After several years, the Occupational Safety & Health Administration (OSHA) is still waiting for approval of its proposed regulatory changes to the Lockout/ Tagout (LO/TO) Standard (1910.147). First proposed in 2012, and then again at the end of 2016, the former administration attempted to make the changes under OSHA’s Standards Improvement Project-Phase IV (“SIP IV”)1. These changes are still pending under the current administration.
However, earlier this year, OSHA did publish a new Compliance Directive 2 on the rule. The following are some of the highlights of the revised guidance document – intended to assist OSHA inspectors enforcing the current rule (with some “foreshadowing” on the intended changes) – and the significant changes in the Compliance Directive that may affect employers:
- Inclusion of Citation Examples and additional guidance regarding Affirmative Defenses
- Incorporation of compliance assistance flowcharts
- Inclusion of additional guidance on the minor servicing exception, specific energy control procedures, periodic inspections, and unexpected energization
- Inclusion of additional information and guidance on Alternative Methods to LO/TO
- Inclusion of general reference material for information pertinent to hazardous energy control, including governmental, industry and national consensus standards
OSHA’s focus on reviewing “Alternative Methods” is also primarily related to its intended regulatory changes, especially with respect to the question of “expected” energization. OSHA is planning to eliminate that wording in the new regulation, with the hope it will address what they consider a “loop hole” in the current regulation, which allows the use of “Alternative Methods” when energization is “expected”.
A Near Miss Can Be Helpful
Even with all the discussion about changing the rule, employers should still focus on the basics to ensure their core programs meet those requirements that will not be changing.
Recently, HETI worked with an organization that experienced a “near miss”. Fortunately for the 20-year-old apprentice contract electrician, he didn’t suffer much more than a scare and some scolding from his Safety Director. However, it could have been much worse. The apprentice was testing “breakers” in a 480-volt electrical panel with his supervisor during a site “maintenance shutdown” and there was a lot of other maintenance type activity going on in the area. This may have contributed to a series of events that could have resulted in the death of the young worker.
The supervisor “thought” he had isolated the electrical panel and completed his voltage testing to confirm this. However, the supervisor was unaware that the local electric utility company was also onsite for some previously scheduled maintenance work. The utility company shut off the main power to the site which caused the site’s emergency generator to start up. The panel the apprentice was working on at the time had more than one source of power including the emergency generator (which had been labeled accordingly). At the moment the generator started, the apprentice was just leaning into the panel he was working on. As he approached the energized panel, the screw driver he was holding was thrown from his grasp. Luckily the apprentice was unhurt; however, this situation could easily also have resulted in a fatal arc flash blast as well.
The root causes of the incident were determined to be the lack of knowledge that the panel had multiple sources of energy and poor planning/ communication with the site’s maintenance staff who knew the utility company was coming on site. And most obviously, the absence of the appropriate and complete isolation or lockout of the electrical panel from ALL of its multiple energy sources. Additionally, and also importantly, the need for a “group” lockout in this situation.
OSHA Stats
Citations related to the OSHA Lockout/Tagout Standard 29 CFR 1910.147 were number five on OSHA’s “Top Ten” list of citations in 2016 3. Additionally, electrocutions are still included in OSHA’s “Fatal Four” for the construction industry.
According to OSHA, craft workers, machine operators, and laborers are among the three million workers who service equipment and face the greatest risk. Compliance with the LO/TO standard prevents an estimated 120 fatalities and 50,000 injuries each year. Workers injured on the job from exposure to hazardous energy lose an average of 24 workdays for recuperation 3.
While performing the REQUIRED LO/TO program annual audit, a company should be sure to scrutinize “group” LO/TO provisions [29 CFR 1910.147(f)(3)(ii)].
NIOSH LO/TO Program Audit Checklist
There are many tools available to help employers ensure that their current LO/TO program meets current rules. The National Institute for Safety & Health (NIOSH), OSHA’s research agency, provides a step-by-step checklist that can be used to help ensure that a LO/TO program meets all of the required protective measures. [See https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/2004-101/chklists/r1n44l~1.htm]
HETI…A Resource for Regulatory Compliance
Lockout is the critical element for isolating hazardous energy sources. Ensuring that workers take the time to do it properly is essential in protecting them and their co-workers.
HETI has extensive experience in supporting our clients through a comprehensive range of EHS regulatory support services. Our EHS professionals can provide guidance and valuable technical support with respect to compliance with OSHA’s Lockout/Tagout Standard as well as other OSHA regulations. Whether there is a need for LO/TO audits, program development or technical support, HETI is here to help.
References
1 https://www.osha.gov/laws-regs/federalregister/2012-12-06
2 https://www.osha.gov/OshDoc/Directive_pdf/CPL_02-00-147.pdf
3 https://www.osha.gov/OshDoc/data_General_Facts/factsheet-lockout-tagout.pdf