rubber gloves testing

[brother]

theres a debate on when insulated gloves are suppose to be tested and WHO is responsible to keep track of when this happen. Its my understanding that its every 6 months (when in circulation) and 12 months (when in storage).

But who is responsible to keep track of this. I have notice that the crew seems to 'forget' the date and some one would notice about a month later that 'HEY our gloves need testing. (usually me cause I want to live) .

Isnt the 'Employer' suppose to keep track of these things??

 

[G._S._Ohm]

"1910.137(b)(2)(xii)

The employer shall certify that equipment has been tested in accordance with the requirements of paragraphs (b)(2)(viii), (b)(2)(ix), and (b)(2)(xi) of this section. The certification shall identify the equipment that passed the test and the date it was tested.

Note: Marking of equipment and entering the results of the tests and the dates of testing onto logs are two acceptable means of meeting this requirement."

I might have been a whistleblower before I was an engineer and
I think that if you tell OSHA that your employer is goofing off your boss will know about it before you even hang up the phone.
And the employees whose lives you may have saved by forcing a test or replacement of these gloves won't know that you saved their lives and so they won't thank you.

If you buy and replace your own gloves twice yearly think of it as a premium on a life insurance policy on you. They're about $50, right?

 

[hillbilly1]

It's about $10 bucks a pair to get them tested.

 

[WorkSafe]

A employeer with a good electrical safety program will also include a way of tracking glove inspections. Some companies will stamp the gloves with a serial type number and track it in a database. Of course you will have spare, serviceable gloves to use while the others are being inspected.

The gloves can also be stamped with the inspection date so the user knows when the gloves are due. If the worker uses the gloves past the date, that shows he has not inspected the gloves and should be corrected.

 

[G._S._Ohm]

The worst case is that
the gloves fail abruptly without warning,
this failure cannot be predicted ahead of time from test results
and a glove failure means certain electrocution.

 

[ZinskI/E]

Brother:

You are correct about your testing time-frames: 6 months when in use and 12 months when being stored. The employer may be responsible for keeping up with inspection dates, but each employee is responsible for inspecting the gloves prior to each use for their own safety. All of our gloves are stamped with inspection dates, so anyone using them should notice that a pair's certification has expired before they don them (and hopefully notify supervision when they see the certification will soon expire).

As an added check, our on-site safety rep physically checks each pair of gloves during the first week of each month and removes from service any gloves that have or will soon expire. In February, we had 12 pairs go out for certification - 4 pairs failed; in March we sent 6 pairs and two pairs failed: all were sent out prior to their certification expiring. To me this illustrates the serious importance of physically inspecting and air-testing the glove prior to each use.

Relying on a database to tell you when to test PPE as vital as voltage rated gloves does little to improve you or your worker's safety. In light of our recent certification results, it's hard to overstress just how dangerous not inspecting your gear can be.

 

[ptonsparky]

It's about $10 bucks a pair to get them tested.

Where? I just bought new ones instead.

 

[WorkSafe]

Relying on a database to tell you when to test PPE as vital as voltage rated gloves does little to improve you or your worker's safety. In light of our recent certification results, it's hard to overstress just how dangerous not inspecting your gear can be.

Nobody said to rely on a database for inspections. If you have lots of employees like we do, you have to have someone, other then the PPE user, track when the gloves need to be sent in for testing. This database would have nothing to do with the prior to use inspection required of the gloves.

 

[G._S._Ohm]

6 months when in use and 12 months when being stored.

This implies that the shelf life is twice that of the in-use life.

In February, we had 12 pairs go out for certification - 4 pairs failed; in March we sent 6 pairs and two pairs failed:

Assuming the 12 pairs and the 6 pairs were in use during the month and you had 1/3 fail each time it sounds like the gloves are being overstressed, either electrically or mechanically. Or maybe the glove pass/fail standard is set too high.
Imagine having a car where 1/3 of the parts in it fail each month.

I'd hope that much less than 1/3 of the electricians wearing these gloves get shocked each month. I guess they mostly don't work hot.

 

[ZinskI/E]

This implies that the shelf life is twice that of the in-use life.

That's what is implied in NFPA 70E. I would think shelf life would be even greater than 12 months, but that's the standard.

Assuming the 12 pairs and the 6 pairs were in use during the month and you had 1/3 fail each time it sounds like the gloves are being overstressed, either electrically or mechanically. Or maybe the glove pass/fail standard is set too high.
Imagine having a car where 1/3 of the parts in it fail each month.

I'd hope that much less than 1/3 of the electricians wearing these gloves get shocked each month. I guess they mostly don't work hot.

Your point is well taken. We are looking into the exact test procedures and pass/fail results are from our testing agency to find out exactly what is failing on the gloves. They are definitely not being overstressed electrically as 99.9% of their use is voltage testing at 480 VAC and below; it is extremely rare for us to do any more than troubleshooting on live circuits.

The last shock incident on our crew occurred about a year ago when an electrician approached a pole light to remove the hand hole cover. The pole was ungrounded and the electrician got shocked when he made contact with it; needless to say he wasn't wearing voltage rated gloves.

I will say, though, that even if the tests are too strenuous and the gloves would be safe to use nearly all the time, I'd prefer to err on the side of caution. Where would we be if someone got electrocuted and we were the party responsible for saying: "We don't need to certify them, our field tests looked fine."?

 

[G._S._Ohm]

Acting on credible test results meets the Reasonable Person standard. This standard says that the reasonable person doesn't have to be right; he just has to make the right decision knowing what he knew, and should have known, at the time the decision was made.

Just for a sanity check, I'd e-mail Northern European governments and ask how they handle this. Nowadays they all speak English and they might be kind enough to answer you. Tell them you're doing a term paper or something.
I know for sure that automotive safety or MPG requirements that are deemed 'impossible' in the US are somehow magically implemented in other countries. It's not up for discussion or negotiation.

I'd hope there are disincentives for glove testing companies to needlessly fail otherwise serviceable gloves.

 

[ZinskI/E]

I'd hope there are disincentives for glove testing companies to needlessly fail otherwise serviceable gloves.

I hope to find the same, otherwise there will will be a lot of questions to answer, and another testing company to use.

I do want to reiterate the primary point in my original response, though: please make sure everyone personally tests their gloves before each use.

 

[iwire]

I do want to reiterate the primary point in my original response, though: please make sure everyone personally tests their gloves before each use.

What exactly do you mean?

 

[ZinskI/E]

What exactly do you mean?

Look for any physical defects in the leather protectors, e.g. rips, tears, excessive dirt build-up, etc. Lightly inflate the rubber gloves and submerge in water looking for air bubbles and spots where the underlying colored rubber is visible through the black rubber coating. Check to make sure the certification date has not expired.

I should have said "inspects" rather than "tests."

 

[G._S._Ohm]

There is actually a way to personally test gloves for breakdown voltage but it is not very convenient. You need a megohmmeter and some material that is substantially more conductive than the glove, that touches the entire inside and outside surface of the glove.
Since salt water is way more conductive than a functioning glove, this can be the conductive material. To test, the glove is almost totally filled with salt water and almost totally immersed in salt water. BTW, the glove may or may not float in salt water depending on the density of the glove material.
The series test circuit is the meter + lead, the water inside the glove, the glove wall thickness, the water outside the glove and the meter - lead. Readings less than many megohms are suspect.

 

[Keith E.]

theres a debate on when insulated gloves are suppose to be tested and WHO is responsible to keep track of when this happen. Its my understanding that its every 6 months (when in circulation) and 12 months (when in storage).

But who is responsible to keep track of this. I have notice that the crew seems to 'forget' the date and some one would notice about a month later that 'HEY our gloves need testing. (usually me cause I want to live) .

Isnt the 'Employer' suppose to keep track of these things??

Employer is normally responsible for dielectric testing and documentation, usually through safety personnel/deptartment. End user is responsible for visual inspection and air test before each use IIRC.

Keith

 

[ZinskI/E]

There is actually a way to personally test gloves for breakdown voltage but it is not very convenient. You need a megohmmeter and some material that is substantially more conductive than the glove, that touches the entire inside and outside surface of the glove.
Since salt water is way more conductive than a functioning glove, this can be the conductive material. To test, the glove is almost totally filled with salt water and almost totally immersed in salt water. BTW, the glove may or may not float in salt water depending on the density of the glove material.
The series test circuit is the meter + lead, the water inside the glove, the glove wall thickness, the water outside the glove and the meter - lead. Readings less than many megohms are suspect.

That would certainly test the gloves' integrity and, years ago, would have even seemed excessive to me regarding glove testing. I bought a pair of gloves in '98 and never once had them tested over the seven years I had them in service.

I don't think a DC megger test would satisfy today's requirements, but I don't have the "glove testing standard" to make any definitive statement.

I found this: http://www.arcflashforum.com/showthread.php?t=850 online today and found it very informative. Lots of good information from the resident HV guru Zog.

 

[brother]

Thanks for all the useful info!!

 

[G._S._Ohm]

For me, this gets strange.
The safety factor for class 0 gloves is 5:1 but goes down to 10:9 for class 4, see below

• Class 0 - Maximum use voltage of 1,000 volts AC/proof tested to 5,000 volts AC.

• Class 4 - Maximum use voltage of 36,000 volts AC/proof tested to 40,000 volts AC.

I'd want more safety margin at the higher voltages, not less.

And it seems that a neon sign transformer can be used in place of a megger to do a coarse check on glove integrity.
With no breakdown the transformer output voltage should stay at almost the open circuit value but there will be some reduction since the glove acts as the dielectric for a capacitor with several inches of 'plate' area and so there will be an AC current flowing even without the gloves being punctured.

I e-mailed two companies to get a handle on glove MTBF.