It is currently Fri Feb 23, 2018 11:31 am



Post new topic Reply to topic
Author Message
ekstra   ara
 Post subject: PPE Suggested until all Analysis Completed?
PostPosted: Tue Sep 22, 2009 10:34 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jul 20, 2009 11:26 am
Posts: 7
Location: Ontario, Canada
Greetings,

Our company is slowly moving forward in our attempt to comply with CSA Z462 which basically mimics 70E.

We are working at pulling all the training together, identify where we are going to have road block and contentious issues moving forward and will be looking towards analysis and deployment of PPE.

Are there any suggested starting points of PPE which we should make mandatory until all the analysis come in?

We were leaning towards the following as a base point even though we realize that it may not be perfect, however it's better than what we are currently mandating.
-Non Conductive Eye Wear
-Cat 2 Long Sleave Shirts and Pants
-Omega Rated (shock resistant) Footwear
-Gloves Rated for Voltage when within 12" of exposed voltages
-Face Shield & Balaclava (not sure whether balaclava is necessary)
-Arc rated hearing protection
-Non melting undergarments (don't know who is going to monitor and inforce this!)

Please suggest if you feel this list is a decent starting point, or whether we should be looking in a different direction.

We are also in the process of implementing a Permit to Work policy so all items will be locked out whenever possible, however until tested, we know that our employees should be wearing something protective.

Thanks in advance for any suggestions.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Sep 24, 2009 12:49 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Sep 24, 2009 12:38 am
Posts: 3
Dylan Wick wrote:
Greetings,

We were leaning towards the following as a base point even though we realize that it may not be perfect, however it's better than what we are currently mandating.
-Non Conductive Eye Wear
-Cat 2 Long Sleave Shirts and Pants
-Omega Rated (shock resistant) Footwear
-Gloves Rated for Voltage when within 12" of exposed voltages
-Face Shield & Balaclava (not sure whether balaclava is necessary)
-Arc rated hearing protection
-Non melting undergarments (don't know who is going to monitor and inforce this!)

Please suggest if you feel this list is a decent starting point, or whether we should be looking in a different direction.

We are also in the process of implementing a Permit to Work policy so all items will be locked out whenever possible, however until tested, we know that our employees should be wearing something protective.

Thanks in advance for any suggestions.


Dylan, that's a very good start for sure.
My only advise would be to wait before buying any Balaclava. The reason being that if your analysis has an example of 13.8 Cal/CM2 then I would purchase 15Cal/CM2 Balaclava to be compliant with a face shield.

Work pants and work shirt is excellent cause if you ever need say a 16.8Cal/CM2 protection and your shirt is say 8.4 then just putting a coverall at say 12.4 over it would more than satisfy that requirement.
Your protection in that case would be a minimum of 8.4 + 12.4 or 20.8Cal/CM2.

As far as undergarments are concerned just let them know that 100% cotton should be a minimum...period!

JMO...hope it helps.

Regards,


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Sep 24, 2009 1:50 am 
Offline
Sparks Level

Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 7:05 am
Posts: 252
You can't simply add the ratings of two layers and say they protect upto that number.

The garments need to be tested together to have any meaningful rating when layering.

Sometimes the test results are lower than the sum of the ratings, sometimes they are higher.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Sep 24, 2009 3:26 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Dec 08, 2008 7:13 am
Posts: 26
Location: Quebec, Canada
Vincent B. wrote:
You can't simply add the ratings of two layers and say they protect upto that number.

The garments need to be tested together to have any meaningful rating when layering.

Sometimes the test results are lower than the sum of the ratings, sometimes they are higher.


Hi Vincent

That's exactly what we were talking about here yesterday...
Do you have any reference giving more details about layering?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Sep 24, 2009 5:03 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jul 20, 2009 11:26 am
Posts: 7
Location: Ontario, Canada
Thanks for Feedback

I appreciate the responses! I know this may not be perfect however like I mentioned it's a place to start. The largest factor I see is just getting the guys to wear it...gonna be a huge culture change and I'm sure there will be some negative impact on production as the guys who don't want to wear the gear will take their time getting to maintenance calls as the doddle along to pick up their gear.

Oh well, our company has made the commitment to work towards complying so I guess it will be baby steps.

Thanks again!


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Sep 25, 2009 3:23 am 
Offline
Sparks Level

Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 7:05 am
Posts: 252
JPEG wrote:
Do you have any reference giving more details about layering?


An annex of CSA Z462-2008 (can't remember the exact annex letter, and I don't have it at home). I'll post more info on Monday.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Sep 25, 2009 4:01 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Sep 24, 2009 12:38 am
Posts: 3
Numerous FR clothing manufactures have done countless tests with multilayering and the results show that it's the best option for more protection...
Kinetrics is a company that does practically all these tests.

There's a California company that manufactures such clothing and they actually guarantee a additional +5cal/cm2 if you multilayer.
Example:
if you have a 8cal shirt and add an 10cal coverall, you'd have a 23cal (8 +10+5) protection.

Also many other manufactures state that too.
Check it out for yourself.
I, from what I have seen, would definitely multilayer in a snap!


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Sep 26, 2009 3:14 pm 
Offline
Sparks Level

Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 7:05 am
Posts: 252
I wouldn't put 5 shirts rated 8 cal/cm^2 one on top of the other and call that a 45 cal/cm^2 (5*8+5) protection for the torso.

Layering can "create" some additional protection, but unless it's actually tested as a combination, you don't know the final rating.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Sep 27, 2009 11:10 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Dec 08, 2008 7:13 am
Posts: 26
Location: Quebec, Canada
Vincent B. wrote:
An annex of CSA Z462-2008 (can't remember the exact annex letter, and I don't have it at home). I'll post more info on Monday.


It's in annex M.

Thank you!


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Sep 30, 2009 7:38 am 
Offline
Sparks Level
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2009 5:00 pm
Posts: 265
Location: Louisville, KY
Layering arc rated clothing

Gentlemen you have stumbled across a real issue. We have found that if you test similar or lighter weights on the outside you almost always get an additive or better rating BUT if you put a heavier weight on the outside you will likely get less than additive rating. This is because the outer shell may not breakopen BEFORE you get burned. ASTM, 70E, and Z462 require testing to use layered systems.

For now you are going a good path. We always recommend getting in place arc rated daily wear FIRST so clothing ignition is prevented. This saves the most lives in arc flash. Also get the rubber gloves in place since this will save the most lives overall.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Oct 07, 2009 12:39 pm 
Offline
Sparks Level

Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 7:05 am
Posts: 252
Annex M of NFPA 70E-2009 addresses this very issue, especially point M3.1. "Use test data, don't add."


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Dec 07, 2009 7:18 pm 
Offline
Sparks Level

Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 9:10 am
Posts: 73
Depends

What to start out with depends on the complexity and age of your electrical distribution system. I would start out with a CAT #2 Kit (coveralls, gloves, face shield etc) for everyone and not spend $$$$ on daily wear CAT #2 until AFTER the analyses are complete. I would prohibit energized work on the switchboards fed directly from the transformer secondary. A client of mine signed a 5 year "DEAL" with a uniform vendor about 3 weeks before we performed their analysis. over 97% of their equipment was Cat #0 with about 2% Cat #2 and a fraction > CAT #4. The CAT #4 buses were very low maintenance items (annual thermography).


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Dec 07, 2009 8:58 pm 
Offline
Sparks Level

Joined: Sat Nov 21, 2009 10:23 pm
Posts: 73
Location: Ohio
elihuiv wrote:
Gentlemen you have stumbled across a real issue. I'm Hugh Hoagland and do most of the arc testing in the US and Canada at Kinectrics HC Lab. We have found that if you test similar or lighter weights on the outside you almost always get an additive or better rating BUT if you put a heavier weight on the outside you will likely get less than additive rating. This is because the outer shell may not breakopen BEFORE you get burned. ASTM, 70E, and Z462 (of which I'm a member) require testing to use layered systems.

I'm trying to work on an acceptable forumula to use but we haven't had consensus yet (I do the testing but don't want people overtesting).

For now you are going a good path. Our training company always recommends getting in place arc rated daily wear FIRST so clothing ignition is prevented. This saves the most lives in arc flash. Also get the rubber gloves in place since this will save the most lives overall.

Let me know if I can answer anything further or specific.


Hugh:

can you expand on the relationship to "break open" and reducing the rating to less than additive.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Dec 08, 2009 11:09 am 
Offline
Sparks Level
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2009 5:00 pm
Posts: 265
Location: Louisville, KY
Breakopen, ATPV and the Double Hump for Arc Flash Testing

We discovered this a few years back and the standard was changed in 2005. We are still trying to get a handle but some systems get lower ratings IF the outer shell doesn't crack open and allow the heat to dissipate. This outer layer in arc flash can be sacrificial as the paint on the space shuttle. It ablates and carries away energy.

[url="http://www.e-hazard.com/ASTMF18-65-Double-Hump-Taskforce-PPT-10-09-Hugh-Mikhail.pdf"]Click here to read the ASTM F1959 Dual Layer Ratings Presentation.[/url]

Hope this helps.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Dec 08, 2009 4:38 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Aug 03, 2009 10:40 pm
Posts: 22
WR TechGuy

A good place to get some insights on how to choose your FR clothing and what to look for once you get to that point is http://www.knowyourfr.com.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 15 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 7 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


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:  
© 2017 Arcflash Forum / Brainfiller, Inc. | P.O. Box 12024 | Scottsdale, AZ 85267 USA | 800-874-8883