Re: OT: Safety Procedures for Repair Maintenance & Construction Work

From: <Christopher>
Date: Mon Sep 13 2004 - 11:49:00 EDT

On Sep 13, 2004, at 5:02 AM, Steve McKenzie wrote:

> In addition there appears to be some confusion over what is a real
> safety procedure, and what is an accountability transfer procedure.
If it's anything like any of the other industry sectors (typically the nuclear business) I've worked with, I think you're stuck. My experience is that CYA procedural requirements don't coordinate--when people write them they're concerned with covering their own ass, not coordinating with all the remaining asses that might want covering. I think the governing principle is not to have something particularly effective, but to justify bayoneting the wounded when the battle is over.

Safety specifications are funny things. They're usually not prescriptive, at least to the degree the ASME Codes are. The intent is to achieve a result, and often the result is very soft. Doesn't leave much to put into a decision tree.

Christopher Wright P.E. |"They couldn't hit an elephant at <a href="/group/PipingDesign/post?postID=DjvX0Nvx-ZdKGZPWQv6CSra7Z2KuwQ-CE0ONsxVnGuM-dsenEX6dKV-89RJiLKYWuZpzT_qcCBZb">chrisw@skypoint.com</a> | this distance" (last words of Gen.

...................................| John Sedgwick, Spotsylvania 1864)

<a href="http://www.skypoint.com/~chrisw">http://www.skypoint.com/~chrisw</a> Received on Mon Sep 13 11:49:00 2004