CONTROL OF HAZARDOUS ENERGY
WELCOME
OSHA 29 CFR 1910.147
LOCKOUT/TAGOUT
COURSE OBJECTIVES
Teach The Student to Recognize Where Lockout/Tagout Is
Needed. Allow the Student to Develop an Understanding of the the
Local Lockout/Tagout Policy. Introduce Techniques Needed to Select the Appropriate
Lockout/Tagout Devices. Teach the Student to Successfully Conduct Lockout/Tagout
Operations. Introduce the Rules for Safe Lockout/Tagout.
29CFR - Safety and Health Standards
1910 - General Industry
147 - Lockout Tagout Standard
REGULATORY STANDARDCONTROL OF HAZARDOUS ENERGY
29CFR - 1910 - 147
Title - Control of Hazardous Energy
September 1, 1989 - Final Rule Issued January 2, 1990 - Final Rule Took Effect
REGULATORY STANDARD29CFR 1910.147
CIRCUMSTANCES OF INJURY
Injured by Moving Machinery Part. Made Contact With Energized Part. Injured by Physical Hazard (Heat, Chemicals). Injured by Falling Machine Part.
HOW MOST INJURIES OCCURIN ORDER OF OCCURRENCE
CIRCUMSTANCES OF INJURY
1. Unjamming Object(S) From Equipment
2. Cleaning Equipment
3. Repairing Equipment
4. Performing Routine Maintenance
5. Installing Equipment
ACTIVITY AT TIME OF ACCIDENTFREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE
6. Adjusting Equipment
7. Doing Set-up Work
8. Performing Electrical Work
9. Inspecting Equipment
10. Testing Materials
CIRCUMSTANCES OF INJURY
ACTIVITY AT TIME OF ACCIDENTFREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE
CIRCUMSTANCES OF INJURY
Afraid of Slow Down in Production. Afraid It Would Take Too Long. Not Required by Company Procedure. Worker Didn't Know Power Was on. Worker Didn't Know How to Turn Off. Did Not Think It Was Necessary. Task Could Not Be Done With Power Off.
REASONS FOR EQUIPMENT NOT BEING TURNED OFF
ON OFF
SYSTEMCONTROLSWITCH
CIRCUMSTANCES OF INJURY
Accidentally Turned on by Injured Employee Co-Worker Accidentally Turned Equipment On Equipment Moved When Jam-up Cleared Equipment Unexpectedly "Cycled" Parts Still in Motion (Coasting)
REASONS FOR EQUIPMENT BEING TURNED ON
ON OFF
SYSTEMCONTROLSWITCH
CASE STUDY #1KILLED BY THE MOVING PARTS OF A SAW
Citation: Failure to Shutdown or Turn off Equipment To
Perform Maintenance.
Narrative: An Employee Was Cleaning the Unguarded Side of
an Operating Granite Saw. The Employee Was
Caught in the Moving Parts Of The Saw and Pulled
Into a Nip Point Between The Saw Blade and the
Idler Wheel, Resulting In Fatal Injuries.
CASE STUDY #2DECAPITATED BY SHEARING MACHINE
Narrative: An Employee Was Removing Scrap From Beneath
a Large Shear When a Fellow Employee Hit the
Control Button Activating The Blade. The Blade
Cycled and Decapitated The Employee Cleaning
Scrap.
Citation: Failure to Shutdown or Turn off Equipment To
Perform Maintenance.
CASE STUDY #3KILLED BY PNEUMATIC DOOR
Citation: Failure to Isolate Equipment From Energy Sources Before Attempting Any Repair, Maintenance or Servicing.
Narrative: An Employee Was Partially Inside of an Asphalt Mixing Machine Changing Its Paddles. Another Employee, While Dusting in The Control Room, Accidentally Hit a Toggle Switch Which Caused the Door of the Mixer to Close, Striking the First Employee on the Head and Killing Him.
Authorized Employee
The Person Who Locks or Tags Out Machines To Perform Servicing or Maintenance.
Affected EmployeeAn Employee Whose Job Requires Him or Her To Operate or Use a Machine or Piece of Equipment On Which Servicing or Maintenance Is Being Performed.
DEFINITION OF EMPLOYEES
Designated Inspector
DEFINITION OF EMPLOYEES
Does Not Utilize the Specific Procedure. The Person Who Inspects the LO/TO Procedure. Is an Authorized Employee.
Authorized Employee
Recognition of Hazardous Energy Sources. Type and Magnitude Energy Sources. Energy Isolation and Control Methods.
TRAINING REQUIREMENTS
TRAINING REQUIREMENTS
Affected Employee
Purpose and Use of The Energy Control Program.
TRAINING REQUIREMENTS
All Other Employees
Procedures and Prohibitions Relating To Attempts to Restart or Reenergize Machines or Equipment Which Are Locked Out or Tagged Out..
Authorized and Affected Employees
Retraining Provided When There Is a: Change in Job Assignment.
Change in Machines, Equipment or Processes.
Change in Energy Control Procedures.
Close-Call Event.
Failure in the Procedures.
Reason to Doubt Employee Proficiency.
RETRAINING REQUIREMENTS
ENERGY CONTROL PROGRAM
1. ENERGY CONTROL PROCEDURES
2. EMPLOYEE TRAINING
3. PERIODIC INSPECTIONS
THREE ELEMENTS TO THE PROGRAM:
DEFINITION OF LOCKOUT
Lockout Is Defined as:
The Placement of a Lockout Device on an Energy Isolating
Device, in Accordance With an Established Procedure,
Ensuring That the Energy Isolating Device and the Equipment
Being Controlled Cannot Be Operated Until the Lockout
Device Is Removed.
DEFINITION OF ENERGY ISOLATING DEVICE
Block Line Valve Disconnecting Switch Manually Operated Switch Any Other Device That Isolates Energy
TYPES OF ENERGY SOURCES
HYDRAULIC
PNEUMATIC
MECHANICAL
RADIOACTIVE
THERMAL
ELECTRICAL
CHEMICAL
TYPES OF ENERGY STATES
STORED ENERGYACTIVE ENERGY
HOT SURFACE110 VOLTS AC
ACTIVE ENERGY
VOLTAGES EXTERNAL PRESSURIZED LINE FEEDS TO THE MACHINE
TYPES OF ENERGY STATES
STORED ENERGY
INTERNAL LINE PRESSURES CAPACITORS SURFACE TEMPERATURES MECHANICAL TENSION (SPRINGS, ETC.) COASTING OF PARTS CHEMICAL (OPPOSING pH) GRAVITY
TYPES OF ENERGY STATES
THE SCOPE OF LOCKOUT/TAGOUT
AREAS REGULATED BY 29 CFR 1910.147:
SERVICING OF MACHINES AND EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE OF MACHINES AND EQUIPMENT
AREAS NOT REGULATED:
CONSTRUCTION, AGRICULTURE AND MARITIME WORK CONTROLLED BY ELECTRIC UTILITIES ELECTRIC UTILITY INSTALLATIONS OIL AND GAS WELL DRILLING AND SERVICING
ACTIVITIES COVERED
1. Covered If an Employee Must Remove or Bypass Guards or Devices
2. Covered Where Employees Are Required to Put A Body Part in a Machine Process Area
3. Covered Where Employees Are Required to Put A Body Part in a Machine Having a Danger Zone
NORMAL OPERATIONS:
TAGOUT REQUIREMENTS
LOCKEDOUT
This Lock/Tag mayonly be removed by
NAME: _______________DEPT : _______________EXPECTED COMPLETIONDATE: ________________TIME: _________________
DO NOT OPERATE
DANGER
Tags Are Only Warning Devices! Tags Must Be Securely Attached! May Evoke False Sense of Security! Tags Do Not Provide Physical Restraint! Tags Must Never Be Defeated or Ignored! Must Withstand Environmental Conditions! Tags Must Be Legible and Understandable! Tags Are Only Removed by the Responsible Person.
REQUIREMENTS IF TAGOUT IS USED
SOME KEY POINTS ABOUT TAGS:
LOCKEDOUT
This Lock/Tag mayonly be removed by
NAME: _______________DEPT : _______________EXPECTED COMPLETIONDATE: ________________TIME: _________________
DO NOT OPERATE
DANGER
LOCK OUT SEQUENCE OF EVENTS
1. Preparation for Shutdown
2. Shutdown
3. Machine or Equipment Isolation
4. Application of Lockout/Tagout Devices
5. Testing of LO/TO
6. Servicing or Maintenance
7. Removal of LO/TO Devices
8. Reenergization
9. Equipment Reactivation
LOCKEDOUT
This Lock/Tag mayonly be removed by
NAME: _______________DEPT : _______________EXPECTED COMPLETIONDATE: ________________TIME: _________________
DO NOT OPERATE
DANGER
WRITTEN PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS
Maintain a Written Program. Review the Program on an Annual Basis. Develop Detailed Energy Control Procedures. Review Individual LO/TO Procedures Annually. Make the Written Program Available to All Affected
Employees During Each Work Shift.
ALL EMPLOYERS MUST:
ENERGY CONTROL PROCEDURES
29CFR 1910.147 REQUIRES THAT:
Procedures Be Developed, Documented and Utilized for Control of Potentially Hazardous Energy When Employees Are Engaged in the Activities Covered by the Standard.
ENERGY CONTROL PROCEDURES
1. Statement of Intended Use.
2. Steps for Shut-Down and Energy Control.
3. Steps for LO/TO Device Placement, Transfer and Removal.
4. Determination of Responsibility.
5. Steps for Testing LO/TO.
PROCEDURES MUST CONTAIN:
EXCEPTIONS TO THE REQUIREMENTTO HAVE WRITTEN LOTO PROCEDURES
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING EIGHT CONDITIONS MUST EXIST:
1. No Potential for Residual, Stored or Reaccumulation of Energy.
2. Contains Only One Energy Source Which Is Readily Identified
and Isolated.
3. Isolating & Locking Out Results in Complete De-Energization.
4. The Machine or Equipment Is Isolated or Locked Out During
Maintenance.
5. One Lockout Device Will Achieve Complete Lockout.
6. The Lockout Device Is Under Exclusive Control Of An
Authorized Employee
7. Servicing/Maintenance Does Not Produce Hazards For Other
Employees
8. No Previous Energy Control Accident History Exists for the
Employer
EXCEPTIONS TO THE REQUIREMENTTO HAVE WRITTEN LOTO PROCEDURES
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING EIGHT CONDITIONS MUST EXIST:
ENERGY CONTROL PROCEDURES
PROCEDURES INSPECTED ANNUALLY
INSPECTIONS PERFORMED BY - “AUTHORIZED EMPLOYEES” OTHER THAN PRIMARY
LOCKOUT REVIEWED BETWEEN - INSPECTOR AND AUTHORIZED EMPLOYEES
TAGOUT REVIEWED BETWEEN - INSPECTOR AND AUTHORIZED/AFFECTED EMPLOYEES
DATE OF INSPECTION
IDENTIFICATION OF MACHINE OR EQUIPMENT
EMPLOYEES INCLUDED IN INSPECTION
PERSON PERFORMING INSPECTION
ENERGY CONTROL PROCEDURES
ANNUAL INSPECTIONS MUST INCLUDE:
RELEASE FROM LOCKOUT/TAGOUT
1. INSPECT WORK AREA FOR HAZARDS
2. CLEAR ALL EMPLOYEES
3. NOTIFY ALL AFFECTED EMPLOYEES
4. REMOVE ENERGY ISOLATING DEVICES
THE AUTHORIZED EMPLOYEE MUST:
IMPORTANT POINTS TO REMEMBER
WHERE LOCKOUT CANNOT BE USED:
TAGOUT PROCEDURES MUST BE INITIATED
*(Unless It Can Be Demonstrated That Full Protection Can Be Achieved by Other Means)
WHERE LOCKOUT CAN BE USED:
IT MUST BE*
1. Responsibility Vested in a Single Authorized Employee.
2. The Authorized Employee Must Have the Authority To Determine Exposure Status of Group Members.
3. With Multiple Crews the Authorized Employee Must Be Assigned the Responsibility of The Overall Job.
4. The Authorized Employee Shall Affix an Individual LO/TO Device at the Beginning of Work and Remove It at Completion of the Work.
GROUP LOCKOUT/TAGOUT
FOUR SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS
WHEN THE AUTHORIZED EMPLOYEE IS UNAVAILABLE PROCEDURES MUST INCLUDE, AS A MINIMUM:
GROUP LOCKOUT/TAGOUT
1. Proof That the Employee Who Applied the Device Is Unavailable.
2. A Valid Attempt to Inform the Employee Who Applied the Device, That It Has Been Removed.
3. Adequate Notice to the Employee Who Applied The Device, of the Removal of the Device Before That Employee Returns to Work.
CONTRACTOR SAFETY REQUIREMENTS
OUTSIDE CONTRACTORS MUST:
Inform Representatives of the Facility Of Their LO/TO Procedures and Devices.
COMPANY REPRESENTATIVES MUST:
Inform the Contractor of Internal LO/TO Procedures and Devices.
Ensure That the Contractor(S) Are Following LOTO Procedures.
Remember, You Control Your Facility! Review Their Procedures With Them Before Starting the Job! Determine Their Safety Performance Record! Determine Who Is in Charge of Their People! Determine How They Will Affect Your Employees! Ensure Your Data on Your Facility Is Accurate!
TIPS FOR USING CONTRACTORS
1. Develop and Strictly Adhere to LO/TO Procedures.
2. Establish and Enforce Safe Work Practices.
3. Ensure Proper Training and Supervision.
4. Strengthen and Modify Present Policies.
5. Understand the Relationship Between 29 CFR 1910.147 And
the Business or Industry Involved.
KEY ELEMENTS TO AN EFFECTIVE PROGRAM
EQUIPMENT REQUIREMENTS
1. Durable2. Standardized3. Identifiable4. Substantial
DEVICES AND TAGS MUST BE:
1. Designed to Prevent Accidental Energization.2. Not Designed As a Substitution for Security.
DEVICES AND TAGS ARE:
CASE STUDY #1WORKER KILLED BY MIXING MACHINE
NARRATIVE: An employee was assigned the task of cleaning the inside of a sand mixer. The task was conducted during a break in the production cycle, caused by routine maintenance work. He did this without anyone else’s knowledge. While he was engaged in this, out of sight and hearing of the others, an electrician started the machine, killing the man inside. This plant had a written lockout procedure, training had been given, and all affected employees (including the deceased), were issued keys and locks.
What caused the death of the worker? Do you believe there are multiple causes? Are multiple OSHA Standard violations involved? What could upper management have done? What could the supervisor have done? What could the co-workers have done? To what extent was attitude responsible? To what extent is a lack of written policy responsible? To what extent is a lack of training responsible? Do you believe there is a single cause to this accident that,
if removed would have prevented it?
QUESTIONS TO BE CONSIDERED
LOCKEDOUT
This Lock/Tag mayonly be removed by
NAME: _______________DEPT : _______________EXPECTED COMPLETIONDATE: ________________TIME: _________________
DO NOT OPERATE
DANGER
CASE STUDY #2WORKER KILLED BY HIGH VOLTAGE
NARRATIVE: A 13,800-volt main circuit breaker was under routine inspection. A test instrument was used to check for electrical energy. No electrical energy was detected at the primary power contacts in the circuit breaker. To verify the operation of the tester, the sensitivity was readjusted and checked against a known 120-volt receptacle. The tester was found to be operable. As the journeyman electrician approached one of the contacts with a shop towel, an explosion, engulfed him in flames. The power from the public utility company to the main circuit breaker had not been shut off.
What caused the death of the worker? Do you believe there are multiple causes? Are multiple OSHA Standard violations involved? What could upper management have done? What could the supervisor have done? What could the co-workers have done? To what extent was attitude responsible? To what extent is a lack of written policy responsible? To what extent is a lack of training responsible? Do you believe there is a single cause to this accident that,
if removed would have prevented it?
QUESTIONS TO BE CONSIDERED
LOCKEDOUT
This Lock/Tag mayonly be removed by
NAME: _______________DEPT : _______________EXPECTED COMPLETIONDATE: ________________TIME: _________________
DO NOT OPERATE
DANGER
CASE STUDY #3WORKER KILLED BY STORAGE MECHANISM
NARRATIVE: A stock handler entered a computer controlled storage and retrieval area apparently to perform stock inventory. While performing this work he was crushed between the robot retrieval vehicle and a third level post, when the vehicle responded to an electronic command. It was found that even though there were a number of disconnect switches on the vehicle and main console none had been used. The plant had no written lockout procedure and workers had not been trained or advised regarding entry into this area.
What caused the death of the worker? Do you believe there are multiple causes? Are multiple OSHA Standard violations involved? What could upper management have done? What could the supervisor have done? What could the co-workers have done? To what extent was attitude responsible? To what extent is a lack of written policy responsible? To what extent is a lack of training responsible? Do you believe there is a single cause to this accident that,
if removed would have prevented it?
QUESTIONS TO BE CONSIDERED
LOCKEDOUT
This Lock/Tag mayonly be removed by
NAME: _______________DEPT : _______________EXPECTED COMPLETIONDATE: ________________TIME: _________________
DO NOT OPERATE
DANGER
CASE STUDY #4WORKER KILLED BY PARTS UNLOADER
NARRATIVE: The part presence switch to an unloading fixture was sticking on an automatic transfer line. The jobsetter removed a guard and was standing at the side of the line to observe the operation of the switch. He apparently leaned forward just as the unloader actuated; it caught his right side and crushed him between the moving unloader and the support post for the guard. The company had a written lockout program and the employee had attended operator awareness training for control of hazardous energy.
What caused the death of the worker? Do you believe there are multiple causes? Are multiple OSHA Standard violations involved? What could upper management have done? What could the supervisor have done? What could the co-workers have done? To what extent was attitude responsible? To what extent is a lack of written policy responsible? To what extent is a lack of training responsible? Do you believe there is a single cause to this accident that,
if removed would have prevented it?
QUESTIONS TO BE CONSIDERED
LOCKEDOUT
This Lock/Tag mayonly be removed by
NAME: _______________DEPT : _______________EXPECTED COMPLETIONDATE: ________________TIME: _________________
DO NOT OPERATE
DANGER
CASE STUDY #5DECAPITATED BY SHEARING MACHINE
NARRATIVE: An employee was removing scrap from beneath a large shear when a fellow employee hit the control button activating The blade. The blade cycled and decapitated the employee cleaning scrap. The company had no written lockout procedure and workers had not been trained or advised regarding the hazards associated with machinery.
What caused the death of the worker? Do you believe there are multiple causes? Are multiple OSHA Standard violations involved? What could upper management have done? What could the supervisor have done? What could the co-workers have done? To what extent was attitude responsible? To what extent is a lack of written policy responsible? To what extent is a lack of training responsible? Do you believe there is a single cause to this accident that,
if removed would have prevented it?
QUESTIONS TO BE CONSIDERED
LOCKEDOUT
This Lock/Tag mayonly be removed by
NAME: _______________DEPT : _______________EXPECTED COMPLETIONDATE: ________________TIME: _________________
DO NOT OPERATE
DANGER
ENERGY CONTROL PROGRAMREVIEW
1. ENERGY CONTROL PROCEDURES
2. EMPLOYEE TRAINING
3. PERIODIC INSPECTIONS
THREE ELEMENTS TO THE PROGRAM: