• We will be performing upgrades on the forums and server over the weekend. The forums may be unavailable multiple times for up to an hour each. Thank you for your patience and understanding as we work to make the forums even better.

Local LOTO During a Sitewide Outage

Status
Not open for further replies.
R

Red_Skull

Member
Location
Austin, TX
Occupation
Electrical Engineer
I have a question about lockout procedures when equipment is already de-energized upstream. Our facility has a yearly outage, during which we de-energize the entire building. The maintenance scope for my department includes all of the medium and low voltage switchgear, but not any of the downstream distribution panels, sub panels, MCCs, or production equipment.

The contractor performing the switchgear maintenance opens the breakers at the main substation that supplies the facility, racks them out, and establishes a lock box. They perform their absence of voltage checks at the switchgear and apply temporary grounds. They do a great job every year and we have never had any issues with them. The problem arises with contractors and other departments working downstream during the outage. Last year, we had a near miss when the facility was re-energized. A different contractor had been working in some MCCs all day and had not bothered to LOTO any of them. Luckily they had finished up their work and closed everything up a few minutes before the site was re-energized. This incident has prompted a review of our LOTO procedures.

It's my opinion that anyone working should LOTO locally at the equipment they are working on. The issue arises when someone is performing a LOTO procedure after the facility is already de-energized. Performing an absence of voltage check on the equipment that is already de-energized upstream doesn't really tell you anything. You're going to read zero volts no matter what, but the wrong switch could have been opened or a pole could have failed to open and you wouldn't know any differently. This could just as easily apply to mechanical equipment or control panels. Attempting to start a motor during a LOTO procedure is meaningless when it is going to be de-energized either way. A worker may have a false sense of security thinking that they are locked out, only to have equipment re-energize when the facility is re-energized.

I don't want to have to establish a lockbox for the entire site, if it can be avoided. There are hundreds of contractors and employees working on equipment during the outage. It would be a nightmare finding everyone when it comes time to re-energize. We do make a sitewide announcement when it is time to re-energize, but it can't be heard everywhere in the facility.

I would appreciate it if anyone has any suggestions or feedback. Thanks!
 
Z

zbang

Senior Member
Location
Roughly 5346 miles from Earls Court
I'd want to lock out whatever I was working on since I don't want to trust the upstream lockout. Assuming there's temporary power for lighting and tools, that could be used to test meters before verifying the absence of voltage.

Can you set up specific area lockboxes instead of a site-wide one?

It also sounds like there isn't a complete "safe work plan" which would include individual area or equipment lockouts. It also sounds like the re-energize plan is missing some verification steps. (Do you leave everything "on" and flip the substation breaker or go around and selectively power-up equipment in a specific order; I hope the latter.)
 
E

EC Dan

Senior Member
Location
Florida
Occupation
E&C Manager
Was there a single person designated as responsible for coordinating the entire lockout? That seems to be what was missing in this case. I think either the facility-wide lockbox method or the local lockouts are fine, but there should still be someone overseeing the entire process.
 
J

jim dungar

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Wisconsin
Occupation
PE (Retired) - Power Systems
At one facility, we had to lockout the specific equipment our team was working on, but our lead had to also lockout at the 'facility wide' location.
 
don_resqcapt19

don_resqcapt19

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Illinois
Occupation
retired electrician
Red_Skull said:
I have a question about lockout procedures when equipment is already de-energized upstream. Our facility has a yearly outage, during which we de-energize the entire building. The maintenance scope for my department includes all of the medium and low voltage switchgear, but not any of the downstream distribution panels, sub panels, MCCs, or production equipment.

The contractor performing the switchgear maintenance opens the breakers at the main substation that supplies the facility, racks them out, and establishes a lock box. They perform their absence of voltage checks at the switchgear and apply temporary grounds. They do a great job every year and we have never had any issues with them. The problem arises with contractors and other departments working downstream during the outage. Last year, we had a near miss when the facility was re-energized. A different contractor had been working in some MCCs all day and had not bothered to LOTO any of them. Luckily they had finished up their work and closed everything up a few minutes before the site was re-energized. This incident has prompted a review of our LOTO procedures.

It's my opinion that anyone working should LOTO locally at the equipment they are working on. The issue arises when someone is performing a LOTO procedure after the facility is already de-energized. Performing an absence of voltage check on the equipment that is already de-energized upstream doesn't really tell you anything. You're going to read zero volts no matter what, but the wrong switch could have been opened or a pole could have failed to open and you wouldn't know any differently. This could just as easily apply to mechanical equipment or control panels. Attempting to start a motor during a LOTO procedure is meaningless when it is going to be de-energized either way. A worker may have a false sense of security thinking that they are locked out, only to have equipment re-energize when the facility is re-energized.

I don't want to have to establish a lockbox for the entire site, if it can be avoided. There are hundreds of contractors and employees working on equipment during the outage. It would be a nightmare finding everyone when it comes time to re-energize. We do make a sitewide announcement when it is time to re-energize, but it can't be heard everywhere in the facility.

I would appreciate it if anyone has any suggestions or feedback. Thanks!
Click to expand...
That is the key ...had that contractor been working at most of the plants I have worked in, it would have been their last job there. No matter where it is going to be locked out, it needs to be locked out.

I have no issue putting my lock on the master lockout box, as long as I have personally view the procedure and the lack of voltage verification. I would be comfortable with that.

If I have not been a part of the master lockout, I would still place my lock on that box, and also place my lock on the first disconnect upstream from what I am working on.
 
B

BillyMac59

Senior Member
Location
Wasaga Beach, Ontario
Occupation
Industrial Electrician
Your LOTO policy didn't work - bottom line. Here in Ontario, Canada the OHSA clearly states 'if the sudden starting of a piece of equipment .... is liable to injure a worker, it shall be locked out." A contractor didn't lock out AND no one checked up on him. LOTO is not about trust or making assumptions. It should be a policy of checks and balances to eliminate loopholes like this. Is it a PITA? Is it overkill? Ask the widow of the last guy ...
 
G

garbo

Senior Member
Retired from a large hospital/research/ambutory center five millon square foot campus where every few months had a complete shut down in one of the buildings for either yearly or triannual maintenance of 13,200 switchgear along with 4,160 & 480 volt equipment. Every contractor must attend a safety meeting along with several pages of how & what was going to be worked on. Every contractor had to use LOTO and where necessary install their lock onto another contractors LOTO. We were lucky to have 17 large emergency generators so had most of the elevators , plenty of lighting along with cell phone tower on our roofs still powered up and working walkie talkies thru out the weekend work. Even if we had to turn off a 120 volt breaker that might only control say two receptacles on the roof we had to submit paper work and have chief Electrician & safety department approve it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top