A new device, or perhaps just a new application, of temporary walkway matting has been announced by Timbermat Ltd. Proposed as a mat to allow workers safe access to sharps-contaminated land this temporary matting helps protect against some of these risks – not only from needles, but from any sharp objects such as broken glass or even jagged stone or metal from any previous demolition work carried out to clear the site, ready for the new phase of construction.
Developed from a recent discussion on the HSE Web Communities Construction Discussion Forum that highlights how temporary walkways can not only help to segregate a site, but could also protect workers from injury due to unseen sharp objects, the Timbermat product or a similar alternative should be considered by all of those required to clear sharps-contaminated land. It’s also evidence of an attention to detail that, should an incident occur, may help to demonstrate to the HSE that all sensible precautions had been put in place to avoid such an injury.
It is a sound concept, though perhaps with one or two flaws. Is it proposed that the matting covers discarded sharps which are left in situ when construction starts, or removed as normal by staff standing on this matting? If the latter, then the matting when removed (? for disposal, since it is a temporary and presumably single-use product) might become contaminated with sharps stuck into or on its under surface, becoming just as hazardous as the land on which it was placed. However, photographs of the product suggest a far more robust slatted structure that may not be intended for single use only. How the manufacturer proposes to remove this from sharps contaminated land without exposing staff to those sharps that their product had covered is a matter of uncertainty.
Timbermat will not solve the root causes of drug littering, and perhaps might create additional risks when it is removed after being placed over discarded sharps. However, removing sharps is a significant risk procedure and exemplary health and safety management and protection of workers might usefully extend beyond robust boots and leggings. Whether sharps (needlestick) injury will be prevented is not clear, but the inherent dangers of working on contaminated land may indeed be reduced.
A careful methodological approach to clearing contaminated land is necessary, and it may be advantageous to have staff stand on some protective surface, once cleared, while they advance to clear adjacent land. Whether the locations and topography would permit anything more than a small piece of board, and how this can be proven to resist sharps penetration remains to be seen.
This seems to be a useful product though one that might present its own practical complications.