Category: Uncategorized

Original article By Scott Barber, CEO of WAHA, for Safety Solutions Magazine.

Regular access to elevated points on buildings or structures to perform routine maintenance or other tasks is not uncommon. In these situations, a fixed ladder integrated into or onto a structure is often used and it’s not unusual for a cage to be installed around the ladder in the mistaken thinking this will mitigate the risk of injury should a worker fall while climbing. But a fixed ladder with a cage is not a fall arrest system. In fact, as of 19 November 2018, the United States’ Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has taken the formal stance that cages are not considered compliant fall protection on newly installed ladders.

Research into the effectiveness of fixed ladder cages has shown that they do not provide sufficient protection from falls. This research prompted OSHA to provide new parameters that are intended to improve protection from falls at height, provide greater flexibility and ease of use for workers, and make decisions around compliance and suitable solutions easier to navigate. These OSHA General Industry regulations were updated to reflect the changing understanding of and attitude towards the safety of fixed ladder cages and ladder climbing in general. What this change effectively means is any fixed ladders that need to be installed, repaired or replaced must be done so in accordance with the new Standard. Installing a certified ladder safety system that includes vertical lifelines or overhead self-retracting lifelines (SRLs) are both options that provide safe and effective means of access, and are easy to install as part of a new build or as a retrofit to existing ladders.

In 1996, OSHA 1910.21 defined a cage as “an enclosure that is fastened to the side rails of the fixed ladder or to the structure to encircle the climbing space of the ladder for the safety of the person who must climb the ladder”. On the other hand, it defined a ladder safety device as a device “designed to eliminate or reduce the possibility of accidental falls”. The difference in these definitions shows the way both safety devices were viewed at the time those regulations were implemented. Ladder safety devices were specifically intended to prevent or arrest falls, whereas cages were intended to improve safety without any specific explanation as to how they would do so.

These changes to the OSHA regulations have not necessarily been immediately reflected in other international standards and codes, but this change does represent a broader shift in how we look at the associated risks of ladder climbing. There is an existing assumption around safety at heights that if a caged ladder ‘complies’ with the relevant building codes, and if an employee were to then slip and fall from the ‘compliant’ ladder, the employer or building owner would be safe from any litigation. But this is not the case. It is the responsibility of the building designer, owner and employer to provide a safe work environment. This means ensuring that whatever means of access, the most suitable safety solution is applied. Should an incident occur, investigators and the court system will refer to best practice protocols to assess whether the system met the needs as determined by risk assessment.

Fall Arrest Solutions

For a person climbing a ladder, there are two systems that will genuinely provide fall protection:

1. A self-retracting lifeline (SRL) that is fixed to a suitable anchorage point at the top of the structure and connected to the operator’s harness.
   OR
2. A guided fall arrest system (vertical lifeline) that is permanently fixed to the ladder.

Installing an SRL to the top of a ladder typically provides an easy solution, but it is not always practical considering the constant exposure to the elements and need for a rated anchor point. Hence the design of a good fall arrest system must take into account some basics of modern fall protection thinking:

• The system must be easy to use. If it is not, the level of compliance may be lower than expected.
• The system must limit the forces that will be applied to the person in the event of a fall to less than 6 kN — the less force the better.
• The system must not drag on the person as they climb, otherwise it makes climbing all the more difficult, increasing the risk of fatigue.
• A fall arrest system must be a system of components that enable the line of the system to follow the building or structure that it is connected to.
• A good system will provide ‘continuous connection’ from the moment the person leaves the ground. This will enable the person to climb to wherever the job is, carry out the task and return, without disconnecting from the system.

There is still an argument for maintaining ladders in combination with an approved fall arrest system, particularly in circumstances where climbing may occur in a highly exposed environment where a cage may provide a level of physical and psychological comfort which can be very important to the climber. However, a cage around a ladder is not going to prevent an unconscious person from falling, whereas a fall arrest system will capture the user within a short distance. A caged ladder must not be mistaken for a ladder with an integral fall arrest system. Only a ladder (caged or otherwise) fitted with a fall arrest system will provide long-term safe access for workers in a way that will minimise the risks involved in climbing.

However, there are some obvious risks in the use of ladder cages as a primary safety method; for example, the potential for head-strike during a fall, loss of consciousness and creation of an extremely difficult rescue scenario for first responders. There are also cases of gruesome entanglements where falling workers tear off body parts during a rapid, uncontrolled descent. These kinds of risks are addressed when vertical lifelines are installed as safety systems. When applying the Fall Protection Hierarchy of Controls, it clearly identifies that a fixed ladder is not the ideal means of access if the work area requires frequent attention. In such circumstances, engineering out the risk by removing the need to access the area by moving essential plant and machinery to a more accessible position or the use of passive or collective systems (eg, stairs and walkways) are more appropriate, if possible.

Ultimately, as workplaces have changed, the understanding of hazards has also increased and subsequently the development of solutions and technology to manage those risks has evolved. Adopting best practice is always the most effective means of maintaining the health and safety of a workforce, and the use of cages does not reflect best practice. OSHA’s shift represents a positive step in reinforcing higher standards of safety and helps identify existing gaps in our current methodologies. Best practice includes the use of methods and techniques that best display thorough and effective safety management protocols, and looking at systems design, user profile, frequency of use and testing and certification as indicators of suitability.

**************************************************

*Scott Barber is a professional marketer, copywriter and safety specialist with over 20 years’ experience designing, driving and facilitating communication and education as a fundamental engagement tool. Specialising in safety and rescue, both operationally and as a consultant, he uses his experience across multiple industries to deliver solutions targeting specific stakeholders using communication as the critical driver for change.

As a voice for industry, our industry tiers of membership reflects leadership in the field. To support our members and help maintain our position as a leading advocate for safety, and agency for change on current and emerging issues, the WAHA have announced that they will resume hosting Technical Meetings in the 2022 year.

WAHA Members can register to attend via EventBrite.

If you or your organisation would like to present at any of our future meetings, please contact us today.

The pandemic raises an extra layer of unpredictability for directors and officers of companies, so this article is a handy checklist about what you need to monitor.

Your business is undoubtedly familiar with the nuts and bolts of your disaster recovery plan due to the current pandemic. It’s a much-changed landscape for risk. So how can you use your insights to better plan for the implications of possible management liabilities in the current climate?

To read more, visit the article by the WAHA Strategic Partner; AB Phillips.

This Article was written by the WAHA CEO, Scott Barber, for Safety Solutions.

When it comes to deaths and serious injuries resulting from falls from height, construction workers top the list. Despite a focus from regulators, a more holistic approach is needed to improve worker engagement and manage risks through fall protection measures, training and environment-specific solutions.

According to Safe Work Australia data, the workers most at risk of death and serious injury as a result of falls from height are those in the construction industry. The most recent published statistics indicate that there have been 122 fatalities attributed to falls from heights over the past five years, accounting for 13% of all worker fatalities over that period. The figures also indicate that even though serious workers compensation claims resulting from falls from heights declined by 17% between 2009–10 and 2018–19, falls from heights still accounted for 6% of serious claims. If we reference the latest data, the 2019 statistics, they indicate that of the 183 fatalities over that 12-month period, 11% are credited to falls from height and another 11% attributed to falling objects. That’s a total of 42 deaths with an aligned mechanism of injury.

These findings paint a clear picture; despite the focus from regulators and the ever-present risk of working at height, it appears that there is still a lack of engagement with best practice around the management of the key risks despite the devastating effects on workers’ wellbeing and safety. What is also clear is that there is a decisive link between the nature of the environment where these incidents occur and the resultant statistic whereby 22% of the worker fatalities in the construction sector occur from what can be described as ‘at-height’ incidents.

The dangers

The outcomes of falls in the workplace are more likely to be life-threatening when compared to many other incident types. While other common mechanisms of injury, such as manual handling, overexertion, and vehicle or machine accidents are more likely to cause injury to a particular body part, the injuries resultant from falls can easily have wider-spread complications that can affect the whole body, cause significant damage to vital organs and, if not directly resulting in death, have life-altering, long-term consequences.

In other words, working at height may not be the most common incident type, but when incidents do occur, they are much more likely to be fatal compared with other occupational hazards. With such potential consequences, there is a need to address work at height as a broader risk profile. Increasing awareness around the potential for harm and the methods for avoiding these hazards will create more effective engagement and eventually lead to a reduction in events. Knowledge is power, so underestimating and devaluing the high-risk nature of the work environment, and consequently, the level of competency required to operate safely in these spaces, leads directly to a higher incident rate. Ensuring those working at height are educated sufficiently to assess risk appropriately and manage it accordingly is the key to the reduction in these statistics.

Using safety protection correctly

Effective fall protection depends on an informed choice of equipment, the knowledge of how to use it correctly and how to safeguard oneself and others from potential hazards. Workplace safety is, therefore, a two-step process that involves technical support from safety systems and personal protective equipment (PPE) that can shield and protect in dangerous situations and secondly, human support in the shape of comprehensive training, instructions in the form of safe work method statements and expert guidance and advice. Neglecting either of the two will potentially lead to deficiencies in safety systems, resulting in breaches of procedure and a more exposed worksite.

Only professional, competent health and safety specialists can advise on how to design effective solutions and increase compliance while accounting for site-based and case-specific conditions. Safety equipment has become vastly more effective and affordable in recent years, making it easier to choose the right solution for specific tasks. This is a shift from specifying a one-size-fits-all solution and the assumption it will provide protection regardless of task specifics. Utilising a combination of fall arrest systems, edge protection and safety equipment, including PPE and tool lanyards, will lead to a reduction in incidents if used correctly.

Applying the hierarchy of controls informs and frames the most suitable approach to solutions modelling, so engaging with a subject matter expert will help identify the most suitable path forward. But ultimately, correct use is the key; even the newest and most expensive equipment cannot be effective if the worker does not know how to use it properly. While there are many guides on equipment selection, these guides are based on a hypothetical application and assumptions around work environment and do not provide the unique risk-profile and informed criteria that can only be determined by truly competent subject matter experts, be they internal or external consultants. Combined with practical training, not just theory-based working at height courses, operators at height can apply the tools and techniques more efficiently, empowering individuals to make safer choices without needing to compromise due to poor equipment selection.

Therefore, safety training should be a top priority for any company, regardless of the size or the industry. Safety training, performed by professional subject matter experts at regular intervals, will educate crews on how to use the equipment, how to spot a potential hazard, and maintain skillsets and a safety culture in the workplace that will inspire more awareness and interest in working safer. Applying application specifics into training packages allows for the inclusion of the safe use of tools and tool lanyards in height-based work environments. Including these processes into a formal work method helps mitigate the risk of dropped objects highlighted in the statistics.

The future of fall protection

At a state and territory level, SafeWork and WorkSafe are running fall prevention campaigns as part of an initiative to decrease the number of victims of falls from height. This includes the highlighting of dropped objects as a significant contributor to injury and fatality statistics. In the end, however, even with the active campaigning from regulators, the responsibility for creating awareness among a workforce and instituting change when it comes to safety culture and processes lies with the employer. But by empowering those who work at height with the suitable knowledge and skill sets to appreciate the true nature of the risk, an effective multilateral approach can be applied.

The future of safe working at heights will be decided in close cooperation and collaboration with those directly affected by it, the employees. Ensuring appropriate training is provided as a key component of all at height tasks and not relying on ‘tick-the-box’ approaches to safety training ensures operators are prepared and able to continually assess hazards throughout the task, with situational awareness being supported by actual competencies. Companies that look at safety as a task that can be handled on the executive level are taking the wrong approach. An understanding of safety culture will only reach the worker if they are engaged, skilled and involved in the discussion, and only then can all work together to reduce fatalities.

Understanding the causes of injury and the industries most affected can help reduce work-related fatalities, injuries and disease. Work-related fatalities, injuries and illnesses have a devastating impact on workers, their families and the community.

Each year, Safe Work Australia produces national work health and safety statistics, providing important evidence on the state of work health and safety in Australia.

Our latest publication provides an overview of national work-related fatality data for 2020 and workers’ compensation claims data for 2019-20. 

Work-related fatalities 2020

Tragically, 194 people were fatally injured at work in 2020.

Key findings include: 

• The fatality rate of Australian workers has decreased by 50% since 2007.
• 96% of worker fatalities in 2020 were male.
• Vehicle collisions accounted for 41% of all 2020 worker fatalities.  
• Machinery operators and drivers had the highest number of fatalities by occupation (67 fatalities) in 2020.
• The agriculture, forestry and fishing industry had the highest worker fatality rate in 2020. 

Workers’ compensation claims 2019-20

• There were a total of 120,355 serious workers’ compensation claims in Australia in 2019-20. This is an increase from 114,435 claims in 2018-19. 
• Body stressing was the leading cause of serious workers’ compensation claims in 2019-20, accounting for 37% of all serious claims.

Read the Key Work Health and Safety Statistics, Australia 2021 report

Working in heat can be hazardous and is a common cause of harm among Australian workers. Some common risks of working in heat include heat-related illness, dehydration, burns and reduced concentration. 

Safe Work Australia has updated our guidance material on managing the risks of working in heat. The new guidance reflects changes made to the recommended first aid for heat stroke. 

This guide provides practical guidance for a person conducting a business or undertaking (PCBU) on how to manage the risks associated with working in heat, including information on first aid for heat-related illnesses that reflects updated medical advice.

Download the from SafeWork Australia guide today.

More information on working in heat can be found here https://www.safeworkaustralia.gov.au/topic/working-heat

Information on the risk management process can be found in the Code of Practice: How to manage work health and safety risks.

Information on consultation requirements can be found in the Code of Practice: Work health and safety consultation, co-operation and co-ordination.

Source: SafeWork Australia

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Fusce rhoncus libero in nisi fringilla semper. Suspendisse potenti. Quisque sed mauris est. Etiam lacus neque, laoreet at magna a, scelerisque ultrices sapien.

In August 2021, a worker was seriously injured after falling approximately 6m from a roof through a polycarbonate skylight. It appears he was removing and installing polycarbonate sheeting from the warehouse roof during ad-hoc maintenance.

IMPORTANT

These findings are not yet confirmed and investigations are continuing into the exact cause.

This incident alert highlights the risks associated with working on roofs, especially around skylights, plastic roof sheeting, metal roofs or other fragile roof surfaces. It also reminds us of what’s needed to eliminate or minimise those risks.

Safety issues

Falls, particularly those through roofing, are a major cause of death and serious injury at workplaces. The risk of serious injury from a fall depends mainly whether any fall control measures are implemented, the height at which the work is being done and the surface directly below the work at height area. There may also be additional risk when working on or near fragile roof surfaces. Roofs are likely to be fragile if they are made with:

• asbestos roofing sheets
• poly carbonate sheets (alsynite) or plastic commonly used in skylights
• fibre cement sheets
• liner panels on built-up sheeted roofs
• metal sheets and fasteners (especially when corroded).

Before commencing any work on a roof or at height, all surfaces must be inspected to identify potentially fragile spots. All locations and tasks which could lead to fall injury should also be identified. This includes access to areas where the work is to be done. Close attention is required for tasks:

• on any structure or plant being constructed or installed, demolished or dismantled, inspected, tested, repaired or cleaned
• on a fragile surface (for example, poly carbonate or cement sheeted roofs, rusty metal roofs, fibre glass sheeting roofs and skylights)
• on a sloping or slippery surface where it is difficult for people to maintain their balance (for example, on glazed tiles or a metal roof that is wet from morning dew or rain)
• near an unprotected open edge or internal void area (for example, removed roof sheeting).

Whether it’s an existing structure or one under construction, consider skylights and plastic roof sheeting as non-trafficable areas, unless otherwise certified. Even then, ensure the installation has been checked and complies with trafficable installation instructions.

Note: Cut down sheets may need additional fixings and even a missing screw can make a sheet non-trafficable.

Where non-trafficable, provide appropriate fall prevention/protection measures and develop work methods to prevent people from stepping or falling onto these surfaces.

To ensure the necessary control measures are being applied as the work progresses, an ongoing review of the work should also be carried out.

Ways to manage health and safety

Taking steps to manage risks is a condition of doing business in Queensland. Effective risk management starts with a commitment to health and safety from those who manage the business. If an incident occurs, you’ll need to show the regulator you’ve used an effective risk management process. This responsibility is covered by your primary duty of care in the Work Health and Safety Act 2011.

Use the hierarchy of controls to help decide how to eliminate and reduce risks in your place of work. The hierarchy of controls ranks types of control methods from the highest level of protection and reliability to the lowest. It’s a step-by-step approach to eliminating or reducing risks. You must work through the hierarchy of controls when managing risks, with the aim of eliminating the hazard, which is the most effective control.

Possible control measures to prevent similar incidents

In managing the risk of falls, the WHS Regulation requires specific control measures to be implemented, where it is reasonably practicable to do so. For example:

• if it’s construction work, then Chapter 6 of the WHS Regulation applies
• if the work meets the definition for high risk construction work (it’s over 2m and is a complete roof replacement of a large shed), then a safe work method statement must be prepared as per Work Health and Safety Regulation 2011. Further regulations would also then apply (for example Part 6.3 Sub-division 2 “Falls” which provides prescriptive control measures).

Effective controls for the risk of falling from a height are often made up of a combination of controls. Some common control measures can include but are not limited to the following examples:

• Constructing a roof with the roof structure on the ground and then lifting it into place – this can eliminate many fall from heights hazards but is only suitable for the construction of some roofs on new structures where the roof can be lifted into place. In addition, lifting the roof into place will create other hazards that need to be addressed.
• Using an Elevating Work Platform (EWP) to do work on a roof so workers can remain within the EWP and avoid standing on the roof. This is primarily an example of substituting the hazard for a lesser hazard. However, an EWP design may also be considered an engineering control measure and the EWP must be assessed to determine whether it is the most suitable one for the task/s.
  • The safe operation of EWPs also relies on safe work procedures (i.e., administrative controls), which includes ensuring operators hold the relevant High Risk Work Licence HRWL (where required) to operate the particular EWP.
• Ensuring safety mesh, complying with AS/NZS 4389:2015, has been installed under the roofing and skylights and perimeter edge protection (complying with the Work Health and Safety Regulation 2011). Mesh must be overlapped and secured in accordance with the instructions of the mesh manufacturer. Both safety mesh and edge protection are primarily engineering control measures that address the risk of falling through the roof or off the roof edge. However, safe systems of work need to be implemented for the workers installing the safety mesh and edge protection.
• Travel restraint systems intended to prevent a fall from a roof edge by physically restricting how close a worker can get to a roof edge. These systems are generally unsuitable where a fall through a roof can occur (i.e., because the roof is fragile or there is no safety mesh under the roof sheeting). They also largely rely on worker training and the worker following a safe system of work. A travel restraint system is a combination of an engineering control (system design), administrative control and personal protective equipment (i.e., the tethering lines and harness).
• Fall arrest systems for work on roofs are the least preferred risk control measure because they do not prevent a fall occurring but arrest the fall once it has occurred. The worker can still be injured, even if the fall arrest system is set up correctly and the worker’s fall is arrested before he/she hits the ground or another obstruction. After the fall, the worker must be rescued both promptly and safely. Fall arrest systems are primarily a form of personal protective equipment but also rely on engineering controls(i.e., anchorage point strength, harness and lanyard design) and administrative controls (e.g., making sure the lanyard is connected and not too long).

In addition to the hierarchy of controls, the manufacturer’s instructions should be followed for the safe operation and use of plant, machinery and/or systems engaged by the PCBU.

Note: Any administrative control measures and PPE rely on human behaviour and supervision, and used on their own, tend to be least effective in minimising risks.

The control measures you put in place should be reviewed regularly to make sure they work as planned.

More information

• How to manage work health and safety risks Code of Practice 2021 (PDF, 0.65 MB)
• Managing risks of falls at workplaces Code of Practice 2021 (PDF, 3.9 MB)
• Work at heights – Construction
• Safe work on roofs information sheet – Safe Work Australia

Support for people affected by a serious workplace incident

For advice and support:

• Visit our Support for families of workplace fatalities, illness and injuries Facebook page
• Email ohs.coronialliaison@oir.qld.gov.au.

Source: WorkSafe QLD

Dear Members and Colleagues,

It is with great sadness that we announce the passing of Rick Millar on the 26th of August 2021, due to a recent battle with cancer.

Rick had been the CEO of the WAHA for a little over 2 years, after a distinguished career working with a number of manufacturers of fall protection equipment, in a career lasting over 50 years.

Rick was also a founding member of the SF015 committee for Standards Australia, seeing through the creation and subsequent revisions of the ASNZS 1891 Standard. He is also the current Chair of the ISO fall protection Standard and naturally his experience, generous commitment of time and goodwill to assist people in any way he could, will be sadly missed by all people who had the pleasure of interacting with him.

With the direction and support of the board of the WAHA, Scott Barber has agreed to act as CEO of the organisation and assumes this role immediately. In the days to come we will pass on any further information as necessary to those who may wish to offer messages of support to his friends and family.

Regards,

Michael Biddle
Chair, WAHA