277V lighting and Rubber gloves

[Davebones]

We have a journeyman electrician that takes care of the lighting in our plant . He disconnects the wire nut at the fixture ( Without Rubber Gloves ) when he changes the ballast to shut off power to the light . I say if he does this this is considered "Hot Work" and he needs a Hot Work Permit and he has to wear rubber gloves . Am I correct in the way I am looking at this ?????

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Permit and PPE or not, that would not be hot work that you are permitted to do by the OSHA rules.

If by some very rare circumstance you can make the case that turning the power off to these lights is a bigger hazard than working on them energize, then an energized work permit and PPE suitable for the shock and arc flash hazard would be required.

 

[Davebones]

So basically you are saying you can not justify working on these lights while they are energized even with a Hot work permit ! These are just general lighting out in the plant .

 

[iwire]

So basically you are saying you can not justify working on these lights while they are energized even with a Hot work permit ! These are just general lighting out in the plant .

Exactly, here is the OSHA standard

1910.333(a)(1)

"Deenergized parts." Live parts to which an employee may be exposed shall be deenergized before the employee works on or near them, unless the employer can demonstrate that deenergizing introduces additional or increased hazards or is infeasible due to equipment design or operational limitations. Live parts that operate at less than 50 volts to ground need not be deenergized if there will be no increased exposure to electrical burns or to explosion due to electric arcs.

Note 1: Examples of increased or additional hazards include interruption of life support equipment, deactivation of emergency alarm systems, shutdown of hazardous location ventilation equipment, or removal of illumination for an area.

Note 2: Examples of work that may be performed on or near energized circuit parts because of infeasibility due to equipment design or operational limitations include testing of electric circuits that can only be performed with the circuit energized and work on circuits that form an integral part of a continuous industrial process in a chemical plant that would otherwise need to be completely shut down in order to permit work on one circuit or piece of equipment.

Note 3: Work on or near deenergized parts is covered by paragraph (b) of this section.

As Don said, it would be a tough argument to win that it is more hazardous to remove the lighting from an area. You could do it off hours, you could provide temp light stands or maybe schedule the work during a lunch break etc.

 

[Davebones]

I've told the Journeyman before he needs to shut power off . I know the supervisor knows but he ignores it . Supervisor once made a statement in a meeting when we were telling him that the tech's that troubleshoot the CNC machine's in our plant have to use PPE that " Putting on a seat belt I can still have a wreck going to work " . You try to tell people about Arc Flash and using PPE but there's a whole lot of people out think its BS !

 

[renosteinke]

This is a good topic, and underscores the 'catch-22' we find ourselves in when the rulebook meets reality.

Working hot ... you tend to think of foot-thick cables carrying a gazillion volts. Yet, the little bitty wires on a ballast can make you just as dead. Indeed, 277v is just about at the 'gee, I can't let go' threshold. If you do manage to let go, your next worry is what to do when your keester hits the floor

Naturally, the easiest thing would be to simply flip the light switch. Enter the bean-counter and the control-freak manager. Rather than have every room switched, they want it all controlled by a single switch down in the basement. Sure, let's put the whole building in the dark every time we replace a bulb! Plus, we've now introduced all the hazards of working in the dark. Flashlights? Try hiking through the woods at night sometime, if you think a flashlight is equal to daylight. Not to mention the uproar as all production ceases while the lights are out.

So someone has the bright idea of wearing PPE. This leads to the temptation that 'more is better.' Before you know it, you're climbing the ladder in 40lbs of special clothes, and wearing gloves almost as thick as the tires on your car. No wonder the 'troops' hate PPE.

What about a disconnect in the fixture? There's an idea. Am I the only one who remembers the time when most fluorescent troffers had fuses and starters? Care to guess what usually broke? Well, the little 'disconnects' they now mandate might be a good thing ... except that I've yet to see any two alike, or replacement ballasts come equipped with them. This means that every ballast replacement leads to -again- replacing the disconnect fitting. You're still "working hot." Or, you have a belly pan cluttered with a rats' nest of pigtails and wire nuts. Pick your code violation- cable fill or hot work, your choice.

Cable fill concerns are not trivial. Those blessed little wires are already trying their best to get pinched when you replace the belly pan; I'm sure we've all popped a breaker when we cut into one as we put it all together again. Oops.

The kicker is ... this is all caused by the lack of that light switch, and the lack of good lighting design. Ironically, the 'energy codes' are mandating both of those in their roundabout way.

How about we just get out of the way, and let the pros do their jobs?

 

[iwire]

How about we just get out of the way, and let the pros do their jobs?

Pros shut the circuit off and follow the rules.

 

[renosteinke]

I think you missed my point ...

The 'pros' would have put in a light switch, so you could turn the power off without making the whole place dark. The 'pros' would have had more than one light in the room. The 'pros' learn how to do their jobs, and don't need someone thousands of miles away writing 'one size fits all' rules for others to follow. This whole circus is the direct result of everything besides 'good design' running the job.

 

[richxtlc]

Yes, poor design makes the job a lot more complicated, but ignoring the fact that people, professionals included, get hurt. Violating safety rules does not solve the problem. You don't need 40lbs of ppe to change a 277v ballast, just a pair of voltage rated gloves, a few ounces. As stated earlier, the lights can be repaired off-hours, or portable lights used in areas that required it to be lighted. There are always ways to get the job done de-energized, and there are even more excuses on why they should be done while alive. The professionals became professionals because they followed a well established set of safety rules, some of which for some have been ignored to expedite, make more money, or win favor with their boss or client. All the wrong reasons. Too many people, professionals included have been hurt, maimed, or killed because the law of averages caught up with them. The old saying of " I've done this type of work for 30 years and have never been shocked" finally caught up to them. The problem is not if it will happed, but when. Turn the lights off.

 

[hillbilly1]

Yeah, it's a change from the way it used to be done, our lighting manager howled at not being able to make any money on a ballast change if the fixture did not have the quick disconnect. I know we are one of the few contractors that enforce the "no live work policy, and have fired employees violating it, but eventually those that ignore the OSHA rules will be fined out of business, so the playing field will eventually be back level again. We have had electricians think "oh, they supplied us with voltage rated gloves, so it's ok to work it hot" When it's actually just to protect them from accidental contact.

 

[renosteinke]

Two quotes:

"You don't need 40lbs of ppe to change a 277v ballast, just a pair of voltage rated gloves"

"We have had electricians think "oh, they supplied us with voltage rated gloves, so it's ok to work it hot" When it's actually just to protect them from accidental contact."

THERE lies the issue - that, and WHO makes the decision.

 

[iwire]

There is no decisions to be made other than shutting off the circuit.

It would be all but imposable for a company to defend itself if their employee works it hot just to prevent shutting off some lighting to an area and ends up injured or killed.

Just becuse we might wear PPE does not allow us to work anything we want 'hot'.

 

[kwired]

Twisting wire connectors on the small conductors in a fluorescent light can not be a very easy task with thick gloves on.

 

[zog]

Twisting wire connectors on the small conductors in a fluorescent light can not be a very easy task with thick gloves on.

Exactly, which is why it should be de-energized.

 

[zog]

There is no decisions to be made other than shutting off the circuit.

It would be all but imposable for a company to defend itself if their employee works it hot just to prevent shutting off some lighting to an area and ends up injured or killed.

Just becuse we might wear PPE does not allow us to work anything we want 'hot'.

Right, this is what the lawyers will quote.

NFPA 70E Article 130.1 Justification for work. Live parts to which an employee might be exposed shall be put into an electrically safe work condition before an employee works on or near them, unless the employer can demonstrate that deenergizing introduces additional or increased hazards or is infeasible due to equipment design or operational limitations.

 

[sameguy]

Been there done that, not any more, search the forums many have first hand truth of what that little #18 awg will do when you make a mistake.