MEWPs are safe, productive and economical

OH&S leader at Crown House Technologies (CHt) Gerry Mulholland, who initiated the assessment of work at height policies and procedures within CHt, was speaking mid September at the Europlatform conference in Milan, Italy.
“MEWPs are also easier for site management to maintain the appropriate safe standards on site, as there are fewer options offered, therefore fewer opportunities to make the wrong choice; their automation reduces accidents caused by human error. General site opinion from our workforce is that MEWPs get the job done.”
7 road shows
The findings were the result of a complete review of the work at height procedures (up to 4.5m) for mechanical and electrical installation carried out by Crown House Technologies in 2008. The research began with a series of seven road shows attended by more than 170 people across Britain where CHt asked its workforce, “What do you want to work from?”
Falls from height are the primary cause of serious injury in the construction industry. CHt’s detailed review found that just under a fifth of all accidents on site are related to access equipment. A small proportion of these are caused by MEWPs (19%), compared with podiums, mobile towers, and ladders and A-frames.
The study also looked at the cost of access-related accident claims as well as repair costs. Loss and damage data was collected from a selection of projects where MEWPs were used: Heathrow Airport’s Terminal 5, the Royal Ascot Racecourse Grandstand, the Slough Treatment Works, the Arora Hotel at Heathrow Terminal 5, and the York Building, Marble Arch in London.
MEWP hire more expensive
The cost of renting a MEWP is greater on a weekly hire rate than that of a mobile tower, the second most expensive work at height method, or other options such as podium steps. However, CHt is expecting that in the future, it will see fewer falls from height and fewer accident claims.
Reviewing the personal injury claims data, CHt found that over a two-and-a-half-year period, podiums accounted for 41% of claims costs while MEWPs were 11%.
CHt undertook a series of time and motion studies using different types of access equipment on two different projects. These were used to understand how long typical tasks took with the variety of equipment that had been used in the past. On average, MEWPs were found to be three times more efficient to use than mobile towers and podiums during these tests.
“The findings have led us to eliminate the inconsistent use of access equipment and standardise the selection of this equipment,” said Mulholland. “We have developed a matrix which is used to help select the most appropriate item of equipment for any typical M&E task we undertake, up to 4.5m working height, helping the user to select the right access equipment for the job.”
The study is steadily gaining recognition. The UK Health & Safety Executive (HSE) has been made aware of the findings and approach to equipment selection. The HSE will also be publishing the approach in a case study on its website demonstrating best practice with regard to workforce engagement.