| Author |
Message |
|
jody
|
Post subject: Face sheild required for Cat 1 (4-8 cal/cm^2)?  Posted: Tue Feb 01, 2011 6:00 am |
|
Joined: Fri Jul 10, 2009 8:57 am
Posts: 22
Location: Toronto
|
|
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)?
|
|
| Top |
|
 |
|
Vincent B.
|
Post subject: Posted: Tue Feb 01, 2011 7:09 am |
|
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 7:05 am
Posts: 252
|
|
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.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
sam314159
|
Post subject: Posted: Tue Feb 01, 2011 8:12 am |
|
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2009 11:04 am
Posts: 14
|
|
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?
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
jody
|
Post subject: Posted: Tue Feb 01, 2011 3:15 pm |
|
Joined: Fri Jul 10, 2009 8:57 am
Posts: 22
Location: Toronto
|
|
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
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
stevenal
|
Post subject: Posted: Wed Feb 02, 2011 1:50 pm |
|
Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2009 5:00 pm
Posts: 630
|
|
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]
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
jody
|
Post subject: Posted: Wed Feb 02, 2011 2:25 pm |
|
Joined: Fri Jul 10, 2009 8:57 am
Posts: 22
Location: Toronto
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
sam314159
|
Post subject: Posted: Thu Feb 03, 2011 11:09 am |
|
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2009 11:04 am
Posts: 14
|
|
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?
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
stevenal
|
Post subject: Posted: Thu Feb 03, 2011 2:05 pm |
|
Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2009 5:00 pm
Posts: 630
|
|
That one was accepted in principle. Page 154 70E-399 Log #435 EEW-AAA was the one actually accepted.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
 
|
Page 1 of 1
|
[ 8 posts ] |
|
|
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
|
|
