Get out your moon suit...

[jim dungar]

Worst case scenario will always be what is challenged in a court when something bad has happened.

You will likely be sued regardless of what you do. Over protection that leads to an event is just as bad as under protection.

The 'law of the land' says to follow an industry standard, and the leading industry standard says to consider the risk. Ignoring risk, is therefore 'picking and choosing' which part of the standard you want to follow.

Following your logic, Class 00 insulating gloves are only rated for 500VAC, therefore they should never be used on 480V systems as the worst case normal voltage, from the utility, could be as high as 504V at any given time.

 

[Jraef]

70E Anti-hype:

PPE for residential users to flip breakers: No. OSHA and NFPA 70E is about work places. If you are not an employer within your residence, you are not a workplace and this does not apply to you at all.

If you ARE an employer, regardless of why the building was originally built, then it is a workplace, let's call it a "commercial / industrial" installation or 'CII" because I'm a lazy typist. If it is a CII, you must provide a SAFE CII and that is NOT just about electrical safety, that is ALL AROUND safety meaning there are OTHER hazards in most workplaces that preclude inappropriately risky attire. That also means that for every task taking place in this CII, there must be risk-appropriate precautions taken. This must be devised and enforced by the employer, monitored by management and faithfully executed by the employees. If any of those tasks involve the manipulation (let's not talk exposure here) of electrically powered devices, then a Risk Assessment must be performed and a Hazard Risk category assigned to that task. So based on that premise:

PPE in commercial installations for flipping branch breakers 240V or under: Maybe, but hardly ever in most small panels like lighting panels. When the HRC is determined, I'd say 90 out of 100 lighting panels 240V and under will come out as HRC 0, meaning you do NOT need PPE that is going to be any greater than appropriate work attire. Most of the rest MIGHT come out as requiring category 0 PPE, which is basically long sleeve cotton shirts and pants. So should a stripper in only a bikini bottom be allowed to flip a lighting panel breaker? No. The bouncer who is wearing pants and a shirt? Yes. The janitor? Yes. The accountant? Yes (provided the stripper is not a moonlighting accountant).

Moon suit for flipping a lighting breaker? No. Don't go overboard here. People selling the Nomex moon suits might try to convince you otherwise by using exceptions rather than the rule, but don't buy into the hype.

Do the study, know what's needed, take the appropriate steps, don't ASSume and don't ignore. That's ALL that NFPA 70E is saying really.

 

[kwired]

70E Anti-hype:

PPE for residential users to flip breakers: No. OSHA and NFPA 70E is about work places. If you are not an employer within your residence, you are not a workplace and this does not apply to you at all.

If you ARE an employer, regardless of why the building was originally built, then it is a workplace, let's call it a "commercial / industrial" installation or 'CII" because I'm a lazy typist. If it is a CII, you must provide a SAFE CII and that is NOT just about electrical safety, that is ALL AROUND safety meaning there are OTHER hazards in most workplaces that preclude inappropriately risky attire. That also means that for every task taking place in this CII, there must be risk-appropriate precautions taken. This must be devised and enforced by the employer, monitored by management and faithfully executed by the employees. If any of those tasks involve the manipulation (let's not talk exposure here) of electrically powered devices, then a Risk Assessment must be performed and a Hazard Risk category assigned to that task. So based on that premise:

PPE in commercial installations for flipping branch breakers 240V or under: Maybe, but hardly ever in most small panels like lighting panels. When the HRC is determined, I'd say 90 out of 100 lighting panels 240V and under will come out as HRC 0, meaning you do NOT need PPE that is going to be any greater than appropriate work attire. Most of the rest MIGHT come out as requiring category 0 PPE, which is basically long sleeve cotton shirts and pants. So should a stripper in only a bikini bottom be allowed to flip a lighting panel breaker? No. The bouncer who is wearing pants and a shirt? Yes. The janitor? Yes. The accountant? Yes (provided the stripper is not a moonlighting accountant).

Moon suit for flipping a lighting breaker? No. Don't go overboard here. People selling the Nomex moon suits might try to convince you otherwise by using exceptions rather than the rule, but don't buy into the hype.

Do the study, know what's needed, take the appropriate steps, don't ASSume and don't ignore. That's ALL that NFPA 70E is saying really.

I agree with what you presented here. My problem is there are workplaces where electrical work is not something that generally happens unless someone qualified is called in to do it, but that is typically for premises wiring, there is still electrical equipment to interact with all around workers in many cases, and I'd bet there are potential hazards that never get addressed. Simple lamp changeout may be a task commonly performed where nobody ever thinks about some of the hazards, and is likely done thousands of times before there is any injuries, and maybe millions of times before any serious injuries

There are some cases where you may be exposed to higher risk plugging something into a receptacle then you are resetting a breaker in a lighting panel.

Those places still are required to address all potential hazards yet they may not even be aware of such hazards. I'm sure there are similar unknown hazards for other then electrical items as well in some work places.

 

[Jraef]

I agree with what you presented here. My problem is there are workplaces where electrical work is not something that generally happens unless someone qualified is called in to do it, but that is typically for premises wiring, there is still electrical equipment to interact with all around workers in many cases, and I'd bet there are potential hazards that never get addressed. Simple lamp changeout may be a task commonly performed where nobody ever thinks about some of the hazards, and is likely done thousands of times before there is any injuries, and maybe millions of times before any serious injuries

There are some cases where you may be exposed to higher risk plugging something into a receptacle then you are resetting a breaker in a lighting panel.

Those places still are required to address all potential hazards yet they may not even be aware of such hazards. I'm sure there are similar unknown hazards for other then electrical items as well in some work places.

Yep. Nothing can be regulated that eclipses common sense, despite the continued effort by people to think otherwise.

Just yesterday I watched the window washers outside of my cubicle and after washing my windows, washer fluid all over their metal scissor lift platform, they proceeded to change out the bulb in the MH security flood light on the eave. I know, it was daylight and the photo eye would have it off. But for crying out load, standing on a wet metal platform with your bare hands inside of a fixture that is most likely containing live conductors (I seriously doubt they locked out the breaker panel, it's in a locked electrical room). That was a Darwin moment waiting to happen. I called the building security office and they sent someone over to stop them, but they were done with that fixture before they arrived. I saw an electrician's truck in the parking lot later, I imagine he was there to do the LO/TO for them for when they did the rest of the relamping, or he was doing the relamping instead of the window washers.

 

[petersonra]

Are arc flash suits rated for Ebola?

That seems to be the latest threat.

 

[arcsnsparks98]

I bet arc flash will kill ebola.

 

[Jraef]

Are arc flash suits rated for Ebola?

That seems to be the latest threat.

Interesting that you bring this up. I was watching a demo of I think a CNN reporter in Liberia showing what suiting up involves, and it is eerily similar to a Category 4 PPE scenario where all exposed skin is protected. Yet if you can find archival footage of the nurses in Dallas working with patient zero, they definitely had exposed skin, such as their foreheads (that I could see). I remember when seeing that, thinking that if this were an arc flash situation, that exposed skin would be a serious problem. Looks like that may have part of the issue, leading to the cry for help from the nurses nation wide. Maybe until the CDC can staff up to train everyone, the fastest way to get medical staff to understand the basic concept would be to send them all to NFPA 70E PPE classes, since they already exist all around the nation.

I bet arc flash will kill ebola.

Hey, solution found!!!
:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::slaphead:

 

[kwired]

Interesting that you bring this up. I was watching a demo of I think a CNN reporter in Liberia showing what suiting up involves, and it is eerily similar to a Category 4 PPE scenario where all exposed skin is protected. Yet if you can find archival footage of the nurses in Dallas working with patient zero, they definitely had exposed skin, such as their foreheads (that I could see). I remember when seeing that, thinking that if this were an arc flash situation, that exposed skin would be a serious problem. Looks like that may have part of the issue, leading to the cry for help from the nurses nation wide. Maybe until the CDC can staff up to train everyone, the fastest way to get medical staff to understand the basic concept would be to send them all to NFPA 70E PPE classes, since they already exist all around the nation.


Hey, solution found!!!
:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::slaphead:

When I was in Army suiting up was for chemical/biological protection and included a sealed/filtered breathing apparatus as well, but full level protection was complete covering of everything. Working up a sweat is much easier when running around carrying a rifle and other gear then it is just standing in front of electrical gear and doing more less minor physical labor.

 

[jxofaltrds]

When I was in Army suiting up was for chemical/biological protection and included a sealed/filtered breathing apparatus as well, but full level protection was complete covering of everything. Working up a sweat is much easier when running around carrying a rifle and other gear then it is just standing in front of electrical gear and doing more less minor physical labor.

Put that Mopp suit on and try working on any of this! (Mission Oriented Protective Posture) AKA MOPP

 

[kwired]

Put that Mopp suit on and try working on any of this!

View attachment 11196

Working on or just operating? Neither would be easy though.