It is currently Tue Oct 24, 2017 12:32 am



Post new topic Reply to topic
Author Message
ekstra   ara
 Post subject: Arc Flash Study Requirements (OSHA/NFPA 70E)
PostPosted: Tue Oct 10, 2017 7:47 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 10, 2017 7:42 am
Posts: 1
I work for a consulting firm and we typically provide Arc Flash Studies with our new projects that we do for clients. Currently, we are trying to approach new/existing customers to perform an Arc Flash Analysis on their facilities if they do not currently have one. Of course, with every big client, it comes down to two things: Cost & Is this required or just a benefit to us?
I know in reading OSHA & NFPA 70E the standards make it sound like a requirement, but does anyone have a specific statement that would confirm that an actual Arc Flash Study (Visual Inspection of gear, use of an arc flash study software (SKM/ETAP), production of arc flash labels) is required by OSHA/NFPA 70E?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Arc Flash Study Requirements (OSHA/NFPA 70E)
PostPosted: Tue Oct 10, 2017 12:47 pm 
Offline
Plasma Level
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2010 9:08 am
Posts: 1780
Location: North Carolina
OSHA treats it as the general duty clause.

https://www.osha.gov/news/newsreleases/region1/07092012
https://www.osha.gov/news/newsreleases/region1/10212013
https://www.e-hazard.com/blog/march-200 ... arc-flash/

Enforcement actions have been going on for quite a while for arc flash. The "shot heard round the world" was around 2006 when OSHA fined a major automotive company (I don't recall if it was GM or Ford) for arc flash citing 70E as their reference guide.

70E is not per se a requirement in the same way that other standards are. There is nothing stopping a company from wiring their own standard and indeed some have actually done that. But the big advantage is that it is a recognized consensus safety standard. As such it is a strong defensive argument to claim that a company is following a standard (if they are). Thus OSHA would have to prove that the consensus safety standard is deficient which is a much harder argument to make because they would have to reference something better. If a company "goes it alone" then they have the burden of proof that their standard is sufficient from a technical point of view which is a much harder argument to make and much riskier than following an existing standard such as 70E or NESC.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 2 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 7 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


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:  
cron
© 2017 Arcflash Forum / Brainfiller, Inc. | P.O. Box 12024 | Scottsdale, AZ 85267 USA | 800-874-8883