Newsletter | Archives
You can search the e-Hazard newsletter archive several ways: by simply scrolling through the information below, by clicking on a specific issue in the lower right hand column, or by using the search to the right. Just put a subject in the box, press the Google Search button and the system will search for any reference to your request in our back issues. If you cannot find what you are looking for, please email your question to hugh.hoagland@e-hazard.com or give us a call at (502) 314-7158.
In This Issue
Arc Testing Datese-Hazard.Com NFPA 70E Training Classes
Aearo Arc Ear Plug NOW ARC TESTED!
How Bill Got Burned
Train The Trainer October 24-26
OSHA Cites Contractor for Electrical Accident at Rice Lake, Wis., Site
BURN UP THE MYTH: Common Accident Cause
ArcWear.com will be performing ASTM F1959, ASTM F2178, the ASTM F887 fall protection arc testing and mannequin testing at the Kinectrics Lab in Toronto on the dates above. If you have testing needs, let me know . If you have textiles, hoods, fall protection harnesses or clothing you want tested for marketing, protection levels or any other reason, let me know immediately and ship the materials or clothing to:
Hugh Hoagland
ArcWear.com
9900 Corporate Campus Drive
Suite 3000
Louisville, KY 40223
We must receive one week before the test date or make arrangements.
e-Hazard.Com NFPA 70E Training Classes
These are evermore popular. Many competitors are offering classes which are mostly sales and others are offering classes which are mostly electrical basics with little content on NFPA 70E. We still offer customization of classes for the site and have Operators, Management, Affected Workers and Technician Training. Cost of the full day NFPA 70E class is $250 includes lunch and snacks, NFPA 70E Manual and e-Hazard.com Student Manual 10% discount for early sign up and 10% discount for 5 or more attendees. Request info online at http://www.e-hazard.com/e-hazard.com/classsignup.htm
Certified for CEU's in NM, ND, WA, OR, ID, UT and will seek certification for Electrical Safety Training in any state which requires it.
I recently arc tested several ear plugs for Aearo and they have issued the following statement based on my testing. I'm very proud to have participated in this evaluation and a lot of good information has come from it.
"Currently no standard test exists for evaluating an earplug to determine the likelihood that it will ignite when an arc flash occurs. Because no standard exists, no pass/fail or other evaluation criteria exists for determining the acceptability of an earplug for these conditions. However a few questions have been received regarding whether or not the E-A-R© ARC plugª has been evaluated through exposure to an arc flash. In the interest of providing these answers, ARC plugs were submitted for an evaluation similar to that used for arc flash clothing. The incident energy in the arc was steadily increased as the arc was directed across the tips of twelve ARC plugs. The number of plugs which ignited was measured as the incident energy was steadily increased for each arc. The results show that the earplug will not ignite (p<1.6%) for exposures below 8 cal/cm2 which is the limit of a category 2 exposure. Beyond category 2, a face shield or protective hood is required, reducing the heat exposure of the earplug to unignitable levels. In conclusion if used in accordance with the other protective equipment as prescribed by OSHA 1910.269 and NFPA70E, the Arcplug should not represent an ignition hazard for the wearer."
Brian C. Myers
(317) 692-6593
brian_myers@aearo.com
Click here for more info on the ArcPlug from Aearo
How Bill Got Burned
Thanks to Danny Liggett of DuPont for this excellent true story of an arc flash incident. This type of openness is to be commended and I hope it drives many other companies to FR daily wear for their electrical workers which along with the right meter (see next article) will save more lives than anything I can think of doing.
I'm 53 and a mature man but I still cried yesterday when I heard how my friend got burned.
I met Bill 6 years ago when we did a major training project for his company and I trained Bill as a trainer for one of the offshoot courses that resulted.
Bill is about 60 and just a real careful and cautious man. He is one of the guys you like to have on your team because of the calm thoughtfulness that he brings to situations, whether they are technical or human.
He was burned while working in a 575volt cubicle replacing a 208volt fan. There was a live 575volt bus running through the cubicle that was guarded by a Lexan shield; he was replacing this fan that was at the top rear of the cubicle, above the shield.
This is not a case of poor work practices, attitude, etc.; Bill is at the top end of the scale on all of these.
It is also not a case of lousy management or avoidance of duty. His company has a highly evolved safety program with regular audits and strict measurements and they are partly owned by a very prestigious international firm that micro monitors safety as part of their quality program.
I have been teaching safety courses since 1980 and this is just one of those situations that is so hard to foretell.
The Lexan shield had small ventilation holes. Bill accidentally dropped a tool that bounced down the cubicle wall then ricocheted right through one of these holes and caused a phase to phase short. If you were trying to do this you would consider it impossible so for years workers have been doing such tasks without shutting down the 575 system.
When this accident happened, Bill was caught in the cubicle and exposed to a tremendous arc flash that lasted almost 5 seconds. The flash duration was so long because this switchgear lineup was one of several fed directly from the secondary of a 13,800/600v transformer and only protected on the transformer primary.
We all know that following an accident we are all brilliant in our solutions and that is the point of this email. I am writing this letter this morning and distributing it to over 60,000 people internationally. I want you to use my friend's accident as a catalyst for a serious analysis of your own system.
The research behind NFPA70E clearly shows the hazards available in a system like this but this hazard was missed by dozens of serious, experienced, concerned and astute individuals over the course of several decades.
As a company we have trained over 18,000 people in either troubleshooting, maintenance or safety courses and I have personally put thousands of people through safety courses. I can say as an experienced trainer that training alone can't prevent these accidents and neither will great attitudes or safe work practices. To prevent these accidents you need to go through your system with a fine tooth comb, looking at everything and asking "What if, what if, and what then?" A good person to help you is one of those right brainers who sometimes seems to ask too many of these questions but is good at imagining things that don't yet exist.
Bill's industry has not yet adopted FR clothing or calorie rated protective gear so he was dressed in cotton and had no last line of defence. He has received 2nd and 3rd degree burns on 60-70% of his body.
From this email I hope a number of things happen,
1. Please widely distribute this email
2. Please do the fine tooth review. (If you don't have the budget, just use the budget you have to pay for accidents.)
3. If you are in an industry that is not using FR clothing and flash suits then it is time to start. The moment we open these cabinets we have joined the bomb squad and it is time to start protecting ourselves accordingly. SCC and clearing times don't care what industry or country they are in.
4. If you are working for a company that does not provide this equipment, buy it yourself. Don't argue or hesitate, call it Quality of Life insurance, believe that you're worth it, and get into the habit of using it the same as you put on your seatbelt, bike helmet, cup, gloves or whatever. If you think life is short try living the rest of yours in continuous pain. It will seem a lot longer.
5. Flowers can't be sent because of the fear of infection but if you want to send a friendly card it's Bill (the Electrician), Burn Unit, Vancouver General Hospital, 899 West 12th Avenue, Vancouver, BC, V5Z 1M9.
6. If you would rather send an email you can reply to this one and we will pass it on.
I am writing this Mar 23, 2006. I just phoned Vancouver General to find out how Bill is doing and the nurses weren't available, they were in changing his dressings.
I know your companies are diligent already and one more plea for safety can sound trite but I can't think of too many more horrible ways to prepare for your retirement and Bill has not deserved this.
Neither has the next person, maybe one of yours, who is about to suffer the same experience.
Sincerely,
Dave Smith
President
Canada Training Group
email: davesmith@canada-training-group.ca
e-Hazard Train The Trainer October 24-26
"I got more out of Train the Trainer than I expected. You guys have answered more of my questions than anyone ever has."
---Bill from Weyerhaeuser Corp.
"I've been to a few train the trainers and the other companies just do the training for you once. Your adult education specialist training, the group critique and video taping of me doing the training has given me a lot of things to make me a better trainer. The two days of indepth Q&A while we did the training in front of you guys made me a lot more comfortable with the material. Thanks, e-Hazard.com"
--Anynomous, Lawrence Berkley National Lab
Join Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Micron Computer, PQ Corporation, The US Department of Energy, the City of Phoenix, Weyerhaeuser, KCP&L and others who use the e-Hazard.com material for training their workers on NFPA 70E. If you have attended the training you only have to attend the second two days but you can do it all at once. The location will be in Louisville, KY or on the West Coast, based on demand. Sign up today and let us know where you would like to see the class.
The cost for the TTT class is $5500 for the first attendee and $3000 for each additional attendee from one company. The first attendee will receive all the training materials including more than $1000 of training videos and each attendee receives the e-Hazard.com training materials on CD along with the Instructor's Manual and the right to use our materials for training for your workers when books are purchased at our TTT discount price.
Books are available from e-Hazard.com and we will customize them for you so your books have only the information you need to cover.
Sign up for Train the Trainer Class at e-Hazard.com
OSHA Cites Contractor for Electrical Accident at Rice Lake, Wis., Site
EAU CLAIRE, Wis. - The U.S. Labor Department's Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has proposed $104,500 in fines against Electri-Tec Electrical Construction Inc., Arena, Wis., for alleged willful and serious violations of federal workplace safety and health standards. The citations follow the investigation of an August 2005 electrical incident that hospitalized one worker.
OSHA opened an inspection in August after an electrical accident resulted from an arc flash and arc blast at a new Wal-Mart construction site in Rice Lake. A foreman of Electri-Tec received severe burns and was hospitalized for burn treatment. OSHA issued two willful and four serious citations for training deficiencies, lack of protective equipment and issues involving accidental worker contact with electric power circuits.
"Any one of these violations has the potential to cause serious harm, perhaps even death, to workers," said OSHA Area Director Mark Hysell. "Finding and insisting on the correction of hazards are among the best services we can perform for working men and women."
The company has had six previous OSHA inspections including a December 2002 investigation into an arc flash burn sustained by an employee. That inspection resulted in citations for lack of personal protective equipment.
The company has 15 working days from receipt of the citations to appeal before the independent Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission.
Employers are responsible for providing a safe and healthful workplace for their employees. OSHA's role is to assure the safety and health of America's workers by setting and enforcing standards; providing training, outreach, and education; establishing partnerships; and encouraging continual improvement in workplace safety and health. For more information, visit www.osha.gov.
Click here for the Full Press Release from OSHA
Burn Up The Myth: Common Accident Causes
QUESTION: We want to eliminate accidents in addition to providing PPE. What are some common accident causes and how can they be prevented?
ANSWER: One of the most common in electric utilities is failure to use adequate cover-up. In industry AND utilities the most common I come across in accident investigations are improper use of a multimeter or other meter (such as putting it across 4160V) and failure to test for voltage. Many workers think they have de-energized but haven't. I call this "mostly dead" like Westley in Princess Bride was mostly dead according to Miracle Max who later raised him from the dead. Mostly dead means you think it is dead but it isn't really dead. Remember, it isn't dead until it is tested, the tester is verified and the line is grounded if that can be done safely (480V is where this is most difficult). Otherwise, work it as if it is live. These three things would save more lives than most anything we could do. If workers wore FR daily wear all the time used voltage rated gloves when working and tested everything for voltage many accidents would be avoided or eliminated.
For Fluke's Multimeter Safety Article Click Here
May 2006
In This Issue
OSHA on Subpart V & S Update at the ASTM F-18
Meeting April 24, 2006
OSHA Cites Team Electric of Denver for Alleged Safety Violations
NEW Indura UltraSoft Knits with 10-21 cal/cm2 ratings
Burn Up The Myth: Taking Care of your hardhat
OSHA on Subpart V & S Update at the ASTM F-18 Meeting
April 24, 2006
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The proposed changes to the OSHA electrical standards published in June of last year had its final hearings March 6 but the attorney in charge of the project has left the record open until May 15 for additional data and evidence from those commenting in the hearing and until July 14 for post hearing comments and briefs.
The public minutes are available under e-dockets S-215. OSHA's representative conjectured the final standard would not appear as soon as two years but could be as long as three years. Other word from OSHA has corroborated this indicating it could be as long as 2-5 years. There will not be another draft but an update on the unified agenda on when the Final Standard will appear.
A co-sponsored division between NECA and OSHA has mined OSHA data in detail: Notable insights 1. Transmission fatalities are usually from induced voltage or grounding incidents such as removing grounds incorrectly. 2. Distribution has the most accidents and most are from violating the MAD (minimum approach distance), failure to wear PPE, inadequate coverup to prevent contact or arc flash.
If you have helpful information challenging or supporting the OSHA standard you may be able to present it to OSHA through someone who testified in the March hearings.
The standard proposal is still available at the OSHA site or here
OSHA Cites Team Electric of Denver for Alleged Safety Violations
DENVER -- The U.S. Labor Department's Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has cited Team Electric Inc., Denver, Colo. for unsafe working conditions following an electrical accident at a construction site in Aurora. Proposed penalties total $115,500.
One worker received serious burns on his torso, arms and corneas as the result of an electrical arc flash while working inside a main electrical room at the construction site Sept. 20, 2005.
"This accident could have been avoided by following recognized safe practices for working around electrical hazards," said Herb Gibson, OSHA area director in Denver.
Citations issued against the firm by OSHA's Denver area office allege two serious and two willful violations of OSHA standards. The willful violations, with proposed penalties of $112,000, involve failure to use required personal protective equipment when working around energized equipment and failure to de-energize and ground electrical equipment or effectively guard energized equipment from inadvertent employee contact. Additional penalties of $3,500 were proposed for lack of training involving arc flash and shock hazards and failure to have an accident prevention program.
"Strong enforcement, when necessary, is a key part of OSHA's efforts to reduce workplace injuries and illnesses," said Greg Baxter, OSHA regional administrator in Denver. "It is not acceptable to work on energized equipment without the use of adequate protection against electrical shock and arc flashes, one of the four leading causes of worker injuries and deaths in the construction industry."
Willful violations are those committed with intentional disregard of, or plain indifference to, the requirements of the Occupational Safety and Health Act. A serious citation is issued when there is substantial probability that death or serious physical harm could result from a hazard about which the employer knew or should have known.
The employer has 15 working days from receipt of the citations to request an informal conference with the OSHA area director or to contest the citations and proposed penalties before the independent Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission.
Employers are responsible for providing a safe and healthful workplace for their employees. OSHA's role is to assure the safety and health of America's workers by setting and enforcing standards; providing training, outreach, and education; establishing partnerships; and encouraging continual improvement in workplace safety and health. For more information, visit www.osha.gov.
For the OSHA Version of the story above click here
NEW Indura UltraSoft Knits with 10-21 cal/cm2 ratings
Two new Indura UltraSoft Knits enter the market now in Knits with higher arc ratings for the weight than their woven products.
The new Indura UltraSoft Style 130 Knit Navy 6.25 oz/yd2 material has an Arc Rating(ATPV)of 10.9 cal/cm2. This is a great material for t-shirts, Mock T's and Henley's. Additionally the new Indura UltraSoft Style 180 Fleece Orange at 11 oz/yd2 is Arc Rating(EBT) 21.8 cal/cm2.
For more information contact Westex by clicking here
Burn Up The Myth: Taking Care of Your Hardhat
Many companies have asked how to care for Class E hardhats and when to replace them. OSHA would recommend following the advice of the manufacturers or following of this article in the NIOSH section. This is the best advice I have ever seen on hardhats.
Click Here for a NIOSH Document on How to Care for and Field Test Hardhats/Hardcaps
February 2006
In This Issue
Arcstore.Com Introduces Larger Sizes And White Nomex Hairnet And Beardnet To
The Arc
e-Hazard.Com Introduces New Refresher And Affected Training
New Arc Resistant Cleanroom Material From Oberon
New Arc Resistant Glove Liner From NSA
Hugh Hoagland Upcoming Speaking Engagements
Burn Up The Myth: Can I use a Faceshield With a Balaclava to meet HRC2*?
Hugh Hoagland
ArcWear.com
9900 Corporate Campus Drive
Suite 3000
Louisville, KY 40223
The heather gray hairnet and beardnet has been popular since it can be
distinguished from the non-FR polyester disposables but some customers have
asked for a white version. The material has been tested by ArcWear.com and
is not available. Additionally they have added a larger hairnet for some of
the new popular hairstyles (yes the Afro is back!). New 24" and 28" hairnets
are available now for a few dollars more. New pricing for hairnet and
beardnet due to increase in Nomex material is likely. These are available
from W.H. Salisbury and ArcStore.com or your local distributor.
Try out the online demo of the new e-Hazard.com online/PC based refresher
training for NFPA 70E. Companies are cutting their costs of safety training
while still assessing the proficiency of their workers on the basic safety
concepts for NFPA 70E using the NEW e-Hazard.com NFPA 70E training.
Online Demo is available just follow the link below.
COMING SOON
Affected Worker Electrical Training--For all workers exposed to 70E hazards
and normal electrical hazards in the workplace
NFPA 70E Qualified Worker Refresher/Remedial Training--For Qualified workers
who have had an instructor lead class for a refresher.
e-Hazard.com speaking engagements above
March 15
San Antonio, TX
SouthWest Electrical Safety Exchange
SWESE
April 5-6
Jacksonville, FL
Hands On Safety
May 2-4
Atlanta, GA
IEEE Electric Power Conference 2006
May 3-4
Gaylord, MI
MECA
Treetops Resort
June 25-28
Atlanta, GA
National Safety Council Utility Division
Calloway Gardens
ANSWER: The NFPA 70E standard requires the use of a "double layered
switching hood" for performing HRC2* work but this is undefined by the
standard. It reasonablly differs from a "flash suit hood", which is defined,
or one may use a "flash suit hood in lieu of the "double layered switching
hood". Classically utilities and some industrial companies have used
balaclava hoods for switching. Many companies have used them under a
faceshield and I have investigated accidents in which they were completely
protective. I recently presented a paper at the Electrical Safety Workshop
in Philadelphia on this subject and have further details. The paper
indicates that a balaclava which meets 8 cal/cm2 did not show burn from a
side, back and a 60 degree angle assault from an electric arc. The study
further indicates the possibility of using a balaclava and faceshield up to
HRC3 and possibly HRC4. This use would require a rewriting of the NFPA 70E
standard but is hopeful for much greater comfort for future workers. This
study is available by e-mail. This will be presented to the NFPA 70E
committee for their review in an upcoming TIA and for clarification in the
NFPA 70E standard. A big thanks to Salisbury for their sponsorship of this
testing. Reports are also available through W.H. Salisbury.
www.whsalisbury.com
November 2005
Price 1 attendee $5500 (each additional attendee from the same company
$3500). The first attendee will receive all materials we use in our
training. Additional attendees will receive all our materials and additional
Videos are available for purchase at the TTT.
Sign up online today to reserve your space. Class size is limited to 25
attendees.
Thanks,
Keith Weaver
Maintenance Technical Advisor
Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station
ANSWER: Normally, you can't use alcohol on faceshields since antifog
coatings are susceptible to alcohol but some companies use non-alcohol based
benzalkonium chloride wipes for hygiene and surface disinfection. These
should work well but check them on an edge of the shield to assure they will
not obscure vision by dissolving any coatings. The textile materials of most
hoods can be removed and washed periodically.
Make sure wipes are the NON-ALCOHOLIC wipes.
They are available from most safety and first aid suppliers but here is one
I found quickly on Google with a search for Benzalkonium Chloride Wipes.
http://www.first-aid-product.com/industrial/antiseptic-cleansing-wipes.htm
These antiseptic towelettes, with the active ingredient Benzalkonium
Chloride, are ideal for cleansing wounds when alcohol is inadvisable. Their
single-use design eliminates the worry of cross contamination. Measures
4-3/4" X 7-3/4". Wipes are sterile unless package is opened or damaged.
Contains: Benzalkonium Chloride 0.40%.
(Hugh Hoagland Consulting has no interest in the company cited above no
implies that this is the best source of these wipes. This was provided as
information and I suggest you find your own supplier but this gives you one
source for the wipes. I'm sure many safety suppliers will have these
available perhaps even your PPE supplier)
Region 5 News Release 03-755-CHI
Dec. 4, 2003
OSHA Investigations Leads to $148,500 in Penalties for Patrick Cudahy, Inc.
MILWAUKEE, Wis. -- Meat packing giant Patrick Cudahy, Inc., is facing
$148,500 in fines proposed by the U.S. Labor Department's Occupational
Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) following an inspection opened in
May 2003 in response to reports of an industrial accident in which three
employees were severely burned.
Three workers were reported to have been troubleshooting electrical
switchgear at the Cudahy, Wis., facility when electricity arched and
exploded. OSHA's investigation revealed that the three workers, all of whom
received first, second and third degree burns throughout their bodies, were
not using insulated tools, were not wearing proper personal protective
equipment, and were not following appropriate safety standards. OSHA issued
willful and serious violations to Cudahy for allegedly failing to provide
such equipment, and warning or training the workers about flash hazards.
"The Labor Department's significant fine of $148,500 sends a message that
this Administration will enforce safety and health standards for workers,"
said U.S. Secretary of Labor Elaine L. Chao.
The company employs over 1,400 full-time workers at its Cudahy facility.
OSHA District Manager George Yoksas, Milwaukee, said that the workplace
safety and health agency has conducted 28 inspections at the facility since
1972, issuing a total of three willful, 16 serious and one repeat citation.
The company has 15 working days from receipt of the citations to appeal
before the independent Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission.
OSHA is dedicated to saving lives, preventing injuries and illnesses and
protecting America's workers. Safety and health add value to business, the
workplace and life. For more information, visit www.osha.gov
Steve is correct and this was not the intent of my newsletter article.
Proposed rules can change and involvement in the process is the intent of my
article. I am reissuing the location of the article and the deadline for
written comment below. Be involved in the process.
www.arcstore.com
Flame Resistant Cotton Interlock for t-shirt materials from SSM
Pro-CFRª AR=11 cal/cm2
www.ssmind.com
www.nsamfg.com
FR Neoprene Carbtex Glove (chemical AND arc or flash fire protection in one
glove)
This glove is new but the full line of arc tested gloves for applications
where no voltage protection is needed is online at
http://www.perfectfitglove.com/pdf/PFG_Carbtex_Broch.pdf
Frontline™ Dual Layered Front Shirt
Two layers on the front, this Indura UltraSoft shirt provides over 20
cal/cm2 protection where the worker needs it most while still feeling as
cool as a 5.5 oz UltraSoft Shirt.
You'll have to write them since this is a new product and a patent is
pending on the technology.
www.riversideuniforms.com
New Clearer Faceshield
New more visible Paulson Shields are now available with better color
recognition. These will be the next big thing in the market.
The two layer version tested at 40 cal/cm2 and the single layer version
tested at 8.5 cal/cm2
Faceshields available from www.paulsonmfg.com and distributors and also at
www.whsalisbury.com
Hoods with the new shield have been tested for NSA www.nsamfg.com
Light Changing Hoods and the electric arc
Recently tested a light changing hood for welding in electric arc. This
technology works in glass and worked perfectly. The disadvantage is lack of
peripheral vision. Other technologies like OLED (Organic Light Emitting
Diodes) which can be shaped or bent will likely take the arc market by storm
in the next few years because these technologies have no need for colorants
to meet arc standards. Stay tuned for these technological breakthroughs.
www.sellstrom.com tested their shields and are adapting the flat shields for
use in the electric arc.
In setting our work procedures, it would be very helpful to us to have some
idea of the real world consequences of accidentally drilling into a 480V
conduit. We use professional, double insulated Hilti drilling equipment, and
we often resort to the water lubricated core drill to get through steel
rebar. Is hitting 480V primarily a shock hazard, or is there enough energy
released to blow the concrete upwards at the operator? Can one count on the
drill bit being grounded to the pierced conduit well enough to contain the
released energy below the floor surface?
We have lots of speculative theories, but we really need to hear from people
who have witnessed drilling into a floor-embedded 480V conduit. I'm sure
that this does happen in the construction industry, and I'd like to hear
some stories.
ANSWER: I would too. IF you want to tell your story to the industry you can
e-mail me at hugh@arcwear.com. Your name will not be used if you say you
want to omit it.
Several years ago when I was actually working for the company, we found the
same as you state in the latest news letter. There was no hazard present on
the small metal grommets or buttons etc. We did find that at higher voltages
(230 and 500KV) the metal "D" ring and the snaphook would build up enough
charge that it would discharge somewhat like walking across a carpet and
touching a door knob. This was the reason we eliminated them from our
harnesses and went to a loop to loop attachment on the body end of the
lanyard. There was no problem with metal buckles on the harnesses, but we
continued to coat them with an insulating compound. During the arc testing I
was involved with these caused no problem with after flame.
Good to know that someone else also found there was no problem with small
bits of conductive material.
Dr. Tom Neal:
Regarding the section below on "BURN UP THE MYTH" Metal Grommets for Cooling
in Clothing from your most recent Newsletter, I have the following
observations:
1. You indicate that F1506 "allows for openings for ventilation". As best I
know, there is nothing in F1506 that allows for ventilation--I think we
tried to put a statement in that would address that, but we could not get a
consensus on this. Let me know if I missed something on ventilation--I did a
search on "ventilation" an came up blank.
2. As you point out according to Note 4 under section 6.1.1, metal grommets
"should be covered with a layer of fabric between the fastener or closure
and the skin. The fabric used for this purpose shall meet the requirements
of this performance specification." We have both should and shall in this
statement, and the statement appears in a note. Per Form and Style for ASTM
Documents: "Should is used to indicate that a provision is not mandatory but
is recommended as good practice". While the manufacturer can choose not to
add the "non-mandatory" layer of fabric as called for in Note 4, it would be
prudent to indicate this on the label since the F1506 recommends adding the
layer as good practice.
3. I don't know exactly how the grommets are used in FR clothing but it
could be said of any metal or plastic part that it is unlikely it will come
in contact with skin, but if there is any conceivable way for the metal part
to come in contact with skin, the "recommended good practice" of covering
the metal part should be followed.
4. Again I don't know exactly how the grommets are being used, but since a
grommet has a hole in it, that would permit the arc exposure direct access
to the wearer, i.e. the arc rating in that area would be zero. According to
Section 6.3.6.1 the arc rating of the area where the grommets are used
should be indicated on the label as having an arc rating of zero. Of course
if the grommet area has a fabric vent covering it on the outside of the
garment, then the arc rating of that fabric covering could be used if
different than the other areas of the garment.
Hugh Responds:
I appreciate Tom and Jerry's comments. This forum is excellent for
generating discussion on these issues. To answer the thoughts above I
recommended to one manufacturer that they make the grommet with thread like
a smaller version of a button hole. This will allow for ventilation but NOT
allow any metal to come in contact with the skin no matter how small. The
garment I was commenting on had small metal grommets under the arms (just
two of them for cooling). If they were covered it would defeat the purpose
of cooling. The total area is very little in these small grommets. I would
doubt it is much of a hazard. The metal concerned me more than the area of
exposure. They are the grommets like a shoestring goes through but about 1/2
the size.
I believe adequate ventilation is as critical as arc hazard protection. Many
garments have had ventilation for years including rainwear with cape backs
and Nomex meshes to allow garments to be cooler and Tom is right in that the
standard doesn't address this issue (as I had said). It was brought up but
we did not reach consensus as Tom pointed out. To not allow for any
ventilation would not be the intent of the standard even though we didn't
reach consensus on how much ventilation we also didn't add language
prohibiting or limiting it. Keeping clothing protective and yet wearable is
a tough job and debate on how best to do that is part of what
standardization is about as well as market forces. May the best garments
win!
July 2005
David Wallis added VERY helpful bookmarks to the official version on his
personal website. I would recommend using this to find the pertenient
sections. It is the same as the official one but in Acrobat the bookmarks
are added for ease of navigation. You will find it at http://mywebpages.comcast.net/dwallis2/subv.pdf.
On both of these documents you may right click on the link here and Save As
to save on your PC for future reference.
This is one of the last steps before the rule becomes enforcable as law. The
document contains substantial changes in the area of electric arc.
The new OSHA standard is similar to the NFPA 70E standard in several ways:
1. Requires a hazard assessment makes a "reasonable estimate of the maximum
available heat energy to which the employee would be exposed" (guidance is
given in Appendix F).
2. The standard "does not require the employer to estimate the heat energy
exposure for every job task performed by each employee. The employer may
make broad estimates that cover multiple system areas provided the employer
uses reasonable assumptions about the energy exposure distribution
throughout the system and provided the estimates represent the maximum
exposure for those areas. For example, the employer could estimate the heat
energy just outside a substation feeding a radial distribution system and
use that estimate for all jobs performed on that radial system."
3. The standard does require the use of a commonly accepted method of
estimating arc energy such as (I recommend ArcProª or IEEE 1584 because of
the substantial research behind them and both of these are in their second
revision).
a. NFPA 70E-2004 Annex D (Available from www.nfpa.org) (raw calculations
which can be created in a spreadsheet).
b. IEEE 1584-02 (Available from www.ieee.org).
c. A specific IEEE-PCIC paper which is similar to NFPA 70E-2004 (available
from www.ieee.org).
d. ArcPro Software from Kinectrics in Canada (available in the US from HD
Electric (available from www.hdelectric.com).
e. Heat Flux Calculator (Available free from www.arcwear.com).
4. Disallows non-FR clothing in many utility conditions. Clothing may not
"melt or ignite and continue to burn" under the utilities' hazard assessment
energy levels. This makes it clear that when cotton clothing ignites it
fails the standard. Some got the impression from the previous wording and
early test data that cotton was somehow flame resistant, which is not the
case unless the cotton is FR treated cotton which meets ASTM F1506 such as
Westex Indura¨ UltraSoft® or Indura® FR Cotton.
5. Requires FR clothing under all of the following conditions:
a. "The employee is subject to contact with energized circuit parts
operating at more than 600 volts,"
b. "The employee's clothing could be ignited by flammable material in the
work area that could be ignited by an electric arc, or"
c. "The employee's clothing could be ignited by molten metal or electric
arcs from faulted conductors in the work area."
6. Requires clothing to be worn which meets or exceeds the Arc Rating of the
arc hazard identified the hazard assessment.
7. Makes justification of non-FR clothing more difficult in many situations.
8. Will force innovation in shirting since many arc exposures in utilities
will be in the 20 cal/cm2 range. Many will be in the 1-5 cal/cm2 range but
10-20 cal/cm2 is still common. Systems which are fully radial (the
instantaneous breakers
"seeing" the end of the line) clear much faster at
the end of the line than a system which drops out of instantaneous a mile or
so out from the substation which is common in Midwestern and Eastern
utilities in the US.
The standard doesn't really address the 480V issue of higher fault current
and longer clearing times but it does require FR clothing there. It
rightfully does not overkill most 120-240V systems but doesn't mention
delta-wye 208-277V systems which have very high fault currents and can
produce substantial arc fault energies. Utilities will be responsible for
identifying these hazards on their own.
The nets are a product I developed for a plant 2 years ago to answer the
need for NFPA 70E compliance for their maintenance electricians in a food
processing plant. Hairnets for workers in cleanroom environments are
available from companies like White Knight and others from filament Nomex.
Combining an FR hair net with their current Indura UltraSoft Uniform helped
one food service plant in OH complete their NFPA 70E program.
The hairnet and beardnet retail for $25 and are available from
www.arcstore.com or safety distributors.
ANSWER: Many would say they still meet NFPA 70E. The use of metal grommets
is common. The ASTM F1506 standard (clothing complying with ASTM F1506 MEETS
NFPA 70E by definition) allows for openings for ventilation but does not
mention metal grommets specifically.
The only portion of ASTM F1506 which applies to this issue is in section
6.1.1 which would relate to this:
"NOTE 4- fasteners or closures, for example, zippers, snaps, or buttons,
or a combination thereof, are used in a manner in which they are in contact
with the skin, they can increase heat transfer and burn injury
due to heat conduction or melting onto the skin. Fasteners or closures that
are used in this manner should be covered with a layer of fabric between the
fastener or closure and the skin. The fabric used for this purpose shall
meet the requirements of this performance specification."
Since it is unlikely the grommet comes in contact with the skin and also
unlikely it will actually be exposed to an arc this should meet the ASTM
F1506 standard. This is open to interpretation and the garment manufacturer
makes this determination in their ASTM F1506 self certification. I know of
NO accidents involving zippers or grommets in electric arc. However if
zippers do not operate after fire or arc garment's stored heat could cause
further burn. Some companies choose hook and loop openings for this reason
on arc flash suits. In the case of an electrical contact things can change.
This would be unlikely to be life threatening for grommets.
May 2005
BURN UP THE MYTH: METAL GROMMETS/ZIPPERS ON FR CLOTHING
Answer: Metal is conductive but conductive items are used around electricity
all the time. Metal tools, even voltage rated tools have large areas which
are not coated. IF and HOW these items come in contact with energized parts
is the hazard.
With this said, I would say two small metal grommets under the arm of a
coverall would meet the intent of NFPA 70E (for an official interpretation
write NFPA). The use of metal grommets is common. The ASTM F1506 standard
(clothing complying with ASTM F1506 MEETS NFPA 70E by definition) allows for
openings for ventilation but does not mention metal grommets specifically.
The only portion of ASTM F1506 which applies to this issue is in section
6.1.1 which would relate to this:
"NOTE 4- fasteners or closures, for example, zippers, snaps, or buttons,
or a combination thereof, are used in a manner in which they are in contact
with the skin, they can increase heat transfer and burn injury
due to heat conduction or melting onto the skin. Fasteners or closures that
are used in this manner should be covered with a layer of fabric between the
fastener or closure and the skin. The fabric used for this purpose shall
meet the requirements of this performance specification."
Since it is unlikely the grommet comes in contact with the skin and also
unlikely it will actually be exposed to an arc this should meet the ASTM
F1506 standard. This is open to interpretation and the garment manufacturer
makes this determination in their ASTM F1506 self certification. I know of
NO accidents involving zippers or grommets. In the case of an electrical
contact things may change. This would be unlikely to be life threatening.
However, I don't know how much cooling a small metal grommet adds to a
garment. It is probably a judgment call rather than a verifiable value.
March 2005
The clothing requirement in the new NESC, will require a hazard assessment
and clothing cannot ignite or continue to burn and will need to have an "arc
rating appropriate for the hazard". Unlike NFPA 70E which offers clear
guidelines on clothing (a broad compromise which has been shown to work
quite well in all the accidents I have investigated) the NESC opts for an
energy look up table rather than a task table. An NFPA 70E-like chart would
be applauded my many in the utility industry especially if it didn't have
all the caveats which go along with an NFPA 70E style table. The guidelines
in NFPA 70E are excellent but the footnotes basically require an engineering
study for most customers to be assured they meet the table requirements and
require extensive fixes or adaptations for those company facilities which do
not meet the table requirements. The 2007 NESC WILL however push the agenda
of getting hazard assessments more realistic and getting them done at most
utilities.
ANSWER: Your requirement is a good one. I think meltable hairpieces would be
a hazard in the arc. A good example of this type of issue is a recent
accident in a food processing plant in WI. Video of this accident was shown
at the recent Electrical Safety Workshop in Denver, CO. The results of the
accident were stark. Two workers with substantial body burn such that they
will likely never return to work from polycotton coverall ignition. One
electrician was wearing an polyester melting hairnet (hair covering is
required by FDA regulations for some facilities but ArcStore.com offers
non-melting, arc thermal resistant hairnets and beardnets). The electrician
had to have most of his scalp removed to get the hairnet, hard hat
suspension and hard hat off of his head. The polyester hairnet likely lead
to the hard hat suspension ignition and subsequent melting onto the workers
head.
February 2005
THIS ISSUE:
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
NEW ARC TEST METHOD ASTM F1959-2005 AVAILABLE
OSHA PROVIDES GUIDELINES TO HELP PROTECT WORKERS IN COLD ENVIRONMENTS
NIOSH PROJECTS FOCUS ON COSTS OF WORKPLACE ILLNESSES, INJURIES
OSHA SUBPART S & V IN UPDATE PROCESS
ELECTRIC ARC IN THE NEWS
NFPA 70E REVISION PROCESS BEGINS
OSHA LISTS MOST FREQUENTLY VIOLATED STANDARDS FOR 2004
BURN UP THE MYTH: FLAMES AND THE ARC
NEW ARC TEST METHOD ASTM F1959-2005 AVAILABLE
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Last week the ASTM F1959-2005 became available. This is the arc test method
used in ASTM F1506 and will upgrade the method. to use logistical
regression. The method may be purchased at www.astm.org at the standards
store.
BLS REPORTS DECLINE IN WORKPLACE INJURY AND ILLNESS RATES FOR 2003
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The Bureau of Labor Statistics reported ~4.4 million injuries and illnesses
in private industry during 2003, according to the latest report by the Labor
Department. This is a rate of 5.0 cases per 100 full-time workers which is a
7.1% decrease in the actual number of injuries and illnesses reported in
2002.
BLS report at
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/osh.pdf.
And see the press release
http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=NEWS_RELEASES&
p_id=11164
OSHA PROVIDES GUIDELINES TO HELP PROTECT WORKERS IN COLD ENVIRONMENTS
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
OSHA has provided guidelines on protecting workers in Cold Environments.
This has been a need in FR clothing in the past and companies have been
addressing this with better FR winter clothing. Additionally FR
undergarments have been getting better too. Many companies have rightly
instructed their workers to avoid melting undergarments under NFPA 70E and
OSHA 1910.269 but keeping warm has been a task. OSHA guidelines offer some
help but using smart undergarments and better designed outerwear which is
resistant to the thermal effects of an electric arc and at the same time is
warm is a task. OSHA's Cold Stress Card (available in English and Spanish)
provides a reference guide and recommendations to combat and prevent many
cold-related injuries and illnesses. Outdoor electrical workers MUST have
both flame resistant clothing and warm clothing when it is needed. OSHA's
guidance on cold can be found at
http://www.osha.gov/html/cold_protection_2004.html
<http://www.osha.gov/html/cold_protection_2004.html>
The following companies design and manufacture FR Winterwear (companies who
sponsor the newsletter are listed first. Rest are alphabetical. I don't
support one brand over another winter wear trials are critical.
NSA (800) 553-0672 www.nsamfg.com
Steel Grip (800) 397-8390 www.steelgripinc.com
Workrite (800) 521-1888 www.workrite.com
Stanco Mfg (800) 348-1148 www.arcclothing.com
Chicago Protective (847) 674-7900 www.chicagoprotective.com
Ullfrotte (800) 433-2863 www.xwool.com
PGI Industries (800) 558-8290 www.pgi-inc.com
Nova Scotia Textiles www.novascotiatextiles.com
MWG Apparel www.mwgapparel.com
Tyndale www.flameresistantclothing.com (800) 356-3433
Carhartt www.carhartt.com
Riverside www.riversidemfg.com
Bulwark www.bulwark.com
King of the Mountain www.kingofthemountain.com
NIOSH PROJECTS FOCUS ON COSTS OF WORKPLACE ILLNESSES, INJURIES
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
A variety of methods have been used to calculate employer costs of workplace
illness and injury, each with a specific focus and sometimes conflicting
with other methods. NIOSH in partnership with researchers at the University
of Wisconsin, is identifying, characterizing and comparing several of these
methods to show common difficulties and pitfalls in calculating costs.
Results will be used to help identify best practices for further
development. For more information on this project, contact Tim Bushnell at
PBushnell@cdc.gov. Also, in collaboration with the Occupational Safety and
Health Administration (OSHA), NIOSH is updating and enhancing $AFETY PAYS,
an OSHA developed interactive software program for measuring the economic
impact of occupational injuries and illnesses on a company's profitability.
The program uses a company's profit margin, average costs of an occupational
injury or illness and an indirect cost multiplier to project the amount of
sales a company would need to generate in order to cover the cost.
Enhancements to the program include customizing the program to fit a firm's
ability in capturing their costs. Contact Elyce Biddle at EBiddle@cdc.gov
for more information.
OSHA SUBPART S & V IN UPDATE PROCESS
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
David Wallis, OSHA Director of the Office of Engineering Support, made a
presentation February 9 at the IEEE Electrical Safety Workshop on the
progress of electrical safety standards. 1926 Subpart V is currently being
brought into alignment in 1910.269 requirements. 1926 Subpart V will be
"dealing with the hazards of electric arc", according to Wallis. The new
Subpart V will require arc hazard assessment, and require clothing
"appropriate for the hazard". OSHA plans to also make similar changes to
1910.269 and Subpart S in the next few years.
The revision for Subpart V passed the Policy Review Board two weeks ago and
should go to OMB for next 90 days and then be published in the Federal
Register in next four to six months. He anticipated the final rule of
Subpart S 1910.301 thru .308 revisions to be out year end.
ELECTRIC ARC IN THE NEWS
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Accident at co-op's substation near Mountain Home cuts power to 8,000
BY JULIE STEWART SPECIAL TO THE DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE
MOUNTAIN HOME - An explosion at a North Arkansas Electric Cooperative Inc.
substation Tuesday afternoon critically injured four men and knocked out
power to about 8,000 customers in Baxter County, authorities said. The four
men, all employees of the co-op's Mountain Home office, were
airlifted in critical condition to the burn unit at St. John's Regional
Health Center in Springfield, Mo.
Officials were trying to piece together exactly what happened, Jerry Estes,
members-services manager for the Salem-based cooperative, said late
Tuesday afternoon. Estes said the men were moving a regulator, a piece of
equipment that
regulates voltage, when the accident happened about 2:30 p.m. at the
substation on Arkansas 201 just north of Mountain Home.
Estes said it appeared that a fault in a transformer or a power line sent
electricity arcing. He compared the electric arc to lightning or "a ball of
fire."
The injured men range in ages from their 20s to 50s. Estes declined to
release their names, saying the company was notifying family members.
"I'd just ask for everyone's prayers," he said.
"These are the guys that at 2 in the morning, when it's snowing and sleeting
and raining, these are the guys that are out there putting your
power back on. Some of them's got a lot of years with us."
Authorities closed Arkansas 201 for a time to allow rescue personnel,
including helicopter ambulances, to reach the injured, Baxter County Sheriff
Joe Edmonds said. Edmonds said a woman who lives near the substation told
him the explosion
"sounded like a rocket, then a loud explosion going off." The explosion
disrupted electrical service for cooperative customers from U.S. 62B in
Mountain Home north to the Arkansas-Missouri border, and from the U.S.
62-412 bypass around the city east to Lake Norfork. Power was restored to
most areas Tuesday evening. Estes wasn't sure how long it would take to
fully restore service. Estes, who has worked for North Arkansas Electric for
31 years, said, "We suffered a fatality in 1975 since I've been working
there, and we've had some burns since then. But never - I don't believe
we've had anything
involving four people."
Hugh's comment: Clothing is likely involved in this accident. Preventing
severe burns in ONE accident like this will likely pay for clothing for a
large investor owned utility for about 7-15 years in medical costs alone.
This is not including any human factor. Someone argued this week that arc
clothing would cost us the competitive edge. Check out the real costs of
ONE arc incident and see if the MEDICAL costs won't be a competitive issue.
NFPA 70E REVISION PROCESS BEGINS
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
New NFPA 70E will be published in 2007. Proposals must be submitted by
November 23, 2005 and require technical justification. For assistance on
writing proposals contact Hugh Hoagland 502-314-7158 hugh@arcwear.com or
Ken Mastrullo (617) 984-7427 KMASTRULLO@NFPA.ORG. See www.nfpa.org for
forms and more on the formal process. Forms are also in the back of every
NFPA 70E Manual.
OSHA LISTS MOST FREQUENTLY VIOLATED STANDARDS FOR 2004
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Enforcement is alive and well at OSHA. The agency issued citations for over
100,000 violations (broken down by paragraph) in Fiscal Year 2004. This was
a slight increase over last year... Read the article at
http://www.safetynext.com/display.cfm/id/98103
<http://www.safetynext.com/display.cfm/id/98103>
FROM ISEA Market Intelligence Digest
BURN UP THE MYTH: FLAMES AND THE ARC
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
QUESTION: Recently we had a Lineman sustain a 7200 flash. He did not
sustain extremely severe burns and was wearing FR apparel. An issue has
surfaced regarding ANSI-approved safety glasses he was wearing. The type he
was wearing fit very snug and the bottom portion of the glasses fit snug to
his checks. No burns were sustained under the glasses and his feeling is
that this was due to the glasses fitting snugly against his cheeks not
allowing the flash to enter into his eye region (note: the flash was
immediately in front of him at eye level). He feels that if the glasses
were not in contact with this cheeks the flash could have come up under the
glasses and he could have sustained burns beneath the glasses in the
immediate region of the eye.
Would the flash generally propagate straight back or go up beneath the
glasses?
ANSWER: It is good to hear of lineworkers walking away from arc flashes
with fewer burns because of clothing NOT igniting. This was the goal of the
OSHA 1910.269 (l)(6)(iii) standard and it works if you work it. This worker
also took advantage of a simple piece of PPE which has been extremely
helpful in arc flashes: safety glasses. My recent study of an inexpensive
pair or safety glasses showed them without ignition at over 100 cal/cm2.
This is good news but should keep us working for ignition tests on other PPE
which is not as good. My experience with safety glasses is that they are
unusually capable of protecting from skin burns in arc events. I would
recommend faceshields with chin cups for more jobs but continued use of
safety glasses. In answer to your question, the vast majority of the energy
in an electric arc event is in the form of IR (Infrared radiation) and this
propagates perpendicular to the arc event. Thus in this scenario the vast
majority of the arc energy would have been absorbed, reflected or deflected
by any pair of safety glasses. The amount of energy in the "licking flames"
that show up vividly on a video immediately after an arc event is relatively
little unless it is coming from a burning piece of clothing or equipment and
continues. I would support the use of these safety glasses but the use of
safety glasses in general will have the most powerful impact. PPE that
works and is worn is the most powerful!
December 2004
THIS ISSUE:
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
OSHA CHANGES RECORDKEEPING RULES FOR FEDERAL AGENCIES
E-HAZARD.COM NFPA 70E LOS ANGELES, DECEMBER 16
SAFETY MEETINGS TO ATTEND
HUGH HOAGLAND AND E-HAZARD.COM UPCOMING SPEAKING ENGAGEMENTS
OSHA CHANGES RECORDKEEPING RULES FOR FEDERAL AGENCIES
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++e-HAZARD.COM NFPA 70E LOS ANGELES, DECEMBER 16
Dec. 16
Early discount by Dec 6
Los Angeles, CA
Airport Marriott
8AM - 5PM
SAFETY & ELECTRICAL SAFETY MEETINGS TO ATTEND
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Electrical Safety Workshop http://www.ewh.ieee.org/cmte/ias-esw/annual.htm
Feb 2005
Denver, CO
Sponsored by Federal OSHA, Plant Engineering Magazine and
March 7-10, 2005 ¥ McCormick Place ¥ Chicago, IL
www.plantengineeringshow.com
HUGH HOAGLAND AND E-HAZARD.COM UPCOMING SPEAKING ENGAGEMENTS
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++Hugh Hoagland of ArcWear.com regularly provides on-site training for electrical employees seeking compliance with NFPA 70E, Electric Utilities seeking compliance with OSHA 1910.269 and various groups wanting to know more about clothing and PPE in the electric arc.
Electrical Safety Workshop
Feb 2005
Denver, CO
Presenting a paper and speaking in the round at the Arc Flash Pavilion
March 7-10, 2005 ¥ McCormick Place ¥ Chicago, IL
www.plantengineeringshow.com
November 2004
THIS ISSUE:
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
QUESTION: What about hard hat ignitions?
ANSWER: Though there is no standard to
test hard caps in electric arc. Ernie Jones and I have both tested
some. My results will be in the next newsletter and I will present
it at the Electrical Safety Workshop. The MSA V-Guard hard cap I
tested Class E&G did not ignite up to 100 cal/cm2
but began melting/softening in the bill area at about 50 cal/cm2.
This is far more energy than a hard hat should ever be allowed to
see I did shots from 6 cal/cm2 to 100 cal/cm2
for accident investigation purposes on the hard cap and safety
glasses. This doesn't guarantee no ignition. We shot them from a
direct frontal blast. I have seen suspensions ignite in the past
but none in this testing. Also foam inserts have ignited in the
past along with paper towels and other "extras" added by workers.
Keep safe.
THIS ISSUE:
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
PVC Insulating Sheeting Standard Available
ASSE Comment on Employer Payment for PPE
NEW OSHA Power Generation, Transmission and Distribution Glossary
NEW ANSI 107-2004 High Visibility Clothing and Headgear
BURN UP THE MYTH: Can we take off leather protectors?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
F1742 - Standard Specification for PVC Insulating Sheeting has had an epsilon edit, available as F1742-03e1 ]
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
FROM ASSE: DES PLAINES, IL (August 31, 2004) - In comments on employer payment for employee personal protection equipment (PPE) sent to Assistant Secretary of Labor for the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) John Henshaw, American Society of Safety Engineers (ASSE) President Gene Barfield, CSP, reiterated the need for employers' responsibility for providing a safe and healthy workplace for employees which includes providing PPE in nearly all cases. The ASSE comments are in response to OSHA's recent reopening of the rulemaking record on PPE employer requirements originally closed in 1999. OSHA asked for further comments on how to determine the responsibility of employers and employees in providing types of PPE often known as "tools of the trade". Find the ASSE release in the Newsroom at www.asse.org.
NEW OSHA Power
Generation, Transmission and Distribution Glossary
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
This OSHA
illustrated glossary contains definitions, photos, and
graphic illustrations of equipment used in a typical electric
power generation, transmission and distribution system.
http://www.osha.gov/SLTC/etools/electric_power/illustrated_glossary/index.html
NEW ANSI 107-2004 High Visibility Clothing and Headgear
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
ANSI approved the revised 107 standard for High Visibility
Clothing and Headgear. The date of approval is September 15,
2004. The price for the 2004 version will be $60/copy from ANSI
or ISEA
BURN UP THE MYTH: Can
we take off leather protectors?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
QUESTION: We want to use
leather for our arc flash exposures. What are the regulations
on this issue?
ANSWER: Yes
you can if you use insulated gloves one class above the hazard
and retest as required by OSHA. Using Class O gloves for 480V
work allows for this.
1910.137(b)(2)(vii)
Protector gloves shall be worn over insulating gloves, except as follows:
1910.137(b)(2)(vii)(A)
Protector gloves need not be used with Class 0 gloves, under limited-use conditions, where small equipment and parts manipulation necessitate unusually high finger dexterity.
Note: Extra care is needed in the visual examination of the glove and in the avoidance of handling sharp objects.
1910.137(b)(2)(vii)(B)
Any other class of glove may be used for similar work without protector gloves if the employer can demonstrate that the possibility of physical damage to the gloves is small and if the class of glove is one class higher than that required for the voltage involved. Insulating gloves that have been used without protector gloves may not be used at a higher voltage until they have been tested under the provisions of paragraphs (b)(2)(viii) and (b)(2)(ix) of this section.
August 2004
THIS ISSUE:
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
E-HAZARD.COM/ARCWEAR.COM NFPA 70E TRAINING NOW AVAILABLE
NEW HOODS TESTED WITH NEW FACE PIECE TECHNOLOGY
OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH & SAFETY ARTICLE: A FAR BETTER 70E
ELECTRICAL ENERGY ARTICLE: PROTECTING WORKERS, SAVING LIVES: THE OSHA
APPAREL STANDARD 1994 TO TODAY
PGI NEW ARC HOODS FOR WINTER WEAR AND 70E COMPLIANCE
ONTARIO ARC STATISTICS
BURN UP THE MYTH: DEET AND FLAMMABILITY
E-HAZARD.COM/ARCWEAR.COM NFPA 70E TRAINING NOW AVAILABLE
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Announcing the creation of a new company www.e-Hazard.com. My partners and
I have created this new venture to address training and hazard accessment
needs. Our products include a variety of professionally illustrated
on-site, web based and video training programs for NFPA 70E, Train the
Trainer programs, and hazard assessment packages. All the programs are
customizable and the new company is owned by Hugh Hoagland, Bill Shinn
(P.E.), Don Bauman (P.E). and Vickie Frost (Adult Training Development
Specialist). Training programs developed by members of this team are now
used in Alcoa, PQ Corporation, GM, Toyota, Lawrence Livermore Labs, Sandia
Labs and many of the electric utilities in the US and Canada.
On-Site Training by e-Hazard.com
--------------------------------------
Low Voltage NFPA 70E Qualified Electrician or Qualified Electrical Mechanic
8 hour training for up to 50 students $3000 per day on-site (Books $70 per
student includes copy of NFPA 70E).
Low Voltage NFPA 70E "Task Qualified" Training 2 hours $3000 per day (Max 4
sessions) (May interchange day with "Affected Training")
Electrical "Affected Training" NFPA 70E 1 hour $3000 per day (Max 6
sessions) (May interchange day with "Task Qualified Training)
IEEE 1584 Hazard Assessment Training by Don Bauman, P.E. 8 hours Ask for
pricing
COMING SOON High Voltage 70E AND OSHA 1910.269 Training 16 hours $6000 for
up to 40 students (1 instructor, Books $80 per student and includes copy of
NFPA 70E and applicable OSHA Regulations).
"Train the Trainer" by e-Hazard.com
---------------------------------------
NFPA 70E Low Voltage NFPA 70E "Train the Trainer" 16 hours $9000 for 25
student-teachers (2 instructors 1 Instructor Manual, 1 PowerPoint CD
Training and 1 Student Manual with NFPA 70E, $100 per student).
COMING SOON High Voltage 70E AND OSHA 1910.269 "Train the Trainer" 24 hours
$13,000 for 25 students (2 instructors 1 Instructor Manual, 1 PowerPoint CD
Training and 1 Student Manual with NFPA 70E, $100 per student).
We also offer all the above customized for the site's specific policies if
you have interest in this service.
Additional Videos and Hazard Assessment Services, Toolbox Talks, Web-based
customized training and refresher training also available.
For now, contact me,
Hugh Hoagland
Technical Consultant
ArcWear.com
Phone: 502-314-7158
Fax:603-457-5960
Visit our helpsite at http://www.arcwear.com
NEW HOODS TESTED WITH NEW FACE PIECE TECHNOLOGY
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
By the ANSI Z87 standard, 85% light transmission is considered a "clear"
shield. A new 75% light transmission face piece from Paulson Manufacturing
(www.paulsonmfg.com) is now available in hoods from the leading providers of
arc protective gear. The new 75% clear ArcShields have now been tested in
hoods. This new technology will allow much better light transmission in
hoods up to 50 cal/cm2. The following companies have their new hoods rated.
Old face pieces can be switched out for the new higher light transmission
shield if the hood is of a lower arc rating than the one tested.
Steelgrip http://www.steelgripinc.com
The true pioneer in arc flash clothing (first suit developed in 1988 for Dow
Chemical center of the information from the IEEE Yellow Book) still has the
lightest weight 40 cal/cm2 suit on the market.
NSA http://www.nsamfg.com
First with a true Kevlar Suit meeting 65 cal/cm2.
Salisbury http://www.whsalisbury.com
Full Service arc and electrical contact protection company.
OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH & SAFETY ARTICLE: A FAR BETTER 70E
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Bill Shinn, Victoria Reed and I have a new article available online. This
one is on the new NFPA 70E-2004. The new standard is an overhaul which
makes the now ipso facto electrical safety standard for industrial
electrical workers much easier to use and also updates the standard to take
advantage of new faceshield technologies. There is still room for
improvement in integrating the footnotes into the mainstream of the document
to make it easier to understand and less open to opinion but this is a great
improvement of an already successful standard.
The article may be found in the August 2004 Occupational Health and Safety
Magazine or online at
http://www.stevenspublishing.com/stevens/OHSpub.nsf/PubHome/7961EDDA13AB147E86256EE100686103?Opendocument
ELECTRICAL ENERGY ARTICLE: PROTECTING WORKERS, SAVING LIVES: THE OSHA
APPAREL STANDARD 1994 TO TODAY
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I have a another article available online. The article documents the
continuing evidence that the 1910.269 Apparel Standard may be preventing
fatalities from clothing ignitions in the US. Non-FR clothing was most
likely the culprit of many "electrical fatalities" in the past but with the
1994 standard now more often interpreted to be most adequately met with FR
clothing, the fatalities are dropping.
The article may be found in the March/April 2004 Electrical Energy Magazine
or online at
http://www.electricenergyonline.com/magazine_index/May2004_page34.htm
ONTARIO ARC STATISTICS
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The IEEE Electrical Safety Group posted an interesting document detailing
the Ontario (Canada) Ministry of Labour's report on electrical incidents.
This is one of the most detailed reports of real accidents I have seen
lately.
https://www.ieeecommunities.org/content?go=I5913&cid=5491
BURN UP THE MYTH: DEET IN ELECTRIC ARC
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
QUESTION: DEET
ANSWER: I have tested DEET in 12% solution on FR clothing and the results
indicate this is NOT a good idea. Many workers are using 100% DEET. This
is also not a good idea for use on clothing. My testing has indicated an 7X
increase in afterflame on clothing with a liberal spraying of a popular DEET
mosquito repellant. This was first reported here about two years ago. The
recommendations I have heard from the most knowledgeable on use of mosquito
repellants and FR clothing recommends the following:
DEET is one of the most effective mosquito repellents on the market and
should only be used on the skin, never on FR clothing. For the most
effective mosquito and tick protection use DEET based repellents on the skin
especially around the exposed skin and use a Permethrin (the active
ingredient in most lice shampoos) product washed into or applied to
clothing. These products do not add any appreciable flammability to the
clothing and do not attach the flame resistance of FR clothing. When using
Permethrin in a spray form, use the WATER-BASED formulas only. Propellants
are almost always flammable in this application so the powder form washed
into the clothing or the WATER-BASED spray formulas are the best. Here is a
company which sells these products and has the most informational website I
have found to date on the real issues though they have little on the FR
issue.
http://www.sawyerproducts.com/sawyer_products/pages/insect_repellent/index.htm
Welcome to a group of over 1900 people committed to electric
arc safety. The
ArcWearª Electric Arc and Flash Fire Newsletter is a quick
update on Flame
Resistant Clothing issues and news from OSHA and standards
committees. This
newsletter is FREE and will bring you up to date on the issues
that surround
flame resistant clothing for flash fire hazards and the electric
arc. For
previous newsletters or to sign up, visit www.arcwear.com or our
Yahoo!
Group Site at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/arcwear
THIS ISSUE:
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
FORD MOTOR CITATION AND 70E
HIGH VISABILITY CLOTHING NOW LAW - ARC RESISTANT VESTS AND
RAINGEAR
AVAILABLE
NEW MILLER HARNESS PASSES 40 CAL/CM2 ARC TEST
FORD MOTOR CITATION AND 70E
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I have received many questions about OSHA citations and 70E.
Here is a
final decision from OSHA citing an agreement to use NFPA 70E by
Ford Motor
Company for all its electricians. NFPA 70E is now being cited
by OSHA in
the US. The settlement was based on an inspection from March 9,
2000 which
had proposed fines of $57,125 and serious violations for
failure to follow
70E in a serious worker accident. The date of the OSHA Order
was December
12, 2001. This indicates a willingness of Federal OSHA to
enforce 70E for
electricians. See either link below for the document. First is
HTML format
and the second is PDF.
http://www.oshrc.gov/decisions/html_2001/00-0763.html
or
www.oshrc.gov/decisions/pdf_2001/00-0763.pdf
For the OSHA news release of the original citation see
http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=NEWS_RELEASES&
p_id=742
Here is OSHA's latest Federal Register Proposal for changes to
1910 which
include Part I of 70E-2000 but not the clothing requirements.
http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=FEDERAL_REGIST
ER&p_id=18100
HIGH VISIBILITY VESTS NOW LAW - ARC RESISTANT VESTS AND RAINGEAR
AVAILABLE
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Department of Transportation: Federal Highway Administration,
23 CFR Part
655, National Standards for Traffic Control Devices: Manual on
Uniform
Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways; Revision;
Final Rule
published in the Federal Register Thursday, November 20, 2003
now requires
those working on highways to wear clothing meeting the ANSI
107-1999
standard. The ANSI standard will be phased in over the next
three years but
most companies are just ordering compliant clothing when
re-ordering. Most
flame resistant companies sell the arc resistant version of an
ANSI 107-1999
compliant vest including:
Chicago Protective www.chicagoprotective.com (I owed Chicago
Protective. I
forgot to mention them as making arc resistant winterwear in my
Electrical
Energy Magazine and they graciously pointed it out to me).
Workrite www.workrite.com
Steelgrip www.steelgripinc.com
NSA www.nsamfg.com
Stanco www.stanco.com
Bulwark www.bulwark.com
Compliant Raingear I have tested is available from:
NASCO www.nascoinc.com , Neese www.neeseind.com , and a
forthcoming material
from Orion Safety
http://www.orion-safety.com/
SAFETY & ELECTRICAL SAFETY MEETINGS TO ATTEND
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
June 7-10, American Society of Safety Engineers Annual
Conference & Expo,
Las Vegas
http://www.asse.org
NEW MILLER HARNESS PASSES 40 CAL/CM2 ARC TEST
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Miller's new Kevlar fall protection harness passed the new ASTM
F887-2004
with flying colors. The harness styles are listed below. The
variation
from the original SKU tested is that one number family adjusts
by pulling up
and the other by pulling down. All hardware and materials are
identical.
The only other variation is that two SKU's have side D-rings
sewn into the
webbing at the hip area and have Tongue buckles in the legs.
These harness
materials met the new ASTM standard which is the first standard
to require a
40 cal/cm2 arc test and a drop after the test.
850KQC/UBKU- QC buckles in chest and legs
850KQC-4/UBKU- QC buckles in chest and Tongue
buckles in the
legs
850KQC-58/UBKU- QC buckles in chest and Tongue
buckles in the
legs w/side rings
650KQC-4/UBKU- QC buckles in chest and Tongue
buckles in the
legs
650KQC-58/UBKU QC buckles in chest and Tongue buckles in
the legs
w/side rings
For more info contact:
Tracy Lang
Senior Product Manager
Bacou-Dalloz - Miller Fall Protection
1345 15th St.
Franklin, PA 16323
(814) 432-2118 EXT1500
tlang@bacou-dalloz.com
April 2004
T/HIS ISSUE:
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
ARC TESTING MAY 10-11, 2004
NEW NFPA 70E-2004 AVAILABLE FOR SALE
TRANSMISSION & DISTRIBUTION CONFERENCE & EXPO MAY 9 - 11, 2004
MEA ELECTRIC OPERATIONS ROUNDTABLE APRIL 27-29, 2004
BURN UP THE MYTH: HAZARD/RISK CATEGORIES IN NFPA 70E
HUGH HOAGLAND'S UPCOMING SPEAKING ENGAGEMENTS
ARC TESTING MAY 10-11, 2004
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I will be performing ASTM F1959, ASTM F2178, the new ASTM F887 fall
protection arc testing and mannequin testing at the Kinectrics Lab in
Toronto on May 10-11, 2004. If you have testing needs, let me know . If you
have textiles, fall protection harnesses or clothing you want tested for
marketing, protection levels or any other reason, let me know immediately
and ship the clothing to:
Hugh Hoagland
ArcWear.com
1566 Red Brush Road
Newburgh, IN 47630
If you ship at the last minute, please mark to drop at door with no
signature.
NEW NFPA 70E-2004 AVAILABLE FOR SALE
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The new NFPA 70E-2004 is now available at www.nfpa.org I just received my
first 100 copies for training my engineers are doing for a company later
this month. You can download a searchable version in Adobe Acrobat version
(PDF) or purchase the books. This is a totally revamped standard which is
easier to understand and more comprehensive than the 2000 edition. Clothing
and hazard categories have changed somewhat. Some of the highlights are the
changes in the hazard tables and the lowering of the HRC 1 to 4 cal/cm2 to
allow some popular fabrics to be used easily. This is a must have for
companies wanting to protect workers exposed to electrical hazards including
electric arc and electrocution.
TRANSMISSION & DISTRIBUTION CONFERENCE & EXPO MAY 9 - 11, 2004
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The North American T&D Conference & Expo will be May 9 - 11, 2004 at the
Metro Convention Centre in Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
For info call Lee Baker @ 1-888-253-1718.
MEA ELECTRIC OPERATIONS ROUNDTABLE APRIL 27-29, 2004
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Midwest Energy Association