Are leather gloves optional for HRC 0?

[mgnixon]

This is my first post, but I refer to the Forum all the time. It's very helpful. Thanks to all who make it happen.

NFPA 70E(2009), Table 130.7(C)(10) states that for HRC 0, Leather gloves are "AN" = "As needed (optional)" for arc flash protection. Proper gloves for shock protection are always needed within the Restricted Approach Boundary. However, if you are outside of the Restricted Approach Boundary but within the Arc Flash Protection Boundary for HRC 0 work, are leather gloves truly optional? The "AN" really throws me off.

Thank you!

 

[zog]

That is confusing, the way I read note 2 is if you are already wearing rubber gloves with leather protectors you dont need another set of leather gloves, which implies you need leather gloves one way or another.

Keep in mind that the HRC 0 means the Ei at assumed distance (Usually 18") is less than 1.2 cal/cm2. Your hands will be much closer than the 18" so the Ei will be above 1.2cal/cm2 and can receive 2nd degree burns even in a HRC 0 environment. So my advice is to always wear gloves.

 

[mxstar211]

I think since you are outside the Restricted Approach Boundary is why the gloves are optional. I don't have NFPA 70E handy right now to look through. But I would agree with Zog and wear your rubber gloves with leather protectors.

I think the main the thing to pay attention to are what boundaries you are in.

 

[wtucker]

From NFPA 70E-2009, Table 130.7(C)(9): In Hazard Risk Category 0 below 600 v, rubber insulating gloves are not needed. Where Table 130.7(C)(10) talks about gloves AN at Hazard Risk Category 0, it's not to protect against shock, it's to protect against the burns that result from arc flash. Notice that Table 130.7(C)(10) has references to Note 2 at all Hazard Risk Categories up to 2*. Note 2 is explaining that if you're wearing rubber gloves with leather protectors in order to satisfy the shock protection requirements of one of the higher Hazard Risk Categories in Table 130.7(C)(9), that's a satisfactory alternative for protection against arc flash burns.

 

[billsnuff]

Question

Question

Are the leather protectors optional because (considering distance and voltage) you are using probes with finger stops? Don't have my book, just thinking about the avoid contact distance/limit.

I agree with Zog, Best Practice is to wear the gloves.

 

[PetrosA]

As I understand it, the leather gloves are only there to protect the rubber ones. There is a new generation of rubber only gloves made by a German company that I've seen on some US websites. I haven't seen them in real life yet.

 

[zog]

As I understand it, the leather gloves are only there to protect the rubber ones. There is a new generation of rubber only gloves made by a German company that I've seen on some US websites. I haven't seen them in real life yet.

Would love to see them, have a link. They will have to meet our american standards (ASTM D120) before they can sell them here.

 

[mgnixon]

Are the leather protectors optional because (considering distance and voltage) you are using probes with finger stops? Don't have my book, just thinking about the avoid contact distance/limit.

I agree with Zog, Best Practice is to wear the gloves.

The most common scenario is diagnostic work on equipment at 240V or below and rated at HRC0 from our Arc Flash Analysis. I would think that simply looking into a panel would not require gloves, but what about using a meter to measure voltage or some other diagnotic task that puts your fingers close to the hazard? You're fingers are still outside of the Restricted Approach Boundary ("avoid contact") so no insulated gloves are "required" for shock protection. I'm still not sure if we are "required" to have arc flash PPE on hands in this case, but it sounds like the prevailing opinion is to use something to be on the safe side (can't argue too much with that).

Would simple leather gloves be adequate or would the full rubber/leather combination be needed for just using your meter?

Thanks for the great feedback!

 

[mxstar211]

After looking at Table 130.7(C)(9)(a), yes they would optional for HRC 0. You have to look at that chart to see what kind of protection you need for what job you are doing. If you are flipping breakers in a 240/120 volt panel which is HRC 0, you could put leather gloves on, but you don't have to.

As for voltage testing with a meter, voltage rated gloves are required according to Table 130.7(C)(9)(a).

 

[PetrosA]

Would love to see them, have a link. They will have to meet our american standards (ASTM D120) before they can sell them here.

Here's a link to a promo article about them on ECM Following that link to the producer's website, I'm not seeing any US standards listed, but I may be missing something. I was back in Poland a few months ago and almost bought myself a pair to try out...

 

[mxstar211]

Here's a link to a promo article about them on ECM Following that link to the producer's website, I'm not seeing any US standards listed, but I may be missing something. I was back in Poland a few months ago and almost bought myself a pair to try out...

The thing I don't like about those is that if you are in a arc flash incident, won't the rubber melt to your skin? I think the added protection of leather during a arc flash incident is needed.

 

[G0049]

They will have to meet our american standards (ASTM D120) before they can sell them here.

Actually, they would have to meet American standards before you could use them here. You can sell anything. :grin:

 

[wtucker]

The most common scenario is diagnostic work on equipment at 240V or below and rated at HRC0 from our Arc Flash Analysis. I would think that simply looking into a panel would not require gloves, but what about using a meter to measure voltage or some other diagnotic task that puts your fingers close to the hazard? You're fingers are still outside of the Restricted Approach Boundary ("avoid contact") so no insulated gloves are "required" for shock protection.

You're looking at the wrong table. Table 130.2(C), which describes the Restricted Approach Boundary has nothing to do with Hazard Risk Categories, which are described in Table 130.7(C)(9). Look at the definition of "Working on" energized conductors in Art. 100 of 70E. At 240 V, diagnostic testing is "work," and that bumps the HRC to 1, not 0, and rubber insulating gloves are required. For voltage testing above 240 V, you're into HRC 2*.

And remember, beyond 70E, OSHA prohibits exposure to conductors carrying more than 50 V, unless the employee is protected.

 

[mgnixon]

You're looking at the wrong table. Table 130.2(C), which describes the Restricted Approach Boundary has nothing to do with Hazard Risk Categories, which are described in Table 130.7(C)(9). Look at the definition of "Working on" energized conductors in Art. 100 of 70E. At 240 V, diagnostic testing is "work," and that bumps the HRC to 1, not 0, and rubber insulating gloves are required. For voltage testing above 240 V, you're into HRC 2*.

We have done the arc flash analysis, so we don't use Table 130.7(C)(9).

 

[zog]

We have done the arc flash analysis, so we don't use Table 130.7(C)(9).

Then why are you asking about PPE requirements for a HRC?, you dont use HRC's when you have done the analysis. Which makes your question about the leather gloves all that more important, you really mean to ask what you need to do for hand protection for the Ei's from your study right?

 

[wtucker]

...if you are outside of the Restricted Approach Boundary but within the Arc Flash Protection Boundary for HRC 0 work...

Thank you!

Zog's absoutely right: If you've chosen to to do an arc flash hazard analysis, the tables aren't used--the tables are where the hazard risk categories come from. But your original question, stated above, says workers will be "within the Arc Flash Protection Boundary," which is defined as "an approach limit...within which a person could receive a second degree burn if an electrical arc flash were to occur."

So, you've admitted that the arc flash hazard analysis has shown that employees will be within the arc flash protection boundary and, therefore, exposed to the risk of a second-degree burn. Leather gloves protect against such burns (at the voltage you've described). So the answer to your question is, Yes, the gloves are needed.

 

[mgnixon]

Thank you for all the feedback. I wish NFPA 70E would remove the "AN" on the HRC0 portion of the table for gloves. Confusing :-?.

I had to contact the firm who did our analysis to help me understand what the HRC really means as far as PPE goes. If you use the NFPA tables, then the PPE is based on the HRC. But if you have the analysis, you base your PPE requirements on the incident energy levels established. I originally thought that the analysis gives you the incident energy level and therefore the HRC (based on ranges of cal/cm2) ... then once you know the HRC you know the PPE. What we're supposed to do is match the PPE to the energy level, not the HRC. I'm learning (I think) .

Thanks again!

 

[zog]

Thank you for all the feedback. I wish NFPA 70E would remove the "AN" on the HRC0 portion of the table for gloves. Confusing :-?.

I am working on getting that removed for 2012. Wish me luck

I had to contact the firm who did our analysis to help me understand what the HRC really means as far as PPE goes. If you use the NFPA tables, then the PPE is based on the HRC. But if you have the analysis, you base your PPE requirements on the incident energy levels established.

Exactly!

I originally thought that the analysis gives you the incident energy level and therefore the HRC (based on ranges of cal/cm2) ... then once you know the HRC you know the PPE.

It used to work that way but caused some issues so it changed the last revision.

What we're supposed to do is match the PPE to the energy level, not the HRC. I'm learning (I think) .

Thanks again!

Yes you are, keep em comming.

 

[zog]

Actually, they would have to meet American standards before you could use them here. You can sell anything. :grin:

OK, you got me there; I will go one over on you, actually they would have to meet the ASTM requirements for you to get caught using them

 

[wtucker]

Thank you for all the feedback. I wish NFPA 70E would remove the "AN" on the HRC0 portion of the table for gloves. Confusing :-?.

Not so confusing when you understand the definition of Arc Flash Boundary--which you said yourself the workers would be within. Gotta protect against the hazard. If it's a shock hazard, rubber gloves. If it's a burn hazard, leather. Remember, too, that even a non-electrician within the flash protection boundary has to be fully protected against burns!

I had to contact the firm who did our analysis to help me understand what the HRC really means as far as PPE goes. If you use the NFPA tables, then the PPE is based on the HRC. But if you have the analysis, you base your PPE requirements on the incident energy levels established. I originally thought that the analysis gives you the incident energy level and therefore the HRC (based on ranges of cal/cm2) ... then once you know the HRC you know the PPE. What we're supposed to do is match the PPE to the energy level, not the HRC. I'm learning (I think) .

If the consultant who did your incident energy analysis didn't understand that or didn't make it clear to you, maybe you need a new consultant!