Valid Control Method - Machine specific LOTO (LockOut TagOut) procedures

S

Shannon - 2007

Valid Control Method

Hi all,
:bigwave:
This question is in regards to machine specific LOTO procedures that are posted on the equipment.
Our maintenence dept has completed creating these procedures for over 100 pieces of equipment in the plant. They are printed on orange paper and are glued between two pieces of plexiglas to prevent from getting ruined by water during the many washdowns that we perform.
It was recognized, late in the game, that these instructions did not carry a revision date on them. They are identified with a unique document number and are listed on the Maintenence MCD, which provides the revision history information.

The obvious answer is to start all over again and reprint the docs with the revision date. Because of the additional costs and time to do this, we wantto explore other potential options to bring us into compliance.

Here is one suggestion:
Rewrite our Maintenence Program document that describes the control methods for the Maintenence documents to read. . .
"All LOTO instructions are identified with a unique number, and are printed on colored paper that reflects the revision number."
Revision Code
Revision 1 = Orange paper
Revision 2 = Yellow paper
Revision 3 = Goldenrod paper
Revision 4 = Pink paper

This would enable people to determine if the LOTO instruction was current or not. They could reference the MCD using the color versus the Rev date.
In addition, we expect very minimal changes to these documents, if any. The method for LOTO doesn't change often.

What do you all think?
Is this a valid method for the control of our LOTO instructions?

Shannon
 

Cari Spears

Super Moderator
Leader
Super Moderator
I can't think of any scenario where that would cause a problem. I like the creative thinking!

I would only worry about similar colors like yellow and goldenrod being mistaken for each other if you are using the words and not a little square of the paper color. But, if you know from experience that these documents are unlikely to be revised frequently that should be easy to avoid.
 

CarolX

Trusted Information Resource
Shannon said:
It was recognized, late in the game, that these instructions did not carry a revision date on them. They are identified with a unique document number and are listed on the Maintenence MCD, which provides the revision history information.

Ok Shannon, here is my take.....Why do you need the rev date on them? They are identified and current rev info can be found in the Maintenence MCD. This may not be the most efficient method for identification of current rev levels.....but......as you said....you realized late in the game this was missing. How about this....toss it into your CA program....with the action to correct the problem will be to add rev info next time the LOTO is revised.

BTW....what does LOTO stand for?

CarolX
 
C

Craig H.

Shannon:

Another way that might work is to say that the first revision is "0", and the Rev number does not appear. Then, when you do have a revision, the doc would become something like "document number 123XYZ082003", the last 6 numbers being MMDDYY.

Either way should work. Whatever is easiest and makes sense to you.
 
R

Randy Stewart

You could put the rev date on a label and stick it on the plexiglas until the doc has to be replaced, then put it on the doc itself. Just a thought. I don't see a problem with the system you define, I would watch out for the color fading over the long term.
One thing I question, if the procedure has to be replaced by a different color, why not print the rev date on the new procedure and forget about the color code? Leave the statement that the original is orange or whatever color and that Rev 1, 2 etc. will be on the document. You'll then get away from the expense of color paper.
 
C

Craig H.

Carol

Yes, putting it in the C/A system is a trick that I... uh, it is a way to say that we know about a problem and are working on fixing it, so we keep certain auditing types from issuing a N/C, and also so we remember that we are supposed to fix it. Ok, mainly so we remember we are supposed to fix it.


;)

Craig
 
D

db

LOTO (LockOut TagOut)


Part of the question might be based on what standard you are using. ISO 14001 for example states "Documents shall be legible, dated (with dates of revision)..." 9K2K says "to ensure that changes and the current revision status of documents are identified".

In either case what you have to do is to ensure that the instructions are the relevent ones. In LOTO, this is very critical because body parts are involved.
 

Mike S.

Happy to be Alive
Trusted Information Resource
Randy Stewart said:
You could put the rev date on a label and stick it on the plexiglas until the doc has to be replaced, then put it on the doc itself.

FWIW this is what I'd do as well. You can cover the label with tape so it doesn't get wet. Make sure that whomever might be the person who would open the plexiglass knows what needs to be done as far as the rev. issue so that if an auditor asks everyone is on the same page and so that things get done correctly for safety's sake.
 
D

David Hartman

You could even make the "unique" document number the revision indicator as well (i.e. assign a modified document number to the next revision such as: A301289-1, followed by A301289-2, etc. -or- use an alpha revision indicator if more appropriate). :bigwave:
 
C

CINDY

Shannon,

You could also make a print copy of each LOTO with corrections and place them in a master folder. The master folder could also be the place where you record review dates. You are right in stating that LOTO does not change much.

Cindy
 
Top Bottom