LoTo and the Loss of Chevron Deference
Here is the next in my series where I examine the effect the loss of Chevron deference could have on OSHA standards and workplace safety, this week we are reviewing Lockout/Tagout.
If you missed any of my previous articles, here they are:
- OSHA and the loss of Chevron Deference – I explore the ramifications to OSHA and workplace safety when vague statutes must be clarified through court action instead of through clarification from agency SMEs.
- PPE and the loss of Chevron Deference.- I explore how the loss of Chevron Deference can have an impact on PPE standards within OSHA regulations.
- Machine Guarding and the loss of Chevron Deference – Machine guarding protects employees, but with the regulations being written even slightly vague, clarification can come from court actions and drag on, while employees are potentially unsafe.
The whole series is centered around understanding what it means to workplace safety to lose Chevron deference, and the risk to workers from workplaces that don’t care about employees.
OSHA standard 1910.147, known as the Control of Hazardous Energy (Lockout/Tagout) standard, outlines measures for controlling hazardous energy during the servicing and maintenance of machines and equipment. Despite its importance in preventing workplace injuries, certain aspects of this standard can be ambiguous, necessitating clarifications through OSHA letters of interpretation.
Ambiguities in OSHA 1910.147 – Lockout/Tagout
- Scope of the Standard:
- Ambiguity often arises regarding which specific activities and types of equipment are covered by the standard. While OSHA 1910.147 clearly applies to servicing and maintenance operations, the line between what constitutes normal production operations and what activities require lockout/tagout procedures can be less well-defined. This distinction can create confusion for employers trying to determine when and how to apply the lockout/tagout requirements. For example, routine adjustments or minor repairs performed during regular production might not seem to fit the criteria for lockout/tagout, yet these tasks could still pose significant risks if proper energy control measures are not implemented. Similarly, the standard’s application to various types of equipment and machinery—especially those involving complex or new technologies—may not always be immediately apparent. This uncertainty can lead to inconsistent application of safety practices, potentially compromising worker safety and increasing the risk of accidents. Clearer guidance is needed to help employers accurately identify which operations necessitate lockout/tagout procedures and ensure that all potentially hazardous situations are appropriately addressed.
- Definition of “Authorized Employee”:
- The term “authorized employee” in OSHA 1910.147 refers to individuals who are responsible for applying lockout or tagout devices to machines during servicing and maintenance activities. However, there can be significant confusion surrounding the specific qualifications and training necessary for an employee to be deemed “authorized.” The standard outlines that an authorized employee must be trained in the recognition of hazardous energy sources, the methods and means for energy isolation, and the importance of preventing accidental energy release. Yet, the exact criteria for what constitutes sufficient training and qualifications can be vague. Employers may find it challenging to determine the depth and scope of training required to meet these standards, leading to inconsistent practices and potential gaps in safety. This ambiguity can result in some employees being inadequately prepared to handle energy control procedures, which could undermine the effectiveness of the lockout/tagout program and increase the risk of workplace accidents. Clearer definitions and more detailed guidance on the training and qualifications for authorized employees would help ensure that all individuals responsible for energy control are adequately prepared and capable of performing their duties safely.
- Group Lockout/Tagout Procedures:
- The standard acknowledges the use of group lockout/tagout procedures but offers limited guidance on how to implement these procedures effectively, which can result in a range of interpretations and practices. While the concept of group lockout/tagout is intended to address situations where multiple employees are involved in servicing or maintaining equipment, the lack of detailed instructions leaves room for ambiguity. This limited guidance means that employers may interpret the requirements differently, leading to inconsistent application of safety measures across different workplaces.
- For example, the standard does not specify the precise methods for coordinating lockout/tagout among multiple workers, nor does it provide clear criteria for ensuring that all individuals involved in a group lockout/tagout procedure are adequately protected. Consequently, practices can vary widely, with some organizations implementing robust group procedures while others may apply less comprehensive measures. This inconsistency can lead to safety gaps, where the intended protection for all workers is not uniformly achieved. To ensure effective implementation and uniformity in safety practices, more detailed guidance and examples are needed on how to conduct group lockout/tagout procedures, ensuring that all team members are effectively safeguarded during maintenance and servicing activities.
- Periodic Inspections:
- OSHA mandates that periodic inspections of energy control procedures be conducted to ensure ongoing compliance with lockout/tagout requirements. However, the standard does not provide specific details regarding the frequency or detailed procedures for these inspections. This lack of precision leaves employers with a degree of uncertainty about how to fulfill their obligations effectively.
- Employers are left to interpret the requirements and decide on their own how often these inspections should occur and what exactly they should entail. This ambiguity can result in varied practices across different workplaces, with some employers possibly conducting inspections too infrequently or inadequately, which could lead to lapses in safety. The absence of clear guidelines means that employers must make judgment calls on the appropriate frequency and thoroughness of inspections, which can impact their ability to maintain consistent and effective energy control procedures. To address these challenges and enhance compliance, more explicit guidance from OSHA on the frequency and scope of periodic inspections would be beneficial, ensuring that all employers can consistently meet safety standards and effectively protect their workers.
- Energy Isolation Devices:
- The standard uses the term “energy isolation device” to refer to equipment designed to isolate hazardous energy sources and prevent accidental energy release. However, the criteria for determining what qualifies as an adequate energy isolation device can be ambiguous, especially in the context of new and emerging technologies.
- The standard does not provide a comprehensive list or detailed specifications for what constitutes an acceptable energy isolation device, leading to potential confusion among employers. This lack of clarity can make it challenging for organizations to select devices that meet the necessary safety standards, particularly when dealing with innovative or complex machinery that may not have been explicitly addressed by existing guidelines.
- As technology advances, new types of energy isolation devices are continually developed, and their suitability for compliance with OSHA’s standards may not be immediately clear. This evolving landscape further complicates the process of ensuring that all energy isolation devices used in the workplace are both effective and compliant with regulatory requirements. To address these challenges, more precise criteria and updated guidance on what constitutes an adequate energy isolation device are needed, helping employers make informed decisions and maintain robust safety practices in the face of technological advancements.
Clarifications from OSHA Letters of Interpretation
OSHA has issued numerous letters of interpretation to address these ambiguities and provide clearer guidance to employers and employees. Here are some key clarifications:
- Scope of the Standard:
- OSHA has provided clarification that activities such as minor tool changes and adjustments, which are routine, repetitive, and integral to the use of equipment for production, do not fall under the requirements of the lockout/tagout standard, provided they are performed using alternative measures that offer effective protection. These routine activities are considered part of normal operations and, therefore, exempt from lockout/tagout requirements as long as the alternative measures in place are sufficient to protect workers from hazardous energy.
- Authorized Employee:
- OSHA has issued detailed clarifications on the training requirements for authorized employees responsible for lockout/tagout procedures. Authorized employees must receive comprehensive, job-specific training covering the energy control procedures they will use. This training must include recognizing hazardous energy sources such as electrical, mechanical, hydraulic, pneumatic, chemical, and thermal. Employees need to understand the specific hazards associated with each type of energy source.
- Additionally, the training must cover methods and means for effective energy isolation and control. This includes detailed instruction on shutting down equipment, isolating energy sources, and applying lockout or tagout devices to prevent hazardous energy release. Employees must also know how to test and verify effective energy isolation before commencing maintenance or servicing work.
- Since the standard is this brief: 1910.147(c)(7)(i)(A)-Each authorized employee shall receive training in the recognition of applicable hazardous energy sources, the type and magnitude of the energy available in the workplace, and the methods and means necessary for energy isolation and control.
- Group Lockout/Tagout Procedures:
- OSHA has provided detailed clarification for group lockout/tagout procedures to ensure the safety of all employees involved in servicing or maintenance activities. According to these guidelines, each authorized employee must apply a personal lockout or tagout device to a group lockout mechanism. This requirement ensures that each worker maintains individual control over the energy isolation, thereby enhancing personal accountability and safety.
- Periodic Inspections:
- OSHA has specified that periodic inspections must be conducted at least annually to ensure that the energy control procedures are being properly followed. The inspection must include a review of each authorized employee’s responsibilities under the energy control procedure.
- Energy Isolation Devices:
- OSHA has provided examples of acceptable energy isolation devices, such as manually operated circuit breakers, disconnect switches, and line valves. These devices must be capable of isolating the energy source and preventing the release of hazardous energy.
OSHA’s letters of interpretation are essential in addressing these ambiguities. These letters provide detailed explanations and practical examples that clarify the intent and application of the standard. For instance, they can specify what constitutes an adequate energy isolation device, what training is necessary for an employee to be considered authorized, and how to implement group lockout/tagout procedures correctly. By offering this guidance, OSHA helps employers and employees navigate the complexities of the standard, ensuring they understand how to meet the requirements.
Through these clarifications, OSHA enables workplaces to implement lockout/tagout procedures more effectively, thereby enhancing safety and compliance. Clear and specific guidance helps to eliminate uncertainties, allowing for consistent and proper application of safety measures across different industries and situations. As a result, employees are better protected from hazardous energy during servicing and maintenance activities, which reduces the risk of accidents and injuries.
In summary, OSHA 1910.147’s ambiguities regarding its scope, definitions, procedures, and requirements necessitate detailed clarification through OSHA’s letters of interpretation. These interpretations play a vital role in helping employers and employees understand and correctly apply the standard, ultimately promoting safer work environments and ensuring regulatory compliance.