|
The primary reason to be concerned about arc flash is for the safety of the personnel. Short circuits and arc faults are very dangerous and potentially fatal to personnel [ more...]. Exposure to an arc flash frequently results in a variety of serious injuries such as severe burns, damaged eyesight, ruptured eardrums, collapsed lungs, psychological trauma and in some cases - death. Arc flash hazard analysis is required to determine the risk to personnel, warn them of the hazards, and to instruct them as to what kind of personal protective equipment they must wear.
The number two reason to be concerned about arc flash hazards is liability and government regulations. In the United States, OSHA regulations apply to every worker that may approach or be exposed to energized electrical equipment. Failure for an employer to conform and follow OSHA and NEC requirements can lead to employee injuries, fines, penalties, and expensive law suits. There are several regulations that address arc flash hazards in US. They are:
- National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) Standard 70 known as The National Electric Code. The NEC 2002 addresses the arc flash hazard in Article 110.16 NFPA 70B 2002 Recommended Practice for Electrical Equipment Maintenance.
- NFPA 70E 2000 Standard for Electrical Safety Requirements for Employee Workplaces
- OSHA Standards 29-CFR, Part 1910 Sub part S (electrical) Standard number 1910.333.
In Canada, arc flash is addressed legislatively at both the provincial and federal levels [ more...]. . All provincial occupational health and safety acts have a general duty clause requiring employers to take reasonable precautions to ensure their employees' health and safety. Federally, as of 31 March 2004, Bill C-45 established a duty under the Criminal Code of Canada for employers, managers and supervisors to ensure workplace health and safety. Under the code as amended by Bill C-45, there is no specific limit on fines against a corporation that's found guilty, and individual representatives of a corporation can receive a maximum sentence of life imprisonment if convicted of criminal negligence causing death. The Canadian Standards Association (CSA) does not currently have a standard equivalent to NFPA 70E. Nonetheless, when hearing a case, the court decides on the standard of care by asking what a reasonable person with same background or expertise would have done in the same circumstances. In the absence of such a document, many companies in Canada adhere to the NFPA 70E standard. Also, this standard for electrical safety protection is being considered for adoption in Canada. Adopting the safe work practices found in NFPA 70E is certainly a reasonable measure for an employer to follow to protect his employees.
|
