Lock out tag out, opinion!

Status
Not open for further replies.

e57

Senior Member
iwire said:
Mark, that is a Joe Tedsco move. :grin:

Help me out, cut and paste what you wanted me to see.

Hey Now........ (I'll make my own bad name...) I did, from my first long post... Last sentance before the link - in regaurds to saying you dissagree - 'the plumber needs to put his lock on'


Originally Posted by e57
~~~~~ All personal LOTO is on top of this...


IMO if the situation were reversed and a plumbing or Mech shop were asked to shut something off for me - I would expect a Group Tag from thier shop..... My lock would be on that.
 

e57

Senior Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by e57
As it sounds like the plumber is not qualified to re-energize the equipment when he's done with what he was there to do.


I agree with that for sure.

If you read back a bit - James gets told to shut it off FOR them, the Plumbers (Lets call them Billy/Joe) doesn't want his lock on it because he/they might be clueless to what also might be on it....
Later - Some other Sparkie (For sake of conversation his name is Jack)shows up and has no clue as to why something else is off. All he finds is a peice of tape....

Billy, Joe, Jack and James are all out to CYA - but no blanket is big enough.... Got to get a bigger blanket - i.e. a Group, or Craft Lock Out. They all chuck thier locks on it - all covered....
 

chevyx92

Senior Member
Location
VA BCH, VA
Since we are on the Lock Out Tag Out topic, what circuit breaker lockout devices do you guys use? And is there a universal one that works on all breakers(brands, 2Pole, 3Pole etc...)?
 

Coyote

Member
Location
Illinois
jameselectric said:
Ok, heres the situation. Working at a location and the plumber contact me about a piece of equipement(steamer, supply etc) that THEY are working on. they ask if i could trace out the circuit so THEY know which one it is so the power can be off.

I do trace and i identify. I turn off the breaker, I asked them do THEY have a lock out tag out, since THEY will be working on the equipement and i would not be, and that i wasnt going to put my lock on it. The 'new guy wasnt sure but assume that the 'new tools' that was issued to him on the cart did have one. He did not have it with him at the time. I did put a piece of 'red tape' on it, and let him see it and i labeled the equipement so he knew what circuit it was if he had to leave and get his tools (kit). I may have been wrong to ASSUME that he was going to tag it that day and fix it that day.

Well after a day when i wasnt there, the following day aparently there was other equipment that this circuit did affect, but there was no 'tag' to identify why the breaker was off. So the 'night shift electrician' went ahead and turned it back on and disconnectd the equipment that labeled out of order.

Now im being told that its the ELECTRICIANS that only suppose to put their lockout tag out on electrical. I was taught different, and always believed and practice that ANYONE working on or around any hazard can tag out electrical, or any other equipement. Am i wrong?? Well because there was NO INFO on about the 'taped breaker' this caused a little discussion. BUT I WAS NOT WORKING ON IT. I said the plumber was suppose to put his tag on it so people would know what was going on.

Whats your opinion??? Should my lock been on it, or HIS or both.??

What is your "written policy" Ours is to lockout all sources of power to the equipment that YOU are working on.
So that being said you where not working on this so after you traced the circuit and ID it. The craft who was going to peform the work should have put thier lock and tag on. IMHO I believe that you where wrong in putting red tape on the breaker as this gave the plumber a false sense of security.
Luckly only disscusion and no other serious problems, call it a learning experience.
 

jim dungar

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Wisconsin
Occupation
PE (Retired) - Power Systems
480sparky said:
That sounds dangerous. So if you are working on an existing circuit (say, you are relocating the load), you lock the breaker out. But during lunch, you unlock it?!?!?

I said my personal LOTO lock leaves with me, no where did I say the equipment is left unlocked. Equipment/Group locks or lock boxes are used when locks need to be left on "out of service" equipment for extended periods of time. This way the equipment/group lock may be removed by any of my team members without having to go through the paperwork associated with removing someone else's LOTO lock.
 

480sparky

Senior Member
Location
Iowegia
jim dungar said:
I said my personal LOTO lock leaves with me, no where did I say the equipment is left unlocked. Equipment/Group locks or lock boxes are used when locks need to be left on "out of service" equipment for extended periods of time. This way the equipment/group lock may be removed by any of my team members without having to go through the paperwork associated with removing someone else's LOTO lock.

So what happens if you're the only one working on it and your lock is the only one one it? It's your padlock, your warning tag, and your LOTO device. If you pull all that stuff off and go to lunch or go home at the end of the day, there's no LOTO installed at all.
 

jim dungar

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Wisconsin
Occupation
PE (Retired) - Power Systems
480sparky said:
So what happens if you're the only one working on it and your lock is the only one one it? It's your padlock, your warning tag, and your LOTO device. If you pull all that stuff off and go to lunch or go home at the end of the day, there's no LOTO installed at all.

Proper tool for the proper job. LOTO is for personal protection only, if I am not there then LOTO is not needed. If the equipment is to remain out of service it gets an equipment lock (and explanation tag).
 

GeorgeB

ElectroHydraulics engineer (retired)
Location
Greenville SC
Occupation
Retired
jameselectric said:
Now im being told that its the ELECTRICIANS that only suppose to put their lockout tag out on electrical. I was taught different, and always believed and practice that ANYONE working on or around any hazard can tag out electrical, or any other equipement. Am i wrong?? Well because there was NO INFO on about the 'taped breaker' this caused a little discussion. BUT I WAS NOT WORKING ON IT. I said the plumber was suppose to put his tag on it so people would know what was going on.

Whats your opinion??? Should my lock been on it, or HIS or both.??

Every, EVERY, plant in which I work that has a written LOTOTO (lock, tag, try) policy requires my lock on all sources of energy; I am required on some systems to have one for pneumatic, one for hydraulic, and one for electric.

NOTE that most do not have the written policy; this is for those who do.
 

GeorgeB

ElectroHydraulics engineer (retired)
Location
Greenville SC
Occupation
Retired
480sparky said:
That sounds dangerous. So if you are working on an existing circuit (say, you are relocating the load), you lock the breaker out. But during lunch, you unlock it?!?!?
ABSOLUTELY. LOTO is _INDIVIDUAL_ protection. Others (supervisors, management, etc) will have a lock to hopefully protect the hoi polloi from idiots. My locks go on only while I am actively working on the machine; there may be, on some jobs, 30 or 40 locks on a project.

Comment here ... many plants, on major projects, will utilize a "group lockout" putting 1 lock on each source of energy, then the keys for that in a group lockout box which will handle, directly or indirectly, hundreds of locks. With many (most) who utilize a group system, I'm shown where the group locks are located and encouraged, sometimes required, to "TryOut". Keys can usually be added to the group box, for example if another source of energy is identified or added during the scope of work.
 

jflynn

Senior Member
jameselectric said:
this is EXACTLY my point!! I wasnt going to be available


In your case I would have identified the breaker and left it in the on position,leaving it up to the plumber that was working on the circuit to turn it off,therefore taking you out of the loop...
 

jameselectric

Senior Member
e57 said:
Sorry Jameselectric - but I have to say you may be well in the wrong - or possibley misunderstood your task - you were supposed to make it safe for the plumbers to do thier work. The "how" - is not in the "why" here in your case IMO. You were asked to "Safe Off" +/or LOTO some equipment for some non-electrically enclined Plumbers.]
This is incorrect, i was asked to 'IDENTIFY' what breaker it was. I specifically asked him if he had his lock out tag out and to put his own. I had to leave and could not stay. Go back and read my post, again. I would have to 'stay or be working on the equipment if i put my personal loto on it. Thats the policy.

e57 said:
You showed up - 'traced out' the circuit shut it off and left a piece of 'tape' over the breaker.... (Then someone turned it back on??? Or otherwise turned into a fiasco...) Does your shop or facility just have a "Personal LOTO Program" and lack a "Group (Facility) LOTO Program"?????]
We have a LOTO program period!! As far as someone turning it back on, there was no harm done, it was only off with the 'red tape' for IDENTIFICATION (making it SIMPLE for him to know which breaker it was) for the plumber, He did not start working on the equipment right away, I was under the impression he was going to get his LOTO kit, when i asked him about it and i said i had to leave.

e57 said:
IMO - you should have gone a few steps further. Traced and double checked that all of what was on the circuit were supposed to be off, and seperated them.]
Really did not have time for this, and that was not my task, my task was IDENTIFICATION only.

e57 said:
Or properly locked the breaker with "YOUR" lock and tag with the info, and then went and got a new one for yourself.... Or just waited to get your stuff back..]
This is agains policy, and osha

e57 said:
As it sounds like the plumber is not qualified to re-energize the equipment when he's done with what he was there to do. So having his lock there may have been more of a hazard - which is why you were sent to do it..]
If he was not qualified then he doesnt need to be here. as far as 'more of a hazard, thats laughable!! and I was not sent to put my loto on it.
 

cschmid

Senior Member
James I believe this is a catch 22 position..You were ask to disconnect the power for the equipment being service..then your co-worker actually disconnect the power and restored service to other pieces of equipment..and labeled the disconnected lines as out of service..

So the way I see it is that you should found the power source verified the equipment that was involved with the power source made it safe for servicing..and restored the power for the other equipment..

This is not a simple situation..everyone is required to have their own lock out gear..and be trained in the proper way to use it..the plumber did not meet either requirement and should of been trained or a qualified plumber should of been employed.

Now you were employed to make the situation safe and make sure nothing else was affected by your employer and you failed on both accounts..So what would you feel like if someone would of turned the breaker on an electrocuted an unqualified person..

I feel you should taken the extra time to disconnect the wiring and label it out of service..then returned the power to the rest of the equipment..then wrote a tag out violation for the plumber was not trained in Lock out tag out and did not have the proper gear..I would of wrote a work order for a disconnect at the individual piece of equipment..so this procedure would not of occurred again..
 

jim dungar

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Wisconsin
Occupation
PE (Retired) - Power Systems
How many more times does James have to say it:
jameselectric said:
...
they ask if i could trace out the circuit so THEY know which one it is...

How many of you put locks on every circuit you are asked to identify for someone else?

If the work being performed by others does not involve the electric powered equipment, why should it be put in an "electrically safe" condition? Preventing a plumbing mishap and preventing an injury are two different things.
 

iwire

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Massachusetts
jim dungar said:
How many of you put locks on every circuit you are asked to identify for someone else?

If the work being performed by others does not involve the electric powered equipment, why should it be put in an "electrically safe" condition? Preventing a plumbing mishap and preventing an injury are two different things.

Well put and no I don't as a rule lock out each circuit I am asked to trace out.
 

e57

Senior Member
jameselectric said:
This is incorrect, i was asked to 'IDENTIFY' what breaker it was. I specifically asked him if he had his lock out tag out and to put his own. I had to leave and could not stay. Go back and read my post, again. I would have to 'stay or be working on the equipment if i put my personal loto on it. Thats the policy.
That is YOUR policy - for personal LOTO - when you "identified it" you shut it OFF, and put a peice of tape on it, as mentioned by someone else when you shut it off and left, you could have become responsible for it being off, as the other guy didn't touch it....

=jameselectric]We have a LOTO program period!! As far as someone turning it back on, there was no harm done, it was only off with the 'red tape' for IDENTIFICATION (making it SIMPLE for him to know which breaker it was) for the plumber, He did not start working on the equipment right away, I was under the impression he was going to get his LOTO kit, when i asked him about it and i said i had to leave.
From the sound of it your facility either has 1/2 a LOTO program - or you are mistaken - period.... :rolleyes: From the sound of it you copped and additude of the all knowing when the scope of LOTO can be larger than JUST YOU.

jameselectric said:
Really did not have time for this, and that was not my task, my task was IDENTIFICATION only.
Then you should not have shut it off - period. You should have pointed it out to him and left...

jameselectric said:
This is agains policy, and osha
True he should have had his lock on the 'tree' that you had set for "Group LOTO" if your facility had such a program - if they do not - IMO it is very clear from my little screen here that they do - and you should take that to your superiors.

quote=jameselectric]If he was not qualified then he doesnt need to be here. as far as 'more of a hazard, thats laughable!! and I was not sent to put my loto on it.[/quote]Since there was additional equipment on the circuit unbeknownst to even you - the Electrician - I hardly see the plumber as qualified to de-energize this circuit - and from your general additude about safety - maybe you are not either - YET.... That little peice of red tape could have cost someone a life - think about that red tape........

In closing - I'm not trying to get your goat or insult you - but there is a lot more to professional courtesy, and a broader scope of LOTO past what you did IMO.
 

e57

Senior Member
I was in a high-rise today and was reminded of a great example of group loto as I passed a building I worked in to get home from there - and a great veiw of it from where I worked..... I could see it in the distance from my last post out the window.

Several years ago _ was running one crew for one of four elctrical contractors all on the same job.

One particular feeder fed 5-6 transformer disconnects that were all being relocated/extended by various companies one each floor. So for several days there the most locks I have ever seen on breaker.

  • One, sometimes two clasps for each company.
  • Each of those had a single lock for the company and a group tag. (Which could only be removed by the Foreman of each company.)
  • Then a lock for each person on each crew
At one point I remember looking over and there was a basket ball sized pile of locks hanging from that breaker. Would have made a nice picture.

And on another note of LOTO - the only time I have ever assaulted someone on a job-site is when some dope pryed my breaker lock and tag off because the lights were off in a building he was not supposed to be in - and nearly killed me. 480/277 arm to head - knocked me off a ladder - and after scraping myself off the floor I chaged down the hall and had to be restrained from the dope tenent in there flipping breakers.
 

KentAT

Senior Member
Location
Northeastern PA
e57 said:
That is YOUR policy - for personal LOTO - when you "identified it" you shut it OFF, and put a peice of tape on it, as mentioned by someone else when you shut it off and left, you could have become responsible for it being off, as the other guy didn't touch it....
Yes, jameselectric was responsible for the power being off, but not for the power being turned back on. LOTO is ALWAYS about the individual working on the equipment with one or more sources of power.

e57 said:
Since there was additional equipment on the circuit unbeknownst to even you - the Electrician - I hardly see the plumber as qualified to de-energize this circuit - and from your general additude about safety - maybe you are not either - YET.... That little peice of red tape could have cost someone a life - think about that red tape.........

De-energizing the circuit is one thing - working on a piece of equipment without adhering to a LOTO policy is quite another.

Don't place the blame on the electrician who was asked to identify the circuit. There were remaining tasks to be performed for a complete LOTO such as locking, tagging, testing for energy, etc. The task for jameselectric was only the first of many that are required.

And it appears as though jameselectric has quite the proper attitude for safety - your comments are a little unfounded.
 

jameselectric

Senior Member
Heres a good discussion on lockout tag out.
Especially comments by Sparketta post # 21

http://forums.mikeholt.com/showthread.php?t=94803&page=3&highlight=lock

Sparketta said:
The real scoop on LOTO

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have to speak up here, because LOTO is a subject I know extremely well. Some of the posters here are on the right track, but some of you are not quite getting it.

For the most part OSHA requires that locks be removed by the authorized employee who installed them. The problems brought up here due to locks left on and having to be removed by someone else or cut off should not have happened. It is not the intent of the standard to be cutting off locks left and right due to convenience issues, as is discussed in OSHA's LOTO Preamble, which states:

"In paragraph (e)(3) of this Final Rule, OSHA is requiring that as a general rule, the authorized employee who affixes a lockout or tagout device is the only one allowed to remove it. OSHA believes that each employee must have the assurance that the device is in his/her control, and that it will not be removed by anyone else except in an emergency situation. The entire energy control program in this standard depends upon each employee recognizing and respecting another employee's lockout or tagout device. The servicing employee relies upon the fact that he/she applied the device, and assumes that it will remain on the equipment while he/she is exposed to the hazards of the servicing operation.

OSHA can envision very few instances which would justify one employee's removal of another's lockout or tagout device. However, in a true emergency, and not merely because the employee is not available, the employer may be able to demonstrate a need to remove an employee's lockout or tagout device. An exception to paragraph (e)(3) of the final rule is being provided to allow for such situations, and is discussed further below. OSHA emphasizes that removal of a personal lockout or tagout device by another person may not be based on convenience or simple unavailability of the employee. If a lockout or tagout device is attached, it is assumed that the employee who attached that device is engaged in servicing the equipment on which the device is in use, and that person is exposed to the hazards of reenergization. Therefore, as a general matter, the protection of that employee requires that he/she have complete control over his/her lockout or tagout device. Some modification of the general rule is warranted in the case of transfer of authority between shifts as discussed in paragraph (f)(4) below, and to a limited extent in group lockout or tagout, as discussed in paragraph (f)(3) below, both of which involve coordination of activities between servicing employees.

Under the exception to paragraph (e)(3), the employer may direct the removal of a lockout or tagout device by another employee only if the energy control program incorporates specific procedures and training for that purpose, and only where the employer can demonstrate that the alternative procedure will provide equivalent safety to having the employee remove his/her own device. The procedure must include, at a minimum, the following items: First, verification that the authorized employee is not at the facility; second, making all reasonable efforts to contact that employee to inform him/her that his/her device has been removed; and third, ensuring that employee knows of that device removal before he/she resumes work at the facility. These steps are necessary to ensure that the employee who is protected by the device is not exposed to energy hazards either at the time of its removal or afterwards."

Not removing the locks of other employees should not be an issue, either, if LOTO is performed properly. Per OSHA, Lockout/tagout applies to the servicing/maintenance or equipment or machinery, and the standard dictates that the locks and tags are only to be used for that purpose. At the end of the shift, or if the job is paused to order parts, or whatever, the LOTO should come off and go with the worker to whatever the next job he or she works on that requires it.

When the equipment is left in an unsafe condition as in some of the cases mentioned here, there is another OSHA standard that covers it. The standard on accident prevention signs and tags, 1910.145, states:

1910.145(f)(5)

"Danger tags. Danger tags shall be used in major hazard situations where an immediate hazard presents a threat of death or serious injury to employees. Danger tags shall be used only in these situations.

1910.145(f)(6)

Caution tags. Caution tags shall be used in minor hazard situations where a non-immediate or potential hazard or unsafe practice presents a lesser threat of employee injury. Caution tags shall be used only in these situations."

So, when there is a break in maintenance, LOTO should be removed, and if the equipment is left in a condition that would make it hazardous to the general public (not just dangerous to someone working on it, remember, any one working on it would have to LOTO it anyway), a Caution or Danger (non-LOTO) tag shall be applied. In the case that there is no personnel hazard but the equipment could be damaged if it were to be energized, a configuration type informational tag (non-OSHA regulated) can be used. For extra protection, any of these tags can be applied with what the ANSI LOTO standard refers to as a "service lock" which all members of a particular work crew have a key or the combination to. This allows for the configuration to be maintained, safely, and when work is to resume, the worker removes the service lock, applies his or her LOTO and verifies ZES before starting work. The ANSI standard goes into more detail on this than OSHA's standard does, even going as far as prescribing removal of the LOTO whenever the authorized employee must leave the building for any reason.

So, why is it so important to remove LOTO when you are no longer working on the equipment? Why not just leave it locked out and be extra safe?

It is OSHA's belief that the practice of leaving equipment locked out while it is not being worked on desensitizes employees to the meaning of the distinctive lock and tag. When this happens, and especially when the workers are already violating the standard by readily removing each others locks whether with a master key or by cutting them off, the entire meaning of LOTO is diluted and you have a recipe for disaster.

Where does OSHA spell this out in the LOTO standard, 1910.147?

That is the big problem; they don't; you have to read between the lines. Under 29 CFR 1910.147(c)(5)(ii), lockout/tagout devices ". . . shall not be used for other purposes; . . ." Additionally, 29 CFR 1910.147(a)(1)(i) states: "This standard covers the servicing and maintenance of machines and equipment in which the unexpected energization or start-up of the machines or equipment, or release of stored energy could cause injury to employees."

It would be hard to argue that the lock that was left on after the authorized employee has left for the day is being used to protect him during maintenance when no maintenance is occurring and he is at home sleeping.

I have seen OSHA inspectors write citations for LOTO locks and tags left in place when there is a break in maintenance.

As OSHA states in the LOTO Preamble, the provision to allow someone other that the authorized employee to remove the lockout/tagout is only for emergencies:

"This provision was intended to cover situations such as those that might arise from the sudden sickness or injury of an employee, key loss, or other emergency conditions."

If LOTO is removed when the authorized employee stops working on the equipment, these kinds of emergencies would be the only time there would be a need to remove someone else's LOTO.

Sorry to be so wordy.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last edited by Sparketta : 01-23-2008 at 05:01 PM.
 

jameselectric

Senior Member
cschmid said:
James I believe this is a catch 22 position..You were ask to disconnect the power for the equipment being service..then your co-worker actually disconnect the power and restored service to other pieces of equipment..and labeled the disconnected lines as out of service....
Ok, i think i see where the confusion is at. I was NOT sent to disconnect the power for the equipment being service, I was sent to IDENTIFY the breaker that powered the equipment. So when i IDENTIFY a breaker in this particular situation, i only turned it off and put red tape on it so he knows which one it was (this wouldve been the only breaker in the panel that was off with a red piece of tape on it) and this also gave positive ID that this was the breaker that powered the equipment. As far as i was concerned, he couldve turned it on right then, if he wasnt going to work on it right away. Believe me, if there was an 'electrically unsafe' situation that i was aware of, then i wouldve definitely done more, but that was not my task/job. Also this equipment is only 12ft away from the panel and he was watching me trace the circuit and i showed him the breaker that operated the equipment. I hear everyone, and i believe you might have had a point, IF i didnt ask him about his OWN lock out tag out to put on the breaker and IF i had not told him i was not staying. Thanks for your opinion though.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top