How to Get Your Hands on the Right Safety Gloves

Hands are the most used tools in the workplace, making their protection from on-the-job hazards critically important to maintaining employee productivity. Hand dangers are around every corner. Depending on the workplace, employees’ hands are endangered from chemicals, abrasive surfaces, splinters, broken glass, and cuts or scrapes, among countless other hazards.

According to the US Department of Labor, injuries to hands accounted for nearly 25 percent of all lost-time industrial injuries — a total of 110,000 annually. Seventy percent of those injuries resulted when an employee was not wearing safety gloves, while the other 30 percent of hand injuries occurred while an employee was wearing the wrong kind of gloves.

Hand injuries are preventable. Safety gloves, correctly sized and engineered with the right materials, will help defend workers from virtually any type of hazard. Unfortunately, employees often have a very limited understanding of how to select a glove properly based on the dangers they confront. The number of glove choices is vast—and the standards governing personal protective equipment, including hand protection—are not always easy to decipher.

Protective gloves, like any safety product, must be selected properly for the specific application. To do so, first conduct a risk assessment by determining the scope of the work, and next, identifying any potential hazards within that scope that may injure employees’ hands. If it is possible to eliminate the identified hazard by engineering or substitution, this is always the best means to protect the employee. If not, gloves should be used only as a last resort, along with other required PPE. Protective gloves tend to be less effective than other control measures but if avoiding contact is impractical or is not enough to protect employees then gloves are needed.

Recognize that an employee may be exposed to more than one hazard. For instance, the jobsite may contain corrosive chemicals or biological exposure, as well as sharp metals, or broken glass. If you are not sure of the hazard or hazards, confer with an Environmental Health & Safety (EHS) coordinator or industrial hygienist. Once gloves are selected, inform employees how to use them properly to protect themselves. Let them know when gloves should be replaced. If the gloves are reusable ask employees to rinse them before removal and tell them how they should be stored.

CHEMICAL-PROOF GLOVES
A principle function of skin is to protect our bodies from exposure to potentially harmful components of the external environment. Skin does this remarkably well, but direct contact with chemicals poses a danger to the skin itself. Chemical reactions to skin can be a burn, dermatitis or chapping. Chemicals can also penetrate the skin and enter the bloodstream. Risk varies according to the chemical, its concentration, and time of contact among other safety factors. Refer to the product SDS for specifics. Section 8 of the SDS provides what types of PPE are necessary to protect the user. Section 11 has toxicological information such as potential local skin effects, as well as potential absorption through the skin and resultant acute and chronic effects.

Because different glove materials resist different chemicals, no one glove is suited for all chemical exposures. Dependant on the chemical, gloves can be fabricated with natural rubber, neoprene, nitrile rubber, butyl rubber, polyvinyl chloride, polyvinyl alcohol, Saranex™, Tychem®, Trellchem®. Key factors to review in selecting the material are breakthrough time, degradation and permeation rate. Refer to the glove manufacturer’s test data for details.

OSHA 29 CFR 1910.138 (Hand Protection General Requirements) specifically addresses the need for hand protection or chemical protective gloves. This standard makes it mandatory to assess the job for chemical exposures, and then select the appropriate, chemical protective glove based on material, thickness, length and other traits. ANSI/ISEA 105-2016 is another source of information that provides a consistent, numeric-scale method for manufacturers to rate their gloves against certain contaminants and exposures.

CUT-RESISTANT GLOVES

Tear, puncture, and cut-resistant gloves are often constructed from materials such as high-grade stainless steel Kevlar®, and may feature a mesh aesthetic. Resistant to damage from sharp or abrasive objects such as glass and knives, these gloves are often ergonomically designed for a precise fit.

There are two major global standards used to evaluate the protection levels of work gloves: ANSI/ISEA 105 (U.S. Standard) and EN 388 (EU Standard). Besides Europe, EN 388 is also commonly cited in other parts of the world such as Canada, AUS/NZ and South America. In 2015-2016, significant changes were made to both to ensure consistency between different standards and to reduce the gaps between protection levels. The new ANSI/ISEA 105 scale, characterized by an ‘A’ in front of level numbers from A1 to A9, measures a glove’s performance by the cutting force it can withstand in grams. For instance, an A1 glove can withstand from 200-499 grams of cutting force, while an A9 glove can withstand 6000+ grams of cutting force. When looking at glove specifications, the ANSI cut level will be displayed inside a badge that resembles a shield.

Cut-resistant sleeves, often worn with cut-resistant gloves, extend protection from the wrist up towards the elbow or shoulder.

THERMAL-PROOF GLOVES
Thermal proof gloves protect against extreme temperatures and are fabricated from a variety of materials, including:

Neoprene: Neoprene gloves are used for protection against frost and burn injuries, as in the case of firefighting gloves.

Aluminized Material: Aluminized material is capable of handling and withstanding extremely high temperatures (depending on the specific formula, up to and exceeding 2,000° F). Gloves made of this material are suitable for welding, furnace and foundry, and some laboratory applications.

When choosing the heat-resistant gloves for a task, you’ll need to find out the precise temperature of the object, not just the ambient temperature. For example, an industrial oven might be 1000°F but the object being handled is only 600°F. Also, high temperature gloves are available as either gloves or mitts. Gloves are for applications that require dexterity, while mitts are for applications that require additional insulation for heat protection, added comfort, and longer wear. Heat-resistant gloves should be tested to ASTM F1060-87 (also know as C.H.A.R.) that establishes the maximum temperature at which a person can hold an object for more than four seconds before feeling pain, and for more than 15 seconds before getting a second-degree burn.

On the other end of the temperature spectrum, cold-resistant gloves, commonly known as freezer gloves, protect employee hands from cuts and scrapes, while an inner insulation reduces the risk of frostbite. These gloves do not have the thickness or the high level of insulation associated with a ski type glove since that bulkiness would inhibit grip and dexterity when handling frozen foods. Polyethylene, glass fiber, polyester, and spandex are all used in the construction of cold storage thermal gloves. Water wicking on the glove’s base layer moves moisture away from the skin, helping to keep hands dryer and warmer for a longer period of time.

GLOVES AND MACHINERY
Machinists who are operating rotating machines should not wear gloves. If machinists are working with a CNC machine, a lathe, a knee mill, or a drill press, wearing gloves near a rotating spindle can spell disaster. Machinery must have guards installed or incorporated into their design that prevent hands from contacting the point of operation or other moving parts.

For more information on choosing the right PPE for machinists, please check out this blog.

GLOVE MAINTENANCE
Like any tool, gloves must be treated properly for them to perform their function. Protective gloves should be inspected before each use to ensure that they are not torn, punctured or made ineffective in any way. A visual inspection will help detect cuts or tears but a more thorough inspection by filling the gloves with water and tightly rolling the cuff towards the fingers will help reveal any pinhole leaks. Gloves that are discolored or stiff may also indicate deficiencies caused by excessive use or degradation from chemical exposure.

Wearing the right safety gloves is instrumental in preventing different workplace hand injuries, including cuts, punctures, burns, or abrasion injuries. It also saves costs incurred by the company each time a hand injury occurs, such as medical expenses that average $6,000 and lost-time compensation expenses that average $7,500. Hand injuries send more than one million workers to the emergency room each year. Your employees cannot afford to go barehanded or be wearing the wrong gloves, not when the cost of one preventable incident far exceeds the cost of an entire hand protection program.

Machine Risk Assessment vs. Safeguarding Assessment? Start 2020 off on the right safety foot.

When it comes to accidents, manufacturing ranks second highest of all industries. That comes despite OSHA regulations and American National Standards Institute (ANSI) standards. A key culprit is unguarded hazardous machinery.

Year after year, OSHA issues thousands of citations and levies millions of dollars in fines for machine safeguarding violations in an attempt to prevent injuries and save lives OSHA 1910.212(a)(1) is the most common section citation, whereby “one or more methods of machine guarding shall be provided to protect the operator and other employees in the machine area from hazards” followed by OSHA 1910.212(a)(3)(ii) whereby “the point of operation of machines whose operation exposes an employee to injury shall be guarded.

Why the disregard?

Why is this so? Often facility safety managers are lulled into a false sense of security because a serious accident has not yet occurred or because accidents are rare in their facility. Other managers might wrongly suppose that their newly purchased machinery arrives fully compliant, not realizing that OEMs are typically concerned with new machinery price competitiveness, not necessarily guarding compliance. Still other managers may wrongly assume that older machines are “grandfathered in” before OSHA was formed.

For whatever reason, approximately HALF of industrial machinery has not been properly safeguarded.

That is the bad news.

The good news is there is a way to determine compliance through an assessment of the machinery on the plant floor, as outlined by ANSI B11.0. There are two types of assessments that reign supreme: the Risk Assessment and the Safeguarding Assessment. This article will address both methods and how they help an organization better protect the people operating the machines and reduce the risk at the facility.

Risk assessments should be conducted annually, including whenever a new machine is installed or a major change to an existing machine or production line has taken place. Additionally, in an ideal world, a pre- and post-assessment would be done to verify that the hazards identified in the assessment were properly mitigated.

Risk assessment

What a risk assessment is comprised of is outlined in ANSI B11 Series Standards for Industrial Machinery, ANSI/RIA R15.06-2012 Safety Standards for Industrial Robots, and the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 79-2015 Electrical Standard for Industrial Machinery.

The overarching goal of a task-based risk assessment is to identify hazards associated with machinery or robots. This requires an on-site visit by a risk assessment professional who audits and assigns each machine a risk rating based on three considerations: Severity of Injury, Exposure Frequency, and Avoidance Likelihood, which produces a Risk Level. Today’s risk assessment specialists use software-based tools that can make the process quicker than working through a pen-and-paper risk assessment form.

In advance of the facility visit and based upon project scope, the risk assessment specialist will need to review a comprehensive machine list and potentially other documentation such as: corporate safety standards, lockout/tagout (LOTO) procedures, electrical and mechanical drawings, floor-plan layout and equipment manuals.

The scope of assessing a piece of machinery for risk begins with reviewing its operational states with functionality tests performed to help identify potential hazards during machine start-up, cycle, and stopping. The risk assessment specialist may perform a Stop-Time Measurement (STM) test to determine the machine’s reaction time after receiving a stop signal to ensure proper safety distance of safeguarding devices. The specialist will also establish if a passerby or other employees in the area could be hurt if an incident occurs, in addition to the operator.

Along with assessing the production risks of the machine, the risk assessment specialist must analyze the tasks performed by the machine operator as they relate to interacting with the machine, loading and unloading materials, planned and unplanned maintenance methods, frequency of tool changes, and general housekeeping.

During the risk assessment, the specialist will photograph machines and generate a final hazard report documenting their assessment findings and risk levels. The hazardous findings of each machine are broken down into the following ranked classifications:

Critical: There is an imminent life-threatening or dismemberment hazard and immediate action is needed to reduce risk and improve operator safety
Mandatory: There is an imminent hazard that creates potential for injury and action is required to reduce risk, improve operator safety and to comply with OSHA/ANSI standards
Compliant: There is not a recognized hazard that creates potential for injury and no action is required.

Safeguarding assessment

While a risk assessment helps to identify a problem, it does not provide specific safety solutions nor cost estimates. For that, a safeguarding assessment is needed.

During the safeguarding assessment, a specialist will visit the site and conduct an intensive audit of each machine and identify compliance in five guarding areas: safeguards, controls, disconnects, starters and covers. The safeguarding specialist may request copies of electrical, pneumatic or hydraulic schematics, operator manuals and ask for control panel access so that engineers can review the control circuit for electrical compatibility of any proposed safeguarding solutions and to verify reliability of the control circuit to determine the interfacing requirements of suggested equipment. Then the safeguarding specialist will focus on risk reduction using this basic methodology:

– Eliminate Access — A good safeguarding system eliminates the possibility of the operator or other workers placing parts of their bodies near hazardous moving parts.
Reduction in Exposure — A machine safeguard should not be able to be removed, bypassed or tampered with by the operator. To minimize risk exposure, all guards and devices must be securely mounted at the point-of-operation and durable enough to withstand industrial environments, vandalism and heavy usage.
– Create No New Hazards — A safeguard defeats its own purpose if it creates a hazard of its own such as a shear point, a jagged edge, or an unfinished surface which can cause a laceration. The edges of guards, for instance, should be rolled or bolted in such a way that they eliminate sharp edges.
– Create No Interference — Any safeguard which impedes a worker from performing a job quickly and comfortably might soon be overridden or disregarded. Proper safeguarding can actually enhance efficiency since it can relieve the worker’s apprehensions about injury.
– Allow Safe Lubrication — Locating oil reservoirs outside the guard, with a line leading to the lubrication point, will reduce the need for the worker to enter the hazardous area.
Administrative Controls — Without administrative oversight and supervisory control, a machine safeguarding program will fail. Training is key to establishing a safety culture. Operators need to trained to follow the Standard Operating Procedures provided by the machine manufacturer in order to reduce hazards and related risks.

Uncovering gaps in protection

Unlike a risk assessment, a safeguarding assessment recognizes both the problem and the solution. A final compliance report and safeguarding project proposal is issued to facility management which identifies deficiencies or gaps where each machine is not in compliance with current or specified regulations and standards. When not in compliance, the proposal offers standard and customized safeguarding solutions, along with associated costs and timelines to help bring machines into compliance and reduce risk. Each proposed solution is carefully weighed against factors such as risk-reduction benefit, productivity, technological feasibility, economic impact, and maintainability.

In this way, a machine safeguarding assessment follows the OSHA/ANSI approach to controlling machine hazards: eliminate the hazard by design; or control the hazard by guarding, posted warnings, personal protective equipment, and employee training.

Risk reduction strategies

When evaluating risk reduction solutions to address identified hazards, consider each machine and its unique risks. Three basic methods are available.
– Eliminating or reducing risks to a “tolerable” level by installing a new, inherently safe machine. Please note that what constitutes “tolerable” to one company is not necessarily tolerable to another.
– Installing the necessary safeguarding equipment on an existing machine to minimize risks that cannot be eliminated. Fixed enclosing guards, protective devices such as light curtains, palm buttons or presence sensing mats, and training on the safe working methods of the machine are all necessary to reduce injury risks.
– Changing the production process to eliminate the hazard. Perhaps the operator performs actions that increase his exposure to serious hazards? Or recent changes upstream have created a more dangerous environment? Even a small change in procedures can make for a safer, more efficient operation.

Conclusion

Both risk assessments and/or the safeguarding assessments are critical first steps in any machine or robot safeguarding project as outlined in ANSI B11 Series Standards for Metalworking, OSHA 1910.212 General Requirements, ANSI/RIA R15.06-2012 Safety Standards for Industrial Robots and NFPA 79. These standards pave the way for risk-reduction measures that are both effective and economical. Machine risk assessments provide a comprehensive hazard analysis with a risk ranking; machine safeguarding assessments identify safeguarding solutions and provide cost estimates for implementation. Which one is right for an organization depends upon the specific needs of the organization, the organization’s objectives, desired outputs and risk levels.

Related Blogs:

Machine Risk Assessment Process

Machine Safeguarding Assessment

Machine Risk Assessment

Machine Risk Assessment – Inquiry Confirmation

Remote Safeguarding Assessment

The good old days? Not for machine operators.

History of U.S. Machine Safeguarding

When manufacturing moved from small shops to factories during the Industrial Revolution, inexperienced, often very young workers were confronted with a confusing jumble of moving belts, pulleys and gears. While pre-industrial craftsmen faced risks from kilns and hand tools, industrialization introduced massive steam engines and fast-moving machines. Adults and children, some as young as four years old, operated unprotected machinery 12-16 hours a day under conditions unheard of today, with many losing their lives.

Safeguarding History

In America the use of labor saving machines was driven by a regulatory climate that discouraged employer’s interest in safety. As a result, manufacturers at the time developed machinery that was both highly productive and very dangerous. Overworked American factory workers in the 1900s faced life with missing limbs, damaged vision and hearing, lung infections, and severe burn injuries.

Child Worker Injury

Workers who were injured might sue employers for damages, yet winning proved difficult. If employers could show that the worker had assumed the risk, acted carelessly or had been injured by the actions of a fellow employee, courts would usually deny liability. Only about half of all workers fatally injured recovered anything and their average compensation amounted to only half a year’s pay. Because employee accidents were so cheap, industrial machinery was developed with little reference to safeguarding.

Not unexpectedly, reports from state labor bureaus were full of tragedies that struck the unlucky. These reports spurred the budding labor movement to call for factory safety. In 1877, Massachusetts passed the Nation’s first factory inspection law. It required guarding of belts, shafts and gears, protection on elevators, and adequate fire exits. Its passage prompted a flurry of state factory acts. By 1890, nine states provided for factory inspectors, 13 required machine safeguarding, and 21 made limited provision for health hazards.

Safeguarding HistoryOn the national level, Congress passed a federal employers’ liability law in 1908 that made it more expensive for companies to have a machine accident on their books. Thanks to the new law, worker injuries that once cost companies $200 to resolve now cost almost $2,000. In 1910, the state of New York created a workmen’s compensation law that forced companies to automatically compensate for workplace injuries, eliminating the need for families to take corporations to court. By 1921, 43 more states had followed New York’s lead and established their own compensation laws. Compensation laws and other liability costs suddenly made workplace injuries an expensive proposition for many employers.

What followed was a slow but steady increase in machine safeguarding. Manufacturing companies began to work to create safer production equipment, and managers began getting tasked with identifying machine dangers.

In 1913, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics documented approximately 23,000 industrial deaths among a workforce of 38 million — a rate of about 61 deaths per 100,000 workers. Although the reporting system has changed over the years, the figure dropped to 37 deaths per 100,000 workers by 1933 and 3.5 per 100,000 full-time-equivalent workers in 2010. A major contributor to the trend in fewer deaths was machine safeguarding.

Safeguarding HistoryAfter WWII accidents declined as powerful labor unions played an increasingly important role in worker safety. Personnel Protective Equipment (PPE) became a requirement with gloves, masks and aprons given to workers. Posters were hung throughout the plant floor reminding workers of their responsibility to think and act in a safe manner. Basic guards and safety mats became common features around industrial machinery. Also, the American Standards Association published its “Safety Code for Mechanical Power Transmission Apparatus” in the 1940s. Very similar to OSHA 1910.218 it was written to serve as a guide for machine manufacturers in guarding systems. The National Safety Council found that the injury frequency rate dropped from 15 injuries per 100 full-time workers in 1941 to 9 in 1950. By 1956, it reached a decade low of 6 per 100 workers. As impressive as those numbers were, the on-the-job death toll in the 1950s remained a stubborn 13,000-16,000 workers annually.

Nixon Signs OSH ACTIn the 1960s economic expansion again led to rising injury rates with 14,000 workers dying each year. An additional 2.2 million workers were injured on the job. Resulting political pressures led Congress to establish the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) in 1970. On December 29, 1970, President Richard Nixon signed into law the Williams-Steiger Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSH Act), which gave the Federal Government the authority to set and enforce safety and health standards for most of the country’s workers. This act was the result of a hard fought legislative battle that began in 1968 when President Lyndon Johnson unsuccessfully sought a similar measure.

In the House, Representative William A. Steiger worked for passage of his bill by saying: “In the last 25 years, more than 400,000 Americans were killed by work-related accidents and disease, and close to 50 million more suffered disabling injuries on the job. Not only has this resulted in incalculable pain and suffering for workers and their families, but such injuries have cost billions of dollars in lost wages and production.”

Machine Safeguarding AssessmentsWhen the agency opened for business in April 1971, OSHA covered 56 million workers at 3.5 million workplaces. Today, 105 million private-sector workers and employers at 6.9 million sites look to OSHA for guidance on workplace safety and health issues.

Safeguarding technology and requirements have come a long way since the industrial revolution. Advanced light curtains, interlocked guards, laser-guided systems and presence sensors are now commonplace. Despite this progress, the lack of machine guarding has been named to OSHA’S Top 10 Most Cited Violations List virtually every year since the list began. In 2018 OSHA handed out nearly 2,000 violations to companies for failing to have machines and equipment adequately guarded, underscoring how much work there is left to do.

In many respects, we take today’s focus on machine safety for granted. However, by reviewing history we can see how it has benefited society by radically reducing accidents and deaths.

Safeguarding History

Lack of Machine Guarding Again Named to OSHA’S Top 10 Most Cited Violations List

Every year around this time, the awards season kicks off with the Emmys, Golden Globes and the grand daddy of them all, the Oscars, eagerly announcing their lists of nominations. At the same time — and on a far more somber note — another roll call is issued, this one from the Occupational Safety & Health Administration (OSHA). Unlike Hollywood’s awards celebrations, however, no one wants to be nominated for OSHA’s Top Ten Most Cited Violations list, let alone take home the top prize.

OSHA revealed its 2017 Top 10 list at the National Safety Congress & Expo in the Indiana Convention Center. The top ten are:

1. Fall Protection – (1926.501): 6,072 violations
2. Hazard Communication (1910.1200): 4,176 violations
3. Scaffolding (1926.451): 3,288 violations
4. Respiratory Protection (1910.134): 3,097 violations
5. Lockout/Tagout (1910.147): 2,877 violations
6. Ladders (1926.1053): 2,241 violations
7. Powered Industrial Trucks (1910.178): 2,162 violations
8. Machine Guarding (1910.212): 1,933 violations
9. Fall Protection – Training Requirements: 1,523 violations
10. Electrical – Wiring Methods (1910.305): 1,405 violations

While reviewing the list, it is important to remain aware that the Federal Occupational Safety & Health Administration (OSHA) is a small agency. When tallied up to include its state partners, OSHA only has 2,100 inspectors who responsible for the health and safety of 130 million American workers, employed at more than 8 million work sites. This translates to about one compliance officer for every 59,000 workers. As a result, some serious injuries are not reported and thousands of potential violations go without citation or fines. In fact, numerous studies have shown that government counts of occupational injury are underestimated by as much as 50 percent. Employers are required to record all injuries meeting the OSHA’s ‘recordable injury’ criteria (except minor first-aid cases) on the OSHA 300 Log, and those meeting the ‘reportable’ criteria (e.g., hospitalizations or deaths), are to be reported to OSHA immediately, or within 24 hours of occurrence, as per the criteria defined in 29 CFR 1904. But it doesn’t mean all of them do.

MACHINE (UN)SAFEGUARDING IN TOP 10 MOST CITED VIOLATIONS
The absence of required machine safeguarding remains a perennial member of OSHA’s Top 10 Most Cited Violations, and 2017 was no exception. It was named number eight on the list with a total of 1,933 violations. These violations refer to OSHA 1910.212 for failing to have machines and equipment adequately guarded. Any machine part, function, or process that might cause injury should be safeguarded. When the operation of a machine may result in a contact injury to the operator or others in the area, the hazard should be removed or controlled.

A lack of machine safeguarding also held the dubious distinction of making the list of OSHA’s ten largest monetary penalties for the year — not once but four times. In fact, the largest proposed monetary penalty, a staggering $2.6 million (USD), arose from an incident where a worker was crushed to death while clearing a sensor fault in a robotic conveyor belt. OSHA alleges that the company failed to use energy control procedures to prevent robotic machinery from starting during maintenance. The manufacturer also was cited for exposing employees to crushing and amputation hazards as a result of improper machine guarding, plus failing to provide safety locks to isolate hazardous energy.

Despite these headline fines, the repercussions for employers putting workers in harm’s way remain small under the 1970 Occupational Safety and Health Act. The average federal fine for a serious workplace safety violation was $2,402 in fiscal year 2016, according to the most recent report by the AFL-CIO. And the median penalty for killing a worker was $6,500.

According to the most recent Bureau of Labor Statistics data, manufacturing plants reported approximately 2,000 accidents that led to workers suffering crushed fingers or hands, or had a limb amputated in machine-related accidents. The rate of amputations in manufacturing was more than twice as much (1.7 per 10,000 full-time employees) as that of all private industry (0.7). The bulk of these accidents occurred while removing jammed objects from a machine, cleaning or repairing the machine, or performing basic maintenance. These injuries were all largely preventable by following basic machine safeguarding precautions. Rockford Systems is committed to helping organizations reduce injuries and fatalities due to a lack of or non-compliant machine safeguarding. By creating a culture of safety in the workplace, Rockford Systems can help plant managers significantly reduce the number of on-the-job injuries and fatalities that occur annually, plus guard against hefty fines, lost production and increased insurance premiums.

Which leads to the question… “Where do we begin?”

TRAINING AND EDUCATION

Ignorantia juris non excusat (“ignorance of the law excuses not”). Recognizing that education is key to safety, Rockford Systems has offered its Machine Safeguarding Seminars for more than two decades. Thousands of safety professionals have attended the seminars from industries as diverse as aerospace and metal fabrication, to government and insurance.

Held ten times a year at our Rockford, Illinois headquarters, the 2.5 day seminars address key topics in safeguarding with a focus on OSHA 29 CFR and ANSI B-11 standards as they relate to specific machine applications and production requirements. Safeguarding equipment, both old and new, is not only explained in depth in the classroom, but demonstrated under power on the shop floor. Most of these machines are equipped with more than one type of safeguarding product so that attendees can see how different guards and devices can be applied.

Roger Harrison, Director of Training for Rockford Systems and an industrial safeguarding expert with over 25,000 hours of training experience, conducts the Machine Safeguarding Seminar.

>Another valuable educational resource is OSHA-10 General Industry and OSHA-30 General Industry training courses, both of which cover machine guarding. All of our training can be provided at your site, if preferred. To learn more about the Rockford Systems training curriculum, please visit https://www.rockfordsystems.com/seminars/

Rockford Systems also provides a variety of FREE machine safeguarding resources for your organization. Please visit our RESOURCES page to find videos, blogs, quick reference sheets, and more or visit our YouTube channel to download past webinar recordings.

ASSESSMENTS
If your organization is interested in safeguarding solutions, consider a Machine Risk Assessment or Machine Safeguarding Assessment as the critical first step in any machine guarding process as outlined in ANSI B11. Most assessments, but not all, follow the basic steps outlined below.

Step 1 – Provide Machine List
To get started, please provide Rockford Systems a list of all machines (manufacturer, model number, and machine description of each machine) to be assessed. This machine list is needed to determine the estimated resource requirement for the onsite audit. Upon receipt of your machine list, an Assessment Proposal will be provided, generally within 24 hours of receipt. Please email your machine list and any machine photos (optional) to sheryl.broers@rockfordsystems.com.

Step 2 – Schedule Onsite Visit
During the assessment, a machine safeguarding specialist will visit your site and conduct a complete audit of all machines identified on the list and evaluate their compliance in five guarding areas (Safeguards, Controls, Disconnects, Starters, and Covers). The assessment is based on OSHA 1910.212 General Requirements (a)(1), ANSI B11 Safety Standards for Metalworking, ANSI/RIA R15.06-2012 Safety Standards for Industrial Robots, and NFPA 79. If Rockford Systems, LLC has additional specific safeguarding requirements above and beyond OSHA 1910.212 and ANSI B11, please provide them before the site visit and we will incorporate them into the assessment.

Also, during the assessment, we may request copies of electrical, pneumatic and/or hydraulic schematics and operator manuals for specific machines. This information is needed for our Engineering Department to review the control circuit for electrical compatibility of equipment being offered, to verify control reliability of the control circuit, to determine interfacing requirements of suggested equipment. If requested, this information would be needed before advancing to Step 3 below.

Step 3 – Receive Compliance Report and Safeguarding Project Proposal
Upon completion of the assessment, a Compliance Report and Safeguarding Project Proposal will be provided to that identifies where each machine is in, or not in, compliance with the above stated regulations and standards. Where not in compliance, we will suggest guarding solutions to bring the machines into compliance, along with associated costs and timeframes.

We look forward to assisting your organization with its safeguarding needs. A team member will call you within 24 hours to further discuss your needs and applications. We are here to help businesses large and small address machine safety challenges and to remove the burden of managing the growing legal complexity of OSHA, ANSI and NFPA requirements from simple turnkey solutions to build-to-spec customized solutions.

Please contact sheryl.broers@rockfordsystems.com or call 1-815-874-3648 (direct) to get started on an assessment today.

PRODUCTS
If you are looking for Machine Safeguarding Products, please visit our PRODUCTS page that offers over 10,000 safeguarding solutions for drill presses, grinders, lathes, milling machines, press brakes, power presses, radial arm drills, riveters and welders, robots, sanders, saws and more.

RETURN ON INVESTMENT
Not sure if the investment in machine safeguarding provides a return on the investment (ROI), it absolutely does and we can help you calculate it. Please read our detailed blog post on this topic.

For more information on how avoid machine injuries and fatalities, please visit www.rockfordsystems.com.

How To Use a Guard Opening Scale

Point-of-operation barrier guards are essential safeguarding equipment for hazardous industrial processes and machinery such as presses, pumps, motors and drills. When properly installed the barriers prevent a person from placing any part of their body into the point of operation by reaching through, over, under or around the guards to access a hazard. However, because barrier guards are typically constructed out of materials such as wire mesh, expanded metal, rods, or hairpins, most have openings that present the potential for injuries if a person reached through them. As a result, whether the guard is fixed, adjustable, movable, or interlocked, any openings must be measured for compliance with Table O-10 of OSHA 29 CFR 1910.217 (Mechanical Power Presses), current ANSI/CSA standards, or International standard ISO 13857 to determine the safe distance from the hazard.

The critical role of measuring barrier openings falls on a simple but often misunderstood tool: the Guard Opening Scale. Also known as “gotcha sticks,” Guard Opening Scales mimic the human hand and forearm. Over the past 70 years they’ve proven to be the most accurate means of ensuring any opening in a barrier guard will not allow a hazardous zone to be accessed.

HISTORY OF THE GUARD OPENING SCALE
The history of the Guard Opening Scale dates back to 1948. It was then that Liberty Mutual Insurance, joined with the Writing Committee for the ANSI B11.1 Safety Standard on Mechanical Power Presses, engineered a stair-step shaped measurement tool to determine guard-opening size vs. guard distance to the nearest Point of Operation hazard. A rash of injuries to mechanical power press operators who reached through barriers and suffered lacerations, amputations and crushed limbs prompted Liberty Mutual’s actions. Although Guard Opening Scales were first designed for point of operation guards on mechanical power presses, they are now often used on other machines as well.

Originally, the recommended dimensions used for the scale were based upon “average-size hands,” which at the time were a woman’s size 6 glove. ANSI incorporated these dimensions from Liberty Mutual into its 1971 revision of the ANSI B11.1 safety standard for mechanical power presses. In 1995, however, a study entitled “A Review of Machine-Guarding Recommendations” was conducted by Donald Vaillancourt and Stover Snook of Liberty Mutual Research to establish whether the 1948 drawings were consistent with current hand size data, in particular as the data relates to women and minorities who have become more prevalent in manufacturing. Vaillancourt and Snook suggested several important modifications including moving the glove size from a woman’s size 6 to a size 4. Drawings from the study have been adopted in several current ANSI B11-series safety standards for machine tools as well as in the ANSI/RIA R15.06 safety standard for industrial robots and robot systems. OSHA in Table O-10 of OSHA 29 CFR 1910.217 did not, on the other hand, officially adopt the drawings.

OSHA VS. ANSI GUARD OPENING SCALES
OSHA Compliance Officers are usually limited to using OSHA’s own scale, which is referenced by CFR 1910.217, Table 0-10. The ANSI scale is more likely to be used by Insurance Loss Control Engineers in manufacturing plants where smaller hand sizes tend to dominate the employee population. Let’s look at the differences in the two designs:


Note that the OSHA scale locks on the 3rd stair-step on the entrance side, and that the tip of the scale does not reach the die, meaning the test is “passed” for that opening size at that distance away. Also note that the ANSI scale locks on the last stair-step on the entrance side, and that the tip of the scale goes past the die, meaning that the test is “failed” for that opening size at that distance away. That problem can be fixed in one of two ways; move the guard a little further away from the die, or make the adjustable guard opening a little smaller, or some combination of those two.

USING A GUARD OPENING SCALE
A Guard Opening Scale is a two-dimensional representative of an average sized finger, hand and arm. Of course, the human body is not two-dimensional but three-dimensional, thus making its correct use critically important. Follow these simple instructions for proper measurements.

First, place the scaled side perpendicular to the smallest dimension in a hole in the barrier guard material and attempt to insert it towards the hazard. If properly designed, the barrier guard will stop the tip from accessing the hazard area. When multiple openings of various sizes exist in a barrier guard, each must be tested with the tool. The maximum guard opening that OSHA allows is a 6-inch opening at 31.5 inches away. For most people that’s armpit to fingertip. Also, the openings should always be measured empty, not with any material in place. This is based on the logic that personnel may put a hand through the guard opening without material taking up a portion of the space. Remember that Safety Inspectors won’t cut a plant operator any slack because the guard happens to be adjustable. Adjustable guard openings must be measured the same as fixed guard openings.

Please call 1-800-922-7533 or visit rockfordsystems.com for more information.

Safeguarding Mechanical Power Presses

Mechanical power presses (a.k.a. punch presses, stamping presses, flywheel presses), have existed in the U.S. since 1857. They were originally designed as either full-revolution, or part- revolution, both of which still exist, although the latter currently represents an estimated 90 percent of the roughly 300,000 mechanical power presses being used in the United States today.

This blog will address part-revolution presses only. These are often referred to as “air clutch” presses, made by dozens of manufacturers. The idea of safety for these machines has existed since 1922, when the first ANSI B11.1 Safety Standard was developed. The latest version, ANSI B11.1-2009 is the 10th update of that standard. This is generally considered to contain the “Best Safety Practices” for press users.

In the early 1970’s, OSHA promulgated a “machine specific regulation” for mechanical power presses, their CFR SubPart O, 1910.217. Very few changes have been made to that regulation since then. Keep in mind that OSHA’s 1910.217 Regulation was taken from ANSI B11.1 using a version that was freshly updated for OSHA in 1971. ANSI has updated their B11.1 four times since that time. Every update adds new, more stringent requirements than the previous version.

Although many companies have long since met the basic OSHA requirements for their presses, a significant number of those shops have yet to make updates to meet the latest ANSI B11.1 Standard. When OSHA regulations came 46 years ago, press control systems were primarily relay-logic systems, designed to meet OSHA’s initial requirement for “Control Reliability” and “Brake Monitoring.”

Press control systems manufactured in the mid 1980’s and beyond have been mostly solid-state, designed to meet the ANSI Standard concept for the “Performance of Safety Related Functions.” One of the advantages to solid-state controls are the features built-into them. Two of these are a: built-in “Stopping Performance Monitor” and built-in “Stop Time Measurement,” which prevents users from having to use a portable device to determine “Safety Distance” when applying Light Curtain and Two-hand Control devices.

Mechanical Power Presses require some combination of guards and/or devices to reduce or eliminate exposure to hazards at the “point of operation” where the dies close. Safeguarding alternatives include: Point-of-Operation Guards, Awareness Barriers, Light Curtains, and Two-Hand Controls.

1) Point-of-Operation Guards
Point-Of-Operation Guards are typically used for continuous operations where coil-stock feeds into the press as it operates in an uninterrupted mode of operation.

By OSHA’s definition, a guard must prevent people from reaching over, under, through, or around it. (OUTA is an acronym easy to remember; This guard keeps you “OUTA” here.) Guards must meet one of two measurement scales (the OSHA guard opening scale or the ANSI/CSA guard opening scale), to ensure that a small hand can’t reach far enough through any opening to get hurt.

To discourage misuse, hinged or sliding guard sections are often electrically interlocked, so that they remain in position (closed) during press operations. Without interlocks, movable sections can easily be left open, whether intentional or not, leaving Operators and others in the area unprotected.

Guard Interlocks are attached to hinged or moving guard sections, since access to the point-of-operation is most often made through those openings. Interlock attachment is best accomplished with tamper-resistant fasteners to discourage cheating the switch.

Many older guards use simple lever-arm or push-button switches. Not only are these switches easy to cheat with tape or wire, they are also spring-operated, leaving them subject to failure it the spring breaks. Newer switches are free of springs, and use actuators with a unique geometry, making them much more difficult to defeat.

2) Awareness Barriers (for low-level hazards only)
Another common method of safeguarding on coil-fed presses is an “Awareness Barrier” (A/B). They should completely surround press auxiliary equipment with railings, chains, or cables, suspended on floor stations. Although they don’t provide the same level protection as a guard, they do help to limit access to hazards on auxiliary equipment like coil-payoffs, feeds, straighteners, etc.

Awareness Barriers are considered superior to just a yellow line on the floor, because to get beyond the A/B requires an intentional act and some physical contact with them. This means the person is well aware that they are entering a hazard area, contrary to their safety training. Auxiliary equipment may also require that ingoing rolls are covered to prevent entanglement with long hair or loose clothing.

Awareness barriers should also have several Danger or Warning signs attached to them specifying what the hazards are in going beyond the A/Bs. Examples of sign verbiage might include: moving coil stock, ingoing pinch points, sharp edges, tripping hazard, etc.

3) Light Curtains
Light Curtains have been around since the mid-1950’s. They consist of a vertically mounted transmitter and receiver with closely spaced beams of infra-red light, creating a flat sensing-field. When fingers, hands, or arms that reach through that sensing-field, the press cycle is prevented or stopped to avoid operator injury.

One of the reasons that presses make a good application for light curtains is that they can be stopped mid-cycle very quickly. Light curtains can be used for either single or continuous applications. The only thing that light curtains don’t provide is “impact protection” should something break in the point of operation and be ejected in the operator’s direction. Where that’s an issue, poly carbonate shields or guards may be appropriate.

Like any safeguarding device, light curtains should be “function-tested” before every operating shift to ensure that they are continuing to provide protection. Make/model specific “function-test procedures” are usually available on each light curtain manufacturer’s website.

4) Two-Hand Controls
Two-Hand Controls are considered a safer means of cycling a press than a foot-switch because both hands must be in a safe position to use them. When cycling a press with a foot switch, hands can be anywhere. When operating a press in the single-cycle mode of operation, it’s possible to use a two-hand control as a safeguarding device as well. This requires that they meet a list of rules in both OSHA and ANSI.

Ten of the basic requirements for a two-hand control being used as a safeguarding device (in the single-cycle mode of operation) include:
1) protection from unintended operation
2) located to require the use of both hands (no elbow & finger tips)
3) concurrently operated (actuation within half-second of each other)
4) holding-time during the downstroke (hazardous portion of cycle)
5) anti-repeat (push and release both actuators for each single cycle)
6) interrupted stroke protection (for all operating stations)
7) separate set of two-hand controls for each operator
8) mounted at a calculated “Safety Distance” from nearest hazard
9) control system to meet “Performance of Safety Related Functions”
10) Stopping Performance Monitor is also required

When running high-production operations, don’t forget to consider ergonomics when choosing and installing two-hand controls. Several manufacturers of low-force and no-force actuators are on the market.

Also required by OSHA on Mechanical Power Presses is an electrically interlocked “Safety Block” whenever dies are being adjusting or repaired while they are in the press. The interlock is required because safety blocks are very seldom designed to hold the full working-force of the press (please refer to our Die Safety Blocks blog for additional information).

Mechanical Power Presses require two types of OSHA inspections:
1) Periodic and regular (typically quarterly) inspections of the press parts, auxiliary equipment, and safeguards . . . (don’t forget to document)
2) Weekly inspections of; clutch/brake mechanism, anti-repeat feature . . . along with other items (don’t forget to document)

OSHA requires training (in 1910.217) for anyone who cares for, inspects, maintains, or operates mechanical power presses.

ANSI B11.1-2009, requires training for “all (people) associated with press production systems, including operators, die setters, maintenance personnel, supervisors, which must also include (OSHA) 1910.147 Lockout/Tagout.”

Please call 1-800-922-7533 or visit rockfordsystems.com for more information.

Got Grinders? Get Safeguarding

Safeguarding Standards for Bench and Pedestal Grinders

Grinders are one of the most frequently cited machines during OSHA machine-safety inspections. This is frequently due to improperly adjusted work-rests and tongue-guards on bench/pedestal grinders, as well as a lack of ring-testing for the grinding wheels.

OSHA 29 CFR SubPart O 1910.215 is a “machine specific” (vertical) regulation with a number of requirements, which if left unchecked, are often cited by OSHA as violations. ANSI B11.9-2010 (Grinders) and ANSI B7.1 2000 (Abrasive Wheels) also apply.

Work-Rests and Tongue-Guards
OSHA specifies that work-rests must be kept adjusted to within 1/8-inch of the wheel, to prevent the workpiece from being jammed between the wheel and the rest, resulting in potential wheel breakage. Because grinders run at such a high RPM, wheels actually explode when they break, causing very serious injury, like blindness and even death.

In addition, the distance between the grinding wheel and the adjustable tongue-guard (also known as a “spark arrestor”) must never exceed 1/4-inch. Because the wheel wears down during use, both these dimensions must be regularly checked/adjusted.

“Grinder safety gauges” can be used during the installation, maintenance, and inspection of bench/pedestal grinders to make sure the work-rests and tongue-guards comply with OSHA’s 1910.215 regulation and ANSI standards. Wait until the wheel has completely stopped and the Grinder is properly “Locked Out” before using a “grinder safety gauge”. Grinder coast-down time takes several minutes, which tempts employees to use the “grinder safety gauge” while the wheel is still rotating. This practice is very dangerous because it can cause wheel breakage.

Where grinders are concerned, personal protective equipment (PPE) usually means a full face-shield, not just safety glasses. You cannot be too careful with a machine that operates at several thousand RPM.

Remember, you must DOCUMENT any and all safety requirements set forth by OSHA, as that is their best evidence that safety procedures are really being followed.

Ring-Testing
OSHA says that you must “ring-test” grinding wheels before mounting them to prevent the inadvertent mounting of a cracked grinding wheel.

Ring Testing
Ring-Testing involves suspending the grinding wheel by its center hole, then tapping the side of the wheel with a non-metallic object. This should produce a bell tone if the wheel is intact. A thud, or a cracked-plate sound indicates a cracked wheel. NEVER mount a cracked wheel.

For larger grinders, grinding wheels are laid flat on a vibration-table, with sand evenly spread over the wheel. If the wheel is cracked, the sand moves away from the crack.

To prevent cracking a wheel during the mounting procedure, employees must be very carefully trained in those procedures. This starts with making sure the wheel is properly matched to that particular grinder, using proper blotters and spacers, and knowing exactly how much pressure to exert with a torque-wrench, just to mention a few things.

This OSHA-compliant “Wheel-Cover” allows no more than 90 degrees (total) of the wheel left exposed. (65 degrees from horizontal plane to the top of wheel-cover)
Never exceed these wheel-cover maximum opening dimensions. Larger wheel-cover openings create a wider pattern of flying debris should the wheel explode. A well-recognized safety precaution on bench/pedestal grinders is to stand well off to the side of the wheel for the first full minute before using the machine. Accidents have shown that grinding wheels are most likely to shatter/explode during that first minute.

There is an OSHA Instruction Standard #STD 1-12.8 October 30, 1978 addressing the conditional and temporary removal of the “Work Rest” for use only with larger piece parts based on the condition that “Side Guards” are provided. If this may apply to your grinder(s), make sure that you read the entire thing on OSHA.gov.

Safety Information
Grinding Wheels are Safe… Use but Don’t Abuse

Do

  • Do always Handle and Store wheels in a careful manner
  • Do Visually Inspect all the wheels before mounting for possible damage
  • Do Make Sure Operating Speed of machine Does Not Exceed speed marked on wheel, its blotter or container
  • Do Check Mounting Flanges for equal size, relieved as required & correct diameter
  • Do Use Mounting Blotters when supplied with wheels
  • Do be sure Work Rest is properly Adjusted on bench pedestal, and floor stand grinders
  • Do always Use Safety Guard that covers a minimum of one-half the grinding wheel
  • Do allow Newly Mounted Wheels to run at operating speed, with guard in place, for at least one minute before grinding
  • Do always Wear Safety Glasses or some type of approved eye protection while grinding
  • Do Turn Off Coolant before stopping wheel to avoid creating an out-of-balance condition

Don’t

  • Don’t use a wheel that has been Dropped or appears to have been abused
  • Don’t Force a wheel onto a machine Or Alter the size of the mounting hole – If a wheel won’t fit the machine, get one that will
  • Don’t ever Exceed Maximum Operating Speed established for the wheel
  • Don’t use mounting flanges on which the bearing surfaces Are Not Clean, Flat And Smooth
  • Don’t Tighten the mounting nut Excessively
  • Don’t grind on the Side of conventional, straight or Type 1 wheels
  • Don’t Start the machine Until the Safety Guard is properly and securely In Place
  • Don’t Jam work into the wheel
  • Don’t Stand Directly In Front of a grinding wheel whenever a grinder is started
  • Don’t grind material for which the Wheel Is Not Designed

Source: Grinding Wheel Institute

Rockford Systems Can Help
Rockford Systems offers a wide variety of safeguarding products for grinders.

Grinder Safety Gauge

Bench Grinder Safety Gauge
The bench grinder safety gauge is laser-cut, Grade 5052 aluminum with H32 hardness. The safety yellow, durable powder-coated gauge has silk-screened text and graphics. The bench grinder safety gauge measures 2 3/4-inches wide by 2 1/4-inches high by .1000-inches thick and has a 1/4-inch hole for attachment to the bench grinder.

Standard Mount Grinder Shields
These standard mount grinder shields are available in various sizes for protection from the swarf of bench or pedestal grinders. The frames are constructed of reinforced fiber nylon or heavy cast aluminum. Each shield is furnished with a threaded support rod. The transparent portion of the standard mount grinder shields is made of high-impact resistant polycarbonate to minimize scratching and provide durability.

Direct-Mount or Magnetic-Mount Bench Grinder Shields with Flexible Arms

Double-Wheel and Single-Wheel Bench Grinder Shields
Double-wheel bench grinder shields provide protection for both wheels of the grinder with one continuous shield. The durable shield is made of clear, 3/16-inch-thick polycarbonate and measures 18-inch x 6-inch. A special shield bracket adds stability to the top of the shield. The single-wheel bench grinder shield is made of clear, 3/16-inch-thick polycarbonate and measures 6-inch x 6-inch. This sturdy, impact-resistant shield is designed for use when a single wheel needs safeguarding. These shields have a direct-mount base that attaches directly to the grinder table or pedestal.

Electrically-Interlocked Grinder and Tool Grinder Shields
Electrically Interlocked Grinder and Tool Grinder Shields
These electrically interlocked grinder and tool grinder shields are ideal for single- and double-wheel grinders. When the heavy-duty shield is swung out of position, the positive contacts on the microswitch open, sending a stop signal to the machine control. The safety microswitch electrical wires are furnished with a protective sheath and connect to the safety circuit of the machine that switches off the control to the movement of the grinding wheel. All safety micro switches are mounted in an enclosed housing with an enclosure rating of IP 67. The multi-adjustable, hexagonal steel arm structure allows easy mounting on the most diverse grinders. A versatile clamp allows horizontal and vertical adjustment of the shield. All electrically interlocked grinder and tool grinder shields consist of a high impact-resistant, transparent polycarbonate shield with an aluminum profile support and provide operator protection from flying chips and coolant.

Single-Phase Disconnect Switch

Single-Phase Disconnect Switch and Magnetic Motor Starter
This single-phase unit is designed for motors that have built-in over-loads. Typical applications for these combinations include smaller crimping machines, grinders, drill presses, and all types of saws. The 115-V, 15-A disconnect switch and non-reversing magnetic motor starter are housed in a NEMA-12 enclosure. Enclosure size is 8″ x 6″ x 3 1/2″. It includes a self-latching red emergency-stop palm button and a green motor control start push button. It can be used on machines with 115-V and is rated up to 1/2 HP maximum. The disconnect switch has a rotary operating handle which is lockable in the off position only. This meets OSHA and ANSI standards. For machines with 230-V AC single-phase motors, a transformer is required to reduce the control circuit voltage to 115-V AC in order to comply with NFPA 79.

Danger Sign for Cutting and Turning Machines
Don’t forget to post the appropriate danger signs near all machinery in the plant. The purpose of danger signs is to warn personnel of the danger of bodily injury or death. The suggested procedure for mounting this sign is as follows:
1) Sign must be clearly visible to the operator and other personnel
2) Sign must be at or near eye level
3) Sign must be PERMANENTLY fastened with bolts or rivets

Please call 1-800-922-7533 or visit www.rockfordsystems.com for more information.

OSHA Inspection Priorities

The following is an excerpt taken from OSHA Fact Sheet DEP FS-3783.

OSHA inspectors are experienced, well-trained industrial hygienists and safety professionals whose goal is to assure compliance with OSHA requirements and help employers and workers reduce on-the-job hazards and prevent injuries, illnesses, and deaths in the workplace. Since OSHA cannot inspect all 7 million workplaces it covers each year, the agency focuses its inspection resources on the most hazardous workplaces in the following order of priority:

1. Imminent danger situations—hazards that could cause death or serious physical harm receive top priority. Compliance officers will ask employers to correct these hazards immediately or remove endangered employees.

2. Severe injuries and illnesses—employers must report:

  • All work-related fatalities within 8 hours.
  • All work-related inpatient hospitalizations, amputations, or losses of an eye within 24 hours.

3. Worker complaints—allegations of hazards or violations also receive a high priority. Employees may request anonymity when they file complaints.

4. Referrals of hazards from other federal, state or local agencies, individuals, organizations or the media receive consideration for inspection.

5. Targeted inspections—inspections aimed at specific high-hazard industries or individual workplaces that have experienced high rates of injuries and illnesses also receive priority.

6. Follow-up inspections—checks for abatement of violations cited during previous inspections are also conducted by the agency in certain circumstances.

Normally, OSHA conducts inspections without advance notice. Employers have the right to require compliance officers to obtain an inspection warrant before entering the worksite.

Click here for a full PDF version of OSHA Fact Sheet DEP FS-3783.

Do I Really Need to Safeguard My Machines?

Unguarded Lathe

Yes, you really do need to safeguard machines in your workplace. But to what extent can be a matter of interpretation based on minimum safety requirements (OSHA regulations), or best safety practices (ANSI standards).

Most employers are familiar with OSHA (Occupational Safety & Health Administration) and the enabled OSH Act of 1970. Under the OSH Act, employers are responsible for providing a safe and healthful workplace. Employers must comply with all applicable OSHA standards. Employers must also comply with the General Duty Clause of the OSH Act, which requires employers to keep their workplace free of serious recognized hazards.

By law, employers are legally required to follow OSHA regulations. That means an OSHA inspector will issue citations for noncompliance to their CFR (Code of Federal Regulations). OSHA’s CFR SubPart O—Machinery and Machine Guarding has six (6) machine specific safeguarding regulations which are:

1910.213 Woodworking Machinery
1910.214 Cooperage Machinery

1910.215 Abrasive Wheel Machinery
1910.216 Mills and Calendars
1910.217 Mechanical Power Presses

1910.218 Forging Machines

safeguarded lathe

OSHA regulations for safeguarding most other machines falls under 1910.212 General Requirements For All Machines which specifies that the operator and others in the machine area be protected from exposure to hazards.

However, ANSI’s B11-Series Safety Standards (which has 24 machine categories) are often used to fill in the details for specific safeguarding and can be used as reference material by OSHA inspectors. Even though ANSI safety standards are voluntary, they could become legally mandatory if an OSHA citation mentions specific ANSI standard for you to comply to.

The bottom line is that all employers should strive to exceed minimum requirements and abide by the best safety practices found in the ANSI B11 standards. The key to employee safety is to observe best safety practices at all times. After all, it could be a matter of life and death!