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
O'Donnell54548  
#1 Posted : 03 March 2022 11:39:35(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
O'Donnell54548

Hi All, 

I am looking for someone to carryout a machinery guarding audit in my place of work. It is a SME, 100+ Employees, based in Ashbourne, Derbyshire. The company manufactures finished webbing solutions for commercial and industrial applications. 

If you have the necessarry knowledge/experience to complete such an audit could you please PM me with relevant back ground and contact details.

Thank you

peter gotch  
#2 Posted : 03 March 2022 14:22:22(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
peter gotch

Hi O'Donnell

I am NOT in the market but this is the sort of stuff that I cut my teeth on as a trainee HSE Inspector long time ago. The top man in Aston Uni's health and safety department is on record as having realised that new Inspectors going through a 6 month Diploma often knew more about machinery guarding than those who were lecturing them on the topic!

I think that you might save some money by going direct to a reputable guarding supplier and asking them to draw up a shopping list. OK they might charge you for doing this, but if you then to go out to tender to say 3 potential suppliers, the one who has done the audit is well placed to undercut the opposition.

Somebody like Proctor?

The risk with asking a health and safety consultant to do this is that few these days have the level of industrial experience that those designing and fitting guards do when this is their daily bread.

So, as example, you will have lots of inrunning nips. The H&S consultant will probably say fit a fixed guard which might be an angle immediately in front of the nip or might be a fixed or interlocked tunnel guard. The guarding manufacturer should know which is the better option for your application and specify the parameters for what is to be supplied. I would have to look up what the relevant BS EN standard says about the dimensions, whereas the guarding supplier will have those built into their Computer Aided Design software.

If you were to get in a guard supplier to do the specimen design (and thence contract specification) they may try to overegg the pudding but then will lose the bigger contract as others will point to cheaper yet effective solutions, which means that there is no incentive to overegg the pudding (as long as they know that at best they will be the preferred tenderer for the expensive work, assuming that you provide for tenderers to include for alternatives to the outline specification).

Now I am going to duck all the outrage from H&S consultants!!

Good luck, Peter

thanks 3 users thanked peter gotch for this useful post.
A Kurdziel on 04/03/2022(UTC), MikeKelly on 04/03/2022(UTC), ttxela on 04/03/2022(UTC)
Ian Bell2  
#3 Posted : 03 March 2022 19:36:07(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Ian Bell2

Hi O'Donnell

I've sent you a personal message

I should be able to help you out, should you be interested

Holliday42333  
#4 Posted : 04 March 2022 09:01:14(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Holliday42333

I'm sort of with Peter on this.  Some H&S Consultants MAY have the right skills for this work but actually this is more suited to machinery engineers as they can advise on the actual guard rather than that guarding is required (if that makes sense).

There are a number of engineering businesses out there who do machinery and guarding assessments who, in my experience are far more competent to complete this kind of work.

In the interim, the best piece of advice I have ever been given (by a machinery engineer) about how to assess where you have areas that need a guard is to use the 'rule of spoon'.  Imagine holding a standard 6" wooden spoon by the bulb end.  If to can identify points in machinery that would trap or crush the handle end of the spoon then it needs a guard of some kind.  As Peter says, then engineers or guarding designers are best placed to identify the most appropriate guard for the duty.

thanks 1 user thanked Holliday42333 for this useful post.
A Kurdziel on 04/03/2022(UTC)
Ian Bell2  
#5 Posted : 04 March 2022 10:19:04(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Ian Bell2

Sorry I think this advice is twaddle.

There are recognised standards for assessing machinery risks and the design of guards as a minimum for Type A standards BS12100 and for a machinery risk assessment ISO TR 14121.

If new machinery and CE marking (or UKCA) now we have left the EU there maybe further specific design standards depending on what the machine is/purpose of the machine Type A, B1, B2 or C type standards.

For complex machinery - would require a full design specification to be developed i.e. possible mechanical considerations and if moving guards how they integrate with any sensors and software that control the overall operation of the machine. Hence a team of engineers (mechanical, electrical, software) is usually required, rather than just a single engineer.

A 'first pass' PUWER assessment can at least start to identify what machinery risks are present on exisiting machinery, so they still have there place in the overall design development.

For new machinery you might want to do a design FMEA study to further quantify/identify the machniery risks.

So your comments are noted about the difference between h&s consultants and engineers are understood - I have always considered myself to be an engineer who understands safety, rather than just a safety consultant

peter gotch  
#6 Posted : 04 March 2022 11:03:38(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
peter gotch

Ian, I would agree with you that a first pass might be prudent if this company was much larger.

But it's an SME with about 100 workers (not all of whom will be working on dangerous machinery).

So, what O'Donnell needs is a specification for perhaps no more than 30 machines that need improvement - I assume that some would "pass" an audit as I have NEVER been a factory where every single machine needs attention.

P

Edited by user 04 March 2022 11:05:18(UTC)  | Reason: A few words to clarify

Roundtuit  
#7 Posted : 04 March 2022 11:29:05(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

Originally Posted by: Holliday42333 Go to Quoted Post
Imagine holding a standard 6" wooden spoon by the bulb end to identify points in machinery that would trap or crush the handle end of the spoon then it needs a guard of some kind.

What is a 6" spoon - overall length (4" handle plus 2" bowl) or a 6" handle plus bowl?

Pretty sure for the actual standards a 6" wooden handle spoon @ 1/2" in diameter would fail to be sufficient - you have to account for the variety in the potential workforce and not just the average european adult male.

Roundtuit  
#8 Posted : 04 March 2022 11:29:05(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

Originally Posted by: Holliday42333 Go to Quoted Post
Imagine holding a standard 6" wooden spoon by the bulb end to identify points in machinery that would trap or crush the handle end of the spoon then it needs a guard of some kind.

What is a 6" spoon - overall length (4" handle plus 2" bowl) or a 6" handle plus bowl?

Pretty sure for the actual standards a 6" wooden handle spoon @ 1/2" in diameter would fail to be sufficient - you have to account for the variety in the potential workforce and not just the average european adult male.

Ian Bell2  
#9 Posted : 04 March 2022 12:38:54(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Ian Bell2

At least by doing a 1st pass PUWER assessment you can't start to identify what the guarding issues are and how the PUWER Reg 11 guarding hierarchy might be satisfied - fixed guarding, moveable/adjustable guards. jigs and fixture, training etc.

One of the usual problems with designing guarding for old/existing machines is that there is often difficult/no anchoring point for retro-fitting new guards as to where the guard might be fixed to on the machine.

For standard machine tools such as lathes etc, such guards can more or less be bought off the shelf from the likes of Proctor - as already mentioned.

Holliday42333  
#10 Posted : 04 March 2022 13:00:42(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Holliday42333

Originally Posted by: Roundtuit Go to Quoted Post

Originally Posted by: Holliday42333 Go to Quoted Post
Imagine holding a standard 6" wooden spoon by the bulb end to identify points in machinery that would trap or crush the handle end of the spoon then it needs a guard of some kind.

What is a 6" spoon - overall length (4" handle plus 2" bowl) or a 6" handle plus bowl?

Pretty sure for the actual standards a 6" wooden handle spoon @ 1/2" in diameter would fail to be sufficient - you have to account for the variety in the potential workforce and not just the average european adult male.

6" overall length.  You are absolutely right that this rule of thumb (or spoon) may not be anthropometrically accurate for the workforce or meet the mm specific engineering standards.

However its a good pareto method for a first pass to see how much of a problem there is.  Are there a few relatively simple nip/crush points that could be dealt with by a guarding supplier (such as Proctor) or more of a larger/complex problem that would best be served by engaging a more specialist engineering practice (such as Conformance)?

It is also a very effective way to explain to the holders of the purse strings why their expensive machinery that was a great deal from Europe, the far east or even the UK now needs a whole heap more money spending on it for guarding.  In my experience, quoting from ISO standards doesn't help with this visualisation and buy in.

Edited by user 04 March 2022 13:09:07(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

Roundtuit  
#11 Posted : 04 March 2022 15:36:49(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

Normally between un-packing and service conection is a great opportunity to walk around the new toy with its proud owner (they invariably show up at delivery and lose interest during comissioning) asking them to place their hands in the various available openings with "now imagine if this were powered up and running".

If it has been correctly purchased guarding would have been adressed throughout design & build with confirmation at the pre-shipment inspection, sadly that is not where the OP finds themself.

Back to the wooden spoon - power off - last thing you need is a timber projectile ejected from the machine

Roundtuit  
#12 Posted : 04 March 2022 15:36:49(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

Normally between un-packing and service conection is a great opportunity to walk around the new toy with its proud owner (they invariably show up at delivery and lose interest during comissioning) asking them to place their hands in the various available openings with "now imagine if this were powered up and running".

If it has been correctly purchased guarding would have been adressed throughout design & build with confirmation at the pre-shipment inspection, sadly that is not where the OP finds themself.

Back to the wooden spoon - power off - last thing you need is a timber projectile ejected from the machine

Ian Bell2  
#13 Posted : 04 March 2022 19:47:45(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Ian Bell2

Sorry I continue to think the wooden spoon advice is nonsense.

If you make either a new machine or make significant changes to an existing machine then you will be required to CE/UKCA mark the machine. At which point it is necessary to identify and confirm which engineering safety standards you have used for your design and are claiming the machine complies with.

Even for existing machines that don't have significance changes made, there are still lots of machines where more consideration needs to be given than the wooden spoon test.

It is necessary to identify the dangerous parts of the machine.

The consequence of contact with the dangerous parts.

Frequency of access into the danger area

Probability of contact with a dangerous part

Potential to avoid contact.

Holliday42333  
#14 Posted : 07 March 2022 08:53:46(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Holliday42333

OK, you win.  I'll stop using a 20+ year sucessful visualisation (no actual spoons are ever used) tool to engage stakeholders at first pass.

I'll instead start slapping down the [insert large number] page BS(EN) standard on their desk and telling them to read it in detail if they want to understand why specialist help is required.

I can't help but wonder if the specialist consultants required will get more or less work with this approach.

thanks 1 user thanked Holliday42333 for this useful post.
peter gotch on 07/03/2022(UTC)
Kate  
#15 Posted : 07 March 2022 10:57:40(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Kate

I'm disappointed to learn that no actual spoons are ever used.

Private Eye runs a regular piece called "Me and My Spoon" in which they pretend to interview a celebrity about spoons.  The first question is usually "Do you have a favourite spoon?" and the last one, "Has anything amusing ever happened to you in connection with a spoon?"

I don't think they have ever covered the use of wooden spoons to assess the safety of machinery ...

thanks 1 user thanked Kate for this useful post.
peter gotch on 07/03/2022(UTC)
peter gotch  
#16 Posted : 07 March 2022 11:06:55(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
peter gotch

I've been using not the same but a similar visualisation for 40 years as that "first pass".

When I joined HSE the tables in BS5304 had recently been updated.

Might be an urban myth but I was told that they had found that the previous tables had been largely based on anthropometrics for white males and didn't work when it came to women with long, slim fingers, and the example was given of Asian women in textiles factories in Leicester.

I don't think I have ever set foot in Leicester, but by coincidence it's near IOSH HQ [which I have visited].

thanks 1 user thanked peter gotch for this useful post.
MikeKelly on 07/03/2022(UTC)
Ian Bell2  
#17 Posted : 07 March 2022 13:35:12(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Ian Bell2

#14 You can of course explain to you company management what action  needs to be taken in whatever manner you so wish in terms of safety improvements to machinery.

So there is no intention to slap anybody down. I am briefly outlining what safety law applies and how compliance can be apporached. Its not my opinion, its a legal requirement.

However, the advice still stands, if after doing your guarding or PUWER audit or whatever you wish to call it - you have identified a requirement to make a substantial change to an existing machine then it will likely require (unless it an excluded item of machinery) to be CE/UKCA marked. In which case, as previously outlined it is necessary to identify which standards you are claiming compliance with.

Supply of Machinery Regs apply

As noted in the real world it can be very difficult to get modern safety standards to 'work' on old/existing machinery - if you end up going down that route. The HSE guidance on the application of UKCA/CE marking to modified existing is pretty poor.

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.