AS/NZS 5532 – The ongoing confusion

 We owe our customers the right advice every time

At HSE one of the highlights of our work is meeting with like-minded passionate safety professionals. Professionals who seek to protect their respective business’ best assets, their people. Whilst considered competent professionals they can’t be subject matter experts in all areas of safety. That’s where they engage third parties to provide advice or solutions to their tribulations. In our case we are consulted on Height Safety or Confined Space issues, seeking our independent advice surrounding, installations, inspections, training, product supply and general detail surrounding standards. We pride ourselves on accuracy and the comprehensive nature of the material we provide, a testament to our Brand Promise “Best Practice. Made Perfect” It is our stated ambition or vision to be the most trusted provider & contributor to the Height Safety Industry in Australia.

The single biggest source of frustration currently for our clients is the misinformation and confusion relating to, AS/NZS 5532 and subsequent promotion of anchor inspection and upgrade services established on contentions that the standard operates retrospectively.

By way of background please allow me to elaborate.  AS/NZS5532:2013 is a product design and manufacturing testing standard for Single point Anchors. It prescribes the manufacturing performance requirements, testing methodology, marking, labelling and packaging of fixed and portable anchorage devices for fall prevention. It recognises performance can be effected by the substrate to which an anchor will be installed. It only speaks to installation of anchors so far as specifying system design and the installation information to be provided with anchors.

It is worth noting that it does not cover ongoing inspections & maintenance.

Prior to its introduction, AS/NZS 1891.4:2009 outlined a rating for which Single point anchors should be rated and as such was referenced widely. It however, provided no prescriptive measures on how the rating was achieved. AS/NZS 5532 served to provide a uniformed testing guideline or method to prove compliance. Many of the clients or potential clients I have conversed with of late have been informed that the systems they had previously had certified and approved under the terms of AS/NZS 1891.4 are now redundant and are required to be upgraded in recognition of the introduction of AS/NZS 5532. I will address this notion in greater detail shortly.

As most of us are aware compliance with a standard is not mandatory unless stated as such in WHS Legislation. Neither of the aforementioned standards are nominated as mandatory. It is interesting to note that the Safe Work Australia Code of Practice “MANAGING THE RISK OF FALLS AT WORKPLACES” includes references to AS/NZS 1891 Series. Interestingly the anchorage point section states “Each anchorage point should comply with the requirements of AS/NZS 1891:4 Industrial fall-arrest systems and devices selection, use and maintenance”

This Code of Practice on how to manage the risk of falls in the workplace is an approved code of practice under section 274 of the Work Health and Safety Act (the WHS Act). So whilst a standard referenced in a code of practice is not mandatory, it is generally benchmarked unless following another process that could be considered equal to or better standard than the Code.

So where does that leave the PCBU or Safety Professional in relation to their existing systems? Are they compliant? Do they need to upgrade any product in line with AS/NZS5532? Is the standard retrospective? These are but a few of the daily questions we encounter. To adequately address these concerns it is important that we understand the current status of AS/NZS 5532. Standards Australia have advised that they will be undertaking a revision of AS/NZS 5532 and hence it is likely that many manufacturers will not complete testing to this Standard until the review is completed. It is not my intention to review the reasons or reflect on likely outcomes, but rather provide some detail on a pathway forward for those effected.

It is important to reflect that I am not aware of failures of any correctly installed and certified/inspected anchors that met the rating requirements specified in AS/NZS 1891.4:2009.

So with no effective prescriptive product standard in place we again refer to the ratings specified in AS/NZS 1891.4:2009 for compliance until the review of AS/NZS 5532 is completed. So there is absolutely no need to upgrade your current anchors to AS/NZS 5532. In fact upon review of SafeWork NSW (Fall Arrest Anchors Fact Sheet) I can further contend that it is not expected to apply retrospectively to existing installed anchors (AS/NZS 1891.4 would be the relevant standard to apply). SafeWork NSW further provide that inspection programs based on AS/NZS 1891.4 should continue for all installed anchors.

As HSE has always advocated and aligned with the advice provided by SafeWork NSW Fall Arrest Anchors Fact Sheet, we provide the following summary to answer the aforementioned Questions.

AS/NZS 5532 is not expected to apply retrospectively, so previously installed anchors (installed in accordance with manufacturer’s recommendations) meeting AS/NZS 1891.4 are compliant now and into the future, assuming they continue to be of serviceable condition.

The inspection services provided, centered on AS/NZS 1891.4 remains appropriate for all Installed Anchors.

Until the revision is completed the expectation is that Anchors would meet the strength requirements of AS/NZS 1891.4

So to clarify, if your system or anchors were deemed compliant prior to the introduction of AS/NZS 5532 it remains compliant now and into the future, so there is no need for costly upgrades of Anchors purely for the purpose of meeting AS/NZS 5532.

For new projects Anchors complying with AS/NZS 1891.4 are perfectly suitable if installed as per manufacturers specifications.

I would hope that I have been able to provide some evidenced based resolutions to the confusion in industry. Should you like to discuss this in greater detail or have further questions or just wish to engage in semantic discourse, please feel free to contact me directly.