Ten Most Reported Worker’s Compensation Injuries

Last year in America 2.9 million employees (U.S Bureau of Labor Statistics) suffered a workplace injury from which they never recover, at a cost to business of nearly $60 billion (Liberty Mutual Insurance). These statistics are staggering. To help gain a better perspective on the realities of workplace danger, we have compiled a list of the ten most reported worker’s compensation injuries, as reported by a leading insurance company.

By raising awareness of these dangers, we hope we can help you identify hazards in your workplace and take measures to control the risks preferably by eliminating them – but if that is not possible, by reducing them as far as possible.

1. Overexertion– These are injuries due to excessive physical effort such as lifting, pulling, pushing, turning, wielding, holding, carrying or throwing. The Liberty Mutual Workplace Safety Index, which is compiled using Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) data, workers’ compensation claims reported to the National Academy of Social Insurance and compensation benefits paid by Liberty Mutual, indicates that overexertion accounts for more than 25 percent of direct workers’ compensation costs paid out annually.

2. Slips – Slipping accidents are the second leading cause of workers’ compensation claims and the top cause of workplace injuries for workers 55 and older, as reported by the National Flooring Safety Institute. In a hard fall, a worker may sustain injuries to the knee or ankle, wrist or elbow, back or shoulder, hip or head. Employers need safety guidelines to ensure spills are promptly cleaned and no debris is present which can be dangerous.

3. Falling – In 2013, 595 workers died in elevated falls, and 47,120 were injured badly enough to require days off of work. A worker doesn’t have to fall from a high level to suffer fatal injuries. While half of all fatal falls in 2016 occurred from 20 feet or lower, 11% were from less than 6 feet. Not surprisingly, construction workers are most at risk for fatal falls from height – more than seven times the rate of other industries. These types of accidents can be reduced by the use of proper personal protection gear, training and employee diligence.

4. Bodily Reaction– Coming in at number four are reaction injuries caused by slipping and tripping without falling, often leading to muscle injuries, body trauma, and a variety of other medical issues. Although these injuries may sound non-serious, insurance companies paid out $3.89 billion in workers’ compensation in 2016 for bodily reaction incidences (Liberty Mutual Insurance).

5. Falling Object Injuries – There are more than 50,000 “struck by falling object” injuries every year in the United States, says the Bureau of Labor Statistics. That’s one injury caused by a dropped object every 10 minutes. How serious is the danger? Consider this: an eight-pound wrench dropped 200 feet would hit with a force of 2,833 pounds per square inch – the equivalent of a small car hitting a one-square-inch area. Proper personal protection gear usage, such as a hard hat, can be instrumental in keeping the employee safe.

6. Distracted Walking Injuries – They may seem funny in slapstick comedies, but distracted walking injuries in the workplace were recently labeled a “significant safety threat” by the National Safety Council. These injuries occur when a person accidentally runs into walls, doors, cabinets, glass windows, tables, chairs or other people. Head, knee, neck, and foot injuries are common results. As with distracted driving accidents, it is difficult to track the number of occupational injuries caused by distracted walking, since workers might be reluctant to admit they were looking down at their cell phones when they were injured.

7. Vehicle Accidents – Accidents are common in workplace environments using cranes, trailers and trucks. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics more than 1,700 deaths a year result from occupational transportation incidents. Employee Safe Driver training courses are likely to reduce vehicle accidents that may injure employees. Managers are required to conduct routine vehicle maintenance to ensure vehicles are operating safely and properly.

8. Machinery Accidents – Machines used in the workplace are often operated without safety guards and devices, exposing their operators and others to serious injury. Common injuries involve clothing or hair becoming caught in moving parts. Many of the amputations that occur on machinery can be prevented by updating machines with appropriate safeguarding. Electrical updates for magnetic motor-starters, main power disconnects, and emergency-stops, also help to prevent injury. OSHA regulations and ANSI safety standards spell out safety modifications that can prevent needless accidents. Learn more about how Rockford Systems, a leader in machine safeguarding, will help you create a safer workplace with their extensive line of innovative safeguarding solutions.

9. Repetitive Motion Injuries – Thousands of employees suffer from injuries that occur gradually and make it difficult to do daily tasks, such as typing, twisting wires, using hand tools, or bending over to lift objects. These are called repetitive motion injuries and strain muscles and tendons. Over time it will lead to back pain, lumbar injuries, tendonitis, bursitis, vision problems, or carpal tunnel syndrome. Repetitive motion injuries may be temporary or permanent. Employee training and the use of proper ergonomic tools can help keep these incidents low.

10. Workplace Violence – According to OSHA, workplace violence is any act or threat of physical violence, harassment, intimidation, or other threatening disruptive behavior that occurs at the work site. It ranges from threats and verbal abuse to physical assaults and even homicide. Nearly 2 million American workers report having been victims of workplace violence each year. Unfortunately, many more cases go unreported. Workplace violence employee training and employee diligence in watching out for suspicious activities can help keep these incidents at bay. One of the best protections employers can offer their workers is to establish a zero-tolerance policy toward workplace violence.

Workplace injuries can leave the lives of employees and their families shattered. Employers have legal obligations to ensure a safe workplace for their employees – and also for anyone else who may visit the workplace such as customers, contractors and members of the public.

Avoiding Pinch-Point Injuries on Riveters and Welders

Pinching your finger in a door can be painful but certainly not life threatening. Pinch-point injuries involving industrial machinery are another story, one that rarely has a happy ending.

What is a pinch point?
A pinch point is “any point at which it is possible for a person or part of a person’s body to be caught between moving parts of a machine, or between the moving and stationary parts of a machine, or between material and any part of the machine,” according to OSHA. A pinch point can be located anywhere on a machine, including the point of operation. If any part of the worker’s body, typically hands or fingers, occupies that space during the pinching movement, there is a high probability of injury, such as fractures, amputations, contusions, lacerations or even death. Pinch-point hazard injuries can occur on a variety of different machine types, ranging from large hydraulic presses to small specialized machines, such as riveters and welders.

Hand safety regulation
There are several important U.S. hand protection standards designed to help employers keep workers’ hands safe at work: ANSI/ISEA 105-2011, American National Standard for Hand Protection Selection Criteria, and OSHA’s 29 CFR 1910.138.

Physical Barriers: Eliminate the hazard by ensuring proper machine guarding is in place or keeping your hands away from pinch point hand injury and prevention altogether.

Awareness: Pay attention to where your hands are around any moving parts or any objects that have the potential to move. Do not place your hands where you cannot see them.

Spot Welding
Personal Protective Equipment (PPE): Make sure you are always wearing your safety gear and inspect it before each use. Although the last line of defense against a pinch point injury, PPE (proper gloves, footwear) is a necessity to ensure others notice your position and your extremities are protected. Make sure clothing is properly fitted as to not get caught in machinery, moving parts, items that open/close, etc.

Properly block any equipment or parts where stored energy could be released. OSHA defines stored energy as hazardous energy sources including electrical, mechanical, hydraulic, pneumatic, chemical, thermal or other sources in machines and equipment that can be hazardous to workers. During the servicing and maintenance of machines and equipment, unexpected startup or release of stored energy could cause injury to employees. Lockout-tagout procedures need to be put into place to control hazardous energy and prevent unexpected start up.

Properly installed physical barriers or machine guards can help prevent workers from reaching into, through, over, under or around the pinch point.

Riveters & welders
We will be looking at “Good, Better, Best” approaches to safeguarding two machine types that present unavoidable pinch-point hazards – spot welders and pneumatic riveters. It is important to appreciate the magnitude of force between spot welding electrodes or riveting tips.

Spot welders require high forces between the moving electrodes ranging from a few hundred pounds to several thousand pounds. Because the force is concentrated on a small contact surface, the pounds per square foot can be extremely high. For example, a fairly typical electrode of 800 pounds with an electrode that has a ¼ inch diameter contact face will deliver 16,306 pounds per square foot. This is easily enough to severely crush or amputate a finger. Similarly, pneumatic riveting machines produce several thousand pounds of force concentrated on small-diameter mandrils. A typical rivet force of 2,000 pounds will deliver over 40,000 pounds per square inch.

Two-hand control and light curtains can be used to safeguard riveters and welders capable of stopping on the down-stroke (hazardous portion of the cycle, creates the pinch point).

Good: Drop-probe devices
Drop-probes provide economical, simple to understand and use, reliable protection for the operator. Drop-probe devices function by allowing a sensing probe to drop by gravity around the point-of-operation hazard of a riveter or welder prior to each intended machine cycle. The sensing probe cycle is initiated when the foot switch is pressed. If the sensing probe encounters the operator’s fingers and fails to drop past a preset position, the machine will not complete the cycle until the obstruction is cleared and the cycle is re-initiated.

Drop-probe devices can be used on machines that run in an automatic mode, but they only provide risk reduction for the first stroke.

The drawbacks of traditional drop-probe devices are:
– Stroke adjustment is limited to 1-5/16 inches.
– Uses a 50-percent duty rotary solenoid. It needs an equal amount of work time vs. rest time, so it’s not an ideal solution for high-volume welding or riveting applications.

Better: Adjustable stroke drop-probes
Identical in most ways to standard drop-probes, adjustable models offer an externally adjustable stroke, via a clamp collar, typically from 0 to 4.0 inches to accommodate any fixture, tooling, or changes in the profile of the workpieces.

Advantages of this device are:
– Longer stroke adjustment (4-½ inches versus 1-5/16 inches).
– Uses an air cylinder to move the drop probe, which is better suited for high-volume applications.

Best: Continuity monitoring
The most unique and highly effective guarding device measures electrical continuity between the two electrodes to verify they are actually touching the part to be welded, or in the case of a riveter, continuity between the upper and lower mandrils. If anything, such as the operator’s finger, blocks the movement of the electrode, the system will not detect continuity. In other words, it must detect metal between the copper tips or riveting mandrils rather than a finger.

When the foot pedal is closed, the electrodes are close under low force (50 pounds or less).
– If continuity is detected within a customer-set maximum detect time, the air pressure rises to the full welding or riveting level and the process runs through completion.
– If continuity is not detected within this maximum time, low pressure will be released and the electrode or mandril returns to the fully open position.

The continuity signal in a spot welder is picked up from wires on the welding transformer secondary pads, eliminating the need for wire connections at the electrodes. For riveters the sensing wires are connected to the frame of the rivet machine and the electrically-isolated lower tooling holder. In both cases the system will fail safe (lock out) if either of the pick-up wires is disconnected or if they are shorted together.

Rockford Systems offers the Unitrol SOFT TOUCH Pinch-Point Safety System that is the first and only fully passive safeguarding equipment designed to prevent a pneumatic riveter, welder or other small machine from applying full force if it detects fingers in the machine’s point-of-operation area. SOFT TOUCH measures electrical continuity between electrodes to verify they are actually touching the part to be welded — and not the operator’s fingers. If anything other than metal is present between the electrodes, their sensors will not detect continuity and the electrodes will open automatically. This simple step prevents the machine from delivering high-pressure riveting or welding force onto the operator’s fingers.

Conclusion

Pinch-point injuries are common and employers have an obligation to keep worker’s hands safe from pinch-point hazards. As outlined by ANSI B.11, task-based risk assessments are the critical first step in any safety evaluation and can identify hazards, such as pinch-point hazards. Risk-control factors, such as machine guarding, proper training and awareness of hand locations, and lockout tagout procedures, all help prevent pinch-point injuries. Devices, such as SOFT TOUCH, are the best method of safeguarding against pinch-point injuries as it features a 100% passive, fail safe method of detecting continuity.

SAFETY IN NUMBERS: Stop Time Measurements

Stop-Time Measurements Keep Safeguarding Equipment in Peak Performance

We’ve all heard the phrase “what a difference a day makes,” yet when it comes to industrial safeguarding, the concern isn’t days, hours or even minutes. It is the milliseconds it takes for a machine operation to stop. That fraction of a second can make the difference between a life-changing injury or a safe machine cycle, the difference between a valued employee going home or being taken to the emergency room.

How can we assure the right outcome? How do we determine if a machine will stop in time?

The answer is specialized equipment called “Stop-Time Measurement” devices (STM). An STM is used to determine the total response time from the triggering of a machine’s operating control or a safeguarding device… to the exact moment when a dangerous movement comes to a halt. Take, for example, the time it takes for a press brake cycle to stop when a finger or hand enters the point-of-operation zone, or the time between when a light curtain is activated and when the machine comes to a complete standstill.

Once the stop-time data is captured by an STM in either milliseconds or inches, it is applied to an established formula to calculate the minimum safety distance required to install safety devices. A record of the measurement can be printed out, or alternatively, the device can be plugged into a PC where the measurements can be recorded and documented.

Doing the Math
According to OSHA, the majority of machine-related accidents happen as a result of a reflex action or when the operator is not paying attention. For example, a machine operator may instinctively reach into the machine when there is an issue. Or they will be so focused on a task that they’ll cross the threshold into a hazardous area without being aware of it. In these events, it is critical that a machine’s safety devices stop operations before the hazard is reached. In addition, accidents may not be the fault of the operator at all. There are instances where integrators do not program the field of coverage — the area being monitored by the light curtain, for instance — at the proper safety distance and puts the operator unknowingly at danger.

So what is the correct distance? The basic calculation for ‘safety distance’ comprises approach speed, overall stop time and penetration depth factor.

The standard formula is below:
DS = K (T) + DPF
where:
DS = the safety distance
K = the maximum speed that an individual can approach the hazard
T = the total time to stop the hazardous motion
DPF = the depth penetration factor of the safeguarding device

There are other variations on this calculation; for example, where a light curtain is in operation, the calculation requires both the resolution and the response time of the light curtain to be factored. Most STM devices perform calculations internally so the operator doesn’t need to concern themselves with all the details of the math, only the results to act upon.

In the United States there are two formulas that are used to properly calculate the safety distance. The first, the OSHA formula, is the minimum requirement for the calculation of the safety distance. The second is the ANSI formula, which incorporates additional factors to be considered when calculating the safety distance. Rockford Systems recommends the use of the ANSI system since it is the more comprehensive of the two. The formula is included in ANSI standards B11.19-2010 and Robotic Industries Association (RIA) R15.06-1999 (R2009), as well as CSA Z142-10, Z432-04 and Z434-03.

Stop-Time Measurement Service
For all linear and rotating motion equipment, Rockford Systems offers STM service for newly installed safety devices as well as for the periodic validation of existing safety devices. Periodic safety distance validation with an STM is required for AOPD systems, light curtains, 2-hand control systems, emergency stop devices, pressure-sensitive protective strips or mats, interlocking guards, doors and gates, as well as other safety devices and controls equipment used during production. This is necessary since factors like maintenance, brake wear, and alterations can increase the machine’s stopping time. If a machine stops slower than it did when it was originally commissioned then components will need to be adjusted to continue providing the correct level of safety. Stop time measurement is able to detect changes at an early stage, so that appropriate action can then be taken. For these and other reasons it is important to perform at least an annual stop time analysis. Rockford Systems STM services are mainly employed on reciprocating (stroking or cycling) machines, such as mechanical or hydraulic presses and press brakes, but can also be used on machines that rotate, such as lathes, mills, and drills.

Location of a safety component, whether hard guarding or electronic, is based upon the machine’s stopping time. Simply stated, a safety component should be placed far enough away from the risk area that it is not possible to reach the hazard before the machine has stopped. Safety devices are then installed using the minimum safe distance. Reference our OSHA Safety Distance Guide Slide Chart.

Regularly checking shop machinery with Stop-Time Measurements and maintaining a log of the results empowers a company to be proactive in establishing a safety maintenance program. It ensures that safeguarding equipment on machinery works as designed to achieve greater worker safety, productivity and profits.

I, COBOT

I, COBOT: The Rise of Industrial Robotics and the Need for Employee Safeguarding

In general, OSHA’s view on robot safety is that if the employer is meeting the requirements of ANSI/RIA R15.06, the manufacturer has no issues.

Tech executive and billionaire entrepreneur Elon Musk recently took to Twitter calling for the regulation of robots and Artificial Intelligence (AI), saying their potential, if left to develop unchecked, threatens human existence. Google, Facebook, Amazon, IBM, and Microsoft joined in with their own dire forecasts and have jointly set up the consortium “Partnership on AI to Benefit People and Society” to prevent a robotic future that looks not unlike the “Terminator” movie series. National media heightened panic by broadcasting a video released by a cybersecurity firm in which a hacked industrial robot suddenly begins laughing in an evil, maniacal way and uses a screwdriver to repeatedly stab a tomato. The video demonstrated how major security flaws make robots dangerous, if not deadly.

Is all this just media hyperbole, or are robots really that hazardous to our collective health? Are productivity-driven manufacturers unknowingly putting employees at risk by placing robots on the plant floor? What kind of safeguarding is required? Should robots be regulated, as Elon Musk believes?

‘Dumb’ Machines vs. Cobots
Until now, the robots used in manufacturing have mostly been “dumb” robots—that is, room-sized, programmed machinery engineered to perform repetitive tasks that are dirty, dangerous, or just plain dull. Typical applications would include welding, assembly, material handling, and packaging. Although these machines are very large and certainly have enough power to cause injuries, the instances of employees actually being injured by robots is relatively rare. In fact, during the past three decades, robots have accounted for only 33 workplace deaths and injuries in the United States, according to data from the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA).

So, you might ask, why the sudden uproar when there are already 1.6 million industrial robots in use worldwide? Most of the clamor behind calls for regulation stems from a new generation of robots called “cobots” (collaborative robots) that are revolutionizing the way people work. Unlike standard industrial robots, which generally work in cages, cobots have much more autonomy and freedom to move on their own, featuring near “human” capabilities and traits such as sensing, dexterity, memory, and trainability.

The trouble is, in order for cobots to work productively, they must escape from their cages and work side by side with people. This introduces the potential for far more injuries. In the past, most injuries or deaths happened when humans who were maintaining the robots made an error or violated the safety barriers, such as by entering a cage. Many safety experts fear that since the cage has been all but eliminated with cobots, employee injuries are certain to rise.

Because cobots work alongside people, their manufacturers have added basic safety protections in order to prevent accidents. For instance, some cobots feature sensors so that when a person is nearby, the cobot will slow down or stop whatever function it is performing. Others have a display screen that cues those who are nearby about what the cobot is focusing on and planning to do next. Are these an adequate substitute for proven safeguarding equipment? Only time will tell.

There is another, more perilous problem with robots in general: Robots are basically computers equipped with arms, legs, or wheels. As such, robots are susceptible to being hacked. But unlike with a desktop computer, when a robot is hacked it has the ability to move around. For instance, a disgruntled ex-employee could hack into a robot and re-program it to harm people and destroy property. The more functionality, intelligence, and power a robot has, the bigger its potential threat.

Types of Injuries
OSHA lists four types of accidents resulting from robot use in the Technical Manual “Industrial Robots and Robot System Safety” (Section IV: Chapter 4).
1. Impact or collision accidents. Unpredicted movements, component malfunctions, or unpredicted program changes related to the robot’s arm or peripheral equipment could result in contact accidents.
2. Crushing and trapping accidents. A worker’s limb or other body part can be trapped between a robot’s arm and other peripheral equipment, or the individual may be physically driven into and crushed by other peripheral equipment.
3. Mechanical part accidents. The breakdown of the robot’s drive components, tooling or end-effector, peripheral equipment, or its power source is a mechanical accident. The release of parts, failure of gripper mechanism, or the failure of end-effector power tools (e.g., grinding wheels, buffing wheels, deburring tools, power screwdrivers, and nut runners) are a few types of mechanical failures.
4. Other accidents. Other accidents can result from working with robots. Equipment that supplies robot power and control represents potential electrical and pressurized fluid hazards. Ruptured hydraulic lines could create dangerous high-pressure cutting streams or whipping hose hazards. Environmental accidents from arc flash, metal spatter, dust, electromagnetic, or radio-frequency interference also can occur. In addition, equipment and power cables on the floor present tripping hazards.

Robot Safety Regulations
Robots in the workplace are generally associated with machine tools or process equipment. Robots are machines, and as such, must be safeguarded in ways similar to those presented for any hazardous remotely controlled machine, falling under the OSHA General Duty Clause (5)(a)(1), which requires employers provide a safe and healthful workplace free from recognized hazards likely to cause death or serious physical harm. Also applicable are OSHA 1910.212 (a)(1) “Types of Guarding” and 1910.212 (a)(3)(ii) “The point of operation of machines whose operation exposes an employee to injury shall be guarded.”

Various techniques are available to prevent employee exposure to the hazards that can be imposed by robots. The most common technique is through the installation of perimeter guarding with interlocked gates. A critical parameter relates to the manner in which the interlocks function. Of major concern is whether the computer program, control circuit, or the primary power circuit is interrupted when an interlock is activated. The various industry standards should be investigated for guidance; however, it is generally accepted that the primary motor power to the robot should be interrupted by the interlock.

In general, OSHA’s view on robot safety is that if the employer is meeting the requirements of ANSI/RIA R15.06, Industrial Robots and Robot Systems—Safety Requirements, then the manufacturer has no issues. For guidance on how to select and integrate safeguarding into robot systems, refer to the Robotic Industries Association’s Technical Report: RIA TR R15.06-2014 for Industrial Robots and Robot Systems—Safety
Requirements and Safeguarding.

Published by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) and Robotic Industries Association (RIA), ANSI/RIA R15.06 is a consensus standard to provide guidance on the proper use of the safety features embedded into robots, as well as how to safely integrate robots into factories and work areas. The latest revision of the standard, ANSI/RIA R15.06-2012, references for the first time ISO 10218-1 & 2 to make it compliant with international standards already in place in Europe. Part 1 of ISO 10218 details the robot itself; Part 2 addresses the responsibilities of the integrator.

There are also new requirements in ANSI/RIA R15.06-2012 for collaborative robots; in this case, ISO 10218 and the ISO/TS 15066 Technical Specification. This standard clarifies the four types of collaboration: Safety Monitored Stop, Hand Guiding, Speed & Separation Monitoring, and Power & Force Limiting. ISO/TS 15066 holds key information, including guidance on maximum allowable speeds and minimum protective distances, along with a formula for establishing the protective separation distance and data to verify threshold limit values for power and force limiting to prevent pain or discomfort on the part of the operator.

The requirement for risk assessments is one of the biggest changes in the new RIA standard. The integrator, or the end user if they are performing the job of an integrator, now must conduct a risk assessment of each robotic system and summarize ways to mitigate against these risks. This may involve procedures and training, incorporating required machine safeguarding, and basic safety management. Risk assessments calculate the potential severity of an injury, the operator’s exposure to the hazard, and the difficulty in avoiding the hazard to arrive at a specific risk level ranging from negligible to very high.

In the future, as cobot use rapidly expands throughout industry, regulation of this technology will grow more focused and specific. Consider this: Although cobots currently represent only 3 percent of all industrial robots sold, they are projected to account for 34 percent of the industrial robots sold by 2025, a market that itself is set to triple in size and dollar volume over that period.

Conclusion
The next 10 years will be pivotal for American manufacturing, and success largely depends on companies’ ability to navigate the transition from traditional manufacturing to Industry 4.0-style automation and the widespread use of robots. While few people have as dire a view as Elon Musk on the subject, it is critical that employee safety is not lost in the excitement as we shepherd robots out of their cages to work hand in hand with humans.

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.

The Alternative Universe of Lockout/Tagout

On the surface, at least, machine lockout/tagout (LOTO) appears simple: Identify and isolate energy sources, lock and tag, and perform the procedure that needs to get done.

Simple, right? Wrong.

When energy is required to complete machine diagnostics or set-up work, or when a minor maintenance job is going to throw production hours behind schedule, LOTO becomes something far more complex than a textbook explanation.

Once you understand its intricacies, it is understandable why LOTO, as outlined in OSHA standard 29 CFR 1910.147 ”The Control of Hazardous Energy (Lockout/Tagout), has become an everyday struggle for many safety personnel. And why LOTO ranks among OSHA’s top ten violations, year after year. It is also understandable why industry is fast embracing the concept of “Alternative Measures”.

OSHA REQUIREMENTS
OSHA 29 CFR 1910.147 requires employees to remove power sources to a machine that could otherwise result in personal injury if energy were unintentionally released during maintenance or service. It clearly states facilities are responsible for establishing a written program covering how required safety measures will be applied. This includes provisions for developing machine-specific energy control procedures, training authorized workers to protect themselves with lockout/tagout, and for periodic inspections of the adequacy of the written procedures, along with the performance of personnel applying them.

As comprehensive as LOTO may be, it can be very time-intensive, often requiring longer than is required to finish the actual maintenance task on the machine. Production comes to a halt, resulting in the day’s production numbers potentially being missed. This becomes even more frustrating when the maintenance task is one that must be implemented several times a day. Loss of time and profits create a strong incentive to bypass LOTO to carry out repetitive machine tasks. However, it still violates OSHA requirements and puts workers in serious danger.

Thankfully, OSHA 29 CFR 1910.147 also outlines “Alternative Protection Measure” (APM) procedures that can result in increased efficiency without compromising the safety of the operation. This exception is also referred to as the “minor servicing exception”. Designed for machine tasks that demand frequent repetitive access, i.e., clearing a jam on a conveyor or a minor tool change, Alternative Measures do not require that power sources be completely cut off. Examples of Alternative Methods technology may include key-controlled locks, control switches, interlocked guards, remote devices and disconnects. It can also mean locking out just a section of a piece of equipment, rather than the entire machine.

ANSI REQUIREMENTS
The newest ANSI standard, ANSI/ASSE Z244.1 (2016) The Control of Hazardous Energy – Lockout, Tagout and Alternative Methods, agrees with OSHA in that workers should be protected from injury due to unexpected equipment startup or release of potentially hazardous energy. However, the ANSI committee did not try to align fully with every historic OSHA compliance requirement. Instead, the new standard gives expanded guidance beyond OSHA’s regulatory limitation to tasks that are “routine, repetitive and integral to production operations”.

ANSI makes it very clear that LOTO shall be used unless the user can demonstrate that a well-established alternative method will provide effective protection. In situations where the task is not well understood or risk assessed, lockout shall be the default protective measure applied to control machinery or processes. Section 8.2.1 of ANSI/ASSE Z244.1 (2016) specifies that alternative methods shall only be used after hazards have been assessed and documented through the application of a Practicability (or Justification) Study to determine that the techniques used will result in a negligible risk or no risk for sudden start up. Following the Hierarchy of Control model, ANSI/ASSE Z244.1 (2016) provides detailed guidance on if, when, and how a range of alternative control methods can be applied to result in equal or improved protection for people performing specific tasks. In addition, alternative risk reduction methodology is covered in detail specific to a number of new technologies including the Packaging, Pharmaceutical, Plastics, Printing, and Steel Industries; Semiconductor and Robotic Applications and others challenged by the current regulatory limitations.

Since the two standards are somewhat conflicting it is best to review ANSI first to help identify discrepancies that may not meet federal minimum regulations.

At this point, it would be appropriate to underscore that LOTO provides the greatest level of protection and, whenever possible, it should be utilized to protect employees from hazardous energy. In other words, inconvenience alone is not an acceptable excuse to use alternative measures. In addition, CFR 1910.147 clearly states that an allowable alternative measure must provide the same or greater level of protection as LOTO. Otherwise, it is considered noncompliant and therefore insufficient to replace LOTO.

By using standard safety-rated devices, such as interlock gates and e-stop buttons, a plant manager can achieve safe, reliable machine access that replaces standard LOTO procedures without violating OSHA requirements. Implementing alternative procedures to ensure equivalent protection for specific tasks can enhance productivity without endangering employees. But those procedures — and their benefits — come with strings attached, requiring a thorough understanding of the latest OSHA and ANSI standards.

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.

Calculating a Safeguarding ROI

In the United States, workers operating or maintaining industrial machinery suffer more than 18,000 amputations, crushed fingers and other traumatic injuries each year. While these injuries vary greatly, the majority of cases do have one thing in common: the injury was largely preventable if machine safeguarding equipment had been in-place, or would have been far less severe.

Many employees, unions and worker advocates may well ask, “Why do we need a safeguarding business case?” “Don’t employers have a responsibility for providing a safe and healthful workplace for their employees?” Although U.S. organizations understand that machine safeguarding is the law and that protecting human life is socially responsible, each company must answer the return on investment (ROI) question their own way. Where does safeguarding fit into a business strategy? Can safeguarding be quantified by using cost-benefit financial analysis? To get to those answers we need to look at both sides of the ledger, comparing the cost of an accident versus the cost of preventing it.

WHAT DOES A MACHINE ACCIDENT COST?
Insurance studies indicate machine safeguarding provides an opportunity for businesses to reduce bottom-line operating costs by eliminating both the direct and indirect costs of an accident, while improving productivity and employee morale. But just how much can be saved? Liberty Mutual reported in its annual Workplace Safety Index that U.S. employers spent $48.6 billion for wage and productivity losses, medical expenses and administrative expenses for workers hurt on the job. This is roughly equivalent to the annual sales of Cisco, Pfizer or FedEx. A study by Colorado State University set the total direct and indirect cost of workplace injuries at a staggering $128 billion.

Safeguarded Press

Direct costs of an accident refer to out-of-pocket expenses like hospital and medical bills. They also include the loss of a worker’s time because of the accident, the lost productivity by the machine involved in the accident being idled or requiring repairs, as well as the other machines further down the production line being shut down. Costs continue to cascade throughout the company with overtime required to make up the lost productivity and new workers who need to be hired and trained. The National Safety Council (NSC) estimates that lost time alone associated with the average injury costs nearly $30,000.

However, costs related to an injury do not end there, as an accident will influence indirect costs far outside company walls. Analysis of most accidents reveal that the actual total cost can range from four to ten times the visible, direct cost stated by an insurance company. For example, a single accident can result in OSHA fines up to $100,000 per machine or more if the violation is found to be willful. In 2010, 24 percent of OSHA’s Top 10 citations for manufacturing dealt with machine guarding violations, resulting in more than $6 million in proposed penalties. In addition, insurance rates can rise dramatically or coverage can be dropped entirely. Investments targeted for company growth may need to be diverted to cover the costs of the accident, while employee morale and productivity can experience a significant drop, and the company’s brand and reputation will likely be damaged by negative publicity. Finally, there are the legal fees, plus management time spent dealing with regulators and attorneys.

Safeguarded Mill Drill
And while it is not calculated as an indirect cost, a poor safety record can make the difference between a company winning and losing bids, especially with government contracts. A plant with a singularly bad reputation for safety may also find itself unable to attract workers at all or may have to pay wages well above market value to do so. Also, if the machine where a serious accident occurred is unique and is locked out for investigation or until the safeguarding deficiency is abated, the company may need to outsource the work at a much higher cost. It’s also possible that the work is so specialized that it’s impossible to outsource and therefore the company loses the business.

DO THE MATH
OSHA’s $afety Pays website (www.osha.gov/dcsp/smallbusiness/safetypays) makes it easy for organizations to calculate direct and indirect costs of an accident. As an example, let’s assume a fictional company with annual sales of $5 million and an 8% pre-tax profit margin has an accident involving an employee whereby his hand was entangled in a drill press.

By using insurance company claims data, $afety Pays can calculate that the crushing accident will cost that company, on average:
• Direct Cost: $56,557
• Indirect Cost: $62,212
• Estimated Total Cost: $118,769

Safeguarded Lathe
By entering profit margin information, $afety Pays will also project the additional sales required to recover the costs of the injury. In this instance, additional sales revenue necessary to cover costs is $1,484,612 based on the 8% profit margin or approximately one third of annual sales. If pre-tax margins are less, the sales impact is even greater.
On the other side of the ledger is the cost to safeguard the machine involved in the accident. For the purpose of this discussion, let’s assume that the same fictional company had an onsite risk assessment performed by a reputable firm that surveyed ten machines on the plant floor at a cost of $5,000, or $500 per machine. Next, assume that the drill press had been safeguarded per OSHA regulations and ANSI standards at a total cost of $1,000. Adding in its prorated share of the risk assessment, total cost to safeguard the drill press would be $1,500, a figure that compares very favorably to the estimated $118,769 cost of the accident.

HUMAN CAPITAL AS ROI
A poll by Liberty Mutual Group insurance showed that the majority of executives surveyed (61%) reported that for every one dollar spent on safety, three dollars is saved. And nearly all (95%) said workplace safety had a positive effect on financial performance. OSHA estimates a 6:1 ratio for saved dollars for every one dollar invested in safety, twice Liberty Mutual’s 3:1 ratio.

Of course, if a company could be guaranteed a positive return on their safety investment, more than half the machines in the United States today would not be operating unprotected. Convincing upper management to commit tens of thousands of dollars on machine safeguarding when a return may not be seen for years can be a hard sell. In this situation, safety professionals should stress that although cost savings are a motivator, safety’s biggest ROI comes in the form of human capital. Money savings from fewer injuries, increased productivity, and higher morale are all additional benefits.

CONCLUSION
Whether driven by the law or social responsibility or the need for a positive ROI, most organizations embark on a quest to make their workplaces safe. The business case for machine safeguarding is solid. By comparing the installation cost of safeguarding over the productive life of a machine versus the direct and indirect costs of even a single accident, it becomes clear that safeguarding makes sound business sense and should be a cornerstone of an organization’s safety goals and objectives.