Relamping (Energized or De-energized)

Status
Not open for further replies.
N

natfuelbill

Senior Member
Per OSHA and 70E can a HID fixture be relamped when the fixture is energized?

Does this require PPE per the table in 70E?

Metal Halide ?
Fluorescent ?
 
D

davidr43229

Senior Member
Location
Columbus, Oh
The NFPA-70E says you can, however you need to wear the appropriate PPE, within the task tables. Additionally your management needs fill out a Energized Electrical Work Permit, since they choose to replace it live. This must then be reviewed by them and you, and then signed off as the work is completed. I can not tell you what level, ie; 2-3-4, because you did not specify the voltage level.
Just my $.02
 
weressl

weressl

Esteemed Member
Location
Texas by the Gulf, geat crab, great shrimp
davidr43229 said:
The NFPA-70E says you can, however you need to wear the appropriate PPE, within the task tables. Additionally your management needs fill out a Energized Electrical Work Permit, since they choose to replace it live. This must then be reviewed by them and you, and then signed off as the work is completed. I can not tell you what level, ie; 2-3-4, because you did not specify the voltage level.
Just my $.02
Click to expand...

David,

Could you please refer to the paragraph that you base this assesment on?

Thanks in advance
 
zog

zog

Senior Member
Location
Charlotte, NC
You can only if deenergizing the system will introduce additional hazards like deactivating alarm systems or removal of life support systems. You better have a good enough reason to justify this work to be done energized to feel comfortable standing in court pleading your case.

If you have a justifiable reason then proceed as david explained.
 
R

realolman

Senior Member
It seems to me that I read on this site that having to shut off the lights is a good enough reason.
 
Last edited:
zog

zog

Senior Member
Location
Charlotte, NC
"Removal of illumination from an area" is a reason listed in the 2004 70E (It was voted out of the 2009 70E) if doing that produces serious hazards to personel.
 
J

jim dungar

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Wisconsin
Occupation
PE (Retired) - Power Systems
zog said:
"Removal of illumination from an area" is a reason listed in the 2004 70E (It was voted out of the 2009 70E) if doing that produces serious hazards to personel.
Click to expand...

I have a hard time figuring out how the planned turning off lights can create a greater hazard than working a circuit live. Isn't the hazard of injury or death to personel (i.e. an electrician) of importance?
I am not talking about working in total darkness, after all portable illumination does exist.
 
zog

zog

Senior Member
Location
Charlotte, NC
"after all portable illumination does exist"

Exactly!

Is removing and replacing a 48" fluorescent lamp considered working on a circuit?

I dont think so, now replacing ballasts I would consider energized work.
 
zog

zog

Senior Member
Location
Charlotte, NC
Now that I think about the bulb replacement question, you would be within the LAB of live parts (3'6" for 120V) which per the definitions in the 70E is working on or near live parts and would therefore by definition require an energized electrical work permit.

Personnally I consider that to be a safe task and can be done safely, an energized work permit seems like overkill, but the 70E is what it is.
 
D

dnem

Senior Member
Location
Ohio
jim dungar said:
zog said:
"Removal of illumination from an area" is a reason listed in the 2004 70E (It was voted out of the 2009 70E) if doing that produces serious hazards to personel.
Click to expand...

I have a hard time figuring out how the planned turning off lights can create a greater hazard than working a circuit live. Isn't the hazard of injury or death to personel (i.e. an electrician) of importance?
I am not talking about working in total darkness, after all portable illumination does exist.
Click to expand...

It?s kind of off the subject but I wanted to add that portable illumination applies to the 70E situation here being discussed but not to 410.73(G)x5. . I know my point doesn?t apply to the situation being discussed but I wanted to mention that the ?illuminated space cannot be left in total darkness? specification of exception 5 will be kicking-in in 2 months with 410.73(G). . The application of 410.73(G) [just like 700.16] does not recognize or allow reliance on portable illumination.

Sorry for jumping off topic.

David
 
weressl

weressl

Esteemed Member
Location
Texas by the Gulf, geat crab, great shrimp
zbang said:
For an 8' tube, you can be more than 3'-6" from the contacts. Does that count?
Click to expand...

Of course you can take that into consideration, but I would try to establish working rules that are applicable to 80%+ of the cases.

In other words if ALL your lights are 8' long and the instructions are that it is to be handled by a single person then yes, you can take that into consideration and write your TJA accordingly. You would need to specifically mention that the approach should be restricted if no PPA is to be specified.
 
J

jinglis

Member
Location
Ontario
Since I'm from Canada the NFPA 70E is fairly new here. We apparently are in the process of writting our own standard to somewhat mirror yours. This light bulb thing is interesting and an aspect I hadn't considered. Now everyone that replaces a light bulb is required to wear the appropriate PPE to suit the conditions. I don't think the supply voltage will change the level of protection as the voltage on the sockets remains the same regardless of the voltage driving the ballast. From what I have read, even if the lights are turned off (lockout/tagout) for relamping you would still be required to test for the absence of voltage which still requires the appropriate PPE? Do I understand that concept correctly?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top