1. CONTROL OF HAZARDOUS ENERGY
LOCKOUT/TAGOUT
OSHA 29 CFR
WELCOME 1 1 1 1

2. 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.
NOTES:
_________________________________________________________ 4 4 4 4

3. REGULATORY STANDARD 29CFR - 1910 - 147 CONTROL OF HAZARDOUS ENERGY
29CFR - Safety and Health Standards
General Industry
147 - Lockout Tagout Standard 7 7 7 7

4. REGULATORY STANDARD 29CFR 1910.147 Title - Control of Hazardous Energy
September 1, Final Rule Issued
January 2, Final Rule Took Effect 8 8 8 8

5. HOW MOST INJURIES OCCUR
CIRCUMSTANCES OF INJURY
HOW MOST INJURIES OCCUR
IN ORDER OF OCCURRENCE
Injured by Moving Machinery Part.
Made Contact With Energized Part.
Injured by Physical Hazard (Heat, Chemicals).
Injured by Falling Machine Part. 12 12 12 12

6. CIRCUMSTANCES OF INJURY
ACTIVITY AT TIME OF ACCIDENT
FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE
1. Unjamming Object(S) From Equipment
2. Cleaning Equipment
3. Repairing Equipment
4. Performing Routine Maintenance
5. Installing Equipment 13 13 13 13

7. CIRCUMSTANCES OF INJURY
ACTIVITY AT TIME OF ACCIDENT
FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE
6. Adjusting Equipment
7. Doing Set-up Work
8. Performing Electrical Work
9. Inspecting Equipment
10. Testing Materials 14 14 14 14

8. CIRCUMSTANCES OF INJURY
REASONS FOR EQUIPMENT NOT BEING TURNED OFF
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.
ON OFF
SYSTEM
CONTROL
SWITCH 15 15 15 15

9. CIRCUMSTANCES OF INJURY
REASONS FOR EQUIPMENT BEING TURNED ON
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)
ON OFF
SYSTEM
CONTROL
SWITCH 16 16 16 16

10. KILLED BY THE MOVING PARTS OF A SAW
CASE STUDY #1
KILLED BY THE MOVING PARTS OF A SAW
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.
Citation: Failure to Shutdown or Turn off Equipment To Perform Maintenance. 17 17 17 17

11. DECAPITATED BY SHEARING MACHINE
CASE STUDY #2
DECAPITATED 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. 18 18 18 18

12. KILLED BY PNEUMATIC DOOR
CASE STUDY #3
KILLED BY PNEUMATIC DOOR
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.
Citation: Failure to Isolate Equipment From Energy Sources Before Attempting Any Repair, Maintenance or Servicing. 19 19 19 19

13. DEFINITION OF EMPLOYEES
Authorized Employee
The Person Who Locks or Tags Out Machines To Perform Servicing or Maintenance.
Affected Employee
An 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. 20 20 20 20

14. DEFINITION OF EMPLOYEES
Designated Inspector
Does Not Utilize the Specific Procedure.
The Person Who Inspects the LO/TO Procedure.
Is an Authorized Employee. 21 21 21 21

15. TRAINING REQUIREMENTS
Authorized Employee
Recognition of Hazardous Energy Sources.
Type and Magnitude Energy Sources.
Energy Isolation and Control Methods. 22 22 22 22

16. TRAINING REQUIREMENTS
Affected Employee
Purpose and Use of The Energy Control Program. 23 23 23 23

17. 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.. 24 24 24 24

18. RETRAINING REQUIREMENTS
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. 25 25 25 25

19. ENERGY CONTROL PROGRAM
1. ENERGY CONTROL PROCEDURES
2. EMPLOYEE TRAINING
3. PERIODIC INSPECTIONS
THREE ELEMENTS TO THE PROGRAM: 26 26 26 26

20. 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. 27 27 27 27

21. DEFINITION OF ENERGY ISOLATING DEVICE
Block
Line Valve
Disconnecting Switch
Manually Operated Switch
Any Other Device That Isolates Energy 28 28 28 28

22. TYPES OF ENERGY SOURCES
HYDRAULIC
PNEUMATIC
MECHANICAL
RADIOACTIVE
THERMAL
ELECTRICAL
CHEMICAL 29 29 29 29

23. TYPES OF ENERGY STATES ACTIVE ENERGY STORED ENERGY 110 VOLTS AC
HOT SURFACE 30 30 30 30

24. TYPES OF ENERGY STATES ACTIVE ENERGY VOLTAGES
EXTERNAL PRESSURIZED LINE FEEDS
TO THE MACHINE 31 31 31 31

25. TYPES OF ENERGY STATES STORED ENERGY INTERNAL LINE PRESSURES
CAPACITORS
SURFACE TEMPERATURES
MECHANICAL TENSION (SPRINGS, ETC.)
COASTING OF PARTS
CHEMICAL (OPPOSING pH)
GRAVITY 32 32 32 32

26. THE SCOPE OF LOCKOUT/TAGOUT
AREAS REGULATED BY 29 CFR :
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 33 33 33 33

27. ACTIVITIES COVERED NORMAL OPERATIONS:
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 34 34 34 34

28. TAGOUT REQUIREMENTS DANGER LOCKED OUT DO NOT OPERATE This Lock/Tag may
only be removed by
NAME: _______________
DEPT : _______________
EXPECTED COMPLETION
DATE: ________________
TIME: _________________
DO NOT OPERATE
DANGER 35 35 35 35

29. REQUIREMENTS IF TAGOUT IS USED
SOME KEY POINTS ABOUT TAGS:
LOCKED
OUT
This Lock/Tag may
only be removed by
NAME: _______________
DEPT : _______________
EXPECTED COMPLETION
DATE: ________________
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. 36 36 36 36

30. 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
LOCKED
OUT
This Lock/Tag may
only be removed by
NAME: _______________
DEPT : _______________
EXPECTED COMPLETION
DATE: ________________
TIME: _________________
DO NOT OPERATE
DANGER 37 37 37 37

31. WRITTEN PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS
ALL EMPLOYERS MUST:
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. 38 38 38 38

32. ENERGY CONTROL PROCEDURES
29CFR 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. 39 39 39 39

33. ENERGY CONTROL PROCEDURES
PROCEDURES MUST CONTAIN:
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. 44 44 44 44

34. EXCEPTIONS TO THE REQUIREMENT TO 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. 45 45 45 45

35. EXCEPTIONS TO THE REQUIREMENT TO HAVE WRITTEN LOTO PROCEDURES
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING EIGHT CONDITIONS MUST EXIST:
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 46 46 46 46

36. 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 47 47 47 47

37. ENERGY CONTROL PROCEDURES
ANNUAL INSPECTIONS MUST INCLUDE:
DATE OF INSPECTION
IDENTIFICATION OF MACHINE OR EQUIPMENT
EMPLOYEES INCLUDED IN INSPECTION
PERSON PERFORMING INSPECTION 48 48 48 48

38. RELEASE FROM LOCKOUT/TAGOUT
THE AUTHORIZED EMPLOYEE MUST:
1. INSPECT WORK AREA FOR HAZARDS
2. CLEAR ALL EMPLOYEES
3. NOTIFY ALL AFFECTED EMPLOYEES
4. REMOVE ENERGY ISOLATING DEVICES 49 49 49 49

39. IMPORTANT POINTS TO REMEMBER
WHERE LOCKOUT CAN BE USED:
IT MUST BE*
WHERE LOCKOUT CANNOT BE USED:
TAGOUT PROCEDURES MUST BE INITIATED
*(Unless It Can Be Demonstrated That Full Protection Can Be Achieved by Other Means) 50 50 50 50

40. GROUP LOCKOUT/TAGOUT FOUR SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS
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. 51 51 51 51

41. GROUP LOCKOUT/TAGOUT PROCEDURES MUST INCLUDE, AS A MINIMUM:
WHEN THE AUTHORIZED EMPLOYEE IS UNAVAILABLE
PROCEDURES MUST INCLUDE, AS A MINIMUM:
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. 52 52 52 52

42. 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. 53 53 53 53

43. TIPS FOR USING CONTRACTORS
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! 54 54 54 54

44. KEY ELEMENTS TO AN EFFECTIVE PROGRAM
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 And the Business or Industry Involved. 55 55 55 55

45. EQUIPMENT REQUIREMENTS
DEVICES AND TAGS MUST BE:
1. Durable
2. Standardized
3. Identifiable
4. Substantial
DEVICES AND TAGS ARE:
1. Designed to Prevent Accidental Energization.
2. Not Designed As a Substitution for Security. 56 56 56 56

46. WORKER KILLED BY MIXING MACHINE
CASE STUDY #1
WORKER 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. 58 58 58 58

47. QUESTIONS TO BE CONSIDERED
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?
LOCKED
OUT
This Lock/Tag may
only be removed by
NAME: _______________
DEPT : _______________
EXPECTED COMPLETION
DATE: ________________
TIME: _________________
DO NOT OPERATE
DANGER 59 59 59 59

48. WORKER KILLED BY HIGH VOLTAGE
CASE STUDY #2
WORKER 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. 60 60 60 60

49. QUESTIONS TO BE CONSIDERED
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?
LOCKED
OUT
This Lock/Tag may
only be removed by
NAME: _______________
DEPT : _______________
EXPECTED COMPLETION
DATE: ________________
TIME: _________________
DO NOT OPERATE
DANGER 61 61 61 61

50. WORKER KILLED BY STORAGE MECHANISM
CASE STUDY #3
WORKER 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. 62 62 62 62

51. QUESTIONS TO BE CONSIDERED
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?
LOCKED
OUT
This Lock/Tag may
only be removed by
NAME: _______________
DEPT : _______________
EXPECTED COMPLETION
DATE: ________________
TIME: _________________
DO NOT OPERATE
DANGER 63 63 63 63

52. WORKER KILLED BY PARTS UNLOADER
CASE STUDY #4
WORKER 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. 64 64 64 64

53. QUESTIONS TO BE CONSIDERED
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?
LOCKED
OUT
This Lock/Tag may
only be removed by
NAME: _______________
DEPT : _______________
EXPECTED COMPLETION
DATE: ________________
TIME: _________________
DO NOT OPERATE
DANGER 65 65 65 65

54. DECAPITATED BY SHEARING MACHINE
CASE STUDY #5
DECAPITATED 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. 66 66 66 66

55. QUESTIONS TO BE CONSIDERED
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?
LOCKED
OUT
This Lock/Tag may
only be removed by
NAME: _______________
DEPT : _______________
EXPECTED COMPLETION
DATE: ________________
TIME: _________________
DO NOT OPERATE
DANGER 67 67 67 67

56. ENERGY CONTROL PROGRAM
REVIEW
1. ENERGY CONTROL PROCEDURES
2. EMPLOYEE TRAINING
3. PERIODIC INSPECTIONS
THREE ELEMENTS TO THE PROGRAM: 70 70 70 70