Where are some of you drawing the line for placement of arc flash signs? If we were to place a label on every piece of equip. that gets worked on hot I'll be busy for awhile. Or did I miss something on what has to and does not have to have a warning? All info will be much apreciated.
arc flash
- Thread starter highline
- Start date
- Status
ryan_618
Senior Member
- Location
- Salt Lake City, Utah
Re: arc flash
Take one more look at 110.16. It spells out panel, MCC's, etc...
Take one more look at 110.16. It spells out panel, MCC's, etc...
ron
Senior Member
- Location
- New York, 40.7514,-73.9925
Re: arc flash
The NEC requires just a warning sign on the equipment. NFPA 70E requires calculations associated with that warning, but doesn't need to be posted.
The NEC requires just a warning sign on the equipment. NFPA 70E requires calculations associated with that warning, but doesn't need to be posted.
bphgravity
Senior Member
- Location
- Florida
Re: arc flash
Signage, tagging, identifying, etc.. are some of the most neglected practices in our industry. As with most of the rest of the NEC, 110.16 provides a good starting point. Arc Flash warnings are not necessarily meant to provide information to a qualified person but act as a reminder of the dangers involved. It prevents us from becomming complacent in what we do and how we do it.
Stickers and signs cost cents and require no more than a few seconds to apply.
In the event of an accident, OSHA and the insurance company may be interested in why some equipment was deemed worthy of signage and why others were not. Just something to consider.
I was recently inside a building well over 100 years old that still contained some of the original wiring and switching equipment from the early 1930's. Above a huge open, uninsulated , and exposed switchboard was a sign that stated: "Danger, Energized Equipment May Explode Or Catch Fire." This message was hand written and appeared to be original to the installation. The equipment is no longer in use and right next to this vintage apparatus are the new panelboards servicing the building. These panels have no signage, no warnings, no indication at all of any danger. Obviously this equipment are completey enclosed and deadfronted, but the energy levels and available fault currents are much greater than the original circuits. It just seemed ironic.
Signage, tagging, identifying, etc.. are some of the most neglected practices in our industry. As with most of the rest of the NEC, 110.16 provides a good starting point. Arc Flash warnings are not necessarily meant to provide information to a qualified person but act as a reminder of the dangers involved. It prevents us from becomming complacent in what we do and how we do it.
Stickers and signs cost cents and require no more than a few seconds to apply.
In the event of an accident, OSHA and the insurance company may be interested in why some equipment was deemed worthy of signage and why others were not. Just something to consider.
I was recently inside a building well over 100 years old that still contained some of the original wiring and switching equipment from the early 1930's. Above a huge open, uninsulated , and exposed switchboard was a sign that stated: "Danger, Energized Equipment May Explode Or Catch Fire." This message was hand written and appeared to be original to the installation. The equipment is no longer in use and right next to this vintage apparatus are the new panelboards servicing the building. These panels have no signage, no warnings, no indication at all of any danger. Obviously this equipment are completey enclosed and deadfronted, but the energy levels and available fault currents are much greater than the original circuits. It just seemed ironic.
- Location
- Lockport, IL
- Occupation
- Semi-Retired Electrical Engineer
Re: arc flash
To the Inspectors who participate in the Forum: Do you see it as your job to verify the label is in place before you accept the installation?
This is the part that confuses me. 110.16 just says that panels, etc. ?shall be field marked. . . .? It does not say by whom, nor when. It does not tell me that the label must be in place as part of the electrician?s task, and that it must be done prior to final inspection.
To the Inspectors who participate in the Forum: Do you see it as your job to verify the label is in place before you accept the installation?
- Location
- Bremerton, Washington
- Occupation
- Master Electrician
Re: arc flash
In Washinton State, arc flash labels are not being required by our state AHJ's.
But I carry arc flash labels and install them when I do an installation.
In Washinton State, arc flash labels are not being required by our state AHJ's.
But I carry arc flash labels and install them when I do an installation.
ryan_618
Senior Member
- Location
- Salt Lake City, Utah
Re: arc flash
Yes. I ask for the sticker at the power to panel inspection. Typically they don;t have it in place. I allow the inspection to pass, but I require the sticker on the final inspection.
- Location
- Illinois
- Occupation
- retired electrician
Re: arc flash
Why should this be done in the field? Why not by the manufacturer? The field marking requirement is left over from the original proposal that would have required the posting of the arc/blast/flash calculations on the panel. That would have to be done in the field, but when the requirement to provide the calculations was removed from the rule, the requirement for field marking should have also been removed.
Don
Why should this be done in the field? Why not by the manufacturer? The field marking requirement is left over from the original proposal that would have required the posting of the arc/blast/flash calculations on the panel. That would have to be done in the field, but when the requirement to provide the calculations was removed from the rule, the requirement for field marking should have also been removed.
Don
- Location
- Mission Viejo, CA
- Occupation
- Professional Electrical Engineer
Re: arc flash
Don,
This answer may seem a bit convoluted but please bear with me.
To say the NEC is not retroactive is not absolutely true. It is a matter of who is enforcing and what they are enforcing. There is a hint of this intent in 80.9 (B) - even if Art. 80 only applies where specifically adopted:
The 70E Tech Committee envisioned that before any work on energized equipment were started, field marking would be added as part of the safety analysis. And there is no ?grandfathering? out of a safety analysis. Also remember the 2000 70E, came out before the 2002 NEC. For all practical purposes 70E was constrained in Part I to use text taken from the latest NEC (1999) at the time. So what was envisioned was not completely documented.
[ May 18, 2004, 05:08 PM: Message edited by: rbalex ]
Don,
This answer may seem a bit convoluted but please bear with me.
To say the NEC is not retroactive is not absolutely true. It is a matter of who is enforcing and what they are enforcing. There is a hint of this intent in 80.9 (B) - even if Art. 80 only applies where specifically adopted:
Both Fed and State OSHA organizations can (and often do) enforce consensus codes retroactively if they believe worker safety is involved. AS stated in the NEC handbook for 110.16:
Since most existing panels are not currently marked for flash hazard, field marking is the only option for existing installations. Factory marking may of course be specified.
The 70E Tech Committee envisioned that before any work on energized equipment were started, field marking would be added as part of the safety analysis. And there is no ?grandfathering? out of a safety analysis. Also remember the 2000 70E, came out before the 2002 NEC. For all practical purposes 70E was constrained in Part I to use text taken from the latest NEC (1999) at the time. So what was envisioned was not completely documented.
[ May 18, 2004, 05:08 PM: Message edited by: rbalex ]
bphgravity
Senior Member
- Location
- Florida
Re: arc flash
This topic is like most things having good points on both sides.
It would certainly be alot easier and more pratical for manufacturers to provide an arc-flash hazard sticker with the equipment. It would be similar to GFCI manufacturers that provide the "GFCI protected" and "No Equipment Ground" stickers. I like the idea.
On the other hand, these stickers and signs should still be available for field use to augment the manufactrers signage or for use on existing equipment.
This topic is like most things having good points on both sides.
It would certainly be alot easier and more pratical for manufacturers to provide an arc-flash hazard sticker with the equipment. It would be similar to GFCI manufacturers that provide the "GFCI protected" and "No Equipment Ground" stickers. I like the idea.
On the other hand, these stickers and signs should still be available for field use to augment the manufactrers signage or for use on existing equipment.
Re: arc flash
I also agree that it would be nice if the labels were provided with (not applied to) the equipment.
My understanding is that Arc-flash hazards do not exist in every installation. This depends on voltage, available fault current, etc... Arc-fault calculations would need to be performed to determine if a hazard even exists. So, field marking would be the only accurate method.
Is there any harm in applying a label where a hazard does not exist? Probably developing complacency over time.
Further, IMO, once you start applying labels at your or someone elses facility, an effort should be made to apply them throughout. Even if it's accomplished over time. The hazards still exist on the existing equipment. Even more so in some cases. Seeing labels on some equipment and not on others may instill a false sense of security.
just my $.02
I also agree that it would be nice if the labels were provided with (not applied to) the equipment.
My understanding is that Arc-flash hazards do not exist in every installation. This depends on voltage, available fault current, etc... Arc-fault calculations would need to be performed to determine if a hazard even exists. So, field marking would be the only accurate method.
Is there any harm in applying a label where a hazard does not exist? Probably developing complacency over time.
Further, IMO, once you start applying labels at your or someone elses facility, an effort should be made to apply them throughout. Even if it's accomplished over time. The hazards still exist on the existing equipment. Even more so in some cases. Seeing labels on some equipment and not on others may instill a false sense of security.
just my $.02
- Status