NFPA 70E - Justification for live work

[zog]

Think of it THIS way: if your partner/employee gets DEAD, you will need to explain to his WIFE and KIDS why you did not shut it down, will your reason be good enough?

Yep, that is what it is really all about, I have had to do that and it is not something I ever want to do again.

 

[weressl]

See this OSHA letter of interpretation.

http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=INTERPRETATIONS&p_id=25559

OSHA explains THEIR regulation, not NEMA 70E.

 

[petersonra]

Sometimes human beings being human beings, they choose convenience over safety. Thats an understandable human being type of situation that can only be countered by solid supervision and management.

OTOH, working on live circuits with proper PPE where there is no arc flash hazard is not anywhere near as dangerous as doing so where there is an arc flash hazard. There are things that can be done to make this kind of work safe, yet OSHA and NFPA70E don't recognize it as such.

 

[weressl]

Sometimes human beings being human beings, they choose convenience over safety. Thats an understandable human being type of situation that can only be countered by solid supervision and management.

OTOH, working on live circuits with proper PPE where there is no arc flash hazard is not anywhere near as dangerous as doing so where there is an arc flash hazard. There are things that can be done to make this kind of work safe, yet OSHA and NFPA70E don't recognize it as such.

Hear, hear...!

 

[arossi]

I don't want to argue the point, but I have been in situations where shutting the power down was considered a big problem. (Let me state I am a firm believer of its dead so I'm not dead)
On a job I was on a few years ago, we where pulling many many feeders into a 480volt 2500amp main gear, that was energized as it was supplying the power for the entire job, including the pulling equipment and the rest of the trade. (not trying to justify, but I can relate with both sides of the argument) Now we where pulling feeders for a minimum of a week straight, and in that week, I saw every pull go well until the last sub panel, the head came off in the main gear just as the wire pulled through, and had to miss the MAIN BUS by inches. From that day on I don't believe I've pulled into a 480 panel that was hot. Still gives me chills as I was the one in the room when the head came off. I don't do that kind of thing anymore.

 

[petersonra]

I don't want to argue the point, but I have been in situations where shutting the power down was considered a big problem. (Let me state I am a firm believer of its dead so I'm not dead)
On a job I was on a few years ago, we where pulling many many feeders into a 480volt 2500amp main gear, that was energized as it was supplying the power for the entire job, including the pulling equipment and the rest of the trade. (not trying to justify, but I can relate with both sides of the argument) Now we where pulling feeders for a minimum of a week straight, and in that week, I saw every pull go well until the last sub panel, the head came off in the main gear just as the wire pulled through, and had to miss the MAIN BUS by inches. From that day on I don't believe I've pulled into a 480 panel that was hot. Still gives me chills as I was the one in the room when the head came off. I don't do that kind of thing anymore.

with a little more thought they probably could have found a way to do this with minimal disruption and safely to boot.

 

[eric9822]

OSHA explains THEIR regulation, not NEMA 70E.

True, assuming you meant NFPA70E, but unless OSHA enforces it NFPA 70E it is nothing more then a book.

 

[weressl]

True, assuming you meant NFPA70E, but unless OSHA enforces it NFPA 70E it is nothing more then a book.

Of course it is NFPA.

OSHA will NOT enforce anything else except what they write. In their explanatory section of the final rule they elaborated on how they have taken into consideration both 70 and 70E.

OSHA does not accept OR reject either Codes but declare that following them is one possible way, but not the only way, to meet OSHA requirements for employee safety. In other words that by following 70 and 70E you are likely in compliance with OSHA, but not definitely unless OSHA says so.

 

[rbalex]

Please read the following diatribe in the spirit it was intended. I believe there are enough members familiar with me to know I would never endorse setting safety aside for simple convenience or financial reasons. If something dangerous must be done it had better be to avoid something even more dangerous.

I was a member of the 70E TC when many of the current concepts were developed and I was a major proponent of what is now Section 130.1 (Justification for Work) in general and 130.1(B)(2)(11) in particular. I rarely objected beyond certain selective restrictions that were more rigorously applied to my Interest group for activities of a transient nature. (Read Temporary) My position was that the nature of the work should determine the safety measures required, rather than the employee doing it; assuming the appropriate employee qualifications were in place, of course.

One of the reasons that what is commonly called the ?General Duty Clause? is considered so powerful, is that it is Section 5(a)(1) of the "Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970" (OSH Act) rather than part of the various ?29 CFR xxxx Regulations.? (Regulations)

While the Regulations generally carry the force of law, the fundamental difference is that the OSH Act was a law specifically passed by Congress. As part of the OSH Act, Congress authorizes and then directs the Executive Branch (President) to implement and enforce it. The Regulations are then essentially ?Executive Orders? that interpret the OSH Act. Technically, Congress may clarify or correct those interpretations if it deems it necessary by amending the OSH Act.

Currently, the OSH Act defines the terms "occupational safety and health standard" and "national consensus standard" in Section 3. Neither the latest edition nor any previous edition of the NEC or NFPA 70E ??has been designated as such a standard by the Secretary, after consultation with other appropriate Federal agencies.? [OSH ACT, Section 3(9)(3). ] While both Standards continue to be the basis for and are ??heavily drawn from?? for specific 29 CFR xxxx rules, they have never been generally adopted. The current Electrical Standard; Final Rule cites neither standard as ??incorporated by reference.?

In absence of some possible forthcoming ?Standard Interpretation,? this is still FedOSHA?s official view of the General Duty Clause as applied to NFPA 70E:

Question 4: Does OSHA issue Section 5(a)(1) General Duty Clause violations to companies who do not follow the new NFPA 70E requirements?
Reply: A violation of the General Duty Clause, Section 5(a)(1) of the Act, exists if an employer has failed to furnish a workplace that is free from recognized hazards causing or likely to cause death or serious physical injury. The General Duty Clause is not used to enforce the provisions of consensus standards, although such standards are sometimes used as evidence of hazard recognition and the availability of feasible means of abatement. In addition, the General Duty Clause usually should not be used if there is a standard that applies to the particular condition, practice, means, operation, or process involved. See ?1910.5(f).

(Of course this doesn?t mean FedOSHA won?t cite NFPA 70E under Section 5(a)(1), only that they would prefer to use something else.

Both the NEC and NFPA 70E are listed in the current 29 CFR 1910 Subpart S App A, Reference Documents as ?nonmandatory information.? It also says ?? compliance with these standards is not a substitute for compliance with Subpart S of this Part.?

The Final Rule?s opening Part I, Supplementary Information and Part V, A. Issues acknowledges FedOSHA basically disregarded ?? requests from stakeholders that the Agency revise Subpart S so that it reflects the most recent editions of NFPA 70E and the NEC.? If you read through it all analytically, FedOSHA just doesn?t want the ?stakeholders? to have THAT much influence on the Standards.

Ultimately, from FedOSHA?s view, an employer fundamentally has no real defense in a serious incident. The most that an employer can reasonably hope for is a reduced fine and no jail time. As for civil liabilities?

 

[weressl]

Please read the following diatribe in the spirit it was intended. I believe there are enough members familiar with me to know I would never endorse setting safety aside for simple convenience or financial reasons. If something dangerous must be done it had better be to avoid something even more dangerous.
..........
Ultimately, from FedOSHA?s view, an employer fundamentally has no real defense in a serious incident. The most that an employer can reasonably hope for is a reduced fine and no jail time. As for civil liabilities?

Thank you Bob, a clear and comprehensive summary.