The following is based upon European requirements but, as I commented last month, legislation such as the UK’s Lifting Operations and Lifting Equipment Regulations (LOLER), which is based upon European Directives, is very practical and if followed, genuinely provides a good standard of safety. Because of this, whilst such legislation has no official status outside of Europe, it has been adopted as good practice in many parts of the world.
In an industry as diverse as overhead lifting, there is inevitably a wide variety of situations to address, ranging from the relatively simple supply of new, stand alone, equipment right through to in-service equipment, second hand equipment and modified equipment. It is not possible to cover every eventuality in a short article, but the following looks in turn at each of the most common.
New lifting equipment, from the largest crane to the smallest accessory, is all within the scope of the European Machinery Directive. From a technical point of view, every item must comply with the relevant ‘essential health and safety requirements’ which are set out in an annex to the Directive. The declaration of conformity, together with the CE marking, comprise the formal evidence of compliance. Also required are comprehensive instructions for use.
The Directive has a very wide range of equipment within its scope, some of which requires more onerous conformity assessment procedures. However, with the exception of lifting machines intended for lifting persons, the declaration of conformity for all other lifting equipment is issued by the manufacturer or whoever is responsible (the responsible person) for first placing it on the market in Europe.
The information required in the declaration of conformity is specified in the Directive. (The following excludes lifting machines intended for lifting persons for which additional information is required).
It must:
(a) state the business name and full address of the responsible person and, where that person is not the manufacturer, of the manufacturer;
(b) contain a description of the equipment including its make, type and serial number;
(c) state that the equipment complies with the Machinery Directive and any other relevant Community Directives. (For electrically powered equipment this will include the Electromagnetic Compatibility Directive);
(d) specify (as appropriate) the transposed harmonised standards used;
(e) specify (as appropriate) the national standards and any technical specifications used;
(f) identify the person authorised to sign the declaration on behalf of the responsible person;
(g) be typed, or written by hand in block capitals and be in English or one of the other official European languages (and for practical purposes, the language of the country where it is being placed on the market).
From this it is clear that the name and address of the manufacturer and responsible person must be disclosed.
Under the Use of Work Equipment Directive, an employer has a duty to ensure that equipment he provides for his workforce has been ‘designed and constructed in compliance with any essential requirements’. The declaration of conformity is evidence that it does comply and is an important link between the legislation covering manufacture and supply and that covering use of the equipment.
Complications arise when those in the supply chain wish to hide the source of the items. For manufacturer branded items that should not be a problem. Own branding is possible either by discretely revealing the manufacturer behind the brand or by assuming all the responsibilities of the manufacturer. The latter course requires an agreement with the manufacturer to make available to the authorities the technical file for the equipment if ever required.
The biggest problem is with unbranded items, often high volume low value items which may be sold to the end user at various points in the supply chain. There is often a reluctance to reveal the source for fear of losing a customer to someone higher up the supply chain next time. Many suppliers resort to re-issuing the declaration of conformity in their own name but, in effect, they are making a false declaration. A legitimate method is for the supplier to retain the declaration of conformity and issue a statement to the effect that the manufacturer of the item has issued a declaration of conformity which is being held on file. That is a true statement and, if there is a good relationship of trust between the supplier and customer, that statement together with the CE marking should be adequate evidence of compliance.
Some equipment is purchased for incorporation into a larger item. A good example is an electric hoist block to be incorporated into an overhead crane bridge. The current Machinery Directive only partially addresses this situation. It provides inter-alia for placing onto the market ‘machinery which cannot function independently’. My understanding is that it was intended to allow the marketing of machinery which can function but is not fully in compliance with the essential health and safety requirements. For example, machinery which requires guarding but is sold without guards for incorporation into a larger assembly, the whole of which will be guarded. Hence the declaration of incorporation which requires a statement to the effect that it is not to be put into service until incorporated and a declaration of conformity issued for the whole. It doesn’t adequately address partly completed machinery or elements of a complete machine which are not within the definition of machinery. For example, the structural part of a slewing jib crane sold without a hoist.
The new Machinery Directive which comes into force at the end of 2009 does deal with partly completed machinery. Meanwhile, in practice, there have been widely varying interpretations of how to deal with such equipment under the current Directive.
The best way, whenever possible, it to use standards, particularly the transposed harmonised European standards. These have the special status that equipment manufactured to such a standard is deemed to meet the essential requirements in so far as the standard addresses them.
Many standards specify the documentation which must be issued for the item and this, together with any information about installation and use should be part of the information which makes up the technical file for the finished product.
In summary, for complete items within the scope of the Machinery Directive, the purchaser should expect a declaration of conformity or a statement that such a declaration has been issued, together with any documentation specified by the standard for the item and the instructions for use.
For equipment which can function but does not meet all the essential requirements until incorporated, the purchaser should expect a declaration of incorporation together with any documentation specified by the standard for the item and the instructions for use.
For components or partly completed items which will become part of the finished item but which are not of themselves within the scope of the Machinery Directive, the purchaser should expect any documentation specified by the standard for the item and the instructions for use.
If the end user purchases components, partly completed items or items for incorporation and assembles or manufacturers the finished product, he has all the responsibilities of the end product manufacturer and must issue the declaration of conformity together with any documentation specified by the standard for the item and the instructions for use. In effect he supplies the item to himself.
When equipment is taken into use for the first time, some additional documentation may be required. New unused items which do not require installation, such as a lifting accessory or portable lifting machine, can be taken into use for the first time provided the user has a declaration of conformity made not more than twelve months before being put into service. Therein lies a couple of problems, the first being that the declaration of conformity does not have to be dated. In practice individual declarations of conformity are not issued for each item unless it is a one off. It would be very bureaucratic and expensive.
For series produced equipment, only one declaration of conformity is issued and that is kept on file by the manufacturer or responsible person. The purchaser gets a facsimile, often as part of the instructions. The second problem is that many items can remain in stock in various parts of the supply chain for an indeterminate period. A simple solution is for the supplier to examine the item and issue a LOLER report of thorough examination at the time of sale. Because the item is unused, such examination is essentially focussed on any damage or deterioration which may have occurred during storage. It is not therefore onerous and is, in any case, what a responsible supplier should do.
Therefore for a high volume series produced item such as a shackle, if the purchaser does not receive a manufacturer’s declaration of conformity, he should expect at least a LOLER report and a statement to the effect that the manufacturer of the item has issued a declaration of conformity which is being held on file.
If the equipment has to be installed before it can be used, LOLER requires that it be thoroughly examined after installation to ensure it has been properly installed and is safe to use. A LOLER report to the effect is therefore required. The same applies if the equipment is subsequently moved to another location.
Another common situation is when lifting machines such as overhead travelling cranes or slewing jibs are refurbished or modified. Typically the structure of such cranes outlasts the mechanism, which is therefore replaced, or the means of control is being updated from cab to pendant or remote. If it is a straightforward replacement of the hoist without any change of rating, then the purchaser will require the documents for the new hoist as explained above and a LOLER report stating that it has been correctly installed and is safe to operate. These documents become part of the records for the crane.
If the rating is to be changed or the modifications require some other aspects of the crane to be re-evaluated, then the necessary calculations, drawings, results of tests etc will be required. A simple example is that the travel speeds of a cab controlled crane may be too high for conversion to pendant control without modification.
There is a rather grey dividing line between refurbishment, which is restoring the crane to its original condition, and effectively manufacturing a new crane from old parts. Between the two is the halfway house of modernisation. In general, refurbishment and modernisation of controls and safety features only requires documentation for the new equipment and features with minimal re-evaluation of the rest of the crane. However, its condition must be checked.
Crossing the line into what is effectively new manufacture means that the whole of the Machinery Directive requirements apply and, therefore, the documents which go with that situation.
Unmodified second hand equipment is definitely outside the scope of the Machinery Directive unless it is being imported into Europe. However it is subject to the in-service inspection and examination requirements and may require updating of the safety features.
The last situation is the in-service inspection or thorough examination as it is referred to in LOLER. This is straightforward in that the documentation required is the LOLER report of thorough examination. This should contain the following information:
1 The name and address of the employer for whom the thorough examination was made.
2 The address of the premises at which the thorough examination was made.
3 Particulars sufficient to identify the equipment including, where known, its date of manufacture.
4 The date of the last thorough examination.
5 The safe working load of the lifting equipment or (where its safe working load depends upon the configuration of the lifting equipment) its safe working load for the last configuration in which it was thoroughly examined.
6 In relation to the first thorough examination of lifting equipment after installation or after assembly at a new site or in a new location –
(a) that it is such thorough examination;
(b) (if such be the case) that it has been installed correctly and would be safe to operate.
7 In relation to a thorough examination of lifting equipment other than a thorough examination to which paragraph 6 relates –
(a) whether it is a thorough examination –
(i) within an interval of 6 months under regulation 9(3)(a)(i);
(ii) within an interval of 12 months under regulation 9(3)(a)(ii);
(iii) in accordance with an examination scheme under regulation 9(3)(a)(iii); or
(iv) after the occurrence of exceptional circumstances under regulation 9(3)(a)(iv);
(b) (if such be the case) that the lifting equipment is safe to operate.
8 In relation to every thorough examination of lifting equipment –
(a) identification of any part found to have a defect which is or could become a danger to persons, and a description of the defect;
(b) particulars of any repair, renewal or alteration required to remedy a defect found to be a danger to persons;
(c) in the case of a defect which is not yet but could become a danger to persons –
(i) the time by which it could become such a danger;
(ii) particulars of any repair, renewal or alteration required to remedy it;
(d) the latest date by which the next thorough examination must be carried out;
(e) where the thorough examination included testing, particulars of any test;
(f) the date of the thorough examination.
9 The name, address and qualifications of the person making the report; that he is self employed or, if employed, the name and address of his employer.
10 The name and address of a person signing or authenticating the report on behalf of its author.
11 The date of the report.
The problem which we most frequently encounter with both suppliers and purchasers is that the documents provided and demanded are out of date and do not include the required information. Many are based on previous legislation – often unnecessarily embellished to make the document look more impressive.
Ironically, to those who are familiar with the requirements, it has the opposite effect and brings into question the knowledge of those issuing them. As acknowledged above, there are undoubtedly some grey areas where the requirements are unclear. However, for the majority of situations, they are in fact very straight forward.
