My LOTO was cut off today.....

[Strathead]

Why is having your personal lock on the power source that could energize the equipment ridiculous? That is the whole purpose of lockout...to help keep the person who placed the lock safe. Every person working on the equipment is required to have his or her own lock on the energy source.

Loto is always an individual responsibility, it is never the responsibility of someone else.

I am working on a new construction building with 25+ electricians trimming receptacles, fixtures, etc. 10 hours a day 6 days a week. The floors are locked out at the main switchboard and will not be energized for the first time until the work is done. There are 60 plus panels and well over 1800 branch circuits. Does that answer your question? I have never seen or conceived the need to have every electrician, apprentice and helper lock out every dead circuit they have worked on in a remodel or new construction.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

I am working on a new construction building with 25+ electricians trimming receptacles, fixtures, etc. 10 hours a day 6 days a week. The floors are locked out at the main switchboard and will not be energized for the first time until the work is done. There are 60 plus panels and well over 1800 branch circuits. Does that answer your question? I have never seen or conceived the need to have every electrician, apprentice and helper lock out every dead circuit they have worked on in a remodel or new construction.

I guess I would never work for you, because I would not work on any of that unless I had my lock on the lockout. It is my life, not yours or who ever had the lock.

25 people with locks on things is not a huge number...on industrial projects it is often far more than that.

The OSHA rules are clear that each and every person working on the system must have their own lock.

 

[gadfly56]

I am working on a new construction building with 25+ electricians trimming receptacles, fixtures, etc. 10 hours a day 6 days a week. The floors are locked out at the main switchboard and will not be energized for the first time until the work is done. There are 60 plus panels and well over 1800 branch circuits. Does that answer your question? I have never seen or conceived the need to have every electrician, apprentice and helper lock out every dead circuit they have worked on in a remodel or new construction.

If the OCPD for the main switchboard is removed and therefore incapable of energizing any panels downstream that might be acceptable. On the other hand, where are the trades getting juice to run their tools? I usually see spider boxes all over the place. Suppose some bright light figures he'll feed a panel because there's a receptacle in the right spot on the floor he's on and the spider box won't reach. Could be a real bad day for someone.

 

[kwired]

But it wasn't an out of service lock either. It took me a bit to come to a conclusion, but There was no purpose in putting a lock on that junction box except to add a level of safety. Since it was not out of service, an out of service tag would not have been appropriate. Any more than lock out tag out.

It in way was no different then having a locked door to an electrical room. It doesn't necessarily ensure something will not be turned on, but was there to limit access.

I am working on a new construction building with 25+ electricians trimming receptacles, fixtures, etc. 10 hours a day 6 days a week. The floors are locked out at the main switchboard and will not be energized for the first time until the work is done. There are 60 plus panels and well over 1800 branch circuits. Does that answer your question? I have never seen or conceived the need to have every electrician, apprentice and helper lock out every dead circuit they have worked on in a remodel or new construction.

I am not well trained in just what is typically required, but I have no problem with a system that somehow ensures it can't be energized accidentally. Maybe not connecting the feeder to the feeder breaker/switch until it is ready to be energized for the first time? Leaving fuses out until ready for energizing first time? May not quite make OSHA happy but it is one thing to accidentally turn on the wrong switch and another to actually connect the feeder or put in the fuses - those acts are a little more intentional.

 

[Strathead]

If the OCPD for the main switchboard is removed and therefore incapable of energizing any panels downstream that might be acceptable. On the other hand, where are the trades getting juice to run their tools? I usually see spider boxes all over the place. Suppose some bright light figures he'll feed a panel because there's a receptacle in the right spot on the floor he's on and the spider box won't reach. Could be a real bad day for someone.

A separate temporary power service completely independent and very typical in new construction.

 

[Strathead]

I guess I would never work for you, because I would not work on any of that unless I had my lock on the lockout. It is my life, not yours or who ever had the lock.

25 people with locks on things is not a huge number...on industrial projects it is often far more than that.

The OSHA rules are clear that each and every person working on the system must have their own lock.

I have worked in two States on opposite sides of the Country and I have never seen the type of lock out tag out that is being described here including observing at least three Electrical Contractors who have been on the top 10 in sales multiple years. This would be akin to saying you can't work on a toaster without a LOTO on the cord end, because you may be facing away when someone comes along and plugs it in, and I resent the implication that I am some kind of hack. Power is not on the system, it is locked out to prevent unauthorized energizing. Downstream there are closed panels also with every breaker in the off position that subsequently feed other panels with all breakers in the closed position. The ONLY time a breaker gets energized is when all work is done and no one is working on the system. We also take the extra step of not having people wandering about, just in case something does go boom when it is turned on. On top of that, if you wanted to put your lock out on the lockout, I wouldn't prevent you, but I have never had one person raise that request. I have yet to see a multiple lock hasp that holds 25 locks though. The likelyhood of an energized circuit in the situations I am describing is no more than, or actually less than, a person cutting you lock off and turning the one breaker on.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

The OSHA rule says that an unplugged cord under the control of a person working on the equipment does not need a lock or a tag.

By power not on the system do you mean that the system is not connected to a power source? If so locks are not required. If the power is connected and if the locked out device can energize the equipment being worked on, than the OSHA rules are very clear that each and every person working on the equipment that it is locked out have his or her own lock on the lockout.

The multiple lock hasps hold six locks...you hang five locks and put another multiple lock hasp into the first one....repeat as necessary.

We often use lock boxes in the industrial world and many of them have places for 25+ locks. Typically the lock box is used were there are multiple items being locked out. The the keys to the locks that are actually on the equipment are placed in the lock box and each worker places his or her lock on the box.

Every one having their own lock on the equipment is done every day in the industrial world. I don't know if it is common in the residential or commercial world, but the OSHA rules require the individual to have his or her own lock.

 

[kwired]

I have worked in two States on opposite sides of the Country and I have never seen the type of lock out tag out that is being described here including observing at least three Electrical Contractors who have been on the top 10 in sales multiple years. This would be akin to saying you can't work on a toaster without a LOTO on the cord end, because you may be facing away when someone comes along and plugs it in, and I resent the implication that I am some kind of hack. Power is not on the system, it is locked out to prevent unauthorized energizing. Downstream there are closed panels also with every breaker in the off position that subsequently feed other panels with all breakers in the closed position. The ONLY time a breaker gets energized is when all work is done and no one is working on the system. We also take the extra step of not having people wandering about, just in case something does go boom when it is turned on. On top of that, if you wanted to put your lock out on the lockout, I wouldn't prevent you, but I have never had one person raise that request. I have yet to see a multiple lock hasp that holds 25 locks though. The likelyhood of an energized circuit in the situations I am describing is no more than, or actually less than, a person cutting you lock off and turning the one breaker on.

LOTO appplies to all energy sources not just electrical energy. If you primarily do new electrical construction you likely don't see much application to other things. If you worked in an industrial facility that is on top of LOTO you will see not only maintenance people locking things off but any worker that is subjected to the hazards that may be present. An operator that needs to access or even climb into a machine to do routine cleaning, adjustments, replace worn parts may find themselves locking off all sources of electrical energy to that machine as well as gas, air, steam, hydraulics, high pressure water or other media, or other sources of energy to that machine that could be a hazard to the worker.

There are lock devices for all sorts of disconnecting means or shut off valves, if the device doesn't incorporate a place to place a lock there are portable devices that can be fixed to it. NEC does require permanent lock attachment provisions for certain situations, but a LOTO program may require locking other items including a lockable cover to place over a cord cap so that someone can't easily come along and plug it in.

How strict the employer wants to be may be up to the employer - if he wants you to put a lock on the cord of a toaster then that is the rule. Often if it is something of that nature where the person subject to the hazard will be able to easily monitor the disconnect (the cord cap in the case of the toaster) while working on it they may not need to actually place a lock on it. However if it is a cord and plug connected item and they can not easily see the cord cap at all times then it likely does need a lock placed on it.

If your method involves actually attaching personal locks then each worker must have their own lock on every disconnect that may effect them, this could result in the mentioned 25 padlocks on a single disconnecting means. But you seem to have some sort of assurance that things will not be energized and that may be fine. The details of how you manage that may be pretty important - and will be scrutinized by OSHA if you ever have a death on the job that may be a result of holes in that plan, so make sure the plan is pretty solid.

 

[iwire]

I am working on a new construction building with 25+ electricians trimming receptacles, fixtures, etc. 10 hours a day 6 days a week. The floors are locked out at the main switchboard and will not be energized for the first time until the work is done. There are 60 plus panels and well over 1800 branch circuits. Does that answer your question? I have never seen or conceived the need to have every electrician, apprentice and helper lock out every dead circuit they have worked on in a remodel or new construction.

Strat, I work big jobs as well and we do it like you describe. I have never thought about it.

But now that I have thought about it I believe Don is correct about what OSHA actually requires.

Things are changing and I would not be surprised if we get to a point like Don describes.

 

[iwire]

Every one having their own lock on the equipment is done every day in the industrial world. I don't know if it is common in the residential or commercial world, but the OSHA rules require the individual to have his or her own lock.

Don, when we work in a factory or industrial setting we do it like you describe because we know and follow the rules.

OTH when we take a building out of the ground we do it like Strat describes one man in charge of locks killing mains.

Now that I have read this thread I may bring this up with our safety director.

 

[Strathead]

Don, when we work in a factory or industrial setting we do it like you describe because we know and follow the rules.

OTH when we take a building out of the ground we do it like Strat describes one man in charge of locks killing mains.

Now that I have read this thread I may bring this up with our safety director.

Thank you, I thought I was insane. I wouldn't even be participating in this thread if I wasn't interested in safety of my men, but I do rebel against the overstepping of OSHA sometimes. I have seen it enough times to know that, if OSHA comes in and they want to find something they WILL find something, so basically I just try to enforce working smart and safe. One thing this does have me thinking though is, if the call it "global" lockout was under control of me or my other project manager counterparts, with a written policy of the steps needed to remove it, as in safety meetings individual LOTO, etc, after energizing that would be a good step. This would prevent a foreman from getting over zealous. And yes, the foreman would also have a lock requiring both to energize.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Don, when we work in a factory or industrial setting we do it like you describe because we know and follow the rules.

OTH when we take a building out of the ground we do it like Strat describes one man in charge of locks killing mains.

Now that I have read this thread I may bring this up with our safety director.

Maybe there is something in OSHA that would permit the "one man in charge" idea, but I have never seen it or heard it talked about in any of the lockout training that I have had.

 

[Fulthrotl]

Maybe there is something in OSHA that would permit the "one man in charge" idea, but I have never seen it or heard it talked about in any of the lockout training that I have had.

you make a number of valid points.

i've worked for utilities where LOTO, transfer locks, clearances,
kirk keys, and every other aspect of safety is clearly defined.
and my use of the phrase "LOTO" was inaccurate.

let's substitute the expression "LOTO" for what happened.

someone removed a padlock with bolt cutters, removed
screws holding a cover on, and left cover ajar with 480
bus bars behind it that were subsequently energized.

it would be akin to removing covers and dead front sections
from a piece of gear, and leaving it with exposed bus bars, which
subsequently became energized.

i personally feel it was an unsafe thing to do.

 

[zbang]

I'm going to beat what I think may be a dying horse-

For a moment, consider the padlock on a cabinet to be the same as the lock on an electrical room. (And not an OSHA-style LOTO with written procedures and all that.)

Assuming no one's life is in danger, is it OK to break the lock and operate (or rewire) what's inside? If there is a note, name & phone#, or other tag, is it OK without first reading the note, calling the phone, etc?) Is it OK for a non-electrician, if that makes a difference?

IMHO, for a new site, if there's a phone number, I wouldn't be doing my job if I didn't at least call the number and find out why that lock (or locked door) is there. Maybe they're 10 minutes away from the job site and on the way. Now, if they don't answer, it becomes a judgement call (just like the 20 year old padlock); you can cut it off or break the doorlock, but you'd better be really careful after that.

“Look, that's why there's rules, understand? So that you think before you break 'em.”
― Terry Pratchett, Thief of Time

 

[don_resqcapt19]

you make a number of valid points.

i've worked for utilities where LOTO, transfer locks, clearances,
kirk keys, and every other aspect of safety is clearly defined.
and my use of the phrase "LOTO" was inaccurate.

let's substitute the expression "LOTO" for what happened.

someone removed a padlock with bolt cutters, removed
screws holding a cover on, and left cover ajar with 480
bus bars behind it that were subsequently energized.

it would be akin to removing covers and dead front sections
from a piece of gear, and leaving it with exposed bus bars, which
subsequently became energized.

i personally feel it was an unsafe thing to do.

I agree that would be unsafe and not something that should ever happen.

My comments are only based on my understanding of the rules OSHA for lockouts. The lock in question, was not a lockout lock per the OSHA rules, but that does not mean that someone is permitted to remove that lock.

 

[jim dungar]

someone removed a padlock with bolt cutters, removed
screws holding a cover on, and left cover ajar with 480
bus bars behind it that were subsequently energized.

i personally feel it was an unsafe thing to do.

Absolutely - it was unsafe.
Absolutely, you had the right to be irate.

I'll bet you didn't even get reimbursed for the lock.

 

[Fulthrotl]

Absolutely - it was unsafe.
Absolutely, you had the right to be irate.

I'll bet you didn't even get reimbursed for the lock.

i was very well compensated for my work there.

it largely wrapped on tuesday, at 6 pm, after a three day
stocking operation. a panamax ship offloaded 80,000 metric
tons of sand and aggregate. there were a lot of single points of
failure that didn't fail, and except for some hairballs due to the
ship shoving gravel faster than the conveyors could handle it,
all went pretty well.

i'm gonna pretty much wrap it this next week. there will be some
changes in the facility, but my work on that will be relatively minor.
it's been a good piece of work, good people to work for, and with.
just under half a million in 7 months, on a handshake. no contracts,
lien releases, retentions, snarking, disputes. just put it in, send in a weekly
invoice, and they mail a check.

stuff like this restores your faith in human beings in general. you need one
every once in a while, to make up for the guy i just got off the phone with
in kansas, who needs named insureds on general liability, auto, a contract
notarized, unconditional lien releases yada, yada....

for a two hour job totaling $1,350.

the irony is, i did a similar job for his company 9 months ago, and at the
time, he said he had a quarter million dollars worth of work for me this year.
this is the first time i've heard from him. he already has all my info on file.

one of the best people to work with is over, and we are back in kansas, again.

 

[mivey]

on a handshake. no contracts

I miss the old days. People like that are getting harder to find.

 

[Jeffr24]

LOTO

LOTO

I have has issues with inconsistency with LOTO lock procedures. I would issue the techs a personal red LOTO lock. This is to lock out a machine while a single person is working on a machine. If the job takes longer than a shift, or requires the machine to be down over the weekend, then a blue intermediate lock must be installed. The key for this blue lock is placed in a designated location with a log sheet filled out stating the purpose and location of the blue lock. When a tech works on the machine, the red lock is placed in conjunction to the blue lock until the work is complete. When the machine is repaired, all blue locks are returned to the LOTO station. The red locks are kept with the techs. I have had to continually monitor how the techs are doing LOTO. We get busy, and try to "quick get it done". That's when people get hurt.

 

[kwired]

I have has issues with inconsistency with LOTO lock procedures. I would issue the techs a personal red LOTO lock. This is to lock out a machine while a single person is working on a machine. If the job takes longer than a shift, or requires the machine to be down over the weekend, then a blue intermediate lock must be installed. The key for this blue lock is placed in a designated location with a log sheet filled out stating the purpose and location of the blue lock. When a tech works on the machine, the red lock is placed in conjunction to the blue lock until the work is complete. When the machine is repaired, all blue locks are returned to the LOTO station. The red locks are kept with the techs. I have had to continually monitor how the techs are doing LOTO. We get busy, and try to "quick get it done". That's when people get hurt.

And your people should have more then one lock as well. If a machine has more then one energy source, not just electric but also air, steam, gas, high pressure "anything", etc. or even if something is able to fall, roll, etc. if a securing method is moved/removed/operated it needs a lock from each person that may be effected by any release of energy.