Machinery guard measures
BE ON YOUR GUARD
Article from May 2009 edition of The RoSPA Occupational Safety & Health Journal by Edward Hodson.
It is just over two years since my last article on machinery was published in OS&H. Then I reported that around 5,000 workers were being injured each year whilst using machinery as part of their work and that, in 2005/6 there were 23 fatalities as a result of contact with moving machinery.
Sadly, although the latest figures show that the number of fatalities has fallen slightly (there wer4e still 16 deaths in 2007/8), the total number of all reportable injuries in the same period has changed very little, with 4,605 recorded. Unsurprisingly, the manufacturing sector accounted for 11 of the fatalities and over 60% of the injuries.
With very specific legislation already in place concerning machinery safety in the workplace (changes to which will come into force later this year), we need to ask why has the number of deaths and injuries remained relatively unchanged. Are lessons being learned or are many employers just simply not bothering to implement important, and often simple, preventative measures?
All businesses involved in the design, manufacture and supply of machinery have certain safety responsibilities. Firstly, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to carry out the necessary research or tests on components, fittings or the completed machine to determine whether by its design or construction, the machine is capab le of being put into service safely.
Machinery must comply with stringent Essential Health and Safety Requirements (EHSR). These requirements are intended to ensure that all machinery throughout the EC is constructed to the same safety standards.
The first principal is that at the beginning of the design process, the responsible person must ensure that a risk assessment is carried out in order to determine the health and safety requirements which apply to the machinery. The machinery must then be designed and constructed taking into account the results of the risk assessment.
In the UK, the EHSR are set out in the Supply of Machinery Safety Regulations 1992 (as amended in 1994 and 2005). These are to be replaced by the new Supply of Machinery Safety Regulations 2008 (SMSR) which come into force on 29 December 2009.
The new SMSR place even greater emphasis on the EHSR requirements. However, still extant are the requirements of primary legislation by way of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 (HSWA), which makes a specific reference to the duties of manufacturers and suppliers of workplace machinery (including second hand machinery).
Section 6 of HSWA (general duties of manufacturers) states:
"It shall be the duty of any person who designs, manufactures, imports or supplies any article for use at work....
(a) To ensure , so far as is reasonably practicable, that the article is so designed and constructed that it will be safe and without risks to health at all times when it is being set, used, cleaned or maintained by a person at work."
HSWA is reinforced by the duties under Part 3 of SMSR 2008 (general prohibitions and obligations), which states:
"No responsible person shall place machinery on the market or put it into service unless it is safe; and
"Before machinery is placed on the market or put into service, the responsible person must-
(a) Ensure that the applicable essential health and safety requirements are satisfied in respect of it..."
The meaning of ’safe’ is unambiguously defined in the 2008 regulations:
"Safe" means, in relation to machinery, that when it is properly installed and maintained, and used for the purposes for which it is intended, or under conditions which can reasonably be foreseen, it does not – endanger the health of, or result in the death or injury to, any person."
This definition is very important, particularly insofar as it relates to the conditions that the machinery will be used in which can "reasonably be foreseen". For example, if a machine is supplied that requires a trolley of some kind to facilitate its handling, this must not be an ’optional extra’ if without it, an injury is foreseeable. Or if a machine which may be intrinsically safe is used for the manufacture of two products. One inert, and one potentially explosive. (This situation is addressed by Schedule 2 to SMSR 2008 (paragraph 1.5.7)).
EHSR
Experience has shown that not only are some machinery users unaware of the Essential Health and Safety Requirements set out in the SMSR, but more alarmingly, some machinery suppliers are also not conversant with the requirements.
The problem can be further exacerbated if third party ’suppliers’ do not have the necessary machinery expertise. For example, in one case a supplier provided a manufacturer of volatile products with an assembly of machinery which failed to take any regard for the product for which the machinery was to be used. This resulted in additional modification costs to the employer to ensure that it was full6y compliant with the EHSR.
There can also be situations where a machine through inherent or specified design can facilitate shortcuts to gain access to dangerous parts, described by David Lambeth, a chartered member of IOSH and a health and safety professional with a great deal of experience of machinery in the manufacturing industry, as ’booby traps’. Fortunately, this proble3m is not widespread, and reputable specialist manufacturers of machinery can provide the expert guidance required.
There may be a belief that CE marking is a ’guarantee’ of safety. This is not necessarily the case. The CE mark is an accepted and recognisable indicator, however, other important legal requirements may not be receiving sufficient detail and attention.
By affixing CE marking to machinery, the manufacturer is claiming that all relevant legal requirements have been met, but the responsible person must still ensure that the machinery is safe.
HUMAN FACTORS
Assuming that the manufacturers and suppliers of machinery have met their legal obligations, we now need to consider the end user, the operational side of machinery safety. This is invariably where things can and do go wrong.
The responsibility lies with the employer to ensure machinery is safe on arrival and to reject any issues of non-compliance. If a requirement for additional safety devices is identified, then this should be referred to the manufacturer. The employer is also required to complete a risk assessment to comply with
Regulation 3 of the
Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999.
Additionally, the employer must ensure compliance with the
Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 (PUWER).
Regulation 11 in particular must not be overlooked. This requires employers "
to take effective measures to prevent access to dangerous parts of machinery or to stop their movement before any part of a person enters a danger zone".
The forthcoming SMSR 2008 of course address the human interface with machinery. In particular, the regulations highlight the issue of "
reasonably foreseeable misuse". This is defined in the regulations as: "
the use of machinery in a way not intended in the instructions for use, but which may result from readily predictable human behaviour."
A good example of this is a machine which crates debris. If this debris causes a blockage the operator may, with the best intentions, attempt to remove the blockage to keep the machine running. If access to the machine can easily be obtained without isolation, perhaps with the use of a brush, stick or other device, ’misuse’ could be described as ’reasonably foreseeable’. To prevent this situation, guards or protective devices should be designed to prevent access.
But it is not only about misuse, the controls of machinery are also important. Those experienced in manufacturing will be familiar with production alarms used to identify blockages, product or packaging shortages. These alarms can be responsible for creating a degree of panic in operatives as lights flash and sirens sound. Whilst the intention is to provide a warning, these alarms themselves can create impulsive reactions. At the lower end of the scale, operatives rushing and being injured through slips, and at worst the operative may make an attempt to free a blockage by placing hands in the danger zone.
All machinery must be accompanied by instructions. The WSMSR 2008 state:
"
The contents of the instructions must cover not only the intended use of the machinery but also take into account any reasonably foreseeable misuse thereof; and
"
in the case of machinery intended for use by non-professional operators, the wording and layout of the instructions for use must take into account the level of general education and acumen that can reasonably be respected from such operators."
When machinery accidents occur, it is almost always inevitable that during investigation it is identified that a ’custom and practice’ had developed. For example, using the machine without guarding or employers unblocking machines with the power on. These practices serve to provide a false sense of safety, as operatives can convince themselves that the process is safe, the more often a practice is repeated, the safer it is considered... until, of course, the inevitable accident occurs. So managers and supervisors must not only know the correct procedures... they must ensure that they are followed by all.
In summary, machinery designers and manufacturers have stringent requirements placed on them to produce safe machinery. Employers ultimately must ensure that these requirements are carried out and that they are then reinforced with their own risk assessments.
Further information
The Supply of Machinery (Safety) Regulations 2008
www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2008/uksi_20081597_en_1Machinery Directive – 98/37/EC & 2006/42/EC
http://www.berr.gov.uk/consultations/page41465.htmlThe Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998
www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si1998/19982306.htmHSE PUBLICATIONS
Simple guide to the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations (INDG291)
www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/indg291.pdfBuying new machinery. A short guide to the law and some information on what to do for anyone buying new machinery for use at work (INDG271)
www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/indg271.pdf
Using work equipment safely (INDG229)
www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/indg229.pdfSupplying new machinery (INDG270)
http://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/indg270.htmGeneral information can be found at:
www.hse.gov.uk/equipmentEssential health and safety requirements relating to the design and construction of machinery (EHSR) :
Risk of being trapped by a machine
Machinery must be designed, constructed or fitted with a means of preventing a person from being enclosed within it.
Machinery maintenance
Adjustment and maintenance points must be located outside danger zones. It must be possible to carry out adjustment, maintenance, repair, cleaning and servicing operations while machinery is at a standstill. If the conditions cannot be satisfied... measures must be taken to ensure that they can be carried out safely.
Isolation of energy sources
Machinery must be fitted with means to isolate it from all energy sources. They must be capable of being locked if reconnection could endanger persons
IN COURT......
In the UK an employee suffered serious injuries when his arm was pulled into a machine at a sheet rolling plant. He was making drainage pipe components and was feeding a sheet of steel into a lock form machine when his gloved left hand became caught in the front rollers, pulling his lower arm into the machine. His arm was crushed and sustained a double fracture. A metal guard for the front followers had previously been taken off to help line up the sheets to go into the machine. The man’s employer was fined £3500. The company removed the rollers and fitted a new clear plastic guard immediately after the accident.
A man was working on a waste screening device when an unguarded conveyor belt became blocked. As he reached in to free the blockage, the belt restarted drawing his arm into the end roller, trapping it and causing a severe fracture to his lower left arm. His employer was fined £4000 after admitting that the machine should not have been used without the correct guarding in place. The company’s director was also fined £2000.
A 22 year old employee received lacerations, bruising and tendon damage to his left forearm and elbow when his arm was dragged into a conveyor fed potato processing machine as he cleaned it. His employer was fined £10,000 after the court heard that there was a lack of safety guarding on the machine which had not been identified by a risk assessment, and the injured worker was inadequately trained and supervised.