ECN Electrical Forum - Discussion Forums for Electricians, Inspectors and Related Professionals
ECN Shout Chat
ShoutChat
Recent Posts
Increasing demand factors in residential
by gfretwell - 03/28/24 12:43 AM
Portable generator question
by Steve Miller - 03/19/24 08:50 PM
Do we need grounding?
by NORCAL - 03/19/24 05:11 PM
240V only in a home and NEC?
by dsk - 03/19/24 06:33 AM
Cordless Tools: The Obvious Question
by renosteinke - 03/14/24 08:05 PM
New in the Gallery:
This is a new one
This is a new one
by timmp, September 24
Few pics I found
Few pics I found
by timmp, August 15
Who's Online Now
1 members (Scott35), 273 guests, and 22 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate Thread
Page 2 of 3 1 2 3
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 5,445
Likes: 2
Cat Servant
Member
Gee, Harold ... what ever happened to folks saying 'not me' and voting with their feet? Have we become a society of women and mice?

It's not safe. That's the individuals call, and his right. Not long ago, a contractor quit a government job near Reno, as he was not convinced the bridge he was to build was safe. Walking away from a multi-million dollar job.

Oddly enough, there is NO agency - not OSHA, not the building department, no one - with the brief to pass judgement on structural designs. Can't hide behind the inspector.

Sorry, but I've seen plenty of folks simply walk away when they felt the situation was unsafe. I've seen it get to the point of one contractor threatening to pull his crew if a hazard was not addressed. I've seen such crews leave.

On the 'other' side of the coin, I've seen endless silliness come out of 'safety' offices. These clown have gone so far as to attempt to specify the shape of toilet seats!

Now, some folks in my town want the trash man picking through the trash and making notes, so the city can look for 'illegal' construction activity. That ought to be fun, especially in light of the very lax permit requirements here.

Arc Flash PPE Clothing, LOTO & Insulated Tools
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 46
Member
Originally Posted by renosteinke
Look to "Amish Country" for some insights to the 'misery loves company' principle. Over-regulated folks assert "it's not fair- we need to apply the rules to the Amish, too!" Note that folks don't say "The Amish are right- we need to trim back our government." This, despite plenty of testimony that Amish buildings don't fall apart (or burn down) any more than "permitted" buildings. This is even more impressive, as those folks still heat, cook, and light using open flames!

OSHA needs to be eliminated.


Too true. I LIVE IN the heart of Amish Country and I can testify to that firsthand. If you followed them throughout their day, you could probably nail some safety or code violation every 10 minutes, all day long.

The one thing that OSHA and so many other safety organizations are blind to is the "happy medium". Some safety is better than no safety; moderate safety is better than extreme safety. Let the stupidity get killed off, don't let it breed! shocked


Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 947
T
twh Offline
Member
It isn't about safety, really. It's about saving money.

Where I am, we have a workers' compensation board that decides who gets paid for their injury and how much they get paid.

I knew a fellow who hurt his back and had an operation. Afterwards, the only work he could find was guarding a small town police cell at night. The injury got worse until he couldn't drive to work or stay sitting or standing for very long. So, he started collecting full compensation.

The compensation board sent him to a doctor and the doctor recommended against another operation because there was a 50% chance he would never walk after.

The compensation board said they were willing to take that chance.

They liked the odds that there was a 50% chance that they could cut him off. If they lost the bet, they were already paying him, anyway.

I know they have an appeal procedure. Those appeals were handled entirely by another comp board employee. I knew one of them and she was quite unsympathetic to the plight of workers.

Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,233
H
Member
I once went in front of an OSHA inspector. Not because I did something wrong, but because one of my customers did. This nursing home had a handyman (1st mistake) who thought he could fix anything. So he tried his hand at fixing a 3 phase reversing switch in the kitchen (2nd mistake)He wired it wrong and someone got hurt. OSHA came in and fined the owner for I think $4,000. This was back in the '80's. The owner was fine for just 2 violations, I forget the first but the second was that there was no GFI protection for the counter top "outlets". This before it was required. Plus the device was a rain tight reversing 3 phase switch. So I had to go on behalf of the owner to testify that GFI protection was not required as per NEC at the time.

Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 787
L
LarryC Offline OP
Member
The documentation I was given to justify the safety statements is OSHA 1910.333 printout where it talks about employees coming in contact with energized circuit parts "indirectly through some other conductive object." Specifically 1910.333(a)(2)

The paragraph then refers to specific work practices in paragraph (c).


1910.333(c)

"Working on or near exposed energized parts."

1910.333(c)(1)

"Application." This paragraph applies to work performed on exposed live parts (involving either direct contact or by means of tools or materials) or near enough to them for employees to be exposed to any hazard they present.



Does this section refer to working with control equipment that you can't reach energized parts without using a tool?

It "seems" to me that someone is taking a sentence out of context and using it to justify something else. Am I all wet or do you folks see it the same way?

Last edited by LarryC; 03/25/13 09:16 PM.
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 7,381
Likes: 7
Member
I take it as a tool contacting energized parts. Now, using screw terminals seems to present the same condition, right??

Or, are they looking fr covers over all terminals?

I'm confused.


John
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 787
L
LarryC Offline OP
Member
As it was explained to me, if an indivdual could use a conductive item and is able to make contact with energized parts, that means that there is hazard present. Such as a paper clip, a metal knife blade, keys, etc. Therefore we must pursue avenues to minimize or eliminate the "hazard". As I understand, this means de-energizing the system or require tools to gain access to the energized parts.

While I concede someone has to work at it to harm themselves, where do we draw the line? If my interpretation of this is correct, then ALL unused outlets must be de-energized. That will certainly cause problems for anyone who needs to find the correct breaker to turn on a de-energized outlet to plug in a vacuum cleaner, trouble light, or battery charger for their computer. How about circuits where some of the outlets are used and the rest of them empty?

My philosophy is that people have to have some basic sense. If they are that much of a hazard that we have to protect them from themselves, then they should not be allowed to be in the work area, be allowed to use fire, or drive a motorized vehicle. Typically if a person is not trained to not stick objects into electrical bits, we hire a sitter to keep them out of trouble.

Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 7,381
Likes: 7
Member
Larry:
Re-reading this from the begining, I have to ask this,

Are the components that create the issue within an enclosure? If so, then would not only 'qualified' people have access to the interior of the enclosure?

A compliant few warning label on the enclosure may be a solution.


John
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 5,445
Likes: 2
Cat Servant
Member
Larry's bringing up an issue that would fit right in, if we had an 'industrial' forum. Follow this train of thought first:
1) Open a control panel or starter, there are lots of things that can shock you;
2) So, industry started making things with arc shields, dividers, etc.;
3)Then industry -in part with the arrival of IEC stuff here - went another step and started making thing 'finger safe.' So, for example, you could test or change a fuse without ever being able to actually touch anything live.

Completely independent of this:
1) The NFPA has been hawking their 'maintenance' and 'safety' standards for years (probably hoping to repeat the success they had with the NEC);
2) OSHA begins to rely on "70E" as defining the standard practices. Trouble is, 70E is completely ignorant as regards all the design and standards work already done (by parties other than the NFPA); and,
3) The NFPA doubles down on this power grab by adding a section to the NEC about control panels, and calls for their listing.

70E wants full moon suit and testing to ensure power is off. 70E does not recognize any design element that will allow a test probe yet exclude a finger. 70E wants arc-flash calcs and documented selective co-ordination at ever step, from the PoCo drop to the last outlet. 70E completely disregards the safety of control circuits, since the same cabinet has 'power circuits' in it as well.

End result? You are supposed to treat the latest, safest stuff the same way as you would treat stuff that was little more than spring clips and rusty nails, mounted in the open on a 2x4.

It's like the tax code: if they want to gig you, they will- and there's not a damn thing you can do about it.

Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 787
L
LarryC Offline OP
Member
We are building / designing / testing a machine. The machine uses what I think are touch safe terminals. All energized parts >60V are insulated or behind suitable insulators. I am standing there, inside a roped off area, more than 40 inches between the rope barrier and the open energized control panel. The safety consultant was concerned that the panel should be shut whenever the machine is energized. We have been running the machine for debug purposes with the panels left open. People inside the roped off area are aware of potential hazards and are properly trained.

Page 2 of 3 1 2 3

Link Copied to Clipboard
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5