We purchased a cheap vertical panel saw a few years back but it isnt man enough for our application & the transport rollers keep getting damaged One of the engineers arranged for a quote to amend the existing machine to suit our needs, the contractor refused due to CE marking / Declaration of conformity issues with making a modification to the original design They then called in the H&S guy for a second opinion who pretty much agrees with him. Please tell me im right??

...........and from your description, the failing was when you bought it. Regulation 4(3) of PUWER and ACoP paragraphs refer.

Respectfully Tom, this isn't just about risk assessment (irrespective of the level of technical detail) , it's about original declaration of conformity, essential safety requirements, technical files and the like for the machine. The competent contractor will walk away from what you are asking. He will be well aware of potential liability issues and of acting beyond his indemnity cover. A problem might be (and I mean this in the nicest possible way) that an incompetent contractor might agree to modify the machine. Again, trying to be helpful, have you considered trade-in options for a machine that is actually up to the task?

Should the contractor modify the saw then they would have to re-certify the unit. As far as I am aware if you modify the design of the unit from original you will then be responsible for this. I regulary refuse to modify CE marked equipment without suitable "paper trails", which can be done as TomD suggests. However, IMHO it will be cheaper and easier to rip the wall saw out and put a propper one in! I have a customer chasing me to ring him about some machin issues who has one in bits on a pallet. They are 2 a penny and not that expensive to buy and install. The old adave applies, sorry buy cheap, buy twice! At the risk of getting in trouble, this is my area, PM if you want to discuss further, I'm on a wood machine at 08:00 in the a.m.!

Ron, I over here in Ontario, Canada. We receive CE marked machines and have many old machines kicking around. We have legislation that deals with both of these issues. I understand the need to find the original declaration of conformity and continue developing, or create the technical file. In my experience these documents can be very difficult to obtain and are most often useless for two reasons. 1) Modification should be made in accordance with the provisions of the current applicable standards, rather than earlier versions, in order for the CE mark to be applied. 2) Old machinery typically was not well guarded and the design features were often not well thought out such that they would meet the needs of the user. Regarding the competent contractor: If they choose to walk away so be it. A good integrator would now the current requirements and be involved in the risk assessment process, providing guidance along the way. Their willingness to contribute is a good indicator of their suitability to do the work. Selection of the contractor is critical in achieving the objective. If an incompetent contractor might agree to modify the machine two mistakes have been made. First the wrong contractor has been hired. Secondly, the contractor has agreed to do work that is outside of the area of expertise. Both the owner of the equipment and the contractor have created liability in this case and neither have substantially helped to achieve the objective. (One is trying to save money and the other is trying to make money while they should both primarily be trying to protect the worker) The risk assessment process helps to keep people focused on the objective. In my opinion it's the right starting point. Cheers from across the pond. Tom