110.16 Flash Protection. Switchboards, panelboards, industrial control panels, and motor control centers that are in other than dwelling occupancies and are likely to require examination, adjustment, servicing, or maintenance while energized shall be field marked to warn qualified persons of potential electric arc flash hazards. The marking shall be located so as to be clearly visible to qualified persons before examination, adjustment, servicing, or maintenance of the equipment.
FPN No. 1: NFPA 70E-2000, Electrical Safety Requirements for Employee Workplaces, provides assistance in determining severity of potential exposure, planning safe work practices, and selecting personal protective equipment.
FPN No. 2: ANSI Z535.4-1998, Product Safety Signs and Labels, provides guidelines for the design of safety signs and labels for application to products.
Flash hazards including not only the intense arc, but the molten metal, the high-pressure wave, and the possibility of projectiles, is something that seems to be addressed more and more these days. It's time has come. It is something that those who work in industrial environments need to be made aware of. I don't seem to recall hearing much about flash hazards until a few years ago. I think many people are still focusing on shock hazards. The regular use of the (proper) PPE is essential. I have a list and a source for all sorts of Nomex clothing, and Arc shields if anyone needs help.
Re: Flash Protection#147147 11/29/0111:01 AM11/29/0111:01 AM
I think that the new section is somewhat contradictory. The new wording requires field marking to warn "qualified persons" of the arc blast/flash hazard. If the person was really "qualified" he would be aware of this safety hazard without the new warning label. Don(resqcapt19)
[This message has been edited by resqcapt19 (edited 11-29-2001).]
Re: Flash Protection#147148 11/29/0111:14 AM11/29/0111:14 AM
As a safety professional I think the new labeling requirements are a step in the right direction.
I also knew that it would not take long for someone to pick-up on the wording about being "qualified" and that a "qualified" person should not have to warned or reminded of the hazards. In my short 12 years as a safety pro I have been involved in 4 arc flashing incidents where employees have received major injuries to their hands and faces. Luckily they have all fully recovered and moved on with their careers. The point is that all of these employees were highly trained and very knowledgable employees, yet it happened to them.
We all forget things and we all make mistakes. An obvious warning label on electrical covers will NOT hurt anyone, but just very well may save a worker from injury.
Prior to having a formal, company-wide Electrical Safety Program one of our experienced (qualified?) electricians was killed by an arc flash. While re-installing a modified bucket back into the MCC, a short circuit occurred (the bucket breaker was shut off, but replacement screws through the back were longer than the originals and contacted the bus) and after lingering for 4 days, the worker died. This prompted the implementation of the program which, among other things, addresses arc flash. As I stated ealier, I don't think that this type of hazard has been adequately addressed in the past. Bryan, Is it just my perception, or have flash-hazards just become more aggressively addressed in main stream electrical safety over the past 5-10 years.
BTW, I know an argument can be made about field-modification of equipment.
Flash protection calc's, PPE, stickers & signs are all fine and well. As one digs deeper into it, 70E, subpart S, there is one fundamental flaw that will almost ensure future mishaps. That is the inability of the *employee doing the work to make the call to shut what's being worked on off.
The fact that this absolutley gray definition of 'qualified' turns up along with 110.16 simply insinuates protection from liability to the powers that be.
The obvious undertone being if one has a mishap, said individual in not 'qualified'.
* Key word...
If you feel this should be amended, we can get together right here and pound out an ROP.
[This message has been edited by sparky (edited 11-29-2001).]
PECO repairman burned Thursday, January 10, 2002 A PECO Energy Co. repairman was burned yesterday as he checked a malfunctioning electric meter outside a commercial building on Biles Island in Falls. Steve Schrader, 36, was burned when a "flash fire" erupted about 8 a.m. after he removed the meter's glass cover, PECO spokesman Michael Wood said. The fire caused second-degree burns on Schrader's cheeks and left ear. A piece of flying metal left a third-degree burn on his face, Wood said. Physicians at Capital Health Systems' Fuld Campus in Trenton told PECO that Schrader wouldn't need plastic surgery. He was expected to stay the night at the hospital and be released today, Wood said. Schrader, a PECO energy technician since 1995, was wearing safety goggles, a hard hat and fire-resistant clothing - the standard gear for field workers, Wood said. He added that the gear most likely prevented Schrader from being more severely burned. Schrader was following up on a complaint of a damaged meter at the Penn Warner Group, a building on Biles Island, Wood said. The Penn Warner Group is a subsidiary of Waste Management Inc., which owns the island, WMI spokeswoman Judy Archibald said. The problem was caused by a circuit board owned by Penn Warner Group. As a precaution, PECO shut power to the building, Wood said. Most of Biles Island's 467 acres are mined by the Penn Warner Group for the stone and gravel used to bury trash at WMI's landfills in Falls and Tullytown. About 41 acres of the island's northern tip have been designated a wildlife preserve, Archibald said.
For more news on electrical accidents or other industrial accidents, go to www.SAFTENG.net Serious Incident Alert Archives