Lockout/Tagout 
Overview 
Background 
Services 
Software 
Training 
Our Clients 
Lockouts Explained 
Lockout Samples 
Terms & Definitions 
F.A.Q. 
OSHA 
Request For Information 

 Products & Services 
Lockout/Tagout 
Arc Flash  
Evacuation Plans 
Preventive Maintenance 
Military Documentation 
Technical Writing 
Technical Training 
Visual Aids & Illustrations 
Software & Multimedia 
Industrial Signage 

 Other Options 
Contact Us 
EHS Insider 
HOME 





OSHA

[ Tutorial ] [ Hot Topics ] [ Case Studies ]
[ LOTO standard ] [ LOTO preamble ] [ Compliance directive ]
[ Selected case law ] [ Selected letters of interpretation ]

Case Study 5: Sour Water Pipeline Repairs

Correct.

This employer failed to meet the requirements of 29 CFR 1910.147(c)(4)(ii). The work authorization permit was overly vague in that the energy isolation points were not identified on the permit and the specific procedures outlined in their generic hazardous energy control procedure were not implemented. The employer may use a work authorization permit in conjunction with a generic hazardous energy control procedure if the permit identifies the equipment to be serviced, the types and unique energy characteristics to be encountered, specific energy isolation points, methods for safe work, and the process or procedures to be used to accomplish the task.

For more information: Refer to the Dow Chemical U.S.A. April 10, 1991 letter of interpretation for details.


<<Return to Case Study DiscussionQuestion 3>>

 

 

Call Toll Free 888.741.8252 | Español | Français | Deutsch | Português ©2024 St. Claire, inc.