It is currently Mon Mar 08, 2021 6:40 pm



Post new topic Reply to topic
Author Message
ekstra   ara
 Post subject: Label Color after Printing
PostPosted: Mon Mar 11, 2019 11:52 am 

Joined: Mon Mar 11, 2019 11:32 am
Posts: 1
I run an arc flash evaluation with SKM software and afterwards printed out the red danger and orange warning labels for my project. However, they didn't print out as they appeared on the print preview screen. The red was more violet and the orange was rather pink in color . The labels look great on the preview screen. Ran printer test and the printer checked out. Any suggestion?

Thanks
DG


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Label Color after Printing
PostPosted: Tue Mar 12, 2019 3:29 pm 
Plasma Level
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2010 9:08 am
Posts: 2174
Location: North Carolina
DG Acord wrote:
I run an arc flash evaluation with SKM software and afterwards printed out the red danger and orange warning labels for my project. However, they didn't print out as they appeared on the print preview screen. The red was more violet and the orange was rather pink in color . The labels look great on the preview screen. Ran printer test and the printer checked out. Any suggestion?

Thanks
DG


First, yes, it's annoying. It's SKM. Go into the custom label section and we can easily fix this. First off you will see the "category" table. Go in and change the last entry, the one that says "DANGER". Change it to match the row above it, the "PPE Level 3" row. Yes that means it will print out a WARNING label. Second change the colors for all of the labels to be a slightly lighter shade of yellow. OK now you've fixed it.

Don't print "Danger" labels. Tell SKM to fix their default table because it is a huge Code violation. Always has been. They're a bunch of idiots that apparently can't read what the standard says. This is both an ANSI and NFPA violation. They haven't gotten it right in 20 years. Ask them why your label lists both a PPE Level and an incident energy when 70E clearly states that it's a Code violation, too if you want a good laugh. Fix that too while you are at it.

Now as to why this is a blatant Code violation...

ANSI Z535, the label standard and the equivalent IEC/EN standards are pretty clear on the labels and when to use the word WARNING and when to use DANGER. The signal word DANGER is reserved for hazards in which a fatality is guaranteed. For ALL other cases where a fatality is possible but less than highly probable, you use warning. The arc flash statistics clearly state that a fatality occurs in between about 1 out of 10 and 1 out of 20 cases. That is FAR from a DANGER case. It's a WARNING. Not only that but DANGER means that death is highly probable. We'd put it on the hatch of a large fan for instance where if you go in there, you will be sucked into the fan blades and instantly killed. That's a legitimate danger label. Arc flash is a rare event in the first place, even if fatalities were rare. I'm not saying that we should downplay the hazard but that's how ANSI defines it. We need to respect the hazard for what it is, not what it isn't. I'm not suggesting we stop printing labels for >1.2 cal/cm2. Just stop putting out incorrect labels. Both NFPA 70E and NEC clearly state that you must follow the ANSI Z535 label standard for labels. Why SKM doesn't follow this is beyond my understanding.

Second, and this is where SKM totally got off track and screwed up, there is no actual technical issue with working above 40 cal/cm2. There was NEVER a hard limit or really any limitation whatsoever on working above 40 cal/cm2. The note (2015 edition and earlier) simply stated that you need to take "extra caution" when working on equipment above 40 cal/cm2. What extra steps do you take? Nothing. No extra requirements whatsoever. The origin is almost lost to history but it was believed to exist back when the highest available arc flash PPE was 40 ATPV. Now you can easily buy 150 ATPV suits. You wouldn't believe it but there was even a myth that due to arc blast which has no relationship whatsoever to incident energy that above 40 cal/cm2, you would somehow die instantly from blunt force trauma instead of thermal burns. Absolutely preposterous. Since it basically served no purpose except to cause all kinds of stupid mistakes like what SKM did, it was deleted from the 2018 edition. I put in the public input to change this and it was accepted.

Third, should there be an upper limit? Yes. But not 40 cal/cm2. Not even half that The upper limit depends on what PPE you actually issue but should be around 8-12 cal/cm2. Why that number? Two reasons. First off it is prohibitively difficult at this point to get everything down to under 1.2 cal/cm2. I've done it in a few cases on new installs but it's not easy to do. If we go above 12 cal/cm2 we exceed the limits of single layer arc flash PPE. That means we're basically wearing winter insulated PPE in summer which leads to problems with heat related illnesses (heat exhaustion, heat stroke). So that makes 8-12 cal/cm2 a practical upper limit without imposing greater hazards. I'd even accept that it might be necessary to supply some winter PPE which can double in a 2 layer configuration to allow a higher level of ATPV for some work where basically all you are doing is LOTO but that's it. If a worker comes up to equipment that is higher incident energy than their PPE then what? Go upstream. Adjust breaker settings (maintenance switch). Maybe use a "chicken switch" or a hot stick. Might have to even pull cutouts or call the utility to pull cutouts and de-enerigize a larger portion of the plant. There have been IEEE papers published on steel mills and paper mills that successfully got everything down to an 8 cal/cm2 rating so this is not far fetched at all. Those same papers agree with me...trying to go to 1.2 cal/cm2 at this time is not realistic though.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 2 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 7 hours


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
© 2019 Arcflash Forum / Brainfiller, Inc. | P.O. Box 12024 | Scottsdale, AZ 85267 USA | 800-874-8883