The hoppers do not lift anything - they are just containers and part of the "load". If these were in LOLER then so would be every wooden pallet!

They come under PUWER - not LOLER

David

I was not talking about wooden pallets - i was answering the original question

David

In my Opinion I feel I would go along with Stevel on this as they are Self Tipping skips like those used on site and usually lifted by cranes.

These skips are self tippers and where I initially thought no, but after deeper thought I would ensure they are tested every 6 months under LOLER.

Purely because they have lifting points and arguably are load bearing.

Purely my opinion but they would also need a robust inspection regime (PUWER)

Good Hunting Alex

gotogtmc

LOLAR in generality covers lifting equipment and accessories, so if we look at a Crane its the all the parts of the crane that make up the arrangement for lifting the winch the rope the lifting hook and every other part of that particular system. The accessories would be the lifting chains/strops/shackles etc.

When we look at a FLT the lifting equipment is it is the gears, the mast, the forks, the mast chains and every other part of the lifting system.

This type of lifting equipment and its associated systemic auxiliary connects should have a thorough examination annually.

Only when the system is used to move persons (a man cage for a FLT/ a Alimack Hoist/A mancage on a crane) does the thorough inspection need to be six monthly on both the FLT and the auxilliary man riding equipment
.

The thorough examination would be undertaken by an insurance company or a company underwritten to undertake such examinations by an insurance company. A skip that attached to flt blades would not generally be classed as needing an insurance inspection.

PUWER however requires you to have a maintenance and inspection schedule that can be risk based - an inspection meaning having the skips looked at at regular intervals to pick up any defects. Maintenance meaning a mechanical/fitter type giving it a good coat of looking at = determined by the organisation you work for.

A good analogy is weekly driver checks on the car as oppose to the yearly MOT. Either way you need to keep records,

If you already have someone coming in to undertake thorough inspections on the FLT ask their advice - I would suggest they will point you in the direction of PUWER - I would also suggest that where the fork blades fit into the box holders on the skips will need at least a yearly external check/assessment/examination therefore its immaterial on which regulatory framework applies because one of them will.

I would also contact the manufacturer and ask there opinion as a designer/producer they should have informed you about inspection and maintenance regimes - it would be the manufacturer I would contact to undertake a yearly (or longer dependent on your assessment) = who better.

Also for completeness reg 4(a) is a reference to the load bearing parts of the lifting system (a good example would be a lifting winch - the dowel rods holding it in the ground whilst not needing a thorough inspection would need something in the design document to show why one utilised a 4m dowel rod as opposed to another length - and would need some engineering calculation to show the ethos behind the belief that the length of dowel would accommodate the SWL.

Reg 4 (b) would refer in principle to thing like lifting eyes attached to loads and the load element would refer to the part of the load that accommodated the eye bolt this is to ensure that if you manufacture a gear box and intend to lift it with a lifting eye then the orifice and the surrounding peripheral load bearing area of the lifting point is suitable for absorbing the stresses emanating from the lifting of the load itself.

Again for completeness the lifting eye - if not integral to the gear box - would need an annual thorough inspection however the gearbox orifice where it fits would not - hence the need for reg 4.

Pallets at a stretch LOL!!

HOPE THIS HELPS A FELLOW SAFETY PRACTITIONER

Regards

Martin

I do not agree that the skip has become part of the lifting equipment. As said above if that were the case then every pallet would be lifting equipment!

The skip is part of the load. LOLER does require that loads are of "adequate strength" (Reg 4 (b)) however it does not require loads to be tested and certificated under the Regs - only the actual lifting equipment. Thus there is no duty under LOLER to test and certificate tipper skips.

However there is certainly a duty under PUWER to make sure they are suitable for the task. Regular maintenance - yes. Formal certification - no.

Reference from HSE site http://www.hse.gov.uk/lau/lacs/90-4.htm

"25 Pallets, skips, ladles, and similar containers for carrying material loads, and which are not permanently attached to the lifting machinery, should be treated as 'the load', as they normally remain with the contents once the lifting operation is complete. LOLER reg.4 applies to the strength of the container (and that of its lugs, for example). There should be adequate maintenance (PUWER reg.5) and pre-use checks (LOLER reg.8) of the container to ensure it is actually capable of containing the load safely and will not disintegrate or detach from the lifting equipment."

I agree with Heather.

The container, as such, is part of the load. It has no structural integrity implications as considerd under LOLER for load bearing parts of the crane/lifting equipment, hence inspection and certification is not required.

When was the last time that you did a workshop inspection and asked to see test certificates etc for skips and the like. Cranes, slings, lifting beams - yes.

Again as stated, obviously the container has to be strong enough to hold its contents, but this is a PUWER issue as regards h&s legislation.

Stevel. I did not say that there was no duty. There clearly is a duty to ensure the skip is of "adequate strength" - as there is for ANY load. Since the skip comes under PUWER, this can be done as part of the routine maintenance checks done on any work equipment (probably in house)

What I said was that there is no duty to test and certificate skips as lifting equipment. This is because they are NOT lifting equipment. LOLER doesn't require you to dp periodic examination, test and certification of the load, which was what the original question asked.

Steve, thank you that does add some clarity, as I really couldn't tell which way you were leaning. In saying that I for one am not absolutely sure one way or the other.

Now, would the following be a similar situation to that described? A wheelie bin used by a householder as a refuse bin. The mechanism on the back of the truck is clearly lifting equipment and needs a TE etc. Is the wheelie bin a part of the load or the kit? It has 'lugs' or handles that must be of suitable strength etc?

I'm a little tease I know!

Phil Rose

Now a domestic property. That would mean that the forklift required for the bin to be attached to, in order to stay within the same scenario, would be required to be taxed and have a valid MOT, not allowed to run on red diesel, as not farmyard plant, carry separate insurance, require both driving licence and competence certs. Would also require the consent of the property owner to enter. Not withstanding the requirement for every stop point to have a dropped kerb. Now what was wrong with the old way of carrying a bin. Oh yes the manual handling directive from the EU.

What Heather posted earlier at post No12 is quite clear and fact. This is from the HSEs Operational Circular to its Inspectors regarding enforcement of LOLER.
http://www.hse.gov.uk/lau/lacs/90-4.htm
25 Pallets, skips, ladles, and similar containers for carrying material loads, and which are not permanently attached to the lifting machinery, should be treated as 'the load', as they normally remain with the contents once the lifting operation is complete. LOLER reg.4 applies to the strength of the container (and that of its lugs, for example). There should be adequate maintenance (PUWER reg.5) and pre-use checks (LOLER reg.8) of the container to ensure it is actually capable of containing the load safely and will not disintegrate or detach from the lifting equipment.

I have repeated Heathers post here to ensure that recent readers of this post dont miss it, and give others another opportunity to study it.

However, there is nothing wrong in having a site Policy as steveL has that requires these skips to be thoroughly examined along with their other equipment that legally require LOLER Reg 9 exam, so long as they do there own more frequent checks.

But there is no no requirement under sec 9 for this type of skip.
Steve

Dear All,

Many thanks for all of your replies it has helped me establish what to do and more importantly it has shown me how useful the forum can be as this is the first time I have asked a direct question like this and the number of replies made by fellow practitioners has encouraged me to ask more in the future.

Stevel - I requote what I said in post @4 " They come under PUWER - not LOLER"

David

Beware referencing HSE FOD internal documents. There is a later version of OC234/11 at:
http://www.hse.gov.uk/fo...od/oc/200-299/234_11.pdf

Note the review date of that document. Whilst these documents are of some use, be wary of assuming these are bang up-to-date (unless of course you are very close to the source). I fear these OCs are not really intended reading for we mere mortals.

In this instance, I am not presuming or suggesting that the 2000 and 2002 versions differ to any material degree in the context of this thread.