Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 36

Thread: Live work waiver

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Southern Ca, USA
    Posts
    388
    Quote Originally Posted by jtinge View Post
    Based on the OP's original post, my question is has anyone there had electrical safety training? By definition a qualified worker has had electrical safety training and should have been able to answer the original question.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Apologies for the double reply. To be honest I can't remember everything that was in the training. And we haven't had to bother with any paperwork or
    official policies on this till now. But thanks for your helpful criticism. Which really wasn't helpful at all.

    To the rest of you folks, thanks for the help and suggestions.

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Rutland, VT, USA
    Posts
    278
    Quote Originally Posted by Aleman View Post
    Our panels are up to code per NEC 409 arc flashed rated etc. It's just that we really can't shut stuff off without it getting very expensive.
    And the powers that be want some type of safety measures in place and accountability etc.

    Once again thanks guys for the help.
    Could you explain what is meant by the NEC 409 arc flash rated comment? As far as I know there is no reference to arc flash in NEC 409 only about short circuit ratings but I am willing to be educated on that.

    Thanks

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    San Francisco, CA, USA
    Posts
    6,967
    Every employer is going to have to address the Live Work Permit on their own, in consultation with their insurance underwriter and their lawyers. The way OSHA works is that if someone gets hurt, they swoop in and want to see what happened. If someone was doing something incorrectly, i.e. not the proper procedure and/or protections, they will want to see who approved it on the Live Work Permit. The people listed on that permit are not only legally responsible for ensuring that all proper training was up to date and all procedures followed, including up to date testing of PPE, etc., they are CRIMINALLY responsible if it didn't take place. So because of that, many lower level managers and supervisors are reluctant to be the final signer of that document and move it up the ladder.

    I did some work out at a Lockheed Martin facility a few years ago, the Live Work Permit process was 28 pages long, requiring signatures of people 6 levels up the corporate ladder and if any of them were out of town, you were screwed if you could not power down. So basically, it didn't happen unless the situation was DIRE.
    __________________________________________________ ____________________________
    Many people are shocked when they discover I am not a good electrician...

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Southern Ca, USA
    Posts
    388
    Quote Originally Posted by wbdvt View Post
    Could you explain what is meant by the NEC 409 arc flash rated comment? As far as I know there is no reference to arc flash in NEC 409 only about short circuit ratings but I am willing to be educated on that.

    Thanks
    The Arc flash rating is an NFPA70E requirement that establishes the actual flash hazard level of your panel. I'm certainly no expert on this, but some of the guys here really know this stuff. I don't believe the NEC 409 covers the hazard level other than the SCCR rating as you point out. What confuses me are all the standards, NEC, NFPA70E, OSHA, UL508A and which of them are actually required or apply at my location. So my comment was related to the fact that our panels comply with NEC409 and are Arc Flash rated per NFPA70E. And now the company wants some kind of regulation pertaining to live work which isn't a bad thing at all. I just don't want it to be overbearing. See Jraefs post for a real horror story. I wouldn't want to be an electrician at that plant.

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Rutland, VT, USA
    Posts
    278
    Quote Originally Posted by Aleman View Post
    The Arc flash rating is an NFPA70E requirement that establishes the actual flash hazard level of your panel. I'm certainly no expert on this, but some of the guys here really know this stuff. I don't believe the NEC 409 covers the hazard level other than the SCCR rating as you point out. What confuses me are all the standards, NEC, NFPA70E, OSHA, UL508A and which of them are actually required or apply at my location. So my comment was related to the fact that our panels comply with NEC409 and are Arc Flash rated per NFPA70E. And now the company wants some kind of regulation pertaining to live work which isn't a bad thing at all. I just don't want it to be overbearing. See Jraefs post for a real horror story. I wouldn't want to be an electrician at that plant.
    It may be a matter of semantics but there is no such thing as arc flash rated per NFPA 70E. NFPA 70E is focused on electric safety in the workplace not on equipment ratings/qualifications. It does require that an arc flash risk assessment shall be performed for a piece of equipment prior to any work being done on that equipment but there is nothing on equipment being arc flash rated. The only reference is to arc resistant switchgear in Article 130.7(C)(15) in the tables to determine Arc Hazard PPE Categories.

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Charlotte, NC
    Posts
    6,695
    Quote Originally Posted by Aleman View Post
    It's just that we really can't shut stuff off without it getting very expensive.
    And the powers that be want some type of safety measures in place and accountability etc.
    Money is not a factor here, OSHA has fined companies many times for violations involving energized work that was done energized due to a cost factor of shutting down, it's not a valid reason.

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    NE Nebraska
    Posts
    33,527
    Quote Originally Posted by Aleman View Post
    The Arc flash rating is an NFPA70E requirement that establishes the actual flash hazard level of your panel. I'm certainly no expert on this, but some of the guys here really know this stuff. I don't believe the NEC 409 covers the hazard level other than the SCCR rating as you point out. What confuses me are all the standards, NEC, NFPA70E, OSHA, UL508A and which of them are actually required or apply at my location. So my comment was related to the fact that our panels comply with NEC409 and are Arc Flash rated per NFPA70E. And now the company wants some kind of regulation pertaining to live work which isn't a bad thing at all. I just don't want it to be overbearing. See Jraefs post for a real horror story. I wouldn't want to be an electrician at that plant.
    Quote Originally Posted by wbdvt View Post
    It may be a matter of semantics but there is no such thing as arc flash rated per NFPA 70E. NFPA 70E is focused on electric safety in the workplace not on equipment ratings/qualifications. It does require that an arc flash risk assessment shall be performed for a piece of equipment prior to any work being done on that equipment but there is nothing on equipment being arc flash rated. The only reference is to arc resistant switchgear in Article 130.7(C)(15) in the tables to determine Arc Hazard PPE Categories.
    Might be using wrong terminology, but I think he basically means their equipment is field labeled with the incident energy levels and any other required warnings.

  8. #28
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Westminster, MD
    Posts
    584
    Quote Originally Posted by Aleman View Post
    Has anyone ever heard of a waiver or form that can be signed by an employee to permit live work for the purpose of troubleshooting, and that is
    compliant per existing OSHA NFPA NEC codes? We typically will go into live panels to troubleshoot with proper PPE. But the question of compliance
    has come up. Hence the proposal for a waiver or form of some sort. I am vague on all the technicalities of OSHA and thought I'd ask here where a
    lot of you people know this stuff very well.
    This thread seems to have missed the original question and has gone down the path of the Energized Electrical Work Permit (EEWP) which is an extremely difficult document to work with. Your question specifically addresses troubleshooting, which is exempt from the EEWP process as shown in the 70E excerpt shown below:
    130.2(B)(3) Exemptions to Work Permit. An energized electrical work permit shall not be required if a qualified person is provided with and uses appropriate safe work practices and PPE in accordance with Chapter 1 under any of the following conditions:
    (1) Testing, troubleshooting, and voltage measuring
    (2) Thermography and visual inspections if the restricted approach boundary is not crossed
    (3) Access to and egress from an area with energized electrical equipment if no electrical work is performed and the restricted approach boundary is not crossed
    (4) General housekeeping and miscellaneous non-electrical tasks if the restricted approach boundary is not crossed

    So it is acceptable for you to troubleshoot live circuits without an EEWP provided the PPE requirements for the application are satisfied.
    Last edited by mayanees; 07-25-17 at 11:06 AM.

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Southern Ca, USA
    Posts
    388
    Quote Originally Posted by mayanees View Post
    This thread seems to have missed the original question and has gone down the path of the Energized Electrical Work Permit (EEWP) which is an extremely difficult document to work with. Your question specifically addresses troubleshooting, which is exempt from the EEWP process as shown in the 70E excerpt shown below:
    130.2(B)(3) Exemptions to Work Permit. An energized electrical work permit shall not be required if a qualified person is provided with and uses appropriate safe work practices and PPE in accordance with Chapter 1 under any of the following conditions:
    (1) Testing, troubleshooting, and voltage measuring
    (2) Thermography and visual inspections if the restricted approach boundary is not crossed
    (3) Access to and egress from an area with energized electrical equipment if no electrical work is performed and the restricted approach boundary is not crossed
    (4) General housekeeping and miscellaneous non-electrical tasks if the restricted approach boundary is not crossed

    So it is acceptable for you to troubleshoot live circuits without an EEWP provided the PPE requirements for the application are satisfied.
    There it is, and thank you mayanees. Yes that is what I'm looking for. The intent is for troubleshooting. We do not actually work on anything hot. Other than meters etc,
    the only time I have a tool contact anything hot would be a breaker swap in a panel. Makes me wonder if a fuse replacement is considered to be hot work.

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Southern Ca, USA
    Posts
    388
    Quote Originally Posted by wbdvt View Post
    It may be a matter of semantics but there is no such thing as arc flash rated per NFPA 70E. NFPA 70E is focused on electric safety in the workplace not on equipment ratings/qualifications. It does require that an arc flash risk assessment shall be performed for a piece of equipment prior to any work being done on that equipment but there is nothing on equipment being arc flash rated. The only reference is to arc resistant switchgear in Article 130.7(C)(15) in the tables to determine Arc Hazard PPE Categories.
    Told you guys I was no expert.
    I have been under the impression panels need to be rated these days. But there are different agencies and sets of rules involved and differences depending on
    where you are at or who you ask. Seems overly complicated.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •