Forestry Log Haulage Registered Code of Practice – Risks ......Log haulage is a specialised and high risk heavy vehicle transport industry. Management of risk and safety has been

Forestry Log HaulageRegistered Code ofPractice – Risks andKey IssuesDRAFT Final ReportApril 2018

Australian Forest Contracts AssociationDRAFT Final Report EY ÷ i

Table of contents

1. Executive Summary .......................................................................................................21.1 Overview of objectives and approach.........................................................................21.2 Overview of findings ................................................................................................4

2. Background and objectives .............................................................................................52.1 HVNL and Industry specific guidelines .......................................................................52.2 Safety & log haulage ................................................................................................62.3 Objectives of EY engagement....................................................................................6

3. Approach to developing the FLHRCoP .............................................................................73.1 Overview of methodology .........................................................................................73.2 Outputs of preliminary research & consultation ..........................................................8

4. Risks identified ..............................................................................................................94.1 Determining risks in scope ........................................................................................94.2 Risks selected for inclusion and analysis ..................................................................104.3 Overview of risk severity ........................................................................................11

5. Detailed risks analysis ..................................................................................................125.1 Rollover ................................................................................................................125.2 Third party collision ...............................................................................................185.3 Loss of control of the vehicle ..................................................................................215.4 Partial loss of load .................................................................................................265.5 Loss of control of log during loading or unloading .....................................................325.6 Load shift..............................................................................................................375.7 Loss of Debris........................................................................................................395.8 Manual handling ....................................................................................................415.9 MHE crash or crush ................................................................................................44

6. Insights.......................................................................................................................47

Appendix A Stakeholders engaged ......................................................................................48

Appendix B Overview of methodology .................................................................................50

Appendix C Risk workshop agenda ......................................................................................52

Appendix D Wrap up workshop agenda ................................................................................53

Appendix E Risks identified but excluded from analysis.........................................................54

Australian Forest Contracts AssociationDRAFT Final Report EY ÷ 2

1. Executive Summary

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

1.1 About EYEY is a global professional services organisation working with clients to deliver quality work acrossnumerous, and varied, industries. Within our Australian Climate Change & Sustainability Servicesteam, we have a Work, Health & Safety and Environment team, with over 35 dedicated WHSprofessionals across Australia. At the forefront of innovation, our team has some of Australia'sleading 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 theGuidelines, leading the research, consultation and risk analysis phases, and was responsible for thedelivery of this report detailing the process. While this report will inform the code of practice, EY willnot be assisting in the writing of the code.

1.2 Overview of objectives and approachThe Guidelines outline that, as the Developer of the FLHRCoP, AFCA is required to consultcomprehensively with the industry sector to demonstrate that regulatory, technical and operationaladvice and experience is incorporated. Furthermore, as the FLHRCoP is a voluntary standard, AFCAbelieves that extensive consultation in the development of the code is required to ensure industryparticipation 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, includingvariations 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 findingsConsultation with industry, research, and incident data analysis was used to identify the key risks tobe addressed in the development of the FLHRCoP. There were a large number of risks identifiedthrough the workshops, however, only risks that were agreed as being within the scope of theGuidelines 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 keyrisks 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 consequenceand likelihood of each risk. Figure 3 outlines these results for the key risks. This ranking ofconsequence and likelihood is based on a perceived risk rating collected from individual participantsin the risk assessment workshops. As such, the data is a qualitative risk measure rather than purelyquantitative. The workshop data ranking and validation of risks to be included in the FLHRCoP wassupported by industry incident data and additional consultation with stakeholders.


Like

lihoo

d

Consequence

Insignificant Low Moderate High Extreme

Hig

hly

unlik

ely

Unl

ikel

yPo

ssib

leLi

kely

Alm

ost

cert

ain 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, withlimited national documentation and guidelines. The unique nature of the operationsmeans that standard heavy vehicle guidelines do not sufficiently cover all theassociated risks. EY has been engaged by AFCA to support the development of anoverarching code of practice specifically for log haulage operations. The aim is toachieve safer outcomes for the industry across Australia.

2.1 HVNL and Industry specific guidelinesThe Heavy Vehicle National Law (HVNL) was introduced across Australia1 in 2013 for heavy vehiclesover 4.5 tonnes GVM. Prior to this there were numerous and overlapping jurisdictions with generalhealth and safety laws. As such, the HVNL aimed to deliver safety benefits, reduce the complianceburden for business, increase Australia’s international competitiveness, and make it easier forbusiness to operate across state and territory borders.

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

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

2.1.1 NationalAt a national level, heavy vehicle guidance consisted of the National Transport Commission’s LoadRestraint Guide(2004) which is currently in the process of being updated. More specific to loghaulage, 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, ForestWorksproduced a log haulage manual in 2014 which details best industry practice for log haulageoperations.

2.1.2 StateGenerally, states have their own heavy vehicle road safety handbooks, with some having producedspecific 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 RegionalSome 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 areoutdated and do not provide a consistent approach to the safe operation of log haulage. The mostcomprehensive document at present is the log haulage manual developed by ForestWorks withindustry.

2.2 Safety & log haulageThe forestry industry has unique safety and risk factors around log haulage in comparison with otherheavy vehicle operations and will benefit from an industry specific code of practice. The log haulageprocess for the purpose of this engagement includes the loading of logs from the forest operationthrough to unloading and delivery of the logs to the processor. This does not include the felling ofthe 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 thisindustry is the highest risk interface between the industry and the general public and is the focus ofthis code of practice. The risk factors include the challenging road environments and conditions inwhich log haulage operators must drive to reach the, often times remote, forest coupes, and theorganic nature of the load which creates variation in load balance and stability. Key incidents thathave occurred include truck roll overs, vehicle accidents, and loss or partial loss of load.

2.3 Objectives of EY engagementAFPA, with support from AFCA, has commenced the development of an industry specific code ofpractice, and has completed the notice of intent process with the NHVR. AFCA engaged EY forassistance 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 theNHVR. Currently the industry is challenged in terms of navigating what is safe and compliant. Thiscode of practice will be developed as a guide for driving nationally consistent better practice of howto comply with the HVNL. The primary objective being to achieve the best result for industry withsafer outcomes for everyone involved.


3. Approach to developing the FLHRCoP

EY has taken a strategic planned approach to develop understanding of the currentstate and key safety issues of the log haulage industry. The approach of consultingwith industry experts, using appropriate language and maximising consultationacross the supply chain is necessary to achieve considered, valuable, and saferoutcomes for the industry.

3.1 Overview of methodologyEY applied a phased approach as detailed in Figure 1. The first phase involved strategic planning andresearch to identify key stakeholders, developing a consultation plan, and reviewing key existingdocumentation. The second ‘discovery’ phase, involved assimilating information from the desktopresearch, undertaking stakeholder interviews with key industry members, and ‘day in the life of’ sitevisits. This approach enabled EY to direct each part of the process and categorise key areas fordiscussion and verification. The third phase consisted of a discovery workshop with stakeholders tovalidate outcomes of the first two phases. The preliminary research and consultation wassummarised in a preliminary report that outlined the key issues and factors to be considered in theCode of Practice. Following the preliminary analysis, extensive stakeholder and risk investigation wasconducted via risk assessment workshops and collation of supplementary data. In addition, a wrapup workshop was conducted with the project steering committee and working group to validate thebow ties produced and identify examples of better practice across the industry. For a list ofstakeholders 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 & consultationA 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 attitudesLog haulage requires a different skillset to normal heavy vehicle operations. Drivercompetencies, experience, and training are key for safe operation. Loadconstruction, fatigue management, driver attitude, driver skill, and driver attentioncan all contribute to critical risk events such as rollover, loss of load, and loss ofcontrol.

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

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

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

EquipmentLog haulage equipment is highly specialised and is made fit for purpose. Nationallythere is significant variation, with a relatively old fleet. Cost of retrofitting ischallenging and expensive.

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

CommunityForestry operations often occur in and around small regional communities with smalland narrow roads. In some instances community expectations require routing loghaulage vehicles through back roads or around restricted times of operation (i.e. notduring school bus drop-off/pick-up times). There are negative communityperceptions of log truck safety given the visibility of incidents and perception ofincident rates. Operations often occur in areas with higher levels of self-drivetourism.


4. Risks identified

4.1 Determining risks in scopeA broad range of risks were identified by stakeholders, however, only a number were selected for adetailed risk assessment and analysis. Risks were assessed if they met the requirements outlined inthe 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 requiredifferent 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 arisk non-specific to the log haulage industry.

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

Not risk – contributing factor or consequence: There were several ‘risks’ identified in workshopsthat were assessed to actually be contributing factors or consequences of other events. While thesefactors are to be considered within the FLHRCoP, they are not risks in and of themselves. Forexample, ‘loss of social licence to operate’ was identified. However, following discussion withstakeholders 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 theworkshops. The risks were then circulated to the steering committee, working group and broaderindustry. Final decisions on risks in scope was based on industry consultation and incident dataanalysis.

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

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


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

Risk Description and justification for inclusion

Rollover with orwithout full loss

of load.

This risk includes trailer and/or cab rollover. Rollover also includes events whichresult in total loss of load. The two risks have been assessed together as theyare 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 tolog haulage due to the dynamic nature of the load, road conditions, trailerdesign requirements, and Static Rollover Threshold (SRT).

Third partycollision

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

Loss of controlof the vehicle

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

Partial loss ofload

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

Loss of controlof log during

loading/unloading

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

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

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

Manualhandling

This risk is specific to load restraint manual handling risks only. Other manualhandling 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 isspecific to log haulage due to the nature of the loading equipment, loadingenvironment, landing management, and the nature of the load.


4.3 Overview of risk severityRisks that were identified in workshops were assessed by participants using live voting technology torate the likelihood and severity. Results were collated and presented in real time to the group fordiscussion. 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 requireadditional data analysis to determine actual likelihood and consequence. However, the below analysisin Figure 4 provides an overview of each risk relative to each other and therefore assists in identifyingthe risks most critical for management.


Like

lihoo

d

Consequence


Hig

hly

unlik

ely

Unl

ikel

yPo

ssib

leLi

kely

Alm

ost

cert

ain

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 RolloverBased on consultation with stakeholders, risk assessment data, and industry incident data, rolloverswere one of the highest rated risks both in terms of frequency and severity. They are also one of thekey risks that the industry is focusing on addressing. The risk assessment included both trailer andcab rollovers, and full loss of load. This was due to full loss of load generally occurring as a result ofa rollover. While some operators may classify rollovers differently if the cab remains upright, for thepurpose 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 whichresults in a different Static Rollover Threshold (SRT). SRT is the level of lateral acceleration that avehicle can sustain without rolling over during a turn. SRT is affected by characteristics such as trailerdeck heights, trailer lengths, suspension types, and most importantly the load centre of gravity. Loghaulage operators are generally working with a higher centre of gravity and therefore have a lowertolerance compared to general heavy vehicle transport.

Factors affecting riskThere are a range of factors that affect the risk, including, road conditions, driver fatigue, SRT, loadconstruction, driver behaviour, competency, and speed. Driver unfamiliarity with the route alsocontributes to driver error. A summary of factors contributing to risk, controls, and consequencesare 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 isoften more challenging than standard heavy vehicle operations with road conditions and routesrequiring drivers to frequently evaluate speed and steerage. While rollovers happen across thetransport industry, the critical difference for log haulage is that the centre of gravity is higher due tothe 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 cancontribute to a rollover event occurring.

With two manufactures who design and build trailers specifically for the log haulage industry, thereis 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 largenumber that do not have lowered centre of gravity. Also, some operators retrofit and/or repurposegeneral fleet equipment for log haulage. As such, there is a broad range of equipment in operation.

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

Figure 6: Rollover risk assessment workshop outputs

Like

lihoo

d

ConsequenceInsignificant Low Moderate High Extreme

Hig

hly

unlik

ely

Unl

ikel

yPo

ssib

leLi

kely

Alm

ost

cert

ain

LauncestonMelbourneGympie Average


Key considerations for the management of this riskThere 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 reducerollover risks through increased awareness of SRT and how this changes as a resultof higher loads. Drivers should also be aware of the specific SRT of the vehicle theyare using as this changes depending on the design and load type or construction. Loghaulage vehicles require a different skillset, behaviour, and understanding of loadand environment. It is important to recognise that experience driving non-log haulagevehicles does not necessarily translate into competencies required for operating loghaulage vehicles. The CoP should address the role of driver training and competencyassessment in achieving better practice.

Trailer design: Trailers designed specifically for log haulage take into considerationthe higher centre of gravity and are therefore more effective at managing rolloverrisks. Operators who do not have fit for purpose equipment and retrofit generalfreight trailers must take this into consideration when assessing rollover risks.Trailers with a higher SRT are being considered by a range of contractors and forestowners, with Forestry SA having mandated drop deck trailers in certain regions.However, fit for purpose equipment is generally more expensive so contractors anddrivers must be educated on the benefits of higher SRT builds.

Engineering controls: There are a number of engineering controls and truckmonitoring systems that can be implemented to manage risk of rollover, includingstability systems, g force monitoring, electronic braking systems (EBS) and speedlimiters. These engineering controls should be considered as part of procurement ofnew equipment.

Load construction: The construction of the load is fundamental to the safe haulageof logs as this can have an influencing factor on the SRT of the vehicle. Logs need tobe ‘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 considerthe management of load construction which may include the delivery of training andcoaching 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 trainingaims to reduce truck rollovers and crashes through educating drivers about identifying riskylocations and the impact of loading and road conditions. It also highlights to drivers the narrowmargin between standard driving behaviour and rollover conditions. Alan has reported thatfollowing delivery of training there is 40% reductions in rollovers in the first year with drivershaving roughly a 10 times lower rate of rollovers. Drivers themselves have commented that thetraining has provided an increased awareness about the small margin between their normaldriving 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 regularrefresher training as a condition of operating in VicForests.


Establishing industry specific driver competencies

VicForests recognises that heavy vehicle experience does not necessarily equate tocompetencies for operating log haulage vehicles safely. In order to ascertain drivercompetencies, VicForests requires a training plan be developed for all new drivers and principlehaulage contractors. The training plan will assess the competency of drivers, and identifyspecific shadowing and training requirements. Drivers will be shadowed for a period of timeprior to driving solo. All new drivers and principle haulage contractors whom commence withVicForests are required to attend mandatory “Truck Rollover Training Accreditation”.

VicForests require proof of accreditation and they have a compliance portal system whichtracks expiry of the rollover training. Since implementing these requirements there has been adrop in rollover occurrence.

The compliance portal is used to track and manage compliance data and basic safetyrequirements 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 validand 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 isrequired to shift in order to promote a culture of compliance and risk management. As such theyhave implemented various interactions with drivers and contractors to change attitudes andpromote 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 asimplementation requires time and resources to facilitate.


COR factors for consideration

Consignment practices impacting on driver behaviour: Scheduling by the consignorcan impact on driver behaviour. Inefficient or unrealistic scheduling can result indriver fatigue, or incentivise risk taking behaviour (i.e. speeding). Furthermore, theconsignment/dispatch systems are often not responsive to unexpected issues thatmay arise during the work period such as a breakdown or delay. The impact ofconsigner practices must be considered as part of the risk management process andaddressed under COR where required.

Road maintenance and design: Routes in private forests may include poorlymaintained and/or designed roads. While drivers must drive to condition, and reportroute risks when they occur, road maintenance and design may be outside of thecontrol of log haulage operators.


5.2 Third party collisionThird party collision, where the heavy vehicle operator is not at fault, is not unique to log haulage inthat it is a risk category that is common across all heavy vehicle transport. However, the risk hasbeen included as environments and situations specific to log haulage impact contributing factors andincrease risk. Incidents involving a third party (regardless of fault) was also the most frequentlyreported incident, with the potential for fatal consequences, which requires the industry to applymeasures of control where possible.

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

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

Statistics related to risk eventsLooking at data across VIC, TAS, SA, QLD, and NSW the occurrence of third party incidents with logtrucks 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 tohave 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 thedata. This could be attributed to the large range of consequences experienced by operators.


Figure 8: Third party collision risk assessment workshop outputs

Key considerations for the management of this riskWhile there may be a perception that third party collisions are largely outside of the control of loghaulage operators, there are a number of controls that can be put in place to manage and mitigaterisk. Some of the key controls identified include:

Driver training & evasive driving techniques: The CoP could address the role ofdriver training in achieving better practice and improved skill in evasive drivingtechniques. Training could involve how to identify hazardous driving of third partiesand precautionary measures that could be taken to avoid dangerous driving. Trainingcould also include providing drivers an opportunity to undertake emergencyprocedures in a safe or simulated environment.

Route risk assessment & planning: Log haulage operators should risk assess theroute to identify potential risks from third parties. This could include identifying routesections with limited visibility or manoeuvrability, blind turns, and zones where theremay be increased community activity (such as school zones). The risk assessmentshould include consideration of time of day variations. A risk management plan couldinclude selection of alternative routes and implementation of scheduling restrictions(e.g. not travelling in high risk zones during school zone hours, or implementation ofself-imposed speed restrictions).

Like

lihoo

d

Consequence


Hig

hly

unlik

ely

Unl

ikel

yPo

ssib

leLi

kely

Alm

ost

cert

ain



Community signage: Identification of log haulage activity can provide notice to otherroad users that log haulage activity is occurring, identify and communicate specifichazards (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 loghaulage vehicles.



Community awareness & engagement: There is an opportunity for log haulageoperators and forestry stakeholders to work with local community and governmentin order to increase public awareness of how third parties and log haulage heavyvehicles can safely share the road. This could include activities to promoteconsultation and hazard reporting, and increase public awareness. For example,many members of the public may not be aware of safe separation distances forpedestrians and other road users. Open days, attendance at community fairs, andschool education are all opportunities for increasing community awareness.

Public access to private roads: Some log haulage routes are through forests thatallow access to other users for recreational activities, such as bushwalking, huntingand horse-riding. As operators of private roads, forest owners are in a position toclose 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 newanti-collision technologies being used to provide alerts and information to drivers to reduce riskof third party collision, including regarding lane departure alerts and blind spot sensors thatenable awareness of third party activity in blind spots. This gives drivers extra assistance foravoiding collisions with 3rd party road users. While drivers must be educated and made aware toensure acceptance and use, implementing such technologies at purchase can provide driverswith additional controls for reducing risk of third party collision. Key considerations around useof these technologies includes cost, driver acceptance/ training in using the systems and abilityof older trucks to use new technologies.

Engaging and educating local communities

[Forestry example TBD with working group, alternativelyhttp://www.kalari.com.au/article/News/Truck_Awareness_Program_at_Moura_High_School ]

Route Risk Assessments

[TBD based on feedback from industry]

http://www.kalari.com.au/article/News/Truck_Awareness_Program_at_Moura_High_School


5.3 Loss of control of the vehicleLoss of control of the vehicle was one of the highest rated risks both in terms of frequency andseverity in risk assessment data and industry incident data. Though loss of control of the vehicle canoccur in any general heavy vehicle transport, this is deemed specific to log haulage due to the loadand road conditions. The dynamic nature of the load results in lower SRT thresholds as discussed insection 5.1. In addition, forestry roads are often windy and not sealed leading to more challengingconditions 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 drivenby SRT whereas loss of control of the vehicle is not. As such, these have been included as separaterisks in this analysis.

Factors affecting riskThere are a range of factors that affect the risk, including, driver fatigue, competency and skill, loadconstruction, suitability of equipment, environment/road conditions, and other road users. As withrollover, driver unfamiliarity with the route also contributes to driver error. A summary of factorscontributing 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 theequipment to the specific load being carried and secondly the maintenance of the equipment. Loghaulage operations often take place in rough and challenging conditions which increase the wear andtear on the trucks beyond standard heavy vehicle operation. Therefore, following the standardmaintenance schedules of vehicles is not likely to be sufficient for log haulage operators to reducethe risk of mechanical failure. This mechanical failure may include decoupling which was identified bystakeholders 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 navigatedifficult and varying terrains. Particularly on unsealed roads and in the remote locations of forestcoupes the road conditions and weather can change significantly over a short timeframe. As such thedriver may need to adjust their speed or approach to sections of road, even those which they mayconsider 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 anddriving at different times of the day needs consideration of the weather, wildlife, and road conditionsthat drivers are facing and whether they are well equipped to respond safely.

Statistics related to risk eventsAnalysis of data received from industry revealed loss of control of the vehicle to be the second mostfrequent 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 beinga very commonly occurring incident with majority of outcomes on the low severity end of thespectrum is not directly reflected by the workshop data. Figure 10 details high consequence andmoderate frequency as the perceived outcome of these events. This is likely a result of the highprofile of incidents with a severe outcome compared to those which are a near miss. This highlightsthe need to address this issue as the frequency of occurrence could translate into more frequentsevere outcomes.

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

Like

lihoo

d


Hig

hly

unlik

ely

Unl

ikel

yPo

ssib

leLi

kely

Alm

ost

cert

ain



Key considerations for the management of this riskThere are a number of considerations that should be made with respect to managing risk of loss ofcontrol of the vehicle. Some of the key controls identified include:

Driver training & capability: Driving conditions for log haulage operators aregenerally different compared to standard heavy vehicle operations. Roads may benarrower, winding, poor quality, and travel through small rural communities. Vehiclesare often required to travel on privately maintained forests roads, where there maybe poor maintenance or unsealed roads. Safe driving in such environments requiresa more advanced skillset. At present there is no standard for assessing drivercapabilities and skills appropriate for log haulage operations. The CoP should addressthe role of driver training and competency assessment in achieving better practice.

Fleet specifications: There is a perception that log haulage equipment is generallyolder relative to the rest of the transport industry. While there are a number ofengineering control’s that are now available, they may not have been implemented inthe existing fleets as the cost of retrofitting may be prohibitive. There is also nostandard specifications. So while there are a number of operators that procureequipment specifically designed for log haulage, some operators retrofit or re-purpose standard equipment.

Maintenance: Log haulage equipment undergoes greater wear and tear compared togeneral freight. Conducting maintenance as per the manufacturer guidelines may notbe sufficient in managing the risk of mechanical failure. Operators should take a riskbased approach to maintenance scheduling and management.

The role of Auditing and assurance: Verifying the implementation of controls viaaudits and inspections (internal and third party) can promote a culture of compliance.Discussions with stakeholders indicated that there is a varied level of compliance withsafe systems of work. For example, while installation of EBS is compulsory in someoperations, in some instances, incident investigations have found that the systemshave been disabled.



Driver accreditation, training and competency

The ARBRE Forest Hub is a cooperative formed by major forest owners/managers in Tasmaniaand their membership includes contractors.

In response to identification of the importance of driver skills and capabilities as a control formanaging rollover and loss of control risks, they developed and piloted an accreditationprogram for professional log haulage truck drivers. The program was developed in collaborationwith 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 beaddressed by additional training. Further development of the program is necessary to be set upas a framework for training new drivers.

This program has required a whole-of-industry focus and specifically qualified and accreditedassessors for professional driving and log loading.

The pilot had been completed just prior to the development of this report, so performanceoutcomes were not yet available, however 37 of 39 driver completed the program and thesuccessful pilot has resulted in ARBRE planning to mandate the use of the program by all loghaulers employed by ARBRE log haulers.

Risk based approach to maintenance

The most effective truck maintenance systems observed in the industry have a risk basedapproach to maintenance. Rather than designing a program that is reflective of the workloadand minimum standards stipulated by the manufacturer, better practice would take intoconsideration the higher level of wear and tear that logging trucks undergo as a result ofoperating 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 ofcracks. Roughly 80% of the maintenance items follow manufacture specifications with the other20% 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 operationaland safety outcomes. One particular company which started a regimented schedule found thatin a 24h day and 6 day week operation the number of calls due to truck issues reduced from 2-3per night to 2-3 across the whole week. Unscheduled breakdowns and maintenance can causesignificant disruption to operators, particularly small businesses, so prevention has both safetyand operational benefits.



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

Consignment practices impacting on driver behaviour: Scheduling by the consignorcan impact on driver behaviour. Inefficient or unrealistic scheduling can result indriver fatigue or incentivise risk taking behaviour (i.e. speeding). Furthermore, theconsignment/dispatch systems are often not responsive to unexpected issues thatmay arise during the work period such as a breakdown or delay. The impact ofconsigner practices must be considered as part of the risk management process andaddressed under COR where required.

Road maintenance and design: Routes in private forests may include poorlymaintained and/or designed roads. While drivers must drive to condition, and reportroute risks when they occur, road maintenance and design may be outside of thecontrol of log haulage operators.

Embracing new technologies - EBS

The use of electronic braking systems (EBS) and other technologies can have a positive impacton the management of truck safety. Monitoring EBS can tell how well the trailers are managedand also provide data driven performance management. For many fleets it’s mandatory to haveEBS installed.

Fennell Forestry downloads the EBS system every month to look at the data, this data is thenused to determine if there are any problems. From here issues are communicated and stepstaken to rectify.

Another technology being explored by industry is working with an EBS supplier to establish anEBS activation alert system. This will be able to provide more real time tracking and responsecapability.


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

Factors affecting riskThere are a range of factors that affect the risk, in particular the load construction and restraintsystem however also the driver behaviour particularly around checking the load. A summary offactors 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 islargely 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 acknowledgedas 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 vsmanual tensioning, and how many restraint devices are necessary. The key issue appears to be thatvery few operators have assessed their restraint systems with regards to meeting the HVNLPerformance Standards. Many operators use personal experience of regionally accepted restraintsystems to determine the appropriate system, rather than verifying the performance with testing. Assuch, operators may not be meeting their lawful obligations. While strap systems may function undernormal operations, there are a number of operational environments that they may not meet theperformance standards, such as within a crash situation. In these cases the straps or webbingstretches and logs can be lost from under the strapping system. Even within a single operation, dueto the highly variable nature of the load, gaining confidence that each load meets the performancebased standard is challenging.

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


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 restrainthe load appropriately, or conduct tensioning checks throughout the journey. If these factors are notconsidered the risk of insufficient load restraint is greater and could lead to a partial loss of load.

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

Figure 12: Partial loss of load risk assessment workshop outputs

Like

lihoo

d


Hig

hly

unlik

ely

Unl

ikel

yPo

ssib

leLi

kely

Alm

ost

cert

ain



Key considerations for the management of this riskThere are a number of considerations that should be made with respect to managing risks of partialloss of load. Some of the key controls identified include:

Restraint systems: The most critical control to be considered is that the restraintsystem 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 mustalso be considered. The industry currently has a poor understanding regarding howthe HVNL Performance Standards are to be demonstrated and met, and there is aresistance to migrating to systems that have higher performance standards. There isalso a range of different opinions across industry about what restraint systems areappropriate, and there are different operating requirements stipulated acrossdifferent regions and forest owners. Due to the very high level of operationalvariation (roads, terrain and load type) there is no ‘one-size-fits-all’ solution andnumerous different opinions and requirements across the industry.

In determining better practice, the industry may consider systems that address thefollowing:

1. Lashing stretch: a low lashing stretch (e.g. chains) is generally required formeeting the force limits. While auto tensioning systems used with webbing canmaintain tension, it is difficult for webbing to achieve the required tension due tocatching on the top logs of the load. It is understood that manual tensioningsystems are not able to ensure that consistent tensioning for adequate loadrestraint can be achieved throughout the entire truck journey.

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

3. Headboards: a headboard contributes to meeting the load restraint performancestandards 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 whenthe trailer jackknifes as they no longer align with the load. Also, due to thedistance between the logs and cab, momentum can be gained in an emergencybraking scenario, resulting in greater force. Better practice would also see aheadboard mounted to the rear trailer, where operational requirements permit.

4. Load Configuration: it is accepted across industry that crowning is required forload restraint performance when forward, rearward, and sideways restraint is notprovided by physical structures. However, there is a range of operationaldiscipline and competencies across industry. As such, the code of practice shouldconsider processes and requirements for training, supervision and auditing ofloader operations to ensure implementation of better practice.

5. Trailer specifications: additional specifications can be implemented to improveload restraint performance, such as high grip bolsters. Consideration of mountsand additional features need to be tested to understand the impact onperformance outcomes.

6. Minimum requirements: Due to the complexity of factors affecting performancestandards of restraint systems with different products and in different operatingconditions, it is unreasonable to expect drivers to be able to assess each load asmeeting performance standards. As such, to achieve consistently safeoperations, the industry may consider implementing minimum requirements forachieving performance, and easily comprehensible guidance for how to apply therequirements to different contexts.


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

Manual handling risks: While chain restraint systems generally meet a higherperformance standard, they bring their own risk from manual handling. Historically,operators moved away from chain systems due to the high number of manualhandling injuries for drivers. Implementation of chain restraint systems mustconsider 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 canbe used as a load restraint device. Rear boards provide protection at the back of theload and an additional perception of greater safety by the public. For example, inTasmania it was made mandatory to use a rear board when transporting shortplantation wood. Consideration should be made as to whether this is necessary toassist with meeting the HVNL Performance Standards. It should be noted thatimplementation of rear boards increases the tare weight of a trailer, reducing thepayload capability of the fleet. While this alone is not a justifiable reason to not installrear boards, it may result in some resistance to implementing this control.

Load construction: The construction of the load is fundamental to the safe haulageof logs – logs need to be ‘built’, rather than loaded in order to be stable, secure, andwith balanced distribution of weight. Training is essential for safe construction ofloads. The FLHRCoP needs to consider the management of load construction whichmay include the delivery of training and coaching on what constitutes a safe load.

Driver behaviour & attitude towards compliance: Many operators use manualtensioning systems which require regular checks to ensure tension is maintainedthrough the journey as logs ‘settle’. It is important that drivers check load andtensioning throughout the journey not simply at the start. Industry feedbacksuggested that some drivers are less diligent than others. Some organisations haveGPS systems which log when the drivers stop however this doesn’t indicate whetherthe tensioning was checked. The FLHRCoP should consider what training andmonitoring requirements are required to ensure that safe behaviours aredemonstrated. Implementation of auto-tensioning systems reduce the risksignificantly, 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 ropemanufactured from polyethylene fibre and is extremely strong, light to handle and has very lowstretch. If assessed as appropriate for log haulage restrain systems, the implementation wouldaddress some of the key issues with current restrain systems – specifically, it would reducemanual handling issues associated chains while still achieving the higher clamping force. The highcost of this rope however may be prohibitive to some operators without subsidies. In additionthere is a lack of acceptance across individual operators that there is an issue with load restraintsystems currently used.

Regardless of the outcomes of the pilot, the process that is being used to test and develop thesystem 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 areundergoing performance testing with engineering input to determine if the system canconsistently achieve forward and sideways force limits.



Loader operator: There are a range of practices regarding loading of logs – in someinstances the driver will load his own vehicle, however there may also be a loaderemployed on site. In instances where there is a separate loader, there are CORresponsibilities. The FLHRCoP should consider how loaders are trained andaccredited to ensure better practices, and there is appropriate communicationbetween driver and loader.

Load product: Consigners and those in control over the harvest may request orprovide a specific product that is of higher risk with regards to loss of load. Logspecies, length, form, and diameter can all affect the friction of the logs andassociated performance of the restraint system. Providing drivers/haulage operatorswith information about the load means the right trailer configurations and loadrestraints can be brought to the site.

Landing and pile management: Those with responsibility for landing managementcan 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 appropriateconfiguration. For example, where a loader has access to various piles, and space torearrange logs, they are better positioned to make decisions and selections thatresult in a better build.

Cost of meeting performance standards: There may be a large number of operatorswho will be required to test their restraint systems to assess meeting of performancestandards. There may also be a number that will be required to implement newsystems in order to meet standards. Implementation and transition to the FLHRCoPneeds to consider how to assist industry in negotiation of costs.

Consignment practices impacting on driver behaviour: Scheduling by the consignorcan impact on driver behaviour. Inefficient or unrealistic scheduling can result indriver fatigue, or incentivise risk taking behaviour (i.e. speeding). The impact ofconsigner practices must be considered as part of the risk management process andaddressed under COR where required.


5.5 Loss of control of log during loading or unloadingThe loss of control of a log during the loading and unloading operations includes rolling logs whileloading and the risk of a log falling during unlashing. While these risks are slightly different, they havebeen clustered as there is a high level of similarity. This risk is considered as applicable to the CoPdue to the very specific loading and unloading requirements for the load, the organic nature of theload, and the environment/conditions under which the activities are undertaken.

Factors affecting riskThere are a range of factors that affect the risk, including, design of the landing, loader operatorcompetency, equipment and type of load. A summary of factors contributing to risk, controls andconsequences 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 partin the risk of a log rolling. Where the operator is well trained in load configuration, there is a lowerchance that a log will fall during lashing or unlashing. This feeds back into the design of the landingand can have a significant impact on the ability of the loader operator to select appropriate logs andnot cause a rolling log from the log pile. In addition the weather can impair vision and cause logs tobe slippery which also increases the risk of a rolling log. Landing and pile management plays asignificant role. Having the space and the layout for piles to be managed safely, including the transferand rearrangement of logs in preparation for loading, is an important factor for consideration.

Statistics related to risk eventsThere is a significant variation in consequence in workshop data which is supported by a range ofconsequences in the industry data. The industry data placed rolling log to be the third most frequentrisk 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 aroundseverity and how frequently this risk event occurs.


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

Key considerations for the management of this riskThere 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 controlsthat can be put in place to reduce the consequences when they do occur. Some of the key controlsidentified include:

Exclusion zones & safe systems of coupe operation: Implementation of exclusionszones and other operational restrictions while loading ensures the physical removalof the driver and other site personnel from the areas where the loss of control of alog is most likely to occur. Other considerations are limiting the number of equipmentthat can be operated in certain zones (e.g. only one machine per pile), andimplementing an in-cab/out-cab loading rule (see below ‘location of driver’). Thereare a number of accepted procedures and requirements for exclusion zones whichthe FLHRCoP should consider standardising. Better practice ensures that landingsconsider 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 theloading/unloading process. For example identifying where there are shorter logsbetween larger logs in the load and ensuring that the driver remains outside ofexclusion zones.

Like

lihoo

d


Hig

hly

unlik

ely

Unl

ikel

yPo

ssib

leLi

kely

Alm

ost

cert

ain



Location of driver: Across the industry there is variation around whether or not thedriver should remain in the cab during loading. Each has its own risks and benefitswhich should be managed appropriately in operational procedures.

Remaining in the cab is beneficial as some electronic scales are located in cab andcan 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, thereis additional risks in that:

· There is a risk to the driver if the cab is impacted by a log during loading. Thiscan 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 allowthe driver to supervise the load construction, and provide alternative guidance to theloader. This does expose the driver to risks of load fall, and there is an additional riskthat drivers may start strapping while loading is still being undertaken. If a siteemploys an out of cab rule, strict requirements to remain outside the exclusion zonemust be adhered to.

Working alone: It was identified that loading can occur at times when the driver isalso the loader operator and is working alone. If a risk event were to occur, the drivermay be unable to seek assistance. The FLHRCoP should consider outlining arequirement for establishing a working alone policy wherein drivers are not allowedto load themselves when alone, at night, or in a remote location. This means that ifan incident is to occur the driver won’t be left injured with no emergency responsefor 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 thanpreventing the risk event from occurring. However is important as it can significantlydecrease the consequence of the risk event and as such should be considered in theFLHRCoP.

Loader barriers: Standard operating procedures for loading/unloading equipmentcan result in reduction of risks. For example, if the loader is always operating betweenthe pile and the driver, this can form a protective barrier. Similarly, some operationsuse the unloader to prop against the bay while the driver unlashes, again forming aprotective barrier against load spring or roll. Loader barriers are a beneficial controlin situations where permanent engineering controls are not available.

Trailer design & height of load construction: Currently guidance directs that logs arenot loaded more than half a diameter beyond the height of the trailer stanchions. Forsmaller log diameters, better practice may be to have no part of the log higher thanthe stanchions. However, in efforts to achieve a greater load and reach the weightlimit, there is incentive to load logs higher than the stanchions or extend stanchionsto their maximum height which may exceed the capability of unloading machines atsmaller sawmills. As such, suitable guidance needs to consider the whole process andequipment being used.



Hyne timber has implemented unbinding stations at a number of their sites during 2017. Thesestations provide a protective barrier to prevent logs from striking the driver when the restraintsystem is released. Due to the recent implementation of these stations performance data is notyet available. However the stations are deployable anywhere as they can be used for fixedlength and full tree length logs.

While the implementation of unbinding stations has cost and reduced log yard spaceconsiderations, they act as a higher order control in that they prevent the risk of log roll orspring.


COR factors for considerationUnloading infrastructure: Unloading infrastructure provided at the unloading stationis generally the responsibility of the unloading facility operators. The use of unloadingbays and other protective infrastructure is effective at mitigating risk, however thereis 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 someinstances the driver will load his own vehicle, however there may also be a loaderemployed on site. In instances where there is a separate loader, there are CORresponsibilities. The FLHRCoP should consider how loaders are trained andaccredited to ensure better practices, and that there is appropriate communicationbetween driver and loader.

Pile and landing design and management: The management of the pile is conductedby the forest coupe harvester and as such is outside the control of the log haulageoperator, however it is important to be considered in the management of rolling logsduring log loading. Definition of better practice needs to be considered, particularlywith regards to identifying what is reasonably practicable where sites are temporary.

Time pressure: Time pressure can be enforced through scheduling and need to meetparticular times at either end of the haulage operations. Poor scheduling and sitedesign can also result in other drivers having to wait, putting pressure on loaders toprocess loads efficiently. As a result loader operators may rush and cut corners,thereby not producing a safe load.


5.6 Load shiftThis risk considers any shift of the load under the restraint straps during transport which does notresult in logs lost off the trailer. The risk is included as load restraint requirements are unique due tothe dynamic nature of the load and the design of the equipment required to carry the load. There isa high level of similarity to partial loss of load, however a load shift is viewed as a different risk event.

Factors affecting riskThere are a range of factors that affect the risk, much like partial loss of load the load constructionand restraint system are key and driver behaviour around checking the load can identify issues priorto it becoming an incident. A summary of factors contributing to risk, controls and consequences isoutlined 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 ofthe restraint system. As discussed in section 5.4, determining appropriate equipment and restraintthat 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 andweight balance, the restraints won’t be as effective thus increasing the chance of load shift or evena different risk event occurring. Lastly driver fitness for work and behaviour around reviewing theirload and driving to conditions can increase risk.

Statistics related to risk eventsThe workshop data revealed the perception of risk around load shift to be greater than that of partialloss of load. This is not supported by the industry data where partial loss of load was reported almosttwice 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 boardthe 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 partialloss 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 variedconsequences.


Figure 16: Load shift risk assessment workshop outputs

Key considerations for the management of this riskMajority of the considerations that should be made with respect to managing the risk of load shift arethe 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 layerof protection for the driver from the load and consideration should be made as towhether this is necessary to assist with meeting the performance standards outlinedin the NHVR’s load restraint guidelines. If only using a cab guard but no headboardthen when the truck turns a corner the logs have no forward guard which impacts onboth load shift and partial loss of load. This also adds a consideration as to whetherthere should be head boards on both bays of logs rather than just the front log bay.

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

Like

lihoo

d


Hig

hly

unlik

ely

Unl

ikel

yPo

ssib

leLi

kely

Alm

ost

cert

ain

LauncestonGympie Average


5.7 Loss of DebrisThis risk considers the loss of bark, branches, rocks or other foreign matter while driving. This isconsidered applicable as a result of the organic nature of the load. While loading this foreign materialis caught up in the load and then dislodged through the vibrations and settling of the load oncedriving.

Factors affecting riskThere are a range of factors that affect the risk, in particular the load composition, landingconfiguration and loader competency. A summary of factors contributing to risk, controls andconsequences 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 andmanagement lends itself to the presence of debris, there is a greater risk of debris being included inthe load. While the driver can play a role in managing the risk of debris through load inspection andreporting of loss of debris, the likelihood of the load being contaminated is largely controlled by thecoupe operator.

Statistics related to risk eventsData 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 highfrequency in the workshop data. Discussion in the workshops indicated that it’s likely that debris islost 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 discussionindicated that not only is this likely to be occurring frequently and not reported but also debris suchas rocks could cause a severe incident with a third party.


Figure 18: Loss of debris risk assessment workshop outputs

Key considerations for the management of this riskThe main considerations for managing this risk lies with coupe operators. However one potentialcontrol is:

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


COR factors for considerationLanding & harvest management: Management of the landing is a key considerationfor the reduction of debris caught up in the load during loading. Good landingmanagement can reduce bark, rocks, and broken logs. Identifying and managingbroken logs reduces the chance of them contaminating the load. Keeping log pileswell managed and tidy reduces the chance of rocks being caught between logs.Harvest management in addition to landing management can deal with the removal

Like

lihoo

d


Hig

hly

unlik

ely

Unl

ikel

yPo

ssib

leLi

kely

Alm

ost

cert

ain

LauncestonMelbourne Average



of bark and segregation from the log pile to reduce the chance of debris being caughtup in the load.

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

Factors affecting riskThere are two key factors which impact this risk, the restraint system in use and the driver fitnessfor work. A summary of factors contributing to risk, controls and consequences is outlined in Figure19:

Figure 19: Manual handling contributing factors, controls and consequences

Restraint systems in use vary depending on the haulage operator and the load in question. Wherechains or manual ratcheting is used, the manual handling risk is greater. Industry is also concernedthat with an aging workforce, manual handling will become an increasing issue as throwing heavychains 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 injurysuch as a sore shoulder may mean drivers can’t restrain their load properly, or check it as frequentlyas they should. This has implications in that it increases the risk of a more significant event such asa loss of load.

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


Figure 20: Manual handling risk assessment workshop outputs

Key considerations for the management of this riskThere are a number of considerations that should be made with respect to managing risks of manualhandling 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 theload eliminates the need for throwing. While the driver will still need to move andtension the chain this is less strenuous than throwing a restraint system over theload. Though the risk is greater with heavy restraints there is still a chance of injurywith light restraints as such this control can be implemented regardless of theparticular restraint system in use.

Restraint systems: The use of lighter restraint systems such as straps decreases theweight of material which requires manual handling to restrain the load. With therebeing much debate in industry over the suitability of different restraint systems it isworth considering the manual handling risks while also ensuring the restraint systemmeets the force requirements. The FLHRCoP should consider the inclusion of aprovision around either use of loading aids or lighter restraint systems so to reducethe level of strain placed on the driver.

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

Like

lihoo

d


Hig

hly

unlik

ely

Unl

ikel

yPo

ssib

leLi

kely

Alm

ost

cert

ain




COR factors for consideration.Consignment practices impacting on driver behaviour: Scheduling by the consignorcan impact on driver behaviour. Inefficient or unrealistic scheduling can incentivisedrivers to throw the restraint systems themselves rather than use a loader and notdo warm up stretches as a means of saving time. The impact of consigner practicesmust be considered as part of the risk management process and addressed underCOR 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 hascome about due to the need for a restraint system that has a low stretch and greater restraintcapacity 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 utilisingloaders to draw the chains overs the load. This is done to eliminate the task of throwing thechains over the bed of the load. While there are still some manual handling risks associated withtightening the load, the primary manual handling risk has been eliminated. This control impactson the coupe operation, and takes slightly longer, so requires the support of operators and theforest owner/coupe operators.


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

Factors affecting riskThere are a range of factors that affect the risk, including, landing design, MHE drivers, and otherworkers on site. A summary of factors contributing to risk, controls, and consequences is outlined inFigure 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 siteincreases the risk if the area is not managed well or other personnel are not sufficiently skilled forthe work required.

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


Figure 22: MHE crash/crush risk assessment workshop outputs

Key considerations for the management of this riskThere are a number of considerations that should be made with respect to managing risks, howeverthey are primarily in the control of the site operators. Log haulage operators are to be mindful ofadhering to site rules and reporting hazards particularly as there are currently different standardsbeing applied at different sites.



Design and layout of the site: With a clear layout and physical separation of peopleand plant, such as through exclusion zones, the chance of a MHE crash/crush isreduced. This does not eliminate the need for personnel management and siteprotocols, however, it does ensure easier management and response to a potentialMHE crash/crush event.

Management of personnel on site: This may include induction and training of sitepersonnel on traffic management plans, exclusion zones, and communicationprotocols. Development, implementation and monitoring of protocols and plans forthe site are critical. This is particularly important when landing sites are constrained

Like

lihoo

d

Consequence


Hig

hly

unlik

ely

Unl

ikel

yPo

ssib

leLi

kely

Alm

ost

cert

ain

LauncestonGympie Average



by the forest location and other environmental factors such as a steep hillsinfluencing visibility and site layout.


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, andthen implemented. Importantly, there is an ongoing journey towards compliance, and supporting theindustry to comprehend and transition towards safe operations. Throughout the consultation andrisk assessment process, key issues have been identified that may impact or influence the successfulimplementation of the FLHRCoP. These considerations include:

1. Supporting a culture of compliance: Our observation and feedback from participants of theworkshops, as well as broader stakeholder interaction would indicate that the industry is still atan 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 protectingthemselves, their employees, and the community. This could be summarised as “Compliance isabout not getting caught”, rather than a more mature view of seeking to build a safe place towork. Organisations with low levels of safety maturity may be challenged by the new code ofpractice 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 andindustry 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 frameworksin 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 drivercompetency is the holding of an appropriate licence. However, the consultation and riskassessment process has identified that log haulage operations demand a higher level of drivereducation and competency than that of other transport operations. Industry must consider howthey 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 alsoa critical control that has been identified across multiple key risks. The key factor being loadrestraint equipment and whether it meets the NHVR restraint guidelines, this includes design andspecifications of trailers being built for purpose. While there are some stand out examples ofbetter practice across industry, there is also a population of retrofitted/not fit for purposeequipment 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 operationalbut does not have the same safety features. Implementation of the FLHRCoP needs to considerhow these exceptions will be identified and addressed.

4. Identifying those who control and influence: There are a number of controls and threats thatare either directly or indirectly influenced by those along the chain of responsibility. There aresome controls that are within the direct control of consigners, forest owners, and harvestoperators, and these have been identified and need to be considered within the development ofthe code. However, there are also a number of complex factors that are less discrete, and aredifficult to distil as defined responsibilities of individual parties. For example, driver behaviourand fatigue may be affected by the interaction between the consignment practices of theconsigner, 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 heavyvehicle operators. While some may already be demonstrating best or better practice, there is nodoubt that for some there will be a significant cost of transition. For others the perception of anincrease of costs may exist but the reality may in fact be different. Understanding these potentialcosts, and the perceptions around this issue will be important in making the case for theimportance of, and the benefits delivered by the introduction of such a code of practice. This willalso require understanding what assistance operators may require in bringing together variousstakeholders, including consigners and forest owners to understand the shared requirements ofcompliance.


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 LauncestonAdan Taylor GMT Logging GympieAlwin Goetze Moreland Holdings MelbourneAndrew Curry Curry Haulage MelbourneAndrew Plank Norske Skog Paper Mills (Australia) Ltd MelbourneBelinda Lengenberg Hyne Timber MelbourneBernard Raspin Forico Pty Limited LauncestonBrett Eastley PF Olsen Australia LauncestonBrodie Frost Timberlands Pacific LauncestonCharles Stanfield VicForests GympieChris Mangan Mangan Haulage MelbourneCory Kennedy Kennedy Trailers MelbourneCraig Green AG/KJ Green, CA/KL Green LauncestonCraig Morgan Kevin Morgan Pty Ltd LauncestonDarian Schultz PFOlsen Australia MelbourneDarren Herd Forico MelbourneDarryn Crook PF Olsen Australia LauncestonDave Blackwood Forestry Contractor (Vic) GympieDavid Bennett PF Olsen Australia MelbourneDavid Murtagh Hyne GympieDavid Scott Langan Investments/DTS Transport LauncestonDean Venturoni Retreev Pty Ltd MelbourneDirk Koeppen Sunchip GympieDwayne Kerrison Orana Enterprises LauncestonEmma Pyke Calder Contracting Pty Ltd / Logging LauncestonGeorge Lane BR & KF Muskett & Sons LauncestonGraeme Elphinstone Elphinstone Engineering & Weighing Systems MelbourneGreg Stuckey HQPlantations GympieHeath Blair Smartfibre LauncestonJack Barnes HVP Plantations MelbourneJames Asher Ashers GympieJason Rak Perotti Brothers LauncestonJim Herbohn Masondales GympieJohn Cominski HQPlantations GympieJohn Love HVP Plantations MelbourneJohn Webb Norske Skog LauncestonKeith Davidson GM Fibre Resources MelbourneKelvin Moreland Moreland Holdings MelbourneLinda Maddern OneFortyOne Plantations MelbourneLouise Bourke Forestry Corporation NSW MelbourneLuke Woodhouse Timber Haulage Tasmania PTY LTD LauncestonMarius Heymann Timber NSW MelbourneMark Gauthier HPV Plantations MelbourneMark Hitchins Forestry Corporation NSW MelbourneMax Jones Seamax Pty Ltd LauncestonMelissa Hayward HR Forestry Pty Ltd MelbourneMichael O'Neill North Haul MelbourneMick Brady Forestry Contractor (Vic) GympieMick Theobald OneFortyOne Plantations Melbourne


Natasha Moore Ashers GympieNick Roberts Forestry Corporation NSW MelbournePaul Morgan Kevin Morgan Group LauncestonPaul Woodhouse Timber Haulage Tasmania PTY LTD LauncestonPeter Elliot Australian Logistics Council Gympie, Melbourne and LauncestonPeter Kingston BR & KF Muskett & Sons Pty Ltd LauncestonPeter Williams Sustainable Timbers Tasmania LauncestonRafe Cornwall Cornwall Logging GympieRay Walker AFCA LauncestonRicky Leeson Leesons Logging and Haulage MelbourneRobert Buchanan AKS Forest Solutions LauncestonSean Carlson Engistics GympieStacey Gardiner AFCA Gympie, Melbourne and LauncestonTijmen Klootiwjk Forestry corporation of NSW MelbourneTim Lee HQPlantations GympieTim Pyke Calder Contracting Pty Ltd / Logging LauncestonTom Hanson HQPlantations GympieTony Johnson FCNSW Melbourne

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

Name Organisation

Barry Fennell Fennell ForestryChris Mangan Mangan HaulageCory Kennedy Kennedy TrailersDaniel Pfrunder HQPlantationsDanielle Read VicForestsGraeme Elphinstone Elphinstone Engineering & Weighing SystemsGreg Hickey STTJohn Love HVP PlantationsLouise Bourke FCNSWMatt Mangan Mangan HaulageRicky Leeson Leesons Logging and HaulageStacey Gardiner AFCA


Appendix B Overview of methodology

Preliminary research and consultationThe preliminary research consisted of a review of key documents provided by AFCA and a researchdiscovery phase to understand elements of better practice. Documentation reviewed varied acrossjurisdictions and included Codes of Practice, best practice guidelines, standard operating procedures,industry practice manuals, brochures, handbooks, and workshop notes in efforts to identify gaps anddeficiencies 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 providedinsights 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 wereundertaken in Launceston, Oberon, and New Norfolk (Tasmania) to build EY’s understanding of theindustry, to inform the code of practice with industry terminology and language, and to ensure it isreflective of the wide variety of operating environments and activities. Lastly the discovery workshopwas held on 30th October 2017, using telepresence technology that enabled participation from thePerth, Melbourne, Brisbane, Canberra, and Sydney EY offices. Through this preliminary findings werepresented and feedback from stakeholders received.

Risk assessment workshopsFollowing the preliminary analysis, risk assessment workshops were hosted in Gympie (Queensland),Melbourne (Victoria), and Launceston (Tasmania). In order to collect data in the workshops thestakeholders split into groups for a number of different activities. Firstly using butchers paperstakeholders 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 remainingactivities. Each group worked on elements of the bow tie risk assessment for one of these selectedrisks by writing down the threats, consequences and key controls. Following each activity there wasa 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 assessrisk. Each key safety risk event was presented to the workshop attendees, who were asked to voteon likelihood and consequence using remote control voting clickers. Results were collated andpresented in real time to the group for discussion. Voting results were retained to inform the riskassessment scores outlined in this report. As individual scores were recorded, by combining theresults from all three workshops EY was able to present an analysis based on the overall average andstandard deviation of scores. Where the phrasing and risk inclusions were different betweenworkshops the most appropriate fit was used for combining data.

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

AnalysisFurther to the results from the risk assessment workshops, AFCA and EY requested incident datafrom stakeholders. Hancock Victoria Plantation (HVP Plantations), TAS Department of State Growth,HQPlantations Pty Ltd, Forestry Corporation of NSW (FCNSW) and VicForests provided their incidentdata across a variety of date ranges. This data was reviewed and collated to determine which incidentevents were occurring more frequently and of these which were having the more severeconsequences. Review of the data involved allocation of incident events to a risk event categorywhich in some cases were done by the provider of data and in some cases by EY. Following this thefrequency across the data set for a particular risk event could be determined and severity could beassessed 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 ofrisks for final assessment.

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

Other individuals were directly contacted for specific information such as incident data and dataaround better practice examples. This additional consultation was used to confirm and support theinclusions 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, 1:00-4:45pmMelbourne, VIC –Thursday 30th November 2017, 1:30-5:00pmLaunceston, TAS - Monday 11th December 2017, 11:00am-4:00pm

EYattendees

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 partof 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

EYattendees

Christopher Thorn (for beginning)Sophie Pieters-HawkeCarissa 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 ContextFull loss of load Not a top risk – This was considered to be a potential aspect of rollover.Infrastructurefailure

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

Bogged vehicleretrieval

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

Slips/trips Not industry specific.Falls fromheights

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

Falls fromheights duringloading/unloading

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

Medical event(e.g. heartattack)

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

Overloading/loadconstruction.

Not a top risk - While some participants identified overloading as a risk initself, 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 sociallicence tooperate

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

Struck by foreignbody

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

Environmentaldamage (e.g.fire)

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

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

EY | Assurance | Tax | Transactions | Advisory

About EYEY is a global leader in assurance, tax, transaction and advisory services. Theinsights and quality services we deliver help build trust and confidence in thecapital markets and in economies the world over. We develop outstanding leaderswho team to deliver on our promises to all of our stakeholders. In so doing, we playa critical role in building a better working world for our people, for our clients andfor our communities.

EY refers to the global organisation and may refer to one or more of the memberfirms of Ernst & Young Global Limited, each of which is a separate legal entity.Ernst & Young Global Limited, a UK company limited by guarantee, does notprovide services to clients. For more information about our organisation, pleasevisit ey.com.

© 2018 Ernst & Young, AustraliaAll Rights Reserved.

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

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

Liability limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards Legislation.

ey.com

Documents

Forestry Log Haulage Registered Code of Practice – Risks ......Log haulage is a specialised and high risk heavy vehicle transport industry. Management of risk and safety has been