What The Change Of The Nfpa 2018

James R. White, VP of Training Services, Shermco Industries, for Fluke

With the contempo release of the 2018 edition of the NFPA 70E standard, many users are finding it challenging to translate what it says and prioritize where they should focus their attention. The brusk answer is that the unabridged 70E standard is important; not just ane chapter, article or section. All the same, this article highlights 10 changes that the author believes are most important.

New Tabular array 130.5(C), Estimate of the Likelihood of Occurrence of an Arc Flash Incident for air-conditioning and dc Systems

This table replaces Tabular array 130.7(C)(15)(A)(a), Arc Flash Chance Identification for Alternating Current (ac) and Direct Electric current (dc) Systems in the 2015 70E standard. (Run across figure 1a.) In addition to the title and location change, the new Table 130.5(C) in the 2018 standard changed the third cavalcade heading from "Arc Wink PPE Required" to "Likelihood of Occurrence". Department 130.5(C) of the 2018 standard also states that "Table 130.5(C) shall be permitted to be used to estimate the likelihood of occurrence of an arc flash upshot to decide if additional protective measures are required." Utilize of arc flash-rated clothing and PPE is 1 of the additional protective measures listed. (See Figure 1b.)

Figure 1a
Tabular array 130.seven(C)(15)(A)(a) (Partial) NFPA 70E 2015 Edition

Effigy 1b
Table 130.5(C) (Partial) NFPA 70E 2018 Edition

Why the change?

The 70E standard is written for field electrical workers, not for engineers or attorneys, although they may employ it. Over the last several cycles, the 70E commission has tried to meliorate the usability of the standard, especially the arc flash PPE tables, to make it much easier for field electric workers to use. By moving Tabular array 130.5(C) into the body of the standard information technology can exist used equally part of an arc flash run a risk cess for both the Table Method and when arc flash alert labels are used.

Lesser line:

The new table is useful, but information technology cannot accept the place of experience or expertise. This table should exist used cautiously. The person in front of the equipment nearly to perform a task must determine its suitability and appraise the equipment's condition, including its status of maintenance, before performing that task. Use of this table is "permitted", significant information technology's an option—it can be used, just is not mandatory. At the stop of Table 130.5(C) it states that to apply the table, equipment must exist in normal operating condition:

"Equipment condition considered to be 'normal' if all of the following circumstances apply:

• The equipment is properly installed in accordance with the manufacturer'south recommendations and applicable industry codes and standards.
• The equipment is properly maintained in accord with the manufacturer'southward recommendations and applicable industry codes and standards.
• The equipment is used in accordance with instructions included in the listing and labeling and in accordance with manufacturer's instructions.
• Equipment doors are airtight and secured.
• Equipment covers are in place and secured.
• There is no bear witness of impending failure such equally arcing, overheating, loose or spring equipment parts, visible damage, or deterioration."

Be sure too to read and understand the note (*) at the end of the table that states, in part:

"The estimate of the likelihood of occurrence independent in this tabular array does not embrace every possible condition or situation, nor does it address severity of injury or damage to health. Where this tabular array identifies "No" equally an estimate of likelihood of occurrence, information technology means that an arc flash incident is not likely to occur. Where this table identifies "Yes" as an estimate of likelihood of occurrence, information technology ways that additional protective measures are required to exist selected and implemented according to the hierarchy of risk control identified in 110.1(H)."

Exist aware that "Non likely to occur" does not mean it won't happen. It just means there is a reduced run a risk of occurrence. Use your all-time judgement, in addition to this table, when assessing take chances.

DC voltage shock threshold inverse back to 50V

This threshold was changed dorsum to 50V from 100V to comply with OSHA regulations.

Why the change?

In the 2015 70E review wheel the shock threshold for dc volts was inverse to 100 Vdc (See Figure 2a) afterwards a majority the 70E committee was convinced to practice so by a very convincing dissertation from a well-respected speaker.

Effigy 2a
Table 130.4(D)(b) (Fractional) NFPA 70E 2015 Edition

Although technically, the speaker was correct, OSHA didn't concur with him. So during the 2018 review bicycle OSHA distributed a Letter of the alphabet of Interpretation to the commission, dated September four, 2015 that stated that OSHA would cite whatsoever employer who did non observe its 50 Vac or Vdc threshold. The letter included examples where workers had been killed by voltages under fifty V. Based on the input from OSHA, the committee reversed its stance on the daze threshold and went back to the 50 Vdc value. (See Effigy 2b.)

Figure 2b
Table 130.4(D)(b) (Fractional) NFPA 2018 Edition

Bottom line:

The shock threshold for ac and dc voltages is once once again 50 V to comply with OSHA regulations. This is based on a section of the Foreword in the 70Estandard that states "The committee would develop a standard for electric installations that would be uniform with the OSHA requirements for employee safe..."

New Table 130.five(Thou), Pick of Arc-Rated Clothing and Other PPE When the Incident Energy Analysis Method Is Used

In the 2018 70E standard, Table 130.5(G) replaces Tabular array H.three(b) from the 2015 standard. The new table provides guidance on how to select PPE when using the incident free energy analysis method and was moved to the body of the standard.

Why the alter?

In previous editions of the 70E standard Table H.3(b) (see Figure 3a) was located in Informative Annex H. Workers commented that there was no method for selecting all the PPE required when using the incident energy analysis method, because Table H.3(b) was in Annex H and annihilation in the annexes is not considered office of the standard. As a result, Table H.3(b) was not being used as intended. In the 2018 70E the table was modified to eliminate any clothing or PPE under 1.2 cal/cm2, because information technology only deals with arc-rated clothing and other PPE. The tabular array was renamed Table 130.5(G) and put into the body of the standard. Its utilise is "permitted", meaning it'southward an selection—it tin exist used, only is not mandatory.

Figure 3a
Table H.3(b) (Partial) NFPA 70E 2015 Edition

Figure 3b
Table 130.5(G) (Partial) NFPA 70E 2018 Edition

Bottom line:

If arc-rated clothing and PPE is to be selected using arc flash alert labels, Table 130.5(One thousand) can exist used to aid in choosing arc-rated and other PPE. Users are cautioned non to mix the Table Method with the incident free energy analysis method for selecting their arc-rated habiliment and PPE. The two methods are not compatible and could cause bug. The Tabular array Method is used when estimating the bachelor error current and operating fourth dimension of the overcurrent protective device (OCPD). Table 130.5(G) is used when the equipment has arc flash warning labels on information technology.

70E Committee sets minimum CPR and First Assist grooming intervals

The 2018 70E edition now states in 110.2(C)(2)(d) "Training shall occur at a frequency that satisfies the requirements of the certifying torso." Thus the 70E committee that it sets minimum requirements for CPR and First Aid training, non best safe piece of work practices.

Why the change?

In previous editions of the 70E, CPR, Start Aid, and AED training were required annually. This may have been more frequent than the requirements fix by diverse organizations (such as the American Heart Clan (AHA), for the full general public, but electrical workers face a much greater risk from ventricular fibrillation due to daze than the general public.

During the 2018 70E review cycle the result came up that the 70E does not ready all-time prophylactic work practices; it sets minimum requirements. Companies are to come across or exceed the requirements in the 70E.

Bottom line:

The idea of the 70E standard setting minimum standards vs. best condom piece of work practices has been the subject of several discussions among committee members in the by. In general, the committee has voted to plant that the 70E standard indeed sets minimum requirements, not best prophylactic piece of work practice. Equally role of that approach, the standard states that the preparation interval requirement follows that of the certifying body. For example, if the American Heart Association's interval for recertification is 2 years, that is the new requirement from the 70E. However, as a practical matter workers are probably not going to remember how to perform CPR or First Aid nether the stresses of an emergency situation, knowing that someone'southward life could hang in the remainder, after more a year. So the author strongly recommends annual training for CPR, Get-go Aid, and/or AED use (if an AED is available at the piece of work site.)

Forget the 40 cal/cm2 incident energy threshold

Incident free energy is not a adept mensurate of the pressure level wave that might be created by an arc event. The committee did non want workers to recall that an arc issue under 40 cal/cm2 was not serious, so the threshold was deleted.

Why the modify?

In previous editions, the 70E contained an Advisory Note in 130.7(A) that stated, "When incident free energy exceeds forty cal/cm2 at the working distance, greater emphasis may be necessary with respect to de-energizing when exposed to electric hazards." This was the "line in the sand" companies and workers used to decide what was safe and what could not be worked on. Withal, that is not what the Informational Note said. It but stated that extra efforts should be made to de-energize equipment, non that information technology could not be worked on. In general, most people would say that equipment rated higher up 40 cal/cm2 is off limits. I'm good with that.

The trouble with that Informational Annotation is that it was created during the 2000 review cycle. Our understanding of arc flash and arc nail has inverse considerably since and so. In that location are situations when incident energy below 40 cal/cm2 might be more chancy than when information technology is above that level. For instance, a error that releases 40 cal/cm2 over 30 cycles volition create less arc pressure than ane that releases its energy in two cycles, all things being equal. We now know that pressure moving ridge (arc blast) is related to the mistake electric current, non incident free energy, because information technology is an instantaneous event.

Lesser line:

There is no such thing as a "condom" arcing mistake. Incident energy is non a proficient measure out of the pressure moving ridge that might be created past an arc. Equipment rated in a higher place 40 cal/cm2 should be de-energized earlier existence worked on. But equipment rated beneath that level should be because an arc effect under twoscore cal/cm2 tin be serious as well.

The first permanently mounted absence-of-voltage test device is approved

A new exception was added to section 120.5, which states "Exception No. 1: An adequately rated permanently mounted test device shall exist permitted to be used to verify the absence of voltage of the conductors or circuit parts at the work location, provided information technology meets the all post-obit requirements:

• It is permanently mounted and installed in accordance with the manufacturer'south instructions and tests the conductors and circuit parts at the signal of work;
• It is listed and labeled for the purpose of verifying the absenteeism of voltage;
• It tests each phase conductor or excursion part both stage-to-phase and phase-to-footing;
• The exam device is verified as operating satisfactorily on any known voltage source before and after verifying the absenteeism of voltage."

Why the change?

This is a watershed moment for the 70E. In the past, the committee has been approached past manufacturers of LED indicator lights wanting to gain blessing for their devices as an absence-of-voltage tester. We pointed to the OSHA Letter of Interpretation dated December 12, 2012, which states in part".

" Question 1: Can the type of device described in a higher place be used to verify that isolation and de-energization of the machine or equipment have been accomplished under 29 CFR 1910.147(d)(6)?
Response: No. Notwithstanding, the blazon of device that you describe, if installed correctly and maintained, might serve only equally a redundant indicator that the disconnecting device is in the open ("off") position."

In the 2018 review cycle a company presented a product that met a new UL standard and meets the requirements of a true absenteeism-of-voltage tester. (See Effigy 4.) The committee questioned both the company's representative and the UL representative at length, and determined that the device presented was acceptable. The new exception noted in a higher place was and so added to 120.v.

Lesser line:

An LED indicator low-cal is not an absence-of-voltage test musical instrument. At the time of this writing, there is only one such test instrument currently manufactured. LED indicator lights tin can provide a first indication, but a qualified person must even so perform a manual absenteeism-of-voltage examination using a hand-held test musical instrument and test phase-to-phase and phase-to-ground.

Effigy 4
Permanently mounted absence-of-voltage test device

All mandatory reference to other standards are removed

Standards that had been mandatory are now independent in Advisory Notes. For example, 1 mandatory reference in the 2015 edition of 70E—130.7(F)—has been renumbered to 130.seven(G) and at present reads "Other protective equipment required in 130.7(D) shall conform to the applicable state, federal, or local codes and standards.

Informational Annotation: The standards listed in Table 130.7(Chiliad), which is part of this Informational Note, are examples of standards that contain information on other protective equipment."

This change generated a lot of discussion amid commission members, particularly those from the standards organizations. In past editions, the 70E has stated that arc-rated wear and PPE must run across the ASTM standards for those articles of PPE. This was done to prevent unsafe PPE, especially arc-rated habiliment and PPE, from being used by workers.

Why the alter?

The NFPA wanted to remove mandatory references to other standards because the 70E is used in many countries, non just the US. Requiring another country to follow a US-based standard when it may exist required by constabulary to follow some other, created conflicts. So mandatory references to other standards were removed.

Lesser line:

In nigh cases PPE is mandated by OSHA to meet ASTM and other standards, so this is not as serious equally some expressed. This author would have kept the mandatory references to other standards, just acknowledges that it does limit the use of the 70E in other countries which do not use Us standards.

New requirement for a conformity assessment for PPE

Section 130.7(C)(14)(b) requires that PPE comply with a conformity assessment. This requirement is based on ANSI/ISEA 125, American National Standard for Conformity Assessment of Condom and Personal Protective Equipment. Informative Annex H.4 contains detailed information nearly the conformity assessment requirements.

Why the change?

With mandatory references to other standards eliminated in the 70E, the committee believed that some other mechanism was needed to ensure workers were provided with adequate arc-rated vesture and other types of PPE. Figure five below illustrates the importance of conformity assessments, even when there were mandatory requirements to meet ASTM standards. The clothing in Figure 5 was purchased because it had an ATPV (Arc Thermal Performance Value or arc rating) on a label and stated it had an HRC 2 rating.

Effigy 5
Garment is mislabeled. It is not arc-rated

The inside label stated that it meets NFPA 2112 for flash fires, but makes no mention of ASTM F1506. Workers in refineries and the like are often required to wear flame resistant (FR) protective clothing that meets NFPA 2112. However, electrical workers face a risk of arc flash. The difference? Flash fires are irksome burning and the heat is much less. Arc flashes produce farthermost heat for a very short period of fourth dimension. Thus, electricians must clothing F1506 (arc-rated) clothing.

Bottom line:

The habiliment to a higher place is FR, not arc-rated and is inadequate for workers exposed to arc wink events. The wearable tin can be rated for both, but this example clearly does non state that it meets the requirements for arc-rated clothing. A conformity assessment would have caught this result.

Revised footnote for Table 130.7(C)(7)

The footnote was revised to get in clear that new rubber insulating gloves beingness placed into service are required to take been tested within 12 months.

Figure 6
Revised table footnote in the 2018 edition

Why the change?

The previous table footnote was unclear. Even the representatives from OSHA and ASTM did non share the same opinion. However, the 70E committee and OSHA and ASTM representatives agreed that rubber insulating gloves should go no longer than 12 months without existence tested. According to the OSHA representative, gloves are considered placed into service when they are purchased, not when they are handed out. He noted that rubber insulating gloves are tested when they are manufactured, but could sit up to two years before being purchased by the end user. So the committee decided to revise the footnote to brand its meaning more understandable. (See Figure half-dozen.)

Lesser line:

When gloves are purchased they should exist tested. They should so be tested every six months afterwards. If they are non in service, they can sit for up to 12 months, but so would require testing. Once tested, they must be tested every six months thereafter.

New human error risk assessment procedure

Section 110.i(H)(2) is a new requirement covering the risk assessment procedure for "Human Fault". It states:

" (two) Human being Fault. The risk cess procedure shall address the potential for human error and its negative consequences on people, processes, the piece of work environment, and equipment. Informational Note: The potential for human mistake varies with factors such as tasks and the work environs. See Informative Annex Q."

New Informative Annex Q provides fantabulous guidance on human performance and its relationship to workplace safety. It includes human performance modes and their associated errors, tools to meliorate human functioning, and human being performance warning flags.

Why the change?

Experts gauge the percentage of incidents acquired by some form of human failure to be from 75% to 85%. With that per centum of incidents then high, it is reasonable that efforts be made to try to reduce the number of man errors.

Bottom line:

If no effort is made to account for man functioning errors, the chances of them occurring increase. This author doubts that anyone could list all the human errors possible for whatsoever one task. But that is not the intent of this new requirement or Informative Annex Q. The goal of the requirement is to try to determine what errors could be made, so apply human performance tools to effort to account for them.

Determination

This article only touches on some of the revisions to the 2018 edition of NFPA 70E. Many recurring or global changes are non covered hither. The NFPA 70E committee reviews the deportment information technology has taken in the past, then tries to improve what is written to make the 70E as clear and usable for the field service technician as possible. It is upward to the user to interpret the 70E and employ it in the workplace. The author suggests that each user visit the NFPA 70E page and review the deportment and commission statements for each action. These provide even more insight into why the committee took a specific action and the intent of that activeness.

James (Jim) R. White, Vice President of Training Services, has worked for Shermco Industries Inc. since 2001. He is a National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) Certified Electrical Safety Compliance Professional (CESCP) and a NETA Level IV Senior Technician. Jim is NETA'due south principle member on NFPA Technical Committee NFPA 70E ^® Standard for Electrical Rubber in the Workplace ^®, NETA's principle representative on National Electrical Code ^® (NEC ^®) Lawmaking-Making Panel (CMP) 13, and represents NETA on ASTM International Technical Committee F18 Electrical Protective Equipment for Workers. Jim is Shermco Industries' chief member on NFPA Technical Commission for NFPA 70B: Recommended Practice for Electric Equipment Maintenance and represents AWEA (American Current of air Energy Association) on the ANSI/ISEA Standard 203 Secondary Single-Apply Flame Resistant Protective Article of clothing for Use Over Primary Flame Resistant Protective Article of clothing. An IEEE Senior Member, Jim received the IEEE/IAS/PCIC Electric Rubber Excellence Honor in 2011 and NETA'south Outstanding Achievement Accolade in 2013. Jim was Chairman of the IEEE Electrical Prophylactic Workshop in 2008 and is currently Vice-Chair for the IEEE IAS/PCIC Safety Subcommittee. With offices stretching from Houston, TX to Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada, Shermco has several infrared thermographers in the field at any once.

For more than information on Electrical Rubber, see our online course available at the Fluke eLearning Center.

Source: https://www.fluke.com/en-id/learn/blog/electrical/top-10-changes-to-2018-nfpa-70e-safety-standards-for-electricians#:~:text=In%20the%202018%2070E%20the,used%2C%20but%20is%20not%20mandatory.

Posted by: rodriguezfloory38.blogspot.com

Share this post