Near Miss

[don_resqcapt19]

Re: Near Miss

Guys,
What rule in 70E says that you can't do this? I don't like the idea of pulling into an existing raceway with energized conductors, but is there a rule in 70E that says you can't?
Don

 

[petersonra]

Re: Near Miss

My personal opinion is that a splice is an exposed wire. I have seen enough of them that have come loose that I no longer believe anyone that says that a properly made wire nut splice won't come apart. It is just not true.

That is why I no longer allow any splices at all except where they are absolutley necessary (like at motors or solenoids with flying leads).

 

[zog]

Re: Near Miss

Don,

The 70E allows this work to be done if deenergizing the equipment would cause a larger hazard than doing the work energized (I.E. Interuption of life support equipment), I suspect that in this case deenergizing the equipment is simply inconvenient and therefore should not be done while energized.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Re: Near Miss

zog,
I don't see where 70E requires you to de-energize to work on live equipment that is not exposed. The rules all seem to be about working on or near exposed live parts and we have established the energized insulated conductors are not exposed live parts.
Don

 

[zmikc115]

Re: Near Miss

Guys I agree that you should not use this practice of going into tap box with intent to pull wires or conduit while they are still hot. I have made adjustments to our policy. I still agree with others.... what code or recommendation is out there that addresses this? Again I hear those that quote the exposed rule that says you should work exposed hot and I would argue that this is not a best practice but I have not had anyone find a code saying you cant. I had a contractor review this same inncident and agree that it was a close call but said he couldnt find a rule showing you can't and intends to work in these places hot. Does it make it right? No, but I cant see the code. And like someone said earlier maybe we should look at taps as though exposed. What about live wires inside conduit and pulling more wires inside same conduit.Best practice No way but is there a code? I cant find one.

 

[macmikeman]

Re: Near Miss

If the power has to be shut off every time live spliced taps are exposed to workers, the utility company's might as well have to shut down. Our local poco's guy's are for the most part exposed to exactly such hazards on a continuous basis every day. They follow good safety practices, and have a good track record of avoiding electrical accidents, but those still happen on occasion. Now on another point made in one of the posts above about wire nuts that won't come off if proper sizing and twisting techniques are used, I say "baloney" to that. I have seen dozens of the Ideal "b" cap hard plastic style wire nuts that have cracked in half over time. A couple of wraps of tape around those in the first place would have at least kept the plastic parts in place on the metal spring inside of the nut. I myself, do not use this type of wirenut, and try to replace them on existing j-boxes that I uncover whenever it may be safely done, and there is not so many that it hits me right in the pocketbook.

 

[peter d]

Re: Near Miss

Originally posted by macmikeman: If the power has to be shut off every time live spliced taps are exposed to workers, the utility company's might as well have to shut down. Our local poco's guy's are for the most part exposed to exactly such hazards on a continuous basis every day. They follow good safety practices, and have a good track record of avoiding electrical accidents, but those still happen on occasion.

Comparing linemen to electricians is an apples to oranges comparison. All linemen go through vigorous safety training that few electricians ever experience. They are also equipped with far more PPE and safety gear than the vast majority of electricians.

 

[iwire]

Re: Near Miss

The OSHA rules that electricians operate under do not apply to the linemen.

 

[charlie tuna]

Re: Near Miss

before the new rules concerning working on exposed circuits - we in the electrical trade or construction trades depended on a common sense approach to working on and around exposed electrical surfaces. i and my fellow workers and when i operated my own business -- employees worked on and near exposed electric energized daily. for twenty five years that i was in business we speciallized in high rise office construction and service. and as these new rules became law we would talk about the effects it would have on mainly the service end of the industry in commercial office buildings.

say a tenant needs a new circuit. we would normally re-pull through existing raceways -- yes, while they were energized during normal operating hours. the new rules would require installing a new raceway or perform the work after hours and around office allowable shutdown hours. or working inside energized panels to complete new tenant buildouts. we always installed a good cardboard barrier to isolate the worker from exposed energized surfaces. many times over the years i have had wirenuts fall off when opening a junction box cover.

my "real" personnel feelings of these rules are reducing the number of accidental electricutions by removing the necessary knowledge required to work around electricity. why are these rules now becoming into our trade----- untrained and unqaulified people entering our trade. when we aren't allowed to work around insulated wires -- i believe the next step - we need to turn the mains off before working in a building because there could be a slight chance that the main ground might come loose and become energized by a ground fault! now we all know this isn't gonna happen. soon we can just take a taxi driver out of the cab and send him up to the tenth floor to change a ballast. he'll have to walk up and carry a flashlight because the power company was called to de-energize the building!!!!!! is this what it coming to??

 

[realolman]

Re: Near Miss

I agree with charle tuna.
This is supposed to be a skilled occupation.

In practicality, these regs will facilitate dressing up unskilled workers in moon suits for less money. The amount of energized work will probably increase because now we can do it "safely".

I spend a good portion of every day in the LAB of energized machines. There is simply no other way to do it. My work is part of the process.

It seems to me there are very few things that would qualify to be worked on hot. That's good for safety, but it's throwing the baby out the window with the bath water.

If the stuff doesn't get done, and on a timely basis, sooner or later nobody is gonna get paid. Now that would be inconvenient.

 

[iwire]

Re: Near Miss

IMO Charlie and Realoldman are reading to much into the safety regs.

Here is how I see it, for better or worse there is a Govt agency which has the job of decreasing worker injuries.

That being they case they have found that many workers are hurt/killed by working unprotected on live circuits.

The answer from this agencys POV is to stop that from happening.

They do not care if it is inconvenient, a pain, costly, or interrupts production. None of those issues have anything to do with the mission they have been given by Congress.

We can all disagree with that but IMO it is that simple.

There is no ulterior motive to 'dumb down' the workers.

Very capable and experienced workers do get hurt or killed from working live, accidents can happen even to those that think they are to smart for it to happen to them.

I am quite proficient at walking but I can still trip and fall. That is why it is called an accident.

 

[realolman]

Re: Near Miss

I don't think OSHA has an ulterior motive to dumb down the workers. I think that when the implications of the whole deal sink into the bean counters, that will be the effect.

Originally posted by iwire:
They do not care if it is inconvenient, a pain, costly, or interrupts production.

I think that is a huge problem when they propose to regulate an event as wide spread and common as the opening of an energized cabinet.

[ October 08, 2005, 12:48 PM: Message edited by: realolman ]

 

[iwire]

Re: Near Miss

Originally posted by realolman:
I think that is a huge problem when they propose to regulate an event as wide spread and common as the opening of an energized cabinet.

If the accident reports show that is when people get hurt then that is what needs to be regulated.

Not many get hurt from closed cabinets.

 

[realolman]

Re: Near Miss

I meant the problem is that they don't care what it costs or any thing else.

Not many people get hurt in closed factories either.

 

[peter d]

Re: Near Miss

Originally posted by realolman:
I meant the problem is that they don't care what it costs or any thing else.

That's a problem? Are you saying that cost and convenience are more important than saving human life and preventing injuries?

 

[peter d]

Re: Near Miss

Originally posted by realolman:
In practicality, these regs will facilitate dressing up unskilled workers in moon suits for less money. The amount of energized work will probably increase because now we can do it "safely".

I highly doubt this to be the case. If anything the regs will encourage more training and skill development. How many companies are without a safety program these day? Not too many. How many companies have huge budgets dedicated entirely to safety training? A lot.

Do you really think that in today's litigation happy society that companies are going to take a chance with unskilled workers? Doing what you're suggesting would be company suicide. Most companies can never live down the reputation of having an on-the-job death or serious accident.

 

[realolman]

Re: Near Miss

Ok, suppose that you're a plant electrician and things go exactly as these regs say. Why would industrial management not think like this:

1.Your job requires less skill because it is now less hazardous.

2.There is more downtime and lost income because of the activities associated with your job.

Explain to me why should you not get less pay?

 

[realolman]

Re: Near Miss

Originally posted by peter d:

That's a problem? Are you saying that cost and convenience are more important than saving human life and preventing injuries?

Of couse that's not what I'm saying. I work at this stuff too. But you can't just throw the baby out with the bath water.

The reason electricians get paid more than Wal-Mart associates is because the job is more hazardous, carries a greater responsibility, and requires more knowledge. If you ever get the level of those things down to the level of the Wal-Mart associate, that's the level at which you'll get paid.

[ October 08, 2005, 02:24 PM: Message edited by: realolman ]

 

[peter d]

Re: Near Miss

Originally posted by realolman:
Ok, suppose that you're a plant electrician and things go exactly as these regs say. Why would industrial management not think like this:

1.Your job requires less skill because it is now less hazardous.

2.There is more downtime and lost income because of the activities associated with your job.

Explain to me why should you not get less pay?

Well, I don't work in an industrial facility so I can't accurately address your claims.

To answer you last question, the reason why workers should be getting more pay far outnumber the reasons why they should be getting less. Machines and factory environments are more complex, and many industrial jobs now require much more than a high school education.

How long will an unskilled mechanic last in today's factory environment? One screwup and the whole line shuts down. I don't see companies taking that chance just so they can shave a little off the bottom line. But if they are, then American manufacturing is even more srewed than I though.

My repsonses would be to #1 and #2 respectively:

1)I don't understand how donning PPE suddenly means that less skill is required. An electrician wearing PPE is still an electrician. Furthermore, why would anyone other than a highly trained electrician or mechanic be working on today's highly complex industrial machinery anyway???

The use of PPE simply reduces the chance of a worker being injured or dying. Working on live equipment with PPE does not reduce the chances of an accident, thereby making it "less hazardous" as you claim. If a worker opens up a cabinet to take some measurements and it explodes in his face, hopefully the PPE will prevent him from being seriously burned. The hazard is not mitigated by PPE.

2) Again, this issue goes back to money. If the "bean counters" only see dollar signs ahead of worker safety, than we really haven't made much progress in worker safety at all.

I just can't buy your notion that companies are going to be ushering in hordes of unskilled workers to maintain and troubleshoot complex machinery because OSHA regs require PPE.

 

[charlie tuna]

Re: Near Miss

i have recently retired and shut my business down.
i have had a worker electricuted and died in my arms! he was a friend, excellent journeyman electrician, leader, and a good man, with a solid future! he was killed when he was touching a light fixture to determine the wattage of the lamp. the fixture was 120 volt metal halide-- installed by another contractor who did not install a ground wire about three feet long! the fixture's capacitor was loose and in contact with the fixture housing placing a voltage of about 730 volts to ground on the fixture surface!

reputation? my company ran on "reputation" and yes, there were many questions about the incident. the osha investigator was an ex- ironworker and very dedicated to the investigation and his job! the entire insident was swept under the carpet by the contractor's association and local authorities -- it was so bad and obvious -- the osha man quit his job over it! the real sad thing about it is that nobody learnt a lesson concerning the incident. oh, there was a lawsuit and large settlement -- but our industry lost a good man and also lost a chance to educate others about "grounding and bonding"!

if our government took the same approuch to reducing automoble deaths -- they could make the auto makers design cars to only go say 20 mph or 15 mph to protect pedestrians! i have always been a working contractor -- i love to work with my tools and with my fellow employees! as these new rules came out, we used to talk about how it effected our operations and the cost effect it placed on our customers. cost is not, and never has been, a factor concerning safety in any case. there have been many times that we found job conditions that were too dangerous in our professional and educated opinion and required a power shutdown.

the government could prevent many accidental electricutions by requiring proper training and licensed regulations on electrical installations and maintainance! but they tried that and it was too hard -- it will be easier to reduce the electricutions by de-energizing everything requiring afterhours operations --driving the operating costs higher and higher -- which drives these manufactured products to move to foreign lands!!

what would have prevented my co-worker from being killed on the job???? we were working at a bank building and he was checking the wattage of a light fixture.... if we turned the building's main "off" before he touched the fixture which would be required to be done after hours or on satruday. or maybe require the installer of the light fixture to be licensed and understand "grounding and bonding"! these rules are allowing unqualified people to work in our trade and install things that don't kill someone that same day -- but maybe a year or two later. we are lowering our standards -- we have all seen that over the last ten years. and many old license requirements have been weakened due to the manpower demand in our trade.