COST OF COMPLIANCE WITH SAFETY AND HEALTH REQUIREMENTS IN
CONSTRUCTION SITE
AKMAL WANI BINTI SULONG
UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MALAYSIA
COST OF COMPLIANCE WITH SAFETY AND HEALTH REQUIREMENTS
IN CONSTRUCTION SITE
AKMAL WANI BINTI SULONG
A project report submitted in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the award of the degree of
Master of Science (Construction Management)
Faculty of Civil Engineering
Universiti Teknologi Malaysia
NOVEMBER 2009
For my beloved family
Ayah and Ma, Kak and Ba’e, Abang and Kak Nur, Faizal, Afizul, and Afifi
Thank you for your unconditional love, support, and care
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
“In the name of God, the most gracious, the most compassionate”
First and foremost, I would like to express my greatest gratitude towards my
supervisor, Assoc. Professor Aziruddin Ressang for his guidance, advices and critics.
Without his continuous guidance in completing this report, it would not have been
completed successfully. I would also like to say my sincere appreciation to my cosupervisor, Encik Ahmad Fauzi bin Awang from Department of Occupational Safety
and Health (DOSH) Federal Territory for his attention and unwavering support
towards the completion of this report.
My appreciation also goes to Encik Muhammad Salleh bin Ahmad from SME
Engineering Sdn. Bhd., Mr. Pupathi Balakrishnan from Pembinaan Ando Sdn. Bhd.,
and Encik Abdul Ghafar bin Ghani from Babena Corporation Sdn. Bhd. who act as
safety panels in this study. Your help and cooperation have given me the opportunity
to complete the study. I thank you with all my heart.
For all my friends, Juliana, Nabilah, and Khairol Apizi, thank you for your
supports. It is a gift for me to have such strong supporters behind my back just like
you.
The last but not least is my special appreciation for my beloved family. I am
thankful to god for giving me a wonderful, caring, supporting and loving family.
ABSTRACT
Malaysia’s construction industry has been well growing, yet become one of
the major contributors in its economic growth. Even so, it has been considered as a
dangerous job since the number of accidents and fatalities are in alarming state
despite of many safety regulations and legislation exercised. Lacking of compliance
with the regulations and legislation can cause the standard of safety in construction
industry be questioned hence may cause loses, delays, or termination of a
construction project. It is critical for a contractor to comply with the regulations and
legislations in order to reduce accident cases, and regain good standard for
construction industry. There will be cost impose regarding to compliance with the
safety requirements. This study has collected twenty (20) main elements which
comprise of three to eleven sub-elements of safety and health requirements in
construction site. The requirements were gained from thorough study of Occupational
Safety and Health Act (OSHA) 1994, Factory and Machinery Act (FMA) 1967, and
Building Operations and Work of Engineering Construction (BOWEC) Regulations
1986 as well as the revision and interview of safety and health officers. The study has
successfully determined the level and cost of compliance with safety and health in
construction site, hence four comparisons of level and cost of compliance have been
made.
ABSTRAK
Industri pembinaan di Malaysia bukan sahaja semakin meningkat, malah
menjadi salah satu penyumbang kepada pembangunan ekonomi negara. Walaupun
begitu, ia dianggap sebagai pekerjaan yang berbahaya disebabkan bilangan
kemalangan dan kematian yang membimbangkan di dalam industri ini meskipun
terdapat banyak peraturan dan undang-undang keselamatan diperkenalkan.
Ketidakpatuhan terhadap peraturan dan undang-undang ini boleh menyebabkan nilai
aspek keselamatan dan kesihatan di dalam industri pembinaan dipersoal. Selain itu,
ketidakpatuhan tersebut boleh juga menyebabkan kerugian, kelewatan, dan
penamatan sesuatu projek binaan. Peranan kontraktor untuk mematuhi peraturan dan
undang-undang adalah sangat kritikal bagi mengurangkan kes kemalangan di tapak
bina dan membaik pulih nilai keselamatan dan kesihatan dalam industri pembinaan.
Hasil kajian telah berjaya mengenal pasti 20 elemen utama aspek keselamatan dan
kesihatan di tapak bina yang harus dipatuhi di setiap tapak projek. Setiap elemen ini
pula merangkumi tiga hingga sebelas sub elemen yang wajib dipatuhi. Elemenelemen keselamatan dan kesihatan ini telah diperolehi daripada Akta Keselamatan
dan Kesihatan Pekerjaan 1994 (OSHA), Akta Kilang dan Mesin 1967 (FMA),
BOWEC 1986 dan melalui perbincangan dengan Pegawai Keselamatan dan
Kesihatan (SHO). Kajian ini juga telah berjaya mendapatkan maklumat mengenai
tahap dan kos pematuhan undang-undang keselamatan, malah empat perbandingan
telah dilakukan bagi data tahap pematuhan dan data kos pematuhan.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER
1
2
TITLE
PAGE
TITLE
i
DECLARATION
ii
DEDICATION
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
iv
ABSTRACT
v
ABSTRAK
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
vii
LIST OF TABLES
xiv
LIST OF FIGURES
xv
LIST OF SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATION
xxvi
LIST OF APPENDIX
xxvii
INTRODUCTION
1.1
Background
1
1.2
Problem Statement
2
1.3
Aim and Objectives of the Study
3
1.4
Scope of the Study
4
1.5
Methodology
4
1.6
Expected Findings
6
LITERATURE INTERVIEW
2.1
Introduction
7
2.2
Accident in Construction
8
2.2.1
Causes of Accident
9
2.2.1.1
Direct Causes
10
2.2.1.2
Indirect Causes
11
2.2.1.3
Basic Causes
12
2.2.1.3.1
Lack of Attention
12
to Personal Safety
Protection by Worker
2.2.1.3.2
Lack of Attention
13
to Safety Management
by Main Contractor/
Project Managers
2.2.1.3.3
Insufficient Safety
13
Training
2.2.1.3.4
Inadequate Setting of
14
Safety Level
2.2.1.3.5
Tiredness of Workers
14
2.2.1.3.6
Poor Quality of
14
Construction Materials
and Equipments
2.2.2
Cost of Accident
15
2.2.2.1
16
The Cost of Accident to An
Employee
2.2.2.2
The Cost of Accident to An
16
Employer
2.2.3
Construction’s Relationship to Safety
17
2.2.3.1
Hazards
18
2.2.3.2
Risk
19
2.2.3.3
Safety
19
2.2.3.4
Risk Management and Safety
20
Program
2.2.3.5
Safety and Health Regulations
21
in Malaysia
2.3
Accident Prevention
22
2.3.1
22
Introduction
2.3.2
Reasons for Preventing Accident
23
2.3.2.1
23
Legal Reasons for Accident
Prevention
2.3.2.2
Humanitarian Reasons for Accident 24
Prevention
2.3.2.3
Economic Reasons for Accident
25
Prevention
2.3.3
2.4
26
Accident Prevention Techniques
27
2.4.1
Hazards Identification, Evaluation, and Control
27
2.4.1.1
Hazards Identification
28
2.4.1.2
Hazards Evaluation and Assessment 31
2.4.1.3
Hazards Control
2.4.2
2.5
Benefits of Accident Prevention
32
Fire, First Aid, and Emergency Procedures
34
2.4.2.1
Fire
34
2.4.2.2
First Aid
35
2.4.2.3
Emergency Procedures
36
2.4.3
Safety Training
38
2.4.4
Risk Management
39
2.4.4.1
Risk Management Techniques
39
2.4.4.2
Risk Avoidance
40
2.4.4.3
Risk Retention
41
2.4.4.4
Risk Transfer
41
2.4.4.5
Risk Reduction
42
Accident Investigation and Reporting
42
2.5.1
Introduction
42
2.5.2
Statutory Requirements
44
2.5.2.1
Notification of Accident, Dangerous 44
Occurrence, Occupational Poisoning
And Occupational Disease
(NADOOPOD)
2.5.2.2
Social Security Act
46
2.5.3
Accident Reporting
48
2.5.4
Accident Investigation
49
2.6
Investigation Report
50
2.5.4.2
Accident Investigation Checklist
51
Accident Costs
54
2.6.1
Workplace Accidents and Its Cots
54
2.6.2
Types of Accident Costs
55
2.6.2.1
Direct Costs
56
2.6.2.2
Indirect Costs
57
2.6.2.3
Quality of Life Costs
59
2.6.3
2.7
2.5.4.1
Accident Cost Diminution
60
Safety Enforcement and Regulations
62
2.7.1
Introduction
62
2.7.2
The Department of Occupational Safety and
63
Health (DOSH)
2.7.3
Enforcement
64
2.7.3.1
Approval
64
2.7.3.2
Registration
65
2.7.3.3
Accreditation
65
2.7.3.4
Inspection
65
2.7.3.5
Investigation of Accident and
66
Complaints
2.7.4
Factories and Machineries Act (FMA) 1967
66
2.7.5
Building Operations and Work of Engineering
66
Construction (BOWEC) 1986
2.7.6
Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) 1994 67
2.7.6.1
Introduction
67
2.7.6.2
Objectives of OSHA 1994
69
2.7.6.3
Salient Provisions under the
70
OSHA 1994
2.7.6.3.1
National Council for
70
Occupational Safety and
Health
2.7.6.3.2
General Duties of Employers 71
And Self-Employed Persons
2.7.6.3.3
General Duties of Designers, 72
Manufacturers, and Suppliers
2.7.6.3.4
General Duties of Employees 74
2.7.6.3.5
Safety and Health
76
Organizations
2.7.6.3.6
Notification of Accident,
77
Dangerous Occurrence,
Occupational Poisoning And
Occupational Disease
(NADOOPOD) and Inquiry
2.7.6.3.7
Prohibition against use of
78
Plant and Substance
2.7.6.3.8
Industry Codes of Practice
79
2.7.6.3.9
Enforcement and
79
Investigation
3
Liability for Offences
81
2.7.6.3.11
Appeals
82
2.7.6.3.12
Regulations
83
2.7.6.3.13
Miscellaneous
83
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
3.1
Introduction
85
3.2
Conceptualization
86
3.3
Literature Review
87
3.4
Data Collection
87
3.4.1
Document Studies
88
3.4.2
Interview
88
3.4.3
Questionnaires Survey
89
3.5
3.6
4
2.7.6.3.10
Data Analysis
89
3.5.1
90
Likert Scaling Method
Conclusion and Recommendations
91
DATA ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION
4.1
Safety and Health Requirements in Construction Site
92
4.2
Level of Compliance with Safety and Health
107
Requirements in Construction Site
4.2.1
Level of Compliance with Safety and Health
107
Requirements in Construction Site in Selangor
4.2.2
Level of Compliance with Safety and Health
121
Requirements in Construction Site in Terengganu
4.3
Cost of Compliance with Safety and Health
136
Requirements in Construction Site
4.3.1
Cost of Compliance with Safety and Health
136
Requirements in Construction Site in Selangor
4.3.2
Cost of Compliance with Safety and Health
151
Requirements in Construction Site in Terengganu
4.4
Comparison of Level of Compliance with Safety and
167
Health Requirements in Construction Site
4.4.1
Comparison of Level of Compliance with Safety 167
Health Requirements in Construction Site in
Selangor
4.4.2
Comparison of Level of Compliance with Safety 181
Health Requirements in Construction Site in
Terengganu
4.4.3
Comparison of Level of Compliance with Safety 195
Health Requirements in Construction Site in
Big Project
4.4.4
Comparison of Level of Compliance with Safety 209
Health Requirements in Construction Site in
Small Project
4.5
Comparison of Cost of Compliance with Safety and
224
Health Requirements in Construction Site
4.4.1
Comparison of Cost of Compliance with Safety 224
Health Requirements in Construction Site in
Selangor
4.4.2
Comparison of Cost of Compliance with Safety 238
Health Requirements in Construction Site in
Terengganu
4.4.3
Comparison of Cost of Compliance with Safety 253
Health Requirements in Construction Site in
Big Project
4.4.4
Comparison of Cost of Compliance with Safety 268
Health Requirements in Construction Site in
Small Project
5
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
5.1
Conclusion based on Objective 1
285
5.2
Conclusion based on Objective 2
291
5.3
Conclusion based on Objective 3
292
5.4
Conclusion based on Objective 4
293
5.5
Conclusion based on Objective 5
294
5.6
Recommendations
294
REFERENCES
295
APPENDIX
299
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE NO.
TITLE
PAGE
2.1
Sources of direct causal agents.
10
2.2
Unsafe acts and conditions.
11
2.3
Hazard rating and urgency actions.
32
2.4
Accident investigation checklist.
52
3.1
Scale indicator of Likert Scaling method used in the research. 90
3.2
Example of index scale of frequency level.
91
4.1
Safety and health requirements from Occupational Safety
93
and Health Act (OSHA) 1994.
4.2
Safety and health requirements from Factory and Machinery 100
Act (FMA) 1967.
4.3
Safety and health requirements from Building Operations
102
And Work of Engineering Construction (BOWEC) 1986.
5.1
Safety and health requirements in construction site
286
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE NO.
TITLE
PAGE
1.1
Statistic of fatal accidents in construction
2
1.2
Flow chart of research methodology
6
2.1
Basic procedures for job safety analysis
30
2.2
Action to be taken on learning of an accident
48
2.3
Approach of an accident investigations
53
2.4
Dangerous occurrences of an accident investigations
53
3.1
Stages in research methodology
86
4.1
Safety and health requirements in construction site from
96
OSHA 1994
4.2
Safety and health requirements in construction site from
101
FMA 1967
4.3
Safety and health requirements in construction site from
105
BOWEC 1986
4.5
Level of compliance with safety and health management
108
requirements
4.6
Level of compliance with safety and health committee
108
requirements
4.7
Level of compliance with machinery requirements
109
4.8
Level of compliance with working platforms requirements
110
4.9
Level of compliance with scaffolding requirements
110
4.10
Level of compliance with floor opening requirements
111
4.11
Level of compliance with opening at building edge
112
requirements
4.12
Level of compliance with working at heights requirements
112
4.13
Level of compliance with access to workplace requirements
113
4.14
Level of compliance with public safety and health
114
management requirements
4.15
Level of compliance with site electrical safety requirements
114
4.16
Level of compliance with workers’ accommodations and
115
welfare requirements
4.17
Level of compliance with cleanliness and housekeeping
116
requirements
4.18
Level of compliance with site material storage
116
requirements
4.19
Level of compliance with site health and welfare requirements117
4.20
Level of compliance with formworks requirements
118
4.21
Level of compliance with personal protective equipments
118
requirements
4.22
Level of compliance with excavation and shoring works
119
requirements
4.23
Level of compliance with piling works requirements
120
4.24
Level of compliance with demolition works requirements
120
4.25
Level of compliance with safety and health management
122
requirements
4.26
Level of compliance with safety and health committee
123
requirements
4.27
Level of compliance with machinery requirements
123
4.28
Level of compliance with working platforms requirements
124
4.29
Level of compliance with scaffolding requirements
125
4.30
Level of compliance with floor opening requirements
125
4.31
Level of compliance with opening at building edge
126
requirements
4.32
Level of compliance with working at heights requirements
127
4.33
Level of compliance with access to workplace requirements 127
4.34
Level of compliance with public safety and health
128
management requirements
4.35
Level of compliance with site electrical safety requirements 129
4.36
Level of compliance with workers’ accommodations and
129
welfare requirements
4.37
Level of compliance with cleanliness and housekeeping
130
requirements
4.38
Level of compliance with site material storage
131
requirements
4.39
Level of compliance with site health and welfare requirements131
4.40
Level of compliance with formworks requirements
132
4.41
Level of compliance with personal protective equipments
133
requirements
4.42
Level of compliance with excavation and shoring works
134
requirements
4.43
Level of compliance with piling works requirements
134
4.44
Level of compliance with demolition works requirements
135
4.45
Cost of compliance with safety and health management
137
requirements
4.46
Cost of compliance with safety and health committee
138
requirements
4.47
Cost of compliance with machinery requirements
139
4.48
Cost of compliance with working platforms requirements
139
4.49
Cost of compliance with scaffolding requirements
140
4.50
Cost of compliance with floor opening requirements
141
4.51
Cost of compliance with opening at building edge
141
requirements
4.52
Cost of compliance with working at heights requirements
142
4.53
Cost of compliance with access to workplace requirements
143
4.54
Cost of compliance with public safety and health
143
management requirements
4.55
Cost of compliance with site electrical safety requirements
144
4.56
Cost of compliance with workers’ accommodations and
145
welfare requirements
4.57
Cost of compliance with cleanliness and housekeeping
145
requirements
4.58
Cost of compliance with site material storage
146
requirements
4.59
Cost of compliance with site health and welfare requirements 147
4.60
Cost of compliance with formworks requirements
147
4.61
Cost of compliance with personal protective equipments
148
requirements
4.62
Cost of compliance with excavation and shoring works
149
requirements
4.63
Cost of compliance with piling works requirements
149
4.64
Cost of compliance with demolition works requirements
150
4.65
Cost of compliance with safety and health management
151
requirements
4.66
Cost of compliance with safety and health committee
152
requirements
4.67
Cost of compliance with machinery requirements
153
4.68
Cost of compliance with working platforms requirements
153
4.69
Cost of compliance with scaffolding requirements
154
4.70
Cost of compliance with floor opening requirements
155
4.71
Cost of compliance with opening at building edge
155
requirements
4.72
Cost of compliance with working at heights requirements
156
4.73
Cost of compliance with access to workplace requirements
157
4.74
Cost of compliance with public safety and health
157
management requirements
4.75
Cost of compliance with site electrical safety requirements
158
4.76
Cost of compliance with workers’ accommodations and
159
welfare requirements
4.77
Cost of compliance with cleanliness and housekeeping
160
requirements
4.78
Cost of compliance with site material storage
160
requirements
4.79
Cost of compliance with site health and welfare requirements
161
4.80
Cost of compliance with formworks requirements
162
4.81
Cost of compliance with personal protective equipments
163
requirements
4.82
Cost of compliance with excavation and shoring works
164
requirements
4.83
Cost of compliance with piling works requirements
165
4.84
Cost of compliance with demolition works requirements
166
4.85
Level of compliance with safety and health management
168
requirements
4.86
Level of compliance with safety and health committee
169
requirements
4.87
Level of compliance with machinery requirements
169
4.88
Level of compliance with working platforms requirements
170
4.89
Level of compliance with scaffolding requirements
171
4.90
Level of compliance with floor opening requirements
171
4.91
Level of compliance with opening at building edge
172
requirements
4.92
Level of compliance with working at heights requirements
173
4.93
Level of compliance with access to workplace requirements
173
4.94
Level of compliance with public safety and health
174
management requirements
4.95
Level of compliance with site electrical safety requirements
175
4.96
Level of compliance with workers’ accommodations and
175
welfare requirements
4.97
Level of compliance with cleanliness and housekeeping
176
requirements
4.98
Level of compliance with site material storage
177
requirements
4.99
Level of compliance with site health and welfare requirements 177
4.100
Level of compliance with formworks requirements
178
4.101
Level of compliance with personal protective equipments
179
requirements
4.102
Level of compliance with excavation and shoring works
179
requirements
4.103
Level of compliance with piling works requirements
180
4.104
Level of compliance with demolition works requirements
181
4.105
Level of compliance with safety and health management
182
requirements
4.106
Level of compliance with safety and health committee
183
requirements
4.107
Level of compliance with machinery requirements
183
4.108
Level of compliance with working platforms requirements
184
4.109
Level of compliance with scaffolding requirements
185
4.110
Level of compliance with floor opening requirements
185
4.111
Level of compliance with opening at building edge
186
requirements
4.112
Level of compliance with working at heights requirements
187
4.113
Level of compliance with access to workplace requirements
187
4.114
Level of compliance with public safety and health
188
management requirements
4.115
Level of compliance with site electrical safety requirements
189
4.116
Level of compliance with workers’ accommodations and
189
welfare requirements
4.117
Level of compliance with cleanliness and housekeeping
190
requirements
4.118
Level of compliance with site material storage
191
requirements
4.119
Level of compliance with site health and welfare requirements191
4.120
Level of compliance with formworks requirements
192
4.121
Level of compliance with personal protective equipments
193
requirements
4.122
Level of compliance with excavation and shoring works
194
requirements
4.123
Level of compliance with piling works requirements
194
4.124
Level of compliance with demolition works requirements
195
4.125
Level of compliance with safety and health management
196
requirements
4.126
Level of compliance with safety and health committee
197
requirements
4.127
Level of compliance with machinery requirements
197
4.128
Level of compliance with working platforms requirements
198
4.129
Level of compliance with scaffolding requirements
199
4.130
Level of compliance with floor opening requirements
199
4.131
Level of compliance with opening at building edge
200
requirements
4.132
Level of compliance with working at heights requirements
201
4.133
Level of compliance with access to workplace requirements
201
4.134
Level of compliance with public safety and health
202
management requirements
4.135
Level of compliance with site electrical safety requirements
203
4.136
Level of compliance with workers’ accommodations and
203
welfare requirements
4.137
Level of compliance with cleanliness and housekeeping
204
requirements
4.138
Level of compliance with site material storage
205
requirements
4.139
Level of compliance with site health and welfare requirements 205
4.140
Level of compliance with formworks requirements
206
4.141
Level of compliance with personal protective equipments
207
requirements
4.142
Level of compliance with excavation and shoring works
207
requirements
4.143
Level of compliance with piling works requirements
208
4.144
Level of compliance with demolition works requirements
209
4.145
Level of compliance with safety and health management
210
requirements
4.146
Level of compliance with safety and health committee
211
requirements
4.147
Level of compliance with machinery requirements
211
4.148
Level of compliance with working platforms requirements
212
4.149
Level of compliance with scaffolding requirements
213
4.150
Level of compliance with floor opening requirements
213
4.151
Level of compliance with opening at building edge
214
requirements
4.152
Level of compliance with working at heights requirements
215
4.153
Level of compliance with access to workplace requirements
215
4.154
Level of compliance with public safety and health
216
management requirements
4.155
Level of compliance with site electrical safety requirements
217
4.156
Level of compliance with workers’ accommodations and
217
welfare requirements
4.157
Level of compliance with cleanliness and housekeeping
218
requirements
4.158
Level of compliance with site material storage
219
requirements
4.159
Level of compliance with site health and welfare
219
requirements
4.160
Level of compliance with formworks requirements
220
4.161
Level of compliance with personal protective equipments
221
requirements
4.162
Level of compliance with excavation and shoring works
222
requirements
4.163
Level of compliance with piling works requirements
222
4.164
Level of compliance with demolition works requirements
223
4.165
Cost of compliance with safety and health management
224
requirements
4.166
Cost of compliance with safety and health committee
225
requirements
4.167
Cost of compliance with machinery requirements
226
4.168
Cost of compliance with working platforms requirements
227
4.169
Cost of compliance with scaffolding requirements
228
4.170
Cost of compliance with floor opening requirements
228
4.171
Cost of compliance with opening at building edge
229
requirements
4.172
Cost of compliance with working at heights requirements
230
4.173
Cost of compliance with access to workplace requirements
230
4.174
Cost of compliance with public safety and health
231
management requirements
4.175
Cost of compliance with site electrical safety requirements
232
4.176
Cost of compliance with workers’ accommodations and
232
welfare requirements
4.177
Cost of compliance with cleanliness and housekeeping
233
requirements
4.178
Cost of compliance with site material storage
234
requirements
4.179
Cost of compliance with site health and welfare requirements 234
4.180
Cost of compliance with formworks requirements
235
4.181
Cost of compliance with personal protective equipments
236
requirements
4.182
Cost of compliance with excavation and shoring works
236
requirements
4.183
Cost of compliance with piling works requirements
237
4.184
Cost of compliance with demolition works requirements
238
4.185
Cost of compliance with safety and health management
239
requirements
4.186
Cost of compliance with safety and health committee
240
requirements
4.187
Cost of compliance with machinery requirements
241
4.188
Cost of compliance with working platforms requirements
241
4.189
Cost of compliance with scaffolding requirements
242
4.190
Cost of compliance with floor opening requirements
243
4.191
Cost of compliance with opening at building edge
243
requirements
4.192
Cost of compliance with working at heights requirements
244
4.193
Cost of compliance with access to workplace requirements
245
4.194
Cost of compliance with public safety and health
245
management requirements
4.195
Cost of compliance with site electrical safety requirements
246
4.196
Cost of compliance with workers’ accommodations and
247
welfare requirements
4.197
Cost of compliance with cleanliness and housekeeping
247
requirements
4.198
Cost of compliance with site material storage
248
requirements
4.199
Cost of compliance with site health and welfare requirements 249
4.200
Cost of compliance with formworks requirements
250
4.201
Cost of compliance with personal protective equipments
250
requirements
4.202
Cost of compliance with excavation and shoring works
251
requirements
4.203
Cost of compliance with piling works requirements
252
4.204
Cost of compliance with demolition works requirements
253
4.205
Cost of compliance with safety and health management
254
requirements
4.206
Cost of compliance with safety and health committee
255
requirements
4.207
Cost of compliance with machinery requirements
255
4.208
Cost of compliance with working platforms requirements
256
4.209
Cost of compliance with scaffolding requirements
257
4.210
Cost of compliance with floor opening requirements
257
4.211
Cost of compliance with opening at building edge
258
requirements
4.212
Cost of compliance with working at heights requirements
259
4.213
Cost of compliance with access to workplace requirements
259
4.214
Cost of compliance with public safety and health
260
management requirements
4.215
Cost of compliance with site electrical safety requirements
261
4.216
Cost of compliance with workers’ accommodations and
261
welfare requirements
4.217
Cost of compliance with cleanliness and housekeeping
262
requirements
4.218
Cost of compliance with site material storage
263
requirements
4.219
Cost of compliance with site health and welfare requirement
264
4.220
Cost of compliance with formworks requirements
264
4.221
Cost of compliance with personal protective equipments
265
requirements
4.222
Cost of compliance with excavation and shoring works
266
requirements
4.223
Cost of compliance with piling works requirements
266
4.224
Cost of compliance with demolition works requirements
267
4.225
Cost of compliance with safety and health management
278
requirements
4.226
Cost of compliance with safety and health committee
269
requirements
4.227
Cost of compliance with machinery requirements
270
4.228
Cost of compliance with working platforms requirements
270
4.229
Cost of compliance with scaffolding requirements
271
4.230
Cost of compliance with floor opening requirements
272
4.231
Cost of compliance with opening at building edge
272
requirements
4.232
Cost of compliance with working at heights requirements
273
4.233
Cost of compliance with access to workplace requirements
274
4.234
Cost of compliance with public safety and health
275
management requirements
4.235
Cost of compliance with site electrical safety requirements
276
4.236
Cost of compliance with workers’ accommodations and
277
welfare requirements
4.237
Cost of compliance with cleanliness and housekeeping
278
requirements
4.238
Cost of compliance with site material storage
278
requirements
4.239
Cost of compliance with site health and welfare requirements 279
4.240
Cost of compliance with formworks requirements
280
4.241
Cost of compliance with personal protective equipments
281
requirements
4.242
Cost of compliance with excavation and shoring works
282
requirements
4.243
Cost of compliance with piling works requirements
283
4.244
Cost of compliance with demolition works requirements
283
LIST OF SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS
ABBREVIATION
BOWEC
TITLE
Factories and Machinery (Building Operations & Work of
Engineering Construction
DOSH
Department of Occupational Safety and Health
FMS
Factories and Machinery (Fencing of Machinery and Safety)
Regulations 1970
FMA
Factories and Machinery Act 1967
NADOOPOD
Occupational Safety and Health (Notification of Accident,
Dangerous Occurrence, Occupational Poisoning and
Occupational Disease) Regulations 2004
PPE
Personal Protective Equipment
SHC
Safety and Health Committee
OSH
Occupational Safety and Health
OSHA
Occupational Safety and Health Act 1994
SHW
Factories and Machinery (Safety, Health, and Welfare)
Regulations 1970
SOCSO
The Social Security Organisation
LIST OF APPENDICES
APPENDIX
A
TITLE
Questionnaires
PAGE
299
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1
Background of Study
It is undeniably that local construction industry has contributed so much in
Malaysia’s economic growth. Many upcoming projects have been planned for Ninth
Malaysia Plan and large amount of money has been provided for that purpose.
Despite of its contributions for economic sector, the number of accident and fatalities
in construction site is upsetting. Furthermore, construction is generally one of the
industries which fatal injuries happened most frequently and many researches and
studies has shown that high percentage of fatal occupational injuries come from
construction industry (Im et. al, 2009).
Extensive efforts have been taken in order to reduce the accident rates and
further improve the image of the occupational safety and health (OSH) thus Malaysia
has introduced the Malaysian Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) in 1994.
Despite so, these initiatives undertaken are still unsatisfactorily when each and every
year the statistic data shows little improvement in the number of accidents and
fatalities.
The construction activities need to be carried out in accordance to OSH best
practice as it will affect many aspects of the construction stages when there is lost of
working days due to industrial injuries and large significant financial loss. One
solution that can improve the OSH effectiveness in construction site is through
sufficient allocation and provision of OSH specification in all stages stipulated in the
contract document.
1.2
Problem Statement
Statistics has shown that there is seemed to be no cure to accidents in local
construction. The alarming number of fatalities in construction site shall not be taken
lightly. According to statistics provided by DOSH as shown below, there are 907
death cases in construction site that was reported to SOCSO for year 1998 to 2006. In
addition to that, there are 95 death cases were investigated by DOSH in 2007 and 72
cases in 2008
.
Figure 1.1: Statistic of Fatal Accidents in Construction
Source: SOCSO Annual Report
In a construction project, contractor must allocate certain amount of money
regarding to safety requirements. However, the allocated amount was not fully used
in construction practice. This is depends on the level of compliance with the safety
and health requirements by the company. Insufficient capital towards compliance
with the requirements is one of the causes of defective Occupational Safety and
Health (OSH) management (Lin and Mills, 2001).
There is a need to improve the standard of safety and health in construction
site. Contractors and clients play an important role to improve their OSH
management. The level and cost of compliance with safety requirements in
construction site is crucial to decrease accidents. Therefore, it is essential for the
contractors and clients to drive a project towards safety by focusing on compliance
with the safety and health requirements.
1.3
Aim and Objectives
The aim of this study is to determine the cost of compliance with safety and
health requirements in construction site. So as to achieve the aim, the following
objectives need to be completed:
i.
To study safety and health requirements in construction site.
ii.
To study the level of compliance with the safety and health requirements
among contractors.
iii.
To determine the cost of compliance with the safety and health requirements.
iv.
To compare the level of compliance with safety and health requirements
between Selangor and Terengganu.
v.
To compare the cost of compliance with the safety and health requirements
between Selangor and Terengganu.
1.4
Scope and Limitations
The study will be conducted on Class A contractors in Selangor and Terengganu
area.
1.5
Methodology
1.5.1
First stage: Identification of problems and scope of study
The first stage involved further understanding of research topic; consist of
problem statement, aim and objectives, as well as scope and limitations of study.
Literature reviews are done on previous studies, journals, statistics, books, Malaysian
enacted acts, safety manuals, and newspaper.
1.5.2
Second stage: Data collections
Information and data is collected using the following methods:
i.
Documents study from collected resources.
ii.
Interviews will be held with safety and health officers in order to review
collected data from document study and to consult in improving
questionnaires. Besides that, the views of expert panels regarding the current
practice of compliance in safety and health requirements may help in to
conclude the result of the study.
iii.
Questionnaires will be distributed to Class A contractor regarding the level
and cost of compliance with safety and health requirements in construction
site.
1.5.3
Third stage: Results and data analysis
The results obtained will be presented in tables, graphs and charts. Likert
Scaling method will be used to obtain level of compliance towards safety and health
requirements.
1.5.4
Final stage: Conclusions and recommendations
The conclusions and recommendations will be based on the results obtained
from the questionnaires.
*Books, Journals, Previous Studies
*Acts, Safety Manuals, Conference
Paper
*Literature Study, Questionnaires,
Interviews
Figure 1.2: Flow chart of research methodology
1.6
Expected Findings
The safety and health requirement in construction site as set by legislative
bodies will be identified. The level and cost of compliance with the safety and health
requirement can be determined. The level and cost of compliance in Selangor will be
more or less when compared to Terengganu.
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1
Introduction
Workplace safety is one of the significant elements that had been considered
by all types of organizations. It is crucial with the purpose of protecting and
optimizing the functionality of the human resources. Construction is considered
unique as it offers great opportunities for workers to be involved in many projects
with diverse types of construction. Construction project requires varies skills and
knowledge hence needs more people in order to ensure the successful completion of a
project. In addition, the work process changes constantly and the construction work
often takes place outdoors, therefore may not be favourable for health and safety of
the workers.
Among industries, the construction industry stated the highest accidents rate,
including death and disabling injuries (Cheng et. al, 2004). Construction accidents set
off injuries, illnesses, and the worst may cause fatalities. There are many factors that
lead to accidents in construction and a lot of losses have to be bore by related parties
because of an accident.
2.2
Accident in Construction
Accident was first defined by Neuloh, et. al (1957) as an undesired and
unexpected disturbance of the normal completion of a work process, generally
brought about the combination of internal or external factors of a technical, physical,
or social nature and leads to injuries.
Later in 1980, Tarrants defined an accident as an unplanned, not necessarily
injurious or damaging event that interrupts the completion of an activity and is
invariably preceded by an unsafe act and/or unsafe condition or combinations of
both.
The definitions are afterwards made by Armstrong (1980) who named an
accident as a situation or event which was unexpected, a chance, or unintentional act.
It can be avoided by following the correct procedures and actions. The advantages of
an accident are it caused loss of life, part of the body, working abilities, and money.
Another definition of accident was explained by Confer and Confer (1994).
According to them, accident is an unplanned and uncontrolled event that is not
necessarily cause injuries and damages to property, individual, or to an operation. It
is an unplanned event that interrupts or interferes with the orderly progress of a
production activity or process.
Hinze (1997) defined accident as an unintentional event. Accident does not
necessarily cause an injury, where damage to tools, equipments, and materials can
also be considered as accident. Even so, accident which results in injury to human
receives the greatest attention and concern.
Macedo and Silva (2005) has given their own definitions of accident based on
the Portuguese law;
“Accident at work is a discrete occurrence in the course of work, which leads to
physical or mental harm. Non-fatal accident is an accident where workers injured
were unable to work temporarily or permanently, from the day after the day of
accident. A fatal accident is defined as an accident that leads to death of the victim,
in principle within one year of the time of the accident.”
Taylor et al (2004) labeled the accident as an unplanned event that may cause
injury to person and property. Above all, they suggested that accident is possible to
happen without injury or damage.
In addition, Hamalainen (2009) described occupational accidents as incident
arising out of or in the way of work, which results in fatal or non-fatal injury.
As conclusion, an accident is an event that suddenly occurs without any
planning, controlling, and without expectations. The outcomes of an accident are
injuries to human and damages to property which both leads to incomplete work
hence cause delays and monetary losses to the project owner.
2.2.1
Causes of Accident
Reese and Eidson (2006) have identified three causes of accidents that are
direct causes, indirect causes, and basic causes.
2.2.1.1 Direct Causes
Energy and hazardous material are considered to be the force which results in
injury or other damage at the time of contact. It is important to identify the direct
causes as to prevent injury from the outset. Redesign of equipment and facilities, as
well as to provide personal protection against contact with these energy and
hazardous material also can be very helpful in preventing the injury. Examples of
direct causes in forms of energy and hazardous material can be found in Table 2.1.
Table 2.1: Sources of Direct Causal Agents
Source: Handbook of OSHA Construction Safety and Health (2006)
Energy Sources
Hazardous Material
1) Mechanical:
Machinery,
1) Compressed or liquefied gas:
Tools,
Noise,
Explosive
2) Corrosive Material
2) Electrical:
Uninsulated
Flammable, Non-flammable
3) Flammable Material:
conductors,
High
Solid, Liquid, Gas
Voltage Sources
3) Thermal:
4) Poison
5) Oxidizing Material
Flames, Hot Surfaces, Molten
Metals
4) Chemical:
Acids, Bases, Fuels, Explosives
6) Dust
2.2.1.2 Indirect Causes
Unsafe acts and/or unsafe condition include indirect causes of accidents.
These indirect causes can impose injury, property damage, or equipment breakdown.
Besides, they allow the energy and/or hazardous material to be released. Unsafe acts
can lead to unsafe conditions and vice-versa. Examples of unsafe acts and unsafe
conditions are found in Table 2.2.
Table 2.2: Unsafe Acts and Conditions
Source: Handbook of OSHA Construction Safety and Health (2006)
Item No.
Unsafe Acts
Unsafe Conditions
1
Failure to wear Personal Protective Congested work areas
Equipments (PPE)
2
Failure to warn co-workers or to Defective machinery/tools
secure equipments
3
Ignoring equipments/tool defects
Poor illumination
4
Improper lifting
Poor ventilation
5
Improper working position
Inadequate supports/guards
6
Improper use of equipments:
Improperly stored explosive or
-
At excessive speed, using
defective
hazardous materials
equipment,
servicing moving equipment
7
Operating
equipment
without Poor housekeeping
authority
8
Horseplay
Radiation exposure
2.2.1.3 Basic Causes
Basic causes are the underlying causes in direct and indirect causes (Reese
and Eidson, 2006). Accident can be best prevented by identifying and correcting the
basic causes. Once basic causes are eliminated, unsafe acts/unsafe conditions may not
occur.
Basic causes lead to unsafe acts and unsafe conditions (indirect causes).
Indirect causes may result in a release of energy and/or hazardous material (direct
causes). The direct causes may allow for contact, resulting in personal injury and/or
property damage and/or equipment failure (accident).
Cheng et al (2004) has identified six most important factors and root causes
that affect site safety practices. The root causes of accidents are discussed in detail in
the following.
2.2.1.3.1 Lack of Attention to Personal Safety Protection by Workers
Workers have various reasons not to value the importance of safety. Lacking
of appropriate training is one of the reasons. Apart from that, low education level of
the workers also may become one of the reasons where they cannot comprehend the
safety knowledge. Another possible reason is lack of understanding of the job which
causes them to lacking of skills in doing their jobs.
2.2.1.3.2 Lack
of
Attention
to
Contractors/Project Managers
Safety
Management
by
Main
Even though there are many literatures that suggest the senior management to
have clear perceptions of their roles in terms of workers’ safety, Cheng et al (2004)
mentioned in their research that previous study by Suraji et al (2001) discovered that
the top management often skipped the safety management in their organization. On
the other hand, full-time safety personnel are employed to be responsible for the
company’s safety program. Employment of safety personnel should not be the basis
for the senior management to escape from their responsibilities towards safety
management.
2.2.1.3.3 Insufficient Safety Training
In spite of preserving life and health, safety training can help to prevent
accident and control risk (Cooper and Cotton, 2000). Pollit (2006) mentioned in his
article that a UK construction company has hit its target of zero accident rates by
providing training and awareness initiatives involving its employees. Safety training
is subjected to deliver the content of safe working process such in correct operation
of the machines, proper procedures for construction tasks, and how to prevent
hazards as well (Cheng et al, 2004). Lack of training can lead to insufficient
information on safe work process, possible hazards, risks at project site, and accident
prevention.
2.2.1.3.4 Inadequate Setting of Safety Level
Lower safety level set by the organization made the workers to be more
vulnerable to accidents. The effectiveness of safety activities can be assured by
providing higher safety level hence ensuring adequate safety inspections, good record
of equipment maintenance, and sufficient emergency schemes.
2.2.1.3.5 Tiredness of Workers
Tiredness of workers originates unproductive working process thus produce
poor quality products. Most importantly, the tiredness may affect the concentration of
the workers and consequently lead them to not focus on their safety. Deficiency in
concentration and focus is dangerous as the workers may not properly use the
equipments in the correct way or unaware of any defects on their equipments.
2.2.1.3.6 Poor Quality of Construction Materials and Equipments
Quality of construction materials and equipments used in construction
projects are very critical to ensure high quality products, apart from to guarantee that
it can be utilized safely. Poor quality materials and equipments still can trigger
hazards even though safe working processes have been taken while constructing a
product. A building made by low quality materials has the higher possibilities to
collapse earlier than the one using high quality materials. The situation is similar
when using poor quality equipments. The equipments may not function to its fully
potential therefore capable of causing low quality products.
2.2.2
Cost of Accident
All accidents will affect the profit of a project (Reese and Eidson, 2006). Not
only the occupational accidents can affect the productivity and competitiveness of an
enterprise, it also cause major impacts upon human integrity and bring high costs for
a country’s social security system (Macedo and Silva, 2005).
Fernandez-Muniz et al (2009) stated that the large number of accidents has a
significant human cost and lead to a loss of economic potential and productivity for
the country. Apart from decrease in human capital, the damage occurs in the
production equipments and a large number of working days are lost.
The costs of accidents or injuries are categorized into direct and indirect cost
(Hinze, 1997). Direct costs are directly associated with the accident, typically
covered by workers’ compensation insurance policies, such as ambulance service,
medical treatment, hospitalization, disability benefits, and medication. On the
contrary, indirect costs are the costs which rarely recorded and hard to quantify
(Levitt and Samelson, 1987). The example of indirect costs is costs of losses resulted
by the postponement of work progress (Hinze, 1997).
Armstrong (1980) divided the cost of accidents into two different categories,
which are the cost of accident to an employee and to an employer.
2.2.2.1 The Cost of An Accident to An Employee
The cost of accident to an employee includes financial, physical, mental, and
other considerations:
i.
Lost of earnings; where the employee is held responsible to cause the accident
hence lose his normal wages.
ii. Loss of confidence and morale; where the employee got injured therefore
affect his confidence in his future works.
iii. Physical disabilities.
iv. Loss of working abilities; the employee may not be able to work normally
because of the accident.
v. Death.
2.2.2.2 The Cost of An Accident to An Employer
An employer held a responsibility towards his workers’ welfare, however at
the same time needs to consider the financial implications of the accident which as
follows:
i.
Lost wages; where the accident was not the individual responsibility of the
worker, so the company still has to pay the wages that the worker cannot earn
because of the injury during his absence from work.
ii. Lowering of morale; serious accident reduced productivity through lowered
morale, renewed caution, and general concern for the injured person and his
dependents.\
iii. Plant costs; when machineries involved in an accident, there are delays in
returning it to its normal working conditions. What’s more, repairs are
essential or replacement of the plant or the operator should be done.
iv. Damage to material; accident that caused damage to material will demand the
employer to replace them in order to complete the works.
v. Reduced output for injured person; injured victim who return to his
employment and basic wage may begin with simpler work or low-geared
output.
vi. Insurance premium; may be increased because of the accident.
vii. Incidental costs; reports, reviews, or investigations will reflect the cost of the
head office. There will be additional costs on phone calls, filling forms, first
aid, copying documents, and adjustments of work procedures.
2.2.3
Construction’s Relationship to Safety
There are many people involves in a construction project. As stated by Davies
and Tomasin (1996), the construction industry is very diverse that almost every type
of accident and environmental health hazard is possible for the workers. The
numerous types of work activities require these workers to work in different kind of
places, such as high places, sloppy areas, and dangerous site condition. There are
risks that these places may cause hazards to the workers. Either it is a small risk or a
big risk, the live of these workers must be highly considered. Employers should have
been assessing the hazards, also considering of who may create the hazard, as well as
assess the risks and do preparations and measures to eliminate or control them
(Bielby, 2002).
2.2.3.1 Hazard
Lowry and Lowry (1985) defined hazard as any substance, situation, or
condition that is capable of doing harm to human health, property, or system
functioning. Meanwhile, Bielby (2002) defined hazard as something with the
potential to cause injury. Taylor et al (2004) agreed that accident is an unintended
event that may or may not give rise to damage, loss, or injury.
The working environment in construction industry is constantly changing,
where the sites exist for a relatively short time and the activities and inherent risks
change everyday. Within a short time of hazard being identified and dealt with, the
work scene has changed, bringing new hazards.
Davies and Tomasin (1996) divide hazards into physical injury hazards and
health hazards. The physical injury hazards covered the hazards from work activities,
structures, machineries, and equipments at work, such as excavations, scaffolding,
roof work, cranes, sewers and confined spaces, and work over water. On the other
hand, health hazards include chemical, physical, and biological hazards which can
harm and affect human health.
As referred to Armstrong (1980), health hazards are hazards which may cause
internal damage to the employee, for instance disorder or malfunction of the lungs,
stomach, ear, or brain. Conversely, physical hazards involving actual human body
that dealt with any dangers from the surrounding structure.
2.2.3.2 Risk
The possibility of hazard to cause accident and how serious the resultant
injury would be is considered as a risk (Bielby, 2002). Risk is also defined as a
measure of the probability and severity of harm to human health, property, or system
functioning by Lowry and Lowry (1985).
Besides that, risk which comes from an Italian word, ‘risicare’ or ‘to dare’ can
be described as the amalgamation of the probability that a hazard will actually result
in an accident and the consequences of that accident (Taylor et al, 2004).
2.2.3.3 Safety
Safety is a judgment of the acceptability of risks and also commonly defines
as freedom from danger and harm (Lowry and Lowry, 1985). In the context of civil
engineering, safety is defined as the discipline of preserving the health of those who
build, operate, maintain, and demolish engineering works and of others affected by
those works, as well as freedom from danger of risks (Davies and Tomasin, 1996).
2.2.3.4 Risk Management and Safety Program
Attention to matters of safety and health is a responsibility of everyone at
work but it is particularly importance in the construction industry where the accident
rate is so high. Therefore, safety programs are implemented with the intention of
decreasing all risks to an acceptable level. There are many elements in safety
program, includes risk management. According to Bielby (2002), there are five steps
to risk assessment. The steps are as follows:
i. Look for hazard
ii. Decide who might be harmed and how
iii. Evaluate the risks and decide whether existing precautions are adequate or
whether more should be done
iv. Record your findings
v. Review your assessment and revise it if necessary
Waring (1996) stated that the risk assessments is required in all
implementation activity, and the altitude of complexity in such assessments depend
on the nature of the task. According to Ray (2003), the risk assessment will require:
i.
Identification of risk;
ii. Estimation of risk, where the importance of the risk, the likelihood, severity,
and impact are determined;
iii. Analysis and evaluation of the risk where acceptability of the risk is
determined and action can be taken to make risks more acceptable are
evaluated.
In addition, Hetherington (1995) stated that the modern approach to health
and safety is to identify the hazards associated with a work activity and later to avoid
them where it is possible. In case of the hazards cannot be avoided, the risk must be
tackled at source and giving priority to measures which will protect those at work.
Hetherington (1995) also suggested that only after these steps have been taken then
employers should rely on providing protective equipments for the workers.
Chan et al (2006) mentioned in their paper that is according to the European
Process Safety Centre (2004), policy, organization, management practices and
procedures, monitoring and auditing, and management reviews are the fundamental
elements in the safety and health management. It is the responsibility of the top
management to establish a safety policy in their organization. Implementation of the
management practices and working according to procedures are necessary in order to
achieve the objectives of the written policy. Monitoring and auditing of the system
performance are importance to value the effectiveness of the system thus corrective
actions can be taken.
As stated by many researchers, the construction industry is somehow
dangerous to human. In order to prevent more accident, it is critical to put safety and
health in the first place. Therefore, the whole project team in a construction site must
ensure to comply with the regulated requirements as provided by the regulatory
bodies as well as to obey with their company’s safety and health management
system.
2.2.3.5 Safety and Health Regulations in Malaysia
Malaysia has introduced three basic laws to tackle safety problems, namely
the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) 1994, Factories and Machineries
Act (FMA) 1967, and Construction Industrial Development Act 1994 (Sulaiman et al,
2008).
Meanwhile, the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health
(NIOSH) as the research arm of OSHA (Tompkins, 2006) conducts research on
safety and health problems, provides technical assistance to OSHA, and proposes
standards for OSHA adoption. Additionally, NIOSH may investigate workplace,
gather testimony from employers and employees, and require management report on
employee exposure to potentially hazardous materials. NIOSH also may request the
employers to provide medical examinations and tests to determine the incidence of
occupational illness among employees.
2.3 Accident prevention
2.3.1
Introduction
Prevention of occupationally related accidents is the law. The OSHA requires
employers to provide a workplace free from hazards that could cause serious harm or
death. Beyond that, it makes good business sense to prevent accidents. More and
more companies have come to realize that the OSHA is a helpmate not a hindrance to
their accident prevention initiatives. OSH administration sets the foundation and
assumes the role of law enforcer, allowing the employer to not be viewed as the bad
guy to his or her employees. Employers can be deflecting responsibility to OSHA.
As business competition has increased, loss control has been seen as a logical
place to curtail costs, especially direct losses from equipment damage, medical costs,
and workers’ compensation premiums. Preventing accidents result in real, observable
savings. Safety experts approximate the hidden cost of accidents as being
conservatively five to ten times the direct cost incurred. Hidden costs include lost
production, retraining, supervisor’s time lost, just to name a few.
2.3.2
Reasons for preventing accidents
There are three fundamental reasons for preventing accident which are legal,
humanitarian, and economic reasons (Bamber, 1983). An optimum accident
prevention strategy for a particular organization would combine these three reasons
because they are interrelated and probably reinforce one another.
2.3.2.1 Legal reasons for accident prevention
The legal reasons are based on the statutory requirements of the available acts
such as OSHA 1994, FMA 1967, and BOWEC 1986.
The OSHA 1994 imposes a general duty on the employers to ensure the
safety, health, and welfare of all his employees. The FMA 1967 lays down more
specific statutory requirements which impose a minimum but absolute standard of
conduct on the employers. Meanwhile, the BOWEC 1986 has stipulated more detail
conducts for employers to further ensure their workers’ safety.
Any breach of the statutory duties imposed by either of the Acts can result the
employer to be penalized and perhaps being involved in criminal proceedings. One
example of the penalties is to be fined for not exceeding fifty thousand ringgit or to
imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or to both for any contravenes of
the provision of Section 15, 16, 17, and 18 under the OSHA 1994. Another example
is a conviction to be liable to a fine not exceeding five thousand ringgit or to
imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to both for any contravenes of
the provisions of Safety and Health Committee Regulations under the same Act.
All in all, Hetherington (1995) stated that the aims of the regulations are to
ensure that all those who can contribute to the improvement of site safety and health
do so, as well to make sure that safety and health is considered, planned for, and
managed at every stage of the project.
2.3.2.2 Humanitarian reasons for accident prevention
The humanitarian reason for accident prevention is based on the notion that it
is a duty of a man to ensure the general wellbeing of his fellow men. It is a common
duty of care for an employer to provide safety and health working environment for all
his employees.
Sulaiman et al (2008) suggested that award of contract document to an
eligible employer would be a potential help to occupational safety and health
management system for a particular project.
2.3.2.3 Economic reasons for accident prevention
The fundamental of rising up economic reasons in accident prevention is the
fact that accident cost an organization a great sum of money. Essentially, there are
two types of accident cost such as stated by Bamber (1983) which are insured cost
(direct cost) and uninsured cost (indirect cost). The insured costs are predominantly
covered by the employer’s liabilities which in Malaysia include insurances and
workmen’s compensation. The uninsured costs of accidents include cost of payment
to injured labours, cost of repair to damaged plants, and cost of labour replacements.
The uninsured costs are harder to quantify than the insured costs, but the
uninsured costs are usually far greater than the insured costs especially when the
large number of minor injuries and non-injury accidents are taken into account
(Ahmadon et al, 2006). For that reason, it should be a concern to all employers in any
organizations that an accident may cost them larger money loss than they expected.
According to Geetha et al (2007), a study across industries in the United
States alone suggested that injury rates and cost rates are higher for construction than
for average of all industries. The United State’s NIOSH has published a report in
2006 on the workplace fatalities which estimates that the total cost for construction
fatalities in 1992 to 2002 as of 10 billion US dollar.
In order to achieve maximum co-operation in any program in accident
prevention, use should be made of an amalgam of all three reasons. However, it is the
economic reasons that have the greatest impact especially to the directors and senior
management of the organization.
2.3.3
Benefits of accident preventions
You can expect many benefits from preventing occupational accidents. Some
of the benefits you might expect are:
i.
Reduced industrial insurance premium costs
ii.
Reduced indirect cost of accidents
iii.
Fewer compliance inspections and penalties
iv.
Avoidance of adverse publicity from deaths or major accidents
v.
Reduced litigation and legal settlements
vi.
Lower employee payroll deductions for industrial insurance
vii.
Reduced pain and suffering by injured workers
viii.
Reduced long term or permanent disability cases
ix.
Increased potential for retrospective rating refunds
x.
Increased acceptance of bids
xi.
Improved morale and loyalty from individual workers
xii.
Increased productivity from workers
Although this not an inclusive list, it certainly provides a snapshot of why you
should undertake a loss control effort for occupationally related accidents.
2.4
Accident Prevention Techniques
2.4.1
Hazards identification, evaluation, and control
The main objective in accident prevention is to control hazard at work so as to
reduce or eliminate accidents. An adequate hazard management can be said to set off
an accidents.
Bamber (1983) defined hazard as the result of a departure from the normal
situation which has the potential to cause injury, damage, and loss. In addition to that,
Lowry and Lowry (1985) defined hazard as any substance, situation, or condition that
is capable of doing harm to human health, property, or system functioning.
Meanwhile Bielby (2002) defined hazard as something with the potential to cause
injury.
For further understanding, CCH Asia (2001) summarized hazard as an
activity, arrangement, circumstance, event, occurrence, phenomenon, process,
situation or substance whether arising or caused within or outside a workplace that is
an actual or potential cause or source of injury.
Davies and Tomasin (1996) divide hazards into physical injury hazards and
health hazards. The physical injury hazards covered the hazards from work activities,
structures, machineries, and equipments at work, such as excavations, scaffolding,
roof work, cranes, sewers and confined spaces, and work over water. On the other
hand, health hazards include chemical, physical, and biological hazards which can
harm and affect human health.
There are three steps in hazard managements:
i)
Identification
ii)
Evaluation of assessment
iii)
Control (elimination or reduction)
2.4.1.1 Hazard identification
Within organization, there are several ways by which hazards may be identified
include:
i)
Workplace inspections
ii)
Management/workers’ discussion
iii)
Independent audits
iv)
Job safety analysis
v)
Hazard and operability studies
Workplace inspections are undertaken with the aim to identify hazards and
promoting remedial action. Directors, managers, safety advisors, safety officers,
supervisors and safety representatives will be involved in the workplace inspections.
The results of the inspections should be coordinated to generate even more effective
corrective or remedial actions.
Formal discussions such in safety meetings or informal discussion such in
daily conversations between supervisors and workers can also be useful in the
identification of hazards. However, the feedback of the discussion is the most
significant factor to affect the remedial actions.
Independent audits can also be used to identify hazards. The independent
audits are referring to those who are not employees of the organization but somebody
who undertake general or even specific workplace audits or inspections include
insurance company personnel, risk management consultants, or environmental
consultants.
Job safety analysis is another method in identifying hazards. It is an accident
prevention technique that should be used along with the development of job safety
instructions, safe systems of work, and job safety training. The basic procedure for
job safety analysis can graphically be seen in Figure 2.1.
Figure 2.1: Basic procedure for job safety analysis
Source: Technique of Accident Prevention (L. Bamber, 1983)
Hazards and operability studies are techniques of hazard identification that
has been developed in the chemical and process industries which essentially involved
a multidisciplinary team of chemists, engineers, safety advisors, production
management, designers, and etc. critically examining each aspect of a process at the
design stage in order to eliminate hazards from the process at that early stage rather
than to find them later and have to modify the plan to eliminate them.
2.4.1.2 Hazard evaluation and assessment
Once a list of hazards within an organization has been identified, each hazard
should be evaluated to assess its impact on the organization if control action was not
taken. The assessment should consider of legal, humanitarian, and economic
considerations in addition to the frequency of the hazard been spotted, the potential
severity, and the maximum possible injury, damage or loss that might occur. The
results of this assessment will produce a list of hazard control action according to its
priority.
A simple formula of hazard assessment used by Bamber (1983) in his study
was as follows:
Hazard rating = frequency x (severity + maximum possible loss + probability)
From the hazard rating, the urgency of the remedial action is determined, for example
as the following Table 2.3:
Table 2.3: Hazard Rating and Urgency Actions
Source: Technique of Accident Prevention (L. Bamber, 1983)
Hazard Rating
Urgency of Action
Over 100
Immediate
50 – 100
Today
25 – 50
Within 1 week
10 – 25
Within 1 month
0 – 10
Within 3 months
CCH Asia (2001) suggested that it is the duty of the general manager in an
organization to set up an Occupational Safety and Health Management System
(OSHMS) team consists of senior managers, line managers, supervisors, OSH
professionals and workers to conduct a detail and complete hazard assessment for all
operations’ activities. The team could use the OSH hazard checklist to identify and
determine significant OSH hazards/risks associated to the processes, equipments, and
machineries.
2.4.1.3 Hazard Control
The control of hazards within an organization requires careful planning and
its achievement will involve both temporary and permanent measures. These
measures can be graded thus:
i) Eliminate hazard at source
LONG-TERM
ii) Reduce hazard at source
iii) Remove employee from hazard
iv) Contain hazard by enclosure
v) Reduce employee’s exposure to hazard
vi) Utilise protective equipment
SHORT-TERM
The long-term aim must always be to eliminate the hazard at source, but
whilst attempting to achieve this aim, other short-term actions will be necessary.
Various techniques are available to control hazards within the workplace. Hazards
from the working environment may be controlled by effective ventilation systems,
adequate heating and lighting, and the general provision of good working conditions.
Chemical hazards may also be controlled by effective ventilation, regular monitoring,
and substitution of material, change of process, purchasing controls, and the use of
protective equipments.
A necessary corollary of hazard assessment will help in the establishment of
safe systems of work and training for the workforce should be made to alert them of
the hazards in their work areas, and of the methods for the control of such hazards.
2.4.2
Fire, first aid, and emergency procedures
2.4.2.1 Fire
Of the various accidents that can occur in the industry, fire is generally the
type which effects are felt over the shortest distances but usually cover much larger
areas. The effects of a fire can be severe as the thermal flux may affect other
equipment such in domino effects, thus giving rise to other events such as explosions
and gas releases that can dramatically increase the scale of the accident (Casal, 2008).
From the hands on guide for safety manager published by CCH Asia (2001),
the following requirements must be complied with:
a) Every organization must be provided with proper means of extinguishing fire.
i)
Fire extinguisher must be mounted, located and identified for
emergency use
ii)
Only approved portable extinguishers must be used
iii)
Fire extinguishers must not be obstructed at any time and must remain
accessible at all time
iv)
Fire hose reels must not be obstructed at any time
v)
Adequate clearance for fire sprinklers
b) Means of escape must be properly maintained and kept obstructed.
c) Exit doors must be easily opened from the inside, and must be constructed to
open outwards.
d) Directional signs leading to emergency exits must be illuminated. Emergency
lighting and illuminated exit signs must be provided with an alternative power
supply.
e) Exit and exit routes must be clearly marked. The exit must never be
obstructed in any way, even for temporarily. No combustibles must be stored
under stairs.
f) Adequate emergency lighting must be provided.
g) Windows, doors, and other means of escape must be clearly marked by a
notice in red letters in languages understood by the workers.
h) The occupier must ensure that workers are familiar with all the means escape
within the workplace.
i) Devices which give in audible warning in case of fire must be provided and
maintained in the premises. The devices must be operable without exposing
any person to undue risk and tested at least once a month.
Additionally, Section 13 of the FMA 1967 in the provisions against fire stated
that every workplace shall be taken such precautions against fire and there shall be
provided and maintained, such in means of escape in case of fire other than the
ordinary exit and extinguishing fire as may be described by law or local authorities.
2.4.2.2 First aid
Section 25 (1) (c) of the Factory and Machinery Act places the general duty
on employer to provide and maintain so as to be readily accessible a first-aid box or
cupboard of the prescribed standard and when more than one hundred and fifty
persons are employed at any one time a suitable first-aid room of the prescribed
standard shall also be provided and maintained.
The first aid boxes should be placed in the charge of a trained first aider who
should be available during working hours. The contents are prescribed in the
Guidance Notes with quantities varying according to the number of employees served
bye ach box. Separate first aid kits should be provided for those who have to work
away from their base unless the facilities of the employers can be made available to
them.
In a workplace where hazards are low, a first aider would not be necessary
unless more than 150 people are employed. However, where the risk is higher, there
should be one first aider for every 50 to 150 employees with an additional first aider
need to be an occupational first aider (head). The names of these first aiders should
be displayed in every workplace.
2.4.2.3 Emergency procedures
Every organization or company should ensure that effective plans are drawn
up for all foreseeable emergencies and contingencies likely to arise at each factory or
office location. The emergencies that should be considered among others are natural
disaster such as storms, flood, subsidence, loss of power or lighting, civil
disturbances and demonstrations, plane crash, explosions, and out of control
production processes.
It is necessary to assess the probability of the emergency occurring and once
the degree of risk to the company and its employees have been examined, control
measures can be worked out, later incorporated into an emergency procedures manual
or instruction. Provisions for disabled employees also should be made.
Section 18 of the Occupational Safety and Health (Control of Industrial Major
Accident Hazards) Regulations 1996 under the OSHA 1994, an employer shall
prepare and keep an up-to-date and adequate on-site emergency plan detailing how
major accidents are to be dealt with on the site which the activity is carried on. The
plan shall include the name of the person who is responsible for safety on the site and
the names of those who are authorized to take action pursuant to the plan in the event
of an emergency. The employer shall from time to time to update and review the plan
as well.
Besides on-site emergency plan, provisions in Section 21 of the same
regulations specifies that an employer shall inform the local authority of the area that
his workplace is capable of producing major accidents hazard, therefore he needs a
preparation of an off-site emergency plan for the area surrounding his site which may
be likely to be affected by a major accident.
Any contravenes to the regulations may cause the employer to be liable to a
fine not exceeding fifty thousand ringgit or to a term of imprisonment not exceeding
two years or to both. As for the employees who are not complied with the
regulations, he may be liable to a fine not exceeding one thousand ringgit or to a term
of imprisonment not exceeding three months or to both. These are as stipulated in
Section 24 of the above mentioned regulations under the OSHA 1994.
2.4.3
Safety training
Safety training is said to be carried out to preserve life and health (Kohn and
Timmons, 1988) as well as helps in preventing accidents and to control risks
(Cooper, 1998). Lack of appropriate skills and knowledge are identified as one of the
major causes of accidents, injuries, and deaths.
Existing competency base programme for Safety and Health Officers is
generic in nature. Those qualified can practice in any industry they preferred.
Unfortunately, they were not equipped with adequate skills and knowledge to
practice effectively in high risk works such as construction. The shortcomings could
be one of the major contributors to poor safety and health records in the construction
industry. As such, CIDB with the cooperation of industry players have developed a
course aimed at improving the quality of safety and health in construction sites
known as the Construction Safety and Health Officer Training Programme.
Despite of safety training for Safety and Health Officer, members of safety
and health committee as well as general employees also must be educated with
adequate safety knowledge and skills. Based on Section 28 and 29 of the
Occupational Safety and Health (Safety and Health Committee) Regulations 1996
under the OSHA 1994, an employer shall provide adequate safety and health training
for his safety and health committee members for their own good, and so that they
could perform their duty better as a committee members.
Sections 15 (2) (c) of OSHA 1994 has stipulated that it is a general duty of an
employer to provide information, instruction, training, and supervision as is
necessary to ensure the safety and health at work of his employees. Any contravenes
of the provisions of Section 15 shall be liable to a fine not exceeding fifty thousand
ringgit or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or to both.
2.4.4
Risk management
Bamber (1983) defined risk management as the minimisation of the adverse
effects of pure and speculative risks within a business. Pure risks can only result in a
loss to organisation while speculative risks may result in either gain or loss.
Risk in the context of a risk management programme may be defined as the
chance of loss and the programme is geared to safeguard the organisation’s assets
such as manpower, materials, machineries, manufactured goods and money. The
roles of risk management among others are:
i) Consider the impact of certain risky events on the performance of their
organisation.
ii) Formulate alternative strategies for controlling these risks and/or their impact
on the organisation.
iii) Relate these alternative strategies to the general decision framework used by
the organisation.
2.4.4.1 Risk management techniques
Risk management involves the identification, evaluation and economic
control of risks within an organisation. Risk identification may be achieved by
physical inspections, management and worker discussions, safety audits, as well as
job safety analysis. Risk evaluation may be based on economic, social, or legal
considerations. As for economic considerations itself should include the financial
impact on the organisation of the uninsured cost of accidents, the effect on insurance
premiums, and the overall effect on the profitability of the organisation, also the
possible loss of production.
Bamber (1983) had classified the risk control strategies into four main areas
which are risk avoidance, risk retention, risk transfer, and risk reduction.
2.4.4.2 Risk avoidance
The risk avoidance strategy involves a conscious decision on the part of the
organisation to completely avoid a particular risk by discontinuing the operation
producing the risk and it takes as fact that the risk has been identified and evaluated.
An example of risk avoidance strategy is by deciding to replace a hazardous
chemical by one with less or no potential risk.
2.4.4.3 Risk retention
The risk in an organisation is retained where any consequent loss is financed
by the company. There are two types of risk retention which are risk retention with
knowledge and risk retention without knowledge.
Risk retention with knowledge covers the case where a conscious decision is
made to meet any resulting loss from within the organisation’s financial resources.
Decisions on which risk to be retained can only be made once all the risks have been
identified and effectively evaluated.
On the other hand, risk retention without knowledge usually results from lack
of knowledge about the existence of a risk or an omission to insure against it. This
often arises because the risks have not been either identified or fully evaluated.
2.4.4.4 Risk transfer
Risk transfer refers to the legal assignment of the costs of certain potential
losses from one party to another. The most common way affecting such transfer is by
insurance. Under an insurance policy, the insurance company undertakes to
compensate the organisation against losses resulting from the occurrence of an event
specified in the insurance policy, for instance the fire and accident.
2.4.4.5 Risk reduction
The principles of risk reduction rely on the reduction of risk within
organisation by the implementation of a loss control programme, which basic aim is
to protect the company’s assets from wastage caused by accidental loss.
The collection of data on the amount of loss producing accidents provides
information on which an effective programme of remedial actions can be based. The
process will involve the investigation, reporting and recording of accidents that result
in either injury or disease to an individual, damage to property, plant, equipment,
materials, or the product.
2.5
Accident investigation and reporting
2.5.1
Introduction
In addition to the safety and health requirements for reporting injuries and
accident, it is indeed need to be investigated. Caring employers would have a policy
requiring any accidents or occurrences at his workplace to be investigated.
The purpose of an investigation is to establish all the facts relating to incident,
and draw conclusions from the facts as well as make recommendations to prevent
recurrence (Adrian, 1983). Joint investigation with safety representatives or making
all the information available for them is one way of helping to discover the facts of
the accidents.
The right attitudes towards accident prevention can be developed not only
through training and practice of good systems but includes having a discussion by the
investigation team. Details of the accidents can be presented using slides, photos, or
sketches. By drawing out the facts of the original investigation, individuals can learn
deeper instead of reading and listening to a lecture on accident investigation.
In order to improve the worker’s safety and health in their workplace as well
as to decrease the number of fatalities and injuries, an investigation of the accident
shall take place. The investigation will help in figuring out the causes and factors
influencing the accidents, hence precaution measures and improvements in the
working environment can be improved. A full and complete report of the accident
and the investigation results is necessary in helping of the further development of
safety and health.
According to Paguman Singh (1995), an employer is required by law to report
every accident to the relevant Local Office of SOCSO within 48 hours and as soon as
possible for fatal accidents. The employer shall send the report in form 21 which is a
prescribed form and a copy of the report shall be sent to the clinic o hospital where
the injured worker is treated, in order to facilitate the process of providing treatments
under SOCSO coverage.
Furthermore, there is a regulation under OSHA 1994 which is specifically on
accident reporting which is Notification of Accident, dangerous occurrence,
occupational poisoning and occupational Disease (NADOOPOD) Regulations 2004.
2.5.2
Statutory requirements
2.5.2.1 Notification
of
Accident,
Dangerous
Occurrences,
Occupational
Poisoning and Occupational Disease (NADOOPOD)
In the Occupational Safety and Health Act 1994, there is a regulation
stipulated in regards to the requirements of reporting accidents or occurrences namely
Occupational Safety and Health (Notification of Accident, Dangerous Occurrences,
Occupational Poisoning and Occupational Disease) Regulations 2004 or called
NADOOPOD. There are five interconnected parts in the regulations.
The first part of the regulations interprets the words normally used in the
regulations, such as ‘seriously bodily injured’ means any injury listed in the Schedule
1 of the regulations, ‘fatal injury’ means injury leading to immediate death or within
one year after the accident, and ‘dangerous occurrence’ means an occurrence arising
out of or in connection with work and is classified in Schedule 2 of the regulations.
In these regulations, any references to an accident or occurrences as well as
disease and poisoning arising out of or in connection with the work shall include a
reference regarding the related working methods, plants being used, and the premises
conditions during the accidents, occurrences, disease, and poisoning. The regulations
shall apply to all places of work, but the compliance with these regulations shall be
deemed to have complied with the provisions of the following Act and Regulations:
i.
Sections 31 and 32 of the Factories and Machinery Act 1967
ii.
Regulation 13 of the Petroleum (Safety Measures)(Transportation of
Petroleum by Pipelines) Regulations 1985
iii.
Regulation 23 of Occupational Safety and Health (Control of
Industrial Major Accident Hazards) Regulations 1996.
Part II of the regulations generally discuss about notification and reporting of
accident, dangerous occurrences, occupational poisoning, and occupational disease.
The regulation indeed shall not be applied to a patient who undergoing treatment in
hospital or surgery by a doctor or dentist as stipulated in Section 4.
Based on Section 5 of the regulations, an employer shall notify the nearest
Department of Occupational Safety and Health (DOSH) office as soon as possible if
a death happened arising from work or send a report within 7 days to the DOSH
office in an approved form in the case where serious bodily injury as per Schedule 2
occur in any place of work.
The similar practise should be done for any poisoning cases arise in a
workplace where an employer shall write a report to the nearest DOSH office within
7 days. In addition, every registered medical practitioner or medical officer shall
report the matters to the General Director in 7 days, along with notification to the
employing regarding the poisoning of his man (Section 7).
Part III of NADOOPOD Regulations 2004 states that no person shall remove or
in any way interfere or disturb any plant, substances, article, or anything related to
the accident in case of where accident causing death has happened, unless it is indeed
necessary such as to:
a. Save the life or prevent injury or relieve the suffering of any person.
b. Maintain the access of general public to an essential service or utility.
c. Prevent further damage or serious loss of property or environment.
Section 10 in Part IV of the regulations avows that every employer or selfemployed person shall record and maintain a register regarding all accidents and
dangerous occurrences which have occurred or all occupational poisonings or disease
which have occurred or are likely to occur. The record shall be kept at the place
where the related work is being carried out for at least five (5) years from the date on
which it was made. Section 10 (3) insists that the register shall be sent to the General
Director before 31 January of each year, such extracts from the registry for a period
of 12 months ending on 31 December of each year.
Any contravenes of these regulations may be liable if convicted, to a fine not
exceeding ten thousand ringgit or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year
or to both as expressed in Section 13 in Part IV of NADOOPOD Regulations 2004.
2.5.2.2 Social security act
The employees’ social security act 1969 is to provide social security in certain
contingencies and to make provision for certain other matters in relation to it. It is
applicable to all industry having more than one employee. Every industry to which
this Act applies shall be registered with Social Security Organisation (SOCSO).
The contributions payable under this Act which shall be paid to the SOCSO is
comprised of two contributions which are:i.
Contribution payable by the employer (employer’s contribution)
ii. Contribution payable by the employee (employee’s contribution)
The contributions shall fall in two different categories namely:i.
Contributions payable by or on behalf of the employees insured against the
contingencies of invalidity and employment injury, whereby the contributions
shall be shared by the employer and the employee based on the ratio specified
in the third schedule of the Act.
ii. Contributions payable by or on behalf of the employees insured only against
the contingencies of invalidity of employment injury which shall be paid
wholly by the employer.
Clause 35 (a) of PWD Standard Form 203A of Contract proclaim that the
contractor must register his employees and contribute under the Employee’s Social
Security Act 1969 hence comply with the provisions of the said Act. In addition, he
shall submit the Code Number and Social Security Numbers of all the workers on site
during the checking by the Superintending Officer (S.O).
Besides that, the employer shall make payments of all contributions from time
to time until the completion of his contract, whereby he shall provide the contribution
cards or stamp vouchers to the S.O as evidence for his payments (Clause 35 (b)).
Any contravenes made by the contractor in complying with the terms of this
Clause may cause the client or the government to take actions for breach of contract
which include the followings, as per stipulated in Clause 35 (c):
i.
The government or client may withhold any amount due to contractor which
in the S.O.’s opinion will satisfy any claims for compensation by
workmen that would have been borne by SOCSO Scheme.
ii. The government or client will pay the contributions as have become due and
unpaid, and then deduct the amount of such contributions from any
monies due to the contractor.
2.5.3
Accident reporting
The legal obligation is placed on the employer to report an accident. The
procedure to be followed for informing the accident is very much depends upon the
size of his organisation. The larger the organisation, the more formal procedures need
to be followed.
ACCIDENT
Notifiable dangerous
occurrence
Fatal or major
injury
Inform:
Inform:
Safety and Health
Officer (SHO)
Other injury
 Police
 SHO
 Insurers
Investigate, record details, and write report
Complete and return to Department of Occupational Safety & Health
Figure 2.2: Action to be taken on learning of an accident
Source: Accident investigation and reporting (E. W. Adrian, 1983)
Based on the above diagram, where the injury is sufficiently serious to
warrant attendance at a hospital, the local supervisor should be contacted and
informed so that he can start the accident investigation. Similarly, the safety and
health officer must be informed so that he can follow the matters up.
As for serious accident, the details of the injuries must be obtained from the
hospital even though there are cases where the hospital is reluctant in giving
information except for the relatives because of their policy. However, the details
must be obtained in order to improve results of the investigation.
In the event of fatality, apart from the deceased family, the police as well as
safety and health officer must be informed immediately. The employer’s insurance
company will also wish to know so that they can make financial provisions and also
keep a watching brief on the investigation for any legal actions.
The notifiable dangerous occurrences and damaged only type of accidents, the
incident should be reported to the supervisor in control of the area where the damage
is occurred. The responsible person then may need to report the matter to the
enforcing authority. The accident should be fully investigated though, either by the
supervisor or using the laid procedures so that the cause can be established and
remedial actions can be implemented.
2.5.4
Investigation
There should be a laid down procedure for investigating accidents with the
supervisor where they occurred carrying out an immediate examination. If the
seriousness of the accident warrants it, a further examination by qualified specialist
like safety and health officer/advisor should be carried out (Adrian, 1983).
Any investigation should be taken immediately after the accident. It should be
concerned with obtaining facts to establish the cause of the accident and not finding
out who was to blame. The accident should be discussed at early stage with the
injured person to get his views of the events.
Witnesses should also be interviewed as soon as possible and their evidences
must be differentiated whether it is a measurable fact or an opinion. The investigation
that is to establish the cause of the accident should be explained to them so there
would be no apportioning blame. Discrepancies between evidences should be
checked thoroughly.
2.5.4.1 Investigation report
The material for the written report would be the same as that gathered during
the investigation. However, the form of its presentation is left to the author. Its format
should follow a logical sequence which could be such as the followings:
1.
Title of the accident
2.
List of content
3.
Summary of the report
4.
Introduction
5.
Findings of the information gathered during investigation
6.
Conclusions drawn up from the findings
7.
Recommendations
8.
Appendices include tables, graphs, sketches, weather chart, and
photographs.
The report should be signed by its author, verified by the project manager,
and dated before issuing to the authority personnel.
2.5.4.2 Accident investigation checklist
In his study, Adrian (1983) has suggested checklists to be used as a memory
aids for those matters that should be considered when undertaking an accident
investigation. The checklist among others should consist of such in the followings as
in Table 2.4, Figure 2.3, and Figure 2.4:
Table 2.4: Accident investigation checklist
Source: Accident investigation and reporting (E. W. Adrian, 1983)
Item
Descriptions
Objectives
Discover facts – prevent recurrence
Legal duty to inquire into reported accidents
Notification to SHO
Employer’s liability insurance – third party insurance
Evidence for possible civil actions for damages
Who investigate
Supervisor
Safety & health officer / Safety advisor
Joint consultation and Formal inquiry
When
As soon as possible
Effect of delay – loss of evidence
Course of action
Disaster plan
Camera, measuring tape, emergency phones, test
equipments
Early visit and questioning injured person – effect of
shock
Faults of
Person
Technique
APPROACH
Real Evidence
 Dangerous occurrence – major
injuries or damage control
 Strains and sprains – minor
injury

 Interview one witness at a time
 Explain reason – discover the
cause




Broken machineries
Sketches and photographs
Models
Expert examination – give
Figure 2.3: Approach of an accident investigation
Source: Accident investigation and reporting (E. W. Adrian, 1983)
DANGEROUS
OCCURENCE
Report Writing
☺ Types notifiable to Safety &
Health Officer
☺ Others of interest to Company
☺ State type of emergency
☺ What was injured person
doing?
☺ What went wrong?
☺ Why?
☺ Recommendations to prevent
recurrence
Figure 2.4: Dangerous occurrences of an accident investigation
Source: Accident investigation and reporting (E. W. Adrian, 1983)
2.6
Accident costs
2.6.1
Workplace accidents and its costs
Workplace injuries and illnesses are costly in financial and human terms. In a
study by Geetha et al (2007), it was discovered that the construction injuries in year
2002 were estimated to cost $11.5 billion, with $4 billion in fatalities (40%) and $7
billion in non-fatal injuries, primarily driven by cases with days away from work.
The average construction fatality was then estimated to cost $4 million, meanwhile
the non-fatal days away injuries in construction were more costly than average, at
$42,000 per case compared to $37,000 in all private industry.
According to Geetha et al (2007), there are three broad categories of
occupational injuries and illnesses costs which are direct costs, indirect costs, and
quality of life costs. Examples of these costs are such as the followings:
1. Direct costs
a. Payments for hospital, physician, and allied services
b. Rehabilitation, nursing home care, home health care, medical
equipment
c. Burial costs, insurance administrative costs for medical claims,
payments for mental health treatment
d. Police, fire, emergency transport, coroner services, and property
damages
2. Indirect costs
a. Victim productivity losses which include wage losses and household
production losses
b. Administrative costs which include the costs of administering
workers’ compensation wage replacement programs and sick leave
3. Quality of life costs
a. The value attributed to the pain and suffering that victims and their
families experience as a result of the injury or illnesses.
b. Transportation injuries, birth defects, violence, or consumer product
injuries.
Based on a study by Syahir Sakri (2009), the main cost for workplace
accidents in Malaysia is the immediate costs such as sick pay and replacement
labour. The biggest costs found were indirect cost, while other cost related mentioned
were long term cost such as the compensation payment and insurance premiums. On
the other hand, for the work related illnesses, the main costs were the direct cost and
the biggest costs were absentee costs. As for other related mentioned costs were
rehabilitation costs.
2.6.2
Types of Accident Costs
There are direct costs, indirect costs and quality of life costs of an accident.
The definitions, principles, and calculations of these costs were explained by Geetha
et al (2007) in their study on construction occupational injuries in the United States.
2.6.2.1 Direct costs
The direct costs of fatal injuries and non-fatal injuries are considered
differently. Direct costs for non-fatal injuries were estimated separately for those
hospitalized and those not hospitalized by diagnosis.
The direct costs for hospitalized victims are based on the following factors:
i.
Length of stay,
ii.
Hospital cost per day,
iii.
Ratio of professional fee payments to hospital payments,
iv.
Ratio of cost in the first 6 months to costs during the initial admission, and
v.
The ratio of the present value of lifetime medical payments to payments in
the first 6 months.
Meanwhile, the direct costs for not hospitalized victims are based on the following
factors:
i.
Probability that an injury or illnesses will require medical treatment,
ii.
The number of visits to physicians’ offices or emergency departments,
payments per not hospitalized visits,
iii.
Ratio of payments (including pharmaceutical and ancillary expenses to
payments for medical visits), and
iv.
Ratio of the present value of lifetime medical payments per non hospitalized
case to payments in the first 6 months.
As for non-fatal illnesses, direct costs were computed in a simpler manner
because less information was available. An example is an annual medical spending
for hospitalizations were computed as the product of length to stay, cost per day, and
the ratio of hospital plus professional fee payments to hospital payments.
The study acknowledged a constant medical cost of $777 to medically treated
cases without any work loss and $618 for cases with restricted work activities, which
some of them were not medically treated. Following the previous study by Miller and
Galbraith in 1995, Geetha’s team attributed a constant medical cost of $18300 to
each fatality.
2.6.2.2 Indirect costs
Indirect costs were very common with productivity losses. Indirect costs for
non-fatal cases are divided into short-term and long-term losses as well as wage and
household productivity losses.
For short-term wage losses, the team multiplied the number of days away
from work by the predicted daily wage rate received by a worker of the same group,
race, gender, industry and occupations as the injury victim.
Short term wage losses = [days away from work] x [predicted daily wages rate]
Long-term wage losses resulting from permanent total disability were based
on estimates of lifetime wage loss calculated using a 2.5% discount rate and a
standard age-earnings model for different age (5-year age groups) and gender
categories such as recommended by a study by Hodgson and Meiners in 1982. To
reflect the workers’ current industry and occupation more accurately, the long-term
wage losses for all permanent disabilities were multiplied by the ratio of hourly
wages by age, race, sex, industry, and occupation to the hourly wages for different
age and sex categories.
Taking example of Miller’s study in 1998, the team estimated household
work loss duration by the number of days away from work times 365/243 times 0.9.
These adjustments account for the fact that household work may be lost on days
when wage work is not and also reflect results showing that 90% of the time lost to
wage work is also lost to household work as suggested by Douglas et al in their study
(1990).
Household work loss = [days away from work] x [365/243] x [0.9]
As for fatalities, the lifetime wage losses were calculated using a 2.5%
discount rate and a standard age-earnings model suggested by Hodgson and Meiners
(1982) for 5-year age groups and sex categories. Age-gender lifetime wage losses
were adjusted for industry and occupation where possible, using average wages by
age, gender, industry, and occupation based on a CPS data back in 1993. In the
meantime, the idea by Douglas et al (1990) was used in order to calculate the lifetime
household work losses were calculated for different age and sex groups.
2.6.2.3 Quality of life costs
Quality of life costs for non-fatal injuries were estimated using jury verdicts
in tort liability lawsuits. The method suggested that the quality of life costs of an
injury survivor can be approximated by the difference between the amount of
compensatory damages awarded by a jury and the out-of-pocket costs claimed by the
victim.
Quality of life cost = [Compensatory damages awarded amount] – [Actual cost
claimed]
In large number, the quality of life components of U.S. jury verdicts to injury
survivors is reasonably predictable with regression analysis. Regressions are based on
the verdicts yield values that are diagnosis-specific and appear to closely approximate
values from the willingness to pay method that economic theory suggests using in
benefit-cost analyses of preventive effort as stated by Cohen and Miller (2003) in
their study. In 1996, a study by Miller resulted in willingness to pay to avoid physical
assaults has a 0.6 correlation with estimated pain and suffering awards for physical
assaults from jury verdict regressions.
Since workers’ compensation was designed to be a tort-free system and tends
to reduce the propensity from litigation, occupational injury cases that go to trial are a
selected sample of all occupational injuries. Estimating a quality of life costs on this
selected sample may result in an overestimate of the costs associated with the bulk
occupational injury cases that do not go to trial.
The team has concluded that the quality of life costs due to fatality can be
calculated as the difference between the willingness to pay to avoid the injury and the
victim wage and household work loss costs associated with it.
Quality of life cost (due to fatality) = [Willingness to pay in avoiding injury] –
[victim’s wage + household work loss]
2.6.3
Accident Cost Diminution
Ahmadon et al (2006) suggest that accident frequencies and property losses
can create great impact to construction businesses as they do not only cause delays in
operations but also directly and indirectly incur cost. Therefore, one of the most
effective strategies for holding down the cost of doing construction business is by
providing a safe and health workplace. Besides reducing costs, safer workplaces help
in improving productivity, better time performance and increased profitability. Safety
and health program is indeed a sound business strategy for any organization
regardless of size and will lead to having a positive impact on the financial bottom
line (Diane Hurns, 2004).
Employers that invest in workplace safety and health can expect to reduce
fatalities, injuries, and illnesses. This will result in cost savings in a variety of areas
such as lowering workers’ compensation costs and medical expenses, avoiding
OSHA penalties, and reducing costs to train replacement employees and conduct
accident investigations. In addition, employers often find that changes made to
improve workplace safety and health can result in significant improvements to their
organization’s productivity and financial performance.
One of the issues related to safety and health requirements effectiveness is
low expenditures in safety and health requirements in construction site. A study by
Ahmad Suhaimi (2009) shows that the organizations spend less money on the safety
and health requirements despite of their high estimated expenditures. Organizations
must budget the safety and functions accordingly with stated goals and policies. The
lack of appropriate budget for safety success will be acknowledged by employees,
and will be a negative consequence to the safety climate in an organization (Anthony
et al, 2007).
In spite of this, information or guidelines on appropriate budget for safety and
health requirements in a construction site are hardly to find. Since there is deficient
information and knowledge about this matter, most of the site managements or the
site personnel practically assume the safety and health budget thus sometimes leads
to an undervalue estimation. Consequently, a non-effective safety and health
requirements practise being use in the site hence may cause accidents. While the
information and knowledge on safety and health requirements costs is still in need for
a guidelines, the results of this study will be helpful in filling the absent of the
information and perhaps can be a reference of guidelines for safety and health
requirements cost.
2.7
Safety Enforcement and Regulations
2.7.1
Introduction
The practice of construction site safety in Malaysia is governed by the
requirements stipulated by two main Acts (Ahmad Fauzi bin Awang, 2007). The Acts
are Factories and Machinery Act 1967 (FMA) and Occupational Safety and Act 1994
(OSHA). Under the FMA, there is one of the regulations named Building Operation
of Work Engineering and Construction (BOWEC) which was created specially to
focus on the activities in the construction industries. Similarly, there are also
regulations made under the OSHA to enhance the safety and health of construction
workers in the workplace.
Both of these acts are widely used by the Department of Occupational Safety
and Health (DOSH) in order to ensure the workers’ safety, health, and welfare at the
workplace. DOSH was established in April 1994 after the OSHA being approved,
where previously DOSH was known as Department of Factory and Machinery. In
Malaysia, DOSH was responsible for enforcing the safety audit to be carried out at
construction sites at least four times a year since 2001. The safety audit use a
standard checklist prepared from the combinations of the requirements of FMA,
BOWEC, and OSHA, which consist of 20 elements. The enforcement is to ensure
that all operating construction sites are legally complying with the requirements.
2.7.2
The Department of Occupational Safety and Health (DOSH)
The Department of Occupational Safety and Health (DOSH) is a department
under the Ministry of Human Resources which is responsible for ensuring the safety,
health and welfare of workers at their workplace, as well as protecting other people
from the safety and health hazards arising from the work activities. The responsibility
of DOSH towards safety-related problems covers all these sectors:
i.
Manufacturing
ii.
Mining and Quarrying
iii.
Construction
iv.
Hotels and Restaurants
v.
Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing
vi.
Transport, Storage, and Communication
vii.
Public Service and Statutory Authorities
viii.
Utilities, inclusive gas, electricity, water, and sanitary services
ix.
Finance, Insurance, Real Estate, and Business Services
x.
Wholesale and Retail Trades
As a government agency, the department is responsible for the administration
and enforcement of legislations related to occupational safety and health of the
country, with a vision of becoming an organization which leads the nation in creating
a safe and healthy work culture that contributes towards enhancing the quality of
working life.
2.7.3
Enforcement
As a government agency responsible for ensuring the occupational safety,
health and welfare of people at work as well as protecting other people from the
safety and health hazards arising from work-related activities, the department carries
out enforcement activities on industries governed by the following legislation:
i.
Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) 1994
ii.
Factories and Machinery Act 1967
iii.
Petroleum Act (Safety Measures) 1984
2.7.3.1 Approval
The discharge of approval and/or permission for the design, installation or
fitting of machinery, and the repair procedure for steam boilers, unfired pressure
vessels and hoisting machinery.
2.7.3.2 Registration
The registration of factories, work sites and machinery which require
recommendatory certificates (a certificate of fitness) such as steam boilers, unfired
pressure vessels, lifts and hoisting machinery.
2.7.3.3 Accreditation
Individuals with the appropriate qualification, experience, expertise and
knowledge in specific fields as specified by the Act and regulation(s) will require
accreditation. Accredited competencies are Competent Firm and Competent Person.
2.7.3.4 Inspection
The conducting of preliminary, repeated (scheduled) and/or supplementary
inspections on steam boilers, unfired pressure vessels, hoisting machinery, factory
premises and other work sites.
2.7.3.5 Investigation of Accidents and Complaints
Investigation of complaints, accidents, occupational diseases and/or poison
occurrences at the workplace.
2.7.4
Factories and Machinery Act 1967 (FMA)
The Factories and Machinery Act was enacted in 1967 and enforced by the
Factories and Machinery Department (previously known as Machinery Department).
It started in 1960’s when the Malaysian government implemented a policy to move
towards industrialization, which caused significant increase in manufacturing
workers. In regards of managing the safety and health issues related to manufacturing
industries, the act was enacted and became the foundation for Occupational Safety
and Health development before the OSHA being introduced in 1994.
2.7.5
Building Operation of Work Engineering and Construction (BOWEC)
The regulation of BOWEC under FMA came into force in 1986 with the
purpose of controlling the safety in a construction site (Ahmad Fauzi, 2007). It was
gazetted by Malaysian Parliament on 1st October 1986 which is being implemented
under Section 25 of Part V – Notice of Occupation of Factory, and Registration and
Use of Machinery.
This Act has been divided into 17 parts which comprise of 154 Regulations. It
was gazetted for the purpose of providing a guideline to execute maintenance of
building or engineering works safely.
2.7.6
Occupational Safety and Health Act 1994 (OSHA)
2.7.6.1 Introduction
The new legislation on occupational safety and health was made in the year
1994. Occupational Safety and Health Act 1994 (Act 514) was approved by the
Parliament in 1993 and was gazetted on February 1994. This Act, which contains 15
sections, is a measure that supersedes any conflict in existing occupational safety and
health laws such as the Factory and Machinery Act 1967. The Occupational Safety
and Health Act 1994 complements any existing legislative provision and if there are
any conflicts, the Occupational Safety and Health Act 1994 will overcome it.
This Act also provide for the appointments of enforcement officers,
establishment of National Council for Occupational Safety and Health, formation of
policy and arrangement of measures to protect safety, health and welfare of people at
work and others who might be endangered by the activities of people at work. The
powers to enforce, to inspect and the liabilities for breaking the law are also clearly
defined.
With the approval of this Act, starting from April 1994 the Department of
Factory and Machinery has been renamed as the Department of Occupational Safety
and Health (DOSH) and the Inspectors are called Occupational Safety and Health
Officers.
Under this act, industrial sectors that are covered by it are as follows:
i.
Manufacturing
ii.
Mining and Quarrying
iii.
Construction
iv.
Hotels and Restaurants
v.
Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing
vi.
Transport, Storage, and Communication
vii.
Public Service and Statutory Authorities
viii.
Utilities, inclusive gas, electricity, water, and sanitary services
ix.
Finance, Insurance, Real Estate, and Business Services
x.
Wholesale and Retail Trades
2.7.6.2 Objectives of OSHA 1994
Section 4 of Part I in the OSHA 1994 has outlined four main objectives which
the Act intended to achieve. These objectives are:
i.
To secure the safety, health and welfare of the workers against risks to safety
or health arising from their work activities at work.
ii. To protect persons at a workplace other than the workers against risks to
safety or health arising from the work activities at the work.
iii. To promote an occupational environment for persons at a workplace that is
adapted to their physiological and psychological needs.
iv. To provide the means whereby the associated occupational safety and health
legislations may be progressively replaced by a regulated systems and
approved operating industry codes of practice in combination with the
provisions of this Act designed to maintain or improve the safety and health
standards.
2.7.6.3 Salient Provisions under the OSHA 1994
2.7.6.3.1 National Council for Occupational Safety and Health
Section 8 of the Act has outlined that a council called the “National Council
for Occupational Safety and Health shall be established. The membership of the
council shall be in between twelve (12) to fifteen (15) of whom three persons
representing employers, three persons representing the employees, three persons or
more shall be from the Ministries or any Departments related to safety and health,
and other three persons or more shall be from professional bodies that are related to
occupational safety and health who are able to contribute to the work of the council
(Section 9, OSHA 1994).
The functions of the Council comprise of conducting investigation into
legislation, improvement on administration and enforcement, fostering cooperation
and consultation between management and workers, special problems, use of
chemicals, statistics, health care facilities, industrial codes of practice, plans and
facilities rehabilitation and so on (Section 11, OSHA 1994).
2.7.6.3.2
General Duties of Employers and Self-Employed Persons
Section 15 of the Act stipulated that it is a duty of every employer and selfemployed person to ensure the practicable safety, health and welfare of his workers at
work. The duties of the employers and self-employed person shall extend to the
following matters:
i.
To provide and maintain plants and work systems that is safe and brings no
harm to the workers’ health.
ii. To make arrangements of ensuring the safety and absence of risks to health in
connection with the use of operation, handling, storage and transport of plant
and substances.
iii. To provide information, instruction, training and supervision as necessary to
ensure the safety and health of his employees at the workplace.
iv. To maintain the workplace to be safe and without risks to health as well as to
provide and maintain the means of access and egress which are safe and
without risks.
v. To provide and maintain a safe and without risks working environment for his
employees as well as to provide adequate facilities for their welfare at work.
In addition to the duties stated in Section 15, Section 16 has named the
employer and self-employed person to be the responsible person to prepare and
revise a general safety and health policy with the respect to the safety and health at
work of his employees and the organisation. The enforcement and any revision of the
policy shall be notified to all his employees.
Apart from the duties towards his employees, an employer or a self-employed
person shall be liable to ensure that he and other persons who are not his employees
thereby are not exposed to risks to their safety or health. The employer and selfemployed person shall provide adequate information on such aspects which may
affect their safety and health (Section 17, OSHA 1994).
As for the occupier of a workplace which made available to persons and
where they may use plants or substances, he shall take such practicable measures to
ensure that the premises, access, egress, plants and substances are safe and without
risks to health.
The obligations for a person who has contract or lease otherwise include the
maintenance or repair of the access and egress, as well as the prevention of risks to
safety and health that may arise from the use of any plants or substances in the
workplace (Section 18, OSHA 1994).
Any contravenes towards the provision in Section 15, 16, 17, and/or 18 shall
be liable to a fine not exceeding fifty thousand ringgit (RM 50,000) or to
imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or to both (Section 19, OSHA
1994).
2.7.6.3.3
General Duties of Designers, Manufacturers and Suppliers
Section 20 and 21 of OSHA 1994 has laid down the general duties of
manufacturers, designers, and suppliers of any plants and substances for use at work
towards the safety and health of the workers and persons at the workplace. To
summarize both sections, the duties of these people include the following:
i.
To ensure that the plants and substances used are safe and without risks to
health.
ii. To carry out testing and examination as necessary for the performance of the
duty imposed by him by paragraph i.
iii. To take necessary steps to secure that there will be adequate information
about the use of the plants and substances for which they are designed and
have been tested, and it will be safe and without risks to health when put them
to that use.
The designer and manufacturer would also be liable to conduct any necessary
research with a view to discover any possible elimination or minimisation of any
risks to safety and health to which the design, plant or substance may give rise.
As for the plant, it shall be the duty of a person who erects and installs the
plant for use by persons at work to ensure that the way it was erected or installed
makes it unsafe or a risk to health when properly used (Section 20 (3), OSHA 1994).
A person who contravenes the provisions of Section 20 and/or 21 shall be
liable to a fine not exceeding twenty thousand ringgit (RM 20,000) or to
imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or to both (Section 23, OSHA
1994).
2.7.6.3.4
General Duties of Employees
Derived on the Section 24 of OSHA 1994, there are four main duties of an
employee such as the following:
i.
An employee shall take reasonable care for the safety and health of himself
and of other persons who may be affected by his acts or omissions at work.
ii. An employee must co-operate with his employer or any other person in the
discharge of duty.
iii. An employee shall wear or use any protective equipment or clothing at all
times provided by the employer for the purpose of preventing risks to his
safety and health.
iv. An employee shall comply with any instruction or measure on occupational
safety and health instituted by his employer or any other person by or under
this Act or regulations.
Contravenes to the provisions of Section 24 may cause the person to be liable
to a fine not exceeding one thousand ringgit (RM 1,000) or to imprisonment for a
term not exceeding three months or to both (Section 24 (2), OSHA 1994).
Even for a person who intentionally, recklessly or negligently interferes with
or misuses anything provided or done in the interests of safety, health and welfare in
pursuing of the Act shall be liable to a fine not exceeding twenty thousand ringgit
(RM 20,000) or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or to both
(Section 25, OSHA 1994).
In ensuring the welfare of the employee, OSHA 1994 has formulated Section
27 under the topic of discrimination against employee. According to the section, no
employer shall dismiss or injure an employee in his employment or alter his position
because of the following reasons:
i.
Makes a complaint about a matter which he considers is not safe or is a risk to
health.
ii. Is a member of a safety and health committee established pursuant to this Act.
iii. Exercises any of his functions as a member of the safety and health
committee.
Additionally, no trade union shall take any action on any of its member who
being an employee at a place of work for the same reasons as above-mentioned
(Section 27 (2), OSHA 1994).
Section 27 (3) of the Act specified that an employer or trade union who
contravenes the provisions of Section 27 shall be liable to a fine not exceeding ten
thousand ringgit (RM 10,000) or to an imprisonment not exceeding one year or to
both.
2.7.6.3.5
Safety and Health Organisations
Section 28 of the Act insisted on the need of medical surveillance by a
registered person with the Director General, in a workplace where it appears to the
Minister that in any such cases:
i.
There are illness occurred which may be due to the nature of the work process
or other conditions of work.
ii. There are changes in any process or in the substances used in any process, or
in introduction of any new process or substance which may be risk of injury
to the health of persons employed in the process.
iii. There are persons below the age of sixteen years to be employed in work
which may cause risk of injury to their health.
iv. There may be risk of injury to the health of persons employed in any of the
occupations specified in the Third Schedule in the Act, or from any substance
or material brought to the industries to be used or handled therein or from any
change in the conditions in the industries.
Any person who contravenes the provisions of Section 28 shall be liable to a
fine not exceeding five thousand ringgit or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding
six months or to both (Section 28 (3), OSHA 1994).
Besides medical surveillance, a competent safety officer shall be employed in
accordance to Occupational Safety and Health (Safety and Health Officer)
Regulations 1997 as well as Occupational Safety and Health (Safety and Health
Officer) Order 1997. An occupier who contravenes the provisions shall be liable to a
fine not exceeding five thousand ringgit (RM 5,000) or to an imprisonment not
exceeding six months or to both (Section 29, OSHA 1994).
Apart from that, every employer shall establish a safety and health committee
at the place of work if there are forty (40) or more persons employed at a workplace
or he has been directed by the Director General to do so (Section 30 (1), OSHA
1994). The functions of the safety and health committee include (Section 31, OSHA
1994):
i.
To keep under review the measures taken to ensure the safety and health of
persons at a workplace.
ii. To investigate which a member of the committee or a person employed
thereat considers is not safe or is risk to health and which has been brought
the attention of the employer.
iii. To resolve any matter referred in paragraph ii and if unable to do so,
committee shall request the Director General to undertake an inspection of the
workplace for that purpose.
iv. To function as may be prescribed by the organisation.
The establishment of the safety and health committee and its functions are as
according to Occupational Safety and Health (Safety and Health Committee)
Regulations 1996.
2.7.6.3.6
Notification of Accidents, Dangerous Occurrence, Occupational
Poisoning and Occupational Disease (NADOOPOD), and Inquiry
Section 32 of OSHA 1994 avows that an employer shall notify the nearest
occupational safety and health office of any accident, dangerous occurrences,
occupational poisoning or occupational disease which occurred or is likely to occur at
his workplace.
The provisions regarding Notification of Accidents, Dangerous Occurrence,
Occupational Poisoning and Occupational Disease (NADOOPOD), and Inquiry can
be referred to Occupational Safety and Health (Notification of Accidents, Dangerous
Occurrence, Occupational Poisoning and Occupational Disease) Regulations 2004.
2.7.6.3.7
Prohibition against use of plant or substance
The Director General may prohibit the use of any plant or substance which in
his opinion is likely to affect the safety and health of persons at work. However, he
shall consult any appropriate government body or departments before making the
order (Section 35, OSHA 1994).
Any person who is aggrieved with the order under Section 35 may lodge an
appeal with the secretary to the Council who shall transmit the appeal to an appeal
committee appointed by the Minister under Section 63, within thirty days of the order
(Section 36, OSHA 1994).
2.7.6.3.8
Industry Codes of Practice
According to Section 37 of OSHA 1994, the Minister may approve the
industry codes of practice comprising necessary directions or proper guidance in
complying with the requirements of the provisions of this Act. He also may revise the
codes by amending, deleting, varying, or adding to the provisions of the code.
The code may comprise of any code, standard, rule, specification or provision
relating to occupational safety or health approved by the Minister. Besides, it may
apply, incorporate or refer to any document formulated or published by any body or
authority as in force at the time the code is approved or as amended, formulated, or
published.
The approval of an industry code of practice and the amendment or
revocation shall be caused by the Minister to be published in the Gazette.
2.7.6.3.9
Enforcement and Investigation
Section 39 of OSHA 1994 quotes that a safety and health officer may enter,
inspect and examine any workplace other than a place used solely for residential
purposes, to carry out the objects of this Act and/or regulations, at any reasonable
time and upon the production of his certificate of authorization.
Even so, he may enter the residential place only with the consent of the owner
or if he has reasonable cause to believe that a contravention of the Act and/or
regulation is likely to be committed. In exercising his power, a safety and health
officer may (Section 39 (2), OSHA 1994):
i.
Make examination and investigation of any plant, substance, article or other
things as may be necessary to ascertain that the Act and/or regulation made
has been complied with.
ii. Direct that the place or plant shall be left undisturbed for so long as it is
necessary for the purpose of any examination or investigation.
iii. Take measurements, photographs and recordings as he consider necessary for
the purpose of the investigation.
iv. Take samples of any article or substance found in the workplace where he has
power to enter it and of the atmosphere in or in the surrounding area of the
workplace.
v. Require any person employed in a workplace in which any of the disease is
occurred or likely to be occurred, to be medically examined by medical
officer or a registered medical practitioner.
An officer also may cause any plant of substance which has caused or likely
to cause a danger to safety and health to be dismantled or subjected to test at a
convenient place and at reasonable time as he may appoint but no as to damage or
destroy it. Furthermore, he may take possession of it and detain it for as long as
necessary to examine and ensure that it is not tampered with before his examination,
and to ensure that it is available for use as evidence in any proceedings for an offence
(Section 39 (3), OSHA 1994).
In addition, an officer may carry out necessary medical examination for the
purpose of his duty under this Act or regulation and exercise other powers that may
be necessary or as conferred under Section 39 (2) and (3) (Section 39 (4), OSHA
1994. He also may seek help from the police if he has any reasonable cause to
apprehend any serious obstruction in the execution of his duty (Section 39 (5), OSHA
1994).
Other power or authorities of an officer on enforcement and investigation can
be read from Section 40 to 50 of the OSHA 1994.
2.7.6.3.10
Liability for Offences
Part XII of the OSHA 1994 is mainly about the general liabilities for offences
whether it is a general offence, offences made by body corporate, by trade union, or
by agent. It also states about the defence, safeguards, civil liability, prosecutions and
etc.
Generally, a person who contravenes to this Act shall be liable to a fine not
exceeding ten thousand ringgit (RM 10,000) or to imprisonment for a term not
exceeding one year or to both. In a case of continuing offence, the fine is not
exceeding one thousand ringgit for every day (RM 1,000 per day) or part of a day
during which the offence continues after conviction (Section 51, OSHA 1994).
For offences committed by a corporate body, trade union, or agent, the
matters can be referred to Section 52 to Section 54 of the Act. Meanwhile in Section
58, it is stated that no person shall incur any personal liability for any loss or damage
caused by any act or omission by him carrying out the duties under this Act or
regulation, unless the loss or damage was occasioned intentionally or through
recklessness or gross negligence.
Section 62 of the Act states that the Director General may compound any of
the offences a sum of money not exceeding the amount of the maximum fine to
which the person would have been liable to if he had been convicted to the offence.
2.7.6.3.11
Appeals
An appeal committee shall be appointed by the Minister for the purpose of
considering any appeal made under Section 36 or 50. The committee shall consist of
a Chairman from member of the Council and two other persons who have wide
experience and knowledge concerning the matter of appeal. The member of the
appeal committee may be paid an allowance at rate as determined by the Minister.
These regulations are as according to Section 63 of OSHA 1994.
The function of an appeal committee is to make a decision regarding the
matter of appeal (Section 64, OSHA 1994). The decision of an appeal committee
shall be final, conclusive, and not be questioned in any court (Section 65, OSHA
1994).
2.7.6.3.12
Regulations
There are 21 regulations made by the Minister for or with respect to the
safety, health, and welfare of persons at the workplace in order to achieve the
objectives of the Act. Such regulations can be viewed from Section 66 (2) (a) to
Section 66 (2) (u) of OSHA 1994.
2.7.6.3.13
Miscellaneous
Section 67 of the Act avowed that no person shall disclose any matter
including any manufacturing or commercial secret which has come to his knowledge
or which he has acquired while performing his duties under the Act. Any contravenes
to the provision of this section shall be liable to a fine not exceeding twenty thousand
ringgit (RM 20,000) or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or to both
(Section 67 (b), OSHA 1994).
CHAPTER 3
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
3.1
Introduction
In achieving the objectives of this study, five different stages of research
methodology have been implemented. Figure 3.1 shows the stages of the research
methodology in completing the study. This chapter will discuss on the method of data
collection used in the study, for instance document studies, interviews, and
questionnaires.
Figure 3.1: Stages in Research Methodology
3.2
Conceptualization
The conceptualization stage is aimed to figure out the significance and
fundamental works to be carried out during the research. It is a stage where the topic
and scopes of study to be undertaken is identified. This stage begins with selection
the field of study. It was followed by identifying problems in the construction
industry. Once the problems were recognized, a problem statement was outlined.
Regarding the problem statement, objectives of the study were set and appropriate
scopes and limitations of study were selected. As soon as the objectives and scope of
study were fixed, literature review stage was carried out.
3.3
Literature Review
The objective of literature review is to collect all information related to
research topic. Literature review or document study is essential in enhancing
understanding of the study in order to achieve the selected objectives. As for further
understanding and supporting information of the research topic, several electronic
and published references have been studied. The references include books, journals,
articles, conference paper, and previous studies. The list of the references is stated at
the end of this report.
3.4
Data Collection
Data for this research is collected by three different methods that are
document studies, interviews with expert panels, and questionnaires. These methods
are believed to be the best measures in accomplishing the three objectives of the
study.
3.4.1
Document Studies
In achieving the first objective of the study, reviews were made on enacted
acts available and practically being used in Malaysia such as Occupational Safety and
Health Act 1994, Factories and Machinery Act 1967, as well as Factories and
Machinery (Building Operations and Works of Engineering Construction) Regulation
1986. Apart from that, journals and books on similar topic were also being reviewed.
From these documents, safety and health requirements in construction site were
outlined. The interviews with safety and health officers were made then to support
the data gathered.
3.4.2
Interviews
Once the safety and health requirements in construction site were figured out,
interviews with safety and health officers were performed with the intention of
reviewing and supporting the data gathered. The safety and health officers include
Deputy Director of DOSH, Selangor and experienced safety and health officers from
various construction projects.
The safety and health officers helped to verify the listed safety and health
requirements. Above and beyond that, the panels assisted in providing additional
requirements which were lacking from the list. In addition, the officers also provided
guidance and advices in improving the research as well as information on appropriate
projects in order to distribute the questionnaires later.
3.4.3
Questionnaires Survey
The questionnaire for this study was developed based on the objectives of the
study and divided into three parts. The first part of the questionnaire was designed to
determine the background of the respondents and their ongoing projects. It includes
the designation, field and years of experience of the respondent, cost of project and
types of project. The second part consists of safety and health requirements in
construction site as verified by the safety experts. This part requires the respondents
to indicate their level of compliance of the respondents with the listed safety and
health requirements. The respondents are required to state their frequency of
compliance with the requirements during their project completion. Lastly, the final
part of the questionnaire was designed to find out their allocated cost on each of the
requirements for the projects.
3.5
Data Analysis
After the data was successfully gathered, they were analyzed using Statistical
Package for Science Social 11.0 (SPSS) Software and the results were presented in
tables, diagrams, and charts.
The ‘Likert Scaling’ frequency method was used in this study to determine
the level of compliance with safety and health requirements in construction site. It
was based on the results from part two of the questionnaires.
As for the last part of the questionnaires, the costs of compliance with the
requirements were determined using the same software. However, instead of using
the average index, this part was analyzed by percentage method.
3.5.1
Likert Scaling Method
According to Mohd Najib Abdul Ghafar (2003), Likert Scaling method is
where the researcher provides the question and the respondent is required to choose
the answer by stating yes (√) or no (X). Likert type question is a multiple choice
inquiry where several choices of answers are given from positive to negative views.
As for this study, Likert Scaling method was used to determine the total score
obtained by the requirements from part three questions. The scales from 1 to 5 were
used where scale 1 is considered as the least frequent (never) of compliance with the
safety and health requirements while scale 5 is for most frequent (always). Mean
score calculations were used to determine the level of compliance with the safety and
health requirements in construction site. Table 3.1 shows the scale indicators that
were used for the last part of the questionnaires.
Table 3.1: Scale indicators of Likert Scaling method used in the research
Frequency of Compliance
Scale Indicator
Always
5
Often
4
About half of the Time
3
Seldom
2
Never
1
Mohd Najib Abdul Ghafar (2003) stated that mean is an average score for
several scores. It is also considered as the direction of the respondent whereby for
this study, it indicates the severity of the respondent towards compliance with safety
and health requirements. The mean value obtained is classified according to index
scales as stated by Abdul Majid and McCaffer (1997) as in Table 3.2.
Table 3.2: Example of index scale of frequency level
Scale
Frequency
Index
1
Never
1.00 ≥ Mean Index < 1.50
2
Seldom
1.50 ≥ Mean Index < 2.50
3
Half of the Time
2.50 ≥ Mean Index < 3.50
4
Often
3.50 ≥ Mean Index < 4.50
5
Always
4.50 ≥ Mean Index < 5.00
The index scales are developed based on the maximum and minimum score
from the returned questionnaires.
3.6
Conclusions and Recommendations
The conclusions and recommendations were established derived from the
analysis of the results.
CHAPTER 4
DATA ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION
4.1
Safety and Health Requirements in Construction Site
As mentioned earlier in Chapter 3, the safety and health requirements in
construction site were collected from Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA)
1994, Factory and Machinery Act (FMA) 1967, and Building Operations and Work
of Engineering Construction (BOWEC) 1986. The requirements gained from these
enacted acts and regulations were confirmed and verified by four expert panels
namely Deputy Director of DOSH Selangor and three experienced safety and health
officer.
4.1.1
Safety and Health Requirements from Occupational Safety and Health
(OSHA) 1994
There are forty seven safety and health requirements in construction site were
identified from OSHA 1994. Table 4.1 and Figure 4.1 show the safety and health
requirements obtained from the Act.
Table 4.1: Safety and Health Requirements from OSHA 1994
Item
No.
1
Safety and Health Requirement
Reference (Act/Regulation)
Written, displayed, disseminated and revised Section 16
Safety and Health Policy
2
Safety and Health Officer
Section 29
3
Safety and Health Committee
Section30
4
Designated Person
Section 29/30
5
Crane Operator
Section 29/30
6
Safety and Health Manual and Working Section 15 (2) (b)
Permit
7
Subcontractor’s
Safety
and
Health Section 15 (2) (d)
Management
8
Safety and Health Training
Section 15 (2) (c)
9
Safety and Health Record Keeping System
Section 15 (2) (a)
10
Letter
of
Appointment
as
Committee Safety and Health Committee
Members
11
Safety
Meeting
and
Regulations 6
Health
Committee
Regular Safety and Health Committee
Regulations 2 (1)
Table 4.1: Safety and Health Requirements from OSHA 1994 (Continued)
Item
No.
12
Reference
Safety and Health Requirement
(Act/Regulation)
Safety and Health Committee Site Inspection
Safety
and
Health
Committee Regulations
12
13
Accident Investigations
Safety
and
Health
Committee Regulations
13 (1)
14
Representatives from Subcontractors and Workers Safety
in Safety and Health Committee
and
Health
Committee Regulations
5
15
Cooperation by Top Managements and Actions Safety
and
Health
Taken in Results of Report, Recommendations, Committee Regulations
and Unsafe Acts
16
Periodic Inspection on Machineries
Section 15 (2) (a)
17
Machineries Safety Operating Procedures
Section 15 (2) (a)
18
Scheduled Maintenance on Machineries
Section 15 (2) (a)
19
Working Platforms designed by Professional Section 15 (2) (b)
Engineer
20
Safe Working Load Sign for Working Platforms
21
Maintenance
of
Working
Platforms
Section 15 (2) (c)
and Section 15 (2) (a)
Housekeeping
22
Safe Access and Egress of Working Platforms
Section 15 (2) (d)
23
Bilingual Warning Signage of Floor Opening
Section 15 (2) (c)
24
Inspection and Maintenance of Safety for Floor Section 15 (2) (a)
Opening
25
Barricades for Opening at Building Edge
26
Bilingual Warning Signage of Opening at Section 15 (2) (d)
Building Edge
Section 15 (2) (d)
Table 4.1: Safety and Health Requirements from OSHA 1994 (Continued)
Item
No.
27
Reference
Safety and Health Requirement
(Act/Regulation)
Inspection and Maintenance of Safety for Opening Section 15 (2) (a)
at Building Edge
28
Working Procedures for Working at Heights
Section 15 (2) (b)
29
Supervision and Training for Working at Heights
Section 15 (2) (c)
30
Access and Egress to/from Workplace
Section 15 (2) (d)
31
Guarding of Workplace from Public
Section 17 (1)
32
Safe Material Handling for Public Safety
Section 15 (2) (b)
33
Cleanliness, Hygiene, and Housekeeping for Section 15 (2) (e)
Workers’ Accommodations and Welfare
34
Site Material Storage for Paint,
Oil, and Section 15 (2) (b)
Lubricants
35
Site Medical Surveillance
Section 28 (2)
36
Periodic Health Risk Assessment
Section 15 (2) (e)
37
Warning Sign for Site Health and Welfare
Section 15 (2) (c)
38
Inspection and Maintenance of Site Health and Section 15 (2) (e)
Welfare
39
Training on How to Use Personal Protective Section 15 (2) (c)
Equipments (PPE)
40
Monitoring
of
Compliance
with
PPE Section 15 (2) (c)
Requirements
41
Inspection and Maintenance of PPE
Section 15 (2) (a)
42
Warning Sign on PPE
Section 15 (2) (c)
43
Job Hazard Analysis and Approved Working Section 15 (2) (b)
Procedures for Excavation and Shoring Works
44
Supervision and Maintenance of Piling Works
Section 15 (2) (a)
45
Approved Working Procedures of Demolition Section 15 (2) (a)
Works
46
Approved Shoring to Protect Alongside Structure
Section 17 & 18
47
Public Safety and Health for Demolition Work
Section 17 & 18
Safety and Health Policy (written, displayed,
disseminated, and revised)
Safety and Health Officer
Safety and Health Committee
Designated Person
Crane Operator
Safety and Health Manual and Working
Permit
OSHA
1994
Subcontractor’s
Safety
and
Health
Management
Safety and Health Training
Safety and Health Record Keeping System
Letter
of
Appointment
as
Committee
Members
Safety and
Health
Committee
Regular
Meeting
Safety and Health Committee Site Inspection
Accident Investigations
Figure 4.1: Safety and Health Requirements in Construction Site from OSHA
1994
Representatives from Subcontractors and
Workers in Safety and Health Committee
Periodic Inspection on Machineries
Machineries Safety Operating Procedures
Scheduled Maintenance on Machineries
Safe Access and Egress of Working Platform
Cooperation by Top Managements: Action
taken of reports, recommendations, unsafe act
OSHA
1994
Working Platforms designed by Professional
Engineer
Maintenance & Housekeeping of Platform
Bilingual Warning Sign of Floor Opening
Inspection and Maintenance of Safety for
Floor Opening
Inspection and Maintenance of Safety for
Opening at Building Edge
Barricades for Opening at Building Edge
Warning Sign of Opening at Building Edge
Figure 4.1: Safety and Health Requirements in Construction Site from OSHA
1994 (Continued)
Cleanliness, Hygiene, and Housekeeping for
Workers’ Accommodations and Welfare
Working Procedures for Working at Height
Access and Egress to/from Workplace
Guarding of Workplace from Public
Safe Material Handling for Public Safety
Supervision and Training for Working at
Heights
OSHA
1994
Inspection and Maintenance of Site Health
and Welfare
Site Material Storage for Paint, Oil, Lubricant
Site Medical Surveillance
Training on How to Use Personal Protective
Equipments (PPE)
Job Hazard Analysis and Approved Working
Procedures for Excavation and Shoring Work
Periodic Health Risk Assessment
Warning Sign for Site Health and Welfare
Figure 4.1: Safety and Health Requirements in Construction Site from OSHA
1994 (Continued)
Monitoring
of
Compliance
with
PPE
Requirements
Inspection and Maintenance of PPE
Warning Sign on PPE
Supervision and Maintenance of Piling Work
OSHA
1994
Approved Working Procedures of Demolition
Works
Approved Shoring to Protect Alongside
Structure
Public Safety and Health for Demolition
Works
Safe Working Load for Working Platforms
Figure 4.1: Safety and Health Requirements in Construction Site from OSHA
1994 (Continued)
4.1.2
Safety and Health Requirements from Factory and Machinery Act
(FMA) 1967
There are ten safety and health requirements obtained from the Factory and
Machinery Act (FMA) 1967 which as shown in Table 4.2 and Figure 4.2.
Table 4.2: Safety and Health Requirements from FMA 1967
Item
No.
Reference
Safety and Health Requirement
(Act/Regulation)
1
Certificate of Fitness for Machinery
Section 19
2
Barricades for Floor Opening
SHW Regulation 8
3
Fall Protection for Working at Height
SHW Regulation 12
4
Fire Fighting Equipments for Workers’ Welfare
Section 13
5
Maintain Housekeeping
SHW Regulation 23
6
First Aid Kit
SHW Regulation 38
7
Recreation
room,
Canteen,
and
Sanitation SHW Regulation 33,34,
Facilities
and 37
8
Pest Control (Mosquitoes, Mice, Cockroaches)
SHW Regulation 23
9
Supply, received and record of Personal Protective Section 24
Equipments
10
Warning Sign for Electrical Safety
Regulation 11
Certificate of Fitness for Machinery
Barricades for Floor Opening
Fall Protection for Working at Height
Fire Fighting Equipments for Workers’
Maintain Housekeeping
FMA 1967
Pest Control (Mosquitoes, Mice,
Cockroaches)
Recreation room, Canteen, and Sanitation
Facilities
Supply, received and record of Personal
Protective Equipments
First Aid Kit
Warning Sign for Electrical Safety
Figure 4.2: Safety and Health Requirements in Construction Site from FMA
1967
4.1.3
Safety and Health Requirements from Building Operation of Work
Engineering and Construction (BOWEC) 1986
There are thirty six safety and health requirements obtained from the Building
Operations and Work of Engineering Construction (BOWEC) 1986 which as shown
in Table 4.3 and Figure 4.3.
Table 4.3: Safety and Health Requirements from BOWEC 1986
Item
No.
Safety and Health Requirement
Reference
(Act/Regulation)
1
Hoarding for Working Platforms
Regulation 88
2
Maintenance and Housekeeping of Working Regulation 9
Platforms
3
Safe Access and Egress of Working Platforms
Regulation 10, 86
4
Scaffolding designed by Professional Engineer
Regulation 75
5
Scaffolding erected by Competent Person
Regulation 75 (1)
6
Inspection and Maintenance of Scaffolding
Regulation 73, 74, 85
7
Physical Condition and Validity of Scaffolding
Regulation 72, 76, 77,
80, 86, 87, 88
8
Barricades for Floor Opening
Regulation 106
9
Fall Protection for Working at Heights
Regulation 51
10
Indicator to Location of Work
Regulation 10 (2), 20
11
Indicator from One Location to Another
Regulation 10 (1), 20
12
Warning Sign of Public Safety Management
Regulation 18
Table 4.3: Safety and Health Requirements from BOWEC 1986 (Continued)
Item
No.
Safety and Health Requirement
Reference
(Act/Regulation)
13
Traffic Control on Site (system and guarding)
Regulation 18
14
Warning Sign for Site Electrical Safety
Regulation 16
15
Installation
of
Electrical
Components
by Regulation 16 (2)
Competent Person
16
Scheduled Inspection of Site Electrical Safety by Regulation 16 (12)
Jabatan Bekalan Elektrik
17
Maintain Cleanliness and Housekeeping
Regulation 121
18
Scrap Disposal
Regulation 22, 123
19
Chute
Regulation 48
20
Building Material Storage
Regulation 21, 122
21
Scheduled Waste Storage
Regulation 21
22
Formwork designed by Professional Engineer
Regulation 30 (4)
23
Inspection and
Supervision by Professional Regulation 30 (5)
Engineer
24
Inspection and Supervision by Competent Person Regulation 29
during Installation
25
Inspection and Supervision by Competent Person Regulation 31 (1)
during Removal
26
Supply, Receive, and Record of PPE
Regulation 13, 14, 15, 24
27
Signage and Barricades for Excavation and Regulation 113 (7)
Shoring Work
28
Inspection and Supervision of Excavation and Regulation 113 (2)
Shoring Work
29
Shoring designed by Professional Engineer
Regulation 112, 116
30
Safe Location to Park Machineries
Regulation 118
31
Shoring Structure to Determine Stability of Regulation 124
Alongside Structure for Piling Works
Table 4.3: Safety and Health Requirements from BOWEC 1986 (Continued)
32
Physical Condition of Piling Machine
Regulation
130,
131,
134
33
Inspection and Maintenance by Competent Person
Regulation 125
34
Signage and Barricades for Demolition Work
Regulation 99
35
Demolition
Work
is
Approved
by
Local Regulation 100
Authorities
36
Inspection and Supervision by Competent Person
Regulation 103
37
Site Safety Supervisor and Scaffolding Supervisor
Regulation 25, 26
Hoarding for Working Platforms
Scaffolding erected by Competent Person
Fall Protection for Working at Height
Barricades for Floor Opening
Indicator to Location of Work
BOWEC
1986
Safe Access and Egress of Working
Platforms
Maintenance and Housekeeping of
Working Platforms
Scaffolding designed by Professional
Engineer
Indicator from One Location to Another
Warning Sign for Electrical Safety
Figure 4.3: Safety and Health Requirements in Construction Site from BOWEC
1986
Inspection and Maintenance of
Scaffolding
Scrap Disposal
Chute
Building Material Storage
Scheduled Waste Storage
Physical Condition and Validity of
Scaffolding
BOWEC
1986
Warning Sign of Public Safety
Management
Supply, Receive, and Record of PPE
Safe Location to Park Machineries
Traffic Control on Site (system and
guarding)
Installation of Electrical Components by
Competent Person
Physical Condition of Piling Machine
Maintain Cleanliness and Housekeeping
Figure 4.3: Safety and Health Requirements in Construction Site from BOWEC
1986 (Continued)
Scheduled Inspection of Site Electrical
Safety by Jabatan Bekalan Elektrik
Formwork designed by Professional
Engineer
Inspection and Supervision by Competent
Person during Installation
Inspection and Supervision by Competent
Person during Removal
BOWEC
1986
Signage and Barricades for Excavation
and Shoring Work
Inspection and Supervision of Excavation
and Shoring Work
Shoring designed by Professional
Engineer
Shoring Structure to Determine Stability
of Alongside Structure for Piling Works
Inspection and Maintenance of Piling
Machine by Competent Person
Signage and Barricades for Demolition
Work
Demolition Work is approved by Local
Authorities
Figure 4.3: Safety and Health Requirements in Construction Site from BOWEC
1986 (Continued)
4.2
Level of Compliance with Safety and Health Requirements in
Construction Site
The level of compliance with safety and health requirements in construction
site were obtained from the distribution of questionnaires to Class A contractors in
Selangor and Terengganu.
The frequency index as mentioned in Chapter 3 is used to determine the level
of compliance with safety and health requirements whether it is always, often, half
the time, seldom, or never.
4.2.1
Level of Compliance with Safety and Health Requirements in
Construction Site in Selangor
Out of 49 respondents who answered the questionnaires, 86% were from
Class A contractors in Selangor. The level of compliance with safety and health
requirements in Selangor construction sites is shown in Figure 4.4 until Figure 4.24.
Figure 4.5: Level of Compliance with Safety and Health Management
Requirements
Figure 4.5 shows that the respondents are concerned with safety and health
management where most of the elements are always being complied. However, the
respondents are oftenly complying with the safety and health training.
Figure 4.6: Level of Compliance with Safety and Health Committee
Requirements
Figure 4.6 shows that the respondents are also concerned with safety and
health committee as they did for safety and health management. All elements in the
safety and health committee are oftenly complied except for accident investigations
which is being complied for half the time.
Figure 4.7: Level of Compliance with Machinery Requirements
Figure 4.7 shows that the respondents are very much worried with the
machinery safety and health. All elements in the safety and health of the machinery
are oftenly complied except for fitness certificate which is always being complied
since the existence of the documents would determine the approval for using the
machinery.
Figure 4.8: Level of Compliance with Working Platforms Requirements
Figure 4.8 shows that the respondents are alarmed with the safety and health
elements for working platforms. All elements in the working platform requirements
are oftenly complied. Working platforms are among the most important tools that
help in a construction project especially one that dealt with height and limited space.
Figure 4.9: Level of Compliance with Scaffolding Requirements
Figure 4.9 shows that the respondents are often complying with .scaffolding
requirements. The
most severe element that need improvement is designed by
Professional Engineer. This is because design by a professional engineer can help in
decreasing the risk of an accident in a construction project.
Figure 4.10: Level of Compliance with Floor Opening Requirements
Figure 4.10 shows that the respondents are also oftenly complying with safety
and health requirements of floor opening. Even so, they must increase the use of
warning sign to indicate a floor opening and it must be in dual language.
Figure 4.11: Level of Compliance with Opening at Building Edge Requirements
Figure 4.11 shows that the respondents are oftenly complying with opening at
building edge requirements. Project site in Selangor needs to consider the use of
warning sign more frequent in the future as for sake of better working environment.
Figure 4.12: Level of Compliance with Working at Heights Requirements
Figure 4.12 shows that the respondents are oftenly compliying with the safety
and health requirements for working at height. However, the compliance with fall
protection requirements must be improved.
Figure 4.13: Level of Compliance with Access to Workplace Requirements
Figure 4.13 shows that the respondents are also oftenly complying with
access to workplace requirements. The improvement that should be taken is on
indicator from floor to floor which the least considered despite of the requirement.
Figure 4.14: Level of Compliance with Public Safety and Health Management
Requirements
Figure 4.14 indicates that the requirements for public safety and health
management are oftenly complied with. Above all, the use of warning sign and
workplace guarding need more attention in future project.
Figure 4.15: Level of Compliance with Site Electrical Safety Requirements
Figure 4.15 points up that site electrical safety requirements are also oftenly
complied with. The similar issue which shown here is the needs of warning signage
requirements in future project.
Figure 4.16: Level of Compliance with Workers’ Accomodation and Welfare
Requirements
Figure 4.16 illustrates that Class A contractor in Selangor oftenly cares about
their workers’ accomodation and welfare. The only thing that requires better attention
in future is provision of fire fighting equipments for the workers.
Figure 4.17: Level of Compliance with Cleanliness and Housekeeping
Requirements
Figure 4.17 shows that the respondents are also concerned with cleanliness
and housekeeping. They comply with the requirements for cleanliness and
housekeeping oftenly even though quite lacking in provision of chute.
Figure 4.18: Level of Compliance with Site Material Storage Requirements
Figure 4.18 reveals that the requirements of site material storage consist of
building material storage, paint, oil, and lubricant storage, and scheduled waste
storage are oftenly complied with. The respondents may have rarely encounter in
dealing with scheduled waste during their employment.
Figure 4.19: Level of Compliance with Site Health and Welfare Requirements
Figure 4.19 shows that the respondents has very good compliance with the
site health and welfare requirements which each of the elements are complied with
oftenly. Even so, the requirements for medical surveillance and periodic health
assessment shall be complied more frequent as they are one of significant elements in
keeping the safety and health of the worker in a workplace.
Figure 4.20: Level of Compliance with Formwork Requirements
Figure 4.20 shows that the compliance with formwork safety requirements are
high among the respondents. Likewise the working platforms, formwork
requirements also need more compliance as for its requirements of to be designed by
a Professional Engineer.
Figure 4.21: Level of Compliance with Personal Protective Equipments
Requirements
Figure 4.21 exhibits that the personal protective equipments (PPE)
requirements are oftenly complied. The improvements on warning sign for using PPE
in a construction site as well as inspection and maintenance of using it must be done
for better safety and health environment.
Figure 4.22: Level of Compliance with Excavation and Shoring Work
Requirements
Figure 4.22 shows that the respondents are also alarmed with excavation and
shoring work requirements. The necessary improvements would be more compliance
with the requirements of the shoring to be designed by a Professional Engineer.
Figure 4.23: Level of Compliance with Piling Work Requirements
Figure 4.23 shows that the piling work requirements are half the time being
complied by the respondents. Compliance with each element should be improved,
hence more inspection and maintenance by competent person would be very helpful
in improving the safety and health of a construction worker in a workplace.
Figure 4.24: Level of Compliance with Demolition Work Requirements
Figure 4.24 reveals that the respondents are not quite complied with
demolition requirements where they chose to comply for half the time of the project.
More concerned from the respondents to comply with the requirements are needed
especially for approved shoring system and inspection and supervision by competent
person.
4.2.2
Level of Compliance with Safety and Health Requirements in
Construction Site in Terengganu
Out of 49 respondents who answered the questionnaires, only 14% of them
were from Class A contractors in Terengganu. The level of compliance with safety
and health requirements in Terengganu construction sites is shown in Figure 4.25
until Figure 4.44.
Figure 4.25: Level of Compliance with Safety and Health Management
Requirements
Figure 4.25 shows that the respondents are not very much concerned with
safety and health management where most of the elements are only half the time
being complied. Worst, most of the elements are critical elements such as site safety
supervisor, scaffolding supervisor, safety and health officer, and safety and health
training.
Figure 4.26: Level of Compliance with Safety and Health Committee
Requirements
Figure 4.26 shows that the respondents are also not much alarmed with safety
and health committee as they did for safety and health management. All elements in
the safety and health committee are half the time being complied except for site
inspection and cooperation from top management.
Figure 4.27: Level of Compliance with Machinery Requirements
Figure 4.27 shows that the respondents has better concerns with the
machinery safety and health. All elements in the safety and health of the machinery
are oftenly complied except for periodic inspection which is complied at half of the
time.
Figure 4.28: Level of Compliance with Working Platforms Requirements
Figure 4.28 shows that the respondents are alarmed with the safety and health
elements for working platforms. All elements in the working platform requirements
are oftenly complied excluding safe working load sign.
Figure 4.29: Level of Compliance with Scaffolding Requirements
Figure 4.29 shows that the respondents are often complying with .scaffolding
requirements. The
most severe element that need improvement is designed by
Professional Engineer. This is because design by a professional engineer can help in
decreasing the risk of an accident in a construction project.
Figure 4.30: Level of Compliance with Floor Opening Requirements
Figure 4.30 shows that the respondents are also oftenly complying with safety
and health requirements of floor opening. Even so, they must increase the use of
warning sign to indicate a floor opening and it must be in dual language.
Figure 4.31: Level of Compliance with Opening at Building Edge Requirements
Figure 4.31 shows that the respondents are oftenly complying with opening at
building edge requirements. Project site in Terengganu needs to consider the use of
warning sign and more inspection and maintenance of safety requirements at building
edge in the future as for sake of better working environment.
Figure 4.32: Level of Compliance with Working at Heights Requirements
Figure 4.32 shows that the respondents are oftenly compliying with the safety
and health requirements for working at height not including supervision and training.
Supervision and training need to be improved to reduce the number of unskilled
worker as well as to improve the safety and health at the workplace.
Figure 4.33: Level of Compliance with Access to Workplace Requirements
Figure 4.33 shows that the respondents are also oftenly complying with
access to workplace requirements except for indicator to work location. Therefore,
the improvement that should be taken is on indicator to work location which the least
considered despite of the requirement.
Figure 4.34: Level of Compliance with Public Safety and Health Management
Requirements
Figure 4.34 indicates that most of the requirements for public safety and
health management are oftenly complied with. Above all, the traffic control must be
more complied more often in future.
Figure 4.35: Level of Compliance with Site Electrical Safety Requirements
Figure 4.35 points up that site electrical safety requirements are also oftenly
complied with but scheduled inspection. The compliance with scheduled inspection
should be increased as to avoid any hazards to the workplace and workers.
Figure 4.36: Level of Compliance with Workers’ Accomodation and Welfare
Requirements
Figure 4.36 illustrates that Class A contractor in Terengganu oftenly cares
about their workers’ accomodation and welfare. The things that require better
attention in future is provision of fire fighting equipments for the workers as well as
cleanliness and housekeeping.
Figure 4.37: Level of Compliance with Cleanliness and Housekeeping
Requirements
Figure 4.37 shows that the respondents are also concerned with cleanliness
and housekeeping. They comply with the requirements for cleanliness and
housekeeping oftenly even though quite lacking in provision of chute.
Figure 4.38: Level of Compliance with Site Material Storage Requirements
Figure 4.38 reveals that the requirements of site material storage consist of
building material storage and paint, oil, and lubricant storage are oftenly complied
with. The respondents should be more complied with scheduled waste storage
requirements during their employment.
Figure 4.39: Level of Compliance with Site Health and Welfare Requirements
Figure 4.39 shows that the respondents has good compliance with the site
health and welfare requirements which each of the elements are complied with
oftenly. Even so, the requirements for periodic health assessment shall be complied
more frequent it is one of the contributing elements in keeping the safety and health
of the worker in a workplace.
Figure 4.40: Level of Compliance with Formwork Requirements
Figure 4.40 shows that the compliance with formwork safety requirements are
quite high among the respondents. However, the inspection and supervision by
professional engineer as well as installation as per specification require should be
more complied in future project.
Figure 4.41: Level of Compliance with Personal Protective Equipments
Requirements
Figure 4.41 exhibits that the personal protective equipments (PPE)
requirements are poorly complied. The respondents seem to be more concerned of
supplying the PPE rather than maintaining and doing inspection on the PPE usage.
There should be improvements in future for inspection and maintenance, training on
how to use the PPE, and to monitor the compliance of the site people with the PPE
requirements.
Figure 4.42: Level of Compliance with Excavation and Shoring Work
Requirements
Figure 4.42 shows that the respondents are averagely alarmed with excavation
and shoring work requirements. The necessary improvements would be more
compliance with the requirements of the shoring to be designed by a Professional
Engineer and provision of signage and barricades.
Figure 4.43: Level of Compliance with Piling Work Requirements
Figure 4.43 shows that the piling work requirements are oftenly being
complied by the respondents. Compliance with each element should be improved,
hence more inspection and maintenance by competent person would be very helpful
in improving the safety and health of a construction worker in a workplace.
Figure 4.44: Level of Compliance with Demolition Work Requirements
Figure 4.44 reveals that the respondents are quite complied with demolition
requirements where they chose to comply oftenly except for signage and barricades.
Therefore, more concerned from the respondents to comply with the requirements are
needed for the signange and barricades.
4.3
Cost of Compliance with Safety and Health Requirements in
Construction Site
The cost of compliance with safety and health requirements in construction
site were also obtained from the distribution of questionnaires to Class A contractors
in Selangor and Terengganu.
4.3.1
Cost of Compliance with Safety and Health Requirements in
Construction Site in Selangor
The cost of compliance with safety and health requirements in Selangor
construction site as allocated by the company of the respondents is shown in Figure
4.45 until Figure 4.64.
Figure 4.45: Cost of Compliance with Safety and Health Management
Requirements
As shown in Figure 4.45, most of the requirements for safety and health
management were cost as much as up to 0.2% of the project cost. There are also
requirements such as safety and health officer, training, and record keeping system
which were cost 0.21% to 0.5% of the project cost.
Figure 4.46: Cost of Compliance with Safety and Health Committee
Requirements
The cost allocated for safety and health committee requirements is shown in
Figure 4.46. Most respondents allocated from 0% to 0.2% of the project cost for all
of the requirements. Some of the respondent did allocate 0.21% to 0.5% for these
requirements, and a few of them allocated more than 1%.
Figure 4.47: Cost of Compliance with Machinery Requirements
Figure 4.47 illustrates the allocation cost for machinery requirements. Most of
the respondents allocated 0% to 0.21% of the project cost for the requirements. There
are also respondents who allocated more than 0.21% for those requirements.
Figure 4.48: Cost of Compliance with Working Platforms Requirements
Figure 4.48 explains the allocated cost for working platform requirements.
Majority of the respondents chose to allocate 0% to 0.21% of the project cost for the
requirements whereby only a few that chose 0.21% to 0.5% and not more than 5% of
them allocated more than 1%.
Figure 4.49: Cost of Compliance with Scaffolding Requirements
According to Figure 4.49, more than 70% of the respondent allocated less
than 0.21% of the project cost to comply with the scaffolding requirements
meanwhile less than 15% of them allocated 0.21% to 0.5% and 0.51% to 1%. Less
than 5% of them did allocate more than 1% for scaffolding requirements.
Figure 4.50: Cost of Compliance with Floor Opening Requirements
Figure 4.50 shows a significant amount of respondents who allocated less
than 0.21% of the project cost if compared to the respondents who allocated 0.21% to
0.5% for floor opening requirements.
Figure 4.51: Cost of Compliance with Opening at Building Edge Requirements
Figure 4.51 explains that all respondents agreed to cost 0% to 0.2% of the
project cost for warning sign and inspection and maintenance for opening at building
edge safety requirements. As for the provision of the barricades, more than 90% of
the respondents allocated less than 0.21% whereby the rest allocated 0.21% to 0.5%
of the project cost.
Figure 4.52: Cost of Compliance with Working at Heights Requirements
As for the working at height requirements which explained in Figure 4.52, all
respondents allocated less than 0.2% from the project cost for work procedures and
supervision and training. As for fall protection, there are 20% respondents who
allocated 0.21% to 0.5% from the project cost and the other 80% allocated less than
0.2%.
Figure 4.53: Cost of Compliance with Access to Workplace Requirements
All respondents agreed that they allocated less than 0.2% from the project
cost to comply with the access to workplace requirements. It can be seen from Figure
4.53.
Figure 4.54: Cost of Compliance with Public Safety Management Requirements
Most of the respondents allocated less than 0.2% of their project cost in order
to comply with public safety management requirements. There are also some of them
who allocated 0.21% to 0.5% for warning sign, traffic control, and material handling
as shown in Figure 4.54.
Figure 4.55: Cost of Compliance with Site Electrical Safety Requirements
Figure 4.55 shows that majority of the respondents allocated less than 0.2% of
their project cost for the sake of complying with site electrical safety requirements.
Only a few of them that allocated 0.21% to 0.5% for scheduled inspection.
Figure 4.56: Cost of Compliance with Workers’ Accomodation and Welfare
Requirements
As shown in Figure 4.56, majority of the respondents allocated less than 0.2%
of their project cost to comply with workers’ accomodation and welfare
requirements. Not more than 25% of them allocated 0.12% to 0.5% for the
requirements.
Figure 4.57: Cost of Compliance with Cleanliness and Housekeeping
Requirements
As for cost of compliance with cleanliness and housekeeping requirements,
most of the respondents allocated 0% to 0.2% from the project cost as illustrated in
Figure 4.57. Less than 20% of the respondents allocated 0.21% to 0.5% from the
project cost.
Figure 4.58: Cost of Compliance with Site Material Storage Requirements
Figure 4.58 above shows that a good number of respondents allocated 0% to
0.2% of their project cost for complying with site material storage requirements even
though not many of them did allocate 0.21% to 0.5%.
Figure 4.59: Cost of Compliance with Site Health and Welfare Requirements
Figure 4.59 reveals that nearly everyone allocated 0% to 0.2% from the
project cost to comply with site health and welfare requirements. However, it can be
seen that some of them allocated 0.21% to 0.5% from their project cost for recreation
room, canteen, sanitation, warning sign, and inspection and maintenance.
Figure 4.60: Cost of Compliance with Formwork Requirements
Whilst for cost of compliance with formwork requirements, it is illustrated in
Figure 4.60 that the respondents mainly allocated 0% to 0.2% from their project cost
where only some of them allocated 0.21% to 0.5%.
Figure 4.61: Cost of Compliance with Personal Protective Equipments
Requirements
All of the respondents allocated only 0% to 0.2% from their project cost in
order to comply with personal protective equipements (PPE) requiremenst except for
supply, receive, and record of the PPE whereby there are respondents who allocated
0.21% to 0.5%. The explanation for cost of compliance with PPE requirements is
based on Figure 4.61.
Figure 4.62: Cost of Compliance with Excavation and Shoring Works
Requirements
Like it is shown in Figure 4.62, all respondents allocated 0% to 0.2% from
their project cost for most of the requirements for excavation and shoring work
except for signage and barricades as well as inspection and maintenance where there
are respondents who were willing to allocate 0.21% to 0.5%.
Figure 4.63: Cost of Compliance with Piling Works Requirements
The majority of the respondents allocated only 0% to 0.2% from their project
cost for piling works requirements as demonstrated in Figure 4.63. There are also
some of them who allocated more than 1% such for inspection and maintenance by
competent person, along with supervision and maintenance.
Figure 4.64: Cost of Compliance with Demolition Work Requirements
The data in Figure 4.64 recommends that nearly all respondents allocated 0%
to 0.2% of the project cost with the intention to comply with demolition work
requirements. Very small number of them who allocated more than 0.2% but less
than 0.5%.
4.3.2
Cost of Compliance with Safety and Health Requirements in
Construction Site in Terengganu
The cost of compliance with safety and health requirements in Terengganu
construction site as allocated by the company of the respondents is shown in Figure
4.65 until Figure 4.84.
Figure 4.65: Cost of Compliance with Safety and Health Management
Requirements
Many of the respondent in Terengganu also allocated 0% to 0.2% of the
project cost for safety and health management. However, the are also a great deal of
respondents who allocated more than 0.2%. Furthermore, there are respondents who
willing to allocate more than 1% of the project cost for safety and health policy,
safety and health officer, training, and record keeping system.
Figure 4.66: Cost of Compliance with Safety and Health Committee
Requirements
As for cost of compliance with safety and health committee requirements,
most of the respondents voted to allocate only less than 0.2% of the project cost as
shown in Figure 4.66. Notwithstanding that, there are respondents who allocated
more than 1% for all of the requirements and none of them allocated within 0.51% to
1%.
Figure 4.67: Cost of Compliance with Machineries Requirements
Figure 4.67 shows that many respondents spent larger cost on safety operating
procedures and scheduled maintenance for machineries requirements. There are only
a few respondents that spent more than 1% for fitness certificate, guarding, and
periodic inspection.
Figure 4.68: Cost of Compliance with Working Platforms Requirements
As for working platforms requirements as according to Figure 4.68, there are
quite number of people who allocated more than 0.2% for hoarding, maintenance and
housekeeping, and safe access and egress.
Figure 4.69: Cost of Compliance with Scaffolding Requirements
Eventhough many of the respondents allocated less than 0.2% for scaffolding
requirements, there are also respondents who allocated more than that for each of the
requirements showing that safety requirements for scaffolding is highly considered in
their construction site.
Figure 4.70: Cost of Compliance with Floor Opening Requirements
Almost three quarter of the respondents assigned 0% to 0.2% from their
project cost for floor opening requirements if compared to them who assigned 0.21%
to 0.5% as shown in Figure 4.70.
Figure 4.71: Cost of Compliance with Opening at Building Edge Requirements
The cost of compliance with opening at building edge requirements is shown
in Figure 4.71. All respondents allocated less than 0.2% for warning sign, meanwhile
some of them did allocate 0.21% to 0.5% from the project cost for barricades as well
as inspection and maintenance.
Figure 4.72: Cost of Compliance with Working at Heights Requirements
Figure 4.72 shows that all respondents allocated 0% to 0.2% of their project
cost for work procedures along with supervision and training as in working at height
requirements, and less than 50% of the respondents allocate 0.21% to 0.5% for fall
protection.
Figure 4.73: Cost of Compliance with Access and Egress Requirements
As for access and egress requirements, Figure 4.73 shows that 15% of the
respondents allocated 0.21% to 0.5% from the project cost for all requirements while
rest of them allocated only 0% to 0.2%.
Figure 4.74: Cost of Compliance with Public Safety Management Requirements
Such shown here in Figure 4.74, the respondents assigned as larger cost as
0.21% to 0.5% of the project cost for site material handling, followed by guarding
and traffic control and then warning sign as for complying with public safety
management requirements.
Figure 4.75: Cost of Compliance with Site Electrical Safety Requirements
Alike previous requirements, cost of compliance with site electrical safety
requirements in Figure 4.75 shows that a good number of respondents allocated as
large as 0.21% to 0.5% for the requirements. Even so, majority of them allocated
only 0% to 0.2% from their project cost.
Figure 4.76: Cost of Compliance with Workers’ Accomodation and Welfare
Requirements
Figure 4.76 indicates that respondents in Terengganu were comfortable to
allocate large amount of money for safety requirements where almost half of them
allocated 0.21% to 0.5% from the project cost for complying with all the
requirements for workers’ accommodations and welfare.
Figure 4.77: Cost of Compliance with Cleanliness and Housekeeping
Requirements
As for cleanliness and housekeeping requirements, Figure 4.77 shows that
most of the respondents allocated 0% to 0.2% of project cost for each requirements
meanwhile there are also some who allocated 0.21% to 0.5%.
Figure 4.78: Cost of Compliance with Site Material Storage Requirements
Figure 4.78 shockingly shows that there are more respondents who allocated
0.21% to 0.5% of project cost for complying with site material storage requirements
if compared to one who allocated 0% to 0.2%.
Figure 4.79: Cost of Compliance with Site Health and Welfare Requirements
There are a quite number of respondents in Terengganu as illustrated in
Figure 4.79 who allocated 0.21% to 0.5% from project cost for site health and
welfare requirements such for first aid kit, provision of recreation room, canteen and
sanitation, medical surveillance, warning sign, as well as inspection and maintenance.
Though all of them allocated only 0% to 0.2% for pest control and periodic health
assessment.
Figure 4.80: Cost of Compliance with Formworks Requirements
Figure 4.80 indicates that the respondents are highly considering about
compliance with formwork requirements where many of them allocated 0.21% to
0.5% of project cost for each of the requirements. Nevertheless, there are more of
them who allocated less than 0.2%.
Figure 4.81: Cost of Compliance with Professional Protective Equipments
Requirements
For the cost of compliance with professional protective equipments
requirements, Figure 4.81 shows that most of the respondents allocated 0% to 0.2%
of project cost for all requirements. Only a few of them that allocated 0.21% to 0.5%
as for supply, receive, and record, compliance monitoring, as well as inspection and
maintenance.
Figure 4.82: Cost of Compliance with Excavation and Shoring Works
Requirements
Figure 4.82 shows that there are more than 10% of the respondents allocated
0.51% to 1% of project cost for inspection and supervision in excavation and shoring
works. There are also respondents who allocated 0.21% to 0.5% for all requirements,
but most of them allocated only 0% to 0.2%.
Figure 4.83: Cost of Compliance with Piling Works Requirements
As shown in Figure 4.83, there are 15% of the respondents allocated more
than 1% of project cost for inspection and maintenance by competent person in
addition to supervision and maintenance for piling works requirements. There are
also 15% of them who allocated 0.51% to 1% for physical condition of the piling
machines. Still, most of them allocated only 0% to 0.2% for all requirements and
some allocated 0.21% to 0.5%.
Figure 4.84: Cost of Compliance with Demolition Works Requirements
The highest cost allocated for all requirements for demolition works is 0.21%
to 0.5% of project cost where only a few of them willing to allocated the sum. As
shown in Figure 4.84, all of the requirements were allocated as low as 0% to 0.2% of
the project cost by most of the respondents.
4.4
Comparison of
Level
of
Compliance
with Safety and Health
Requirements in Construction Site
The cost of compliance with safety and health requirements in Selangor
construction site as allocated by the company of the respondents is shown in Figure
4.85 until Figure 4.102.
4.4.1
Comparison of
Level
of
Compliance
with Safety and Health
Requirements in Construction Site in Selangor
The cost of compliance with safety and health requirements in Selangor
construction site as allocated by the company of the respondents is shown in Figure
4.85 until Figure 4.104.
Figure 4.85: Level of Compliance with Safety and Health Management
Requirements
Figure 4.85 shows that the level of compliance with safety and health
management requirements in big project is slightly higher than small project for most
of the requirements except for designated person, safety and health manual and
permit, along with subcontractors’ safety and health management.
Figure 4.86: Level of Compliance with Safety and Health Committee
Requirements
The level of compliance with safety and health committee requirements is
also a little higher in big project if compared to small project as shown in Figure
4.86.
Figure 4.87: Level of Compliance with Machineries Requirements
It is similar to level of compliance with machineries requirements which as
shown in Figure 4.87, big project has more level of compliance with all the
requirements rather than small project.
Figure 4.88: Level of Compliance with Working Platforms Requirements
It differs in Figure 4.88 where big project has more level of compliance with
provision of working platforms to be designed by professional engineers meanwhile
the small project has more level of compliance with the other requirements.
Figure 4.89: Level of Compliance with Scaffolding Requirements
Conversely to the previous requirement, Figure 4.89 shows that the small
project has more compliance with provision of scaffolding being designed by
professional engineer only while other requirements were more complied by big
project.
Figure 4.90: Level of Compliance with Floor Opening Requirements
As for floor opening requirements, the level of compliance between big and
small project differs in warning sign and inspection and maintenance provision where
small project seems to have higher level of compliance as shown in Figure 4.90.
Figure 4.91: Level of Compliance with Opening at Building Edge Requirements
Small project has higher level of compliance with opening at building edge
requirements. This can be seen from the above Figure 4.91.
Figure 4.92: Level of Compliance with Working at Heights Requirements
As for working at heights requirements such in Figure 4.92, big project is
more complied with supervision and training and fall protection provision meanwhile
small project has higher compliance with work procedures requirements.
Figure 4.93: Level of Compliance with Access to Workplace Requirements
Figure 4.93 explains that the level of compliance with all obligations in access
to workplace requirements were higher in big project when compared to small
project.
Figure 4.94: Level of Compliance with Public Safety and Health Management
Requirements
The same situation applies in public safety and health management such in
Figure 4.94 where the level of compliance with all the obligations are higher in big
project contrast to small project.
Figure 4.95: Level of Compliance with Site Electrical Safety Requirements
As for the site electrical safety requirements, Figure 4.95 shows that small
project has a slightly higher level of compliance for warning sign and installation by
competent person. It is contrast to scheduled inspection which is being more
complied by big project.
Figure 4.96: Level of Compliance with Workers’ Accomodation and Welfare
Requirements
There are higher level of compliance with workers’ accommodation and
welfare requirements in big project when compared to small project as shown in
Figure 4.96.
Figure 4.97: Level of Compliance with Site Cleanliness and Housekeeping
Requirements
Akin with previous requirements, level of compliance with site cleanliness
and housekeeping requirements is also higher in big project rather than small project
as shown in Figure 4.97.
Figure 4.98: Level of Compliance with Site Material Storage Requirements
Figure 4.98 however shows that big project has higher level of compliance
with paint, oil, and lubricant storage, as well as building material storage. As for
scheduled waste, the level of compliance is higher in small project.
Figure 4.99: Level of Compliance with Site Health and Welfare Requirements
Figure 4.99 explains that all requirements in site health and welfare in
construction site has more compliance from big project if compared to small project.
Figure 4.100: Level of Compliance with Formworks Requirements
The same thing happens to compliance with formworks requirements where
big project has more compliance with all the requirements as shown in Figure 4.100.
Figure 4.101: Level of Compliance with Personal Protective Equipments
Requirements
Figure 4.101 shows that the level of compliance with personal protective
equipments is higher in big project if judged against small project.
Figure 4.102: Level of Compliance with Excavation and Shoring Requirements
As for excavation and shoring requirements, only the level of compliance
with inspection and supervision is higher in big project meanwhile small project has
higher compliance with the other requirements.
Figure 4.103: Level of Compliance with Piling Works Requirements
Figure 4.103 shows that big project has higher level of compliance with all
piling works requirements. The level of compliance for small project is more than
2.50 but lower than 3.50 which indicates that the requirements are being complied for
half the time.
Figure 4.104: Level of Compliance with Demolition Work Requirements
Figure 4.104 shows that big project in Selangor is more complying with the
demolition work requirements if compared to the small project.
4.4.2
Comparison of
Level
of
Compliance
with Safety and Health
Requirements in Construction Site in Terengganu
The level of compliance for big and small project in Terengganu with safety
and health requirements is shown in Figure 4.105 until Figure 4.124.
Figure 4.105: Level of Compliance with Safety and Health Management
Requirements
The level of compliance for big and small project in Terengganu with safety
and health management requirements is shown in Figure 4.105. The figure shows that
small project in Terengganu is more complying with most of the requirements except
for safety and health officer and scaffolding supervisor.
Figure 4.106: Level of Compliance with Safety and Health Committee
Requirements
Figure 4.106 shows that small and big project share the same level of
compliance with appointment letter requirement for safety and health committee.
Besides, it shows that small project has higher compliance with regular meeting, site
inspection, and cooperation from top management. As for subcontractor’s
representative in the committee and accident investigation, big project has the higher
level of compliance.
Figure 4.107: Level of Compliance with Machineries Requirements
Figure 4.107 shows that small project has higher compliance with all of
machineries requirements excluding periodic inspection where big project has the
higher level of compliance with the requirement.
Figure 4.108: Level of Compliance with Working Platforms Requirements
Figure 4.108 shows that small project has the higher level of compliance with
working platforms requirements when compared to the big project. Design of
working platform by professional engineer is seldomly complied by the big project
therefore improvements should be taken.
Figure 4.109: Level of Compliance with Scaffolding Requirements
Figure 4.109 shows that small project has more level of compliance with
scaffolding requirements than the big project. Big project should be more concerned
on provision of the scaffolding to be designed by professional engineer whereby it is
shown that it was seldomly complied with.
Figure 4.110: Level of Compliance with Floor Opening Requirements
Figure 4.110 shows that small has the higher level of compliance with floor
opening requirements than the big project.
Figure 4.111: Level of Compliance with Opening at Building Edge
Requirements
Figure 4.111 shows the result of respondent’s response towards level of
compliance with opening at building edge requirements. It turns out that small project
has higher level of compliance in comparison with the big project.
Figure 4.112: Level of Compliance with Working at Heights Requirements
From Figure 4.112, it can be seen that small project is more complying with
working at height requirement rather than the big project.
Figure 4.113: Level of Compliance with Access to Workplace Requirements
The respondents’ response of level of compliance with access to workplace
requirements is shown in Figure 4.113. The figure shows that there is higher
compliance with all requirements by small project instead of big project.
Figure 4.114: Level of Compliance with Public Safety and Health Management
Requirements
Figure 4.114 shows the respondents’ response towards public safety and
health management requirements. The result is that small project has higher level of
compliance with all requirement if match up with the big project.
Figure 4.115: Level of Compliance with Site Electrical Safety Requirements
Figure 4.115 shows the level of compliance with site electrical safety
requirements. It turns out that small project has higher level of compliance with
warning sign and scheduled inspection requirements, yet lower compliance with
installation of electrical stuffs by competent person.
Figure 4.116: Level of Compliance with Workers’ Accommodation and Welfare
Requirements
Figure 4.116 shows the result of respondents’ response for level of
compliance with workers’ accommodation and welfare requirements. The figure
shows that small project has more compliance with the requirements to build an away
from site accommodations for workers and fire fighting equipments meanwhile big
project has more compliance with cleanliness and housekeeping.
Figure 4.117: Level of Compliance with Site Cleanliness and Housekeeping
Requirements
Figure 4.117 shows the result of respondents’ response towards the level of
compliance with site cleanliness and housekeeping requirements. It shows that small
project has the higher level of compliance than big project for all of site cleanliness
and housekeeping requirements except for provision of chute.
Figure 4.118: Level of Compliance with Site Material Storage Requirements
The level of compliance with site material storage requirements for small and
big project is shown in Figure 4.118. The figure shows that small project has higher
level of compliance with paint, oil and lubricant storage, plus the building material
storage, while the big project has higher level of compliance with scheduled waste
storage.
Figure 4.119: Level of Compliance with Site Health and Welfare Requirements
The level of compliance with site health and welfare requirements can be seen
in Figure 4.119. Figure 4.119 shows that small project has higher level of compliance
than the big project with medical surveillance, warning sign, and inspection and
maintenance requirements. As for the rest of the requirements, big project seems to
have a higher level of compliance than the small project.
Figure 4.120: Level of Compliance with Formworks Requirements
The response from respondents towards level of compliance is shown in
Figure 4.120. It can be clearly seen from the figure that small project has better level
of compliance with all requirements than the big project.
Figure 4.121: Level of Compliance with Personal Protective Equipments
Requirements
Figure 4.121 shows the level of compliance with personal protective
equipments requirements by Terengganu respondents. The figure shows that big
project only has better compliance with monitoring the PPE compliance, whereby the
other requirements is better complied by small project.
Figure 4.122: Level of Compliance with Excavation and Shoring Requirements
The response for level of compliance with excavation and shoring
requirements is shown in Figure 4.122. It shows that small project complies with all
the requirements better than the big project except for signages and barricades.
Figure 4.123: Level of Compliance with Piling Works Requirements
Figure 4.123 shows that small project has better compliance with all piling
works requirements in comparison with the big project.
Figure 4.124: Level of Compliance with Demolition Works Requirements
Figure 4.124 shows that small project has higher level of compliance for most
of the demolition work requirements whereby big project merely has a better
compliance with provisions of signages and barricades.
4.4.3
Comparison of
Level of
Compliance
with Safety and Health
Requirements in Construction Site for Big Project
The comparison of level of compliance with safety and health requirements in
construction site for a big project is shown in Figure 4.125 until Figure 4.144.
Figure 4.125: Level of Compliance with Safety and Health Management
Requirements
Figure 4.125 shows that big project Terengganu has differnet level of
compliance with safety and health management. For all of the requirments, it shown
that big project in Selangor has bettel level compliance when compared to big project
in Terengganu.
Figure 4.126: Level of Compliance with Safety and Health Committee
Requirements
Level of compliance of big projet with safety and health committee is shown
in Figure 4.126. The figure shows that Selangor big project has higher level of
compliance with all requirements than the Terengganu big project.
Figure 4.127: Level of Compliance with Machineries Requirements
Figure 4.127 shows the comparison of level of compliance with machineries
requirements between big project in Selangor and Terengganu. The figure shows that
big project in Selangor has slightly higher level of compliance with all requirements
when compared to big project in Terengganu.
Figure 4.128: Level of Compliance with Working Platforms Requirements
Figure 4.128 shows that big project from Selangor has better level of
compliance with all of working platforms requirements than big project from
Terengganu.
Figure 4.129: Level of Compliance with Scaffolding Requirements
The comparison of level of compliance with scaffolding requirements
between big project in Selangor and Terengganu is shown in Figure 4.129. It shows
that big project in Selangor has superior level of compliance with all of the
requirements than the big project from Terengganu.
Figure 4.130: Level of Compliance with Floor Opening Requirements
The comparison of compliance level with floor opening requirements is
shown in Figure 4.130. The figure shows that Selangor big project has greater level
of compliance with all of the requirements than the Terengganu big project.
Figure 4.131: Level of Compliance with Opening at Building Edge
Requirements
The result of comparison of compliance with opening at building edge
requirements is shown in Figure 4.131. It turns out that Selangor big project has
higher level of compliance with all the requirements compared to Terengganu big
project.
Figure 4.132: Level of Compliance with Working at Heights Requirements
As for comparison of level of compliance with working at height
requirements for big project category, it shows in Figure 4.132 that Selangor has
higher level of compliance with all of the requirements than Terengganu.
Figure 4.133: Level of Compliance with Access to Workplace Requirements
Figure 4.133 shows the comparison of level of compliance with access to
workplace requirements between big project in Selangor and Terengganu. The result
shows that Selangor states the higher level of compliance with each of the
requirements than Terengganu.
Figure 4.134: Level of Compliance with Public Safety and Health Management
Requirements
Figure 4.134 shows that in comparison between big project in Selangor and
Terengganu for level of compliance with public safety and health management,
Selangor shows the higher compliance for all of the requirements except for
provision of warning sign.
Figure 4.135: Level of Compliance with Site Electrical Safety Requirements
Figure 4.135 shows the comparison of level of compliance with site electrical
safety requirements for big project in Selangor and Terengganu. The level of
compliance with warning sign and scheduled inspection requirements is higher in
Selangor while for installation by competent person is slightly higher in Terengganu.
Figure 4.136: Level of Compliance with Workers’ Accommodation and Welfare
Requirements
The comparison of workers’ accomodation and welfare for big project is
shown in Figure 4.136. The figure shows that Selangor has higher level of
compliance with all requirements for workers’ accommodation and welfare compared
to Terengganu.
Figure 4.137: Level of Compliance with Site Cleanliness and Housekeeping
Requirements
As for comparison of site cleanliness and housekeeping, Figure 4.137 shows
that big project in Selangor has better level of compliance with all of the
requirements than big project in Terengganu.
Figure 4.138: Level of Compliance with Site Material Storage Requirements
The comparison of level of compliance with site material storage
requirements is shown in Figure 4.138. The figure shows that Selangor big project is
more complying with all the requirements than Terengganu big project.
Figure 4.139: Level of Compliance with Site Health and Welfare Requirements
Figure 4.139 shows the comparison between big project in Selangor and
Terangganu for level of compliance with site health and welfare requirements. It
shows that Terengganu has higher compliance with first aid kit requirements than
Selangor but Selangor has higher level of compliance with most of the requirements
for the site health and welfare.
Figure 4.140: Level of Compliance with Formworks Requirements
Figure 4.140 shows the comparison of level of compliance for formwork
requirements where it turns out that Selangor has better level compliance than
Terengganu for all of the requirements.
Figure 4.141: Level of Compliance with Personal Protective Equipments
Requirements
Figure 4.141 shows the level comparison between big project in Selangor and
Terangganu of compliance with personal protective equipments (PPE) requirements.
The figure shows that Selangor states the higher level of compliance with all
requirements than Terengganu.
Figure 4.142: Level of Compliance with Excavation and Shoring Requirements
Figure 4.142 is the result of comparison for level of compliance with
excavation and shoring requirements by big project in Selangor and Terengganu. It
shows that Selangor is complying better than Terengganu for all of the requirements.
Moreover, Terengganu states its compliance with the requirements of shoring to be
designed by professional engineer as ‘seldom’ compared to ‘often’ by Selangor.
Figure 4.143: Level of Compliance with Piling Works Requirements
Figure 4.143 shows the comparison for piling works requirements. The result
shows that Selangor is more complying with the requirements of physical condition
of piling machines, and inspection and maintenance by competent person while
Terengganu has better compliance in shoring structure, and supervision and
maintenance requirements.
Figure 4.144: Level of Compliance with Demolition Works Requirements
Comparison of level of compliance with demolition works requirements in
shown in Figure 4.144. The figure shows that Terengganu has more compliance with
most of the requirements except for approval by the local authority.
4.4.4
Comparison of
Level
of
Compliance
with Safety and Health
Requirements in Construction Site in Small Project
The result of comparison of level of compliance with safety and health
requirements in construction site for small sized project between Selangor and
Terengganu is shown in Figure 4.145 until Figure 4.164.
Figure 4.145: Level of Compliance with Safety and Health Management
Requirements
The comparison of compliance with safety and health management between
small project in Selangor and Terengganu is shown in Figure 4.145. The figure shows
that small project in Selangor has higher compliance with provision of safety and
health officer and committee, designated person, scaffolding supervisor, site safety
supervisor, and record keeping system. In the meantime, small project in Terengganu
has higher compliance with provision of safety and health policy, crane operator,
safety and health manual and permit, as well as subcontractors’ safety and health
management. Both states the same level of compliance with safety and health
training.
Figure 4.146: Level of Compliance with Safety and Health Committee
Requirements
Figure 4.146 shows that small project in Selangor has better compliance than
small project in Terengganu with most of the safety and health committee
requirements except for cooperation from top of management.
Figure 4.147: Level of Compliance with Machineries Requirements
Comparison level of compliance with machineries requirements is shown in
Figure 4.147. It shows that small project in Selangor has better compliance with
guarding, periodic inspection, and safety operating procedures requirements. In the
interim, Terengganu has better compliance with fitness certificate and scheduled
maintenance requirements.
Figure 4.148: Level of Compliance with Working Platforms Requirements
Figure 4.148 shows the comparison of level of compliance with working
platforms requirements. Selangor has slightly higher level of compliance with safe
working load, maintenance and housekeeping, as well as safe access and egress
requirements meanwhile Terengganu has better compliance with provision of the
working platform to be designed by professional engineer. Both states share the same
level of compliance with hoarding requirements.
Figure 4.149: Level of Compliance with Scaffolding Requirements
The comparison of level of compliance with scaffolding as shown in Figure
4.149 clearly states that Terengganu has higher level of compliance with all
requirements than Selangor. Even so, Selangor has often compliance with all
requirements.
Figure 4.150: Level of Compliance with Floor Opening Requirements
Figure 4.150 shows that the level of compliance with floor opening
requirements such as warning sign, and inspection and maintenance requirements is
higher in Selangor. As for the barricades requirements, Terengganu and Selangor
have the same level of compliance.
Figure 4.151: Level of Compliance with Opening at Building Edge
Requirements
The comparison for opening at building egde requirements is as shown in
Figure 4.151. The figure shows that small project in Selangor has better compliance
with the warning sign requirements but lower compliance with barricades
requirements. As for inspection and maintenance requirements, Selangor has the
same level of compliance such in Terengganu.
Figure 4.152: Level of Compliance with Working at Heights Requirements
As for the comparison for working at heights requirements, it is as shown in
Figure 4.152. The figure shows that small project in Selangor has better compliance
with the work procedures requirements but lower compliance with fall protection
requirements. As for supervision and training requirements, Selangor has the same
level of compliance such in Terengganu.
Figure 4.153: Level of Compliance with Access to Workplace Requirements
Figure 4.153 shows that small project in Selangor has higher level of
compliance with majority of the requirements for access to workplace. Except for
requirements for indicator from floor to floor that Terengganu and Selangor share the
same level of compliance.
Figure 4.154: Level of Compliance with Public Safety and Health Management
Requirements
Figure 4.154 shows the comparison of level of compliance with public safety
and health management between small project in Selangor and Terengganu. The
figure shows that Selangor is more complying with warning sign and traffic control
requirements while Terengganu is more complying with guarding requirements. Both
Selangor and Terengganu oftenly comply with site material handling requirements.
Figure 4.155: Level of Compliance with Site Electrical Safety Requirements
Figure 4.155 shows the comparison for site electrical safety requirements. It
shows that Selangor has slightly higher level of compliance with all of the
requirements than Terengganu.
Figure 4.156: Level of Compliance with Workers’ Accommodation and Welfare
Requirements
Figure 4.156 shows the higher level of compliance with cleanliness and
housekeeping as well as fire fighting equipments for Selangor and lower level of
compliance than Terengganu for the requirements to provide the workers’
accommodation away from the site.
Figure 4.157: Level of Compliance with Site Cleanliness and Housekeeping
Requirements
The comparison for site cleanliness and housekeeping requirements such in
Figure 4.157 shows that Selangor is more complying than Terengganu with
requirements of maintaining the housekeeping, scrap disposal, and chute. Terengganu
shows higher compliance than Selangor for inspection and monitoring requirements.
Figure 4.158: Level of Compliance with Site Material Storage Requirements
Comparison of level of compliance with site material storage requirements is
shown in Figure 4.158. The figure states that the compliance with paint, oil, and
lubricant storage is higher in Terengganu meanwhile the compliance of Terengganu
is lower for scheduled waste storage. Terengganu and Selangor has the same level of
compliance with building material storage requirements.
Figure 4.159: Level of Compliance with Site Health and Welfare Requirements
Figure 4.159 shows Terengganu states higher level of compliance with first
aid kit and medical surveillance requirements meanwhile Selangor states higher level
of compliance with recreation room, canteen, sanitation, pest control, and periodic
health assessment requirements for site health and welfare. Terengganu and Selangor
has the same level of compliance with warning sign requirements as well as
inspection and maintenance.
Figure 4.160: Level of Compliance with Formworks Requirements
Figure 4.160 shows that Terengganu has higher level of compliance in many
of formwork requirements where Selangor has better compliance with inspection and
supervision during removal. As for inspection and supervision during installation,
Terengganu and Selangor share the same level of compliance.
Figure 4.161: Level of Compliance with Personal Protective Equipments
Requirements
For comparison of level of compliance with personal protective equipments
(PPE), it is shown in Figure 4.161. It shows that Selangor is better in complying with
training on PPE usage, monitoring towards compliance with PPE, and inspection and
maintenance of PPE. In the meantime, Terengganu is better in complying with
supplying, receiving, and recording PPE as well as with warning sign requirements.
Figure 4.162: Level of Compliance with Excavation and Shoring Requirements
The above Figure 4.162 shows the comparison of level of compliance with
excavation and shoring requirements. The result shows that Selangor has better
compliance with the requirements of signages and barricades along with job hazard
analysis and work procedures whereas Terengganu has better compliance for
inspection and supervision, shoring designed by professional engineer, and safe
parking location requirements.
Figure 4.163: Level of Compliance with Piling Works Requirements
Figure 4.163 shows the comparison of level of compliance with piling work
requirements. The figure shows that Terengganu has higher compliance with all of
the requirements if compared to Selangor.
Figure 4.164: Level of Compliance with Demolition Work Requirements
Lastly the comparison between small size project in Selangor and Terengganu
of the level of compliance with safety and health requirements is shown in Figure
4.164. The figure shows that small project in Terengganu is more complying with all
of the requirements than small project in Selangor.
4.5
Comparison of Cost of Compliance with Safety and Health Requirements
in Construction Site
4.5.1
Comparison of Cost of Compliance with Safety and Health Requirements
in Construction Site in Selangor
The comparison of cost of compliance with safety and health requirements
between small and big size construction project in Selangor is shown in Figure 4.165
until Figure 4.184.
Figure 4.165: Cost of Compliance with Safety and Health Management
Requirements
Figure 4.165 shows that most of the respondents be it from small or big
project state that they allocate less than 0.2% of the project cost for all of the
requirements. At the same time, there are a quite number of respondents from big
size project who allocated 0.21% to 0.5% for safety and health officer, training, and
record keeping system whereby a few of them have allocated more than 1%.
Figure 4.166: Cost of Compliance with Safety and Health Committee
Requirements
Figure 4.166 shows that most respondents from big project has allocated less
than 0.2% of the project cost for all requirements, some of them allocated 0.21% to
0.5% and there are a few who allocated more than 1%. As for small size project, all
respondents has allocated less than 0.2% for all requirements except for cooperation
from top management where a few of them did allocate 0.21% to 0.5% of the project
cost.
Figure 4.167: Cost of Compliance with Machineries Requirements
Figure 4.167 shows the comparison for machineries requirements. The result
shows that large number of respondents from big size project allocated less than
0.2% of the project cost for all requirements, some of them allocated 0.21% to 0.5%,
and a few have allocated more than 1% for fitness certificate, guarding, and periodic
inspection. All respondents from small size project allocated less than 0.2% of the
project cost for all requirements excluding scheduled maintenance where some of
them did allocate 0.21% to 0.5%.
Figure 4.168: Cost of Compliance with Working Platform Requirements
Figure 4.168 shows the comparison of cost of compliance with working
platforms requirements. The figure shows that majority of the respondents from both
big and small size project allocated less than 0.2% of the project cost for all
requirements. There are some of them who allocated 0.21% to 0.5%, and a few of
respondents from big size project allocated more than 1% for all requirements except
for maintenance and housekeeping.
Figure 4.169: Cost of Compliance with Scaffolding Requirements
Figure 4.169 shows that majority of the respondents from small size project
agreed that they allocated less than 0.2% of the project cost for all requirements and
the rest has allocated 0.21% to 0.5%. As for big size project, many of them allocated
less than 0.2% but quite a lot of them who allocated 0.21% to 0.5%. There are also
respondents who allocated more than 0.5% for the requirements.
Figure 4.170: Cost of Compliance with Floor Opening Requirements
Figure 4.170 shows that all respondents from small size project allocated less
than 0.2% of the project cost for all requirements where majority of the big project
respondents agreed the same. At the same time, there are a small number of big
project respondents who allocated 0.21% to 0.5% for the requirements.
Figure 4.171: Cost of Compliance with Opening at Building Edge Requirements
Figure 4.171 shows that all small and big project respondents allocated less
than 0.2% of the project cost for warning sign and inspection and maintenance. For
the barricades requirements, majority of big project respondents allocated less than
0.2% as well but there are a few of them who allocated 0.21% to 0.5%.
Figure 4.172: Cost of Compliance with Working at Heights Requirements
Figure 4.172 shows both small and big project allocated less than 0.2% of the
project cost for work procedures and supervision and training requirements. Majority
of them allocated the same cost range for fall protection, but there are also
respondents who allocated 0.21% to 0.5%.
Figure 4.173: Cost of Compliance with Access to Workplace Requirements
Figure 4.173 shows that all respondents from big and small size project
agreed that they allocated less than 0.2% of the project cost for access to workplace
requirements.
Figure 4.174: Cost of Compliance with Public Safety and Health Management
Requirements
Figure 4.174 shows that all respondents from small size project agreed that
they allocated less than 0.2% of the project cost for public safety and health
management requirements. Likewise, majority of the respondents from big project
allocated less than 0.2% as well, but there are few of them who allocated 0.21% to
0.5% for warning sign, traffic control, and site material handling.
Figure 4.175: Cost of Compliance with Site Electrical Safety Requirements
Figure 4.175 shows that both small and big project respondents allocated less
than 0.2% of the project cost for all requirements except for scheduled inspection
where a few respondents from big project agreed that they allocated 0.21% to 0.5%
for the requirements.
Figure 4.176: Cost of Compliance with Workers’ Accommodation and Welfare
Requirements
Figure 4.176 shows that majority of the respondents from both small and big
project allocated less than 0.2% of the project cost for all requirements. There are
also projects which allocated 0.21% to 0.5% for the requirements.
Figure 4.177: Cost of Compliance with Cleanliness and Housekeeping
Requirements
Figure 4.177 shows that larger amount of small project who allocated 0.21%
0.5% of the project cost for all requirements than big project. However, majority of
both small and big project allocated less than 0.2% for all requirements.
Figure 4.178: Cost of Compliance with Site Material Storage Requirements
Figure 4.178 shows that higher number in big project which allocated 0.21%
to 0.5% of the project cost for site material storage requirements than the small
project. At the same time, most of the respondents from both project size allocated
less than 0.2% for the requirements.
Figure 4.179: Cost of Compliance with Site Health and Welfare Requirements
Figure 4.179 shows that all requirements were allocated less than 0.2% of the
project cost by small project except for requirements for recreation room, canteen,
and sanitation which were allocated as much as 0.21% to 0.5%. Similarly to big
project where most requirements were allocated less than 0.2% except for recreation,
canteen, sanitation, periodic health assessment, and warning sign requirements which
were allocated as much as 0.21% to 0.5%.
Figure 4.180: Cost of Compliance with Formworks Requirements
Figure 4.180 shows that majority of the respondents from both small and big
project allocated less than 0.2% of the project cost for all requirements. There are
more respondents from small size project than big project who allocated 0.21% to
0.5% for the requirements.
Figure 4.181: Cost of Compliance with Personal Protective Equipments
Requirements
Figure 4.181 shows that all respondents from both project allocated less than
0.2% of the project cost for all requirements excluding supply, receive, and record of
personal protective equipments which were allocated as much as 0.21% to 0.5%.
Figure 4.182: Cost of Compliance with Excavation and Shoring Requirements
Figure 4.182 shows that majority of the respondents allocated less than 0.2%
of the project cost for all requirements except for signage and barricades as well as
inspection and supervision. There are big and small project which allocated 0.21% to
0.5% for the excluding requirements. In addition, there are small number of
respondents from big project who allocated 0.51% to 1% for the requirements.
Figure 4.183: Cost of Compliance with Piling Works Requirements
Figure 4.183 shows that all requirements were allocated less than 0.2% of the
project cost by majority of the respondents for both big and small project. As for
physical condition of piling machine, there are small and big project which allocated
0.21% to 0.5% as well as 0.51% to 1% as in big project. Additionally, there are big
project allocated more than 1% for inspection and maintenance of piling machine by
competent person as well as supervision and maintenance of the machine.
Figure 4.184: Cost of Compliance with Demolition Works Requirements
Figure 4.184 shows that all small project allocated less than 0.2% of the
project cost for demolition requirements meanwhile there are some of the big project
that allocated 0.21% to 0.5% for the requirements where the rest of them allocated
less than 0.2% as well.
4.5.2
Comparison of Cost of Compliance with Safety and Health Requirements
in Construction Site in Terengganu
The comparison of cost of compliance with safety and health requirements
between big and small size construction project in Terengganu is shown in Figure
4.185 until Figure 4.204.
Figure 4.185: Cost of Compliance with Safety and Health Management
Requirements
Figure 4.185 shows that majority of big project allocated less than 0.2% of the
project cost for safety and health management. There are some of them that allocated
0.21% to 0.5% for safety and health policy as well as safety and health committee,
and quite large number of them that allocated 0.51% to 1% for most of the
requirements. Besides, there are also big project that allocated more than 1% for
safety and health policy, safety and health officer, training and record keeping
system.
As for small project, majority of them allocated less than 0.2% as well.
However, there are many who allocated 0.21% to 0.5% for all requirements and some
of them allocated 0.51% to 1% for subcontractors’ safety and health management.
Figure 4.186: Cost of Compliance with Safety and Health Committee
Requirements
Figure 4.186 shows that there are more small size project that allocated less
than 0.2% of the project cots for safety and health committee requirements than the
big project. This is because the big project has higher allocation such 0.21% to 0.5%
for regular meeting, site inspection, and subcontractor’s representatives, and there are
also many that allocated more than 1% for all requirements.
Figure 4.187: Cost of Compliance with Machineries Requirements
Figure 4.187 shows that small project allocated less than 0.2% of the project
cost for most of the requirements. There are also small project that allocated 0.21% to
0.5% for safety operating procedures and scheduled maintenance. As for big project,
there are allocation as high as more than 1% for fitness certificate, guarding, and
periodic inspection.
Figure 4.188: Cost of Compliance with Working Platforms Requirements
Figure 4.188 shows that there are less than 0.2% of the project cost and 0.21%
to 0.5% that were allocated for all requirements by small project meanwhile there are
more than 1% allocation for professional design, safe working load, hoarding, and
safe access and egress for big project.
Figure 4.189: Cost of Compliance with Scaffolding Requirements
Figure 4.189 shows that the big project only has less than 0.2% and more than
1% allocation for all requirements for scaffolding. While for the small project, there
are less than 0.2% and 0.21% to 0.5% allocation for all of the requirements.
Figure 4.190: Cost of Compliance with Floor Opening Requirements
Figure 4.190 shows that small project allocated less than 0.2% of the project
cost for barricades and warning sign, and 0.21% to 0.5% for inspection and
maintenance. There are more respondents from big project who allocated less than
0.2% rather than 0.21% to 0.5% for all requirements for floor opening.
Figure 4.191: Cost of Compliance with Opening at Building Edge Requirements
Figure 4.191 shows that small project allocated less than 0.2% of the project
cost for barricades and warning sign, and 0.21% to 0.5% for inspection and
maintenance. There are more respondents from big project who allocated less than
0.2% rather than 0.21% to 0.5% for barricades meanwhile the other requirements
were allocated less than 0.2%.
Figure 4.192: Cost of Compliance with Working at Height Requirements
Figure 4.192 shows that all big project allocated less than 0.2% for working at
height requirements. There are more small project that allocated 0.21% to 0.5% for
fall protection requirements than the project that allocated less than 0.2%.
Figure 4.193: Cost of Compliance with Access to Workplace Requirements
Figure 4.193 shows that all big project allocated less than 0.2% of the project
cost for all access to workplace requirements meanwhile there are some small project
that allocated 0.21% to 0.5%.
Figure 4.194: Cost of Compliance with Public Safety and Health Management
Requirements
Figure 4.194 shows that the small project allocated 0.21% to 0.5% of the
project cost for guarding, traffic control, and site material handling meanwhile the
big project allocated that cost range for warning sign, traffic control, and site material
handling. Most of the project allocated less than 0.2% for all requirements.
Figure 4.195: Cost of Compliance with Site Electrical Safety Requirements
Figure 4.195 shows that small project allocated less 0.21% to 0.5% of the
project cost for installation by competent person and scheduled inspection,
meanwhile the big project allocated that much for all requirements. The requirements
are mostly allocated less than 0.2% of the project cost.
Figure 4.196: Cost of Compliance with Workers’ Accommodation and Welfare
Requirements
Figure 4.196 shows that more small project allocated 0.21% to 0.5% of the
project cost for all requirements meanwhile the big project allocated that amount only
for the workers’ accommodation. Most of the big project allocated less than 0.2% for
all requirements.
Figure 4.197: Cost of Compliance with Site Cleanliness and Housekeeping
Requirements
Figure 4.197 shows that all big project allocated less than 0.2% of the project cost to
comply with site cleanliness and housekeeping requirements meanwhile there are
some of small project that are willingly allocated 0.21% to 0.5% for the
requirements.
Figure 4.198: Cost of Compliance with Site Material Storage Requirements
Figure 4.198 shows that most of the small project were allocating more cost
for site material storage if compared to the big project. The big project allocated
0.21% to 0.5% of the project cost for complying with paint, oil, lubricant storage and
scheduled waste storage.
Figure 4.199: Cost of Compliance with Site Health and Welfare Requirements
Figure 4.199 shows that both small and big project allocated less than 0.2% of
the project cost for all requirements. There are also big project that allocated 0.21%
to 0.5% for first aid kit, medical surveillance, warning sign, and inspection and
maintenance meanwhile the small project allocated that amount for recreation room,
canteen, sanitation, as well as inspection and maintenance.
Figure 4.200: Cost of Compliance with Formworks Requirements
Figure 4.200 shows that there are more big project that allocated less than
0.2% of the project cost than that allocated 0.21% to 0.5% for all formwork
requirements, meanwhile there are more small project that allocated 0.21% to 0.5% if
compared to small project that allocated less than 0.2% for all requirements.
Figure 4.201: Cost of Compliance with Personal Protective Equipments
Requirements
Figure 4.201 shows that most of the requirements for personal protective
equipments were allocated less than 0.2% of the project cost. However, there are big
project that allocated 0.21% to 0.5% for inspecton and maintenance meanwhile small
project allocated that amount for all requirements except for training and warning
sign.
Figure 4.202: Cost of Compliance with Excavation and Shoring Requirements
Figure 4.202 shows that most of the requirements were allocated less than
0.2% of the project cost. There are small and big project that allocated 0.21% to 0.5%
for the requirements and big project that allocated 0.51% to 1% for inspection and
supervision.
Figure 4.203: Cost of Compliance with Piling Works Requirements
Figure 4.203 shows that most of the requirements for piling works were
allocated less than 0.2% of the project cost. Even so, there are big project that
allocated more than 1% for inspection and maintenance by competent person as well
as for supervision and maintenance.
Figure 4.204: Cost of Compliance with Demolition Work Requirements
Figure 4.204 shows that majority of big and small project allocated less than
0.2% of the project cost but there are still many of them that allocated 0.21% to 0.5%
for all demolition work requirements.
4.5.3
Comparison of Cost of Compliance with Safety and Health Requirements
in Construction Site for Big Project
The comparison of cost of compliance with safety and health requirements in
construction site between big project in Terengganu and big project in Selangor is
shown in Figure 4.205 until Figure 4.224.
Figure 4.205: Cost of Compliance with Safety and Health Management
Requirements
Figure 4.205 shows that big project in Terengganu allocated higher cost for
most of the requirements which is 0.51% to 1% of the project cost, meanwhile more
than 1% allocation for safety and health policy, safety and health officer, training,
and record keeping system.
Figure 4.206: Cost of Compliance with Safety and Health Committee
Requirements
Figure 4.206 shows that more big project in Terengganu than big project in
Selangor that allocated more than 1% of the project cost for all requirements. Most of
big project in Selangor allocated less than 0.2% for the requirements.
Figure 4.207: Cost of Compliance with Machineries Requirements
Figure 4.207 shows thatmany big project in Terengganu and a few big project
in Selangor allocated more than 1% of the project cost for fitness certificate,
guarding, and periodic inspection. The highest allocation for scheduled maintenance
is 0.51% to 1% for both Selangor and Terengganu.
Figure 4.208: Cost of Compliance with Working Platforms Requirements
Figure 4.208 shows that there are quite number of big project in Terengganu
which allocated more than 1% of the requirements as for designed by professional
engineer, safe working load, hoarding, and safe access and egress. Only a few of
small project in Selangor allocated that much amount for the mentioned
requirements.
Figure 4.209: Cost of Compliance with Scaffolding Requirements
Figure 4.209 shows that significant amount of small project in Terengganu if
compared to Selangor that allocated more than 1% of the project cost for all
scaffolding requirements. Yet, majority of the respondents allocated less than 0.2%
for the requirements.
Figure 4.210: Cost of Compliance with Floor Opening Requirements
Figure 4.210 shows that most of the respondents allocated less than 0.2% of
the project cost in order to comply with all requirements. however, there are more
small project in Terengganu than Selangor that allocated 0.21% to 0.5% for the
requirements.
Figure 4.211: Cost of Compliance with Opening at Building Edge Requirements
Figure 4.211 shows that all requirements were mostly allocated less than
0.2% of the project cost except for barricades where there are both big project in
Selangor and Terengganu allocated as much as 0.21% to 0.5%.
Figure 4.212: Cost of Compliance with Working at Heights Requirements
Figure 4.212 shows that all big project in Terengganu allocated less than
0.2% of the project cost for working at height requirements meanwhile there are big
project in Selangor that allocated 0.21% to 0.5% for fall protection.
Figure 4.213: Cost of Compliance with Access to Workplace Requirements
Figure 4.213 shows all big size project both in Terengganu and Selangor
allocated less than 0.2% of the project cost for access to workplace requirements.
Figure 4.214: Cost of Compliance with Public Safety and Health Management
Requirements
Figure 4.214 shows that only a few big project in Selangor that allocated
0.21% to 0.5% of the project cost for public safety requirements where majority of
them allocated less than 0.2%. There are quite many of big project in Terengganu
that allocated 0.21% to 0.5%. Both Selangor and Terengganu allocated less than
0.2% for guarding requirements.
Figure 4.215: Cost of Compliance with Site Electrical Safety Requirements
Figure 4.215 shows Selangor allocated less than 0.2% for warning sign and
istallation by competent person. Majority of them allocated the same amount for
scheduled inspection. There are allocation of less than 0.2% and 0.21% to 0.5% for
all requirements in Terengganu.
Figure 4.216: Cost of Compliance with Workers’ Accommodation and Welfare
Requirements
Figure 4.216 shows that majority of the respondents from both states
allocated less than 0.2% for all three requirements and a few of Selangor respondents
allocated 0.21% to 0.5%.
Figure 4.217: Cost of Compliance with Site Cleanliness and Housekeeping
Requirements
Figure 4.217 shows that all Terengganu respondents allocated less than 0.2%
of the project cost for site cleanliness and housekeeping. Majority of Selangor
respondents allocated less than 0.2% and a few them allocated 0.21% to 0.5%.
Figure 4.218: Cost of Compliance with Site Material Storage Requirements
Figure 4.218 shows that many respondents in Selangor allocated less than
0.2% of the project cost than who allocated 0.21% to 0.5% for all site material
storage requirements. As for Terengganu, all respondents allocated less than 0.2% for
building material storage and there are 0.21% to 0.5% allocation as well for paint, oil,
and lubricant storage as well as scheduled waste storage.
Figure 4.219: Cost of Compliance with Site Health and Welfare Requirements
Figure 4.219 shows that most of the respondents allocated less than 0.2% of
the project cost for site health and welfare. There are also allocation of 0.21% to
0.5% for the requirements where it is more in Terengganu if compared to Selangor.
Figure 4.220: Cost of Compliance with Formworks Requirements
Figure 4.220 shows that majority of the respondents allocated less than 0.2%
of the project cost for formwork requirements. There are also many of them who
allocated 0.21% to 0.5% for the requirements.
Figure 4.221: Cost of Compliance with Personal Protective Equipments
Requirements
Figure 4.221 shows that most of the requirements were allocated less than
0.2% of the project cost both in Selangor and Terengganu. There is 0.21% to 0.5%
allocation for supply, receive, and record of PPE in Selangor, whereby it is for
inspection and maintenance in Terengganu.
Figure 4.222: Cost of Compliance with Excavation and Shoring Requirements
Figure 4.222 shows that most respondents allocated less than 0.2% of the
project cost for excavation and shoring requirements. There are Terengganu
respondents who allocated 0.51% to 0.1% for inspection and supervision and 0.21%
to 0.5% for safe parking location.
Figure 4.223: Cost of Compliance with Piling Works Requirements
Figure 4.223 shows that eventhough there are majority of the respondents
allocated less than 0.2% of the project cost for piling requirements, there are some
respondents in Terengganu who allocated more than 1% for inspection and
maintenance by competent person as well as for supervision and training.
Figure 4.224: Cost of Compliance with Demolition Works Requirements
Figure 4.224 shows that almost all respondents in Selangor allocated less than
0.2% of the project cost for all requirements whereby the rest of them allocated
0.21% to 0.5%. As for Terengganu respondents, almost half of them allocated 0.21%
to 0.5% for the requirements instead of less than 0.2%.
4.5.4
Comparison of Cost of Compliance with Safety and Health Requirements
in Construction Site in Small Project
The comparison of cost of compliance with safety and health requirements in
construction site between small project in Selangor and Terengganu is shown in
Figure 4.225 until Figure 4.244.
Figure 4.225: Cost of Compliance with Safety and Health Management
Requirements
Figure 4.225 shows that all Selangor respondents allocated less than 0.2% of
the project cost for complying with safety and health management requirements.
Majority of Terengganu respondents also allocated less than 0.2% but there are a few
who allocated 0.21% to 0.5% for all requirements, and a few more allocated 0.51% to
1% such for subcontractors’ safety and health management.
Figure 4.226: Cost of Compliance with Safety and Health Committee
Requirements
Figure 4.226 shows that all respondents allocated less than 0.2% of the
project cost for all requirements except for a few Selangor respondents who allocated
0.21% to 0.5% for cooperation from top management, and accident investigation as
for Terengganu.
Figure 4.227: Cost of Compliance with Machineries Requirements
Figure 4.227 shows most respondent from Selangor and Terengganu allocated
less than 0.2% of the project cost for machineries requirements. However, there are
allocation of 0.21% to 0.5% in Terengganu for safety operating procedures and
scheduled maintenance for both Selangor and Terengganu.
Figure 4.228: Cost of Compliance with Working Platforms Requirements
Figure 4.228 shows that many Selangor respondents allocated less than 0.2%
fro working platforms requirements but there are some that allocated 0.21% to 0.5%.
Meanwhile in Terengganu, the number of respondents that allocated 0.21% to 0.5%
is quite high especially for maintenance and housekeeping requirement.
Figure 4.229: Cost of Compliance with Scaffolding Requirements
Figure 4.229 shows that majority of Selangor respondents allocated less than
0.2% of the project cost for scaffolding requirements where some of them allocated
0.21% to 0.5%. There are pretty large number of Terengganu respondents that
allocated more than 1% for the requirements. The number of Terengganu respondents
who allocated 0.21% to 0.5% with less than 0.2% is more or less the same.
Figure 4.230: Cost of Compliance with Floor Opening Requirements
Figure 4.230 shows that all Selangor respondents allocated less than 0.2% of
the project cost for floor opening requirements. As for Terengganu respondents, all of
them allocated less than 0.2% as well for barricades and warning sign meanwhile a
few of them allocated 0.21% to 0.5% for inspection and maintenance.
Figure 4.231: Cost of Compliance with Opening at Building Edge Requirements
Figure 4.231 shows that all Selangor respondents allocated less than 0.2% of
the project cost for opening at building edge requirements. As for Terengganu
respondents, all of them allocated less than 0.2% as well for barricades and warning
sign meanwhile a few of them allocated 0.21% to 0.5% for inspection and
maintenance.
Figure 4.232: Cost of Compliance with Working at Heights Requirements
Figure 4.232 shows that all respondents allocated less than 0.2% of the
project cost for work procedures and supervision and training for working at height
requirements. There are many Terengganu respondents who allocated 0.21% to 0.5%
for fall protection which only a few of Selangor respondents who allocated such
amount.
Figure 4.233: Cost of Compliance with Access to Workplace Requirements
Figure 4.233 shows that all Selangor respondents allocated less than 0.2% of
the project cost for access to workplace requirements. Majority Terengganu
respondents also allocated less than 0.2% for the requirements and the rest of them
allocated 0.21% to 0.5%.
Figure 4.234: Cost of Compliance with Public Safety and Health Management
Requirements
Figure 4.234 shows that all Selangor respondents allocated less than 0.2% of
the project cost for public safety and health management requirements. All
Terengganu respondents allocated less than 0.2% as well for warning sign and
majority of the requirements. Somehow, there are some respondents who allocated
0.21% to 0.5% for guarding, traffic control, and site material handling.
Figure 4.235: Cost of Compliance with Site Electrical Safety Requirements
Figure 4.235 shows that all Selangor respondents allocated less than 0.2% of
the project cost for public safety and health management requirements. All
Terengganu respondents allocated less than 0.2% as well for warning sign and
majority of the requirements. Somehow, there are some respondents who allocated
0.21% to 0.5% for installation by competent person and scheduled inspection.
Figure 4.236: Cost of Compliance with Workers’ Accommodation and Welfare
Requirements
Figure 4.236 shows that majority of Selangor respondent allocated less than
0.2% of the project cost for workers’ accommodation and welfare requirements. A
few of them allocated 0.21% to 0.5% for the requirements. The number of
Terengganu respondents who allocated less than 0.2% for away from site
requirements as well as cleanliness and housekeeping is same with the respondents
who allocated 0.21% to 0.5%. There is outstanding number of respondents who
allocated 0.21% to 0.5% for fire figthing equipments.
Figure 4.237: Cost of Compliance with Site Cleanliness and Housekeeping
Requirements
Figure 4.237 shows that most Selangor and Terengganu respondents allocated
less than 0.2% of the project cost for site cleanliness and housekeeping. There are
some of them that allocated 0.21% to 0.5% for the requirements.
Figure 4.238: Cost of Compliance with Site Material Storage Requirements
Figure 4.238 shows majority Selangor respondents allocated less than 0.2% of
the project cost for the requirements and some of them allocated 0.21% to 0.5%. This
is totally contrast with Terengganu respondents who most of them allocated 0.21% to
0.5% instead of less than 0.2%.
Figure 4.239: Cost of Compliance with Site Health and Welfare Requirements
Figure 4.239 shows that most of the Selangor and Terengganu respondents
allocated less than 0.2% of the project cost for site health and welfare requirements.
There are many Terengganu respondents and few Selangor respondents allocated
0.21% to 0.5% for recreation room, canteen, and sanitation facilities. There are also
Terengganu respondents allocated 0.21% to 0.5% for inspection and maintenance.
Figure 4.240: Cost of Compliance with Formworks Requirements
Figure 4.240 shows that most of Selangor respondents allocated less than
0.2% of the project cost for formworks requirements and the rest of them allocated
0.21% to 0.5%. The number of Terengganu respondents who allocated less than 0.2%
is similar to the number of the respondents who allocated 0.21% to 0.5%.
Figure 4.241: Cost of Compliance with Personal Protective Equipments
Requirements
Figure 4.241 shows that majority of Selangor and Terengganu respondents
allocated less than 0.2% for personal protective equipments (PPE) requirements.
There are quite a few of Terengganu respodents who allocated 0.21% to 0.5% for
supply, receive, and record of PPE, monitoring of compliance, and warning sign.
There are also a few Selangor respondents who allocated 0.21% to 0.5% for training
on PPE usage.
Figure 4.242: Cost of Compliance with Excavation and Shoring Requirements
Figure 4.242 shows that all Selangor respondents allocated less than 0.2% of
the project cost for all of excavation and shoring requirements except for signage and
barricades when there are a few of them who allocated 0.21% to 0.5%. All
Terengganu respondents allocated less than 0.2% for safe parking location. Many of
them allocated less than 0.2% but there are also some of them allocated 0.21% to
0.5% for other requirements.
Figure 4.243: Cost of Compliance with Piling Works Requirements
Figure 4.243 shows that all Selangor respondents allocated less than 0.2% of
the project cost for piling work requirements not inclyding physical condition of
piling machine. Some of Terengganu respondents put higher allocation for the
requirements as much as 0.21% to 0.5%.
Figure 4.244: Cost of Compliance with Demolition Works Requirements
Figure 4.244 shows that all Selangor respondents allocated less than 0.2% of
the project cost for demolition work requirements. Most of Terengganu respondents
also allocated less than 0.2% but some of them allocated 0.21% to 0.5% especially
for public safety and health.
CHAPTER 5
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
5.1
Conclusion based on Objective 1: To identify safety and health
requirements in construction site.
Safety and health requirements in construction site have been identified based on the
enacted acts, regulations, journals, and other documents studies. Table 5.1 presents
the safety and health requirements in construction site.
Table 5.1: Safety and Health Requirements in Construction Site
Item Safety and Health Requirements
Reference (Act/Reg.)
No
1.
Safety and Health Management
Safety policy (written, displayed, disseminated, OSHA Sect. 16
and revised)
2
Safety and health officer
OSHA Sect. 29/30
Safety and health committee
OSHA Sect. 29/30
Designated person
OSHA Sect. 29/30
Crane operator
OSHA Sect. 29/30
Scaffolding supervisor
BOWEC 25/26
Site safety supervisor
BOWEC 25/26
Safety and health manual and working permit
OSHA Sect. 15(2)(b)
Subcontractors’ safety and health management
OSHA Sect. 15(2)(d)
Safety and health training
OSHA Sect. 15(2)(c)
Safety and health record keeping system
OSHA Sect. 15(2)(a)
Safety and Health Committee
Letter of appointment as committee members
OSHA/SHC Reg. 6
Regular meeting
OSHA/SHC Reg. 2(1)
Site inspection
OSHA/SHC Reg. 12
Representatives
from
subcontractors
and OSHA/SHC Reg. 5
workers
3
Accident investigations
OSHA/SHC Reg. 13(1)
Cooperation from top management
OSHA/SHC
Machineries
Certificate of fitness
FMA Sect. 19
Guarding
FMA Reg. 4, FOM
Periodic inspection
OSHA Sect. 15(2)(a)
Safety operating procedures
OSHA Sect. 15(2)(a)
Scheduled maintenance
OSHA Sect. 15(2)(a)
Table 5.1: Safety and Health Requirements in Construction Site (Continued)
Item Safety and Health Requirements
Reference (Act/Reg.)
No
4
Working Platforms
Designed by professional engineer
OSHA Sect. 15(2)(b)
Safe working load sign
OSHA Sect. 15(2)(c)
Hoarding
BOWEC Reg. 88
Maintenance and housekeeping
OSHA Sect. 15(2)(a)/
BOWEC Reg. 9
Safe access and egress
OSHA Sect.
15(2)(d)/BOWEC Reg.
10, 86
5
Scaffolding
Designed by professional engineer
BOWEC 75
Erection by competent person
BOWEC 75(1)
Inspection and maintenance
BOWEC 73, 74, 75, 85
Physical condition and validity
BOWEC 72, 76, 77, 80,
86, 87, 88
6
Floor Opening
Barricades
SHW
Reg.
8/BOWEC
Reg. 106
7
8
Warning signage
OSHA Sect. 15(2)(c)
Inspection and maintenance
OSHA Sect. 15(2)(a)
Opening at Building Edge
Barricades
OSHA Sect. 15(2)(d)
Warning signage
OSHA Sect. 15(2)(d)
Inspection and maintenance
OSHA Sect. 15(2)(a)
Working at Heights
Work procedures
OSHA Sect. 15(2)(b)
Supervision and training
OSHA Sect. 15(2)(c)
Fall protection
FMA Reg. 12
SHW/BOWEC Reg. 51
Table 5.1: Safety and Health Requirements in Construction Site (Continued)
Item Safety and Health Requirements
Reference (Act/Reg.)
No
9
Access to Workplace
Access and egress
OSHA Sect. 15(2)(d)
Indicator to location of work
OSHA Sect.
15(2)(d)/BOWEC Reg. 10
(2), 20
10
11
Indicator from one floor to another floor
BOWEC Reg. 10 (1), 20
Inspection and maintenance
-
Public Safety Management
Warning signage
BOWEC Reg. 18
Guarding of workplace
OSHA Sect. 17(1)
Traffic control on site
BOWEC Reg. 18
Safe material handling
OSHA Sect. 15(2)(b)
Site Electrical Safety
Warning signage
12
13
Installed by competent person
BOWEC Reg. 16/FMA
Reg. 11
BOWEC Reg. 16(2)
Scheduled inspection (approved by JBE)
BOWEC Reg. 16(12)
Workers’ Accommodations and Welfare
Away from working site
FMA Reg. 3 SHW
Cleanliness, hygiene, and housekeeping
OSHA Sect. 15(2)(e)
Fire fighting equipments
FMA Reg. 22 SHW
Cleanliness and Housekeeping
Maintain housekeeping
Scrap disposal
BOWEC Reg. 121/FMA
Reg. 23 SHW
BOWEC Reg. 22, 123
Inspection and monitoring
-
Chute
BOWEC Reg. 48
Table 5.1: Safety and Health Requirements in Construction Site (Continued)
Item Safety and Health Requirements
Reference (Act/Reg.)
No
14
Site Material Storage
Paint, oil, and lubricant storage
OSHA Sect.
15(2)(b)/BOWEC Reg. 21
15
Building waste storage
BOWEC Reg. 21, 122
Scheduled waste storage
C
Site Health and Welfare
First aid kit
FMA Reg. 38 SHW
Recreation room, canteen, and sanitation facility
FMA Reg. 33, 34, 37,
SHW
16
Pest control
FMA Reg. 38 SHW
Medical surveillance
OSHA Sect. 28(2)
Periodic health assessment
OSHA Sect. 15(2)(e)
Warning sign
OSHA Sect. 15(2)(c)
Inspection and maintenance
OSHA Sect. 15(2)(e)
Formworks
Designed and drew by professional engineer
FMA Reg. 30(4)
Installation as per specification and design
-
Inspection and supervision by professional FMA Reg. 30(5)
engineer
Inspection and supervision by competent person FMA Reg. 29
during installation
Inspection and supervision by competent person FMA Reg. 31(1)
during removal
17
Personal Protective Equipments
Supply, receive, and record
BOWEC Reg.13, 14,15,24
Training on how to use PPE
OSHA Sect. 15(2)(c)
Monitoring of compliance with PPE
OSHA Sect. 15(2)(c)
Inspection and maintenance
OSHA Sect. 15(2)(a)
Warning sign
OSHA Sect. 15(2)(c)
Table 5.1: Safety and Health Requirements in Construction Site (Continued)
Item Safety and Health Requirements
Reference (Act/Reg.)
No
18
Excavation and Shoring Work
Signage and barricades
BOWEC Reg.113(7)
Inspection and supervision
BOWEC Reg.113(2)
Job hazard analysis and approved working OSHA Sect. 15(2)(b)
procedures
19
Shoring designed by professional engineer
BOWEC Reg.112, 116
Safe location to park machineries
BOWEC Reg.118
Piling Works
Shoring structure to determine stability of BOWEC Reg.124
alongside structure
Physical condition of piling machine
BOWEC Reg.130,131,134
Inspection and maintenance by competent BOWEC Reg.125
person
Supervision and maintenance
20
OSHA Sect. 15 (2)(a)
Demolition Works
Signage and barricades
BOWEC Reg. 99
Approved by Local Authorities
BOWEC Reg.100
Inspection and supervision by competent person
BOWEC Reg.103
Approved working procedures
OSHA Sect. 15 (2)(a)
Approved shoring to protect alongside structure
OSHA Sect. 17, 18
Public safety and health
BOWEC Reg.105/ OSHA
Sect. 17, 18
There are 20 safety and health requirements have successfully been identified.
Each of the requirements carries three to eleven sub requirements as stipulated in
enacted acts, regulations and other documents studied.
5.2
Conclusion based on Objective 2: To study the level of compliance with
safety and health requirements in construction site
The level of compliance of class A contractors in Selangor and Terengganu
with safety and health requirements in construction site is presented in Figure 4.4
until Figure 4.44 in the previous chapter.
The frequency of compliance with safety and health requirements were
assessed using Likert Scale method and the data was analyzed using SPSS software.
The frequencies were categorised into never, seldom, half the time, often, and always
as mentioned in Chapter 3.
Based on the data analyzed, it can be concluded that class A contractors in
Selangor and Terengganu have good compliance with safety and health requirements.
However, there are some of the requirements which score less than 3.5 of the
frequency index that need better attention in future project.
5.3
Conclusion based on Objective 3: To determine the cost of compliance
with safety and health requirements in construction site
The cost of compliance with safety and health requirements in construction
site is determined using four cost ranges which are 0% to 0.2%, 0.21% to 0.5%,
0.51% to 1% and more than 1% of the project cost.
The determination of this cost is to assess the practice of class A contractors
in Selangor and Terengganu on cost allocated for each of the requirements. The result
of the cost of compliance with safety and health requirements in construction site is
presented in Figure 4.45 until Figure 4.84.
Based on the result, it can be concluded that most of class A contractors in
Selangor and Terengganu allocate less than 0.2% of the project cost for most of the
safety and health requirements. There are also some of the requirements that were
allocated more than 1% of the project cost.
5.4
Conclusion based on Objective 4: To compare the level of compliance
with safety and health requirements in construction site between Selangor and
Terengganu
The comparison of level of compliance with safety and health requirements is
presented in Figure 4.85 until Figure 4.164 in the previous chapter. There are four
comparisons have been made.
Based on the data analyzed using average score of all the requirements according
to each category, there are four conclusions that have been made which are:
i.
Small projects in Selangor have better level of compliance with safety and
heath requirements than the big projects.
ii.
Big projects in Terengganu have better level of compliance with safety and
health requirements than the small projects.
iii.
Small projects in Selangor are more complying with the safety and health
requirements than the small projects in Terengganu.
iv.
Big projects in Selangor are more complying with the safety and health
requirements than the big projects in Terengganu.
5.5
Conclusion based on Objective 5: To compare the cost of compliance
with safety and health requirements in construction site between Selangor and
Terengganu
The comparison of cost of compliance with safety and health requirements is
presented in Figure 4.165 until Figure 4.244 in the previous chapter. There are also
four comparisons have been made.
From the analysis, four conclusions based on the comparisons have been made
which are:
i.
Most of the respondents in Selangor have allocated lower than 0.2% of the
project cost for most of the requirements. However, the big project also
allocated higher cost for some of the requirements more than the small
project.
ii.
Similar to the situation in Selangor, big projects in Terengganu are often in
allocating higher cost to comply with safety and health requirements than the
small project.
iii.
Based from the analysis, it can be concluded that big projects in Terengganu
have allocated higher cost more frequent rather than the big project in
Selangor.
iv.
The same situation occurs in comparison between small projects where small
projects in Terengganu are more frequent in that allocating higher cost to
comply with the requirements if compared to the small projects in Selangor.
5.6
Recommendations
Further study has to be carried out and the results should be validated by
safety experts in order to reconfirm the findings.
REFERENCES
Ahmad Suhaimi bin Mohd Salleh (2009). Cost of Compliance with the Health and
Safety
Management System
among
Contractor.
Bachelor
of
Civil
Engineering. Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Skudai.
Ahmadon Bakri, Rosli Mohd Zin, Mohd Saidin Misnan, Abdul Hakim Mohammed
(2006). Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) Management Systems:
Towards Development of Safety and Health Culture. Proceedings of the 6th
Asia-Pacific Structural Engineering and Construction Conference (ASPEC
2006). 5-6 September 2006. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Alan Waring (1996). Corporate Health and Safety Strategy. Jurnal of Facilities Vol.
14, Number ¾. Pp. 52-55.
Ale B. J. M., Bellamy L. J., Baksteen H., Damen M., Goossens L. H. J., Hale A. R.,
Mud M., Oh J., Papazoglou I. A., Whiston J. Y. (2008). Accidents in the
Construction Industry in the Netherlands: An Analysis of Accident Reports
using Storybuilder. Journal of Reliability Engineering and System Safety 93.
Pp. 1523-1533.
Angela C. Macedo and Ines L. Silva (2004). Analysis of Occupational Accidents in
Portugal between 1992 and 2001. Journal of Safety Science 43. Pp. 269-286.
Anthony Veltri, Mark Pagell, Michael Behm, Ajay Das (2007). A Data-Based
Evaluation of the Relationship between Occupational Safety and Operating
Performance. The journal of SH&E research vol.4 no.1. The American
Society Of Safety Engineers.
CCH Asia Pte Limited (2001). The Hands on Guide: OSH Manager Malaysia.
Singapore.
Cheng W. L., Li H., Xie F., and Fang D. P (2004). Construction Safety Management:
An Exploratory Study from China. Journal of Construction Innovation 4. Pp.
229-241.
Dato’ Lee Lam Thye (1995). Occupational Safety and Health Management.
Industrial Safety Seminar (18&19 September 1995:Senai). Universiti
Teknologi Malaysia, Skudai.
Department of Occupational Safety and Health (DOSH) (2007). Guidelines for
Public Safety and Health at Construction Site. 1 st Revision. Ministry of
Human Resources Malaysia.
Diane Hurns (2004). Investment In Workplace Safety Triggers Positive Bottom Line
Results For Businesses, Economy, Safety Official Notes. American Society of
Safety
Engineer
(ASSE)
News.
Www.asse.org/newsroom/release/press362.htm. As assessed on 8 August
2009.
Geetha M. Waehrer, Xiuwen S. Dong, Ted Miller, Elizabeth Haile, Yurong Men
(2007). Cost of Occupational Injuries in Construction in the United States.
Jurnal of Accident Analysis and Prevention 39. Pp 1258-1266.
Ilyani Binti Ismail (2006). Assessment of Safety Level in Performing Building
Maintenance
Work in
Malaysia.
Master of Science
(Construction
Management), Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Skudai.
Im H. J et al (2009). The Characteristic of Fatal Occupational Injuries in Korea’s
Construction Industries, 1997-2004. Journal of Safety Science 47. Pp. 11591162.
Law of Malaysia. Act 4. Employee’s Social Security Act 1969.
Lin. J and Mills. A (2001). Measuring the Occupational Health and Safety
Performance Of Construction Companies In Australia. Journal of Facilities
Vol. 19, Number ¾. Pp. 131-138.
Mark Cooper and David Cotton (2000). Safety Training – A Special Case? Journal of
European Industrial Training Number 24/9. Pp. 481-490.
Michael Behm, Anthony Veltri, and Ilene K. Kleinsorge (2004). Cost Analysis Model
Helps Build Business Case for Safety. Jurnal of professional safety.
www.asse.org. As assessed on 8 August 2009.
Mohammad Taher Alashwal (2008). Safety Cost in Pre-Cast Concrete Construction.
Master of Science (Construction Management), Universiti Teknologi
Malaysia, Skudai.
Norhaslinda Abas (2008). Safety Cost in Scaffolding Works. Master of Engineering
(Civil - Structure), Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Skudai.
Occupational Safety and Health Regulations 1994. Act 514. 2005.
Paguman Singh a/l Pertab Singh (1995). Benefits under the Employee’s Social Act,
1969. Industrial Safety Seminar (18&19 September 1995:Senai). Universiti
Teknologi Malaysia, Skudai.
Ramli bin Ahmad (1995). Strategies towards Excellent Industrial Safety: The Hitachi
Experience. Industrial Safety Seminar (18&19 September 1995:Senai).
Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Skudai.
Razana Omar (2009). Factors Effecting Safety Performance on Construction Sites.
Bachelor of Civil Engineering. Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Skudai.
Shang Hwa Hsu, Chun-Chia Lee, Mun-Cherng Wu, and Kenichi Takano (2008). A
Cross-cultural Study of Organizational Factors on Safety: Japanese vs.
Taiwanese Oil Refinery Plants. Journal of Accident Analysis and Prevention
40. Pp. 24-34.
Standard Form Of Contract To Be Used Where Bills Of Quantities Form Part Of The
Contract. P.W.D Form 203A (Rev. 10/83). Government of Malaysia.
Sulaiman K., Sulaiman R., Salleh H., Hashim H. A., and Construction Health and
Safety Research Centre (2008). The Potential of Contract Document as Part
of Occupational Safety and Health Management System. The Construction
and Building Research Conference of the Royal Institution of Chartered
Surveyors, COBRA 2008. 4-5 September 2008. Dublin Institute of
Technology, United Kingdom.
Syahir Sakri (2009). Perception of Cost Implication of Health and Safety Failures in
Construction Site. Bachelor of Civil Engineering. Universiti Teknologi
Malaysia, Skudai.
Thomas Lan & Kong Kean Wah (1995). Asset Protection and Risk Management.
Industrial Safety Seminar (18&19 September 1995:Senai). Universiti
Teknologi Malaysia, Skudai.
Quan Zhou, Dongping Fang, and Xiaoming Wang (2008). A Method to Identify
Strategies for the Improvement of Human Safety Behavior by Considering
Safety Climate and Personal Experience. Journal of Safety Science 46. Pp.
1406-1419.
UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MALAYSIA
FACULTY OF CIVIL ENGINEERING
QUESTIONNAIRE
COST OF COMPLIANCE WITH SAFETY AND HEALTH REQUIREMENTS
IN CONSTRUCTION SITE
Details of the researcher:
Name
:
AKMAL WANI BINTI SULONG
Course
:
Master of Science (Construction Management)
Matrix No
:
MA081341
I/C No
:
850401-11-5572
H/P No
:
012 - 984 8846
Supervisors
:
1.
Assoc. Professor Aziruddin Ressang
(016 – 712 4248)
2.
Encik Ahmad Fauzi bin Awang
(019 – 221 6745)
QUESTIONNAIRE
COST OF COMPLIANCE WITH SAFETY AND HEALTH REQUIREMENTS
IN CONSTRUCTION SITE
This questionnaire is carried out to collect the information on the cost of compliance
with safety and health requirements in construction site.
The objectives of the study are:
1. To identify safety and health requirements in construction site.
2. To study the level of compliance with safety and health requirements among
contractors.
3. To determine the cost of compliance with safety and health requirements.
4. To make comparison of the level of compliance with safety and health
requirements in construction site.
5. To make comparison of the cost of compliance with safety and health
requirements in construction site.
This study will provide input in measuring the cost of safety and health requirements
according to the cost of the project. Provisions of Occupational Safety and Health
(OSH) activities that are itemized in the cost will provide guidelines for client and
contractor to allocate adequate budget for OSH compliance in future projects.
The information provided shall be treated confidential and the particulars of the
project will not be disclosed in any circumstances.
Thank you for your co-operation and help.
Yours sincerely,
AKMAL WANI BINTI SULONG
Master of Science (Construction Management)
Faculty of Civil Engineering