2012 NFPA 70E Report on Proposals
It is finally here. Thanks to the hard work of all those that made proposals and to the Electrical Safety in the Workplace Committee Members, the 2012 NFPA 70E Report on Proposals is ready. Download the PDF file with the link below.

[url="http://www.nfpa.org/assets/files/AboutTheCodes/70E/70E-A2011-ROP.pdf"][DOWNLOAD 2012 NFPA 70E Report on Proposals][/url]

Public Comments Due by September 3, 2010
Anyone may submit a public comment on the proposed changes documented in the ROP. The comments are due by September 3, 2010. You may download the comment form at:

[url="http://www.nfpa.org/assets/files/PDF/CodesStandards/NFPACommentForm.doc"]ROC Comment Form Download[/url]

[url="http://submissions.nfpa.org/onlinesub/onsubmain.php"]ROC Comment Form Online[/url]

Discuss the ROP Here
We are ready to begin the discussion and debate of the ROP right here at ArcFlashForum.com There are many good submittals and of course, a few that might raise some eyebrows. This is a good place to use as a sounding board and we may find that a few comments are warrented.

Anyone ready to provide a summary of significant proposals? I have yet to make it through all 244 pages.
Thanks!

I am sure each one is important to the people proposing it,


In my opinion Log #79 should have been accepted in principle.

124 should have been accepted, esentially for the reason the Explanation of Neg states


260 Why on earth do they want to prohibit marking of both the incident energy and minimum arc rating ?
If it was intended to prevent the use of PPE listing by methods other than calculation, or other methods of identifying IE (such as put forward in log 359) then it should be

"the following information:
(1) Only one of the following:
a. Available incident energy and/or Minimum Arc Rating of Cloathing as identified by calculation

b. Minimum arc rating of clothing as identified by methods other than calculation of incident energy.


I would also disagree wit the way the items that need to be labeled are defined in that section, and do NOT agree that it is equivalent to what log 359 would use.

Also I would say that if ANSI Z535 is to be the label standard, and shock hazard is included on the label, then "Danger" is the only "signal word" that can be used.

Meant to say
70E-4 Log 79 should have been accepted in principle


and 70E-31 Log 124 should have been as well

Guidance on DC systems and adding DC to the tables, stricter labeling requirements and some changes to the requirements of arc flash studies, and maintaining them current. (Read the whole thing)

[quote="JKlessig"]I am sure each one is important to the people proposing it,

You are correct. Thanks to all the people who actively participate to improve these standards.

What I should have said - What are some of the highlights of the items likely to be accepted that most affect the way we do arc flash studies. In other words what changes might I wish to start incorporating now in my studies looking to the future?

I have skimmed through it; hopefully I will be able to find some time soon to read it more thoroughly. In the mean time, I appreciate everyone’s comments and thoughts.

I’ve made it through 76 pages and still reading. If I understand correctly, the same committee that voted before will take the public comments and then re-vote on the proposals based on those public comments? Then it goes to the Association Technical meeting where it’s voted on again? I’m just trying to understand the process.

Also, do all comments have to be on the form provided? Are all of the public comments published in the ROC document or just a selection of them? I’ve never really paid a lot of attention to this process, just accepted the final document, but I feel that this cycle I may comment on some of the proposed changes.