FEAT RE MAC FEA ATURE


MACHINERY SAFET Y


SAFETY THE POOR COUSI OF M CHI ERY SAFETY? THE POOR COUSIN OF MAC HINERY S AFETY


invalid. This could necessitate a new conformity assessment.


Conversely, PUWER also requires machine users to ensure that the CE marking process has been properly carried out. Regulation 10 of PUWER, “Conformity with European Community Requirements”, requires that an employer must ensure that any equipment subj


TY?


bject to European Directives


Machinery safety is much broader than compliance with the achi ery Directive. TheW rk Equipment Directive, plemented i


the UK by Provi n and Use of W rk Equi Regulations 1998 (PUWER), one such consi erati n. As W


a global product testi g and certi hile many machinery end-users


may think that they have PUWER


compliance covered, its requirements are often overlooked. We continue to see common hazards and issues that have not been adequately addressed in the production environment, suggesting that PUWER may sometimes be treated like the poor cousin when it comes to machinery safety.


In our experience, many machinery owners assume that if their equipment has a CE mark that no further action is required. However, PUWER applies to all work equipment regardless of its age, including equipment that carries the CE mark. While meeting the requirements of PUWER can be complex, if a logical and realistic approach is adopted it doesn’t have to be impossible.


The Provision and Use of Work


Equipment Regulations 1998 (PUWER) requires users of work eq uipment t o carry out risk assessment and provide work equipment that is suitable for its intended task, and which can be used without putting persons at risk. As an overview, it requires that inspections are carried out:


• After installation and before being put 28 28 DECEMBER/JANUAR 201 ANUARY 2017 | AU AUTOMA MAT ATION


Neil Dyson, business lineiNe l Dyson, business line manager for machine safety at TÜV SÜD oduct Service


manager for machinerry safety at TÜV S Prroduct Service


chin ry safety ism ch ro der than com ance w th the Machinery Directive. The Work Equipment Directive, which ish i implemented in the UK by Provision and Use of Work Equipmentpment Regulations 1998 (PUWER), is one such consideration. As Neil Dyson, business line manager at TÜV SÜD Product Service, ati n organisation, explains.


into service for the first time; or after assembly at a new site or in a new location to ensure that it has been


installed correctly and is safe to operate. • After work equipment has been exposed to any conditions causing deterioration, which is liable to cause a


• Each time that exceptiona • At suitable intervals; and dangerous situation.


circumstances have occurred


that are l


liable to jeopardise the safety of work equipment. The results of these


inspections have to be documented and kept.


REDUCE RISK REDUCE RISK


Unlike CE marking, PUWER assessment is an ongoing process, and must be


repeated at appropriate intervals. It must therefore always refer to the latest standards and not, for example, to the standards that may have been applicable when a machine was first brought into service. At this point it is worth


highlighting that any substantial changes to machinery, such as upgrades, or


interlinking with other equipment as part e existing nformity


CE Marking Declaration of Co of an assembly, may make th


complies with all applicable Essential Health and Safety Requirements (ESHRs ) of the Directives that apply to it. Risk assessments are therefore an essential ingredient to ensure that all machinerymeets the requirements of both the Machinery Directive and PUWER. A thorough and correct risk assessment should therefore be completed before any newmachinery goes into operation and if substantial modifications are made. Regulation 6 of PUWER also requires that inspections must be repeated ‘a t suitable intervals’ if machines are exposed to conditions that may lead to deterioration. In reality, every machine is exposed to conditions that may lead to deterioration, so the requirement effectively means that they must all b e regularly inspected.


il D son, business linem nager at TÜV SÜD Product Servi a global product testing and certification organisation, explains...


CONS DERABL CONSIDERI ABLE STEPS EPS


In total, there are 39 PUWER regulations. While some of themare rather lengthy tomes, for example Regulation 6


(inspection) and its associated guidance notes and Approved Code of Practice is approximately 2,500 words, it is possible to construct a simple checklist in order to determine the necessary actions for compliance. If this process reveals that a potential hazard exists, then a risk


assessment must be carried out, with the implementation and recording appropriate control measures. Software is availab le to help yo u


automate this checklist process, storing results locally or “in the Cloud”. Such software will produce appropriate reports to confirmthat the work has been carried out with due diligence, as well as generate a list of any outstanding action points. Whilemachinery end-users think they may have safety compliance covered, it is actually a complex process. Consequently, we regularly see similar hazards and safety issues within the automation environment that have beenmiss ed However th e guidance that is widely availablemeans that there is no excuse for ignoring


. ,


PUWER, ormakingmistakes in relation to its implementation.


TÜV SÜD Product Service T: 01642 345637T: 01642 345637


www. www.tuv-sud.co.uk d. /AUTOMATION AT /AUTOMATION


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44