Jump to content



Photo
- - - - -

Shock Hazard Prevention

  • Please log in to reply
35 replies to this topic

#1 BobLfoot

BobLfoot

    The Wizard

  • MrPLC Admin
  • 3160 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Southern Indiana
  • Country:United States
    United States

Posted 04 May 2006 - 12:26 AM

In the US we have a device called a GFCI {Ground Fault Circuit Interrupter} OSHA defines it as follows:
A ground-fault occurs when there is a break in the low-resistance grounding path from a tool or electrical system. The electrical current may then take an alternative path to the ground through the user, resulting in serious injuries or death. The ground-fault circuit interrupter, or GFCI, is a fast-acting circuit breaker designed to shut off electric power in the event of a ground-fault within as little as 1/40 of a second. It works by comparing the amount of current going to and returning from equipment along the circuit conductors. When the amount going differs from the amount returning by approximately 5 milliamperes, the GFCI interrupts the current.

The GFCI is rated to trip quickly enough to prevent an electrical incident. If it is properly installed and maintained, this will happen as soon as the faulty tool is plugged in. If the grounding conductor is not intact or of low-impedance, the GFCI may not trip until a person provides a path. In this case, the person will receive a shock, but the GFCI should trip so quickly that the shock will not be harmful.

Right now from my understanding GFCI is required by Construction Trades. Is anyone else using these devices and if so with what results?
BobLfoot

"Poor Planning on your part does not a crisis on my part make"

#2 Ken Moore

Ken Moore

    Principal Specialist

  • MrPLC Admin
  • 1711 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Upstate South Carolina
  • Country:United States
    United States

Posted 04 May 2006 - 04:32 AM

There was an article passed around the chemcial industry a few years ago about a welder who was grinding inside a stainless steel tank, some how he ground through the power cord and electrocuted himself.

Since then we require ALL hand tools to be feed through a GFCI. We didn't have the time or money to replace all the outlets in the plant, so we purchased a bunch of portable ones. They plug into any outlet, has about a 6 inch pigtail, with the GFCI built in.
Now any maint. worker or contractor must have one at the work site, before a work permit will be issued.
If anyone if found using a tool without a GFCI, there are severe consequences, depending on the record of the person involved, it could be termination or if a contractor, ejection from the site, and no future work. For employees we have periodic training, and for contractors we have a safety training course that must be completed before allowing any work to be preformed.
So far, (knock on wood) we have not had any cases of electrical shock.





#3 Money4Nothing

Money4Nothing

    Sparky

  • MrPLC Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 58 posts
  • Country:United States
    United States

Posted 04 May 2006 - 09:24 AM

I design circuits on an ungrounded power system. On most of our outlets we don't use GFCIs, we just float the ground at the receptacle and put a small fuse inline. This way you can short to ground, but never lose service. :lookingaround:

$

#4 GerryM

GerryM

    Sparky

  • MrPLC Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 155 posts
  • Location:Auburn, NY, USA
  • Country:United States
    United States

Posted 04 May 2006 - 10:09 AM

Since then we require ALL hand tools to be feed through a GFCI. We didn't have the time or money to replace all the outlets in the plant, so we purchased a bunch of portable ones.


Same here.


Be careful with the ungrounded systems. The first acidental ground is free, the second could get you in trouble. If that is the case then use a ground detection monitor.

#5 TConnolly

TConnolly

    Guru

  • MrPLC Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 942 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Salt Lake City
  • Country:United States
    United States

Posted 04 May 2006 - 10:44 AM

I design circuits on an ungrounded power system. On most of our outlets we don't use GFCIs, we just float the ground at the receptacle and put a small fuse inline. This way you can short to ground, but never lose service. :lookingaround:



:yes: This does absolutely nothing to protect the operators from electrical shock.


#6 BobLfoot

BobLfoot

    The Wizard

  • MrPLC Admin
  • 3160 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Southern Indiana
  • Country:United States
    United States

Posted 04 May 2006 - 07:08 PM

Sounds like there are two opposing views developing.
1. Those who place the prioriity on the machine continuing to function when a hot is grounded and therfore 'float" the receptacle ground like M4N and GerryM.
2. Those who place end user safety as priority 31 and want any ground and /or shock potential no matter how small to shut off the tool and protect the operator. Ken moore and Alaric would seem to fall in this group.

Obviously the above is a generalization. Each case needs to be considered individually. Hopefully others will continue to add their thoughts.

I design circuits on an ungrounded power system. On most of our outlets we don't use GFCIs, we just float the ground at the receptacle and put a small fuse inline. This way you can short to ground, but never lose service. :lookingaround:



:yes: This does absolutely nothing to protect the operators from electrical shock.


BobLfoot

"Poor Planning on your part does not a crisis on my part make"

#7 GerryM

GerryM

    Sparky

  • MrPLC Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 155 posts
  • Location:Auburn, NY, USA
  • Country:United States
    United States

Posted 05 May 2006 - 06:38 AM

1. Those who place the prioriity on the machine continuing to function when a hot is grounded and therfore 'float" the receptacle ground like M4N and GerryM.


You misunderstood me, or i wasn't very clear. I'm with number 2. I agree with using GFCI's on the extension cords.

My earlier comment was regarding the use of ungrounded systems in general. I didn't think M4N's implementation of an ungrounded system, in his case, was quite correct. There are instances where they are safer than a grounded system when implemented correctly. For example, many Hospitals use ungrounded systems.

Edited by GerryM, 05 May 2006 - 06:40 AM.


#8 BobLfoot

BobLfoot

    The Wizard

  • MrPLC Admin
  • 3160 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Southern Indiana
  • Country:United States
    United States

Posted 05 May 2006 - 03:12 PM

Apologies Gerry as I said my post was a generalization. The only ungrounded systems I've worked with were 24vdc control never 120 ac.
BobLfoot

"Poor Planning on your part does not a crisis on my part make"

#9 gruntstripe

gruntstripe

    Sparky

  • MrPLC Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 65 posts
  • Country:Wales
    Wales

Posted 06 May 2006 - 08:32 AM

Hi,

In the U.K. we call them R.C.D.s - Residual Current Device. They are available in trip currents of 10mA or 30mA.
What one often finds over here is that most portable tools in factories and construction sites are supplied via a 240/110v isolating transformer. These were originally intended to protect construction site workers from shocks. 'Unfortunately' they are widely used in factories (maintenance depts.) so we technicians have to lug heavy transformers around whenever we wish to use a drill/grinder etc.
I guess RCDs (robust portable ones) have only relatively recently become available. Hopefully the 'legacy' transformers wiil die out.

#10 BobLfoot

BobLfoot

    The Wizard

  • MrPLC Admin
  • 3160 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Southern Indiana
  • Country:United States
    United States

Posted 06 May 2006 - 12:39 PM

Hi,

In the U.K. we call them R.C.D.s - Residual Current Device. They are available in trip currents of 10mA or 30mA.


So USA = GFCI
and UK = RCD
and I know Austraila calles them something else.

others care to educatee us all.
BobLfoot

"Poor Planning on your part does not a crisis on my part make"

#11 TWControls

TWControls

    Automation Therapist

  • MrPLC Admin
  • 4504 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Roanoke, Virginia
  • Country:United States
    United States

Posted 06 May 2006 - 02:07 PM

I think Australia uses RCD also. HERE is Sleepy Wombat's thread asking about the RCD symbol

#12 waynes

waynes

    Sparky

  • MrPLC Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 322 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Johannesburg, Gauteng
  • Interests:Anything awesome!
  • Country:South Africa
    South Africa

Posted 07 May 2006 - 02:34 AM

Hi gents,

In South Africa we call them Earth Leakage Circuit Breakers. As mentioned, if there is a differential larger than x mA, the supply will be tripped. This is standard throughout all houses in South Africa.

#13 TERdON

TERdON

    Sparky

  • MrPLC Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 179 posts
  • Location:Laholm, Halland
  • Country:Sweden
    Sweden

Posted 08 May 2006 - 09:40 AM

Oh, to educate you all, in Sweden we call them "jordfelsbrytare" - "earth fault breaker". And in German "Fehlerstromschutzschalter" - "error current protective switch" or "FI-Schalter" (error current switch). And in Spanish "Interruptor diferencial" - "differencial breaker". :)

http://en.wikipedia....-current_device

#14 Sleepy Wombat

Sleepy Wombat

    Controls Engineer

  • MrPLC Admin
  • 1986 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Sydney, NSW
  • Country:Australia
    Australia

Posted 08 May 2006 - 04:03 PM

Thanks Tedron, we can now add tose to our list compiled by Sanif

RCDs (Residual Current Devices), common usage in Australia
RCCBs (Residual Current Circuit Breakers), common usage in Australia
ELCBs (Earth Leakage Circuit-Breakers), common usage in Singapore, Malaysia
CBRs (Core Balance Relays), I don't really know where it is commonly used
GFIs (Ground Fault Interrupts), common usage in USA
GFCI ( Ground Fault Circuit Interrupter), common usage in USA

And now
Sweedish - "jordfelsbrytare" - "earth fault breaker"
German "Fehlerstromschutzschalter" - "error current protective switch" or "FI-Schalter"
And in Spanish "Interruptor diferencial" - "differencial breaker"

:dance: :-2

DEXA Pty Ltd

Design Engineering Xtreme Automation

 

We have a NEW website... check it out at

www.dexa.com.au




 


#15 TWControls

TWControls

    Automation Therapist

  • MrPLC Admin
  • 4504 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Roanoke, Virginia
  • Country:United States
    United States

Posted 08 May 2006 - 04:20 PM

I recognize the Core Balance Relay. Can't swear it is common or even origionates from the US but have heard people call them that when you ask what a GFI is. Also refered to in some AB motor protection part numbers

#16 Ken Moore

Ken Moore

    Principal Specialist

  • MrPLC Admin
  • 1711 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Upstate South Carolina
  • Country:United States
    United States

Posted 08 May 2006 - 04:30 PM

In emails with people in Asia, I have seen the term "earth leakage relay" used instead of "core balance relay".





#17 TERdON

TERdON

    Sparky

  • MrPLC Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 179 posts
  • Location:Laholm, Halland
  • Country:Sweden
    Sweden

Posted 08 May 2006 - 05:32 PM

Thanks Tedron, we can now add tose to our list compiled by Sanif

RCDs (Residual Current Devices), common usage in Australia
RCCBs (Residual Current Circuit Breakers), common usage in Australia
ELCBs (Earth Leakage Circuit-Breakers), common usage in Singapore, Malaysia
CBRs (Core Balance Relays), I don't really know where it is commonly used
GFIs (Ground Fault Interrupts), common usage in USA
GFCI ( Ground Fault Circuit Interrupter), common usage in USA

And now
Sweedish - "jordfelsbrytare" - "earth fault breaker"
German "Fehlerstromschutzschalter" - "error current protective switch" or "FI-Schalter"
And in Spanish "Interruptor diferencial" - "differencial breaker"

:-2 :-)


I might as well complete the list with the rest of the languages from Wikipedia as well. Where I understand anything of it, I have written a literal translation. :)

Czech: Proudový chránič
Danish: Fejlstrømsafbryder (fault current breaker)
Italian: Interruttore differenziale (differential breaker, don't really know Italian but it's almost identical to the Spanish term.)
Hebrew: ממסר פחת (I can't even tell you the names of those letters!)
Dutch: Aardlekschakelaar (Unsure, but my knowledge and German makes me guess it's "ground leak breaker")
Polish: Bezpiecznik różnicowo-prądowy

:dance:

#18 waynes

waynes

    Sparky

  • MrPLC Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 322 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Johannesburg, Gauteng
  • Interests:Anything awesome!
  • Country:South Africa
    South Africa

Posted 09 May 2006 - 07:14 AM

Dutch: Aardlekschakelaar (Unsure, but my knowledge and German makes me guess it's "ground leak breaker")


Translate to earth leakage switch....

#19 Money4Nothing

Money4Nothing

    Sparky

  • MrPLC Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 58 posts
  • Country:United States
    United States

Posted 09 May 2006 - 04:44 PM

I design circuits on an ungrounded power system. On most of our outlets we don't use GFCIs, we just float the ground at the receptacle and put a small fuse inline. This way you can short to ground, but never lose service. :dance:



:-2 This does absolutely nothing to protect the operators from electrical shock.


Opening the circuit breaker off while working with outlets will protect from shock.

It seems to me that if the 120VAC shorts to floating "ground", nothing will change, because there is no conducting path to the neutral through ground. The current must still travel on the neutral conductor to get back to the transformer.
$

Edited by Money4Nothing, 09 May 2006 - 04:56 PM.


#20 TWControls

TWControls

    Automation Therapist

  • MrPLC Admin
  • 4504 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Roanoke, Virginia
  • Country:United States
    United States

Posted 09 May 2006 - 04:49 PM


I design circuits on an ungrounded power system. On most of our outlets we don't use GFCIs, we just float the ground at the receptacle and put a small fuse inline. This way you can short to ground, but never lose service. :dance:



:-2 This does absolutely nothing to protect the operators from electrical shock.



Actually it does everything to protect operators from electrical shock. If you touch a potential that is with respect to a floating ground, you can't shock yourself, because there is no conducting path back to the source.

$


Yes and no. Legally in the USA a 50-250 volts are considered the same shock hazard. But...

#21 Money4Nothing

Money4Nothing

    Sparky

  • MrPLC Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 58 posts
  • Country:United States
    United States

Posted 09 May 2006 - 05:52 PM

Yes and no. Legally in the USA a 50-250 volts are considered the same shock hazard. But...


With all respect my friend, there's nothing legal about it (the voltage that is). If your neutral is ungrounded at the source, and you short the hot to ground, no matter what the voltage is (within 250V or so :-2 ), you won't cause a shock hazard because there is no conducting path from ground to the voltage source (in my case, a Delta-Wye 480/208 transformer). This is a well-established technology, its used in many hospitals and other facilities throughout the USA and the world, and is accepted by many governing bodies throughout the world.

Cheers! :dance:

$

Edited by Money4Nothing, 09 May 2006 - 05:55 PM.


#22 TWControls

TWControls

    Automation Therapist

  • MrPLC Admin
  • 4504 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Roanoke, Virginia
  • Country:United States
    United States

Posted 09 May 2006 - 05:59 PM


Yes and no. Legally in the USA a 50-250 volts are considered the same shock hazard. But...


With all respect my friend, there's nothing legal about it (the voltage that is). If your neutral is ungrounded at the source, and you short the hot to ground, no matter what the voltage is (within 250V or so :-) ), you won't cause a shock hazard because there is no conducting path from ground to the voltage source (in my case, a Delta-Wye 480/208 transformer). This is a well-established technology, its used in many hospitals and other facilities throughout the USA and the world, and is accepted by many governing bodies throughout the world.

Cheers! :dance:

$


Hey I'm just reading straight out of the NFPA 70E. Grounded or not it's not legal according to the book :-2

#23 BobLfoot

BobLfoot

    The Wizard

  • MrPLC Admin
  • 3160 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Southern Indiana
  • Country:United States
    United States

Posted 09 May 2006 - 07:06 PM

I think we are dealing with Apples and Oranges here.in this post and I'll be the first to admit the portion I understand is less than the portion I don't understand. Perhaps after this post M4N and TW can claify the Apple and Orange systems as I'll call them. Please forgive any assumptions or over simplifications. I am learning a lot from this discussion and hope it continues.

Apple System {no relationship to MAC}- Used primarily for Industry and goverend by NFPA70. A normal 120 volt outlet in this system had a ground which can be traced back to earth ground. It also has a neutral which can be traced back to a common point at the power source and at this common point it bridges to ground. A GFCI used in this system will trip on the following conditions. Condition 1 a current flow detedted in the ground will trip the breker. Condition 2 a current flow inbalance between Hot and Neutral will trip the breaker. The assumption is that an alternate path to source exists and that path could be the operator. Primary concern with GFCI in this system is operator safety. A short between an easrth ground source {Water Pipe} and a Hot through the operators body would trip the GFCI and result in minimal injury.

Orange System - Used primarily for Institutional and Medical applications and is goverend by ???. A normal 120 volt outlet in this system has a ground which does not connect to earth ground. This is what I believe is called a "floated ground". The neutral in this system does return to source. The GFCI breaker will not function in this environment. An operator touching "Floating Ground" and Hot in this system would not receive a shock and operation of the device would continue. A short between an earth ground source {Water Pipe or Sink Faucet} and a Hot through the operators body would continue to shock the operator until the overcurrent limit device was tripped and would result in significant potential danger to the operator.

Ok guru's and experts from all over poke holes and let's all learn to do better.
BobLfoot

"Poor Planning on your part does not a crisis on my part make"

#24 TWControls

TWControls

    Automation Therapist

  • MrPLC Admin
  • 4504 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Roanoke, Virginia
  • Country:United States
    United States

Posted 09 May 2006 - 07:21 PM

I'm positive that the hospital is not exempt from the shock hazard but there is an additional section for hospitals that may have additional stipulations. Finally home so will have read it tomorrow.

Floating ground, hooked to neutral, not connected, or hooked to a radio antenna for better reception: The shock hazard guidelines still apply

#25 Money4Nothing

Money4Nothing

    Sparky

  • MrPLC Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 58 posts
  • Country:United States
    United States

Posted 10 May 2006 - 09:21 AM

OK I'll go a little bit more in depth on this issue.

First of all, the NFPA 70E is a standard addressing electrically safe work practices, while the NFPA70 is an electrical installation document and protects employees under normal circumstances.

NFPA 70 (aka the National Electric Code) Article 517 contains regulations for grounding in health care facilities.

517.19 Critical Care Areas
(F) Isolated Power System Grounding. Where an isolated ungrounded power source is used and limits the first-fault current to a low magnitude, the grounding conductor associated with the secondary circuit shall be permitted to be run outside of the enclosure of the power conductors in the same circuit.

517.20 Wet Locations
(A) Receptacles and Fixed Equipment. All receptacles and fixed equipment within the area of the wet location shall have ground-fault circuit-interrupter protection for personnel if interruption of power under fault conditions can be tolerated, or be served by an isolated power system if such interruption cannot be tolerated.
(B) Isolated Power Systems. Where an isolated power system is utilized, the equipment shall be listed for the purpose and installed so that it meets the provisions of and is in accordance with 517.160.

517.21 Ground-Fault Circuit-Interrupter Protection for Personnel.
Ground-fault circuit-interrupter protection for personnel shall not be required for receptacles installed in those critical care areas where the toilet and basin are installed within the patient room.

517.160 Isolated Power Systems
(A) Installations.
(1) Isolated Power Circuits. Each isolated power circuit shall be controlled by a switch that has a disconnecting pole in each isolated circuit conductor to simultaneously disconnect all power. Such isolation shall be accomplished by means of one or more transformers haveing no electrical connection between primary and secondary windings, by means of motor generator sets, or by means of suitably isolated batteries.

etc, etc......
Interstingly enough, (and humorously enough) you don't need ground fault protection if you classify your receptacle as a "shaver".

422-40 Polarity in Cord- and Plug-Connected Appliances.
If the appliance is provided with a manually operated, line-connected, single-pole switch for appliance on-off operations, an Edison-base lampholder, or a 15- or 20-ampere receptacle, the attchment plug shall be of the polarized or grounding type. A 2-wire, nonpolarized attachment plug shall be permitted to be used on a listed double-insulated shaver.



In my case, several of my installations use isolating transformers, and meet the isolation protection described in 517.160. The surveyor having authority over my installation is the American Bureau of Shipping. They require a method for grounding and ground fault protection that is defined in NFPA70. It doesn't matter to ABS that the scope of the article is Health Care Facilities, just as long as it is a method that's defined in the NFPA70.

Now of course my first consideration is whether or not the installation is actually safe, regardless of what the regulations say. I am convinced that it is, from an electrical design standpoint. Its impossible to receive an electric shock due to a ground fault, because no potential exists between ground and hot (not even 50-250V, :-2 ). Anyway, I only use this method in a couple of places where it's convenient. The majority of my installations use GFCIs.

For some of you, keep in mind that NFPA70E is not Incorporated by Reference in 29 CFR 1910.6 (Therefore, OSHA does not enforce it). However, OSHA has several comparable requirements that are enforceable, but these have to do with the use of protective equipment. But OSHA is not my regulatory agency, ABS and IMO are, so I don't have to worry about them.

I hope this helps!
Cheers! :dance:

$

Edited by Money4Nothing, 10 May 2006 - 09:36 AM.


#26 TWControls

TWControls

    Automation Therapist

  • MrPLC Admin
  • 4504 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Roanoke, Virginia
  • Country:United States
    United States

Posted 10 May 2006 - 09:42 AM

For some of you, keep in mind that NFPA70E is not Incorporated by Reference in 29 CFR 1910.6 (Therefore, OSHA does not enforce it). However, OSHA has several comparable requirements that are enforceable, but these have to do with the use of protective equipment. But OSHA is not my regulatory agency, ABS and IMO are, so I don't have to worry about them.


Are you sure about that. NFPA70 is incorportated by 1910.6 and NFPA70E is specified in the NFPA70 to be followed. I also know of companies receiving fines and the violation referenced is from the NFPA70E. If they did not have the authority to enforce it then how would the specify the articles of the NFPA70E. Electrically right now their most favorite thing to pick on people about is the arc flash protection of the NFPA70E.

#27 Money4Nothing

Money4Nothing

    Sparky

  • MrPLC Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 58 posts
  • Country:United States
    United States

Posted 10 May 2006 - 10:03 AM

You could very well be correct TW. I have not looked closely at this in a about 18 months. For example, when I reviewed OSHA’s General Industry Regulations (29 CFR Part 1910), Subparts R and S concerning electrical Safety Related Work Practices, it did not appear that arc flash protection is required for employees. I am not a lawyer and will not pretend to know all of the rules, but NFPA 70E specifically is (was?) not included in the list in 1910.6’s “Incorporation by reference”. The National Electric Code NFPA 70 is included by reference and in rule 110.16 which requires electrical equipment to have a flash protection warning label, the fine print note refers to NFPA 70E. This may have changed recently, I don't know. However, implementing the provisions of NFPA 70E reduces the risk and/or extent of worker injury and should always be followed in my opinion.

Since I'm relatively ignorant of this issue at this point in time, I'm open to clarification.

$

#28 TWControls

TWControls

    Automation Therapist

  • MrPLC Admin
  • 4504 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Roanoke, Virginia
  • Country:United States
    United States

Posted 10 May 2006 - 10:23 AM

You could very well be correct TW. I have not looked closely at this in a about 18 months. For example, when I reviewed OSHA's General Industry Regulations (29 CFR Part 1910), Subparts R and S concerning electrical Safety Related Work Practices, it did not appear that arc flash protection is required for employees. I am not a lawyer and will not pretend to know all of the rules, but NFPA 70E specifically is (was?) not included in the list in 1910.6's "Incorporation by reference". The National Electric Code NFPA 70 is included by reference and in rule 110.16 which requires electrical equipment to have a flash protection warning label, the fine print note refers to NFPA 70E. This may have changed recently, I don't know. However, implementing the provisions of NFPA 70E reduces the risk and/or extent of worker injury and should always be followed in my opinion.

Since I'm relatively ignorant of this issue at this point in time, I'm open to clarification.

$


Just a couple of quick links. I don't have an electronic copy of the OSHA manual and don't have time to read it right now. THIS looks like the references in subpart S. THIS is 1910.6. I recently did a lot of research on Arc Flash protection and found many companies referencing the articles of OSHA that made it the law. I will see if I can find them again. This is a very recent change. I've got the year written down somewhere but 2002 or 2004 keeps popping into my head but can't remember right now.

And I'm not a lawyer either so I can't swear to any of this. Just going off of other companies experiences with OSHA and trying to keep us up to code.

Edited by TWControls, 10 May 2006 - 10:24 AM.


#29 TWControls

TWControls

    Automation Therapist

  • MrPLC Admin
  • 4504 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Roanoke, Virginia
  • Country:United States
    United States

Posted 10 May 2006 - 01:06 PM

Ok it looks as if NFPA70 and NFPA70E are legally in OSHAs jurisdiction. You may look at THIS, it gives an ok explaination

NFPA70 and NFPA70E are the law by references to them in the OSHA handbook and generalizations on OSHAs electrical standards from what I can tell. Pretty much since they reference the NFPA and OSHAs codes are so broad, you are suppose to use and OSHA inspectors do use the NPFA books for the details

#30 TWControls

TWControls

    Automation Therapist

  • MrPLC Admin
  • 4504 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Roanoke, Virginia
  • Country:United States
    United States

Posted 11 May 2006 - 10:50 AM

Well unfortunately I now have positive proof that NFPA 70 and NFPA 70E are under OSHA's jurisdiction. I get to escort them around the plant during a 3 day visit here :disgust:


Download » General Topics - The Lounge

    No categories found.

Store » General Topics - The Lounge

    No categories found.

Articles » General Topics - The Lounge

    No categories found.


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users