Tag: construction

The Scaffolding

Franklin GrimaLeave a comment

Scaffolding sign“L-Armar għall-Bini”

On the 2nd of May 2022, a video was posted online by a passerby of a scaffolding swaying with the wind, on the verge of falling onto the street causing damage to cars and possibly injuries to personnel.

Scaffolding is one of the most commonly used structures at construction sites. It is highly recommended to provide a safe working platform and avoid the usage of ladders and rope access techniques. But, it is only safe when it is built correctly.

An article published by the Times of Malta (timesofmalta.com) explains that the construction works on this historical building had conflicts with the law from the start, whereby works had commenced without approval from the planning authority. The planning commission fined the contractor 50 euros a day. Is that fine adequate to stop a contractor from carrying out illegal works?

Guidance and legislation are readily available, both locally, within the EU and from the Health and Safety Executive in the UK.

Legislation regulating the minimum requirement at construction sites (LEGISLATION MALTA) is extremely straightforward where scaffolding is concerned. The regulation states:

“All scaffolding must be properly designed, constructed and maintained to ensure that it does not collapse or move accidentally“

It is also stated that the scaffolding must be inspected and certified as safe for use, prior to being put into service, at periodic intervals and after any modification or exposure to bad weather.

The guidance from the OHSA (L-Armar għall-Bini (gov.mt)) goes one step further and determines the periodicity that the scaffolding is to be inspected and certified i.e. every week that it is in use.

Guidelines state that every scaffolding is to be secured to avoid any swaying. While, both the legislation and guidance provide information on ladders, gangways, guardrails and toe-boards that are to be installed with the scaffolding to ensure safe access and prevent falling tools.

In the United Kingdom, scaffolding is regulated by the implementation of The Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2015. Fines related to breaches in these regulations issued by the HSE range between 15,000 and 27,000 pounds. In Malta, the penalty for setting up inadequate scaffolding is only 250 euros as stipulated in the Occupational Health and Safety (Payment of Penalties) Regulations.

Since this video went viral, comments on social media read “unbelievable, health and safety doesn’t exist“, “Never ending story” yet again we only see public complaints when things are about to go south.

The posts that reach the attention of the mainstream media are mainly reactive to accidents and not proactive to ongoing health and safety concerns.

However, how many instances like this do we need to witness for the competent authorities to have allocated the adequate human resources to properly regulate the ever-growing construction industry?
Are the current fines adequate to promote a preventive culture rather than a corrective one and isn’t the preservation of human life more of an incentive than any fine imposed?

I write these posts not to point fingers, as it is never the objective of a health and safety practitioner to ascertain blame but to possibly provide insight into health and safety legislation and good practice.

The Guard Rails

Franklin GrimaLeave a comment

“L-Ilqugħ”

On your balcony, you fix railings that are permanent and made of solid materials. These railings are normally manufactured to fit your needs and dimensions. Once fixed you would not have to worry about anyone falling down from your residence. However, a fixed railing is not possible during the construction of a building and temporary measures must be put in place to protect workers.

Edge protection is what this temporary measure is called and if you keep an eye out for construction sites in Malta you notice a lot of different measures put in place as edge protection.

Guard Rails

Thin timber connected with screws and nails (picture 1), timber guardrails with intermediate guardrails and horizontal timber posts (picture 2), timber guardrails with metal clamp horizontal posts (picture 3) and timber guardrails fixed to the adjacent wall (roof picture 4).

Which of these are adequate? which ones do actually provide protection? and which ones are legally compliant and follow standards and/or good practice?

Edge protection is mentioned in the Maltese legislation in S.L. 424.36 which outline the minimum requirements for construction sites. There is one article in this legislation which states that edge protection must be installed in areas where a person may be liable for a fall and that edge protection must be suitable for its intended use, strong and of adequate height.

Further guidance is provided in a document published by the OHSA called “OHSA Guidance L-Armar għall-Bini”. In this document, it is stated that there should be a guard rail set at 115cm from the ground up and an intermediate guard rail set at 90cm. Furthermore, toeboards are to be implemented if works are ongoing to prevent falling tools which are to be a minimum of 15cm.

A BS EN Standard categories edge protection under three different classes depending on the degree of the slope of the floor. As most Maltese buildings have a flat rooftop, the majority of Maltese buildings would require class A edge protection. The standard states that such edge protection shall withstand a horizontal force of 0.3kN and a vertical force of 1.25Kn. These systems may be supported by clamps, anchors and friction posts. The standard also states that the principal guard rail is to be continuous.

To put the above in perspective, a person of 60Kg who falls for a distance of just 1m will have an impact of approximately 0.8kN.

These standards show that edge protection should not only be there to warn a person of the upcoming drop but to actually arrest the person should he stumble against the same edge protection.

Edge protection from picture 1 has a principal guardrail which is made up of different pieces of timber.
This edge protection is not in compliance with local law and does not follow any guidance. The principal guard rail is not continuous, it is missing an intermediate guardrail. It is unlikely that this system will stop a person from falling down.

Edge protection from pictures 2,3 and 4 all have a principal guard rail and intermediate guards as per local guidelines. They also look structurally sound, either screwed directly to the wall, fixed to metal beams or using horizontal clamps.

Three out of four buildings observed, follow the local guidelines. However how many employers go that extra step and test the guardrails as per the BS EN standard? Do you ever see construction sites and ask yourself “will that actually save my life?”

The Dust – Silicosis

Franklin GrimaLeave a comment

Inhalation Hazards Pictogram‘It-Trab’

The screaming noise of a blade going through stone followed by a white cloud of dust:

This is a sight one expects to see on any construction site regardless of the size of the project. One wouldn’t believe anyone who claims to be a builder if the person wasn’t covered in white dust arising out of the Maltese Limestone. Why is everyone complacent to the dust generated by such works? Should be people be concerned?

Limestone is naturally occurring and contain varies amounts of quartz (crystalline silica). This mineral is not dangerous in its bulk form and is safe to use. However, when the material is processed, cut or broken down it may create dust which contains respirable crystalline silica. As such, any quarry, mining and most building activities involve crystalline silica (https://www.eula.eu/crystalline-silica/).

Lamiot, CC BY-SA 4.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0, via Wikimedia Commons

If inhaled, respirable crystalline silica may settle in the lungs which is then attacked by the immune system. This may cause swelling which may lead to scarred tissue (fibrosis). As a result, a person may develop a persistent cough, shortness of breath and a feeling of tiredness. These are the symptoms of silicosis which also increases the risk of a person getting other serious conditions such as chest infections, lung cancer and arthritis Silicosis – NHS (www.nhs.uk).

Respirable crystalline silica is regulated in Malta by S.L.424.35 Protection of Workers from the Risks related to Exposure to Carcinogens or Mutagens at Work Regulations . Amongst others the employer has a duty to carry out the following; assessments, reduction of exposure, implementation of technical measures and making arrangements for health surveillance.

The law is quite technical and somewhat difficult to interpret. However, if we look at guidelines issued by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) we better understand what is required to protect oneself from silica exposure.

To put us in perspective of how important the following measures are, the HSE published this image which shows the amount of inhaled silica, not be exceeded per day.

In certain circumstances, dust can be avoided altogether by purchasing the correct size of material or using direct fastening systems. Having said that, the generation of dust may be inevitable, as such tool extraction and respiratory protective equipment is to be used to reduce and protect against exposure to dust (Construction dust CIS36 (hse.gov.uk)). In Malta we sometimes see construction site workers using water damping devices however this is not a common sight to see.

Dust exposure is so serious that the HSE has been running a campaign called ‘Dust Buster’ whereby HSE inspectors check on construction sites to ensure that the above controls are implemented and that workers are aware of the risks involved (“Health and Safety Executive cracks down on dust – HSE Media Centre”, 2020).

In 2001 there were 485 cases of silicosis in the European Union (Karjalainen & Niederlaender, 2004). These exclude other respiratory problems which arise out of dust and have not been diagnosed a Silicosis. Such as, lung cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and asthma.

So how come we still expect builders to be covered in dust? How come dust bothering neighbours of construction sites, is still considered a nuisance and nothing else? How come workers still refuse to wear appropriate PPE? Aren’t we all tired of seeing dust-covered cars, dust-covered roads, dust-covered buildings and dust-covered people?

The Cement Bucket

Franklin GrimaLeave a comment

Lifting operation pictogram‘Il-Bajla’

Due to the ever-increasing business in construction, several hazards and risks have become more frequent. As such risks from working at heights, falling objects, lifting operations, and industrial equipment have also become common. On the 13th of January 2021, I witnessed the following lifting operation.

A cement bucket in use with a ride on position for the transport of workers.
Cement bucket in use with riding position

The crane was hoisting the bucket with the person from street level. Lifting the load to almost the maximum height of the crane and transporting it throughout the length of the boom. I immediately thought what will the outcome be should the person fall during the dumping of the concrete, sand or whatever material was being transported in the same bucket. The person may potentially make contact with the material being dumped which may lead to injury, suffocation and/or death. I did some research on the use of cement buckets and the lifting of people.

Local legislation states that the lifting of persons may be carried out only if the equipment being used to lift the persons has been specifically designed to do so, the controls of the lifting machine are always manned and there are emergency arrangements in place to save the person being lifted should an emergency arise.

The legislation gives an opportunity to the employer to make use of work equipment which is not originally designed for the lifting of persons if action is taken to ensure the safety of the person being lifted.

When such a statement is made within a regulation, one should refer to Approved Codes of Practice, Standards or Guidelines which have been published by international or national organizations. Research led me to guidance published by the Occupational Health and Safety Authority (OHSA) ‘Krejnijiet’, the Safe use of lifting equipment published by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE), code 1926 Construction published by the Occupational Safety and Health Authority (OSHA) and the guidance on the safe system of work plan (SSWP) published by the Health and Safety Authority (HSA) in Ireland.

In the guidance published by OHSA it is clearly stated that equipment and objects are never to be hoisted together and that whenever lifting of people is carried out, such lifting is to be only undertaken with the use of a cage designed for the purpose and certified by a competent person. However, no specific mention of the cement bucket is made (Krejnijiet – Gwida ta’ Prattika Tajba, n.d.).

The HSE states that lifting of people with equipment which is not designed for this purpose shall only be used when it is not practicable to gain access by less hazardous means and such equipment shall be de-rated by 50%. Where it is practicable to obtain equipment specifically built for the lifting of people, such equipment shall be used. (Safe use of lifting equipment, 2014).

Thumbnail from SSWP outlining the use of cement buckets

The HSA does not recommend the use of buckets with riding positions and this should only be used when the provision of a safe working platform is not practicable (SSWP New Commercial Building Pictograms, 2006).

OSHA standard is much more direct. Section 1926.701(d) specifically states the following “No employee shall be permitted to ride concrete buckets”.

Transporting concrete safely always depends on the situation, the equipment being used and the restrictions imposed by the construction of the building itself. Prior planning and adequate research will increase the chances of using the best equipment with minimal skin contact and work at height risks (“Methods of Transportation of Concrete – Dumpers, Trucks, Belt Conveyors, Monorail, Tremie”, 2021).

It is evident from all guidance that the use of the ride-on bucket, lifting an employee up to 5 stories high and transporting the bucket and the employee a substantial number of meters across a construction site, was not the best and safest method of work. Why did the employer subject the employee to such risks and why did the employee agree to carry out such works?

The Oil

Franklin GrimaLeave a comment

Slippery Surface Pictogram‘Iż-Żejt’

On the 26th of October, while driving through the roads of Msida heading home, I rode through Triq Qrejten and just as I passed Telgħat Gwardamaniga, I noticed that my motorbike felt unstable. I looked back and saw an oil patch covering most of the road.

Oil Spill from work equipment

I pulled aside and called the emergency services to have the spill sorted out. Kudos to the Civil Protection Department who were on site in less then 10 minutes to cover the spill with sand. However, when I tried to report the same issue to the Occupational Health and Safety Authority (OHSA), I was informed that since it is a public road and not a workplace the issue is to be reported to the police.


I wanted to submit the report to the Occupational Health and Safety Authority (OHSA), since the OHSA Act states that the employer is responsible to ensure the health and safety at all time of all persons who may be effected by the work being carried out. Doesn’t an oil spill on a public road generated by work equipment fall within that criteria? And how can a crane be leaking oil when it is legally to be subject to a suitable system of maintenance and inspections every six months under the Work Equipment (Minimum Safety and Health Requirements) Regulations.


The Health and Safety Executive (HSE), has guidance published on the protection of the public during on going works. A specific section on slips, trips and falls in pedestrian areas states that any spillages are to be cleared immediately and that the area shall be secured prior to allowing access to the public (Protecting the public, 2009). While guidance published by the OHSA Stating the obvious no? Furthermore guidance by the OHSA on the the use of cranes asks the employer to make a visual inspection to make sure that there is no leakage of oil or fuel (Krejnijiet – Gwida ta’ Prattika Tajba, n.d.).


Such spills are not a rare occasion. As reported by the Times of Malta, an oil spill from a crane which occurred in June 2020 led to a collision of 8 different vehicles.

8 car collision

During the day the crane at Msida was obstructing the street as such, a transport official would have been stationed at the place of work. Shouldn’t the same transport official noted and acted on the danger that such oil spill may pose to other public vehicles?


Even though legislation exist to protect the public and to regulate work equipment, we notice everyday equipment which is inadequate and danger to the public.

Such instances show that employers are not fulfilling duties imposed on them by different legal notices. If it is promoted to the public to report such occurrence to the OHSA and the OHSA is given the legal power to take ownership of these cases, the OHSA can have better direction on which employers need further investigation and enforcement.

Couldn’t have the collision which occurred in June led to serious injuries, couldn’t have I skidded with my bike, couldn’t have this risk been mitigated by the employer having a suitable system of maintenance, an inspection after completion of works and some sand before opening the road?