Background to the HSE decision on two rope working

[Marc]

6 minutes ago, Bolt said:

2.4.10 Welfare
Suitable welfare facilities must be identified and available for the duration of the work activity. Arrangements should be recorded and communicated to all parties. These facilities are to include, as a minimum, clean drinking water, hand-washing facilities and sanitary conveniences.

The use of public facilities should be a last resort, where no other arrangement is possible. The use of such facilities should not be acceptable where the provision of better facilities would be reasonably practicable.
 

 

I know everyone is really excited by the 2 rope business, but surely this section is far more of an oddity to the industry.

 

I can understand how this could feature in a general arb ICOP, but it surely has no place in a work at height icop - the sanitary conveniences are not going to be perched up in the canopy are they?

 

Despite being alarmingly out of place, just what mitigation does the average domestic arb have, should the need to demonstrate compliance with this section?  Put the location of the homeowners shitter on the risk assessment?

 

I am no conspiracy theorist, but I  almost wonder if the 2 rope business is being used as a catalyst to draw attention away from far more problematic (and less glamorous) areas of the ICOP.
 

 

 

 

Ok it may be an oddity yet is a serious consideration, just because the works are aerial doesn’t mean welfare should not be a consideration.

i admire those companies with the fore thought to be running welfare Vans in their day to day ops.

That oddity aside, the hierarchy a d distinctions is what concerns me most, as welfare is easily addressed, two rope not so easily.

i have no chance of enforcing two rope working when the majority of my team are well ahead of the curve.

 

And yes we state where the shitter is on the SMP as a matter of course, if one is not available the one is arranged. 

[Bolt]

2.4.7 Electricity (overhead and underground)
If aerial tree works are contemplated within 10m (United Kingdom specific) of power lines (measuring the shortest distance between any parts of the tree and the power line), a risk-based approach must be adopted. In practice this will mean seeking specialist advice and guidance from the owner of the power line before undertaking any work within this distance.

Consideration must also be given to operations that are outside of this distance but have the potential to breach it.

If work is being carried out within 10m proximity to power lines, the basic principle will be to work with the electricity switched off and/or to establish (and maintain throughout the works) a measured safety or exclusion zone to/from the electrical apparatus.

 

Such arrangements will be set by, and agreed with, the owner of the power line.

Separate arrangements and competency levels exist for tree work contractors engaged directly by electricity companies that own or have responsibility for power lines.

Principal considerations relating to work in proximity to power lines are:
 
A) because of the different hazards posed, obligations in terms of managing the risks, staff training and competency requirements may differ;

B) the first choice for arborists when managing the risks from electricity should be to undertake the works with the lines de-energised;

C) any decision to undertake works with lines energised must be justified and documented;

D)  all parties must be familiar with, and consider, any specific arrangements that the owner of the power line has in place. This may greatly impact upon safety distances and the use of access equipment on a given site;

E) all parties must be familiar with, and consider, both industry guidance and any manufacturer’s advice regarding the suitability, and use, of access or climbing equipment and tools near to power lines;

F) where arrangements have been made to work with the lines de-energised, it must be ensured work methods are used that avoid damage to the electrical equipment;

G) work planning must provide for appropriate levels of supervision and emergency procedures specific to the site and working methods selected.

 

I am shocked that no one is alarmed by this!!

 

Basically, I read this as stating that no W@H can be undertaken within 10m of ANY power line.

 

No mention of voltage.... LV / 400kV all treated the same. No differentiation between construction I.e. concentric service cable  treated the same as bare 33kV 
 

AND it doesn’t differentiate underground cables.

 

What is more, you get no real option of work method.

 

Basically  what you do is speak to the power company and get them to isolate the offending networks, and you only cut once you have adequately demarcated the site.

 

ANY power line within 10m ( that’s 30 feet) of the nearest part of the tree.

This section decimates the opportunity to undertake  front garden pruning and hedge trimming jobs in tens of thousands of streets up and down the country.

 

Sod ‘2 ropes’.... leave them in the truck!!, If this gets rigorously implemented, you don’t get cut trees in almost any suburban setting.

 

Where’s the outcry?

Edited December 21, 2019 by Bolt

[Bolt]

10 minutes ago, Marc said:

Ok it may be an oddity yet is a serious consideration, just because the works are aerial doesn’t mean welfare should not be a consideration.

i admire those companies with the fore thought to be running welfare Vans in their day to day ops.

That oddity aside, the hierarchy a d distinctions is what concerns me most, as welfare is easily addressed, two rope not so easily.

i have no chance of enforcing two rope working when the majority of my team are well ahead of the curve.

 

And yes we state where the shitter is on the SMP as a matter of course, if one is not available the one is arranged. 

It is a serious consideration, but it is out of place.  This is related to the 
The Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992 not the W@H regs.

 

A work at height ICOP should be focused purely on work at height.

 

Maybe in an ICOP for tower crane operators it has a place.  For us, it is no more specific to W@H activities than for a site with only ground work.

[Marc]

7 hours ago, Bolt said:

2.4.7 Electricity (overhead and underground)
If aerial tree works are contemplated within 10m (United Kingdom specific) of power lines (measuring the shortest distance between any parts of the tree and the power line), a risk-based approach must be adopted. In practice this will mean seeking specialist advice and guidance from the owner of the power line before undertaking any work within this distance.

Consideration must also be given to operations that are outside of this distance but have the potential to breach it.

If work is being carried out within 10m proximity to power lines, the basic principle will be to work with the electricity switched off and/or to establish (and maintain throughout the works) a measured safety or exclusion zone to/from the electrical apparatus.

 

Such arrangements will be set by, and agreed with, the owner of the power line.

Separate arrangements and competency levels exist for tree work contractors engaged directly by electricity companies that own or have responsibility for power lines.

Principal considerations relating to work in proximity to power lines are:
 
A) because of the different hazards posed, obligations in terms of managing the risks, staff training and competency requirements may differ;

B) the first choice for arborists when managing the risks from electricity should be to undertake the works with the lines de-energised;

C) any decision to undertake works with lines energised must be justified and documented;

D)  all parties must be familiar with, and consider, any specific arrangements that the owner of the power line has in place. This may greatly impact upon safety distances and the use of access equipment on a given site;

E) all parties must be familiar with, and consider, both industry guidance and any manufacturer’s advice regarding the suitability, and use, of access or climbing equipment and tools near to power lines;

F) where arrangements have been made to work with the lines de-energised, it must be ensured work methods are used that avoid damage to the electrical equipment;

G) work planning must provide for appropriate levels of supervision and emergency procedures specific to the site and working methods selected.

 

I am shocked that no one is alarmed by this!!

 

Basically, I read this as stating that no W@H can be undertaken within 10m of ANY power line.

 

No mention of voltage.... LV / 400kV all treated the same. No differentiation between construction I.e. concentric service cable  treated the same as bare 33kV 
 

AND it doesn’t differentiate underground cables.

 

What is more, you get no real option of work method.

 

Basically  what you do is speak to the power company and get them to isolate the offending networks, and you only cut once you have adequately demarcated the site.

 

ANY power line within 10m ( that’s 30 feet) of the nearest part of the tree.

This section decimates the opportunity to undertake  front garden pruning and hedge trimming jobs in tens of thousands of streets up and down the country.

 

Sod ‘2 ropes’.... leave them in the truck!!, If this gets rigorously implemented, you don’t get cut trees in almost any suburban setting.

This is standard procedure, and is covered in GS6, the author is guided by that.

Even low voltage aerial bundled cable (ABC) with an outer coating of plastic must be treated as if it’s not insulated and high voltage as there is a possibility of surge.

 

Anyway beside the point as you can’t go against HSE guidance... Do you start to see?

[Pete Mctree]

There are some other changes I have found that could have implications - an example is;

 

2.11.6.10 d rope splicing 

- this effectively ends the self or non factory splicing of ropes. Not a positive move in

my books

it is going to take a while to work through this properly 

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

It's a it bit of a slog but there are some little gems to be picked out of these:

 

https://www.hse.gov.uk/aboutus/reports/ara-2017-18.pdf

 

 

 

Statistics - Fatal injuries in Great Britain

WWW.HSE.GOV.UK

---

The information in this document relates to the latest 'full-year'; statistics on fatal injuries in the workplace, for 2018/19.

 

 

[Bolt]

1 hour ago, Marc said:

This is standard procedure, and is covered in GS6, the author is guided by that.

Even low voltage aerial bundled cable (ABC) with an outer coating of plastic must be treated as if it’s not insulated and high voltage as there is a possibility of surge.

 

Are you sure this is how everyone is currently working though?  I don’t think it is.

 

For work in pretty much ANY garden of a house fed by electric (underground or concentric-service-cable) you can assure me you are currently -and without exception- go off seeking specialist advice and guidance from the owner of the power line before undertaking any work within this distance.

 

Really?  For any electricity cable, overhead or underground.  Impressive.

 

Personally I see this as someone's interpretation of GS6 (+ a spot of hsg47 to demonstrate over-thoroughness ).

 

I see it as far, far in excess of standard procedure for any domestic arb site I have ever been on.

 

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

Where ‘policy documents’ become so complex that people don’t bother to read them, so out of touch with daily practicalities of business and so over prescriptive that the requirements of full compliance far exceed the worth / value of the task, then the only outfits willing / able to undertake them are LA type organisations. Organisations where admin far exceeds output and the most basic principles of profit, VfM and accountability are sacrificed on the alter of public funding.
 

If HSE can validate a set of requirements that many will simply ignore, whether aided and abetted by the AA, or emboldened by an apparent inability to challenge, then HSE are writing a gold plated guarantee of future income from enforcement action because they can reasonably expect that a majority will be ignoring their poorly considered ‘policy.’

 

Its not like they could be focussing more attention on fixing the areas where frequent accidents and fatalities are occurring such as building / roofing / farming. Maybe they’ve got those sectors all lined up as a steady cash cow already....

[Marc]

1 hour ago, Bolt said:

Are you sure this is how everyone is currently working though?  I don’t think it is.

 

For work in pretty much ANY garden of a house fed by electric (underground or concentric-service-cable) you can assure me you are currently -and without exception- go off seeking specialist advice and guidance from the owner of the power line before undertaking any work within this distance.

 

Really?  For any electricity cable, overhead or underground.  Impressive.

 

Personally I see this as someone's interpretation of GS6 (+ a spot of hsg47 to demonstrate over-thoroughness ).

 

I see it as far, far in excess of standard procedure for any domestic arb site I have ever been on.

 

I am merely pointing out where this comes from. Read into that what you will.

People will gloss over that and the welfare part, they already do, to often as a climber I have worked without any welfare provisions (that’s what the chips for isn’t it?) and no shut down or shrouding of live wires just told to get on with it.

 

This is my point unless you enforce a safe working environment this is all just guidance, let’s make it fair though.

 

I could go on, for me I am a climber and climbing is my trade, so I concentrate on this point alone and not the other parts around it, I’ll leave that more to others.

Isn’t GS9 guidance anyway? If we “identify a risk” should we not act on it? As a manager of climbing operations I can honestly say if a electrical hazard is Identified I deal with it. And I only do this, as to often I was personally sent to do shady shit.

[Marc]

43 minutes ago, kevinjohnsonmbe said:

Where ‘policy documents’ become so complex that people don’t bother to read them, so out of touch with daily practicalities of business and so over prescriptive that the requirements of full compliance far exceed the worth / value of the task, then the only outfits willing / able to undertake them are LA type organisations. Organisations where admin far exceeds output and the most basic principles of profit, VfM and accountability are sacrificed on the alter of public funding.
 

If HSE can validate a set of requirements that many will simply ignore, whether aided and abetted by the AA, or emboldened by an apparent inability to challenge, then HSE are writing a gold plated guarantee of future income from enforcement action because they can reasonably expect that a majority will be ignoring their poorly considered ‘policy.’

 

Its not like they could be focussing more attention on fixing the areas where frequent accidents and fatalities are occurring such as building / roofing / farming. Maybe they’ve got those sectors all lined up as a steady cash cow already....

I seriously doubt anyone had the intelligence to dream up a revenue from this, it is simply poorly considered