apologies if I have mis-understood your scenareo....could you fit a small safety light beam on top of the guard that should access be attempted the light beam will be tripped and stop the equipment?

If the danger zone is reachable as described, then I don't think signage and training alone would be sufficient. IMO you need to explore other guarding alternatives. I don't picture very well what you have but could you not increase the reach distance?

Thanks for your comments
The problem is, is that access is required beyond the guard at specific times whilst running. We have spent a long time looking at this, and have come to the conclusion that it cannot be made any safer, and still able to run.
The nip is not easily accessible, but by leaning over the guard, you are able to just reach it.

I just wondered what your thoughts were in this situation.
Should I refuse the machine to run, or accept guarding & training?

Should he reach the nip, it would certainly be a lost finger, at least. Possibly crushed hand

Looks like there needs to be a balance between allowing 1. "access is required beyond the guard at specific times whilst running" and 2. stopping access to the in running nip!!!!
Can you adjust the distance of the guard from the machine so that 1 can happen but 2 cant?

At the end of the day if you can reach an inrunning nip that can cause injury then you have to prevent access, no amount of risk assessment is going to stop injury being reasonably foreseeable.

I know PUWER is confusing in this respect but if you read it carefully on the matter of guarding you will see that the duty is essentially absolute, deriving as it does from the old FA 1961 duty. Case Law has not changed and it will be extremely dificult to convince a judge that this is a satisfactory situation when somebody is injured.

Bob

Jack
I think that you already have your answer but under pressure to accept the situation.

Ask yourself "when someone has a serious injury with this will you be comfortable when challenged about the standard of guarding by the HSE".

That said we do not understand the m/c or the process.

There are certain m/cs and processes where it is acceptable to allow access to a moving part when the m/c can only "inch" or go at a slow speed eg 20 foot per min but certainly not at normal line speed.
Steve

Sorry, without an image of the machine, its hard to comment. But! Would a separate control box that required to hands to operate and located at a safe distance be acceptable. I can't really grasp why it is necessary to have access beyond the guard and as mentioned earlier the authorities would look pretty hard at what had been done in the event of an accident. I suppose what I am saying is that I doubt notices and training would suffice, could you ask your friendly local HSE Inspector for advice?

Perhaps you could upload some photos of the machine to a site like Flickr and provide links for contributors to view the photos.

I have been reading the comments on here with some interest. I too am going through some PUWER requirements for guarding and can say we have done a lot in this area to prevent injuries. Some are being readdressed for certain areas but all the while ensuring that the operators are not exposed.

That said some of the queries I have had can relate. Such as one area which alteration to the guarding has been suggested to accommodate the area directly beneath the machine to be swept of material from the process. 300mm from the floor has been requested simply to get the head of the broom in and sweep towards them. All the while the machine is running.

I have had queries such as "Someone can lie on the floor and put their arm in and perhaps come into contact with moving parts" or "Someone could lay down and crawl through to get to the moving parts".

Now I can protect the whole thing by have the guard straight to the floor, but following on from Anderson8 surely information, instruction, training etc must come into play too!

Can we apply common sense and if someone wants to defeat a guard they will. But who in their right mind will want to go to those lengths - surely responsibility has to also go to the operators not to put their safety at risk.

That said in this scenario guarding the nip point would be much more beneficial. As suggest a small section of angle or similar to cover the nip point and prevent accidental access to it would seem logical.

quote=Jack Althorpe].......... Would signage, instruction & Training be adequate?

Puwer Reg 11 derives almost directly from the FA 1961 sec. 14 and the duty is absolute and does not even relate to a practicable solution. If a part is dangerous effective measures must be taken. I am sorry to say that you have to ensure the nip is not dangerous or ensure contact cannot be made with the dangerous part. One of my pet problems with PUWER is that the abrasive wheel exemptions particularly were not continued forward. This actually means that technically we are back in the pre 1971 era. The ability to assess risk as set out for reg 12 etc follows once dangerous parts are effectively guarded and abrasive wheels cannot be used where the operative can touch the exposed wheel.

HSE are taking a relaxed view but the case law is established when a wiley unionist sees the oppoortunity in an accident claim

Bob

ITER

The point that is most important, I think, is that the machine has been modified away from the manufactures specifications. In this instance then you have moved away from the practicable argument,
you have taken away the replace the dangerous with less dangerous and switched them round. This is not what the regulations require.
You have come to the realms of regulation 4
(a) its initial integrity;
(b) the place where it will be used; and
(c) the purpose for which it will be used.
If this was considered at the start then adoptions to the guarding would not have been required, or could have been discussed with the manufactures and different arrangements for the guarding of parts made.
if the guard that is in place is not meeting with the requirements of the machine then surly there is no way that you can move further down the hierarchy of controls. I was under the impression that the hierarchy was introduced for "machines of a certain age"

Reading through the posts the only things to add to the above that I can think of are:-
1. What is the age of the machine? If supplied since Jan1993 then it should have a CE mark, and certificate of conformity, meaning it should comply with all the relevant standards and Essential Health and Safety Requirements.

2. Who made it? Is the manufacturer still in business? Can you follow up your problems with them? Following on from above, if the machine is newer than 1992 then the manufacturer should have carried out a risk assessment on it as part of the CE certifcation process. That should have addressed the issue to which you refer. In a nutshell, you may have some recourse to the manufacturer if you believe it's not safe. They should be able to help at least - newer version modifications etc?

3. If the machine is essentially home made, or (more likely) older, then it's more difficult and PUWER98 are the only guidelines you have.

In this case my only suggestion is to get a working party together, made up of engineers, managers and including the operator(s), to try and come up with an imaginative solution that enables the machine to be safely operated but in a way that's compliant with PUWER98.

Hope that helps?

ITER at post 25 - The joys of HSE drafting

bob