Article 130.2 seems pretty clear that before the LAB is crossed the equipment must be put into an electrically safe work condition. The definition of the electrically safe work condition in the standard says it needs to be disconnected, locked and tagged. The standard does go on and allows the LAB to be crossed in accordance with the exceptions listed in 130.2(A) (1) through (4). My assumption is that the requirement for the shock and arc flash risk assessments outlined in 130.4 and 130.5 are due to the determination made prior that energized work is justified per the exceptions in 130.2(A) (1) through (4).

What wording in the standard allows activities like replacing fuses in a fused disconnect in its off state with the line side terminals exposed and energized or replacing a de-energized electrical component in an electrical cabinet where the work is being done within the LAB of other energized components when none of the exceptions to 130.2 apply? My point is Maintenance Managers will contend that they have assessed the shock and arc flash risks for a task and allow work similar to the tasks just mentioned despite 130.2s prohibition against it. What am I missing here?
Thanks in advance for your your insights.

Graino,

Unfortunately the only thing that allows replacement of a fuse into the de-energized holder with line side hot within the Restricted Approach Boundary is if (A)1 applies, that it's more dangerous to turn it off.
So you have to de-energize the line side of the switch in order to comply with 70E. Unless you're a hospital, a wastewater treatment plant, a power plant, etc.

70E needs to change the criteria for doing Energized Work to allow it if the work can be done safely as documented by an Energized Electrical Work Permit (EEWP). That would promote the use of the EEWP, which I believe would result in less accidents.

The example that I use is a Data Center where you can't land 3 #4/0 conductors on the load side of a de-energized 225-amp breaker in a Power Distribution Unit with three other like breakers in operation to add a Remote Power Panel while the PDU is energized. Anand I'm talking about a Data Center where uptime is job one. That task can be done safely while energized by a competent electrician with appropriate PPE.

I put in a Notice of Intent to Make a Motion (NITMAM) for the 2nd draft of 70E 2021 that says just that, but somehow there's an overriding intent to state that energized work is a last resort. I know it won't be considered, and I don't know how to affect that.

Meanwhile I think there's lots of energized work that goes undocumented that would be better served if planned out with an EEWP.

Peace.
Run.

John M

In another life and career we had a saying "Operational Necessity will always overcome the best safety and security practices." Unfortunately, with rapidly evolving standards, issues of complying with the standard while working on 10, 20, 30, 40, 50 year or more old equipment are often neglected. However, in almost every case where an EEWP was thought to be required to work on old equipment, a brief review with an experienced group of electrical workers familiar with the equipment can almost always find an alternative, much safer, de-energized work plan to get the job done and comply with the standard. Every time someone (including myself) says we need an EEWP, stop and think is it really worth the risk.

Actually none of those locations would have a blanket exception that would allow energized work.