Upgrading machinery controls

[silva.foxx]

Hey up, guys

I've completed, over the last two years, three projects upgrading the controls of some aging machines in a beer bottling environment.

The 1st; converting a capping machine from relay logic to PLC and upgraded safety using a 2 ch. pilz.

The 2nd; converting a rinser from S5 to S7 and replacing a 1 ch. pilz using normal retro-reflective pecs monitoring open-out doors to a 2 ch. schmersal plus a Sick L4000 safety pec system and adding a Siemens touch screen HMI.

The 3rd; replacing pushbutton control of a filler with a RedLion G310 touch screen HMI.

I carried out these upgrades purely using common-sense rather than following any form of code.

My question: what UK regs/codes should I have really followed and can I have any comebacks for not doing so?
(cue NetBlindPaul and co, please)

regards

 

[netblindpaul]

silva,
Are you employed or an "entity" in your own right?
Either way the legislation is, "obviously" EAWR89, then PUWER98, there is also the management regs, all under HASAWA74.
PUWER guides you to BS-EN60204-1.
For such extensive upgrades you really would be needing to look back to the machinery directive, the low voltage directive and the CE marking directive for GUIDANCE.
These will send you to a raft of standards.
Depending on when you did the work you would also have needed to refer to BS-EN 954, this is now superseded, but, there is some "debate" going on as to validity.
You can get into a lot of trouble if something goes wrong with these sort of jobs and you have not followed the correct design methodologies and risk assessments.
IF the equipment was originally CE marked and you have made such changes then the CE mark will be invalid and the machinery will no longer comply with the requirements of PUWER98.
At least that will give you a start.

 

[silva.foxx]

Thanks Netblind

I'm employed.

As said in the past - I'm thick - so will have to decypher all that info and look up the guides you have stated.

Am I to assume all these 'codes' can be purchased from somewhere like HSE?

Can you suggest some "common mistakes" I could have made?

Thanks

 

[netblindpaul]

OK,
If you are employed mate then you have little to worry about from a legal aspect as your employer has the duty of care.
The legislation can be purchased, some is FOC, that is all SI's & HSE docs, but any relevant standards will have to be purchased.
These will run to £1000's
This is not something to take on lightly, your employer is sailing very close to the wind should an incident happen related to the control system and the designer is not in possession of the relevant standards.
It is a complex legal situation.
There is one risk to YOU and that is if you cannot prove in a court of law that you knew no better, however your union would help you defend that case.

 

[silva.foxx]

Thanks for all of this. I'll knock the ball over the net to my employers and have them obtain the relevant standards.

I'm not a design eng. but a lowly maintenance guy with an interest in the creative side. If they want me to do further upgrades then they'll have to source the correct standards and ensure everything is to legislation.

Is there some specific training I should have if I'm to carry out further work of this type?

Thanks again.

 

[netblindpaul]

Yep,
IMHO at least that required to achieve IEng or even CEng status with the IET, and that will be what HSE expect in my experience when it all goes wrong as I have seen the evidence!

 

[silva.foxx]

Thank you.

 

[Knobhead]

Like you Silva I’ve done a lot of machine control work while supposedly being a plant electrician. Many times I’ve wondered how much I’ve stuck my neck in to the legal noose.

On occasions I’ve refused to carry out alterations because I thought they were dangerous. One episode I was dragged in front of one of the directors and told, “You will do this”. Given the options I made the alterations to the program but instead of deleting what I’d made redundant I just disabled it. After ½ a day the machine had had a go at killing 3 people (no joke) and I had the pleasure of the director apologising. Took less than 5 minuets to enable the bits of the program. After that I had a total veto on any alterations.

The one thing I will say is I enjoyed what I was doing and I learnt a lot while doing it. One of the main things was looking at “What if” situations. Had the director listened to my point of view we would never have got to the stage we did.

 

[netblindpaul]

silva,
I have taken counsel on this and had a little time to think and discuss this with colleagues.
The concensus is that as long as you had a Senior Engineer with the relevant qualifications to "rubber stamp" your designs then that would be fine, you would not need the qualifications yourself.
I am not totally familiar with your situation though.
HTH

 

[silva.foxx]

Thanks for your continued support and guidance on this.

As said, I'm employed as a maint. guy yet don't report to a senior engineer who rubber stamps my design. There isn't one as far as I know. There is evidence of PUWER audits so some consultancy must come to site. I'll delve further on this.

I'm quite thorough in the way that I scrutinise what I'm looking at, trace every wire and redraw the schematics as I find so that I know that I've got what I've got!
Once I know what I've got I'll look at what needs upgrading.

As said, I do it from common sense rather than looking up the standards that netblindpaul has ushered me to. That's my wrong-doing so I'm learning and will aim to put that right. I've been going along the route that if it's better than what was there then that's ok, but things aren't that clear-cut. People of higher inteligence than me have provided the correct standards for this kind of task and I need to find and follow. Progress?

Is this sort of task something you learn as part of a relevant Degree?

regards

 

[netblindpaul]

OK, no Engineer then you would have to "carry the can" for your designs.
Though unless you were really negligent it is doubtful that you would be prosecuted unless there was a very serious injury or a fatality.
Hopefully your union would support you in this case if you had one, the company may wash their hands of it, or conversely, they may embrace you and support you!
This would probably depend on what was in their best interests as the company would have to protect itself and its officers.

It is not essential to have consultants to do PUWER98 assessments, they are IMHO on the face of things quite simple if you understand machinery!

There are literally hundreds of standards to consider they are generally referred to as A, B & C standards and they become more specialist in application.
I can't recall now which is the broadest and the most specialist, though A being broad & C specialist seems to ring a bell.

If you are upgrading machinery in situ, then the company still may have to CE mark some of it, as this relates to putting into use.
The level of complexity of the "paper trail" depends on the level of mods and the machinery in question.

Risk assessment plays a big part, and I don't mean the normal sort that is bandied around.
There are also FMEA's to look at.
Along with categorisation of risk according to defined standards.

Some of the manufacturers documents are very helpful.
Though nothing is a substitute for the standards and as a designer working to those standards then you should be in possession of them.

Think of it akin to the requirement to hold a copy of 7671 if you are an installation entity which is a member of one of the scams.

It is difficult to cover all the bases on your own when you are doing things like this, one reason I dip into the forum is to see how others think as being on ones own is very lonely as a designer.
I have worked as part of design and engineering teams in the past.
This environment allows you to bounce ideas around and the "brainstorming" can help to resolve issues.

I certainly covered design of control systems as part of mine, especially as my thesis was related to this.
I was also trained by a control systems manufacturer to undertake systems applications engineering, design and service works.

HTH

 

[silva.foxx]

I work on one of four shift groups of five guys plus there's four guys on days. So out of 24 there's nine electrical guys. All competent guys who'll share their opinion but couldn't neccessarily point me to relevant standards, I'm sure they could if it was required of their roles.

The "paper trail" does sound very extensive.

We're only filling bottles, not shaping wood with blades, yet it's still machinery that can harm... so it's still got to be right. Thanks for your continued response.

 

[netblindpaul]

I am guessing a brewery?
I have worked in the Brewery in Magor South Wales on several occasions for previous employers and one of the guys who did some degree courses with me was a tech there, so I have an idea of your environment if I am correct.
InBev have it now I think, is it the UK Stella brewery now?
It used to do Stella as well as some others, Boddingtons & Heineken IIRC?
Fast moving packaging environments have their own safety issues which are NOT to be laughed at!

 

[silva.foxx]

Came across a good little site today, Technical Papers with the Directives listed earlier in this thread. Robin J Carver has some good stuff on it, especially the E/stop paper that I like to 'push'.

I emailed our projects guy who, although helpful, stated that projects never design anything in-house so the onus is on our equipment suppliers.

I also spoke with our engineering manager who simply said if it satisfies PUWER then that's good enough. No way!!! (note: he was a fitter...enough said).

I just need to access BS EN ISO 13849-1 and BS EN 62061.

I don't know what I'll do with all the info then. Hoard it as usual!

 

[netblindpaul]

Robin's paper is quite good!
I have used this as a reference in the past also.
Your projects department cannot shift the blame completely, ask him to check Regina Vs Octel!
It must satisfy PUWER98, that it is good enough, the catch there is that PUWER98 guidance from HSE directs you to the info I suggested!
So he is right and wrong!
BTW, nothing wrong with Fitters!
If you look on Robins site it refers tot he A, B & C standards, I think I got it right from memory!!!
Now I am impressed with myself!!!

 

[silva.foxx]

Top marks! A=broad - C=specialist

The eng. mgr. (metal-masher / part-positioner) said he'll get our safety officer (fem fatale) to audit my work to puwer98... she'll have to get off her hoop and out of her office :-D

I'm hoping the projects guy will provide some access to the BS stuff as he said he'll speak with his consultant and get back to me as soon as poss. I know he'll eventually provide some of the info you have but I just want to see how long it takes!

.

 

[netblindpaul]

Sorry mate, doubtful Femme Fatale will have the competence to assess the engineering aspects!!!
That is unless she is a specialist machinery assessor!
IMHO of course!
PUWER98 assessments are very generic, and once you get into the nitty gritty the HSE guidance calls for specialist advice!
In your case you need the nitty gritty!!!
END OF!

 

[xraytek]

Hi Silva

You might find this book intersting.

There is also a link somewhere on the Rockwell Automation Website for requesting a free hard copy.

Better than reading ISO13849 before bedtime lol