Why are we debating to this extent when the OP does not seem to have provided more specific input.

Extract from hSE website:-
http://www.hse.gov.uk/wo...pment-machinery/user.htm

If you find new work equipment is not safe because of the way it has been designed, constructed, supplied or installed then you should stop using it until this has been remedied. You should first make contact with the manufacturer and supplier (or installer, if relating to the installation) to get the issue resolved. Where the product is defective due to its design or construction, you can report this to the relevant market surveillance authority. They may have the statutory powers necessary to take formal action and resolve the matter

Even if one want to apply PUWER, Regulation 10 requires everyone involved in the chain of supply of work equipment has legal obligationswhich are designed to ensure that new work equipment is safe. For example,section 6 of the HSW Act places general duties on designers, manufacturers,
importers and suppliers to ensure this so far as is reasonably practicable.Regulation 10 supplements the requirement of section 6 by placing a duty on the user of the work equipment.

Regulation 11 of PUWER is specific to the dangerous parts of machinery and to comply, one has to refer to guarding standards and the full suite of machinery safety including interlocks.

That is a very good point Jay, and in reality we should have all been asking for more information, including myself.

We do not know what else is on the machine, e.g., there may already be other interlocks on the machine, and we do not know the particulars of the mechanical guard mentioned or else what the hazard, risk and frequency of access is etc. We also do not know to much about the machine or whether or not it is still in the manufacturers factory or else is on a customer site etc.

There is no doubt that in the design and manufacturing stage the MD will apply 'on it's own'. However when the equipment is being installed on site then PUWER also applies. There may have been a failing in the compliance with the MD and/or there may not have been, we do not know from the information supplied. With regards to whether or not laws have been broken or otherwise again there is not enough information to know and anyway where there are points of contention then ultimately a Court would decide.

I have had experience of having equipment installed on site and then carrying out a risk assessment and finding that guarding did not meet what I considered to be the requirements of PUWER and therefore I went back to the manufacturers and suppliers and required them to revisit the MD.

In addition there is no certainty the manufacturer will then agree, even in the case highlighted by the original poster there is disagreement. So the question is then raised as to how this disagreement can be addressed, because quite often there is production waiting for the machine and contracts etc., have been signed with regards to the supply and purchasing etc. I do not say the production etc., should make a difference if the machine is clearly unsafe, of course it should not, but where there are 'Grey' areas and in which there are often 'disagreements' we do of course live in the real world.

The reason I have chosen to argue in this topic is because I think there are wider implications here and they are as follows:

If the manufacturer CE marks a machine, and in effect says it complies with the MD but then when it is being installed it becomes apparent that it does not meet the requirements of PUWER, and therefore one may also reasonably argue it likely does not comply with the MD in the judgment of the risk assessor, then how can this be addressed if the manufacturer sticks with the opinion their machine is ok. There is NO legal requirement for the manufacturer to supply their original risk assessment to the customer, so we cannot check that. Many smaller businesses do not have access to relevant expensive standards and also they may not wish to spend a great deal of money on an expensive consultant to come and give their opinion, which the manufacturer may they still disagree with.......and so on.

Are the HSE then set up to come to site and make a check and then pursue it with the manufacturer, because after all they have now been considered to have not complied with the MD? Or alternatively will the HSE more or less say you purchased the machine so you sort it out? My next question would be, if that machine then leads to an accident and the HSE got involved would they look at the machine and say 'it's CE marked, we will take action against the manufacturer or would they take action against locally under PUWER?

I do know my own experiences with regards to the questions I ask above, but they are my own experiences.

In my opinion there are significant gaps in the enforcement/management of the MD, particularly where the equipment is supplied from another country.

It's easier to say when the equipment arrives on site check under PUWER that there are no obvious errors, in which case PUWER must then apply. I would also add that if the equipment has come through the design and manufacturing stage then the manufacturer has more or less already indicated their equipment is safe. CE marking does not guarantee the equipment is safe.

What's our experiences with regards to this?

Regards

I Have to agree with Paul here.

Pete I think your have said it all - spot on.

You can tell it's my first use of a computer keyboard for a week, apologies for the spelling folks....

It will take until Wednesday to warm up

Agree 100% westonphil with your comments regarding assessment and CE, as well as the debate summary.

Thanks

I can't do all this multiple quoting and stuff, and I can't be bothered to learn how, I have more important things to deal with.

I still can't understand why you lot are going on about PUWER, when the designer and manufacturer of a piece of equipment is calling into doubt their own design and manufacture of said equipment.
FORGET PUWER, if the designer and manufacturer is unsure about their design, then it falls on the SMSR.

How can it not, the organisation is calling into doubt their own design, and manufacture, they are suggesting that the equipment that they have designed, manufactured and are trying to put into service is not compliant, thus, they are negligent under the SMSR.

Anderson8,
I have no need for you to explain the SMSR, or other such Machinery Directive / Low Voltage Directive things to me.
IF you knew me you would know that.
Also, IF you knew me you would not have said that you would have contacted me directly.

My point, which you ALL seem to be conveniently IGNORING, is that the OP's company IS the designer AND the MANUFACTURER of the machine.
Thus they have NO excuse for not undertaking this in accordance with the requirements for their use.

So I say AGAIN, forget PUWER, the OP's company have failed in their duty under the SMSR.

As has been suggested, from where I am, I want to agree with the post(s) that suggest that my words are being twisted to mean things that they don't and are being twisted to give other outcomes.

How can the designer and the manufacturer of a piece of equipment for their own use, NOT know what is required for this equipment?

To suggest such is just ludicrous.

If they are admitting such, then they are admitting that they have not undertaken and met their requirements under the SMSR, how can that not be correct?

"I've been having a 'discussion' with our engineering and fabrication department who are *installing* a new piece of machinery which has been designed by them." (OP)

"“*use*” in relation to work equipment means *any* activity involving work equipment and includes starting, stopping, programming, setting, transporting, repairing, modifying, maintaining, servicing and cleaning;

“work equipment” means *any* machinery, appliance, apparatus, tool or installation for use at work (whether exclusively or not);" (PUWER)

If the installation engineers are employees, PUWER applies.

"My argument is that whilst the torque screw *meets legal requirements* in preventing access, should the screw not be replaced after maintenance or hygiene then access to the dangerous part is easy and the machine would not stop if someone opened the hatch, thus it fails to danger." (OP)

"PUWER, is relevant to the end user, if these debates are going on then it is *patntly obvious that the designer and manufacturer that has placed the machinery on the market has failed to meet the requirnts of the Machinery Directive*, as incorporated into UK law as the SMSR." (paul.skyrme)

The OP who is on site and sees the machine has said the fixed guard is legal but a poster says it is patently obvious the designer and manufacturer has placed machinery on the market has failed to meet the requirements of the Machinery Directive. Of course it is possible to know that the OP is wrong when we are not on site.

I printed the quotes in full, just to make sure they were not twisted.

Regards

I am not going to be swung, I am still adamant that the PRIMARY breach is under the SMSR.

The first paragraph of the OP is all I feel is needed to show this.

The company that has designed, manufactured and placed the equipment on the market is questioning its safety.
Thus they are admitting that the machine may be unsafe for use, thus, they have placed a machine on the market that is unsafe.
Ergo, breach of SMSR.

I fail to see why you are bringing PUWER into this.

Once the primary material breach under SMSR is sorted, then by all means look to PUWER, however, the company that has designed and manufactured the equipment, in this case the end user, has no excuse for the thing failing a PUWER audit, as there should be no reason for them to be unaware of the requirements of the business into which the machine is going to be used, as they are one in the same.

Primary breach under SMSR.