There are seventeen associate members of LEEA within the UK and sixty nine
overseas associate members in the following locations: Angola (2), Bahrain (1), Belgium (1), Canada (3), Congo (1), Equatorial
Guinea (1), France (1), Gabon (2), Germany (2), Hong Kong (1), India (1), Indonesia (1), Iran (1), Kuwait (1), New
Zealand (1) www.leenz.org , Nigeria (4), Oman (3), Pakistan (2), Qatar (6), Saudi Arabia (7), Singapore (2), South Africa (2), Thailand (1),
Tunisia (1), United Arab Emirates (18).
Fall prevention requirements under the HSE Act
The following can be attributed to Maarten Quivooy, Group Manager Workplace Services, Department of Labour.
A distinction is often made between falls from heights greater than three metres and those lower than three metres. In fact
more injuries occur from falls from heights of less than three metres.
Regulation 21 of the Health and Safety
in Employment Act Regulations 1995
Regulation 21 of The Health and Safety in Employment Act 1995 is the source
of the often-quoted “three metre rule”. It is often mistakenly believed that no further action is needed where
a person faces the risk of a fall of less than three metres. This belief is wrong and ignores the over-arching duties in the
Health and Safety in Employment Act 1992 (the Act). In essence, Regulation 21 merely reinforces the requirement for a means
of preventing a fall from a height greater than three metres.
The Employer’s Responsibility for work at
height
The Act sets out the performance required of duty holders. Section 5 defines the Object of the Act:
“The
object of the Act is to promote the prevention of harm to all persons at work and other persons in, or in the vicinity of,
a place of work by –
(b) defining hazards and harm in a comprehensive way so t hat all hazards
and harm are covered, including harm caused by work-related stress and hazardous behaviour caused by certain temporary conditions”
Section 6 states that “Every employer shall take all practicable steps to ensure the safety of employees while
at work”. Section 8 -10 of the Act sets out the hierarchy of duties for employers to be considered in sequence. This
is the “Eliminate, Isolate, Minimise” process.
The same responsibility to manage hazards through the
hierarchy of elimination, isolation and minimisation also applies to self-employed persons and principals under Section 17
and 18 of the Act.
Where work may expose persons to the hazard of a fall from height, the person in control of
the place of work or the activity, should:
• Consider whether the job can be done without
exposing persons to the hazard (eliminate). This can often be best achieved by considering such elimination at the design,
construction planning and tendering stages. The use of remote release shackles during pre-cast panel erection is a good example
of hazard elimination.
• If elimination is not practicable then steps should be taken to
isolate people from the hazard. Safe working platforms, guardrail systems, work positioning systems, etc are often used to
isolate persons from the hazard.
• If neither are practicable then steps should be taken
to minimise the likelihood of harm resulting. This means considering the use personal protective equipment, safety nets, airbags,
fall arrest systems, etc.
The Department of Labour will never recommend minimisation as the first option. Many
organisations have shown that with adequate planning, co-operation between parties and effective design it is possible to
eliminate or significantly reduce the need for working at height in the first place. At each decision point the test to be
applied is practicability not just cost.
Prosecutions
Prosecutions will be taken in the most serious situations.
That is, where the most serious instances of non-compliance have occurred or where non-compliance is flagrant or wilful, or
the harm or potential harm is severe.
However, the decision to prosecute is also influenced by factors such as
whether there is sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction and/or there is a significant public interest
in prosecution.
| Over Head Crane Worker Fined, September 2005 |
|
| Damaged & Overloaded Equipment Fatality |
|
Recent Fatality is a chilling reminder to always Check your equipment and
information prior to use.
HARNESS ALERT-RECALL
Gravity Crossover
Style Fall Protection Harness.
Date: 25/08/2008
Supplier Name:
MSA (Aust) Pty Limited
Product Info: The recall relates to webbing supplied for harnesses manufactured
between 16 June 2008 and 11 August 2008. Batch (Serial) number 121373.1 For p/no 10034810 harness. Batch (Serial) number 120929.1
For p/no 10034811 harness. Batch (Serial) number 120653.1 For p/no 10034812 harness.
Defect Details:
Possible weakening of the webbing strength.
Consumer action: Return affected harness to your supplier
for replacement. Further information is available from MSA Consumer Service free call number 1300 728 672
Market
Coverage: National
Recall Coverage: National -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Product Safety Section of the ACCC has overall policy responsibility for monitoring the conduct and outcomes
of consumer goods safety recalls in Australia.
|
$60 STRAP IS THE REASON 7 PEOPLE LOST THEIR LIVES ON EAST SIDE
CRUCIAL
PIECES IN CRANE COLLAPSE
New York Post. May 16, 2008 -- Federal investigators yesterday
displayed frayed nylon slings and other
evidence showing the physical forces involved in the March 15 East Side crane collapse that killed seven people.
Officials aren't saying anything about the investigation being led by the federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration,
which is expected to take months.
But a construction-industry expert said the evidence suggests crew members working
to raise the height of the 20-story crane at 303 W. 51st St. may have mishandled the slings they were using to lift heavy,
steel crane parts.
The slings - each rated to hold about 5,000 pounds - sell for about $60 apiece.
The
workers should have padded the sharp-edged steel parts being lifted by the slings, the expert said. Without the padding, the
expert said, the steel edges could easily have cut the nylon.
"It wasn't rigged properly around the sharp
corners," the expert said.
If the steel edges hadn't cut the nylon, the sling was more than strong enough
for the job.
The 5,000-pound safety rating of the nylon straps is just a fraction of their actual capacity. If
the straps are in proper condition, they should have a breaking point of around 25,000 pounds, said the expert.
The
accident occurred while workers were hoisting a six-ton steel collar wrapped around the crane's tower. Once the collar
was in place, it would have been secured to both the tower and the building.
When the straps broke, the collar
slid down the outside of the tower, smashing through other collars that braced the crane to the building.
The crane
then toppled across East 51st Street. Six construction workers were killed, including the crane operator and some of the workers
involved in the operation.
A woman was killed when the toppling crane smashed through an apartment building on
East 50th Street.
The workers involved in the dangerous "crane jumping" operation were required to be
licensed by the city as climber/tower riggers.
But some in the construction industry argue that crane-jump crews
should also include master riggers, who are experts at hoisting heavy loads.
City regulations do not require master
riggers to be present during crane jumps.
OSHA's display of evidence yesterday was aimed at lawyers and investigators
involved in the case.
"It was primarily an opportunity for other entities involved to take a look and have
a chance to see it," said agency spokesman Ted Fitzgerald.
Some who attended were reluctant to draw conclusions
about what the evidence meant, and said more investigation of the tragedy was needed.
"All we were looking
at was a lot of rigging from various places in the construction layout," said Ed Steinberg, a plaintiffs' lawyer.
"Do I see a strap that is frayed? Sure," he said. "But to say how all that worked in all, I couldn't
grasp."
The seven people killed in the crane collapse are among 15 who have died in construction accidents
in the city so far this year.
|
|
|
