Rank: Guest 
|
Posted By John A Wright
During a programme of risk assessments and PUWER assessments at a customer I have found a process which I regard as unsafe. I'd like to know if others share my conclusions.
The process is a manually-operated cutting operation, on a table with cutting tools (one is a circular saw, the other an angle-grinder used with a cutting blade). The tools were originally hand-held models with a "dead-man's" switch - you have to hold the switch in the on-postion to cut, release it and the saw stops. But in this operation the engineers have mounted the cutting machines just above the table and have over-ridden the dead-man's switches with a plastic strap so that the blades are continually running while the operator moves the sheets to be cut. The blades are only 50% guarded.
I've said to the engineers that I regard the set up as a deliberate over-riding of a safety device and that this does not comply with HaSAWA section 8 "it is an offence for anyone to intentionally .... interfere with ... anything provided in the interests of health and safety....". I've also suggested that management knowledge of this operation could be regarded as 'connivance'.
As well as not protecting the operator from the dangerous blades, other PUWER issues include NO emergency stop, cut-off material drops to the floor where the operator walks/pushes the saw, no warnings posted or written instruction warning about the danger of the over-ridden switch.
I'm sure I'm correct about the PUWER issues but am I correct in saying a safety device has been intentionally interfered with?
John W
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By jayjay
Hi John !
You're dead right in what you've informed the maintenance dept and Management. The equipment is not being used what it was intended for and also there's no emergency stop button fitted. You can also mention training ( Abrasive Wheels) under PUWER 98. Tell them that you don't want them to use it anymore and that purchasing the correct type of equipment would be cheaper in the long run than a serious fine for breaching H & S Legislation.
Regards JJ
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By martin gray1
Hi John
They should cut the plug off it and hang a dangerous machine out of order sign on it, then dump it. If someone has an accident they will see the real cost of this machine in pain suffering and legal costs.
Tell them to invest in the correct machinery it will be far cheaper than the above happening and put it in writing.
Regards
MG
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Dave Wilson
This is a flagrant disregard for statute law and the HSE WILL serve notice and prosecute if they find out!
Your management could also be held 'personally' liable as they know and have done nothing.
This machine should be IMMEDIATELY taken out of service until it is functioning as it should and DO NOT TAKE NO for an answer!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Darren (Daz) Fraser
John
From your post I read it that you are a consultant employed by this company to advise them as the competent person.
You have provided the correct advice. I would strongly recommend documenting this into any final report for the company management, highlighting the breaches of the relevant legislation, advise any control measures (as previously mentioned, discard and replace with correct equipment etc), maybe a training programme for engineers on PUWER etc, and keep your own copy of the report.
When you provide the report, get a receipt to show that the report was provided, it is then upto the management to read and decide what, if any of your recommendations they will implement.
By your post you have done all that is reasonable, and I cannot see what else you could do, that does not involve a phone call to the local HSE Inspectorate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Seamus O Sullivan
you are correct
seamus
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By David Bannister
John, I agree with Darren.
As a consultant you have been engaged to provide advice and assistance with legal compliance. This you appear to have done.
Ensure you have informed the management of your findings, made very clear your advice and why you are giving the particular advice. If your client then decides to ignore your advice he will have to accept any consequences. It happens to consultants all the time, even the good 'uns. Make sure that you retain a good documentary record, just in case.
If you discover a situation of serious and imminent danger that is being ignored then in my opinion the rules change. There is then a moral dilemma that has been previously discussed on this forum.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By John A Wright
Thanks for all the responses which seem to support my conclusions.
Whenever I find unsafe conditions, or unsafe acts that are not acted upon, I issue an Advisory Note to my customers. These are deliberately written in the same kind of language which I think is still used in an HSE enforcement, and really going to town with this one which starts off:
You, (customer name), are contravening one or more of the following statutory provisions:
Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 Section 2 (1) and Section 8;
Management of Health and Safety at Work Act (1999);
Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations (1998) (PUWER) Regulations 4, 8, 11, 12, 16, 23 and 24
The reasons for my said opinion are:
That suitable and effective measures have not been taken to prevent persons from injury from the foreseeable inherent health and safety risks in the use of the identified equipment.
In particular, ...... and so on.
Written in this kind of language and detail on my headed paper gets the message across, and the note requires the signature from the operations manager. I like these notes to go on to directors.
In this case they have stopped the job (but not 'cut the wires'). It's not a process-essential job, just an off-line job where they re-work or recover damaged stock and make it into saleable pieces. Nice little earner :o|
I'll just add that discussions with engineers did go on for a few days. "We've never had an accident with it", "It wouldn't cause an amputation" sort of responses. I dealt with that by bringing in two pig's trotters and getting them to use their engineering skills to mimic an accident.
Although the blades are not 'sharp' they are diamond-saw type. The saw, which has notches/teeth, sliced through the pig with minimal pressure. The angle grinder needed some pressure but not much and if the operator slipped while pulling the angle grinder the accident could happen.
I have said to them that an HSE officer would issue a prohibition, I'll mention also the thought from one response above that they could even be prosecuted, presumably for over-riding the dead-man's switch (what one engineer called it, apt name eh?).
The job is top of a list of high-risk activities to be discussed fully in a few days.
Thank you all,
John W
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.