Rank: Forum user 
|
We run power presses where I work (600 -700 strokes per min), the uncoiler that feeds the material into the machine has been fitted with guards to prevent access for some years but has not been interlocked. Last week I fitted it with an electrical interlock to the main motor of the press. My thoughts were that as the press can auto restart the uncoiler could not start with the guard open and I am complying with PUWER and CE (removing all sources of power).
I am now under pressure from production to remove this interlock from the power press and to keep it only to the uncoiler as it is causing unnecessary down time. Should I stand my ground or am I being over the top with my interpretation of PUWER and CE as production believes?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Stand your ground.
The basic requirement for machine guarding is to the extent 'practicable' i.e. technically possible.
You have shown the modification is technically possible and reduces the risk - this is what Reg 11 of PUWER demands thatr you do.
DOn't know anything about you machine/situation - but this approach is the principal to be adopted.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Depending on what type it is - the interlock may not be sufficient on its own. Can the guard be opened when the machine has been started? I.e. during the action of the flywheel? If the interlock only isolates electrically then the momentum of the machine means that you can open the guard and still get injured.
The best guard is one that requires a spanner to open it. Better still use a closed tool if possible and ensure there is little or no gap. Otherwise, the guard is most definitley required and would result in a PN from an inspector - or a prosecution if someone is injured.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Stick to you guns - I would. It sounds as if does need the interlock
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
Elwood
it is impossible for anyone to make a judgement on this with so little information and would need a lengthy explaination of the operation of the line, who is involved?, who is at risk?, what risk?.
How is the person inside the uncoiler at risk serios injury from an automatic operation of the press.?
Who else could be at risk?
You maybe right to "stick to your guns", then again there maybe an alternative way of achieving your goals.
The solution will probably come from the operators, engineer, and yourself working together.
Steve
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Thank you all for your help.
I did not back down and after all the claims of ‘huge amounts of down time’ because of this modification proved to be exaggerated, the modification has been accepted.
The main issue was that the guard could not be opened when everything was in motion (exchange key system) and when I asked for someone to put it in writing that we must abandon this safe practice and return to a previous unsafe system on the grounds of saving 15mins per day, strangely enough no one want to put their name to it. I am now converting all the presses to this system.
Once again, thank you all for your help.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.