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



Post new topic Reply to topic Go to page Previous  1, 2
Author Message
ekstra   ara
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Sep 14, 2010 9:12 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Nov 20, 2008 3:00 pm
Posts: 21
Did I miss something here in the conversation, the study test that Jim & the Oberon Co. has performed had nothing to do with accessories or underwear clothing underneath your FR work-wear. The test was actually testing the protection of the Hard hat & face shield assembly that Oberon brings to the industry.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Sep 14, 2010 12:20 pm 
Offline
Sparks Level

Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2010 11:52 am
Posts: 110
Location: Yankton SD/ Lead SD
Jim Pollard wrote:
I wanted to clarify for the group that some foam lined hard caps can ignite, this is not a myth. The most important part to selecting the proper hard cap is to conduct a thorough hazard analysis. As an example, if the incident energy exposure is above 12 cal/cm2 then a hood should be selected. Hoods which fully encapsulate the hard cap (bee keeper type hood) should make foam liner ignition a moot point.


If the cap liners melt, then they can't be woren under FR clothing. 70E 130(12)(c) does not permit undergarmets which will melt, so I am not sure why you would want something on your head that could melt in the event of an arc flash.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Sep 16, 2010 1:01 pm 
Offline
Arc Level

Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2009 5:00 pm
Posts: 442
GP_arc_Flash_MaN wrote:
Did I miss something here in the conversation, the study test that Jim & the Oberon Co. has performed had nothing to do with accessories or underwear clothing underneath your FR work-wear. The test was actually testing the protection of the Hard hat & face shield assembly that Oberon brings to the industry.


Yes you did. My comment was not directed at the testing, but at Jim's suggestion that a foam hard had liner may be worn under an arc flash hood. As cbauer has said, this violates 130(12)(c). Note that the section speaks of "underlayers (underwear) next to the skin." A foam hard hat liner worn this way certainly qualifies as an underlayer (worn under the FR hood) next to the skin.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Sep 17, 2010 10:10 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 31, 2009 5:13 am
Posts: 31
stevenal wrote:
Yes you did. My comment was not directed at the testing, but at Jim's suggestion that a foam hard had liner may be worn under an arc flash hood. As cbauer has said, this violates 130(12)(c). Note that the section speaks of "underlayers (underwear) next to the skin." A foam hard hat liner worn this way certainly qualifies as an underlayer (worn under the FR hood) next to the skin.


I understand your concern, but please allow me to explain further. I revised my original post to add clarity to my statement and remove the word "myth". This was due to the fact that *some* foam liners used for lateral protection on type II caps can melt. Thanks to Ernie and Hugh we have testing evidence to demonstrate this. What the Oberon Company tested for was ignition on what I considered to be the most popular type II hard caps here in Canada. Our results showed NO ignition, melting or dripping. Thanks to our testing I'm now confident in speaking about the type II hard cap liners that we tested in relation to electrical hazards. NEVER forget or neglect to conduct a proper hazard analysis! Ask yourself should the foam liner in your type II hard cap EVER be exposed to sufficient incident energy to surpass the ignition point? Arc Flash faceshields and Arc Flash Hoods when selected properly WILL provide protection to both your eyes/face/skin and your hard cap/type II foam liner/ear plugs/safety glasses. In the absence of an applicable ASTM F18 testing standard (hurry up Hugh!) all we have available is our existing resources, including the report I contributed to this forum. I am not endorsing the use of any type II hard cap liner, but rather sharing with you our technical data on the subject. If worker's were to follow your methodology regarding meltable ancillary type PPE (not garments!!) then nobody would be using ear plugs. Tell me why the standard(s) allow for non-arc rated FR ear canal inserts?! What is most important is what becomes appropriate; Noise induced hearing loss or wearing available HPD's (hearing protective devices)? Receiving lateral impact injuries to your HEAD or using type II foam lined hard caps?! Please, at the end of the day we MUST keep things in perspective and use ancillary type PPE that is the most practicable for the hazard(s).


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Sep 17, 2010 12:46 pm 
Offline
Arc Level

Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2009 5:00 pm
Posts: 442
Jim Pollard wrote:
Tell me why the standard(s) allow for non-arc rated FR ear canal inserts?!


As I understand it, (after contacting NFPA with the question) they don't. Since even the the plugs that are marketed as Arc Plugs do not show us any arc flash testing, we are left to decide how best to be non-compliant.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 25 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

All times are UTC - 7 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


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