Machine Safety and Guarding Assessment
Guarding findings recur in Ontario industrial inspections year after year, and they recur for a structural reason. Guards are removed for maintenance and not replaced. Equipment is modified and the guarding is not reassessed. A machine is purchased second-hand and arrives without the protective devices it was originally supplied with. Production pressure defeats an interlock that was inconvenient.
PHASCORP conducts machine safety and guarding assessments across industrial facilities, evaluating equipment against the applicable regulation and standard and reporting findings prioritised by risk.
Request an assessment: (647) 564-6824
The regulatory position
Regulation 851, the Industrial Establishments regulation, requires that a machine or prime mover with an exposed moving part that may endanger a worker be equipped with a guard or other device preventing access to the moving part. In-running nip hazards, rotating parts, pinch points and points of operation all fall within it.
CSA Z432, the standard for the safeguarding of machinery, is the reference against which guarding adequacy is generally evaluated and the standard an auditor or engineer will apply. It addresses not only whether a guard is present but whether it suits the hazard, whether it can be defeated, and whether the safeguarding is reliable in the sense that its failure does not expose the worker.
What the assessment examines
Fixed, interlocked and adjustable guards, and whether the type selected suits the hazard and the frequency of access required. Interlock devices and whether they can readily be defeated, which is the most common single finding. Emergency stop devices, their placement and their reach. Two-hand controls and presence-sensing devices. Point-of-operation protection. In-running nips on conveyors and rollers. Guarding on shafts, couplings, chains, belts and sprockets. The condition and completeness of guarding after maintenance. Guarding on second-hand and modified equipment.
Findings are reported in writing, prioritised by risk severity, with engineering controls, administrative controls and personal protective equipment recommended in that order.
Pre-Start Health and Safety Reviews
Section 7 of Regulation 851 requires a Pre-Start Health and Safety Review before certain new or modified apparatus, structures, protective elements or processes are put into use in a factory. The triggers are set out in the Table to section 7
and include machine guarding, the storage or dispensing of flammable liquids, dust collectors, racking and lifting devices.
The review must be conducted and signed by a professional engineer licensed in Ontario, with a narrow exception permitting a knowledgeable person for one of the listed items, and it produces a written report identifying the measures
required for compliance.
Employers most often discover this requirement after commissioning rather than before it, which is an expensive sequence. If you are installing or modifying equipment and a Pre-Start review has not been raised, raise it before the equipment is put into use.
The relationship with hazardous energy control
Guarding and lockout address the same hazard from opposite directions. Guarding prevents contact during normal operation. Lockout prevents energisation during service and maintenance. A facility strong in one and weak in the other has not addressed the hazard, and a guarding assessment almost always surfaces hazardous energy findings as well.
We assess both together where the scope allows.
After the assessment
A written report identifying non-compliant equipment, findings prioritised by risk, and recommended controls in the order of the hierarchy. Where remediation is required across a fleet of machines, we sequence it so that the highest-risk equipment is addressed first and the programme can be evidenced as being under way, which matters where an order has already been issued.
Cost
Quoted according to the number of machines assessed, the number of sites, and whether Pre-Start coordination or remediation support is included.
Request an assessment: (647) 564-6824 or info@phascorp.com
A systematic evaluation of machinery and equipment to identify missing, inadequate or defeated guarding and other mechanical hazards, assessed against the applicable regulation and standard, with findings prioritised by risk and recommended corrective actions.
Regulation 851 requires that a machine with an exposed moving part that may endanger a worker be equipped with a guard or other device preventing access to that part. CSA Z432, the standard for the safeguarding of machinery, is the reference generally applied in assessing whether guarding is adequate.
Because guarding degrades over time in predictable ways. Guards are removed during maintenance and not replaced, equipment is modified without reassessment, second-hand machinery arrives incomplete, and interlocks that impede production are defeated.
A review required under section 7 of Regulation 851 before certain new or modified apparatus, structures, protective elements or processes are put into use in a factory. The triggers are listed in the Table to section 7 and include machine guarding, flammable liquid storage and dispensing, dust collectors, racking and lifting devices.
It must be conducted and signed by a professional engineer licensed in Ontario, subject to a narrow exception permitting a knowledgeable person for one of the listed items.
Before the apparatus, structure, protective element or process is put into use, not afterwards. Employers commonly identify the requirement after commissioning, which is considerably more expensive to resolve.
Manufacturers, industrial employers, facility managers and safety personnel responsible for production equipment, processing machinery or any powered industrial equipment presenting a risk to workers. Assessment is also warranted after an incident, on acquiring a facility, and following any significant equipment modification.
Where scope allows, yes. Guarding and lockout address the same hazard from different directions, and a guarding assessment routinely surfaces hazardous energy findings.
A written report identifying non-compliant equipment, findings prioritised by risk severity, and recommended engineering, administrative and personal protective controls in that order.