5/27/2014
Continuing Education Credits
NECA has been accredited as an Authorized Provider by the International Association for Continuing Education and Training (IACET) and is authorized to offer IACET CEUs for its programs that qualify under the ANSI/IACET Standard.
This session is eligible for 0.1 IACET CEUs
To earn these credits you must:
• Have your badge scanned in and out at the door
• Attend 90% of this presentation
• Fill out the online evaluation for this session
Joe O’Connor (joconnor@intecweb.com)
800.745.4818
© 2012 National Electrical Contractors Association and Intec, Inc.
Objectives
Energized vs. De‐energized ‐ Overview

Explain why work should be done de‐energized
New Attitude on Electrical Safety Work Practices 
Define “qualified person”
‐ working “hot” or energized for convenience unacceptable. 
Describe three circumstances when it is acceptable to work energized
‐ creation of an electrically safe work condition primary means of protection

Identify and define the electrical shock boundaries
‐ energized work must be justified 
Identify the basis for the arc‐flash boundary

List at least five elements of an Energized Electrical Work (EEW) Permit Energized vs. De‐energized ‐ Overview
Energized vs. De‐energized ‐ Overview
Working energized can cause severe shock and arc flash injuries:
Working energized can cause expensive damage to property and equipment:  severe burns  scarring
 Physical damage to equipment –
($50,000 average)
 tissue death  lost limbs  blindness
 hearing loss  Project delays, loss of electrical power or service, and business interruption (about $85,000/incident )
 and more
1
5/27/2014
Energized vs. De‐energized ‐ Overview
Energized vs. De‐energized ‐ Overview
Rules established for working safely: Enforcement:  OSHA
 General Duty 5(a)(1)  NFPA 70E
 29 CFR 1910.335(a)(1)(i)
 Tort Liability
Energized vs. De‐energized –
Decision or Justification
Energized vs. De‐energized –
Decision or Justification
Justification
 OSHA and NFPA 70E prohibit working on energized circuits  Less Than 50 Volts  Few exceptions
 Greater Hazard  Exceptions must be reviewed at management/owner
level with host employer
 Infeasibility
Energized vs. De‐energized –
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Energized vs. De‐energized –
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
 Include the host
Host/Contractor Responsibilities  Host must inform of known hazards  Identify whether employees are qualified  Contractor advise the host of hazard presented by work
 Conduct an electrical analysis  Equipment that should be labeled • incident energy level • minimum PPE requirements. 2
5/27/2014
Energized vs. De‐energized –
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Energized vs. De‐energized –
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Qualified vs. Unqualified Shock Hazard Analysis  Qualified Person
• skills and knowledge related operation
• received safety training to recognize/avoid hazards  Unqualified employee • unfamiliar with a particular piece of equipment or installation
Energized vs. De‐energized –
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Energized vs. De‐energized –
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Boundary Requirements Arc‐Flash Hazard Analysis  Limited Approach
 Incident energy at the working distance
 PPE needed  Prohibited Approach
 Point where the incident energy will not cause severe damage (second degree burns ‐ 1.2 cal/cm2)
 Restricted Approach
 Arc flash boundary independent of shock protection
Energized vs. De‐energized –
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Energized vs. De‐energized –
Electrical Energized Work (EEW) Permit Arc‐Flash Hazard Analysis EEW Permit

Formulas (IEEE 1584)

NFPA 70E Tables
 NECA’s NFPA 70E PPE Selector

Description of the circuit and equipment to be worked on and their location 
Justification for why the work must be performed in an energized condition 3
5/27/2014
Energized vs. De‐energized –
Electrical Energized Work (EEW) Permit Energized vs. De‐energized –
Electrical Energized Work (EEW) Permit EEW Permit
EEW Permit
 Description of the safe work practices to be employed  Results of the shock hazard analysis Energized vs. De‐energized –
Electrical Energized Work (EEW) Permit Energized vs. De‐energized –
Electrical Energized Work (EEW) Permit EEW Permit
EEW Permit
 Results of the arc flash hazard analysis  Means employed to restrict the access of unqualified persons
• Arc flash boundary • Incident energy or hazard/risk category • PPE Energized vs. De‐energized –
Electrical Energized Work (EEW) Permit Energized vs. De‐energized –
Electrical Energized Work (EEW) Permit EEW Permit
EEW Permit
 Evidence of completion of a job briefing
 Energized work approval (signatures of the authorizing or responsible management, safety officer, and the client) 4
5/27/2014
Energized vs. De‐energized –
Electrical Energized Work (EEW) Permit Energized vs. De‐energized
– Summary
 Exemptions to Work Permit  Working energized for convenience no longer acceptable
• testing • troubleshooting • voltage measuring • visual inspection
 Causes severe injury, equipment damage and production delays
 NFPA 70E and OSHA provide safety precautions/work practices
 Enforcement
• General Duty Clause
• 29 CFR 1910.335(a)(1)(i) • Tort Liability
Energized vs. De‐energized
– Summary
Energized vs. De‐energized
– Summary
 Exceptions to working energized
 Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment • Less Than 50 Volts • Host/Contractor exchange information
• Identify qualified employees
• Greater Hazard • Perform shock hazard analysis
• Infeasibility Energized vs. De‐energized
– Summary
 Prepare an Electrical Energized Work Permit which includes: • Description of work
• Justification for working energized
• Description of safe work practices • Results of shock hazard analysis • Results of arc flash hazard analysis • Means to restrict access of unqualified • Perform arc flash hazard analysis
Energized vs. De‐energized
– Review Questions
1. Which of the following can occur when an arc flash occurs? a. pressure waves of up to 2160lbs/ft3 b. temperatures of up to 35,000 o F
c. sound levels of up to 141 dB
d. all of the above
• Evidence of job briefing
• Energized work approval 5
5/27/2014
Energized vs. De‐energized
– Review Questions
2. Which of the following is possible justification for working
energized based on infeasibility?
Energized vs. De‐energized
– Review Questions
3. The distance from an exposed energized electrical conductor
within which a shock hazard exists and no unqualified
workers are allowed is the:
a. replacing lamps
a. arc flash boundary
b. when host employer tells you work must be done
energized
b. limited approach boundary
c. diagnostics and testing
c. qualification boundary
d. all of the above
d. none of the above
Energized vs. De‐energized
– Review Questions
4. The approach limit at a distance from a prospective arc source
within which a person could receive a second degree burn
(incident energy is below 1.2 cal/cm2) is:
a. arc flash boundary
Energized vs. De‐energized
– Review Questions
5. Which of the following is NOT part of an Energized Electrical
Work (EEW) Permit?
a. results of the arc‐flash and shock hazard analysis
b. number of individuals without power if de‐energization
is used
b. limited approach boundary
c. safe work practices
c. restricted approach boundary
d. none of the above
d. signatures of authorizing management, safety officer
and client
Controlling Hazardous Energy – Resources 6
5/27/2014
Controlling Hazardous Energy – Resources www.esafetyline.net/neca
7