Discussing the Safety and Efficiency of Today's Workplace and Workforce

Welcome to the sounding board for facility managers, maintenance directors, safety managers and operations executives with concerns and questions about workplace electrical safety and efficiency. This forum should open subjects and minds to understanding of OSHA, NFPA and common sence electrical management. And, in conjuntion, it will serve as a source of information on the latest facility management techniques for full operational efficiency.

Look for discussions about Arc Flash Analysis, developing Electrical Safety Programs, compliance issues, Infrared Inspections, Energy Audits, Employee Assessment, Lean Management in Maintenance and Facilities and where to find the help you need.

Welcome to the Journal! We welcome your contributions!

Wednesday, March 31, 2010

Electrical Safety & PPE before an Arc Flash Analysis

(This is the first of a series of articles on this subject. Look next week for Part II: Gaps & Problems with the NFPA 70E 130.7 Chart.)

The primary outcome of an Arc Flash Analysis is to identify arc flash risk hazard levels for workers, warn the workers about the hazards by placing labels on the equipment. From that, the employer needs to provide the proper PPE to protect the workers from the hazards and train them on how to use the PPE.

The problem many companies face is that completing an Arc Flash Analysis can be both an expensive and time consuming proposition. For some companies, just getting the money in the budget and getting it approved can take a year or more. If you have a lot of facilities or a large complex, the arc flash analysis itself can also be a time consuming process taking months or even years to do all buildings. So in the time between planning an arc flash analysis and one actually being done, what do you do to protect workers and start down the road towards compliance?

About Using the NFPA 70E 130.7 Chart

Using the NFPA 70E 130.7 Chart as an alternative to an arc flash analysis simply isn’t possible or a viable alternative for most companies. It’s very rare that a company has the right information to actually use the charts as they were designed and getting the information can be almost as expensive as an arc flash analysis itself. Further, the 130.7 Chart has some gaps in it that will not allow you to always use the chart, will require you to do an arc flash analysis or do not provide enough information to provide a proper warning.

Requirements to Use the NFPA 70E 130.7 Chart

Properly using the NFPA 70E 130.7 Chart requires that:

1. The short circuit current available and fault clearing time is known for the electrical equipment.
2. The short circuit current and fault clearing times of the equipment fall within the parameters of the
chart footnotes.
3. That the task being performed falls within the parameters of the chart.

If a) the task is not listed or b) the short circuit current and fault clearing times are not known or c) if the short circuit current and fault clearing times are greater than the assumed numbers in the footnotes of the chart, one can not use the chart and an arc flash analysis shall be required in accordance with 130.3 of NFPA 70E.

It is very rare when a company knows their short circuit or fault clearing times since it requires an engineering analysis from the point of service from the utility to the piece of equipment in question. This analysis determines the fault current by starting with the utility provided fault current at the point of entry, then determining the elements that attenuate this current downstream to the point in question. The clearing time is not a fixed number for a given protective device, but rather varies significantly with changes in the fault current and adjustments on many breakers.

Wednesday, March 24, 2010

OSHA May Be Just Around the Corner!

OSHA has mailed 15,000 letters to businesses around the country, tipping their hand as to the next wave of workplace safety enforcement. Letters were sent in early March to companies that had reported higher rates of and more severe workplace injuries than the national average in their respective industries.


The result could be a visit from OSHA. In the past year, with new leadership OSHA and the Department of Labor have become more pro-active in visiting businesses and facilities. In fact, the Assistant Secretary of Labor for OSHA, Dr. David Michaels, suggested that employers receiving the letters “need to take immediate steps to protect their workers.

And, along with suggestions of assistance and health and safety consultation services, OSHA’s letter said that “OSHA may target…workplaces identified in the survey for inspection in the next year.”
OSHA has increased the number of compliance officers, and the number of significant fines has increased over the last several months.

Employers can prepare, whether they received letters or not, for providing a safer workplace. And, a safer workplace is a more productive workplace.

Consider an Electrical Safety Inspection, a Maintenance Audit, and Arc Flash Analysis. OSHA certainly will! And, as is the case in most situations, the cost of prevention and safety far outweighs the cost of fines and accidents. Call your supplier for a quote now.

Wednesday, March 17, 2010

Challenge Your Maintenance Program to Efficiently Move Your Facility Forward

A Maintenance Audit of your facility will identify and test the critical components of your maintenance program, create a gap analysis, suggest practical corrective actions and provide a compass for future planning.
Here’s what you should expect from a Maintenance Audit: Increased labor productivity through reduced overtime, maintenance backlog and paperwork; Increased equipment availability by minimizing downtime and prolonging the useful life of equipment; and, Reduced inventory costs through minimizing obsolete and excess inventory, thereby optimizing inventory levels.

Standard Areas of Investigation

Performing a Maintenance Audit requires involving key plant and maintenance personnel to go through virtually every stage of the maintenance program from entering a work order through completing a job and putting the tools away. Typical areas of investigation include:
• Maintenance Work Process Flow
• Work order process flow
• Preventive maintenance set up and compliance
• Preventive maintenance optimization (Right tasks at the right frequency)
• Equipment structure and hierarchy
• Lean maintenance
• Parts inventory control
• Parts inventory ROP (how effectively it is used)
• Parts inventory obsolescence management
• KPIs (Key Performance Indicators)
• Parts Purchasing
• CMMS (Computerized Maintenance Management System):
        • Current reports vs. desired reports
        • Work order backlog
        • CMMS functions available and used
        • Monitoring and controlling maintenance costs using your CMMS
        • Work order prioritization

Your Maintenance Audit provider should spend time at the facility interviewing personnel at all levels including directors, managers, supervisors, technicians, clerical staff and IT personnel. Usually, an interview should last about 30-60 minutes each. This process can take a couple of days.

Then, the current work process flow is reviewed with the whole team, usually over a few hours. And, current CMMS software and the relevant process is reviewed.

From all of this, a viable plan for taking your facility forward can be developed and presented for your action. The result is better efficiency, better use of funds and personnel, a better-run plant!

Tuesday, March 9, 2010

5 Mistakes Companies Make Trying to Cut Costs...on Arc Flash Analysis

1. “Let’s just use NFPA tables to determine the stickers to put on our panels.”

Problem: In order to qualify to use this method, your facility must meet certain parameters, for which most manufacturing or assembly facilities do not qualify. NFPA and OSHA recommend that as a stop gap measure you use NFPA tables, but this is only a short term measure until an analysis is completed.

2. “Let’s eliminate the Short Circuit Analysis and Coordination Device Study sections.”

Problems: The short circuit analysis and coordination device study accurately model your electrical distribution system and without knowing this, engineers are guessing. There are a few inherent dangers here. First off, the danger of the arc flash and blast is calculated both in terms of energy AND time. An arc flash incident point with a lower level of energy may be more dangerous than a higher voltage area because of the time for the breaker to pop. Without knowing this, engineers must take a guess and make one of two decisions: A) assume the best case scenario and rate the category based on that, leaving someone with category 2 clothing and equipment on exposed to a Category 3 or 4 situation. Should an accident happen here, an investigator may find your company to blame for excessive damages that could have been avoided. B) assume the worst case scenario and base the categories on this. This is the path that most engineers take because it covers them and the maintenance technician. Here’s the problem – this might actually be a Category 2 situation and the engineer will make it Category 3 to cover everyone. You just saved $3K on engineering, but now you need to go out and buy $10K in PPE and tools to meet Category 3. The other big factor is that the higher the category of PPE, the more hot and restrictive it is for the technician to work in and the longer it takes. The goal should be to get everyone in the best possible situation to do their job safely, not to overburden them and the company with unnecessary equipment.

3. “Let’s eliminate the Corrective Actions investigation segment of the report.”

Problems: The reality is that few companies actually do this, primarily because they do not understand the real world applications of an electrical distribution system and how electrical technicians work on them. When engineers identify a design flaw that either makes your system less efficient or puts workers at higher risk for shock or arc flash, they should make corrective recommendations to you before the arc flash analysis is completed. There is a reason that the breaker in your lunch room keeps popping when you plug in the coffee pot that requires a call to maintenance! A Corrective Actions Investigation will make your system more efficient and safe, but this too can only be done if the Short Circuit Analysis and Coordination Device Study is completed. Simply changing a breaker out for a different one could save you tens of thousands of dollars over time.

4. “We don’t need the final report delivered. Just send it.”

Problem: Having a report sent to you through the mail is of no value if you don’t understand it, which most people don’t. Many engineers have been called more than once to help customers dissect an arc flash analysis report because the company that did their report will not tell them what it means without scheduling a visit to their facility for an extra cost. Look for an engineering firm that includes full disclosure of the analysis and explanation of the analysis as part of the package and price.

5. “Hey, we can print the labels and put them on ourselves.”

Problem: Knowing where to put the labels and how many to put on per piece of equipment or panel is something that most end users are not qualified to do. Doing an analysis and getting the labels is useless if the labels do not service the correct purpose and meet NFPA and OSHA codes. In addition, prices and quality for labels can vary greatly and choosing a more expensive label than what you need can cost thousands of extra dollars. Make certain your quotes include labels!