Removing Protective grounds (nfpa 70E)

Status
Not open for further replies.

coulter

Senior Member
I think this is an nfpa 70E, Table 130.7.C.9.a question. The equipment in question is 13.8kv.

The scenerio:
Protective grounds were installed after dead bus verification using Haz Cat 4 PPE. Maintenance work was completed. The same qualified person that installed the grounds donned the same Cat 4 PPE and removed grounds.

The Question:
After the work was completed, I was asked by one of the techs (yes, he is considered qualified) if wearing Cat 4 PPE is required for removing the grounds. He pointed out the bus is verified dead - no longer considered energized.

I said I would do some reading. ... Table 130.7.C.9.a, Metal clad switchgear, 1kv and above, lists a task for, "Application of safety grounds after voltage test" - Cat 4, V-rated gloves required. No mention of any task for removing safety grounds.

My inclination is to say nfpa70E doesn't require any special PPE for removal of safety grounds. Anybody got any thoughts on the question?

carl
 

zog

Senior Member
Location
Charlotte, NC
Assuming the system is locked out and was verified denergized before installing grounds, an "Electrically Safe Working Condition" has been established per the NFPA 70E and there are no longer any PPE requirements for working on that equipment.

I dont have my 70E here to cite the article but it is in the front few sections, "Establishing an Electrically Safe Working COndition: where it is discussed.
 

ramsy

Roger Ruhle dba NoFixNoPay
Location
LA basin, CA
Occupation
Service Electrician 2020 NEC
If NFPA 70E doesn't have it try 29 CFR 1910.xxx

Reenergizing is considered a hazard..

1910.333(b)(2)(iii)(E)(3)

Employees exposed to the hazards associated with reenergizing the circuit or equipment are familiar with this procedure.

See below for potential unforseen neutral backfeeds during ATS with generator starts, batteries, or capacitors.

1910.335(a)(1)(i)

(a) Use of protective equipment.(1) Personal protective equipment. (i) Employees working in areas where there are potential electrical hazards shall be provided with, and shall use, electrical protective equipment that is appropriate for the specific parts of the body to be protected and for the work to be performed. Note: Personal protective equipment requirements are contained in subpart I of this part.

See the Note: below, where handling "capacitors or associated equip." are always considered energized.

1910.333(b)(2)(ii)(C)

Stored electric energy which might endanger personnel shall be released. Capacitors shall be discharged and high capacitance elements shall be short-circuited and grounded, if the stored electric energy might endanger personnel.

Note: If the capacitors or associated equipment are handled in meeting this requirement, they shall be treated as energized.
 
Last edited:

zog

Senior Member
Location
Charlotte, NC
I dont think that is what the OP was asking Ramsy, of course PPE is required for renergizing the system, thats always the most dangerous part of any S/D.

The OP was asking about removing protective grounds, no need to wear PPE for that part.
 

ramsy

Roger Ruhle dba NoFixNoPay
Location
LA basin, CA
Occupation
Service Electrician 2020 NEC
If these references do not apply, the 4-hour ignorance surcharge will be refunded.

29 CFR 1926.962 (F)(2)

(f)(2) Order of removal. When a ground is to be removed, the grounding
device shall be removed from the line or equipment using a live-line
tool before the ground-end connection is removed. For lines or
equipment operating at 600 volts or less, insulating equipment other
than a live-line tool may be used if the employer ensures that the line
or equipment is not energized at the time the ground is disconnected or
if the employer can demonstrate that each employee would be protected
from hazards that may develop if the line or equipment is energized.

This rule is repeated in 1910.269(n)(7)

(7) Order of removal. When a ground is to be removed, the grounding device shall be removed from the line or equipment using a live-line tool before the ground-end connection is removed.

The "600 volts or lesss" part of 1926.962 (F)(2) is being added to 1910.269(n)(7)
http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=FEDERAL_REGISTER&p_id=18361

1) I believe removing protective ground jumpers is considered part of the re-energizing procedure, referenced in 29 CFR 1910.333(b)(2)(iii)(E)(3) ?

2) I believer there is "potential electrical hazard" of leakage or transients in those de-energized ground jumpers, per 1910.335(a)(1)(i)

3) After a fatality, I believe the OSHA investigator would rule that PPE was required.
 
Last edited:

coulter

Senior Member
ramsy, zog -
thanks. This is what I was looking for, a kick start for my research. I'll look up the references.

electricalperson said:
i would just wear the gear. who cares if its required or not. being more safe than needed does not hurt one bit
Please translate correctly, and listen carefully to the body language on the typing:-? I'm not being demeaning here.

Your response really appears you have not spent any time in one of these suits. All of techs I work with are educated sufficiently to understand if a particular piece of PPE reduces risk - and if it doesn't, they would consider a response of, "Because I said so." to severly limit their (and my) faith in the quality of leadership.

For a 70F ambient, these suits are hot, sweaty, uncomforatble, limit range of motion, difficult to accomplish fine motor tasks, limit vision. At -20F they are cold, and the faceplates quickly frost up.

If the suit reduces risk, the techs want to use the suits. If they don't reduce risk, their question is, "How does a suit that reduces: visibiliy, range of motion, and fine motor control, increase safety, when there is no risk of arc flash?"

There is only one reason I can think of to tell them they are going to wear them in this case. The regulations say you have to - we aren't going to break the law.

Firing a safety bullet just pisses them off - and rightly so.

carl
 

zog

Senior Member
Location
Charlotte, NC
ramsy said:
If these references do not apply, the 4-hour ignorance surcharge will be refunded.

29 CFR 1926.962 (F)(2)

(f)(2) Order of removal. When a ground is to be removed, the grounding
device shall be removed from the line or equipment using a live-line
tool before the ground-end connection is removed. For lines or
equipment operating at 600 volts or less, insulating equipment other
than a live-line tool may be used if the employer ensures that the line
or equipment is not energized at the time the ground is disconnected or
if the employer can demonstrate that each employee would be protected
from hazards that may develop if the line or equipment is energized.

This rule is repeated in 1910.269(n)(7)

(7) Order of removal. When a ground is to be removed, the grounding device shall be removed from the line or equipment using a live-line tool before the ground-end connection is removed.

The "600 volts or lesss" part of 1926.962 (F)(2) is being added to 1910.269(n)(7)
http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=FEDERAL_REGISTER&p_id=18361

1) I believe removing protective ground jumpers is considered part of the re-energizing procedure, referenced in 29 CFR 1910.333(b)(2)(iii)(E)(3) ?

2) I believer there is "potential electrical hazard" of leakage or transients in those de-energized ground jumpers, per 1910.335(a)(1)(i)

3) After a fatality, I believe the OSHA investigator would rule that PPE was required.


Well, dang, I stand corrected, well done, it has been a long time since I was proven wrong on a 1910.269 requirement, kudos!

However, tecnically there is nothing there solid enough for OSHA to get you on, there is not technically a PPE (And by PPE I assume we are both talking arc flash) requirment for this part of the procedure, I dont think that fine would hold up.

That being said, I do agree with you that PPE should be worn for removing grounds based on the points you addressed.
 

ramsy

Roger Ruhle dba NoFixNoPay
Location
LA basin, CA
Occupation
Service Electrician 2020 NEC
zog said:
Well, dang, I stand corrected, well done, it has been a long time since I was proven wrong on a 1910.269 requirement, kudos!

Its my pleasure beating up on people when I'm not working. Makes me feel usefull. Thank you for the satisfaction.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top