Hot work permits

[realolman]

....Sounds like they just want to 'shift' the liability' of this work on the workerbee!

Gee..... Why am I not surprised... I'm gonna have a cardiac from not surprise.

 

[jeremysterling]

If that is your policy and it works then I am not going to argue. I still think the requestor should be the actual requestor. I have not done live work in years but when I did it was always at someone elses request. Even when we did live work on a regular basis I never went into it thinking "I want to do this live", I did it because I was asked to or directed to.

I see it as the electrician is not asked or directed, rather, he is paid. If you want to get paid then you want to "do this live."

We have a no live work policy, and the requestor is the person who is doing the work asking permission to wave the rule. If it is working near live parts that can be sheilded, a live work permit may be allowed, but if it is actual contact with live parts, Chances are slim to none that it will be allowed.

This is how I feel as well.

Can you explain your comment?

My comment was straightforward. IMO, the "requestor" (I'm assuming is requester) is the person requesting for permission to perform work on energized gear.

I used to work in refineries and chemical plants where permitting or multiple permitting was an everyday thing. Hot work (welding or cutting torch), confined entry, scaffolding, etc. all require a permit. Did I "want" to climb into a dark tank full of hydrogen sulfide and weld plates? No, I wanted to go fishing. But someone somewhere was paying me to do the work, so I requested permission. That someone somewhere was not the permit requester. I was the permit requester.

 

[eric9822]

I see it as the electrician is not asked or directed, rather, he is paid. If you want to get paid then you want to "do this live."

Knock yourself out, personally I see no reason to take unneccessary risks. No matter what line of work you are in there will always be some guy that will do things that others will not. I know plenty of people that have been injured while performing their jobs and none of them planned on it. A lot of them were injured because they thought they needed to take unnecessary risks to satisfy an employer or client. I don't want to do live work and I won't do live work unless there is a really good reason for it. In retrospect, of all the live work I have done over the past twenty plus years, none of it was justified. If you want to do it so you can get paid then go right ahead. Eventually it will bite you.

 

[zbang]

I see it as the electrician is not asked or directed, rather, he is paid. If you want to get paid then you want to "do this live."

That's very tortured logic and almost confounds reason. What's you saying is that if you want to get paid (have a job), you will unnecessarily break safety rules/regulations/laws. The more accepted view, and I think the one that OSHA et al will support, is that I will only do something live if someone does the legwork to get the permit to comply with the rules/regs/laws. They don't do that work, I turn it off. Or, look at it this way, client needs you 60 miles away in 30 minutes. You can drive 120mph to get there or you can tell the client that it'll take a hour.

Now, there is the possibility that the client won't do the live work permit and I don't get the job. OTOH, I'll be around tomorrow.

In the end, almost any job, in any location, can be performed on dead equipment. The client might have to wait a few weeks get it scheduled, but it can be done.

 

[realolman]

......., and the requestor is the person who is doing the work asking permission to wave the rule. ........

If that's the way it's intended to be, then the the whole thing IS a joke.

 

[hillbilly1]

If that's the way it's intended to be, then the the whole thing IS a joke.

The way it's supposed to work, the person requesting the permit is qualified to determine whether it can be done safely, and qualified to perform the task. It is up to the person granting the permit to determine that the "qualified person" is indeed qualified, and the work is capable of being done with minimal risk. Yes, some managers will pressure the employee to go ahead and do it, in which puts lives and equipment in danger. Our safety department is a division of HR, so we can write up managers, as well as employees for disregarding our policy.

 

[Volta]

The way it's supposed to work, the person requesting the permit is qualified to determine whether it can be done safely, and qualified to perform the task. ...

That person, and also the employee performing the work: 70E 2009 Sample Permit, Part II, Question 10 (to the person doing the work), "Do you agree the above described work can be done safely?".

 

[winnie]

Dumb outsider question: Aren't there two separate requests being made:
1) I want some work to be done. I want it done without a shutdown of my equipment because of the following reasons.
2) I have been asked to perform some work without equipment shut down. I want to proceed in the following fashion...

It seems to me that request 1 is being made my the manager of the server farm, and request 2 should be made my the electrician. If request 2 requires 'hot work', then the electrician should be able to refer back to request 1 for the _justification_, but it is still up to the electrician to determine the methods and procedures needed to insure safety.

-Jon

 

[brother]

If that's the way it's intended to be, then the the whole thing IS a joke.

I agree 100% !! The existance of NFPA 70e and energized work permits is to protect the worker, and Make the people THINK about what they are saying when they claim something can not be shutdown and risk they taking with someone elses life!

This particular job is on the face of it just two 20 amp breakers 120/208 volt they want to change out on an Emergency panel, and also they want to check/inspect the buss where these breakers were extremely hot and there were some claims of some 'leaking' going on.

Those 'claims' of leaking alone makes me very concerned even though it's only a 120/208 panel (that is fed by a UPS this panel is 'last'/branch circuit feeds to all the equipment) Using the Alternative method of a scheduled shutdown would have to be made, regardless if it takes 2 months to schedule/coordinate it. Seeing that panel short out is just not a good idea and that equipment would be down anyways.

So back to my original topic, the 'requester. Has to be the one to bear the responsiblity and testify that their equipment is sooo important that it meets the exceptions in osha for energized work, so that they would bear part of the liability if something goes wrong. The 'liability part' (moving the $ to their column) is what make most 'claimers' change their mind!!

That's the way the 'energized work permit' is suppose to work, to reduce this 'cowboy/HE-MAN Elitist of My convenience is more important than your life' mentality' of forcing and asking someone to work HOT! .

One of the definitions of 'request' is
to ask or beg (someone) to do something

Now tell me why in the world would a worker beg anyone to let them 'risk' their life for the other person's convenience??

 

[hillbilly1]

Now tell me why in the world would a worker beg anyone to let them 'risk' their life for the other person's convenience??

Because it's easier, they don't have to work after hours, they don't have to schedule anything, Cowboy attitude,they have done it a hundred times before and never had a problem...... I can go on and on, it's not just management to blame. It's not a union/non union thing I've seen both do it.

 

[brother]

Because it's easier, they don't have to work after hours, they don't have to schedule anything, Cowboy attitude,they have done it a hundred times before and never had a problem...... I can go on and on, it's not just management to blame. It's not a union/non union thing I've seen both do it.

I understand. Yes I do see some 'workers' once in while that will take the 'not such a big deal approach and I have done a 100 times in the past' mind set.

But to be realistic, I have seen the management more than the worker try to push working hot.

 

[Rockyd]

Because it's easier, they don't have to work after hours, they don't have to schedule anything, Cowboy attitude,they have done it a hundred times before and never had a problem...... I can go on and on, it's not just management to blame. It's not a union/non union thing I've seen both do it.

That's the way the 'energized work permit' is suppose to work, to reduce this 'cowboy/HE-MAN Elitist of My convenience is more important than your life' mentality' of forcing and asking someone to work HOT! .

One of the definitions of 'request' is
to ask or beg (someone) to do something

Now tell me why in the world would a worker beg anyone to let them 'risk' their life for the other person's convenience??

I'm over 50, after you've seen the damage inflicted by past accidents on people you work with, who chose to "cowboy it". Makes you appreciate the fact that you still have 10 toes, and 10 fingers, no electrical explosions. Oh sure, I have a couple of "stupid marks", - stitches, scars from backing out the orthopedic's tools on "scoping", but am greatful that is the worst I've had to experience. My life is worth far more than your convenience! If it matters, I'll walk before injury, but I'll have someone who you don't want to meet with me (OSHA). Most people get it, some boneheads need to be educated. For the record, "working hot", is not off the table, just follow the procedures listed to do the job that needs to be done, and do it safely. Lineman, maybe under your control, YOU maybe the one who pulled the permit, keep it real.

 

[zog]

I once dicussed this with the (ex) 70E chair. He said the intent of the EEWP was to never be used, to make the "cowboys" stop and think about de-energizing before they sign thier name to the permit.