70e 20011

[hawkeye23]

My questions concern 70e and would like to ask this of some of you .
When a company uses 2008 edition of 70e for electrical safety and has a eeswp . Now that 2011 is out should 2011 edtion have to be followed and do we have to get a new eeswp ? How long or often does the eeswp need to be changed ?

 

[jim dungar]

70E does not need to be followed, legally, like the NEC does.

OSHA requires you to keep your employers safe by providing them with appropriate PPE.
While 70E is voluntary, imagine standing in front of a court of law and explaining why you felt that a nationally recognized standard did not apply to you. Along that same lines what reason would you give for not following the latest safety practices, and instead just did what you've always done?

 

[hawkeye23]

With all due respect i thought OSHA had a little more requirements then just ppe for employees. NOT Working energized, and to follow a safety guide such as 70e and others seem to be something i have heard.

 

[jim dungar]

With all due respect i thought OSHA had a little more requirements then just ppe for employees. NOT Working energized, and to follow a safety guide such as 70e and others seem to be something i have heard.

Yes, OSHA is definitly more then PPE.

Simplistically,
OSHA is the WHY
NFPA70E is the WHAT
Your ESWP is the HOW.

 

[Jraef]

70E does not need to be followed, legally, like the NEC does.

OSHA requires you to keep your employers safe by providing them with appropriate PPE.
While 70E is voluntary, imagine standing in front of a court of law and explaining why you felt that a nationally recognized standard did not apply to you. Along that same lines what reason would you give for not following the latest safety practices, and instead just did what you've always done?

As a side note to your response, I have heard tell (in a seminar last month by a 3rd party company doing Arc Flash studies) that the new 2012 NFPA 70E that took effect Jan. 1 says it is no longer "voluntary", is is now mandatory. I wouldn't know what that means, i.e. who is enforcing it etc., but the claim is out there. I have odered a copy and have not yet received it, but have you read it yet or has anyone else heard this? I have someone asking me that right now, I guess this guy is getting around.

 

[mayanees]

70E effective date

70E effective date

I am under the impression that 70E, Standard for Electrical Safety in the Workplace, goes into effect when it is issued, unlike the NEC which must be adopted by the AHJ.

I think this is consistent with Jim's reply that 70E does not NEED to be followed, but it represents the current best approach to electrical safety, and is recognized by OSHA. So my opinion is that it becomes the guiding document upon issuance.

John M

 

[jim dungar]

As a side note to your response, I have heard tell (in a seminar last month by a 3rd party company doing Arc Flash studies) that the new 2012 NFPA 70E that took effect Jan. 1 says it is no longer "voluntary", is is now mandatory. I wouldn't know what that means, i.e. who is enforcing it etc., but the claim is out there. I have odered a copy and have not yet received it, but have you read it yet or has anyone else heard this? I have someone asking me that right now, I guess this guy is getting around.

Many seminar presenters have thier own agenda. Many seminar attendees only remember a little of what they are presented.
Imagine the mis-remembered take away being: 70E is voluntary, therefore we do not need to protect our employees.

NFPA70E is voluntary unless a local legal entity has adopted as law. To my knowledge this has not been done anywhere in the country.
Even NFPA70, the NEC, is technically voluntary until it has been adopted as law (i.e. the City of Chicago does not follow the current NEC, their local code is based on NEC1999)

 

[Jraef]

Many seminar presenters have thier own agenda. Many seminar attendees only remember a little of what they are presented.
Imagine the mis-remembered take away being: 70E is voluntary, therefore we do not need to protect our employees.

NFPA70E is voluntary unless a local legal entity has adopted as law. To my knowledge this has not been done anywhere in the country.
Even NFPA70, the NEC, is technically voluntary until it has been adopted as law (i.e. the City of Chicago does not follow the current NEC, their local code is based on NEC1999)

OK , that remains consistent with how I look at it. Between you and mayanees I think I have a good way of describing it to counteract the misinformation.

Thanks to both of you.

 

[zog]

NFPA 70E is considered an industrial consensus standard and is intended for use by employers, employees, and OSHA. OSHA has not ?adopted? NFPA 70E simply because adoption would require the lengthy and expensive process outlined in Section 6(b) of the Act. OSHA has instead referenced compliance to NFPA 70E using Section 5(a)(1) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, commonly referred to as the ?general duty clause,? as their basis for implementation. The general duty clause states that employers ?shall furnish to each of its employees employment and a place of employment which are free from recognized hazards that are causing or likely to cause death or serious physical harm to his employees.?

OSHA uses this clause all the time to cite companies for not following the 70E.

Another thing people overlook when asking about 70E being enforced or considered mandatory, most of the requirements found in the 70E are already in OSHA Subpart R and S and have been for 30 years. The only part of 70E that is really "new" (If you consider 13 years new) is a method to calculate the hazard level of an arc flash event and select the proper PPE for the hazard. FR switching coats and arc flash events are nothing new, been around for longer than I have.

 

[petersonra]

The real answer would appear to be that compliance to some recognized standard relieves an employer of coming up with a standard on his or her own. There is no requirement that it has to be 70E. The fact that an independent entity came up with the standard and it has been vetted and updated over time as experience dictates, makes it a good choice.

I am not sure there is a need to comply with a new version as soon as it becomes available, but over time it makes sense to migrate that way.

 

[jim dungar]

I am not sure there is a need to comply with a new version as soon as it becomes available, but over time it makes sense to migrate that way.

How about when we find that old methods were not adequate for safety?
What about when new hazards are identified?

How do you address the fact that the components required to meet any particular NFPA70E HRC constantly change as more testing and real life statistics become available. Do you say that all new installations must use face shields for HRC1 areas, but the older locations can still get by without them?

 

[petersonra]

How about when we find that old methods were not adequate for safety?
What about when new hazards are identified?

How do you address the fact that the components required to meet any particular NFPA70E HRC constantly change as more testing and real life statistics become available. Do you say that all new installations must use face shields for HRC1 areas, but the older locations can still get by without them?

I did not suggest you should never change. But, as a practical matter, it is very hard if not impossible to just change on the day a new standard is published.

It takes time to migrate from doing things in a particular way to doing them in a new way.

And really, why was it safe to do something in a particualr way yestedray and not today?

 

[pfalcon]

I am not sure there is a need to comply with a new version as soon as it becomes available, but over time it makes sense to migrate that way.

Without pushing retroactive, the machine tool side of our shop requires immediate compliance. We are fairly forgiving though. The idea is to get the shop up to the 2012 70E standard without creating undo hardship or disruption. OSHA text is a decade behind and liberally quotes Chapter 1.

How about when we find that old methods were not adequate for safety? ...

Per OSHA, any recognized hazard must be remediated. What OSHA cuts slack on is the differences between "Safe and Safer" and "Old and New". On an old piece of equipment without obvious hazards remediation is not required. Anything with an obvious hazard or is new must comply immediately.

It takes time to migrate from doing things in a particular way to doing them in a new way.
And really, why was it safe to do something in a particualr way yestedray and not today?

 

[jim dungar]

And really, why was it safe to do something in a particualr way yestedray and not today?

How about, we found out what we were doing was not as safe as we thought it was?

NFPA70E decided (discovered?) that for HRC2 a simple face shield was not sufficient and that ear and neck protection was required. What do you consider to be a reasonable time frame for compliance? The changes to NFPA70E-2012 where known, to the PPE industry, almost 2 months before the study was officially in effect (see page 70E-1).

 

[kenaslan]

Best thing to do is ask your Ins company. Else they may have grounds to deny any claim.

 

[petersonra]

How about, we found out what we were doing was not as safe as we thought it was?

NFPA70E decided (discovered?) that for HRC2 a simple face shield was not sufficient and that ear and neck protection was required. What do you consider to be a reasonable time frame for compliance? The changes to NFPA70E-2012 where known, to the PPE industry, almost 2 months before the study was officially in effect (see page 70E-1).

I don't know what the number is. Just because the PPE industry knew about it in advance does not mean the whole country is going to go out and buy new stuff today, or that the whole country even realized such a change was even in the works.

One of the reasons you have periodic reviews of your safety program is to deal with these kind of situations where something fairly obscure has changed.

 

[jim dungar]

One of the reasons you have periodic reviews of your safety program is to deal with these kind of situations where something fairly obscure has changed.

Here's and idea, make thew periodic review the same as the advent of a new code version, which occurs every three years, during the fall. It is a fairly easy task to find listings of pending major changes to the code.

 

[petersonra]

Here's and idea, make thew periodic review the same as the advent of a new code version, which occurs every three years, during the fall. It is a fairly easy task to find listings of pending major changes to the code.

I think you need to review things more often than that. otherwise you forget what you learned at previous reviews.

Things like adding ear and neck protection with a face shield don't seem that difficult to implement.

 

[Jraef]

I think you need to review things more often than that. otherwise you forget what you learned at previous reviews.

Things like adding ear and neck protection with a face shield don't seem that difficult to implement.

Seems to me that lately, companies are turning over a large part of their work force in less than 3 years... :weeping: