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 : 13 May 2008 15:40:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By TomP This has probably come up before but a swift check through the previous posts didn't reveal anything of note. A philosophical question really. If an excavator is never used for lifting on site (and I mean never) does it fall under LOLER? I know they are subject to regular inspections, maintenance, daily checks etc and I know quick hitches are but how about the excavator? Three chartered advisers in a room and opinion was split 50:50. Hinges around a discussion I had with a major plant hire company who says their mini diggers aren't subject to LOLER as they are not allowed to lift but they check their larger excavators under LOLER as they are generally used for lifting in some way. I can't see that size is everything...!!!!
Admin  
#2 Posted : 13 May 2008 15:55:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By steve e ashton Some of the confusion may arise from an old HSE Guidance note PM42 (Issued 1984) dealing with excavators used as cranes. (If you have access to OHSIS or TI or similar, then you may still be able to access it online...). Obviously - the guidance has been superseded, and it deals with (much) earlier legislation, but - it does clearly distinguish between those excavators used to lift less than one ton, and those used to lift more ... So in this case it would seem (at least in the past) size did matter! Steve
Admin  
#3 Posted : 13 May 2008 15:57:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By MS An excavator in its primary role (excavating) still comes under LOLER 98. It must have a test & thorough examination at least every 12 months, the test and thorough examination for lifting is slightly more complex. Also the quick hitch should be T&TE at least every 6 months. It doesn't matter about the size of the machine. A genie lift and even car jacks require T&TE under LOLER 98.
Admin  
#4 Posted : 13 May 2008 16:06:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By NickyG Does the machine just stand still?! Do you not think when it scoops into the ground and LIFTS the load it is not lifting? Just because you haven't placed chains and shackles on a machine to lift concrete beams for example doesn't mean it doesn't lift. An excavator lifts constantly, surely. If it doesn't then i must be watching different excavators on my sites. 12 month inspections, weekly written inspections by trained operator and operator to visually check before every use (NOT just in the morning, everytime he/she starts it up)
Admin  
#5 Posted : 13 May 2008 16:18:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By CFT Tom My take is its a bit like saying you never watch BBC or listen to BBC so therefore don't need to pay for a TV licence. Unless it can be proven that the lifting facility has been removed (which I doubt)or it is not designed for lifting, then I would agree with the no's, just because you never never do, doesn't mean to say that it can't be; what of a QH, they are subject to testing, or do you never change attachments, if none applies then I am with the yes's. CFT
Admin  
#6 Posted : 13 May 2008 16:20:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By TomP Nicky, The requirements as you say for: 12 month inspections, weekly written inspections by trained operator and operator to visually check before every use (NOT just in the morning, every time he/she starts it up) Are deemed required under PUWER. I am asking about the very specific meaning under LOLER ‘for a thorough examination and inspection’. The definition of lifting equipment in LOLER is: 'The Regulations are aimed primarily at the type of equipment which was covered by previous lifting legislation, i.e. cranes, lifts and hoists, and components including chains, ropes, slings, hooks, shackles and eyebolts.' It goes on to clarify: 'In most cases LOLER will not apply to work equipment which does not have as its principal function a use for lifting or lowering of the type associated with 'traditional' lifting equipment.' So my question is does this include or exclude equipment such as excavators?
Admin  
#7 Posted : 13 May 2008 16:25:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By TomP Sorry, I know excavators are generally always used for lifting, so therefore will be subject to LOLER, but what I am really trying to claify, is the the definition of lifting equipoment under LOLER.... Sorry about being a naval gazer but I did say it was purely philosophical ..
Admin  
#8 Posted : 13 May 2008 16:30:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By alex mccreadie This should have been kept for a Friday! Under Regulation 7(b) of LOLER if an excavator is used as a crane then it should have an ASLI fitted, and would then come under LOLER regs. This is due to the radius changes affecting the SWL like any crane. I would say no LOLER if they are not used for lifting but PUWER my opinion only after reading the LOLER Regs. Alex
Admin  
#9 Posted : 13 May 2008 21:25:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Eddie Campbell The late Peter Oram gave some excellent guidance on the subject of the thorough examination of ALL excavators under the LOLER Regulations. In annex 14 of the guidance document all excavators are subject to a 12 monthly thorough examination. In addition to the 12 monthly examination requirement excavators used for “handling objects” should be fitted with a device to prevent the load falling in the event of a hydraulic hose rupture e.g. a check valve. Excavators with a lifting capacity greater than 1 tonnes should be fitted with a “load control device” which must be proved to activate before the machine is overloaded by 10% The report gives excellent advice on many aspects of thorough examination schemes and thorough examination. Some 22 different items of equipment are addressed in the various annexes. Some of the items were excluded by LOLER but are included in the document because of the implications of PUWER. You can download the HSE Contract Research Report 429/2002 prepared for the Health and Safety Executive by Peter Oram Consultants entitled Thorough Examination and Inspection of Particular Items of Lifting Equipment report here: http://www.hse.gov.uk/re...rr_pdf/2002/crr02429.pdf
Admin  
#10 Posted : 14 May 2008 13:30:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By alex mccreadie Eddie a very good document and very lengthy. Sadly the HSE asked for this document to be prepared and paid Peter for it. It is sad it was never implemented as best practice because as usual anything Peter did was well researched and practical. Again sadly it was not put out for all users to see and use.It also comes with the comments as not HSE guidance but only the opinions of the writer! Alex
Admin  
#11 Posted : 15 May 2008 09:06:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Eddie Campbell As you say Alex the publication is only guidance and this is made clear in the document introduction. However if somebody was in need of some pointers on best practice then I think that the contents of this document will go a long way to helping them come up with some well thought out answers to their problem don’t you agree?
Admin  
#12 Posted : 15 May 2008 11:16:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By alex mccreadie 100% behind you eddie.
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.