size of the wires and there current handling capacity

HIGH-LEG CONDUCTOR TERMINATION, DELTA HIGH-LEG 3-PHASE 4-WIRE SYSTEM

Justification for live work, and define live work. Example: Is working in a live 120/208 panelboard with the cover off and the dead front still on live work? By working I mean pulling new circuits etc.

I think that you have to establish exactly what is meant by "infeasible" when determining whether you are permitted to work on any energized equipment 50 volts or more. NFPA 70E 130.1(A)(2) and OSHA 29 CFR 1910.333(a) both emphatically state that "no live work" is to be performed unless it is considered diagnostic or is performed due to "infeasibility." The infeasibility has to be related to life safety concerns and not because of inconvenient or economic implications. Try substantiating that a shut down would create a greater "hazard" because an integral part of a continuous industrial process would stop production. Production in most cases is not related to life safety it is economic. OSHA and NFPA 70E are saying that using the appropriate PPE does not by itself justify the "live work." Unless this language is understood by everyone and consistently enforced by regulatory agencies, those who strive to comply will be put out of business as less than scrupulous contractors will take advantage of the opportunity to keep busy completing live work tasks without "feasibility" justification.

The tables in 70E allowed a reduction in PPE requirement for certain tasks. Is the reduction in PPE requirement still available from calculated arc levels? Then, what precise effect does the statement about doors not generally providing protection have on work planning and the determination of required PPE level?

Thank you in advance Mike for taking a crack at simplifying this standard and making it easier for everybody to use.

Live work permits - when they are required... If the work is "routine" I.E. voltage testing, measure load, or resetting motor overloads... These tasks can fall under work practices that are pre-written and kept on file...

130.3 Exception No. 2 (typically simplified approach). A lot of people don't fully read (or understand) the notes and limitations to Table 130.7(C)(9) when applying the simplified approach... They look at this as a loop hole to keep from doing analysis.

I hope you can add a section to your book on what would help with justification for doing a full Coordination and Arc Flash study vs. using the simplified approach...

110.6 (C) required training for release of victims, first aid and CPR...

General comment - A lot of people believe that wearing the PPE gives you cart blanche invitation to do energized work.

Thanks for all you do for the trade Mike... God bless you...

Article 130 and flow charts 70 E-76-70E-86.I teach as part of the 4 hour continuing education for electricians in Texas along with your Changes to the NEC.tHE 101 Essential NEC Rules is also a very good book. Keep up the good work.

Mike, I was wondering if you can take a poll of electrical workers. I was wondering in this hard economic time what percentage of electrical workers feel they are in compliance with the state electrical training requirements. In addition, how many electrical workers have enough money to buy the current NEC code book. The last group of electricians I worked with in 2007 had the 1992 version of NEC. I am a degreed electrical engineer with 15 years of engineering experience and I can't afford a current copy of NEC.

I've been working with NFPA 70E now for about 10 years and have performed a number of studies with some being large hospitals, industrial plants and now an airport. I have a number of comments and would like to send you one or two text documents.

My biggest concern with NFPA70E is Table 130.7(C)(9)(a) Hazardous Risk Category Classification. This table should be deleted from the standard since most people don't read or understand the notes at the bottom of the table. The table is based upon very short OCD clearing times. There is not way anyone can look at a system and make a judgement as to how fast OCDs will trip. Thus the table can place people in real danger.

Next, it is important to understand that current limiting fuses will not reduce the arc flash hazard unless the arc fault in within the current limiting range of the fuse. I have a technical paper I can send you which illustrates this fact. The paper may be a little out of date so I may need to do some updating before i send it.

Please let me know where to send text documents.

Saludos Mike;

I considered Chapters 1 and Chapter 4 of STD. NFPA as the ones of most importance for the Electrical Contractor/ Installer. Maybe should consider the Introduction for general knowledge of the standard scope.

I would like to be ther first customer when the textbook comes out. I hope you will also make power point slides available. There is a lot of interest in WV for this information.

I would recommend a list of resources, for example there is an Arc Flash forum, to help those of use new to 70E.

Anther suggestion it to include a list of success stories for companies that have implemented 70E. I did a class at a refinery recently, and they adopted 70E (not required in Washington State as we are not under OSHA) and they got full management buy in. Engineer practice is to reduce arc flash to 3 calories (I may have that number wrong).

I am familure with NFPA70E having read it twice cover to cover. It seems to be very difficult to comply with the energized work permit requirements in a construction setting.I realize that its intent is to only work on de energized equipment except when testing or troubleshooting.And it's hard to make a case that the equipment cannot be shut done. Try telling that to all the other trades on the site. And if we add in the hours that it takes to shut the equipment off during non working hours, overtime etc. then we are at a disadvantage to other companies that do not follow 70E. So I guess clarification on the work permit and hazard analysis would help.It would also help if the engineers would complete the hazards analysis at the time of design.

Article 130 is probaly the most confusing. They give you a table to use then tell you you can't use it unless you do the proper calculations. Even though you are given formulas to use ,these formulas are cumbersome for the average electrician. I know there is not a one size fits all answere, but you might want to focus on that.

Actually I have a copy of Electrical safety In the Workplace by by Ray A and Jane G. Jones, published by the NFPA in 2000. Has carried me for a number of years. I have attended 70E NFPA training years ago when I was a member of the Electrical Section.

Concern I have with the standard as well as the OSHA requirement is 1 LOTO requires testing the circuit to insure it is open prior to working on it. In many cases this requires full dress out in PPE depending upon the identified fault current.

2. Most of the industries I have inspected do not have available fault currents stenciled on LOTO inspect equipment. Obtaining that is costly