LIVE WORK ON LIGHTING CIRCUIT RESULTS IN SERIOUS INJURIES

Copyright Material IEEE

Paper No. ESW2013-29

Shahid Jamil, M.Sc., P.Eng. SMIEEE

Upstream Engineering Center, BP Americas Inc.
501 Westlake Park Blvd.
Houston, TX 77079 USA
shahid.jamil@bp.com

Abstract - This presentation will discuss the details of how
an experienced Electrician received serious injuries when he
elected to work on a live or energized 347 V lighting circuit. This
will also discuss the North American electrical safety standards’
requirements about the live work. This discussion will help
encourage workers to switch-off the circuits and equipment as
much as possible to enhance their safely. The injuries
experienced by the worker have changed his perspective of
both work and life and have made him a messenger of
electrical safety and trainer as well. A few pictures shared by
the worker will make an everlasting impression on the
attendees.
Index Terms — Electrical Safety, 347 V Lighting, Lighting
Circuits, Live Work, Energized Work,
I. INTRODUCTION
In the USA, OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health
Administration) Subpart S, CFR 29 OSHA 1910.331-.335 was
released in 1991. The Subpart S provides guidelines as to
when work on energized electrical circuits and equipment can
be carried out.
The CFR 29 OSHA 1910.333(a) states “Live parts to which
an employee may be exposed shall be de-energized before the
employee works on or near them, unless the employer can
demonstrate that de-energizing 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 de-energized 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.”[1]
“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
circuits that can be performed with the circuit energized and
work on circuits that form an integral part of a continuous
industrial process in a chemical plant or refinery that would
otherwise need to be completely shut down in order to permit
work on one circuit or piece of equipment.”[1]
Almost similar requirement was later included in the NFPA
70E [2] to prohibit the live work on electrical circuits and
equipment. And later this requirement was introduced in
Canada with the release of a new electrical safety standard
CSA Z462-2008 [3].
Since OSHA Subpart S and NFPA 70E are not applicable to
Canadian workplaces this requirement was not known to a
great percentage of electrical workers in Canada.
The electrical incident described here occurred a few months
before the release of CSA Z462-2008 in Canada. The incident
description was shared by an Electrician (Paul E. Worker, an
assumed name to hide the identity) for the purpose of bringing
awareness and helping others to learn from the incident. Paul
was working with a small electrical contracting company at the
time of the incident.
II. INCIDENT DESCRIPTION
A. The Task
The task assigned to the electrician was troubleshooting of a
347 V lighting circuit in a junction box.
B. The Description
Paul was troubleshooting a 347 volt lighting circuit in a
junction box. He had de-energized the phase that he was
working on but left the other two phases of the circuit
energized. He was well aware that the neutral conductor would
be carrying the unbalanced loads of the two energized phases,
but did not shut those phases off because the building was
occupied and did not wish to inconvenience the occupants. As
he spun the wire-nut off the spliced neutral conductors, the
copper coil inside the wire-nut separated and the wire-nut
would not “thread off”. At this point he grasped the nut at the
bottom end and pulled it off. As it pulled off, the copper coil
remained attached to the splice of the two neutral conductors.
The fingers of his left hand made the contact with the
energized coil. At this moment he was unable to let go of the
conductors and coil (he was “hung up”). In order to save himself
from electrocution, he jumped off the ladder.
Paul was working at a height of about 10’. The work practices
required him to use the fall protection. Since there was no
suitable tie-off point for the safety harness Paul did not use the
fall protection. Author believes the use of fall protection would
have minimized the injuries.

978-1-4673-3039-8/13/$31.00 ©2013 IEEE

 III. THE INJURIES
During the fall Paul pushed a hanging light fixture out of the
way with his right hand (causing deep lacerations to the right
index and ring fingers). This action orientated his body for a
“heels first landing”. The fall fractured both his left and right
heels.
After spending a week in hospital his heels were surgically
repaired which required 2 plates and 7 screws in right heel and
2 plates with 5 screws in the left heel. The right heel was the
worst injured of the two. Most of the cartilage in the foot had
been crushed beyond repair hindering the ability to run and he
could walk with the aid of orthotic inserts and shoes.
During the rehabilitation he was advised that “your career is
over, you know that?”
Paul, after an absence of about nine months due to the
injuries, resumed work but now he has been working in the
electrical safety area and training others.
IV. SUMMARY
Although the live work was performed to avoid
inconveniencing others, the standard safety precautions should
have been used to eliminate the possibility of injuries. These
include, but not limited to, the following:
• Use of Voltage Rated Gloves with Leather Protectors -
Class 0,
• Approved Insulated Tools Rated for 1000 V,
• Approved Category III or IV Meter.
• Use of fall protection.
Note: One can argue and ask if small contracting
organizations have the necessary knowledge about what the
electrical safety standards require and provide the tools and
training to their workers.
Author’s personal experience is that some of the small
contractors or independent workers are not familiar with the
latest electrical safety standards and do not provide and use
necessary safety precautions, tools and training.
V. CONCLUSIONS
Work on live circuits and equipment must not be carried out
unless it meets the criteria established in the applicable
regulatory requirements and the live work to avoid
inconveniencing others must be avoided.
Lack of training was the root cause of the injury incident. If
Paul had received the training he would have switched-off the
lighting circuit and used voltage rated gloves, insulated tools,
etc.
VI. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The author very much appreciates the fellow electrical safety
worker for sharing the details of the incident and allowing to
discuss this with the IEEE ESW attendees. Both Paul and the
author believe this incident will act as a reminder to all workers
that live work must be done only when it is not feasible to
switch-off power due to design or operational conditions.
VII. REFERENCES
[1] CFR 29 OSHA 1910.331-.335, Subpart S: Electrical
Safety-Related Work Practices.
[2] NFPA 70E, Electrical Safety in the Workplace.
[3] CSA Z462-2008, Electrical Safety Standard.
VIII. VITA
Shahid Jamil (S’74, M’75, SM’96, Emeritus’12) received
B.Sc. and B.Sc. (Elect. Eng.) Degrees from Aligarh Muslim
University, India, and M.Sc. (Elect. Eng.) degree from Queen’s
University, Kingston, Canada. He joined the Iron Ore Company
of Canada, Labrador City, Canada, in 1975. In 1979, he joined
Imperial Oil’s Esso Chemical Canada (Exxon) Plant, Redwater.
In 1988, he moved to Imperial Oil’s Strathcona Refinery in
Edmonton. In 1991, he started an assignment at Exxon
Chemical's Baytown Plant in Texas, where he was responsible
for the development, design, and startup support for electrical
projects, technical support for the operation, maintenance and
troubleshooting of the plant electrical power system, etc. In
Baytown, he was also responsible for the interpretation and
implementation of applicable safety regulations and standards,
upgrade of plant electrical safety standards, and procedures
and compliance. In 1998, Shahid moved to Thailand to support
the start-up of Exxon Chemical's $400 Million project. In 1999,
Shahid moved to Singapore for the start-up of ExxonMobil
Chemical Company's $2,000 Million chemical complex.
Shahid has been very active in the area of electrical safety
and has authored/co-authored 8 electrical safety papers and
received three “First Paper” and one "Honorable Mention"
awards from PCIC/IEEE and “Third Best Presentation” award
from PCIC/IEEE Electrical Safety Workshop. Shahid has
chaired/co-chaired/coordinated three PCIC/IEEE Electrical
Safety Workshops in Indianapolis (1997), Madras, India (1998)
and New-Delhi (2000). He has co-presented papers and
tutorials at international conferences and workshops,
developed training programs and carried out electrical safety
training for over 1500 skilled workers in Canada, India,
Singapore, Thailand, the USA and South American Countries.
US Immigration and Naturalization Services recognized
exceptional experience and expertise in Electrical Safety and
granted the Permanent Residence (Green Card).
Shahid was the recipient of 2009 IEEE/PCIC Excellence in
Electrical Safety award for "Outstanding dedication and
contributions made to advance and accelerate the dispersion of
information and knowledge impacting electrical safety through
activities within and outside the Petroleum and Chemical
Industry Committee.”
Shahid has left ExxonMobil and is currently working with
British Petroleum in Houston, Texas.
Shahid is a Registered Professional Engineer in the Province
of Alberta, Canada.