Terminating to a spare breaker while energized?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Minuteman said:
This is ridiculous. A spare breaker is already installed into a panel of unspecified voltage. With the breaker open, I have no problem with an experienced electrician wearing gloves, fr shirt, and eye protection landing a conductor. No moon suit. No utility shut down. Let's be real here.
Click to expand...

OK, that is how you do it.

Of course that is a direct OSHA violation for any employee to do and could result in large fines to the employer.

Large fines take the profit out of jobs, lets be real here.
 
zog said:
The OP never said this was residential. In the future, smart meters will make this easier for resi guys.
Click to expand...

How? Most of the smart meter installations will not remotely disconnect power. It would be foolish to spend the extra money on remote disconnect when it will never be used.
 
Wow. The way some of this reads, I cant even plug in a device in a hot receptacle.
Is this thread about holding a breaker in your hand, connecting the wire to it, and then with the breaker off, inserting it into a panel? Or are we talking about landing wires to a breaker >200 amps?
 
Hv&Lv said:
Wow. The way some of this reads, I cant even plug in a device in a hot receptacle.
Is this thread about holding a breaker in your hand, connecting the wire to it, and then with the breaker off, inserting it into a panel? Or are we talking about landing wires to a breaker >200 amps?
Click to expand...

The amperage is irrelevant.

The rule says we will not be exposed to live parts.

In most panels even with a branch breaker off you are in fact exposed to at least line lugs and often a lot of exposed bus.

Now when I first got in the trade I was soon bolting breakers onto live bus, hell I have even drilled live bus by pulling the EGC off a corded drill. But then in about 98 I was hired by a company with a real safety program and I was taught that live work is almost always an OSHA violation for electrical contractor employees.
 
iwire said:
The amperage is irrelevant.

The rule says we will not be exposed to live parts.

In most panels even with a branch breaker off you are in fact exposed to at least line lugs and often a lot of exposed bus.

Now when I first got in the trade I was soon bolting breakers onto live bus, hell I have even drilled live bus by pulling the EGC off a corded drill. But then in about 98 I was hired by a company with a real safety program and I was taught that live work is almost always an OSHA violation for electrical contractor employees.
Click to expand...

Yea, I meant voltage, sorry. Doesn't table 130.7(C)(15)(a)(Tasks performed on energized equipment) tell you the same protection that is required to test voltage is also required to remove/install CB's or fused switches? < 240 volts would be a category 1, 240-600 would be Cat-2.
So, would it not be permissible to install this circuit breaker in a hot panel wearing the appropriate PPE, from table 130.7(C)(16), based on the voltage taken from 130.7 (C)(15)(a)? After all, according to these tables, checking voltage or installing a CB requires the same PPE.

Cordless drills have been a blessing when needing to drill hot bus. I use a cordless drill to drill hot 25kV bus. (Yes, full PPE. and a bucket. I rather enjoy living!) :D
 
Hv&Lv said:
So, would it not be permissible to install this circuit breaker in a hot panel wearing the appropriate PPE, from table 130.7(C)(16), based on the voltage taken from 130.7 (C)(15)(a)?
Click to expand...


It could, if you could come up with an accetable reason to work hot.

Is installing a new circuit 'troubleshooting'?

Does shutting this dwelling unit panel down interrupt an integral part of a continuous industrial process?


1910.333(a)

"General." Safety-related work practices shall be employed to prevent electric shock or other injuries resulting from either direct or indirect electrical contacts, when work is performed near or on equipment or circuits which are or may be energized. The specific safety-related work practices shall be consistent with the nature and extent of the associated electrical hazards.

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.
Click to expand...
 
Minuteman said:
Yeah well, I run with scissors too.
Click to expand...

You clearly live on the edge. :cool:


1910.261(f)(1)(i)

Hand knives and scissors shall have blunt points, shall be fastened to the table with chain or thong, and shall not be carried on the person but placed safely in racks or sheaths when not in use.
Click to expand...




But still it seems advising others to violate Federal standards is a bit irresponsible.
 
iwire said:
It could, if you could come up with an accetable reason to work hot.

Is installing a new circuit 'troubleshooting'?

Does shutting this dwelling unit panel down interrupt an integral part of a continuous industrial process?
Click to expand...


Fair enough, I will accept that argument. These are questions for the OP to answer for his circumstance.
 
jim dungar said:
I am pretty sure the utility is permitted to pull a meter, thereby isolating a single customer.;)
Click to expand...
While that is a common occurrence, I don't think that meters are intended to be removed while energized and for sure they are not intended to be removed under load.
 
Hv&Lv said:
Fair enough, I will accept that argument. These are questions for the OP to answer for his circumstance.
Click to expand...

It is my opinion that the currently written rules do not really allow an employee to add circuits to a homes electrical panel that is live.

Our moderator (don_resqcapt19) has put in proposals for the last two NEC code cycles for the NEC to require the same line side shield the Candian code requires. This shield would mean if you turn off the main all exposed parts would be dead so that you could compliantly work on the panel.

I really hope this is accepted this year. One thing I see it changing is that no branch circuits can be brought into the area covered by the shield. This effectively blocks the use of one entire end of the panel for cable entry.
 
iwire said:
It is my opinion that the currently written rules do not really allow an employee to add circuits to a homes electrical panel that is live.

Our moderator (don_resqcapt19) has put in proposals for the last two NEC code cycles for the NEC to require the same line side shield the Candian code requires. This shield would mean if you turn off the main all exposed parts would be dead so that you could compliantly work on the panel.

I really hope this is accepted this year. One thing I see it changing is that no branch circuits can be brought into the area covered by the shield. This effectively blocks the use of one entire end of the panel for cable entry.
Click to expand...

So the proposed changes would effectively make a residential panel deadfront? Do the Canadian standards have a provision for LOTO or would that be required if you are actually working on the panel with the main just above you. I know there is an OSHA interpretation out there there allows the panel breaker to be used to deenergize a panel if it is deadfront and has means for LOTO. Same for a light switch, but I haven't seen a light switch with LOTO provisions in use, only in an electrical product catalog.
 
zog said:
Checking voltages is not "work", that is also specifically explained in 70E, you need to wear PPE but you do not need a permit and there are no other restrictions besides wearing the right PPE to check voltages.
Click to expand...

I understand that checking voltages is not "work". From the NFPA70E section you posted:

130.2 Electrically Safe Working Conditions.. Energized electrical conductors and circuit parts to which an employee might be exposed shall be put into an electrically safe work condition if any of the following conditions exist:
(1) The employee is within the Limited Approach Boundary.
(2) The employee is within the Arc Flash Boundary.
(3) The employee interacts with equipment where conductors or circuit parts are not exposed, but an increased risk of arc flash hazard exists.

Conditions one and two make it sound like a person cannot even stand within those boundaries if the equipment is energized.
 
iwire said:
It is my opinion that the currently written rules do not really allow an employee to add circuits to a homes electrical panel that is live.

Our moderator (don_resqcapt19) has put in proposals for the last two NEC code cycles for the NEC to require the same line side shield the Candian code requires. This shield would mean if you turn off the main all exposed parts would be dead so that you could compliantly work on the panel.

I really hope this is accepted this year. One thing I see it changing is that no branch circuits can be brought into the area covered by the shield. This effectively blocks the use of one entire end of the panel for cable entry.
Click to expand...

What is this shield? Can you describe it further, or is it just a disconnect before the main? Is it located on/in the panel?
 
Little Bill said:
What is this shield? Can you describe it further, or is it just a disconnect before the main? Is it located on/in the panel?
Click to expand...

I am not sure but I imagine two pieces of non conductive material (lexan,PVC,nylon, UHMW)

extending from the top of main breaker to the top of panel. With a cover of some sort over

the main lugs.
 
It is basically an enclosure within the enclosure. The inner enclosure covers the line side conductors and the main breaker. It would be made of the same material as the rest of the enclosure.

Bob did point out the issue of the line side enclosure taking up one end of the panel making branch circuit wiring more difficult. This rule in the Canadian code is why you often see panels mounted horizontally and not vertically. They do not have a rule like the one in 404.7 that requires vertically operated breakers to have the breaker on with the handle up. The rule in 404.7 effectively prohibits the horizontal installation of a panel.

There are a number of ways this issue could be resolved. Breakers could be made in two versions, a top and a bottom version that would permit a horizontal installation and still have all of the breakers on with the handle in the up position. The easiest way to make this work would be to use a wider panel that allows vertical wireways within the panel from the top to the bottom to permit the installation of branch circuit conductors without interfering with the line side barrier sub-enclosure.
 
Panels wider than 14 1/2 " would require special framing when installed in a stud wall. In the

garage for example. This is not a hurdle that could not be overcome. SQ D as do most

panels do have knockouts down both sides.
 
don_resqcapt19 said:
It is basically an enclosure within the enclosure. The inner enclosure covers the line side conductors and the main breaker. It would be made of the same material as the rest of the enclosure.

Bob did point out the issue of the line side enclosure taking up one end of the panel making branch circuit wiring more difficult. This rule in the Canadian code is why you often see panels mounted horizontally and not vertically. They do not have a rule like the one in 404.7 that requires vertically operated breakers to have the breaker on with the handle up. The rule in 404.7 effectively prohibits the horizontal installation of a panel.

There are a number of ways this issue could be resolved. Breakers could be made in two versions, a top and a bottom version that would permit a horizontal installation and still have all of the breakers on with the handle in the up position. The easiest way to make this work would be to use a wider panel that allows vertical wireways within the panel from the top to the bottom to permit the installation of branch circuit conductors without interfering with the line side barrier sub-enclosure.
Click to expand...

Thanks Don. I don't see how 404.7 would prevent horizontal mounting of a panel if the breakers are operated horizontally and they are indicating/marked on/off, as most panels are.
 
Little Bill said:
Thanks Don. I don't see how 404.7 would prevent horizontal mounting of a panel if the breakers are operated horizontally and they are indicating/marked on/off, as most panels are.
Click to expand...

The upper row of breakers would be 'ON' in the down position, that is a violation.
 
John120/240 said:
Panels wider than 14 1/2 " would require special framing when installed in a stud wall. In the

garage for example. This is not a hurdle that could not be overcome. SQ D as do most

panels do have knockouts down both sides.
Click to expand...
Still hard to use the side KOs as the existing enclosure design it intended to fit directly against the studs on each side. I think that one of the Canadian designs has a wireway on one side that goes all the way to the top.
As far as the special framing, yes that would be required for a wider panel, but as you said it would not be that difficult to accomplish.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top