Law about live work

Status
Not open for further replies.
I live in California and my general foreman told me last year it is now illegal to do live work. I am having a hard time referencing this material, anyone know where I can find it, thanks.
 

Jim W in Tampa

Senior Member
Location
Tampa Florida
Had this conversation with one of my project managers just a few weeks ago.We were fixing some poor quality work.He mentioned that the outlet was live.He was happy that did not really bother me but made sure i knowed that i can not order my men to do anything live.And while i often work live i never have forced any of them to do so.However on many of our jobs (commercial/industrial) i simply either work it live or they have no work for me.Note they did not say your fired.In over 3 years they only asked if i minded 1 day off cause project i was to start wasnt ready while some were laid off.The way i work this is each case is differant and its my call to say yes or no.We can not shut down factories to do things like retrofit 200 fixtures.I am not suggesting any of you to work anything live.It is a serious risk and i only do it when its really gonna hurt others.277 is a very serious issue.A short on 277 will usually burn #12 in half before breaker trips
 
Last edited:

wireman71

Senior Member
Yeh... but EC's are very lazy about this. Why even take the time to turn anything off if it costs a little money, time and planning..
 

Jim W in Tampa

Senior Member
Location
Tampa Florida
wireman71 said:
Yeh... but EC's are very lazy about this. Why even take the time to turn anything off if it costs a little money, time and planning..
Iam guilty of doing somethings live just cause i dont want lower myself 20 feet and walk 500 feet each way.But thats my own fault.When it hits near 100 degrees i am not wanting job to last all day
 

inspector23

Senior Member
Location
Temecula, CA
Jim W in Tampa said:
Iam guilty of doing somethings live just cause i dont want lower myself 20 feet and walk 500 feet each way.But thats my own fault.

That will make a nice epitaph. Before Darwin?s theory thins the herd, be sure to notify your next of kin not to sue, since you made the decision. :grin:
 

bkludecke

Senior Member
Location
Big Bear Lake, CA
Occupation
Retired Electrical Contractor
Check out NFPA 70E. It's the law. Good stuff in that book about when and how live work can be done. PPE, clothing, procedures... it's all there and IMO, as important as the NEC, maybe more so.
 

LarryFine

Master Electrician Electric Contractor Richmond VA
Location
Henrico County, VA
Occupation
Electrical Contractor
inspector23 said:
That will make a nice epitaph. Before Darwin?s theory thins the herd, be sure to notify your next of kin not to sue, since you made the decision. :grin:

"Look at how many steps I saved."
 
Nfpa 70e?????????

Nfpa 70e?????????

I was looking through the NFPA 70E and was having a hard time navigating it, as I've never used it before. The best reference I found for working on live work was 1910.335, is there another reference I can use for showing that live work is not allowed unless wearing the proper PPE???
 

iwire

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Massachusetts
beachbumjeremy said:
is there another reference I can use for showing that live work is not allowed unless wearing the proper PPE???

First off live work is not allowed just because you have PPE. PPE is not a license to do whatever you want.

Live work is allowed for troubleshooting and when shutting the power off creates more of a hazard then leaving it on.

Live work is not allowed just because it is more convenient.

If its a situation where live work is permitted then you must use you PPE

From OSHA with some highlighting by me.

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.
 
What is really going to change our industry in regards to working live when it is not permitted is a "cultural change".
This change will take time and will become costly. I will say there is a very strong movement in that direction now, it is inevitable.

As the "herd" is thinned out (people like Jim will either retire or be fined enough or hurt/killed), the changes will become a habit and the guys of the future (the future is here) will look back and say " I wonder why they did that when they knew it may kill them".
 

cschmid

Senior Member
Most of us actually know and understand the law. we all find ourselves in precarious spots. But lets not think of it on a personal injury level. lets say you are in a office complex and you are adding cubicle's and you want to connect it hot (for what ever reason) and oops you accidentally trip the power and drop 1/3 of the cubicle's on the floor. Your boss or you as owner are not going to like the bill for the lost business you just caused, plus you just lost a customer. Now add that to personal injury and if you can not find that enough of a reason to plan an outage. Besides when I explain it to supervisors or manager in lost revenue they listen more intently and are more understanding of the extra costs involved.
 

winnie

Senior Member
Location
Springfield, MA, USA
Occupation
Electric motor research
Can I insert my standard rant now :)

Okay, I'll change it a bit:

I would like to see some serious 'pushback' on the issue of working live. If more people refused to work live, then better and safer 'work arounds' would be found.

Note what defines working live 'live parts to which an employee may be exposed'. With enough pushback, more and more systems will be designed so that they can be worked _without_ exposure to live parts. Think about the required disconnect at a sign, or switches that allow a single lamp to be de-energized. Think about standard plugs and receptacles.

There is no reason that a breaker panel could not be made 'finger safe' such that you could open the panel, add a breaker, and yet never be at risk for accidentally touching an exposed live part, unless you cut into conductors (the same sort of risk associated with working near an extension cord, though you are physically closer and there are more of them).

Etc. Etc. If it is convenient or desirable to keep a particular circuit energized when it needs to be worked on, then that circuit should be designed from the get-go with suitable guarding so that it can be worked on without being exposed to live parts.

-Jon
 

peter d

Senior Member
Location
New England
winnie said:
With enough pushback, more and more systems will be designed so that they can be worked _without_ exposure to live parts.

For starters, we could adopt the Canadian rules that require service conductors/feeders to be in a separate closed compartment in a panelboard when the deadfront is removed.
 

clausb

Member
Location
Rutland, Vermont
OSHA has been accepting NFPA 70E as standard industry practice and I understand from a recent article that they have been training their field inspectors how to use NFPA 70E to justify citations (June 2007 NEC Digest). Part 1 of NFPA 70E applies to performing live work and the jist of the document is to not perform live work if it is possible to perform the work de-energized. Obviously there is work that has to be performed live (testing, metering or because something just cannot be shut down) and the Part 1 goes on to describe the steps necessary to justify the live work and how to select the appropriate PPE to perform the work.

OSHA has made a recent "final rule" on NFPA 70E which is a lengthy, bureaucratic type read (202 pages of final rule!). They basically say that the requirements in the NFPA 70E-2000 and NEC 2002 are "reasonably necessary to provide protection" from electrical hazards in the workplace focusing on the design and installation of electric equipment. Oddly it does not really address existing systems, maintenance and alterations of electrical systems in the summary. The "final rule" can be found at:

http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=FEDERAL_REGISTER&p_id=19269
 

tallguy

Senior Member
peter d said:
For starters, we could adopt the Canadian rules that require service conductors/feeders to be in a separate closed compartment in a panelboard when the deadfront is removed.

This is one in particular that drives me crazy... if you look at the difference in price it is really quite small. I simply won't work hot under any circumstances, and it's a real imposition to the HO to have to reset all those VCRs. :roll:

Anyone know if it is feasible to procure (and legal to install) a Canadian panel in the USA?
 

tallguy

Senior Member
iwire said:
Live work is allowed for troubleshooting and when shutting the power off creates more of a hazard then leaving it on.

Bob,

Troubleshooting should be easily identified... whereas "creates more of a hazard then leaving it on" sounds like an invitation to mental gymnastics. Can you throw out some situational examples that in your estimation meet this standard?

One I can think of is critical branch in a hospital...
 

steve66

Senior Member
Location
Illinois
Occupation
Engineer
tallguy said:
Troubleshooting should be easily identified... whereas "creates more of a hazard then leaving it on" sounds like an invitation to mental gymnastics.

I guess Jim W can claim he might have a stroke walking that 500' to the disconnect. Or he might trip and sprain a ankle, or fall off the ladder.....

I agree that you can justify just about anything with enough gymnastics.

Steve
 

Brady Electric

Senior Member
Location
Asheville, N. C.
Law about live work

Why are we electricians? Who do we call for live work? Plumbers!
The last time I changed a live outlet and live switch wearing my safety glasses,insulated gloves,electrician boots with special soles,hard hat,and put down my rubber mat the HO ran out of the house got in the car and left. Then I fixed the problem and left a hefty bill to cover all that equipment and time it took to do the little job they really flipped out. Not to mention waiting two days to get it inspected. Just a little humor to say it I didn't work on live circuits sometime I wouldn't get anything done.
Seriously I don't agree about not working on live circuits. If we as electricians can't work on live parts who in the world could? As electricians we should be able to work with electricity any means that it takes below the transformer to do the job. I have been in business for thirty years and never had a problem and always worked safe. If you don't know your trade you don't need to be an electrician. Cutting off power in some cases would take to long and you would never get anything done. Don't get me wrong I have good sense and cut power off when I can.
That my 3 cents worth. Semper Fi.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top