To verification of temporary edge protection system should include reviewing manufacturer certifications for compliance with EN13374 or OSHA 1926.502 standards,ensuring proper installation through site inspection, and conducting load testing when necessary. Regular re inspection and proper documentation are essential to confirm continued intergrity and safety performance.

Hi, hsefaisal22@gmail.com

What is the procedure for conducting the load test on the temporary edge protection system

Steve, you are probably used to working in environments where the term is usually "SQEP" rather than just "competency".

HSE got itself into a muddle with the changes from CDM 2007 to CDM 2025, as they were desperate not to include the word "competent" anywhere.

That was a result of excesssive bureaucracy in "competence asssessments" a feature of the regime for Construction procurement under both CDM 1994 and 2007 that has extended way beyond just "construction".

In large part H&S professionals fuelled much of this bureaucracy. LOTS of health and safety consutlancy practices acting as "Planning Supervisor" under CDM 1994, then "CDM Co-ordinator" under CDM 2007 producing reams of documentation that added zero value but did amount to plenty of "Blue Tape".

So rather than remind their audience that they had issued very sensible guidance in an Approved Code of Practice to support CDM 2007 (L144) HSE arranged to ensure the forms of words used in CDM 2015 should be amended such that the word "competence" was ditched and replaced with::

"skills, knowledge and experience, and, if they are an organisation, the organisational capability, necessary to fulfil the role"

What also changed with CDM 2015, was that the role of CDM Co-ordinator was changed to that of Principal Designer with words to try and get rid of the H&S Consultants who had caused so much trouble. So, clear definitions in CDM 3015 as to what attributes the Principal Designer should have - all focused on their understanding of "design" and/or "construction" and less on what H&S qualifications they might have.

CDM contains specific regulations dealing with structural issues. None say "thou shalt comply with any BS or other particular standard".

....and as a broad rule neither HSE nor the construction industry has considered it appropriate to think that the principles of BS 5975 should be applied directly to anything and everything that might possibly be considered to fall within the definition of "temporary works" as set out in BS 5975.

So, it's e.g. a scaffold up an e.g. 4 storey building. If it's tube and fitting, then there are tried and tested rules that such scaffold should meet. So, I would be looking to see that the scaffolders have their CISRS (or equivalent) certificates.

If it's a "system" scaffold made up of modular components - a bit like Lego on a grand scale, with the traditional front runners having been Kwikstage and Cuplok, but these challenged by more sophisticated brands, then the scaffolders should know that they erect to the instructions set out by the manufacturer.

NOTE - all the system scaffolds in common use in the UK are designed to be compatible with tube and fitting, so that e.g. if there is some problem feature such as an oriel window, the scaffolders can fill in the gaps on the inside of the platforms with some tube and fitting. NOT rocket science!

For the scientifically minded there can be a problem if you mix steel tube and fitting with aluminium system but only if you leave it in place for a long time and/or in e.g. corrosive conditions and scaffolders and users should be aware of this well documented issue.

When things change then it might be time for a "designed scaffold" - so you might want to include a loading bay that is going to have to cope with a much higher load than any "general access scaffold" is designed for. At that point it is time to bring in an engineer to do some calculations. Whether such designed scaffold should be treated as "temporary works" generally comes down to how far from routine the "designed" bit is.

Any half competent scaffolding contractor will either have one or more inhouse civil and/or structural engineers or will have them on tap.

BS 5975 was born as a result of some structural disasters, where temporary supports were not designed and/or constructed to deal with transient conditions e.g. when concrete is being poured in huge quantities and hasn't had time to set and then gain self-strength.

Nobody sitting on the Committees that were the brain child of Bs 5975 was thinking about relatively mundane things like a loading bay within a standard scaffold. The industry should be well award of the addtional ties and bracing that will be needed in a typicsl construction site environment AS should the scaffolders.

OF COURSE there are cowboy scaffolding contractors out there. We don't need lots of extra paperwork to deal with them but simply those that pay them enforcing basic rules and NOT taking on the poor performers.

When two men fell 6m from the top lift of a Kwikstage scaffold, I didn't need an engineer to work out why. A guard-rail had given way. Why had it given way? - because it had been damaged and had a very visible kink in it. Which meant that the "wedge" at one end of the guard-rail could not be effectively secured into the "banana" on the scaffold standard (upright). 

We DID do some destructive testing to reenact the incident (though not at 6m!). The guard-rail would have fitted fine with a small kink, but not with a big kink. The Kwikstage system is designed to allow for a bit of the wear and tear that is inevitable in a construction environment.

This would not have happened if the scaffolders had rejected a damaged component. It's illegal to use scaffolding components that show signs of damage that is likely to result in harm and has been since at least 1948, probably earlier.

What extra training do they need other than a basic "Do not use grossly defective components"? No engineer with letters after their name required. 

Zeeshan, somewhat against my better judgement I am going to assume that you are a human who might want to have a constructive discussion and not just another of the bots who have been invading these Forums.

The thread is about temporary edge protection systems and apparently you think that each and every installation should be signed off by one of those "engineers" of whom in many places there is a shortage.

Let me digress for a moment.

One of my great grandfathers worked in Japan and was a member of the local photographic society. I have a snapshot of a photography magazine dating from I think 1903 which comments on a meeting that society had had. However, by coincidence the snippet also referred to a competition for the best photos of potholes and other defects in public roads. 

Across the World there has often been lots of talk about "potholes" for as long as I can remember and probably since 1903, if not before.

In the UK we have what are called "Statutory Undertakers" who have rights to do all sorts of things which the rest of us are not allowed to do, and they often do it without asking for permission or bothering to tell people nearby what is happening.

....and one of the things they all do is dig HOLES in roads and footpaths. There is legislation that sets some rules as to how they do this, and the precautions they should put in place to stop people falling into the HOLES including "signing and guarding". If I give you the clues NRSWA and Red Book you should be able to find the guidance.

If you are human I imagine that you have seen signs which might be triangular in frames with supports resting on the ground with various warnings about roadworks nearby. Hopefully, these signs are weighed down, perhaps by one or more sandbags per frame. How much ballast is needed is supposed to be determined by what is likely to hit the sign, and the sort of weather conditions that can reasonably be expected.

Where I live we do NOT get e.g. tornadoes so we don't tend to plan for those but we assume that road signs in the middle of the Highlands of Scotland will be liable to be impacted by higher speed winds than down in the towns in the Lowlands. AND there is a standard which says how much weight is needed to hold down such signs depending on the type of environment where they are to be located.

To create that standard some engineers have done some calculations and have come up with appropriate recommndations as to how much weight is needed for each portable sign in a location matching the criteria set out in the standard. Would you really expect an "engineer" to sign off every such installation of a sign or just somebody to say "yes this meets the STANDARD". You DON'T need lots of letters after your name to be able to interpret some fairly simple rules.

Where I live we back onto a lane with another row of buildings on the other side of the lane. This week one of the Statutory Undertakers decided to dig two trenches in the lane, which became one very big HOLE. 

When they had finished work for the weekend I went out on Friday afternoon to see what had been done to stop people falling into the big HOLE.

Now we are about 1 kilometre from a river and a similar distanee from a canal, and each of those provides a really good natural corridor for wildlfie to enter the City so I have seen deer wandering about close to the land, but the deer will probably instinctively avoid the big HOLE so may be what is needed is a standard of edge protection for humans.

If in contrast these trenches were in a field with a bull, then perhaps the solidity of the edge protection would have to be much greater or the Statutory Undertaker could be faced with a very angry farmer when the farmer's prize bull has charged straight through the barrier and has fallen into the big HOLE and has broken his leg and faces either a very large vet bill or being put down - either very expensive in terms of the implications for the farmer's business.

So, there might be a "standard" but we do need to think about the nature of those at risk, who might not just be humans.

Now on one side of the big HOLE is a 7 feet high (no apologies for imperial units as that is what the wall was designed and constructed to - it's OLD!). On the other side an even higher wall.

But to front and rear of the big HOLE the protection was by means of plastic barriers, weighed down with sandbags on their supports, or not as the case was for some of the barriers.

Do you really think that it needs an "engineer" to say that the plan was to deliver X barriers to site along with Y sandbags and that if half the sandbags have not been placed on the supports to the barriers then this edge protection is probably not fit for purpose?

I did apply the Peter test. Gentle push on a barrier with no weighting down. What a surprise? - it tilted and if I had kept gently pushing it would have overturned, probably taking the section of barrier that DID have sandbags in use with it.

I do have half a degree in Engineering but not what you would think of as the right kind of Engineering. 

But I don't think that this barrier arrangement should need ANY on site "Engineer" but rather a set of ground rules as to how these commonly used barriers should be properlty deployed and then perhaps a supervisor to check what is in place.

If you still think that this needs an "Engineer"'s sign off, please could you tell me where to find them at a relatively reasonable price tag. NOTE - if your price is too high, then the Statutory Undertakeers will fix fewer problems and the public will be even more unhappy with the state of our roads and lanes than they already are.

So are you a pragmatist or someone who wants to enforce over the top rules?

On another current thread on these Forums, registered user, stevedm, refers to considering what is "disproportionate" v what is "grossly disproportionate". Are you advocating the implementation of measures that are not only "grossly disproportionate" but "even more grossly disproportionate". 

If you are then perhaps time to stop trawling the internet for utopian solutions and get out into the World outside.

There are RULES. For every RULE there is usually at least one EXCEPTION. Problem is that AI is not very good at identifying all the EXCEPTIONS.