×
Follow Us
Results 1 to 5 of 5

Basis for 50V limit for de-energized work

Go to latest post
    #1
  1. Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Location
    Richmond, VA
    Posts
    11
    Reputation

    Basis for 50V limit for de-energized work

    So, I've been quizzed to answer this question. What is the basis for the 50V (30V) limit for de-energized work, and where do you find it written?

    I am ex-Navy, and the question is from a former Navy Nuke. If you ever read any safety manual, the highest safe voltage is 50V for shore based facilities, and 30V for sea-based facilities (i.e. ships). It is listed in OSHA, but never explained.

    As an ex-navy sailor, I know the basis is based on 0.1A being deadly, and the lowest possible resistance for the human body is 500 ohms (300 ohms onboard ships), and ohms law gives you 50V. This is found in NSTM 300 app. H. I remember this vividly as it was a very popular level of knowledge question in the Navy.

    As you can tell, this question still haunts me in the private sector, but I can't find the answer anywhere in OSHA and NFPA 70E, it is just implied. Has anybody run across this answer?

  2. #2
  3. Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    5
    Reputation
    Quote Originally Posted by Kalbi_Rob View Post
    So, I've been quizzed to answer this question. What is the basis for the 50V (30V) limit for de-energized work, and where do you find it written?

    I am ex-Navy, and the question is from a former Navy Nuke. If you ever read any safety manual, the highest safe voltage is 50V for shore based facilities, and 30V for sea-based facilities (i.e. ships). It is listed in OSHA, but never explained.

    As an ex-navy sailor, I know the basis is based on 0.1A being deadly, and the lowest possible resistance for the human body is 500 ohms (300 ohms onboard ships), and ohms law gives you 50V. This is found in NSTM 300 app. H. I remember this vividly as it was a very popular level of knowledge question in the Navy.

    As you can tell, this question still haunts me in the private sector, but I can't find the answer anywhere in OSHA and NFPA 70E, it is just implied. Has anybody run across this answer?
    You are right, this rule is taught all over the industry but I have no clue who came up with it. I'm going to ask around, curious to see what you find out.

  4. #3
  5. Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Location
    Richmond, VA
    Posts
    11
    Reputation

    NSTM 300 App G

    For those interested in where I found the requirement in the NSTM 300 appendix G:

    300-g.3.2 BODY RESISTANCE. At the outset of any consideration of safety from electric shock, it is important
    to recognize that the resistance of the human body cannot be relied upon to prevent a fatal shock from 115
    volt or even lower voltage circuits. When the skin is dry, it has a high resistance where it makes contact with the
    electrodes through which current enters and leaves the body. The resistance may be high enough in this case to
    protect a person from fatal shock even if one hand touches a bare conductor on one side of a 115volt line while
    the other hand (or a foot) touches a bare conductor on the other side of the line. This is an exceptional case.
    Onboard a ship, it is far more likely that the skin will be wet with perspiration or salt water. The contact resistance falls when the skin is wet, and the body resistance, measured from electrode to electrode, is low. Tests made
    by the National Institute of Standards and Technology show that the resistance of the human body may be as low
    as 500 ohms under unfavorable conditions. In warm and moist Marine environments such as are encountered on
    naval vessels, body resistance as low as 300 ohms could be experienced. If 0.1 ampere is enough to cause death,
    and if the body resistance can be as low as 300 ohms, it follows immediately that circuits above 30 volts can be
    fatal. All circuits, even if of only a few volts, are potentially dangerous in that they may give rise to currents that
    are immediately fatal, or that keep a person from letting go and ultimately cause death if they are not rescued by
    their shipmates, or that cause a person to jump and perhaps fall under conditions that will cause serious injury.
    The resistance of the body itself cannot be relied upon to provide protection from shock.

  6. #4
  7. Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Posts
    6
    Reputation
    Quote Originally Posted by Kalbi_Rob View Post
    For those interested in where I found the requirement in the NSTM 300 appendix G:

    300-g.3.2 BODY RESISTANCE. At the outset of any consideration of safety from electric shock, it is important
    to recognize that the resistance of the human body cannot be relied upon to prevent a fatal shock from 115
    volt or even lower voltage circuits. When the skin is dry, it has a high resistance where it makes contact with the
    electrodes through which current enters and leaves the body. The resistance may be high enough in this case to
    protect a person from fatal shock even if one hand touches a bare conductor on one side of a 115volt line while
    the other hand (or a foot) touches a bare conductor on the other side of the line. This is an exceptional case.
    Onboard a ship, it is far more likely that the skin will be wet with perspiration or salt water. The contact resistance falls when the skin is wet, and the body resistance, measured from electrode to electrode, is low. Tests made
    by the National Institute of Standards and Technology show that the resistance of the human body may be as low
    as 500 ohms under unfavorable conditions. In warm and moist Marine environments such as are encountered on
    naval vessels, body resistance as low as 300 ohms could be experienced. If 0.1 ampere is enough to cause death,
    and if the body resistance can be as low as 300 ohms, it follows immediately that circuits above 30 volts can be
    fatal. All circuits, even if of only a few volts, are potentially dangerous in that they may give rise to currents that
    are immediately fatal, or that keep a person from letting go and ultimately cause death if they are not rescued by
    their shipmates, or that cause a person to jump and perhaps fall under conditions that will cause serious injury.
    The resistance of the body itself cannot be relied upon to provide protection from shock.
    In addition to this, I recently found this page regarding the matter.

    https://testguy.net/content/191-NFPA...ries-Explained

  8. #5
  9. Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Location
    Richmond, VA
    Posts
    11
    Reputation
    Quote Originally Posted by rofo42 View Post
    In addition to this, I recently found this page regarding the matter.

    https://testguy.net/content/191-NFPA...ries-Explained
    Thanks, I'm curious where they obtained the information for that article. As I stated, I've only seen it officially documented in the NSTM 300. I'm sure back in the 70's this information was common throughout OSHA, and as updates have been pushed, they probably just let it fade.

Subscribe

Login or register to leave a reply!




Related Topics

  1. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 4 Weeks Ago, 08:15 AM
  2. Windining Resistance value Tolerance limit of dry transformer??
    By shamimkhan in forum Electrical Testing Talk
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: November 30, 2017, 08:10 AM
  3. Puerto Rico work?
    By luhanson1 in forum Electrical Testing Talk
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: October 29, 2017, 09:56 PM
  4. Keep this in mind when working around energized equipment
    By SecondGen in forum Safety and Arc Flash Talk
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: March 16, 2016, 05:28 PM
  5. Breathing patterns when performing hot work and switching
    By electrolyte in forum Safety and Arc Flash Talk
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: January 6, 2016, 06:42 AM

Related Content

Tags for this Thread

Follow us


Explore TestGuy


NETA Certification Training


Help and Support