WHY ARE NFPA 70E AND CSA Z462 DIFFERENT?

Copyright Material IEEE

Paper No. ESW-2012-14

Kerry Heid A. Sc. T.
Member, IEEE
Magna Electric Corporation
2361 Industrial Drive
Regina, SK, S4P 3B2
Canada
kheid@magnaelectric.com
Thomas E. Neal, PhD
Fellow, IEEE
Neal Associates Ltd
106 Leetes Island Road
Guilford, CT
USA
nealassoc@earthlink.net
Daniel Roberts
Senior Member, IEEE
Schneider Electric
5985 McLaughlin Road
Mississauga, ON, L5R 1B8
Canada
daniel.roberts@schneider-
electric.com
Stephen Wilson
Senior Member, IEEE
Retired
49 Sunning Hill Ave
Hamilton, ON L8T 1B6
Canada
sfwilson@ieee.org

Abstract – During the development of the second edition of the
Canadian Standards Association (CSA) Z462 Workplace
Electrical Safety, a key focus of the Technical Committee was to
keep Z462 as closely harmonized as possible with the National
Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 70E standard. However,
there are a few instances where variance from harmonization
occurred.
The purpose in highlighting these variances is to:
1. Make users of these documents aware of the differences
between the two documents
2. Outline the rationale behind the decisions made by the
respective technical committees that resulted in these
variances
3. Provide impetus for discussion regarding how these
differences could affect workplace electrical safety
4. Stimulate discussion to advance continual improvement
of the two Standards
Ultimately it is our hope that the reader will be motivated to
get involved in the development of the next edition of both
Standards through the proposal and commenting process.
Index Terms — NFPA 70E, CSA Z462, Electrical Safety in
the Workplace, harmonization, Workplace Electrical Safety.
I. INTRODUCTION
The 2012 editions of CSA Z462 Workplace Electrical Safety
Standard and NFPA 70E Electrical Safety in the Workplace
were developed in parallel during a three year cycle. This
enabled the technical committees for both standards to benefit
from each other’s expertise and input. Technical committee
members from each standard participate in each phase of the
development cycle of the other standard. The result of this
effort is two workplace electrical safety standards that are
technically aligned in key areas such as qualifications of
workers, training requirements, personal protective equipment
requirements and safe work procedures.
An important driver for harmonization is ease of application by
multinational companies that might have a workforce in both
Canada and the United States of America. Although the two
technical committees have different organizational structures
and procedures, they still work closely together to ensure the
greatest degree of harmonization possible.
Some of the differences between the two documents are
attributable to Canadian regulations, related CSA Standards
and CSA document structure (see Table 1 for a comparative
overview of the differences in structure between the two
documents). In a few rare instances, variance occurred due to a
strong Z462 Technical Committee consensus opinion that the
requirements of the Standard could be revised or clarified for
improved worker safety and ease of application.
II. COMMITTEE STRUCTURE AND DOCUMENT STYLE
A. The Development and Review Process
Both organizations have a technical committee to develop the
revised document for each new edition. Both committees are
made up of a balance of representatives of a number of
interested groups or industries. Both technical committees have
members from the other committee sitting on their committee.
The general public is invited to make proposals during the
development stage for each new edition of the standards. The
NFPA process has a number of opportunities for the public to
review proposals and comments before the final approval of a
new edition. The CSA process only has one opportunity for the
public to comment on the new edition document. In both
organizations technical changes cannot be made once the final
public review has taken place.
The NFPA revision cycle begins with a Call for Proposals
issued by public notice. At the next step, the technical
committee meets to consider and act on the proposals. The
committee may also create its own proposals at this stage. The
result of this meeting is issued as a Report on Proposals (ROP)
which is sent to the technical committee for a formal written
ballot. Once the ROP becomes publicly available there is a 60
day comment period during which the public may comment on
the proposed changes. The technical committee reviews all the
comments, votes on whether to accept, modify or reject each
comment, and issues a Report on Comments (ROC) which is
made available to the public for 7 weeks. The material is then
sent to the Association Technical Meeting for final approval.
The CSA Z462 revision cycle is conducted in parallel with the
NFPA 70E cycle, but the process is different. In an effort to
simultaneously drive change and maintain technical alignment,
the Z462 Technical Committee submits proposals and
comments to NFPA 70E. All Z462 Technical Committee
submissions are made through the Z462 Harmonization

978-1-4673-1062-8/12/$31.00 ©2012 IEEE

Subcommittee. During each cycle the Z462 Technical
Committee holds the following meetings.
1. A meeting is held to draft and submit proposals to the
70E proposal process.
2. A meeting is held to review the outcome of the 70E
proposal process and to draft comments for submission
to the 70E comment process.
3. A meeting is held to review the outcome of the 70E
comment process and make decisions on the content of
the next edition of Z462. The outcome of this meeting is
a public review draft of Z462. With few exceptions, this is
the last opportunity to make a change to a technical
requirement in the document. A public review draft is
made available electronically for 60 days for public
review and comment.
4. A meeting is held to review and respond to public
comments. This meeting can either be full Z462
Technical Committee, or the Technical Committee
Executive. Revisions of an editorial nature can be made
at this point. Technical changes can only be made if
there are strong technical reasons for doing so. The
outcome of this meeting is a Technical Committee ballot
review draft. The Z463 Technical Committee votes
electronically to either accept the draft, accept the draft
with comments, or reject the draft.
5. A meeting is held, in camera, by the full Z462 Technical
committee to disposition any comments or negative
ballots. The decisions made at this meeting are
incorporated into the final document of Z462 which is
sent to the Standards Council of Canada for approval as
a National Standard of Canada.
B. Document Style
CSA standards employ a clause and sub-clause format in a
single column while NFPA documents use a chapter, article and
paragraph format in two columns.
Referenced publications are found in NFPA 70E Annex A,
while CSA formatting requires referenced publications to be
located in Clause 2.
Informational references are found in NFPA 70E Annex B,
while CSA formatting requires informational references to be
located in a bibliography at the end of the document, in this case
Annex T.
NFPA 70E definitions are found primarily in Article 100, but
can also be found in other areas of the document. Per CSA
formatting all definitions are located in Clause 3.
Tables in NFPA 70E are numbered according to the Article in
which they are referenced. Table numbers in CSA documents
are numbered sequentially as they occur in the document,
beginning at Table 1. For example, Z462 Table 1 corresponds
to NFPA 70E Table 130.4(C).
III. CONTENT DIFFERENCES
A. Scope
The scope of CSA Z462 is based on that of NFPA 70E,
2009 edition, with three significant differences:
1. NFPA 70E lists some specific work sectors that are
included in the Standard. CSA Z462 does not.
2. NFPA 70E lists five work sectors that are not covered by
the 70E Standard, including mining. The CSA Z462 list of
work sectors not covered by the Standard does not include
mining. At the request of the Canadian mining sector, the
reference to mining as a “not covered” sector was deleted in
the 2008 edition, and remains deleted in the 2012 edition.
3. CSA Z462 added the statement “while it can be applied
by organizations of any type or size” before the list of work
sectors that the Standard does not cover. The objective of
this statement is to make the scope of Z462 inclusive rather
than exclusive. There are many organizations within the work
sectors listed as “not covered” that are using the Standard.
(Clause 1, Article 90)
B. Emergency procedures
The 2012 Edition of NFPA 70E requires training of employees
in first aid and emergency procedures, including
cardiopulmonary resuscitation, to be certified annually by the
employer. Z462-12 requires the training to be verified annually,
rather than certified. The Z462 Technical Committee was of the
opinion that the employer’s duty is to verify on an annual basis
that the employee certification was current, not to do the actual
certification, nor to have the employee certified annually.
(Clause 4.1.6.3, Article 110.2 (C))
C. Retraining
The 2012 Edition of NFPA 70E requires that an employee is
to receive additional training (or retraining) under any of four
specified conditions. The frequency of the periodic training is
not to exceed three years.
In addition to this requirement, CSA Z462-12 also requires
workers to receive periodic training to maintain an appropriate
level of awareness.
(Clause 4.1.6.4.3, Article 110.1(D)(2))
D. Ground fault circuit interrupter (GFCI) protection
The 2012 Edition of NFPA 70E added a requirement for
employers to implement an assured equipment grounding
conductor program when employees working outdoors operate
or use equipment supplied by other than 125 volt 15-, 20-, or
30-ampere circuits.
CSA Z462 revised this requirement to an informational note
for applicability across Canada, as not all authorities having
jurisdiction recognize assured equipment grounding conductor
programs. “When permitted by the authority having jurisdiction,
an assured equipment grounding conductor program may be
implemented for cord connected electrical equipment operated
outdoors that is supplied by other than 125 volt 15-, 20-, or 30-
ampere circuits.”
(Clause 4.1.8.3.2, Article 110.4(C)(2))
E. Lockout
The CSA Z462 Technical Committee used CSA Z460 Control
of Hazardous Energy – Lockout and Other Methods as a
template for this section (Clause 4.2). Where there were
differences between Z460 and NPFA 70E Article 120,
Establishing an Electrically Safe Work Condition, the Z462
Technical Committee generally followed the methods of Z460
when drafting Clause 4.2 Establishing an electrically safe work
condition. NFPA Article 120 and CSA Z462 Clause 4.2 line up
as shown in Table 2.
(Clause 4.2, Article 120.2)
F. Electrically safe work condition
In both standards this section outlines the overriding duty of
both the employee and the employer to create an electrically
safe work condition:
“Energized electrical conductors and circuit parts to which a
worker might be exposed shall be put into an electrically safe
work condition before a worker works within the limited
approach boundary of those conductors or parts.”
The 2012 Edition of NFPA 70E added a second condition to
this section in an attempt to include arc flash hazards:
“Energized electrical conductors and circuit parts to which an
employee might be exposed shall be put into an electrically safe
work condition before an employee performs work if either of the
following conditions exists:
(1) The employee is within the Limited Approach Boundary.
(2) The employee interacts with equipment where conductors
or circuit parts are not exposed, but an increased risk of injury
from an arc flash hazard exists.”
The CSA Z462 technical committee was of the opinion that
the new condition did not add any value to the existing
requirement. The opening statement in the section indicates
that only those conductors and circuit parts that are exposed are
required to be placed in an electrically safe work condition.
Condition (2) refers to conductors or circuit parts that are not
exposed; leading to the question, “what conductors or circuit
parts are to be placed in an electrically safe work condition if a
worker encounters condition (2)?”
The CSA Z462 technical committee felt that the existing
requirement was adequate.
In the authors’ opinion this requirement could be simplified as
follows:
“Electrical equipment shall be placed into an electrically safe
work condition if an electrical hazard exists.”
(Clause 4.2, Article 130.2)
G. Equipment labelling
Both 2012 Editions of NFPA 70E and CSA Z462 increased
the amount of information required on the equipment hazard
identification label, and clarified what equipment is required to
be labelled:
Electrical equipment such as switchboards, panelboards,
industrial control panels, meter socket enclosures and motor
control centres that are in other than dwelling units, and that are
likely to require examination, adjustment, servicing or
maintenance while energized shall be field marked with a label
containing all the following information:
(a). At least one of the following:
(i) available incident energy and the corresponding working
distance;
(ii) minimum arc-rating of PPE;
(iii) required level of PPE; or
(iv) highest hazard/risk category (HRC) for the equipment
(b) Nominal system voltage;
(c) Arc flash boundary; and
(d) Date of the hazard analysis.
Item (d) is unique to CSA Z462-12.
(Clause 4.3.5.4, Article 130.5(C))
H. Personal and Other Protective Equipment
The NFPA 70E technical committee added an informational
note to the General section as follows:
“It is the collective experience of the Technical Committee on
Electrical Safety in the Workplace that normal operation of
enclosed electrical equipment, operating at 600 volts or less,
that has been properly installed and maintained by qualified
persons is not likely to expose the employee to an electrical
hazard.”
The CSA Z462 technical committee did not add the note.
They were of the opinion that the information is already
adequately addressed in Note 1 of the definition of arc flash
hazard.
(Clause 3, Article 130.7(A) note 2)
I. Arc flash protective equipment
When exterior air is supplied into the hood, NFPA 70E
requires the air hoses and pump housing to be either covered
by arc-rated materials or constructed of nonmelting and non-
flammable materials.
CSA Z462-12 modified this requirement slightly as follows:
“When exterior air is supplied into the hood, by a hood
ventilation system, all ventilation system components shall be:
• covered by arc-rated materials with an arc rating
equivalent to the suit; or
• constructed of non-melting, non-flammable materials.”
The intent is to clarify that:
1. The requirement applies to all the ventilation system
components, not just the air hoses and pump housing;
and
2. The arc-rating of the material covering the ventilation
system components must be at least equal to the arc-
rating of the hood.
(Clause 4.3.7.3.10(a), Article 130.7(C)(10))
J. Prohibited clothing and other apparel
The term “flame resistant” and its acronym “FR” was replaced
throughout the body of the 2012 Edition of NFPA 70E- and CSA
Z462 with the term “arc-rated” to emphasize the difference
between these two terms.
Both documents did retain use of the term “flame resistant” in
one informational note, where the intent is to indicate that some
flame resistant fabrics are inappropriate to be arc rated. There
is a slight difference in how these two notes read. CSA Z462
states that “Some flame-resistant fabrics, e.g., non-arc-rated
modacrylic and non-durable flame-retardant treatments of
cotton, should not be used for industrial electrical or utility
applications.” The corresponding NFPA 70E statement
indicates that “Some flame-resistant fabrics, such as non-FR
modacrylic and nondurable flame-retardant treatments of cotton,
are not recommended for industrial electrical or utility
applications”.
(Clause 4.3.7.3.12, Article 130.7(C)(12))
K. Table 4 A Hazard/risk category classifications and use of
rubber insulating gloves and insulated and insulating hand
tools – ac equipment
Table 4 A [70E Table 130.7(C)(15)(a)] was modified in both
Standards as follows:
x The parameters permitting use of the table were
moved from the notes at the end of the table into the
appropriate header of each section;
x Parameters were provided where none previously
existed in the last four sections of the table; and
 x The parameters were used to provide a worst-case arc
flash boundary.
According to the note at the end of the NFPA Table, the
parameters were derived by performing two sets of equations
[35kA short circuit current and 0.2 second operating time] and
[26kA short circuit current and 0.2 second operating time]. The
0.2 seconds was obtained by adding the typical maximum total
clearing time of the circuit breaker to an estimated value for
relay operation to coincide with the IEEE 1584 values of 0.18
second operating time and 0.08 tripping time rounded off. A
short circuit current of 35kA was used as a maximum (HRC-4 @
~ 40 cal/cm2) and 26kA was used to compare the effects of
lowering the short circuit current (HRC-4 @ ~ 30 cal/cm2).
Working distance used was (909mm) 36”, arc gap was (455mm)
6”, protective device type 0 for all.
The CSA Z462 technical committee noted the following
issues with these parameters:
1. Conductor spacing of 6 inches is not 455 mm, it is 153 mm.
The note for the CSA table has been modified accordingly.
2. According to the note, the 0.2 seconds fault clearing time
was derived by adding the typical maximum total clearing
time of the circuit breaker to an estimated value for relay
operation to coincide with the IEEE 1584 values of 0.18
second operating time and 0.08 tripping time rounded off.
However, IEEE 1584 section 4.6 indicates that the relay
operation is noted as being 0.16 s, not 0.18 s. When
adding 0.16 second relay operating time and a 0.08 second
breaker clearing time results in 0.24 seconds. The CSA
Z462 technical committee decided to round the figure to
0.25 seconds.
3. A 36 inch working distance was specified in the note as this
is typical of the type of equipment covered by this table.
However, in the supporting documentation provided with
the comment that resulted in the addition of these new
parameters, the distance used to estimate incident energy
of approximately 40 calories/cm2 was 72 inches. Incident
energy estimated at a working distance of 36 inches for 38
kV equipment will be approximately 160 calories/cm2.
These incident energy estimations were derived using the
Ralph Lee method, as the IEEE 1584 method does not
apply when system voltage exceeds 15 kV. Incident
energy is estimated to be approximately 15 calories/cm2 for
equipment rated 1 kV to 15 kV when using the IEEE 1584
method with parameters of 35 kA maximum available short
circuit current, 0.25 seconds maximum fault clearing time,
and 36 inch (910 mm) working distance. The arc flash
boundary is approximately 495 inches.
Based on the foregoing, the CSA Z462 technical committee
decided to revise the parameters for the last four sections of the
hazard/risk category table as noted above. The committee did
not revise any of the tasks in the table, nor did they revise any of
hazard/risk category numbers. Those tasks identified as
hazard/risk category 4 remain as such. The CSA Z462 technical
committee recognized that protective value of at least 40
calories/cm2 afforded by personal protective equipment used for
hazard/risk category 4 tasks may seem excessive when
compared to the worst-case estimated incident energy of
approximately 15 calories. However, it was assumed that most
users of the hazard/risk category method employ the simplified
two-category clothing approach of Annex H, where workers are
wearing personal protective equipment with an arc rating of
approximately 8 calories/cm2, or 40 calories/cm2.
L. Safety-related maintenance requirements
Two informational notes were added to the Equipment
Maintenance section of CSA Z462 (clause 5.2.3) to highlight the
importance of maintenance.
The Protective Device section (clause 5.3.5) was expanded to
ensure that the maintenance of the device included testing,
where applicable, to ensure that it functions within the designed
operating times.
A Switching Devices section (clause 5.3.6) was added to
emphasize the critical nature of these devices when establishing
an electrically safe work condition.
None of these additions create new technical requirements.
Rather, as noted, the intent was to emphasize the critical nature
of maintenance to these system components.
(Article 200)
M. The Maintenance of Electrolytic Cells
The Maintenance of Electrolytic Cells section is unique to
CSA Z462. It includes a requirement that ground faults be
investigated and removed without delay.
(Clause 6.2.6)
N. Effects of short-duration contact
This section indicates that for contact less than 0.1 second
and with currents just greater than 0.5 mA, ventricular fibrillation
may occur only if the shock is in a vulnerable part of the cardiac
cycle. However, IEC-60479, Section 5.5 paragraph three
indicates that for shock durations below 0.1 second, fibrillation
may occur for current magnitudes above 500 mA [0.5 A], and is
likely to occur for current magnitudes in the order of several
amperes, only if the shock falls within the vulnerable period.”
CSA Z462-12 has revised the 0.5 mA to 0.5 A per the IEC
reference.
(Clause 6.5.3.5, Article 340.5(4))
O. Annexes
The 2012 Edition of NFPA 70E adopted the text from CSA
Z462-08 Annex A – Aligning Implementation of this Standard
with Occupational Health and Safety Management Standards.
The NFPA 70E technical committee declined to adopt the CSA
Z462 Annex A table, which illustrates how the standard aligns
with common occupational health and safety management
standards.
CSA Z462-12 has five annexes that are not found in NFPA
70E-12:
x Annex B – Safety-related electrical maintenance;
x Annex P – Arc rating, arc thermal performance value,
and break open threshold energy; and
x Annex Q – Arc flash and shock warning labels
x Annex R – High Voltage Substations
x Annex S – Guidance for Preventing Shock Injuries
from Electrostatic Discharges in Manufacturing
Operations
 IV. CONCLUSIONS

The next edition:

CSA Z462 will continue to be developed in cooperation with
NFPA, while maintaining some differences and resource
material to serve the particular needs of Canadian workers in
Canadian workplaces.
The CSA Z462 Technical Committee encourages all users of
either Standard to get involved and make recommendations to
continue to improve the content of these two important
documents.

V. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors would like to thank all the volunteers and staff
members of the two technical committees for all their hard work
in producing documents which are designed to reduce electrical
accidents, injuries and fatalities in the workplace.

VI. REFERENCES

[1] NFPA 70E Standard for Electrical Safety In the

Workplace, (2012 Edition), NFPA, Quincy, MA:

[2] CAN/CSA Z462, 2012 Workplace Electrical Safety,

Canadian Standards Association, Mississauga, Ontario,
Canada

[3] CAN/CSA Z460, Control of Hazardous Energy – Lockout

and Other Methods, Mississauga, Ontario, Canada
Table 1
Comparison of CSA Z462 structure with NFPA 70E structure
CSA Z462 2012 Edition NFPA 70E 2012 Edition
Clause 1, Scope and Applicability Article 90, Introduction (includes purpose and scope sections)
Clause 2, Reference Publications
Clause 3, Definitions
Clause 4 Safety-Related Work Practices Chapter 1, Safety-Related Work Practices (includes definitions)
Clause 5 Safety-Related Maintenance Requirements Chapter 2, Safety-Related Maintenance Requirements
Clause 6 Safety Requirements for Special Equipment Chapter 3, Safety Requirements for Special Equipment
Annex A, Aligning implementation of this Standard with
occupational health and safety management Standards
Annex A, Referenced Publications
Annex B, Safety-related electrical maintenance
Annex B, Informational References
Annex C, Limits of Approach Annex C, Limits of Approach
Annex D, Incident Energy and arc Flash Boundary Annex D, Incident Energy and arc Flash Boundary Calculation
Calculation Methods Methods
Annex E, Electrical Safety Program Annex E, Electrical Safety Program
Annex F, Hazard identification and risk assessment Annex F, Hazard identification and risk assessment procedure
procedure
Annex G, Sample lockout policy and program and sample Annex G, Sample Lockout/Tagout Procedure
general lockout procedure (individual lockout)
Annex H, Guidance on Selection of Protective Clothing and Annex H, Guidance on Selection of Protective Clothing and Other
Other Personal Protective Equipment Personal Protective Equipment
Annex I, Job Briefing and Planning Checklist Annex I, Job Briefing and Planning Checklist
Annex J, Energized Electrical Work Permit Annex J, Energized Electrical Work Permit
Annex K, General Categories of Electrical Hazards Annex K, General Categories of Electrical Hazards
Annex L, Typical Application of Safeguards in the Cell Line Annex L, Typical Application of Safeguards in the Cell Line Working
Working Zone Zone
Annex M, Layering of Protective Clothing and Total System Annex M, Layering of Protective Clothing and Total System Arc
Arc Rating Rating
Annex N, Example Industrial Procedures and Policies for Annex N, Example Industrial Procedures and Policies for Working
Working Near Overhead Electrical Lines and Equipment Near Overhead Electrical Lines and Equipment

Annex O, Safety-Related Design Annex O, Safety-Related Design Requirements

Annex P, Arc rating, arc thermal performance value, and
breakopen threshold energy
Annex Q, Arc flash and shock warning labels
Annex R, High Voltage Substations
Annex S, Guidance for Preventing Shock Injuries from
Electrostatic Discharges in Manufacturing Operations
Annex P, Aligning implementation of this Standard with
occupational health and safety management Standards

Table 2 Comparison of Lockout Requirements between the 2012 editions of CSA Z462 and NFPA 70E
CSA Z462 NFPA 70E
Lockout is the only accepted means of control of Both lockout and tagout are accepted means of control of hazardous
hazardous energy. All references to tagout and the related energy
section were removed.
Clause 4.2.2.4.1 Individual lockout Section 120.2(D) 1, Simple Lockout/Tagout Procedure
Clause 4.2.2.4.2 Group lockout procedure Section 120.2(D) 2, Complex Lockout/Tagout Procedure
Clause 4.2.2.4.3 Complex group lockout procedure No equivalent section
No equivalent section Section 120.2(E) 4 Tagout device
 VII. VITA
Kerry Heid is the President of Magna Electric Corporation, a
Canadian based electrical projects group providing engineering
consulting; NETA certified testing and related products and
solutions for electrical power distribution systems. Kerry is a
past President of NETA (InterNational Electrical Testing
Association), has been serving on its board of directors since
2002 and won NETA’s “Outstanding Achievement Award” in
2010. Kerry is chair of NETA’s training committee and is a
senior certified test technician level IV. He is also a member of
the executive on the CSA Z462 technical committee for
workplace electrical safety in Canada and is chair of working
group 6 on safety related maintenance requirements. He is also
a member of the NFPA 70E – CSA Z462 harmonization working
group and CSA’s alternate to NFPA 70E. Kerry is the chair of
CSA Z463 “Industrial and Commercial Electrical System
Maintenance”. Kerry has performed electrical engineering,
testing, maintenance, commissioning and training activities
throughout North America for the past 22 years with
Westinghouse Service and Magna Electric Corporation. Kerry is
a member of IEEE and lives near Regina, Saskatchewan with
wife and two sons.
Dr. Thomas E. Neal holds a PhD in Analytical Chemistry and
was Technology Manager of DuPont's Thermal Testing
Laboratory until starting Neal Associates Ltd. in 1999. He has
over 25 years of experience in high performance fabrics and
PPE and has been a leader in the development of industry
standards for arc flash and flash fire hazards. Tom, an IEEE
Fellow, has been awarded the IEEE Medal of Engineering
Excellence for his pioneering work on arc flash heat exposures,
the IEEE PCIC Safety Excellence Award for his leadership in
protecting workers from the arc flash hazard, and the ASTM
Award of Merit for his development of protective clothing
standards and his research on improved personal protective
clothing and equipment. Tom, an ASTM Fellow, is the chairman
of ASTM Committee F23 on Personal Protective Clothing and
Equipment and the chairman of ASTM E54.04 Subcommittee
on Homeland Security Personal Protective Equipment. Tom is
a member of the CSA Z462 Technical Committee.
Daniel Roberts is the National Safety Manager for Schneider
Electric Canada Services and Projects Division. He serves on
Canadian Standards Association (CSA) technical committees
for Canadian Electrical Code Part I, Z462 Workplace Electrical
Safety; Z1001 Occupational Health and Safety Training; Z1002
Occupational Health and Safety Risk Management. Daniel
serves as the vice-chair of the Z462 Technical Committee. He
teaches electrical safety as a virtual faculty member for CSA.
Mr. Roberts is an IEEE Senior Member and a member of ASSE.
Stephen Wilson is a Senior Member of IEEE and a licensed
electrician in the Province of Ontario. Prior to his retirement in
2008 from ArcelorMittal Dofasco, he has been a supervisor of
mechanical and electrical tradespeople since 1984. Steve was
most recently Senior Technical Specialist for Switchgear. Steve
was the co-chair of the company’s Electrical Standards
Committee where he was responsible to oversee the
development of internal electrical safety standards. Steve has
organized and presented at a number of company safety and
technical seminars.
Steve has been involved with the IEEE IAS Electrical Safety
Workshop as a presenter since 2001 and part of the organizing
committee since 2003.
Steve is a member of the CSA Z462 Technical Committee and
the chair of working group 2 of IEEE Standard 1814
"Recommended Practice for Electrical System Design
Techniques to Improve Electrical Safety".