Rank: New forum user 
|
Has any one out there any experience of live working permits and if so be able to pass some examples on and any information that may be usefull around this subject.
Many thanks
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Hi! The name of the game is 'risk avoidance' and the rule of the game is 'No Working On Live Electrical Services!'
If you ignore this rule and you are responsible for having work carried out on live electrical services where there is an incident/accident you could find yourself along with your company being prosecuted, and you would be personally liable for any fine that the courts may impose on you - your company would not be permitted to pay this fine, it is your personal liability. Not forgetting, that for a serious breach you could also face imprisonment on top of the fine!
Its a shame the salaries for people in responsible Health and Safety positions do not reflect the personal risk associated with the job! I can't think of many other jobs where you are personally liable and can face a prison sentence when things go wrong! It would be bad enough to be sacked!
Regards
GJ
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Live working really should be avoided for obvious reasons, however there are situations where live working is unavoidable. The electricity at work regs carry a general prohibition on live working, however its sets out provisions for such activities to be considered if its needed.
1. It is unreasonable in all the circumstances for the system to be dead
2. It is reasonable in all the circumstances for the work to be carried out
3. Suitable precations are taken to prevent injury.
A risk assessment should be carried out to determin if all three conditions are met before work should be allowed to proceed.
Provisions should be in place to take into account all emergency situations such as:
1. what to do in the event of an electric shock: disconnection of the supply, safe means or rescueing the person without endangering rescuers.
2. First aid: treating burns, resusutation, stabilising patient.
3. Calling emergency services: medical evac
4. making the area safe after the incident.
As mentioned previously, avoid if possible.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
See HSG 85 on HSE website
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
Whilst I agree live working should be minimised as MUCH as possible, there are situations where it is unavoidable.
In fact to comply with EAWR there are situations where live working cannot be avoided!
OP it looks from you details that you work in manufacturing?
Possibly a fast moving food or drink packaging environment?
You MUST draw the distinction between working on distribution circuits live, and working on machine control circuits live.
The potential energy release between the two systems is immeasurably different.
Certain areas of machine control systems are fundamentally safe to undertake work on live.
I doubt very much that any of your people are working on high voltage, where live working is VERY difficult to arrange. I have yet to experience a machine in a food/drink manufacturing plant where there were high voltages within the machine itself which could be worked on live. Some x-ray devices, crt’s and other specialist kit are amongst some of the exceptions.
HSE accept that live working must be undertaken.
If this was not so, then every time a DNO fuse had to be replaced in a domestic or commercial premises, or an underground cable joint made for a new property, or where a cable has been damaged, a significant area of the country would need to be switched off!
Please ensure a measured response, do not allow uncontrolled live working, but you’ll close the business down in a week if you stop it all together as it would make fault finding on production equipment impossible to undertake.
Involve and engage your electricians, electrical technicians and electrical engineers their input and experience on the equipment will be invaluable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
OMG, I'm agreeing with Paul :-), but he and Guru do have it right don't they? EAW DOES permit live working as Guru has pointed out, and as Paul has said, it would be difficult (impossible)to do some work and fault finding without having power applied. I don't unfortunately have a copy of a PTW for those circumstances though, sorry.
I love the spell checker!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
As an aside, I recall an old RAF poster where the electrician, standing on a rubber mat, was showed with one hand in his pocket while working on 'live' kit, I assume so that he couldn't be 'zapped'.
One of those few occasions when you could have your hands in your pockets and not get a severe tweak from the Station Warrant Officer!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
A subject we have had a great deal of experience with over the last 12 years. Much of what has been said is correct i.e. avoidance etc.
If you are considering live working I believe there are additional questions that need asking - why is there a need to work live?
Who will carry out the work - (Suitable precations are taken to prevent injury) this includes training in live working procedures, unusual unless working in the electricity supply industry.
The tools should be insulated and tested, when was this last carried out? I suggest these will not be the insulated tools lying at the bottom of the electricians tool box!
Earthed metal work how will it be shrouded? Pardon, yes all earthed metalwork adjacent to the circuits /equipment to be worked upon has to be shrouded with a suitable insulating material. (Suitable precations are taken to prevent injury)
The hazard is not only electric shock but also flashover/explosion due to a short circuit, no rubber mats or gloves protect from this hazard.
Following an intervention from HSE 12 years ago we developed systems of work which prohibited live working however we did accept the need for testing, both functional and diagnostic testing which in some tests required the supply to be energised. This was not live working but testing a play on words you may say.
The resulting procedures have stood the test of time since and indeed many have used the procedures to justify a non live working policy with their managers/clients.
A strong point I have always made when the question has arisen is, what if the electrician makes a mistake and the supply trips, nobody is injured but you have still lost the essential supply that everybody said could not be isolated for what ever reason. In the majority of cases with good planning and preparation the the isolation period (down time) can be minimised.
One challenging point that was made to me by a very experienced Principal Electrical Inspector at HSE (now deceased) was, if the supply to the machine/system/etc is so important that it cannot be isolated for safe working, why was it not designed and installed with a secondary supply that could be switched in whilst the circuit is worked upon? He suggested before I answered, that the installation cost of the system prohibiting the duplication ,would not be an acceptable reason.
In summary you may justify testing and fault finding but I beleive that live working will be difficult to justify. Finally I would only expect permits to be issued where the system has been isolated and earthed, i.e. when safety from the system has been achieved.
Hope this is helpful
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
carrwood,
All good stuff, and as you say you have had significant experience in this area.
However, how much flash over would you expect from a transformer isolated rectified 24V d.c. control supply when fault finding on a machine tool control circuit?
This is still live working.
However, as I said, the order of magnitude of potential energy discharge is immeasurably different to that experienced on distribution circuits in the fixed wiring installation covered by BS7671.
We are also back to the play on words as to what constitutes live working.
I would NEVER advocate installations or modifications to live circuits regardless of the operating voltage.
However, there are some that advocate that no working of any description including testing and fault finding in on energised conductors can be undertaken regardless of the voltage levels and the potential energy discharge.
This is the standpoint I take issue with.
(Not yours it appears?)
p.s. also think the spill chucker is kwl!
Sorry could not resist that! ;-)
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.