Skip to main content

Machine Guarding That Doesn't Block Maintenance Access

A guard on a conveyor, transfer, elevator, or other handling machine has to keep people away from moving parts during production, and it also has to let maintenance staff lubricate, adjust, inspect, and clear jams without being exposed when the machine moves. UTEC Industrial designs, engineers, machines, fabricates, and installs custom material handling systems for aerospace and heavy industry from its Spokane Valley, WA facility, integrating Allen-Bradley PLC and motion control with in-house CNC machining, heat treating, and stress relief. This article sets out what OSHA's machine-guarding rule (29 CFR 1910.212) and lockout/tagout rule (29 CFR 1910.147) require where maintenance meets a guard, what OSHA guidance says about interlocks, PLCs, and the minor servicing exception, what incident records show, and how access, lubrication, and controls can keep the guard in place. Maintenance access is fixed early in the build chain, design → engineering → parts machining → fabrication → assembly → weld fatigue → stress relief → drives → controls → tuning → monitoring, and the guard layout chosen at design sets the interlocks, restart logic, and monitoring that the controls carry later.

Why does machine guarding have to be designed around maintenance work?​

OSHA's amputation-prevention booklet lists the activities around a machine that present potential amputation hazards and marks every one except normal production operations as a servicing and/or maintenance activity: machine set-up, threading, or preparation; machine inspection; clearing jams; machine adjustments; cleaning; lubricating machine parts; and scheduled and unscheduled maintenance. The booklet says employees are protected from hazardous machine work activities "either by: 1) effective machine safeguarding, or 2) lockout/tagout where safeguards are rendered ineffective or do not protect employees from hazardous energy during servicing and maintenance operations." Its criteria for machine safeguarding include that the safeguard:

  • "Is secure, tamper-resistant, and durable";
  • "Avoids interfering with normal operation of the machine"; and
  • "Allows for safe lubrication and maintenance."

Under its "Create no interference" requirement for safeguards, OSHA's Machine Guarding eTool states: "Any safeguard which impedes a worker from performing the job quickly and comfortably might soon be overridden or disregarded." As engineering reasoning, a guard that must be unbolted for a weekly grease point leaves a choice between a full lockout for a short task and working with the guard off, and putting the service point outside the guard removes that choice. The booklet itself "is not a standard or regulation, and it creates no new legal obligations", and the requirements in this article are cited to the regulations (OSHA 3170, pp. 2, 9 and 10; OSHA Machine Guarding eTool: Additional Safety Considerations, 2026).

What does OSHA 1910.212 require of a machine guard?​

The general machine-guarding section sets performance requirements and names an interlock in one paragraph:

  • Methods. Under 1910.212(a)(1), one or more methods of machine guarding shall be provided to protect the operator and other employees in the machine area from hazards such as those created by point of operation, ingoing nip points, rotating parts, flying chips and sparks.
  • Mounting. Under (a)(2), guards shall be affixed to the machine where possible and secured elsewhere if for any reason attachment to the machine is not possible, and the guard shall not offer an accident hazard in itself.
  • Point of operation. Under (a)(3)(ii), the point of operation of machines whose operation exposes an employee to injury shall be guarded, in conformity with any appropriate standards or, in their absence, designed and constructed "as to prevent the operator from having any part of his body in the danger zone during the operating cycle." OSHA's lockout directive reads that wording as requiring the device to "prevent (and not just warn or signal employees of the impending hazard)."
  • Drums. Under (a)(4), revolving drums, barrels, and containers shall be guarded by an enclosure interlocked with the drive mechanism, so that the drum cannot revolve unless the enclosure is in place. It is the only paragraph of 1910.212 that names an interlock.

In a 2006 letter about the side access door of a trash compactor, OSHA wrote that "§1910.212 does not require the use of interlocks or any other specific guarding methods", that the standard is performance-oriented, and that, "since barrier guards must be affixed such that they cannot be easily defeated, simply latching the door in a closed position would not be sufficient." The door would need fasteners not readily removable by the operator, a lock, or similar means, or, if access using only a latch is wanted, an interlock or other guarding method. Applying that compactor reading to an access door on a handling machine is engineering reasoning (OSHA 29 CFR 1910.212-1974, §1910.212 paragraphs a.1, a.2, a.3.ii and a.4; OSHA Instruction CPL 02-00-147, p. 2-19; OSHA Standard Interpretation, January 18, 2006).

When does maintenance on a guarded machine fall under lockout/tagout?​

The lockout standard draws the line in 1910.147(a)(2)(ii), quoted here in full: "Normal production operations are not covered by this standard (See subpart O of this part). Servicing and/or maintenance which takes place during normal production operations is covered by this standard only if" (A) "An employee is required to remove or bypass a guard or other safety device; or" (B) "An employee is required to place any part of his or her body into an area on a machine or piece of equipment where work is actually performed upon the material being processed (point of operation) or where an associated danger zone exists during a machine operating cycle."

The exception follows as a note: "Minor tool changes and adjustments, and other minor servicing activities, which take place during normal production operations, are not covered by this standard if they are routine, repetitive, and integral to the use of the equipment for production, provided that the work is performed using alternative measures which provide effective protection (See subpart O of this part)." Paragraph (b) defines servicing and/or maintenance as including "lubrication, cleaning or unjamming of machines or equipment and making adjustments or tool changes, where the employee may be exposed to the unexpected energization or startup of the equipment or release of hazardous energy."

OSHA's enforcement directive adds its reading of the terms and its limits:

  • The activity must take place during, and be inherent to, normal production operations, and it must be necessary to allow production to proceed without interruption. Routine means performed as part of a regular and prescribed course of procedure and in accordance with established practices; repetitive means repeated regularly as part of the production process or cycle; integral means "inherent to the production process."
  • "The employer must also demonstrate that the alternative measures provide effective protection from the hazardous energy", and the exception "applies only if each and every element of the exception is met."
  • Replacing components "such as belts, valves, gauges, linkages, support structure, etc. -- normally is not considered a routine maintenance function."
  • In Westvaco (1993), the Review Commission concluded that setting up does not occur during normal production operations and cannot fall within the exception.

The directive states that it "is not a standard, regulation or any other type of substantive rule", and the requirement itself is the regulation's text (OSHA 29 CFR 1910.147-1989, §1910.147 paragraphs a.2.ii and b; OSHA Instruction CPL 02-00-147, pp. 3-26 and 3-27).

Which maintenance tasks can be done in production mode behind a guard?​

OSHA's directive gives examples on both sides. Lubricating, draining sumps, servicing filters, making simple adjustments, and inspecting for leaks and/or malfunction are routine servicing and maintenance activities "which often can be accomplished safely with effective production-mode safeguards, such as machine guarding methods consistent with the provisions of 29 CFR §1910, Subpart O", and "These servicing tasks do not require extensive disassembly." By contrast, activities requiring machine shutoff and disassembly, such as changing a machine tool or cutting blade, "usually take place outside of the normal production process and require energy isolating device LOTO."

The condition is that the guarding eliminates exposure. The directive says machine guarding "may be effective alternatives to LOTO, if the alternative eliminates employee exposure to the hazardous energy", with a note that "some types of machine guarding methods do not adequately protect employees from energy hazards for all types of servicing and maintenance work." OSHA's amputation booklet says that "In some cases, guarding may be used as an alternative to lockout/tagout": polycarbonate and wire-mesh guards "provide greater visibility and can be used to allow maintenance employees to safely observe system components", and in other instances employees may safely access machine areas without locking or tagging out for tasks such as cleaning or oiling "because the hazardous machine components remain effectively guarded."

As engineering reasoning, the guard design on a handling machine decides which side a task falls on: a mesh panel over a drive chain lets a mechanic check chain slack and sprocket wear with the drive running and the guard closed, replacing that chain is component replacement done under lockout, and whether a particular task qualifies is settled by the hazard analysis for that machine rather than by a list (OSHA Instruction CPL 02-00-147, pp. 2-16 and 3-25; OSHA 3170, p. 11).

How should lubrication and adjustment points be placed so guards stay on?​

OSHA's Machine Guarding eTool lists "Allow safe lubrication" among the minimum general requirements for safeguards: "If possible, one should be able to lubricate the machine without removing the safeguards. Locating oil reservoirs outside the guard, with a line leading to the lubrication point, will reduce the need for the operator or maintenance worker to enter the hazardous area." On maintenance and repair, it says: "If possible, machine design should permit routine lubrication and adjustment without removal of safeguards. But when safeguards must be removed, and the machine serviced, the lockout procedure of 29 CFR 1910.147 must be adhered to." OSHA's lockout eTool names "remote oilers and specially designed servicing tools" among the alternative protective methods for routine, repetitive servicing done as part of production.

For power-transmission drives, 1910.219(f)(4) calls for hinged or sliding self-closing covers on openings when frequent oiling must be done, and (p)(7) says machinery shall be oiled when not in motion, wherever possible; the conveyor chain selection article states both with their full conditions.

OSHA's booklet records where the exposure sits on conveyors: "Employees have also been injured or killed while working in areas underneath conveyors and in areas around lubrication fittings, tension adjusters, and other equipment with hazardous energy sources." As engineering practice for a handling machine, that points to:

  • grease lines run from each bearing to a manifold mounted outside the guard;
  • take-up and tensioner adjusters extended through the guard face, with the moving parts behind it;
  • sight windows or mesh panels at points that are inspected on each round.

Both eTools are guidance, and the Machine Guarding eTool's lubrication wording is conditioned by "If possible"; the enforceable text on oiling is 1910.219 (OSHA Machine Guarding eTool: Additional Safety Considerations, 2026; OSHA Lockout/Tagout eTool: Minor Servicing Exception, 2026; OSHA 29 CFR 1910.219, §1910.219 paragraphs f.4 and p.7; OSHA 3170, p. 27).

Which guard type suits each kind of maintenance access?​

OSHA's Guards page names four general types: fixed, interlocked, adjustable, and self-adjusting. A fixed guard "is a permanent part of the machine" and is "usually preferable to all other types because of its relative simplicity." Its listed limitations include that "Machine adjustment and repair often require its removal, thereby necessitating other means of protection for maintenance personnel."

An interlocked guard is described this way: "When this type of guard is opened or removed, the tripping mechanism and/or power automatically shuts off or disengages, the moving parts of the machine are stopped, and the machine cannot cycle or be started until the guard is back in place." The same page says, as guidance:

  • "Interlocks should not prevent 'inching' by remote control if required."
  • "Replacing the guard should not automatically restart the machine."
  • The safeguarding action "should require the machine to be stopped before the worker can reach into the danger area."
  • It "Allows access to the machine for removing jams without time consuming removal of the fixed guards", with the limitations that it "Requires careful adjustment and maintenance" and "May be easy to disengage."

OSHA's booklet table frames the same advantage with its condition: an interlocking barrier guard "Allows access for some minor servicing work, in accordance with the lockout/tagout exception, without time-consuming removal of fixed guards", while "Some designs may be easy to defeat" and "Interlock control circuitry may not be used for all maintenance and servicing work." As engineering reasoning, the choice follows the access frequency and the task: a fixed guard where access is for repair under lockout, and an interlocked guard where frequent access is for work that meets every condition of the minor servicing exception (OSHA Machine Guarding eTool: Guards, 2026; OSHA 3170, p. 12).

Can an interlock, PLC, or light curtain stand in for lockout?​

Not as an energy isolating device. The lockout standard's definition ends: "Push buttons, selector switches and other control circuit type devices are not energy isolating devices." OSHA's directive puts safety interlocks in the same list and says PLCs "are not considered energy isolating devices for purposes of the LOTO standard."

OSHA's 2008 letter on a PLC used for minor servicing keeps two halves. Reliance on a PLC system that controls safety functions "is prohibited by the LOTO standard and, as a result, is presumed to be ineffective employee protection from injuries resulting from hazards such as component failure, program errors, magnetic field interference, electrical surges, and improper use or maintenance." However, if an employer can demonstrate that the PLC system is an alternative measure which provides effective protection, the PLC system may be used only to protect employees performing minor servicing that meets the 1910.147(a)(2)(ii) note, with effective protection shown "through the use of a system hazard analysis" and the system designed, installed, used, and maintained, on a case-by-case basis, to generally recognized good engineering practices.

OSHA's lockout eTool says that some acceptable alternative measures for minor servicing include "specially designed tools, remote devices, interlocked barrier guards, local disconnects, or control switches which are under the exclusive control of the employee performing the minor servicing", which "must enable the employee to safely perform the servicing task without being exposed to the unexpected energization or activation of the equipment, or the release of stored energy." Exclusive control, in the directive, means the authorized employee "has the authority to and is continuously in a position to prevent (exclude) other individuals from re-energizing the machine or equipment during his servicing or maintenance activity." The directive says the improper application of a safety interlock component "would not constitute effective alternative protection", and it records an amputation after an employee "incorrectly relied on a light curtain for his protection while he was performing servicing activities on a machine operating in the inch mode" (OSHA 29 CFR 1910.147-1989, §1910.147 paragraph b; OSHA Instruction CPL 02-00-147, pp. 1-6, 2-17 and 3-28; OSHA Standard Interpretation, January 25, 2008; OSHA Lockout/Tagout eTool: Minor Servicing Exception, 2026).

What do incident records show when guards are bypassed for maintenance?​

Four federal records describe maintenance or jam-clearing access on machines with conveyors, elevators, or chain drives:

  • Interlocked gates bypassed (2024). A machinery maintenance technician troubleshooting a machine on which food trays were getting stuck "bypassed the magnetic safety interlock gates and crawled underneath the conveyor." The machine operator, not aware the technician was underneath, turned the machine from manual to auto and reactivated it to get it unjammed; the technician was struck by the machine's carriage and died. The abstract does not say whether a lockout procedure existed.
  • Interlock bypassed, gravity not controlled (2020). An employee adjusting a counterweight chain on a press dryer exit elevator "bypassed the interlock system and tagged out the equipment"; as he moved the slack chain onto the sprocket, the counterbalance weight shifted and dropped, and a finger was amputated. The record states that the employer's hazardous energy control procedures "did not identify mechanical energy (gravity) as a hazard." The stored-energy lockout article covers blocking gravity loads.
  • Guard removed without lockout. In a case history in OSHA's booklet, an employee servicing a chain-and-sprocket drive on a conveyor turned the conveyor off, removed the guard, and began work without locking out; someone started the conveyor and the employee's fingers were amputated.
  • Climbing to clear a jam. In a NIOSH investigation of a conveyor-fed baler, the fall was unwitnessed, but "it is believed" the worker "may have climbed up the outside of the conveyor to the top of the baler's loading chute to dislodge a cardboard jam" and fell 14 feet into the baling chamber, where breaking a sensor beam triggered the machine to cycle automatically. Operators had been instructed not to de-energize the machine in a malfunction but to call maintenance, and "No specific procedure for clearing jams in the equipment existed."

The sawmill conveyor and deck safety article reads three sawmill conveyor records. As engineering reasoning, each case pairs a recurring access need with a guard, interlock, or climb that the task went around (OSHA Accident Summary No. 167251.015; OSHA Accident Summary No. 130707.015; OSHA 3170, p. 27; NIOSH FACE Report 2000-01, pp. 1, 3, 4 and 5).

How can platforms and ladders give access without climbing on the machine?​

NIOSH's recommendations in the baler case address the access itself. Recommendation #3 says: "The employer should provide a safe means of access to eliminate the need to climb onto the equipment in the event of jamming", and suggests that a movable ladder-platform, "accessible by steps and protected by guard rails, would provide a safe alternative". Recommendation #5 says: "Manufacturers should evaluate the designs of baling and compaction equipment to eliminate or reduce the likelihood of jammed materials", with a deflector at the end of the conveyor offered as a possible fix. These are NIOSH recommendations, not OSHA requirements.

The federal requirements for the platform are in Subpart D, Walking-Working Surfaces:

  • 1910.22(c): the employer must provide, and ensure each employee uses, a safe means of access and egress to and from walking-working surfaces; 1910.22(b): each walking-working surface can support the maximum intended load for that surface.
  • 1910.21(b) defines dangerous equipment as equipment, such as vats, tanks, electrical equipment, machinery, equipment or machinery with protruding parts, or other similar units, "that, because of their function or form, may harm an employee who falls into or onto the equipment." Under 1910.28(b)(6), each employee less than 4 ft above dangerous equipment is protected by a guardrail system or a travel restraint system, unless the equipment is covered or guarded to eliminate the hazard, and each employee 4 ft or more above it by a guardrail, safety net, travel restraint, or personal fall arrest system. The text does not classify any particular machine.
  • 1910.29(b)(1) sets the guardrail top edge at 42 in, plus or minus 3 in, above the walking-working surface, and lets it exceed 45 in provided the system meets all other criteria of paragraph (b); the deck safety article gives its strength and deflection values.

ISO 14122-1:2016 gives general requirements for access to stationary machines "when necessary access to the stationary machine is not possible directly from the ground level or from a floor"; it is to be used with an access-specific part, it is not applicable to machinery manufactured before its publication, and it is cited here at standard level only (NIOSH FACE Report 2000-01, p. 6; OSHA 29 CFR 1910 Subpart D, §1910.21 paragraph b, §1910.22 paragraphs b and c, §1910.28 paragraph b.6, §1910.29 paragraph b.1; ISO 14122-1:2016).

Which consensus standards cover guard design and interlocks, and how does OSHA treat them?​

OSHA's 2003 letter on ISO/IEC standards states that OSHA "does not have independent authority to enforce compliance with, or provide interpretive guidance on" ISO/IEC standards adopted under the GATT, that the only way OSHA would enforce them is if OSHA adopted the requirements as OSHA standards through notice and comment rulemaking, and that, at the time of the letter, OSHA had no plans to propose incorporating them. OSHA's 2006 letter adds that ANSI or other industry standards not adopted by OSHA "are sometimes referred to in citations and used as evidence of a recognized hazard or a feasible means of abatement."

The design standards for guards and access are cited here at standard level only, with no clause or dimension values:

  • ISO 14120:2015 specifies general requirements for the design, construction, and selection of guards provided to protect persons from mechanical hazards; it applies to guards for machinery manufactured after it was published, and does not cover interlocking devices, which are covered in ISO 14119.
  • ISO 14119:2024 specifies principles for the design and selection of interlocking devices associated with guards, with guidance on measures "to minimize the possibility of defeat of interlocking devices in a reasonably foreseeable manner", and covers principles for the design, selection, and application of trapped key interlocking devices and systems.
  • ISO 13857:2019 establishes safety distances to prevent hazard zones being reached by upper and lower limbs; it covers people of 14 years and older, its values are intended to cover the 95th percentile of the population, the distances apply "when sufficient risk reduction can be achieved by distance alone", some people of extreme dimensions will still be able to reach hazard zones when its requirements are met, and it is not intended to provide measures against reaching a hazard zone by climbing over.
  • ANSI B11.19-2019 (reaffirmed 2024) provides performance requirements for risk reduction measures when applied to machines, and "does not provide the requirements for the selection of the risk reduction measure for a particular application."

These federal rules are the baseline for this article. State Plans are OSHA-approved workplace safety and health programs operated by individual states or U.S. territories, monitored by OSHA, and they "must be at least as effective as OSHA in protecting workers and in preventing work-related injuries, illnesses and deaths" (OSHA Standard Interpretation, May 13, 2003; OSHA Standard Interpretation, January 18, 2006; ISO 14120:2015; ISO 14119:2024; ISO 13857:2019; ANSI B11.19-2019, reaffirmed 2024; OSHA State Plans web page, 2026).

What sensing, PLC logic, and interlocks keep guarded access safe?​

The intelligence layer turns a guard into a monitored access point:

  • Interlock devices. ISO 14119:2024 covers principles for the design, selection, and application of the parts of guards that actuate interlocking devices, and a note in its abstract states that the processing of the interlock signal to stop the machine and prevent unexpected start up is covered in ISO 14118, ISO 13849-1, and IEC 62061.
  • Stop before reach. OSHA's guidance says the interlocked guard "should require the machine to be stopped before the worker can reach into the danger area." As engineering practice, on a conveyor, drum, or transfer with long run-down, that calls for guard locking released by a standstill signal or timed delay rather than a switch that only cuts power when the door opens.
  • No automatic restart. "Replacing the guard should not automatically restart the machine." The 2024 record above is a restart from manual to auto with a person under the conveyor. As engineering practice, a restart after any guard opening needs a deliberate reset from a station with a view of the zone, and a zone-clear permissive in the PLC.
  • Inching. OSHA's guidance says interlocks "should not prevent 'inching' by remote control if required". As engineering practice, an inch function used during servicing needs a protective measure that works in inch mode; the light-curtain case in the previous answer is the failure to avoid.
  • Emergency stops. OSHA's booklet says emergency stop devices "are not considered machine safeguarding" and "neither detect nor prevent employee exposure to machine hazards."
  • Conveyor jams. For a conveyor package jam claimed under the minor servicing exception, the directive says a compliance officer should consider all of the steps the employer has taken to provide alternative, effective protection, among them engineering controls, start-up alarms/delays, training, and near miss and related-injury data.
  • Monitoring. As engineering practice, logging each guard opening, interlock fault, and mode change in the PLC can show a bypassed or failing interlock before an incident does.

UTEC Industrial, a Rockwell Automation Recognized System Integrator, builds UL 508A control panels and integrates Allen-Bradley ControlLogix and CompactLogix control with VFD and servo drives into the handling systems it builds (ISO 14119:2024; OSHA Machine Guarding eTool: Guards, 2026; OSHA Accident Summary No. 167251.015; OSHA Instruction CPL 02-00-147, pp. 2-17 and 3-28; OSHA 3170, p. 18).

Where does the build chain set maintenance access, and what should the specification say?​

As engineering reasoning, each link of the chain fixes part of the access design:

  • Design and engineering place each service point, decide which sit outside the guard, and lay out platforms against Subpart D.
  • Machining, fabrication, and assembly produce guard panels, hinges, mounts, and lube-line bulkheads; a guard bracket on a vibrating frame is a welded detail, and weld fatigue and stress relief decisions apply to it.
  • Drives, controls, and tuning set run-down times, standstill detection, inching speeds, and restart logic.
  • Monitoring records guard openings and interlock faults over the machine's life.

As engineering practice, a specification for guarded maintenance access can state:

  • each servicing task, its frequency, and whether it is done in production mode or under lockout;
  • lubrication and adjustment points reachable without removing guards;
  • the guard type at each opening, with fasteners or interlocks consistent with 1910.212 and the 2006 reading;
  • interlock functions, guard locking, restart and inching behavior, and zone permissives;
  • platforms and guardrails for elevated access, and isolation points labeled per section;
  • the return-to-service steps in OSHA's guidance, which include inspecting that all guards and other safety devices are in place and functional, checking the area to ensure that start-up will not endanger employees, and notifying affected employees that the machine may be returned to service.

UTEC Industrial performs factory acceptance testing and on-site commissioning, and the guard interlock, restart, and access requirements can be written into the acceptance tests (OSHA Machine Guarding eTool: Additional Safety Considerations, 2026; OSHA 29 CFR 1910.212-1974; OSHA 29 CFR 1910 Subpart D).

Related Articles

References​

  • OSHA 29 CFR 1910.212-1974: General Requirements for All Machines. U.S. Department of Labor, 1974.
  • OSHA 29 CFR 1910.147-1989: The Control of Hazardous Energy (Lockout/Tagout). Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 1989.
  • OSHA 29 CFR 1910.219: Mechanical Power-Transmission Apparatus. U.S. Department of Labor, 1974 (as amended through 2004).
  • OSHA 29 CFR 1910 Subpart D: Walking-Working Surfaces. U.S. Department of Labor, 2016 (as amended through 2019).
  • OSHA Instruction CPL 02-00-147: The Control of Hazardous Energy – Enforcement Policy and Inspection Procedures. Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 2008.
  • OSHA 3170-02R: Safeguarding Equipment and Protecting Employees from Amputations. Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 2007.
  • OSHA Standard Interpretation: OSHA machine guarding standards and the ISO/IEC standards adopted under the GATT; National Emphasis Program on Amputations. Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 2003.
  • OSHA Standard Interpretation: Interlock requirements for access door(s) of trash compactor. Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 2006.
  • OSHA Standard Interpretation: Use of a PLC system as an alternative measure which provides effective protection for minor servicing activities. Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 2008.
  • OSHA. Lockout/Tagout eTool: Relationship of 1910.147 to Subpart O, Machinery and Machine Guarding Standards — Minor Servicing Exception. U.S. Department of Labor, 2026 (undated web documentation, accessed September 2026).
  • OSHA. Machine Guarding eTool: Introduction — Additional Safety Considerations. U.S. Department of Labor, 2026 (undated web documentation, accessed September 2026).
  • OSHA. Machine Guarding eTool: Introduction — Guards. U.S. Department of Labor, 2026 (undated web documentation, accessed September 2026).
  • OSHA. Employee Dies From Head Injuries When Caught In Energized Ma…, Accident Summary No. 167251.015. U.S. Department of Labor, 2026 (undated web documentation, accessed September 2026).
  • OSHA. Employee Amputates Finger When Caught In Press Dryer Elevato…, Accident Summary No. 130707.015. U.S. Department of Labor, 2026 (undated web documentation, accessed September 2026).
  • NIOSH. Worker Dies From Crushing Injuries After Falling Into a Baling Machine - North Carolina, FACE Report 2000-01. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, 2000.
  • OSHA. State Plans. U.S. Department of Labor, 2026 (undated web documentation, accessed September 2026).
  • ISO 14120:2015: Safety of machinery — Guards — General requirements for the design and construction of fixed and movable guards. International Organization for Standardization, 2015.
  • ISO 14119:2024: Safety of machinery — Interlocking devices associated with guards — Principles for design and selection. International Organization for Standardization, 2024.
  • ISO 13857:2019: Safety of machinery — Safety distances to prevent hazard zones being reached by upper and lower limbs. International Organization for Standardization, 2019.
  • ISO 14122-1:2016: Safety of machinery — Permanent means of access to machinery — Part 1: Choice of fixed means and general requirements of access. International Organization for Standardization, 2016.
  • ANSI B11.19-2019 (R2024): Performance Requirements for Risk Reduction Measures: Safeguarding and other Means of Reducing Risk. B11 Standards, Inc., 2019 (reaffirmed 2024).

Ready to Discuss a Material Handling System?​

UTEC Industrial designs, engineers, machines, fabricates, and installs custom material handling systems for heavy industry, from the stress-relieved structure and drives to the Allen-Bradley PLC controls, tuning, and monitoring that run them, at its Spokane Valley, WA facility. Send UTEC the application, loads, and duty cycle to start a system review.

Request a Quote →

Questions? Call (509) 922-1832 or email sales@utec.co

Last updated on