Lock out tag out, opinion!

[Huevos]

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.



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.

Very good post! My thoughts exactly....

 

[jameselectric]

Yes, jameselectric was responsible for the power being off,..... .

So far everything you said in your post was true, except this one. I was not responsible for the power being off, i was only using the 'off' as a means of positive identification to show the plumber that for sure this was the breaker he needed to loto.

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

Thanks for the defense and compliment.

 

[djcrzysounds@yahoo.com]

I used to work at a large mfg. plant and this sort of thing came up often. In fact, almost the exact same thing happened to me with a plumber that wanted me to lock out for a piece of equipment he was working on. I refused, telling him that he was responsible to lock out what he was working on. He too had lock out devices for valves and such and said that he locked out equipment for other trades and thought I was being unreasonable. I like to think that I play well with others but I'm not going to lay my behind on the line just because a plumber dosn't understand OSHA rules. Well my supervisor, nice guy that he is, decided to put his lock on it in the interest of jobsite harmony. That solved everyones problem except that when they wanted to bring the system online my supervisor was on vacation. That was a dog and pony show.... :grin:

But this brings me to a question. Working at a steel facility and working on a 1800 ton press, it is expected of me to not only lock out my circuits feeding anything on the press but I also need to lock out the valves that affect the press so that it can not close on me. Shouldn't it work both ways? I don't think OSHA takes a preference but can someone enlighten me?

 

[billsnuff]

http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_id=9804&p_table=STANDARDS

Usually, if outside help is called in to work on equipment, we will have it locked out. we place the keys in a lock box and they can add their lock. they get a copy of the lock out procedure, and we walk them through the verification process (proof that it won't start or move). then we discuss the specific problem or task at hand. for lock out to be valid, the individual performing the task must have control of the energy. i.e. the key in his control.

 

[pfalcon]

Short Answer

Short Answer

James should only apply his LOTO to the circuit if he is going to work on the de-energized circuit. Otherwise:

The supervisor for the job should have been present to apply his LOTO to the job once James had identified and de-energized the circuit.

The plumber should then have applied his LOTO to the circuit.

When the plumbing job was complete the plumber would first remove his LOTO from the circuit.

The supervisor would then bring in an electrician who would apply his LOTO to the circuit. The supervisor would then remove his LOTO.

Once the electrician determined it was safe to energize then he would remove his LOTO and restore power.

Supervision is responsible for the proper handing off of LOTO and is to have their own LOTO for that purpose. When James pulls his lock off to go for lunch he may only do so if:
1) The circuit is safe to energize -or-
2) Supervision has applied LOTO until an electrician can take the job over.