Management should lead on MEWPs

Crushing and trapping hazards exist wherever work is performed near overhead obstructions – such as working between building steel and/or piping. When this occurs, particular attention must be given to the work process to minimise the hazard and protect against the risk. Some of the root causes contributing to crushing and trapping accidents are: a lack of planning, a lack of supervision and poor preparation of ground conditions.

All overhead objects on a site present a potential crushing hazard. The risks must be addressed through site assessment and development of a practical method statement. This should be supported by management and operator training and supervision to ensure compliance with an agreed safe system of work. Driving through a door opening to get to the area of work is an overhead hazard. Rotating a boom into a wall can create a crushing hazard. Driving a lift in reverse can create a crushing hazard, even if there are no overhead objects, as you can drive into an object. Having your hand over the guardrail when the basket is moving with any control function can result in a crushing accident without overhead objects.

The primary measure against the rare but real risk of entrapment is better and improved management of MEWPs on site. The correct selection of MEWPs to carry out work at height is acknowledged as one of the key factors to ensure safe use. It is management’s responsibility to take a lead in identifying all situations where trapping risks are present in the work activities they control, and select the method or device that is most likely to eliminate or reduce those risks to an acceptable level.

In July 2010, the Strategic Forum for Construction Plant Safety Group, which includes representatives from the Health & Safety Executive (HSE) and IPAF, published the Best Practice Guidance for MEWPs: Avoiding Trapping/Crushing Injuries to People in the Platform. This guidance provides clarity about the safe use of MEWPs including planning, equipment selection, training, provision of information, familiarisation, safe use, supervision and rescue procedures, together with monitoring and management of the work. The document is divided into two parts: Part 1 is aimed at planners, managers and instructors. It covers hazards, risk assessment, controls and responsibilities. Part 2 is a handy 7-page document for operators. It has been designed to be used in briefings or toolbox talks.

Industry has also responded with several secondary measures to prevent entrapment. These currently fall into two distinct categories:

1. Protective structures offering the operator a safe envelope to work from, e.g. Sanctuary Zone, Operator Protective Structure, etc.
2. Pressure sensing technology that isolates control functions, greatly reducing the potential for entrapment injury, and which sounds an alarm, e.g. SiOPs, SkySiren, SkyGuard.

IPAF has published guidance on the selection of secondary devices for MEWPs, where the risk of sustained involuntary operation of controls and/or overhead entrapment is identified.

Secondary guarding devices should remain an “optional extra” requested as the result of a jobsite assessment that has identified an increased risk of overhead crushing and entrapment. It has been suggested that fitting them as standard may lead to over-reliance by the operator on mechanical devices, creating a false feeling of security which in turn may lead to increased risk. 

Either way, it is vital that we do not lose sight of the fact that any secondary guarding device is not a “fail safe” nor a substitute for appropriate levels of operator training, good site management and machine familiarisation.

There is still an important role to be played by manufacturers, rental companies, site management, operators, enforcement bodies and industry federations to raise awareness of this important issue. In an attempt to reduce/eliminate trapping and crushing incidents, contractors and rental companies are now providing operators and managers with frequent toolbox talks and MEWP safety related activities in order to increase awareness and drive behavioural change. 

IPAF has adopted a multi-pronged approach on all fronts. The IPAF accident reporting database aims to gather more data on the common causes of MEWP-related accidents worldwide. The IPAF MEWPs for Managers course, which trains managers to prepare and plan for the use of MEWPs on site, has been updated and enhanced. In addition, a PAL+ advanced operator course has been launched for those working in challenging and higher risk environments. Research is being undertaken by the IPAF Manufacturers’ Technical Committee into the functionality of MEWP controls, with the aim of addressing the risk of entrapment.

No one single device will prevent all overhead crushing and entrapment accidents. The basis of preventing trapping accidents must be task-, site- and equipment-specific risk assessment. Managers must assess potential risks, recognise responsibility and take measures to minimise the risks. Confined spaces mean that experienced operators are needed for the job. MEWPs are one of the safest and most efficient ways to work at height. But the use of this equipment must go hand in hand with appropriate training, adequate familiarisation, risk assessment, proper planning and management of the work.

{EMBED(375619)}