The 2002 NEC now requires contractors to mark switchboards, panelboards, industrial control panels, and motor control centers, in other than dwelling units. This new requirement is making a lot of people mad.

1) If you are an electrical contractor or work for one, what would be written on the label(s) so your job complies with the new code and passes inspection? Or, if you are an inspector, what would you require on the label for you to pass the job?

2) Do you agree with this new code? Why or why not?

Possibly there can be several correct answers to number 1, but lets brainstorm and see what we all come up with.

"While energized " are the key words their. Not everything has to be worked on "while energized" So again the code leaves it up to the AHJ to determine what has to or doesn't have to be worked on "while energized" thus having conflicting interpetation from juresdiction to juresdiction.And putting in another gray area in the code. BUT Thank God for the Florida Building Code that took away all that confusion from one juresdiction to another Isn't that like watching an egg boil in water and instead of getting a spoon to get it out you reach in and get it with your hand."My momma always said stupid is as stupid does".Come on isn't this electric 101 safety 1st! Or do you think it was just another thing pushed by insurance companies?
The question is, how to make it more specific. Maybe make the manufactor of the product put in another sticky label to get someones attention. Remember this article says "to warn qualified persons". Maybe better yet and I mean this, more education and bring back the journeymen requirement back to Florida to possibly better identify a qualified person, and have more of them on the jobs to better teach the not qualified. This is constuction and it is electricity and it is all about safety, isn't it."I don't mean to go off on a rant here". (As Dennis Miller would say). Bring back journeymen and define qualified not just in definition but by education and practicality.

Your right a big problem we all have!!! In addition to your response, the code section only gives guidance in the form of two FPN. They refer to NFPA 70e and ANSIz535. This defines the design of the label that we are to use, but the problem; it again is difficult to require this manufactured label per ANSIz535 because of a reference in the form of a FPN. I can see a contractor using a marker, writing on the panel cover, and expecting this to fly??? But than again how can we reject him without an enforceable code section? If he were to write in marker:

Warning: Arc Flash hazards exist wile working on this energized equipment. Would that meet the main section of the code even though it’s written in marker?????

To put another iron in the fire, if you look at the ROP for this code change you can see that it is the intent of the submitter and the code panel comment to require the label to meet the design requirements of ANSIz535. But again can we require an ANSI design label based on a FPN???

The IBEW sent in proposals for the 2005 NEC to require that the label also show the arc flash boundary, as well as the PPE. They are expecting that contractors will have to calculate the flash boundary and list the type PPE protection required per NFPA 70e!!!!

Soon it will be time that we can all comment on the 2005 changes and get our 2 cents in!

Any way if needed I understand that Brady, T&B, Ideal etc... have the ANSI designed labels available as well as A company called HCS at www.safetylabel.com. They have a catalog because there are so many types available.

Just for anyone who is interested, you can go to www.nfpa.org and see the link to the NEC Digest. There you will be able to download the proposals for all code panels, and at the bottom of that page you may also download the proposal comment forms.

Lots of good info also in the IAEI mag with samples of the required label.

Nick

Nick;
1. That is one of the problems with that code section. How can we require a ANSI designed label when the reference to that label is in a FPN which we all know isn't part of the code and not enforceable?

2. If a contractor uses a marker and writes the warning on the equipment did that meet the code section?

3. The code section doesn't even tell us specifically what wording is to be used for this marking.

I e-mailed Don Shields at NFPA today hoping to get some of their insight on these matters, so I'll let you know what they come up with.

How are you going to look at this?

Hi Mike,

IAEI magazine admits that 110.16 merely requires the warning (without all the details).

I would require some type of label. I don't think writing with marker on the exterior of the equipment constitutes "clearly visible," at least not in my opinion. So I would require some type of label which draws attention.

I would probably want to see something like:

WARNING ! ARC FLASH HAZARD !
USE CAUTION
PERSONAL PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT IS REQUIRED.

and that's it. In IAEI mag the example uses the abbreviation PPE instead of writing out "personal protective equipment" but I think I would like to see it written out. That's just my opinion but I think it makes the point better than "PPE."

I agree with you that the FPN can not be enforced.

Anyone else have some examples??

Nick;
And you see that is the problem with that code section. Not enough positive info in the main paragraph. I've talked to many and it seems that I'm getting different viewpoints on how they are going to deal with this. Some are like you that will require a label designed to meet ANSI, and some are going to permit the contractor to use a marker. This just makes for much confusion as to what will be required from one jurisdiction to another.

For everybody's information, the ROP will be available on July 11, 2003 and we have up to the October 31, 2003 deadline to send in comments on this subject.

In addition;
Bussman has an arc-flash calculator on there web-site. You only need to put in the overcurrent size, and the fault current, and in seconds you have all the calculations. See www.bussman.com

P.S Sorry to beat a dead horse.

Nick & Mike,
I have a presentation that we have done for Ford Motor Company and Visteon regarding Arc-Flash and NFPA70E. I am actually doing the presentation Wednesday, 7/9/03 at the Central IAEI Meeting. Also, Mike is arranging for one to be done at the North Florida meeting as well. The presentation goes over the NEC requirements, what the label looks like, and NFPA70E requirements along with OSHA requirments. Also, we have a video showing testing of arc-flash and what the results of injury would be and how to minimize it using overcurrent protective devices. Remember, this is the first time it has made the NEC, therefore, the next cycle will probably be more detailed. NFPA70E is the standard that OSHA uses for enforcing arc-flash and safe work practices.

As you know, when installing and conditioning equipment, a lot of times it needs to be energized. The only way it is absolutely de-energized is when the upstream feeder is turned off and locked out. Let me know what you think?