Arc Flash & Electrical Safety News

Thursday, January 14, 2010

Using Ultrasound To Prevent Electrical Failures

An article by Mark Goodman, UE Systems, Inc., showing how ultrasound can be used to detect electrical failures, appears in Reliable Plant Magazine. It describes how portable instruments can detect potential failures and reveal arc flash conditions -- allowing the arc flash to be prevented.

The article opens by describing how this is possible:

"Arcing, tracking and corona emissions produce ionization. Ionization, a process by which a neutral atom or molecule loses or gains electrons, thereby acquiring a net charge and becoming an ion, occurs as the result of the dissociation of the atoms of a molecule in solution or of a gas in an electric field. Ionization has by-products: ozone and nitrogen oxides. These combine with moisture to produce nitric acid, which is destructive to most dialectics and certain metallic compositions, resulting in corrosion. Airborne/structure borne ultrasound technology is ideally suited for detecting these emissions since the ionization process produces ultrasound."

You can find out how this works and read the entire article in Reliable Plant Magazine.

Labels: , ,

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

Wednesday, October 07, 2009

Arc Flash Training & PPE Protection

Hugh Hoagland has an article in Occupational Health & Safety magazine that discusses why meeting OSHA and NFPA requirements for PPE does not always provide adequate protection. The article defines the problem with this example:

"I received a call recently from a large electric utility. A line worker, we'll call him Bill, had been badly burned while performing work near a 69kV piece of equipment."

"The worker was in a 50 cal/cm2 rated winter suit. The undergarments and outer garments were provided by the company, but workers were given a lot of latitude on undergarments as long as the outer shell was compliant with the company's clothing policy."

"The worker chose not to wear an arc-rated sweatshirt even though this was commonly available in the company's clothing catalog. Instead, the worker was wearing a non flame-resistant T-shirt under the sweatshirt. Though this system was in compliance with NFPA 70E, NESC, and OSHA 1910.269, it was not the best choice for the worker."

You can read the entire article here: OSHOnline Articles

Related Past Posts:
PPE: Better Safe Than Sorry
The myths and Reality of Arc Flash Protection
NFPA 70E Clothing Requirements

Labels: , ,

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

Tuesday, August 11, 2009

ASTM Issues Standard For Arc Protective Blanket Testing

Arc protective blankets are used in many electrical applications to protect workers who are stationed near energized electrical parts. While these blankets have been used for years, there have been no testing criteria for their evaluation. A new ASTM International standard will be used to determine the effectiveness of arc protective blankets in suppressing the combined effect of an arc flash and an arc blast. The new standard, ASTM F2676, Test Method for Determining the Protective Performance of an Arc Protective Blanket for Electric Arc Hazards, was developed by Subcommittee F18.65 on Wearing Apparel, part of ASTM International Committee F18 on Electrical Protective Equipment for Workers.

"Now companies have the ability to evaluate blankets with a repeatable standard that can be done at many test labs using an electric arc and a high speed camera," says Hugh Hoagland, technical consultant, ArcWear.com and e-Hazard.com, and a member of F18.

"Research showed the most critical factor was the current in amps and the time exposed," says Hoagland. "Now blankets can be compared." Hoagland also notes that, while ASTM F2676 will be initially used by utility companies, many electricity users in heavy industry will also benefit from being able to reference the new standard.

Subcommittee F18.65 is continuing its research in blanket use and care, and it next plans to investigate how blanket installation affects protection and how to further quantify protection. The subcommittee encourages participation, particularly from utilities, in its standards developing efforts.

ASTM International standards are available for purchase from Customer Service (phone: 610-832-9585; service@astm.org) or at www.astm.org. For technical information, contact Hugh Hoagland, ArcWear.com, Louisville, Ky. (phone: 502-314-7158; hugh@arcwear.com). ASTM Committee F18 meets Nov. 8-11 during November committee week in Atlanta, Ga.

Labels: ,

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

Tuesday, August 04, 2009

NFPA Journal - Electrical System Maintenance

The current edition of the NFPA Journal has a good article about electrical maintenance. (Use this link to read the article.)

The article points out that we should not let other priorities distract us from needed electrical maintainance, and it identifies overcurrent devices as being at the top of the list. The article states:

"Although all electrical equipment needs to be maintained, the most important, from a safety standpoint, are the overcurrent devices that trip circuits when a fault occurs. These determine the length of time the overcurrent conditions exist, which determines the amount of heat, energy, and damage that will occur."

But, the article also points out that other areas also need to receive maintenance attention.

Related Past Posts
Arc Flash Safety Checklist
Arc Flash Labeling Best Practice Guide Available
System Maintenance A Key To Arc Flash Safety

Labels: , , ,

posted by Steve Hudgik | This Arc Flash Post and 1 Comments | Add Comment | links

Friday, May 29, 2009

Tips For Property Managers And Electrical Contractors

The current issue of the NFPA Journal includes two tips for electrical contractors and property managers in an article called: "Keeping the Lights On."

The first tip is from NFPA 70E Section 110.5, Relationships with Contractors. Here is how the article summarizes this section: "The host employer is required to inform the contractor of any known hazards covered by NFPA 70E that the contractor or the contractor’s employees may not recognize."

The second tip comes from NFPA 70E Section 130.3(C), which requires that all equipment be labeled with an arc flash warning label specific to that equipment and its location.

You can read the entire article here.

Related Posts:
The Fine Print Notes In NFPA 70E
Revised NFPA 70E Clarifies Electical Safety
An Arc Flash Primer

Labels: , ,

posted by Steve Hudgik | This Arc Flash Post and 1 Comments | Add Comment | links

Friday, May 08, 2009

CSA Z462 Workplace Electrical Safety Standard

An introduction to the Canadian Z462 electrical safety standards is provided by an article in the current issue of Canadian Occupational Safety magazine. The article is called "Electrical Safety Gets A Boost." In the article the Z462 standard is summarized as applying:

"to contractors and electrical workers, and provides guidance to employers on what qualifications are required for electrical work – and cautions against allowing non-qualified people inside hazard boundaries."

"It’s based on well-established occupational health and safety principles, and recognized across the country as good practice, from manufacturers to contractors to regulators. Z462 deals specifically with hazard communications, controls and safety precautions in the areas of electric shock and arc flash, and includes requirements for training and qualification of electrical workers, as well as personal protective equipment."

This article provides an overview of the creation of the Z462 standards, as well as discussing the need for such standards, without talking about what is included in the z462 standards. It does point out that Z462 differs from NFPA 70e in that it has five annexes not included in NFPA 70e, but it only mentions one of the annexes.

It is interesting that the article makes note that most electrical injuries happen because workers are unaware of the dangers of electricity, don't understand the hazards, and are not aware of the safety measures that should be applied. The article suggests training as the way to communicate the danagers of electricity to workers. I would add that the use of signs and labels, to deliver information at the location where the hazard exists, is also critical. Signs and labels remind workers about what they learned in training... in particular reminding them that electrical hazards are not to be taken lightly.

Labels: , ,

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

Wednesday, April 08, 2009

OSHA Citations Issued For Failure To Abate Electrical Safety Violations

OSHA cites Houston-based manufacturing company for failing to abate safety violations
Initial inspection followed electrocution death of a worker.

OSHA has issued failure-to-abate citations to JD Manufacturing Inc., doing business as Arrow Waste, in Houston for a follow-up inspection that revealed previous violations had not been abated.

The initial inspection on Jan. 29, 2008, at the company's facility on 11401 Brooklyn St. in Houston, followed the electrocution death of a worker. Upon re-inspection on Oct. 9, 2008, OSHA's investigation found that the six violations, four alleged serious and two alleged other-than-serious, originally cited were not corrected by the company.

"The employer completely ignored abating the violations while continuing to expose employees to a hazardous working environment. That kind of practice will not be tolerated," said Dean McDaniel, OSHA's regional administrator in Dallas. "OSHA standards must be followed to prevent injuries and fatalities."

The serious failure-to-abate violations include failing to have a written program for the control of hazardous energy, not installing the required wiring in accordance with OSHA regulations and failing to adequately mark branch circuits to indicate their purpose. A serious citation is issued when there is substantial probability that death or serious physical harm could result from a hazard about which the employer knew or should have known.

The other-than-serious violations the company failed to correct are not having a hazard communications program in place and not maintaining the required recordkeeping. An other-than-serious violation is one that has a direct relationship to job safety and health but probably would not cause death or serious physical harm.

The initial inspection carried proposed penalties totaling $25,500. The re-inspection carries $108,000 in proposed penalties.

JD Manufacturing, a manufacturing and repair facility for mechanized equipment and roll-off containers such as dumpsters or debris containers, has 15 business days from receipt of the citations to comply, request an informal conference with OSHA's Houston North area director or contest the citations and proposed penalties before the independent Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission.

Employers and employees with questions regarding workplace safety and health standards can call OSHA's Houston North Area Office at 281-591-2438 or OSHA's toll-free hotline number at 800-321-6742 to report workplace accidents, fatalities or situations posing imminent danger to workers.

Labels: , , ,

posted by Steve Hudgik | This Arc Flash Post and 2 Comments | Add Comment | links

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: , ,

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

Friday, January 02, 2009

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: ,

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

Monday, November 17, 2008

Revised NFPA 70E Clarifies electrical Safety

An article by Jim White in Plant Service magazine discusses the new NFPA 70E requirements. Mr. White is a member of two of the task groups (Words and Phrases Task Group and the Tables Task Group) that are working on the new NFPA 70E code.

Here is the introductory paragraph:

"During the June 2008 National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) World Safety Conference and Exposition, the final content of the 70E standard began to take shape. Until then, nothing was firm because the NFPA Standards Council has the final say on 70E, as it does on any NFPA-derived documents. This structure is in place to administer the rules and regulations and to act as an appeals body for any disagreements to the codes and standards."

The article provides a brief history of NFPA 70E and then discusses thirteen changes to the code.

- Made more consistent and accessible
- No More Jargon
- Article 110.6(A) added new training requirements:
- Article 110.7(A) changed
- Chapter 4 is eliminated completely:
- Major wording changes in the tables
- Switchgear:
- Predictive maintenance
- Some hazard/risk categories have been changed:
- New category
- Ease of use:
- Hazard risk table changes
- Fine Print Note

Labels: ,

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

Tuesday, October 28, 2008

OSHA Reopens Record On Proposed Rule On Electric Power Generation, Transmission And Distribution

OSHA announced in the Federal Register that it is reopening the record on a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) on electric power generation, transmission and distribution work and for electrical protective equipment. This limited reopening seeks to obtain comments related to how close an employee (or a conductive object that an employee is contacting) may get to an energized circuit part.

"We want to use the most accurate data available to ensure that employees are maintaining safe distances from dangerous electrical sources," said Assistant Secretary of Labor for OSHA Edwin G. Foulke, Jr. "Extending this rulemaking process will provide us with the information we need to provide the best possible protection for working men and women on the job."

On June 15, 2005, OSHA published a proposed rule to revise the general industry and construction standards for electric power generation, transmission, and distribution work and for electrical protective equipment. This proposal included revised minimum approach distances (MADs), including MAD tables that can be used to determine how close an employee or a conductive object, which he or she is contacting, can get to an energized part. After the rulemaking record on the proposal closed, the technical committee responsible for developing the tables in the consensus standards on which the proposal was based discovered an error in their calculation of minimum approach distances for certain voltages. OSHA is reopening the record on this proposal only to obtain comments related to the affected minimum approach distances.

The agency will accept public comments on the proposed rule about the affected minimum approach distances until Nov. 21, 2008. Interested parties may submit comments electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, the Federal eRulemaking Portal; by sending two copies to the OSHA Docket Office, U.S. Department of Labor, Room N-2625, 200 Constitution Avenue, N.W., Room N-2625, Washington, DC 20210; or by FAX at 202-693-1648 if the comments and attachments do not exceed 10 pages. Comments must include the Agency name and Docket Number (Docket No. OSHA-S215-2006-0063) for this rulemaking.

Labels: ,

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

OSHA To Issue Workplace Electrical Product Safety Request for Information

OSHA announced that a proposed Request for Information (RFI) related to its Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratory (NRTL) program will be published in the Federal Register on Oct. 20, 2008. A copy of the proposed RFI currently is available on OSHA's Web site. The public comment period on the RFI will begin only after it has been formally published and will close on Jan. 20, 2009.

The RFI requests comment on a proposal submitted to the United States by the European Commission (EC) to permit the use of a Supplier's Declaration of Conformity (SDoC) as an alternative to OSHA's NRTL product-approval process for certain electrical and other products used in the workplace. The EC made its proposal through the Transatlantic Economic Council, which was established by an agreement between the U.S. and the EU signed in April 2007.

"This RFI will allow all stakeholders the opportunity to provide evidence to help OSHA better evaluate the EU's SDoC system and determine whether or not an SDoC system meets the safety requirements for the Occupational Safety and Health Act," said Assistant Secretary of Labor for OSHA Edwin G. Foulke Jr.

NRTLs are independent laboratories that have met OSHA's requirements for performing safety testing and certification of electrical and other products used in the workplace. NRTLs test and certify these products to determine whether they conform to appropriate U.S. product-safety testing standards. In contrast, an SDoC is a written statement, produced by an equipment manufacturer or supplier, that a product meets or conforms to a specified test standard or a set of requirements.

Labels: ,

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

Wednesday, October 15, 2008

The Daredevil Electricians of Pakistan

A post on the "All Things Pakistan" blog caught my attention. It has a lot of pictures, as well as commentary, about the lack of safety during utility wire maintenance and repairs. One of the introductory paragraphs states:

"The daredevil mentality persists where Electricians over look safety measures thinking they know it all. They think if nothing has happened to them in all these years, then nothing will happen to them in the future because of their experience. Sometimes they even think it is below their macho image to wear protective equipment. It is true that these electricians may have knowledge of basic rules of electricity and physics but mistakes and accidents do happen and in such circumstances, I believe these guys and our utility companies (WAPDA and KESC) are very ill prepared."

Take a look. Here is the link: Daredevil Electricians

Labels: , ,

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

Monday, September 15, 2008

Understanding Ground Fault Protection

There is a good article by Ken Cybart of Littelfuse in today's Plant Engineering Live. It provides an overview describing ground fault monitors. The article begins by discussing the causes of ground faults:

"Simply put, a ground fault occurs when electrical current finds a bridge to ground via worn insulations, conductive dusts, water or other “soft grounds,” instead of the normal path back to its source. More than 80% of short circuits in equipment are ground faults, and 90% of these events are due to insulation deterioration on wires and cables."

The article then discusses Ground Fault Circuit Interrupters (GFCIs) and Ground Fault Relays (GFRs). You can read the complete article at: http://www.plantengineering.com/

Labels: ,

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

Wednesday, June 11, 2008

Laurel, MS Electrical Equipment Manufacturer Faces $193,000 In OSHA Fines

OSHA has proposed $193,000 in penalties against Howard Industries for 54 violations of federal safety rules at the company's two manufacturing locations in Laurel, Miss.

The producer of electrical power products is being cited with 36 serious violations and proposed penalties of $123,500 at its Pendorf Road plant, with an additional 15 serious violations and proposed penalties of $41,000 at its Eastview plant. The violations include failing to provide employees with proper protective equipment, and to provide machine guards and lockout-tagout procedures. Lockout/tagout refers to preventing accidental start-up of machinery during maintenance.

Two repeat violations with penalties of $27,500 are being proposed for violations similar to those noted during earlier inspections in 2007. Chemical containers lacked identification labels and chains used as slings for lifting loads were shortened using makeshift measures rather than reducing the number of links.

One citation with a $1,000 penalty has been proposed for the company's failure to make material safety data sheets (MSDS) readily accessible to employees in their work area. A MSDS provides both employees and emergency personnel with information that is of particular use if a spill or other accident occurs.

"It is unconscionable for an employer to tolerate serious injuries, including amputations, as just a cost of doing business, rather than get out into the production areas and fix these numerous problems before employees get injured," said Clyde Payne, director of OSHA's Jackson Area Office.

The company has 15 business days to contest the citations and proposed penalties before the independent Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission.

Labels: ,

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

Monday, June 02, 2008

U.K. Perspective On Arc Flash

An article in Processing Talk, asks industries in the U.K. "How do plants protect operators from Arc Flash?"

The article announces an arc flash survey to be conducted by TAS. The purpose of the survey is to assess the level of knowledge about Arc Flash hazards in U.K. industry, and to understand what plant operators are doing to mitigate the possible dangers and protect their workforce.

The article states:

"Initially the survey is being conducted by mailing the questionnaire to UK engineers in industries that are higher power users, (the mailing will go out in June) and there is also an on-line survey form on the TAS website, http://www.tas.co.uk/researcharcflash.

Respondents from overseas are welcome, but their experiences, attitudes and knowledge of arc flash hazards may be reported separately, to see and identify where differences exist compared to UK practice."

We will follow what happens with this survey and report on the results when they are available.

Labels: ,

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

Friday, March 14, 2008

What OSHA Expects: The Electrical Safety Questions OSHA Will Ask

This article, What OSHA Expects: The Electrical Safety Questions OSHA Will Ask During an Investigation by Kenneth Cybart appeared in yesterday's Occupational Hazards Magazine. This is how the article introduces itself:

"Wouldn’t it be nice to know exactly what OSHA is training its inspectors to look for during an inspection that includes electrical safety, including surprising new areas of emphasis based on national OSHA directives? This article covers some of the typical electrical safety questions that OSHA inspectors will ask during a field investigation, what they mean and how to be prepared and in compliance."

The article looks at 17 questions OSHA inspectors will ask, such as:

Is there a description of the circuit or equipment at the job location?

Is there a detailed job description of planned work?

Can you justify why equipment cannot be de-energized or the job deferred until the next scheduled outage?

Has a detailed work procedure been established?

You can read the complete article, including all 17 questions, on Occupational Hazards' web site.

Labels: , ,

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

Thursday, February 21, 2008

Paradigm Shift Requires Look At Plant Electrical Infrastructure

An article by Larry Altmayer, POWR-GARD Services Manager for Littelfuse Inc. in the online edition of Plant Services magazine talks about how we need to change our view of electrical distribution systems. The article opens by stating:

"No longer can maintenance treat electrical distribution systems as everlasting, never-changing components of a facility. Instead, we must consider the electrical infrastructure as a dynamic system that requires regular attention and a formal preventive maintenance program."

The article makes the point that electrical systems can no longer be viewed as unchanging, static systems that can be installed and forgotten. They are dynamic systems that are changing to meet continually changing needs, and as a result must be regularly re-evaluated and maintained.

Mr. Altmayer then covers how OSHA, NFPA 70E, NEC and NEMA codes and standards are driving change and this results in a need for current electrical hazard assessments and ongoing maintenance. Overall this article provides a good overview of a dynamic situation that we all need to address.

You can read the complete article at: http://www.plantservices.com/articles/2008/034.html

Labels: , ,

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

Monday, February 11, 2008

Voltage Indicators Enhance Safety

The February 2008 issue of Automation & Control News includes an article about improving safety through the use of voltage indicators. The article opens with the following illustration:

"Near-death experiences among paper mill electricians are all too common. On this particular day, a combination circuit breaker/welding outlet failed to provide power to the welder. The maintenance electrician began to replace the outlet. Casually, his co-worker paused and said, 'Better check it with a meter.' The meter revealed that one phase of the circuit breaker had failed 'live' leaving the outlet energized. For these guys, this near-death experience is permanently imprinted on their minds in vivid 'Technicolor' detail never to be forgotten."

The article goes on to describe various methods of detecting voltage, and how voltage indicators and volt meters "are on the same team with their own unique safety benefits."

No author for the article is listed, but it appears to have come from Grace Engineered Products, Inc.

Labels:

posted by Steve Hudgik | This Arc Flash Post and 1 Comments | Add Comment | links

Wednesday, November 28, 2007

New NEMA Standards For Facility Signs

The National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA) has published ANSI Z535.2-2007 American National Standard for Environmental and Facility Safety Signs. This publication contains the requirements for safety signs to be used to alert and inform viewers of the existence of potential hazards to personnel or property in the environment or in facilities, the nature and potential severity of the hazard, and the steps to be taken to avoid the hazard.

According to Allen Clapp, chairman of Subcommittee Z535.2 on Environmental and Facility Safety Signs, this document also includes requirements for signs describing safety procedures, the location of safety equipment, and directional arrows used to alert viewers of safe locations or safety equipment. The requirements cover both fixed signs and larger, movable signs that are sometimes used on large industrial sites with changing conditions.

"This edition helps users differentiate hazards that are likely to result in personal injury from hazards likely to result only in damage to facilities," Clapp said. "The safety sign formats in this standard are consistent with those of ANSI Z535.4 for product safety signs and labels, and ANSI Z535.5 for temporary safety tags and barricade tapes. This standard, however, appropriately reflects the different requirements for environmental and facility safety signs to alert viewers at greater distances, so that they may avoid entering—or take appropriate cautions before entering—the location containing the hazard."

This standard incorporates a new annex to help users estimate and evaluate risks from potential hazards in the environment or in facilities, and select the appropriate alerting signal word and sign format consistent with the type and degree of hazard. Updated references also help users design effective, efficient safety signs.

The table of contents and scope of ANSI Z535.2-2007 may be viewed, or a hardcopy or electronic copy purchased for $78 by visiting NEMA’s website at www.nema.org/stds/z535-2.cfm Copies may also be purchased by contacting IHS at 800-854-7179 (within the U.S.), 303-397-7956 (international), or 303-397-2740 (fax).

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. These products are used in utility, medical imaging, industrial, commercial, institutional, and residential applications. Domestic production of electrical products sold worldwide exceeds $120 billion. In addition to its headquarters in Rosslyn, Virginia, NEMA also has offices in Beijing, São Paulo, and Mexico City.

Labels:

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

Wednesday, November 07, 2007

Ultrasonic Analysis and Arc Flash

"Another application that is often overlooked is the use of airborne ultrasonics as an added safety measure when opening electrical cabinets. An example of this might be during a routine IR thermography scan. Pre-screen the cabinet doors with an ultrasonic meter to detect any arcing that may be occurring in the breaker or starter. This arcing will ionize the air inside the cabinet. When the cabinet door is opened, the fresh air becomes a welcomed path to ground, producing an extremely dangerous arc flash."

The above is a quote from an article by Andy Page , "How are you using ultrasonic analysis?" in Reliable Plant Magazine. 11/2007

The article discusses ways in which structure-borne ultrasonic analysis can be used to improve safety. There are two types of ultrasonic analysis:

Pulse-echo ultrasound generates an ultrasonic pulse that is transmitted into a material. It is typically used for imaging, to measure material thickness or to locate material discontinuities.

Structure-borne ultrasonic analysis, also known as passive ultrasonic analysis, detects and analyzes the ultrasound coming from a equipment and is used to detect and predict various types of failures. In addition to numerous other applications, this article provides two examples of how passive ultrasonic analysis can be used to prevent arc flash incidents.

Labels: ,

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

Friday, September 14, 2007

NEMA Publishes Grounding Rod Electrodes Standard

The National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA) has published ANSI/NEMA GR 1-2007 Grounding Rod Electrodes and Grounding Rod Electrode Couplings. It provides practical information concerning materials, construction, testing, performance, and manufacture of copper-bonded ground rod electrodes, zinc-coated ground rod electrodes, and stainless steel-clad ground rod electrodes.

This ANSI-approved standard applies to electrodes and electrode couplings that function according to the National Electrical Code® (NEC) and the National Electrical Safety Code (NESC). It covers design and performance requirements and provides recommendations for selections and use. It also includes information for electrode products that have been successfully used for many years but are not defined within NEC or NESC.

The contents and scope of GR 1-2007 may be viewed, and a hard copy or electronic copy purchased for $58, by visiting NEMA’s website at www.nema.org/stds/gr1.cfm, or by contacting IHS at 800-854-7179 (within the U.S.), 303-397-7956 (international), or 303-397-2740 (fax).

NEMA is the trade association 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: ,

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

Wednesday, September 05, 2007

Should You Outsource Electrical Hazard Assessments?

A new article on PlantService.com by Larry Altmayer of Littelfuse discusses the resources and expertise needed to conduct electrical hazard assessments.

The introduction states:

"OSHA regulations and NFPA standards (OSHA 1910 and NFPA 70E) require employers to identify and evaluate electrical hazards in the workplace, and to establish safe work practices and PPE for workers. This includes not only possible shock hazards, but also an assessment of electrical Arc-Flash hazards, as described in the 2004 edition of NFPA 70E. An Arc-Flash assessment is critical, as such events generate intense heat and arc blast pressures that can cause severe burns, concussions, falls, and associated injuries. These events are a leading cause of death among electrical workers."

The article covers the following topics:

  • Resources and Expertise Needed

  • The Cost of Getting it Wrong

  • Technical Qualifications

  • Employee Training

Labels: ,

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

Monday, July 30, 2007

John R. Collier A Comedian With A Very Serious Purpose

John Collier passed away on July 20 at Bethesda North Hospital. John was a senior compliance officer for OSHA, but he was better known as "Mr. Wizard.".

The obituary in the Cincinnati Enquirer stated:

"His magic was getting people to laugh while teaching them how not to get electrocuted. His show 'Wired for Safety' was an attendance draw at events around the country.

'John was a standup comedian, really,' said Dick Gilgrist, area director for the Occupational Safety and Health Administration.

Mr. Collier's vast knowledge of electrical hazards combined with his extraordinary sense of humor and a quick wit to provide a show that was as fun as it was instructive. 'It was John that was truly wired for the presentation,' Gilgrist said."

John was with OSHA for 28 years. During that time he investigated more than 100 accidents and fatalities and was involved in conducting more than 1,600 inspections.

Labels: ,

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

Monday, July 16, 2007

Common Sources of Electrical Hazards

As a part of the safety information published by the State of Queensland (Department of Employment and Industrial Relations) [Australia] they have compiled a list of common sources of electrical hazards. This is a useful list that can help remind workers of the full range electrical safety hazards.

Labels: ,

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

Wednesday, July 11, 2007

Managing Water-Damaged Electrical Equipment

Serious flooding is impacting several areas of the country, and with the potential for hurricanes and additional storms, knowing how to handle water-damaged electrical equipment is an important subject. The current issue of the NEC Digest, a quarterly publication, has an article about this topic.

The introduction of the article raises some commonly heard questions:

"Flood waters from both hurricanes and heavy thunderstorms can cause serious weather damage. That means no matter where they are in the United States, electrical contractors can face frantic questions from home and business owners in the wake of a natural disaster. Can their equipment can be dried out? Are their circuit breakers okay to use? Can their switchboard be re-energized?"

Get updated on what you need to know should it become necessary to deal with water damaged electrical equipment with this excellent article.

Labels: ,

posted by Steve Hudgik | This Arc Flash Post and 1 Comments | Add Comment | links

Wednesday, June 27, 2007

Reaching New Heights

The cover story in the May issue of Electrical Contracting Products is called "Reaching New Heights". It provides a overview of selecting the proper ladder or lift, and of the safety concerns electrical contractors may have with ladders and lifts. It is a good article for anyone who needs to be working above ground level.

The article opens by noting: "According to OSHA, falls are the leading cause of fatalities in the construction industry. From 1995 to 1999, an average 362 fatal falls occurred each year."

After discussing ladder design and ratings, and the selection of the proper ladder material (fiberglass is recommended for electrical work), the three important ladder related questions are identified:

"At what height will you be working from? Many manufacturers will provide a height safety chart that will show the ladders height as well as the maximum safe reaching height."

"What type of jobs will be performed? For instance, not only will you need to consider your own weight, but also the tools you may use while on the ladder. "

"What type of material is appropriate for the job? If the ladder will be used near an electrical hazard, then a non-conductive fiberglass ladder must be selected."

The article also discusses work platforms used for electrical work, such as scissor lifts. It discusses selection criteria, common causes of accidents, safety concerns and maintenance concerns.

Labels: ,

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

Wednesday, June 06, 2007

Regulating Arc Flash Hazards

An article in the May 2007 issue of Occupational Hazards magazine digs into OSHA's proposed rules to reduce electrical burn injuries, and raises several serious questions about the effectiveness of these rules. The article states:

"There are several problems, however, with the proposed rules. First, the proposed rules do not clearly define the obligations of an employer. Second, electrical arcs are unpredictable and the methods for calculating the maximum available heat energy to which an employee may be exposed are extremely unreliable at high voltages. Third, even if employers could calculate the actual maximum available heat energy and put their employees in the appropriate arc-rated clothing, there is still a 50 percent chance than an employee could sustain a second-degree burn. Finally, attempting to comply with the proposed rules may cause the same injuries that the proposed rules are designed to prevent in the first place."

The article addresses each of these points.

Occupational Hazards Magazine does not make it easy to link to their articles. Use this link http://occupationalhazards.texterity.com/occupationalhazards/200705/?u1=texterity to go to the May 2007 issue. Then at the top of the page, use the "Page" box to select page 41. As you finish reading each page you'll need to use the "Page" box to select the next page.

Labels: , ,

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

Electrical Safety News

We'd like to be providing you with all of the latest electrical safety news and information in an easy and convient format. One of our tools for doing this is our blog, but we've been looking for ways to improve and provide a wider variety of news.

We have added a new page to our web site on which we will publish RSS feeds from safety related publications. Our intention is to provide a one-stop summary of electrical safety news and then use our blog to highlight the more important or interesting stories. The new page is:

Electrical Safety News (http://www.labelprinters.org/electrical-safety-news.php)

I don't know how well this will work out. We are still working to identify additional publishers that offer RSS feeds... and I'm not sure that the RSS feeds that are available are kept current. But we thought we'd give this a try and see what happens. As always, your comments and suggestions are welcome.

Labels:

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

Wednesday, May 30, 2007

Mine Blast Kills 39 Workers

This news item caught my eye because I've just returned from a 12 day trip to Russia. Last Thursday an explosion in a Russian coal mine resulted in the death of 39 workers. This is the second major coal mining disaster in Russian in the past two months. In March a coal mine explosion resulted in the deaths of 110 workers.

What was the cause of this most recent tragedy? The Moscow Times reports:

"Alexander Sekachyov, spokesman for the agency's Southern Federal District office, said a preliminary investigation of the affected coal faces in the Yubileinaya mine revealed that a power cable had become detached from a coal-cutting machine, electrifying its exterior. This resulted in an electric arc or a spark that produced the initial blast, which then ignited coal dust in the mine, he said."

Labels: ,

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

Tuesday, May 01, 2007

Construction Industry - Protection from Electric Shock and Arc Flash

The Center to Protect Workers' Rights has written a paper that is available on the CDC eLCOSH website. The paper discusses arc flash hazards in the construction industry. The opening paragraph introduces the subject of the paper.

"About 50 electrical workers are killed in construction every year in the U.S. by electric current and many more are injured. Over half of the deaths are from working on energized ('live') electric circuits without proper protection - often when it was not necessary to work 'live.' At least one-third of the electrocutions occur at low voltage, under 600 volts. This paper discusses precautions for electricians, but does not cover electric utility work."

This paper provides detailed information for electricians and supervisors, covering topics such as: "To De-Energize or Not to De-Energize". In the introduction to this section the paper states:

"The most important principle of electric safety is, assume electric circuits are energized unless you make sure they are not. Test every circuit and conductor every time you work on them."

A major portion of this "De-Energize" section discusses lockout/tagout and how an effective and safe lockout/tagout systems should work.

In the "Not to De-Engergize" section the paper discusses the precautions and proceedures that should be used when working on live equipment. It defines approach boundaries and describes the use of PPE (personal protective equipment).

Detailed tables providing specific risk categories for various types of live work are provided at the end of the paper.

Labels: ,

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

Call about the NFPA 7E labeling machines

NFPA 70E Blog  |  Arc Flash Labels  |  Arc Flash Label Printers
DuraLabel Supplies  |  Arc Flash Quiz

FAST shipping of Arc Flash Label Printers & Supplies.
Most orders ship the SAME DAY we receive your order.