• About WordPress
    • WordPress.org
    • Documentation
    • Learn WordPress
    • Support
    • Feedback
  • Log In
  • Personnel
    • Professional Safety Staffing
    • Safety Recruiting
    • Careers with FDRsafety
  • Expert Witness
    • Jim Stanley
    • Steve Hawkins
    • Expert Witness Services
  • Compliance
    • Risk Assessments
    • Industrial Hygiene
    • Fall Protection Safety Services
    • Forklift Safety Services
    • Machine Guarding Safety Services
    • Combustible Dust Compliance
    • Confined Space Safety
  • Safety Training
    • Safety Awareness
    • Instructor-led courses
    • Training Case Study
  • About
    • Our Mission and Values
    • Our Leaders
    • FDRsafety Senior Advisors
    • Safety Solutions Blog
    • Safety Terms Glossary
  • Careers
  • Contact
    FDRsafety
    • Personnel
      • Professional Safety Staffing
      • Safety Recruiting
      • Careers with FDRsafety
    • Expert Witness
      • Jim Stanley
      • Steve Hawkins
      • Expert Witness Services
    • Compliance
      • Risk Assessments
      • Industrial Hygiene
      • Fall Protection Safety Services
      • Forklift Safety Services
      • Machine Guarding Safety Services
      • Combustible Dust Compliance
      • Confined Space Safety
    • Safety Training
      • Safety Awareness
      • Instructor-led courses
      • Training Case Study
    • About
      • Our Mission and Values
      • Our Leaders
      • FDRsafety Senior Advisors
      • Safety Solutions Blog
      • Safety Terms Glossary
    • Careers
    • Contact

Enforcement

Recent case shows OSHA off-base on some lockout violations

  • Posted by Jim Stanley
  • Categories Enforcement, OSHA
  • Date April 30, 2012

While appropriate use of lockout/tagout is critical to safe operation, OSHA sometimes has been going too far in ramping up lockout enforcement, as shown in a recent case where a violation was withdrawn.

Companies who have been hit with lockout violations should check to see if they too have been inappropriately cited.

The issue is the definition of the term “setup.” OSHA said in a 2002 bulletin that the lockout/tagout standard applied to the control of hazardous energy “when employees are involved in service or maintenance activities such as constructing, installing, setting up, adjusting, inspecting, modifying, and maintaining or servicing machines or equipment.”

The standard only applies, the bulletin said, when “the unexpected startup, energization, or the release of stored energy could cause injury.”

The problem is that many employers and employees casually use the term “setup” when, in fact, they are performing a tool change that is routine, repetitive and integral to the operation. This type of activity actually falls under OSHA’s established exemption for minor servicing.

OSHA should recognize that many, if not most, tool change tasks require intentional movement of slides, fixtures and devices. Pushing control buttons intentionally to move a machine part is the exact opposite of “unexpected”.

Lockout citation withdrawn

One of our clients recently received a lockout citation from OSHA for what were actually minor servicing activities. But after our report on the setup issue was presented as technical evidence, OSHA withdrew the lockout citation, thus avoiding a costly hearing.

We’re also working with other companies to assess their lockout/tagout procedures. We often employ a methodology recognized by OSHA in the late ‘90s called Task Based Risk Assessment to determine when the “minor servicing” exemption applies. Task Based Risk Assessment is now a part of the ANSI B11 family of general industry safety standards. It is simple and easy to learn, and will allow a proper level of safety with minimal downtime for tool change.

For more information on how to assess which of your activities require lockout and which do not, contact FDRsafety.

  • Share:
Jim Stanley

Previous post

Will your safety incentive plan be OK with OSHA?
April 30, 2012

Next post

Preventive Maintenance Can Reduce Safety Risk
May 3, 2012

You may also like

1600px-Point_Guarding
Review Commission Machine Guarding Decision
16 February, 2021
FallingRocks-1
Is Gravity Part of OSHA’s LOTO Regulation?
15 April, 2020
FDR-070918
OSHA Alert: How to Prepare for an OSHA Inspection
19 March, 2020

    1 Comment

  1. Chelo Iniguez
    May 23, 2013

    Having an ECP in place is just the first step in ensuring that your company is compliant with OSHA’s regulations regarding LOTO. Enforcement and constantly ensuring that your ECP is being followed is the next logical and more difficult step to achieve. Making sure that it is enforced however can help your company save lives as well as avoid the hefty fines that come with such lock out violations.

Leave A Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Search

Categories

  • Accident Prevention
  • Articles
  • CSA
  • Enforcement
  • FDRsafety newsletter
  • Legislation
  • News and Announcements
  • OSHA
  • Recordkeeping
  • Research
  • Risk Assessments
  • Safety and sustainability
  • Temporary Safety Professionals / Recruiting
  • Training
  • Transportation safety
  • Uncategorized

Latest Posts

Additional Thoughts On Reevaluating OSHA
06Mar2025
Feasibility For Machine Guarding Is A Big Deal For Employers and Employees
13May2024
Online Powered Industrial Truck Operator Certification Problems
25Aug2023

Get In Touch

Contact

360 Cool Springs Boulevard,
Suite 101,
Franklin, TN 37067

1-888-755-8010

info@fdrsafety.com

Careers

Accreditations

Contact Us

Powered by WordPress.