Just wondering if anyone is actually following requirements of NFPA 70E for arc flash protection?

We do a lot of work for a large industrial customer and since OSHA has announced they will be enforcing arc flash now everyone is scrambling to meet the requirements (which is basically 70E).

Me situation seems to be this: A 40 Cal. suit would meet a worst case requirement, but jeez...you don't want to wear a 40 Cal suit for everything of a lesser requirement.

Just curious if anyone else has to deal with this and what are you buying and wearing?

Many of the jobs can be done using level 2 PPE. You can buy work pants and shirts or coveralls to meet that level. Note that for the most part, you still are not permitted to work on energized equipment per the OSHA rules, but you do need the PPE for troubleshooting, lock out verification and the rare cases where you are permitted to work live equipment.
The biggest problem is getting the information and the calculations that are required to correctly select the PPE.
Don

Remember that to do any voltage measurement (including checking to see if circuit is de-energized) requires a "double layer switching hood" if choosing PPE via the task tables in 70E. This is shown as category 2*.

I left out the fact that Level 2 PPE requires that you use a face shield with a minimum 8 cal/cm² rating and ear protection. The face shield must be of the wrap around type to protect all of the face, neck, and head. A hard hat is also required. A flash hood can be used in place of the face shield. Also the work clothes are FR and have a 8cal/cm² rating. They are worn as the everyday work clothes and the additional protection is added as needed.
Don

On our project 70E is required and we have written it into a procedure. The opinion of management though is that we have a zero accident policy. The problem with 70E is that it states that it protects only to 2 nd degree burns. We are required to exceed the requirements of 70E.

Do not think that a category 4 suit will protect you, because it is the highest rated available (identified by NFPA standards). We've performed several arc flash hazard calculations, where the resulting incident energy is >40 cal/cm^2, so even cat4 is not good enough.
The notes at the bottom of the 70E PPE table make the table useless for some industrial installation due to long clearing times of the OCPD's.

I'm an Industrial Electrician. There are several Sub's that we work around that Exceed the highest available flash suits. It Means we cant work around them while they are live.
As Far as that goes, We believe that working in higher category flash suits presents more of a problem than a solution, meaning all of that bulky gear is more likely to cause an accident. But at the same time If someone is specially suited up they are more likely to pay closer attention to what they do.
We have all been given training for all levels, and cotton coverall's for low calorie tasks. Everyone has to go thru a day of training before they can even start to work, and they watch the video's of equipment arc faulting.
Just learning how breakers react to faults and everything else that goes along with 70E will prevent the vast majority of causalities. Allot of Electricians don't understand the exponentially deadly potential that large services carry IMO.
Every Panel we Build nowdays is designed with 70E in mind, No more motor starters in the same panel as control. Working with live equipment is a thing of the past (Any MCC Bucket). Troubleshooting takes forever. Allot of days I wonder why I am still an Electrician. And it's expensive for the customer. But they make the rules.
I could go on punching holes in 70E but somehow the whole jist of it makes sense.

I am working on the WTP/RPP project in Hanford, Washington. Since 70E has not been adopted by OSHA as of yet we wrote it into a proceedure making it a project requirement. We us it as a guideline only though because BNI has a 0 tolerance for safety and 70E says it will protect from anything worst than a 2nd degree burn. We do not feel that is acceptable.

[This message has been edited by Paul O'Connell (edited 02-19-2006).]