Is it illegal to perform hot work?

[vavelar]

According to OSHA Construction Standard (1926.416), one is not able to perform work on energized equipment. Therefore, is it considered illegal to work on energized equipment?

 

[Sierrasparky]

Well I know that OSHA does not apply to a single man shop where no other tradesman are present on private works. I know that from a CALOSHA person a few years ago. The minute another trade arrives on the job and can be affected it is a differnent story.

 

[jxofaltrds]

Think you want to be here:

https://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=STANDARDS&p_id=9878

and:

https://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=STANDARDS&p_id=9908

1910.331(a)

Covered work by both qualified and unqualified persons. The provisions of 1910.331 through 1910.335 cover electrical safety work practices for both qualified persons (those who have training in avoiding the electrical hazards of working on or near exposed energized parts) and unqualified persons (those with little or no such training) working on, near, or with the following installations:

Another nice read:

http://www.eri-safety.com/Documents/2984fs.pdf

 

[petersonra]

It may not be "illegal" in the sense of it being criminal.

It is generally proscribed by NFPA70E and OSHA has been leaning toward making that the default electrical safety standard unless an employer comes up with something else on their own.

However, because it is generally proscribed does not mean that OSHA and NFPA70E don't allow for some limited exceptions.

 

[jxofaltrds]

It may not be "illegal" in the sense of it being criminal.

It is generally proscribed by NFPA70E and OSHA has been leaning toward making that the default electrical safety standard unless an employer comes up with something else on their own.

However, because it is generally proscribed does not mean that OSHA and NFPA70E don't allow for some limited exceptions.

Want to bet?

 

[kwired]

Want to bet?

No, just breathing is probably a criminal activity somewhere, if anything we as living beings do emit greenhouse gases. Dying is probably illegal also, after all we will emit more greenhouse gases as we decay.

 

[petersonra]

Want to bet?

There are potentially some criminal penalties if you allow hot work and someone dies.

For the person engaging in the hot work the chances of a criminal penalty approaches nil.

 

[GoldDigger]

There are potentially some criminal penalties if you allow hot work and someone dies.

For the person engaging in the hot work the chances of a criminal penalty approaches nil.

Unless maybe it is a coworker that gets injured instead of just the guy doing the work.

"NO TRESPASSING.
Survivors will be prosecuted."

 

[gadfly56]

Unless maybe it is a coworker that gets injured instead of just the guy doing the work.

"NO TRESPASSING.
Survivors will be prosecuted."

My favorite view on that theme:

"NO TRESPASSING
Violators will be shot
Survivors will be shot again."

 

[mjc763]

I just got done with OSHA training. Hot work it not illegal in the least. You have to full out hot work permits and be able to justify the need. Also the only requirement to be able to work on energized circuits is to have a few hour OSHA class, after that in their eyes you are a "qualified person"

 

[kentirwin]

I just got done with OSHA training. Hot work it not illegal in the least. You have to full out hot work permits and be able to justify the need. Also the only requirement to be able to work on energized circuits is to have a few hour OSHA class, after that in their eyes you are a "qualified person"

Not really that simple. 2015 NFPA 70E, which OSHA can, has and will continue to use as an idustry standard defines an electrically qualified person as, "One who has demonstrated skills and knowledge related to the construction and operation of electrical equipment and installations and has received safety training to identify and avoid the hazards involved." No one is going to come in off the street, spend a few hours in a class and come out a steely eyed electrically qualified person. Safety training isn't all there is to it.

In terms of justification for energized work the justification can't just be convenience or expedience or it costs too much to shut down. A valid justification might be life support or life safety systems (think hospital) or an ongoing industrial process where shutting down the process could create a greater hazard than allowing energized work. Troubleshooting and testing however are exempt and also don't require an energized work permit.

 

[mjc763]

Not really that simple. 2015 NFPA 70E, which OSHA can, has and will continue to use as an idustry standard defines an electrically qualified person as, "One who has demonstrated skills and knowledge related to the construction and operation of electrical equipment and installations and has received safety training to identify and avoid the hazards involved." No one is going to come in off the street, spend a few hours in a class and come out a steely eyed electrically qualified person. Safety training isn't all there is to it.

In terms of justification for energized work the justification can't just be convenience or expedience or it costs too much to shut down. A valid justification might be life support or life safety systems (think hospital) or an ongoing industrial process where shutting down the process could create a greater hazard than allowing energized work. Troubleshooting and testing however are exempt and also don't require an energized work permit.

I don't agree with them that the class will qualify you to do energized work, however after you complete OSHA 30, that qualifies you. I don't agree with it, that is just what I was taught. You are correct in that there has to be more of a danger involved with a shut down than to perform work live. There are very few cases where a shut down is not feasible.

 

[kentirwin]

It is ultimately up to the employer to decide who they will classify as 'qualified' to be exposed to electrical hazards. But if someone has a bad day and OSHA gets called they're going to want to know by what criteria did the employer make the determination the person was 'qualified'. If the criteria was only sitting in a classroom for a few hours and getting a certificate then it may be the employer's turn to have a bad day.

 

[GoldDigger]

On the other hand a master electrician with 20 years experience who has never had the two hour class on OSHA is not yet qualified.
And an employer who throws him in cold to do electrical work is in violation.

 

[kentirwin]

On the other hand a master electrician with 20 years experience who has never had the two hour class on OSHA is not yet qualified.
And an employer who throws him in cold to do electrical work is in violation.

Very true. The 70E definition has 2 major requirements. Meeting one requirement without meeting the other isn't enough. The definition has changed slightly in this version of 70E as well. Instead of requiring that the qualified person 'has' the skills and knowledge the new requirement is that the qualified person 'demonstrates' the skills and knowledge. Further on in 70E there are requirements for periodic audits to ensure the qualified person is 'demonstrating' skill and knowledge.

And as is true with everything today every single little thing has to be documented!

 

[kwired]

Not really that simple. 2015 NFPA 70E, which OSHA can, has and will continue to use as an idustry standard

However my understanding on OSHA is they don't make any such rules or say you must use 70E. An employer must have an electrical safety standard but is up the the employer to establish such standard. The use of 70E is just one of the most popular ways to do so. One could write their own standard if they wanted to, but should things come to litigation, it is much easier to depend on a third party that has put extensive research and time into writing the standard, as well as consideration that they do continue to put in research and keep updating such standards.

If you go with your own standard and someone is injured or killed and they sue you, how are you going to put up defense that your policy was indeed "safe", unless you put the kind of time and money in writing the policy as NFPA has put into 70E?

 

[kentirwin]

However my understanding on OSHA is they don't make any such rules or say you must use 70E. An employer must have an electrical safety standard but is up the the employer to establish such standard. The use of 70E is just one of the most popular ways to do so. One could write their own standard if they wanted to, but should things come to litigation, it is much easier to depend on a third party that has put extensive research and time into writing the standard, as well as consideration that they do continue to put in research and keep updating such standards.

If you go with your own standard and someone is injured or killed and they sue you, how are you going to put up defense that your policy was indeed "safe", unless you put the kind of time and money in writing the policy as NFPA has put into 70E?

It is true that an employer can develop an electrical safe work practices program using some other standard than 70E. I suspect though that OSHA would still use 70E to compare against whatever different standard an employer developed or adopted. It's also interesting to note that it was in fact OSHA that requested NFPA to develop the first evolution of 70E. That in itself speaks volumes.

 

[kwired]

My point is that 70E is not necessarily "the law" but is the standard that will be used in most instances as a reference when it is questioned just what is considered a safe practice. Pretty much nobody else has such a standard that is as universally recognized as being a good electrical safety program. If you have an employee injured using some other safety standard - especially your own, then you very likely will be challenged in a court just how safe your program really is. If you use 70E you not only have all the R&D that was put in by NFPA to develop it, you also have many users that do study it and use it to provide opinions to help back up your case.

 

[wtucker]

OSHA does not apply to a single man shop where no other tradesman are present on private works... The minute another trade arrives on the job and can be affected it is a differnent story.

OSHA protects employees--not owners and partners. However, under the multi-employer citation policy, an owner or partner who has no employees can be cited as the "controlling employer," the "correcting employer," or the "creating employer" who created the hazard that exposed the employees of the "exposing employer." https://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=DIRECTIVES&p_id=2024

Legal/illegal? Most, but not all, OSHA penalties are civil penalties, not criminal complaints (which are handled by the Dept. of Justice, as opposed to the Labor Dept. solicitor). And, it's possible that an OSHA investigation (particularly those carried out by compliance safety and health officers who have been trained as criminal investigators) might become the basis for an indictment under state or federal laws.

 

[sparkcontrol]

I just came across this....

you are allowed to work live. Providing you have and use the proper PPE.

example: street lighting, hospitals,