Hi Sergio, I have also received an email from the HSE today that casts doubt on the validity and reliability of this test method for live working.

That's probably because they are not designed for live working but provide a level of protection against unknown / unintended step potentials.

Having worn these for over 30 years it's a no brainer.

"(ASTM F2412-18A tests)..evaluate the performance of footwear for the following:

Impact resistance for the toe area of footwear (I);

Compression resistance for the toe area of footwear (C);

Metatarsal protection that reduces the chance of injury to the metatarsal bones at the top of the foot (Mt);

Conductive properties which reduce hazards that may result from static electricity buildup, and reduce the possibility of ignition of explosives and volatile chemicals (Cd);

Electric hazard to protect the wearer when accidentally stepping on live wires (EH);

Static dissipative properties to reduce hazards that result in a build up of static charge where there is an underlying risk of accidental contact with live electrical circuits (SD);

Puncture resistance footwear devices (PR).

Static dissipative implies a partial conductor of order  Megohms

That HSE bulletin in full

Well indeed. I suppose in this letters and numbers obsessed world you might buy a pair and expect the numbers to mean they will be for example waterproof and find they are not, and that is not one of the tests. Or you could just look into it properly before you buy.

Mike.

There is a lot of confusion in the industry - most of it perpetrated by people that haven't a clue.

Other than conductive footwear, only products manufactured to BSEN50321-1, electrically insulating footwear,  are designed to provide a degree of protection when live working and when used in accordance with manufacturers instructions (in practice, this is not the case but thats another issue).  This footwear should be provided to workers when the hazard is  known and quantifiable eg: someone working on a 415V cable - the step and touch potentials can determine the class of footwear required.

Electrical hazard footwear is provided to offer a degree of protection against an unknown hazard (and for persons who are not competent to assess that hazard.  For example,  a farmer downs an overhead power line; or a painter walking into a substation where unbeknownst to him there has been some remote fault resulting in a step potential, or some emergency services personnel arriving at the scene where a car has collided with an overhead power line which is now on the ground and the line not tripped.

The intended function of the footwear is basically a work boot - and that needs to conform to the CE marking etc. 

Note: that in Cenelec WG5,  they are developing a standard which was supposed to deal with electrical hazard but, in my opinion, it has lost its way and is getting confused with electrically insulating footwear.  Again,  how would a farmer calculate a step potential?

The HSE should be supporting this type of footwear and be more knowledgeable about what its purpose is.  It is not, and never has been, for live working (only insulating and conductive footwear are for that purpose).

It has and does save lives and is worn by many emergency services personnel and other workers in North America (for at least 30 years to my knowledge).

I, personally, would and do wear EH footwear knowing that I will get a degree of protection that is not there with a normal work boot.

eg: someone working on a 415V cable

What's the difference in hazard between a 415V (400V in new money) 3-phase cable and a 240V (230V in new money) single phase one - both   have exactly the same voltages to Earth.

   - Andy.

I'm quite happy to look at the soles of any footwear and tell you if I think it is an insulator or not. I do not need or want a selection of alphabet soup on the packet to tell me what someone else in another country or this one thinks it does. A lot of labelling is to reassure the desk pilots that never go near a real job and would not know what to do of you threw your shoes at them.  CE marked footwear that has been in a puddle or has trodden on a nail is no longer special,  and there is plenty of footwear that is perfectly good but has no certification. Generally calling it PPE  just allows makers to charge more.

(I'm the annoying chap hitting the steel toe boots in the shop to see if they really are.. )

Mike

That HSE bulletin in full

"The Standard does not include tests for use in wet or damp environments and therefore the footwear should not also be marked to offer claims of waterproof, Water resistant, water resistant upper, or other similar claims. "

I don't quite follow the logic - normally standards set minimum standards and manufacturers can exceed those in any way they care (e.g. to give a market advantage) - is there any reason why a manufacturer couldn't add additional waterproofing abilities and be able to market them as such? Rather like outdoor 13A sockets - would the HSE say that manufacturers mustn't say their weatherproof since the normal BS 1363 requirements for IP ratings aren't sufficient for outdoor use?

   - Andy.

What's the difference..
Well, none generally. Far more important is how clean and dry the boot, and the working environment, is and if anything has made a hole in it allowing water in or out . The problem is that such accidents do not occur in clean dry test lab conditions. When there are, it tends to be the sort of accident that occurs when the flex to the pressure washer gets damaged and not noticed under weeks of accumulated chicken muck or something. Folk who expect to be working on something live know very well they are doing it (and probably do not leave live ends on the floor anyway)- it is the unwary that get caught.

To be honest even a basic plastic (polyethelene) carrier bag will be fine as live wire protection for 230/400 while it stays intact- the problem is that it all too easily rips..

We have some 35kV tested wellies that really are just wellies - but the test paperwork makes them worth over £100 per foot. I fully expect the rubber to perish in the box without ever saving any lives at all.

Mike.

Mike.