PPE - Establishing ESWC with "Dangerous" Fault Levels

[I^2R]

Forgive me if this has been beaten to death, but I cant seem to find applicable posts.

When establishing an ESWC on equipment that has energy levels well beyond 40 cal (Dangerous, live work not permitted), what is the thought on PPE requirements?
The intent is not to work energized, but to establish an ESWC, but that in itself requires PPE appropriate to the hazard involved.

What to wear for PPE?

In most cases where we run into this, there is an opportunity to visually verify the disconnecting means is open, but not always. Either way, visual verification does not negate the need for proper PPE to be worn while establishing an ESWC. Most of these locations are 2,000-4,000A services with exposed conductors ahead of the main disconnecting means.

Thoughts?

Thank You.

 

[wbdvt]

The levels greater than 40 cal/cm2 are most likely at a working distance of 18 in for 480V. In order to achieve your ESWC, you need to verify de-energized by testing dead. Therefore is it not possible to test the circuit dead using a greater working distance than 18 in where the IE would be lower, such as test probes on a insulated stick. Or is it possible to test circuit dead farther down the circuit where it IE may also be lower.

I assume that the levels were obtained thru a study and not the tables. Have you looked at the study to see if the levels can be reduced with a protective device setting change, either permanent or temporary?

 

[I^2R]

The levels greater than 40 cal/cm2 are most likely at a working distance of 18 in for 480V. In order to achieve your ESWC, you need to verify de-energized by testing dead. Therefore is it not possible to test the circuit dead using a greater working distance than 18 in where the IE would be lower, such as test probes on a insulated stick. Or is it possible to test circuit dead farther down the circuit where it IE may also be lower.

We currently use a combination of these techniques. We have a utility grade non-contact voltage tester on a hot stick that we use to initially wand the equipment then move in closer for contact voltage measurement.

I had not considered getting the calculation re-run with a greater working distance that would account for the hot stick length. That very well may get the energy levels down to something manageable.

I assume that the levels were obtained thru a study and not the tables.

yes

Have you looked at the study to see if the levels can be reduced with a protective device setting change, either permanent or temporary?

Generally direct utility feed, no protective device.

In general we are confident (as you can be) that the power is off. In most cases the utility has grounded the conductors. That still doesn't alleviate our responsibility to go through the 6 steps.