There are a few times I can’t entirely agree with OSHA’s position on safety, and when I do, it has always been that the agency has been “too soft,” but not this time. In a recent citation, OSHA cited a steel mill for improper LOTO after a driver got out of his truck and went to the rear of the truck to clear a jam in a dump chute. Another worker then entered the truck and backed it up, crushing the original driver between the chute and the truck.
OSHA used 1910.147 to cite the employer. Do you agree or disagree with LOTO being applied to moving vehicles? For years OSHA has taken the position that working on a vehicle is indeed a LOTO task, but now to stretch this to the point that LOTO is required to prevent the movement of the truck may be a bit much. If this is their new position, then chocking the wheels of a truck is now a LOTO task. After all, placing chocks under the wheel(s) of the truck requires the worker to place his/her body into the “point of operation.” How about when the driver gets out of his/her truck to open their trailer doors before backing into the loading dock? This is done hundreds of times a day at facilities, and I know of not one facility that requires the driver to shut off the tractor and remove the ignition key; however, this scenario is a setup just like the steel mill fatality. And how about some of OSHA’s LOIs regarding LOTO and servicing vehicles… did OSHA really mean to say that removing the ignition key and removing the battery cables meets LOTO? There is absolutely no “exclusive control” of the energy sources when doing this! Did OSHA envision this to be similar to “cord and plug equipment”? But even using the “cord and plug” equipment exception, OSHA states that the worker has to have exclusive control of the plug. I do not see how the worker(s) could maintain exclusive control of the battery cables when they are working in the rear of the truck!!!! And the removal of the ignition key also has some fundamental flaws… most trucks on plant sites I have managed had multiple ignition keys, so their removal does NOT constitute exclusive control. So does OSHA really envision drivers of on-site trucks (I am assuming they would exclude delivery drivers since they are under DOT rule) to become authorized employees? Do they expect these employees to be equipped with locks and tags and to apply these lockout devices each time they have to step outside their vehicle to do work in the rear of the vehicle? How about security guards working the main gate doing truck inspections? They walk between trucks doing their inspections; does LOTO apply to these workers? I wholeheartedly agree that for a worker doing servicing and maintenance on a truck, LOTO would apply to that worker. But a worker merely working around a truck and is killed by its unexpected movement is outside the scope of LOTO. If this is OSHA’s new position on the expectations of LOTO, then they have some work to do to explain this new scope to employers. The killed worker was working on a clogged chute, not the truck. Unfortunately, a worker lost his life in this accident, and yes, there needs to be some system in place to prevent these types of accidents. And yes, this accident would have been avoided if the driver had removed the ignition key AND the battery cables, applying an isolation device and lockout lock to the battery connections. I am not arguing with those facts. I am merely posing the question… is the industry ready to apply LOTO every time a worker places a part of his/her body between a truck and another object? I bet I have reported at least a dozen loading dock fatalities this year, and not once have I seen OSHA cite any of these fatalities as a failure to LOTO. And where does it stop? Does this apply to golf carts, mules, gators, etc.? How much clearance does OSHA feel is enough not to require the worker to LOTO the truck? 5 feet? 10 feet? 20 feet? I will never say “accidents happen” or “not all accidents are preventable,” as I truly believe all accidents are preventable. I would also be taking action in my facility to assess the level of risk in my facility’s practices, similar to what happened at the steel mill. I believe that OSHA is applying the LOTO standard to a situation that is impossible for an employer to comply with. I think the steel mill will win this in an appeal to the ALJ and OSHRC. After all, the worker was killed by a truck and not the equipment he was working on!
Do you agree or disagree? Let me hear your thoughts below.