It is currently Mon Nov 28, 2022 10:09 pm

Post new topic Reply to topic
Author Message
ekstra   ara
 Post subject: Does this carry more weight?
PostPosted: Thu Feb 07, 2008 7:50 am 

Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2007 10:21 am
Posts: 35
Location: Ellijay, GA
As most forum members know, the requirement for arc flash analysis has existed in the 70E for some time, and the requirement for device labeling has existed in the NEC since the 2002 revision. 29CFR1910.132(d)(1) references a hazard assessment, a requirement that an arc flash analysis meets, and yet people still argue the "requirement".

The NESC is an IEEE publication but is also an ANSI standard. This being the case, will 410A3 carry more weight than the 70E requirement? Are people finally going to understand what "required" means? I am anxious to get answers from folks in the know, so please feel free to respond.

 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Feb 11, 2008 3:34 pm 
Sparks Level

Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 7:54 am
Posts: 201
Location: St. Louis, MO
It is my understanding that although a full analysis certainly meets the requirement, it is not necessary to perform an analysis.

The tables can certainly be used in place of a full analysis, provided the guidelines are met. (I know, I know: How do you know you've met the guidelines without performing a study? :confused: I don't think that has been looked at enough, and it still is not necessary to perform a full study to know if you meet the requirements. Some basic calculations can tell you this.) The 70E method is also based on Ralph Lee's equations. Do you also follow this?

In short, there is no REQUIREMENT for a full study. It is definitely recommended, however.

 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Mar 25, 2008 7:24 am 

Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2008 2:17 pm
Posts: 2
Location: Sullivan, Indiana
I believe this carries alot of weight...

In the publication that you metioned above:
Section 410.A.3 states:
“Effective as of January 1, 2009, the employer shall ensure that an assessment is performed to determine potential exposure to an electric arc for employees who work on or near energized parts or equipment. If the assessment determines a potential employee exposure greater than 2 cal/cm² exists (see Neal, Bingham, and Doughty [B59]), the employer shall require anticipated level of arc energy.â€

Courtesy of IEEE—â€as called upon as an industry consensus under OSHA 1910â€To order your copy of this publication, go to:

I believe that it is hard to argue with this statement, wouldn't you?

 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Aug 17, 2008 12:25 pm 

Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2008 5:00 pm
Posts: 10
Location: Wisconsin
Utilities are the only entities subject to the NESC so this rule should not have any impact on facilities not in the control of utilities.

The new NFPA 70E-2009 apparently contains language related to NEC 110.16 which will require labels having either the flash protection boundary or the arc energy stated specific to the location of the label. That should give some push to performance of arc flash studies in the design of new facilities.

 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 4 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 7 hours

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
© 2022 Arcflash Forum / Brainfiller, Inc. | P.O. Box 12024 | Scottsdale, AZ 85267 USA | 800-874-8883