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
Admin  
#1 Posted : 07 July 2006 09:26:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Nicholas Morris We are shortly carrying out some work which involves the purchase of a new item of machinery (not an off-the-shelf standard item, nor is it something that would operate as machinery by itself) which is to be incorporated into existing machinery to create a new assembly.. This has raised the question of CE marking, Declarations of Conformity/ Incorporation etc. We will be using the assembly within our own factory, and have no intention of selling it in the foreseeable future. I have looked into the statutory requirements and guidance and believe the approach to be adopted is as follows, but would welcome any comments/ views please. "As indicated in our earlier meeting, my opinion on what needs to be done with the assembly regarding CE marking and Certificates of Conformity differs from the recommendation of [XXX]. Currently statutory duties are dually (but separately) laid on both manufacturers of machinery for use at work and employers and users of such machinery and equipment, prior compliance, on the part of manufacturers leading to compliance on the part of employers/ users. The EU Machinery Directive (implemented in the UK under the Supply of Machinery (Safety) Regulations 1992) is a so-called "Product Directive", aimed at machinery designers and suppliers to ensure fair competition by eliminating barriers to trade. This legislation requires CE marking and Certificates of Conformity/ Incorporation. Duties of employers are incorporated into the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998. The primary objective is to ensure that work equipment should not result in health and safety risks, regardless of its age, condition or origin. Specifically Regulation 10 requires employers to ensure that work equipment complies with applicable Essential health and Safety Requirements (EHSRs) at the time of first supply or when first put into service. The Regulation also covers the situation where a piece of work equipment is supplied in compliance with relevant supply legislation , but the employer then alters the equipment such that it no longer complies. In this case Regs 11-19 and 22-29 of PUWER can be used to ensure that the employer returns the equipment to a state of safety and compliance (NOT the Supply Regs). Briefly these deal with the hardware aspects of PUWER'98, covering the guarding of dangerous parts of work equipment, the provision of appropriate stop and emergency stop controls, stability, lighting and suitable warning devices. Demonstration of compliance with applicable Standards is required (through the compilation of a technical file), CE marking/ CoCs not. In summary, in my opinion we require CoI from the supplier for the [yyy], we need to demonstrate compliance with applicable Standards for the [zzzzz] assembly, we do not need to CE mark or provide CoC for this."
Admin  
#2 Posted : 07 July 2006 10:17:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By TBC It has always been my interpretation that if the machine or assembly is for use in-house and 'not' for resale - then it doesn't need CE - others may disagree. These two sites may help: www.ce-marking.org/what-is-ce-marking.html http://europa.eu.int/com...ment/machinery/index.htm It's just as simple to self-certify anyway as you need all the docs and engineers reports for other regs Puwer etc. I'll send a simple copy of forms for self-certification direct. Don't spend a lot of money on a consultant. Regards
Admin  
#3 Posted : 07 July 2006 10:26:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By TBC You might want to do a forum search on CE over the past year. Lots of discussion points.
Admin  
#4 Posted : 07 July 2006 10:52:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Robert K Lewis Nicholas Whilst the CE marking requirements are not specifically relevant the real issues are PUWER, Internal standards if any, National and International standards such as BS, BS EN etc, and any other ancillary legal requirements. You look as though you are trying to put together a watertight contract clause. I think you need to merely highlight the generalities and let your contract people formulate a set of wordings that will ensure the installer meets the requirements. If you are installing the machinery yourself then you need to set out a flowchart for the process. I have done this for a number of organisations but it is a task requiring knowledge of the process itself and the information given is too general to allow further assistance. Bob
Admin  
#5 Posted : 07 July 2006 11:26:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By David O'Hara TBC Is it possible you could send me the self cert forms. Thanks very much. David
Admin  
#6 Posted : 07 July 2006 14:36:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Mike Draper Nicholas I think I agree with most of what TBC and Bob have said. Any "new" piece of machinery must be CE marked before it is "supplied". In the UK guidance the term supply is defined to include in-house manufacture and installation, so the regs aren't just aimed at general equipment manufacturers. However, you describe a situation where you are modifying an existing machine. You have two choices, either go through the CE marking route or go through PUWER, but in practice the requirements are not much different. I would suggest that re-doing the CE marking would be appropriate if the changes substantially altered the function of the machine, whereas PUWER would be more appropriate if the function remained largely the same - although this is my own interpretation. I would justify this on the grounds that if the function of the machine were substantially altered then this may challenge the basic structural integrity of the machine - this may require analysis by a suitably qualified engineer. The thing that does wind me up, is when people buy something that is CE marked and will be used within the stated limits, but then insist on doing a review against PUWER regs 11-19 and 22-29. That's just doing the same thing twice. Mike
Users browsing this topic
Guest (2)
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.