Page 42 - OHS, February/March 2025

L O C K O U T / T A G O U T
checklists, reducing the likelihood of missed steps and ensuring con-
sistent application of safety protocols across the organization.
■ Real-time Monitoring and Alerts: Th e system provides im-
mediate notifi cation of LOTO status changes, unauthorized access
attempts, or procedure violations, allowing supervisors to quickly
respond to potential safety issues.
On the other hand, here are the system’s limitations:
■ Technology Dependence: System functionality relies on con-
sistent power supply, network connectivity, and proper soft ware op-
eration, potentially creating vulnerabilities during power outages or
system failures.
■ Initial Cost and Training Requirements: Implementation
requires signifi cant up-front investment in hardware, soft ware, and
comprehensive training programs to ensure all workers can eff ec-
tively use the electronic system.
■ Resistance to Change: Workers accustomed to traditional
LOTO procedures may resist transitioning to electronic systems, po-
tentially leading to reduced compliance or incorrect usage if proper
change management strategies aren’t implemented.
Traditional LOTO vs. Electronic LOTO
Now, let’s examine how traditional LOTO and electronic LOTO pro-
cedures compare across three crucial dimensions: safety eff ective-
ness, operational effi ciency, and compliance with safety standards.
Safety Eff ectiveness. Traditional LOTO procedures have proven
their safety eff ectiveness through decades of implementation. Th eir
strength lies in their simplicity and physical nature – a locked-out
machine cannot be accidentally restarted without deliberate removal
of the physical lock. Th e visible presence of locks and tags serves as
a constant reminder of ongoing maintenance work, promoting situ-
ational awareness among all facility personnel.
Electronic LOTO systems enhance safety through technologi-
cal security and systematic enforcement of procedures. Th ese sys-
tems can prevent common human errors by requiring sequential
completion of safety steps before allowing work to proceed. Th e
ability to integrate with equipment controls automatically verifi es
energy isolation before permitting maintenance activities. How-
ever, this reliance on technology introduces new potential failure
points – a system malfunction could either prevent necessary
maintenance or, more critically, fail to maintain proper isolation.
Th e tragic case of Wayne Rothering highlighted a critical point:
any system, whether traditional or electronic, is only as eff ective
as its consistent and proper implementation. Both approaches re-
quire a commitment to safety protocols and thorough training to
ensure workers understand and follow prescribed procedures.
Operational Effi ciency. Traditional LOTO procedures, while
reliable, oft en impact operational effi ciency through their time-
intensive nature. Th e process of physically walking to multiple
isolation points, applying individual locks, and maintaining paper
documentation can signifi cantly extend equipment downtime. In
facilities with complex machinery requiring frequent maintenance,
these delays can substantially aff ect productivity - something that
employers want to avoid.
Electronic LOTO systems off er signifi cant advantages in opera-
tional effi ciency through automated documentation, streamlined
procedures, and centralized management. Digital checklists and
remote monitoring capabilities can reduce the time required for
LOTO implementation while maintaining safety standards. Th e
40 Occupational Health & Safety | FEBRUARY/MARCH 2025 system’s ability to track multiple lockouts simultaneously and co-
ordinate complex group lockout procedures can be particularly
valuable in large facilities.
However, the effi ciency gains of electronic systems must be
weighed against potential disruptions from technical issues. While
traditional LOTO procedures continue unimpeded during power
outages or network problems, electronic systems may require
backup procedures or temporary reversion to manual methods,
potentially creating confusion and delays.
Compliance with Safety Standards. Both traditional and elec-
tronic LOTO systems can achieve compliance with OSHA standards
and other safety regulations, but they diff er in how they facilitate
this compliance. Traditional LOTO procedures benefi t from well-
established compliance frameworks and clear regulatory guidance.
Th eir straightforward nature makes it easier for safety inspectors to
verify proper implementation through direct observation.
Electronic LOTO systems excel in generating comprehensive
compliance documentation and audit trails. Automated record-
keeping captures detailed information about each lockout event,
including timing, duration, and personnel involved. Th is digital
documentation can streamline regulatory reporting and incident
investigations.
However, organizations must ensure their electronic systems
meet all regulatory requirements, including provisions for physi-
cal lockout capability and personal control of energy isolation. Th e
implementation of electronic LOTO systems may require addi-
tional validation to demonstrate regulatory compliance, particu-
larly in jurisdictions where safety standards have not been updated
to explicitly address electronic safety systems.
Is Electronic LOTO the Better Option?
While electronic LOTO systems off er compelling technological
advantages, Wayne Rothering’s tragic story reminds us that the
fundamental question isn’t about choosing between traditional or
electronic systems, but rather about encouraging a culture where
everyone - both employees and employers are committed to safety.
Th e best LOTO system is one that workers consistently use and
trust - and this oft en means implementing a hybrid approach
where electronic systems enhance rather than replace traditional
physical lockouts, combining the psychological reassurance of tan-
gible locks with the precision of digital oversight.
Looking ahead, the evolution of LOTO systems will likely be
shaped by emerging technologies like biometric authentication,
artifi cial intelligence for predictive maintenance scheduling, and
augmented reality interfaces that can visualize hidden energy
sources. However, these innovations must be implemented with
the understanding that technology should serve as a safety enabler
rather than a safety guarantee. If Rothering’s employer had focused
on cultivating a workplace culture where bypassing safety proce-
dures was unthinkable — regardless of the system in place — the
outcome might have been diff erent.
Herbert Post is the Vice President at TRADESAFE, a workplace
safety brand specializing in LOTO, emergency eye wash and show-
er stations, absorbents, and safety signs. He grew up around heavy
manufacturing, which sparked his interest in factory processes and
safety compliance. With 14 years in the fi eld, Herb is passionate
about safety best practices and regulations.
www.ohsonline.com