Comments on the NSW draft code of practice for falls from roofs

It's important we get this Draft Code of Practice: Safe work on Roofs, Commercial and Industrial Buildings right. First of all, falls from a rooftop tend to be tragic. Second, it needs to be workable for facility managers, contractors and anyone who has to manage safe work at heights.

It's been 15 years since the last NSW code was released but sadly, this draft revision still falls short of standards in other states and the National Code of Practice. Why? Well, there are lots of small changes I'll include in my submission but the big one concerns the hierarchy of control.

The draft document encourages a risk-based approach but the recommendations and examples are not consistent with the hierarchy of controls. This is because the three-level hierarchy of control is not coherent and not easily understood. The other main issue is that this code of practice is referenced by people working at heights during routine maintenance and not necessarily during the construction phase.

This code of practice constantly refers to the construction phase. More reference needs to be made to maintenance access (eg: air conditioning maintenance, gutter cleaning, cooling tower maintenance, roof maintenance) to give relevance to the ‘aftermarket’ of the construction industry being facility managers, maintenance managers, property managers, real estate agents, building owners, landlords, tenants, etc.

My recommendations are given with facility management in mind. The three-part hierarchy of control stipulates the controller of the workplace provides and maintains:

1) A stable and securely fenced work platform – eg. scaffolding

2) If compliance with sub paragraph 1 is not reasonably practicable, secure perimeter screens, fencing, handrails or other forms of physical barriers that are capable of preventing the fall of a person, or

3) If compliance with sub paragraph 2 is not reasonably practicable, other forms of physical restraints that are capable of arresting the fall of a person from a height of more than 2 metres.

This three-level hierarchy doesn't fit in with other state requirements and certainly not the National Code of Practice for the Prevention of Falls in General Construction, making implementation difficult for any business with interstate sites. There are other problems with this three-level hierarchy, too:

a) The first level of control should be elimination. This is achieved by relocation of plant and equipment or redesigning the systems of work so that the work is carried out on the ground or from a stable and securely fenced work platform.

b) A stable and securely fenced work platform (eg: scaffolding or a safe work platform) is as effective a control as a permanent barrier such as a guardrail or a parapet wall. These controls are very effective, offer significant risk reduction and have a low level of misuse. They should be combined into a level 2 control.

c) There is a fundamental difference between work positioning and fall restraint even though both of these controls are achieved by using fall arrest equipment such as anchors, static lines and harnesses. Work positioning prevents a fall happening at all, whereas fall arrest merely limits the distance of fall and is likely to result in an injury.

By combining the two controls in section iii, the code of practice does not differentiate between them and does not give preference to work positioning over fall arrest. I recommend that work positioning is categorized as a level 3 and that fall arrest is given a level 4.

d) The hierarchy of controls makes no mention of the use of ladders and administrative controls. While working off ladders is the least favoured control, there may be special circumstances where it really isn’t practicable to use higher order controls particularly if the tasks are of very short duration. In these circumstances, it's better to accept that people are going to work off a ladder and, rather than ban it outright, stipulate that it is coupled with administrative controls involving supervision.

The document gives examples of equipment that can be used. It does not come across strongly enough in the code of practice that it’s essential to follow a hierarchy of controls and that the examples are provided for guidance purposes only.

Finally, the terms ‘practicable’ is not well understood in the marketplace. Most people feel justified eliminating a control purely based on cost. The code of practice needs to elaborate further on what constitutes ‘practicable’ and what issues need to be considered in determining whether a control is ‘practicable’ or not (eg: whether the level of risk is high, medium or low; the state of knowledge; the availability and suitability of ways to mitigate the risk; and, lastly, the cost).

I've collated all of my comments in a table, which you're welcome to circulate and you can read the Draft Code of Practice: Safe work on Roofs, Commercial and Industrial Buildings at the WorkCover NSW site.

Over to you!