July 2005 The May Presentation Work at Height Regulations 2005 by Ray Cooke, HM Principal Inspector, HSE Construction Group.

Transcription

1 July 2005 The May Presentation Work at Height Regulations 2005 by Ray Cooke, HM Principal Inspector, HSE Construction Group. Chairman Warwick Adams welcomed the speaker, who didn t really need any introduction, as he is such a regular speaker at BHSEA meetings. The presence of nearly 110 members and guests was a sure sign of the interest in this topic and the fact that the Regulations had only just hit the Statute Books! We almost needed loudspeakers in the car park! Ray started his talk with a slight apology by saying that, as he is a Construction Inspector, most of his examples were construction based. However, he added, he didn t want the audience to go away thinking that falls from height were only a construction problem! Far from it, because only half the 67 fatal falls are in construction and the highest incidence of Over-3-Day Accidents are in the Services and Manufacturing sectors. Historically, though, they were the second biggest cause of the 3884 major accidents reported in 2003/2004. Interestingly, he went on, up to 2/3 of all major injuries were caused by low falls, below 2 metres from vehicles and ladders. Ray said that the origin of these Regulations was the EC Temporary Work at Height Directive and they served to consolidate several existing pieces of legislation, as illustrated by the Schedule 8 Revocations. But, he emphasised that they were heavily based on earlier legislation and guidance so that there would not be any major changes although they were intended to improve standards! Partly because of the similarities with the past, there would be no lead-in period after the enforcement date of 6 th April 2005! There would be no honeymoon period, Ray added, and Inspectors would enforce in the same way as before if poor practice was encountered! As an 1

2 example, Ray showed us this scaffolding that had been erected initially be a trained scaffolder, only to be altered substantially by other workers, later. A Prohibition Notice was issued and the builder was prosecuted! Ray went on to say that it was important to appreciate what the Regulations covered. Put simply, he said, they covered work in any place from which a person could fall a distance liable to cause personal injury. That included: - Access and egress Work at, or below, ground level although not stairways in a permanent workplace or slips and trips on the same level. Ray brought our attention to the fact that the so-called 2 metre rule in the old CHSW Regulations, which had been the subject of special further consultation for these Regulations, is no more! He added that he was pleased to see its demise and commented that it had been widely applied incorrectly, anyway! Ray emphasised that the new Regulations covered all industries, although not persons paid to lead or train in the climbing and caving activities, because it is impossible to follow an established hierarchy of control. The Duty holders are: - Employers Self-employed and Those in control of people at work, to the extent of their control The emphasis is on good organisation, where planning is critical and must include emergencies and rescue procedures, which do not depend solely on the Emergency Services. Planning also encompasses design aspects of structures, such as hooks incorporated onto steel frames to accommodate safety nets during the construction phase. Safety Net Hooks designed into new structural steel framework For the first time, weather conditions have been specifically covered and they must not be allowed jeopardise health and safety. All persons working at height must be 2

3 competent for their specific task, such as using ladders or erecting tower scaffolds and they must be supervised by a competent person during training. The main thrust of the Regulations is that employers should ensure that work is not carried out at height, if it is reasonably practicable not to do so. There is a cross reference to Regulation 3 of the Management Regulations, which requires a risk assessment to underpin any decision about how to approach work at height. The risk assessment will normally take into account the following factors: - Working Conditions Distance and consequence of a fall Access and egress Duration and frequency of use/task Ease of rescue/evacuation Risk of use, installation and removal of safety equipment The Hierarchy of Control is: - 1. AVOID work at Height - if you don t have to go up there DON T 3. PREVENT falls - by using existing safe places of work as means of access, with fixed parapet walls or edge protection, OR - select and use the most suitable work equipment that prevents a fall Demolition using long-reach machines 3. MINIMISE the distances and the consequences of a fall 3 Air bags installed to reduce distance AND injury from falls

4 When selecting the right work equipment, it is important to consider Collective prevention before personal prevention. Guardrails, working platforms, Air Bags, or MEWPS are better than work restraint systems to prevent falls by individuals! The reason is because it s well established that individuals are likely to avoid using PPE, whereas collective protection is always in place. Ray then showed several designs of guarding and emphasised particularly the new requirement of Schedule 2 for ladder or stairway access points to be fitted with gates or something otherwise suitable to block the openings when not in use. Ray went on to deal with edge protection in demolition, where method statements often required harnesses to be used, but did not specify an acceptable anchorage point. The answer to this problem a remotely controlled 360 Excavator to avoid both a fall and vibration risk! Another fall prevention device that Ray displayed was the expanding trellis-type mat demonstrated by Oxford Safety Services at the BHSEA Annual Workshop last year. Referring to another form of fall prevention, Ray introduced a new term in the Regulations Work Restraint Systems, which were previously called Fall Restraint. He said that the HSE preferred the use of permanent or semi-permanent edge protection but in certain conditions fall restraint could be used effectively. He said that there were various designs and they had to be selected with great caution, as this photograph shows: - With the wire rope extended to the corner, the man could fall like a pendulum to the point nearest the portable anchor. This produces an unpredictable fall arrest action, with stresses outside the standard limits and the risk of hitting objects on the way. There is also a risk of damage to the rope as it saws along the coping and is arrested on the sharp corner. Although this is approved equipment, higher up the hierarchy than fall arrest equipment, its use in an unauthorised fashion renders it unsafe. Having said that, fall arrest equipment could also be used in a similar situation and could be deemed unsafe, also. A suitable and sufficient risk assessment is obviously the key to a safe system, here, with proper attention to rescue procedures, if ever the fall arrest equipment ever has to operate! Ray caution us that if all these measures were not in place, then employers could expect Inspectors to issue a Prohibition Notice! 4

5 The issue of rescue procedures also triggered off a discussion about preferred points of attachment on harnesses. There has been some French research that points to serious circulatory problems, resulting in toxic shock, if persons are suspended for too long before rescue. This happens, apparently, because the harness around a suspended body will interrupt the flow of blood. The research suggests that this risk is lessened if the person is suspended by a chest D-ring rather than a dorsal ring, with the added benefit that breathing is less restricted as well. It is worrying that many suppliers products do NOT have a chest D-ring! In the run-up to the introduction of the new Regulations, there has been a lot of discussion about the use of Ladders and whether they would be banned. Ray was happy to confirm that they were NOT banned, but added a stern caution that their use must be justified by a risk assessment. He added that they must be stable and secured from slipping. There must also be a secure handhold and secure support at all times for the user. These principles had been in use for some time now and this photograph shows just one of the many proprietary systems on the market to replace the use of ladders. They are light and easy to erect, being popular with painters, glaziers and roofing contractors. This man was not so lucky and attracted a Prohibition Notice for not securing the ladder at the bottom or the top and not arranging for footing, either! Because of the sensitivity of this issue for small businesses, particularly, on short jobs, Ray spent some time on describing the key principles. He added that the following are areas that inspectors could address with dutyholders, to confirm compliance:(1) challenge on the appropriateness of using ladders versus other methods of access such as MEWP or scaffolds, especially in work situations where it is difficult to fully secure a ladder. Challenge the use of ladders where other options are reasonably practicable, eg use of ladders to carry tiles/ bricks and other materials as opposed to dedicated material hoists. Encourage the use of stair towers/hoists;(2) challenge the appropriateness of using ladders as a place of work especially for heavy or long duration work. Where they are suitable to be used are bucket hooks, tool belts, work trays, etc provided for equipment needed for work done from ladders?(3) Are ladders individually identifiable, subject to a pre-use check, and regularly inspected? Does the inspection cover the stiles, rungs, treads, crossbars, rung-to-stile connections, welds, screws, hinges, and anti-slip 5

6 devices?(4) Encourage the use of ladder stability devices; and(5) Prohibit ladders that are defective or have worn anti slip rubbers. HSE inspectors will question as a matter of course whether or not a ladder should be used for the job. Work of short duration does not mean standing on a ladder for 30 minutes at a time, rather a job taking no more than minutes, that is not performed on a regular basis, would constitute short duration. So, if there is a job that is any longer or you perform time and time again, then a better system than a ladder is necessary. There is guidance available from HSE on this subject that is available from the HSE website and most offices. Always use a ladder that is long enough for the task at hand as a great number of ladder accidents are the result of using a ladder that is too short. Another cause of many deaths and serious injuries are falls though fragile surfaces. This is a good example of the application of collective, fixed protection in a roof valley. Where it is uneconomic to install a permanent arrangement, then there are portable temporary systems on the market. General purpose tube and fitting scaffolding is still a very good solution for providing a suitable working platform for long term work at height, although there is a growing preference for system scaffold designs in future standards. This drawing shows the major features that need to be in place. There is a general requirement that the surface and every parapet, permanent rail or other such fall protection measure of every place of work at height are checked on each occasion before the place is used. An Inspection is defined as such visual or more vigorous inspection by a competent person as is appropriate for safety purposes, including any testing appropriate for those purposes. Any work equipment in Schedules 2 to 6 is to be inspected after assembly/installation if its safety depends on how it is assembled/installed, and then as often as necessary to ensure safety. Work platforms in construction, where fall of >2m is possible, have to be inspected before use and, in the case of a mobile platform, has to be inspected on the site within the previous 7 days before use (a MEWP doesn t need inspecting each time it s moved). Schedule 7 covers details to be recorded Overriding all of this is the need to: - Prevent objects from falling with good edge protection 6

7 Warn persons about danger areas Inspect Work Equipment regularly Ensure that persons at work o Follow instructions and training o Advise their employer of hazards and risks to health and safety Ray concluded that the key messages are: - If you follow good practice you should be doing enough to comply Do a risk assessment, plan and organise your work properly Follow the hierarchy Avoid Prevent Minimise Choose the right equipment select collective protection before personal Use Industry Specific Guidance to support the Regulations Nick Higginson of MHL Support asked if, with the new Risk Assessment approach to Work at Heights, Inspectors would base any enforcement on the prescriptive application of dimensions in the Schedules. Ray replied that the differences in the heights of handrails would not significantly alter the risks and Inspectors use their enforcement powers for more serious contraventions, rather than be reaching for their tape measures. Inspectors would be seeking to educate and inform about the differences as a preferred course of action. Graham Richardson of Kendrick Construction described a cable installation job in a factory roof structure and asked if it was acceptable for electricians to use stilts when pulling in cables. Ray stated that it was not acceptable because they were difficult to use safely and there was a problem with proper maintenance of straps. He strongly suggested following the Industry guidelines, as laid down by the Electrical Contractors Association and use either towers or stepladders. Ed Friend of E.L.Friend Ltd. (Health & Safety Consultancy) quoted from the Regulations, Schedule 6, Item 1 and asked if this implied that, in certain situations, the HSE considered that the use of ladders might pose a low risk. Ray responded by saying that the wording in the Schedule did imply this, but emphasised that the use of ladders always had to be justified by Risk Assessment first. George Allcock of GKN plc commented that different observance of standards of working methods in the home situation seemed to cause a conflict with mandatory requirements in the workplace. Mark Hoare of Birmingham University asked how often the railings on the Cathedral roof would need to be checked and whether it should be done prior to each time it was used. There is a distinction between a permanently fixed rail and temporary 7

8 placed railings, which may become displaced accidentally, overnight and may need a daily before use check. This could be significant in public access areas, in daily use by many people. Ray said that the emphasis in the Regulations was on checks before use for work, but admitted that there was a lack of guidance on the distinction between before use checks and more rigorous inspection schemes. However, Reg. 13 should be seen as a light touch style check and not an inspection. Ed Friend commented that there was an obvious contrast between inspections needed for scaffolding, which was temporary, and fixed ladders or access platforms, which may only be used at intervals of four years, or more. Denis Law of Moss Construction asked if there was any guidance on rescue of individuals who had fallen from height and were left hanging in a harness, because it was difficult to arrange emergency callouts with the Fire Brigade. Ray replied that employers should never rely on the Fire Brigade, as callout response times varied too much to be a reliable control measure. (Secretary s Note: A firm called Spanset demonstrated a suitable rescue system at the BHSEA 2004 Workshop, which enables rescuers to effect a rescue from a safe position and lower the casualty to safety. More information can be obtained from Peter Ward on pward@spanset.co.uk Tel.No ) Denis also mentioned an article on the front page of the latest Construction News, which stated that HSE were not going to visit major construction firms as much as SMEs. He made the simple comment that this publicity let many firms relax their guard and added that it would have been far better for HSE to have maintained their silence and implemented the plan more effectively! Ray offered the thought that this was probably their interpretation of a quote by HSE but that there was no significant change in HSE Policy. Jim Hathaway of Beiersdorf UK asked how to approach the assessment of contractors altering and extending high warehouse racks, when he recognised that he was not an expert in their field. Ray said that he had already solve the first part of the problem by recognising that he had a problem and then seeking to address it! It was obvious that he had to bring such competence in to the firm from outside and asking the appropriate Trade association was a good start. It was essential to check their membership qualifications policy, because some associations only required a fee to be paid, whilst others demanded that members were able to satisfy minimum skills and competence standards. Mike Wilkinson of Marsh UK asked for guidance on what height should pose a significant risk and cited, as an example, the stage in the meeting hall where there was an obvious risk that a chair might fall off the side. Ray replied that there was no height threshold and the risk assessment needed to take consideration of all the relevant conditions and use. (Secretary s Note: The Secretary has taken a personal interest in this issue as he is the one most at risk and before leaving the building he had taken large steps to remedy the problem!). 8

9 Tony Hall of Morrison asked if a mobile worker carrying out short duration, light bulb changes on normal ceilings could use a 4-tread stepladder. He added that the floor surfaces were good and that there were no adjacent floor wells into which the man could fall from the steps. Ray suggested that the old style stepladder design was not very satisfactory and that Tony should consider replacement with a superior design over a phased period. Mike McDarby of Bournville College, still on the subject of stepladders, asked if it was acceptable for the user to work up to the second tread from the top. Ray said it might be, if there was a rail around and above a work platform at the top. Mike stated that there was hand rail to assist climbing and Ray suggested they were describing two different types of design, the old style traditional step ladder and new style, safer step platforms. He suggested that Mike looked at a selection of designs on the Internet pages for hire companies or manufacturers and should obtain a better product. Warwick Adams of Interserve commented that, in these situations, the use of Podium Steps was a popular, superior solution. But even so, he added, there had been a recent accident where one of these had been toppled because the operator had overreached the stability limit. Ray commented that, whatever the equipment being used, the training and competence of the users were critical issues to get right! As there were no further questions, Warwick thanked Ray for his excellent presentation and asked the members to show their appreciation. Post meeting note having sought clarification on a couple of issues Ray would like to make the following points (i) (ii) (iii) Where guard rails or barriers exist pre 6 April 2005 and are set at 910mm (and are safe) then there is not an expectation that they will be changed, apart from when they reach the end of their life cycle. We would certainly not be looking for bits of 40mm metal to be welded on to achieve compliance. If it was safe before then it should be safe now, but the risk assessment will inform this decision anyway. Ray wishes to apologise for misleading the audience on Schedule 2(5), as his interpretation was gates or other barriers would be needed at stair/ladder access points to scaffolds etc. This is not the case unless the risk assessment determines otherwise. Schedule 3(7)(b) refers to strength & stability calculations being needed for scaffolds, unless they conform to a generally recognised standard configuration. Ray can now confirm that BS5793, though it has been withdrawn, is an acceptable standard At the close of the meeting, Warwick Adams thanked Ray for his exhaustive presentation an asked the members to show their appreciation. 9