Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 23

Thread: PPE Nfpa 70e

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    "I have learned, in whatsoever STATE I am, therewith to be content". :) Philipians 4:11
    Posts
    2,176

    Exclamation PPE Nfpa 70e

    Well I think this is a stretch in the interpetation of the Nfpa 70e in ppe.

    It was said that when you are 'testing the voltage' (ie with a fluke sticking the prongs into it) on a 480,120, 208 receptacle with the cover on that you STILL have to have on the ppe (hrc 2) gloves, maybe even face shield etc.. Because of the way its worded in nfpa 70e

    This is a bit much here!! because really this is no different than just pluging something in!! can someone help me get a better understanding here, this came up after an electrician was burned from just doing this little bit.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Charlotte, NC
    Posts
    6,358
    I would answer this but you seem to disregard all my answers, then tell me I am wrong, then when I prove myslef you disapear and never respond, this has been a pattern.

    Let me ask you this, have you actually read the 2009 NFPA 70E? Or are you still just listening to what the other guys at your plant say? The answer to this is pretty clear if you read the standard.

    I am not trying to be a jerk here but it sure seems you have a lot of electricians injured at your facility and it seems like no one knows much about the right thing to do, just a lot of hearsay from the other guys. Obviously you and the other guys have not had proper 70E training and should not be working on energized equipment until your companies Electrical Safety procedures and training programs are improved. I am not blaming you, I am blaming your management and safety department.

    I am sure someone will give you an easy answer and next week when another guy gets hurt there will be another questiion but I hope I am wrong about that, i hope these injuries gives your plant a wake up call to get in compliance.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    "I have learned, in whatsoever STATE I am, therewith to be content". :) Philipians 4:11
    Posts
    2,176

    Wink

    Quote Originally Posted by zog View Post
    I would answer this but you seem to disregard all my answers, then tell me I am wrong, then when I prove myslef you disapear and never respond, this has been a pattern. .
    Im not aware of what you are talking about, I do not ever remember disregarding any of your answers, and if there is a response needed that I miss, I apologize, but im not aware of any. You can post a link to them if you wish. As for telling you that you are wrong, I dont recall that either. Are you making an error here just like you did with the 'disregard to the pm' post??

    Quote Originally Posted by zog View Post
    Let me ask you this, have you actually read the 2009 NFPA 70E? Or are you still just listening to what the other guys at your plant say? The answer to this is pretty clear if you read the standard. .
    Have ordered the nfpa 70e 2009 but havent gotten it yet. This is not a 'plant' where I presently work. I hear the guys but I dont believe all that they say, some of them dont know what they are talking about especially when i research and find the answers.

    Quote Originally Posted by zog View Post
    I am not trying to be a jerk here but it sure seems you have a lot of electricians injured at your facility and it seems like no one knows much about the right thing to do, just a lot of hearsay from the other guys. .
    Well here recently there have been 2 electricians that got hurt. One almost a year go and one just a week ago. Some people know the right thing to do, its just the info is not being put out like its suppose to. I agree there needs to be more training!!
    Quote Originally Posted by zog View Post
    Obviously you and the other guys have not had proper 70E training and should not be working on energized equipment until your companies Electrical Safety procedures and training programs are improved. I am not blaming you, I am blaming your management and safety department. .
    I believe I know enough of safety practices to work safely on energized circuits. They just recently started this 'NFPA 70e' policy. And there are some questions that the 'management' need to get answered, cause I will agree that some of them dont know themselves.

    Quote Originally Posted by zog View Post
    I am sure someone will give you an easy answer and next week when another guy gets hurt there will be another questiion but I hope I am wrong about that, i hope these injuries gives your plant a wake up call to get in compliance.
    I pray that no one else gets hurt. However this is a WAKE up call!! where this guy got hurt, is not in my immediate area where I work. He works in another department. Apparently he had not had the recent safety training either.

    If you dont wish to anwer my question then thats fine. Ill find the answer and SHOW my fellow workers and 'management' if necessary. I always try to pursuit knowledge and get a better understanding and raise awareness.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Charlotte, NC
    Posts
    6,358
    Brother, has the facility where you work done an arc flash hazard analysis? Or are you using the tables?

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    8,750
    Quote Originally Posted by brother View Post
    This is a bit much here!! because really this is no different than just pluging something in!! can someone help me get a better understanding here, this came up after an electrician was burned from just doing this little bit.
    The person got injured most likely because they did not have on the appropriate PPE.

    When you use a voltmeter you have typically have your face closer to the "electricity" than when you plug something in.
    Just because you can, doesn't mean you should.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Illinois
    Posts
    19,157
    In many cases the rules would not require a high level of arc flash protection (but you only know this if you have done the required investigation of the power supply and the calculations), but would always require shock protection (voltage rated gloves)
    Don, Illinois
    "It is the first responsibility of every citizen to question authority." B Franklin

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    East of 480sparky
    Posts
    1,121

    how about this

    no study done - equipment 240 vac or less

    work on....circuit parts (volt testing) HRC 1

    need 4 cal ls shirt and pants, gloves, face shield.........

    study completed, equip 240 vac or less (panel is<1.2 cal/cm^)

    work on....circuit parts (volt testing) HRC 0

    LS shirt/pants, sfty glasses. (work outside rest. approach?)

    is this statement correct :confused: :confused:

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Charlotte, NC
    Posts
    6,358
    Quote Originally Posted by don_resqcapt19 View Post
    In many cases the rules would not require a high level of arc flash protection (but you only know this if you have done the required investigation of the power supply and the calculations),
    Right, more info is needed by the OP to determine the arc flash PPE required, if any.

    Quote Originally Posted by don_resqcapt19 View Post
    but would always require shock protection (voltage rated gloves)

    Cant agree with that, v-rated gloves are only required to cross the RAB by qualified persons, the RAB for 120V is "Avoid contact" , proper probes with finger gaurds make gloves not required for this. The 208V one is tricky, is that 208V to ground? If so you need to multiply the 208V by 1.732 to determin the RAB, which would be 301-750V and make the RAB 1 foot, same as the 480V, so gloves would be required if crossing that 1 foot boundary. IMO gloves should always be worn for voltage testing but thats just me.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Charlotte, NC
    Posts
    6,358
    Quote Originally Posted by billsnuff View Post
    no study done - equipment 240 vac or less

    work on....circuit parts (volt testing) HRC 1

    need 4 cal ls shirt and pants, gloves, face shield.........

    study completed, equip 240 vac or less (panel is<1.2 cal/cm^)

    work on....circuit parts (volt testing) HRC 0

    LS shirt/pants, sfty glasses. (work outside rest. approach?)

    is this statement correct :confused: :confused:
    Assuming the results of the study show <1.2 cal/cm2, yes, that would be correct. But the actual study may say otherwise

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    East of 480sparky
    Posts
    1,121

    yes, Zog

    these are the actual numbers for a particular lighting panel in our plant.

    was just comparing using the book and actuals from our study, FWIW.

    i also had some panels that were just the opposite, had to do some fuse changing up stream, some were 250V instead of 600V and some were mixed.

    Money well spent, that study. 14 mo. later and were are still updating one lines and labels. As part of the initial cost, they track our changes and send us udated info.

    Installing current limiting reactor for a buss on the 16th. Buss is rated 22kA w/ 24kA available. this will get us to 4.64kA under.

    to the OP, didn't mean to hijack, just wanted to share some actual experience.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •