The Electrical Contractor Network

ECN Electrical Forum
Discussion Forums for Electricians, Inspectors and Related Professionals

Books, Tools and Test Equipment for Electrical and Construction Trades

Register Now!

Register Now!

We want your input!

Featured:
   

2017 NEC and Related
2017 NEC
Now Available!

   
Recent Posts
Sprinklered equipment 26-008
by bigpapa
Yesterday at 04:24 PM
On Delay Relay with Auto Reset
by Potseal
12/01/16 09:59 AM
Wow, that was close!
by jraef
11/28/16 07:06 PM
Earthquake in New Zeeland
by RODALCO
11/27/16 11:25 PM
Calling all Non-US members!! (Non-US only)
by Tjia1981
11/27/16 06:33 AM
New in the Gallery:
12.5A through 0.75mm˛ flex (just out of curiosity)
Shout Box

Top Posters (30 Days)
gfretwell 15
HotLine1 10
Trumpy 8
Texas_Ranger 8
sparkyinak 7
Who's Online
0 registered (), 97 Guests and 5 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Topic Options
Rate This Topic
#150440 - 03/25/05 08:30 AM NFPA 70E 2004 Complex LOTO Procedure
RETJW Offline
Junior Member

Registered: 03/25/05
Posts: 1
Loc: Los Alamos National Laboratory
I am an Electrical Inspector at Los National Laboratory. I have copied below a posting that I have on Mike Holt's forum page for your consideration. I think we have a very serious oversight and problem with 70E LOTO procedure. I am trying to get as many folks as possible involved that I think may send in proposals before the closing date. There is no way that we should have let this go through without comment and objection. The sad part is it was in the 2000 edition also. I think if we get enough people on board they will have to accept someone's proposal. Take care, and thanks for any help.


Here is my opinion and concern:
I have very serious concerns related to the present language in the NFPA 2004 70E Complex LOTO Procedure. I intend to address my concern with a proposal prior to the closing date of 11/25/05.

1. NFPA 70E 2004 Article 120.3(D)(3)(c) which states in part; ..."the person in charge shall be permitted to install locks/tags, or direct their installation, on behalf of other employees," is in direct and irreconcilable conflict with 1910.147(f)(3)(ii)(D) which states,
"Each authorized employee shall affix a personal lockout or tagout device to the group lockout device, group lockbox, or comparable mechanism when he or she begins work, and shall remove those devices when he or she stops working on the machine or equipment being serviced or maintained."
2. Some argue that NFPA 70E 120.3(D)(3)(b) addresses the issue by requiring the person described as "in charge," be qualified.
3. I contend that NFPA 70E 120.3(D)(3)(b) is nothing more than a halfhearted attempt to comply with 1910.147(f)(3)(ii)(A), 1910.147(f)(3)(ii)(B), and 1910.147(f)(3)(ii)(C).
4. What it so critically leaves out is the very strong "and" at the end of 1910.147(f)(3)(ii)(C) that puts the entire rule back in proper perspective with the very plain statement at the start of 1910.147(f)(3)(ii)(D). (See above)
5. Simply stated, one person cannot hang a lock and tag for another.

I do not want to see us go backwards and allow an "in charge" person, qualified or not, to hang locks and tags for another. One man, one lock, one key, one life still makes good sense.

What I hope we can generate is a national discussion that will provide some quality proposals to the 70E Technical Committee that will change the present rule. Any help will be appreciated, it does not matter to me whose proposal is accepted as long as the present rule gets changed. If you do decide to submit a proposal to the Technical Committee, you can download an NFPA Technical Committee Document Proposal Form at the NFPA site. Please keep the closing date in mind.
Thanks to all for any help. I have no doubt that this rule will eventually be changed to be in line with OSHA, what I feel we can not wait for is a "body count" first.

Top
Arc Flash PPE Clothing, LOTO & Insulated Tools
#150441 - 03/25/05 02:35 PM Re: NFPA 70E 2004 Complex LOTO Procedure
Trumpy Offline

Member

Registered: 07/05/02
Posts: 8540
Loc: SI,New Zealand
RETJW,
Welcome to ECN.
Thanks for posting this here and having read your post I can agree fully with what you are proposing.
LOTO is a very important part of our workplace safety practice and to have it "watered down" by legislation would not be good at all.
I would expect as a minimum, that any person who is applying Tags in a LOTO system, have relevant Electrical Qualifications.
 Quote:
Simply stated, one person cannot hang a lock and tag for another.

Yes and I agree, I look at a Lockout Tag as part of my PPE, just like my Testers and Live Gloves and there is no way that I would ever let another person use them, they are after all keeping me alive.
I'd like to hear other peoples thought's on this thread.
_________________________
Let's face it, these days if you're not young, you're old - Red Green grin

Top
#150442 - 03/28/05 12:46 PM Re: NFPA 70E 2004 Complex LOTO Procedure
danc Offline
Member

Registered: 03/18/05
Posts: 15
I have seen/managed several different types of LOTO programs and I would not necessarily call one "good" simply because it requires personal locks. Although I agree with you both on the 1 lock/1 person rule as a best management practice.

Master locking/Operations Locks have a long history of being very effective in Power Genration, Trans and Dist. Signing on and off to a LOTO can be very protective provided the system is good. i've been witness to LOTO's that include 50+ people. although this is not excuse to sacrifice safety, 50+ locks could pull a circuit breaker Lockout device off.

Although given the option, I use my overlocks/overtags!

Top
#150443 - 04/02/05 01:43 AM Re: NFPA 70E 2004 Complex LOTO Procedure
mvpmaintman Offline
Member

Registered: 09/15/03
Posts: 113
Loc: Manhattan, Kansas, USA
I agree that overlocks, or group locks have a place, however, the system must ensure that any affected personnel are notified that the lock is removed.

My real problem with this is that if one person can place a lock for another, that can be interpreted to mean that the manager can remove a lock for another employee.

Top
#150444 - 04/02/05 01:55 AM Re: NFPA 70E 2004 Complex LOTO Procedure
Trumpy Offline

Member

Registered: 07/05/02
Posts: 8540
Loc: SI,New Zealand
MVP,
 Quote:
My real problem with this is that if one person can place a lock for another, that can be interpreted to mean that the manager can remove a lock for another employee.

I couldn't agree more with a statement like that.
Although it is written into law over here in NZ, that the person that affixes the tag is the only person authorised to remove it, I can see some Factory Managers over here that would just love to see that rule repealed, so that they can have the gear working again as soon as suits them, not the personnel actually working on it.
Having any such wording in the OSHA regulations, will kill someone one day, if not before.

{Message edited to add missing sentence, don't laugh, it's late. }


[This message has been edited by Trumpy (edited 04-02-2005).]
_________________________
Let's face it, these days if you're not young, you're old - Red Green grin

Top



ECN Electrical Forums - sponsored by Electrical Contractor Network - Electrical and Code Related Discussion for Electrical Contractors, Electricians, Inspectors, Instructors, Engineers and other related Professionals