Rank: Forum user 
|
We had a recent audit observation that there was no regime for testing of lift points on a piece of equipment (circa 1.2T) Our Lifting Inspection contractor has told us that as the lift points are "not readily removed" from the equipment they fall under PUWER not LOLER and PUWER demands a visual inspection routine only. The lift point is a bolt on lifting eye attached to the substructure over which a panel / cover attaches with cut out to reveal the eye. Our initial direction was to include the eyes in our LOLER test regime and carry out NDT at a periodicy reccommended by them (there is nothing in the OEM documentation on this). First question is, is the Lifting Inspection contractor correct that LOLER doesn't apply? I thought it included lift points. Secondly, even if PUWER applies, is it correct that ONLY a visual inspection is required? My understanding is the inspection regime must reflect a RA and so NDT should be carried out. We certainly do this for our shipping containers so I cant see why it wouldn't be done for this equipment but I am getting some kick back from management as the "expert" Lifting Inspectors are saying its not required!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Hi mrkrd "Our Lifting Inspection contractor has told us that as the lift points are "not readily removed" from the equipment they fall under PUWER not LOLER and PUWER demands a visual inspection routine only."
My thinking is that the Lifting Inspection is probably correct re LOLER but misrepresenting what PUWER requires. My logic is as follows: 1. LOLER - each eye once fixed forms part of the "load" and is thus not an "accessory for lifting".....BUT... 2. PUWER - requires an appropriate regime for inspection, examination or whatever based on risk assessment. If the risk assessment says you need NDT testing at intervals, then unless you can explain why the risk assessment is wrong then that is what is needed, which means that it doesn't really matter whether you decide whether this is a LOLER issue, a PUWER issue or BOTH! If this isn't done and the load falls (due to an eye failure) and injures someone those trying to argue out of doing what is needed will find it very difficult to defend their position. Edited by user 15 May 2024 17:04:54(UTC)
| Reason: Typo
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.