FEATURE
So the questions that need answering when planning a lift are:
• What are we lifting? • How heavy is it? • Does it have designated lifting points? • What accessories will be needed ? • Where is it being lifted from? • Where is it being lifted to?
• Is the ground capable of supporting the lifting equipment?
• Are there any overhead obstructions?
• What will the suspended load be traversed over? (Set up signs and barriers and position people at key points if they are needed to keep other people out of the area of operations).
The Building Safety Group are aiming to bring the discussion of health and safety in the construction industry to the top of the agenda by working in partnership with construction firms, to help them better manage all aspects of health and safety in the workplace.
BSG’s latest non-compliance statistics have been generated from the organisation’s ‘Non-Compliance Reporting Index (NCRI) and relates to the period covering the first six months of 2017.
www.bsgltd.co.uk
A SCAFFOLDING SITUATION Two South West-based companies were fined in June after a 44-year-old woman was struck by scaffolding. Weymouth Magistrates’ Court heard how employees of Carter Training Ltd were using a mobile crane on the building project in Queen Mothers Square, Poundbury, Dorchester when the attachment holding 500 scaffolding fittings weighing 2kg each was turned on its side emptying all contents onto workers and the concrete flooring 10.5 metres below. The worker suffered two fractures to her left shoulder blade, a fracture to her left collar bone, a cut to the back of her head and bruising. An investigation by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) found the stillage attachment used on the crane was not suitable for lifting heavy and large amounts of scaffolding. Lifting the scaffolding directly above a number of contractors working below also put them at risk of harm.
It was also found that principal contractor Zero C Holdings failed to carry out an audit of all lifting plans and as a result failed to manage the risks associated with this lifting activity. Zero C Holdings did not have clear lines of communication between the lifting company Carter Training Ltd and contractors working on the site below.
Zero C Holdings pleaded guilty to breaching Regulation 13 (1) of the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2015 and was fined £145,000 and ordered to pay costs of £3,500. Where Carter Training pleaded guilty to breaching Regulation 8 (1) Lifting Operations and Lifting Equipment Regulations 1998, and was fined £18,000 and ordered to pay costs of £3,500.
Speaking after the hearing HSE inspector Nicole Buchanan said: “This case highlights the need for duty holders to properly plan all lifting operations before work is carried out to manage the risk of injury to workers. Lifting directly above workers is inherently unsafe and should be avoided wherever possible”
twitter.com/TomorrowsHS
55
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62