It is currently Fri Aug 14, 2020 2:11 am



Post new topic Reply to topic
Author Message
ekstra   ara
 Post subject: What are the major differences between Z462 and NFPA 70E?
PostPosted: Thu Mar 05, 2009 3:11 pm 

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 3:07 pm
Posts: 1
Can someone tell me the major differences between Z462 and NFPA 70E? Or direct me to a write up on the topic? Any help would be much appreciated. Thanks.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Mar 06, 2009 5:38 am 

Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 7:39 am
Posts: 5
Location: Aurora, Ontario, Canada
Z462: Metric system (primaliry), French and English versions, ref. to CEC and other Canadian codes and standards.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Mar 06, 2009 7:49 am 
Sparks Level

Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 7:05 am
Posts: 252
Additional informational annexes:
- Annex A, "Aligning implementation of this Standard with occupational health and safety management Standards"
- Annex B, "Safety-related electrical maintenance"
- Annex P, "Arc rating, arc thermal performance value, and breakopen threshold energy"
- Annex Q, "Arc flash and shock warning labels"
- Annex R, "Bibliography" (which replaces annexes A and B of NFPA 70E 2009)

Also different formatting, different numbering for clauses and tables, some rephrasing, some additional typos, some removed typos (I hope for the latter).

BTW, the French version is not yet available on http://www.shopcsa.com.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Mar 22, 2009 9:23 am 
Sparks Level

Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2007 5:00 pm
Posts: 114
Location: Calgary, Alberta, Canada
French version should be available shortly.

A handbook will be coming sometime this year.

CSA is also reviewing additional support products such as a software based CSA Z467 Self Assessment Audit Tool.

CSA may also offer training in building Electrical Safety Programs and completing Electrical Safety Audits.

Otherwise they are technically harmonized on shock and arc flash hazard analysis.

Note there is an error in Annex Q, should be black lettering on orange background.

There are not other errors reported to date.

I am on the CSA Z462 Technical Committee, next meeting is in Regina, April 2-3.

Regards;
Terry Becker
http://www.esps.ca
[email protected]


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 23, 2009 5:39 am 
Sparks Level

Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 7:05 am
Posts: 252
Terry Becker wrote:
CSA is also reviewing additional support products such as a software based CSA Z467 Self Assessment Audit Tool.


You mean CSA Z462? I can't find valid references to CSA Z467 elsewhere than this post on Google.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 23, 2009 10:19 am 

Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2008 2:02 pm
Posts: 20
Location: Spokane Wa
Marleyone wrote:
Can someone tell me the major differences between Z462 and NFPA 70E? Or direct me to a write up on the topic? Any help would be much appreciated. Thanks.

Like everyone else stated, CSA Z462 is based on the NFPA 70E and has the same information. The numbering is different and it references the CEC rather than NEC but that is about it.

I do think that the additional Annexes at the end are a great improvement other what is provided in 70E however.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 15, 2009 5:09 am 

Joined: Thu Mar 12, 2009 12:26 pm
Posts: 2
CSA differences

I haven't seen the 2009 version of 70E, but there are some rather significant differences between CSA Z462 2008 and NFPA-70E 2004.

One detail that has a big impact and is easy to miss is that Z462 4.3.3.4 requires the date of evaluation to be identified on the arc flash and shock hazard warning labels. We found that some of the software based on NFPA 70E did not print the date. We also chose to add the identification of the company that did our hazard analysis on the warning labels, like the detailed label in annex Q.4.

Z462 does not clearly define 'working near', but 70E does - it is work within the limited approach boundary.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Sep 15, 2009 5:34 am 
Sparks Level
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 10, 2009 5:00 pm
Posts: 263
Location: Toronto
Eugene wrote:
Z462: Metric system (primaliry), French and English versions, ref. to CEC and other Canadian codes and standards.


AFA v3.0 allows to perform the analysis using metric (mm, Joules ), imperial units (inches, calories ), or a mix of both. It also is capable to create warning labels ( high res JPG and BMP) in English, French or Spanish.

_________________
Michael Furtak, C.E.T.
http://arcadvisor.com


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Sep 15, 2009 2:27 pm 
Sparks Level

Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 7:05 am
Posts: 252
arcad wrote:
[url="http://www.arcadvisor.com/arcflash/arc_flash_analytic.html"]AFA v3.0[/url] allows to perform the analysis using metric (mm, Joules ), imperial units (inches, calories ), or a mix of both. It also is capable to create warning labels ( high res JPG and BMP) in English, French or Spanish.


Honestly, I don't understand the reason to offer the IE in Joules. All garments and PPE that I know of are rated in calories/cm^2. It's not as if that result can be the basis of another calculation... I only see that as a possible source of confusion in the future, same as the IE from IEEE 1584 which is in Joules also.

And I say that being a Canadian, buying butter in a 454 g pack.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Sep 15, 2009 2:30 pm 
Plasma Level

Joined: Mon Jun 02, 2008 11:58 am
Posts: 1103
Location: Charlotte, NC
WarrenC wrote:
One detail that has a big impact and is easy to miss is that Z462 4.3.3.4 requires the date of evaluation to be identified on the arc flash and shock hazard warning labels. We found that some of the software based on NFPA 70E did not print the date. We also chose to add the identification of the company that did our hazard analysis on the warning labels, like the detailed label in annex Q.4.

.


I think those are both excellent ideas.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Oct 21, 2009 7:19 am 

Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2009 7:59 am
Posts: 4
just saw this. very helpful, thanks.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Oct 22, 2009 5:43 pm 
Sparks Level

Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2007 5:00 pm
Posts: 114
Location: Calgary, Alberta, Canada
FYI there is one errro in Annex Q, the Warning should be black on orange background.

We are also into 2nd Cycle on Z462, I just got back from Technical Committee meetings in Montreal.

We will be removing the HRC from the detailed label, is should not be on the detailed label if you have performed engineering based Arc Flash Hazard Analysis.

I am the Working Group 8 Annexes Leader on the Z462 Technical Committee.

If you have any questions please get in touch with me.

Regards;
Terry Becker, P.Eng., CSA Z462 Technical Commitee Voting Member
ESPS Electrical Safety Program Solutions INC.
[email protected]


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Oct 22, 2009 5:59 pm 
Sparks Level

Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 7:05 am
Posts: 252
I just posted in the other thread. Now I understand where Z462 is headed.

Don't forget Annex B (on the one-line), it has the same kind of double info.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Nov 20, 2009 7:55 pm 
Sparks Level

Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2007 5:00 pm
Posts: 114
Location: Calgary, Alberta, Canada
FYI the units issue does have significant potential problems.

In my detailed Electrical Safety Audit work I have come across detailed Arc Flash & Shock Warning labels in the same Plant that were labeled one with joules/cm2 and the other with calories/cm2.

Labels need to be managed, I offer to my clients to develop a Labelling Specificaiton & Schedule that ensures that the "Owner" controls the labels:

1. Defines the label they want with the information required. I authored Annex Q in CSA Z462 because there was no direction on labels. The footer on the detailed label shown should be specified by the "Owner" as this information is critical to the integrity of the labels.
2. You need to control where the labels are located, this is also another significant finding in the Electrical Safety Audits I have performed.

ALL of the arc rating clothing is and will be sold in calories/cm2, if the manufacturers every start to produce it only labeled in joules/cm2 we will have MAJOR problems with workers getting the wrong arc rated clothing.

Regards;
Terry Becker, P.Eng.
Owner
ESPS Electrical Safety Program Solutions INC.
403-465-3777


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Feb 20, 2011 2:34 pm 

Joined: Sat Dec 12, 2009 11:57 am
Posts: 2
Any particular reason why the experssion "etc..." was removed in the Z462(french version) while it is kept in the NPFA-70E, article 130.2, (3) Exemptions to Work Permit?

We are debating the fact of "rack out/in" circuit breakers, plug-in disconneting switches or starters without turning off the electrical power on major swithgears or MCC.

Roman N


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Feb 22, 2011 7:02 am 
Sparks Level

Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 7:05 am
Posts: 252
b1fovb63 wrote:
Any particular reason why the experssion "etc..." was removed in the Z462(french version) while it is kept in the NPFA-70E, article 130.2, (3) Exemptions to Work Permit?

We are debating the fact of "rack out/in" circuit breakers, plug-in disconneting switches or starters without turning off the electrical power on major swithgears or MCC.

Roman N


French version of CSA Z462-08: "... comme les essais, le dépannage et les mesures de tension ..." (no "etc.")
English version of CSA Z462-08: "... such as testing, troubleshooting, and voltage measuring ..." (no etc.")
NFPA 70E-2009: "... such as testing, troubleshooting, voltage measuring, etc., ..."

My take on this is that CSA Z462-08 (English version) had the "etc." removed because it was redundant with "such as", which already convey the idea that there are more tasks than only those listed that can be used for the exemption.

The French version was simply translated to French.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Feb 22, 2011 8:28 am 
Sparks Level

Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2010 11:52 am
Posts: 110
Location: Yankton SD/ Lead SD
Maybe I am missing something here, but I don't think that racking breakers, installing bus plugs and like work, would fall under the exeption of an EEWP.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Feb 22, 2011 9:59 am 
Plasma Level
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2007 5:00 pm
Posts: 1503
Location: Scottsdale, Arizona
Sounds like some pretty good "interaction" which can create the potential for an arc flash. Exempting tasks like racking and installing bus plugs from the EEWP is not the intent.

I conducted a survey about "interaction" a few weeks ago. The results (not a scientific poll - just our humble opinions) are at [url="http://arcflashforum.com/showthread.php?t=1419"]INTERACTION SURVEY[/url].

_________________
Jim Phillips, P.E.
Brainfiller.com


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 18 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:  
cron
© 2019 Arcflash Forum / Brainfiller, Inc. | P.O. Box 12024 | Scottsdale, AZ 85267 USA | 800-874-8883