Skip to main content

Appointed Persons Liability

bifcab 7 years ago   Reply
I recently succesfully took my CPCS Appointed person course. During the course the trainer gave great emphasis on the amount of resposability that came with the qualification. Expected. Can anyone tell me however. What degree of liability do I carry, as I am employed and work in an organisation? Could I still be held personally liable in court should god forbid, anything go wrong? And should i concider personal liability insurance?

Your responses would be appriciated
Liz Bennett 7 years ago   Reply
We all continue to be personally liable for our acts and ommissions, even if employed by a firm. You cannot insure against criminal liability. IOD advice is that if a member of staff is prosecuted for a H&S breach you should immediately sack them. So, scary stuff. But that is right. This is not about making money. This about making workplaces safer and healthier for all. Do the job that you know and understand. Do not pretend you know. Listen to problems. Develop a team approach to problem solving.
Mike A 7 years ago   Reply
Hello "bifcab",

I think you would find my earlier posting of interest. I have included the text below;

Also find below a link to another forum which will be of interest also;

http://www.lifting-world.co.uk/forums/viewforum.php?f=20


Mobile Crane Lift Planning - How To Ensure Adequacy of Ground Conditions / Hardstanding Area to Prevent Stability Issues / Overturning by Mike A on 21 Nov 2008 15:31

On this forum and others, I read posts demonstrating confusion regarding who is responsible for the ground / hardstanding adequacy during Mobile Crane operations. In addition the procedures surrounding mobile crane planning appear to lack consistency, partly due to a lack of clear understanding of this topic by both main contractors' site management personnel and off - site managers, who do not appear to be aware of the level of responsibility the Site Manager is being burdened with, on a regular basis.

I hope to receive some thoughts on this topic for inclusion in a current review of this difficult issue by the Precast Flooring Federation Safety Committee.

The aim is to discuss the issues / raise awareness regarding planning / implementation of lifting operations under LOLER and BS7121 to improve safety when undertaking this high risk site operation.

So who is responsible for the ground / hardstanding adequacy during Mobile Crane operations?

The Main Contractor? On the vast majority of projects, the Main Contractor has the contractual responsibility to provide and maintain adequate hardstanding areas as required to facilitate safe lifting when mobile cranes are on site. This is the case even if a Crane Company has been employed to undertake a Contract Lift or if a sub-contractor is undertaking crane operations as part of their package and providing AP crane planning / Lift Plans.

The Crane Company? If under CPA Hire, they are providing a crane and a competent driver only and will expect to see evidence of adequate planning by others prior to undertaking the works. If under Contract Lift, they will provide full AP crane planning inc. Lift Plans and the AP must satisfy him/herself that the hardstanding area is adequate to withstand the planned outrigger loadings.

The Appointed Person? Regardless of who provides the AP to plan the lift (e.g. sub contractor as part of Precast flooring package), they must again be satisfied that the hardstanding area is adequate to withstand the planned outrigger loadings.

The key element to a safe lift in any event is the Appointed Person (AP). They are trained amongst other things to plan the crane lift around site constraints / proximity hazards and ensure the hardstanding is adequate to facilitate the lift.

Problem 1;
Very rarely is the AP informed of a definitive tonnes / m2 harstanding bearing capacity as he is trained to expect to receive (in CPCS training courses) from the Main Contractor. Because this information is not usually provided, the AP will provide the Main Contractor with the crane outrigger loadings in tonnes / m2 (i.e. taking into account the mat size through which the load will be applied) and request confirmation from the Main Contractor that the hardstanding will be prepared to withstand the stated outrigger loading.
Your thoughts / Experiences?

Problem 2;
It is very difficult to obtain proper consideration / approval of the planned outrigger loadings and the hardstanding suitability to withstand the tonnes / m2 loadings specified. In approximately 80% of precast flooring installations as an example, the hardstanding sign off appears to be undertaken by the Site Manager, without referral for engineering consideration.
Your thoughts / Experiences?

Problem 3;
In addition, it is increasingly common practice (standard requirement for Precast Flooring Federation Member Companies) to request a repeat confirmation of adequacy each and every time the crane rigs up prior to commencing lifting from a given position. This can put Site Managers in a difficult position on the day of the lift, given the fluctuating nature of ground conditions due to rain / moisture content and often without a resident engineer on site to offer additional consideration.
Your thoughts / Experiences?

Problem 4;
Some AP's do not confirm the size of the outrigger mats to be used with the crane and the resultant tonnes / m2 loading to be applied to the hardstanding. They may state the outrigger loading simply in tonnes, which is of no use to the site management team / engineer in determining adequacy of the hardstanding [e.g. is the 60 tonne load spread over 3.0m2 (20 tonnes / m2) or 0.5m2 (120 tonnes / m2)]
Your thoughts / Experiences?

Problem 5;
The lifting operation may be expertly planned by the AP, but with inadequate consideration of the hardstanding bearing capacity (e.g. Site Managers signing off the hardstanding without requesting engineering input), the lift still may not be safe.
Your thoughts / Experiences?

Problem 6;
Should there be problems with crane stability / sinking outriggers during the lift, the AP will be criticized for not having sought evidence of engineering consideration when obtaining his confirmation of ground adequacy. How practical is it to expect AP's (who in the main are not geotechnical engineers after all) to decipher / comment / judge upon engineering input offered by the main contractor. How far should we as an industry expect AP's to go, in order to be satisfied that the hardstanding is adequate?
Your thoughts / Experiences?

I welcome any comments on the above, which as I mentioned earlier, will be relayed to the Precast Flooring Federation Safety Committee, as part of a review of the aforementioned which is currently underway.

Many thanks for your time in consideration of this posting.

Mike A 7 years ago   Reply

This will also be of interest to any Crane Appointed Person's reading this discussion topic.......

Find below the text from a Safety Bulletin issued August 2009 by the PFF (Precast Flooring federation) and BCSA (British Construction Steelwork Association) following consultation with HSE;

Following a review of crane planning procedures including HSE consultation, the Precast Flooring Federation (PFF) & British Construction Steelwork Association (BCSA) have agreed the following good practice guidance note to assist companies in the planning and assessment of hardstand requirements for mobile crane use.


"Overturning is one of the most common form of accidents associated with the use of mobile cranes, the cause can often be traced to unstable ground conditions.
This Safety Bulletin aims to provide information to the principal contractor, crane appointed person , crane supervisor, crane hire operator, and site supervisor, outlining the steps to be taken to ensure adequate consideration is provided for hardstand capabilities and outrigger loadings.
This note does not provide information on the safe use of MEWPs.
Where crane lifting operations are to be planned and managed by an appointed person (AP) provided as part of the supply & install package by the Precast or Steelwork SubContractor,
this should be treated in the same way as a "contract lift" as defined by BS7121. The following should be noted to aid compliance with the Lifting Operations and Lifting Equipment Regulations 1998 (LOLER);

1.
Principal Contractor Confirmation of Hardstand Bearing Capacity;
Before a crane arrives on site, existing information on the nature of the soils should have been studied, any additional site investigations required should have been carried out and warnings of specific hazards should have been incorporated in the health & safety plan. The CDM coordinator and / or temporary works coordinator should be of assistance to the principal contractors' site manager in ensuring adequate provision of such an assessment.
The principal contractor must provide adequate information to the AP regarding the hardstand capability. In order to achieve this they should ensure an assessment of the proposed crane hardstand is undertaken by a competent person and confirm the bearing capacity in tonnes / m2 to the Appointed Person.
Whether you are using ultimate or maximum allowable / permissible bearing capacities should be stated within the assessment. The detail and timing of investigative works / assessment (relative to the lifting operations) will help to determine the safety factor applied to the crane planning operations. Care should be taken to ensure that construction activity and ground water content have not undermined the hardstand capability since initial assessment. Further investigation and / or additional safety factors may need to be considered by the principal contractor's competent person and the AP.
The assessment may require input from a geotechnical engineer. Upon receipt of the resulting assessment, it is recommended that it is asked what factor of safety has been included if any. The engineer should also be made aware of the integral safety factors built into the crane planning outrigger load calculations. This should enable the AP to make a decision based on appropriate calculations and avoid including additional safety factors upon confirmation of the hardstand bearing capacity. Such overly cautious assessments can result in a "requirement" for impractically large / inefficient outrigger mat areas.
AP's and engineers should refer to the CIRIA publication Crane Stability On Site C703 for more information / guidance on factors of safety.

2.
AP Proposals to Adequately Spread the Outrigger Load;
Following confirmation of the hardstand bearing capacity, the AP will confirm the proposed outrigger mat size to ensure the ground bearing capacity is not exceeded, at any time.
In the absence of hardstand bearing capacity information at the time of initial crane planning, it is acceptable for the AP to propose outrigger loads (in tonnes / m²) to the principal contractor in advance. The principal contractor must then ensure a suitable assessment takes place. This should include confirmation that the proposed tonnes / m² outrigger load is acceptable, or whether additional consideration is required prior to finalising the crane planning.
It should be noted that, based on sample data supplied to PFF / BCSA AP's from their clients, permissible bearing capacities in excess of 40 tonnes / m² are relatively uncommon. Outrigger loadings proposed in advance of hardstand assessment should be realistic in anticipation of the assessment, giving consideration to historic data and experience. Optional increased size mats should be considered to spread outrigger loadings where necessary.
Should the crane mat size options mean that the maximum allowable bearing pressure is still exceeded the principal contractors competent person should contact the AP without delay to discuss additional assessment / ground preparation / load spread.

3.
Outrigger Loadings Methodology / Safety Factors;
It should be noted that where the AP uses "gross crane / lift weight" outrigger loading calculations, these "worst case" loadings include an unspecified
'inclusive' factor of safety. 75% or 100% of the gross weight are both practiced, with 100% offering an increased factor of safety. It is recommended that best practice would be to use the 100% method, unless adequate additional safety factors are included where 75% is used. The exact 'inclusive' factor of safety will vary depending on lift parameters / equipment. Should a definitive factor of safety be required, 'theoretical predicted' outrigger loadings should be considered as outlined below.
"Actual" or "Theoretical Predicted" outrigger loadings are also used by some AP's (from crane manufacturers' software), for example the LICCON system loadings from Liebherr. A safety factor of between 1.5 and 3.0 should be added to this type of outrigger loading, depending on the level of information provision regarding the hardstand capacity. The absolute minimum factor of safety which should be applied is 1.5 and should only be used where ground conditions have been accurately identified under the guidance of an experienced geotechnical engineer. AP's should again refer to the CIRIA publication Crane Stability On Site C703 for more information / guidance on factors of safety.

4.
"Permit To Lift" System / Confirmation to Proceed;
Prior to commencing the lifting operations, the Principal Contractor should sign confirmation that;
· The crane is rigged in the anticipated crane stand position as indicated on the Lift Plan.
· The crane hardstand has been prepared adequately to withstand the tonnes / m²specified on the Lift Plan.
· Full consideration has been given to all factors, including; Potential ground deterioration due to weather / construction activity since initial investigation / assessment.
The Principal contractor should then confirm daily that these conditions are still met, where possible, by signing off the work. Any concerns regarding the lift operation should be communicated to the AP, crane supervisor and crane operator who all have the authority to veto the lift."

Note: Refer to CDM Regulations, LOLER Regulations and BS7121 for definition of roles


The HSE badged Safety Bulletin can be viewed / downloaded from these links;

http://www.steelconstruction.org/index.php?option=com_newsitem&view=individual&entity=13&en=newsitem&item=483

http://www.precastfloors.info/technical/health.html

The last link also contains free download Example Lift Plan / Schedule information again worked up in conjuction with HSE

Hope this is of some help to any AP's out there.


Vitalis Ndeda 7 years ago   Reply
IMPORTANT: This message is private and confidential. If you have received this message in error, please notify us and remove it from your system.

Hello Mike A,
I attended a meeting at the CHSG branch yesterday (18.11.09) at Chertsey Surrey which was dedicated to the topic of Managing Lifting Operations On Site. This talk was given by David Wonford - Specialist Engineer, HSE.
I find both your comments and his talk very useful and answer the majority of questions I have had in the past regarding safe lifting on site. CPA web contains a lot of information too but you have digested and simplified in a very admirable manner.
Thanks Mike for the info.

Vitalis


P Do you really need to print this email ? Think before you print !

Bryen & Langley Limited is a limited company registered in England.
Registered number: 03527466. Registered office: Hartfield Place 40-44 High St Northwood Middlesex HA6 1BN

Please note that Bryen & Langley Limited may monitor email traffic data and also the content of email for the purposes of security and staff training.

This message contains confidential information and is intended only for construction@«hidden» If you are not construction@«hidden» you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify vndeda@«hidden» immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. Bryen & Langley Ltd therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this message, which arise as a result of e-mail transmission. If verification is required please request a hard-copy version.

-- Repeated lines have been removed. Click to show them. --


Hello "bifcab",

I think you would find my earlier posting of interest. I have included the text below;

Also find below a link to another forum which will be of interest also;

http://www.lifting-world.co.uk/forums/viewforum.php?f=20


Mobile Crane Lift Planning - How To Ensure Adequacy of Ground Conditions / Hardstanding Area to Prevent Stability Issues / Overturning by Mike A on 21 Nov 2008 15:31

On this forum and others, I read posts demonstrating confusion regarding who is responsible for the ground / hardstanding adequacy during Mobile Crane operations. In addition the procedures surrounding mobile crane planning appear to lack consistency, partly due to a lack of clear understanding of this topic by both main contractors' site management personnel and off - site managers, who do not appear to be aware of the level of responsibility the Site Manager is being burdened with, on a regular basis.

I hope to receive some thoughts on this topic for inclusion in a current review of this difficult issue by the Precast Flooring Federation Safety Committee.

The aim is to discuss the issues / raise awareness regarding planning / implementation of lifting operations under LOLER and BS7121 to improve safety when undertaking this high risk site operation.

So who is responsible for the ground / hardstanding adequacy during Mobile Crane operations?

The Main Contractor? On the vast majority of projects, the Main Contractor has the contractual responsibility to provide and maintain adequate hardstanding areas as required to facilitate safe lifting when mobile cranes are on site. This is the case even if a Crane Company has been employed to undertake a Contract Lift or if a sub-contractor is undertaking crane operations as part of their package and providing AP crane planning / Lift Plans.

The Crane Company? If under CPA Hire, they are providing a crane and a competent driver only and will expect to see evidence of adequate planning by others prior to undertaking the works. If under Contract Lift, they will provide full AP crane planning inc. Lift Plans and the AP must satisfy him/herself that the hardstanding area is adequate to withstand the planned outrigger loadings.

The Appointed Person? Regardless of who provides the AP to plan the lift (e.g. sub contractor as part of Precast flooring package), they must again be satisfied that the hardstanding area is adequate to withstand the planned outrigger loadings.

The key element to a safe lift in any event is the Appointed Person (AP). They are trained amongst other things to plan the crane lift around site constraints / proximity hazards and ensure the hardstanding is adequate to facilitate the lift.

Problem 1;
Very rarely is the AP informed of a definitive tonnes / m2 harstanding bearing capacity as he is trained to expect to receive (in CPCS training courses) from the Main Contractor. Because this information is not usually provided, the AP will provide the Main Contractor with the crane outrigger loadings in tonnes / m2 (i.e. taking into account the mat size through which the load will be applied) and request confirmation from the Main Contractor that the hardstanding will be prepared to withstand the stated outrigger loading.
Your thoughts / Experiences?

Problem 2;
It is very difficult to obtain proper consideration / approval of the planned outrigger loadings and the hardstanding suitability to withstand the tonnes / m2 loadings specified. In approximately 80% of precast flooring installations as an example, the hardstanding sign off appears to be undertaken by the Site Manager, without referral for engineering consideration.
Your thoughts / Experiences?

Problem 3;
In addition, it is increasingly common practice (standard requirement for Precast Flooring Federation Member Companies) to request a repeat confirmation of adequacy each and every time the crane rigs up prior to commencing lifting from a given position. This can put Site Managers in a difficult position on the day of the lift, given the fluctuating nature of ground conditions due to rain / moisture content and often without a resident engineer on site to offer additional consideration.
Your thoughts / Experiences?

Problem 4;
Some AP's do not confirm the size of the outrigger mats to be used with the crane and the resultant tonnes / m2 loading to be applied to the hardstanding. They may state the outrigger loading simply in tonnes, which is of no use to the site management team / engineer in determining adequacy of the hardstanding [e.g. is the 60 tonne load spread over 3.0m2 (20 tonnes / m2) or 0.5m2 (120 tonnes / m2)]
Your thoughts / Experiences?

Problem 5;
The lifting operation may be expertly planned by the AP, but with inadequate consideration of the hardstanding bearing capacity (e.g. Site Managers signing off the hardstanding without requesting engineering input), the lift still may not be safe.
Your thoughts / Experiences?

Problem 6;
Should there be problems with crane stability / sinking outriggers during the lift, the AP will be criticized for not having sought evidence of engineering consideration when obtaining his confirmation of ground adequacy. How practical is it to expect AP's (who in the main are not geotechnical engineers after all) to decipher / comment / judge upon engineering input offered by the main contractor. How far should we as an industry expect AP's to go, in order to be satisfied that the hardstanding is adequate?
Your thoughts / Experiences?

I welcome any comments on the above, which as I mentioned earlier, will be relayed to the Precast Flooring Federation Safety Committee, as part of a review of the aforementioned which is currently underway.

Many thanks for your time in consideration of this posting.


*-----------------------------------------------*
HSE Construction Forum
http://webcommunities.hse.gov.uk/ui/inovem.ti/group/construction/grouphome
Unsubscribe: construction-unsubscribe@«hidden»
^-----------------------------------------------^


To improve readability, some repeated lines have been removed. Show the removed lines.