OSHA now includes NFPA 70E

Status
Not open for further replies.

tom baker

First Chief Moderator
Staff member
NFPA 70 E 2000 edition has now been added to the body of the OSHA CFR 1910 Subpart S. It became final rule on February 13, 2007 and is effective August 13, 2007. Below is the docket where you can find the ruling.

Federal Registers
Electrical Standard; Final Rule - 72:7135-7221
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
29 CFR Part 1910
[Docket No. S-108C]
RIN 1218-AB95
Electrical Standard
AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Labor.
 

jim dungar

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Wisconsin
Occupation
PE (Retired) - Power Systems
This gives more even weight to OSHA using the "current" 70E version when they apply their "General Duty Clause".

There was lots of discussion about modifying 29 CFR Part 1910 to "automatically" use the most current version of NFPA 70E but they felt it would need to go back throught the entire publication process, so they issued it with the 2000 reference.
 

yanici

Senior Member
Location
Atlantis
Occupation
Old Retired Master/Journeyman Electrician
Thanks for the heads-up. We all knew it was going to get serious.
 

realolman

Senior Member
I disagree with it.


I think it is demeaning to workers, impractical, and beyond the scope that the NFPA should be involved.
 

iwire

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Massachusetts
realolman said:
I think it is demeaning to workers,

On the other side of the coin I think it is demeaning to workers to expect them to risk their life for the sake of a few dollars saved.
 

realolman

Senior Member
From my perspective it has nothing to do with the dollars saved. I don't want to have to maintain and wear a cumbersome outfit(s) that is inappropriate for the ambient temperature, in anticipation of an event, however horrible, that is likely to never happen.

Considering the number of times electrical enclosures are opened and closed without incident, I imagine the odds of being injured by arc flash are less than the odds of winning the lottery. I think it is demeaning to have to wear ridiculously inappropriate clothing in anticipation of an event that occurs so infrequently, and over which, in fact, an individual worker does have a great amount of control.

We've been here before. I expect I am not alone in my thinking. I also expect I will not receive much expressed support on this site, but I feel compelled to not let it pass without voicing my opinion. I also expected I would hear from you.
 

Dennis Alwon

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Chapel Hill, NC
Occupation
Retired Electrical Contractor
realolman said:
Considering the number of times electrical enclosures are opened and closed without incident, I imagine the odds of being injured by arc flash are less than the odds of winning the lottery.

I am not saying I disagree with you but I will say my dad could have won that lottery. He died after 45 days in intensive care at the burn center. It was a horrific death and one that is still difficult to talk about after 20+ years.
I am only saying be careful-- it may be worth it to someone and at least give them the option.
 

lowryder88h

Senior Member
Location
Massachusetts
Nfpa 70e

Nfpa 70e

Have fun fella's, I took the 4 hour certification class for NFPA 70E yesterday in Boston. I feel that tha EC are better off purchasing the proper PPE than risk the law suits that are going to be arising in the near future.
 
realolman said:
I don't want to have to maintain and wear a cumbersome outfit(s) that is inappropriate for the ambient temperature, in anticipation of an event, however horrible, that is likely to never happen. QUOTE]


After completing an arc flash hazard analysis in this facility, the required PPE changed little from what I wear everyday. For better than 90% of the tasks I have to do regularly, I only had to add gloves and a faceshield.
Using the tables in 70E instead of doing the hazard analysis does not add much to the PPE levels either.

Having witnessed many minor incidents and one very serious one (the worker died, he was burned to death) I refuse to take the chance. I will not let my guys take the chance either, any of them not wearing the required PPE while working, will no longer be electricians in this facility. I will not fire them, but they will not be in the electrical department anymore.

Now I agree, having to wear very hot switching suit is very uncomfortable, but it is a whole lot cooler than having your skin burned off from an arc flash.
 

H.L.

Member
realolman said:
Considering the number of times electrical enclosures are opened and closed without incident, I imagine the odds of being injured by arc flash are less than the odds of winning the lottery. I think it is demeaning to have to wear ridiculously inappropriate clothing in anticipation of an event that occurs so infrequently, and over which, in fact, an individual worker does have a great amount of control.
.

I have been at the same location for 13 years. In that time there have been two incidents that put four workers in the hospital. That seems like those odda are better than winning the lottery.

Also, the real point of NFPA 70E is to not work hot!

H.L.
 

George Stolz

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Windsor, CO NEC: 2017
Occupation
Service Manager
realolman said:
We've been here before. I expect I am not alone in my thinking. I also expect I will not receive much expressed support on this site, but I feel compelled to not let it pass without voicing my opinion. I also expected I would hear from you.
I honestly do appreciate your honesty, and for keeping it real.

However, I must agree with the posters above who do not want to take the risk. Working hot is generally optional, and the sad truth is that many do it anyway without fully realizing the very permanent consequences of their decisions.
 
H.L. said:
Also, the real point of NFPA 70E is to not work hot!
H.L.

This is a very true statement, however from what I have seen, most workers fail to understand that they must still wear the correct PPE while deenergizing, verifying no energy, and applying safety grounds.

We must force the owners to change their mind set, working hot should never be an option, period. It is just not worth the risk to the workers or to the owners bank account.
 

iwire

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Massachusetts
realolman said:
We've been here before. I expect I am not alone in my thinking. I also expect I will not receive much expressed support on this site, but I feel compelled to not let it pass without voicing my opinion. I also expected I would hear from you.

It may surprise you but I do welcome you to express your view here.

It also may surprise you to know that I have in the past worked hot many times, I was always the 'go to guy' for tough work.

Now I may not be a real old man but I am a middle aged guy with 6 and 8 year old kids that love me and count on me to come home.

No company.....no job......no reason..... is worth my not coming home to those girls. Not my being hot, not my being uncomfortable.

I know I am not going to change your view, I don't expect to. You are the person it can't happen to..I know that because you told me so. I know you feel the only time it happens is when people are not qualified. If the company puts unqualified people in harms way I guess thats just to bad for the unqualified when they have to peel them off the floor.

Regardless of how any of us feel the times are changing, we have to change with it or we may be looking for new jobs.
 

realolman

Senior Member
iwire said:
I know I am not going to change your view, I don't expect to. You are the person it can't happen to..I know that because you told me so. I know you feel the only time it happens is when people are not qualified. .

It seems to me that in order to discredit my opinion, you want to make me look foolish. I can do that very well on my own, thank you.:wink:

I do not believe that these accidents could never happen to me, or that they only happen to the unqualified.

I am saying that I think the odds are extremely good that nothing will happen opening an energized enclosure. Surely, the number of enclosures opened in any given day without incident would support that notion.

I do believe that the skill of the worker has very much to do with it. How could anyone not believe that? Otherwise, what would be the point of qualified / unqualified, in this, or any other, subject.

I have in the past hooked up jumpers around switches in 200- 400a 480v feeders hot. Let me go on record as saying that that kind of stuff is just nuts. I would never do anything remotely resembling that again. As far as that sort of thing goes, I am at the head of the NFPA70E line.

At my job, we have so many interconnected and computer controlled systems, I have no idea how you would troubleshoot them de-energized. You'd spend the whole day waiting for the computers to shut down and reboot. It simply ain't happening, and it is unreasonable to suggest that it could.

I don't know how other people's places work, but tuning, modifying and troubleshooting this stuff is an integral and constant part of the process. Does anyone really think it practical to go to the plant engineer 10-20 times a day for a hot work permit? Would we get a standing permit for all the interconnected machines?... Or just shut down large sections of the plant?

More likely, since it is the simplest solution, and doesn't affect anyone in the food chain but me, I'll be spending all day, where it's already too hot, in some unreasonable outfit, that never serves it's purpose. ( I hope ) How about some OSHA or NFPA air conditioning requirement? Something that actually would be appreciated by poor dumb saps like me out there.

Having worked for EC's in plants, and having worked as an employee in a plant, I can tell you it is two different things entirely. Keeping all this stuff going is a whole 'nother ballgame, and I rather take pride in it. It's kind of a perverted art form.

As the one who has to wear the stuff, and the one who has more knowedge of my job than anyone else on the planet, I think I deserve better consideration of my position, and more say in the matter. I don't like being mandated to, and will take every opportunity to say so.


(Elvis has left the building)
 

jim dungar

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Wisconsin
Occupation
PE (Retired) - Power Systems
Realolman,

Have you had calculations performed to determine the arc flash incident energy at the locations you usually work on?

In fact in one facilty, I studied, with over 700 "control" cabinets not one required any PPE beyond the daily wear of the staff.
 

realolman

Senior Member
No studies done.

Stickers were purchased and placed on every electrical enclosure imaginable.

I am sure things could be designed to be a lower risk, but the most recent things we bought have a PLC in the same cabinet as the 480v power.

I would not normally wear gloves, face shield, and long sleeved shirts or jackets when it's 80 + degrees.
 
If nothing else 70E has brought an awareness to the problems of working hot.

For years turning off/locking out was not an alternative, now it is my right.

Do we work hot, of course we do. Our troubleshooting takes us there,
however our rule states no working. Have a meter in your hand it is possible
(if not in the path of any equipment) to keep the circuit energized.
Take out a screwdriver you must lock it out.

Flash when opening a door, no it probably won't happen.
Flash, when your screwdriver slips, a very real scenario.
Most of us make mistakes on occasion and the idea of this workplace rule is
to keep us alive and injury free if we do.

You must take into consideration what your family will do without you,
if you decide to ignore simple precautions set up to save you from harm.

It took many years of sacrifices by many people to get these practices put in place.
Choose to ignore them, that is on you, your family and your companys shoulders.
 
realolman said:
No studies done.

Stickers were purchased and placed on every electrical enclosure imaginable.

I am sure things could be designed to be a lower risk, but the most recent things we bought have a PLC in the same cabinet as the 480v power.

I would not normally wear gloves, face shield, and long sleeved shirts or jackets when it's 80 + degrees.


How could stickers be placed on "every enclosure imaginable" if no study was done?
What data were the stickers based on?

Doesn't your PLCs have a seperate lockout from the main power?
Our PLCs are also in the same panels, but we can lockout the 480 when "working" on it,
leaving the PLC processor power on or we can choose to turn all power off.
 

jim dungar

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Wisconsin
Occupation
PE (Retired) - Power Systems
tomP said:
How could stickers be placed on "every enclosure imaginable" if no study was done?
What data were the stickers based on?

The only sticker required by any NFPA standard is one that advises or alerts that a hazard exists. There is no code for specific label content.

Even without a study, it is perfectly possible to apply generic labels without referencing specific arc flash PPE. It is also allowable to have had a study performed and still only apply generic labels.

Most facilities I have dealt with, put way to much emphasis on "installing labels" while ignoring the major purpose of NFPA 70E requiring an Electrical Safe Work Practices program.
 

realolman

Senior Member
jim dungar said:
Most facilities I have dealt with, put way to much emphasis on "installing labels" while ignoring the major purpose of NFPA 70E requiring an Electrical Safe Work Practices program.

That would be the "Dog and Pony Show" that is "playing everywhere" in corporate America.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top