AnsweredAssumed Answered

ESWC - Reduced ARC Flash Risks

Question asked by steve.weyenberg on Aug 14, 2017
Latest reply on Aug 17, 2017 by david.austin

In an Earlier Question... I asked and received this response...


Question 2 Electrically Safe Work Condition.. 1) Is touch Safe/finger safe design considered ESWC while energized? IF NOT - What would dictate ESWC... No point anywhere in a panel that even a probe / pin could contact? (Epoxy seal everything?) Using Hoffman Sequestr (Incoming Power isolation box) OR Saginaw ARC flashe incoming isolation enclosure within enclosure... are the only 2 approaches I know short of epoxy sealing every conductive screw / opening... (what about vent holes that you could stick something into on a bolted on drive cover). Other than the 2 enclosures noted above - What if I DID epoxy seal the incoming lugs on the panel Disconnect / Circuit breaker... so you could NOT measure voltage ANYWHERE in the panel - not even with VMM... I could use a Non Contact Voltage detection device on the incoming cable to detect voltage - but that presents NO hazard or ARC flash likelihood?!?! Ideally the intent is to not have the


2. An electrically safe work condition is defined in Article 100. You are required to perform a risk assessment and may be able to make the determinations you suggest


I also asked a specific question with respect to the use of a Non Contact Voltage Detector (NCVD) - which was answered as "Per the code...  the test equipment / meter is to be rated for the circuit and voltage it is to be used on"...   


So - Please explain any flaws or concerns in the following:


I have a Fluke NCVD that is rated Cat II - 600 Volts...  I am to open a panel that has Cat 2 ARC energy available and my purpose is to visually inspect, take pictures or retrieve prints.    I have a Grace UL listed voltage portal (R-T3 + R-3W indicator) mounted above the incoming disconnect to confirm that there is voltage present on the top lugs of the disconnect,  I have a second set of Grace R-T3/R-3W hardware below the disconnect.


I test my voltage with my "Properly Rated" NCVD detector (both above and below on both R-T3 portals to confirm voltage present on both),  I then turn off Disconnect and confirm the absence of voltage on the lower set confirming all 3 phases no longer have voltage (reducing the risk), Then I retest Above the disconnect to confirm the test equipment is still functioning.  I have now reduced the risk of an ARC flash significantly and I should be able to open the enclosure Without ARC Flash gear to "Inspect - NOT USING TOOLS".  


IF I intend to do work... THEN I must use a DMM or contact voltage measuring device to validate that there is no energy present.  Does the use of the contact "Test" equipment constitute a significant increase in risk that would now direct employees to wear the Cat 2 PPE to perform the metering dead because of the intent to do work? 



The use of power sequester enclosures, external monitoring portals,  The Rockwell ARC shield and SecureConnect products (and their equivalents) need to be addressed with timely "Interpretations"  arc-flasheswc ncvd