| |
Links to other
Web sites with
information on
LOTO |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
|
Case Study 6:
Steel Mill Teeming Car Repairs
Correct.
The employer is obligated to provide the servicing and
maintenance employee with protection against hazardous energy from
interconnected and nearby machines or equipment which could cause injury. In
this case, the energy control procedures were implemented for the teeming car.
The employer failed, however, to lock out interconnected and nearby machines or
equipment which exposed the maintenance worker to hazardous energy.
The employer could either provide effective machine guarding
or ensure that the energy control procedure for the teeming car requires the
authorized employee to implement the energy control procedures for the
motor-driven unit and for other interconnected or nearby equipment or machines.
If the employer were to install guarding, it must protect the authorized
employee from the hazardous energy of the interconnected or nearby machinery. If
the guarding does not adequately protect the authorized employee during this
servicing and maintenance activity, the interconnected and nearby machines or
equipment must be deenergized and locked out/tagged out. In this case study,
because guarding had not been installed, the employer was obligated to implement
energy control procedures for the interconnected or nearby machines. The
employer therefore failed to implement procedures to shut down, isolate, block,
and secure machines or equipment to control hazardous energy
(described in
29 CFR 1910.147(c)(4)(ii)(B)).
NOTE: This analysis could be readily applied to a scenario
where maintenance must be performed on a punch press in an area crowded with
other presses or energized equipment.
|
Newsletter
RSS Feeds
