Does operation of a lighting circuit breaker require PPE?

[jim dungar]

Answers like these is why I don't visit this forum too much. There is not one study I have seen, where they did a risk analysis on a men's room light switch. In fact, I am going to hang a pair of safety glasses on the light switch in every bathroom in the building, and require every employee to don their moon suit before going potty.

You asked for an opinion and I asked for yours. The forum is for a two way conversation.

My guess is that most facilities have all done a risk analysis of their light switches, without knowing it.

In the industry's collective experience there is little risk of experiencing an arc flsh on a branch circuit wiring device less than 30A. NFPA70E does not specifically say these can be ignored, but it also does not say they have to be labled.

When used as a light switch is a SWD rated breaker really any more likely to fail than a light switch?
Is a panel more likely to see an arc fault do the the failure of a 20A single pole breaker being used as a switch, or while a circuit is being added to an energized one?

 

[spark master]

You asked for an opinion and I asked for yours. The forum is for a two way conversation.

My guess is that most facilities have all done a risk analysis of their light switches, without knowing it.

In the industry's collective experience there is little risk of experiencing an arc flsh on a branch circuit wiring device less than 30A. NFPA70E does not specifically say these can be ignored, but it also does not say they have to be labled.

When used as a light switch is a SWD rated breaker really any more likely to fail than a light switch?
Is a panel more likely to see an arc fault do the the failure of a 20A single pole breaker being used as a switch, or while a circuit is being added to an energized one?

I still pose the question, does moving the switching mechanism out of the panel, and into a 1900 box reduce the risk, and negate the need for PPE ? In my opinion, yes, because of the 12 ga wire from the breaker to the newly mounted 1900 box. However long that may be. 3-4 feet. If would be helpful if you as moderator would answer the question for the OP, and myself.

 

[jim dungar]

If would be helpful if you as moderator would answer the question for the OP, and myself.

Sorry, but that is not a requirement of me as moderator.

I have answered your question, it appears you just don't like what I have to say.

It is the responsibility of the facility's Electrical Safe Work Practices program to address the situations that require PPE, the answer will not be found in NFPA70E.

 

[GoldDigger]

I still pose the question, does moving the switching mechanism out of the panel, and into a 1900 box reduce the risk, and negate the need for PPE ? In my opinion, yes, because of the 12 ga wire from the breaker to the newly mounted 1900 box.

It would not necessarily reduce it a lot because of the 3-4 foot 12 ga wire. But it will reduce it considerably because it is on the load side of a 20 or 30 amp breaker. The arc flash potential in the panel relates directly to the available energy from the bus itself in the event that the breaker fails.
Even though the results may still be startling, the energy available at a failed switch downstream from the branch OCPD will be much smaller.
The code will not allow a 20 amp switch to be connected directly to a 400A bus! (Even tap rules do not allow a device other than an OCPD to be the first one at the far end of the tap.)

 

[Bang]

It is the responsibility of the facility's Electrical Safe Work Practices program to address the situations that require PPE, the answer will not be found in NFPA70E.

Correct, having taken the Arc Flash Safety course by more than one different vendor, it has to be a certified person to conduct the analysis. They also state that whenever performing any "Exposed" work over 50 volts, there should be PPE donned. To increase their job security of performing analysis, they went into the "importance that every place is different."

 

[jim dungar]

... it has to be a certified person to conduct the analysis....

False, there is no certification process for those who perform analyses.

NFPA70E clearly says that PPE is required whenever a hazard exists.
It is up to the facility to decide what PPE is required.

 

[Bang]

False, there is no certification process for those who perform analyses.

NFPA70E clearly says that PPE is required whenever a hazard exists.
It is up to the facility to decide what PPE is required.

Thanks for the correction.....I just ASSumed that the info they were telling us was documented. Didn't even bother to ask. So I'll be looking in the NFPA70E myself....thanks again!

 

[jim dungar]

... the info they were telling us was documented.

It is too bad that many firms which perform studies seem to be more interested in selling you their primary product (e.g. PPE or training) than they are in helping you create a 'living and evolving' ESWP program.

Like anything else, 'you don't get what you don't pay for'. If scare tactics were used to sell the study, you can be sure they will also be used during it.

 

[spark master]

Sorry, but that is not a requirement of me as moderator.

I have answered your question, it appears you just don't like what I have to say.

It is the responsibility of the facility's Electrical Safe Work Practices program to address the situations that require PPE, the answer will not be found in NFPA70E.

I'm not sure you answered my questions. You simply asked more questions, which were somewhat leading in a certain direction. In so much, it seems you have the answers, but do not wish to share.

 

[GoldDigger]

I'm not sure you answered my questions. You simply asked more questions, which were somewhat leading in a certain direction. In so much, it seems you have the answers, but do not wish to share.

When the answer to a question depends on many variable local factors, it is far more responsible to direct you toward a local solution than to try ask all of the possible questions, and then hope those were all the questions and that you gave only right answers.

There is enough debate about the meaning of the code to make it hard to give one answer to some simple code questions.
When the subject is something that under code requires hands-on local evaluation, there can be no "answer" here. But there can be advice.

 

[jim dungar]

I'm not sure you answered my questions. You simply asked more questions, which were somewhat leading in a certain direction. In so much, it seems you have the answers, but do not wish to share.

Yes, I asked specific questions of you, the answers to which would help me understand more of your situation.

My questions were related to why you told the customer PPE would not be needed. My understanding of NFPA70E is that PPE is always needed whenever a hazard exists. I thought it would be good to get your side of this issue.

Believe it or not, I do not care which decision is made. I have successfully convinced some customers to use the breaker and others to install switches. I care about the customer recognizing and accepting the risk associated with their ESWP.