Welcome Guest! The IOSH forums are a free resource to both members and non-members. Login or register to use them

Postings made by forum users are personal opinions. IOSH is not responsible for the content or accuracy of any of the information contained in forum postings. Please carefully consider any advice you receive.

Notification

Icon
Error

Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
Admin  
#1 Posted : 31 August 2007 10:00:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Mark R Burford
Does anybody have experience of these machines or a copy of a RA I could use as a basis

A company in the group have some machines that are fully enclosed and some that are open (no guards). The enclosed machines always have the doors left open (interlocks disabled). I have been told that the doors are only to prevent electrical interference, and needed to be left open to prevent scrapping work.
Admin  
#2 Posted : 31 August 2007 10:11:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By holmezy

Mark,

electrical interference when doors are shut so we keep them open and disable the interlocks??

Me thinks some bright spark is pulling a fast one.

Discharge your duties and tell them to operate the machine correctly.

It might shock them to realise that your even though you dont operate the machine, you can find out about it

Holmezy
Admin  
#3 Posted : 31 August 2007 10:19:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Barrie (Badger) Etter
Ditto Marks request ref open spark eroders. For my part just to make sure that I haven't missed anything.

Don't panic if I do not reply ... it's FRIDAY and I'm off on holiday

YIPPPEEEEE!!!!!

Badger
Admin  
#4 Posted : 31 August 2007 11:58:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Mitch
I have a mate who, in his previous position, was a maintenance engineer/H&H advisor with a spark erosion company. This will give me an excuse to go down the pub later and see him, I'll report back on Monday.
Admin  
#5 Posted : 31 August 2007 15:09:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By alan brotherton
It would seem obvious that the designers/manufacturers of such machinery do not fit interlocks etc. for fun, so they obviously serve an assential purpose. (PUWER applies).
This question alone in a risk assessment would be sufficient to recommend that the machines are unsafe for use without fully functioning safety devices until matters are clarified.
I would suggest manufacturers of the machines be contacted regarding the safety requirements of operation and functioning of safety devices.
What does your operator training say about the safety devices by the way??
Admin  
#6 Posted : 03 September 2007 16:50:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Mark R Burford
Like you I suspect I am being spun a line, the only thing I think he believes what he is saying rather than trying it on.

What I need is some thing concrete to prove him wrong. The manufacturer is one option but they only think the manufacturer is coving their back.

Like Alan wrote, why would a designer specify an interlock if it is not necessary.

I will be interested in what Mitch has found out from his friend

Thanks all for your input
Mark
Admin  
#7 Posted : 04 September 2007 09:38:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Mitch
Mark,

Didn't catch up with him at the weekend but I will be supping with him tomorrow evening.

Regards

Mitch
Admin  
#8 Posted : 04 September 2007 09:51:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Glen Coe
Sounds like a prosecution on Reg 8 HASWA 1974

8. No person shall intentionally or recklessly interfere with or misuse anything provided in the interests of health, safety or welfare in pursuance of any of the relevant statutory provisions.


The spark erosion machines I used in my youth were used with the electrode and work piece submerged in parafin. The main risks we had were coshh and if the arc was too near the surface you could ignite the parafin.
Admin  
#9 Posted : 12 September 2007 10:42:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Mitch
Mark,

Sorry for the delay but I finally tracked down the right person basically, he quite rightly says he cannot comment on individual machines without seeing them himself but, in his (30 years) experience he has never had a problem with electrical interference with this process! He can only assume the guard is fitted to compliment the fume extraction system which should be fitted. As far as a RA is concerned you should consider,

The process

Di-electrics, COSHH spill management etc

Manual handling/LOLER for fixtures and tooling

Fume extraction

As he pointed out interlocks are fitted for a purpose, contamination etc are usually dealt with secondary guarding and signage interlocks are designed to stop an operation for a specific purpose, normally to stop someone putting themselves at risk. He suggested contacting the manufacturer for clarification.

He no longer work for the spark eroding company but is happy to discuss any specific points, email me if you want his contact details.

Regards

Mitch
Admin  
#10 Posted : 14 September 2007 10:31:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Mark R Burford
Thanks everyone

Mark
Users browsing this topic
Guest
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.