Proposed changes to draft WAHR

[Brian]

There is a consulatation at the moment on proposed changes to the draft Work at Height Regulations. Information here on the HSE website.

[James C]

A 2-metre rule already exists in the current Construction Health Safety and Welfare Regulations

 

Interesting - I believed that this was a generic requirement when working at height, rather than industry-specific. Has our industry simnply adopted this as good practice, or is there other Working at Height Legislation including the 2m rule that governs other industries such as ours?

[Guest lightnix]

This consultation seems to be more about whether the two metre rule should be kept, rather than any changes to the WAHR as such.

 

"On 12 October 2004, the Health and Safety Commission considered representations from the construction industry about retaining the industry’s ‘two-metre rule’ within the overall goal setting approach to the draft Work at Height Regulations...

...This consultation seeks confirmation that there is support within the construction industry for retaining the two-metre rule within these draft regulations; and evidence about whether this has implications for other parts of industry."

[Bryson]

I worry that it will introduce some confusion - one of the main parts of the new WAHR was that it was risk-assessment based - removing any fixed, inflexible "rules".

 

I can see people now: "but my platform is only 1.95m high, I don't need any additional measures"

 

I just think that one of the original intentions was to remove references to inflexible set height limits and put the onus on whether there actually is a risk of injury, regardless of the specific height.

[McMad]

I worry that it will introduce some confusion - one of the main parts of the new WAHR was that it was risk-assessment based - removing any fixed, inflexible "rules". 

 

I can see people now: "but my platform is only 1.95m high, I don't need any additional measures"

 

I just think that one of the original intentions was to remove references to inflexible set height limits and put the onus on whether there actually is a risk of injury, regardless of the specific height.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I believe that construction wants to keep the 2m rule as a 'sensible' minimum to avoid the overzealous safety engineers wanting edge protection on kerbs.

[Chris Higgs]

A 2-metre rule already exists in the current Construction Health Safety and Welfare Regulations

 

Interesting - I believed that this was a generic requirement when working at height, rather than industry-specific. Has our industry simnply adopted this as good practice, or is there other Working at Height Legislation including the 2m rule that governs other industries such as ours?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

The so called '2m rule' exists for the construction industry.

Even then, if there were a 1.99m drop onto 500mm upstands of rebar, not many inspectors would pay too much attention to the distance one would fall onto them...

 

The Workplace (H,S&W) Regs cover us in any case, but specifically as a 'place of entertainment', and define work at height pretty much as the 'new' WaHR do.

 

I seem to remember that when LOLER arrived, there was panic about getting stuff inspected. Why not check what the law actually requires, or the closest you can find that may apply, rather than wait for someone to tell you?

 

I think the Construction Industry want a definite yes/no rule rather than suggestions of what employers should consider.

[Guest lightnix]

Thanks, Chris. Nice post.

 

One thing tho'...

I think the Construction Industry want a definite yes/no rule rather than suggestions of what employers should consider.

Kind of ironic really, if I've read that correctly. AFAIK the basic idea of having a Risk Assessment based system of H&S was to avoid long lists of proscriptive "yes/no" regs and screeds of "thou shalt / nots", which turned out to be impractical in the case of everyday reality. Instead, RAs were supposed to allow everybody to set their own level of H&S, as appropriate to their gig. Now we have a Major Industry Sector kind of asking for just such a yes/no decision.

 

It's not a criticism, more a general moan and maybe a little OT. It's just that having adopted this "flexible" system of H&S, we now seem to be dogged by more petty regulation and micro-management than ever before (removal of flower baskets from lamp posts, etc.) ;)

 

...construction wants to keep the 2m rule as a 'sensible' minimum to avoid the overzealous safety engineers wanting edge protection on kerbs.

On the other hand, I've seen and heard of more people suffering nasty injuries as a result falling off an eighteen inch stage than I have from falling out of a roof or truss ;)

[gil-galad]

The two metre rule is one of those issues that will never please everyone. If the rule is kept and someone falls from 1.5m then responsibility will be pushed around. If it is lost then over enthusiastic HSO will demand safety rails on 7" risers.

 

I find H&S as frustrating as everyone but every now and then I meet someone that restores my faith in the reason we have it!

 

Health and Safety is there to protect everyone. An whatever the new working at height regs end up as I am sure there will be those that benefit from it with a safer environment.

 

Unfortunately with the current legislation there are those that blatantly ignore it and are the real danger to the image of the industry. I am pleased that more and more companies are being asked for proof of liability insurance and Health and Safety Policy or Risk Assessment but there is still a long way to go.

 

Although many companies are trying to play by the rules, many are still employing freelancers who do not have any insurance or formal training of any kind.

 

I believe the next step to ensure a safer industry will be to put more responsibility on companies to supply proof of not only their H&S compliance but also that of the sub-contractors and freelancers they employ.

 

 

Sorry if I'm ranting but having just read other posts I will not mention I can say that my faith in the reasons for H&S is well restored.

[James C]

Well here we are!

 

I gather from our council Health & Safety inspector that the new WAHRare due this year (and his understanding is that the 2-metre rule is a gonner). As a result, he's paying particular attention to working at height, and has said that, although he's willing to consider a new risk assessment from us, arguing that ladders are the only safe and "reasonably practicable", he doesn't believe from any of the arguments we've given him, that he will accept climbing ladders as a safe method of accessing lanterns for focussing. As far as he's concerned, the ladder simply cannot be used as a working platform ("changing a bulb once or twice a year" is as much as he said would be a reasonable bending of the regulations!), because that's what the WAHR say. finito.

 

We talked about fatigue from putting up and taking down access towers (as I don't consider wheeling them along a raised stage to be a very good way of minimising the danger), we pointed out that with scenic pieces in the way, you could get a ladder closer to the lantern than you might with a tower, so people would be less likely to risk over-reaching. We ruled out a genie-type affair as not "reasonably practicable" for a venue with our financial situation (standstill-funding for the last 12 years has certainly taken its toll). Has anyone been victorious in such a battle? If so, I'd really appreciate knowing which argument won the day, or to be able to have a gander at a risk assesment justifying the retention of ladders.

 

We all knew that the days of focussing from ladders were probably numbered. I just hoped I'd have persuaded the employer of the day to fork out for a genie by then!

 

He had other things to say about our venue (no bloody wonder - I know what state the place is in - just haven't been in post long enough to turn around a mountain of Health & Safety neglect), that I'll get around to reporting elsewhere on the forum...he was surprisingly unfazed about the below-stage firebreak layer that looked a lot to him like badly fitted, broken asbestos sheets!

[Brian]

Hi James

 

When you say 'council Health and Safety inspector' what do you mean? I'm guessing that you're working in a Council run venue and he's the guy who signs off on working practice.

 

Otherwise, and I may be wrong, I thought that only Inspectors from the HSE itself could actually prohibit any work operations.

[James C]

Hi Brian, no - we're the usual underfunded arts venue with a pittance of Arts Council and Local Authority funding, and charitable status.

 

He's one of the Health & Safety officers in our Borough Council's Environmental Health team, and according to him, they hold the same powers of confiscation, unnanounced right-of-entry etc as HSE. (You'd think Cumbria might be a little lax about such things, until he talks about the amount of time he spends inspecting the nuclear power station up the road! Apparently, Sellafield is where he became so impressed with Carbon-fibre liftable access-towers - they don't absorb radiation, and are easy to wash on their way out of the plant). The reason he did a spot-check (and kindly agreed to return to the venue on a day when I could be there to meet him) was because we called the council to ask for the findings of an asbestos check they'd carried out while ago, and that reminded them that we existed!

 

I've also heard today from another source that venues in some boroughs are now being told that tallescopes are also not deemed acceptable work platforms, under WAHR. Anyone had any direct experience of this?

[Guest lightnix]

I've also heard today from another source that venues in some boroughs are now being told that tallescopes are also not deemed acceptable work platforms, under WAHR. Anyone had any direct experience of this?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Oh no :o not another Tallescope question :o :P

 

Sorry, James, but AFAIK, Tallescopes were never designed to be used as "work platforms" in the first place, only as "general access devices"

 

Once again, it comes down to what's in the manufacturer's instructions, which the HSE will almost always back up. Go against them and you could have a lot of explaining to do, should the unthinkable happen ;)

 

For some HSE info Ladders have a look at Construction Information Sheet No 49 (revision), which includes the following...

"Work at height should be carried out from a platform with suitable edge protection. Occasionally this may not be possible and a ladder may have to be used. However, ladders are best used as a means of getting to a workplace and should only be used as a workplace for light work of short duration."

Click here for the search result for "ladders" from the HSE site, there may well be more in there.

[DSA]

Could someone please explain the difference between a "work platform", ad a "general access device". Surely as soon as you access something, you are doing work, or there would be no point in accessing the point...?

 

David

[Tom]

snip

Tallescopes were never designed to be used as "work platforms" in the first place, only as "general access devices"

 

Once again, it comes down to what's in the manufacturer's instructions, snip

 

"Work at height should be carried out from a platform with suitable edge protection. Occasionally this may not be possible and a ladder may have to be used. However, ladders are best used as a means of getting to a workplace and should only be used as a workplace for light work of short duration."

 

 

I think you are wrong about scopes - they are surely designed as work platforms. They have suitable edge protection and are designed to be used by a single person, with nobody at the bottom.

From the Aluminum Access web site

“Tallescope†is a telescopic aluminium manually-operated work platform. It is used extensively in the UK and Europe for one-person spot access, particularly in theatres, shopping malls, leisure centres etc.

 

It is in moving them with somebody in the basket that we go against the manufacturers recommendations.

 

Edit: Spelling corrected and name of web site changed

[Guest lightnix]

You could be right after all there, Tom. A fair amount of Googling on the subject this afternoon finds 'Scopes referred to as both. Searching the HSE site for "tallescope" produces just a single result which says...

"The use of mobile elevating work equipment and access equipment, such as [a] tallescope, will be considered in a separate information sheet."

...and which was first published by the HSE back in October 1998.

 

Great :P So, despite years of discussion (or should that be "vacillation" ?) there still doesn't appear to be any official guidance on the use of tallescopes in the entertainment business. IMHO the "input" from various trade associations has done little or nothing to improve that state of affairs, leaving the people they are supposed to be representing in the dark and local authorities free to impose local conditions, based on their own, local, opinions ;)