Machine Safety Blog
Machine Safety Blog
SafetyBase.com is excited to share our expertise with you through our blogs. Our experts in industry lead by not only knowing the rules and understanding them, but by helping write regulations for manufacturers. Join us and help drive industry discussions.
Read this blogger's bio here →
06.25.2009
PROFINEWS - ISSUE 67, APRIL 2009 OFFICIAL NEWSLETTER OF PINTERNATIONAL
PROFIBUS / PROFINET NODE GROWTH EXCEEDS EXPECTATIONS
12.12.2008
The phone rings on my desk. It’s an engineer from a manufacturing company in Colorado calling to ask for advice. He wants to know if a contactor should be applied to an output circuit to achieve a safe circuit? What’s wrong here? Yea, the first question is where’s the risk assessment? What level of hazard are we dealing with? Is it a Cat. 4 or a Cat. 2? Can you utilize a safety certified drive (according to NFPA 79, 2007) that has the safety circuit designed into the drive? The risk assessment isn’t just an obligation per standards requirements – it’s also a tool to help address these issues and get the answers to the front of the table.
Doesn’t everyone understand this?
Doesn’t everyone understand this?
09.03.2008
Check this out! Do you wire your e-stops to a standard (non Safety) PLC or controller in order to comply with the mandatory category 0 or 1 stop? Think twice is my advice! Yes, the safety standards such as NFPA 79, 9.2.5.4.1.3 require that an e-stop "shall function as either Category 0 or a Category 1 stop". These are stopping categories. Furthermore, your required risk analysis may require mitigation of a risk or hazard identified as Cat. 3 or 4. These are categories of risk. If you're wiring direct to a standard PLC your e-stop may only be at best achieving Cat. 2 or less so my advice is to check your risk analysis thoroughly.
Has anyone ever encountered this problem?
Has anyone ever encountered this problem?
07.10.2008
Great News! My machine safety blog is now part of an innovative new educational-based safety website that’s sole purpose is to serve the safety needs of general industry. I’m excited to be a part of a group of industry experts who’ve come together to provide up-to-date, comprehensive information, ideas, forums, and solutions for the dynaically-changing landscape of machine safety.
06.04.2008
How many hands can I see for “safety device”? Now, how many of you say – no, an e-stopping device is not a safety device? I see! So the room is practically divided into two camps. One of the camps has several individuals that sit on safety standards committees and others who are suppliers of e-stopping devices. You guys have voted that it’s not a safety device. The other camp, ahhh, has voted yes and, most of you guys are end users, OEM’s and systems designers. Why have you guys voted yes?
06.04.2008
Tolerable risk is the term used for the past several years referring to a level of residual risk for a given hazard after applying risk reduction measures. ANSI B11.TR3; 2000 further defines tolerable risk as: Risk that is accepted for a given task and hazard combination [hazardous situation]. However, as more focus continues to be directed at integrating the safety mindset into all phases from womb to tomb of a machine life cycle, a more current term has come to life replacing tolerable risk.
( Page 1 of 2 ) Next →