Rigging hardware can make a job easier, but it can also pose high risks if not cared for, inspected, and used properly. There are many criteria that are required by compliance organizations such as the American Society of Mechanical Engineers. Should the equipment not follow guidelines, there could be a rejection, meaning the equipment is out of service. The specific criteria being referred to is under ASME B30.26, which establishes what could expose the rigging hardware to failing an inspection. Only trained professionals should use and maintain this equipment. These simple criteria will keep your equipment up and running and avoid costly mistakes, lost productivity, and potentially low employee morale.
Most common reasons for rejection of rigging hardware
Inspections should be done daily at a minimum. While keeping records isn’t legally necessary, the best practice is to keep good records. An annual and thorough inspection should be conducted at least once a year, and documentation is certainly the norm. The guidelines here are limited to the most common types of rejections, however, this information should be on site or by visiting the ASME website at asme.org. The most common rejection(s) reasons of rigging hardware are as follows:
• Unclear or missing manufacturer information
• More than 10% eroded (reduction in material)
• Damaged equipment such as elongated or broken parts
• Unauthorized repairs such as welding, displaying heat damage on equipment
• Missing hardware
• Unauthorized materials present or in use
• Unauthorized use or application of equipment
The other rejection criteria primarily address the functionality of the equipment. The equipment must operate as it’s supposed to and not be used or modified for any other purpose(s).
Taking care of rigging hardware and inspecting it regularly is paramount to the safe and efficient operation of the machinery. While official records aren’t required, implementing maintenance and safety logs as part of the daily routine can also help identify any potential issues. The efficient operation of the equipment and keeping repair costs at a minimum is certainly worth the small time investment.
