A Framework for Controlling Operating Procedures and LOTO Procedures
This document was moved to this
location July 2011:
Purpose
file://///tdserver2/ProEng/PC_users/
The purpose of this writeup is to describe the framework that TD will use for managing and controlling
Controlled_Documents/ProEng_Instru
operating procedures and lockout-tagout (LOTO) procedures. It is a summary of the conversations that
ctions
have taken place between the various folks involved in Magnet Systems, Support and Quality &
Materials. As such, this is an old/outdated
version.
Scope
This framework is expected to be applied to all TD departments with the exception of Test &
Instrumentation. We recognize that we will start with the Magnet Systems and SRF Development
departments, and then hopefully expand to the Machine Shop department after successfully doing this
for the other departments.
Framework
Operating Procedures (OPs) are controlled using the document control system in the Process
Engineering (ProEng) Group of the Quality & Materials Department (QMD). This includes assigning a
unique document number, formal version control, signatures to approve each version, revision history
and access control. At present we maintain the “official” signed paper copy of OPs in the ProEng library
in IB2. The “official” electronic file is managed in the OnBase document management system, and links
to them are provided through the TD policies manual. The general approach we are adopting for LOTO
procedures is to control them just like we do OPs.
Specifics for each document type:
Operating Procedures:
Each is assigned a unique 6-digit document number. These numbers are assigned by ProEng, and
come from a block of “drawing numbers” assigned to ProEng.
Each procedure should NOT include an embedded LOTO procedure (unless it’s “plug and cord”
equipment).
Each procedure needs to contain a reference to the associated LOTO procedure.
Each piece of equipment is to be given a unique “official” name/description assigned by the
appropriate engineer, and a unique “Tooling Maintenance Number” assigned by the Tooling
Group. Both these identifiers will also be put onto the equipment. The equipment name is what
is used in the OP title, and the Tooling Maintenance number is included in the procedure.
The title of each procedure (as recorded in the document control log table) should include the
Tooling Maintenance Number(s).
http://tdserver1.fnal.gov/blowers/Projects/Tooling/LOTO/Framework.docx
25-Jul-2011 Page 1 of 3
LOTO Procedures:
Each is assigned a unique 6-digit document number. These numbers are assigned by ProEng, and
come from a block of “drawing numbers” assigned to ProEng.
Each is also assigned a unique “LOTO Procedure number”. These numbers are assigned by the
SSO, and have the form “5120xx” where 5120 is the FESHM chapter on LOTO and xx is a
sequential number.
Each procedure needs to contain a reference to the associated operating procedure.
Each piece of equipment is to be given a unique “official” name/description assigned by the
appropriate engineer, and a unique “Tooling Maintenance Number” assigned by the Tooling
Group. Both these identifiers will also be put onto the equipment. The equipment name is what
is used in the LOTO title, and the Tooling Maintenance number is included in the procedure.
The title of each procedure (as recorded in the document control log table) should include the
LOTO procedure number (the one assigned by the SSO) and the Tooling Maintenance
Number(s).
Training
Our goal is to enter all OPs and LOTO procedures into TRAIN and ITNA, and using the TRAIN and ITNA
systems to enable us to keep track of when people need to review the procedures. At this time the
LOTO procedures are being reviewed on an annual basis, and OPs are being loaded into TRAIN as a one-
time only class.
We should seriously consider reinstituting the practice of holding training for the appropriate people
whenever a change is made to the OP or LOTO procedure. Can we handle this work load?
How should we handle the question of training vs. authorization to operate equipment unsupervised, or
to “make product”. Right now it’s very informal between the supervisors and the employee. Maybe we
should consider using the OJT part of TRAIN.
Web Access
Documents stored in OnBase are to be made accessible via the operating procedure web page (link
below). This is done through the “ProEng” MS-Access database by linking the specification number to a
location.
http://tdserver1.fnal.gov/tdweb/qm/OperationProceduresPage.asp
Signatures
We would like to standardize our approach to the signatures on the cover pages for LOTO and Operating
Procedures. In consultation with HQ, we have agreed to adopt the following framework:
Author: of course can be anyone; typically is the “owner”, or steward, of the equipment
http://tdserver1.fnal.gov/blowers/Projects/Tooling/LOTO/Framework.docx
25-Jul-2011 Page 2 of 3
Reviewer: should be a technically competent person who is able to provide a technical review of the
content of the procedure to make sure that nothing is missed. In other words, this is not an
administrative review (although having an administrative review, in addition to the technical review, is
also acceptable).
Approver: needs to be the manager responsible for the equipment; in most, if not all, cases this is
expected to be the Department Head for the department which owns/operates the equipment. We
have the department head sign to indicate that line management knows and understands what is going
to be operated within their department by their people, and that they are giving their authorization for
it to take place.
http://tdserver1.fnal.gov/blowers/Projects/Tooling/LOTO/Framework.docx
25-Jul-2011 Page 3 of 3