Arc Flash Protection

[kingpb]

I am catching up on my reading and realized Power Magazine had a really good feature article on Arc Flash in their February issue. For those that missed it, here is a link to the article.


http://www.powermag.com/archive_article.asp?a=24-CS_Arc&y=2007&m=february

 

[Chuck6965]

Great information.

 

[H.L.]

Thanks for getting the word out. I will use this info at tomorrows safety meeting. I strongly feel that to many electricians are not aware of the real hazards or just don't take them seriously.

H.L.

 

[petersonra]

Thanks for getting the word out. I will use this info at tomorrows safety meeting. I strongly feel that to many electricians are not aware of the real hazards or just don't take them seriously.

H.L.

I think part of the reason they are not taken seriously is because of the absurd lengths to which they are taken. It seems quite clear that a large percentage, probably well into 90%, of electrical enclosures present little or no arc flash hazard. Requiring extensive arc flash precautions for every possible encounter with electricity when everyone that is involved knows how low the risk is for most cases, just breeds contempt for the idiots that come up with these things.

I know of a plant where they decided to require everyone in the plant wear safety shoes after an employee's foot got run over by a forklift. It was concluded that if in fact the guy had been wearing steel toes it might well have been a worse injury, but the plant ended up with a safety shoe rule.

Rumor has it that there were several subsequent minor injuries due to slips because the safety shoes chosen were somewhat slippery in dusty areas in the plant, where common street shoes were not (I think most employees were wearing sneakers before the steel toe requirement).

 

[realolman]

I think part of the reason they are not taken seriously is because of the absurd lengths to which they are taken. It seems quite clear that a large percentage, probably well into 90%, of electrical enclosures present little or no arc flash hazard. Requiring extensive arc flash precautions for every possible encounter with electricity when everyone that is involved knows how low the risk is for most cases, just breeds contempt for the idiots that come up with these things.

.

I hope you don't mind my agreeing with you... I just wanted to say A-men.

Very well put.

 

[jim dungar]

Requiring extensive arc flash precautions for every possible encounter with electricity ...

A proper Electrical Safe Work Practices program (the real intent of NFPA 70E) should not require excessive PPE for any task or location.

Current debate over "live work" PPE are reminiscent of previous debates for GFCI on construction sites, fall restraint protection, and Lock Out Tag Out procedures. All of these previous debates often focused on the "low risk/potential of injuries" versus the loss of productivity cause by implementation.

 

[davidr43229]

I think part of the reason they are not taken seriously is because of the absurd lengths to which they are taken. It seems quite clear that a large percentage, probably well into 90%, of electrical enclosures present little or no arc flash hazard

Bob,
I would like to know where you get your 90% information from?

 

[davidr43229]

Not to be a stick in the mud, but I would submit to you that 600-1000 workers still die a year and over 12,000 workers are admitted to burn centers around the country for:

everyone that is involved knows how low the risk is for most cases, just breeds contempt for the idiots that come up with these things

Over 80% of the accidents happen to people that "know-better".
I'm sure Ray Jones would be disappointed to hear that his efforts fell on deaf ears.
I would encourage you to view the NFPA-70E as a positive effort by Employers to "Clean-up" their act and start to act responsible.

 

[davidr43229]

We'll ya think that cannot happen to people well then go ahead and try this on yourself. Tell me how you feel later after your joints have been cooked. And its hard to move cause of the pain. tell me how you feel when your muscles fire off by themselves, the cramping and fatique that results

Posted in a different thread...
http://forums.mikeholt.com/showthread.php?t=85291
Amen
Just my $.02

 

[realolman]

...I would encourage you to view the NFPA-70E as a positive effort by Employers to "Clean-up" their act and start to act responsible.

I'd like to know where you get your information from

 

[davidr43229]

Realolman,
I'd be happy to furnish that information to you.
Right from here:
http://www.bussmann.com/
Safety Basics, Would you like me to send you out a copy?

Just my $.02

 

[davidr43229]

Additionally elertrocutions remain the 4th highest cause of Industrial fatalities each year, which could have been avoided.
Dave

 

[tomP]

If you wish to ignore safety that is your decision if only you can be injured, however if it places others in jeporady
then you should do the responsible thing.

What I want to know is what excessive precautions are you people being required to follow?
Is it possible that where you work has not applied the standard correctly?
Is it possible that you don't understand the standard?
Is it possible my company is being too lax in following the standard?

I personally don't feel that anything we do in our normal work is too excessive.

Wish to rack in and out breakers in a t-shirt and no eye protection?
Its you and your employers choice, but one time something goes wrong and your family may regret
you not following the standard.

Obviously we all will never agree on safety standards,
but for some of us it has heightened our sense of how dangerous this work can be.

Work safe, its your responsiblity to go home to your family alive and well.

 

[petersonra]

A proper Electrical Safe Work Practices program (the real intent of NFPA 70E) should not require excessive PPE for any task or location.

Current debate over "live work" PPE are reminiscent of previous debates for GFCI on construction sites, fall restraint protection, and Lock Out Tag Out procedures. All of these previous debates often focused on the "low risk/potential of injuries" versus the loss of productivity cause by implementation.

The problem is that deciding just what needs to be applied where is not always a trivial task. Most electrical boxes are fed from 120V power. Is there any need ever to be seriously concerned about arc flash in that environment? It just ain't gonna happen. I find it ironic that it is Ok for any old Joe to plug something into an outlet no PPE required, but if an electrician wants to test the voltage in the outlet, he has to don PPE. That is what is insane.

I don't have a problem with any level of protection where there is true hazard.

 

[WDeanN]

In general, single phase systems pose a very small arc flash hazard. The IEEE 1584 standard does not apply to single phase systems, and is rarely applicable to 240V or 208V systems. Certainly the risk from 120V systems in next to nil. If you are using the table system in the NFPA 70E, the highest risk category that could be misconstrued would be a category 1. This applies at the 240V panelboard, though. This should not be applied at the receptacle. That being said, unless low voltage (120V/208V) work is all that your electricians do, the employer should make an effort to get daily wear arc flash clothing for all of the electricians and qualified persons.

 

[jim dungar]

The problem is that deciding just what needs to be applied where is not always a trivial task. Most electrical boxes are fed from 120V power. Is there any need ever to be seriously concerned about arc flash in that environment? It just ain't gonna happen. I find it ironic that it is Ok for any old Joe to plug something into an outlet no PPE required, but if an electrician wants to test the voltage in the outlet, he has to don PPE. That is what is insane.

I don't have a problem with any level of protection where there is true hazard.

The NFP 70E "task tables" for <240V and <10kSCA is at worst a hazard category 0, and for up to 25kSCA it is a still only a hazard category 1. How much less PPE do you want?

One reason for most of the task tables often requiring a 2* level of PPE is that typically your face and chest are a lot closer to the source of a potential shock or arc flash when using test equipment than when performing a task using only one hand. PPE is about preventing shocks as much as it it about preventing burns.

 

[realolman]

Realolman,
I'd be happy to furnish that information to you.
Right from here:
http://www.bussmann.com/
Safety Basics, Would you like me to send you out a copy?

Just my $.02

No I don't want a copy ...thanks


What I was disputing was your encouragemnt re: viewing 70E as "a positive effort by employers to clean up their act, and start to act responsible. "


Extrapolating legitimate safety hazards into alarmist statements about cooked flesh and wishful sentiments about employers being concerned with employee welfare is the kind of stuff I believe detracts greatly from the credibility the subject has.

Don't you suppose Bussman has some financial stake in the matter? Ferraz Shawmut ( or whoever it is ) came around and showed their videos of men on fire. They sold a whole bunch of fuses. I'm sure they did that all over the country.


Actually, I'm for engineering out all the hazard possible. If certain fuses will lessen the hazard, good... buy them. I am just getting very tired of being expected to dress up in all kinds of regalia, completely disregarding my opinion, experience, or discomfort, as if I'm some sort of a daggone monkey.(And yes, I know it's a lot worse in the burn unit... please save that stuff.)


What seems to be ignored is the number of times people do, and have done these things with no incident whatsoever. What would you say the odds are of opening an electrical enclosure and having an an arc flash incident of any kind? ... how many of those would be catastrophic ? How many times a day are enclosures opened? And most of the enclosures, as pointed out, have minimal hazard.

I don't think it is at all correct to compare this with LOTO.

I'm going to be honest and frank right here... Yeah, I want to trouble shoot this stuff at my discretion in a t shirt and a pair of pants, work boots and that's it. ... yes, I think anything more than that is excessive. I already wear glasses. I don't want to wear a jacket, or face shield, a long sleeved shirt, or gloves.... just a t shirt. There... I've said it...


I don't think people should be doing energized modifications, and that part of it I agree with, but I think it is ridiculous to wear PPE to check the voltage or troubleshoot. If it's something that I think requires PPE, I will gladly wear it.


If management is so concerned with me, how about air conditioning the joint... like they have it where they are.


... why is that anyway?

 

[davidr43229]

libers up his fingers 'cause, it's gonna be a long response here:

What I was disputing was your encouragemnt re: viewing 70E as "a positive effort by employers to clean up their act, and start to act responsible. "

Employers are responsable for furnishing the PPE, have they done this before? The answer is no.. why? because they weren't required. To this day safety people are required to know, understand and impliment the NFPA-70E. I visit an average of 2-4 Facilities a week, how many do you visit or know that have conformed to the NFPA-70E? I find Employers waking up at different times to conform, or not conform to the NFPA-70E...
Alarmist statements? hardly......the NFPA-70E became mandatory in 2002, which was over 5 years ago.

Don't you suppose Bussman has some financial stake in the matter? Ferraz Shawmut ( or whoever it is ) came around and showed their videos of men on fire. They sold a whole bunch of fuses. I'm sure they did that all over the country.

Don;t you think Sqaure D & C/H are selling more curren tlimiting breakers? sure they are.... The greater the current limitation, the lower the arc flash, in most, not all instances.

I am just getting very tired of being expected to dress up in all kinds of regalia, completely disregarding my opinion, experience, or discomfort

If your opinion, experience and discomfort takes you to this conclusion, I suggest you get out of this industry, because the NFPA-70E is in it's infancy...wait until you have to wear a breast-plate....it's coming..

I'm going to be honest and frank right here... Yeah, I want to trouble shoot this stuff at my discretion in a t shirt and a pair of pants

While I appreciate your honesty here, I would not want to be trained by you, or be your partner, with that addage...

don't think people should be doing energized modifications,

We agree (whew)...

If it's something that I think requires PPE, I will gladly wear it.

"if" you were qualified, certified and trained, you would already know what to wear as defined by the NFPA-70E.

If management is so concerned with me, how about air conditioning the joint

Sell more girl scout cookies ?
Whew
Just my $.02

 

[Tori]

Wait - stop , do you mean you are not following the starndard ?
I carry a arc flash suit in my truck, I wore it last night during a load bank test when I had to pull some live feeders 277/480v down out of a j box so they could IR test them

sometimes it is cumbersome but I also know that when the conditions are right - and you can't tell when they are - and an arc jumps out at you I hope you have you're suit on

And yes I am trained in arc flash hazards

 

[realolman]

David;

It's alway easiest to side with the powers that be isn't it?

I don't visit any facilities. I work in one, and have done so for a long time.

You work for Bussman. You wouldn't have any financial interest in it, would you?

I'll bet folks are just chomping at the bit to wear breast plates.

Qualified certified and trained has nothing to do with it. I'm saying I don't want to wear the PPE, and regardless of your opinion, feel quite capable of making my own judgement.


With your condescending attitude, I wouldn't want you for a partner either, so we do have something in common.