Hi

I have recently done some risk assessments and safe sytems of work for the exact same equipment. We have a few of these machines throughout our business.

I personally do not beleive any type of PPE is needed to operate it. The risk of any type of injury using this kit is pretty minimal.

Biggest hazard for me is manual handling related (changing the large strap reel) :)

I did view the manaufacturers operators handbook and talk to the oepratives when carrying out the assessment. The handbook doesnt mention PPE either. 

Originally Posted by: Richard#

Thanks - when you look in the manuafacturer handbook it does say that the use of the requipment must comply with 'current laws'.  that said I interpret that as requiring a risk assessment.  I have to say that if there is a fast moving object (plastic strap) flying in front of me (without a guard) it needs PPE?

I dont know to be honest, from memory there is quite a bit of safety related info in the book though. In terms of risk assessment we always carry them out where we have mechanical work equipment. We do alot of print finishing so typically cover off  paper guillotines and drills, booklet makers and trimmers, large scale print equipment such as Kerns, large scale automatic scanners etc etc

In terms of the strapper I just dont see the risk, you have to manually bring the strap over the box, insert it strapping channel and then it automatically tensions, straps and cuts. Ive never seen an auto strapper that has flying object as you put it.

Maybe your model of strapper is different? 

If it is an auto spool bander then it should be behind interlocked distance guarding - boxes entering and exiting the hazard area by conveyor.

The other banders I have experienced have been similar to Stonecold with a manual feed.

In other instances - metal strapping, mechanical hand held tensioners then yes the RA stated impact resistant eye-wear given the proximity of the operative

So starting off with the fact this is a US supplier based in Ohio if you are a UK based operation did you specify it must meet CE marking "Machinery" requirements?

Unfortunately engineers & production staff only look at whether the machine does the task, not if it does the tsak safely and in accordane with applicable local regulation.

The US does not have the same rules as us for machinery

It was probably purchased as being cheaper than a European suppliers model - by comparing apples with oranges

Separately there are safety glasses and there are safety glasses - pay pence per pair and you get poor optics

Worse still let purchasing buy super cheap and you have a moulded product bearing the standard references but no testing or evidence it actually meets the requirements

It must only be necessary for users to wear PPE to control residual hazards that it is impossible to control by engineering means.

If, your equipment requires the user to wear PPE then there are residual risks that have been impossible to address.  Your PUWER assessment should have highlighted these and any non-compliance with the requirements of the Supply of Machinery Safety Regulations (Reg 10).

If the hazards that require PPE can be engineered out, then the machinery is not compliant with the SMSR, and you need to address this under PUWER, or go back to the OEM.

Link to a web site offering operating manuals for a different packing machine supplier where I think from the user name Sanjay may be employed

Originally Posted by: A Kurdziel

I have notice a lot of these resurrected threads recently (Monica take a bow) and we seem to be the target of a low level insurgency campaign. What can be done about this?

Don’t knock it, the spammers are pretty much the only ones using the forum at the moment.

IOSH are considering a competency framework for them: -

Communicating effectively, Active listening, Self-awareness, commercial mind set, collaboration, personal responsibilities and accountabilities, self-motivation and discipline, Prioritising work, driven by results, innovation and creativity…..

And those are just the ones from section 9 to 12