Newsgroups: comp.robotics
Path: brunix!sgiblab!swrinde!gatech!news-feed-2.peachnet.edu!umn.edu!msc.edu!apctrc!hawkings!natos114!zjoc01
From: zjoc01@hou.amoco.com (Jack Coats)
Subject: Re: Robot Safety Rules/Regulations
Message-ID: <1994Mar29.115416.250@amoco.com>
Sender: news@amoco.com
Reply-To: zjoc01@hou.amoco.com
Organization: Amoco
References: <94088.101449AXB30@psuvm.psu.edu>
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 1994 11:54:16 CST
Lines: 65

In article 101449AXB30@psuvm.psu.edu, Atle Bjanes <AXB30@psuvm.psu.edu> () writes:
>>I was discussing the issue of robot safety with a colleague this morning and
>>I have a couple of questions re.  what the laws/rules/regulations are
>>governing industrial robot installations in the U.S.
>>
>>(1) Who/what agency inspects and approves robots for use?  (In Germany,
>>there is an OSHA-like organization called TUV that inpects, in detail, the
>>design of any robot that is used in industry).

OSHA sounds like the ones, and various state agencies, that would be responsible
for it.  But OSHA has so few inspectors, they don't seem to spend much time in
inspection unless complaints have been filed.

>>
>>(2) In Europe there are extremely strict rules on how to design safe robots
>>and robot installations.  Any robot work area must have guards with
>>interlocking that puts the robot into E-stop (deenergized motors and brakes
>>on) if the guards are broken.  My colleague argued this was not necessary -
>>having spent considerable time in auto-factories in Europe with robotic
>>installations (I worked for ABB Robotics once upon a time), I could not
>>disagree more-does OSHA (or whoever) permit robots to be energized when
>>people are within a workcell?

I would hazzard to guess that OSHAs background for establishing rules is from
the era when people interacted more directly with machines, and, yes, there do
need to be some guards, but access to the 'hazardous' area are still required,
sometimes with power on, to keep the machines working properly.  Think of a
lathe where the operator could not readily adjust their tooks (especially in
wood shops where hand held tools are the norm when turning wood, this is just
the best example I could think of on the spur of the moment).

>>
>>(3) My experience is that any industrial robot is a potential inflictor(sp?)
>>of bodily damage and I will not enter the work evelope while under power of
>>any robot, even the ones I design and build myself!

Yes, any signifcant piece of machinery can inflict harm, and will because
someone will not use common sense or will use the machine improperly.  Robots,
as we currently precieve them, are just the most flexable forms of tools to
use.  If the robot is handling anything that could be of potential harm, the
probability of harm happening is multiplied.  Robots, any equipment really,
must be handled, treated, maintained, and used properly to be safe, even in
the hands of experienced operators.

>>
>>Comments, answers?

If anyone could post information on OSHA, or non-USA countries, regulations on
automated equipment, especially equipment that could be simi- or fully-autonimous
it would be appreciated.  I think this kind of information would be good for
us all to keep in mind as we work toward the next generation of tools...

>>
>> -- Atle
>>
>>Atle Bjanes, Sr. Eng., Hershey Foods Corp.
>>axb30@psuvm.psu.edu  (717) 534-5006 (voice) (717) 534-5078 (fax)
>>All views expressed are my own and not my employers, etc. etc.

 -- Jack

---
#include(standard-disclaimer.h);
E-mail: jocoats@amoco.com   Fax: 713/366-7570   Voice: 713/366-7120

