Arc Flash & Electrical Safety: January 2009

Tuesday, January 06, 2009

Coalition Advocating Safety in OSHA Product-Approval Process

The National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA), in conjunction with 18 other organizations, has submitted a letter to Thomas M. Stohler, Acting Assistant Secretary for Occupational Safety and Health, expressing concerns regarding the Occupational Safety and Health Administration's (OSHA) consideration of a proposal to adopt Supplier's Declaration of Conformity (SDoC) as an alternative to third-party certification of electrical products used in American workplaces.

At the request of European Commission, OSHA in October 2008 published in the Federal Register a Request for Information on a proposal to permit the use of an SDoC as an alternative to the nationally recognized testing laboratories (NRTLs) product-approval process. In their response to Acting Assistant Secretary Stohler, NEMA and its coalition allies stressed the safety benefits of using third-party certification for electrical products and commended OSHA’s NRTL program as a cost-effective and efficient avenue for ensuring the safety of American workers.

"We are hopeful that OSHA will not be influenced by false claims that international trade priorities necessitate replacing the well-established NRTL program with SDoC," NEMA President and CEO Evan R. Gaddis said. "It would be unwise to compromise the most successful electrical safety system in the world."

"The U.S. electrical safety system, which is principally based on third-party certification, is regarded as one of the most effective systems in the world for successfully ensuring workplace safety, while at the same time allowing for free and open market access for products and services, with minimal cost to the taxpayer," the coalition letter states. "Indeed, those who now wish to institutionalize SDoC must accept that the checks-and-balances of our current system have played a fundamental role in driving U.S. electrical products to be the safest in the world." To view a copy of the letter and a complete list of coalition members, please click here or visit http://www.nema.org/SDOCs_Letter_to_OSHA.

NEMA will be submitting detailed comments on specific issues raised in OSHA’s Request for Information by the January 20, 2009 deadline.

NEMA is the trade association of choice for the electrical manufacturing industry. Founded in 1926 and headquartered near Washington, D.C., its approximately 450 member companies manufacture products used in the generation, transmission and distribution, control, and end-use of electricity.

Labels: Electrical Codes, Electrical Safety, NEMA Standards

posted by Steve Hudgik | This Arc Flash Post and 0 Comments | Add Comment | links

Monday, January 05, 2009

Establishing an Arc Flash Loss Prevention Program

I just found this white page published by M.C. Dean, Inc. last August. The introduction to the white paper describes its purpose as designed to:

[Quoted from the introduction to the white paper.]

● Give middle and upper management an executive level description of the details surrounding arc flash and the industry’s best proven business practices. After reading this paper executives should have the confidence to begin the process of assigning the right team and resources needed to develop the methodology that best carries out a safety and arc flash loss prevention program tailored to their organizations.

● Provide the technical manager with a support document that can be presented to upper management along with recommendations to improve corporate safety policies by integrating an Arc Flash Loss Prevention (AFLP) Program.

● Provide business leaders with a quick reference guide to the questions they have involving who is responsible (in the eyes of OSHA and the judicial system), how to resource, how to control cost and how to build a sustainable program that can be monitored by a non-technical manager.

● Equip risk managers with a methodology to process a loss prevention program targeted to exposure related to arc flash. This includes the means to identify, evaluate, choose, implement, monitor and manage a comprehensive program that is sustainable and provides measureable data that can be used to calculate best risk management decisions.

● Caution on the use of “over-simplified” allowable tables and charts the industry has developed to establish arc flash protective measures. The risks include controlling the cost of expensive personal protective equipment (PPE) that may or may not be needed and giving untrained workers the false sense of confidence when working on energized electrical equipment. The result is a mismanaged safety program.

You can read the white paper here.

Labels: Arc Flash, Arc Flash Training, Preventing Arc Flash Accidents

posted by Steve Hudgik | This Arc Flash Post and 0 Comments | Add Comment | links

Friday, January 02, 2009

Discover Common Mistakes In Calculating Arc Flash Hazard Levels And How To Avoid Them

An article by Peter R. Walsh in the December 2008 CSE Live
describes using IEEE 1584 for calculating arc flash hazards, including an overview of the calculation procedure. The article then points out two common errors in determining arc flash hazard levels: assuming a high fault current and assuming accurate values not necessary.

You can read the complete at: http://www.csemag.com/article/CA6623727.html

Labels: Arc Flash Calculations

posted by Steve Hudgik | This Arc Flash Post and 0 Comments | Add Comment | links

ASSE Announces Newly Approved Hazardous Energy Standard

The American Society of Safety Engineers (ASSE) recently announced that the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) approved the reaffirmation of the American National Standard ANSI Z244.1-2003 (R2008) 'Control of Hazardous Energy – Lockout/Tagout and Alternative Methods,' which aims to protect workers from hazardous energy associated with machines, equipment or processes that could cause injury.

The standard establishes requirements and performance objectives for procedures, techniques, designs and methods that protect workers where injury can occur due to unexpected releases of hazardous energy. An unexpected release of hazardous energy includes any unintended motion, start-up or release of stored energy, deliberate or otherwise, from the perspective of the person at risk.

According to the standard, lockout/tagout is the main method of hazardous energy control. However, when tasks performed on the job are routine, repetitive and integral to the production process; or traditional lockout/tagout prohibits the completion of those tasks, the standard indicates that alternative methods of control that provide effective personal protection and are based on risk assessment specified in the standard shall be used. Routine, repetitive and integral production processes refer to tasks that are short in duration; relatively minor in nature; occur frequently during the shift day or week; are usually performed by operators, set-up, service or maintenance personnel; and do not involve extensive disassembly.

"A great deal of technical development and capabilities have evolved since the 1982 edition of the standard," said Jeff Fryman, Z244 Committee vice chairman. "These new technologies make the control of hazardous energy both more complex and easier to achieve. It is more complex because the traditional 'zero energy state' lockout situation may not be achievable, or desirable, and it is easier because the technology offers more solutions to control hazardous energy release through new devices and circuit designs. In my opinion, the greatest offering in the standard is the information on the use of 'alternative methods' to control hazardous energy. Based on the results of risk assessment, workers are afforded more protection and flexibility in performing necessary tasks on machines, equipment and processes."

On the impact of the standard on business and industry, Z244 Committee Chair Edward V. Grund, CSP, P.E., said, "Companies that are interested in moving beyond mere compliance will be able to use the standards to enhance their current practices. In addition, multinational companies can use the standard offshore as an effective guide for their international operations, particularly when local regulation is absent or weak."

Labels: Electrical Safety, Lockout/Tagout

posted by Steve Hudgik | This Arc Flash Post and 0 Comments | Add Comment | links