Rank: Forum user 
|
I've just come across some contractors who are installing cabling to the outside of one of our 5 storey properties (so we are the client for this work). They're doing it from a ladder which is extended to above the fourth storey. It looks extremely dodgy to me (I've got some great photos if you're interested) but the contractor is adamant it is industry practice and prefectly acceptable as the ladder is secured to the wall with I bolts and the worker is wearing a harness.
I'm not happy with this and, of course, reserve the right to dictate the method of work, but does anyone have any experience of similar work and whether this method can really be justified from a risk assessment point of view?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
A few interesting additional requests for the contractor then:
Please provide method statement for eye-bolt installations;
Please provide independent pull-test certification for all eye-bolts installed;
Please provide your rescue plan for any incapacitated worker;
Please provide method for prevention of falling objects at all stages of the work.
If this is "industry practice" he will of course have all this info. directly to hand!
Interested in the task and method here- there will be little reach either side of any ladder, requiring much repositioning or else multiple ladders? Either way, that's potentially a lot of anchor fixings and a lot of heavy drilling at a great height with no real method of support and possibly much physically demanding repositioning of a very long ladder?
And a question for you as Client: Why the outside of the building? Or to put it another way, who designed this installation?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
When were the eye bolts fixed and how? What equipment was used?
Is this really the best equipment for the job?
I know cost will be considered but there is a vast range of MEWP available now, surely safety should be the first consideration.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
I take it that the contractors method statement and risk assessement was not evaluated on this occassion prior to works commencing!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Thanks all for your comments - being the new H&S manager in my organisation I've inherited a lot of "interestiog" projects. To add a bit more detail and answer a few of your questions:
This is a notifiable CDM project and supposedly the CDMC has approved the methodology (I'll be having a detailed discussion with them on this).
They have method statements for the eye-bolt installation, but don't test them as they just "put them in, and take them out again" - again something I don't think is acceptable
They use MEWPs where possible, but some of their work doesn't allow access - it's a 3 minute job to fix the ladder, scale it and fix the cabling at the top
The design aspect of the job clearly missed the CDM principles as it was designed to have the cabling "out of sight" - with no consideration of health and safety.
They have a self-rescue plan in case of the installer falling, but this clearly wouldn't work if he was incapacitated from the fall!
The ladders are treble-20 rung ladders attached with 2 eye-bolts - one at the top and one of the bottom - with ratchet straps. There is a 11mm kermantle rope affixed to the ladder as the fall arrest system with the operative wearing a harness and robe grab attached to the rope.
I'm really interested to know if anyone has come across similar types of working.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
I work in the insulation industry and installing cavity wall insulation has similar problems. We use the ladder fixed by eye bolt and ratchet strap method and general industry standard fall arrest method is as yours with rope grab. This has been under HSe scrutiny for some time. Although HSE do not "approve" any system of work, they have said (to the industry) that they would be satisfied if this system was employed for short duration working where no safer access method was reasonably practicable. Two significant points of interest hower - 1) after numerous questions and investigations I am always left with silence whenever I raise the question of rescue procedure / plan, other than self rescue if the worker is not incapaciated. 2) The HSE have requested, and will need to verify, all design data, pull out test figures etc. for the eye bolt system used. The manufacturer's of your eye bolt system should have this data.
I assume training has been provided by the manufacturer for use of the ladder restraint system and eye bolts?. Verification of such training would be required along with inspection of all equipment by a competent person and relevant records available.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: New forum user
|
I don't believe it is the role of the CDMC to "approve the methodology".
My understanding of CDM is that it is the Clients duty / responsiblity for the approval of systems of work; taking guidance from the CDMC as necesary.
The CDMC has a duty to notify the client of any item of concern, but this still leaves it up to the client to act. You may want to take up with the CDMC the lack of alerting of the Client, but beware, the CDMD may well fall back on the co-ordinating function by showing they ensured that method statements etc. were delivered to the Client, with adequate time for review prior to work commencing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Tim,
Having read a few replies, and had a few days to consider, I wonder what your action, if any will now be?
Is it OK for a client who had initially accepted the contractor's risk assessment and safe system of work to change his mind after the work has started and demand a different - safer method?
I am of the opinion that it is never too late and if you have doubts about the present arrangement you should stop the job and discuss improvements with the contractor.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Thanks again all.
alan uk - your response is very useful - there appears to be a general acceptance that this method of work is OK if done properly and is only for short duration and other methods of work (MEWP, tower scaffold) are not possible. I also hit the same silence about rescue methods where it's not self-rescue. One question though - should the installers be pull testing the eye-bolts every time they put one in for the ladder strap?
ChrisBurns - you're absolutely right and I reserve the right, as client, to stop the work even though it's previously been OKed. What I intend to do is to monitor this contractor more closely than others to ensure that they follow every single part of their safe system of work - any sign that they are cutting corners and I'll be pulling them up pretty quickly.
Dave - your point about CDMC is right - I was just generalising in my post but, of course, know ultimate responsibility rests with me, as client.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Hello. Glad my previous contribution was of some use. Regarding pull testing - no the contractor would not have to carry out any testing and in any case would probably not be competent to do so. In my understanding it is the manufacturer's design data and pull out testing results the HSE are interested in. The logic being that if this is all Ok, then providing the bolts are fitted by a trained person to the manufacturer's instructions, then all should be OK.
Regards
Alan.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Independent pull-tests of scaffold tie-points is a long established requirement in that industry (although too few clients ask for evidence of this). On what basis do you opine that this would not be required here, where safety is entirely dependent on 1 eye-bolt?
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.