Rank: Forum user 
|
Hello everyone, I have a question that I cannot seem to find the answer to. We have manholes on the worksite that sometimes don't have the ironworks in place, this can be due to awaiting for the ironworks to be delivered or they have gone missing. What I am trying to find out is what is the standards of protection that must be in place as a minimum. Sometimes they have steel plates, other times they have timber ply sheets over them. I know that this is incorrect but I cannot seem to find any published documentation on this. I've checked HSG 150 H&S in Construction and HSG 151 Protecting the Public but I cannot seem to find any information on the stanrds required for protrcting manholes during the construction phase. Can anyone please help me out, I want to do the right thing but I would like a standard to work to.
Thanks SG
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user 
|
Hi SG, my understanding is that there is no specific standard relating to temporary covering of manholes. Although many organisations have their own minimum standards in my experience it all comes down to risk assessment. E.g. will the area have plant & vehicle movement (size, weight, point loading, etc), will the covers sustain the load or move under the loads imposed, will they offer suitable protection for site personnel, trespassers, adjacent activities, will barriers be sufficient instead of covers which be get buried, forgotten about, etc. I have always found having a conversation with the team and asking for their recommendations works well. Best of luck, JohnMc
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
You won't find anything but again..defined by case law..not quiet exactly your scenario but similar..
The claimant was dumping rubbish at a skip at the defendant’s Civic Amenities Site. His foot went into an unguarded drainage pipe. The Judge found the Workplace Regulations 1992 (Reg 12) applied even though the claimant was not an employee at the site. He accepted there must be foreseeability of risk rather than strict liability under the regulations. The defendant said the risk was unforeseeable as there had been no accident recorded in 20 years with 180,000 visitors. The Judge was sceptical about the credibility of this evidence over such a long time and found the presence of a large foot-size hole in a position where people would use the skip and be unlikely to see a hazard when holding waste was a breach of Regulation 12. No contributory negligence. Franks -v- Durham County Waste Management Co Ltd, 23 March 2005, Newcastle upon Tyne CC, Cartlidge J
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.