It is currently Wed Jan 26, 2022 9:51 pm



Post new topic Reply to topic

After introducing the EEWP has energized electrical work
increased
decreased
remained the same
You may select 1 option

View results
Author Message
 Post subject: Energized Electrical Work Permits
PostPosted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 5:43 am 
Plasma Level
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2007 5:00 pm
Posts: 1637
Location: Scottsdale, Arizona
After implementing the use of energized electrical work permits (EEWP), has live work at your facility or your client's facility increased, decreased or remained the same?

_________________
Jim Phillips, P.E.
Brainfiller.com


Report this post
Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Aug 17, 2010 3:50 pm 

Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 9:54 pm
Posts: 6
Location: Elyria Ohio
Eewp

At our manufacturing site, it has definitely decreased the amount of live work. Although it was not overnight. Not until electricians (or qualified persons) had the training on the practice did they stop and take the time to find out where to shut off lights or other live circuits. Obviously most of the time it is quicker to take the time to find out where the circuit is located then to go through the live work procedure. It is extremely difficult to get to some "older" qualified individuals because of complacency, but we are working to train them and show them what might happen through videos and workers testimonies.


Report this post
Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Aug 18, 2010 7:32 am 
Sparks Level

Joined: Wed Oct 29, 2008 6:06 am
Posts: 136
Location: Michigan
Once qualified electrical workers realized that management actually supported de-energization even if it means planning and scheduling an outage or overtime it was well received for tasks such as installing/removing 480V bus switches.

However, the 120V lighting and recept circuits for the plant and office have been a bit of a struggle since the perceived risk is low and circuit directories are not always the greatest. As a result of EEWP circuit directories are being updated and we're doing a better job labeling drops and receptacles.


Report this post
Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Aug 19, 2010 5:59 am 

Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 6:42 am
Posts: 35
Location: Bowling Green, KY
[font="Comic Sans MS"][SIZE="3"]I've had a hard time convincing both management and hourly personnel that the rules on "hot work" have changed for good. Management will not (currently) enforce the NFPA/OSHA edicts, in spite of my hand delivering of standards to them. They say, what do you mean I need a permit to work this hot? Many of the electricians say "I've been doing it this way for X number of years and never had any problems. And yes, they have all management and hourly, been trained in Electrical Safe Work Practices.[/size][/font]


Report this post
Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Aug 19, 2010 9:36 am 
Sparks Level

Joined: Wed Oct 29, 2008 6:06 am
Posts: 136
Location: Michigan
We explained EEWP to upper management in terms of lockout violation which is something they understand. There's a link to a good article below called Working Hot or Not - Inconvenience Doesn't Cut It by Jeffery S. Sargent. It helps explain that OSHA's requirements for de-energization have never changed; we've just been non-compliant in the past by allowing unjustified energized work so now an EEWP is required.

http://www.necplus.org/Features/Pages/WorkingHotorNot%E2%80%93InconvenienceDoesn%E2%80%99tCutIt.aspx?sso=0


Report this post
Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Sep 04, 2010 7:04 am 

Joined: Sat Aug 11, 2007 4:29 pm
Posts: 2
I should probably explain my vote "remained the same". We never did much hot work to begin with so this requirement did not change our procedure much.


Report this post
Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Oct 06, 2010 9:54 pm 
Sparks Level

Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 7:10 pm
Posts: 263
Location: NW USA
always has been the policy at large petro refineries so I voted "the same".


Report this post
Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Nov 27, 2011 11:49 pm 

Joined: Thu Nov 12, 2009 8:14 am
Posts: 1
Location: Valparaiso, Indiana
Eewp

OSHA requires when qualified electricians work on electrical circuits that they be de-energized by implementing a Safety Program that's a LOTO. The LOTO can be simple or complex. If de-energizing creates a greater hazard than a qualified electrician has to work on the electrical circuit energized. If that is the case than an EEWP is required. But if the qualified electrician is performing troubleshooting to locate a faulty component, or testing electrical equipment or installing new equipment than an EEWP is not required. If an EEWP were required when a process line stopped because of an electrical problem then trying to locate the faulty component or components would be extremely time consuming and not very cost effective. Sometimes the only way to find the faulty component is with the circuit energized. That's why it is an OSHA requirement that insulated tools, hard hats with full face shields, rubber gloves with leather protectors, electrical work boots, safety glasses, electrical hard hats or any type of engineering control to protect the qualified electrician from becoming part of the circuit which could result in a shock or electrocution. Once the defective component has been found energy isolation has to be implemented that's where the LOTO is implemented. The LOTO is the Safety Program that the NFPA 70E references, which is a written procedure on how to isolate the source of energy not the control. The NFPA 70E intent is to be a source of information for both the employer and employee to understand on how to work on electrical equipment safely that's why it is titled electrical safety in the work place. OSHA is written that the employer has to make the work place safe and hazard free. That's statement means if training is required than train. Perform a hazard assessment and based on the hazard assessment eliminate the hazard through engineering controls, and PPE. I've worked in the industry for 47 years and have watched both employers and employees turn a blind side to safety and OSHA also has observed the same thing that's why the NFPA 70E exists, because employers and employees have a hard time understanding OSHA's written standard.


Report this post
Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Nov 28, 2011 8:07 am 

Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 9:20 am
Posts: 47
Location: Texas
Quote:
or installing new equipment than an EEWP is not required.


Installing new equipment to energized parts is considered a physical change, and as such the standard is requiring an EEWP.


Report this post
Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 9 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 7 hours


You can post new topics in this forum
You can reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
© 2022 Arcflash Forum / Brainfiller, Inc. | P.O. Box 12024 | Scottsdale, AZ 85267 USA | 800-874-8883