Trying to get away from hot work

Merry Christmas
M

ModbusMan

Senior Member
Location
Cleveland, OH
Occupation
Building Automation Engineer
It's coming close to that time of year (February/March) when my team again pushes to get away from doing breaker swaps on customer distribution panels to keep accounting satisfied that we're not allowing customers to oversubscribe on power (never-mind that they make zero complaint about network bandwidth). We already run #10 for any 15/20/30 circuit, but in offices with branch circuit metering, we want to install 30A everything then never touch it again. Which is where accounting rushes in going "but whatabout!!!!!" Does anyone have good references we could use to make the argument that such work should be prohibited outright? I haven't found anything obvious in the NEC, while OSHA merely lays out the requirements for doing it safely and has a "we'd really rather you not" as opposed to "thou shalt not."
 
Nothing but 120Y208 being sold to our customers currently. We're investigating 240Y415 in two markets, but if we do make that available, it would only ever be 60A.
 
Sooo.... thoughts? ideas? or is OSHA's "We'd really rather you not" going to remain the only argument we can make from a regulatory viewpoint?
 
How about flipping the discussion.

Instead of trying to get away from 'working hot', push for enhanced hardware/tools/procedures that renders the desired operations safe.

In a very real sense we all do 'hot work' all the time. And I don't mean electricians, I mean _everyone_. When was the last time that you removed power from a receptacle before plugging something in?

But we all understand that a properly operated plug and receptacle doesn't expose the user to arc flash risk or risk of contact to exposed energized conductors. Plugging in a lamp is not 'hot work'.

With different equipment or tools, could a breaker swap similarly be done without 'working hot'? Does anyone make low voltage breakers that can switched off, removed from the panel, and a replacement plugged in, without exposing the electrician to any more risk then plugging in a toaster? Does anyone make a robot that could accomplish a breaker swap with the electrician at a safe distance and not exposed to the shock/arc flash risk? Are there panelboards with guarded bus bars that would significantly reduce the risk during a breaker swap? Could you simply provide a 'customer disconnect' that has a smaller breaker in it than the 'distribution panel'; breaker swap would then be flipping a breaker in one panel and then swapping the breaker in a separate _de-energized_ enclosure?

Can you get the bean counters to spend a bit more so that they can get the 'swap a single breaker without shutting everyone else down' that they want but you get the enhanced safety that you want?
 
Many years ago, when we developed our Hot Work permitting system the final signature on the form we termed the MJO. Explaining to plant managers, typically the MJO. We pointed out that it stood for the Most Jailable Officer. If something happened they were going to jail. That's assuming you have any control over the Permitting process. IIRC, both NFPA 70E and OSHA safe work practices include exceptions to permit Hot Work, but economic concerns are not justifiable. It will be an up hill battle to convince some people that what we used to do is dangerous.
Winnie is right, if they don't understand the risks, make them realize the cost. If at all possible make them put it in writing.
 
winnie said:
With different equipment or tools, could a breaker swap similarly be done without 'working hot'? Does anyone make low voltage breakers that can switched off, removed from the panel, and a replacement plugged in, without exposing the electrician to any more risk then plugging in a toaster? Does anyone make a robot that could accomplish a breaker swap with the electrician at a safe distance and not exposed to the shock/arc flash risk? Are there panelboards with guarded bus bars that would significantly reduce the risk during a breaker swap? Could you simply provide a 'customer disconnect' that has a smaller breaker in it than the 'distribution panel'; breaker swap would then be flipping a breaker in one panel and then swapping the breaker in a separate _de-energized_ enclosure?
Click to expand...
I see where you're trying to go with this, but at least as far as data centers go, the distribution panel mfrs all use bolt-on style breakers with open bus (e.g. Vertiv FPC/PPC/TFX panels are built for QOB breakers), and while we can mostly mitigate the electrical risks using insulated tools, arc suits, and the like, it's as much about the human factor (not feeling the bite as a bolt cross-threads, accidentally opening/swapping the wrong breaker... both have happened) as it is the safety aspects. We just know the beanies don't care about that, which is why we're looking for regulatory arguments.

winnie said:
Can you get the bean counters to spend a bit more so that they can get the 'swap a single breaker without shutting everyone else down' that they want but you get the enhanced safety that you want?
Click to expand...
If you're thinking of something like Starline, that costs more than just "a bit" more ;)
 
ModbusMan said:
Merely "Follow the code," which is why we're hoping there's something tucked away in a dusty sub-part point nobody ever pays attention to.
Click to expand...
What code?

The NEC is an installation code not a How To Do It code. It cannot be used to enforce safe hot work practices. You most likely need to follow OSHA and NFPA 70E.

Or ask why the facility can tolerate an unplanned outage instead of a planned one?
 
jim dungar said:
What code?
Click to expand...
"The code." Y'know, that thing... the one that says what you're allowed to do...
jim dungar said:
The NEC is an installation code not a How To Do It code. It cannot be used to enforce safe hot work practices. You most likely need to follow OSHA and NFPA 70E.
Click to expand...
This is pretty much where we're at... NEC dictates sizes and methods, OSHA says "we'd really rather you didn't," while NFPA guides our "wear this in case something bad happens" selections. Nothing we've found that can serve as a prohibition argument :(
jim dungar said:
Or ask why the facility can tolerate an unplanned outage instead of a planned one?
Click to expand...
The cost in service level agreement credits is lower... an unplanned outage only happens once every couple years, but we would lose redundancy somewhere almost monthly.
 
ModbusMan said:
I see where you're trying to go with this, but at least as far as data centers go, the distribution panel mfrs all use bolt-on style breakers with open bus (e.g. Vertiv FPC/PPC/TFX panels are built for QOB breakers), and while we can mostly mitigate the electrical risks using insulated tools, arc suits, and the like, it's as much about the human factor (not feeling the bite as a bolt cross-threads, accidentally opening/swapping the wrong breaker... both have happened) as it is the safety aspects. We just know the beanies don't care about that, which is why we're looking for regulatory arguments.


If you're thinking of something like Starline, that costs more than just "a bit" more ;)
Click to expand...

That does look spendy.

Does anyone make 'touch safe' distribution panels? ABB claims that their ProLine UL 67 breakers are 'finger safe', but I don't work with these beasties, don't know if they are actually available or suitable for your application.

It just seems that this shouldn't be a fight. You shouldn't have to take significant extra risks to save your employer pennies. (Or even thousands of dollars when that is a tiny fraction of the cost of the power that flows through the panelboards).
 
winnie said:
That does look spendy.

Does anyone make 'touch safe' distribution panels? ABB claims that their ProLine UL 67 breakers are 'finger safe', but I don't work with these beasties, don't know if they are actually available or suitable for your application.
Click to expand...
Layer Zero has a design we looked at a couple of these cycles back that hides the bus underneath a shroud which is nice from the safety aspect, but doesn't help with the cross-threading and "oops wrong breaker" view.

winnie said:
It just seems that this shouldn't be a fight. You shouldn't have to take significant extra risks to save your employer pennies. (Or even thousands of dollars when that is a tiny fraction of the cost of the power that flows through the panelboards).
Click to expand...
You're right. It's especially frustrating because being oversold on network bandwidth apparently doesn't bother them, but power does.

zooby said:
do you not have electricians that would feel safe to do that? says you are "building automation".
Click to expand...
Our electricians all feel comfortable doing this, but in my team I also share responsibility for general reliability issues (why I asked this question), capacity planning, cage design, and other more "engineering-related" activities than the day-to-day operations and maintenance coordination that our building team handles.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top