It is currently Fri Nov 17, 2017 11:22 pm



Post new topic Reply to topic
Author Message
ekstra   ara
 Post subject: Nfpa 70e-2009
PostPosted: Sat May 16, 2009 2:44 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2007 10:10 am
Posts: 45
Location: Mid-West
I keep hearing one of the changes is that no even if you change the state of a breaker (door closed) you need to be wearing the required PPE, any changes to the gear door opened or closed you are required to wear the required PPE so if you go into a room with an ATS or ATO (on a substation double ended / sparing) you would be required to wear the appropriate PPE because you do not know if a throw over or a transfer will take place. what section could I find this change I have not been able to locate it. thanks.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun May 17, 2009 8:00 am 
Offline
Plasma Level

Joined: Mon Jun 02, 2008 11:58 am
Posts: 1103
Location: Charlotte, NC
mike01 wrote:
I keep hearing one of the changes is that no even if you change the state of a breaker (door closed) you need to be wearing the required PPE,


Well it is not a change, it has always been the case, they just clarified it on the 2009. You can look to the task tables or under arc flash hazard in the definitions. (I think that is where it is, my 70E is at work so I am going off the top of my head).

mike01 wrote:
any changes to the gear door opened or closed you are required to wear the required PPE


If you are in the AFB then yes, thats why so many companies are now using remote operators for all thier breakers, switches, and MCC's.

mike01 wrote:
so if you go into a room with an ATS or ATO (on a substation double ended / sparing) you would be required to wear the appropriate PPE because you do not know if a throw over or a transfer will take place. what section could I find this change I have not been able to locate it. thanks.


Not really, the 70E uses the term "Interaction with the equipment". This was discueed at the last 70E meeting and viewed as a very unlikely event with minimal risk. Same would go for MCC's and other similar equipent, there has to be a line of risk vs hazard.

Now that said, last fall a friend of main had 1 of his employees coming back from lunch during a testing job at a refinery and as he was walking past an MCC a starter closed, flashed, and he was burned on his hands and face. Guy didnt touch anything just was passing by. So it can happen, but a very rare event.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon May 18, 2009 5:57 am 
Offline
Sparks Level

Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 2:19 pm
Posts: 70
Location: Georgia
As far as the "doors open / door closed" debate, I'm not sure that is spelled out specifically in 70E. It is however mentioned in FPN No. 1 in section 130.7(C)(9) found directly above the task tables.

It states "The collective experience of the task group is that in most cases closed doors do not provide enough protection to eliminate the need for PPE for instances where the state of the equipment is known to readily change (e.g. doors open or closed, rack in or rack out)."


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 3 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