CONTROL OF HAZARDOUS ENERGY

LOCKOUT/TAGOUT
OSHA 29 CFR 1910.147

WELCOME

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.

REGULATORY STANDARD
CONTROL OF HAZARDOUS ENERGY

29CFR - 1910 - 147

29CFR - Safety and Health Standards
1910 - General Industry
147 - Lockout Tagout Standard

REGULATORY STANDARD
29CFR 1910.147
Title - Control of Hazardous Energy
September 1, 1989 - Final Rule Issued
January 2, 1990 - Final Rule Took Effect

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.

CIRCUMSTANCES OF INJURY
ACTIVITY AT TIME OF ACCIDENT
FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

Unjamming Object(S) From Equipment

Cleaning Equipment
Repairing Equipment
Performing Routine Maintenance
Installing Equipment

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

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

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
ON
Equipment Unexpectedly "Cycled"
Parts Still in Motion (Coasting)

OFF

SYSTEM
CONTROL
SWITCH

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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..

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.

ENERGY CONTROL PROGRAM

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

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

ACTIVE ENERGY

110 VOLTS AC

STORED ENERGY

HOT SURFACE

TYPES OF ENERGY STATES

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

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
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

TAGOUT REQUIREMENTS

DANGER
LOCKED
OUT
DO NOT OPERATE
This Lock/Tag may
only be removed by
NAME: _______________
DEPT : _______________
EXPECTED COMPLETION

DATE: ________________
TIME: _________________

REQUIREMENTS IF TAGOUT IS USED

SOME KEY POINTS ABOUT TAGS:

DANGER

Tags Are Only Warning Devices!

LOCKED
OUT
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.
DO NOT OPERATE

This Lock/Tag may

only be removed by

NAME: _______________
DEPT : _______________
EXPECTED COMPLETION
DATE: ________________
TIME: _________________

LOCK OUT SEQUENCE OF EVENTS

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.

Preparation for Shutdown

Shutdown
Machine or Equipment Isolation
Application of Lockout/Tagout Devices
Testing of LO/TO
Servicing or Maintenance
Removal of LO/TO Devices
Reenergization
Equipment Reactivation

DANGER

LOCKED
OUT

DO NOT OPERATE

This Lock/Tag may

only be removed by
NAME: _______________
DEPT : _______________
EXPECTED COMPLETION

DATE: ________________
TIME: _________________

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.

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

PROCEDURES MUST CONTAIN:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

Statement of Intended Use.

Steps for Shut-Down and Energy Control.
Steps for LO/TO Device Placement, Transfer and Removal.
Determination of Responsibility.
Steps for Testing LO/TO.

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.

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

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

ENERGY CONTROL PROCEDURES

ANNUAL INSPECTIONS MUST INCLUDE:
DATE OF INSPECTION
IDENTIFICATION OF MACHINE OR EQUIPMENT
EMPLOYEES INCLUDED IN INSPECTION
PERSON PERFORMING INSPECTION

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

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)

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.

GROUP LOCKOUT/TAGOUT
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.

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.

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!

KEY ELEMENTS TO AN EFFECTIVE PROGRAM

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

Develop and Strictly Adhere to LO/TO Procedures.

Establish and Enforce Safe Work Practices.
Ensure Proper Training and Supervision.
Strengthen and Modify Present Policies.
Understand the Relationship Between 29 CFR 1910.147 And
the Business or Industry Involved.

EQUIPMENT REQUIREMENTS
DEVICES AND TAGS MUST BE:
1.
2.
3.
4.

Durable
Standardized
Identifiable
Substantial

DEVICES AND TAGS ARE:

1. Designed to Prevent Accidental Energization.
2. Not Designed As a Substitution for Security.

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 elses 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.

QUESTIONS TO BE CONSIDERED

What caused the death of the worker?

DANGER
Do you believe there are multiple causes?
LOCKED
Are multiple OSHA Standard violations involved?
OUT
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?

DO NOT OPERATE
This Lock/Tag may
only be removed by

NAME: _______________
DEPT : _______________
EXPECTED COMPLETION
DATE: ________________
TIME: _________________

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.

QUESTIONS TO BE CONSIDERED

What caused the death of the worker?

DANGER
Do you believe there are multiple causes?
LOCKED
Are multiple OSHA Standard violations involved?
OUT
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?

DO NOT OPERATE
This Lock/Tag may
only be removed by

NAME: _______________
DEPT : _______________
EXPECTED COMPLETION
DATE: ________________
TIME: _________________

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.

QUESTIONS TO BE CONSIDERED

What caused the death of the worker?

DANGER
Do you believe there are multiple causes?
LOCKED
Are multiple OSHA Standard violations involved?
OUT
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?

DO NOT OPERATE
This Lock/Tag may
only be removed by

NAME: _______________
DEPT : _______________
EXPECTED COMPLETION
DATE: ________________
TIME: _________________

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.

QUESTIONS TO BE CONSIDERED

What caused the death of the worker?

DANGER
Do you believe there are multiple causes?
LOCKED
Are multiple OSHA Standard violations involved?
OUT
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?

DO NOT OPERATE
This Lock/Tag may
only be removed by

NAME: _______________
DEPT : _______________
EXPECTED COMPLETION
DATE: ________________
TIME: _________________

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.

QUESTIONS TO BE CONSIDERED

What caused the death of the worker?

DANGER
Do you believe there are multiple causes?
LOCKED
Are multiple OSHA Standard violations involved?
OUT
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?

DO NOT OPERATE
This Lock/Tag may
only be removed by

NAME: _______________
DEPT : _______________
EXPECTED COMPLETION
DATE: ________________
TIME: _________________

ENERGY CONTROL PROGRAM

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