OT... Lock-off... removing someone elses!

[silva.foxx]

Hey guys... a little off topic but I sense there's a few 'production' orientated Industrial bods on here that do more than just electrical.

We have a machine, connected to a piped-feed system - a large one - and some piping mods have been carried out by a contractor.

We came to start up the machine after 5 weeks of being shut-down. The pipe mods were completed 3 weeks ago. The machine required a CIP for start-up and got nothing. We found the inlet valve to the product pump chained closed as part of the isolation for the said pipe mods.

As it's a 24/7 plant the person who locked off the valve was not on shift, not even in the country. The shift mgr. contacted the eng mgr. who spoke with the projects guy. Both told the shift mgr. the work had been complete and the lock could be removed (well... cut off as no key was found). We were requested by the shift mgr to remove it, by email stating the permission of the eng mgr. and projects guy.

What's the general consensus on this, before I complete the tale?

.

 

[hasel5]

My view would be email back and tell however instructed you to cut chain. To come and do it himself the guy who locked it off should unlock

 

[silva.foxx]

... it's a long way is Bulgaria!

 

[Knobhead]

An old argument and one I’m afraid there is no easy answer.

One PTW system I came across had a section at the bottom of the permit with the following:

Work incomplete:
Key(s) passed to (Name)
Ongoing work, key(s) No.xxxx placed in key safe along with a copy of this PTW.

The removal of a lock without the permission of a senior engineer was a sacking offence. Forgetting to remove your lock on completion was a verbal reprimand. All locks and keys were numbered and booked to each individual. Production workers would have 3 issued, tradesmen 10, foremen 50. Every isolator would have an Iso-Lock hasp chained to it so more than one lock could be applied.

 

[johnboy6083]

I would email them and ask for clear confirmation. Ask to see RAMS for startup of machine, and modify it if you see fit. Get everything you need to do, rubber stamped by your seniors, and ensure that it's traceable. Then do what you need to do. If they won't give written permission or risk assessments ect then refuse to do it.

 

[silva.foxx]

The awkward thing is shifts and the 'production' just get it going clap-trap.

The valve was locked off by a 'senior' guy...
The lock-off cabinet is bare due to lost keys/locks and padlocks used on lockers/toolboxes...
The lock-off system isn't policed
As you've read here... the eng mgr. gave permission to cut the lock!
The guy is supposed to be the one to set and lead standards

The flip-side is... if the lock had stayed on and production lost, those at the high-table would see it as 'production lost because the eng tech would not remove the lock'

If we had removed the lock and the job was not complete, an incident/accident could have occurred... and the guy whom removed the lock would be thrashed with a branch, akin to Basil Fawlty and his car!

 

[nickblake]

I wouldnt touch it leave well alone till the person that locked it off you do not know the if the work being carried out is complete , this is how accidents happen and people are killed sorry to be negative on this one mate

 

[netblindpaul]

silvaa,
The root cause here IMHO is inadequate management of your LOTO & PTW system.
The fault lies with VERY SENIOR i.e. BOARD LEVEL management for not implementing this correctly.

You should contact the key holder, even by email and get confirmation of safe to go, OK'd by responsible persoon then get the go ahead to cut the lock.

IF Snr Mgt throw a wobbler just throw it back as their incompetence for not managing correctly.

BTW If you want a consultant I'm not that expensive!!!

These Snr Mgt guys are the Muppets that get H&S a bad name because they have no idea how to mange it!

 

[silva.foxx]

... you do not know the if the work being carried out is complete , this is how accidents happen...

In post #1 the projects guy stated the job had been complete.

We thought that if the job was complete and some form of pressure test was done on the relevant pipe work then the inlet valve to the pump would have had the isolation removed.

The 'senior' guy is a days' manager.
The location of the inlet valve was in the tank farm where they have their own Lock-off board yet he used a lock from elsewhere and left no trace of the key.

What we chose to do, as we knew where the pipe mods were, was remove the isolation and have the pump run on cold water only. What we found was numerous leaks so thankfully it wasn't hot caustic.

Now... there's lots of c0ckups here from many involved from the top down, including us who removed the isolation. This situation should be made an example of within our workplace, to highlight why an incident/accident could have occurred and hopefully hammer-home the seriousness of the Lock-off Procedure and a contractor not completing some form of test! The management and workers should be made to understand the importance of policing the system and respecting its seriousness.

Plus UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES SHOULD SOMEONE REMOVE SOMEONE ELSES LOCK!

 

[Knobhead]

Having worked in the chemical industry for 24 years I’m surprised at how lax your system was/is Silva. The system I mention above was from one of the first companies I worked for. OK it was inflexible at times, one problem was “test runs” on equipment. The permit stated the equipment was isolated from all sources of energy and / or other hazards. The equipment was still under the control of the maintenance crew but we needed to run it, which meant cancelling the permit, effectively handing it back to production. We eventually got around that problem by pinching a part of the HV regs “sanction to test certificate” and adding it to the permit system.

 

[silva.foxx]

We also have 'Working @ height' permits. We have to ask to have access to a step-ladder / ladder then we're given a piece of paper to say we can. I don't think that piece of paper gives any softer landing!

With a 'Hot work' permit you're carrying out a safety inspection of the surrounding area for possible fire hazards and creating a 'safe working area'.

It's getting ludicrous. I'm all for H&S but things do get out-of-hand.

We have policies forced upon us... that can be signed off by non-engineering personnel such as shift mgrs (ex production guys)

Back to the Lock-Off; as said, the awkward bit is crossing shifts but a simple solution is the shift eng techs use their own registered locks (not keyed-alike) whilst they're on shift. If they go off shift they remove their locks and fit 'transfer' locks that they 'book out' from the day engineer's office. With it being in said office the day engineer has to police the system by ensuring he knows where and why that lock is in use. If the shift eng tech has locked it off and is handing over the job, the oncoming shift eng tech should fit his lock in place.

Shift eng techs should not leave their locks on else called back or thrashed if the lock has to be forcibly removed.

Does that sound reasonable (or reasonably simple)?

Or just use the collection of locks placed in the day engineer's office and he polices the system properly?

.

 

[Knobhead]

I’d stick to one person one lock if at all possible. But at a shift change over we could assign our lock(s) to another person or do a direct on site change over.

With the direct change over consider this, one piece of kit I worked on regularly involved 77 lock offs. (Gas, product flow, electricity, kinetic energy, etc).

We used key assigning for a hand over. It would take 3 hours to isolate and make safe. I don’t think I ever competed the job within a shift. I would accept the assigned keys at the start of my shift or hand them over at the end of my shift.

 

[Engineer54]

I’d stick to one person one lock if at all possible. But at a shift change over we could assign our lock(s) to another person or do a direct on site change over.

That's roughly the very way i was taught, and still work with to this very day. A Supervisor along with the responsible person(s) lock-offs in place, and key exchanges/handovers at end of each shift. Along with a paperwork trail covering the total lock-off duration.

Gets a bit more involved mind, when your dealing with multiple separately fed industrial systems... lol!!

 

[madmac]

The Health and Safety Executive would take a very dim view of your managers and I would use this as a warning to them i.e. if I'm forced by you then I will whistleblow to H&S.

 

[Knobhead]

A quiet word with the HSE would be better for your employment prospects.

 

[vaughant]

Back to the Lock-Off; as said, the awkward bit is crossing shifts but a simple solution is the shift eng techs use their own registered locks (not keyed-alike) whilst they're on shift. If they go off shift they remove their locks and fit 'transfer' locks that they 'book out' from the day engineer's office. With it being in said office the day engineer has to police the system by ensuring he knows where and why that lock is in use. If the shift eng tech has locked it off and is handing over the job, the oncoming shift eng tech should fit his lock in place.

Shift eng techs should not leave their locks on else called back or thrashed if the lock has to be forcibly removed.

Does that sound reasonable (or reasonably simple)?

Or just use the collection of locks placed in the day engineer's office and he polices the system properly?


We use a similar system to this where I work,but the day/shift manager does not control it,basically if you leave a job unfinished,you remove your lock and replace it with one booked out from a supplementary lockbox,if you fail to remove your lock,you get phoned in,if you cant get in,it gets cut off and you get a written/verbal warning.

The next tech should put his lock on,but only if he`s working on it,that occurs on any job,you always put a lock on,hence the use of hasps etc.

You wouldn`t automatically work on the locked off job left for you from the previous shift`s tech,something more important may come up,hence you transport your lock with YOU wherever YOU go in the factory,but you can`t leave that job unlocked,hence you get a lock from the supplementary box,then remove your lock and the job`s safe.

You have to state a reason why the lock is on in a book,only the shift electrician has a key on his big bunch to open this box to retrieve the supplementary key,again,closing the loop as to who can get access.

I don`t like the idea that only a day manager can hand out locks,after all he`s not much good at 3am really is he,plus I`d say the system in force at my workplace seems a bit more robust,it`s keeping the loop a bit tighter.

I personally find it pretty easy to work with.

We also borrow a lot from the HV side,removing fuses and locking them off in a safebox away from the location,permits etc.

It`s not something I ever did in Ford,although I`m told it`s in place there now as well.

 

[Knobhead]

One of the craziest situations I’ve come across was an old electrician (Albert) who would not lock off but insisted removing fuses was the correct way for isolation. Nothing would convince him. The engineering management were all mechanical and backed Albert as he was the most experienced electrician on the plant. It took a visit from the HSE to get things moving in the right direction. I got lumbered with the problem, as I was the only electrician from outside the company. The first scheme was rejected out of hand when I wanted to order 200 locks. After nearly 2 years we had a system the management were happy with (cheap) but no one else was, especially me. I constantly ran up against we’ve always done it this way, what do you know about our systems, you weren’t trained here.

It’s a wonder I didn’t get death threats over one isolation procedure. Years before a Castell key system had been partly disabled making it possible to close a manual earth switch on to a live 2.6MVA 660V system under certain circumstances. It wasn’t until I stood the works manager in front of the switch (which had a glass front so you could see the earth was on) and asked him to close it. “No problem, I’ve been with you guys many times when you’ve done this”. “Not like this you haven’t, it’s still live!” All I’d done was put a blown fuse in the 11KV 30V tripping supply. No I didn’t let him close it, but I started to get things back on track after that. Isolations had to be done as originally designed. The electricians moaned continually about having to wind the OCB in and out of service, the fact they were safe cut no ice!

 

[mogga]

The Lock of systems should be listed as a PERMIT to work system regulated by "appointed persons " and signed locks and register of hasps ect
Iv had to do this at a place with no set procedure and had the HnS manager call me into his office asking WHY a roller door was locked shut and their engineers didnt need it locked off I then guided him through WHY lock offs were used and the possible consequences of not carrying system out They now have a System in place and in more importantly in USE by every contractor who comes on site its grown from just electrical to involve everything and seemed to be working well arguments of "it takes time!" are now met with WE pay you by the hour so time isnt an issue
As for OP given situation id look for Either conformation from Lock "Owner" that job and tested complete before Id let ANYONE even the MD cut lock off or retest and confirm