that any installation that meets the NEC is going to surpass OSHA standards? I would. The problem that I have, is, will OSHA inspectors interpret their own rules "in light of" the NEC. 1910 states that it is based on the NEC. The reason for my question has to do with the fact that I don't have any experience with OSHA, and the new safety director that we have is trying to get the company in compliance. We have to meet 1926 as well, but for the time being I'm trying to get our offices, maintenance areas, etc. up to speed as relates to 1910. Performance based "reg's" can leave a broad range of interpretation. You know how it can be when "nonelectrical people" try to tell us e"lectrical people" how to do our job. We tend to get alittle..........hmmm....defensive...........protective......objective......rejective...... then offensive....then the authorities are called....the homocide division...funeral homes....next of kid...lawyers, etc, etc, etc. Just ask George Corron, he'll tell you I got my M.D. from Witch Doctor University. They still teach blood letting there. So, you know.....I don't mind taking a life or two.....if that's what it takes. Notice that all this rhetoric was generated from OSHA.
Yo Doc, sup? Since I went to Dulles, and then to da Pentagon, I've had to deal with lotsa OSHA and safety officers, it is part of my job to enforce safety rules as well.
Almost 100% if you're called by OSHA, they will want YOUR opinion based on NEC, and they will respect it as an official interpretation (as long as you're not blowing it completely out your.....ear )
Yeah, read 1910 or 1926 and you'll find it is almost word for word out of the NEC with a bit of safety included. The NEC doesn't say you can't work with bad cords directly, OSHA does.
I'm off on Friday, so again, books are at work, but if I recall, subpart S 1910 is mostly for high voltage, subpart K 1926 is mostly for low voltage, so be careful about crossing the two. I think if you check 1910 they require tech toes for high voltage and do not allow steel, but I'd have to dig that one out to be certain.
Don't forget, ya gots my vote as 'Top Doc' anytime, shoot, wouldn't be walkin' without ya.
Re: Just read OSHA 1910 subpart S, would you say#10856 06/22/0205:43 AM06/22/0205:43 AM
Sparky, I hate to give you the answer. It's a Harvard business school textbook answer, and NO ONE bemoans that style of business which has permeated the industry more than me.
1) The employee is given a handbook. In the handbook are lists of safety rules, or in lieu of the handbook, there is a company safety manual. They sign that they received and understood, if that takes several hours of training, so be it.
2) the jobs I'm on are truly large projects, and each general has a minimum 1/2 hour safety meeting weekly where new rules, violations, and expectations are discussed. Sometimes twice a week.
3) EACH new sub, or shift in work, starts with an AHA ( Activity Hazard Analysis)where the contractor sends a rep to explain what hazards are involved, and what they've done to abate them, such as PPE (personal protective equipment) or machinery.
There are "stop" programs employed, where supervisors, QA/QC inspectors, Safety inspectors have cards, walk up to the employee and tell them "stop" and issue the card with time/date/type of violation, and WHO. 3 minor violations ya don't work here no more, there are time constraints on these, so at some point they are cleared off your record.
Of course, PPE and the meetings are on the contractor - completely. Yup, that includes steel toed shoes. Incentive.....you get to keep your job, and contractor is allowed to work here, coz guess what....a contractor gets enough violations, HE don't work here either, or starts paying lots in fines, and we will provide safety training for you and yours.....and we're very expensive.
Hope this helps, like I said NOBODY bemoans this worse than me. Does all this....crap help?
Theres 3 kinds of lies. 1)lies 2) damned lies and 3) statistics. I can't tell you (really I can't) how many fatalities I've been in the middle of, or the fringes of in the last few years. Ya can't prove this junk works any better to me.
It all comes down (to me) 1) Is the foreman (super) knowledgeable on safety matters?
2) Does he care about his men?
3) Does the company back up his decisions?
I do think every company of any size at all should have someone keeping an eye on all the foreman to insure that they aren't doing stupid things from a safety standpoint. It's the right thing to do, and from an economic standpoint it saves a lot of money in insurance fees, but to arbitrarily require PPE just because, gets a bit prohibitive.
OK, that's my rant for the day, hope that even comes close to answering your question.
Re: Just read OSHA 1910 subpart S, would you say#10858 06/22/0202:02 PM06/22/0202:02 PM
hope that even comes close to answering your question.
George, actually, i commend you on your brutal honesty here. This is reminicent of the confusion over protocalls and bueracracy confronted by an EMS mentor of mine years ago. ( A Korean Corpsman) His answer was "what works works..."
By the same token, the end result should justify the means, (not the other way around), for us, the guy's with the tool belts, etc.etc....i've asked around quite a lot about this.....
Everyone in the trade holds Safety as a priority, yet i find oration vs. implimentation conflicting and have issues with the 'system' biased by liability, confronting credibility, and worse.... promoting profitability...
[rant] right back at ya... [/rant]
[This message has been edited by sparky (edited 06-22-2002).]
Re: Just read OSHA 1910 subpart S, would you say#10859 06/22/0202:46 PM06/22/0202:46 PM
I'm all for doing things as safely as possible; I want to stay alive and healthy as much as anyone.
That said, I do feel that the approach to safety in today's world seems to be to just keeping throwing extra layers of bureaucracy, safety "executives," inspection reports, etc. into the works. There is also what I consider the unfortunate change of attitude (as in so much of society nowadays) to pass the buck to somebody else instead of taking responsibility for one's own actions.
It's never a person's own fault that he did something stupid -- It must be someone else for not taking into account every daft thing that he might do.
We need a certain level of safety backed up by reasonable regulation, but I often feel that the balance has been tipped too far these days.
Re: Just read OSHA 1910 subpart S, would you say#10861 06/22/0207:18 PM06/22/0207:18 PM
Dang George....sounds like you've been down "the road" and back a few times. If you notice the last (2) posts that I have made have been about safety. Why? You may ask. Because it is a hot issue within my company right now. Well, a few days ago I decided to lend a hand with bringing our Houston up to speed "electrically". I don't know enough about 1910 to do much more than that. George, as I'm sure you know, and the many others on this forum, that 1910 covers much more than electrical safety. I fired off an e-mail to the new safety officer. Well, as a result of that e-mail, I am headed to San Antonio Monday morning to discuss issues with our San Antonio office, and other offices. As the master electrician of the Houston office, I feel responsible for more than just what happens out on the job site, but what happens in the office as well. It looks like I walked myself right into a bunch of work. If I could figure out a way to make money without working, I would bottle it up and sell it. We do have a safety program in force (I don't know much about it because I'm new at this company), but I get the feeling that there will be major changes. I do feel that my first order of business is to get the "material state" of the office in compliance. Then, changing procedures, maintenance, etc. will be an on going process. If, and I hate to say this, but we live in the real world here, I can help it, I will try to prevent the "cat from watching the fish bowl". Because, as we all know, when productivity suffers, safety tends to fly out the window. There has to be a balance somewhere, and it starts with individual knowledge. Thanks for the responses. Your all gentlemen, and George, I don't care what they say about you. You're alright.
Safety on First, but I hope I don't get caught stealing Second, Doc
The Watt Doctor Altura Cogen Channelview, TX
Re: Just read OSHA 1910 subpart S, would you say#10863 06/22/0210:33 PM06/22/0210:33 PM
Me, I like safety gear... maybe I'm weird, but when I worked industrial and spent most of my time 40 to 50 feet in the air crawling over greasy pipes to get to where I needed to go, I was very glad to have my two lanyards and safety harness. The other guys didn't like to wear them. My glasses are perscription safety glasses, and I wear steel toes for everything but trim outs. Then I wear clean bedroom slippers inside, and steel toes out, changing throughout the day. I have two hard hats in the truck, one in case there's someone working above me, and the second, for anyone who ain't got one in the same situation.
Once, I was working on a service for a house, and the roofers were laying the decking for the roof over my head. After seeing dozens of nails, clips, etc bounce around me, I decided to get my hardhat. Laughter and comments from the peanut gallery above me ensued. Not but a few minutes later, a Paslode nailgun landed beside me and the familiar sound of the pump cycling told me it had went off. I slowly got up... Cursed for about a minute without repeating myself, then exclaimed that I needed an entire suit of armor around you blankety blank blanks!
As far as hot (1000V) tools and PPE, I'm very lacking it that department. I've got a few screwdrivers and that's about it. Slowly but surely, my inventory will grow...
-Virgil Residential/Commercial Inspector 5 Star Inspections Member IAEI