S
Shannon - 2007
Valid Control Method
Hi all,
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
Hi all,
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