PPE use with lighting breakers rated as switches

[David North]

I have a 277V breaker panel used for fluorescent lighting in a manufacturing facility. The breakers are switch rated and they are cycled on and off daily for turning on the overhead fixtures.

The questions I run into is this: what level of PPE should my people be wearing to turn on lights?

Technically to flip a breaker, even at this voltage, we need PPE level 0 which is long sleeve non-melting shirt and long non-melting pants with glasses and hearing protection.

Do I treat these devices as breakers or switches and do you think I really need to have this level of PPE for lighting? Interesting question.

Thanks for your ideas.

David

 

[jim dungar]

NFPA70E treats breakers and switches the same.
What is your calculated incident energy at this panel? What is the Flash Protection Boundary?

 

[renosteinke]

I cannot imagine there being any need for any PPE when operating a breaker- assuming the panel is fully assembled, with all covers and dead fronts in place. Ditto for switchgear, motor starters, and service disconnects.

If the production folks need to remove the cover to flip the switch, there's a lot more wrong than just wearing the wrong shirt!

 

[zog]

I cannot imagine there being any need for any PPE when operating a breaker- assuming the panel is fully assembled, with all covers and dead fronts in place. Ditto for switchgear, motor starters, and service disconnects.

Why do you say that? Enclosures are not tested or rated to contain an arc flash unless they are specifically arc rated. And the NFPA 70E clearly states that PPE is required even if the covers/doors are on.

 

[renosteinke]

How can I say that? Well... let's have a reality check here ... what about a light switch on the wall?

I'm sure you can also assert that an ordinary 277v light switch, in an ordinary box and coverplate, is not 'arc flash rated.' Is it your position that full PPE is required?

How does a panel differ? 20 amps of 277 is 20 amps of 277, whether at the breaker or the switch or the bulb. Carry it one step further, and I simply come down with the vapors when I think of all the really big motors whose starters I've operated without all that PPE.

Likewise, the folks at UL perform all manner of tests on breakers, with the stated purpose of "testing for public safety." They certainly seem to believe the equipment is safe to operate without PPE; their standards and tests are all based upon the assumption of operation without your needing to take special precautions.

I do recognize that the picture changes once you start taking things apart.

If 70E makes the claim you assert, then perhaps that's why 70E is NOT law, and should not be law. Maybe that's why my laws are written in Congress, and signed by the President - rather than some unaccountable private business in Massachussetts.

 

[zog]

How can I say that? Well... let's have a reality check here ... what about a light switch on the wall?

A light switch is a far cry from your statement I was refering to:

Ditto for switchgear, motor starters, and service disconnects.

I'm sure you can also assert that an ordinary 277v light switch, in an ordinary box and coverplate, is not 'arc flash rated.' Is it your position that full PPE is required?

No it is not arc rated, but again a light switch is very different from what you stated before. Still, if you use the tables it is a HRC 0, if you did an analysis you would likely find there is no arc flash hazard. Not sure of what your idea of "full PPE" is, bu tin this example it is just HRC 0.

How does a panel differ? 20 amps of 277 is 20 amps of 277, whether at the breaker or the switch or the bulb.

Load has nothing to do with it, the incident energy is determined by the available fault current and the clearing time of the OCPD. You have a lot more fault current at the source than you do at "the bulb"

Carry it one step further, and I simply come down with the vapors when I think of all the really big motors whose starters I've operated without all that PPE.

So because you have not had something happen that means it won't? Really?

Likewise, the folks at UL perform all manner of tests on breakers, with the stated purpose of "testing for public safety." They certainly seem to believe the equipment is safe to operate without PPE; their standards and tests are all based upon the assumption of operation without your needing to take special precautions.

Wrong again, they do not say that at all, the only testing that is done to ensure an enclosure will contain an arc flash is the ANSI testing requirements for arc rated switchgear. If fact, the OEM's state in thier equipment manuals that proper PPE must be worn to operate the equipment.

If 70E makes the claim you assert, then perhaps that's why 70E is NOT law, and should not be law.

Right, 70E is not a law, but is enforcable by OSHA. They fine companies every single day for not following 70E. In fact, I posted one earlier today.

Maybe that's why my laws are written in Congress, and signed by the President - rather than some unaccountable private business in Massachussetts.

At least those guys in MA were born in the USA.

 

[pfalcon]

Right, 70E is not a law, but is enforcable by OSHA. They fine companies every single day for not following 70E. ...

I really wish OSHA would reduce their volume by citing 70E Chapter 1 and 70 (NEC) 110 by reference instead of paraphrasing it. That's effectively what 1910/1926 are after all. That would also help them keep it more current instead of one or two cycles back.

So Zog, how do we convince people that the general duty clause has teeth? That companies actually do get fined for failing to apply up-to-date standards? That they get fined even when the Federal Register is out-of-date? That it means that although the 70E is not law per se that it is law by enforcement?

 

[renosteinke]

UL does not simply 'test to an ASTM or ANSI standard.' UL writes their own standards. In many cases, they then campaign to have the standards recognised by those other private bodies. No matter who put the ink on the paper, it's UL whose name goes on.

As for breaker testing: the standards contain numerous tests for which the passing criteria is that whatever happens, that there be no failure of the device that will endanger personnel. Those breakers have been flipped under all manner of circumstances well outside their intended operating conditions. In many cases the breaker is destroyed- but without danger to the operator.

In part, that's exactly what the "AIC" or arc interrupting capacity rating is all about.

"Class 0?" Phooey on that sort of thing ... Miss January ought to be able to flip any of those breakers in her bikini, while standing in a bucket of salt water, and never fear for her safety. That's exactly what they were designed for- regardless of all this recent fuss over warning stickers, calculations, etc.

Now, if someone wants to argue that using the wrong equipment can somehow be corrected by your wearing PPE, that's another discussion entirely. If you're going to put a 20K AIC breaker in a 50K application, your error goes well beyond whether you're wearing a polyester shirt.

(I missed the part about being US-born. I see absolutely no requirement in NFPA membership rules or committee memberships relating to that topic. For all I know, their offices are filled with cats )

 

[petersonra]

there are millions of panel boards in the US where someone who is completely unqualified electrically goes around every morning and turns on the lights and then turns them off at night. it is doubtful many of them are wearing special PPE.

there are probably literally a billion opportunities every day for someone to be injured doing this.

is there any evidence whatsoever that someone has actually ever been injured doing this?

 

[zog]

UL does not simply 'test to an ASTM or ANSI standard.' UL writes their own standards. In many cases, they then campaign to have the standards recognised by those other private bodies. No matter who put the ink on the paper, it's UL whose name goes on.

As for breaker testing: the standards contain numerous tests for which the passing criteria is that whatever happens, that there be no failure of the device that will endanger personnel. Those breakers have been flipped under all manner of circumstances well outside their intended operating conditions. In many cases the breaker is destroyed- but without danger to the operator.

In part, that's exactly what the "AIC" or arc interrupting capacity rating is all about.

"Class 0?" Phooey on that sort of thing ... Miss January ought to be able to flip any of those breakers in her bikini, while standing in a bucket of salt water, and never fear for her safety. That's exactly what they were designed for- regardless of all this recent fuss over warning stickers, calculations, etc.

Now, if someone wants to argue that using the wrong equipment can somehow be corrected by your wearing PPE, that's another discussion entirely. If you're going to put a 20K AIC breaker in a 50K application, your error goes well beyond whether you're wearing a polyester shirt.

(I missed the part about being US-born. I see absolutely no requirement in NFPA membership rules or committee memberships relating to that topic. For all I know, their offices are filled with cats )

Again, you are reverting back to small breakers and switches when I was refering to your comment about switchgear and MCC's. AND, UL does no testing or makes any promises about an enclosures ability to contain an arc flash. Hence the new ANSI design and testing standard for arc rated equipment, AND AIC rating has nothing to do with containing an arc flash, it is an interupting rating.

 

[iwire]

Again, you are reverting back to small breakers and switches

Which seems to be what this thread is about.

I am betting the OP is talking about 20 amp single pole 277 volt breakers controlling lighting.

You can go to tens of thousands of places in the US where the employees flip these breakers on and off every morning and evening wearing their 'work clothes' which will be about the equivalent of business causal.

The girls who work at the 'Gap' in the mall may be doing this every morning or night.

If in fact this task requires PPE there is a huge change that must happen before compliance will ever happen.

 

[zog]

Which seems to be what this thread is about.

I am betting the OP is talking about 20 amp single pole 277 volt breakers controlling lighting.

You can go to tens of thousands of places in the US where the employees flip these breakers on and off every morning and evening wearing their 'work clothes' which will be about the equivalent of business causal.

The girls who work at the 'Gap' in the mall may be doing this every morning or night.

If in fact this task requires PPE there is a huge change that must happen before compliance will ever happen.

I agree, but AGAIN, my comment was directed to RS's comment about switchgear, MCC's, and disconnects.

I cannot imagine there being any need for any PPE when operating a breaker- assuming the panel is fully assembled, with all covers and dead fronts in place. Ditto for switchgear, motor starters, and service disconnects.

There is a dangerous assumption that people make in thinking that any enclosure not arc rated per ANSIC37.20.7 is designed, tested, or expected to contain an arc flash. http://www.eaton.com/Electrical/USA...n/LowVoltageSwitchgear/ArcResistant/index.htm

 

[iwire]

There is a dangerous assumption that people make in thinking that any enclosure not arc rated

And I still maintain it is even more ridiculous that the enclosure cannot protect the people around it.

Considering that the enclosures do not protect anyone why is it that enclosures are allowed in areas that are both combustible and in the general public?

I might as well leave the trims off.

 

[zog]

And I still maintain it is even more ridiculous that the enclosure cannot protect the people around it.

Considering that the enclosures do not protect anyone why is it that enclosures are allowed in areas that are both combustible and in the general public?

I might as well leave the trims off.

Until the 1990's it was never considered, but now all of the manufactures have arc rated enclosures available. You can even get arc rated hoffman boxes for existing stuff. I understand it is hard to grasp that the arc will blow a hole through metal, or doors off the hinges, but we see this stuff all the time, and it aint pretty.

I maintain it is ridiculous that we used to do CPR by putting fingers in a victims, well you know. And that we thought the world was flat, and that Moonshine had vitimans in it and was good for you, etc...

 

[weressl]

And I still maintain it is even more ridiculous that the enclosure cannot protect the people around it.

Considering that the enclosures do not protect anyone why is it that enclosures are allowed in areas that are both combustible and in the general public?

I might as well leave the trims off.

I agree.

Do you realize if the same principles would apply to automobiles as NFPA 70E to electrical installation, nobody would be able to drive?

Unfortunately NFPA 70E was written and acknowledged by OSHA, so there is no way to put that cat back in the bag.

 

[zog]

I agree.

Do you realize if the same principles would apply to automobiles as NFPA 70E to electrical installation, nobody would be able to drive?

We would have seat belts and airbags

 

[David North]

Well, I never really said what the breaker ratings were. 20A and 30A, single pole, Square D, models EDB14020 and EDB14030. I haven't calculated incident energy but I currently do have people don safety glasses, step to the side, face away and use their non-dominant hand. What I am having trouble recommending is that they also wear PPE level 0.

 

[weressl]

We would have seat belts and airbags

None of those would protect the passenger against malfunctioning car itself.

 

[zog]

None of those would protect the passenger against malfunctioning car itself.

Wheel falls off, car crashes. Seatbellt and airbag save your life. Just like PPE. We wear PPE as a means of protection should there be a failure that was not expected.

 

[zog]

Well, I never really said what the breaker ratings were. 20A and 30A, single pole, Square D, models EDB14020 and EDB14030. I haven't calculated incident energy but I currently do have people don safety glasses, step to the side, face away and use their non-dominant hand. What I am having trouble recommending is that they also wear PPE level 0.

You either have them wear HRC 0, which is simply non melting clothing like OSHA has required electrical workers to wear since 1981, leather gloves, safety glasses, and ear plugs. Not like you need an arc flash suit here or anything.

Or....do the caluculation and prove there is not an arc flash hazard.