Lockout/Tagout 
Overview 
Background 
Services 
Software 
Training 
Our Clients 
Lockouts Explained 
Lockout Samples 
Terms & Definitions 
F.A.Q. 
OSHA 
Request For Information 

 Products & Services 
Lockout/Tagout 
Arc Flash  
Evacuation Plans 
Preventive Maintenance 
Military Documentation 
Technical Writing 
Technical Training 
Visual Aids & Illustrations 
Software & Multimedia 
Industrial Signage 

 Other Options 
Contact Us 
EHS Insider 
HOME 





OSHA

[ Tutorial ] [ Hot Topics ] [ Case Studies ]
[ LOTO standard ] [ LOTO preamble ] [ Compliance directive ]
[ Selected case law ] [ Selected letters of interpretation ]

Case Study 2: Automotive Component Lubrication Robotics

Incorrect.

The interlocked gate would not meet the requirements for an energy isolation device. In this case, the interlocked gate is considered to be control circuitry which is expressly prohibited by the rule. It does not protect employees who are inside the fenced area because it fails to de-energize the robot arm.


<<Return to Case Study Discussion | Question 5>>

 

Call Toll Free 888.741.8252 | Español | Français | Deutsch | Português ©2024 St. Claire, inc.