Source: https://studylib.net/doc/18520440/nfpa-70e---csac-eia
Timestamp: 2019-06-27 00:20:59
Document Index: 358223752

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 1910', 'art 1', 'art 7', 'art 1910', 'art 1910', '§1910', '§1910', '§1910', '§1910', '§1910', '§1910', '§1910', '§1910', '§1910', '§1910', '§1910', '§1910', '§1910', '§1910', '§1910', '§1910', '§1910', '§1910', '§1910', 'art 1926', '§1910', '§1910', '§1910', '§1910', '§1910', '§1910', '§1910', '§1910', 'art 1926', 'art 1926', '§1926', '§1926', '§1926', '§1926']

NFPA 70E - CSAC EIA
Recommendation: Adopt NFPA 70E as a Best Practice
When discussing NFPA 70E with personnel at industrial facilities, one of the first
questions organizations ask is: “Does OSHA require compliance to this standard?”
In answering this question, one must first consider some background information
associated with existing OSHA standards and this particular standard.
Following the Occupational Health and Safety Act of 1970, OSHA adopted the 1968,
and then the 1971, edition of NFPA 70, National Electric Code, under Section 6(a) of
the Act. Later changes or additions to the OSHA requirements would require performing
the process outlined in Section 6(b) of the Act, which requires a public notice, or an
opportunity for public comment and public hearings. This is an expensive and lengthy
process at best. Unfortunately, OSHA found that the NEC was lacking in many aspects
of electrical safety. The NEC primarily deals with the design and construction of
electrical installations. However, OSHA’s responsibilities include the employers and
employees in the workplace, and the NEC does not address the requirements for
electrical safety-related work practices associated with the operation and maintenance
of electrical systems. Realizing this disconnect, the National Fire Protection Association
(NFPA) offered its assistance in preparing a document “to assist OSHA in preparing
electrical safety standards that would serve OSHA’s needs and that could be
expeditiously promulgated through the provisions of Section 6(b) of the Occupational
Safety and Health Act.” The resulting Standard for Electrical Safety Requirements for
Employee Workplaces, NFPA 70E, was first issued in 1979 with the specific purpose of
being a companion document to the NEC.
Subsequent to the initial versions of NFPA 70E, the OSHA standard 29CFR1910.269,
commonly referred to as Subpart R - Electrical Power Generation, Transmission, and
Distribution was issued. In general, this OSHA standard addresses the electrical shock
hazard and electrical arc flash hazards. This standard delineates requirements for
qualified persons, which include being familiar with the standard, as well as being
trained and familiar with the work being performed. Unfortunately, it does not specifically
define what the “appropriate” electrical protective equipment is for an arc flash hazard.
However, this requirement does imply that the magnitude of the electrical hazard should
be known and that the protective equipment should be selected, accordingly.
In an effort to further define the requirements for electrical safety, the fifth edition of
NFPA 70E was published in 1995. This standard introduced both the concept of “limits
of approach” and the establishment of a “flash protection boundary”. In the sixth edition,
published in 2000, further focus on flash protection and the use of personal protective
equipment (PPE) was expanded with charts being added to assist the user in applying
PPE for common tasks. The seventh edition, published in 2004, was rearranged to be
consistent with the NEC and was renamed Standard for Electrical Safety in the
Workplace. The eighth edition was published in 2012. The majority of changes have
occurred in Chapter 1. With the exception of the major revisions in Article 320, Safety
Requirements Related to Batteries and Battery Rooms, the revisions in Chapters 2 and
3 are primarily for clarification and editorial purposes. Annexes D, F, H, J, and O have
substantive revisions. Annex P aligns NFPA 70E with occupational health and safety
management standards.
Another Industry standard, ANSI/IEEE C2 - National Electric Safety Code (NESC),
further amplifies these requirements in its 2007 edition. It states that: “Effective as of
January 1, 2009, the employer shall ensure that an assessment is performed to
determine potential exposure to an electric arc for employees who work on or near
energized parts or equipment. If the assessment determines a potential employee
exposure greater than 2cal/cm2 exists (see Neal, Bingham, and Doughty [B59]), the
employer shall require employees to wear clothing or a clothing system that has an
effective arc rating not less than the anticipated level of arc energy.”
What should be derived from the above discussion is that NFPA 70E is considered an
industrial consensus standard and is intended for use by employers, employees, and
OSHA. OSHA has not “adopted” NFPA 70E simply because adoption would require the
lengthy and expensive process outlined in Section 6(b) of the Act. OSHA has instead
referenced compliance to NFPA 70E using Section 5(a)(1) of the Occupational Safety
and Health Act of 1970, commonly referred to as the “general duty clause,” as their
basis for implementation. The general duty clause states that employers “shall furnish
to each of its employees employment and a place of employment which are free from
recognized hazards that are causing or likely to cause death or serious physical harm to
his employees.”
This methodology for “implementing” potentially new requirements through the use of
industrial consensus standards, like NFPA 70E, is a common practice by OSHA. In a
recent standard interpretation letter dated 7/25/03, OSHA’s Russell Swanson stated:
“Industry consensus standards, such as NFPA 70E, can be used by employers as
guides to making the assessments and equipment selections required by the standard.
Similarly, in OSHA enforcement actions, they can be used as evidence of whether the
employer acted reasonably.”
It is clear from the above evidence that OSHA is using NFPA 70E as an industrial
consensus standard. Further, OSHA expects employers and employees to comply with
the provisions of NFPA 70E regardless of whether or not it has been “adopted” as an
OSHA requirement.
“How will NFPA 70E compliance affect an organization?”
NFPA 70E - 2004 and the NESC - 2007 require and/or recommend that facilities
• A safety program with defined responsibilities.
• Electrical hazards analyses.
• Personal protective equipment (PPE) for workers.
• Training for workers.
• Tools for safe work.
NFPA 70E further requires that, when working on or near exposed energized circuits,
“safety-related work practices shall be used to safeguard employees from injury while
they are working on or near exposed electric conductors or circuit parts that are or can
become energized. The specific safety-related work practice shall be consistent with
the nature and extent of the associated electric hazards.” These work practices shall
include wearing protective clothing and other personal protective equipment (PPE)
when working with the flash protection boundary.
With regard to arc flash hazards, a “flash hazard analysis shall be done in order to
protect personnel from the possibility of being injured by an arc flash. The flash hazard
analysis shall determine the Flash Protection Boundary and the personal protective
equipment that people within the Flash Protection Boundary shall use.” This standard
also provides some descriptions associated with working distances, or boundaries, with
respect to being a qualified versus unqualified person. These boundaries are as
• Flash Protection Boundary - The distance at which the incident energy from the live
part is equal to 1.2 cal/cm2, which is the limit for a second-degree burn on bare skin.
Persons must not cross this boundary unless they are wearing appropriate personal
protective clothing and are under close the supervision of a qualified person.
• Limited Approach - The distance at which barriers should be placed to protect
unqualified personnel from an electrical hazard. Only qualified persons and escorted
unqualified persons are allowed to enter a limited space.
• Restricted Approach - The distance at which only qualified personnel are allowed
with appropriate protective clothing and personal protective equipment for the
associated hazard. No unauthorized conductive material and no unqualified persons are
permitted to cross a restricted boundary. Further, a documented and approved plan is
required to enter a restricted space.
: ALL STANDARDS BOARD MEMBERS
:November 26, 2012
From : Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board
Conrad E. Tolson, Senior Engineer - Standards
High-Voltage Electrical Safety Orders
The following information is provided in regard to the proposed revisions to the California Code
of Regulations, Title 8, Division 1, Chapter 4, Subchapter 5, Electrical Safety Orders, Group 2,
High-Voltage Electrical Safety Orders.
INFORMATIVE DIGEST OF PROPOSED ACTION/POLICY STATEMENT OVERVIEW
The Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board (Board) intends to adopt the proposed
rulemaking action pursuant to Labor Code Section 142.3, which mandates the Board to adopt
standards at least as effective as federal standards addressing occupational safety and health
On February 14, 2007, the U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (Federal OSHA) promulgated standards revising the general industry electrical
installation standards found in Subpart S of 29 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 1910.
The Board is relying on the explanation of the provisions of the federal standards in Federal
Register, Volume 72, No. 30, pages 7136-7221, February 14, 2007, as the justification for the
Board’s proposed rulemaking action. The Board proposes to adopt standards which are the same
as the federal standards except for minor editorial and format differences, or where existing state
standards provide a higher level of safety. Furthermore, obsolete cross-references to California
Code of Regulations, Title 24 are also proposed for deletion under provisions of the California
Code of Regulations, Title 1, Section 100. Prior to September 30, 2002, the Standards Board was
mandated by Health and Safety Code Section 18943(b) to submit Title 8 building standards to
the California Building Standards Commission for their approval and adoption into Title 24, the
California Building Code.
Assembly Bill 3000 (Stats. 2002, c. 1124), which was signed by the Governor and filed with the
Secretary of State on September 30, 2002, formally exempted the Standards Board from the
building standard requirements contained in the Health and Safety Code as well as those
contained in Labor Code Sections 142.3 and 142.6. Consequently, all previous references to
Title 24 have been deleted.
In the final rule, Federal OSHA has revised its existing general industry electrical installation
standards contained in Sections 1910.302-1910.308 along with relevant definitions found in
Section 1910.399. Federal OSHA’s existing electrical standards are based on the 1979 edition of
NFPA 70E, Standard for Electrical Safety Requirements for Employee Workplaces. The final
Board Memorandum
Public Hearing December 18, 2008
federal rule is based primarily on Part I of the 2000 edition of NFPA 70E which, in turn, is based
on the 1999 National Electrical Code (NEC). Thus the proposal will reflect more current
practice and technology as well as respond to requests from stakeholders that Subpart S reflect
the most recent editions of NFPA 70E which the industry is already voluntarily complying with
in its present form. Federal OSHA is of the opinion that the revised standard will facilitate
compliance by stakeholders, including small businesses, while also improving safety for
Subjects addressed by the proposal include, but are not limited to, the following:
 Definitions of terms used in the HVESO
 Approval of installations and equipment
 Examination, installation and use of equipment
 Marking and identification
 Overcurrent protection
 Grounding
 Wiring methods
 Temporary wiring
 Enclosures for electrical installations
 Interrupting and isolating devices
 Transformers
 Control of motors and generators
 Workspace and guarding
 Communications systems
 Induction and dielectric heating equipment
 Integrated electrical systems
The proposed standards are substantially the same as the final rule promulgated by federal
OSHA. Labor Code Section 142.3(a)(3) exempts the Board from the provisions of Article 5
(commencing with Section 11346) and Article 6 (commencing with Section 11349) of Chapter
3.5, Part 1, Division 3 of Title 2 of the Government Code when adopting standards substantially
the same as federal standards. However, the Board is still providing a comment period and will
convene a public hearing. The primary purpose of the written and oral comments at the public
hearing is to:
(1) Identify any issues unique to California related to this proposal which should be
addressed in a subsequent rulemaking; and
(2) Solicit comments on the proposed effective date.
The responses to comments will be available in the rulemaking file on this matter and will be
limited to the above areas.
The effective date is proposed to be upon filing with the Secretary of State as provided by Labor
Code Section 142.3(a)(3). The standards may be adopted without further notice even though
modifications may be made to the original proposal in response to public comments or at the
Board’s discretion.
Federal Register, Vol. 72, No. 30, pp. 7136-7221 (February 14, 2007)
This document is available online at the federal OSHA website, www.osha.gov and is also
available for review Monday through Friday from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. at the Standards Board
Office located at 2520 Venture Oaks Way, Suite 350, Sacramento, California.
29 CFR 1910.7, Definition and requirements for a nationally recognized testing laboratory.
This document is available for review Monday through Friday from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. at the
Standards Board Office located at 2520 Venture Oaks Way, Suite 350, Sacramento, California.
STRIKEOUT/UNDERLINE DRAFT PROPOSAL
SIDE-BY-SIDE CODE COMPARISON WITH FEDERAL STANDARD
OSHA’s estimation of compliance costs found in Federal Register, Vol. 72, No. 30, February 14,
2007, Preamble Section VI, Final Economic and Regulatory Screening Analysis, subsection D,
Estimation of Compliance Costs, notes that there is already within the industry widespread use
of the 1999 (or later) edition of the National Electrical Code (NEC) upon which the federal
promulgation was based. Since this rulemaking proposal merely incorporates the federal
standards where necessary to make California’s High-Voltage Electrical Safety Orders at least as
effective, Board staff therefore relies on OSHA’s estimate of compliance costs in making a
determination that this rulemaking of High-Voltage Electrical Safety Orders will have no
appreciable cost impact on the regulated public.
The Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board has determined that the proposed standards
not impose a local mandate. Therefore, reimbursement by the state is not required pursuant to
Part 7 (commencing with Section 17500) of Division 4 of the Government Code because the
proposed amendments will not require local agencies or school districts to incur additional costs
in complying with the proposal. Furthermore, these standards do not constitute a “new program
or higher level of service of an existing program within the meaning of Section 6 of Article XIII
B of the California Constitution.”
The California Supreme Court has established that a “program” within the meaning of Section 6
of Article XIII B of the California Constitution is one which carries out the governmental
function of providing services to the public, or which, to implement a state policy, imposes
unique requirements on local governments and does not apply generally to all residents and
entities in the state. (County of Los Angeles v. State of California (1987) 43 Cal.3d 46.)
These proposed standards do not require local agencies to carry out the governmental function of
providing services to the public. Rather, the standards require local agencies to take certain steps
to ensure the safety and health of their own employees only. Moreover, these proposed
standards do not in any way require local agencies to administer the California Occupational
Safety and Health program. (See City of Anaheim v. State of California (1987) 189 Cal.App.3d
1478.)
These proposed standards do not impose unique requirements on local governments. All state,
local and private employers will be required to comply with the prescribed standards.
The Board has determined that the proposed amendments may affect small businesses.
However, no significant economic impact is anticipated.
The adoption of the proposed amendments to these standards will neither create nor eliminate
jobs in the State of California nor result in the elimination of existing businesses or create or
expand businesses in the State of California.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA - DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS
AND HEALTH STANDARDS BOARD
2520 Venture Oaks Way, Suite 350
(916) 274-5721
FAX (916) 274-5743
www.dir.ca.gov/oshsb
TITLE 8, Division 1, Chapter 4, Subchapter 5, Group 1, Low-Voltage Electrical Safety Orders.
Articles and Sections as follows:
4. Requirements for Electrical
6. Branch Circuits.
13. Temporary Wiring.
45. Cabinets, Boxes, and Fittings.
58. Capacitors.
2305.2 Application.
2340.12 Mechanical Execution of Work
2340.16 Work Space About Electric Equipment.
2360.3 Ground-Fault Circuit Interrupter
Protection for Personnel – General
2405.4 Ground-Fault Circuit ProtectionConstruction Site.
2473.1 Conductors Entering Boxes, Cabinets,
or Fittings.
2534.8 Disconnecting Means.
Low-Voltage Electrical Safety Orders - Addendum
The Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board (Board), recently updated Title 8 LowVoltage Electrical Safety Orders (LVESO) for equivalency with updates to 29 CFR Part 1910,
Subpart S. That rulemaking action was pursuant to Labor Code Section 142.3, which mandates
the Board to adopt standards at least as effective as federal standards addressing occupational
safety and health issues. That rulemaking process followed the authority listed in Labor Code
Section 142.3(a)(3), sometimes referred to as a “Horcher” rulemaking; thus it was limited only to
changes covered by the counterpart federal standard. However, during the course of that
rulemaking, other items, outside the scope of the “Horcher” process, were noted to be
ambiguous, obsolete, overlapping, conflicting, and/or unnecessary. The purpose of this
rulemaking proposal is to address those items.
Low-Voltage Electrical Safety Orders – Addendum
Public Hearing November 19, 2009
Section 2305.2. Application.
Subsection (b), Extent of Application, specifies effective dates for different parts of the LVESO.
Subsequent to the adoption of the LVESO update, Board staff became aware that the effective
date for Section 2395.6, Portable and Vehicle-Mounted Generators, was unclear. Accordingly,
Section 2305.2(b) is being amended to clearly indicate that, consistent with federal standards,
amendments to Section 2395.6 became effective on May 5, 2008, the same time the general
update became effective. The purpose and necessity for this amendment is to simplify
compliance and enforcement by clearly establishing the effective date for changes made for
portable and vehicle-mounted generators.
Section 2340.12. Mechanical Execution of Work.
Subsection 2340.12 requires that electric equipment be installed in a neat and workmanlike
manner. Subsection (a) provides, in relevant part, that unused openings in boxes, raceways,
auxiliary gutters, cabinets, equipment cases, or housings shall be effectively closed to afford
protection substantially equivalent to the wall of the equipment.
Similar requirements are found in Section 2473.1(b), which is proposed for deletion as being
duplicative and overlapping with other sections of the Safety Orders, including Section
2340.12(a). One subject of the proposed deletion of subsection 2473.1(b), however, that is not
covered elsewhere is the matter of unused openings in fittings. It is therefore proposed to add
“fittings” to 2340.12(a) in order to maintain that requirement in the Electrical Safety Orders.
The purpose and necessity for these revisions is to assure that unused openings in fittings are
effectively closed to protect employees from hazardous electrical exposures.
Section 2340.16. Work Space About Electric Equipment.
Subsection (b), Work Space, prescribes the work space to be provided for examination,
adjustment, servicing, or maintenance of energized equipment. Subsection (b)(2)(A) specifies
that concrete, brick or tile walls shall be considered as grounded when determining width for
clear work space requirements. A stakeholder requested clarification to the effect that any
concrete, brick or tile surface be considered as grounded when determining any clear work space
requirement (i.e., depth, width, height). This would be equivalent to National Fire Protection
Association (NFPA) 70E-2004, Table 400.15(A)(1), Condition #2, and 2005 National Electrical
Code (NEC) Table 110.26(A)(1), Condition #2. Thus it is proposed to relocate “concrete, brick,
or tile” from subsection (b)(2) to Table 2340.16, Condition #2, so that it will apply to all
clearances, and not just to width. The purpose and necessity for this proposed relocation is to
conform Section 2340.16 of the LVESO to industry standard NFPA 70E-2004, and the 2005
Edition of the NEC.
Section 2360.3. Ground-Fault Circuit Interrupter Protection for Personnel - General Industry.
Section 2360.3 prescribes when ground-fault circuit interrupter (GFCI) protection is required
during maintenance, remodeling, or repair of buildings, structures, or equipment “or during
similar construction-like activities” [italicized for emphasis]. Existing Section 2405.4, GroundFault Circuit Protection-Construction Site, which was outside the scope of the Horcher
rulemaking, contains similar, but not identical, grounding requirements for construction sites.
The ambiguity of the term “construction-like” in Section 2360.3 causes it to overlap with Section
2405.4, and because of different grounding requirements for general industry versus
construction, it creates confusion as to application. It is therefore proposed that the term
“construction-like” be deleted from Section 2360.3(b). The purpose and necessity for this
change is to clarify application of electrical standards for general industry and construction.
Section 2405.4. Ground-Fault Circuit Protection – Construction Site. Subsection (a) General.
An advisory opinion from Federal OSHA, Region 9, on the Low-Voltage Electrical Safety
Orders update 1 noted that Subsection 2405.4(a) describes a construction site as “a place of
employment where erection, demolition, modification, alteration or excavation is being
performed on a building, structure or underground facility, other than mining (emphasis added).”
Region 9 opines that inclusion of the term “modification” in this definition excludes GFCI
protection from activities intended to be covered by general industry standards in 29 CFR 1910,
Subpart S. Section 2405.4 is the state counterpart to federal 29 CFR 1926.404(b)(1) which
contains ground fault protection requirements for construction. The ground fault protection
requirements of 29 CFR 1926, Subpart K, do not require GFCI in all cases where they are
required by 29 CFR 1910, Subpart S, because of difficulties in implementing GFCI in
construction settings. Thus Region 9 was concerned that the provisions of Section 2405.4 might
be applied in certain instances of remodeling and modification of existing buildings, and that
these provisions would not be as effective as federal standards for general industry.
Board staff therefore proposes to delete the term “modification” from Section 2405.4(a). The
purpose and necessity for this deletion is to clarify the distinction between grounding
requirements for general industry (Section 2360.3) and construction (Section 2405.4).
Section 2405.4. Ground-Fault Circuit Protection – Construction Site. Subsection (b)
Construction Sites, Exception.
This subsection requires that employees on construction sites be protected by either or both
ground-fault circuit interrupters as specified in Subsection 2405.4(c) or by an assured equipment
grounding conductor program as specified in Subsection 2405.4(d) or by both. An exception to
this subsection exempts from these requirements individual cord sets, supplied from any
receptacle on a 15- or 20- ampere branch circuit which is part of the permanent wiring of
building or structure. This exception is not supported by 29 CFR 1926.404(b)(1) or the NEC,
and is less protective than the counterpart federal standard. The exception is therefore proposed
for deletion. The purpose and necessity for this deletion is to provide safety at least as effective
as the counterpart federal standard and the NEC.
Section 2405.4. Ground-Fault Circuit Protection – Construction Site. Subsection (d) Assured
Equipment Grounding Conductor Program.
This subsection requires the employer to establish and implement an assured equipment
grounding conductor program on construction sites covering all 120-volt, AC, single-phase, cord
sets, receptacles which are not a part of the permanent wiring of the building or structure and
equipment connected by cord and plug, which are used by employees. Modifications are
Letter to OSHSB from US Dept. of Labor, OSHA Region 9, dated July 14, 2008.
proposed to (1) delete “120-volt, AC, single-phase” and (2) amend “used by employees” to read
“available for use or used by employees.” The purpose and necessity for these modifications is
to provide protection equivalent to 29 CFR 1926.404(b)(1)(iii).
Section 2405.4. Ground-Fault Circuit Protection – Construction Site. Note to Subsection (d)
Assured Equipment Grounding Conductor Program.
A note below subsection (d)(4) provides that double-insulated tools or other similar equipment
need not be grounded, and cross references to Section 2395.45(d)(5). This cross-reference is
incorrect, and it is proposed to be corrected to Section 2395.45, Exception 2 which requires
double-insulated equipment to be distinctively marked. The purpose and necessity for this
amendment is to clarify the use of double-insulated tools and utilization equipment.
Section 2473.1. Conductors Entering Boxes, Cabinets, or Fittings.
This section prescribes protection and securing for conductors entering cutout boxes, cabinets, or
fittings. Subsection (b) provides that unused openings in cabinets, boxes, and fittings shall be
effectively closed. Subsection (b) is duplicative of Sections 2340.12(a) and 2473.2(a); therefore
it is proposed for deletion. The purpose and necessity for this deletion is to clarify requirements
by eliminating overlapping and duplication.
Section 2534.8. Disconnecting Means.
This section prescribes disconnecting means for capacitors. As presently worded, it does not
require the disconnecting means to open all ungrounded conductors simultaneously. This is
contrary to NFPA 70-2005 (NEC) Section 460.8(C)(1), thus it is proposed to amend this section
to be consistent with the NEC. It is also proposed to reformat the remainder of the section to be
consistent with the verbiage of NEC 460.8(C). The purpose and necessity of these modifications
will be to conform capacitor disconnecting means to those prescribed by the 2005 edition of the
NFPA 70, National Electrical Code (NEC), 2005 Edition, published by National Fire Protection
Association, Inc. (NFPA), One Batterymarch Park, Boston, MA 02169; Table 110.26(A)(1),
Condition #2 and Section 460.8(C).
NFPA 70E, Standard for Electrical Safety in the Workplace, 2004 Edition, published by National
Fire Protection Association, Inc. (NFPA), One Batterymarch Park, Boston, MA 02169; Table
400.15(A)(1), Condition #2.
Federal Register, Vol. 72, No. 30, Wednesday, February 14, 2007, U.S. Department of Labor,
OSHA, 29 CFR Part 1910, Electrical Standard (Final Rule), pages 7136-7221.
Facsimile to OSHSB from U.S. Dept. of Labor, OSHA Phoenix Resource Center, dated April 2,
These documents are available for review Monday through Friday from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. at
the Standards Board Office located at 2520 Venture Oaks Way, Suite 350, Sacramento,
REASONABLE ALTERNATIVES THAT WOULD LESSEN ADVERSE ECONOMIC
No reasonable alternatives were identified by the Board and no reasonable alternatives identified
by the Board or otherwise brought to its attention would lessen the impact on small businesses.
This proposal will not mandate the use of specific technologies or equipment.
No costs or savings to state agencies will result as a consequence of the proposed action.
The Board has made an initial determination that this proposal will not significantly affect
The Board has made a determination that this proposal will not result in a significant, statewide
adverse economic impact directly affecting businesses, including the ability of California
businesses to compete with businesses in other states.
Cost Impact on Private Persons or Businesses
The Board is not aware of any cost impacts that a representative private person or business
would necessarily incur in reasonable compliance with the proposed action.
No costs to local agencies or school districts are required to be reimbursed. See explanation
under “Determination of Mandate.”
do not impose a local mandate. Therefore, reimbursement by the state is not required pursuant to
to ensure the safety and health of their own employees only. Moreover, these standards do not in
any way require local agencies to administer the California Occupational Safety and Health
program. (See City of Anaheim v. State of California (1987) 189 Cal.App.3d 1478.)
However, no economic impact is anticipated.
No reasonable alternatives have been identified by the Board or have otherwise been identified
and brought to its attention that would be more effective in carrying out the purpose for which
the action is proposed or would be as effective and less burdensome to affected private persons
than the proposed action.
1910.5; 1910.5(c)(1); 1910.5(f); 1910.132; 1910.145; 1910.303; 1910.303(e);
1910.333; 1910.333(a)(1); 1910.333(b)(2); 1910.335; 1910.335(b); 1910.335(b)(1);
1910.335(a)(1)(iv); 1910.335(a)(1)(v); 1910.335(a)(2)(i); 1910.335(a)(2)(ii)
This letter constitutes OSHA's interpretation only of the requirements discussed and may
not be applicable to any situation not delineated within the original correspondence.
Ms. Joanne B. Linhard
ORC Worldwide
1910 Sunderland Place, NW
Dear Ms. Linhard:
Thank you for your e-mail to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration's (OSHA's) Directorate of Enforcement Programs (DEP)
for an interpretation regarding OSHA's requirements and the National Fire Protection Association's (NFPA) 70E-2004, Standard for
Electrical Safety in the Workplace. Your questions have been restated below for clarity. We apologize for the delay in our response.
Question 1: When work must be performed on energized electric equipment that is capable of exposing employees to arc-flash hazards,
does OSHA require the marking of the electric equipment to warn qualified persons of potential electric arc-flash hazards — i.e., as
required by NFPA 70E-2004? 1
Reply: OSHA has no specific requirement for such marking. A requirement to mark equipment with flash hazard warnings was not
included in the 1981 Subpart S revision. However, paragraph (e) of §1910.303 requires employers to mark electrical equipment with
descriptive markings, including the equipment's voltage, current, wattage, or other ratings as necessary. OSHA believes that this
information, along with the training requirements for qualified persons, will provide employees the necessary information to protect
themselves from arc-flash hazards.
Additionally, in §1910.335(b), OSHA requires employers to use alerting techniques (safety signs and tags, barricades, and attendants) . .
. to warn and protect employees from hazards which could cause injury due to electric shock, burns or failure of electric equipment parts.
Although these Subpart S electrical provisions do not specifically require that electric equipment be marked to warn qualified persons of
arc-flash hazards, §1910.335(b)(1) requires the use of safety signs, safety symbols, or accident prevention tags to warn employees
about electrical hazards (e.g., electric-arc-flash hazards) which may endanger them as required by §1910.145.
Question 2: Is flame-resistant clothing required for employees working on electrical installations covered by Subpart S?
Reply: OSHA's present requirements in Subpart S, Safety-Related Work Practices , are based on NFPA 70E-1983, which did not at that
time include specific provisions for flame-resistant (FR) clothing [protective equipment]. Although more recent versions of NFPA 70E
have included such body protection provisions, OSHA has not conducted rulemaking proceedings to update Subpart S by adopting
comparable provisions specifically related to the use of FR clothing to protect against arc-flash hazards. OSHA's existing Subpart S,
therefore, does not include a specific requirement for the use of FR clothing. However, arc-flash hazards are addressed in the OSHA electrical safety-related work practices standards. For example, with respect to
arc-flash burn hazard prevention, the general provisions for the Selection and use of work practices contained in §1910.333(a)(1)
generally require deenergization of live parts before an employee works on or near them — i.e., employees must first render electric
equipment safe by completely deenergizing it by means of lockout and tagging procedures. This single safe work practice significantly
reduces the likelihood of arc-flash burn injury by reducing employee exposure to electrical hazards — i.e., exposure is limited to when
the equipment is shut down and when the qualified employee verifies, by use of a test instrument, a deenergized state.
When employees perform work on energized circuits, as permitted by §1910.333(a)(1), tools and handling equipment that might make
contact with exposed energized parts must be insulated in accordance with §1910.335(a)(2)(i). This work practice also reduces the
likelihood of employee injury caused by an arc blast.
Arc-flash hazards are also addressed in §1910.335(a)(1)(v), Safeguards for personnel protection, which requires that personal protective
Equipment (PPE) for the eyes and face be worn whenever there is danger of injury to the eyes or face from electric arcs or flashes or
from flying objects resulting from an electrical explosion. In addition, paragraph (a)(2)(ii) of §1910.335 requires, in pertinent part, the
use of protective shields, barriers, or insulating equipment "to protect each employee from shocks, burns, or other electrically related
injuries while that employee is working . . . where dangerous electric heating or arcing might occur" (emphasis added). The
§1910.335(a)(2)(ii) safeguard selected — shield, barrier, or insulating material — must fully protect employees from electric shock, the
blast, and arc-flash burn hazards associated with the incident energy exposure for the specific task to be performed. However, in
situations where a fully protective safeguard could be used as an alternative, OSHA will, under its policy for de minimis violations, allow
employers to use, instead, safeguards that are not fully protective, provided that the employer implement additional measures.2 The
supplemental measures, which could include the use of arc-rated FR clothing appropriate to the specific task, must fully protect the
employee from all residual hazardous energy (e.g., the resultant thermal effects 3 from the electric arc) that passes the initial safeguard.
Where there is no §1910.335(a)(2)(ii) safeguard that would fully protect against the hazards, an employer is still obligated under the
Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 to take reasonable steps that will protect the employee to the degree possible.4 As noted in
the previous paragraph, the protection provided by a safeguard that is not fully effective can be augmented through use of other safety
measures such as FR clothing and other appropriate PPE.
OSHA recommends that employers consult consensus standards such as NFPA 70E-2004 to identify safety measures that can be used to
comply with or supplement the requirements of OSHA's standards for preventing or protecting against arc-flash hazards. For example,
Section 130.3 of the NFPA standard establishes its own mandatory provisions for flash-hazard-analysis5 , which sets forth the criteria to
define a flash-protection boundary and the personal protective equipment for use by employees within the flash-protection boundary. The
goal of this provision is to reduce the possibility of being injured by an arc-flash. The analysis is task specific and determines the worker's
incident-energy exposure (in calories per square centimeter). Where it has been determined that work will be performed within the flashprotection boundary, NFPA 70E specifies that flame-resistant clothing and PPE use either be based on the pre-determined incidentenergy exposure data or be in accordance with the Hazard/Risk Category Classifications and Protective Clothing and Personal Protective
equipment (PPE) Matrix tables contained in Sections 130.7(C)(9) and (C)(10), respectively.
Other NFPA 70E, Article 130 provisions, such as the justification for work through the use of an energized electrical work authorization
permit, and the completion of a job briefing with employees before they start each job, additionally decrease the likelihood that exposure
to electrical hazards would occur. Question 3: How is OSHA enforcing §1910.132 and Subpart S with regard to the latest edition of NFPA 70E requirements?
Reply: As noted above, OSHA has not conducted a rulemaking to adopt the requirements of the latest edition of NFPA 70E and,
therefore, does not "enforce" those requirements. However, industry consensus standards, such as NFPA 70E, can be used by OSHA and
employers as guides in making hazard analyses and selecting control measures.
With regards to enforcing §1910.132 and the Subpart S standards, the PPE requirements contained in Subpart S would prevail over the
general requirements contained in §1910.132 where both standards would apply to the same condition, practice, control method, etc.
See §1910.5(c)(1).
Question 4: Does OSHA issue Section 5(a)(1) General Duty Clause violations to companies who do not follow the new NFPA 70E
Reply: A violation of the General Duty Clause, Section 5(a)(1) of the Act, exists if an employer has failed to furnish a workplace that is
free from recognized hazards causing or likely to cause death or serious physical injury. The General Duty Clause is not used to enforce
the provisions of consensus standards, although such standards are sometimes used as evidence of hazard recognition and the
availability of feasible means of abatement. In addition, the General Duty Clause usually should not be used if there is a standard that
applies to the particular condition, practice, means, operation, or process involved. See §1910.5(f).
Thank you for your interest in occupational safety and health. We hope you find this information helpful. OSHA requirements are set by
statute, standards, and regulations. Our interpretation letters explain these requirements and how they apply to particular circumstances,
but they cannot create additional employer obligations. This letter constitutes OSHA's interpretation of the requirements discussed. Note
that our enforcement guidance may be affected by changes to OSHA rules. In addition, from time to time we update our guidance in
response to new information. To keep apprised of such developments, you can consult OSHA's website at http://www.osha.gov. If you
have any further questions, please feel free to contact the Office of General Industry Enforcement at (202) 693-1850.
1 Section 400.11 of NFPA 70E-2004 states:
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. [ back to text ]
2 OSHA has not formally compared each provision of the NFPA 70E-2004 standard with the parallel provision in Subpart S but generally
believes that the NFPA standard offers useful guidance for employers and employees attempting to control electrical hazards. The Agency
notes, however, that the face and head protection requirements contained in the Section 130.7(c)(10) Table do not require face and
head area protection for Hazard Risk Category 1, even when serious face and head injury from the thermal effects of the arc could
result. Therefore, this particular NFPA provision may not provide equivalent or greater employee protection with respect to the
corresponding OSHA standards on eye, face, and head protection — i.e., §§1910.335(a)(1)(iv) and 1910.335(a)(1)(v). In addition, the
Individual Qualified Employee Control Procedure conditionally permits certain work activities to be performed without the placement of
lockout/tagout devices on the disconnecting means. See Section 130.7(D)(1). This work practice provides less employee protection than
that afforded by compliance with the OSHA lockout and tagging requirements contained in §1910.333(b)(2) and is, therefore, not
acceptable. [ back to text ]
3 When an employee is working within the flash-protection boundary, Section 130.7 of the NFPA 70E-2004 standard requires the
employee to wear protective clothing wherever there is possible exposure to an electric arc flash above the threshold incident-energy
level for a second-degree burn, 5 J/cm 2 (1.2) cal/cm2 . In other words, the protective clothing system is designed to protect the
employee from receiving second- or third-degree burns to his or her body. The typical characteristics, degree of protection, and required
minimum arc ratings for typical protective clothing systems may be found in Table 130.7(c)(11). The NFPA standard requires the
protective clothing selected for the corresponding hazard/risk category number to have an arc rating of at least the minimum value
listed. [ back to text ]
4 To establish all of the elements of the affirmative defense of impossibility, an employer who can show that compliance with the terms
of a standard is impossible under the circumstances must also show that it used alternative measures to protect employees, or that there
were no such control measures. [ back to text ]
5 This flash hazard analysis information represents recognized good engineering practice and can be useful guidance for both OSHA
personnel and employers applying the provisions contained in the electrical safety-related work practice standards contained in 29 CFR
§§1910.331 through 1910.335. [ back to text ]
Freedom of Information Act | Privacy & Security Statement | Disclaimers | Customer Survey | Important Web Site Notices | International | Contact Us
Telephone: 800-321-OSHA (6742) | TTY: 877-889-5627
1926.402(a); 1910.132; 1910.335; 1926.403; 1926.404; 1926.405; 1926.406;
1926.407; 1926.408; 1910.303(f); 1926.403(h); 1910.12
OSHA requirements are set by statute, standards and regulations. Our interpretation
letters explain these requirements and how they apply to particular circumstances, but
they cannot create additional employer obligations. This letter constitutes OSHA's
interpretation of the requirements discussed. Note that our enforcement guidance may
be affected by changes to OSHA rules. Also, from time to time we update our guidance in
response to new information. To keep apprised of such developments, you can consult
OSHA's website at http://www.osha.gov.
Associated General Contractors of Indiana, Inc.
1050 Market Tower, 10 West Market Street
Re: Relevance of NFPA 70E industry consensus standard to OSHA requirements; whether OSHA requirements apply to owners
This is in response to your March 15, 2002, letter asking for clarification of several issues concerning the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration's (OSHA) multi-employer citation policy, owner responsibilities, National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) standard 70E,
and several OSHA standards. We apologize for the long delay in providing this response.
All your questions involve the NFPA 70E standard, which is one of many industry consensus standards developed by the National Fire
Protection Association. NFPA 70E, which is titled "Electrical Safety Requirements for Employee Workplaces," is the NFPA's consensus
standard for workplace electrical safety. It covers employee protection from electrical hazards including shock, arc blasts, explosions
initiated by electricity, outside conductors, etc.
Question (1): Is a general contractor who is engaged in construction work required to oversee a subcontractor's compliance with NFPA
70E under Section 5(a)(1) (General Duty Clause) of the OSH Act and OSHA's multi-employer policy?
Summary of the Multi-employer policy
OSHA's multi-employer policy is described in compliance directive CPL 2-0.124. 1 Under the policy, there are circumstances where more
than one employer may be cited for a violation of an OSHA standard, and where an employer may be held responsible for a hazard even
though none of its own employees were exposed to it.
Compliance officers must use a two-step analysis to determine if an employer should be cited for a hazardous condition. The first step is
to determine if the employer has responsibilities with respect to OSHA requirements. This is evaluated based on the employer's role at
the worksite. There are four employer role categories: (1) "exposing" - an employer whose own employees are exposed to the hazard;
(2) "creating" - an employer that creates a hazard to which a different employer's employees are exposed; (3) "correcting" - an employer
that has been brought in specifically to correct hazards; and (4) "controlling" - an employer with general supervisory authority over the
worksite with the power to have safety and health violations corrected.
If an employer fits one or more of these categories, the compliance officer must go to step two: determining if the employer took
sufficient steps to meet its obligations. Only if insufficient measures were taken may a citation be issued. The directive emphasizes that
the multi-employer policy is not one of strict liability. It also states that a lesser degree of care is required of a controlling employer than
that of the other categories to prevent/discover hazards.
To help compliance officers determine if a controlling employer has met its responsibilities, the directive outlines specific factors to
evaluate. For example, to assess whether periodic inspections of appropriate frequency were made, compliance officers are directed to
consider factors such as the scale of the project, nature and pace of the work, and the subcontractors' safety history.
General Duty Clause and the Multi-employer Policy
Section 5(a)(1) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act requires an employer to furnish to its employees:
employment and a place of employment which are free from recognized hazards that are causing or are likely to cause
death or serious physical harm to his employees ....
However, as stated in the multi-employer compliance directive,
only exposing employers can be cited for General Duty Clause violations.
Therefore, citations based on a failure to meet a General Duty Clause requirement can only be issued to an "exposing" employer - an
employer whose own employees were exposed to the hazard. So, for example, an employer cannot be cited in its role as a "controlling
employer" for exposure of subcontractor employees to a General Duty Clause violation.
Industry Consensus Standard NFPA 70E
With respect to the General Duty Clause, industry consensus standards may be evidence that a hazard is "recognized" and that there is a
feasible means of correcting such a hazard. However, as explained above, NFPA 70E is not relevant to assessing a controlling employer's
duties under OSHA's multi-employer policy, since controlling employers are not responsible for overseeing their subcontractors'
compliance with General Duty Clause responsibilities.2
A controlling employer engaged in construction work does have obligations regarding 29 CFR part 1926 subpart K (Electrical) under the
multi-employer policy.3
Question (2): I note that OSHA has not incorporated the personal protective equipment portions of NFPA 70E by reference in §1910.132
(personal protective equipment, general requirements) or §1910.335 (safeguards for personal protection). Does an employer have an
obligation under the General Duty Clause to ensure that its own employees comply with personal protective equipment requirements in
NFPA 70E?
[Please refer to November 14, 2006 letter to Ms. Joanne B. Linhard.]
This document was amended on 2/7/2011 to strike information that no longer reflects current OSHA policy.
These provisions are written in general terms, requiring, for example, that personal protective equipment be provided "where necessary
by reason of hazards..." (§1910.132(a)), and requiring the employer to select equipment "that will protect the affected employee from
the hazards...." (§1910.132(d)(1)). Also, §1910.132(c) requires the equipment to "be of safe design and construction for the work
performed."
Similarly, §1910.335 contains requirements such as the provision and use of "electrical protective equipment that is appropriate for the
specific parts of the body to be protected and the work to be performed (§1910.335(a)(i)).
Industry consensus standards, such as NFPA 70E, can be used by employers as guides to making the assessments and equipment
selections required by the standard. Similarly, in OSHA enforcement actions, they can be used as evidence of whether the employer
acted reasonably.
Under §1910.135, the employer must ensure that affected employees wear a protective helmet that meets either the applicable ANSI
Z89.1 standard or a helmet that the employer demonstrates "to be equally effective." If an employer demonstrated that NFPA 70E
contains criteria for protective helmets regarding protection against falling objects and electrical shock that is equal to or more stringent
than the applicable ANSI Z89.1 standard, and a helmet met the NFPA 70E criteria, the employer could use that to demonstrate that the
helmet is "equally effective."
Question (3)(a): Can an employer be cited for violating an OSHA requirement for personal fall protection (PPE) where a properly trained
employee decides not to wear the PPE?
Employee misconduct is an "affirmative defense" 4 to a failure to meet the requirements of an OSHA requirement. To establish the
defense, the employer must be able to show that: (a) the violative condition was unknown to the employer, (b) the employer had a
method of detecting violations and an effective enforcement policy when violations are discovered, and (c) the employee's action was in
violation of an adequate employer work rule which was effectively communicated and uniformly enforced.
Therefore, if the employer can show that it did not know (and reasonably could not have known) that the employee was not wearing the
PPE, that it had an adequate work rule requiring the employee to wear the PPE, and that the work rule was effectively communicated
and uniformly enforced, the employer would not be responsible under OSHA requirements for the violation.
Question (3)(b): Would the employer be liable in a private lawsuit in that situation?
It is not within the purview of this office to provide guidance regarding tort, workers' compensation or other private action legal liability.
Question (4): Are there OSHA standards that state that an owner of a work facility must identify and mark electrical hazards for
contractors?
OSHA requirements apply to employers; generally they do not apply to owners with no employees. Owners that also are employers are
subject to OSHA requirements depending on the activities performed.
There are no OSHA standards that specifically require owners to post notice of electrical hazards for contractors performing construction
work at the owners' facilities.5 However it is worth noting that both OSHA general industry and construction standards require the
durable and legible marking of disconnecting means and circuits.
Section 29 CFR 1910.303(f) requires that:
...Each service, feeder, and branch circuit, at its disconnecting means or overcurrent device, shall be legibly marked to
indicate its purpose, unless located and arranged so the purpose is evident. These markings shall be of sufficient durability
to withstand the environment involved.
Section 29 CFR 1926.403(h) contains an identical provision.
Question (5): How can I distinguish between electrical work that is considered "construction work" and electrical work that is considered
"general industry work"?
29 CFR 1910.12 sets out the scope of OSHA construction standards. Section 1910.12(a) provides that:
The standards prescribed in part 1926 of this chapter ... shall apply ... to every employment and place of employment of
every employee engaged in construction work.
Section 1920.12(b) defines construction work as follows:
Construction work means work for construction, alteration, and/or repair, including painting and decorating.
Section 1910.12(d) adds that:
'construction work' includes the erection of new electric transmission and distribution lines and equipment, and the
alteration, conversion, and improvement of the existing transmission and distribution lines and equipment.
In our February 1, 1999, letter to Mr. Randall A. Tindell, we discussed in detail, and gave specific examples of, the distinction between
general industry and construction work.
If the work falls within OSHA's jurisdiction and is considered construction work, then 29 CFR part 1926 subparts K (Electrical) or V (Power
Transmission and Distribution) might apply. However, since you have not specified the type of "electrical work" involved, we cannot
advise you on whether one of these standards would apply in your situation.
If you need any additional information, please contact us by fax at: U.S. Department of Labor, OSHA, Directorate of Construction, Office
of Construction Standards and Guidance, fax # 202-693-1689. You can also contact us by mail at the above office, Room N3468, 200
Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20210, although there will be a delay in our receiving correspondence by mail.
1 The policy can be viewed on OSHA's website at: http://www.osha.gov/OshDoc/Directive_pdf/CPL_2-0_124.pdf*. [Return to Text]
2 However, if a controlling employer's own employees were exposed to a hazard, it would also be in the role of an exposing employer,
and would have General Duty Clause obligations with respect to its own employees. [Return to Text]
3 Note that in §1926.402(a) there is the following statement:
If the electrical installation is made in accordance with the National Electrical Code ANSI/NFPA 70-1984 . . . it will be
deemed to be in compliance with §§1926.403 through 1926.408, except for §§1926.404(b)(1) and 1926.405(a)(2)(ii)(E),
(F), (G) and (J). [Return to Text]
4 An affirmative defense is a defense which, if established by the employer, will excuse the employer from a violation. [Return to Text]
5 Note, though, that §1926.21 (b)(2) requires the employer to "Instruct each employee in the recognition and avoidance of unsafe
conditions ...." [Return to Text]
* File provided for download only.
Accessibility Assistance: Contact the OSHA Directorate of Enforcement Programs at (240) 364-6015 for assistance accessing PDF
Home Codes & Standards List of NFPA codes & standards NFPA 70E
Find a code or
NFPA 70E: STANDARD FOR ELECTRICAL SAFETY IN THE WORKPLACE®
Preview 2012 NFPA 70E
Committee members: Sign-in
to view your documents.
Edition to display:
NFPA 70E requirements for safe work practices protect personnel by reducing exposure to major
electrical hazards. Originally developed at OSHA's request, NFPA 70E helps companies and
employees avoid workplace injuries and fatalities due to shock, electrocution, arc flash, and arc
blast, and assists in complying with OSHA 1910 Subpart S and OSHA 1926 Subpart K. Official
document scope.
What does NFPA 70E address?
Provisions encompass safety-related work practices, safety-related maintenance requirements,
and safety requirements for special equipment. The Standard includes guidance for making hazard
identification and risk assessments, selecting appropriate PPE, establishing an electrically safe
work condition, and employee training. Table of Contents.
Archived revision information
Errata 70E-12-1 (issued: 8/28/2012) (PDF, 21.9 KB)
NEC® Style Manual (PDF, 187.1 KB)
NEC® Style Manual (followed by 70E) (PDF, 90.4 KB)
Smart Grid and NFPA Electrical Safety Codes and Standards
NFPA 70E:
Member: $48.60
2012 NFPA 70E:
Electrical Safety in
the Workplace 2-day
Learn how the 2012
NFPA 70E® protects
personnel by identifying
and reducing exposure to
Item#: 70E2
Access Blocked - Content Alert
NFPA 72: National
Fire Alarm Code,
Item#: 7207
List: $85.50
Member: $76.95
NFPA 70E: Standard
and Handbook Set,
Item#: 70ESET12
List: $192.00
Set: $158.75
Member: $142.88
NFPA 70E: Safety
Electricians DVD 2009 Edition
Item#: VC106DVD
List: $507.75
Member: $456.98
• Prohibited Approach - The distance at which qualified personnel should not
introduce grounded equipment or material not insulated for the voltage rating due to the
possibility of flashover. A documented and approved risk analysis plan is required to
enter a prohibited space.
To accommodate the work practices stated above for many common tasks, NFPA 70E
Table 130.7(C)(9)(a), has been provided for use. However, specific fault currents and
fault clearing times were assumed in the preparation of those tables. The assumed
short circuit current capacities and fault clearing times are listed in the notes of the
table. If the fault currents or fault clearing times are different than those used in
generating the recommendations in the table, the incident energy can be very different.
These tables are suitable for their intended use, providing an immediate answer, but are
not a substitute for performing a more detailed arc flash hazard analysis specific to the
facility. Analyses that take into consideration the true operating conditions of a specific
facility can be performed using the methods outlined in either NFPA 70E or IEEE
Standard 1584-2002. The IEEE 1584-2002 guidelines have been derived as a result of
extensive testing and, therefore, are typically considered to be more accurate. Use of
either methodology should be considered acceptable.
With regard to determining appropriate work practices and PPE, the magnitude of the
potential arc flash hazard is first determined based on the work being performed, the
exposure to the employee, and the potential incident energy of an arc flash. The
appropriate PPE is then selected with guidance provided in the PPE Matrix, NFPA 70E
Table 130.7(C)(10). Further guidance on protective clothing characteristics is provided
in NFPA 70E Table 130.7(C)(11).
With regard to what a utility should already be doing to minimize the exposure of
employees to energized circuits, OSHA 1910.269 has provided requirements on
working on energized lines and equipment, deenergizing lines and equipment, PPE,
grounding, and guarding.
OSHA expects employers and employees to comply with the provisions of NFPA 70E
regardless of whether or not it has been “adopted” as an OSHA requirement. NFPA
70E compliance involves putting an electrical safety program in place, identifying and
analyzing electrical hazards in the workplace, educating the workforce on those
hazards, requiring the use of appropriate PPE, and using warning labels and guards to
Electrical Reliability Services - Training Services Electrical Safety Custom Courses
Stay Safe and Solvent...Learn All About OSHA Stay Safe and
NTT`s NFPA 70E/Arc Flash Electrical Safety training meets
Environmental Health & Safety Legislation and Standards [Opens in
technical committee on structural and proximity fire fighting
Main routes of entry
HOT WORK PERMIT - NC Department of Labor
Chabot College Spring 2007
35 Cards •