Event Recap
RECAP | ROUNDTABLE | Kicking the Live Load Habit
19 Dec 2019
Performing work on energized systems proved a hot topic during a December 18, 2019, Inside Track roundtable called Kicking the Live Load Habit. Despite Uptime Institute's advice to the contrary and NFPA 70E restrictions limiting work on energized equipment, some operators still perform work on energized equipment.
Some roundtable participants noted that the practice was a necessity before the advent of dual-corded servers, and others, including Uptime Institute CTO Chris Brown, suggested that eliminating hot work could be an emotional subject in some organizations.
Chris Brown noted that modern Tier III and Tier IV designs eliminate the need for hot work in almost all circumstances, with the possible exception of non-intrusive monitoring and metering and IR testing when there is no viewport. One participant, from a large retailer, added that OSHA did not recognize business continuity as a valid exception to isolating equipment from electrical voltage sources. Brown said that a UPS that supports surgery or life safety systems could be an example of a valid exception to hot work limitations described by NFPA 70E since it puts those not associated with the work at increased risk.
All session participants, except one, said they had moved to eliminate hot work in its facilities, and none wanted to revert to the practice. They agreed that hot work posed an unacceptable risk to life safety and operations, and all, except one, was moving to at least meet the requirements of NFPA 70E. The key, they said, was transforming the culture around safety, so that operations and contractors sought to avoid hot work. Some roundtable participants added that they had contractors who would decline hot work assignments.
The lone holdout in the session also did not support hot work. Representatives from this company, a health-care provider, asked how roundtable participants had eliminated hot work. Senior management at the health care provider has authorized ongoing maintenance on energized equipment because preliminary efforts to eliminate the practice had disrupted operations, frequently because of failed power supplies.
During this discussion, roundtable participants were quick to offer helpful suggestions. The large retailer and two colocation providers noted that organizations pivoting to safe work practices would experience some pain, as power supplies fail or cording errors are identified. They described shifting away from hot work as work-intensive, multi-year effort best approached in phases.
While noting that every organization is different, Chris Brown and other roundtable participants suggested that contractors and vendors increasingly do not support live load work, with some contractors requiring high-level approvals before proceeding and others declining hot work assignments entirely. The hot work permit signoffs do not release an organization from liability and may have consequences for individuals who sign the releases. This threat may cause executives to rethink approving hot work.
Some roundtable participants noted that the practice was a necessity before the advent of dual-corded servers, and others, including Uptime Institute CTO Chris Brown, suggested that eliminating hot work could be an emotional subject in some organizations.
Chris Brown noted that modern Tier III and Tier IV designs eliminate the need for hot work in almost all circumstances, with the possible exception of non-intrusive monitoring and metering and IR testing when there is no viewport. One participant, from a large retailer, added that OSHA did not recognize business continuity as a valid exception to isolating equipment from electrical voltage sources. Brown said that a UPS that supports surgery or life safety systems could be an example of a valid exception to hot work limitations described by NFPA 70E since it puts those not associated with the work at increased risk.
All session participants, except one, said they had moved to eliminate hot work in its facilities, and none wanted to revert to the practice. They agreed that hot work posed an unacceptable risk to life safety and operations, and all, except one, was moving to at least meet the requirements of NFPA 70E. The key, they said, was transforming the culture around safety, so that operations and contractors sought to avoid hot work. Some roundtable participants added that they had contractors who would decline hot work assignments.
The lone holdout in the session also did not support hot work. Representatives from this company, a health-care provider, asked how roundtable participants had eliminated hot work. Senior management at the health care provider has authorized ongoing maintenance on energized equipment because preliminary efforts to eliminate the practice had disrupted operations, frequently because of failed power supplies.
During this discussion, roundtable participants were quick to offer helpful suggestions. The large retailer and two colocation providers noted that organizations pivoting to safe work practices would experience some pain, as power supplies fail or cording errors are identified. They described shifting away from hot work as work-intensive, multi-year effort best approached in phases.
While noting that every organization is different, Chris Brown and other roundtable participants suggested that contractors and vendors increasingly do not support live load work, with some contractors requiring high-level approvals before proceeding and others declining hot work assignments entirely. The hot work permit signoffs do not release an organization from liability and may have consequences for individuals who sign the releases. This threat may cause executives to rethink approving hot work.
Request an evaluation to view this report
Apply for a four-week evaluation of Uptime Intelligence; the leading source of research, insight and data-driven analysis focused on digital infrastructure.
Already have access? Log in here
Posting comments is not available for Network Guests