Rank: Guest 
|
Posted By Tracy Martin
We are carrying out a risk assessment for working at the top of a tower. We cannot eliminate the need to work at the top of the tower. The engineer on site is of the opinion that you can only reduce the likelihood when carrying out risk assessment, but I am of the opinion you can reduce the likelihood and the severity of harm, i.e. fall arrest equipment and netting would reduce the height of fall and therefore reduce the severity. He is saying that those control measures all rely on human and there is always the risk that even the most experienced and trained personnel can lapse and not do it properly. I am of the opinion that if you have stipulated trained and competent staff and certified/inspected/maintained equipment then you have done everything "reasonably practicable" to reduce the risk and the severity. He is saying that in a risk assessment of this nature we can only reduce the likelihood not the severity. Is he right? Surely, if the person is wearing fall arrest and there is a rescue plan in place we have reduced the severity from certain death to maybe only major injury? Please help as he has asked me to get back to him ASAP as he has contacted two consultants who have told him two different things. Many thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Anthony Edwards
Tracy,
How tall is the tower?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Tracy Martin
Hi Anthony, the tower is a 20m steel tower. I have put control measure in place of fall arrest equipment (trained personnel & regularly inspected and maintained equipment) suitably anchored with a line for rescue. Wouldn't you say this would reduce the likelihood and severity?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By CFT
Tracy
To try and simplify this for you; on the assumption the tower is in fact the right equipment for task and the operatives have been trained how to work off such a structure then the risk of fall should be absolutely non existent if the working area has an appropriate barrier and the operatives do not exceed the limitations of such a structure.
If you eliminate likelihood then severity is neither here nor there.
It sounds a very complex set of circumstances for something that really only requires a sensible and balanced approach to a task that occurs 'probably' every minute of the day somewhere.
CFT
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By CFT
To follow on; 20metres? Can these works not be completed far safer with a lorry mount boom? Perhaps more expensive but still within the realms of reasonable practicability and you minimise an awful lot of considerations.
Why has a tower been selected or is this a permanently sited structure for such a purpose.
CFT
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Tracy Martin
Sorry Anthony - I think I misled you with "tower". It is actually a permanent steel lattice radar tower (not a working platform), which we have to fix cladding to. (there is no risk of radiation as it is not working yet). The work cannot be carried out by a MEWP, etc, - the workers will be working whilst anchored to an anchor in the middle of the platform on top of the tower (where the radar will eventually sit). I have done a WaH risk assessment which I think is appropriate and it reduced the severity of a fall using fall arrest equipment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Bill01
Hi Tracy,
Your man has it right you are not changing the severity (which is falling from the tower and hitting the ground) you are changing the liklihood that this will happen.
You can only change the sevrity if you reduce the tower height from say 25ft to 5ft.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Anthony Edwards Tracy, I would suggest you have put reasonable control methods inplace. But have you taken into account the type and duration of work, is there a working platform, (or is it the tower itself) could scaffolding be used? Is there a sufficient rescue plan in place. look at http://www.healthandsafe...Pages/Work_at_Height.htmThere is info on WAH and a rescue plan. Hope this is of use. Regards Nutty
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Tony abc jprhdnMurphy
Tracy
get the abseilers in. They are world class.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By GeoffB4
Bill is right. You can alter the likelihood by your control measures but they can fail and the severity is unchanged.
But Bill, whilst intuitively I'd agree falling 25ft is more dangerous than 5ft, is that really true?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Fornhelper
Hi Tracey
I wouldn't get to caught up with reducing 'likelihood' / 'severity'.
At the end of the day the controls you are putting in will reduce the risk of employees coming to harm and make sure they get home to their families as healthy as when they left for work.
Just focus on that and everything else will fall into place - no pun intended :-)
Regards
FH
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By CFT
With the further information supplied, my thoughts would certainly explore what Tony has intimated. I observed a 'famous' tower in London the other day being worked on in this manner, and had nothing but praise after being convinced sometime ago to consider this methodology.
Loudly impressed.
CFT
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Mitch
Tracey,
I agree with your stance, and disagree with Bill (to some extent!) If you require the fitters to wear fall arrest, have an emergency rescue procedure in place and erect netting below the fitters (thus reducing the height they are going to possibly fall) Paradoxically You will reduce the severity of injury they could be exposed to.
Just what is the point your antagonist is trying to make is he going to stop you working?
Mitch
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Tracy Martin
Many thanks to you all for your help. This has helped me in my response to the engineer. I feel my risk assessment is "suitable and sufficient" and reduces the likelihood and also the severity in the event of a fall (i.e. rather than certain death with no control measures, possible major injury from hanging on end of lanyard). I have passed my comments (with your assistance) onto the engineer. I know that the personnel we are trying to protect have their own views on H&S but I agree that as long as the risk assessment and control measures provide sufficient protection where is the problem.
Many thanks to everyone for your time and help in this query.
Regards
Tracy
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Ron Hunter
Tracy, I won't enter into the "arguing the numbers" debate. I only suggest you also consider the severity and likelihood of materials (inc cladding sheets). tools etc. falling onto those below. Cladding sheets will travel a fair old distance in the right wind conditions.
I have come across too many jobs where the entire emphasis was on preventing falls to people, with no thought at all of the consequences for those below when 'things go wrong'.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Tracy Martin
Hi Ron
I take your point re: materials, etc, and I have included the risks involved in my risk assessments, i.e. the cladding sheets will be secured down on top of the platform, will be carried rolled up to prevent wind taking them, tools to be secured on belts at all times, no personnel/public/visitors to be below tower when work is being carried out above(exclusion zone around it), etc, but thanks for raising the point.
REgards
Tracy
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Tabs
You are both right. If you combine your answers you will have a suitable and sufficient risk assessment.
Yours: Likelihood of falling x low severity explains someone falling but being saved.
His: Likelihood of falling after protection has failed x high severity explains someone falling and the protection having failed due to human error and they hit the floor.
To me, these are two separate lines on your risk assessment. Your likelihood will be higher than his, but his severity will be higher than yours.
Most of us tend to discount the failing protection... it can go on infinitum. Your explanation of training etc., on the protection, should be the control measures for his scenario.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Robert K Lewis
I think we need to go back to first priciples here.
The hazard is actually falling at height
The severity depends on the distance of fall.
The actual fall does not have a causal link to the use of safety harness, it would however be very different if you erect handrails atound the work platform. Without edge protection the potential for a fall is roughly constant. This is why edge protection is top of the heirarchy of choice.
Restraint harnesses prevent falls off the edge of the platform and can be regarded as slightly lower than edge protection in the heirarchy. They do however only protect the individual not the group of workers and need close supervision to be effective.
Nets limit the fall and thus the severity but they do not prevent falls.
Harnesses alone carry the constant risk of fall but to a greater severity because of the extended fall distance. The severity is reduced by installing suitably positioned nets below the work platform and work locations.
Bob
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.