NEC 110.16 Additional rquirements?

[ferguson sfty dir]

Should we anticipate the NEC article 110.16, in the near future, to require further labeling requirements as proposed by the NFPA to include not only Flash Hazard Warning, but to include Cal/cm2 rating as well? Your thoughts......

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Re: NEC 110.16 Additional rquirements?

My thoughts are that posting that information is worthless. First, any one who knows what the Cal/cm2 rating means, will also know to use the proper PPE. Those who don't know what this rating means won't be using the proper PPE no matter what type of label is applied at the panel. Second, the number needs to be calculated when the work is done. If you do the label now, and come in to work on the equipment a year or two later, there may have been changes made that increase the hazard and if I use PPE based on the numbers you provided, I may not be properly protected. I believe that this would leave you open to some liability. I can't believe that our liability insurance underwriters will ever knowingly permit a us to post the Cal/cm2 rating on a panel.
We don't need another warning label, we need to have the OSHA rules against working hot panels enforced!!!

Don

 

[bennie]

Re: NEC 110.16 Additional rquirements?

Don for President

 

[charlie]

Re: NEC 110.16 Additional rquirements?

Don, please comment on the panel action during the comment period (that goes for anyone else - positive or negative)!

It is interesting how much complaining is done but proposals and comments are not made to follow up. The very least that can happen is that the CMP must tell you why they are rejecting your proposal or comment.

 

[bennie]

Re: NEC 110.16 Additional rquirements?

Charlie: I know you are involved and know more than I, concerning the code and the system.

Do you actually think the comments have any bearing on the final decision? So many rules are focused towards special interests, isn't the comment concept just like vaseline?.

 

[charlie]

Re: NEC 110.16 Additional rquirements?

Bennie, you are correct about the special interests. However, each person on the panel has a different ax to grind and, in general, is interested in the best for safety and the industry. With that in mind, a representative for NEMA could not vote against a safety related issue and hang it out for the world to see. That same statement would apply for each panel member. Compelling arguments must be made or a ground swell of opinion must come in to sway a panel. I have heard arguments against a particular item and then another panel member say, "Yes, but I just see one comment against this proposal so your argument that everyone will object is bogus."

The comment has been made that this is your Code. In reality, it is your Code.

 

[garyc]

Re: NEC 110.16 Additional rquirements?

Do I have to put this out in the field on all enclosures? People who access these are qualied and know this in advance. What does the label buy me?

 

[tom baker]

Re: NEC 110.16 Additional rquirements?

The requirement proposed for the 05 cycle is to add the heat energy in calories. this was proposed for the 02 cycle and not accepted.
the field marking is installed
"Switchboards, panelboards, industrial control panels, and motor control centers that are in other than dwelling occupancies and are likely to require examination, adjustment, servicing, or maintenance while energized shall be field marked to warn qualified persons of potential electric arc flash hazards"
If it meets the above it has to be marked. I use a label from Brady that costs $1.25.
What does it get you?
It tells you to provide PPE
It tells the electrican to use PPE.

My comment is Code is Code. Thats the requirement, heres how to comply...

 

[ryan_618]

Re: NEC 110.16 Additional rquirements?

Tom: well put. I don't like it, I didn't write it, but I enforce it.