Rank: New forum user 
|
I work for a textile company that currently has over 120 braiding machines and we have had them in production for over 30 years. To aid my question I have a video uploaded on the following link:
A: Actual Machine:
B: Although the following is not one of our machines but it provides an example of the motion of the moving parts:
We are currently buying a new machine from a Spanish machine manufacturer and in some discussions I have raised the Supply of Machinery Regulations and the requirements of PUWER.
I consider the access to the dangerous moving parts as shown in example A as not meeting the requirements of PUWER regulation 11 and as the proposed brand new machine would be the same, I consider it would not meet the requirements of the Supply of Machinery Regulations.
Machine suppliers from Germany and Spain have quoted and both stated a brand new machine would be supplied the same as example A. They also state the machines meet the requirements of relevant regulations and one even quotes PUWER?
My concern is once the machine is delivered to site it will fall under the requirements of PUWER and I am not happy with the ease at which the moving parts of the machine can be accessed.
I have recently performed a supplier audit and found brand new German weaving looms that had dangerous moving parts that were unguarded.
I would appreciate any thoughts or experience of this?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
I don't have experience of the particular machines but I would not be able to sleep properly if I know these machines are running with the current level of protection against moving parts.
What sort of human interaction do you have with the machine when is running? I don't see why different ways of guarding the machine are not explored, there are load of different guarding methods such as laser curtains, pressure pads etc etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: New forum user
|
Hello Juan,
I am in agreement with you. I have recently inherited these machines and I am now trying to pressure the other senior management into taking action.
My main issue is that buying a brand new machine some 30 years later and the guarding is the same?
The operators have very little contact with the machine once running and when setting up the machine the access doors are interlocked preventing the machine to move.
It is the ease of access what concerns me and how the suppliers are stating this is compliant with PUWER.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
Phil,
I suggest that you request details of how the machine meets the essential H&S requirements of the machinery directive and the other relevant new apporach directives in writing.
Draw up a specification to which the suppliers must comply.
Do not be prescriptive in telling them to guard x, Y & z.
Just word your spec such that it defines that the machine must comply with all of the requirements of the relevant EU directives that are required for the machine to carry the CE mark and that (I am guessing they will install & commission) that it meets all of the requirements of the UK PUWER98 requirements.
Write your purchase contract such that a percentage is witheld until the machine is installed & commissioned and this evidence is provided in writing.
Put in a clause that should the machine be found deficient that subject to no modifications by yourselves, the supplier will be liable for any deficiencies identified by "HSE" etc. should an "incident" ocurr & that they must fulfill the financial and legal aspects of any claims made for say the first 10 years after the machine is installed & commissioned which are due to their lack of guarding of moving parts & that they will not fight any claim.
IF they are prepared to put their money where their mouth is then sorted, if not then they need to review their compliance.
I do know of a guy, not personnally well, IOSH member who is red hot on these compliance issues and he would be more than willing to assist I'm sure.
He gave a lecture at one of our local IOSH meetings.
Just a thought?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Phil,
I think many people have experienced this exact circumstance. In order to CE mark the machine the supplier should have ensured that the provisions of the applicable standards have been met. To keep this brief, They should have identified the hazards and assessed the risks as described in EN ISO 14121:2007. Next the should have decided how to reduce the risks based on the contents of EN ISO 12100-1 & 2. Then they should have designed and manufactured the machine according to their findings of the previous two steps by applying the requirements of the relevant design standards (ie EN ISO 14119, ISO 14120, IEC 13856, EN ISO 13849 etc.). Finally they should communicate, in the information for use, any special training, skills, PPE, and/or instructions that need to be put in place in order to ensure the safety of the workers.
As part of the agreement of purchase and sale you should ask them to supply to you the documents that will demonstrate that the process outlined above has been followed. In addition to what Paul has described, I suggest that you add into your purchase agreement a clause that will allow you to withhold 15% of the purchase price until such a time that you are sure that the provisions of the applicable standards have been met. If the supplier will not meet the requirements you will at least have some money left in the budget to get the work done by someone else.
PM me if you need more information.
Tom Doyle
Industrial Safety Integration
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: New forum user
|
Paul / Tom,
Thanks for you input.
At the moment I have two suppliers who are stating to our management team that they supply many machines into the UK each year and all are supplied as example A.
One supplier offers a fully guarded option but at an excessive cost. Because the suppliers are confidently recommending full guarding is not required, the rest of the management team seem to be looking at this as me being over the top.
I find a number of EU machine manufactures I have dealt with this year appear to be ignorant to their obligations under the supply of machinery directive?? Or conveniently choose to be!
The rest of the management team take the view that because we have a large number of old machines that I state do not meet the requirements of PUWER, it is not helping the case to have the new one expensively upgraded. Crazy I know!!
I will use your comments to further strengthen my own at the next meeting we have concerning the purchase.
Cheers,
Phil
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.