Hi All, 

I'm currently carrying out an audit of a waste management company who have recently taken delivery of a (hire) cardboard baler from a large waste equipment firm. I have noted a number of issues with this baler including the one and only e-stop being inside the control cabinet, no guarding around the ejection door rams and the latter not being in sight of the control that operates it. What i was looking for your thoughts on was guarding of the hopper. In my experience these bits of kit would normally have an interlocked guard across the front opening of the hopper. The machine is loaded by an articulated forklift. I have witnessed the installers demonstrate to the users how to clear hopper blockages by standing on a ladder next to the hopper and prodding the blockage with a large pole. The trouble with this is that they are at a significant risk of falling in the hopper and to compound this the machine automatically starts when an object goes into the hopper. 

I have noted that the unit does have a CE mark as i would expect to have seen but as of yet have been unable to get a Decleration of Conformity from the supplier. In fact they are completely ignoring these emails. 

Does anybody operate similear equipment on their sites and what is the setup for guarding? I have taken a look at BS EN 16252:2012 and I feel that this kit falls significantly short of this standard. It would also fall short of any PUWER assessment that I would carry out. 

Thoughts?

IMG]http://i64.tinypic.com/bjh1mr.jpg[/IMG]

John,

I'm guessing that you have done a PUWER assessment of the equipment?

If this has shown up deficiencies in the CE marking & the machine is unsafe, which it sounds like from your post then, the supplier is surely breaking the law.

It could get messy, & don't mean our fellow contributor! ;)

I would be standing my ground and getting the supplier to demonstrate how it complies, and I wouldn't be paying for the hire until it does, but, that's just a personal thing.  I'm not sure how that would stack up in court.

The next thing is that to supply equipment that does not meet the requirements of the Machinery Directive is a criminal offence, so I might be tempted to mention this.

John,

Now, I've read your messages again and in a little more detail than those one of the other threads!  Oops, Doh!

IMHO, if the machine is later than the date of implementation of the MD, then it must comply, regardless of subsequent re-deployment.

There are no legal grounds for reducing the safety levels of the compliance of a piece of equipment under the MD.

So, to be legal, the equipment must have complied originally with the MD, if not, then upon subsequent deployment it then must comply, just because it didn’t comply originally is not an excuse for it not complying subsequently.

Also, there is no excuse, nor means to justify, nor implement downgrading of the safety systems below that of those required for compliance.

Thus the machine must comply upon original supply, and thus must comply upon subsequent supply, because there is no such thing as subsequent supply, once it has been placed on the market in the EU it has been placed on the market, thus it MUST comply.

Even if it is exported for modifications or repair then it MUST comply upon re-import.

I hope that I have read this bit in your OP right so far!

I fail to see how the supplier can refuse a DoC.

As I have already said, refuse payment until they comply with their statute law duty.

Surely the supply contract requires compliance with statute law?

Next, does the suppliers “recommended” method comply with the requirements of the WAH directive?...

Now does the “CE” plate, i.e. the machinery plate carry all of the required information?

How can the machine be installed and commissioned without the O&M manuals?

How can the machine be safely used without the O&M manuals?

Basically, they are way off compliance with their statute law duty.