Arc Flash Suits for Disconnects?

[jmellc]

Luckily, the possibility of a 3-phase bolted fault occurring is extremely low, unless there has been a wiring error. In general, we all need to rethink our 'tripped protective device' philosophy. Honestly, how many electricians reset a tripped device as the first step in their troubleshooting?

But the OP was about turning off something that had been on, not about resetting a tripped device.

A wiring error would have already shown up, as in nonfunctioning equipment, improper rotation or burned out equipment if wrong voltage applied.

 

[jim dungar]

A wiring error would have already shown up....

Which is why there is little risk in operating a properly maintained device, for LOTO.

 

[Fulthrotl]

The Department of Navy bought us 8 cal pants and shirts and we are required to wear them when reporting to work. To turn a breaker on we are also required: hardhat, safety glasses, and rubber gloves for up to 300 VAC. Has anyone seen a 120 volt single pole circuit breaker fail so catastrophically as to warrant that kind of protection?

i'd been an apprentice about 2 months, when i came home, and a breaker had tripped....
so i went out and turned it on, standing off to one side. a nice big gout of flame came around the
breaker opening, burning the back of my hand pretty well.... dunno if all the FR stuff is
warranted, but i'd a liked a pair of leather gloves on that day. took a while to heal.

 

[jmellc]

Which is why there is little risk in operating a properly maintained device, for LOTO.

Exactly my point. PPE for disconnects is overkill to the 100th power.

 

[big john]

...I think this is acknowledgement that the risk is low. What I can't tell from what was published (EC magazine, Change is on the way! 2015 NFPA 70E) is the PPE requirement. I think this means that disconnect switches can be operated without PPE...

I agree that it's an acknowledgement that the risk is low and the reason it doesn't dictate a PPE is because it lobs the ball into the employers court of having their "qualified personnel" assess the risk.

In the case of 130.7(A) Note 2, it's my understanding that if someone qualified to inspect that condition of the equipment has determined that it is in good operating order (for in-service equipment, this may mean having a documented maintenance program), and the equipment is not being operated in any abnormal condition, then under these circumstances no PPE would be required.

There obviously has to be some on-site assessment, or else blanket statements for LV equipment run the risk of requiring PPE every time a light switch is operated.