Arc Flash

[j rae]

What are the rules for wearing arc flash safety equipment? I was told any time you remove a panel cover you are requried to ware saftey gear.

 

[acrwc10]

If the panel is energized, yes. If not , no. The level of protective gear changes with the level of risk.

 

[zog]

Duplicate post from safety section, read the safety FAQ's.

 

[jim dungar]

What are the rules for wearing arc flash safety equipment? I was told any time you remove a panel cover you are requried to ware saftey gear.

You must always wear the appropriate PPE when working/interacting with or near energized parts. All parts must be consider energized until they have been verified as de-energized with a meter.

 

[acrwc10]

You must always wear the appropriate PPE when working/interacting with or near energized parts. All parts must be consider energized until they have been verified as de-energized with a meter.

This is good advise ,that seems to be over looked often.

 

[Pennco Tech]

Arc Flash and proper PPE

Arc Flash and proper PPE

I agree with ACRWC10 ALWAYS wear the proper PPE when dealing with any part of machinery that may be energized. It is always better to be overprotected then under protected when dealing with potentially energized parts. We in the electrical field know just how unforgiving electricity can be. When you have determined that the parts are no longer energized then you may remove any PPE that is no longer equired.

I have had first hand experience with a Arc Flash that blasted me in the face. If not for my safety goggles my eyes may have been seriously damaged. Also there was another person right next to me when it happened and he too had his safety goggles on. So remember to be safety minded about yourself and those around you.

 

[S'mise]

All parts must be consider energized until they have been verified as de-energized. Not just advice but a requirement of NFPA70E A bit of a pain but worth the trouble when a disconnect blows up in your face. We are required to wear #2 fire rated clothing at a min. #5 for working on switchgear.
The added bonus to wearing proper ppe is looking like a beekeeper:grin:

 

[zog]

We are required to wear #2 fire rated clothing at a min. #5 for working on switchgear.

What is #5? Dosent exist, you must work at Ford, hey had alot of mislabeled HRC 5 switchgear, those should be relabeled as "Dangerous" and it must be worked on denergized and utilize remote switching and racking systems, or find a way to reduce the hazard.

 

[augie47]

.
The added bonus to wearing proper ppe is looking like a beekeeper

plus sweating off pounds and pounds.

 

[iwire]

plus sweating off pounds and pounds.

One of my coworkers sweating off some weight.

 

[mdshunk]

Lots of good arc flash videos and information here:

http://www.brainfiller.com/newsletterArchive.php#arcflash

 

[S'mise]

I stand corrected, Our PPE is a #2 min. but we go up to a HRC4.

 

[WDeanN]

What is #5? Dosent exist, you must work at Ford, hey had alot of mislabeled HRC 5 switchgear, those should be relabeled as "Dangerous" and it must be worked on denergized and utilize remote switching and racking systems, or find a way to reduce the hazard.

Under what standard? There is no blanket requirement in the NFPA 70E to de-energize above 40 cal. The misunderstood statement is in the handbook, which is unenforceable.
It may be a good practice, but it is not in the standards. As such it is up to the facility.

 

[zog]

Under what standard? There is no blanket requirement in the NFPA 70E to de-energize above 40 cal. The misunderstood statement is in the handbook, which is unenforceable.
It may be a good practice, but it is not in the standards. As such it is up to the facility.

True, but it is in 2009 which is released. I promise that if you have a fatality from an arc flash labeled >40cal, OSHA will find a way to enforce it. General duty clause seems to be the "company" answer. But really, dont you think you should not work >40cal when you know it is unprotectable? Even if it was "technically" unenforceable? Could you sleep with that if something happened? I couldnt.

 

[opb]

"But really, dont you think you should not work >40cal when you know it is unprotectable?"

I am not questioning this but inquiring. You can get suits that are rated greater than 40 cal so what makes it unprotectable?

Thanks.

 

[WDeanN]

True, but it is in 2009 which is released. I promise that if you have a fatality from an arc flash labeled >40cal, OSHA will find a way to enforce it. General duty clause seems to be the "company" answer. But really, dont you think you should not work >40cal when you know it is unprotectable? Even if it was "technically" unenforceable? Could you sleep with that if something happened? I couldnt.

Still can't find it in the 2009... The closest I see is FPN No. 2 of 130.7(A):
"When incident energy exceeds 40cal/cm2 at the working distance, greater emphasis may be necessary with respect to de-energizing before working within..."

I'm not saying that you SHOULD work it, or allow it. I'm just saying that it's not in any code anywhere.
For a company to allow it does indeed expose them to additional unjustifiable liabilities, but legally there is no requirement. If I was working or advising a company that insisted on allowing work above 40 cal, I would at least advocate that they should inform their workers of the additional risks of such work.

 

[WDeanN]

I am not questioning this but inquiring. You can get suits that are rated greater than 40 cal so what makes it unprotectable?
Thanks.

opd, The problem is that although those suits will protect you from the fire hazard at those levels, they may be unable to protect you from the associated blast. This just means that, as one guy puts it, you will be able to have an open casket funeral, because you may not be burnt, but your insides will be mush...

 

[ironman3452]

great picture, when in dought always wear you ppe.