Mike Holt Enterprises Understanding the NEC

Keeping up with the requirements of the Code should be the goal of everyone involved in electrical safety. Following is what I feel is an important rule in the 2020 NEC®, complete with graphics and a video. I encourage you to use it as a training resource for your organization, and share it with your colleagues.

Arc-Flash Hazard Warning [110.16]

The content below is extracted from Mike Holt's Understanding the National Electrical Code, Volume 1, based on the 2020 NEC.

From the very beginning of the National Electrical Code its intentions are made clear, “the purpose of this Code is the practical safeguarding of persons and property from hazards arising from the use of electricity” [90.1(A)]. Article 110 goes a step further and sets the stage for how the rest of the NEC is implemented and is a bit more focused on ensuring that electrical installations are safe for the installer and service or maintenance electrician.

Arc-flash hazard warning [110.16] and the proper labeling of electrical equipment [110.16(A)] is at the pinnacle of ensuring personal safety. Do you know what equipment needs to be labeled or what information needs to be on this labelling? How about the proper personal protective gear to be worn when servicing electrical equipment?

Maintaining electrical safety in the field should be all of our number one focus so I implore you to read the attached text and make time to watch this video clip extracted from our Understanding the National Electrical Code Volume 1 based on the 2020 NEC as myself and a panel of experts, explain the requirements pertaining to arc-flash warning.

 

Click here or on the thumbnail to the left to view or download the PDF of this Article to follow as you watch the video.

Click on the image above to watch the video

• • •

We'd love to hear from you about this series, and the ways you're using it. Send us your comments and feedback by clicking on Post a Comment below. Look out for the next part in this series a month from now, and please share with your colleagues.

This content is extracted from Mike Holt's Illustrated Guide to Understanding the National Electrical Code, Volume 1, based on the 2020 NEC Program.


Exam Preparation | Continuing Education | Code Products | more..
888.NEC.CODE (632.2633) www.MikeHolt.com
Mike Holt Enterprises, 3604 Parkway Boulevard, Ste 3, Leesburg, FL 34748
"... as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord" [Joshua 24:15]

Comments
  • I’d like to ask something on this if you don’t mind because standards are expensive and the last time I bought a NFPA 70E book was for 2015. 70 110.16 B includes a requirement for marking the clearing time of the circuit breaker and it was discussed here that this can be used for if you reference the 70E section 130 tables for classification of hazard and ppe selection. But unless the 70E standard has changed I don’t recall the tables in section 130 including the clearing time of a circuit breaker in the selection criteria for PPE. Do you know if they have changed or will change in the 2021 standard, to include this?

    Secondly, for getting the clearing time of an inverse time circuit breaker under fault, what is really the practice for doing this? It’s an inverse time circuit breaker so it’s clearing time is going to be dependent on the systems ability and how much fault this current system provides. On the services over 1200 A that I have done there’s always been an arc flash study so this was never something that was considered by field personnel.

    BTW: I think there may be a good reason 70E wouldn’t want people using clearing time in ppe selection using just the tables. That being because while it is not difficult to calculate infinite bus through a transformer, any calculation relying on clearing time of circuit breaker has to consider the condition of maintenance of the circuit breaker (also part of the NFPA 70 E standard’s requirements) and so having a label that marks the mfr standard clearing time and using it for a field calculation that is not done as part of a once every 5 year arc flash study could come with a risk of underestimating the hazard. Using infinite bus comes with less risk of under-classifying the hazard of working in an environment where there’s no arc flash study/label.

    Thanks

    JW  December 6 2020, 3:19 am EST
    Reply to this comment
  • Reply from: Mike Holt   December 6 2020, 2:28 pm EST
    Please post your question on MikeHolt.com/Forum. I'm not an expert on 70E.
    Reply to Mike Holt



Get notified when new comments are posted here
* Your Email:
 
        
 
Add Your Comments to this Newsletter
* Your Name:
   Your name will appear under your comments.

* Your Email:
   Your email address is not displayed.
* Comments:

Email Notification Options:
Notify me when a reply is posted to this comment
Notify me whenever a comment is posted to this newsletter