NFPA 70e When hot work permit required

[brother]

I would like some help on a particular issue, and would like to know others practice. Do you require an 'energized hot work permit' when you are doing 'infrared scanning' of panels??? Basically you are taking the cover off, but sometimes you are taking the 'dead front' off but not all the time.

Of course in all situations the appropiate ppe will be worn. So what is the practice in this area??

 

[raider1]

I would say that infrared scanning of electrical equipment would constitute "Testing" or "Troubleshooting" and would fall under 130.1(B)(3) and be exempt from an energized electrical work permit.

Chris

 

[jumper]

I am still learning 70E, so my answer is pretty junior grade.

Testing itself does not require a EEWP, as Chris stated.

However, the removal of covers and dead fronts is not testing, yes I know that you have to remove them first.

The question I pose is: Is the equipment de-energized prior to removal of the covers and than re-energized for testing? Or is the cover removed while the equipment is still energized?

It seems to me that there is a big difference in the procedures.

 

[rbalex]

The fundamental issue is the possibility (not probability) that a worker could “lose control” of a cover or its connectors in “normal” activities. Hinged covers, with captive connectors are considered “safe”. Bolt-on covers are not.

 

[iwire]

As a mater of company policy we fill out hot work permits anytime an employee is going to be exposed to live parts. This includes IR scans

 

[brother]

I am still learning 70E, so my answer is pretty junior grade.

Testing itself does not require a EEWP, as Chris stated.

However, the removal of covers and dead fronts is not testing, yes I know that you have to remove them first.

The question I pose is: Is the equipment de-energized prior to removal of the covers and than re-energized for testing? Or is the cover removed while the equipment is still energized?

It seems to me that there is a big difference in the procedures.

The cover is removed while the equipment is energized. So the reason for my question.

 

[brother]

Thanks for the all responses, this has been a 'debate' with our guys that do the electrical work. Some believe a hot work permit is needed and others do not even if its infrared scanning.

I tend to lean more toward the 'conservative' and say its a good idea to have one to be sure the guys have the proper rated ppe when removing those convers.

 

[weressl]

The fundamental issue is the possibility (not probability) that a worker could ?lose control? of a cover or its connectors in ?normal? activities. Hinged covers, with captive connectors are considered ?safe?. Bolt-on covers are not.

The tertiary issue is that you don't know "what's behind the closed door", especially hinged ones. There could be a loose wire pressing against the door, ready to swing to short as one opens the door. Often times the doors are interlocked with the ON position disconnecting means, so to bypass that interlock and interaction with the handle mechanism is required.

This is true of ANYTHING energized that you go into blindly; assume the worst and hope for the best.

To open the door, you should be fully suited for the rating of the equipment. After the door is open AND no interaction with the gear is performed - eg. no clamp-on metering the currents - you should be able to safely scan the equipment with 0 level PPE.

 

[rbalex]

I hate appearing to be on the side of reducing safety.

As I?ve said before, I have no problem requiring ?safe? over ?unsafe? with no regard to cost whatsoever; however, requiring ?safer? over ?safe? should at least consider the economics. In many cases, ?safer? also has positive economic benefits as well, so far be it from me to encourage any employer to reduce their safety procedures.

Remember though, the OP was asking what is required. Of course an employer?s documented safety procedures are required; but in absence of those, the fall back is essentially statutory minimums and NFPA 70E.

 

[eric9822]

Same subject, different train of thought. Does anyone require an energized work permit to remove or install MCC buckets in MCC's that were designed for energized removal or insertion? Just curious since my company does and since we have all but banned any work requiring an EWP we now shut down the MCC for any bucket swaps.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Eric,
Do the manufacturer's instructions really say that you can do that while the MCC is energized?

 

[weressl]

Same subject, different train of thought. Does anyone require an energized work permit to remove or install MCC buckets in MCC's that were designed for energized removal or insertion? Just curious since my company does and since we have all but banned any work requiring an EWP we now shut down the MCC for any bucket swaps.

Energized removal and insertion would require energized work permit with full PPE.

Just a general observation for those who question if the MCC's were even designed for energized insterion/removal. Would a manufacturer design a plug-in type connection or a bolted connection for any current carying connection as primary choice? In other words a plug in connection is always more costly and not as reliable as a bolted connection so if de-energized installation was the original intent then why bother with plug-in feature?! How about the various features that prevents the withdrawal of the unit when the means of disconnect is closed?

" With the unit door open and the operating handle in the ON position, another interlock to the divider pan prevents removal of the unit. This same interlock prevents insertion of the unit unless the handle mechanism is in the OFF position."
" Maintenance of the control components requires that all power to these components be turned OF by opening the branch circuit disconnect means and withdrawing the unit to the Detent position (see Figure 31) or removing the unit entirely from the MCC. When units are fully inserted into the MCC, the line side of each disconnect is energized. Do not work on fixed units unless the main disconnect for the MCC is OFF."

The expectation above is that the units are insterted and removed while the MCC is energized.

 

[eric9822]

Eric,
Do the manufacturer's instructions really say that you can do that while the MCC is energized?

Per the manufacturer energized insertion and removal is allowed. From the instructions:

When installing or removing MCC units, when possible,
de-energize, lockout, and tag-out all sources of power to the
MCC. If the MCC units will be installed or removed with power
applied to the main power bus, follow established electrical
safety work practices. Refer to the NFPA 70E Standard for
Electrical Safety in the Workplace publication.When installing or removing MCC units, when possible,
de-energize, lockout, and tag-out all sources of power to the
MCC. If the MCC units will be installed or removed with power
applied to the main power bus, follow established electrical
safety work practices. Refer to the NFPA 70E Standard for
Electrical Safety in the Workplace publication.