Technology Transfer Services Blog

More and more companies are beginning to look at the arc flash hazards that may be present in their individual workplaces. They have the best intentions, however what they do not often think about is that even with good intentions, misunderstanding of what they read in the NFPA 70E can place the technician in undesired positions regarding exposure to arc flash hazards and cause possible higher level equipment failures.
Just replace the component
Yes, changing to a current limiting fuse can reduce the arc flash hazard at the location an individual is working, but, do not forget to perform a coordination analysis. Ok, what the heck it that? The fusing in an industrial facility should be coordinated so the fuse at the lowest level or closest to the fault is the one that opens, not the fuses in the switchboard. More than just the instantaneous current needs to be addressed, you need to look at the entire curve. In many of the cases I have looked at is not on the instantaneous region, but on the low end. Even though the amount of fault current required to start building an arc flash seems to vary, one thing is positive, low level arc flashes can be as devastating as a higher level one it that the current can continue to build before the overcurrent device trips. If there is poor coordination between the two overcurrent devices, to clear the fault may require enough current to flow that the upstream device goes, instead of the device closest to the fault.
Coordination involves paying close attention to the time current curve developed by the breaker or fuse manufacture. Many of these manufactures have gone back to the testing stage for these devices to produce more accurate time current curves for their devices to aid in the coordination of these devices. When doing your coordination, ensure you look at the low end and check the spacing between the local and upstream overcurrent devices. You really do not want the upstream curve to touch or cross the local overcurrent device.
Fault current is different than the current rating.
Never for a minute forget that there is a huge difference between these two items and allow things as the fuse is rate for 100 amps is the same as saying there is a low arc flash hazard. Fault current, as stated before, is a calculated number and has absolutely nothing to do with how the breaker or fuse is sized. The sizing of breaker and fuse is dependent on the load for that circuit and nothing more. The fault current is dependent on the size of the transformer feeding the circuit. As much as we like to think that electricity travels between point A and B instantaneously that is not the case, it does take a little bit of time. We size fuses different for motors, as we do breakers, as we size these devices differently based on maybe we need some time of time delay in the circuit to prevent possible nuisance trips when getting operation started.
This may allow more current to pass through the overcurrent device in a fault condition however it will not affect the sizing of the overcurrent device itself, but it may change the hazard/risk category. The best way to protection technicians from arc flash is to perform the calculation, get the correct PPE, train your technicians how to inspect, wear and care for the PPE and ensure they wear it.

PPE is all that is needed for protection from Arc Flash.
This is a very dangerous statement to make. The 29CFR1910 can be a difficult requirement to dig your way through and many of the regulations interact and this is not always clear to the individual reading the particular regulation and it is difficult to understand the purpose or intent of the regulation. Bottom line in this, PPE is always the last line of defense against any hazard in the workplace and as employers we need to provide the “due diligence” necessary to ensure full employee protection against known workplace hazards. With this in mind, even after the hazard assessment has been done, what are we doing to reduce or eliminate the identified hazard, regardless of the hazard? For arc flash, have we modeled what different components would make in the circuit, have we priced modifications to perform this, have we looked at work practices that could reduce the possibility of employee caused arc flash events. Yes, we need to look at those. Current estimates are than 70% of arc flashes are caused by some type of employee error rather than an equipment failure.
Selection of PPE does not eliminate the arc flash hazard, it simply helps to, as the NFPA 70 E says, ensure the survivability of the employee, it does not make them bullet proof nor does it reduce or eliminate the arc flash hazard and we cannot forget for a minute that as employers we have a responsibility the reduce or eliminate know hazards in the work place to the best of our abilities.

Electrical safety programs are only as effective as the amount of effort put into them. The “Hey, let’s get this going” attitude at the beginning of any program often rapidly falls away as the details of what needs to be done get pushed aside by the more immediate or higher priority items that arise on a daily basis. Some of these “details” that often fall by the wayside are the questions of how to determine what makes an individual “qualified” to perform electrical maintenance, to what level, and on what equipment. An individual may know how to use a multimeter, but this simple fact alone does not qualify that individual to work on everything in a building or facility. As far as OSHA is concerned, the employer is the “qualifying” authority; therefore, we are responsible for answering these questions. However, such questions are only part of the issue. The more important task is ensuring that the employees exposed to electrical hazards have the knowledge and skills to ensure their safety as well as the safety of those around them. Still, the question remains: What do we need to do, as employers, to ensure electrical workers are qualified?

Assess employee abilities
Find out your employees’ strengths and weaknesses. Develop plans to improve in areas of weakness. Instill in your employees the understanding that they can freely state, without fear of punishment or disapproval, when they are uncomfortable performing an assigned task. Freedom of communication is also a good tool to help you in assessing abilities. When a worker feels he/she does not have the necessary skills or knowledge to perform a task, this is an indication that he/she may not be qualified to perform the task. It also may be an indication that the worker does not feel safe performing the task. Either way, the employee must feel free to communicate his/her feelings and any reasons for feeling what he/she feels. The attitude of “Do it or else” and “how much longer is it going to take” are counterproductive to a successful electrical safety program.

Training
Regardless of whether the employee has been on the job for two days or 30 years, training is an ongoing process. Even something as simple as a tool box meeting to discuss a good work practice or a safety topic is better than nothing. Adjust your training program to fit the requirements and the abilities of your employees. Some will need more training and some will need less. There are many ways to provide this training but, regardless of the direction, it is important to always ensure that clear goals and methods to measure those goals are established. Nothing will discourage training more than receiving training and then not being able to use that training on the job. Ensure the training is as realistic as possible. If possible, use the actual equipment. Develop clear guidance for the training content. Ensure that the safety requirements are an integral part of the training. Whenever possible, use hands-on training in addition to classroom training.

Demonstration of skills
OSHA uses the word “demonstrated” in its definition of qualified. This seems to be the single biggest stumbling block to determining who is or is not qualified. This is why employers need to take a much closer look at what “demonstrated” means. As the employer, we need to ensure we have a clear understanding of the skill and knowledge set that is applicable to our needs. Different needs require different skills, and skills required at one facility may be very different than those needed by the facility next door. Unless skills are determined and developed, we will never have a good grasp of who is qualified or who is not. This means we need to have an effective means in place to demonstrate those skills.

For example, one scenario may require that an employee “… have the skills necessary to distinguish exposed energized electrical conductors and circuit parts from other parts of electric equipment.” A qualified electrical worker must be able to go to his/her assigned equipment and identify every component inside, describe the operation of the component, tell if it is energized or not based on the current operational mode, and know voltages required for operation. Being able to simply say what a component does is not enough if the worker fails to understand how and what makes that component work.

A qualified electrical worker must also be able to read and understand a wide range of equipment and technical documentation. For training purposes, an employer could request that the worker trace the power from a light fixture, outlet, or a conveyor motor back to the utility connection. Chances are the worker will need to use at least two different types of drawings. In doing so, the worker should clearly demonstrate the required skills in determining the nominal voltage before applying a meter. This is an example of one way to assess knowledge while integrating multiple requirements into a demonstration of that knowledge.

As an employer, we determine who is or is not qualified and waiting until an accident happens to figure this out is only making a bad situation worse. Be proactive. Arrange realistic exercises to determine who can or cannot perform a task, and then build the skills and knowledge in those demonstrated weak areas. If you feel uncomfortable with an individual performing a certain task, do not be afraid to take the necessary steps to ensure both you and your employees are confident in their ability to perform the task or tasks to which they are assigned.

Every day around the country, maintenance personnel are severely injured or killed when working around or with electricity. Every time I read an article of this nature, I ask myself, “What kind of Electrical Safety Program is in place at that company?” The question I should really be asking is “Did the company have an existing electrical safety program?”

I have assisted in the implementation of Electrical Safety Programs, but I realize now that my view has been a little narrow. The majority of my time that has been spent on electrical safety programs has been spent with a focus on what is really only a very small portion of the overall requirements. When the question “How do you build an Electrical Safety Program?” was considered, I had to stop and think for a moment. I needed to change my perspective from narrow to more broad and consider things beyond what the technicians who I was training were seeing, and realize how those views then affected the efforts to create a viable and functioning Electrical Safety Program.

After much thought, the following is what I would do to create a viable Electrical Safety Program; one that actually works instead of one that just looks good on paper:

Establish Commitment – Implementing an electrical safety program has to be a fully involved process from the top down. If there is resistance from anyone involved – from CEO down to the last new hire – the program will be ineffective and can have disastrous consequences.

Understand the Rules – It is crucial to know which rules apply to your workplace and understand the rules you are required to follow. The rules will dictate how much you have to do and, in many cases, how to do it.

Hazard Awareness – Get out and thoroughly inspect the workplace. You cannot build an effective program unless you have some understanding of the hazards in the workplace. Do not be afraid to get outside help. There are multiple sources to obtain help, if needed, and those sources devote much of their time to finding hazards that you may overlook. This should also be used as an engineering tool to identify areas where engineering changes are needed to eliminate or reduce the hazards identified.

Develop a Plan – Develop a plan for what needs to be done and get a general idea of who is responsible for each aspect of the plan. Use this as a tool for the next step in the process, and do not be afraid to make additional changes as needed.

Establish Responsibilities – Get the right person in the right job, clearly delineate their responsibilities and provide them with the tools and knowledge they need to fulfill their responsibilities.

Establish a Timeline – Be realistic and be prepared for program development to take time, effort and money. Be ready for growing pains. These may include, but certainly are not limited to, such ‘pains’ as reluctance from maintenance to change the in which it works and operations fighting the additional time requirements that maintenance may then require.

Train – Everyone in the company will need to understand their duties and responsibilities in the program. Not everyone will need the same level of training.

Evaluate – Training must be evaluated for effectiveness. There are several ways this can be done; use the one that best fits.

Develop a Written Policy – Once you have had the time to get the program in place and have gotten everyone trained, formalize the process into a company policy that includes a regular review cycle to ensure the policy stays up to date.

Review – Rules are constantly changing, equipment design, etc., and you need to stay as current as possible. If this seems a little time consuming, don’t be afraid to keep a consultant on the side to advise you of the new rule changes. Ultimately, however, how you do it is less important than actually and actively doing it.