Question - Energy Control
Curious what your thoughts are for LOTO/EC when a journey level electrician is working on an open circuit breaker panel, while physically in control of the panel that feeds it.
***Example*** panel 1 feeds panel 2. Panels are separated by about 2", so electrician is in control of both panels. They secure the circuit feeding panel 2, then commences work on panel 2. Assuming that the electrician controls the work area for both panels, does panel 1 still require a physical lockout? Can this panel just be tagged out?
If you answer No, please justify.
Comments (8)
Why don't they just throw a circuit breaker lockout device and padlock on panel 1? It takes the same amount of time to do that as it does to apply a tagout device. What's the justification for not wanting to lock it out?
I would just lock it out to cover the electrician's butt if he/she has to leave the panels for any reason (e.g., restroom break, lunch, get supplies, etc.) so that it's not left unattended and not in their control.
Why would you ever use a tag instead of Lockout? Putting a lock on a machine takes as long as completing a tag! Why not just always lockout? I have never ever understood that. When I write a Lockout Policy I never include the use of tags unless used for lock identification only! I also do not allow allowing employees just pull the plug on 110 in lieu of lockout. (Again how much longer does it take to put the plug in a lockout box?) Why confuse employees and ever allow them to use their judgement not to lockout. Successful Lockout Programs eliminate CHOICE! There is no choice!
I also REQUIRE any employees to complete a Hazardous Work Permit if they think they should not have to lockout, which includes working on any live circuit! Why you might ask?:
First, does any one employee have the right to risk hundreds of thousands of dollars in workers comp cost to make just decide to not follow safety rules. As a manager I do not even have that right!
Second, if the employee is going to disregard their major safety controls, how else are they going to be safe? They and I are responsible for their safety.
Third, a HWP takes time right? But is the 2-3 minutes to do so, a very wise investment?
In your example if the employee can demonstrate to me via the HWP they are 100% safe. I might approve it, but I want them and myself to have the chance to make sure that is true!
Am I prejudiced? You bet! 40 years ago I saw my friend, an experienced journeyman electrician, who took 12,000 volts on a sub-station. He left the power on while beginning some checks. He thought he was safe too! Lost eye, nose, ear, hearing, and severe buns over most his upper body! Died 3 years later of a stroke probably due to burns and damage to vascular system. Spent a year in a University Burn Unit. Lost count at $750,000 in 1983 dollars. When I asked him in the burn unit what had happened he said, "I thought I was safe?" He was wrong!
I was the first one to him post accident.
I guess my question is: What do you mean by secure the circuit feeding panel 2? What's the difference between securing it and and locking it out? It sounds like they're doing all of the work anyway.
It's not "cord and plug," so it gets a lock. If its physically configured to accept a lock, it gets a lock. To argue this task doesn't require a procedure still requires the authorized employee affixing a lock to the single point under .147(c)(4)(i) as one of eight individual provisions that must be met.