I am looking for some clearance on the PUWER regs.

In the company I work for we have cooking areas which have a number of different pieces of equipment, the supervisor does a start up sheet that incorporate the general area is safeand the equipment in it is safe to use.

Obviously the type of inspection will relate to the risk of the machines becoming dangerous and therefore the inspection being relative to this.

What I am am struggling to understand is the use of Pre use checks and do they need to be documented.

I am trying to put in place a general pre use check/inspection for the start of each shift, this ensures the machinery is checked and no damage has occurred causing the machine to become dangerous.

My only worry is the point made in the regulation 6 paragraph 135 that pre use checks don't have to be recorded.

Firstly am I doing right by trying to record that the machinery is safe for use prior to start of work.

Secondly is it more in the wording of Inspection and Pre use checks.

I am going on the basis of how could I defend the company if it went wrong.

Any help or guidance would much appreciated

Of course you are taking the right approach in implementing formally recorded pre- use checks. Although PUWER might say they do not need to be documented, how else would you be able to prove that they were in fact done if something went wrong? Make sure that you make them simple enough for operators to complete properly and give them a high profile. You will probably need to actually carry out audits in the Start Up Sheet system and train the operators in the adequate filling in of the forms, the reasons why these are done and the consequences of not doing them or even worse falsifying them. Bear in mind that a good system can help you help defend the company but a not very well managed one can cause even more damage than not having it documented.

Unless a component failure gives rise to a substantial risk of serious injury or death I would not expect to see a detailed pre-start check list for it. NB the thread talks about a "Cooking Area"

If the risks are substantial then consider a check Iist.
I investigated a death several years ago caused by a failure of a safety critical part that did not get its pre-start operator check that may have identified the fault before the accident; the previous shift had done the check and found no problem with its function.

The operator at the time of the accident knew that this prestart check should be done but believed that the check had been done earlier in the shift by others, the accident happened near the end of his shift and this was the first time that this plant was used on that shift.
There was no way he could check if the pre-start check had been done because checklists were not being used.

So the point of this is focus on the significant and particularly serious risks and be proportionate with the controls. Do not build unnecessary bureaucratic systems for the lesser risks as this can undermine the safety critical controls that need absolute adherence

Steve