Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

OSHA Visit

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    OSHA Visit

    Customer just called. OSHA was there yesterday. Customer moved into a new building in 1997. EC at that time installed many cord drops with receptacles. Set up was a kellums grip up high on j box, then cord (SJOW), then another kellums on a 4 square box with duplex receptacle. OSHA has been here before. This time he says violation. I searched NEC (2005) but could find nothing. His justificaton is someone could push in the KO and be exposed to shock hazard.
    All the cord drops we install now we use an Ericson box
    http://ericson.thomasnet.com/Categor...e-outlet-boxes

    So does anyone know what the violaton is. OSHA only said NEC.
    Thanks for immediate help!

    #2
    Originally posted by tshea View Post
    Customer just called. OSHA was there yesterday. Customer moved into a new building in 1997. EC at that time installed many cord drops with receptacles. Set up was a kellums grip up high on j box, then cord (SJOW), then another kellums on a 4 square box with duplex receptacle. OSHA has been here before. This time he says violation. I searched NEC (2005) but could find nothing. His justificaton is someone could push in the KO and be exposed to shock hazard.
    All the cord drops we install now we use an Ericson box
    http://ericson.thomasnet.com/Categor...e-outlet-boxes

    So does anyone know what the violaton is. OSHA only said NEC.
    Thanks for immediate help!
    If that was the case every exposed J box with knockouts would be a violation!
    Your customer or you should ask to see where in the NEC it is written.
    Last edited by qcroanoke; 01-27-09, 10:15 AM. Reason: added a few words
    Sometimes I don't know whether I'm the boxer or the bag.

    Comment


      #3
      Originally posted by qcroanoke View Post
      If that was the case every exposed J box with knockouts would be a violation!
      Your customer or you should ask to see where in the NEC it is written.
      What the OSHA dude may be looking for is a steel rope run parallel with the cable and providing support for the box, not the SO cord with Kellems strain relief. It would be nice of him to actually say what he sees wrong, but hey he is just another Guverment hack...

      Comment


        #4
        I found 314.23 (H)(1)
        But it says...hub. the 4 squares do not have hubs.
        Guvernment hack is right. They need to justify their jobs by driving regular people crazy.

        Comment


          #5
          Originally posted by tshea View Post
          I found 314.23 (H)(1)
          But it says...hub. the 4 squares do not have hubs.
          Guvernment hack is right. They need to justify their jobs by driving regular people crazy.
          Isn't the Kellems grip connects as or with a hub?

          Comment


            #6
            This is on the up high j-box and this is on the receptacle box about 6' above the floor
            http://www.drillspot.com/products/88...ight_Cord_Grip

            lower box is
            http://www.tradeslang.com/findslang...._BOX&b=SlangID

            Thanks,
            Tim

            Comment


              #7
              I am a government employee, but do not consider myself a hack. I do believe OSHA stands for "Oh Sh** here again". If an inspector can not show where the violation is listed, then the inspector should research and find the section or don't call it out. The reason of "Well I was told it is a violation" does not sit well with me. I try to justify all my violation comments and discuss them with the contractor as needed.

              Comment


                #8
                Originally posted by inspector 102 View Post
                I am a government employee, but do not consider myself a hack. I do believe OSHA stands for "Oh Sh** here again". If an inspector can not show where the violation is listed, then the inspector should research and find the section or don't call it out. The reason of "Well I was told it is a violation" does not sit well with me. I try to justify all my violation comments and discuss them with the contractor as needed.
                You must be the odd man out.......

                Of course I did not mean to make a blanket statement, that would be prejudicial and would tell more about me than the subject of my scorn. I was refering to the individual in this case only.

                Comment


                  #9
                  Every time someone asks about making pendent boxes I bring up OSHA.

                  Besides 314.23 (H)(1), OSHA could through 110.3(B) at you. 4" squares are intended to be mounted to something.

                  You could use a malleable steel FS box as most of those are designed to be supported by the hubs.

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Did some deep research.
                    314.23(H)(1) was introduced in '05. Prior to that it was in 370.23(h)(1). It first appeared in 1996. This building was first occupied in 1997, which in this case, means it was built under the 1993 code. Theoretically, these would be grandfathered. However, my customer was advised by their attorney that OSHA does not use grandfathering since a couple years ago. This means a violation. Today the OSHA guy is coming back. They are going to present the above facts. If it flies, we are done. If not the proposal is to replace the boxes at 25 per quarter.
                    I will be busy for at least a few days a year:wink:
                    Thanks everyone!
                    Inspector102--I did not imply you were hack, just the guy who showed up and said it was a violation, but I can't tell you which one. I'll make something up and let you know later.

                    Comment


                      #11
                      i was sighted by osha for clearance issues, i had to move two cabinets, the rest i appealed during the phone conference with his boss and they passed because they met the rules for the date of their installation....when i got the citations (before the conference) i went to their web site and looked up the code reference, if it is blue, click it and there will be ruling and opinions from osha that may substantiate you standing. just type in 29CFR1910.XXX

                      i paid 9000 instead of 49000 because of one letter on their site...........

                      good luck
                      Why is it, when it comes to the NEC, the obvious is never simple and the simple is never obvious?

                      Comment


                        #12
                        Originally posted by tshea View Post
                        Did some deep research.
                        314.23(H)(1) was introduced in '05. Prior to that it was in 370.23(h)(1). It first appeared in 1996. This building was first occupied in 1997, which in this case, means it was built under the 1993 code. Theoretically, these would be grandfathered. However, my customer was advised by their attorney that OSHA does not use grandfathering since a couple years ago. This means a violation. Today the OSHA guy is coming back. They are going to present the above facts. If it flies, we are done. If not the proposal is to replace the boxes at 25 per quarter.
                        I will be busy for at least a few days a year:wink:
                        Thanks everyone!
                        Inspector102--I did not imply you were hack, just the guy who showed up and said it was a violation, but I can't tell you which one. I'll make something up and let you know later.
                        The lawyer is lying. OSHA DOES use grandfathering and their latest ruling was published in Feb. 14, 2007, to take effect in Aug. 2008.

                        http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2007/pdf/E7-1360.pdf

                        Comment


                          #13
                          Originally posted by weressl View Post
                          The lawyer is lying. OSHA DOES use grandfathering and their latest ruling was published in Feb. 14, 2007, to take effect in Aug. 2008.

                          http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2007/pdf/E7-1360.pdf
                          Can you help us out, that is an 87 page document?

                          Comment


                            #14
                            Originally posted by iwire View Post
                            Can you help us out, that is an 87 page document?
                            If you can search the document Iwire search for grandfathered.
                            I found it on page 4 ,11 and 43.
                            I think page 43 is what Laszlo is refering to.
                            But I have been wrong before.
                            Last edited by qcroanoke; 01-28-09, 04:02 PM. Reason: spelling
                            Sometimes I don't know whether I'm the boxer or the bag.

                            Comment


                              #15
                              Originally posted by iwire View Post
                              Can you help us out, that is an 87 page document?
                              If anyone interested I have a 350KB document that summarizes the illustrated changes of each OSHA requirement and tabulates their applicability with statements like: thsi requirement applies to all construction after 1972, etc.

                              When you review the OSHA requirements, you will discover that OSHA's requirements are actually much narrower than the entire NFPA 70. It only takes OSHA 87 pages WITH discussion of the defintions, legal, why's and how's and the actual requirements are only

                              PM me and I can e-mail it to you.

                              Page 7141 (document page 7)

                              C. Grandfather Clause
                              The final rule, as does the current standard, exempts older electrical installations from meeting some of the provisions of the Design SafetyStandards for Electrical Systems (that is, 1910.302 through 1910.308). The extent to which OSHAinstallation standard applies depends on the date the installation was made.

                              Older installations must meet fewer requirements than newer ones. The grandfathering of older installations, contained in paragraph (b) of final

                              1910.302, is patterned after the current standard

                              existing provisions contained in the final rule

                              only apply prospectively, to installations made after the effective date of the final rule.

                              The following paragraphs explain final order: Paragraph (b)(1), requirements applicable to all installations; paragraph (b)(4), requirements applicable only to installations made after the effective date of the revised standard; paragraph (b)(3), requirements applicable only to installations made after April 16, 1981; and paragraph (b)(2), requirements applicable only to installations made

                              after March 15, 1972.

                              ...and so on and so forth.

                              Last edited by weressl; 01-28-09, 04:39 PM.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X