Sg4:10 revision

SF Admin

Administrator
Joined
Aug 20, 2009
Messages
7,167
Reaction score
4
In the Foreword to the new NASC guidance SG4:10 Philip White (Head of Construction, HSE) states,

HSE
"This revision represents a step change in the way scaffold contractors should erect their scaffold structures. The guidance is straightforward and comprehensive and represents best practice within the industry"

Overview
Since its introduction in the mid-nineties Safety Guidance Number 4 (SG4) from the National Access and Scaffolding Confederation (NASC) has become the established minimum standard for fall prevention in the scaffolding industry. SG4 rose to prominence following the major revision in 2000 (SG4:00) as it represented a significant change and challenge to the established methods of working that had been practiced for decades.

In 2000, the updated revision (SG4:00) saw the introduction of a new methodology that was christened the ‘tunnelling principle’, where the scaffolder’s priority on any working platform was to progressively create a safe working platform with guardrail protection and correctly supported working platforms, in the same manner a miner shores up a tunnel as it is excavated – thus minimising the time exposed to risk. This was also the first occasion where scaffolders were now expected to wear personal fall protection equipment (safety harnesses) at all times, as standard.

The priority now was to provide a ‘safe zone’ utilising collective measures before resorting to personal protection. However, it was still recognised that there was an inherent risk of a fall in scaffolding operations that could not be completely avoided therefore scaffolders would need to be clipped on whenever exposed to a risk of a fall and not traversing themselves and materials. The tunnelling principle made an allowance for scaffolders to traverse, unprotected, along a boarded lift for the maximum length of materials they were guardrailing with e.g. a maximum of 6.4m (21ft).

SG4 was again revised and updated in 2005 to reflect the requirements of the new Work at Height Regulations (WAHR), introduced that year, and included guidance on developments in technology in the intervening years. Innovations included amongst others; new collective protection methods that could remove the unprotected traversing element of the tunnelling principle and new anchor devices that enabled scaffolders to attached their harnesses to higher points above the working platform, thereby reducing fall distances.

A change of emphasis in the new regulations for collective protection over personal was already supported by the SG4:05 guidance. However, to further promote innovations in collective protection equipment and methods an interim guidance note was issued in September 2008 (SG4:05 Appendix A). The aim was to raise the profile and promote collective measures available to scaffolders and employers. Many of these innovative new products and systems of work have been devised by scaffolders and contractors, which include a variety of cost effective solutions which is normally the major objection to change by many employers.

In agreement with the Health and Safety Executive SG4 is revised every 5 years and work on the next revision is well underway. The working party is aiming to complete revisions of both the management guide (SG4) and the user guide (SG4 You) for approval by the HSE, NASC Council and Membership for a launch before the end of the year (2010).

Detail
The new SG4:10 - ‘Preventing Falls in Scaffolding’ - will see more emphasis on the creation of a ‘Safe Zone’ by scaffolders covering a variety of safe methods. This revision will also see the removal of the practice of the ‘unprotected traversing element’ from the tunnelling principle. The initial impact to the Industry to implement these new measures will be significant for those who have not yet embraced the systems of work promoted by SG4:05 and Appendix A. Interestingly the NASC’s analysis of the ‘unprotected traversing element’ shows that it represented only a small percentage of the scaffolder’s working day. The NASC accepts that in practice the ‘unprotected traverse’ fails to comply with current legislation. However at the time of the previous revisions, it was accepted by the HSE as a reasonably practicable solution in the absence of other alternatives. It has to be recognised that the initial investment and increased future overheads is a major factor to be taken into consideration by Scaffolding Contractors, however, the guidance will help ensure scaffolders and their employers work safer and comply with the law.

"The HSE will no longer accept the unprotected traversing element of the tunnelling principle that featured in previous versions of the guide [SG4:10]"
Philip White, Head of Construction, HSE

The NASC and HSE acknowledge that there are scaffolders and contractors who still do not comply with the current guidance. This is evident in any town or city by the tell-tale signs scaffolders leave behind i.e. no Scaffolder’s guardrails or intermediate transoms. It is clear that you don’t have to actually see scaffolders working to know whether they have even attempted to work to SG4.

The NASC considers collective protection as passive protection, for example a guardrail will remain in place and provide protection should someone fall against it, whereas personal fall protection equipment (harnesses) is ‘personal’ or ‘active’ protection that must be attached to afford any benefit to the user. A number of NASC Members are already routinely working with collective protection measures and report increased demand from Principal Contractors and Clients for the same.

YouTube - SG4:10 NASC scaffold guidance updated

Source: NASC
 
I'm all for health & safety but the way things are going, we will have to use a powered access machine or an aluminium tower to erect a scaffold soon.

Its all very well these rules and regs telling you that this has to be done or you have to do something a certain way, but do these rulemakers actually erect and dismantle scaffolding for a living on a daily basis? Do they work for a medium sized scaffolding company trying to make a living or try to run a business?

Its easy to sit at a desk and say you've looked at this figure or that statistic and dream up some 'new' way to do things. Did these people actually go outside in the big bad world and work to their 'safer' methods and guidance for 6 months to see how feasible the proposals were? Doubt it.

At the risk of sounding petty, the people who put SG4 together in the first place should have been banned from having anything to do with it again. If it needs updating every five years, and new methods introduced, surely they did a crap job of it in the first place? If anyone says they didn't, then why wasn't it all ironed out in the beginning? I'll tell you why, because they wouldn't be able to rip you off for updated little books and updated training courses

Sorry for going on a bit but this sort of thing and these sort of people really p**s me off.
 
Last edited:
fully agree with every thing you have said,we are but a tool for for making money
 
I'm all for health & safety but the way things are going, we will have to use a powered access machine or an aluminium tower to erect a scaffold soon.

Its all very well these rules and regs telling you that this has to be done or you have to do something a certain way, but do these rulemakers actually erect and dismantle scaffolding for a living on a daily basis? Do they work for a medium sized scaffolding company trying to make a living or try to run a business?

Its easy to sit at a desk and say you've looked at this figure or that statistic and dream up some 'new' way to do things. Did these people actually go outside in the big bad world and work to their 'safer' methods and guidance for 6 months to see how feasible the proposals were? Doubt it.

At the risk of sounding petty, the people who put SG4 together in the first place should have been banned from having anything to do with it again. If it needs updating every five years, and new methods introduced, surely they did a crap job of it in the first place? If anyone says they didn't, then why wasn't it all ironed out in the beginning? I'll tell you why, because they wouldn't be able to rip you off for updated little books and updated training courses

Sorry for going on a bit but this sort of thing and these sort of people really p**s me off.


the only problem is once a system is in place it needs to be reviewed and monitored just like a risk assessment needs to be monitored and reviewed.
 
the only problem is once a system is in place it needs to be reviewed and monitored just like a risk assessment needs to be monitored and reviewed.

Tom what the poster is saying is, if the powers to be with there vast array of industry knowledge got the so called Scaffolding Guidance (safe system of work SG4) correct in the first place:laugh: then they wound'nt have to keep making massive changes every 5 years that are obviously proving to be a big expensive burden to the smaller companies that are trying to adhere to them.

Obviously times change and best practice evolves but................................

Was the tunneling and traversing method when ,introduced not the way a head by planning the sequence of work the scaffolder could install guardrails and minimize working to open edges.

Scaffolder falls from heights were statistically down in numbers.

SG4:10 Tho shall not tunnel or traverse?????????????????????????????????????

Create a Safe Zone, How many of the smaller companies out there are going to realistically be able to (hire & train men to use MEWPS) to erect and strip jobs:notrust:
 
got to agree with daz since the inception of sg4 the re-writes drafts amendments have been vast,theres no point kidding ourselfs that its been touched up here and there,people would say its continuly evolving to suit the needs of the scaffolder nobody from the nasc has asked ME or infact any scaffolder i know for input in these new guidance notes.MAYBE IF THEY INCLUDED THE THOUGHTS AND IDEAS OF THE PEOPLE THEY CLAIM TO REGULATE THEN JUST MAYBE THEN WE COULD START TO HAVE SOME COHESION IN THE INDUSTRY INSTEAD OF THE AUTOCRATIC SYSTEM WE HAVE AT PRESENT,GREAT POST DAZ.
 
Dont think they took much advice when preparing it
 
They ain`t gonna ask us the real people who have to work to some very stupid guidelines how it could be better . That would be to simple and there is a thriving market in safety equipment which many members of the NASC make a pretty buck out off .
 
good thred lads. i am sure the hse advise involvin the workforce when doing risk assesmnets and workin at heights is a big risk. so why has nobody from the nasc followd hse advice to involve the employee or the man in the front line.....the scaffolder. it is dead easy all we need to do is use our harnes as it is within the work at heigt regs. dot no about uz but if it hasnt been sorted by now then the clowns that develped the sg4 should be sacked.
 
In my personal opinion and not my companies, I feel the NASC would have stayed with sg4:00 if it was not for the work at height regs and the Hse enforcement on collective protection.

If
 
SG4:10 Tho shall not tunnel or traverse?????????????????????????????????????

Create a Safe Zone, How many of the smaller companies out there are going to realistically be able to (hire & train men to use MEWPS) to erect and strip jobs:notrust:



Speaking as a small company i would say none of us could .

It`s virtually all small companies around this area and i am yet to see anyone using a scaff step or any other form of advanced rail ( by small company i mean 1 - 5 gangs ) , so , SG4:10 has obviously not been welcomed by 90% of Scaffolders around these parts .

I believe that if i started to price and erect work to fully comply with SG4:10 i would not even come close to winning a single job , also , i would never get invited to tender for more work from the same contractors again .... bad business all round .

I have been Scaffolding for 23 years now and i can count the number of times i have worn a harness on one hand .... that is also the case for most of the Scaffolders i know . It may well be reckless of me , but , i would not be up there in the first place if i felt i was in danger and was not confident in my abilities . I know that myself and the majority of scaffs around here will eventually have to comply , but , it won`t happen until we are all pricing to fully adhere to SG4:10 and that`s just not gonna happen around here anytime soon .
 
Excellent might relocate to your area , havin to work it now
 
Just to add to my original rant.

Most contractors site managers, foremen and H&S advisors police scaffolders on site by making sure they wear harnesses, clip on and work to SG4. Its about time contractors got their priorities right and realised that its all very well them accepting the cheapest scaffolding price but somewhere along the line, the scaffolding company has to be paid extra to cover for regulations that (if followed properly) slow the job down.

I'm sure there are people in here that can remember scaffolding with single handrails, no harnesses, no hard hats and trainers. I'm sure those same people will agree that despite all of the extra work, regs and costs we have today, the prices haven't risen to anywhere near the level they should be.

Granted there will always be the one man band and his transit with no insurance that will undercut anything. In reality main contractors have to start paying for the extra burden we're all supposed to work under these days.
 
As I asked in another thread, what has changed in 10 years!!

What do I need to know now in regards to the scaffolds I erect that is different to ten years ago. Not a lot.

So why do I need to be up dated on issues that would fit on the back of a fag packet?

This Industry has been strangled from within!! :mad:

Ragscaff
 
I realise that I am a bit late coming into this thread, but can anyone tell me who's responsibility it is for the cost of complying with SG 10 ?
 
Top Bottom