However its effect has been felt across many parts of the world. In the era of globalisation, manufacturers seek to make their products acceptable to all potential markets and the practical nature of the Machinery Directive has made compliance with it attractive for that purpose.
The European Machinery Directive was created twenty years ago as Directive 89/392/EEC and came fully into force on January 1 1995 following a two year transitional period. Amendments followed in 1991 and 1993. In 1998 the original Directive and its amendments were consolidated in the single Directive 98/37/EC, which is still current. However several problems have been identified:
– An overlap between the Machinery Directive and the Low Voltage Directive.
– Uncertainty as to how the provisions of the Electromagnetic Compatibility Directive should be applied to machinery within the scope of the Directive.
– Lack of transposed harmonised standards to support the Directive.
– The scope of the Directive is not entirely clear and, therefore, the definition of “machinery” needs to be refined.
To address these problems, a major review of the Directive has been undertaken, the result being a new Directive 2006/42/EC. This replaces 98/37/EC and comes into force on December 29 2009.
The original Directive was implemented in the UK by The Supply of Machinery (Safety) Regulations 1992, reference SI 1992/3073 and subsequent amendments, reference SI 1994/2063 and SI 2005/831. The new Directive is being implemented in the UK by The Supply of Machinery (Safety) Regulations 2008, reference SI 2008/1597.
To help in understanding the new Directive, the European Commission is drafting official guidance. Unfortunately this is a little behind schedule and is now expected to be formally adopted in November. The public launch is provisionally set for December 9.
The scope of the new Directive is a lot clearer and it applies to machinery; interchangeable equipment; safety components; lifting accessories; chains, ropes and webbing; removable mechanical transmission devices and partly completed machinery.
In the context of lifting equipment, the inclusion of lifting accessories, chains, ropes and webbing and partly completed machinery is welcome. The first two were included in the technical annex of essential health and safety requirements of 98/37/EC but not in the scope. This led to some differences of interpretation.
Partly completed machinery was previously ignored, except in the context of machinery which was intended for incorporation or assembly with other machinery but cannot function independently. The situations in which that applied were never entirely clear. Effectively it seemed to exclude many items which are available as sub-assemblies to lifting equipment manufacturers. It is now included and the declaration of incorporation required to accompany it includes information on the essential requirements it complies with, an important ingredient of the technical file of the finished product manufacturer.
Confusion
Article 2 defines these terms but, unfortunately, the opening sentence causes confusion and requires further explanation. It states “For the purposes of this Directive, ‘machinery’ designates the products listed in Article 1(1)(a) to (f).” That is everything in the scope except for partly completed machinery. To me the clear implication is that every essential health and safety requirement applicable to ‘machinery’ applies to the whole product list. However that is not the case and some interpretation is needed. Article 2 goes on to define machinery in a specific sense so there are in practice two meanings to the word: the general meaning in reference to the product list, and the specific meaning.
The definition of ‘lifting accessory’ is now broader. Currently two terms are used, ‘lifting accessories’ and ‘separate lifting accessories’. The distinction has always been unclear so the new single term is welcome. However it ends with “Slings and their components are also regarded as lifting accessories.” The implication is that the requirements apply to components marketed separately. Most chain slings are manufactured by assembling components from a sling system and wire rope and textile slings also use standard components. The potential problem is that the marking requirements for lifting accessories include the maximum working load. That is fine for a complete sling but not for components where the marking can be confused with that of the complete product. That is why the standards for sling components use a code for the working load.
The current Directive requires the manufacturer to issue an EC declaration of conformity but to whom has never been clear. Certainly for low cost series produced items, it has never been economic for manufacturers to issue individual declarations with every item. The usual practice has been a single declaration covering all products in the series.
For lifting machines, a printed copy of the original is usually included in the instruction leaflet which should accompany each item. However for lifting accessories and components it has been one document per batch at best. The manufacturing batches can be very large and, as the batch passes through the supply chain, it is broken down into smaller quantities. The document may be copied and forwarded but suppliers in the chain are often reluctant to reveal their source. The paper trail can dry up or result in a doctored photocopy.
On the market
Article 5 of the new Directive deals with placing machinery on the market and putting it into service. It lists the actions the manufacturer or their authorised representative shall take, including “draw up the EC declaration of conformity in accordance with Annex II part 1, Section A and ensure that it accompanies the machinery.” The new UK regulations make it clear that this is a copy of the declaration and that the original must be retained by the manufacturer or their authorised representative. The original, like the technical file, must be retained for at least ten years from the last date of manufacture of the item.
The structure of Annex I (Schedule 2 Part 1 of the new UK regulations), which contains the essential health and safety requirements, has always been that of a general section applicable to everything within the scope, followed by specific sections dealing with certain categories of machinery and particular hazards.
This structure is retained in the new Directive. However, I think it is clearer and, in several places, more comprehensive, perhaps to address the lack of some standards. The general principles at the beginning make it clear that the principles of safety integration and the obligations concerning the marking of machinery and instructions always apply.
A notable addition to control systems is a reference to cable-less control, often referred to as remote control. This facility was rarely available when the original Directive was drafted, but is now increasingly popular for lifting machines.
The relationship with the Low Voltage Directive (now 2006/95/EC) has been clarified in sub-section 1.5.1. Essentially the safety objectives of the Low Voltage Directive apply but the obligations concerning conformity assessment and placing on the market and/or putting into service are governed solely by the Machinery Directive.
The marking of machinery has been clarified slightly and it is now clear that it always applies to all machinery. However, bearing in mind the general meaning of that word, there are clearly going to be some problems in marking all that information onto some lifting accessories. Good guidance will be essential to achieve a uniform approach. For example, the requirement for the full business name and address of the manufacturer is impossible on an eyebolt or shackle or a component of a sling. Currently a trademark stamped into the item or raised in the die is all that can be accommodated.
The requirements for instructions have been considerably extended with new requirements to include the words ‘Original instructions’ or ‘Translation of the original instructions’ as appropriate.
Lifting operations
In the specific sections, section 4 still contains the supplementary health and safety requirements to offset the hazards due to lifting operations. Much of it is unchanged but there are several points to note. As lifting accessories are now firmly within scope, the definition has been moved to article 2. There is a definition of ‘lifting operation’ which I think is open to some interpretation. It states “means a movement of unit loads consisting of goods and/or persons necessitating, at a given moment, a change of level.” That would seem to exclude lifting loose material, such as might be handled by a crane fitted with a grab or scrap magnet, but include conveying unit loads up or down hill. Hopefully, for the UK at least, the guidance will help to align it more closely with the definition in LOLER.
The definition of ‘carrier’, previously at the beginning of section 6, has been relocated to section 4 and there are new requirements for machinery serving fixed landings. Section 6 deals with the hazards due to the lifting of persons. Section 4 therefore addresses the general hazards associated with serving fixed landings. Section 6 deals with the additional requirements for all situations when the load is a person.
Another new sub-section is headed ‘Fitness for purpose’ and contains three paragraphs. The first and third are not new but have been relocated from elsewhere. However the second paragraph is new and needs highlighting. It states “The static and dynamic tests referred to in section 4.1.2.3 of this Annex must be performed on all lifting machinery ready to be put into service.” In this context, I am assured by the authorities that ‘lifting machinery’ refers
to ‘machinery’ in the specific sense so does not include lifting accessories. Nevertheless, in the current Directive, although there is a requirement to be “designed and constructed to withstand the overload in the static tests…”, there is not a specific requirement to perform the tests. This has been reflected in many of the product standards. That for manual lifting machines requires the static test to be performed only as a type test. With the introduction of this new sub-section, there is clearly a specific requirement to perform the test on every item.
The static test requirement for lifting accessories remains unchanged at a coefficient of 1.5. This is still way out of alignment with the standards, which generally work on a design coefficient of 2 or 2.5. In these standards, greater reliance has been placed on calculations, type testing, sampling and non-destructive testing than on static testing. There is however a new requirement to state, in the instructions for lifting accessories, the static test coefficient used. We await guidance on whether ‘used’ refers to the design or the test as, in the latter case, the answer will often be zero.
Since the new Directive was agreed in 2006, a major exercise has been undertaken to update all the harmonised European Standards to align with it and this requirement has been addressed, generally by changes to the manufacturer’s certificate.
On balance, I think the new directive is a considerable improvement on the current one and certainly encapsulates the principles of good machinery design. However it is unfortunate that, in removing the existing problems, new ones have been introduced. Hopefully the guidance will resolve most of them and there will be a smooth transition. In practice it is not necessary for manufacturers and suppliers to wait until the end of the year. Compliance with the new requirements means compliance with the current requirements.
About the author
Derrick Bailes is technical consultant (formerly chief executive) for the Lifting Equipment Engineers Association, 3 Osprey Court, Kingfisher Way, Hinchingbrooke Business Park, Huntingdon, PE29 6FN, tel: +44 (0)1480 432 801, fax: +44 (0)1480 436 314, email: info@leea.co.uk
