| |
Links to other
Web sites with
information on
LOTO |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
|
Case Study 2: Automotive Component Lubrication Robotics
At an employer's automotive component
manufacturing facility, manufacturing operations make extensive use of robots located
within fenced cages. At one location, suspension parts are transferred by rotating tables
from station to station while greasing and other operations are performed on the parts by
robots. If necessary, employees can gain access to the robots by entering the cages
through electrically interlocked gates. When the gates are opened, the multiple energy
sources that power the robots, rotating tables, and related machinery are turned off but
are not deenergized or locked out. An employee who is inside a cage when a robot is
activated could be struck by the robot arm or other machine parts and seriously injured.
An injury occurred when an employee,
consistent with the employer's practices, entered the robot cage without deenergizing or
locking out any equipment. The employee was attempting to unjam a robot arm. In freeing
the arm, the employee tripped an electric eye, causing the robot arm to cycle. The
employee's arm was struck by the robot and injected with grease. The employer contends
that lockout procedures were not necessary because once the gate is opened, movement of
the robot arm is impossible, and a maintenance worker inside the cage would have ample
warning – by the closing of the interlocked gate – before
the machinery started up, to avoid injury. According to the employer, once the interlocked
gate is opened, it must first be closed and a number of buttons must be pushed before any
machine movement can occur. The startup procedure would take some time and the person
inside the robot area would be aware of the closing of the gate and the presence of
another worker at the nearby control panel.
|
Back to Top
