Arc Flash Label
- Thread starter aharrigan
- Start date
- Status
zog
Senior Member
- Location
- Charlotte, NC
Yes, who ever did that label has no idea what they are doing. The approach boundaries are all wrong, the HRC and AFB on the left are likely wrong, and the 43 and V rating of 3 make no sense at all.
The listed PPE on the left does not meet the HRC 4 requirement above it.
I have seen hundreds of thousands of these and this is easily the worst label I have ever seen.
The listed PPE on the left does not meet the HRC 4 requirement above it.
I have seen hundreds of thousands of these and this is easily the worst label I have ever seen.
zog
Senior Member
- Location
- Charlotte, NC
Values from the study, which obviously has not been done, these numbers are made up.
For a 200V system the gloves should be Class 0 or Class 00. The LAB should be 42" and the RAB/{AB should say "Avoid contact"
For a 200V system the gloves should be Class 0 or Class 00. The LAB should be 42" and the RAB/{AB should say "Avoid contact"
Good point. The Flash protection boundry might actually be 36 meters.
The last set of labels I did had to have everything in English and Spanish. Of course the English labels had everything in imperial units, while the spanish labels had everything in the metric system. What a PIA that was.
zog
Senior Member
- Location
- Charlotte, NC
Good point. The Flash protection boundry might actually be 36 meters.
The last set of labels I did had to have everything in English and Spanish. Of course the English labels had everything in imperial units, while the spanish labels had everything in the metric system. What a PIA that was.
Did you find the ft-m conversion error in the 2009 70E?
zog
Senior Member
- Location
- Charlotte, NC
The metric values of the RAB are wrong in the 70E, someone messed up the conversions.
The PPE looks about right, I missed the flash suit the first time I looked at it, but the are no calometric values listed for any of the PPE listed, should say a minimum value.
Hugh_Hoagland_e-Hazard
Member
- Location
- Louisville, KY
SKM Label Issue
SKM Label Issue
Most of these parameters are set in SKM BUT you can also enter many of these separately for the labels. There is no PPE 43 in shock or arc. Looks like it might be entered manually. Zog has the numbers right. Check with SKM customer service. I'll notify one of these guys about this on the forum. The make a pretty good product but they do have a lot of room for customization which might be why this one came out wrong.
The 36 inch boundary seems very short for a 40 cal as stated. It is also pretty rare to have EXACTLY 40.00 cal/cm2. Usually when you get that close you will wind up with a Danger label which won't call for a PPE category. The PPE categories are actually for when you don't use the calculations but the software companies all print them on the labels for a guide. The NFPA 70E-2009 makes this pretty clear but the new 2012 version will make this even more clear. HRC's include a risk analysis. Calculations do not. They are a hazard analysis ONLY. Risk must be determined separately. The software's do not do risk analysis so they default to the HRC in the standard for the tables. This isn't exactly correct but works for an unsophisticated analysis and will err on the side of protecting the worker.
SKM Label Issue
Most of these parameters are set in SKM BUT you can also enter many of these separately for the labels. There is no PPE 43 in shock or arc. Looks like it might be entered manually. Zog has the numbers right. Check with SKM customer service. I'll notify one of these guys about this on the forum. The make a pretty good product but they do have a lot of room for customization which might be why this one came out wrong.
The 36 inch boundary seems very short for a 40 cal as stated. It is also pretty rare to have EXACTLY 40.00 cal/cm2. Usually when you get that close you will wind up with a Danger label which won't call for a PPE category. The PPE categories are actually for when you don't use the calculations but the software companies all print them on the labels for a guide. The NFPA 70E-2009 makes this pretty clear but the new 2012 version will make this even more clear. HRC's include a risk analysis. Calculations do not. They are a hazard analysis ONLY. Risk must be determined separately. The software's do not do risk analysis so they default to the HRC in the standard for the tables. This isn't exactly correct but works for an unsophisticated analysis and will err on the side of protecting the worker.
- Status