Rank: New forum user 
|
Hi all, Have received a quote for a service contract to be introduced on a Internal grinding machine that we have on site. They (and I wont name names here) have said that there is a legal requirement to replace the windows to the enclosure after 2 years, so have added to the quotation a set of windows as spares requirements. This seemed a tad strange to me, as surely the manufacturer (who is the company offering the service) would use hardened/reinforced glass or composite that is strong enough to withstand a wheel breakage to begin with, so why would it need to be changed bi-annually? Searching through HSE guidance and PUWER related documents online, I cannot see any mention as to why this is the case. Anyone ever come across this and able to point me in the direction of where there is a regulation stipulating this? For as far as I can tell, this is a preferred method of servicing a machine by the company, but in no way a LEGAL REQUIREMENT. Would just like to be sure before proceeding. Thanks in advance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
Off the top of my head I think the requirement is that you need to be able to see through the glass but I do not believe there is any specific time stamp on it. If you don't use one wheel more than once a year then it's hardly going to need changing every 2 years.
Why don't you get them to show you where that requirement is written in Law. That would be interesting .....
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Rubbish advice you have been given.
PUWER requires you to maintain machinery so as to be safe. I would imaging the window (guard?) will get dirty over time, so the job being worked on can't easily be seen. If the window can't be cleaned then it will likely need replacing eventually. Although its very typical to see such guards to be so contaminated/dirty as to be useless from the vision point of view.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: New forum user
|
Originally Posted by: Ian Bell2  I would imaging the window (guard?)
Yes the guard enclosure.
@hilary - Thats what I planned on doing, but they took that long to send me the quote to begin with, I didnt think they would rush to tell me exactly why we needed these spares.... especially when it seems they could be making an interpretation of the PUWER regs to sell parts!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
In fairness, besides visibility aspects, it is likely that polycarbonate and similar material will degrade over time due to UV and other exposures and it may well be that this replacement cycle is and industry norm or a stipulation of the OEM? IT isn't stretching things too far to suggest that maintenance in accordance with the OM ensures compliance with PUWER?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
The issues are both visibility, and yes, the deterioration of the material.
The company is correct in that they cannot guarantee the integrity of the guard material after typically two years.
The typical soluble oil coolants used will attack the polymer windows and potentially compromise their integrity.
Therefore, the accepted rule is that to guarantee the integrity the guard panels need periodically replacing.
The accepted timescale is two years.
As the machinery OEM they are sticking rigidly to the guidance to limit their liability.
|
 1 user thanked paul.skyrme for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
I was working on the prospect of guard panel deterioration for a client, and I had to find the original source so I tracked it down and the link to the 2 year life originates from here: http://www.dguv.de/medien/fb-holzundmetall/publikationen-dokumente/infoblaetter/infobl_englisch/040_protectivevisonpanels.pdf
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.