masons, carpenters or shipowners. However, in

environments such as these, we see clearly that there is no proper command structure,

which is positive not only for the SMS actions as for the other.

7a. 85% of workers did not feel obliged to follow any procedures, because they understood

that this was not required of them.

80% of workers in the process of hiring, said he was warned or informed that the company

had certifications, standards or operating procedures and, therefore, would be required to

meet them. This group reported that had no previous contact with the people in charge of

the services.

70% of the group said they received information about the procedure of SMS. In part,

there are justifications for workers to more easily identify the presence and activities of

Professionals of SMS than of those of the Incumbents, as previously reported.

What stands out in this type of questionnaire, with close-ended questions and

applied to groups of specific subjects, it is necessary, at some times and under certain

conditions, that the content of the questions end squirming, mainly in order to obtain the

answers more "real".

When the topic turns to bond, chains of command, discipline, among other, if

there is inappropriate responses note or out of context, in these cases, employed so that the

respondent did not feel responsible for any problems that are existing. To these, any

questioning is a sign that they may be making some irregularity. So, you lose much of the

spontaneity of the answers, that does not invalidate or the model of questioning and not the

approaches.

Behavioural Audits programs you can see clearly that workers feel

embarrassed when asked about other topics than those related to their activities.

8a. 92% of subjects reported that those in charge were not overseeing their activities.

When workers do not realize the presence of the Charged, also don't care about

maintaining the level of quality of its services.

Some subjects came to say: If the people in charge don't mind as I'm working, I'm going to

have to perform my task to perfection?

In one of the statements was heard: If the Manager doesn't care about the cleaning of the

work because I have to worry about that?

9a. 89% of employees could not identify if the people in charge were applying checklists.

This perception, the lack of proactivity of entrusted by workers coincides with the high

percentage of those who saw them on the front.

The Manager is one of the key pieces, which dictates the pace and quality of services.

When the Manager is proactive notice immediately to evaluate the services fronts.

You should evaluate the question with the necessary reserves, time 70% of subjects was

not aware of the reason for the application of the checklist, and 65% did not know what

was a checklist. The completion of this document is one of the forms of record of non-

compliance of the services.

Companies, pressed by tight deadlines for the implementation of activities and

with limited budgets, staffing structures without adequate training levels, with turnover of

servants and aides of the order of 60% in the course of the work, that is, coming to bring one

and a half times its structure to the completion of the work, have no means of empowering

better workers (that stands out in the polls might be verified that in short-term investments

contracts in training are low, since, in the view of entrepreneurs, the "return" should not occur

throughout the contract, that is, they can be empowering people who will work in other

companies, including competitors). Thus, the training programs prior to 40 hours, they have

shorter duration, many with duration not exceeding 8:0, when then are treated aspects related

to documentation, benefits, pay, and, in two hours, themes related to work safety, widely. The

scenery tends to worsen if the level of the quality requirement, especially, are smaller. Can

understand that skill levels tend to follow the level of quality of services.

Expanding the subject, quality levels of services grow to the extent of the

importance of the service that is running as the project. In this way, the execution of boiler

factory services in installation of lines (pipes) that will carry dangerous goods must have a

level of requirement as to the quality of the services provided regarding the concrete

requirement distinguished the "containment basin" where these pipelines will be positioned.

In the existing literature does not have the means to say that there will be no

accidents in the works planned or under construction where there are procedures for the tasks.

However, you can evaluate the correct planning ends up being one of the inductors for the

reduction of industrial accidents, the same way the customer service procedures, adequate,

transmitted to all and monitored as to employment, because that can enable the anticipation of

relevant actions for prevention.

There will always be times when something bad was not "thought/planned"

correctly, especially when it comes to external factors or causes beyond its control. On these

occasions have a greater chance of a crash? The possibility here mentioned is related to the

materialization of occurrence. Outlook, on the other hand, indicates the percentage, or how

accidents can occur in the studied period.

To study the possibilities they if hands of statistical studies and or database.

To evaluate the odds there are statistics of accidents or reports of occurrences.

Another issue that has aroused attention was the understanding of the impact

that environmental conditions can represent in the safety of workers, and, in reverse, line

levels of perception of employees about the problems existing in the working environments,

that when feeling disturbed could turn into cause of the accidents. The search result is the

following:

2nd Research (AFANP):

Period: Dec 2010 to Feb 2012 (thirteen months of research and evaluation)

Objective: Evaluation of environmental factors that bother more workers.

Sample: 145 workers, acting in five construction companies, running civil works on a College

Campus.

The objective of the research was to identify existing factors in the working

environment where the works were being built that more caused nuisances and may workers let

them out of sight. The result, expressed in percentage of positive responses is presented in the

following table:

Table 2 -Environmental factors that cause annoyances to the workers (AFANP)

Environmental Factors % of responses

Noise 78%

Odors resulting from products used in [1]

Vibration 64%

Third-party interference 44%

Heat 36%

Vehicles drive around the work 31%

Dust 29%

Location of construction site 25%

Moving people around the work 13%

[1] the odors commonly reported by workers are due to application of paints and varnishes,

glues, substances which are added to mortars, smoke from parked vehicles along the locations

of works (concrete mixers and concrete pumps), the actual materials used mainly wood, not at

all dry.

One of the main factors that exist in an environment that cause some degree of

dissatisfaction of workers are presented in the table, listed according to the reports of the

subjects. A fact the associates to accidents – the continuous hassle.

If the employee feels uncomfortable ends his entertaining activity becoming more

exposed to accidents.

One of the most worrying is the odor of adhesives used for floors like carpets, for

example. Some end up being toxic and causing effects similar to those caused by drugs,

the most common being the "cobbler's glue", still used for formic boards on the walls or

cabinets.

The ambient noise, among all other factors cause the most nuisance to workers. The noise

ends up being unpleasant to everyone, causing sensations and distinct reactions.

Evaluating specifically the origin of the same (friction between parts of different

materials, hardness obtained during cuts or impacts to the installation or repair of

components), the presence of the same group of people, contracted from different

companies profiles and cultures, not only with regard to safety-related issues, but also

with regard to working procedures and management relationship with the subordinates ,

obtaining the following results:

Table 3 -Source of origin of the existing noise in the work environment (AFANP)

Environmental factors that cause risks: % of responses

Work tools[1]

87%

Work equipment[2]

62%

Work processes[3]

41%

Conversation of co-workers[4]

39%

From neighbouring works[5]

35%

Existing vehicles in the work[6]

12%

Vehicles circulating around the work[7]

11%

Notes:

1a. The working tools evaluated are: cutting discs, portable circular saws, saws policorte,

mallets, drills, electric or pneumatic hammers, concrete vibrators;

2a. The equipment assessed were: cement mixers, compactors, pile drivers, excavators;

3a. For work processes were evaluated those that cause higher noise level, as material, shapes,

cutting and assembling of fittings, polished floors;

4a. The conversation of co-workers, performing activities in the surroundings of the workers,

was one of the factors cited as nuisance noise level not in themselves, but rather by cause

inattention by the possible involvement of the worker;

5a. The noises from neighboring works that bothered more workers were those generated by

pile drivers, those that exist during the concrete activities of structures with concrete mixer

trucks and handling bombs and vibrators;

6a. Existing vehicles on construction sites are almost always employed in moving people or

cargo;

7a. Despite the sound pressure level not be raised, from the movement of vehicles in the

vicinity of the works, which for workers was reason to bother, it was the distraction of the

same with the movement of vehicles.

Complaints were specific as to the annoyance of the sound pressure level, but

the workers have finished being involved by existing activities, distracting themselves with the

source of the noise.

The Dangers:

There are few works related to the implementation of the management aimed

at job security. So, sought through "reverse engineering", justify the results obtained through

field research, proving the need for the search of new ways to climb the heights of "Zero

accident".

The zero accident is the "utopia[5]

" pursued by the professionals. Means an

environment where there are no dangers, and, therefore, there is no risk. If these are not part of

the daily life of the works there will not be any accidents.

Figure 1 - Risk Controlled gears, by AFANP

The figure demonstrates how difficult it is to establish a reasonable control

over the occurrence of accidents.

The dangers[6]

are part of everyday life and are present in many of the

activities. Work at height is dangerous. The danger can be mitigated by reducing the risks or

potential, but not being eliminated entirely, causing part of the activity to be carried out as

close as possible to the ground-zero level. For that, may be employed pré-montages, leaving to

the final completion of the mounts, through the use of special equipment. As application of

mitigation alternatives can be applied to reducing the exposure time, or worker contact with

sources of risks.

The greater the exposure of the worker to the risks the greater the chances of

accidents.

Take, for example, the establishment of a Board to another, by means of a

nail, if the fixation only occur with a "hammer" will have less likelihood of the worker if an

accident, hammering his hand, than if you have to hammer the nail for six times. This does not

mean that the risk will be 1/6 less, since the statistics, if any, do not associate the occurrence to

the amount of hammering, as the "game theory". The main difference, perhaps, is the amount

of variables. For example:

1. momentary distraction;

2. incorrect hammer job;

3. defect in the head of the nail;

4. wooden section with more rigid fibers,

5. pressure exerted by the worker when holding the handle of the hammer,

6. possibility of the hammer loose cable, among other variables.

It's not just to know throw the dice. You're dealing with people who assume

different behaviors for different reasons.

The polls offer the reader different panoramas, either as to the characteristics

of the activities, levels of motivations, services performed, the concerns of workers with the

issues associated with their own security and the use of PPE, training of workers versus

participation thereof in accidents, assessing different scenarios. If we were to identify the

reasons of occurrence of accidents in controlled environments, and even in activities with high

investment in SMS, certainly not to understand. Evaluating itself aspects that contribute to the

occurrence of accidents you can't justify them at all. However, are important factors for the

prevention of accidents:

• appropriate characteristics of the work environment;

• existence of procedures and activities compatible with the levels of qualification of

workers;

• levels of supervision and control appropriate to the activities and risks;

• existence of motivational factors that take into account not only the aspects of

productivity;

• good interaction among the various areas or departments of the company;

• existence of a single SMS culture;

• existence of an adequate Management System program, among other relevant aspects.

In these environments it would be natural that there were no accidents. So

why have occurred? To understand "the complex mechanisms" that would be behind the

process is that applied research transcending the environment.

The Risks:

In the process of risk management, notably applied to occupational safety, it

is important, first of all, know the meaning of Risk. The risk is not something tangible and

noticeable right away. The who identifies and measures is the consequence of the same, which

can occur with the employee (work accident), with some good work environment (property

damage), with his own nature (environmental damage), or affecting third parties (risks

involving civil liabilities). Because it is not tangible, or something you see, but what you

realize, our eyes should be prepared for this perception. The preparation with practical

knowledge, experiences, experienced, and with culture-knowledge by reading specific topics.

Electricity, for example, is a risk that causes a high percentage of fatal accidents and

mutilations. We can't "see" the electricity, but some of their phenomena, such as the formation

of "electrical arcs" and the ionization of the air due to the passage of electrical currents.

Some professionals tend to confuse the risk with danger. Dangerous activities

are easily viewed. For example, the work in an electric substation is a dangerous job, in the

same way that the work done in time, or in environments with high pressure, as in diving.

However, the risks are not always perceived the worker's time is not an accident. When in an

environment there is no risk is because there are no dangerous activities. Thus, it is expected

that no accidents occur. Often the worker is obliged to live with the risk that its activity is

dangerous. Then the actions of prevention and care are additional, starting with the transfer of

information to workers and provide individual protection equipment. However, it is not always

this will prevent the occurrence of accidents.

The legislation, predicting that the worker can be progressively exposed to the

risks make it possible to receive "financial benefits", said the additional wages, unsanitary

environment-related or the danger of the activity and the environment-hazardous environment.

So, right now, if you can neutralize the risks, mitigate the consequences of the same, with the

PPE, or compensate for the damage or injury through future benefits. The choices don't end

there. It is interesting to mention that when it comes to preventing what comes immediately to

mind for many is the use of PPE. On this issue was research that confirms some existing

concepts in the Middle prevencionista, but which also lay on the ground some arguments, as

follows:

3rd Research (AFANP):

Period: Sep 2007 the ten 2007 (four months of research and evaluation)

Objective: Identify the reasons or preferences of workers do not use or employ certain PPE.

Sample: 345 workers

In this research, random, without considering the source (company) where the

workers were sought, with the support of three HSE professionals, with at least 15 professional

experience in supervision of services and in Behavioral Audits, identify the reasons and or

preferences of workers do not use or employ certain PPE, which were making Detours (Unsafe

Acts), suffering near-accidents (Incidents) and Accidents without Removal , that is, in this

sample were not included workers who have suffered lost-time accidents. As in the period of

the research there were no deaths, the research was not restricted to the analysis of reports of

accidents, promoted by commissions of investigation of accidents (contractually required in

the case of fatal accidents or with removal of the activities, whether for the recovery of the

worker or promoted by a permanent disability or not by accident), but interviews with

employees After these have been addressed in the Behavioural Audits (Audit-field Inspections)

with analysis of behaviors and or postures assumed by employees while conducting their

activities that could expose them unnecessarily to be victims of accidents.

The individual interviews lasted 10 to 15 minutes (depending on the

receptivity of employees), with the use of questionnaires with closed questions directed to

understanding the reason workers are not using PPE required for the performance of activities.

Where services were collected the answers the workers had an obligation to

enter the construction site already doing and or using the PPE. The boots, helmets and glasses

were required at the entrance of the desktops. The ear protectors they could be required in the

vicinity of service activities. The safety gloves, facial guards, aprons, leggings, among others

they could be required before the start of activities.

Table 4 – Recognition of the use or lack of use and occurrences of deviations (AFANP)

Questions Answers

Yes No

The PPE provided by the company are of good quality? 68% 32%

The company provides the correct PPE's to each activity to your activities? 64% 36%

You have knowledge of the EPIs that should be used in carrying out the services? 63% 37%

The EPIs bother performing the professional activities? 62% 38%

Do you think it's important to use the PPE to protect against the risks of accidents? 61% 39%

You complained to your in charge about the poor quality or inadequacy of Ppe? 59% 41%

The PPE can cause you will suffer industrial accidents? 55% 45%

You use spontaneously the PPE required for execution of the services? 52% 48%

Do you believe that the PPE the protect of the industrial accidents? 51% 49%

Do you believe his activities at work can cause injury to you 23% 77%

You were able to use correctly the EPIs for your tasks? 17% 83%

When it addresses the issue of equipment or individual protection devices,

workers employed to avoid or mitigate the damage resulting from industrial activities, it is

observed that there are recurrences among the research: the PPE bother you more than

necessary because they are not suited to the Brazilian worker biotype. This is perceived in

most polls. Aside from that, even by the fact that they are mandatory shall be rejected by the

workers (said by 28% of respondents).

It is now thought the fact that the accumulated professional experience is

enough to prevent workers from accidents. But the results, obtained in an environment where

there was a level of requirement for EPIs issues well, aside from the fact of SESMTs being

scaled companies always above the required on NR-4, legislation that very little met and

understood by the companies, they brought us new information, as for example:

1a. 68% of respondents said that the PPE provided were of good quality, contradicting the

concept more disclosed that companies used to save on purchase of Ppe.

It seems logical that the quality can be associated with the degree of risk and the level of

requirement of the contracting companies. Must be considered as well, and even

discussed the true sense of the term – quality – expanded for durability, suitability or

functionality.

2a. 64% said that the PPE were appropriate to the activities, which could contribute to be used,

as they were;

3a. 63% said he was unaware of what type of PPE should employ to accomplish their tasks;

4a. 62% said that the PPE the bothered when performing the activities. This can be noticed in

any work and can be the cause of workers prefer to stop using them not to feel more

inconvenienced than employing them.

Manual activities present physical damage, as in a civil works. The activities in a civil

works exhibit stress for workers, for a number of reasons, starting with the high levels of

charge to carry out the activities.

Are not the works that must adjust to the rhythms of the workers, but rather the opposite?

Often this adjustment doesn't do in time, mainly because the turnover can be high,

especially in construction. In research it was found that for contracts with up to 9 months

duration turnover was in excess of 60%.

High turnover rates don't allow the rapid adaptation of the worker to the rhythm of the

company. Aside from that, if there are fair grounds or reasons for "making things

worse", the risk of accidents is extended.

5a. 61% of respondents said were important for their PPE protections;

Not entering other merits than those derived from interpretations of the search results, it

is only 49% of the responsibility for not understanding that the PPE are important for

your protection. Evaluating, through secondary questions, whenever possible, it was

realized that this total 73% of subjects said he "saw" his colleagues if suffer accidents

even using the PPE. So, why make the job even more unpleasant?

Over here if you understand positive numbers high, within the expectations of

an environment with high levels of demand and collection issues relating to the HSE;

6a. 59% of the respondents said there already claimed with her handlers about the poor quality

or the fact that the PPE are not appropriate to the activities carried out.

That contradicts previous percentages, and may also denote that the companies could be

defaulting a group of PPE that workers would have to use, regardless of the task

performed.

Have already had the opportunity to find work environments where workers

were forced to use ear protectors regardless of whether the next or performing activities where

the sound pressure levels were high. It was enough to enter the construction site and would

have to insert the plugs in the ears. In many companies, to enter the construction site was

obligatory the use of safety boots, even in Office activities, the helmet and goggles. These

procedures were widely questioned by workers. For many workers, the PPE was something

that protected them of risks to be an obligation without much sense, since only they should

remove the helmet, for example, when they went to the cafeteria.

7a. 55% of subjects said that the PPE could cause would suffer accidents. The reply was going

against what had been said in the second question.

In a cross-sectional analysis of the matter it was noticed that there was a part of the

workers who received safety gloves-one of the items with the highest number of

complaints-inappropriate for their tasks. One of the most "bizarre" was that of a worker

who was wearing No. 42, and shoes as I was missing that number he was given a pair of

shoes number 40. Simply the worker went on to use the shoes as if it were a sandal. In

another case, a worker opened a hole in the boots because he had a "Bunion" on the side

of the halux right. If these workers were interviewed would be in the Group of those who

said that the PPE could cause suffering accidents. The number of cases of workers using

gloves inappropriate security is high; how to work with moist material using cotton

gloves, or providing household cleaning gloves or latex instead of gloves for industrial

use.

8a. 52% of the subjects spontaneously used the PPE.

It is believed that spontaneity was fruit of continuous charges by incumbents and

professionals of SMS.

9a. 51% of the subjects believed that the PPE could protect them from accidents.

Is not entered in the questionnaire, but were asked the workers what PPE were more

important, obtaining the following answers:

• Helmet (43%);

• Safety boot (29%);

• Safety glasses (18%);

• Other Ppe (10%).

In this scenario, the percentage of responses, especially when the deviations may have

been caused by lack of use of gloves, face shield, leggings, or safety apron.

10a. 23% of the subjects stated that their activities could not cause injury to themselves.

For the answers that these workers believed more in their professional experiences than

in security procedures or of PPE.

11a. 17% of the subjects stated having been on employment-oriented and importance of using

all PPE (compatible with the risks of their tasks), as quoted in the answer to the ninth

question. This means that 83% of workers was not properly oriented.

Once again there is a repetition of the question of security professionals present in the

guidelines security briefings on the main protective equipment.

Have already had the opportunity to witness giving safety professional guidance on

safety belt parachutist, only through slides. Workers were not informed on how to adjust

the belt on the thighs and the trunk, and much less to assess whether its hook ring was

positioned correctly, or the hooks of the lanyards were in good condition.

Cannot be considered as a specific search, since it was not structured for that,

and Yes an "opportunity". On that occasion, October 2010, asked a group of workers who had

been observing the profile and the way you work. As in the activities there were workers from

various parts of Brazil, wondered why not used "all" PPEs SMS teams recommended. The

result, negative associated with the region of Brazil where came from the workers was as

follows:

I. Northern region: 8 workers

II. The northeastern region: 25 employees

III. The Midwest: 11 workers

IV. The Southeast region: 87 workers

V. Southern region: 16 workers

Total staff: 147 workers

Answers Region Qty %

1. The EPIs hinder the execution of tasks.

(I) 4 50%

II 6 24%

III 2 19%

IV 5 6%

V 3 19%

2. The EPI does.

(I) 5 63%

II 6 24%

III 7 64%

IV 6 7%

V 4 25%

3. Not at risk in the activity.

(I) 2 25%

II 7 28%

III 6 55%

IV 29 33%

V 11 69%

4. The Manager is not present.

(I) 3 38%

II 3 12%

III 2 19%

IV 6 7%

V 1 6%

5. Aren't you carrying with you.

(I) 6 75%

II 7 28%

III 11 100%

IV 15 17%

V 1 6%

Notes:

1a. Clarifies case of company acting in several areas of Brazil and in different segments, such

as construction, installation and Assembly, special works of art.

2a. It is not known whether this group of workers was already working before in the same

company or if they were hired specifically for those activities.

3a. You don't have to say that everyone had the same training program in HSE.

4a. The fact that 100% of workers from the Midwest region are not porting the PPE does not

mean they are "wrong", as they may have left them in their workplaces.

5a. Took advantage of the lunch hours to perform the search, which lasted approximately 5

minutes per person, with a maximum of five people per day, with three interviewers,

including AFANP.

6a. Was not informed workers the objective of research and not notified of results to the

contractor, which was not considered as a structured search. However, the results, despite

some "false negatives", inaccurate, makes it possible to pass on a picture of a moment,

obtained in a given period and a specific work.

Interpretations of results are important considerations, following the same

topics of questions formulated:

1. Isn't it odd that the worker responds that the PPE hinders the implementation of activities. A

roughing glove prevents a better "grip"; the front flap of the helmet hinders the viewing that

occurs above it; a garment of a welder is heavy, uncomfortable and "sunny"; a safety glasses

fogs. All these arguments are presented by workers. Turns out, the PPE best indicated is not

always the cheapest. So, the choice falls on the one whose cost versus benefit is more

suitable to the company and/or contract;

2. The second issue is complementary to the first, the assertion that an PPE bother. If this is

suitable for the worker and protects the risks become more employees. The point is that in

certain circumstances the choices fall to the risk and protection of worker protection. Who is

the worker crashes. Again the issue is prioritized "cost" to the detriment of the fitness for

use;

3. When it mentions that there is no risk in the implementation of the activity must broaden the

horizon of the evaluation. E.g.: a worker is in an open environment by constructing a

wooden bench, having to cut boards and nail them. The helmet will be an important item on

prevention or as indicated is the safety glasses or a face shield? Does the safety boot

represent an important factor, or the seat belt with double lanyard? Questions like these are

shocking, because there are many companies that generalize the use of PPE – all – to

standardize procedures and ensure that the worker, upon completion of that task will be

conducted to carry out another task where the risks are different;

4. Unfortunately in many companies in charge is still considered as the "Steward" or even the

"snitch", since that was a servant who has progressed to be a Mason, and further evolved to

be in charge. Employees begin to perceive it as a colleague. And in him being a "stool

pigeon", take on dubious attitudes. When he is away they can be comfortable, even leaving

aside the PPE;

5. The question did not load the PPE can is complex, depending on the activity carried out by

the employee. A welder, at the end of the service, certainly let that uniform heavy and hot

hanging somewhere. The helmet that is tolerated, especially if you have the company's

adhesive. Becomes a sign of status to get out with the helmet of the company, even if it's for

lunch, especially if the location of the meal is not the location of the work, as occurs in

works in city centers.

On supervision of work safety activities and planning the same becomes

essential to the knowledge of the risks involved in the implementation of these, if not all, but

in the main tasks undertaken, regardless of the sources of risk, or origin-dangers.

It is not enough to know identify risks. The Security Professional must: meet which will be

held; as will be held; the most appropriate way to carry out, and because it will be held.

Evaluating this way you could say that there is a safety project.

Risk management in its broadest sense, must be seen as a project for a

particular purpose – recognition of the risks. So, this recognition should:

• Be aligned to the objectives proposed;

Not only for the safety of the worker, but also suitable to being executed.

• Be directed to be achieved the expected results;

The results are contained in the planning of actions.

• Be the result of the maturing of ideas;

One should not repeat mistakes or failures of the past, because you're dealing with

people's lives. Thus, the work safety actions have to be mature and aligned to the

company and to the activities carried out by this.

• Incorporate best practices observed in other works;

An idea can always be improved. Many times the improvement occurs through the degree

of culture and values. At other times, the diversity of the projects. When the changes are

perceived and are positive should be incorporated in the work safety projects.

• Meet, meeting, provided on the specific rules and procedures;

Rules and procedures are the underpinning of the stock and include minimally what

should be followed, not by inhibiting the actions most appropriate outlet and effective.

Do more than is provided for in the standards is not a breach of a rule, but rather the

demonstration of the value that is attributed to the life and health of workers.

• Be guided by the flexibility of the shares;

The entire project, under certain circumstances, suffers adjustments without if it means

breaches. If the work cannot be interrupted and there is heavy rainfall, threats can be

placed an awning on the service area. Even if it has not been planned – this means

greater flexibility of interpretation of the procedures.

• Follow the principles of a project;

A project always follows guiding principles, which will be object of discussions ahead.

• Take into account the objectives and goals for the senior management of the enterprise;

The goals and objectives are the goals to be achieved. "A ball on the beam does not mean

a goal". The achievement of the lock shows that if "targeted" on target, but without the

necessary precision. "Beam balls" may represent accidents without or with removal.

Therefore, the work safety actions must be accurate.

• Identify the source of the risk, the frequency and severity of losses;

This whole process is with the work environment, analysis of the characteristics of the

services provided and of the inputs used.

• Recognizing alternative means for the protection of workers and work environment;

The recognition is given to the analysis of working conditions and the incorporation of

best practices employed to those activities.

• Evaluate the motivation of workers and conditions of the specific actions undertaken by

the company to achieve this ideal working condition;

Motivation is one of the springs-masters of the process of safety of workers.

Demotivation or excess motivation can expose workers to risks unnecessarily.

• Forward all workers the concepts of Value, deploying actions so that they understand the

importance of being the first to worry about the preservation of their lives and health.

This transmission of values does not occur immediately. The worker must understand the

actions not only through their management modes in charge or security professionals

work.

The worker must feel the motivation for the value in all work environments.

What stands out right now is the question of flexibility. The standards as a

matter of principle, "paralyzing" the processes and means, making adaptations that may not

necessarily be transgressions workplace safety standards or is going against the preservation of

the lives of workers. There are many reasons for this. Perhaps the main is that there will

always be people reticent to immediate acceptance of a new procedure. Professionals with

greater experience are almost always those with greater resistance, since they understand that

what they do and how they do it is the result of years of work. A common phrase expresses this

idea: I do this for over 20 years.

As to the question of recognition of the risks, one of the first steps of the

implementation process of the work safety programs is the recognition of the risks for workers.

The following survey results illustrate the degree of ignorance of the risks, leading us to

believe that many times workers may be exposed unnecessarily to risks by not being able to

understand them in their working environments.

4th Research (AFANP):

Period: jan 2007 the ten 2007 (12 months of research and evaluation)

Objective: Recognition by workers of the importance of the PPE.

Sample: 615 workers during evaluations of behaviors on the risks.

In the search results below, was supported by two professionals with

extensive experience in HSE, and the supervision of works, when workers were making

detours or having suffered incidents (near-accidents), detected during Behavioural Audits

activities, or field inspections to identify the workers who were exposing yourself

unnecessarily to risks , or having suffered near-accidents or making detours.

The main reason of this research was to answer a question: Is that workers

have the same understanding that workplace safety professionals (engineers and technicians)

than are individual protection equipment?

Along followed years of application of the techniques of Behavioral Audits it

was evident that reducing the amount of accidents occurred with removal, and there was a

drastic reduction in the number of deaths. However, the amount of behavioral deviations

continued holding at high levels. Part of the justification could be attributed to the formation of

behavioral Auditors, and another part to the understanding of the importance of the PPE by

workers, for being one of the most observed deviations. Mister you do highlight some

questions always answered:

1. Workers must use ear noises or insert plugs or just the Act, when they are moving by the

construction site?

2. Gloves should be ported by workers or being on your hands even if workers are not

performing any activities?

3. The helmets are really needed if there is no risk of falls of materials on the heads of the

workers?

4. The leggings are mandatory even if the workers are not in risk areas?

5. The Carpenter had to wear gloves on both hands or only in the hand holding the nail?

A number of other questions of a similar nature were always made when

workers ' approach for behavioral Auditors. A large part of the auditors understand that when

worker to go in the construction site should be employing all the PPEs that would be needed

for the implementation of its activities. The workers were, however, distinctive understanding,

only protect themselves when they were subject to risks. In one of the occasions one of the

workers questioned: it's not the fact that it may rain this afternoon I'll have to spend the entire

day with the umbrella open. Effectively, in all prevencionista technique, the experts not to run

risks tend to adopt more stringent criteria. This causes the finish techniques not being taken

seriously or ceases to be applied, which is bad for everyone.

The caution (prudent care), prevention (set of activities aimed at preventing

these occurrences, thus avoiding unnecessary additional costs) or caution (caution, prudence)

should be directed to the anticipation of problems-accidents, since should be considered in the

management processes. All these actions are implemented in the present and future. If workers

are required to enter the construction sites using the PPE that ceases to be a matter of job

security, to be a facilitator in the access control element in the work areas. In this situation it is

not disregarding safety standards. However, it may be disregarding operational procedures,

what is characterized as a diversion.

Prior to application of the questions was clarified to all workers the PPE

definition according to the regulatory standard NR-6 the Ministry of labor and employment: it

is considered personal protective equipment-PPE, any device or product of single use used by

the worker, for the protection of risks likely to threaten the safety and health at work.

Based on the concepts of this same standard, presented to workers, more than

70% said it is unknown. Were presented the names of protection devices and requested that

workers would be assigned to a degree of relevance, especially as to its own security. In this

sample, 45% of employees worked in construction, 35% on installation and Assembly works

and the remainder in other works, including cutting, welding and Assembly.

The workers were instructed to assign grades, as worksheet, which was

presented to the view of the respondent until the completion of your evaluation (filling in the

questionnaire). If you understand that the device was extremely important for your safety could

assign full marks. The criteria presented were:

A. Extremely Important : from 8 to 10;

B. Very important : from 6 to 8 (exclusive);

C. Important : from 4 to 8 (exclusive);

D. Not so important : from 2 to 4 (exclusive);

E. Important : from 1 to 2 (exclusive);

F. Irrelevant : from 0 to 1 (exclusive).

Table 5 -Degree of knowledge of the importance of the PPEs (AFANP)

Question: Which notes you assign, in importance to the PPE described below? Concept

Helmet E

Solder mask E

Safety glasses E

Safety belt B

Facial Protector B

Respirator B

Footwear C

Gloves C

Dampers (Attenuators) noise C

Hood or balaclava C

Cuff E

Apron I

Cuff I

Pants I

Protective cream I

BA I

Overalls I

Half I

Full length dress I

To 75% of these workers were not aware that apron, clamp, pants, BA, half

and full-body attire were considered PPEs.

25% of workers did not know that should protect themselves from solar

radiation by applying creams (sunscreen).

The research shows that in most cases the workers are unaware of the

resources available and to protect themselves from accidents. Of all the categories that made

up this sample, if we were to assess the degree of knowledge about the risks and the means to

protect themselves would have the following composition, based on the criteria:

A. Cognizant of the risks and consequences, able to discern;

B. Cognizant of the risks and consequences

C. Being aware of the consequences;

D. Aware of the risks.

Table 6 -Level of enlightenment of workers (AFANP)

Position/Function of workers Classification

Assemblers (65 employees) A

Welders (35 employees) A

Shipowners (50 employees) B

Carpenters (60 employees) B

Installers (115 employees) B

Bricklayers (235 workers) C

Artists (55 employees) C

The research, in addition to the most comprehensive vision regarding the

degree of safety of workers, Culture also promotes that safety managers can develop more

effective actions of training of workers. If workers are more prepared to recognize the risks

and ways to protect already will have taken a large step toward the "safe environment".

What may seem a relatively simple task it is, in that it must be borne in mind that activities

aimed at the prevention, have to be planned, skilled workers and protected, and the work

environment monitored.

Figure 2 – Basic principles of risk management (AFANP)

The combination of these factors leads to working safely. If the planning (P)

is performed for 100%, 100% of the shares are carried out in the correct way (and), 100% of

the employees are trained (C), and 100% of work environments are monitored (M), do not have

the end of the equation 100% work safe (TS). This is because there is the weightlessness and

the fortuidade of the occurrences. So, our equation could be represented by employing the

concepts used in Reliability studies, serial processes:

99.99% (P) + 99.99% (E) + 99.99% (C) + 99.99% (M) = 0,9999 x 0,9999 x 0,9999 x 0,9999 =

TS = 0.9996, or 99.96% "work safe"

In previous analysis has been that there is a probability of 1-0.9996 = 0.0004,

or 0.04% of probability of occurrence of an accident, which is still considered a pretty high

percentage. That means 4 accidents for every 10,000 workers, or group 1 accident for each

group of 2,500 workers.

The protection of workers, at certain times, can be the cause of accidents, if

the protective devices are ineffective or inappropriate. The planning of the activities, as

already presented, depends also on other factors, often without the control of the shares. The

management represents the control over what supervises or performs. Work safe (TS) can be

translated through an equation, as follows (for a percentage is preferable to the use of

reliability concepts, which can be expressed through percentages, considering whether the

actions are performed in series or parallel):

TS = NC + NS + Ct + AC + ɤ , where

TS = Safe Work;

NC = level of Training of workers;

NS = level of supervision activities;

CT = control of tasks;

Ac = Controlled Environment;

ɤ = Various Controls (adequacy of the tools and equipment to use, suitability of workers

caused by services efforts, hazard identification, control of hazardous energy sources, etc.).

The result of this equation must be 100, i.e. 100%. When security levels

deployed are effective accidents are virtually eliminated. If we consider the random causes, the

percentage should be around 100%, like 99.999999%. There are a number of obstacles to be

overcome, which unfortunately exist in most of the works:

1a. The client emphasizes quality and deadline;

2a. Contracted companies emphasize the efficiency of workers;

3a. Workers emphasize environments that motivate them;

4a. The Society emphasizes the sustainability of the work and, therefore, of the shares;

5a. The supervisory Organs emphasize compliance with specific legislation;

6a. The certification companies emphasize compliance with checklists, etc..

When the interests of the parties involved are not convergent results are

achieved more hardly. There is no work where the entrepreneur is focused only on worker

safety, in the same way that there is no worker thinking exclusively in their safety. This search,

first ensure your employability, demonstrating to their skills. Faced with the need to perform

an important service, or fail to do so for not feel ready or not be received their protective

equipment or proper tools, I certainly think, firstly, in performing its activities, because that

will ensure your stay at work. In these conditions we can't "sweep under the carpet of life",

accidents will occur, many without any notification, as determined in the polls.

The work environment is about the mutant time, conditions of service and

working conditions. For example, during the preparation of a slab, the local environment

where carpenters are fixing anchors and preaching battens, cargo handling, as hardware

structures, passing over the head of workers trapped in bundles of sticks on cranes or cranes,

for positioning the shapes. In another moment passes to do the agglomeration of people and the

pace of activities intensifies with concrete the forms. After that, the same environment

transforms with the workers going up and down stairs for the removal of the forms and of

propping. But the changes don't end there. Follow the masonry, with the coming and going of

the bricks in pallets or stands and mortars, and so continues the work. Each of these changes,

that is, minimum generates a change in risk scenario.

Discussion

A very important aspect when it associates the protection to the occurrence of

accidents with respect to changes of scenery. In industrial facilities the sets tend to be the same

for long periods, while a civil construction these scenarios will get alternating in smaller time

intervals. The risks accompanying these changes because they are resulting from these,

requiring higher speed specialists in the identification of the same. As it is not always that

"speed of identification of risks" with the risk scenarios, changes become necessary actions

including planning, mainly, the hazards and risks in work environments, for the schedule of

works, that would result in ratings and application of blocking actions of events, or accidents-

accidents.

All this "new look" make precepts contained in the security standards are not

understood as simple and not as a ceiling to be reached, but yes, perceived by the companies as

a minimum threshold that can and must be overcome. To do this, you will need to be put in

place structural changes. These must "flow" for all areas and levels of the company. Must be

objective, clear, workable, public, among other things.

Highlights that there are two points that impact directly on acceptance of changes by workers

and the fact that these, especially, bring to companies, as for example:

1. Organizational changes:

- changes that are not related to the activities, which are not understood as such, and do not

occur instantly, since it must be placed at the heart of the institutions so that they can work;

2. Processes of change:

- does not depend exclusively on the will of a person, but rather, understanding and

consensus of many people.

It should be understood that changes are necessary, every time they are

identified flaws, when it is perceived high levels of insecurity, or when new directions are

pinched. The big impediment or "the mountain" that should be escalated to the promotion of

changes is the correct enforcement strategies that make people get out of their comfort zones

and move together for the construction of a new horizon. These "zones" are the biggest

challenges to be faced by those who purport to change a setting, for the better. Specific

activities in the changes they cause little or no problem with acceptance, while in others, such

as Job security, changes are always perceived as a problem to be overcome. Imagine if a

worker who is averse to the use of PPE suddenly be charged more strongly for the hire. What

should be the head of a trader who always worked the same way, and never suffered accidents?

In the duel between the understanding of the legal needs service and the continuous search of

surpass them to offer maximum security to the worker, the accident is not "something like a

cake recipe", where added the ingredients if you will get the desired result. Reducing

inspection times and services plan actions and to empower the workers safety professionals

certainly have more time to:

• Risk prevention (work, environment, plant, among others );

• Planning of activities (seeking compliance with the established in the planning, the

company rules and routines as well as contained in specific legislation );

• Identify problems that may be cause of accidents (those problems, said here, are the

existing dangers and consequences not controlled properly, ending by driving

accidents);

• Anticipation of risks prevention solutions (the anticipation is not to claim that the

accident occurs, even by the laws of probability and statistics. However, it represents a

decision to mitigate losses or damage).

Figure 3 -Gear for risk management (AFANP)

The gears offer the degree of importance of the actions necessary for the

prevention of loss or damage. As gears, the motion of a trigger to the other. The improvement

of the results could mean the absence of accidents, the improvement of the planning of

activities and services more effective surveillance, citing only some of the deliverables. There

is no timing and adjustment of the machine does not move. The absence of integration

contributes to the increase of the probability of occurrence of accidents.

The dangers existing in the human activities are always associated with risks,

i.e. there is a relationship works both ways between risks and dangers. For many it's easier to

identify risks than dangers. For example, in a residence for a child who is learning to walk. In

the environment where there are multiple electrical outlets on the walls. The baby can put your

finger on one of the taken and receive an electric shock (shock). The outlets are the risks,

which may cause electric shock. However, what is the danger that the preceding? The

energizing power facilities in an environment where there are children is something dangerous.

The results of risks may be several, depending on the current and voltage, counted among the

little finger of a child and the "hole", the physical characteristics of the child, the child's

contact with the ground, anyway, can be listed several other risks. However, the chances of

injury are high. Package materials kitchen cleaners in plans easily reachable by small children

is a danger. The child, moved by the odor and even the color of the product can get packing. If

this is not suitable for child wet his finger and will experience the "taste". The risk is that of

intoxication. If the flavor is nice to her repeated experimentation, with the aggravation of risk,

causing burns.

The identification of Risks, focused on the safety of workers, is more

meaningful in the process of prevention, named "new look", with the incorporation of issues

such as:

1. Qualification Level of the company.

Becomes important not only the existence of an ongoing program of qualification as well as

the effectiveness of the transmission of knowledge and assessment of levels of understanding

by employees.

2. Levels of qualification of supervisors and professionals who perform critical tasks in the

context of job security.

In many researches it was found that some supervisors and even professionals with greater

specialization were the new functions according to elevations of on-call time in companies

and not because training levels achieved, assessed by managers.

3. Efficiency of training programs for workers.

The programs are only good when workers come out of the training rooms understanding

and applying what they have been passed on in the classroom. In some companies, the use of

strategies for teaching wrong, ends causing occur low level of understanding by employees

concerning mainly safety related topics. For example, the use of illustrations, the lack of

practical knowledge of the instructor, the lack of a suitable training environment, or even

the time of transfer of the information (load time) ends causing low assimilation of

programmatic content.

4. Existence of supervision of tasks, compatible with the scenario.

A fact is that the employee feels good when you realize that your work, or that the result of

his work, is being evaluated. However, companies should be careful with the distinction

between supervision with the "take care", in the sense of pressing workers to complete their

tasks as quickly as possible.

5. Existence of controls programs and procedures for compliance with the services, such as

checklists or checklists, periodic internal or external programs of re-certification of the

management programmers implemented.

Companies must have their control programmers, whether certified or not. The existence of

these programs may mean the existence of rules and boundaries that need to be followed.

6. Work processes and control facilities.

Work processes and execution modes broaden or restrict levels of hazards and therefore the

risks.

7. Risks arising from the breach of pre-established actions.

The breach of the actions may mean the lack of oversight, or even qualification procedures.

8. Assessment of the work environment itself and the contribution that this can offer to the

occurrence of accidents at work.

The work environment is not simply that specific location where the employee works, but

also includes all the space around and where activities that end up being required for the

completion of the services.

9. Existence of evaluations, verifications and investigations of the primary causes of the

occurrences of industrial accidents, to the establishment of "blocking".

All occurrences are those promoted by deviations, near-accidents, accidents with or without

remote and fatal accidents should be investigated to understand how originated. Discovering

the origin can be triggered actions.

10. Incorporation of best practices programmers of work safety adopted in similar projects.

The incorporation of practices that were appropriate in other undertakings must always be

taken into account. However, not always the practices that were great in a company can be

the necessary for that that you want to implement – you have to highlight that there is a

culture of assimilation of best practices by companies that operate in the same sectors,

particularly oil and gas. Points out that before deployment must be assessed if these "good

practices" are also in the company that the copies. A good practice is almost always the

result of a series of actions that precedes. If these actions are not implemented also the

results may not be the same. One of the most common examples is the use of management

indicators of type BSC – balanced scorecards. If there is no record of occurrences and non-

conformities cannot extract reliable information that make up the tables of indicators of the

company.

11. Level of interplay between the various existing managers in the project.

When workers realize that managers are united in their decisions and share the same

principles end understand that company have unique goals and programs. In a way that

discourages the teams of workers "have own ideas or initiatives."

12. Degree of importance of disclosure and attendance to "values" established by the company.

Value is the usual practice and spontaneous of the principles, as a general rule, not the

exception rules. When a company's accident prevention values and even the excellence of

your product (or mount) can see this situation when you visit the company, in all places and

of course activities. The value is not "something" that should be charged for that come to be

perceived. Is practiced spontaneously by all.

Conclusion:

The efforts in the prevention of accidents certainly bring positive results.

These soon arise, but rely on the professionals involved in the activities, are these: managers,

heads of departments, in charge of work safety professionals, workers, suppliers of inputs,

service providers, anyway, all that may have direct involvement in activities, in order to

become visible more quickly.

There will always be probabilities, which are minimum occurrences of

accidents, attributed often to weightlessness, the fortuitous causes or due to changes in work

environments. The planning of prevention might not have contemplated all scenarios or those

have not been correctly viewed or perceived by the performers. Anyway, the weightless

conditions must be an "item" always put into evidence.

In some field research undertaken it was noticed that workers tend, for the

most part, be "focused" for your tasks. The use of personal protective equipment, such as ear

plugs against noise, when properly used, ends by "alienating" the workers that can occur

around him, namely, the EPI, in addition to protecting the worker to the task neutralizes the

noises around you. If a backhoe comes against the worker that you may not notice or hear the

noise produced by the same and so beware. That said, means that worker safety is task that

depends on multiple actors: hard-working, responsible, safety professionals, co-workers who

are nearby, managements, finally, to all those who are in the same environment, so that the

local perception of risks is broad, and the planning and control of tasks can be implemented

and not simply be items of spreadsheets that is intended to meet. It is interesting to present the

results of research in which confronted the information contained in the reports of

investigation of accidents and the testimonials, retrospectively, of workers who were in the

same location where accidents have occurred, and had distinct perceptions or comments other

than those contained in the reports.

[1]

Antonio Fernando Navarro is BS in physics and mathematics, Civil Engineer, Post-

graduated in workplace safety Engineering, Electrical Systems protection specialist, Risk

management specialist with more than 400 works, master in health and environment, Professor

of risk management in the course of actuarial science at the Federal University of Rio de

Janeiro.

[2] there is a strong tendency of legislators to examine more thoroughly the question, since you

can't assign exclusively to workers the responsibility for their own safety, since the work

environment does not become or is dangerous to the employee for something that can be

attributed to this. So, if a company "releases" a place to perform any service, this should be

taken into account which shall take responsibility for any problems that may then be promoted

unless they fulfill, preliminarily, that appears in the main content.

[3] the concept of a reactive action is one where only companies pass the Act after the accident

occurred. In contrast, an action happens to be proactive when presents the characteristics of

turn to the prevention of an accident, or the application of protective measures, in the sense of

job security.

[4] Naresh k. Malhotra, marketing research: focus on decision I Naresh k. Malhotra;

Opportunity translation Translations; technical review Maria Cecilia Laudisio and Guilherme

de Farias Shiraishi--3. Ed.-New York: Pearson Prentice Hall, 2011.

[5] according to Michaelis dictionary, Utopia means: what is out of touch with reality, that has

never been done in the past or may do so in the future, the plan or pipe dream or unpredictable

future achievement. The word refers to the future uncertain, the possibility to accomplish

something. These conditions will be dealing with the imponderable.

[6] yet, according to the same dictionary periculu is a situation in which it is threatened the

existence or health of a person or a thing.