Ethentic Ethentic Higher Safety Higher Safety Chipmunk Data Chipmunk Data
  • Higher Safety Higher Safety Chipmunk Data Chipmunk Data Ethentic Ethentic

    GUEST ARTICLE: COMPLIANT SCAFFOLD DESIGN

    Scaffold planning and selection issues under spotlight

    Guest contributor is Gary Gallagher of Turner Access Ltd, a leading manufacturer and supplier of access equipment, with a product range including aluminium access towers, system scaffolding. Gary examines the “planning and selection required by all parties involved in the use, erection/dismantling, maintenance and audit applicable to scaffolds, towers and falsework.”

    SCAFFOLD DESIGN AND THE WORKING AT HEIGHT HIERARCHY

    Compliance must be established at the planning stage through selection or approval of the design and guidance to be used to meet what the hierarchy requires.

    There are two types of design:

    1. Manufacturer/Suppliers published designs which normally cover only basic scaffold configurations. These are generally known as Erection Guides.

    2. Specific scheme designs for all scaffold configurations out with those included in the relevant Erection Guides (typical examples of scaffolds requiring specific design are listed on the HSE Scaffold Check List).

    Whilst there are many Scaffolding Systems, Towers and Shoring products to choose from, few offer the option of a System of Work (SOW) that fully complies with WAH Regulation 6.3. Indeed, most product guidance does not even provide fall prevention throughout the entire SOW process even for the simplest of configurations. Instead, it features practice dependent upon the use of harnesses in a way that, at best, can only arrest falls.

    Unfortunately, SOW processes are often portrayed as collective when they are not, moreover there is a great deal of equivocation surrounding most scaffold product guidance currently available in relation to fall prevention.

    To compound the problem, many planners and others responsible for the SOW process selected, do not understand that justification of choice, should be made against what can happen, BEFORE it happens. Selection towards preparation of the scaffold plan and risk assessment should start by identifying what can go wrong and how it can go wrong.

    Responsible suppliers will have prepared this for the user for basic scaffold configurations. This would be reflected in their published guidance or proposed in the specific design to be used. Unfortunately many suppliers leave it to the users to address this important statutory requirement and how their particular equipment can be used to meet WAH Regulation 6.3.

    However, the joint user and client understanding of the hierarchy is essential, as correctly selecting the most appropriate equipment for work at height makes compliance possible or registers reasoning to possibly justify why safer alternatives required by the WAH hierarchy have been ruled out.

    In most instances, users and clients are offered designs detailing practice that involves mitigation at best against falls, i.e., practice relying upon arrest harnesses, with no other choice provided to duty holders. It is worth noting that under CDM, an employee’s (sub-contractor’s) system of work is ultimately also partly owned by the Main Contactor or even the Client.

    It is clear that if duty holders (those who plan and control the work of others) understand what is required, they will put themselves in a much better position to make the correct choice at the project planning stage.

    Whilst the starting point to it all is product selection “together with” product guidance and design which makes compliance possible, other factors are also important to consider e.g., training, product standards and approvals.

    TRAINING

    Awareness: Training for planners, supervisors, managers and safety auditors is required to plan, select, organise, supervise and then enforce/audit (that the SOW is being carried out correctly).

    Practical: Erection Training is also essential for the erectors. This type of training is additional to most training that has been provided through national schemes until recently, as the concepts are new and different and generally specific to the products or designs provided.

    This could include any equipment that can prevent the risk of fall during the complete SOW process, most likely advanced guardrails which may be independent types (additional equipment) or an advanced guardrail type which may be intended as part of the scaffold configuration involved (Integral) when the scaffold is complete.

    Evidence of Awareness training for planners, supervisors, managers etc, which includes the collective options which may be selected to achieve compliance and practical assessment for erectors to ensure understanding and check capability may be necessary to prove competence.

    ALUMINIUM TOWERS

    Aluminium towers are one of the most common forms of scaffold access system used in the UK. Two processes were approved by the HSE and PASMA as options for users in 2004 before the WAHR regulations were introduced.

    The fully collective advanced Guardrail option utilizing telescopic Advanced Guardrails features has now been superseded by a new Integral type providing substantial improvement in terms of ease of use, simplicity and efficiency, making the said Industry guidance documents now subject to review.

    This is what Judith Hackett Chairperson of the HSE had to say about it when she reviewed this new practice – “The considerable health and safety advances were clearly evident”

    PRODUCT STANDARDS AND APPROVALS

    The equipment chosen to provide the collective SOW process should also either meet the appropriate product standard directly or if no product standard applies, product testing should have been conducted to the nearest relevant standard and if necessary additional testing in relation to foreseeable use and abuse.

    As mentioned, Integral Advanced Guardrails become a permanent part of the structure and should therefore be tested to verify compliance with the appropriate scaffold product standard during erection, use and dismantling. The relevant standards for system scaffolds, Tube & Fitting scaffolds and aluminium towers are as follows:

    BS EN 12810: Scaffolds made of prefabricated components.

    BS EN 12811: Scaffolds in general.

    BS EN 1004: Mobile aluminium towers.

    External Advanced Guardrails are “additional” items not covered directly by scaffolding product standards. However, their main Guardrail loading capability should be tested to meet loading requirements of relevant product standards and be fit for purpose.

    BS EN 13374 is the edge protection standard.

    IMPORTANT REFERENCES
    1. HSE INDG401: Work at Height Regulations 2005 (as amended) guide and Q’s and A’s.
    2. BS 8437: 2005, Code of Practice for selection, use and maintenance of personal fall protection systems and equipment for use in the workplace.
    3. Construction Information Sheet No 10 (Revision 4) and the HSE produced video (Don’t Fall for It) cover Aluminium Towers (under review).
    4. SA-FE CPG 1A: Detailed Erection Guide utilizing “telescopic advanced guardrails” on all of the main Tube & Fittings configurations.
    5. NASC TG20:08 Provides structural design guidance for using Tube & Fittings
    6. NASC SG4:05 and Appendix A, the Interim Guidance published at the end of 2008, provides erection advice in general for Tube & Fittings.
    7. (Section 2 (1) – (4) are most relevant to the aforementioned article.Individual Manufacturer or Supplier Product Erection Guides are required for ALL products out with the generic form of Tube & Fittings, used to make scaffolds.
    8. HSE Scaffold Checklist.

     

    Gary Gallagher April 2010

    Latest Construction Health and Safety News

    HSE ENFORCEMENT DATABASE LATEST UPDATE

    hselogo1View current online register of HSE prosecutions and enforcement notices

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 21st August 2019

    FALL PRECAUTIONS FELL BETWEEN TWO FIRMS

    Contractors fined after workers at risk of falling from roof

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 9th August 2019

    SOLAR PANEL FIRM AWARE OF FRAGILE ROOF RISK

    Workman suffered long-term injuries in 4m fall through rooflight

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 9th August 2019

    HSE PROSECUTE FIRM OVER RISK NOT HARM

    Multiple safety failings land construction company in court

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 9th August 2019

    CLIENT AND CONTRACTOR FACED COURT TOGETHER

    Firms breached joint duty to plan and carry our work at height safely

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 6th August 2019

    £1M FINE OVER DEATH CAUSED BY EXCAVATOR

    Vehicle driver found guilty at trial alongside CDM Principal Contractor

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 6th August 2019

    CHILD DIED WHILST PLAYING ON POWERED GATE

    Lack of end stop caused gate to fall on 6 year old boy

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 6th August 2019

    HSE SPEAK AT ACCESS INDUSTRY CONFERENCE 2019

    AIF National Working at Height Conference November 2019

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 6th August 2019

    UK CLIENT FINED OVER UNSAFE OVERSEAS FIRM

    Italian contractor found guilty despite failure to attend court

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 6th August 2019

    COMPLETE FAILURE TO RECOGNISE HAVS RISK

    Specialist drilling company and director sentenced over HAVS danger

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 6th August 2019

    PC AND TWO OTHERS FAILED TO ASSESS WIND EFFECT

    Fall of director from roof caused by ‘Storm Doris’ gust

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 30th July 2019

    MAJOR FIRM FINED £400k OVER LIFTING OPERATION

    Fitter loses four fingers as load slides and falls to the ground

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 28th July 2019

    NEW HOMES LEFT IN DANGEROUS CONDITION

    Fined for unsafe gas work causing fires at housing development

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 28th July 2019

    FIRM FINED £1M OVER EXPLOSION DURING CLEANING

    Tank cleaning operation caused burns as flammable vapours ignited

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 25th July 2019

    YOUNG BRICKLAYER FELL THROUGH OPEN STAIRWAY

    Firm fined over failure to install fall protection around opening

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 25th July 2019

    STRUCTURAL SAFETY BODY LATEST NEWSLETTER

    CROSS publishes reports and expert comment on a range of issues

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 23rd July 2019

    FLAT ROOF FAILED UNDER WEIGHT OF WORKMAN

    Confusion over fragility proves costly for worker and business

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 23rd July 2019

    PROPERTY FIRM FINED OVER FATAL FALL FROM TREE

    Untrained workers using chain saw engaged to fell large sycamore

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 23rd July 2019

    LANDLORD PUT PUBLIC AT RISK FROM ASBESTOS

    Powered jet washing of asbestos cement sheets caused spread

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 23rd July 2019

    WORKMAN FELL FROM SUSPENDED ACCESS EQUIPMENT

    Health Board and maintenance firm director prosecuted

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 23rd July 2019

    CONSIDERING TEMP WORKS IN PERMANENT DESIGN

    Useful overview for civil and structural engineers on contemporary practice

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 23rd July 2019

    FIRM FAILED TO COMPLY WITH SITE WELFARE NOTICE

    Basic welfare requirements found wanting for second time

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 23rd July 2019

    PRISON TERM OVER POORLY GUARDED CIRCULAR SAW

    Workman lost three fingers using machine without guard and riving knife

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 23rd July 2019

    COMPANY IGNORED HSE ON SILICA DUST ACTION

    Worktop manufacturer failed to control dust and manage ventilation

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 23rd July 2019

    ASBESTOS REMOVED WITHOUT SURVEY OR CONTROLS

    Client fined over failure to commission refurb and demo survey

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 15th July 2019
    Ethentic Ethentic Higher Safety Higher Safety Chipmunk Data Chipmunk Data
  • Higher Safety Higher Safety Chipmunk Data Chipmunk Data Ethentic Ethentic