70E

[texie]

As the other thread "Arc Flash Lawsuit" evolved into a discussion about the poor safety practices that are so prevalent in our field, I thought I might offer this. Maybe the various licensing boards should consider making 70E part of the testing process. In the handful of states that I have tested in, worker safety has never been part of the process. It might be a way to push things along. Just athought-don't shoot me.

 

[zog]

Agree 100%. In todays world you have to know 70E stuff to be considered "qualified", so it should be part of the licensing requirement.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

I don't see how that can happen. The local and or state units of govenment that adopt the electrical codes would have to make major changes in their laws to enforce safety rules. It is not the function of the building department to enforce worker safety rules.

 

[richxtlc]

I don't see how that can happen. The local and or state units of govenment that adopt the electrical codes would have to make major changes in their laws to enforce safety rules. It is not the function of the building department to enforce worker safety rules.

I don't think it is a matter of enforcing the rules, but a requirement that you know the rules (70E).

 

[wtucker]

And, nobody's asking the building department to enforce anything. It's the licensing agencies that should deal with this.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Around here the licensing agency is the building department.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

I don't think it is a matter of enforcing the rules, but a requirement that you know the rules (70E).

I expect that is beyond the scope of the agency that is issuing the license.

 

[kwired]

So where do we stop. If you want to have 70(E) questions for examinations for licenses why not questions about fall arrest, confined spaces, lead dust, asbestos, safety (other than electrical) when working in hazardous locations, USDA food safety procedures...

You could possibly work new construction with no energized equipment and never need to know anything in 70E to do your job.

The hazards at any one job site are not necessarily the same as they are at another.

I agree that it is probably more important for 70E to be familiar with electrical workers, but the way OSHA sees it 70E is for all employees exposed to electrical hazards. This could include some office staff plugging in a piece of office equipment or resetting a circuit breaker supplying something in the office - yet this staff may not have even heard of 70E.

 

[jim dungar]

I agree that it is probably more important for 70E to be familiar with electrical workers, but the way OSHA sees it 70E is for all employees exposed to electrical hazards. This could include some office staff plugging in a piece of office equipment or resetting a circuit breaker supplying something in the office - yet this staff may not have even heard of 70E.

What about the other hazards the office staff experiences on a daily basis - hazardous materiel handling (ever read the MSDS on a spray can of desk cleaner), what about falling and tripping hazards, then or course there is lifting (our staff are not allow to lift a 5 gallon water cooler jug)? My guess is OSHA is interested in these also.

Depth of safety training is job specific. There is no one-size fits all.

 

[kwired]

What about the other hazards the office staff experiences on a daily basis - hazardous materiel handling (ever read the MSDS on a spray can of desk cleaner), what about falling and tripping hazards, then or course there is lifting (our staff are not allow to lift a 5 gallon water cooler jug)? My guess is OSHA is interested in these also.

Depth of safety training is job specific. There is no one-size fits all.

That was kind of my point. 70E applies to all electrical hazards for employees whether they are electrical workers or not. How many non electrical employees are there that are exposed to electrical hazards at some time? How many of those employees that are not electrical workers of some kind have even heard of 70E?

How many electrical workers do not know work safe practices for some condition they do run into? These safety practices are getting better as time goes on but there are still those that do not know all the hazards they are exposed to, or at least don't take them serious enough. If they are employed then it is also the employers responsibility to address these issues.

 

[jim dungar]

That was kind of my point. 70E applies to all electrical hazards for employees whether they are electrical workers or not. How many non electrical employees are there that are exposed to electrical hazards at some time? How many of those employees that are not electrical workers of some kind have even heard of 70E?

I think you are over doing the one-size-fits-all focus.

NFPA70E is very clear - Institute electrically safe work practices for your employees. Train your employees on the safe work practices that apply to their job. There is no more reason for an office staff worker to be trained in 70E than there is for training in back safety, blood borne pathogens, and defensive driving. Ignore any of these and run the risk of facing OSHA.

The initial safety training for our office workers (which we call unqualified under NFPA70E) is a simple video conference call, including statements such as they are not to 'reset' tripped breakers, and if there is a label saying some type of PPE is required they are not qualified to perform that task. Total refresher office safety training is done via on-line course, (2) 1 hour course per year. I have yet to hear of any general employee complaining about onerous 70E compliance affecting their daily work.

 

[jimmac49]

NFPA 70E

NFPA 70E

As the other thread "Arc Flash Lawsuit" evolved into a discussion about the poor safety practices that are so prevalent in our field, I thought I might offer this. Maybe the various licensing boards should consider making 70E part of the testing process. In the handful of states that I have tested in, worker safety has never been part of the process. It might be a way to push things along. Just athought-don't shoot me.

To be a "qualified worker" wouldn't a working knowledge of NFPA 70E be included? One must be aware of the risks, clearances, etc....

 

[kwired]

I think you are over doing the one-size-fits-all focus.

NFPA70E is very clear - Institute electrically safe work practices for your employees. Train your employees on the safe work practices that apply to their job. There is no more reason for an office staff worker to be trained in 70E than there is for training in back safety, blood borne pathogens, and defensive driving. Ignore any of these and run the risk of facing OSHA.

The initial safety training for our office workers (which we call unqualified under NFPA70E) is a simple video conference call, including statements such as they are not to 'reset' tripped breakers, and if there is a label saying some type of PPE is required they are not qualified to perform that task. Total refresher office safety training is done via on-line course, (2) 1 hour course per year. I have yet to hear of any general employee complaining about onerous 70E compliance affecting their daily work.

And how many million places of employment are there that have no qualified staff available to do electrical work? If a breaker trips it is fairly standard practice by anyone that knows little or nothing about electrical to attempt to reset it.
When they do so they have no clue about 70E, arc flash, incident energy levels, etc. I have always felt that a panelboard should be secure enough to contain any expected arc flash if the covers are all on for exactly this reason, yet on these forums I get the opinion that you need to know what PPE is needed just to reset a breaker in a panel even with the cover on.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

And how many million places of employment are there that have no qualified staff available to do electrical work? If a breaker trips it is fairly standard practice by anyone that knows little or nothing about electrical to attempt to reset it.
When they do so they have no clue about 70E, arc flash, incident energy levels, etc. I have always felt that a panelboard should be secure enough to contain any expected arc flash if the covers are all on for exactly this reason, yet on these forums I get the opinion that you need to know what PPE is needed just to reset a breaker in a panel even with the cover on.

OSHA says you can't even reset a breaker until you find out what caused it.

 

[iwire]

OSHA says you can't even reset a breaker until you find out what caused it.

Which is interesting considering many panels have instructions on the cover how to reset a breaker but no mention of doing anything beforehand.

 

[raider1]

And how many million places of employment are there that have no qualified staff available to do electrical work? If a breaker trips it is fairly standard practice by anyone that knows little or nothing about electrical to attempt to reset it.
When they do so they have no clue about 70E, arc flash, incident energy levels, etc. I have always felt that a panelboard should be secure enough to contain any expected arc flash if the covers are all on for exactly this reason, yet on these forums I get the opinion that you need to know what PPE is needed just to reset a breaker in a panel even with the cover on.

Your assumption that a cabinet that contains a panelboard should be able to contain an arc flash event is incorrect. There is arc rate gear available on the market but it is quite expensive.

A standard cabinet containing a panelboard is not designed to contain an arc flash event.

Re-setting a circuit breaker after identifying and correcting the event that caused the circuit breaker to trip is a hazardous task that requires the use of specific PPE.

Chris

 

[kwired]

Your assumption that a cabinet that contains a panelboard should be able to contain an arc flash event is incorrect. There is arc rate gear available on the market but it is quite expensive.

A standard cabinet containing a panelboard is not designed to contain an arc flash event.

Re-setting a circuit breaker after identifying and correcting the event that caused the circuit breaker to trip is a hazardous task that requires the use of specific PPE.

Chris

That is what I have been learning from sites like this. That said wouldn't that mean that we should make these breakers unaccessable to non qualified people if we want to make OSHA happy. Over 90% of people I work for are not qualified, yet when they have had a problem they have reset breakers, motor overloads, replaced fuses, etc. before they ever called me to solve their problems. There are also many places that use breakers as switches for lighting. Nearly all the people that turn these on pretty much daily are not qualified electrical workers in any way. Then you have millions of people that reset breakers in their place of residence too. I don't want to hear about how there is normally less fault current in a dwelling. Most of the time I agree that is true, but I have also worked in many homes that have more fault current than some commercial occupancies. There are lots of small commercial occupancies that do not require much power and therefore the supply may be pretty limited, especially out here in the boonies.

 

[zog]

IMO the problem lies in the term "circuit breaker". For many that means a tiny little 2 pole 200A breaker, for others it is a 3000A 600V breaker or a 15kV 2000A Magneblast that won't fit in your truck, and for others a 230kV beast filled with SF6.

I have had this discussion with several 70E and IEEE 1584 commitee menbers that the line has to be drawn at some point for many of these rules, everyone agrees that there should but no one will say where that line is because the first person that gets hurt resetting a breaker smaller than what the rule states will start taking everyone they can think of to court.

I don't see resetting a MCCB in a residential or small commercial system as something that should require PPE or training, the risk is low, the hazard level is also usually very low. Resetting a 1200A bolted pressure switch that has never been maintained, or a 3000A ACB feeding a bus duct, or even some smaller MCCB's (800A), that is where you start to increase both risk, and the hazard. Of course that is just how I feel, and my opinions no longer count in these matters.

 

[jim dungar]

T..Nearly all the people that turn these on pretty much daily are not qualified electrical workers in any way.

There is nothing in NFPA 70E that says you need to be an electrical worker.

It would be very easy to train an ordinary person to switch 120V small breakers per NFPA70E.

 

[Strathead]

So where do we stop. If you want to have 70(E) questions for examinations for licenses why not questions about fall arrest, confined spaces, lead dust, asbestos, safety (other than electrical) when working in hazardous locations, USDA food safety procedures...

You could possibly work new construction with no energized equipment and never need to know anything in 70E to do your job.

The hazards at any one job site are not necessarily the same as they are at another.

I agree that it is probably more important for 70E to be familiar with electrical workers, but the way OSHA sees it 70E is for all employees exposed to electrical hazards. This could include some office staff plugging in a piece of office equipment or resetting a circuit breaker supplying something in the office - yet this staff may not have even heard of 70E.

I agree with the OP and dispute your premise, by the fact that, in Florida, I was tested on the OSha manual, which covered, almost everything you mentioned, plus scaffolding, minimum allowed ligth levels for contruction, ladder safety etc. I think that NFPA 70E should have been another book on the list.