No - you're not being unreasonable - you are absolutely right. Another case of a client having a blinkered, opaque view of the reality of the world of health and safety at work. Unfortunately, unless you can convince the client to change his unreasonable insistence on a piece of nonsense - you must either accept his instruction (and hopefully get it well documented to protect your own employer in the event it all goes pear shaped) or - hold to your principles and refuse the work on the basis that your risk assessment shows the clients dictated method of work places your men at unacceptable risk. The latter is the morally courageous but commercially difficult option.
Steve

Talk to the clients H&S bod [if that have one] to sort things out as welding, especially high quality welding, is completely different to 99% of other occupations where dexterity is concerned especially on a scaffold where the welder is blind when welding which is completely different to other trades and noting that 1 slip will ruin the weld irrespective other things that could happen so the client needs to consider poor quality and even fire over the risk of a fall [which sounds like a very small risk in any case in this situation]

I have come across such things many a time as the vast majority of clients and designers in CDM are looking at civil/building works as against engineering construction e.g. we always had scaffolder's on hand when high pressure welding took place should the scaffold need changing as the welders position changed especially when 'rooting' yet clients without knowledge could not understand the need and extra cost

Additionally few CDMC's, even H&S bods and CITB have a suitable understanding of engineering construction and its specific needs and hazards

listen to Steve e-a as he has good points and your MD needs to step up to the mark as well - it may be that your clients just needs educating

I would agree that the fire risk outweighs the WAH risk - how can you fall off a properly built scaffold?

Having managed situations like this, I would advise consideration of emergency egress - if there is a fire, a ladder won't do, you might need stairs or ramp access. Remember -"WHAT STEPS DO YOU TAKE IN THE EVENT OF A FIRE ! ANSWER - "BIG ONES IN THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION! Corny but gold plated advice.

Thanks Pikeman. I'm thinking the only way to get round this is to make it difficult for them. By insisting on a staircase, alternative egress route etc.

In reality the risk of fire is VERY VERY small.. but it's still there and outweighs the risk of falling for the scaffold.
It's not like he's running up and down and climbing on things!

Donnison..
You're right, there are 3 issues. Actually 4 ..

The method of work we proposed the client accpeted.. until we got there! Then as usual moved the goal posts.

The method of working we have is safe. The equipment is FULL of oil and cannot ignite unless there is breakthrough and oil escapes, and even then the oil is difficult to ignite. Its not a high hydrocarbon. (We have had clients before who wanted the oil removed thereby leaving oil vapour inside.) Fire protection is in use, flammas cleared from the area etc. That's not the problem.

The site have issued a hot work permit and have NO issue with the welding and residual risk of fire. But they DO have an issue with a welder falling off a scaffold!
But can't actually explain HOW he could fall off the scaffold and don't have their own risk assessment.

The requirement and justification to remove the harness is the simple fact it is on a scaffold. There is NO need for the harness as far as we are concerened. It was US who specified a scaffold rather than a MEWP. (Which is what they suggested based purely on cost.)

The local fire brigade don't exist, its in middle of nowhere in mexico. And to be honest they wouldn't get involved even in this country. (I'm ex service.. been there done that).

Having done our risk assessment, both here and on site, the residual risk is the fire risk, no matter how small.

If the client thinks the W&H is the main risk then quote the Regs at them - risk assessment, rescue team etc.
That should push them to realise that the W&H is not the issue.

As for you - if you reckon the pipe is below retiral thickness and you could breach it - walk away till its degassed.

David H

David, Bob, I have put it all in writing and we are negotiating with the client.

The WAH regs are irrelevant as the work is in Mexico. We are working under their Federal Regs regarding Safety. These aren't so clear cut as ours or prescriptive.

The rules being employed in this case are purely the clients internal rules.

The equipment is not a pipe under pressure or filled with highly flammable materials. And due to the nature of the equipment it cannot be emptied as this would involve specialist equipment, which is unavailable in the area, time we don't have and only intriduce a whole new raft of risks.
And even if we did it would only allow a vapour filled atmosphere to exist which could become flammable / explosive.

The safest method is to do it filled. (This is proven and common practice). THIS is the safest method, trust me, we've been doing this a wee while now!

If the guy can't wear the lanyard as it would impede his escape, why not beef up the handrails and other safety features on the scaffold to make it more difficult to fall when not wearing fall protection?