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

Face sheild required for Cat 1 (4-8 cal/cm^2)?
https://brainfiller.com/arcflashforum/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=1516		 Page 1 of 1
Author:  jody [ Tue Feb 01, 2011 6:00 am ]
Post subject:  Face sheild required for Cat 1 (4-8 cal/cm^2)?
CSA Z462 requires the face shield in category 1. what's the general thought on this? Is anyone (still) not using the faceshield for exposures of 1.2-4 cal/cm^2 (NOT, as the subject line says, 4-8 cal/cm^2!!!)?

I understand that 1.2 cal/cm^2 is what is generally considered to be the "exposed skin" limit (50% chance of getting a second-degree burn), but what was the original rationale for NFPA 70E omitting the face shield from category 1, and is anyone still following that rationale? Are there any studies or documented experience that point to why it was added (or perhaps why it's not really necessary)?
Author:  Vincent B. [ Tue Feb 01, 2011 7:09 am ]
Post subject: 
Category 1 PPE offers a protection of at least 4 cal/cm^2. Since you need to have a protection at least as high as the hazard if you use the incident energy method of selecting PPE, you can't use Category 1 PPE for an exposure above 4 cal/cm^2.

NFPA 70E 2009 and CSA Z462 2008 both require a face shield rated at least 4 cal/cm^2 in HRC1. I don't have access to NFPA 70E 2004 right now to verify if the requirement was the same at that time.
Author:  sam314159 [ Tue Feb 01, 2011 8:12 am ]
Post subject: 
I don't think she was asking about exposure above 4 cal/cm^2.

I believe she made a typo in the thread title and wasn't able to change it. Her question is about incident energy in the 1.2 to 4 cal/cm^2.

Am I right Jody?
Author:  jody [ Tue Feb 01, 2011 3:15 pm ]
Post subject: 
Not quite a typo, a brain hiccup. I am talking about incident energy of 1.2-4 cal/cm^2. The old NFPA 70E didn't require a faceshield. The new one does. There is dissent in our arc flash committee.

- Is there anyone still not using a faceshield in this range? how do you justify it?
- is there a particular reason that NFPA 70E changed their recommendation?

thanks,

jody
Author:  stevenal [ Wed Feb 02, 2011 1:50 pm ]
Post subject: 
See the Reports on proposals and comments.
[url="http://www.nfpa.org/assets/Files/PDF/ROP/70E-A2008-ROP.pdf"]http://www.nfpa.org/assets/Files/PDF/ROP/70E-A2008-ROP.pdf[/url]
[url="http://www.nfpa.org/assets/Files/PDF/ROP/70E-A2008-ROC.pdf"]http://www.nfpa.org/assets/Files/PDF/ROP/70E-A2008-ROC.pdf[/url]
Author:  jody [ Wed Feb 02, 2011 2:25 pm ]
Post subject: 
found it, thanks!
Author:  sam314159 [ Thu Feb 03, 2011 11:09 am ]
Post subject: 
Just to make sure that we are all on the page; Is it 70E-380 Log #143 EEW-AAA on page 147 of the first document submitted by Mr. Hilbert?
Author:  stevenal [ Thu Feb 03, 2011 2:05 pm ]
Post subject: 
That one was accepted in principle. Page 154 70E-399 Log #435 EEW-AAA was the one actually accepted.
Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC - 7 hours
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/