LOTO

[dweidner58]

I am in need of qualified opinions as I have a problem. I have been told that it is ok to install a padlock on an energized disconnect. I have been reassured that the disconnect can be turned off with the said lock in place. The customer's safety personnel (large auto company) also said it was ok. I have been in the trade 37 years and never had someone tell me it was ok. The reason being is the OEM doesn't want to lose his lock.
Any comments? Yeah I know you can't fix stupid, but...

 

[iwire]

Welcome to the forum.

There is no OSHA or NEC section that prohibits locking a disconnect switch in the on position.

That said, you stated that even with the lock in place the the disconnect can be turned off so I really do not understand your concern.

Can you provide some more info?

 

[infinity]

If the disconnect switch is locked in the closed (ON) position how can you open it? Doesn't the lock goes through the handle and the frame of the disconnect?

 

[iwire]

If the disconnect switch is locked in the closed (ON) position how can you open it? Doesn't the lock goes through the handle and the frame of the disconnect?

There are many disconnects you could put the lock on in the 'off' hole while the handle is in the on position and still be able to pull the disconnect handle down far enough for it to snap the fingers open with the handle now resting on top of the lock hasp.

 

[JFletcher]

Such a plant would typically have a LOTO station with all the locks, tags, etc. Putting in on a <random> disconnect to keep from losing it sounds wonky to me. I personally would not have a LO/TO on eqpt for storage purposes, it would only be to actually lock out/tag out the equipment.

Even if the disconnect can be thrown to de-energize the eqpt with the lock on, I doubt it could be locked out with a lock in place. I'd find a better place to store the lock.

 

[mgookin]

Such a plant would typically have a LOTO station with all the locks, tags, etc. Putting in on a <random> disconnect to keep from losing it sounds wonky to me. I personally would not have a LO/TO on eqpt for storage purposes, it would only be to actually lock out/tag out the equipment.

Even if the disconnect can be thrown to de-energize the eqpt with the lock on, I doubt it could be locked out with a lock in place. I'd find a better place to store the lock.

Me too and I wonder what risk management would say about it. Just imagine a deposition where someone is asked "Would it have been possible for you to disconnect the power?" and some employee responds "Well yeah but I saw a lock on it so I didn't even try and the guy died" or someone else can't do a LOTO because he does not have the key to remove the lock being stored on the lock hole.

How about installing something nearby which you can lock the lock to so it's always available to someone who has a key? If the only objective is to store a lock for future use, it seems safer.

Is there another objective of preventing unauthorized access to the disconnect?

A picture would really help!

 

[iwire]

I don't disagree better places could be found, but I doubt without an in plant rule there will be any code against it.

 

[chris1971]

Me too and I wonder what risk management would say about it. Just imagine a deposition where someone is asked "Would it have been possible for you to disconnect the power?" and some employee responds "Well yeah but I saw a lock on it so I didn't even try and the guy died" or someone else can't do a LOTO because he does not have the key to remove the lock being stored on the lock hole.

How about installing something nearby which you can lock the lock to so it's always available to someone who has a key? If the only objective is to store a lock for future use, it seems safer.

Is there another objective of preventing unauthorized access to the disconnect?

A picture would really help!

I've seen it where a business will lock a disconnect on the exterior of a building. Especially in areas visible to the public.

 

[GoldDigger]

I've seen it where a business will lock a disconnect on the exterior of a building. Especially in areas visible to the public.

But in that case you typically see it done so that the disconnect cannot be opened manually.

 

[JFletcher]

I don't disagree better places could be found, but I doubt without an in plant rule there will be any code against it.

I suppose there might be an OSHA regulation against modifying equipment, either temporarily or permanently, so that it cannot be locked out. Placing a lock on the 'off' lug of the disconnect might very well prevent it. I dont have any code/regs to back up that statement/thought, just seems a bad way to store a lock that may have unintended consequences.

A hammerdrill, two blues and screws and a D-ring mounted to a nearby wall would take all of 10 minutes to install and cost $2 in parts... and in the event the key is lost, it doesnt matter.

 

[iceworm]

I am in need of qualified opinions as I have a problem. I have been told that it is ok to install a padlock on an energized disconnect. I have been reassured that the disconnect can be turned off with the said lock in place. The customer's safety personnel (large auto company) also said it was ok. I have been in the trade 37 years and never had someone tell me it was ok. The reason being is the OEM doesn't want to lose his lock.
Any comments? Yeah I know you can't fix stupid, but...

dw -
I suspect there is a rest of the story.

Like maybe this disconnect is right at a machine and is regularly used for maintenance/cleaning. The operator, pulls the disconnect, locks it, jumps in, and cleans/removes jam, jumps out, unlocks, closes disconnect.

I'm not saying that is it, but is it something like that?

Reason I ask is I put in a disconnect on a pulp mill log conveyor, just for that reason. Operators wanted to be able to Lock Out with having to go to the MCC.

 

[Strathead]

As mentioned, there is nothing in the electrical code that would prevent a lock on device on a disconnect. So the OP's question is really an issue for an overall safety evaluation. I would suspect that in the owner's opinion, the disconnect is not there to quickly shut off the equipment in the event of an unsafe condition but more for maintenance of the machinery. When safety shutdown is desired, such as a conveyor or other machinery with human interaction, strategically placed emergency pushbuttons would be far more effective.

 

[kwired]

I am in need of qualified opinions as I have a problem. I have been told that it is ok to install a padlock on an energized disconnect. I have been reassured that the disconnect can be turned off with the said lock in place. The customer's safety personnel (large auto company) also said it was ok. I have been in the trade 37 years and never had someone tell me it was ok. The reason being is the OEM doesn't want to lose his lock.

Sure there wasn't a misunderstanding on the fact it can be turned off when it is locked in the "on" position? Overcurrent devices will still trip on overcurrent conditions when a lock is installed - they just can not be manually operated.

 

[GoldDigger]

Sure there wasn't a misunderstanding on the fact it can be turned off when it is locked in the "on" position? Overcurrent devices will still trip on overcurrent conditions when a lock is installed - they just can not be manually operated.

A typical fused disconnect with an internal knife switch will allow the handle to be moved out of the ON position with a lock in the OFF hole. It just will not go all the way to the OFF position.
Some disconnects do have another set of holes that allow the lever to be locked in the full ON position, bug apparently that is not what the OP is referring to.

 

[jusme123]

I am in need of qualified opinions as I have a problem. I have been told that it is ok to install a padlock on an energized disconnect. I have been reassured that the disconnect can be turned off with the said lock in place. The customer's safety personnel (large auto company) also said it was ok. I have been in the trade 37 years and never had someone tell me it was ok. The reason being is the OEM doesn't want to lose his lock.
Any comments? Yeah I know you can't fix stupid, but...

...then why bother putting the lockout on? I would not lockout a breaker in the closed position, JMO

 

[iwire]

Sometimes it's like trying to herd cats. :lol:

 

[iceworm]

Sometimes it's like trying to herd cats. :lol:

Yeah - or maybe pushing on a rope.

Uh, Guys .... Just a suggestion - Go read the OP.

(No Bob - not you. You read it already)

 

[iceworm]

...then why bother putting the lockout on? I would not lockout a breaker in the closed position, JMO

It is not locked in the closed position.

So why is the lock being stored where it is? Because ------ They want a convenient place to store the lock.

I would guess its so that the lock is right handy when they need to do a frequent maintenance task. That way they don't have to go look for the lock.

But, until dw answers us, the comments/questions/guesses are moot. We don't know.

 

[JFletcher]

...then why bother putting the lockout on? I would not lockout a breaker in the closed position, JMO

Locking out breakers in the closed position is done all the time in industrial maintenance. NOT locking out a breaker when you have your hands in eqpt is grounds for disciplinary action at places I have worked, firing if anyone actually gets hurt.

Bob: cat herding:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pk7yqlTMvp8

 

[GoldDigger]

Locking out breakers in the closed position is done all the time in industrial maintenance. NOT locking out a breaker when you have your hands in eqpt is grounds for disciplinary action at places I have worked, firing if anyone actually gets hurt.

Bob: cat herding:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pk7yqlTMvp8

I am not clear about what sort of maintenance would require locking a breaker closed.