Posted By Anderson8
Hi,

Scaff tag on a MEWP? that seems a strange one, give us a bit more info mate and we'll try and help.

Posted By Raymond Rapp
We scaff tag all our mobile towers, if that is what you are asking.

Posted By Anderson8
Hi all,

Are we talking MEWP's (Mobile Elevated Working Platforms)or Mobile Scaffold towers here? Two quite different rule sets on these gents.

That's why i was confused in my earlier post :-)

Posted By Anderson8
Well if that's the case, scafftags wouldn't be used on those.

Correct us if we are misunderstanding here Crim

Posted By Flic
Testing implies putting the item under stress and chacking that it does not fail - for example hanging a test weight from a crane, or pressurising a pressure receptacle to a pressure above the intended safe working pressure.

Inspection implies looking carefully at it to ensure that nothing is obviously faulty, that nothing has been tampered with, that everything on it is marked to the correct standards where necessary. Examples are looking at chains to see that none of the links is seriously worn or cracked and that they have not been permanently stretched (and I have seen each of these!).

Examination - I cannot distinguish between this and inspection, but I am sure someone else can!!

Flic

Posted By TonyB
The three terms are often used interchangeably. There is a difference, but this can be lost in the discussion.

From the original question. You MUST have a copy of the most recent 'Report of Thorough Examination' undertaken by the competent person under LOLER with the equipment on site and it must be 'in date'. This is a requirement under LOLER.

Your manager did exactly the right thing by not allowing its use until the document was both seen and he held a copy. Well done to him.

Cheers

Tony.

Posted By Flic
While I agree that testing, inspection and examination are often used interchangeably, this is incorrect. Testing, in the context of lifting equipment and pressurised equipment is definitely NOT the same as inspection or examination.

Flic

Posted By David Matthew
No in response to your last question
David

Posted By knutsfordsafety
MEWPs, towers, scaffold platforms, cradles etc. are all covered by the same requirement for inspection under Reg 12 of the WAH Regs. If used for construction >2m they must be inspected by a competent person when first erected, or in the case of a MEWP, before first use on site. An inspection produced by the hire company at their depot will not suffice because the inspection must take place after delivery on site (to allow for any damage during transit). All the above platforms must then be inspected at least once every 7 days etc. and a report that conforms with schedule 7 of WAHR produced, issued within 24 hours and then kept on site until the end of construction and 3 months thereafter.

A scaff tag is a nice indication that the inspection has been carried out but does not contain sufficient information to satisfy the requirements of schedule 7.

Posted By Crim
knutsfordsafety says:

MEWPs, towers, scaffold platforms, cradles etc. are all covered by the same requirement for inspection under Reg 12 of the WAH Regs. If used for construction >2m they must be inspected by a competent person when first erected, or in the case of a MEWP, before first use on site.

Railroad says:

MEWP machines are thoroughly examined and records made under LOLER regs at intervals not exceeding 6 monthly.

Two similar requirements but each quoting different Regs.

Should I now be confused or should I accept that both are correct and attempt to apply all above requirements? I do understand that more than one Regulation can apply.

I thought the >2m rule had gone now?

Posted By Dave Merchant
knutsfordsafety is correct - WAHR beats LOLER and PUWER (as it's more recent).

WAHR 12(4):

...every employer shall ensure that a working platform -
(a) used for construction work; and
(b) from which a person could fall 2 metres or more,
is not used in any position unless it has been inspected in that position or, in the case of a mobile working platform, inspected on the site, within the previous 7 days.

Note the (a) *and* (b). The "inspection" is not the same as the Thorough Exam (and isn't necessarily as in-depth), but is required to comply with WAHR Schedule 7 and the send-a-report-within-24-hours rule.

Posted By Dave Merchant
Crim - yes. See WAHR 12(6 - 8):

(6) Every employer shall ensure that the result of an inspection under this regulation is recorded and, subject to paragraph (8), kept until the next inspection under this regulation is recorded.
(7) A person carrying out an inspection of work equipment to which paragraph (4) applies shall -
(a) before the end of the working period within which the inspection is completed, prepare a report containing the
particulars set out in Schedule 7; and
(b) within 24 hours of completing the inspection, provide the report or a copy thereof to the person on whose behalf the
inspection was carried out.
(8) An employer receiving a report or copy under paragraph (7) shall keep the report or a copy thereof -
(a) at the site where the inspection was carried out until the construction work is completed; and
(b) thereafter at an office of his for 3 months.

It's basically a mirror of the TE system, and intentionally so as a TE report can be used in place of a WAHR inspection report.

Posted By Crim
Thanks to all, I thought this thread has finished last week but it just shows that there is a lot of interest in this forum and people jump in and out from time to time.

The most recent contributions have been most interesting and I will try to apply them in future.

Thanks again,

Posted By Dave Merchant
Anderson - in this case they do. WAHR.12(9) and LOLER.9 reports are equivalent, and WAHR specifies a stricter scheme than either LOLER or PUWER does. By following WAHR.12 you satisfy the other regulations by default, but can't satisfy WAHR.12 by implementing only the other two (which typically end up being interpreted as a 6-monthly reporting scheme). I'm not saying LOLER/PUWER etc no longer apply at all, but that their reporting systems are insufficient for working platforms as of 2005, because a more specific Regulation has been implemented.

Posted By Davelfc
Reading through the posts I feel some people are getting mixed up between pre-use inspections, weekly inspections and the Through examination inspection, which in this case would all apply.

So you would be compliant with PUWER/LOLER & W@Ht Regs. If your competent operator inspected pre use daily and recorded, your manager or competent person inspected and recorded minimum weekly for a work platform that remained in one position for a week. You would still require the 6 monthly Thorough Examination for lifting equipment that lifts people, if it where materials lifting equipment then 12 monthly Thorough examination would apply.


So as someone quite rightly pointed out PUWER/LOLER and W@Ht regs all apply to MEWP's

As simply put you are using work equipment, you are also using lifting equipment (for people) and those people are working at height, simple really.

Scaftag is all well and good as a visual aid for putting equipment in and out of use for suitable controls.

Crim,

practically

If it helps I worked with scaftag at previous company to make a mast climber tag, as we had 36 of the things on a high rise development, we used the tag to put equipment in and out of use daily, so transient operatives could see at the user end that the equipment had been pre use inspected and put into use daily. This did not stop us having a daily Pre use inspection recorded and signed up to in the office, a weekly inspection which had other checks other than the Pre Use daily, 6 weekly maintenance inspections and 6 monthly Through Examination Inspection all recorded and filed away by competent persons,

The scaftag was particularly useful as a control as if something was found faulty the tag was simply removed and prohibited the use of the equipment until the fault was rectified and the tag simply inserted and put back into service. (oh this was also recorded)

If these procedures are in place it would difficult to find fault with your management systems, I appreciate MEWP's would have additional checks for ground conditions etc, but the principals are similar.

Hope this helps

Dave