首页> 外文期刊>Industry Applications, IEEE Transactions on >A Misunderstanding We Should Eliminate
【24h】

A Misunderstanding We Should Eliminate

机译:我们应该消除的误解

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
       

摘要

For the first time, the 2015 revision to National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 70E made reference to a more than 50-year-old safety management methodology, with the reference to the hierarchy of risk controls in Section 110.1(G). This paper discusses the difference between the risk control measure “elimination” as defined in occupational health and safety management systems standards such as ANSI Z10, and the “electrically safe work condition” as defined in NFPA 70E. Establishing an electrically safe work condition is more accurately described as a series of administrative controls, including planning, drawings and documentation, lockout tag out, safe work practices, and personal protective equipment. Each of these administrative controls has some degree of residual risk. An electrically safe work condition is not permanent, and has both time and physical boundaries that must be adhered to in order to avoid exposure to dangerous energy. Elimination, as defined in occupational health and safety management systems standards, is absolute, permanent, and with no residual risks for the life of the installation. Case histories are included to illustrate the power of elimination and the residual risks characteristic of administrative controls.
机译:美国国家消防协会(NFPA)70E的2015年修订版首次引用了已有50多年历史的安全管理方法论,并参考了110.1(G)节中的风险控制层次结构。本文讨论了职业健康和安全管理系统标准(例如ANSI Z10)中定义的风险控制措施“消除”与NFPA 70E中定义的“电气安全工作条件”之间的区别。建立电气安全工作条件的过程更准确地描述为一系列行政控制措施,包括计划,图纸和文档,锁定标签,安全工作规范以及个人防护设备。这些管理控制中的每一个都有一定程度的残留风险。电气安全的工作条件不是永久性的,必须同时遵守时间和物理界限,以避免暴露于危险的能量。根据职业健康和安全管理系统标准的定义,消除是绝对的,永久的,并且在设备寿命期内没有残留风险。包括案例历史,以说明消除的力量和行政控制的剩余风险特征。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号