Development of an International Standard for Mobile Elevating Work Platforms (MEWP's) used in Orchards

Transcription

1 Development of an International Standard for Mobile Elevating Work Platforms (MEWP's) used in Orchards Keith Batten Keith Batten & Associates Project Number: MT08013

2 MT08013 This report is published by Horticulture Australia Ltd to pass on information concerning horticultural research and development undertaken for: Apple & Pear (Apple - Mkting Projects) Avocado Banana Canning Fruit Cherry Citrus Mango Summerfruit The research contained in this report was funded by Horticulture Australia Ltd with the financial support of: Canned Fruits Industry Council of Australia Australian Banana Growers Council Inc the apple and pear industry the avocado industry the citrus industry the cherry industry the mango industry the summerfruit industry All expressions of opinion are not to be regarded as expressing the opinion of Horticulture Australia Ltd or any authority of the Australian Government. The Company and the Australian Government accept no responsibility for any of the opinions or the accuracy of the information contained in this report and readers should rely upon their own enquiries in making decisions concerning their own interests. ISBN Published and distributed by: Horticulture Australia Ltd Level Elizabeth Street Sydney NSW 2000 Telephone: (02) Fax: (02) Copyright 2010

3 Horticulture Australia Ltd Project No: MT08013 (September 2010) Development of an International Standard for Mobile Elevating Work Platforms Keith Batten Keith Batten & Associates 1

4 Project No: Project Title: MT08013 Development of an International Standard for Mobile Elevating Work Platforms Project Leader: Mr Keith Batten M Eng, B Eng (Hons), Grad Dip Bud (Dist) Address: Keith Batten & Associates 9/61 Waterloo Esplanade WYNNUM QLD 4178 Phone: Fax keith@battenhq.com.au The purpose of this project was to work with industry, mobile elevating work platform manufacturers and the international standards setting community to develop an international standard for mobile elevating work platforms used in the tree fruit industries to train, thin, harvest, prune and other tasks on orchard trees. Funding Sources: Horticulture Australia Ltd via industry levies and voluntary contributions from the apple and pear, avocado, banana, canning fruit, citrus, cherry, dried tree fruit, mango and summerfruit sectors with matching funds from the Australian Government. Date of Report: September 2010 Any recommendations contained in this publication do not necessarily represent current HAL policy. No person should act on the basis of the contents of this publication, whether as to matters of fact or opinion or other content, without first obtaining specific, independent professional advice in respect of the matters set out in this publication. 2

5 Contents Media Summary... 4 Introduction... 5 Results... 7 Discussion... 8 Technology Transfer Recommendations

6 Media Summary An International Standard was the final project of a trilogy to develop standards for orchard picking platforms commonly used by Australian growers. The preceding projects included representing horticulture interests in the review of the platform operating standard AS , and the development of the design standard AS AS was published AS is expected to be published by the end of The final project involved the development of a design standard under the International Standards Organisation (ISO). The standard is currently in final draft and will be titled ISO This standard was required to improve the awareness and credibility of orchard platforms at international level. An estimated 8000 picking platforms known as mobile elevating work platforms or MEWPs are used in Australia to lift operators to pick fruit and maintain trees and vines. Many horticulture picking platforms did not comply with the Australian platform standard AS prior to completion of these projects. Growers were at risk of prosecution by Workplace Health and Safety regulators and injury litigation following an accident involving personal injury. Platform standards had historically been developed by advocates of industrial platforms such as those used in factories and on construction sites. The resulting standards did not meet the needs of horticulture. The operating and risk environment of orchards differ from those of industrial sites. The orchard platform requires alternative features to ensure safety and efficiency. Keith Batten, an engineer experienced with standards development, was engaged to represent growers on the relevant standards committees. The outcome is that the AS committee has introduced a separate section to include the unique requirements for orchard platforms. The ISO committee has provided for a separate standard, ISO which includes special safety requirements for orchard platforms where they differ from those of industrial platforms. The projects were facilitated by HAL in partnership with; Apple and Pear Australia Ltd, Australian Banana Growers Council, Australian Mango Industry Association, Australian Citrus Growers Inc, Avocadoes Australia Ltd, Canned Fruits Industry Council of Australia, Cherry Growers of Australia Inc, Dried Tree Fruits Association, and Summerfruit Australia Ltd and was funded by their levies, with the Australian Government providing matching funding. 4

7 Introduction This project is the final of a series to produce standards for orchard picking platforms commonly used in orchards. The platforms are known formally as Mobile Elevating Work Platforms (MEWPs). Prior to this initiative, orchard growers were not represented on the committees that develop the standards. As a result, the standards covered the needs of industrial users and did not recognize important innovations necessary to ensure MEWPs could be operated efficiently and safely in orchards. However, the resulting standards were the only standards in existence and many orchard MEWPs were therefore non-complying. The non-compliance was exacerbated in several states because of a requirement in the occupational health and safety (OH&S) regulation to comply with the relevant Australian standards. In these states the orchard platforms could therefore be viewed as unlawful. Around 2005 an initiative to reduce rural accidents resulted in OH&S officers requiring growers to comply with relevant Australian standards. The initiative began with information sessions but it was clear that growers would need to comply with current standards or negotiate their own needs with the standards committees. Keith Batten, an engineer with experience with standards negotiations, was engaged by HAL in a multi industry initiative to represent grower s interests. The project began with a review of growers needs. Important growing areas in Australia were visited to understand the reasons for accidents involving MEWPs in orchards, and importantly, what special requirements should be recognized so that the platforms could be operated safely and efficiently in orchards. It became clear that efficient operation of orchard MEWPs was imperative for financial viability. Growers were under threat from OH&S regulators demanding compliance with the general MEWP standards that did not meet their needs. The grower case lacked credibility because no initiative had previously been undertaken to explain why orchard MEWPs should be different from the requirements already outlined in the MEWP standards. The valid case for growers was at risk of being interpreted as an attempt to reduce the cost of orchard MEWPs by seeking relaxation of safety needs. The case for growers was strengthened significantly by support from New Zealand growers through representation on relevant standards committees. The New Zealand manufacturer Hydralada also provided support. As a result, the MEWP design standard AS is now a joint standard with New Zealand. New Zealand also supported the case for an international standard by direct representation on the International Standards Organisation (ISO) committee. 5

8 The initial project of the series was to represent growers on a review of the MEWP operating standard AS The issue of the mandatory requirement for a fall-arrest harness was successfully negotiated. The short-boom orchard MEWPs do not tend to catapult the operator from the platform to the extent that can occur with long-boom industrial counterparts. In addition, the presence of a fall-arrest harness introduces additional risks such as the harness catching on branches or trellis structures when the MEWP is in motion. AS now provides for a methodology to test whether a fall-arrest harness is necessary for a particular design. A number of maintenance requirements including the 10 year inspection were also successfully negotiated so that rural communities can deliver the required outcomes with the resources available. The option would have been specialist X-rays most likely only available in capital cities, when this would most likely not have identified structural weak points regardless. The second project was to represent growers on the development of the MEWP design standard AS The research across Australian and New Zealand growing communities revealed that the risk environment and operational essentials of orchards differed from those of industrial sites. Orchard MEWPs have developed in parallel with industrial MEWPs. The essential differences had to be negotiated with the standards committee. The AS committee resolved to include a separate section in AS to outline the requirements for orchard MEWPs where they differ from industrial MEWPs. These differences are worthy of recording in this final report and have been outlined later in the report. A valuable outcome of the project is that a commentary has been included in AS describing safety aspects of the use of MEWPs in orchards from a grower s perspective. It is the only published document on the subject. The final project was to represent growers interests in development of an international standard on orchard MEWPs. The essential issues are outlined below. Why produce an International standard for orchard MEWPs? There were a number of reasons for pursuing an international design standard for orchard MEWPs: Prior to the HAL initiative there was no orchard MEWP standard in existence. AS was to be the first. However, without notice and after this work had commenced, threats emerged to the continued existence of AS A government initiative to standardize OH&S legislation across Australia set the policy of adopting international standards where possible to avoid restricting trade. This threat added to the policy of Standards Australia to take up international standards where available to remove barriers to trade. If the Australian standard were discontinued in time then the orchard standard would go with it. 6

9 An international standard for orchard MEWPs was necessary to give credibility to the Australian standard for orchard MEWPs. The orchard standard was without support for its credibility because no other standards in the standards community recognized orchard MEWPs. Without that credibility the Australian standard could be discounted by regulators and also by courts known to reference higher-level standards in injury litigation. Results ISO (the International Organization for Standardization) is a worldwide federation of national standards bodies (ISO member bodies). The work of preparing International Standards is normally carried out through ISO technical committees. Each member body interested in a subject for which a technical committee has been established has the right to be represented on that committee. International organizations, governmental and non-governmental, in liaison with ISO, also take part in the work. International Standards are drafted in accordance with the rules given in the ISO/IEC Directives, Part 2. The main task of technical committees is to prepare International Standards. Draft International Standards adopted by the technical committees are circulated to the member bodies for voting. Publication as an International Standard requires approval by at least 75 % of the member bodies casting a vote. ISO was prepared by Technical Committee ISO/TC 214, Elevating work platforms. ISO consists of the following parts, under the general title Mobile elevating work platforms Design, calculations, safety requirements and test methods relative to special features: Part 1: MEWPs with retractable guardrails Part 2: MEWPs with non-conductive (insulating) components Part 3: MEWPs for orchard operations The standard has progressed through the following stages by successful vote by some 20 nations represented on the technical committee: New Work Item (NWI) 2006 following the committee meeting in Pretoria, South Africa late Committee Draft (CD ) in 2007 following successful committee vote and resolution of comment. Draft International Standard (DIS ) following the committee meeting in Orlando, Florida in 2009 Final Draft International Standard (FDIS ) following vote and resolution of committee comment in

10 French translation was completed in September ISO/FDIS :2010 Mobile elevating work platforms Design, calculations, safety requirements and test methods relative to special features Part 3: MEWPs for orchard operations was circulated by ISO on 10/09/2010. As the Draft International Standard is copyright-protected by ISO, except as permitted under the applicable laws of the user's country, neither the ISO draft nor any extract from it may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission being secured. It is therefore not attached to this report. After an exhaustive Technical Committee process to develop this draft, it is now being put to the vote of the committee where it is expected to be adopted. Discussion The essential differences between orchard and industrial MEWPs are evident by review of AS and the various drafts of ISO A video was produced to demonstrate orchard MEWPs to the international committee and is available from the author. There are three issues that have continued to need explanation to the international committee: Reduced height of the guard rail, Hands-free controls without a dead-man control, and No gate in the top rail. 1. Reduced height of the guard rail An orchard MEWP operator may pick up to 12,000 pieces of fruit in a day. To manage fatigue it is necessary for the operator to occasionally lower the arms such that the upper arms are vertical and the lower arms horizontal. If the platform rails are higher than 900 mm, the operator is at risk of hitting their elbows on the rail causing a painful injury. The risk of fall is controlled because the platform is of limited dimensions which serves to hold the operator in position. During travel the operator instinctively bends the legs and leans back on to the back support. 2. Hands-free controls without a dead-man 8

11 The risks associated with use of orchard MEWPs differ from those of industrial MEWPs. For this reason, alternative solutions have evolved for orchard MEWPs to guard against the risk of unintended operation of controls Industrial MEWPs generally remain stationary once the work position is reached so that the operator can attend to the job at hand. The risk of inadvertent operation of controls at this time is enhanced because the operator s attention is diverted away from the controls. The operator could inadvertently lean against the controls, for example, causing the platform to be driven up under a ceiling. The consequence of such inadvertent operation is extreme. Hand controls protected by a dead-man have been proven to be effective in managing this risk. Note that the dead-man control is given as an example in ISO and is not mandated. Orchard MEWPs, in contrast, are often foot operated because both hands are required to pick fruit or prune branches simultaneous with the MEWP moving. The operator typically moves the platform about every 4 seconds while working through the orchard tree. The platform and drive movements are operated continuously. There are no extended periods where the platform is stationary with the operator s attention diverted elsewhere. The operator must focus attention equally on operating the controls to position the platform and picking fruit or pruning. The risk of unintended operation of controls is considerably diminished compared with industrial MEWPs because the operator s attention is always directed to the controls by nature of the task. The controls for orchard MEWPs have evolved without the dead-man control simply because there is no functional need. The orchard MEWP is vulnerable to unintended operation at other times, for example, if an unauthorized person were to step on to the platform. Alternative solutions such as isolating the controls automatically as the operator steps off the platform have evolved to protect against this risk. There is considerable precedence for the evolution of orchard MEWPs with foot controls and the absence of dead-man controls. MEWPs belong to a larger family of machines know as mobile plant. Mobile plant is characterized as machinery driven by an operator positioned on the machine. Mobile plant includes, for example, road-making machinery such as graders and rollers, agricultural machinery such as tractors and harvesters, skid-steer machinery used in landscaping, and possibly even road-going trucks and automobiles. All the above machinery has a combination of foot and hand controls because the task of driving requires more than just hand controls. More importantly, all these machines have 9

12 evolved without dead-man controls. The drivers are continuously operating the controls such that the risk of inadvertent operation is not significant. In summary, the requirement for dead-man controls has evolved for industrial MEWP because they are generally at risk of unintentional operation of controls and the consequences are serious. Orchard MEWPs, however, are more characteristic of mobile plant in the way they are operated. Just as the advent of dead-man controls would be impractical for most mobile plant such as skid-steers or tractors, they would be impractical for orchard MEWPs. Alternative control measures have evolved to manage the risks associated with using MEWPs in orchards. A video showing operation of orchard MEWP controls is available from the author. 3. No gate in the top guard rail A requirement for no gate in the top rail has been included in AS and ISO This requirement has resulted in disagreement from Australian MEWP manufacturers stating that some users could not get on to the platform without a gate. A review of practices across growing districts in Australia showed that the greatest cause of injury to operators of orchard MEWPs was falling from an open platform gate. Gates are readily opened by contact with tree branches or failure to latch the gate effectively. In contrast, New Zealand platforms are not fitted with gates and the incidents of operators falling from platforms was generally non-existent. New Zealand operators were interviewed and did not find the absence of a gate to be restrictive. Many operators in New Zealand are of heavy build but did not find getting on to the platform under the top rail to be an inconvenience. The requirement for no gate in the top rail was therefore included in the standards. Technology Transfer Numerous project updates have been provided to industry through the HAL portfolio manager and the respective industry service managers. This has included progress reports to the Industry Advisory Committees and more extensive reports for various Industry Reports published to report on project outcomes for levy payers for each industry. 10

13 Recommendations 1. That following HAL s receipt of this report, and its circulation to all participating Peak Industry Bodies, that this Report be circulated by Peak Industry Bodies to regional grower groups, and to grower magazines, newspapers and periodicals, in order to advise as many users as possible of the present status and impending changes to the Standards relating to MEWPs. 2. The horticulture community (HAL, MEWP manufacturers, and grower bodies) continue their involvement in the development of orchard MEWP standards. Standards are intended to be developed by industry with OH&S participation as agreed solutions to meeting the legislated requirements of the OH&S Act and regulation. If horticulture is not intimately involved then others who do not understand the needs of horticulture will likely make the decisions without consultation. 11