Hello All

With regards to detailed shock and arc flash warning labels installed on electrical equipment, is this not information overload basically too much confusing information for the front line electrical worker? Consider most labels out there contain the following: limited, restricted, and the soon to be deleted prohibited approach boundaries. In addition to the arc flash boundary, incident energy level and something with regards to PPE level. As most of us are aware this goes beyond the minimum requirements of both CSA Z462 and NFPA 70E. how many electricians really totally understand or care less about all of this information. true I agree it is good information, however crowded on an in most cases a small label? the arc flash boundary for example a calculated distance in which there is said to be 1.2 cal/cm2. Big deal! We mention nothing about the flying shrapnel, hot molten metal, etc that is coming at the worker. So really it is nothing more than a reference point.

For 2018 my proposal is let's tone down the labels, less information and make it easier on our front line electrician.

Best regards


Len

I would respectfully disagree on that there is too much information on the labels. The problem may be the size of the labels as there is no standard for that. We use a 4" x 6" label. As part of the arc flash hazard analysis, most clients will opt for the 8 hr NFPA 70E training option also. This is a great way to educate the qualified electrical workers on what is contained on the labels. The information on the label helps with the pre-job briefing as it contains not only information on the arc flash hazard but also on the shock hazard. And what is wrong with having information on the label that may cause the worker to stop, read the label and maybe think a little more about the task at hand.

I have a concern about the arc flash boundary. It is a very good concept that has the best of intentions but can leave a person with a false sense of security. i.e. your comment about shrapnel, molten metal etc. is a serious concern that is not included as part of the AFB. Many may not be aware of it. Just keeping all unprotected / unqualified people way out of the area (I like big boundaries way beyond what is calculated) is a better approach. Being at a distance outside the 1.2 cal/cm2 is one thing (and important) but having a piece of equipment coming at you at hundreds of miles and hour is a whole different animal. As with anything related to electrical safety, as we all know, it comes down to making sure everyone is well trained and knowledgeable - knowing there is more than the thermal energy.

We now mark all of our labels that unqualified personnel need to stay back ten feet.

At DuraLabel we make extra large size die-cut arc flash labels. But, the point isn't to get more information on the labels. The reason is to provide labels that can be read from a greater distance, when that is required. Arc flash labels need to fulfill two purposes. Quickly deliver their warning message such that unqualified people stay away. And deliver the details qualified people need in such a way that those details can be read from a safe distance. Someone getting close to a hazard (any hazard), so they can read the label telling them how to protect themselves from that hazard, is probably not a safe practice. Having a bold warning "STAY TEN FEET AWAY" on the label is one good approach (thank you Voltrael) to providing the necessary warning.

Hi All

Thank you for the replies to my post. Good discussion. I totally agree that we need to make the labels larger/ more visible, however not for the sake of more information. However as mentioned at the end of the day what are we wanting to accomplish? Provide some information on the potential arc flash energy if one was to happen, thus providing the worker with some guidance on how to dress or prepare for this event. This can be indicated by the calculated incident energy. Also we want our workers to at least be able to establish a safe work zone for themselves and keep the unqualified workers out. We want the electrical worker to be in control of this workspace- which they should be. This can be indicated by the "Limited Approach Boundary". I agree with Jim that the arc flash boundary can provide some false sense of security as it does not accommodate for flying shrapnel, etc. So why even have it on there?? It can be referenced in training, however not sure it needs to be on a label in front of the worker. Or I like Steve's suggestion of a 10 foot default distance. This can accommodate for both shock and arc flash. One distance, keep it simple where unauthorized people stay back a safe distance from both shock and arc flash hazard. Finally, if we are eliminating the prohibited approach boundary then the restricted boundary should be more generalized than our current tables

The calculations used to identify the arc flash boundaries and the incident energy levels helps people understand the significance to the Primary Electrical hazards. With these labels, the employer can address the hazard level and provide for their employees the appropriate level of protection. I agree that the calculations do not address the shrapnel issue and the 3 to 5% chances that can cause injuries and even fatalities. But, what the labeling and PPE does bring an awareness to our culture that the employer, not the employee, is responsible for a safe work condition. And there are ways we can and will mitigate, reduce,perhaps completely eliminate the risks of an arc flash hazards. Providing guards to exposed electrical conductors on the line side of breakers and implementing current limiting fuses on equipment when possible are a couple of examples. Manufacturers are making adjustments to their products to ensure they competitiveness. This is all good stuff.

I usually refrain from commenting, but in this case I am going to make a few comments:

1. The label doesn't apply to normal equipment conditions and therefore you can walk up to the label to read it. The size of the label is not the issue, stay with 4" X 6" it works and it can be applied to electrical equipment because it is 4" X 6" in dimensions. Big labels do nothing. Energized electrical equipment is inherently safe.
2. Do not reinvent the wheel, use the information form the applicable Standards as intended. Companies can define their own specific requirements in their Electrical Safety Program.
3. We need to protect from the heat, yes there is scrapnel etc., but this is not what will cause the fatality. The worker wearing flammable and meltable clothing when doing arc flash risk work is what will cause the burn to be worse. Any incident energy greater than 1.2 cal/cm2 requires arc rated clothing to be worn as the outer layer and natural fibre clothing underneath the arc rated outer layer.

As we move to the 2015 Editions of CSA Z462 and NFPA 70E I sure hope we will all be rationale and practical in how we manage assessing the probability of an arcing fault and an arc flash occurring!!!!

An arcing fault and arc flash have been and will always be a low probability event and even lower probability with all of the emphasis that is been put on it.

WE NEED to pay more attention to the shock hazard where we have statistics that support it it was is injurying and killing workers and not only electrical workers. We need more attention spent on shock.


Regards;
Terry Becker, P.Eng., [url="http://www.esps.ca"]www.esps.ca[/url]
1-403-465-3777

Has there been any discussion about separating the Arc Flash label into two separate labels i.e. one for shock and one for arc?I've found the breakdown of these two hazards and their accompanying boundaries to be a consistent source of confusion in my 70E classes.
I would like to propose a practice (not necessarily a 70E standard) where arc labels are color coded to Z535 i.e. <1.2 Cal/cm^2 yellow, 1.2-40 Cal/cm^2 Orange and >40 Cal/cm^2 Red.
On separate voltage labels, if I had my way, they would have their own hazard level identified: <50v = blue, 50-150v = yellow, 151-1000v = orange and >1000 = red.
I'm using the 150v phase to phase demarcation to reflect the change in Table 130.4(C)(a) Shock Boundaries in the 2015 addition of 70E. The 50-300v "avoid contact" restricted and prohibited approach line item in the 2012 edition will be lowered to 50-150v and the prohibited approach boundary goes away for all voltages.
BTW- the term "avoid contact" will no longer have any countervailing requirement, as per Table 130.7(C)(15)(a) Hazard/Risk Category to wear gloves when performing voltage testing on >50 volt circuits. Glove requirements are gone from this table.
Also, as I read it, in the 2015 edition, there will not be a defined restricted approach boundary for working inside a 120v control panel or other such equipment. Just hold your breath and "avoid contact" with your bare hands!

I too have thought of dual labeling electrical equipment for Shock and Flash hazards--to ease understanding of PPE requirements.

Shock would show a stick person in motion with a lightning bolt, and Flash as a stick person in motion with a jagged radiant pattern--each using the same color code to identify the hazard level, and with verbiage stating minimum PPE requirements and boundaries.

For example: An electrician is called upon to fix an electrical problem at a grocery store...

The electrician checks-in and locates a place to start (some panel). The panel is dual labeled with hazards, but the Flash label information will also protect other people passing by.

With clear and easy to understand dual labeling of electrical hazards, PPE requirements, and their boundaries the electrician will protect all!


---A Sample Label---
Looking at this panel... The left side represents Shock (a local hazard), and the right side represents Flash (a global hazard). And below these sides are their PPE requirements and hazard boundaries.

An idea to toss around...