On December 5th 1998 the Lifting Operations and Lifting Equipment Regulations (LOLER) came into force in the UK. The regulations were written for UK compliance with European Directive (AUWED 95/63/EC). LOLER only has direct relevance to the UK but domestic laws elsewhere in Europe will also have to comply with the Directive, and so similar requirements will be introduced in these countries.
For the UK, LOLER replaced/modified sectorial lifting legislation, including The Construction (Lifting Operations) Regulations, which have served us so well for years. The new regulations are aimed at producing an improvement in safety for people at work and they do this in a number of ways.
Firstly the new regulations are not confined to construction sites but cover all work places and so now the same requirements apply regardless of where the lifting operation happens.
Secondly the new regulations are not confined to any particular machine but embrace every machine that lifts, bringing many machines that were outside specific legislative requirements under the control of LOLER. Some examples include abseiling equipment, agricultural machinery, mobile elevating work platforms and fork lift trucks.
The third major area for change is the concept that testing may be an integral part of thorough examination and is not to be treated as a separate entity. Testing is often associated with overload testing but this is just one example of many available types. It is right, therefore, that legislation allows the competent person to apply an appropriate technique to the particular type of machine at a suitable time in the machine’s life.
Fourthly, the legislation now recognises that it might be more appropriate to establish a specific scheme of thorough examination for a particular machine. The designer and manufacturer are the best advisors on what is needed for this.
The fifth big change is that LOLER calls for lift planning and spells out in legislation the principles that were laid down for cranes in British Standard 7121 in 1989. (European [CEN] standards are only being written for cranes and equipment i.e. hardware. As British Standard 7121 deals with the safe use of cranes there will not be an equivalent European standard. Similar requirements, however, are contained in the International Standard ISO 12480-1). I still encounter major contractors who do not employ properly trained and certified ‘appointed persons’. I hope that this new legislation will encourage them to come up to date with current safe practices.
Only guidance
It is not surprising that the wide scope of the new regulations means that the Health & Safety Executive (HSE) guidance accompanying the regulations cannot give detailed information on every type of machine in every circumstance, but repeated reference is made to British Standard 7121.
British Standard 7121 Part 3, published in May 2000, deals specifically with the requirements for mobile cranes. It was fortunate that this part of 7121 was being written at the time of LOLER’s introduction. Those of us who prepared this new standard therefore had a chance to consider the implications of the new regulations as they applied to mobile cranes. The recommendations in the standard were not decided arbitrarily but were made in consultation with all departments of both industry and HSE, and were based on a best practice guide prepared by Construction Plant-hire Association.
Inclusion in the legislation of a ‘scheme’ for thorough examination gave crane users the opportunity to make full use of the most recent development in mobile crane safety. Inexpensive data logging equipment – costing less than £1,000 ($1,500) – is now available from most manufacturers of crane indicating equipment. It records precisely how a crane has been used, or perhaps misused, from new and can provide a complete record of the lifts undertaken by a crane. Information for thousands of lifts can be stored in the equipment’s memory. Details of each lift normally include:
* date and time of the lift
* radius at which the lift was carried out
* boom length (for telescopic cranes)
* the weight of the load
* the percentage of the rated capacity of the crane that that load represents.
In addition to providing important safety information this equipment provides valuable management information for the crane owner and so is welcomed by all sides of the industry. With co-operation from crane designers we can have a scheme that takes full recognition of the use of the machine and is no longer dependant on a time factor, be it 12 months or six months, that does not truly reflect usage. The crane designer can identify areas needing particular attention, where and when more sophisticated (non-destructive) testing should be applied, to ensure a safer machine than was previously possible under the older systems. The standard therefore suggests that this would form the basis for an appropriate ‘scheme’ for a new mobile crane.
The committee recognised that such techniques could not be applied to existing machines where there was no record of previous usage. We had to look back and consider the system for ensuring crane safety that had successfully been applied in the past and we considered that for these machines it would be good practice to continue with overload testing every four years. I have heard it suggested that such testing would shortens crane life. As chairman of the European crane standards committee writing the requirements for cranes for the whole of Europe as well, I would suggest that we have got it sadly wrong if this was the case and that such badly designed cranes warranted being taken out of service. Overload testing, carried out under controlled conditions once every four years, is totally different to frequent overloading in use. Those who mistakenly believe that because a crane has been tested with a certain overload it can be regularly used up to that overload value will soon find that the crane will suffer a fatigue type failure.
The maximum, and I emphasis the word maximum, time periods at which thorough examinations should be carried out on those machines that are not subject to a ‘scheme’ have changed under LOLER. Any machine that lifts people, and any item between the machine and the load (the scope of what we used to call lifting tackle has been increased), have to be thoroughly examined every six months. So in the standard we have recommended that cranes used for lifting people should be thoroughly examined every six months. The basket should be inspected daily and any door should open inwards. There is a separate annex to BS 7121 Part 3 that spells out the recommendations for lifting people.
For other machines the maximum time period between thorough examinations given in LOLER is now 12 months. Bearing in mind that the term ‘thorough examination’ includes any necessary testing, we have drawn attention in the standard to the need to test the safety devices fitted to the crane. This includes what used to be known as the automatic safe load indicator (now known as the rated capacity indicator/limiter), and to do this effectively it is recommended that known weights should be suspended from the crane. Because large mobile cranes (above 500t rated capacity) are not used so arduously, and there are normally much tighter controls applied to their use, the British Standard does suggest that certain relaxations can be applied to these machines.
Competent person
In an article like this I cannot hope to cover all of the points in the legislation and the standard but I have attempted to deal with those that as chairman of the British Standard committee that wrote BS 7121 I am asked most frequently.
However I cannot leave the subject without just touching on the role of the ‘competent person’. In LOLER more responsibility has been passed on to the competent person than in the past and it is important to ensure that there is adequate time and facilities provided to allow the job to be carried out effectively. I worked for HSE when the Health and Safety at Work etc., Act came into force in 1974. Section 7 of that Act places responsibilities on employees. As far as I can remember the first person to be prosecuted under that section was someone who was acting as a ‘competent person’. Not only was he prosecuted but also his employer so it is not a job to be undertaken lightly. In the training courses that I am now involved in for ‘competent persons’ I emphasise that the competent person is certifying that in their opinion the equipment is safe to continue in use (or not safe, as the case may be). If therefore they consider that it is necessary to open up a hidden part to enable them to come to their conclusions (or any other action is necessary) then they should ensure that the part is opened up (or other action is taken). In the course of my work I often see what in my opinion are unsatisfactory reports where the competent person has attempted to cover his shortcomings by including a note on the report such as ‘parts not opened up’ or ‘machine only examined at rest’ etc.
In conclusion, let me answer those who might read this article and say ‘here we go again – all we have got is a lot of recommendations and opinions and not the positive statements which is what we want’. Years ago when I worked for the HSE we were always trained to end our letters to those who sought our advice with a standard clause which if I remember it properly went as follows: “I must point out that it is for the courts to decide in the light of the facts of a particular case whether equipment complies with the law, and the opinions expressed in this letter are subject to this reservation.” I am not sure if this clause is still used but it is just as true now as it was then. While British Standards have no particular strict status in law, in the many criminal and civil cases that I have been involved in they have proved to be very persuasive in helping the court to come to a verdict.
