All locks are not equal

The use of unsuitable safety locks in Lock Out Tag Out
(LOTO) applications is putting lives at risk, according to
padlock producer, Master Lock

In any situation where people trust
their lives to their equipment, they
normally ensure that equipment is
the best possible quality. But while it is
expected that personal protective
equipment used in the workplace will
have been tested and proved up to the
task, there is still one area where the use
of potentially unsuitable products in
life-threatening applications is
commonplace.

Physically locking the controls of
machinery or processes to prevent them
being activated when workers might be
exposed to danger – a procedure known as
Lock Out /Tag Out (LOTO) – is a widely
adopted accident prevention strategy in
industry. Lock-out/Tag-out procedures
have probably saved many from death or
serious injury as they service or repair
dangerous machinery. But Master Lock
believes lives are still being put at risk by
the use of general purpose locks in LOTO
applications.

Kieran MacCourt, marketing manager
of Master Lock Europe, comments, “It
seems strange that nobody would base a
life-or-death purchase decision, like
buying a parachute for example, on cost
alone; and yet that’s exactly what’s
happening when someone decides to trust
their life to a cheap padlock they bought at
a local hardware store.”
“Effective LOTO procedures ultimately
rely on the integrity of individual locking
devices”, comments MacCourt. “A lock
that breaks easily, can be circumvented or
removed by someone other than the key
holder is in some ways more dangerous
than no lock at all because it can engender
a completely false sense of security.”
Most padlocks available to the public
were not designed or intended to be used
in life-threatening situations. Industrial
environments are invariably harsh and
frequent heavy use in these environments
subjects the padlock to high levels of wear,
leading to potential failure with lethal
consequences.

Beware unmarked locking
devices
Not being clearly identifiable as safety
devices introduces another element of
danger. An unmarked locking device
gives no indication of its purpose,
thereby increasing the chances that it
might be mistaken for a device placed in
error and subsequently removed. An
example might be where a day operator
thinks an overnight maintenance
engineer has gone off-shift and forgotten
to remove the locking device.

Many padlocks designed for
occasional or domestic use also have
comparatively simple locking
mechanisms and few key combinations,
meaning that the chances of keys other
than the original being able to unlock it
are unacceptably high. “There are
surprisingly few key variations in many
domestic padlocks”, continues MacCourt,
“And usually no restrictions on the
creation of duplicate keys. Once you have
two or more keys for a safety lock in
circulation, the entire system is
compromised.”
Many of these dangers can be avoided
by ensuring only locks designed
specifically for industrial use are
employed in LOTO procedures. Available
with brightly colour-coded bodies
incorporating warning labels, these are
clearly identifiable as safety devices and
also carry information about why the
lock has been placed and who is
responsible. Secure keying systems, such
as that employed in the Master Lock’s
Safety Series locks, are based on the idea
of “one employee, one key”, where every
employee is assigned a unique, nontransferable
key code which enables
them to have any number of safety locks
under their control, all operated by a
unique key which cannot be duplicated.

Master Lock maintains a database of the
keying systems in use by every customer
to ensure non-duplication of keys and
locks.

“There is a dangerous misconception
that any lock is adequate for LOTO
purposes, but that is simply not the case”,
says MacCourt. “We would urge safety
professionals to check the procedures in
place at their companies to ensure
workers aren’t risking their lives through
the use of ad-hoc safety equipment.”