Rank: Forum user
|
Not sure if this question has came up previously, have trawled the forums without success.
We have recently undergone an audit by a customer of ours with a view to potential further engineering/fabrication contract work. The HSE auditor, himself a fresh faced graduate with a degree in H&S, obviously out to make his mark, asked the question regarding Lifting Equipment, whether or not we had a programme in place for 6monthly & annual checks, etc, to which we have a very good programme (overhead cranes, pillar cranes, slings, shackles, eyebolts, etc up to 40T lifting capacity) in place by our insurers plant inspection service, however stated the observation that our Roller Shutter door mechanism's are not checked (we have 7 doors around the factory).
Despite being in the HSE game for 20 odd years, this is the first time I have been asked this!
Upon further investigation, and further research (as well as speaking with our insurers), Insurers and I both of the opinion as Doors are mentioned in Reg 18 of Workplace regs, this is not normally referenced in relation to industrial plant.
The lends to the question, are roller shutter doors considered to be "work equipment" and subject to PUWER 98 (relating to Inspection) and Management Regs (specifically with respect to Reg 3 - Risk Assessment) or not. Insurers have highlighted they do not normally undertake this "lesser activity" however an employer is entitled to carry out self inspection (which we do, for operatibility, lubrication as per our preventative maintenance programme).
In my opinion, should be suitable & sufficient to state that we are doing all we can.
Customer HSE Auditor states NO, and is persistant that we should have roller shutter doors checked as part of our lifting equipment inspection programme (this higher level of work can be undertaken by insurers at an additional cost).
What do my fellow peers think?
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
absolutely not!
BUT! The customer is always right. Whether or not you comply with his request would be based purely on how much you want his business. You could try pointing out that it''s not a requirement, however if they insist that's it's done the cost will be passed on to them. Or you could suck it up yourselves if needs must.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Ive never heard of this. The chances of failure of the type that also have a chain are minimal. Seems like tosh to me and cant see it coming under LOLA
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
We had something similar. When we lost a claim against us but it was because they were not maitained as work equipment under the regulations. I argued the point regarding the door, as in the workplace regs and this was accepted although we lost because it was the mechanism that came under PUWER and not the door.
Hope you understand what I am saying.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
A bit OTT if you ask me.
Our site services guys maintain the doors.
Andy
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Safety Smurf, thanks for your thoughts, I am sure many other views will be similar to ours. Now to pass on the info for the board to decide how much they want the business and what our next step is (either absorbing additional costs or passing these costs on).
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
ptaylor14 wrote:Ive never heard of this. The chances of failure of the type that also have a chain are minimal. Seems like tosh to me and cant see it coming under LOLA
I'm sure it doesn't. Might come under PENSKE 'though :-)
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Safety Smurf wrote:ptaylor14 wrote:Ive never heard of this. The chances of failure of the type that also have a chain are minimal. Seems like tosh to me and cant see it coming under LOLA
I'm sure it doesn't. Might come under PENSKE 'though :-)
Is it Friday???
Andy
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
|
|
|
|
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.