LEEA: No complacency with LOLER

This encompassed the Lifting Operations and Lifting Equipment Regulations (LOLER), with consideration given to the possibility of revision and/or consolidation with other legislation such as the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations (PUWER).

Throughout the course of the consultation, the LEEA has argued the case for retaining LOLER in its present form. Representing some 600 member companies worldwide, the LEEA believes that LOLER is a sensible, practical approach to overhead lifting that does not place an undue burden on employers.

We were therefore relieved when Professor Löfstedt’s report was positive towards LOLER and similar modern, risk based legislation. At the time of writing it therefore appears likely that LOLER will remain in force in its present form, although the accompanying ACoP (Approved Code of Practice) is currently part of a review process that could see it revised.

Whilst the LEEA is clearly supportive of LOLER, we are equally aware that a number of employers are still failing to comply with some of its most important requirements. Of course in some cases this is simply symptomatic of a negligent approach to health and safety. However, even well-intentioned companies can sometimes struggle to stay on the right side of the law as far as LOLER is concerned.

Feedback from LEEA members suggests that there are a number of areas where employers typically have problems. The first, and perhaps most basic, is a failure to appreciate what a wide range of equipment falls within LOLER’s remit. LOLER defines lifting equipment as "work equipment for lifting and lowering loads and includes its attachments used for anchoring, fixing or supporting it.”

This means not just high profile equipment such as overhead travelling cranes and electric hoists, but a wide range of small, simple items including slings and shackles. Meeting legal requirements and ensuring the integrity of overhead lifting equipment therefore demands a rigorous system for keeping it under control at all times. To achieve this, every item must have an individual ID. Hard stamping is commonly used, but can cause problems on smaller items. Alternatives include colour coded tags and, increasingly, RFID products which offer the ability to embed additional information and documentation. In all but the smallest operations, a central store and formal control and issue system is also highly advisable.

Essential measures
Such measures are essential because LOLER requires that all lifting equipment is subject to periodic ‘thorough examination’. However, this is another area which can cause problems, as some employers do not fully grasp what this actually involves, or who is qualified to undertake a thorough examination. In brief, the LEEA defines it as a ‘visual examination, carried out by a competent person carefully and critically and, where appropriate, supplemented by other means such as measurement and testing, in order to check whether the equipment is safe to use.’
Thorough examinations are usually required every six or twelve months, depending on the type of equipment involved. Particular attention must be paid to the need for a competent person; in this respect competence is best defined as a combination of theoretical knowledge of the equipment to be examined, and the experience to be able to put this into practice.

The LEEA’s well established Diploma programme provides an industry-recognised qualification and the Association now issues a ‘TEAM’ (Test, Examine And Maintain) identity card to engineers that have passed the Diploma examination, along with a logbook that details any relevant practical experience.

Whilst a comprehensive programme of thorough examination is clearly vital, another common failing amongst employers is actually an over-reliance on such procedures. Lifting equipment often leads an arduous life. Accidental damage, corrosion, and attack by heat or chemicals are commonplace. This is particularly true of slings and other load lifting attachments, which are critical in terms of securing the load throughout a lifting operation. In addition to periodic thorough examination, all equipment should therefore be subject to regular ‘inservice inspection’ by trained staff. Typically this will not be a time consuming task – a quick visual process and perhaps a simple operational test before it is used. However, those responsible must have the judgement and authority necessary to withdraw from service any item that poses a risk to health and safety. Failure to do so can have lethal consequences.

In overall terms, there can be little doubt that LOLER has proved successful in terms of raising overall standards of overhead lifting. This is perhaps best reflected in the fact that it is voluntarily adopted as best practice by an ever-growing number of companies operating in parts of the world that lack relevant, sector-specific health and safety legislation. However, the welcome retention of LOLER by the UK government should not disguise the fact that there is still considerable room for improvement in terms of compliance.

The good news is that in most cases it is simply a case of employers adhering to some sensible, rigorously observed procedures and demonstrating greater attention to detail. And there are plenty of convincing arguments for doing so. The costs of breaching health and safety laws have risen significantly in recent years. Fines have become much more punitive, not to mention the harm done to corporate reputations. Similarly, even relatively minor accidents can prove costly in terms of damage and disruption. By making sure that they are fully compliant with LOLER, employers not only insure themselves against such risks, they also stand to reap the economic benefits of more productive and efficient material handling.