OCH magazine
BREAKING NEWS:
| 2010 media pack |
|---|
|
Get hold of the latest OCH media information pack for the latest profiles and advertising rates.
|
| Latest Issue |
|---|
|
Why not take a look at the latest issue of OCH magazine
|
| OCH Email Newsletter |
|---|
|
Register FREE for the OCH newsletter and receive regular and current news dedicated to your industry |
| Stringent enforcement by OSHA not the answer |
| Written by Richard Howes |
| Wednesday, 08 October 2008 13:52 |
|
Roy Peterson, senior controls engineer for Duct-O-Wire, of Wisconsin, which supplies electrification systems for cranes, hoists and monorails, gives his take on crane inspection and maintenance.
Some feel it is necessary for OSHA to step in with training requirements for crane service personnel. I disagree. OSHA is very specific on inspection types, the frequency of inspections based upon usage patterns, as well as the qualifications of designated personnel. This applies to both the end user and whoever is designated for inspection work by the same. It also covers what a qualified crane inspector must posses in the way of training, knowledge, examples of reports to be filed, and all actions taken as a result of the determinations rendered. To do this in a comprehensive form, OSHA references ANSI, ASME, CMAA, NEC and NFPA, plus other agencies and advisory boards. The key to the adoption of the requirements as laid out in the referenced publications is, as worded by the publications and OSHA, the terms 'SHALL,' versus 'SHOULD.' The former is, as is obvious, a mandatory issue. The latter is a recommendation. What is specified in ANSI B30.2a, Section IV, comes under the new and existing installations sub-sections. It specifies, in the paragraph labeled “Qualified Person”, exactly what constitutes the fulfillment of that designation. This is adopted by OSHA, as well as CMAA. There is little to no ambiguity as to what is required. I travelled extensively for ACCO, and for Cleveland Tramrail/Shepard Niles, for 20 years, running the service divisions in several areas for both companies. I was put through extensive training by ACCO, and fulfilled all requirements for several US government agencies, thus deemed “Qualified” to inspect and service overhead cranes. I also attended extensive training as conducted by these government agencies. This included the Department of Defense, the Department of the Navy, the Department of Energy, and the Corp of Engineers. I am also deemed qualified to train both crane operators and service personnel in all aspects of their performance requirements. Referencing my training and experience isn’t to ‘toot my own horn,' as it were, but to illustrate my background as a means to justify my commentary. I no longer climb cranes or conduct service and operator training, but I provide technical support and advice to many crane service people from a host of companies. My continuing work in the crane industry requires staying versed in many aspects of safety and training issues. There are problems with what is taught at ‘overhead crane’ schools. The curriculums of several vary in many specifics. I base this on reports from service technicians I sent to different training agencies while managing the service division at Cleveland Tramrail. The common report I was given was that the training was old hat, too basic, and did not encompass enough of a variety of different manufactures to be effectively worth the time spent. I hope that has changed. While I agree there is a dilemma, as Rick Wall outlined, I don’t believe any more stringent enforcement by OSHA is the solution. They are very clear in what constitutes adherences. It is up to the end users, as well as crane service companies deeming themselves or their personnel as 'qualified,' to follow the requirements already concisely outlined by OSHA and their referral groupings. Unfortunately, many crane companies and nearly all end users don't bother to read what's already on the books. Enforcement generally comes by way of fines and penalties after accidents and injuries have occurred. It is not because the requirements are not in place. Roy Peterson |
