Any Qualified WSH Officer Here?

[Yeobt]

 

Hi,

 

I would like to check if it was due to site constrain and the job nature (to dismantle the existing aircon ducting), in order for my workers to move the scaffold to underneath the aircon ducting so just to enable to cut and remove the existing ducting, our workers needed to remove the obstructing railing from the highest platform on the scaffold. However, to prevent falls, our falls prevention measured was to make sure our men's PPE hooks are secured to the scaffold and suspended rod above.   

 

my question are, could the above be acceptable as an excuse for removing parts from an approved scaffold? did i violated any rules?

 

TIA 

 

  

Edited March 22, 2017 by Yeobt

[Koma7]

Based on WAH regulations, the railing can be removed if they going to hinder your work. But without the guardrail, your workers could fall from height since there is no edge protection, thus, another fall protection system is to be used. This system can be fall arrest or travel restraint systems depending on situation and working height.

 

As I am unsure if you are WAH trained, so the terms might be new to you.

 

It is not so easy to use these 2 systems if you and your workers are not well trained, as we need to ensure the strength of the anchor points and sufficient fall clearance in the event of fall. Most people are using the fall arrest system wrongly. The 2 places you mentioned for hooking up are not proper anchorage.

 

If there is sufficient space, maybe you should erect a larger working platform where the workers could stand at the centre. The open edges will then be a distance away from where the workers are working and thus do not expose them to the risk of falling from the unprotected edge. For additional control.measure to make the work stay at the centre of the working platform, the travel restraint system can be used.

Edited March 22, 2017 by Koma7

[Carbon82]

For me, I would not accept that as a reason for removing the guard rail. Another method of access should be considered for the ducting work such as having a customized platform to suit the work height (I do noticed that your worker have to bend their body while carrying out the task, which itself is an ergonomic hazard - another health issue regulated under WSH framework). The size of the existing scaffold and platform also seems not quite suitable for the work you mentioned.

 

BTW, the anchoring point for the safety harness (lanyard) you mentioned are not suitable (not able to withstand the shock / force when your worker fall from height), and depending on the height of the work, such fall restraint maybe useless (not able to be fully deployed when the worker hit the ground).

Another point I have noted in your photo, how are your worker going to transfer the cut duct to the ground level? Any control measures in place to prevent the fall of the object?

Edited March 23, 2017 by Carbon82

[Yeobt]

For me, I would not accept that as a reason for removing the guard rail. Another method of access should be considered for the ducting work such as having a customized platform to suit the work height (I do noticed that your worker have to bend their body while carrying out the task, which itself is an ergonomic hazard - another health issue regulated under WSH framework). The size of the existing scaffold and platform also seems not quite suitable for the work you mentioned.

 

BTW, the anchoring point for the safety harness (lanyard) you mentioned are not suitable (not able to withstand the shock / force when your worker fall from height), and depending on the height of the work, such fall restraint maybe useless (not able to be fully deployed when the worker hit the ground).

 

Another point I have noted in your photo, how are your worker going to transfer the cut duct to the ground level? Any control measures in place to prevent the fall of the object?

 

we threw down. 

of course with workers standing around to prevent other walking near to working zone.

[Pocy]

For me, I would not accept that as a reason for removing the guard rail. Another method of access should be considered for the ducting work such as having a customized platform to suit the work height (I do noticed that your worker have to bend their body while carrying out the task, which itself is an ergonomic hazard - another health issue regulated under WSH framework). The size of the existing scaffold and platform also seems not quite suitable for the work you mentioned.

 

BTW, the anchoring point for the safety harness (lanyard) you mentioned are not suitable (not able to withstand the shock / force when your worker fall from height), and depending on the height of the work, such fall restraint maybe useless (not able to be fully deployed when the worker hit the ground).

 

Another point I have noted in your photo, how are your worker going to transfer the cut duct to the ground level? Any control measures in place to prevent the fall of the object?

Good points shared and explained, I have learned from it.

[Sosaria]

Actually imho to follow all wsh rules to the letter is impractical. Some things are pure overkill.

 

Keeping safe is 99% common sense and 1% regulations.

 

When accidents happen what we find out is not because of some little wsh rule/detail that's not followed - but really gross violations of common sense. Really very basic stuff like locking-out circuit breakers and switches, using tools properly, using safety harness (many fall from height accident i can bet that no safety harness used at all; whether it's secured to proper anchor point is a much smaller issue) etc.

 

we threw down.

of course with workers standing around to prevent other walking near to working zone.

You shouldn't say "throw" lah ... sound very crude and dangerous. Say "vertically lowered" much better and you still got leeway to drop it.

Edited March 23, 2017 by Sosaria

[Koma7]

Actually imho to follow all wsh rules to the letter is impractical. Some things are pure overkill.

 

Keeping safe is 99% common sense and 1% regulations.

 

When accidents happen what we find out is not because of some little wsh rule/detail that's not followed - but really gross violations of common sense. Really very basic stuff like locking-out circuit breakers and switches, using tools properly, using safety harness (many fall from height accident i can bet that no safety harness used at all; whether it's secured to proper anchor point is a much smaller issue) etc.

 

 

You shouldn't say "throw" lah ... sound very crude and dangerous. Say "vertically lowered" much better and you still got leeway to drop it.

Safety harness is just the webbing you don and usually comes with the lanyard which is termed the "connection". These 2 items are useless and cannot protect you. You need anchorage for you to hook up so that these three components A/B/C (anchorage/body harness/connection) form the fall arrest system. Is the system that save you not the individual equipment.

 

The methodology for WAH in terms of consideration is

 

1. Avoidance of WAH

2. Using fall prevention system such as scaffold, MEWP, guardrail, travel restraint system to prevent worker from falling from height.

3. Only when 1&2 are not feasible and there is a risk of the workers falling from height then we will mitigate the consequence of fall and reduce the distance of fall by using fall arrest system. When this system is activated , worker has fallen.

 

I know the above mentioned talk is easy but to really implement it accordingly is not so easy.

 

Employer will usually start with 3 cos the easiest and cheapest to implement. When workers fell, usually people will say they no safety, no harness, but is there a proper anchorage point for the workers in the first place? Is there proper supervision by the supervisor ?

[Neutrino]

Could you have used 'cherry pickers' for the workers to have access.

That would mean their height in relation to the ducting could be variable??

 

Or if the scaffold tower was wider would it have made it easier for the workers??

 

Or rather than a tower built of fixed length tubes would a tower made of actual scaffold tubing have allowed some variability in height and width and then maybe the workers would have had easier access.

 

The whole thing looks too cramped, awkward and squeezy to me.

 

How did it all work out in the end.

 

BTW I'm not involved with Health and Safety.

[Stratovarius]

 

Hi,

 

I would like to check if it was due to site constrain and the job nature (to dismantle the existing aircon ducting), in order for my workers to move the scaffold to underneath the aircon ducting so just to enable to cut and remove the existing ducting, our workers needed to remove the obstructing railing from the highest platform on the scaffold. However, to prevent falls, our falls prevention measured was to make sure our men's PPE hooks are secured to the scaffold and suspended rod above.

 

my question are, could the above be acceptable as an excuse for removing parts from an approved scaffold? did i violated any rules?

 

TIA

What is the working height? WAH is just a backside cover for the government. Alot of things are not clearly explained. If height is around 5 meters, just use scissors lift. Not need WAH. Try to avoid WAH as much as possible. Can use the lift to bring down the duct too.

From the photo. The scaffold is indeed too small. Because of space constraint? B as anchorage is definity a no. I think A should be okay. You can remove the railing if it obstruct certain works. But other source of anchorage must be present and carry out a safety briefing to the workers. Ensure WAH sup is always monitoring the works.

You kena complaint issit?

[Yeobt]

What is the working height? WAH is just a backside cover for the government. Alot of things are not clearly explained. If height is around 5 meters, just use scissors lift. Not need WAH. Try to avoid WAH as much as possible. Can use the lift to bring down the duct too.

From the photo. The scaffold is indeed too small. Because of space constraint? B as anchorage is definity a no. I think A should be okay. You can remove the railing if it obstruct certain works. But other source of anchorage must be present and carry out a safety briefing to the workers. Ensure WAH sup is always monitoring the works.

You kena complaint issit?

 

platform height is 4.2m.

 

not kena complaint but got a hard time arguing with my safety coordinator on this issue (removing the guard rail) on site.

in the end, in order to get the work done, i have to tell the safety coordinator that i will take responsible if my worker fell due to the

missing guard rail. i thought as long as we exercise reasonable and practical fall prevention, we can remove the guard rail if is

obstructing our work. 

[Sosaria]

Safety guy will definitely make a lot of noise as under latest WSH regs he or she will bear the brunt of punishment if accident happens due to safety lapse. But that's why they get paid big bucks for.

 

Anyway, is it legally binding for the safety coordinator (if his advice is over-ruled) to pass the responsibility to someone else?

[Stratovarius]

platform height is 4.2m.

 

not kena complaint but got a hard time arguing with my safety coordinator on this issue (removing the guard rail) on site.

in the end, in order to get the work done, i have to tell the safety coordinator that i will take responsible if my worker fell due to the

missing guard rail. i thought as long as we exercise reasonable and practical fall prevention, we can remove the guard rail if is

obstructing our work.

Its actually quite common to remove safety rails esp for dismantling and installation works. I did once before and told the WAH sup and workers that only workers doing the installation works are allow to stand near the area w/o railings. With the railing, the duct cant go up. So have to be reasonable.

My WAH trainer told me to just use scissors lift whenever possible and avoid WAH. Have been using this method to siam all my WAH role. Lol.

[Koma7]

Safety guy will definitely make a lot of noise as under latest WSH regs he or she will bear the brunt of punishment if accident happens due to safety lapse. But that's why they get paid big bucks for.

 

Anyway, is it legally binding for the safety coordinator (if his advice is over-ruled) to pass the responsibility to someone else?

Safety personnel usually won't get any punishment lah, most people have this misconception. Unless the safety personnel really is incompetent and never does his due diligence.

 

Under the WSH act, everyone is a stakeholder and is responsible to ensure the work is carried out in a safe manner under a safe working environment. That is why you need to perform risk assessment to identify the hazard ,evaluate the risk and the necessary reasonable practicable control measures to be implemented so that the risk level is brought down to medium or low risk and acceptable level.

 

Most of the times, safety personnel recommendation are ignored or over write by the project manager due to budget, manpower, resources, progress.

 

When MOM visit the workplace, they don't look for safety personnel, they only ask for the project manager to follow them to inspect the workplace, as the project manager is the one who makes the decision and overall in charge. I have seen project managers getting fines from MOM due to safety lapses at the workplace.

[Koma7]

For TS case, he cannot use the scissor lift as the guardrail on this equipment will hit the ducting before the working height is reach. Unless workers step onto the mid / top rail or place something inside the working platform of the scissor lift to achieve the working height. All these are unsafe acts.

 

Those M&E contractors who need to work above false ceiling will usually face the same issue.

[Theobserver]

Perhaps a safer way will be to erect a scaffold with the top most platform lower so that the worker can stand properly without crouching.  .  After that install temporary anchor points to secure chain blocks.  Use the chain blocks to secure the ducting.  After the ducting is dismantled, use the chain blocks to lower onto the platform.  Then with one chain block which is near to the edge of the scaffold, use it to help manouver the ducting down to the floor.  The handrails should be temporarily removed to do that. 

 

As for the safety harness, I am not sure.  If the scaffold is not high enough, the safety harness will not protect the worker if he falls.  That's always the bone of contention.  If the scaffold is already provided with hard handrails, is it still necessary to wear a harness ? I believe if the process is thought through and the Risk Assessment properly done, there is no right or wrong method.  Another consideration is cost.  The regulation does not say that the contractor should use an expensive method to make the work safe.  The key word they always use is "practicable", which simply means practical, achievable and cost effective. I guess what's important is to make sure the work is carried out in accordance with the approved method. 

 

By the way, I am an engineer with some safety training, not a WSH officer.  So just providing a different perspective.

[Carbon82]

WSH framework is not really useless, or unreasonable (at the mercy of MOM or WSH personnel), just like say the ISO management system. If everyone follow the regulations and guidelines stipulated in the acts, it will help to improve the H&S standard in the company, and make everyone job easier in the long run. But if everyone just take it as an paper exercise (e.g. performing RA just because it is required by MOM), and without much enforcement / support by the top management, then the system is designed to FAIL.

 

About risk assessment (RA) and risk reduction, it is mandatory to get it done Prior to start of any work activity. Control measures (reasonably practicable) shall then be put in-place to reduce the risk to an acceptable level. Typical hierarchy of control are:

 

1. Elimination

2. Substitution

3. Engineering Controls

4. Administrative Controls

5. PPE (Personal Protective Equipment)

 

Using TS's example,

 

1. Can WAH (work at height) be eliminated, example by using mechanical aid / robot to perform the task? As long as the worker need to carry out the task at height (>3m above ground), then this option would be out.

 

2. Instead of the standard double scaffold, why not use 2 single scaffold at 2 sides of the duct, or can it be substitute with say customized working platform, catwalk, use of MEWP (mobile elevating work platform) such as scissors lift or boom lifts?

 

3. Some mechanical or electrical means to prevent personnel from falling from height. Guard rails are one of the engineering control commonly adopted for WAH. In more complex setup, there are even safety sensors with strobe light and alarm put in place near the edge of the working platform to alert user once they are at the high risk zone.

 

4. Risk assessment, communication - toolbox meeting / bulletin, training, barricade, health assessment, fatigue control, job rotation, etc. are some common example for administrative controls, which are target at mainly the people. The idea is to let the worker know the types of risk they will be exposed to if they did not follow the safety procedures, as well as for the people supervisor to monitor the health performance of their worker to ensure that they are fit for the work. Other admin controls targeting at hardware (equipment, machinery, devices, tools) include effective preventive maintenance, certification / inspection program, lock out tag out (LOTO), etc.

 

5. Safety harness with double lanyards hook properly to a suitable anchoring point, safety restraint (belt), helmet / hardhat, etc. are the last line of defend, meaning to say is for preventing the worker from getting more seriously injured when they fall (after event). This shall be considered last, but unfortunately the most commonly use control measures due to cost effectiveness.

 

To be fair, the level of safety compliance have to be made known to the contractor & worker during the planning and tendering stage, so that the shortlisted contractor(s) can budget the cost of control into their pricing. While it is not wrong to challenge how much (control measures) are enough, the key consideration should be ensuring that the worker can go back home in "one piece" (毫发无损) at end of the day.

[Koma7]

Definition of normal WAH according to WAH regulation.

 

“work at height” means work —

(a) in or on an elevated workplace from which a person could fall;

(b) in the vicinity of an opening through which a person could fall;

© in the vicinity of an edge over which a person could fall;

(d) on a surface through which a person could fall; or

(e) in any other place (whether above or below ground) from which a person could fall,

 

from one level to another and it is reasonably likely that the person or any other person would be injured due to the distance of the fall.

 

WAH activity is not determine by the working height distance but whether there is a risk of falling a distance from one level to another level and get injuries. Example, if you go up a concrete slab roof top and working at the centre only and no where near the fours sides, and after evaluating there is no risk of falling a distance, it is not consider wah activity. But if you stand on a chair to take something even if the height is less than 1 m, is consider wah activity.

 

Many people think 2/3 m is consider WAH activity and below is not....

 

In addition, according to regulation when there is a risk of the worker fallING more than 3m is consider HAZARDOUS WAH, so there is a need to implement the Permit

To Work system due to the hazardous wah activity.

[Yeobt]

every accidents is one too many. may the decease RIP.

 

http://www.todayonline.com/singapore/stop-work-order-issued-changi-airport-t4-worksite-after-worker-dies

 

BY

ALFRED CHUA AND VICTOR LOH

 

PUBLISHED: 12:50 PM, MARCH 24, 2017

UPDATED: 12:03 AM, MARCH 25, 2017

 

SINGAPORE — An accident at a worksite near Changi Airport claimed the life of a 44-year-old construction worker on Wednesday (March 22) after a steel plate hit him.

The man — believed to be a Bangladeshi national — was found unconscious along Airport Boulevard, the police said in a statement, and he later died from his injuries at Changi General Hospital.

He was working inside an excavation site near the newly completed Terminal 4 at Changi Airport when the tragedy happened. The man was hired by contractor Chan & Chan Engineering.

The Ministry of Manpower (MOM) issued the company a stop-work order relating to the excavation, and investigations are ongoing. 

“The work area is cordoned off and is not accessible to public,” an MOM spokesperson said. “The duration of the stop-work order is dependent on how long the company takes to ratify the safety breaches identified by MOM inspectors.”

The order would be lifted once inspectors are satisfied that all safety breaches have been resolved, the spokesperson said.

This is not the first time Chan & Chan Engineering has been slapped with a stop-work order. In 2010, the company was issued one for a period of three months from January, relating to works done at Admiralty Road West.

Responding to media queries, Changi Airport Group said that it is assisting the authorities with investigations, and Terminal 4 is scheduled to open in the second half of this year.

Its spokesperson said: “We are sorry for the loss of life due to the accident and are working with the contractor to provide assistance to the worker’s family.”

The police, who were notified of the accident at around 11.45am on Wednesday, are investigating the unnatural death.

TODAY could not get Chan & Chan Engineering to comment at press time.

In Parliament earlier this month, Minister of State for Manpower Sam Tan said that 66 workers lost their lives on the job last year. About six in 10 of them died in the first half of the year. In the first two months of this year, there were two workplace fatalities.