Hello all

We have an old chop saw and the guard doesn't fully cover the blade, it covers to the centre spindle and a nose guard covers the front part but the bottom of the blade is exposed when the saw is stopped and in the upright position.

Is it a legal requirement to have the blade fully covered with a spring-loaded guard etc., or just best practice?

I'm aware that under PUWER you have to prevent access to the dangerous parts of the machine with guards etc, but I need a specific answer in relation to how much of the blade needs to be covered to put in a report for my boss, ideally I would like to show him where it is documented.

Thanks in advance for any help and guidance.

Kind regards,

Warren

Hi

Thank you for the link I've looked at wis36 and it says the following for chop saws :

"There is no access to the cutting part of the blade due to the self-closing guard. When the unit is lowered, this guard will retract to allow the cut. The guard will be locked in the closed position, with a release control on the operator's handled". I agree with all this but it doesnt say anything about retro fitting guards to old saws.

I need to find legislation/directive to show where this guidance came from if that makes sense? so I can say in my report unless we fit a self-closing guard we should not use this saw.

I might be missing something here, so any further clarification would be greatly appreciated.

Kind regards,

Warren

I think rather than go down the legislation route as it can be hard to prove something is not true that you try a different route. I’m sure if you go and look at the machine in use (you may have already done this), that the blade will take some time to come to a stop. Therefore, once the cut has finished, the blade will be raised and it will still be going around. The operator will then pick up the pieces cut with their hands in the danger zone, when the blade is still spinning! There is no amount of training you can give to prevent this; therefore, it is unsafe in my view. However careful an operator is they can be distracted (someone calling them, loud noise etc)

Please don’t get me wrong as I like old tools and hate waste. I also consider myself practical and the cost of designing a guard and taking responsibility of the design, then making a guard, would probably cost more than buying a new compliant one. However, it is up to you to do the maths.

Chris

While the comments about the legal argument are noted, nevertheless it should be noted that guarding of machinery is covered by the term 'practicable' NOT 'reasonably practicable' i.e. a higher standard, if something can be done from the technica point of view then it should.

How old is this saw? Is it CE marked under the Machinery Directive?

We kinda know the answer really, if it is how I visualise the saw from your description and I saw it for the first time as part of an audit/ inspection/ RA, it sounds like an exposed saw blade that workers can easily access (serious injury) and that blade can, with minimal effort or cost be made safer.   could we really defend that we have taken much effort, let alone reasonably practicable / practicable efforts to make it safe.   taht there sounds like there is some form of safety guard available and is habitually ignored by workers aggravates the problem rather than proving it is safe to use.   

I asked about when your company purchased it as this could have an effect on whether or not it needs to meet the Supply of Machinery (safety) Regulations.

However from the HSE web page https://www.hse.gov.uk/work-equipment-machinery/second-hand-products.htm

Older equipment, including equipment that did not require CE marking, should be supplied in a safe condition and in some cases this may require additions to what was originally provided. The required standard for safety (ie what is reasonably practicable) can be guided by standards relevant to the product.  For example, old non-CE marked machinery (pre 1995) should, where reasonably practicable, meet the requirements of PD 5304:2005 Guidance on the safe use of machinery (available from BSI) which contains the text of the last British Standard on the safety of machinery which would have applied to such pre 1995 machinery.

I think you have the same concern as us otherwise you would not be asking the question.

Chris

sorry defined by case law ...sorry first break of the morning and not enough coffee..  :)

Originally Posted by: Wozza.s

You'd think the legislation on something that causes a significant number of a serious accident would be easy to interpret with clear guidance and instruction on what's required. it's never the case with British Health and Safety it always seems ambiguous to me!

Think how difficult and dated legislation could be is they were more precise, how could legislation cope with even the slight difficult on earlier posts berween a chop saw and radial saw.   Where you really hit the nail on the head is there is lots of guidance and instruction, its just that some folks insist there is a piece of law that supports each tiny detail in the hope it helps/negate their particular view.  You and we have already agreed it could cause serious injury, there is/was a mechanism in place to reduce exposure of the blade teeth which isn't being used.  

Rather than legislation to prove why it must be there, why not try the reverse, is there any legislation that countermands the overall H&S legislation idea that would legally say its acceptable to ignore the safety mechanisms, accept the high opportunity for serious injury and contiune to use it.  That to my mind is where you may have to look if trying to defend its contiuned use in its current format.

Peter

I was wondering if it was a metal cutting chop saw or a wood cutting chop saw.

A metal cutting chop saw has either a cutting disc or slower rotating fine toothed cutting blade. if so even today they are usually designed only with a half guard due to the slower rotating blade and faster stopping time along with the smaller/finer tooth profile.

Whereas a wood cutting chop saw has a harsher tooth profile and faster rotating blade and slower stopping time and these have a full guard giving the greater risk when rotating in the raised position due to the longer stopping time.

Edited by user 20 August 2020 14:27:49(UTC)  | Reason: To watch this topic