working live on electrical systems

[hawkeye23]

zog, the test switch is installed in the switchgear and it removes main breaker and the generator breaker is installed. Is this considered racking a breaker? i hope that helps describing it. thanks.

 

[kwired]

Don't get me wrong I am in no way discouraging safe work practices, but when someone hires a so called professional that is what they expect If that is not what they get that is another problem, but why are you liable for technical neglegence that you may have no idea what is correct procedure? An industrial place that has their own in house electricians that hires a contractor to come do something has somebody that knows if they are doing something wrong - they can certainly tell them to comply with the safety rules or leave. If you are a EC and go to do some work in say a dentist office - there is likely nobody in that office that has a clue whether you are supposed to wear gloves, faceshield, for a particular task, or if you are working at elevated locations whether or not you should have fall arrest equipment - and especially if you are using the correct equipment.

Same goes for if you are a patient for the dentist. If they are not using proper safety procedures - does the average person even know what OSHA standards may even apply to what they are doing? Before you can even begin to have a clue as to what safety precautions need to be taken you have to know what the hazards are. Not everyone knows much about electricity - if they did we would not have a need for electricians.

No, they just need to ensure the contractor they are hiring is qualified, and in the OP the EC they hired obviously was not.

Which in the OP's question was obviously not the case.



You have it 100% backwards, if you take your car to the repair shop they don't let you in the garage area under the car (Or are not supposed to anyways, I usually ask if I can see what they found) because if the car falls on you they could be held liable.

I understand that - I think that is a bigger issue with their liability insurance than with OSHA and safe work practice (but I could be wrong) My point was if a mechanic was injured while working on your car, especially when working on it in their own facility, why should anything be the car owners fault, outside of the really bizzare possibility of the owner intentionally causing the injury somehow?

No you are not qualified, if you were you would have been wearing the proper PPE and would not be burnt.

How is protecting employees from workplace hazards wrong exactly?



No it won't, however someday you will be out of a job if you don't comply. EC's all over the world have been changing the way they do work and approach safety (Including many menbers here), those that do not will start to lose work for not being qualified. Will homeowners ever care? I doubt it, but commercial and industrial customers already do care.

Who is the employer??
the EC owner, or the property owner ?????

simple question, not a simple answer.

Who has 'control' over the person doing the work and the methods they use to accomplish the task?
In the cases where the property owner has a contract with the Electrical Contractor (EC), the person performing the labor is most likely an employee of the EC. The terms of the contract spell out, usually implicitly although sometimes explicitly, who has 'control of the worker'.

In other situations the property owner may contract for labor only, like a temp agency, in which case they probably retain 'control of the worker'.

I'm sure the line between employer and contracted party has been blurred by lawsuits in the past. Again I am not condoning unsafe work practices, but being held responsible for the negligence of someone you contracted (not employed) is just not right IMO.

 

[zog]

zog, the test switch is installed in the switchgear and it removes main breaker and the generator breaker is installed. Is this considered racking a breaker? i hope that helps describing it. thanks.

That doesn't really help, just sounds like they are opening and closing breakers, which still has arc flash PPE requirements if they are inside the AFB (Unless the switchgear is arc rated).

 

[zog]

Don't get me wrong I am in no way discouraging safe work practices, but when someone hires a so called professional that is what they expect If that is not what they get that is another problem

Exactly, that is the problem, they need to ensure the EC meets the requirements from the 70E that I posted.

An industrial place that has their own in house electricians that hires a contractor to come do something has somebody that knows if they are doing something wrong - they can certainly tell them to comply with the safety rules or leave.

That is why this thread was started in the first place, the OP was concerned about the EC not being in compliance.

Same goes for if you are a patient for the dentist. If they are not using proper safety procedures - does the average person even know what OSHA standards may even apply to what they are doing? Before you can even begin to have a clue as to what safety precautions need to be taken you have to know what the hazards are.

I don't see how that has anything to do with the topic?? But this is the reason the dentist has medical malpractice insurance.

I understand that - I think that is a bigger issue with their liability insurance than with OSHA and safe work practice (but I could be wrong)

Sure it does, OSHA does nto write any standards, they just write a legally enforcable version of recognized safety practices. In this case that is the NFPA 70E, the first version of the 70E was released in 1979 and adopted as OSHA's final rule and ESWP's (Subpart S) in 1981, OSHA revisions have followed 70E revisions ever since. The NFPA was founded and funded by....you guessed it, insurance companies.

My point was if a mechanic was injured while working on your car, especially when working on it in their own facility, why should anything be the car owners fault, outside of the really bizzare possibility of the owner intentionally causing the injury somehow?

Again, not following you here, no one is sugesting the car owner would be at fault???

Try this example. You install an in ground pool in your back yard with no fence around it. You wake up one morning to find a neighbors kid floating in it. Do you think you could be held liable for that? You bet, which is why many places require you to have a fence around a pool.

I'm sure the line between employer and contracted party has been blurred by lawsuits in the past. Again I am not condoning unsafe work practices, but being held responsible for the negligence of someone you contracted (not employed) is just not right IMO.

Both the employer and contractor could be held liable if they are found negligent, it is all about what was done to protect the person. The 70E is the standard for electrical safety in the WORKPLACE (Not just for employees) and is clear about the responsibilities of the owner. The employer of the electrician has his own responsibilities to protect his employees (Training, providing PPE, etc...)

If the property owner does what the 70E requires, and the employer does what is required of him and the electrcian ignores all of his training, decides not to use his PPE, and gets hurt, there will be no one to blame but himself.

I don't see how this is confusing or how anyone can think it is wrong, these rules are all about preventing deaths or serious injuries of workers. However there are many senarios to cover so it gets a little complex to cover things like some moron that ignores the rules, gets hurt, and tries to place blame on others, which happens all the time.

But the fact is, when you are in that burn unit, being lowered into a tub of bleach with a nurse stading there with a brillo pad to "debreed" you for the 3rd time that day and for the 80th day in a row, who cares who's fault it is?!?!?? I promise you that would be the last thing on your mind.

 

[kwired]

Exactly, that is the problem, they need to ensure the EC meets the requirements from the 70E that I posted.
That is why this thread was started in the first place, the OP was concerned about the EC not being in compliance.

I don't see how that has anything to do with the topic?? But this is the reason the dentist has medical malpractice insurance.

Sure it does, OSHA does nto write any standards, they just write a legally enforcable version of recognized safety practices. In this case that is the NFPA 70E, the first version of the 70E was released in 1979 and adopted as OSHA's final rule and ESWP's (Subpart S) in 1981, OSHA revisions have followed 70E revisions ever since. The NFPA was founded and funded by....you guessed it, insurance companies.

Again, not following you here, no one is sugesting the car owner would be at fault???

Try this example. You install an in ground pool in your back yard with no fence around it. You wake up one morning to find a neighbors kid floating in it. Do you think you could be held liable for that? You bet, which is why many places require you to have a fence around a pool.



Both the employer and contractor could be held liable if they are found negligent, it is all about what was done to protect the person. The 70E is the standard for electrical safety in the WORKPLACE (Not just for employees) and is clear about the responsibilities of the owner. The employer of the electrician has his own responsibilities to protect his employees (Training, providing PPE, etc...)

If the property owner does what the 70E requires, and the employer does what is required of him and the electrcian ignores all of his training, decides not to use his PPE, and gets hurt, there will be no one to blame but himself.

I don't see how this is confusing or how anyone can think it is wrong, these rules are all about preventing deaths or serious injuries of workers. However there are many senarios to cover so it gets a little complex to cover things like some moron that ignores the rules, gets hurt, and tries to place blame on others, which happens all the time.

But the fact is, when you are in that burn unit, being lowered into a tub of bleach with a nurse stading there with a brillo pad to "debreed" you for the 3rd time that day and for the 80th day in a row, who cares who's fault it is?!?!?? I promise you that would be the last thing on your mind.

You are looking at it totally from the safety side - nothing wrong with that. Is every US citizen supposed to be familiar with 70E? It would seem to me that only if they have to deal with electrical hazards in the work place they may even have a chance of having heard of 70E. There is probably other similar publications for other lines of work none of us have ever heard of. If the hazards covered by those publications exist then we should all know about them just like 70E.

Lets say I am the owner of a home or a business. I need some electrical work done. You are saying that I am supposed to know whether or not the contractor I hire is following proper safe work practices - even though I may know nothing at all about electricity and may never care to know. Why is that my problem if that person is not following recognized work practices and gets injured? Will I feel bad the accident happened - likely. Will I feel it is my fault it happened? If I stayed out of the way and let him do his job - likely not.

Don't take this as me condoning non safe work practice. The debate of whether or not people in automobiles should be required to wear their seatbelts at least applies to more people in general because they are all subject to the consequences. Electrical work is done by less people than what there is that are passengers in automobiles.

My wife probably knows more about electricity than a lot of average people, just because she is married to me. She still has no idea that 70E even exists, does know there are hazards, but would have no idea what kind of protection is needed to do any specific task. Why is she any different than any property owner that hires an EC to do some work?

 

[zog]

You are looking at it totally from the safety side - nothing wrong with that.

No, I am mostly looking at this froma business side. Companies that do not follow 70E are going to be left behind as more and more industrial and commercial companies will require proof of 70E compliance for an EC to even bid a job. For commercial properties you will see this requirement not come from the manager of a taco bell but rather from taco HQ via thier insurance companies.

Is every US citizen supposed to be familiar with 70E? It would seem to me that only if they have to deal with electrical hazards in the work place they may even have a chance of having heard of 70E. There is probably other similar publications for other lines of work none of us have ever heard of. If the hazards covered by those publications exist then we should all know about them just like 70E.

No, I already stated I don't see this being an issue with residential customers, but that does not mean the EC does nto have to follow the rules.


Someone else is going to have to take over this discussion as I am off to the Keys in 10 minutes. I will be out on a boat most days and won't be around here but there are plenty of other members here that understand what the requirements are so tag guys, you are it.

I hope I answered Jimbos question from the 1st post

 

[kwired]

No, I am mostly looking at this froma business side. Companies that do not follow 70E are going to be left behind as more and more industrial and commercial companies will require proof of 70E compliance for an EC to even bid a job. For commercial properties you will see this requirement not come from the manager of a taco bell but rather from taco HQ via thier insurance companies.

No, I already stated I don't see this being an issue with residential customers, but that does not mean the EC does nto have to follow the rules.


Someone else is going to have to take over this discussion as I am off to the Keys in 10 minutes. I will be out on a boat most days and won't be around here but there are plenty of other members here that understand what the requirements are so tag guys, you are it.

I hope I answered Jimbos question from the 1st post

I fully agree with most of what you said. The part about commercial properties and Taco Bell is some of what happens. I have no problem with that. Just because HQ and their insurance requires them to follow 70E - who is there that knows and understands 70E to relieve them from their job if they are not in compliance?? If the contractor signs paperwork stating that they do practice 70E requirements and then one of their employees is injured because of non compliance - why is that liability on Taco Bell or its insurance? The contractor or his employee is the one not doing their part.

 

[petersonra]

I fully agree with most of what you said. The part about commercial properties and Taco Bell is some of what happens. I have no problem with that. Just because HQ and their insurance requires them to follow 70E - who is there that knows and understands 70E to relieve them from their job if they are not in compliance?? If the contractor signs paperwork stating that they do practice 70E requirements and then one of their employees is injured because of non compliance - why is that liability on Taco Bell or its insurance? The contractor or his employee is the one not doing their part.

Just because HQ says it has to be done, just how is someone at the local restaurant supposed to have the expertise to know if it has been done, or done correctly?

 

[kwired]

Just because HQ says it has to be done, just how is someone at the local restaurant supposed to have the expertise to know if it has been done, or done correctly?

Maybe I was not clear enough, but that is along the lines of what I was trying to say.

The local manager of the restaurant will not have any clue about electrical safe work practices, proper use of fall arrest equipment, etc.

Maybe LOTO as it applies to some of the equipment they actually should be locking out to clean, set up, etc. would be something he is aware of that is even remotely close to what an EC doing work there would need to also apply. That may not even be much of a problem at Taco Bell though. If they had on site meat grinders, dough mixers, or things of that nature it may be more likely, but many fast food places do not have the kind of equipment that routinely requires that kind of dissasembly that may make the need for LOTO to be all that necessary.

 

[jim dungar]

The local manager of the restaurant will not have any clue about electrical safe work practices, proper use of fall arrest equipment, etc.

In the US the property owner has always had some amount of exposure to liability.
This goes for electrical work, roofing work, asbestos removal, even painting the stripes in a parking lot. If a worker/employee is injured they have the right to sue everybody that might be involved, even remotely, in the incident.

Where do you see that implementation or enforcement of NFPA70E requirements increases a property owner's exposure?

 

[kwired]

In the US the property owner has always had some amount of exposure to liability.This goes for electrical work, roofing work, asbestos removal, even painting the stripes in a parking lot. If a worker/employee is injured they have the right to sue everybody that might be involved, even remotely, in the incident.Where do you see that implementation or enforcement of NFPA70E requirements increases a property owner's exposure?

I understand the reality, I do not think it is always right. Makes a lot of sense to call yourself an electrician, roofer, asbestos remover, etc. and then sue a property owner for your own negligence.

 

[iwire]

I understand the reality, I do not think it is always right. Makes a lot of sense to call yourself an electrician, roofer, asbestos remover, etc. and then sue a property owner for your own negligence.

A much more likely scenario is an electrical worker getting hurt because their employer did not train them or provide the safety equipment.

The worker gets a lawyer and the Lawyer decides who to sue. Which I am sure you know means anyone with deep pockets that was even remotely connected to the job.

The above has nothing to do with 70e and everything to do with any injury case.

About ten years ago a night club burned in RI,

Settlements paid out total nearly $175 million. The defendants include local TV station WPRI, JBL, Anheuser-Busch, Clear Channel, and Home Depot.

JBLs involvement amounted to building the speakers being used they did not start the fire and neither did any of the others, the origin of the fire was known to be fireworks. But those defendants had the deep pockets so they got screwed.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Don't get me wrong I am in no way discouraging safe work practices, but when someone hires a so called professional that is what they expect If that is not what they get that is another problem, but why are you liable for technical neglegence that you may have no idea what is correct procedure?

There are two reasons...first we have way too many lawyers with nothing else to do and second because we are making it so we are no longer resposnible for our actions...it is always some one else's fault.

 

[kwired]

So are we supposed to crawl in our shells and avoid everything - just in case, or are we supposed to try our best to do what we feel is right and hope for the best?

Every action you make is a potential lawsuit away from making a major change to how you live whether you make little or a lot.

 

[renosteinke]

I hate to say this, but the forum members here are more responsible for this legal anarchy than most.

That is what happens, what has to happen, when you combine the impossibility of knowing what 'the rules are' with the removal of responsibility from the involved persons.

And that, my friends, is exactly what you get when you pile on multiple regulatory 'authorities', endless rules, and constant changes.

Doubt me? Just look over the threads here .... see how many 'normal' things are now 'wrong;' how many different codes and standards apply; how many are the overlapping (and contradictory) AHJ's; the perversion of the role of the 'testing agencies;' and how frequent the changes.

Or, look to the job site, where the 'electrician' is treated as if he were little more than a retarded chimp with a tool belt. Even the master electrician is at the mercy of some seminar-trained 'administrator' or 'inspector.' Whether a job takes place at all can be an odyssey through the twilight zone of endless committees, boards, and bureaucracies; heaven forbid that you fail to provide ENOUGH copies of the plans to pass around the countless, anonymous approval ministries.

Getting back on topic .... working live .... it's rather frustrating that even changing a light bulb is considered 'working hot,' and, absent reams of engineering studies, calls for enough PPE to preclude climbing the ladder or opening the fixture. The irony is that the same guy who's jumped all over when changing a bulb is the guy who five minutes ago was expected to climb a pole and tie into the unfused PoCo service drop. Go figure.

 

[petersonra]

The irony is that the same guy who's jumped all over when changing a bulb is the guy who five minutes ago was expected to climb a pole and tie into the unfused PoCo service drop.

But the rules allow that, so it is OK.

 

[kwired]

But the rules allow that, so it is OK.

I thought it was just POCO employees that can do that. Somehow they are immune to arc flash or shock hazards if it is below 600 volts.

 

[jim dungar]

I thought it was just POCO employees that can do that. Somehow they are immune to arc flash or shock hazards if it is below 600 volts.

No where does it say that.

Compliance with arc flash PPE requirements is as big a deal with 'utilities' as it is with 'companies'.

This is a little old, but it seems real close to NFPA70E:

NESC 2006- Effective as of January 1, 2009, the employer shall ensure that an assessment is performed to determine potential exposure to an electric arc for employees who work on or near energized parts or equipment. If the assessment determines a potential employee exposure greater than 2 cal/cm2 exists (see Neal, Bingham, and Doughty [B59]), the employer shall require employees to wear clothing or a clothing system that has an effective arc rating not less than the anticipated level of arc energy. When exposed to an electric arc or flame, clothing made from the following materials shall not be worn: acetate, nylon, polyester, or polypropylene. The effective arc rating of clothing or a clothing system to be worn at voltages 1000 V and above shall be determined using Tables 410-1 and 410-2 or performing an arc hazard analysis. When an arc hazard analysis is performed, it shall include a calculation of the estimated arc energy based on the available fault current, the duration of the arc (cycles), and the distance from the arc to the employee.

EXCEPTION 2: For secondary systems below 1000 V, applicable work rules required by this part and engineering controls shall be utilized to limit exposure. In lieu of performing an arc hazard analysis, clothing or a clothing system with a minimum effective arc rating of 4 cal/cm2 shall be required to limit the likelihood of ignition.

 

[kwired]

No where does it say that.

Compliance with arc flash PPE requirements is as big a deal with 'utilities' as it is with 'companies'.

This is a little old, but it seems real close to NFPA70E:

But they actually can connect a live service drop, plug in a meter while live, etc. yet we hear all the preaching about how to work on anything live needs justification and there is not many conditions that justify it - it can always be turned off.

Well reality is we could turn a generation facility off if needed just to connect a service drop if it might save a life, yet consumer demand and business of selling reliable energy says we can not do that.

 

[tom baker]

But on the last post, if there is an accident from a fall, the lawsuits will be placed against everyone involved including the building owner. Anyone can sue anyone for anything, and in cases like this, as Zog pointed out, the workers/contractors/owners loose all the time.