REG NASA-LLIS-1378--2002 Lessons Learned Implementation and Verification of Lockout Tagout Procedures.pdf

《REG NASA-LLIS-1378--2002 Lessons Learned Implementation and Verification of Lockout Tagout Procedures.pdf》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《REG NASA-LLIS-1378--2002 Lessons Learned Implementation and Verification of Lockout Tagout Procedures.pdf（4页珍藏版）》请在麦多课文档分享上搜索。

1、Lessons Learned Entry: 1378Lesson Info:a71 Lesson Number: 1378a71 Lesson Date: 2002-08-29a71 Submitting Organization: JSCa71 Submitted by: Ronald A. MontagueSubject: Implementation and Verification of Lockout/Tagout Procedures Abstract: The companys failure to implement and enforce their company saf

2、ety program, as defined in their Safety the employee subsequently died of the injury.Finding A: Employees must personally verify, prior to starting work on a potentially energized Provided by IHSNot for ResaleNo reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS-,-,-system, that the syste

3、m is de-energized and their personal lock and tag are in place. Do not take the word of a co-worker or supervisor. If the employee leaves the work site for any reason, re-verify the system is still de-energized before resuming work. The following evidence supports this finding: 1. At the beginning o

4、f the day, the foreman improperly checked the voltage at the junction box where the mishap occurred. The improper check was a result of using a painted surface as a ground reference.2. After this initial check by the foreman, the circuit was not re-checked by any of the electricians working on the g

5、enerator circuits. All the electricians working at the site assumed the circuits were de-energized.3. The contractor did not pursue understanding of the circuits or request NASA assistance in identifying circuit breakers that would de-energize circuits.4. The NASA-delegated safety and quality inspec

6、tors on the site throughout the day did not question whether the circuits associated with the generator had been de-energized, locked, and tagged.Finding B: It is unacceptable to work on any energized system without proper permits and personal protective equipment (PPE). One of the causes of this mi

7、shap was a risk-taking decision based on past experience and the perception of a low risk situation. Managers should verify that their employees know and are implementing the applicable safety policies and procedures. The following evidence supports this finding: 5. It is a common practice for some

8、electricians to work on energized circuits without PPE and without the proper permits. Both NASA and the contractor have policies that prohibit work on energized circuits, except for a few circumstances that were not applicable in this case.6. Although the contractor has adequate policies and proced

9、ures, implementation is weak or lacking. For example, LO/TO training for contractor employees consisted of a contractor-provided “Electric” brochure handed out to each employee explaining the companys policy and procedure; the employee was expected to sign in the back of the brochure indicating that

10、 the employee had read the booklet.Lesson(s) Learned: Lockout/Tagout policies and procedures must be followed and systems verified to be de-energized before beginning work.Recommendation(s): 1. NASA should implement a rigorous random safety inspection process. NASA should institute Mandatory Safety

11、Inspection Points (MSIP), e.g., prior to work on electrical circuits and other energized systems. NASA should assess the on-site inspection responsibilities and determine if changes are necessary to make the process more robust. If changes are deemed necessary, Provided by IHSNot for ResaleNo reprod

12、uction or networking permitted without license from IHS-,-,-augmented duties should be clarified to all safety and quality inspectors.2. 3. NASA should closely evaluate contractor safety and health plans relative to employee training and implementation of policies for equivalence with NASAs Safety a

13、nd Health Program. Continue to offer NASA in-house safety training as an option.4. NASA should require Pre-Project Safety Reviews prior to construction start. This should be more comprehensive than pre-construction meetings with a format analogous to an Operational Readiness Inspection (ORI), Test R

14、eadiness Review (TRR), etc. As a pre-requisite for the pre-project safety review, NASA should strongly consider the need for safety and job hazard analyses to be performed and not allow work to start until these are submitted and reviewed.5. NASA should require that construction contractors conduct

15、daily planning meetings to review work to be performed during the continuous duty time or shift.Evidence of Recurrence Control Effectiveness: PendingDocuments Related to Lesson: JPG 1700.1, “JSC Safety and Health Handbook,“ Chapter 8.1, Electrical Safety.Mission Directorate(s): a71 Exploration Syste

16、msa71 Sciencea71 Space Operationsa71 Aeronautics ResearchAdditional Key Phrase(s): a71 Energya71 Facilitiesa71 Human Factorsa71 Human Resources & Educationa71 Independent Verification and Validationa71 Industrial Operationsa71 Personal Protective Equipmenta71 Policy & Planninga71 Procurement Small B

17、usiness & Industrial Relationsa71 Program and Project Managementa71 Risk Management/AssessmentProvided by IHSNot for ResaleNo reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS-,-,-a71 Safety & Mission Assurancea71 Test & VerificationAdditional Info: Approval Info: a71 Approval Date: 2004-02-09a71 Approval Name: Ron Montaguea71 Approval Organization: JSCa71 Approval Phone Number: 281-483-8576Provided by IHSNot for ResaleNo reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS-,-,-