Welcome Guest! The IOSH forums are a free resource to both members and non-members. Login or register to use them

Postings made by forum users are personal opinions. IOSH is not responsible for the content or accuracy of any of the information contained in forum postings. Please carefully consider any advice you receive.

Notification

Icon
Error

Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
Admin  
#1 Posted : 06 October 2006 19:51:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By JWG Is there a legal requirement to have an independent inspection of racking in a small warehouse? I thought there was, but I've just looked at the HSE's example risk assessments for a warehouse and for the 'falling objects from racking and during movement' hazard, it only mentions that "Staff report any damage to racking immediately." http://www.hse.gov.uk/ri...asestudies/warehouse.htm Is this sufficient? Thanks
Admin  
#2 Posted : 06 October 2006 20:39:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By RP It does not have to be independent but must be done by a competent person. This could be someone in-house and appropriatly trained and deemed the competent person by the employer.
Admin  
#3 Posted : 09 October 2006 09:43:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Gordon Thelwell Hello JWG Pallet Racking Inspections Good question! I am a pallet racking inspector of 16 years and wish to offer advice. To summarise, RP is quite right, "are they competent?" Independent inspections are advised to take place at least every 12 months for a low activity warehouse but can be as frequent as every 3 months for warehouses like Regional Distribution Centres RDC for the likes of ASDA etc. What distinguishes a good inspector from a bad one? A good inspector will be able to offer you the reasons why hazards, risks and damage is occurring on your site AND what you can do to reduce their likelihood of happening again. A simple list of where damage has occurred to your racking without offering a corrective course of action is not suitable and sufficient and will not satisfy the primary obligations under which pallet racking is covered - PUWER. SEMA Inspectors? Yes SEMA has its place but not at the exclusion of a far more useful knowledge based on a NEBOSH level qualification. If you wish to gain an indication of a rack inspectors salt, ask him/her what THE most important component of a racking system is in terms of a safety. If they say anything other than "Safety Clips" (to retain the beams) then beware. Take a look here at some the questions regarding safety inspections; http://www.therackgroup....show&action=topics&fid=3 Please feel welcome to get in touch if you wish to discuss further. Regards, Gordon Thelwell
Admin  
#4 Posted : 09 October 2006 13:24:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By jeffrey david smith The MOD undertake checking every year. Both racking and ladders are done at the same time. Not sure about the distribution centres. If you are working for a small distribution business, try finding the RAF Stafford safety officer. He/She will know... Hope this helps Jeff
Admin  
#5 Posted : 10 October 2006 07:17:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Harry_Johnson I'm not aware of a specific legal requirement, but it is good practice to regularly inspect.
Admin  
#6 Posted : 10 October 2006 10:49:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Gordon Thelwell I have collated the following information regarding the legal aspects concerning pallet racking. The Quoted legislation is not exclusive and you are advised to consult your own Health and Safety Professional with regards to its specific application to your own undertaking. Also, your local Health and Safety Executive Branch or Local Authority Inspector will be able to offer further expert advice and guidance. Please pat particular attention to PUWER where most of the prosecution relating to pallet racking cases and breaches are pursued upon. The Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 Section 2(1) It shall be the duty of every employer to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the Health, Safety and Welfare at work of all its employees. 2(2(a)) ..the provision and maintenance of plant and systems of work that are, so far as is reasonably practicable, safe and without risks to health. 2(2(b)) ..arrangements for ensuring, so far as is reasonably practicable, safety and absence of risk to health in connection with the use of handling, storage, and transport of articles and substances. 2(2(d)) the maintenance of it in a condition that is safe and without risks to health The Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 Regulation 3(1) Every employer shall make a suitable and sufficient assessment of the risks to the health and safety of health of his employees to which they are exposed whilst at work. 3(3) Any assessment….shall be reviewed by the employer who made it if: (a) there is reason to suspect that it is no longer valid; or (b) there has been a significant change in the matters to which it relates; and where as a result of any such changes to an assessment are required, the employer concerned shall make them. 3(6) Where the employer employs five or more employees, he shall record- (a) the significant findings of the assessment; and (b) any group of employees identified by it as been especially at risk 4 (Schedule 1) Where an employer implements any preventive measures he shall do so on the basis of the principles specified in Schedule 1 to these Regulations 5(1) Every employer shall make and give effect to such arrangements as are appropriate having regard to the nature of his activities, and size of his undertaking, for the effective planning, organisation, control, monitoring and review of the preventive and protective measures. 7(5) A person shall be regarded as competent…where he has sufficient training and experience of knowledge and other qualities to enable him properly to assist in undertaking measures referred to in Regulation 5(1) 8 Every employer shall; establish and where necessary give effect to appropriate procedures to be followed in the event of serious and imminent danger to persons at work in his undertaking. The Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992 5(2) Where appropriate, the equipment, devices and systems to which this regulation applies shall be subject to a suitable system of maintenance. 13(3(b)) So far as is reasonably practicable, suitable and effective measures shall be taken to prevent any event specified in paragraph : Any person being struck by a falling object likely to cause personal injury. The Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 Regulation 5(1) Every employer shall ensure that work equipment is maintained in an efficient state, in efficient working order and in good repair. 5(2) Every employer shall ensure that where any machinery has a maintenance log, the log is kept up to date. 6(1) Every employer shall ensure that, where the safety of work equipment depends on the installations conditions, it is inspected 6(3) Every employer shall ensure that the results of an inspection made under this regulation is recorded and kept until the next inspection under this regulation is recorded. 7(1) Where the use of work equipment is likely to involve a specific risk to health or safety every employer shall ensure that- (b) repairs, modifications or servicing of that work equipment is restricted to those persons who have been specifically designated to perform operations of that description (whether or not also authorised to perform other operations) 12(1) Every employer shall take measures to ensure that the exposure of a person using work equipment to any risk to his health or safety from any hazard specified in paragraph 3 is either prevented or where that is not reasonably practicable, adequately controlled. (3(a)) Any article or substance falling or being ejected from work equipment. 20 Every employer shall ensure that work equipment or any part of work equipment is stabilised by clamping or otherwise where necessary for purposes of health and safety. 22 Every employer shall take appropriate measures to ensure that work equipment is so constructed or adapted that, so far as is reasonably practicable, maintenance operations which involve a risk to health and safety can be carried out while the work equipment is shut down, or in other cases. (a) maintenance operations can be carried out without exposing the person carrying them out to a risk to his health or safety; or (b) appropriate measures can be taken for the protection of any person carrying out maintenance operations which involve a risk t his health or safety. The Manual Handling Regulations 1992 4 (1(ii)) Each employer shall…take appropriate steps to reduce the risk of injury to those employees arising out of their undertaking any such manual handling operations to the lowest level reasonably practicable. Regards, Gordon Thelwell
Admin  
#7 Posted : 10 October 2006 11:46:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Harry_Johnson But despite all that, and to answer the question. There is no legal requirement to have racking independently inspected. But it is good practice.
Admin  
#8 Posted : 10 October 2006 11:56:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By ITK and the award for the longest posting goes to...
Admin  
#9 Posted : 10 October 2006 11:57:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Harry_Johnson The HSE recommend: a) regular planned inspections to identify and determine the extent of damage ... b) staff are encouraged to report damage ... c) the contents of the maximum load notice is adhered to d) the racking manufacturer should be contacted for advice if there is any concerns about integrity e) a log book should be kept for recording inspections, damage and repairs. So item (a) is a 'recommended' action and by definition can be either in-house or independent. The word 'competence' in this question for an inspector should really be limited to a good knowledge of their own skills/abilities and knowing when to apply (d).
Admin  
#10 Posted : 11 October 2006 14:22:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By JWG Many thanks for all your responses, it's a great help. Just to add a little, the scenario is a small warehouse. It has two racks/shelves, side by side in total - approx 12 feet long and the top rack/shelf is approx 6 feet high (blue legs and orange horizontal pieces). It is used for storing archived documents and is only accessed 2 or 3 times a year. There is no risk of impacts, because there are no internal vehicles. Would the same inspections regime apply, if so, there are probably hundreds companies that use racking/shelving like us that are not inspected. Thanks again in anticipation
Admin  
#11 Posted : 11 October 2006 14:25:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By JWG Sorry Harry, I miss-read your comments. Thanks
Admin  
#12 Posted : 12 October 2006 14:57:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Nicholas Morris Problem with using manufacturers/ suppliers for advice is that they have a vested interest in finding faults, use of independent inspector eliminates this. Cynical? Maybe I've been in H&S too long!
Admin  
#13 Posted : 13 October 2006 09:19:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Gordon Thelwell Good point Nicholas, a question that is often raised when it comes to 'Independent' Racking Inspectors. I would recommend that you invite an independent and a total systems provider to conduct the same inspection. Please let us know how you get on with this. If you're thinking of becoming an independent inspector, there is a well known company that can train you. You do not need ANY experience with pallet racking or warehousing at all. Two days training and a £10,000 franchise up front payment and away you go telling warehouse managers how to manage their multi-million pound racking system and the staff that work within it. I should also point out that the same company is an affiliate member of the Storage Equipment Manufacturers Association, the same people who dictate the levels at which damaged racking components should be replaced (The same components that they manufacture). Based on their standards, the few bays of racking in question here would be condemned regardless of what your risk assessment would identify. I have on occasion been requested to conduct racking inspections to the SEMA Standard instead of a risk assessment approach. Having conducted the inspection to the SEMA standard and informing the WHM that up to 60% of his 200,000 ft2 is now condemned, the common sense inspection was quickly reverted to. Cynical i am not, but angry i am that SEMA is not willing to even review their 1956 standards and clarify to a confused industry exactly what is and what is not workable when it comes to pallet racking safety. There are very modern standards elsewhere in the world, Sweden, Australia, USA and most recently Canada where a common sense approach has been established. Why not here? Because anything else will hit the manufacturers bottom line. THAT was cynical. Stay safe, Gordon
Users browsing this topic
Guest
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.