I feel silly needing to ask this, but besides common sense, what in code or standard requires a vendor to put the correct panel name on a label? I know they are not required to put any name.

Example: Vendor has switchboard MSB with 10 cal IE, he wants to place that label on subfeeds; panel 1 and panel 2. He plans on labeling all three panels with copies of the labels from MSB. They will have MSB as the equipment name on each label and same IE.

I would like to have a code or something that clearly states labeling must be accurate.

Thanks in advance.

Maybe via OSHA?

Found this article: https://www.ecmweb.com/safety/article/2 ... art-1-of-2.

Mike

You may want to refer to NFPA 70E, Article 130.5(H) which addresses labeling. It does mention that the label needs to have either available incident energy for the equipment, min arc rating of PPE or Site specific level of PPE. The label the vendor wants to put on violates this as it is not for the equipment the label is going on.

Adding to previous comments, if they are trying to simplify, an alternative would be to list the arc rating of the PPE and not a specific calculated value. However this still requires someone to validate the arc rating is sufficient at the sub panels.

Module 7 of my free video class explains the details: Arc Flash Labeling Strategies

Hi All, Greetings from North of the border. As we state in our CEC Part 1 up here about correct identification and labeling. I would check the NEC

Thanks
Len

The whole point of an arc flash study and labeling is to inform the worker. Inform him there is a hazard and to quantify that hazard. Why quantify? So he knows what he has to do to protect himself and those who are near the hazard. How is that worker supposed to do that if all the equipment is incorrectly labeled? Your vendor might argue that he is labeling worst case, but that won't fly if there is an accident. It's also dangerous to wear too much PPE. For example, here in Arizona, heat stroke can be a concern and someone wearing a 25 calorie suit when the hazard is only 8 calories is dangerous. Plus, who likes to work when wearing that level of PPE. The failure to correctly identify and quantify invites an accident. The labeling needs to be accurate.

Thanks everyone. I agree with everything stated here.

In the future, our specifications are changing to clearly state all labeling must be accurate to the equipment it is installed on. For this one, the compromise appears to be that they will label each downstream panel with the panel name using the IE from the upstream panel. They are supposed to verify that that IE is greater than the actual IE of that panel. It was brought up that the IE for a 2000 amp fault in a 32x48x6 panelboard can be much higher when that same fault is seen in a 14x6x4 disconnect. We may go through and redo the study ourselves as check on them.

I wonder if i should submit a suggestion to the NFPA code committee to consider clarifying the labeling requirement to require accuracy. I feel the committee would get a good laugh too. Never did I ever think this would be an argument I would have with an electrical contractor.

We are reviewing the first public inputs for the 2024 Edition of NFPA 70E now. Nothing like that is on the radar screen however....

The 2021 edition 130.5(H) states: "...shall be marked with a label containing all of the following information"

Perhaps adding "for the equipment where the label is placed" might help. 2027 Edition??

As my friend and mentor likes to say, "You can't make everything fool proof because fools are becoming smarter"

I have been amazed when I have seen the downstream affected equipment label installed at the upstream protective device/'lockout point.

The kicker to this electrician's pushback is a requirement that they need to provide documentation of the data and methods used to support their decision to label it like they did.........which I believe they won't be able to in your example

In NFPA 70E, 2021, Article 130.5(H) Arc Flash Risk Assessment – Equipment Labeling.........
Electrical equipment such as switchboards, panelboards, industrial control panels, meter socket enclosures, and motor control centers that are in other than dwelling units and that are likely to require examination, adjustment, servicing, or maintenance while energized SHALL be marked with a label containing all of the following information:
-Nominal system voltage
-Arc flash boundary
-At least one of the following:
-Available incident energy and corresponding working distance OR the arc flash PPE category in Table 130.7(C)(15)(a) or Table 130.7(C)(15)(b) for the
equipment, but not both
-Minimum arc rating of clothing
-Site specific PPE level
The method of calculating and the data to support the information for the label SHALL be documented,
The data shall be reviewed for accuracy at intervals not to exceed 5 years.

Jim

I see that all the time, the other common error is multiple labels on a switchboard (not switchgear) or MCC. EasyPower publishes an excellent manual on labeling - see attached.

Thanks for posting the article Jim. I got halfway through it and realized it was published in 2009 yet the principles remain applicable in 2022. Perhaps EasyPower should re-issue the article using today's standards.

I too have seen the multiple label approach on equipment, especially when an ATS is involved.

If you model downstream devices with different feeder lengths you can find a point that the incident energy is more than the upstream device even without a stepdown transformer involved. Longer wire distance yields higher impedance which will often increase trip times and hence incident energy. Making the assumption that downstream devices require the same or less PPE would be hard to support.

Unfortunately, I do not believe there is any "code" that speaks on this. I ran into many issues a couple years ago where someone had completed the analysis for a customer that I found to be very negligent. At MCC's for example they placed a label on the main with the MCC's hazard (we'll say IE > 12 cal). The labels that then were meant for downstream equipment were placed on the MCC compartments which provided the feeds. These often times had an IE < 4 cal. Then, no labels were on the field equipment. There were many other significant issues. I was asked to provide a report documenting the issues I found and sought clarification from the NFPA. The responses I received were as expected..."no code specifically states you have to do things right". It states the hazards must be identified and certain information included on the label. It does not currently state that the correct label has to be on the correct device. It also doesn't say the data has to be correct. Obviously we all know the correct data should be on a label which is then on the appropriate equipment.

It is crazy some of the things people do. I'm going to make a public comment for the next 70E.

Fortunately, we actually have updated this article! I believe the last update was in 2018, but we refreshed it again just a couple of months ago. Have attached for anyone who would like the updated version.



We have also updated our arc-flash book - and this information is also included within as a chapter. The book can be downloaded here:
https://www.easypower.com/resources/article/free-arc-flash-safety-book