An ongoing discussion of machine guarding topics, including solutions assessments, regulatory compliance, gap analysis, operating efficiencies and cost savings, as well as all relevant safety standards, such as those from NFPA, ANSI, RIA, IEC, ISO and OSHA. About J.B. Titus.
ISO 13849-1 Machine Guarding adoption, Part 3
September 01, 2011
What is your plan to comply with ISO 13849-1 Machine Guarding standard? By now you’ve attended seminars, read white papers and magazine articles, heard from colleagues, or even read some of these blogs on this subject. So what? We don’t legislate compliance in the U.S. Instead, we have consensus standards.
What are the steps or measures you and your company will take to comply with ISO 13849-1 given the education you’ve experienced? Have you invested the time to analyze and investigate the requirements as an OEM, systems integrator, or end user?
Many believe compliance to ISO 13849-1 Machine Guarding standard in the U.S. is a paradigm shift in how industry approaches the design and build process for control systems including the design for related safety functions. A paradigm shift by definition is likely significant to a company’s organization.
Original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) and systems integrators usually are better equipped to effectively handle these changes with the technical staff on hand.
End users, on the other hand, can be a mixed bag of capabilities. Smaller end user organizations generally do not have organizational depth in technical staff and, in my opinion, will seek other means to satisfy the compliance requirements of this new standard. Again, in my opinion, the smaller end users could benefit by including the compliance requirement in their purchase order for the supplier of new machines.
Retrofits of existing machines for these end users might be a different story. Some of my European colleagues who work on international standards committees offer that these small companies should contract OEMs or system integrators for their retrofits. Of course this strategy assumes the smaller end users have the available capital for this service. Many of us know that quite a few of these smaller end users operate on very small margins.
The discussion above is designed to motivate thoughts around various steps or measures for the compliance planning process. However, this assumes companies in the U.S. have reached the “tipping point” to adopt international consensus standards versus domestic consensus standards. So far I don’t believe any domestic consensus standards have adopted ISO 13849-1; 2008. On the other hand, many U.S. companies have adopted both domestic and international consensus standards and, therefore, are reaching their “tipping point.”
Has your company reached that “tipping point” to begin using and asking your suppliers to use ISO 13849-1 Machine Guarding standard?
I believe that many companies have, however, I’m not sure that many companies have developed their adoption migration plan.
Your comments or suggestion are always welcome so please let us know your thoughts and where you are in the process. Submit your ideas, experiences, and challenges on this subject in the comments section below. Click on the following text if you don't see a comments box, then scroll down: ISO 13849-1 Machine Guarding Adoption, Part 3.
Did you see the Safety Integration Webcast?
Contact: www.jbtitus.com for “Solutions for Machine Safety”.
For more than 30 years, J.B. Titus has advised a wide range of clients on machine functional safety solutions, including Johnson + Johnson, Siemens, General Motors, Disney, Rockwell Automation, Bridgestone Firestone, and Samsung Heavy Industries. He holds a Bachelor of Business Administration degree from Oklahoma University in industrial management and an MBA from Case Western Reserve University in marketing and finance. He is a professional member of the American Society of Safety Engineers and is OSHA-certified in machine guarding. Titus is also TUV-certified as a Functional Safety Expert and serves on several American National Standards Institute, National Fire Protection Association, and National Electrical Manufacturers Association national safety and health standards committees. Reach him at jb(at)jbtitus.com and via www.jbtitus.com.
Roberta Nelson Shea
Tuesday, 27-03-12 11:09
Although ANSI is the representative to ISO, ANSI does not decide what happens with ISO machinery safety standards. The responsibility is parsed to the ANSI standards development organizations that received this responsibility by ANSI.
For example, TC 199 Safety of Machinery, which includes ISO 13849-1, machine tool standards, and other standards, is the responsibility of the B11 Standards organization. The B11 Standards' ASC [Accredited Standards Committee] has not voted to take ISO 13849-1 to ballot for adoption as an ANSI standard. ANSI did not make this decision; it did not go to ballot. There has been NO decision on whether or not to adopt ISO 13849-1, because it has never gone to ballot.
Tuesday, 04-10-11 10:49
Tim you offer a lot of acurate points and commentary. I would add that OSHA occasioally brings the US Consensus Standards into their enforcement practice as they reserve the "right" for this position. And, to get a broader understanding of the EN ISO 13849-1 adoption landscape it might be helpful to read a recent aticle published by Control Engineering in a new "Safety & Security" newsletter at: www.controleng.com/newsletter/safet[..] Click on the News article titled - "Machine safety faces paradigm shift".
Thanks for your comments.
Saturday, 24-09-11 11:23
ANSI is the U.S. representative to ISO. As far as I know, ANSI voted NOT to recognize ISO 13849-1. Japan also voted NO. Also, OSHA does not ENFORCE IEC or ISO regulations. Instead, OSHA uses U.S. consensus standards like ANSI and NFPA for machine safeguarding applications.
For OEMs in the U.S. that ship to Europe, they will need to comply with the European "Machinery Directive" which includes ISO 13849-1. There is a lot of confusion and misconceptions when U.S. companies try to adopt a safety standard. Since the hardware and software available for machine safeguarding is the same for both Europe and the U.S., the only differance has to be in the Risk Assessment and path to a safe solution.
It sounds to me like safety has turned extremely political. It's hard enough to get people to understand and comply with safety standards, but it just gets more complicated when the path to safety gets more specialized than it needs to be.