Compliance with PUWER for tree work winching
operations.
Introduction
1. This paper outlines The Health and Safety Executive’s
(HSE) opinion on the application of the Provision and Use of Work and Equipment Regulations
1998
(PUWER) to winching operations
used
in tree work. It clearly states HSE’s policy to apply the requirements of PUWER rather than those of the Lifting Operations and
Lifting Equipment Regulations 1998 (LOLER) to winching operations.1
Issue
2. Differing opinions currently exist within the industry about the application of PUWER
and
LOLER to winching operations in tree work,
eg
skidding and directional felling. As a result, queries
are regularly raised particularly in respect to the inspection and thorough examination of winching equipment. These queries
often stem from
how
the term ‘lifting’ is interpreted in respect to loads being winched. The aim of this paper
is to clarify the application of health and safety legislation to the use of winches in tree
work
– in particular in relation to the requirement
for thorough examination and
inspection.
PUWER/LOLER and winching operations.
3. In the first instance it is important to recognise that LOLER and PUWER
require much
the
same thing for work equipment that they apply to: that the equipment is suitable for
the
task being undertaken; that it is
properly maintained, and that it is operated
correctly by competent people. PUWER is not a lesser standard. It requires a similar level of safety as LOLER if the risks
demand it.
4. The application LOLER
to winching operations is
determined by the interpretation of
the
terms lifting equipment and lifting operations. In the Safe
use
of lifting equipment –
Lifting Operations and Lifting Equipment Regulations 1998 – Approved Code of
Practice and Guidance (L113, second edition),
Regulation 2(1) – Interpretation, defines
lifting equipment as:
“Lifting equipment” means work
equipment for lifting and lowering loads and includes
its attachments used for anchoring, fixing or
supporting it,
and lifting operation as:
“Lifting operation” means
an
operation concerned with lifting and lowering a
load.
1 Cable cranes lift as
part of their
function therefore the
requirements of LOLER
apply.
5. L113 provides
guidance on these definitions and gives examples of equipment and operations
that are
not covered by LOLER. In the guidance to Regulation 2
(Interpretation, para 31)
it
states that “in most cases
LOLER will not apply to work equipment which does not have as its principal
function a use for
lifting or lowering.”
L113 then goes on to provide guidance on specific equipment and operations not covered by LOLER
including (para 32(b)) “winching a load where the load does not leave the ground.”
6. In addition, Figure 1 (p12) of the
L113 is a decision tree which sets out the main
elements that must apply to a piece of equipment for
it
to be subject to LOLER.
It indicates that two of these elements are that the equipment’s main purpose is to ‘lift or
lower a load’ and that the load is ‘lifted free from supporting structures’,
e.g. the ground. It also further clarifies the definition
of lifting as ‘an operation that usually
involves lifting or lowering a load from one surface to another.’ This
interpretation
makes clear
the intention of LOLER
and if applied to winching equipment used in most
forestry winching operations it means that the equipment is not subject
to LOLER. However,
it also makes
it clear that where
LOLER
does not apply then “a similar level
of
safety is required by PUWER in respect of the work equipment being used.” (Para
33)
7. Whilst the L113 interpretation excludes forestry
winching operations from
LOLER,
other interpretations for
lifting have been used within the industry and by trainers which imply that LOLER does apply. One such interpretation is
contained in The
International Rigging and Lifting Handbook
(North Sea Lifting Ltd), which includes the following definitions
to
differentiate between lifting and pulling:
a. A lifting application is one in which a load does not become stationary should either the machine or any of its associated equipment fail;
b. A pulling application is one in which a load becomes stationary should either the
machine or
any
of its associated equipment fail.
8. Applying this definition of lifting to LOLER
would mean that there would be numerous
circumstances
where winching equipment and operations would be subject to the requirements of the regulations – for example, winching timber
up
a slope steep
enough to cause the timber to move back down the slope in the event of the winching
equipment failing. However,
whilst this interpretation is useful for assessing
the
level of risk
involved in a winching operation, the International Rigging and Lifting Handbook is
not
a guide to the application of LOLER. Guidance to the application of LOLER
is provided by the LOLER ACOP, L113 which, as explained above, is clear
about the
application of the regulations
to winching operations.
9. Again, it needs to be stressed that whether
complying with LOLER or PUWER
the
outcome should be the same. The higher the risk associated with an operation, the more
stringent the controls
to make it safe and to comply with the regulations.
Inspection and
thorough examination.
10. Both PUWER and LOLER are
risk based. Therefore, regardless of the regulation, emphasis
should be placed on the completion of suitable and sufficient risk assessments. The risk assessment is
necessary to determine the nature and
frequency of both the maintenance and inspection of equipment used in winching operations. Risk assessments, carried out to meet the requirements of the
Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999, Regulation 3, should
identify any significant risks from the use of the work
equipment considering the:
a. type of load being winched, its weight, shape and what it consists of;
b. risk
of
a load falling, moving, breaking up or
striking a person
or object and the consequences;
c. risk of the winching equipment striking a person or an object and the
consequences;
d. risk
of
the lifting equipment failing while in use and the consequences; and
e. risk
of
damage to the winching equipment that could result in failure.
11. As previously discussed, LOLER will not apply to tree work
winching operations
and
the
scope of PUWER Regulation 6 requirements (inspection and the competence of the person who carries it out) need to be established by risk assessment. In effect,
Inspection (PUWER Reg.6); and Thorough examination and inspection (LOLER Reg.9)
should be seen as a related package of requirements with the outcome of the
assessment, whether for PUWER or
LOLER, being the same where the risk
demands
it.
Summary.
12. The definition of ‘lifting equipment’ and ‘lifting operations’
is provided in the Approved
Code
of Practice and Guidance to the LOLER
regulations
(L113 – Second edition). Under
this interpretation, LOLER does not apply to winching operations that are
regularly undertaken in tree work. However, PUWER is not a lesser standard
of
control but demands
the same level
of
safety as LOLER
if risks demand it.
13. Whilst under PUWER there is
no
specific requirement for ‘thorough examination’ of
work
equipment such as winches, PUWER requires risk-based inspection so the
results of such an inspection, should be the similar to a ‘thorough examination’ under LOLER, where the risk requires it. Additionally, recording the outcomes of inspections under
PUWER is as important as doing so for those under
LOLER.
14. HSE’s policy is to enforce the requirements of PUWER rather than LOLER on tree work winching operations
