The consequences of inadequate machine safety practices can be severe, and there are many misunderstandings that put facilities and their employees at risk. Omron assesses and evaluates over 3000 machines a year worldwide, and has seen how a lack of safety knowledge can lead to poorly functioning safety systems.
The consequences of inadequate machine safety practices can be severe, and there are many misunderstandings that put facilities and their employees at risk. Omron assesses and evaluates over 3000 machines a year worldwide, and has seen how a lack of safety knowledge can lead to poorly functioning safety systems.
Omron says that misconceptions about machine safety are on the rise as older, experienced workers retire in large numbers, with few mid-career workers inheriting their expertise. This trend is causing many industrial facilities to lack the engineering expertise required to ensure that their machines meet modern safety standards. In addition, an increase in the number of newer, fully automated solutions can lead to complacency, as manufacturers mistakenly believe that their new systems must be compliant.
Myth 1: If a machine is brand new, then it must be compliant
Safety is not usually a core competency of OEMs, and safety measures have become the responsibility of the end user. Manufacturers worry that safety measures hamper productivity and make processes less efficient. Although they can slow down some processes, their benefits far outweigh the costs in the long term by helping to avoid expensive, traumatic incidents.
Myth 2: Safety is too expensive and reduces productivity
The costs of an accident include not only fines and workers compensation, but also lots of productivity due to poor morale. Safety measures can be designed so they do not affect the efficiency of the machine. An example is an application that uses a safety laser scanner to minimise downtime in areas with cobots. If a worker enters the robot work area, the scanner triggers the cobot’s reduced speed mode, causing it to slow down to a safer operating level. When the employee steps out of the area, the cobot goes back to its faster speed.
Myth 3: Administrative control and employee safety training can replace good engineering
The foundation of machine safety consists of a hierarchy of controls published by NIOSH, which lists administrative controls and personal protective equipment as the least effective ways to mitigate risk. Physically removing the hazard (elimination) and replacing the hazard (substitution) are the most effective measures, but these can be impractical. Engineering controls form the middle ground for protecting operators from hazardous machine motion.
Myth 4: There are machine safeguarding exemptions for smaller companies
All companies are required to safeguard their machines properly and protect the lives and safety of their employees. What depends on company size is the amount that a company must pay in case of a safety violation. In general, regulatory agencies see enforcement actions as motivating compliance, rather than functioning as punitive measures. Regulatory bodies often have discretion in the nature and size of an enforcement action. They can issue a warning or a fine, or in extreme cases lock out non-compliant equipment.
Myth 5: When several machines are identical, it is only necessary to do a risk of assessment for one
This depends on the complexity of the machine. Even insignificant differences between machines and their positioning relative to another could change the outcome of the risk assessment.
Myth 6: If a machine was assessed before it was moved to a new location, there is no need to do another risk assessment
This depends on the complexity of the machine. When assessing access to a hazard on a machine, Omron’s safety experts use a system known by the acronym “AUTO” to determine whether an employee can reach around, under, through or over a safeguarding measure to reach the hazard area.
Myth 7: A gate using a padlock to prevent access is an acceptable safety measure
Movable guards providing protection against hazards need to be interlocked to signal the apparatus to stop. Fixed guards should be securely held in place either permanently (by welding) or by means of tamper-resistant fasteners.
Myth 8: Performance requirements for safety measures stop at the wire
Many manufacturers believe that safeguarding is only necessary when the energy source is electrical. All hazardous energy sources need to be ‘single-fault tolerant’, including hydraulic and pneumatic sources.
Myth 9: Safety is something you can take care of once and forget about it
Safety is an ongoing requirement, and companies must perform regular risk assessments on their machines to ensure that that they meet the most recent safety standards. Standards evolve with the purpose of making workplaces safer, and it is imperative for manufacturers to stay up to date to protect their employees.
| Tel: | +27 11 579 2600 |
| Email: | [email protected] |
| www: | www.industrial.omron.co.za |
| Articles: | More information and articles about Omron Electronics |
© Technews Publishing (Pty) Ltd | All Rights Reserved
printer friendly version