OSHA
[ Tutorial ]
[ Hot Topics ]
[ Case Studies ]
[ LOTO standard ]
[ LOTO preamble ]
[ Compliance directive ]
[ Selected case law ]
[ Selected letters of interpretation ]
Case Study 4: Multiple Energy Control Procedures
Correct.
The periodic inspection must be conducted by an authorized employee other than the one
who implements the procedure. This authorized employee is designated by the employer as an
inspector. He or she must observe the procedure being implemented by a representative
number of authorized employees and must talk with all other authorized employees, even
though they may not be implementing the energy control procedure.
Of the 130 energy control procedures, the employer is only required to perform a
periodic inspection on each of the unique energy control procedures. The inspector or
inspectors performing the periodic inspection must observe the implementation of each
of the 51 energy control procedures by a representative number of authorized employees.
For each procedure, the inspector must also conduct a review with all other
authorized employees involved in implementing the energy control procedure to review the
procedure and their responsibilities under it. Because the employer's inspection protocol
does not include a review of each separate procedure with all authorized employees
who may have responsibilities under it, the protocol fails to comply with section 1910.147(c)(6)(i).
Moreover, the employer's use of group meetings to review the energy control procedures
where implementation is not actually inspected also falls short. This is because the implementation
of each separate lockout procedure must be observed by the inspector for a representative number of
employees who implement the procedure.
For more information: Refer to the part 1910.147(c)(6)(i)
of the Lockout/Tagout standard.
<<Return to Case Study
Discussion | Next Case Study>>
|