Do you feel the date of the study should be included on the arc flash warning labels?

• Yes
• No

It is interesting that NFPA 70E requires the study to be reviewed periodically, not to exceed 5 years but yet there is no requirement for putting a date on the label to know when it has been 5 years. I understand Canada's CSA Z462 does require the date which makes more sense. It looks like most people do place the date on the label anyway.

The only benefits I can see in having the date on the label is 1. to have the old label grandfathered in everytime the requirement changes (seems to change a lot) and 2. To force each plant site to review the study.
It is an unnecessary expense to have to print and apply new labels every 5 years for our manufacturing plants. It is job security for the A&E firms. Which jobs are more likely to go overseas if costs are not contained? The manufacturing jobs.

Don't get me wrong. Safety is important. However, when we keep pushing and pushing the safety comes at a very high price (Our Jobs!). We can have greatly improved electrical safety, maybe not perfect, and have our jobs. At some point the NFPA, IEEE and OSHA committees need to start adding work efficiency into their equations.

I feel better now.

I would just as soon know when the study was last done. I would also like to know who did the study and whether it was done using software or someone just crunched the numbers and put them on the label.

If I run a new study, or even a partial study, I don't want to have to replace every label in the facility if I don't have to.

I started working at my present location with my present company three months ago. The company had previously had the arc flash studies done by consultants, as part of a greater overall engineering study of the electrical system (short circuit and coordination studies). I have been reviewing the data and finding lots of omissions. As I update individual parts of the mill I'd like to be able to update any labels needed in that area. If I have to put a date on the labels, I could end up with a dozen different dates on labels throughout the mill, which could be quite confusing for workers looking closely at the labels.

I would think you should update the labels on the equipment affected by the partial study only. The date on the equipment not encompassed by the partial study would remain the same. The date on the label would indeed indicate when the last study was done for each piece of equipment.

If you have a lot of fire extinguishers and inspect them on a rotating schedual - like our facility does - if you look at the inspection tag, the inspection date is a good reflection of whether or not an inspection is due. In the same manner the date on the label for each piece of equipment indicates when the last study was done. This can indicate whether the data is current, especially if you know that something has been changed in the system.

Larry,

This leads to the problem of having to print and replace labels every 5 years for no reason. Arc flash studies should be treated like other required OSHA regs such as training. Every person doesn't get an ear tag. The records of the training, or in this case the arc flash study, should be kept in a secure location for inspection.

If the added expense would truly increase safety then it could probably be justified. I don't think it would make anyone safer.

I think several people are making an assumption that is untrue here.
Yes you have to REVIEW the study, but that does not mean you have to repint and reapply the labels every time. As long as nothing has changed, you do not need to reprint a single lable.

We have put the date on the labels we print, and have done so almost since we started.

I wonder why Canada's CSA Z462 requires the date and NFPA 70E does not. I thought they were the same or almost the same standard.

Review (not necessarily change) study: yes, agree with this.

"Partial" study: sometimes, sometimes not. One of the big issues with changes in the underlying equipment is that if you add a significant amount of inductive load (large motors), you can increase upstream available fault currents and thus incident energy.

Something I have been pushing for a while is to just put the arc rating on the label and not the calculated incident energy. Similar to a short circuit study where the report is used to confirm the AIC rating of equipment, the arc flash study can follow the same approach.

That way upon review or revision of the study, as long as the arc rating on the label is still OK, then no need to re-label i.e. if the arc rating is 8 cal/cm^2 and the calculated Ei changes from 5.6 to 6.2, who cares. The 8 cal/cm^2 arc rating is still valid.

To reaffirm the existing labels, a small sticker could be applied with a new date and that it was re-validated. Similar to stickers applied to relays etc. after testing.

Is anyone using this approach?

K. Cutler - My understanding is that a date requirement was in the original standard and Canada kept it but the U.S. (70E) removed it. Not sure why.

Jim - Arc Rating Only - Nice idea. It makes a lot of sense but most people, including us, have become to accustom to the incident energy and categories. Old habits are hard to break. Using the arc rating would possibly reduce the need to re-label which would be great. Need to think about this one.

The 'arc rating' has been our procedure for +8 years. Our reports list the actual values.

Have not had the opportunity to update study dates with a sticker only, but that is a method we promote.

Most everyone I talk with still lists the calculated incident energy and category/level. It still seems to be what a majority of people are used to but listing just the arc rating makes it so much simpler. Thanks for sharing your experience with this.