Arc Flash Forum
https://brainfiller.com/arcflashforum/

Have you/someone you know ever worked energized above 40 cal/cm^2?
https://brainfiller.com/arcflashforum/viewtopic.php?f=33&t=2085		 Page 1 of 1
Author:  Jim Phillips (brainfiller) [ Sun Feb 19, 2012 9:07 am ]
Post subject:  Have you/someone you know ever worked energized above 40 cal/cm^2?
Have you or anyone you know performed energized work at a location where the prospective incident energy is above 40 cal/cm^2?

Of course, years ago we would not have known whether the prospective incident energy was above or below 40 cal/cm^2 which is why the "No" vote selection also includes "not that I am aware of".

Stories and discussions are always encouraged!
Author:  acobb [ Mon Feb 20, 2012 5:19 am ]
Post subject: 
While we did not do any calcs in those days, I know from what we are seeing now that many times must have been 40 cal Plus!
Author:  Terry Becker [ Mon Feb 20, 2012 10:29 am ]
Post subject: 
brainfiller wrote:
Have you or anyone you know performed energized work at a location where the prospective incident energy is above 40 cal/cm^2?

Of course, years ago we would not have known whether the prospective incident energy was above or below 40 cal/cm^2 which is why the "No" vote selection also includes "not that I am aware of".

Stories and discussions are always encouraged!


CSA Z462 and NFPA 70E do not restrict work at greather than 40 cal/cm2, users of these Standards need to develop comprehensive Electrical Safety Programs and define their company's policies. We need to balance off incident energy level with potential arc flash blast pressure. Arc flash suits are available up to 140 cal/cm2. We should NOT let ETAP, SKM or Easypower dictate policy with their incorrect default labels and HRC table where they identify greater than 40 cal/cm2 as Dangerous and NO PPE available which is not true.

Again a company should develop a comprehensive Electrical Safety Program and define their policies and take control of the engineering indicident energy analysis studies and TELL the Professional Engineer the label template they want and the target incident energy levels for mitigation after the baseline study is completed. We need to ensure we have the ability to engineer mitigation that is reasonable in cost and technically feasible.

Regards;
Terry Becker
Author:  A King [ Tue Feb 21, 2012 12:13 pm ]
Post subject: 
Yes, oil sampling on the secondary of pad mounted transformers. We have several plants that run production 24/7. We want to install SampleSafe but it's going to take time and money... When we do this task we wear 100cal/cm^2 PPE. The only other task we’d ever get in here for is IR scans.

A company we’ve occasionally contracted this work to will only do it live if it's under 40cal/cm^2 [font=Tahoma]or as long as it's not labeled... As far as I can tell they only wear HRC 2 PPE for this task (just face shield and FR clothing plus rubber gloves and sleeves).[/font]

We use EasyPower software and instead of using the default label for areas over 40cal saying "Dangerous: Energized Work Prohibited" we’ve edited it to say "Dangerous: EEWP Required for Access." This allows oversight of the task being performed and lets us to judge each instance on a case-by-case basis.
Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC - 7 hours
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/