It's that time again! Another edition of NFPA 70E is nearing the finish line. So here is this week's "question of the week."

Compared to the 2012 Edition, do you believe the 2015 Edition of NFPA 70E will be:

Better
Worse
Neither - Just Different

Your thoughts and comments are encouraged.

Hi Jim,
We know that NEC is adopted as regulation by states, counties or cities and enforced by electrical inspectors. And there is a effective date for each states, like shown below for NEC 2014.
http://www.electricalcodecoalition.org/ ... tions.aspx

Is there such effective date for NFPA 70E 2015? Recently, at IEEE IAS, the speaker mentioned he will be upgrading his studies to NFPA 70E 2015 next year and I was wondering what is holding him back. Should we adhere to something called AHJ (Authority Having Jurisdiction)?

70E is a "voluntary" standard. It is referenced by NEC in a fine print note so it is not incorporated there.

OSHA does not specify that 70E has to be followed. However it represents an industry consensus safety standard. OSHA has referenced 70E and the general duty clause in enforcement actions with regards to arc flash because by the time enforcement came (2006), arc flash was a known hazard and there were specific industry recommendations for it.

An employer can adopt another standard other than 70E, or even write their own. For example, IEEE C2 (NESC) has its own electrical work standards and arc flash hazard rules. As another example, Canada has their own arc flash standard (although except for annexes and numbering, it is word-for-word identical to 70E). There are many good reasons for doing this, not the least of which is the fact that NESC covers voltages >15 kV and is specifically for generation/transmission/distribution equipment. And as of 2015, OSHA themselves have their own arc flash standard in Subchapter R and 1926 Subchapter V. If an employer were to draft their own standards though they would have the burden of proving that their standards are at least equiivalent which could be a more difficult legal hurdle.

States and municipalities do adopt standards, such as those put out by NFPA, as official standards that are essentially laws within their jurisdictions. There often tends to be quite a lag, often one or two code cycles, for official adoption, though.

Being a voluntary standard does not prevent jurisdictions from adopting NFPA 70E as a requirement, at least not in Washington State where some City's have taken to enforcing parts of it.

Back to original question:
I think it would be a worthwhile contribution to remove 70% of the wording of any particular standard if possible. However the bureaucratic minds thus employed seem to think of this as subtraction, not contribution. For this reason alone I am jaded that new codes will always include more authority, more scope, more rules, more verbiage; whether or not any of that makes a material contribution.

Could you please cite at least one municipality that has enacted NFPA70E, in whole or in part, as part of their municipal code? If you can, who enforces the code?

Washington (State) Cities Code, Page 48:

Link: http://www.mybuildingpermit.com/Misc/WA%20Cities%20Elect%20Code%2011-12-09.pdf

The section cited deals with the application of a label which provides incident energy levels (i.e. arc flash information).
There is nothing in that section that requires NFPA70E to be used when determining the data for the labels, which is good as most power systems study calculations are performed using IEEE1584 and not NFPA70E.

Section 80.5 does not even mention NFPA70E as one of the included standards.
Section 85.5 does not explicitly mention the 'actual performance or work tasks' ala OSHA, but rather focuses on the installed material.

Have you worked with the authorities mentioned, to verify your assumptions as to how the standard is enforced?

My experience has been that local authorities accept the general methods of NFPA 70E with the calculating methods of IEEE 1584, so it seems I do not understand your point, unless that is only to do a superior job nitpicking. At the end of the day we make this work rather than argue semantics.

There are other references to arc flash safety within Washington Administrative Code, that use much language borrowed from NFPA 70E, however; the scope of those requirements is a bit fuzzy with some language implying the requirements are for lineworkers which would seem exempt from NFPA70E.

No, I have not. That is why I asked for you for specific references.

I cannot imagine an AHJ that would not rely on a national consensus standard, such as NFPA70E, as a reference but that does not mean such a standard has been adopted as 'law'.