NFPA 70E
- Thread starter billj
- Start date
- Status
bphgravity
Senior Member
- Location
- Florida
Re: NFPA 70E
I find most contractors are way behind the eight ball when it comes to NFPA 70E practices and procedures. It seems that contractors have an "all or nothing" attitude meaning they either follow the requirements and prescribed safety procedures to the hilt or do nothing at all including proper training and education for their employees on even the most basic of safety considerations.
I find most contractors are way behind the eight ball when it comes to NFPA 70E practices and procedures. It seems that contractors have an "all or nothing" attitude meaning they either follow the requirements and prescribed safety procedures to the hilt or do nothing at all including proper training and education for their employees on even the most basic of safety considerations.
pierre
Senior Member
- Location
- Westchester County, New York
Re: NFPA 70E
Bill
I am no longer a contractor, but I am working with many contractors. This is a subject that most are very aware of yet are doing very little other than talk. We are in the process of putting a program together that will help in the training, understanding and the most important issue... implementing a plan that is affordable and doable. Without it being doable/affordable, it will stay at the "talk" stage for who knows how long.
I hope that with this combined effort, by February of '06 we will start this program for the guys who are interested. We are trying to capture the small company market with this program - although it will work for all size companies.
This is one of the facets of my "CULTURE CHANGE" images and practices, that I am instilling in the guys.
[ November 30, 2005, 12:48 PM: Message edited by: pierre ]
Bill
I am no longer a contractor, but I am working with many contractors. This is a subject that most are very aware of yet are doing very little other than talk. We are in the process of putting a program together that will help in the training, understanding and the most important issue... implementing a plan that is affordable and doable. Without it being doable/affordable, it will stay at the "talk" stage for who knows how long.
I hope that with this combined effort, by February of '06 we will start this program for the guys who are interested. We are trying to capture the small company market with this program - although it will work for all size companies.
This is one of the facets of my "CULTURE CHANGE" images and practices, that I am instilling in the guys.
[ November 30, 2005, 12:48 PM: Message edited by: pierre ]
ron
Senior Member
- Location
- New York, 40.7514,-73.9925
Re: NFPA 70E
Don't be surprised to find out that the engineering firms are struggling with the same topic. Every time I open a piece of electrical equipment to verify breaker settings or ratings, I wish I didn't know what I know about OSHA and the recommended practices of 70E. My firm is currently suffering from analysis paralysis, and not offering anything of significance to the worker (me), operating on live equipment.
Don't be surprised to find out that the engineering firms are struggling with the same topic. Every time I open a piece of electrical equipment to verify breaker settings or ratings, I wish I didn't know what I know about OSHA and the recommended practices of 70E. My firm is currently suffering from analysis paralysis, and not offering anything of significance to the worker (me), operating on live equipment.
jimwalker
Senior Member
- Location
- TAMPA FLORIDA
Re: NFPA 70E
Far too many places push this we can't shut them down attitude.Often this crosses the lines of safety.But if an accident happens then the blame gets thrown at the electrician.Never seen this as a problem on residential but in commercial see it all the time.
[ November 30, 2005, 07:56 PM: Message edited by: jimwalker ]
Far too many places push this we can't shut them down attitude.Often this crosses the lines of safety.But if an accident happens then the blame gets thrown at the electrician.Never seen this as a problem on residential but in commercial see it all the time.
[ November 30, 2005, 07:56 PM: Message edited by: jimwalker ]
pierre
Senior Member
- Location
- Westchester County, New York
Re: NFPA 70E
JB
Anyone who is interested can PM me. When our procedure/process is developed, I will gladly help.
Ron
I think you and I are from the same area. Maybe you can help us, and in return we can help you and your company. Think about it, and let me know.
JB
Anyone who is interested can PM me. When our procedure/process is developed, I will gladly help.
Ron
I think you and I are from the same area. Maybe you can help us, and in return we can help you and your company. Think about it, and let me know.
- Location
- Illinois
- Occupation
- retired electrician
Re: NFPA 70E
Pierre,
How are you addressing the fact that you cannot get the correct fault current number from the utility? Remember that in many cases a lower level of available fault current will require a higher level of PPE.
Don
Pierre,
How are you addressing the fact that you cannot get the correct fault current number from the utility? Remember that in many cases a lower level of available fault current will require a higher level of PPE.
Don
pierre
Senior Member
- Location
- Westchester County, New York
Re: NFPA 70E
Don
This process is in the infant stages. I am sure that once the hoidays are over the people involved will put more effort in. I am working with the Utility company(s) on trying to get info a little faster, and without pulling teeth. I am having pretty good progress there.
After the holidays, I will let you know how it is progressing.
If you have any ideas, please let me know... we will take all the help offered.
Don
This process is in the infant stages. I am sure that once the hoidays are over the people involved will put more effort in. I am working with the Utility company(s) on trying to get info a little faster, and without pulling teeth. I am having pretty good progress there.
After the holidays, I will let you know how it is progressing.
If you have any ideas, please let me know... we will take all the help offered.
- Location
- Illinois
- Occupation
- retired electrician
Re: NFPA 70E
Larry,
The level of PPE is based on the incident energy. The incident energy involves both the fault current and the fault clearing time of the OCPD. Lower available fault currents often result in a longer clearing time and a higher level of incident energy which in turn requires a higher level of PPE.
Don
Larry,
The level of PPE is based on the incident energy. The incident energy involves both the fault current and the fault clearing time of the OCPD. Lower available fault currents often result in a longer clearing time and a higher level of incident energy which in turn requires a higher level of PPE.
Don
- Location
- Illinois
- Occupation
- retired electrician
Re: NFPA 70E
Pierre,
It is my understanding that the utility distribution systems are too dynamic to give you a real available fault current. What they give you now, may change in a hour because of feeder line switching and other normal everyday utility operations. Charlie Eldridge (one of the our moderators) has made a number of posts on this issue. He will be away from the site until sometime in February, but you could do some searching here to find some of his comments. I think there have been a number of his comments in this section.
My understading is that the utility has no problem in giving a maximum available fault current that you use for equipment selection, but they have no way of giving you a fault current that can be used for arc flash calculations. Without an actual fault current you cannot select the correct PPE. Now I am not saying that you shouldn't do some calculations and wear PPE, I'm just saying the these calculations may result in a level of PPE that won't provide the required protection.
Don
Pierre,
It is my understanding that the utility distribution systems are too dynamic to give you a real available fault current. What they give you now, may change in a hour because of feeder line switching and other normal everyday utility operations. Charlie Eldridge (one of the our moderators) has made a number of posts on this issue. He will be away from the site until sometime in February, but you could do some searching here to find some of his comments. I think there have been a number of his comments in this section.
My understading is that the utility has no problem in giving a maximum available fault current that you use for equipment selection, but they have no way of giving you a fault current that can be used for arc flash calculations. Without an actual fault current you cannot select the correct PPE. Now I am not saying that you shouldn't do some calculations and wear PPE, I'm just saying the these calculations may result in a level of PPE that won't provide the required protection.
Don
bphgravity
Senior Member
- Location
- Florida
Re: NFPA 70E
It's a catch 22 as they say. If you over estimate the AFC it could cause you to reduce the need PPE, however it is not a simple solution of just using the maximum PPE available. Some tasks do not require that type of gear an could lead to more hazards created by use of that level of PPE.
I recently had the opportunity to try out some 40 cal/cm? PPE. I could hardly perform any task the requires even the slightest bit of precision such as using a wrench or screwdriver.
So to make a long story short, very accurate flash annalysis is really needed to make proper PPE choices, yet it appears to be all but impossible.
It's a catch 22 as they say. If you over estimate the AFC it could cause you to reduce the need PPE, however it is not a simple solution of just using the maximum PPE available. Some tasks do not require that type of gear an could lead to more hazards created by use of that level of PPE.
I recently had the opportunity to try out some 40 cal/cm? PPE. I could hardly perform any task the requires even the slightest bit of precision such as using a wrench or screwdriver.
So to make a long story short, very accurate flash annalysis is really needed to make proper PPE choices, yet it appears to be all but impossible.
- Location
- Illinois
- Occupation
- retired electrician
Re: NFPA 70E
Don
That is exactly the point I am trying to make.
Don
Re: NFPA 70E
I work at a local 300 person branch of a 4000 employee corporation. This is what has happened here:
Movies intended to scare the bejeebers outta you have been shown by Shawmut fuse representatives.
They sold fuses, which I think is a good thing, if they do in fact work as advertised.
Stickers warning of death, PPE, and NFPA70E have been bought and stickered to every electrical cabinet in the place.
No PPE has been purchased, available, and no training has been done. No shut down policies.
Other than stickers, no indication that things should be done any differently than pre- NFPA 70E.
I think I am probably the only person in the joint remotely aware of the extent of NFPA 70E
( through this forum ).
So I am sort of like one of the previous posters, in that I wish I didn't know what was required when I have to open enclosures with their little sticker on it. I feel that by placing the sticker, OSHA has allowed the company to put the responsibility on me to take measures that don't exist, and with which I don't agree, without following through to make sure the company has done what was required of them. I feel threatend by my job and my employer now. Thanks a lot.
I can just imagine the first time I shut down 3 production lines, because they share a common mag. panel and 1 of them has a problem.
By all logic, odds, and experience it could be safely fixed ( because I have done it ) without going to the extremes of NFPA 70E.
You can call me names like cowboy or whatever you like...as some of you have in the past, but you would be wrong.
I think this entire thing may be well intentioned, but is impractical and should be radically modified.
I work at a local 300 person branch of a 4000 employee corporation. This is what has happened here:
Movies intended to scare the bejeebers outta you have been shown by Shawmut fuse representatives.
They sold fuses, which I think is a good thing, if they do in fact work as advertised.
Stickers warning of death, PPE, and NFPA70E have been bought and stickered to every electrical cabinet in the place.
No PPE has been purchased, available, and no training has been done. No shut down policies.
Other than stickers, no indication that things should be done any differently than pre- NFPA 70E.
I think I am probably the only person in the joint remotely aware of the extent of NFPA 70E
( through this forum ).
So I am sort of like one of the previous posters, in that I wish I didn't know what was required when I have to open enclosures with their little sticker on it. I feel that by placing the sticker, OSHA has allowed the company to put the responsibility on me to take measures that don't exist, and with which I don't agree, without following through to make sure the company has done what was required of them. I feel threatend by my job and my employer now. Thanks a lot.
I can just imagine the first time I shut down 3 production lines, because they share a common mag. panel and 1 of them has a problem.
By all logic, odds, and experience it could be safely fixed ( because I have done it ) without going to the extremes of NFPA 70E.
You can call me names like cowboy or whatever you like...as some of you have in the past, but you would be wrong.
I think this entire thing may be well intentioned, but is impractical and should be radically modified.
- Location
- Illinois
- Occupation
- retired electrician
Re: NFPA 70E
Don
Actually the employee is never responsible, the employer is.
The employer must provide both the training and the PPE under OSHA rules.
Don
Re: NFPA 70E
While you are no doubt correct that the employer is always legally responsible, and the employee never is, I have always felt the responsibility to do my job in conformance with NEC, OSHA, to the extent of my understanding.
I think when regs are imposed that are impractical to the extent that they even seem a little ivory towerishly out of touch, it undermines that feeling of personal responsibility; one of the the very things OSHA and NEC should be trying to promote.
You seem to be pointing out the impracticality of 70E with respect to choosing PPE. I think it is legitimately impractical in other areas as well.
While you are no doubt correct that the employer is always legally responsible, and the employee never is, I have always felt the responsibility to do my job in conformance with NEC, OSHA, to the extent of my understanding.
I think when regs are imposed that are impractical to the extent that they even seem a little ivory towerishly out of touch, it undermines that feeling of personal responsibility; one of the the very things OSHA and NEC should be trying to promote.
Re: NFPA 70E
Interesting that there have been no replies from small contractors?
They face an extremely difficult situation.
Most gear they service will not have HRC ratings. They will be trying to protect against a hazard that has not yet been quantified.
Do you insist on a short circuit study before every service call? -Not practical.
Do you "suit-up" when the gear you are servicing "looks" dangerous? -Not a bad idea.
It's nice to hear that someone is catering to the smaller contractor.
Perhaps even a set of simple "guide-lines" ie: certain PPE levels for correlating equipment ratings would be better than ignoring the risk.
Interesting that there have been no replies from small contractors?
They face an extremely difficult situation.
Most gear they service will not have HRC ratings. They will be trying to protect against a hazard that has not yet been quantified.
Do you insist on a short circuit study before every service call? -Not practical.
Do you "suit-up" when the gear you are servicing "looks" dangerous? -Not a bad idea.
It's nice to hear that someone is catering to the smaller contractor.
Perhaps even a set of simple "guide-lines" ie: certain PPE levels for correlating equipment ratings would be better than ignoring the risk.
Re: NFPA 70E
I am in the early stages of a short circuit / arcflash study in my plant. The dynamics of the utility hadn't really dawned on me. Would the utility even know all scenarios? Perhaps two studies are required with each extreme?
My thinking is that you do the best you can with what information is available to you.
Sooner or later the black-and-white fades and we are forced into judgement.
Speaking for my application, changes can be made (ie. breaker or relay settings) to try and mitigate the effects of a dynamic utility. However, now there is dance with safety and selectivity of the distribution system. Now, throw PPE requirements into the mix.
As we all know, at times, it's more of an art than a science when it comes to protecting our workers.
It's not perfect. But it's better than it was yesterday. Perhaps tomorrow will be better still.
There's an interesting twist.
I am in the early stages of a short circuit / arcflash study in my plant. The dynamics of the utility hadn't really dawned on me. Would the utility even know all scenarios? Perhaps two studies are required with each extreme?
My thinking is that you do the best you can with what information is available to you.
Sooner or later the black-and-white fades and we are forced into judgement.
Speaking for my application, changes can be made (ie. breaker or relay settings) to try and mitigate the effects of a dynamic utility. However, now there is dance with safety and selectivity of the distribution system. Now, throw PPE requirements into the mix.
As we all know, at times, it's more of an art than a science when it comes to protecting our workers.
It's not perfect. But it's better than it was yesterday. Perhaps tomorrow will be better still.
bphgravity
Senior Member
- Location
- Florida
Re: NFPA 70E
There is a really simple solution for these problems. Don't do work while the equipment energized. Easy enough. There are very few instances where hot work is required with today's technology.
There is a really simple solution for these problems. Don't do work while the equipment energized. Easy enough. There are very few instances where hot work is required with today's technology.
- Status