Welcome Guest! The IOSH forums are a free resource to both members and non-members. Login or register to use them

Postings made by forum users are personal opinions. IOSH is not responsible for the content or accuracy of any of the information contained in forum postings. Please carefully consider any advice you receive.

Notification

Icon
Error

Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
Wozza.s  
#1 Posted : 19 August 2020 13:38:44(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Wozza.s

Hello all

We have an old chop saw and the guard doesn't fully cover the blade, it covers to the centre spindle and a nose guard covers the front part but the bottom of the blade is exposed when the saw is stopped and in the upright position.

Is it a legal requirement to have the blade fully covered with a spring-loaded guard etc., or just best practice?

I'm aware that under PUWER you have to prevent access to the dangerous parts of the machine with guards etc, but I need a specific answer in relation to how much of the blade needs to be covered to put in a report for my boss, ideally I would like to show him where it is documented.

Thanks in advance for any help and guidance.

Kind regards,

Warren

RVThompson  
#2 Posted : 19 August 2020 13:49:37(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
RVThompson

Hi Warren,

although I don't have any experience of these saws, this link might help.

Wozza.s  
#3 Posted : 19 August 2020 14:15:57(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Wozza.s

Hi

Thank you for the link I've looked at wis36 and it says the following for chop saws :

"There is no access to the cutting part of the blade due to the self-closing guard. When the unit is lowered, this guard will retract to allow the cut. The guard will be locked in the closed position, with a release control on the operator's handled". I agree with all this but it doesnt say anything about retro fitting guards to old saws.

I need to find legislation/directive to show where this guidance came from if that makes sense? so I can say in my report unless we fit a self-closing guard we should not use this saw.

I might be missing something here, so any further clarification would be greatly appreciated.

Kind regards,

Warren

RVThompson  
#4 Posted : 19 August 2020 14:40:52(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
RVThompson

What would be the cost to retrofit the saw with a suitable guard?

You could quote the PUWER hierarchy of control with respect to guarding dangerous parts of machinery, and then explaining if nothing is done, the company will be exposed to prosecution if someone has a serious accident which is surely foreseeable?

chris42  
#5 Posted : 19 August 2020 16:11:03(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
chris42

I think rather than go down the legislation route as it can be hard to prove something is not true that you try a different route. I’m sure if you go and look at the machine in use (you may have already done this), that the blade will take some time to come to a stop. Therefore, once the cut has finished, the blade will be raised and it will still be going around. The operator will then pick up the pieces cut with their hands in the danger zone, when the blade is still spinning! There is no amount of training you can give to prevent this; therefore, it is unsafe in my view. However careful an operator is they can be distracted (someone calling them, loud noise etc)

Please don’t get me wrong as I like old tools and hate waste. I also consider myself practical and the cost of designing a guard and taking responsibility of the design, then making a guard, would probably cost more than buying a new compliant one. However, it is up to you to do the maths.

Chris

thanks 1 user thanked chris42 for this useful post.
George_Young on 20/08/2020(UTC)
Wozza.s  
#6 Posted : 19 August 2020 17:40:13(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Wozza.s

I thought there might something stating it was a legal requirement to have the blade fully covered etc., that I'd missed. if there isn't,I will use the control measures in PUWER you've pointed out for me. Thank you so much for your help. Stay safe. Regards Warren
Wozza.s  
#7 Posted : 19 August 2020 17:44:41(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Wozza.s

I thought there might something stating it was a legal requirement to have the blade fully covered etc., that I'd missed. if there isn't,I will use the control measures in PUWER you've pointed out for me. Thank you so much for your help. Stay safe. Regards Warren
Wozza.s  
#8 Posted : 19 August 2020 17:50:57(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Wozza.s

I thought there might something stating it was a legal requirement to have the blade fully covered etc., that I'd missed. if there isn't,I will use the control measures in PUWER you've pointed out for me. Thank you so much for your help. Stay safe. Regards Warren
Ian Bell2  
#9 Posted : 19 August 2020 18:10:10(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Ian Bell2

While the comments about the legal argument are noted, nevertheless it should be noted that guarding of machinery is covered by the term 'practicable' NOT 'reasonably practicable' i.e. a higher standard, if something can be done from the technica point of view then it should.

How old is this saw? Is it CE marked under the Machinery Directive?

chris42  
#10 Posted : 19 August 2020 19:27:15(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
chris42

Originally Posted by: Ian Bell2 Go to Quoted Post

How old is this saw? Is it CE marked under the Machinery Directive?

And when did your company buy it ?

If you answer both questions then you may get the legal answer you wanted.

Chris

paul.skyrme  
#11 Posted : 19 August 2020 20:18:22(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
paul.skyrme

Is it a chop saw or a radial arm saw? The reason I ask is because you use the term nose guard, that would be common on a radial arm saw, but unusual on a chop saw. There can be differing approaches to achieveing compliance with old equipment. What is the stop time of the blade?
Wozza.s  
#12 Posted : 20 August 2020 06:02:55(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Wozza.s

Good morning all,

It’s not a radial saw. The nose guard is a triangular piece of Perspex which covers the front section of the blade and requires the operator to put it in place after each cut. (The operators don’t do this because it slows the job down, so it gets left in the up position.) The saw pre-dates CE marking. The stop time is under 10 seconds.

Regards,

Warren

Acorns  
#13 Posted : 20 August 2020 07:24:29(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Acorns

We kinda know the answer really, if it is how I visualise the saw from your description and I saw it for the first time as part of an audit/ inspection/ RA, it sounds like an exposed saw blade that workers can easily access (serious injury) and that blade can, with minimal effort or cost be made safer.   could we really defend that we have taken much effort, let alone reasonably practicable / practicable efforts to make it safe.   taht there sounds like there is some form of safety guard available and is habitually ignored by workers aggravates the problem rather than proving it is safe to use.   

Wozza.s  
#14 Posted : 20 August 2020 08:40:35(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Wozza.s

Again, thanks for all the help,

I'm a little clearer on what I need to put in my report.

Kind regards

Warren

chris42  
#15 Posted : 20 August 2020 08:46:23(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
chris42

I asked about when your company purchased it as this could have an effect on whether or not it needs to meet the Supply of Machinery (safety) Regulations.

However from the HSE web page https://www.hse.gov.uk/work-equipment-machinery/second-hand-products.htm

Older equipment, including equipment that did not require CE marking, should be supplied in a safe condition and in some cases this may require additions to what was originally provided. The required standard for safety (ie what is reasonably practicable) can be guided by standards relevant to the product.  For example, old non-CE marked machinery (pre 1995) should, where reasonably practicable, meet the requirements of PD 5304:2005 Guidance on the safe use of machinery (available from BSI) which contains the text of the last British Standard on the safety of machinery which would have applied to such pre 1995 machinery.

 

I think you have the same concern as us otherwise you would not be asking the question.

Chris

stevedm  
#16 Posted : 20 August 2020 09:35:20(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
stevedm

Originally Posted by: Wozza.s Go to Quoted Post
I thought there might something stating it was a legal requirement to have the blade fully covered etc., that I'd missed. if there isn't,I will use the control measures in PUWER you've pointed out for me. Warren

You won't find legislation as the requirements is driven from case law..  I can't add the links at the moment

stevedm  
#17 Posted : 20 August 2020 09:49:59(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
stevedm

sorry defined by case law ...sorry first break of the morning and not enough coffee..  :)

thanks 1 user thanked stevedm for this useful post.
RVThompson on 20/08/2020(UTC)
Wozza.s  
#18 Posted : 20 August 2020 10:14:41(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Wozza.s

Hello,

If you can add the link for the case law that would be great.

You'd think the legislation on something that causes a significant number of a serious accident would be easy to interpret with clear guidance and instruction on what's required. it's never the case with British Health and Safety it always seems ambiguous to me!

Thank you for all the help.

Regards,

Warren

Acorns  
#19 Posted : 20 August 2020 10:44:31(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Acorns

Originally Posted by: Wozza.s Go to Quoted Post
You'd think the legislation on something that causes a significant number of a serious accident would be easy to interpret with clear guidance and instruction on what's required. it's never the case with British Health and Safety it always seems ambiguous to me!

Think how difficult and dated legislation could be is they were more precise, how could legislation cope with even the slight difficult on earlier posts berween a chop saw and radial saw.   Where you really hit the nail on the head is there is lots of guidance and instruction, its just that some folks insist there is a piece of law that supports each tiny detail in the hope it helps/negate their particular view.  You and we have already agreed it could cause serious injury, there is/was a mechanism in place to reduce exposure of the blade teeth which isn't being used.  

Rather than legislation to prove why it must be there, why not try the reverse, is there any legislation that countermands the overall H&S legislation idea that would legally say its acceptable to ignore the safety mechanisms, accept the high opportunity for serious injury and contiune to use it.  That to my mind is where you may have to look if trying to defend its contiuned use in its current format.

peter gotch  
#20 Posted : 20 August 2020 10:46:44(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
peter gotch

Warren

Almost all the relevant case law is very old and the following assumes that you are in the UK or in a geography where old British case law will be authoritative.

Until relatively recently i.e. the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations, almost all dangerous machinery in a factory setting was subject to what is traditionally described as "strict liability".

Factories Act 1961 (restating earlier legislation) "Every dangerous part of machinery shall be secured fenced".

That you can't use it if securely fenced, tough -  LOTS of case law including John Summers & Sons Ltd v Frost 1955. Some touches on what is a "dangerous part of machinery".

With one exception, the Woodworking Machinery Regulations 1922, consolidated into the 1974 Regulations of the same name. Those applies a standard of doing what is "practicable" to reduce risk, carried over largely into PUWER.

"Practicable" is a much more stringent threshold than "reasonably practicable". Essentially requires what is possible "in the light of current knowledge and invention".

LOTS of case law on this as well, including Adsett v K & L Steefounders & Engineers Ltd 1953

PUWER is largely based on what was in the Factories Act 1961 before but occasionally introducing requirements to consider what is "reasonably practicable".

Then as you probably know it is about balancing risk against cost (in time, money and hassle). Then deciding whether you want to apply a disprortionality test , or a grossly disportionality test. In terms of case law this is the contrast between the judgment in Edwards v National Coal Board 1949 and Marshall v Gotham Co Ltd 1954, the latter in a higher court which chose to ignore the word "grossly".

I think that you probably answered your own question and others have served to reinforce your answer.

In terms of a report to your bosses there is no legal get out - at the very minimum what should be a self-adjusting section of guard needs to do what it is supposed to do, without workers needing to put themselves at risk trying to adjust it (and perhaps unsurprisingly being reluctant to do so).

Possibly time to sent the old chop saw to an industrial museum.

thanks 1 user thanked peter gotch for this useful post.
billstrak on 21/08/2020(UTC)
John Elder  
#21 Posted : 20 August 2020 14:26:45(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
John Elder

Peter

I was wondering if it was a metal cutting chop saw or a wood cutting chop saw.

A metal cutting chop saw has either a cutting disc or slower rotating fine toothed cutting blade. if so even today they are usually designed only with a half guard due to the slower rotating blade and faster stopping time along with the smaller/finer tooth profile.

Whereas a wood cutting chop saw has a harsher tooth profile and faster rotating blade and slower stopping time and these have a full guard giving the greater risk when rotating in the raised position due to the longer stopping time.

Edited by user 20 August 2020 14:27:49(UTC)  | Reason: To watch this topic

thanks 1 user thanked John Elder for this useful post.
CptBeaky on 21/08/2020(UTC)
CptBeaky  
#22 Posted : 21 August 2020 07:33:14(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
CptBeaky

I concur with John Elder. Our steel cutting saws are half guarded (also to reduce the build up of water-based metal working fluids). Whilst you most certainly wouldn't want to put your arm in, they are a lot safer than the wood/PVCu (and even aluminium) saws.

That being said, these steel saws also have clamps, ensuring the operator doesn't have to hold the work piece with their hands.

Users browsing this topic
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.