Eliminate Short Circuit Analysis and Coordination Device Study
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 that 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 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 now just saved $3K on engineering, but now need to go out and buy $10K in PPE & 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 and the longer it takes. One of the goals of your program is to get everyone in the best possible situation to do their job safely, not to overburden them and the company with unnecessary equipment.
Eliminate corrective actions investigation
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.
Be sure your analysis provider provides you with the complete study. Work Safely!
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
Thursday, June 17, 2010
Leveraging Your CMMS for Improving Plant Efficiency
A computerized maintenance management system (CMMS) is essential for efficiently managing any maintenance program. Managers and technical personnel alike rely on the software to set budgets, perform tasks and manage productivity. In too many cases, however, the CMMS is not producing the desired result and incorrect information is being provided to guide the maintenance program. With lean departments and increasing dsire by management to control costs, having a well-functioning CMMS system is critical to the success of any maintenance department.
An experienced CMMS consultant has a deep understanding of the current problems most organizations face with their CMMS. Working closely with the facility organization, they can identify gaps, provide practical corrective actions and develop a guide for future planning. An audit of the CMMS should also include the basis to decide if upgrading is necessary.
Here is what to expect with such an audit. And, by the way, the cost of an audit has a very high rate of return, often saving tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars in the first year.
Look for: Documentation of strengths/weaknesses and opportunities for improvement; better budget planning; justification for improvement projects; achievement of maintenance and reliability goals; better parts inventory management; and, overall cost reductions and productivity improvement.
The flow of new improvement ideas continue as higher levels of control and savings can help finance future improvements, further enhancing the audit, planning, scheduling and control cycle and ensuring a steady flow of better methods, savings and a more reliable, safer and lower cost physical plant.
Contact an expert here at Martin Technical to learn more. Or, call 303.718.1365 for personal assistance.
An experienced CMMS consultant has a deep understanding of the current problems most organizations face with their CMMS. Working closely with the facility organization, they can identify gaps, provide practical corrective actions and develop a guide for future planning. An audit of the CMMS should also include the basis to decide if upgrading is necessary.
Here is what to expect with such an audit. And, by the way, the cost of an audit has a very high rate of return, often saving tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars in the first year.
Look for: Documentation of strengths/weaknesses and opportunities for improvement; better budget planning; justification for improvement projects; achievement of maintenance and reliability goals; better parts inventory management; and, overall cost reductions and productivity improvement.
The flow of new improvement ideas continue as higher levels of control and savings can help finance future improvements, further enhancing the audit, planning, scheduling and control cycle and ensuring a steady flow of better methods, savings and a more reliable, safer and lower cost physical plant.
Contact an expert here at Martin Technical to learn more. Or, call 303.718.1365 for personal assistance.
Friday, June 11, 2010
The Value of Predictive Maintenance
We came across an excellent article published in England. The on-line publication, Process & Control Today has been around for a while, and is a good source for facility managers and engineers. Here's the link to "Managing Process and Equipment through Predictive Maintenance". When you finish reading it, call 303-718-1365, or link to a full-service source right here in the States, Martin Technical.
Tuesday, June 8, 2010
OSHA is Full of...Information
The government faces all kinds of battles...asked to do what it can't, or asked to stop doing what it is doing. One thing that does go well in our government, though, is the flow of information, particularly relating to workplace safety and regulation.
We are fond of this link to an OSHA page titled "Safety and Health Topics - Electrical." Lots of links to lots of resources and answering basic questions about what standards apply, what information is available, how to recognize hazards in the workplace, and some solutions to those problems.
Read as deep as you like. This is an absorbing and interesting site for deep exploration.
We are fond of this link to an OSHA page titled "Safety and Health Topics - Electrical." Lots of links to lots of resources and answering basic questions about what standards apply, what information is available, how to recognize hazards in the workplace, and some solutions to those problems.
Read as deep as you like. This is an absorbing and interesting site for deep exploration.
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
Take a Look at the Way You Look at Facility Management
It's the same function, but as this excerpt from Wikipedia shows, views around the world differ on the definition of Facility Management. Fascinating.
One definition provided by the International Facility Management Association (IFMA) is:
"A profession that encompasses multiple disciplines to ensure functionality of the built environment by integrating people, place, processes and technology."
Another broader definition provided by IFMA is: "The practice or coordinating the physical workplace with the people and work of the organization; integrates the principles of business administration, architecture, and the behavioral and engineering sciences."
In the UK and other European countries facilities management has a wider definition than simply the management of buildings and services. The definition of FM provided by the European Committee for Standardisation (CEN) and ratified by BSI British Standards is:
“Facilities management is the integration of processes within an organisation to maintain and develop the agreed services which support and improve the effectiveness of its primary activities”.
The British Institute of Facilities Management has formally adopted the CEN definition but also offers a slightly simpler description:
"Facilities management is the integration of multi-disciplinary activities within the built environment and the management of their impact upon people and the workplace".
In Australia, the term Commercial Services has replaced facilities management in some organisations. Commercial services can also define services other than just looking after facilities, such as security, parking, waste disposal, facility services and strategic planning.
A single or multiple buildings located on a single plot of land is referred to as a "Site". Multiple sites located in a single metropolitan area, but used by the same legal entity, are referred to as a "Campus." A Facility Management department may be responsible for a site; a campus; or, a regional area with multiple sites or campuses which may be a mix of owned and leased facilities. A Facility Management department will normally exist to manage the owner-occupied, physical assets of a company; whereas a Property Management department will normally exist to represent the only leased spaces. A Facility Management department is focused on cost effective, long-term utilization and value preservation of the owned assets while a Property Management department is typically focused on short-term lease returns.
Martin Technical recently completed a study of Facility Management Efficiency in Chicago. Let us tell you about it. Contact sales@martintechnical.com.
One definition provided by the International Facility Management Association (IFMA) is:
"A profession that encompasses multiple disciplines to ensure functionality of the built environment by integrating people, place, processes and technology."
Another broader definition provided by IFMA is: "The practice or coordinating the physical workplace with the people and work of the organization; integrates the principles of business administration, architecture, and the behavioral and engineering sciences."
In the UK and other European countries facilities management has a wider definition than simply the management of buildings and services. The definition of FM provided by the European Committee for Standardisation (CEN) and ratified by BSI British Standards is:
“Facilities management is the integration of processes within an organisation to maintain and develop the agreed services which support and improve the effectiveness of its primary activities”.
The British Institute of Facilities Management has formally adopted the CEN definition but also offers a slightly simpler description:
"Facilities management is the integration of multi-disciplinary activities within the built environment and the management of their impact upon people and the workplace".
In Australia, the term Commercial Services has replaced facilities management in some organisations. Commercial services can also define services other than just looking after facilities, such as security, parking, waste disposal, facility services and strategic planning.
A single or multiple buildings located on a single plot of land is referred to as a "Site". Multiple sites located in a single metropolitan area, but used by the same legal entity, are referred to as a "Campus." A Facility Management department may be responsible for a site; a campus; or, a regional area with multiple sites or campuses which may be a mix of owned and leased facilities. A Facility Management department will normally exist to manage the owner-occupied, physical assets of a company; whereas a Property Management department will normally exist to represent the only leased spaces. A Facility Management department is focused on cost effective, long-term utilization and value preservation of the owned assets while a Property Management department is typically focused on short-term lease returns.
Martin Technical recently completed a study of Facility Management Efficiency in Chicago. Let us tell you about it. Contact sales@martintechnical.com.
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
Serious Reason and Serious Work for OSHA in 2010
-Electrical injuries cost employers approximately $15.75 million per case in direct and indirect costs, according to a recent study by the Electric Power Research Institute in Palo Alto, CA.
-In the last two weeks, OSHA has fined the following USPS facilities for willful negligence of violating electrical safety standards. Many more USPS fines are anticipated, as the various local chapters of the American Postal Workers Union presses OSHA for workplace inspections.
o Providence, RI $558K
o Denver, CO $217K
o Bedford Park, IL $210K
-The Protecting America’s Workers Act (H.R. 2067), introduced by U.S. Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D- CA), chair of the subcommittee, will strengthen and modernize the Occupational Safety and Health Act, the law that ensures the health and safety of American workers. Part of this proposal is increased OSHA penalties for job safety violations and establishment of mandatory minimum penalties for violations resulting in worker deaths, so fines are more than just a slap on the wrist. Criminal violations of the OSH Act would be made a felony, instead of a misdemeanor, and be expanded to cover cases that involve serious bodily injuries, not just worker deaths.
o Serious and Other than Serious penalties would rise to $10,000 and would be required to be between $20,000 and $50,000 if the violation resulted in a death
o Willful and Repeat violation penalties would go to $100,000 and would jump to a potential $250,000 if the violation resulted in a death.
- The number of Federal OSHA inspections in 2010 is predicted to be 40,000.
-In the last two weeks, OSHA has fined the following USPS facilities for willful negligence of violating electrical safety standards. Many more USPS fines are anticipated, as the various local chapters of the American Postal Workers Union presses OSHA for workplace inspections.
o Providence, RI $558K
o Denver, CO $217K
o Bedford Park, IL $210K
-The Protecting America’s Workers Act (H.R. 2067), introduced by U.S. Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D- CA), chair of the subcommittee, will strengthen and modernize the Occupational Safety and Health Act, the law that ensures the health and safety of American workers. Part of this proposal is increased OSHA penalties for job safety violations and establishment of mandatory minimum penalties for violations resulting in worker deaths, so fines are more than just a slap on the wrist. Criminal violations of the OSH Act would be made a felony, instead of a misdemeanor, and be expanded to cover cases that involve serious bodily injuries, not just worker deaths.
o Serious and Other than Serious penalties would rise to $10,000 and would be required to be between $20,000 and $50,000 if the violation resulted in a death
o Willful and Repeat violation penalties would go to $100,000 and would jump to a potential $250,000 if the violation resulted in a death.
- The number of Federal OSHA inspections in 2010 is predicted to be 40,000.
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
OSHA News on a Rainy Day
In light of new energy at OSHA, and major penalty levies in the last few days against three USPS facilities (Denver, Providence and Bedford, IL), here is an interesting summary of OSHA's stepped up enforcement program...from a law firm's viewpoint. You can read it here.
And, if you have questions about your own facility, electrical safety, arc flash hazards or maintenance efficiency, contact this company...which is definitely not a law firm.
And, if you have questions about your own facility, electrical safety, arc flash hazards or maintenance efficiency, contact this company...which is definitely not a law firm.
A couple of Items from the News
Here is a link to an encouraging article. Your tax dollars at work in the Air Force, saving lives and labor while dealing with the very real hazards of Arc Flash. Check out the progress at Arnold Air Force Base here.
And, if you are not familiar with the Arc Flash Forum, you may want to get involved in the continuing conversation. That's at http://www.arcflashforum.com/. Stay safe!
And, if you are not familiar with the Arc Flash Forum, you may want to get involved in the continuing conversation. That's at http://www.arcflashforum.com/. Stay safe!
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
Compliance Issues Don't Go Out of Date!
Let Martin Technical help you with your compliance issues and questions. Perhaps most importantly, we can provide Electrical Safety Program development assistance and Arc Flash Analysis for your plant. Check us out and keep the cartoonists away!
Friday, April 16, 2010
Maintenance Efficiency Addressed in an Audit
You can read more about the Martin Technical Maintenance Audit at this link. We'll address that more in the next few weeks. This is a key step in understanding your program and maximizing its efficiency!
This item appeared in Today's Facility Manager.
This item appeared in Today's Facility Manager.
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
What to do Between Now and Your Arc Flash Analysis (Part III)
As mentioned, using the NFPA 70E 130.7 chart properly isn’t really a viable solution for either short term or long term. If a company wants to use the NFPA 70E 130.7 chart in a compliant way, they are running into the same problems as completing an arc flash analysis; time and money. So, in consideration of not being able to use the 130.7 chart to be compliant and having a gap in time before an arc flash analysis can be completed due to funding or other issues, many companies are left in limbo on what to do.
The following steps are suggestions to help protect your workers in the interim, get a program in place and start working towards completing an arc flash analysis:
1. Determine Hazardous Tasks Workers will do and Include in Documentation of Electrical Safety Plan
If you do not already have an electrical safety plan developed and documented, this should be done first. This plan will define how electrical systems are designed, maintained and managed including guiding both management and workers how to work on and around energized equipment in your plant or facility (see chart in Appendix for all information that should be included in your plan).
Part of this plan would include how workers should approach or work on energized equipment in absence of proper warning on the arc flash hazard category. A suggested plan would be as follows:
1. Using the NFPA 70E 130.7 charts, one can determine what combinations of voltage / equipment / tasks would require Cat 3 or 4 PPE based on the assumptions (see chart in Appendix). Based on this, the employer makes a determination if any of these tasks are something:
A. Their workers are qualified to do, perform and want to continue doing
B. Their workers are not qualified to do, perform or something that represents a risk that they do no want their workers exposed to and therefore, will outsource.
2. If the combination of voltage / equipment / task being performed is something that the customer will be doing internally, immediately invest in 1 - 2 sets of Cat 4 kit to handle those Cat 3 & 4 situations
3. If the combination of voltage / equipment / task being performed represents something that the employees do not do, are not qualified to do or represents a risk that the employer does not want employees taking, outsource those tasks to a qualified electrical contractor. From a liability standpoint, you should clearly advise the contractor that based off of the NFPA 70E 130.7 charts, this represents at least a category 3 or 4 hazard and they should take proper precautions.
2. Invest in Appropriate PPE
1. Invest immediately in Cat 2 PPE*. After an arc flash analysis is done, the results typically show that the vast majority (and sometimes all) of the panels are rated Cat 0 – 2. Based on this outcome, employers typically end up putting all their workers in Cat 2 PPE as that covers all or nearly all the work they will be doing and is reasonable equipment to work in and purchase.
2. Invest in Cat 4 PPE kits if the determination from step 1 is that the workers will be working on hazard categories 3 or 4 based on the NFPA 70E 130.7 Chart.
* The danger in this practice is that there are situations that under the assumptions made for the NFPA 70E 130.7 Chart will determine the risk hazard category as 0,1 or 2 when in reality, it could be a category 3, 4 or above category 4. A different than assumed short circuit current available or longer fault clearing can increase the hazard. This information can only be known, however, but doing an arc flash analysis.
3. Set Approach Boundaries
NFPA 70E 130.3 (A) (1) defines the default arc flash boundary to be 4 feet for voltage levels between 50 volts and 600 volts the clearing time and the fault current do not exceed 100 KA cycles. Without doing an actual analysis, it’s virtually impossible for someone to determine if their equipment will not exceed 100 KA cycles and require a bigger approach boundary. In lieu of having the proper information to set the boundaries, a 4 foot boundary as a temporary means is suggested.
4. Train Workers
1. Train those who would be working on or around energized equipment about Electrical Safety and Arc Flash (see Appendix for training outline). Part of this training includes specifics on PPE and tasks, including:
Only perform the tasks allowed by NFPA 70E (i.e. troubleshooting) on energized circuits. Any other work on energized circuits requires a hot work permit which includes the results of an arc flash analysis and the defined arc flash protection boundary. It must be noted that even troubleshooting is not immune to arc flashes. Tasks as simple as voltage measurements and current probes can result in arc flashes.
A. How to properly identify equipment, voltages and tasks and understand their hazards
B. How to apply that knowledge to using the * NFPA 70E 130.7 charts, including the shortcomings of the chart
C. Crossover information from OSHA or local standards and the NFPA 70E 130.7 Chart for PPE
D. How to properly use the PPE equipment for tasks they are qualified to do and approved to do by their employer
E. How to properly recognize situations they need to avoid and outsource per directions of their employer
These suggestions are a short-term stop-gap approach to protecting your workers until an arc flash hazard analysis being completed, but it is in no way a permanent solution to protecting workers from electrical arc flash hazards nor is it considered compliant with OSHA or NFPA 70E. Martin Technical maintains that nothing short of doing an arc flash analysis is properly warning workers of hazards or being in compliance with OSHA and NFPA 70E as it relates to arc flash hazards.
The following steps are suggestions to help protect your workers in the interim, get a program in place and start working towards completing an arc flash analysis:
1. Determine Hazardous Tasks Workers will do and Include in Documentation of Electrical Safety Plan
If you do not already have an electrical safety plan developed and documented, this should be done first. This plan will define how electrical systems are designed, maintained and managed including guiding both management and workers how to work on and around energized equipment in your plant or facility (see chart in Appendix for all information that should be included in your plan).
Part of this plan would include how workers should approach or work on energized equipment in absence of proper warning on the arc flash hazard category. A suggested plan would be as follows:
1. Using the NFPA 70E 130.7 charts, one can determine what combinations of voltage / equipment / tasks would require Cat 3 or 4 PPE based on the assumptions (see chart in Appendix). Based on this, the employer makes a determination if any of these tasks are something:
A. Their workers are qualified to do, perform and want to continue doing
B. Their workers are not qualified to do, perform or something that represents a risk that they do no want their workers exposed to and therefore, will outsource.
2. If the combination of voltage / equipment / task being performed is something that the customer will be doing internally, immediately invest in 1 - 2 sets of Cat 4 kit to handle those Cat 3 & 4 situations
3. If the combination of voltage / equipment / task being performed represents something that the employees do not do, are not qualified to do or represents a risk that the employer does not want employees taking, outsource those tasks to a qualified electrical contractor. From a liability standpoint, you should clearly advise the contractor that based off of the NFPA 70E 130.7 charts, this represents at least a category 3 or 4 hazard and they should take proper precautions.
2. Invest in Appropriate PPE
1. Invest immediately in Cat 2 PPE*. After an arc flash analysis is done, the results typically show that the vast majority (and sometimes all) of the panels are rated Cat 0 – 2. Based on this outcome, employers typically end up putting all their workers in Cat 2 PPE as that covers all or nearly all the work they will be doing and is reasonable equipment to work in and purchase.
2. Invest in Cat 4 PPE kits if the determination from step 1 is that the workers will be working on hazard categories 3 or 4 based on the NFPA 70E 130.7 Chart.
* The danger in this practice is that there are situations that under the assumptions made for the NFPA 70E 130.7 Chart will determine the risk hazard category as 0,1 or 2 when in reality, it could be a category 3, 4 or above category 4. A different than assumed short circuit current available or longer fault clearing can increase the hazard. This information can only be known, however, but doing an arc flash analysis.
3. Set Approach Boundaries
NFPA 70E 130.3 (A) (1) defines the default arc flash boundary to be 4 feet for voltage levels between 50 volts and 600 volts the clearing time and the fault current do not exceed 100 KA cycles. Without doing an actual analysis, it’s virtually impossible for someone to determine if their equipment will not exceed 100 KA cycles and require a bigger approach boundary. In lieu of having the proper information to set the boundaries, a 4 foot boundary as a temporary means is suggested.
4. Train Workers
1. Train those who would be working on or around energized equipment about Electrical Safety and Arc Flash (see Appendix for training outline). Part of this training includes specifics on PPE and tasks, including:
Only perform the tasks allowed by NFPA 70E (i.e. troubleshooting) on energized circuits. Any other work on energized circuits requires a hot work permit which includes the results of an arc flash analysis and the defined arc flash protection boundary. It must be noted that even troubleshooting is not immune to arc flashes. Tasks as simple as voltage measurements and current probes can result in arc flashes.
A. How to properly identify equipment, voltages and tasks and understand their hazards
B. How to apply that knowledge to using the * NFPA 70E 130.7 charts, including the shortcomings of the chart
C. Crossover information from OSHA or local standards and the NFPA 70E 130.7 Chart for PPE
D. How to properly use the PPE equipment for tasks they are qualified to do and approved to do by their employer
E. How to properly recognize situations they need to avoid and outsource per directions of their employer
These suggestions are a short-term stop-gap approach to protecting your workers until an arc flash hazard analysis being completed, but it is in no way a permanent solution to protecting workers from electrical arc flash hazards nor is it considered compliant with OSHA or NFPA 70E. Martin Technical maintains that nothing short of doing an arc flash analysis is properly warning workers of hazards or being in compliance with OSHA and NFPA 70E as it relates to arc flash hazards.
Wednesday, April 7, 2010
Considering an Arc Flash Analysis? Read on, and next week look for Part III in this series: "What to do Between Now and Completing an Arc Flash Analysis"
1. Perhaps the greatest gap in the NFPA 70E 130.7 Chart is what it doesn’t say. The chart does not discuss the greatest risk factor of all, an arc flash that is too severe for any PPE to protect people involved in the flash. Taking into consideration the information from arc flash studies, most companies will have 2% - 4% of their equipment that exceed the capability of PPE to protect their employees (i.e. greater than Category 4). The chart does not address this nor has any way to identify it. The only way to determine where these situations exist without performing the complete analysis.
2. The chart is conservative is many areas and will advise to use PPE that are 1 or even 2 categories above what may actually be required. In theory, it may seem like more is better, but in practical applications it is not.
a. Investing in PPE for higher categories that you do not need can be more expensive than the cost savings of not doing an analysis for some companies.
b. The higher up the chart one goes with the PPE, the more protective and also the more difficult and perhaps even dangerous to work in. A full Cat 4 PPE suit is not easy or comfortable to work in. Workers complain of the suits being hot, obstructing vision and losing dexterity. Loss of dexterity is a major concern for some workers because they are more likely to drop things such as tools or bolts, which could lead to an arc flash. Due to this, some workers have stated that they believe there is a higher chance of an arc flash happening when wearing Cat 4 PPE.
c. If the PPE seems overly excessive, knowledgeable workers may question it and start making decisions based on their knowledge and experience and pay less attention to the chart.
3. To be compliant, warning labels must be applied to the equipment in order to warn workers of the hazard. Because the 130.7 chart is based in part off of tasks, the risk / hazard category can range from a “0” to a “4”, so it’s not possible to provide just one risk hazard category that identifies the proper PPE. There are the following options on the labels;
a. Provide an arc flash warning label with information including the voltage and other information per NEC standards. This would require the workers to then reference and read the 130.7 chart, which leaves room for worker interpretation and errors.
b. Provide a label that details the different tasks and hazard / risk categories for each piece of equipment along with the PPE required. The problem with this is that there is so much information that you might need 8” x 18” of uninterrupted label space to provide all the information, which isn’t very practical. Further, it still leaves the worker to read and interpret the information, leading to potential errors.
c. Provide arc flash warning labels using only the highest category of risk hazard for any tasks for that piece of equipment. This would end up being a Cat 4 for most situations, meaning workers would be required to dress in a full Cat 4 PPE. As mentioned above, wearing a lot more PPE can cost a lot more, can be considered more likely to cause accidents and can lead workers to not believing the information on the labels and therefore, start making their own decisions.
4. Even with knowing the information on your electrical system to apply to the chart, the chart may still advise you to do an arc flash analysis for particular tasks or any for assumptions that do not fall within the parameters of the chart.
Costs & Time Involved in Gathering Information to Use the Chart.
If a company does not already have all the information to use the chart, they must go through an engineering analysis process that includes data collection, short circuit study and determination of fault clearing times. Then labels must be printed and applied to equipment to warn the workers. This process covers a big part of the cost of actually doing a proper arc flash, so it’s not a tremendous cost savings versus actually doing the analysis.
Further, for those situations that do not fit neatly into the 130.7 chart, an arc flash analysis is required anyways, making it the same cost as just staring out to do a full analysis.
Summary of Using the NFPA 70E Charts
Very few companies can actually use or do actually use the NFPA 70E 130.7 charts to be compliant for the following reasons:
• Without knowledge of short circuit current or fault clearing times, the charts can not be used.
• Gathering the information to use the charts can be nearly as expensive as just doing an arc flash analysis ( and can be even more if unnecessary PPE is purchased ).
• Even with the proper information, if the results don’t match the criteria or a task does not match the criteria, an arc flash analysis is required and the chart can not be used.
• The chart is conservative and may recommend PPE that really isn’t necessary leading to additional costs and potentially increasing the chance of an accident happening.
• The chart may still be inadequate by not identifying the most dangerous risk; greater than Cat 4.
• There are no good labeling options to warn workers.
When taking into consideration the time and cost to properly use the NFPA 70E 130.7 chart and knowing the shortcomings of the chart after implemented, it doesn’t make a whole lot of sense from either an investment standpoint or safety standpoint to choose to use the NFPA 70E 130.7 chart versus just doing an arc flash analysis.
2. The chart is conservative is many areas and will advise to use PPE that are 1 or even 2 categories above what may actually be required. In theory, it may seem like more is better, but in practical applications it is not.
a. Investing in PPE for higher categories that you do not need can be more expensive than the cost savings of not doing an analysis for some companies.
b. The higher up the chart one goes with the PPE, the more protective and also the more difficult and perhaps even dangerous to work in. A full Cat 4 PPE suit is not easy or comfortable to work in. Workers complain of the suits being hot, obstructing vision and losing dexterity. Loss of dexterity is a major concern for some workers because they are more likely to drop things such as tools or bolts, which could lead to an arc flash. Due to this, some workers have stated that they believe there is a higher chance of an arc flash happening when wearing Cat 4 PPE.
c. If the PPE seems overly excessive, knowledgeable workers may question it and start making decisions based on their knowledge and experience and pay less attention to the chart.
3. To be compliant, warning labels must be applied to the equipment in order to warn workers of the hazard. Because the 130.7 chart is based in part off of tasks, the risk / hazard category can range from a “0” to a “4”, so it’s not possible to provide just one risk hazard category that identifies the proper PPE. There are the following options on the labels;
a. Provide an arc flash warning label with information including the voltage and other information per NEC standards. This would require the workers to then reference and read the 130.7 chart, which leaves room for worker interpretation and errors.
b. Provide a label that details the different tasks and hazard / risk categories for each piece of equipment along with the PPE required. The problem with this is that there is so much information that you might need 8” x 18” of uninterrupted label space to provide all the information, which isn’t very practical. Further, it still leaves the worker to read and interpret the information, leading to potential errors.
c. Provide arc flash warning labels using only the highest category of risk hazard for any tasks for that piece of equipment. This would end up being a Cat 4 for most situations, meaning workers would be required to dress in a full Cat 4 PPE. As mentioned above, wearing a lot more PPE can cost a lot more, can be considered more likely to cause accidents and can lead workers to not believing the information on the labels and therefore, start making their own decisions.
4. Even with knowing the information on your electrical system to apply to the chart, the chart may still advise you to do an arc flash analysis for particular tasks or any for assumptions that do not fall within the parameters of the chart.
Costs & Time Involved in Gathering Information to Use the Chart.
If a company does not already have all the information to use the chart, they must go through an engineering analysis process that includes data collection, short circuit study and determination of fault clearing times. Then labels must be printed and applied to equipment to warn the workers. This process covers a big part of the cost of actually doing a proper arc flash, so it’s not a tremendous cost savings versus actually doing the analysis.
Further, for those situations that do not fit neatly into the 130.7 chart, an arc flash analysis is required anyways, making it the same cost as just staring out to do a full analysis.
Summary of Using the NFPA 70E Charts
Very few companies can actually use or do actually use the NFPA 70E 130.7 charts to be compliant for the following reasons:
• Without knowledge of short circuit current or fault clearing times, the charts can not be used.
• Gathering the information to use the charts can be nearly as expensive as just doing an arc flash analysis ( and can be even more if unnecessary PPE is purchased ).
• Even with the proper information, if the results don’t match the criteria or a task does not match the criteria, an arc flash analysis is required and the chart can not be used.
• The chart is conservative and may recommend PPE that really isn’t necessary leading to additional costs and potentially increasing the chance of an accident happening.
• The chart may still be inadequate by not identifying the most dangerous risk; greater than Cat 4.
• There are no good labeling options to warn workers.
When taking into consideration the time and cost to properly use the NFPA 70E 130.7 chart and knowing the shortcomings of the chart after implemented, it doesn’t make a whole lot of sense from either an investment standpoint or safety standpoint to choose to use the NFPA 70E 130.7 chart versus just doing an arc flash analysis.
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.
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.
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!
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!
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.”
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!
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
Arc Flash Analysis: A Sensible Response to the Need!
More and more people are hearing the term, Arc Flash Analysis, and wondering what to do about it. Caterpillar has an OnLine Community where such things are raised and discussed. This response showed up recently on the forum...and it makes sense! At the bottom of the article is the link to the Caterpillar site.
A few points on the arc flash analysis.
Yes, a lot of people are still hearing it for the first time. It was only in 2002 that NFPA & IEEE put the standards together to define how an arc flash should be done. OSHA has indirectly adopted the standards by stating that workers must be warned about electrical hazards and the proper PPE to wear and referencing NFPA. The only way to properly warn the workers of the threat level and required PPE is to do an arc flash analysis with the exception of using the NFPA 70 E tables. The problem with the NFPA 70E tables is that in order to use them, you must already know the short circuit current and clearing time of your protective devices and the results of that must fit within the parameters of the chart (read the footnotes). We have never found anybody who can actually use the charts as they were designed, although they are a good reference point for PPE safety if you haven't got an arc flash analysis done yet and need to approach an energized part.
Getting an arc flash analysis done is not cheap internally or externally, but it's a heck of a lot cheaper than the damages if there is an accident and the analysis wasn't done. OSHA has been laying down heavy fines in these cases, not to mention the legal and insurance costs.
No, you don't need to be a PE or outsource the arc flash analysis, however, there are a lot of challenges in doing an analysis internally, the start of which is putting money up front for the software and learning to use it which can cost $10K - $30K and several weeks for that process alone. The bigger problem, however, is the simple inexperience of doing an arc flash analysis. It takes literally a dozen jobs under the direction of a PE with a lot of arc flash experience to to do a job right. The biggest problems we see with self- analysis are; a) data collected isn't accurate b) analysis is only done at top voltage loads, not the lowest, which can be more dangerous c) lack of ability to provide recommendations on how to make minor changes to something like the setting of a breaker to take it from Cat 4 down to Cat 2. We see companies buying sets of expensive Cat 4 PPE based on the outcome of the analysis when really, a few minor adjustments or a change in a breaker might eliminate both the need for the Cat 4 equipment and more importantly, reduces the hazard for their employees.
And here is the million dollar question (or $9 million question as the estimated cost of an arc flash accident involving serious injury). If you do the analysis yourself and there is an accident and a forensic engineer comes in and finds out that the analysis was done wrong, who do you think is going to be held liable?
If you have any questions, feel free to contact me or you can get more information on our web sites www.martinarcflash.com or www.martechnical.com
Jim Schuster, VP, Martin Technical
Caterpillar OnLine Discussion Link: https://caterpillar.lithium.com/t5/Power-Generation-Regulations/Arc-flash/m-p/254/highlight/true;jsessionid=C1C6345A93FA1AC268E7E08671D0A1EE
A few points on the arc flash analysis.
Yes, a lot of people are still hearing it for the first time. It was only in 2002 that NFPA & IEEE put the standards together to define how an arc flash should be done. OSHA has indirectly adopted the standards by stating that workers must be warned about electrical hazards and the proper PPE to wear and referencing NFPA. The only way to properly warn the workers of the threat level and required PPE is to do an arc flash analysis with the exception of using the NFPA 70 E tables. The problem with the NFPA 70E tables is that in order to use them, you must already know the short circuit current and clearing time of your protective devices and the results of that must fit within the parameters of the chart (read the footnotes). We have never found anybody who can actually use the charts as they were designed, although they are a good reference point for PPE safety if you haven't got an arc flash analysis done yet and need to approach an energized part.
Getting an arc flash analysis done is not cheap internally or externally, but it's a heck of a lot cheaper than the damages if there is an accident and the analysis wasn't done. OSHA has been laying down heavy fines in these cases, not to mention the legal and insurance costs.
No, you don't need to be a PE or outsource the arc flash analysis, however, there are a lot of challenges in doing an analysis internally, the start of which is putting money up front for the software and learning to use it which can cost $10K - $30K and several weeks for that process alone. The bigger problem, however, is the simple inexperience of doing an arc flash analysis. It takes literally a dozen jobs under the direction of a PE with a lot of arc flash experience to to do a job right. The biggest problems we see with self- analysis are; a) data collected isn't accurate b) analysis is only done at top voltage loads, not the lowest, which can be more dangerous c) lack of ability to provide recommendations on how to make minor changes to something like the setting of a breaker to take it from Cat 4 down to Cat 2. We see companies buying sets of expensive Cat 4 PPE based on the outcome of the analysis when really, a few minor adjustments or a change in a breaker might eliminate both the need for the Cat 4 equipment and more importantly, reduces the hazard for their employees.
And here is the million dollar question (or $9 million question as the estimated cost of an arc flash accident involving serious injury). If you do the analysis yourself and there is an accident and a forensic engineer comes in and finds out that the analysis was done wrong, who do you think is going to be held liable?
If you have any questions, feel free to contact me or you can get more information on our web sites www.martinarcflash.com or www.martechnical.com
Jim Schuster, VP, Martin Technical
Caterpillar OnLine Discussion Link: https://caterpillar.lithium.com/t5/Power-Generation-Regulations/Arc-flash/m-p/254/highlight/true;jsessionid=C1C6345A93FA1AC268E7E08671D0A1EE
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
NFPA 70E Do's and Don'ts! More Timely Advice!
John Klingler, P.E. is a noted expert in the field of Arc Flash, NFPA compliance and electrical engineering. Here is the second part of our article on Do's and Don'ts. Time for the Do's!
• Do develop a training schedule.
Proof of attendance at a one-day training session on NFPA 70E is not adequate to qualify your employees to perform electrical work. Although NFPA 70E training is definitely recommended, if not required, it should only be a single component of a much broader-based training program. Start by preparing a list of the tasks qualified person(s) or electrician(s) are to perform on or near exposed energized parts; this can be accomplished more formally in a job/task analysis (JTA).
Next, complete a hazard analysis for each task, formally known as a job hazard analysis (JHA), and prepare a description of the skills and knowledge required to perform the job safely. This should include OSHA and NFPA 70E training requirements.
Now compare these requirements to the knowledge, skills, and training of the person expected to perform the task(s). This comparison should identify the areas of weakness and be a guide to develop a training schedule to qualify your employee(s). Training budgets are limited, so concentrate on the major safety deficiencies first. Try to develop a 3 year plan, which will coincide with updates to the regulations and standards. Schedule a minimum of 2 to 5 days of training annually for each qualified employee.
• Do complete an arc-flash hazard analysis.
Facilities having employees, contractors, or service personnel that perform tasks exposing them to energized components are generally better off completing an arc-flash hazard analysis as opposed to just using NFPA 70E’s four-foot arc-flash boundary for equipment less than 600V and the PPE prescribed by the NFPA 70E tables. The NFPA 70E tables serve a vital need, providing arc-flash boundaries and PPE requirements, for equipment that a hazard analysis has not been completed. However, if the table footnotes are not properly observed, the required PPE may be inadequate to protect the worker, or in the more likely case, the PPE requirements will exceed what is actually necessary, potentially causing heat stress, hindered visibility, and restricted movement.
It is the author’s experience that a substantial percentage of the equipment operating at 480 volts and less will have an arc-flash boundary of less than 12 inches, negating the requirement for FR clothing to protect the face and torso. However, experience has also shown that it is not uncommon for industrial and large commercial facilities to have a small percentage of equipment where even the 4 foot default boundary is not adequate to avoid permanent injury in the event of an arc-flash. Consequently NFPA 70E and IEEE std. 1584 provide formulas to be used under engineering supervision to determine where FR clothing is needed and where it is not.
• Do ask the engineers completing the arc-flash hazard analysis for recommendations on how to reduce or eliminate the hazard.
An arc-flash analysis by a qualified engineer should provide more than just the results of the analysis. The engineer should review each location having a Hazard / Risk Category 1 or greater to determine if any changes can be made to reduce or eliminate the severity of potential flash hazards. The engineer should evaluate what affect changing fuse types or breaker settings will have on the Hazard / Risk Category of the equipment. In most cases the engineer can make recommendations that if accepted will reduce flash hazards, resulting in a safer workplace and lower PPE cost - truly a win-win.
• Do keep a copy of the arc-flash analysis data files.
If you use an engineering/consulting company to conduct an arc-flash hazard analysis, require that they provide an electronic copy of all the data files used in the analysis. Within weeks or months, if not days, following the completion of the analysis, changes will be made to the facility’s electrical system which may require recalculating part or all of the analysis. If you have the data files, your options for updating the analysis are much greater than if your consultant owns the files. Having the data files will generally result in a lower cost to update the flash hazard analysis. If you have the necessary resources you may even consider purchasing the analysis software and updating the analysis yourself.
• Do decide on how appropriate PPE will be made available to employees before labeling equipment with PPE requirements and before training employees on the PPE requirements.
Please do not misunderstand what I am saying, I am not suggesting that you delay informing your employees of potential electrical hazards they may be exposed to. I’m just suggesting that you don’t get the cart before the horse, potentially creating a situation you cannot tolerate. The natural progression of completing hazard analyses and providing appropriate PPE should go something like this; complete the analyses, eliminate or reduce as many hazards as possible, identify where the remaining hazards are, determine the level of PPE needed, procure the PPE, label the equipment and then train your employees. The training should include:
how to recognize and avoid the hazards
PPE Policy
Energized Electrical Work Permit Policy
Lockout/Tagout Procedures
Requirements for an Electrical Safe Work Condition
Some facilities do the right things, in the wrong order, resulting in frustration, resistance and even bitterness toward management, assuming management is only doing this to meet legal requirements, not because they are truly concerned about the safety of the employee. It is very difficult to explain why an employee should work in a cabinet that has an arc-flash warning label on the door, without providing the employee the appropriate PPE required by the label. Excuses of - the PPE is back-ordered or the PPE has not been decided on yet or the new PPE requirement has not received funding approvals yet, does not build an atmosphere of trust and commitment to safety.
Consider procuring a minimum amount of PPE immediately, enough to use until your analyses are complete and the appropriate levels and quantities of PPE can be procured, and then proceed with labeling and training.
• Do label equipment with enough detail to inform the worker of the potential hazard and PPE requirements.
Labeling of equipment is an extremely important component of the Flash Hazard Analysis. Determining the arc-flash boundary and the appropriate PPE is pointless if that information is not communicated to the individuals working on or near the equipment with the hazard. The label should be placed in a conspicuous location that will be easily seen by workers before opening the equipment. The label should provide the worker with enough information to know at what distance PPE is required and what level/category of PPE is required when crossing the approach/flash boundaries.
Since 2002 the National Electrical Code® (NEC®) has required labeling of panelboards and similar electrical equipment to warn of potential flash hazards. Although the current NEC® language does not specify what information must be provided on the warning label, it is likely that future editions will add some requirements. This author recommends that at a minimum the following information should be included on the label:
Maximum Voltage in the Equipment
Arc-Flash Boundary
Required PPE (Hazard/Risk Category or cal/cm2)
• Do give consideration to contractors, vendors, and service personnel that enter your facility and are exposed to electrical hazards.
For their safety and your protection, contractors, vendors, and service personnel should be required to comply with NFPA 70E when working in your facility. Many companies send letters to all their contractors, vendors, and service companies requiring NFPA 70E compliance when working in their facilities. The facility must make sure their equipment has been properly labeled with enough information for these non-employees to understand the potential hazards and to select appropriate PPE.
• Do make sure your equipment has been properly identified.
Label each disconnect (circuit breakers and switches) as to its purpose - a requirement of the National Electrical Code “Section 110.22”. Furthermore proper identification is required to complete lockout/tagout procedures, but can lockout/tagout procedures be completed if the appropriate disconnecting devices cannot be found?
Identification is also a prerequisite of any arc-flash hazard analysis study. Regardless if you are conducting your own arc-flash hazard analysis or hiring it done, the required electrical data cannot be accurately collected without knowing the purpose of each disconnecting device. Unfortunately, many facilities do not have all disconnects labeled, and surprisingly in some plants no one knows what some disconnects are used for. Leaving it to the analysis data collectors to trace out a circuit generally requires additional time, money, and potentially even disruption of equipment operation. It is much more effective to label your disconnects before the analysis at times convenient to the facility.
If you really want to enhance safety and maintenance, consider also labeling the utilization equipment (the load) with information as to the location of the respective disconnect. Proper labeling generally encourages lockout/tagout procedures and may save valuable time in the event of an emergency. As an example, following an electrocution of an electrician, his co-worker was interviewed to determine why the two of them had been replacing lighting ballasts while the circuit was energized. The co-worker replied that the circuit breakers were not labeled, and it took too long to determine the proper breaker to de-energize, so they always perform the work “hot”. Label disconnects; it’s the law!
• Do develop a training schedule.
Proof of attendance at a one-day training session on NFPA 70E is not adequate to qualify your employees to perform electrical work. Although NFPA 70E training is definitely recommended, if not required, it should only be a single component of a much broader-based training program. Start by preparing a list of the tasks qualified person(s) or electrician(s) are to perform on or near exposed energized parts; this can be accomplished more formally in a job/task analysis (JTA).
Next, complete a hazard analysis for each task, formally known as a job hazard analysis (JHA), and prepare a description of the skills and knowledge required to perform the job safely. This should include OSHA and NFPA 70E training requirements.
Now compare these requirements to the knowledge, skills, and training of the person expected to perform the task(s). This comparison should identify the areas of weakness and be a guide to develop a training schedule to qualify your employee(s). Training budgets are limited, so concentrate on the major safety deficiencies first. Try to develop a 3 year plan, which will coincide with updates to the regulations and standards. Schedule a minimum of 2 to 5 days of training annually for each qualified employee.
• Do complete an arc-flash hazard analysis.
Facilities having employees, contractors, or service personnel that perform tasks exposing them to energized components are generally better off completing an arc-flash hazard analysis as opposed to just using NFPA 70E’s four-foot arc-flash boundary for equipment less than 600V and the PPE prescribed by the NFPA 70E tables. The NFPA 70E tables serve a vital need, providing arc-flash boundaries and PPE requirements, for equipment that a hazard analysis has not been completed. However, if the table footnotes are not properly observed, the required PPE may be inadequate to protect the worker, or in the more likely case, the PPE requirements will exceed what is actually necessary, potentially causing heat stress, hindered visibility, and restricted movement.
It is the author’s experience that a substantial percentage of the equipment operating at 480 volts and less will have an arc-flash boundary of less than 12 inches, negating the requirement for FR clothing to protect the face and torso. However, experience has also shown that it is not uncommon for industrial and large commercial facilities to have a small percentage of equipment where even the 4 foot default boundary is not adequate to avoid permanent injury in the event of an arc-flash. Consequently NFPA 70E and IEEE std. 1584 provide formulas to be used under engineering supervision to determine where FR clothing is needed and where it is not.
• Do ask the engineers completing the arc-flash hazard analysis for recommendations on how to reduce or eliminate the hazard.
An arc-flash analysis by a qualified engineer should provide more than just the results of the analysis. The engineer should review each location having a Hazard / Risk Category 1 or greater to determine if any changes can be made to reduce or eliminate the severity of potential flash hazards. The engineer should evaluate what affect changing fuse types or breaker settings will have on the Hazard / Risk Category of the equipment. In most cases the engineer can make recommendations that if accepted will reduce flash hazards, resulting in a safer workplace and lower PPE cost - truly a win-win.
• Do keep a copy of the arc-flash analysis data files.
If you use an engineering/consulting company to conduct an arc-flash hazard analysis, require that they provide an electronic copy of all the data files used in the analysis. Within weeks or months, if not days, following the completion of the analysis, changes will be made to the facility’s electrical system which may require recalculating part or all of the analysis. If you have the data files, your options for updating the analysis are much greater than if your consultant owns the files. Having the data files will generally result in a lower cost to update the flash hazard analysis. If you have the necessary resources you may even consider purchasing the analysis software and updating the analysis yourself.
• Do decide on how appropriate PPE will be made available to employees before labeling equipment with PPE requirements and before training employees on the PPE requirements.
Please do not misunderstand what I am saying, I am not suggesting that you delay informing your employees of potential electrical hazards they may be exposed to. I’m just suggesting that you don’t get the cart before the horse, potentially creating a situation you cannot tolerate. The natural progression of completing hazard analyses and providing appropriate PPE should go something like this; complete the analyses, eliminate or reduce as many hazards as possible, identify where the remaining hazards are, determine the level of PPE needed, procure the PPE, label the equipment and then train your employees. The training should include:
how to recognize and avoid the hazards
PPE Policy
Energized Electrical Work Permit Policy
Lockout/Tagout Procedures
Requirements for an Electrical Safe Work Condition
Some facilities do the right things, in the wrong order, resulting in frustration, resistance and even bitterness toward management, assuming management is only doing this to meet legal requirements, not because they are truly concerned about the safety of the employee. It is very difficult to explain why an employee should work in a cabinet that has an arc-flash warning label on the door, without providing the employee the appropriate PPE required by the label. Excuses of - the PPE is back-ordered or the PPE has not been decided on yet or the new PPE requirement has not received funding approvals yet, does not build an atmosphere of trust and commitment to safety.
Consider procuring a minimum amount of PPE immediately, enough to use until your analyses are complete and the appropriate levels and quantities of PPE can be procured, and then proceed with labeling and training.
• Do label equipment with enough detail to inform the worker of the potential hazard and PPE requirements.
Labeling of equipment is an extremely important component of the Flash Hazard Analysis. Determining the arc-flash boundary and the appropriate PPE is pointless if that information is not communicated to the individuals working on or near the equipment with the hazard. The label should be placed in a conspicuous location that will be easily seen by workers before opening the equipment. The label should provide the worker with enough information to know at what distance PPE is required and what level/category of PPE is required when crossing the approach/flash boundaries.
Since 2002 the National Electrical Code® (NEC®) has required labeling of panelboards and similar electrical equipment to warn of potential flash hazards. Although the current NEC® language does not specify what information must be provided on the warning label, it is likely that future editions will add some requirements. This author recommends that at a minimum the following information should be included on the label:
Maximum Voltage in the Equipment
Arc-Flash Boundary
Required PPE (Hazard/Risk Category or cal/cm2)
• Do give consideration to contractors, vendors, and service personnel that enter your facility and are exposed to electrical hazards.
For their safety and your protection, contractors, vendors, and service personnel should be required to comply with NFPA 70E when working in your facility. Many companies send letters to all their contractors, vendors, and service companies requiring NFPA 70E compliance when working in their facilities. The facility must make sure their equipment has been properly labeled with enough information for these non-employees to understand the potential hazards and to select appropriate PPE.
• Do make sure your equipment has been properly identified.
Label each disconnect (circuit breakers and switches) as to its purpose - a requirement of the National Electrical Code “Section 110.22”. Furthermore proper identification is required to complete lockout/tagout procedures, but can lockout/tagout procedures be completed if the appropriate disconnecting devices cannot be found?
Identification is also a prerequisite of any arc-flash hazard analysis study. Regardless if you are conducting your own arc-flash hazard analysis or hiring it done, the required electrical data cannot be accurately collected without knowing the purpose of each disconnecting device. Unfortunately, many facilities do not have all disconnects labeled, and surprisingly in some plants no one knows what some disconnects are used for. Leaving it to the analysis data collectors to trace out a circuit generally requires additional time, money, and potentially even disruption of equipment operation. It is much more effective to label your disconnects before the analysis at times convenient to the facility.
If you really want to enhance safety and maintenance, consider also labeling the utilization equipment (the load) with information as to the location of the respective disconnect. Proper labeling generally encourages lockout/tagout procedures and may save valuable time in the event of an emergency. As an example, following an electrocution of an electrician, his co-worker was interviewed to determine why the two of them had been replacing lighting ballasts while the circuit was energized. The co-worker replied that the circuit breakers were not labeled, and it took too long to determine the proper breaker to de-energize, so they always perform the work “hot”. Label disconnects; it’s the law!
Monday, February 15, 2010
New Guide Published for Top 10 OSHA Violations in 2009
Follow this link for information on the new OSHA Guide of 2009's Top 10 workplace violations:
http://www.pr-inside.com/guide-listing-top-10-osha-serious-r1721709.htm
http://www.pr-inside.com/guide-listing-top-10-osha-serious-r1721709.htm
Friday, February 12, 2010
NFPA 70E Don'ts and Do's! Timely Advice!
Let's break this into two parts. Common questions and concerns that come up from the facility manager, the safety manager, even HR. John Klingler is a noted engineer and expert in this subject. Here, first the Don'ts...just in case anything might be going on now that you want to catch. Next week, we'll look at the do's.
By John Klingler, P.E. Klingler Electrical Safety, LLC
Companies across the U.S. and Canada are pursuing compliance with NFPA 70E – the Standard for Electrical Safety in the Workplace. Some of these companies will make costly mistakes; here are some Do’s and Don’ts to avoid doing the same.
• Don’t wait for an accident or for NFPA 70E to become a legal requirement before implementing its requirements. NFPA 70E addresses electrical hazards including shock and arc-flash. If you implement the requirements of NFPA 70E, you will avoid that electrically related accident that causes grief, suffering, financial settlements, investigations, and citations. NFPA 70E is the most comprehensive electrical safety standard available today. There are other excellent electrical safety standards including the National Electrical Code, but NFPA 70E is the only one that addresses electrically safe work practices, electrical maintenance safety, special electrical equipment safety and electrical installation safety in one document.
Serious consideration should be given to NFPA 70E not because it virtually assures compliance with OSHA’s electrical requirements, which it does, but because it addresses protection from electrical hazards for your employees and others who work in your facility.
• Don’t purchase flame-resistant (FR) clothing needlessly. Yes, FR clothing is probably needed for several tasks in your facility, but there are several ratings of FR clothing varying from light-weight to very heavy switching suits, none of which are what one would call inexpensive. So how do you know which of these ratings you need? You don’t want to buy clothing that is too light-weight exposing your employees to a hazardous injury and you don’t want to burden them with wearing too much clothing that may cause heat stress or even compromise their safety by hindering visibility and movement.
Furthermore, arc-flash hazards can often be reduced or in some cases even eliminated by making changes in fuses or circuit breakers, possibly avoiding the need for heavier PPE. If you have employees that need to be protected against potential arc-flash hazards, it is always better to complete an arc-flash hazard analysis, reduce or eliminate as many hazards as possible, and then decide on a reasonable PPE policy to address the remaining hazards.
A few years ago, a survey determined that 75% of the equipment qualified personnel work on or near had an NFPA 70E Hazard / Risk of Category 1 or less. The most important point here is: know which equipment is not in the 75% and therefore requires the additional FR clothing and personal protective
equipment. Keep in mind you do not need separate FR clothing for each Hazard / Risk Category. NFPA 70E suggests a clothing system in Annex H of the standard that may significantly simplify FR clothing requirements.
• Don’t purchase insulated tools that are too bulky for the tasks your employees perform. NFPA 70E requires employees to use insulated tools when working inside the Limited Approach Boundary of exposed, energized parts where tools might make accidental contact with the energized parts. Insulated tools are easy to find, but many tool sets are designed for big equipment that linemen work on and are not well suited for industrial control panels and drives. Make sure the tools you select are not too big and bulky to be used on the equipment in your plant. If you are buying multiple sets, suppliers/manufacturers may allow you to customize your tool sets by picking and choosing tools that are practical for your facility, in some cases even
allowing mixing of brands to come up with just the right set of tools for your facility.
When you buy insulated tools, invest in a separate tool pouch for the insulated tools so the insulated tools are not banging around against the non-insulated tools resulting in damage to the insulation. A worker’s life may depend on the condition of that insulated tool; take good care of the tools.
• Don’t implement an “Energized Electrical Work Permit” without some serious thought. An Energized Electrical Work Permit as required by NFPA 70E is an excellent means of discouraging energized work/maintenance/repair unless absolutely necessary, and if it is necessary, complying with the permit assures every possible measure has been taken to keep the worker safe while performing the task. However, before implementing an Energized Electrical Work Permit Policy, give serious thought to how permits will be handled in the middle of the night, weekends and holidays. Will the appropriate personnel be available to sign the permits when needed? Will work be delayed until the appropriate signatures are collected? Is it acceptable to fill out and sign a permit after the fact? And what about those tasks that everyone already knows must be completed without de-energizing the equipment, are you going to delay the
task each time until the permit is filled out and appropriate signatures are obtained?
The Energized Electrical Work Permit can be an effective tool, but you must anticipate the scenarios of how it will be applied before implementing the policy. Don’t implement an Energized Electrical Work Permit Policy just because NFPA 70E requires it, do it to reduce exposure of employees to electrical hazards and to make sure when they are exposed, they are protected and prepared to perform the work safely.
• Don’t implement policies you are not willing to enforce. It is a waste of time, money, and effort to develop policies that are not going to be enforced. Regulatory agencies will not be impressed by well-written policies; they are looking for results – a safe work place with no accidents. Facilities that have great policies, but have workers who respond, “Most of the time”, when asked if they always comply with the policies, are not achieving the level of safety needed. The facilities with the best safety results are those that have good safety policies with zero tolerance for non-compliance.
When developing a safety policy, make sure it is written such that you are willing to enforce the policy. Decide what your disciplinary policy will be for non-compliance, document the safety policy and the disciplinary policy, and communicate these policies to employees, contractors, vendors, and suppliers.
When disciplinary action is taken, make sure you document the action every time. This documentation is not only important to prove consistency and credibility with the workforce, but it may be extremely important in proving your regulatory compliance with the Regulators following an accident.
• Don’t forget about shock hazards. Today arc-flash hazards and FR clothing are getting much attention. This is because knowledge of flash hazards is relatively new (most of the research has been completed since the mid 1980s), OSHA has become more outspoken in their support of NFPA 70E and its arc-flash requirements, and because manufacturers and suppliers have been aggressive in their advertising of products and services to protect against arc-flash hazards.
However, fatality statistics still show that more workers die from electrocutions than from arc-flash. It may be that more people go to the hospital with arc-flash injuries than shock injuries, but shock is still the greater threat. So when purchasing PPE for electrical hazards, writing your electrical safety policies, and training your workers, don’t forget about shock hazards. NFPA 70E does an excellent job of addressing shock hazards.
By John Klingler, P.E. Klingler Electrical Safety, LLC
Companies across the U.S. and Canada are pursuing compliance with NFPA 70E – the Standard for Electrical Safety in the Workplace. Some of these companies will make costly mistakes; here are some Do’s and Don’ts to avoid doing the same.
• Don’t wait for an accident or for NFPA 70E to become a legal requirement before implementing its requirements. NFPA 70E addresses electrical hazards including shock and arc-flash. If you implement the requirements of NFPA 70E, you will avoid that electrically related accident that causes grief, suffering, financial settlements, investigations, and citations. NFPA 70E is the most comprehensive electrical safety standard available today. There are other excellent electrical safety standards including the National Electrical Code, but NFPA 70E is the only one that addresses electrically safe work practices, electrical maintenance safety, special electrical equipment safety and electrical installation safety in one document.
Serious consideration should be given to NFPA 70E not because it virtually assures compliance with OSHA’s electrical requirements, which it does, but because it addresses protection from electrical hazards for your employees and others who work in your facility.
• Don’t purchase flame-resistant (FR) clothing needlessly. Yes, FR clothing is probably needed for several tasks in your facility, but there are several ratings of FR clothing varying from light-weight to very heavy switching suits, none of which are what one would call inexpensive. So how do you know which of these ratings you need? You don’t want to buy clothing that is too light-weight exposing your employees to a hazardous injury and you don’t want to burden them with wearing too much clothing that may cause heat stress or even compromise their safety by hindering visibility and movement.
Furthermore, arc-flash hazards can often be reduced or in some cases even eliminated by making changes in fuses or circuit breakers, possibly avoiding the need for heavier PPE. If you have employees that need to be protected against potential arc-flash hazards, it is always better to complete an arc-flash hazard analysis, reduce or eliminate as many hazards as possible, and then decide on a reasonable PPE policy to address the remaining hazards.
A few years ago, a survey determined that 75% of the equipment qualified personnel work on or near had an NFPA 70E Hazard / Risk of Category 1 or less. The most important point here is: know which equipment is not in the 75% and therefore requires the additional FR clothing and personal protective
equipment. Keep in mind you do not need separate FR clothing for each Hazard / Risk Category. NFPA 70E suggests a clothing system in Annex H of the standard that may significantly simplify FR clothing requirements.
• Don’t purchase insulated tools that are too bulky for the tasks your employees perform. NFPA 70E requires employees to use insulated tools when working inside the Limited Approach Boundary of exposed, energized parts where tools might make accidental contact with the energized parts. Insulated tools are easy to find, but many tool sets are designed for big equipment that linemen work on and are not well suited for industrial control panels and drives. Make sure the tools you select are not too big and bulky to be used on the equipment in your plant. If you are buying multiple sets, suppliers/manufacturers may allow you to customize your tool sets by picking and choosing tools that are practical for your facility, in some cases even
allowing mixing of brands to come up with just the right set of tools for your facility.
When you buy insulated tools, invest in a separate tool pouch for the insulated tools so the insulated tools are not banging around against the non-insulated tools resulting in damage to the insulation. A worker’s life may depend on the condition of that insulated tool; take good care of the tools.
• Don’t implement an “Energized Electrical Work Permit” without some serious thought. An Energized Electrical Work Permit as required by NFPA 70E is an excellent means of discouraging energized work/maintenance/repair unless absolutely necessary, and if it is necessary, complying with the permit assures every possible measure has been taken to keep the worker safe while performing the task. However, before implementing an Energized Electrical Work Permit Policy, give serious thought to how permits will be handled in the middle of the night, weekends and holidays. Will the appropriate personnel be available to sign the permits when needed? Will work be delayed until the appropriate signatures are collected? Is it acceptable to fill out and sign a permit after the fact? And what about those tasks that everyone already knows must be completed without de-energizing the equipment, are you going to delay the
task each time until the permit is filled out and appropriate signatures are obtained?
The Energized Electrical Work Permit can be an effective tool, but you must anticipate the scenarios of how it will be applied before implementing the policy. Don’t implement an Energized Electrical Work Permit Policy just because NFPA 70E requires it, do it to reduce exposure of employees to electrical hazards and to make sure when they are exposed, they are protected and prepared to perform the work safely.
• Don’t implement policies you are not willing to enforce. It is a waste of time, money, and effort to develop policies that are not going to be enforced. Regulatory agencies will not be impressed by well-written policies; they are looking for results – a safe work place with no accidents. Facilities that have great policies, but have workers who respond, “Most of the time”, when asked if they always comply with the policies, are not achieving the level of safety needed. The facilities with the best safety results are those that have good safety policies with zero tolerance for non-compliance.
When developing a safety policy, make sure it is written such that you are willing to enforce the policy. Decide what your disciplinary policy will be for non-compliance, document the safety policy and the disciplinary policy, and communicate these policies to employees, contractors, vendors, and suppliers.
When disciplinary action is taken, make sure you document the action every time. This documentation is not only important to prove consistency and credibility with the workforce, but it may be extremely important in proving your regulatory compliance with the Regulators following an accident.
• Don’t forget about shock hazards. Today arc-flash hazards and FR clothing are getting much attention. This is because knowledge of flash hazards is relatively new (most of the research has been completed since the mid 1980s), OSHA has become more outspoken in their support of NFPA 70E and its arc-flash requirements, and because manufacturers and suppliers have been aggressive in their advertising of products and services to protect against arc-flash hazards.
However, fatality statistics still show that more workers die from electrocutions than from arc-flash. It may be that more people go to the hospital with arc-flash injuries than shock injuries, but shock is still the greater threat. So when purchasing PPE for electrical hazards, writing your electrical safety policies, and training your workers, don’t forget about shock hazards. NFPA 70E does an excellent job of addressing shock hazards.
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
Support your PM Program with Infrared Thermography
With the advent of Infrared Thermography, a host of significant uses have been developed using this technology. The ability to detect temperature differences in different materials has found great use in medicine and disease detection, surveillance and security, and, of course, facility electrical inspections.
Today’s facility manager has the ability to inspect and measure the envelope, the mechanics and the power distribution through his building.
Let’s deal with a few basic facts about using Infrared Thermography for the electrical, either in a facility, or along a power systems distribution system.
The goal of every infrared electrical test is to scan designated electrical equipment in order to pinpoint defective components and elevated temperatures within the power distribution system. If unfound or untreated these "hot spots" can cause- potential fire, explosion, or service interruption threats.
Hot spots are typically caused by unbalanced or overloaded electrical circuits, loose connections, or broken equipment. These conditions are often overlooked during routine evaluations of facilities and can result in the release of heat that will be visible only through an infrared camera. When performing these studies on power grids, helicopters and remote cameras are used, testing the power transmission equipment and quality along miles of lines.
A typical facility electrical infrared survey can result in a net a savings from $10,000 to $20,000, depending on the number and category of anomalies found. In addition to the direct financial savings, valuable time is saved by incorporating an annual infrared electrical survey into your PM program. Providing accurate information regarding the integrity of your electrical system’s components cuts down on maintenance time, prevents costly replacements and can eliminate unforeseen outages and downtime.
Many firms around the country provide these studies. An infrared (thermal) electrical inspection survey can help:
• Maintain the integrity of your facility’s electrical system
• Reduces electrical fire hazards
• Provide uninterrupted power to tenants/clients/employees
• Detect faulty connections/overloaded circuits
• Provide a snap shot in time of the condition of mechanical systems, motors, bearings, etc.
• Preventative or predictive maintenance programs save money by reducing: pre-mature equipment failure
o emergency overtime
o overnight shipment of parts
o insurance premiums (many insurance companies give discounts for performing regular infrared inspections)
o loss of revenue due to downtime
Make sure the provider you use, or your own inspections with reputable infrared thermography equipment, provides you with:
Themograms (the thermal images of your systems)
Actual digital photographs
Operating data documentation
Measurement determinations
Inventory of inspected equipment and uninspected equipment
And, of course, recommended corrective actions
Infrared Thermography is an excellent investment in facility maintenance and worker safety. Smart management!
Today’s facility manager has the ability to inspect and measure the envelope, the mechanics and the power distribution through his building.
Let’s deal with a few basic facts about using Infrared Thermography for the electrical, either in a facility, or along a power systems distribution system.
The goal of every infrared electrical test is to scan designated electrical equipment in order to pinpoint defective components and elevated temperatures within the power distribution system. If unfound or untreated these "hot spots" can cause- potential fire, explosion, or service interruption threats.
Hot spots are typically caused by unbalanced or overloaded electrical circuits, loose connections, or broken equipment. These conditions are often overlooked during routine evaluations of facilities and can result in the release of heat that will be visible only through an infrared camera. When performing these studies on power grids, helicopters and remote cameras are used, testing the power transmission equipment and quality along miles of lines.
A typical facility electrical infrared survey can result in a net a savings from $10,000 to $20,000, depending on the number and category of anomalies found. In addition to the direct financial savings, valuable time is saved by incorporating an annual infrared electrical survey into your PM program. Providing accurate information regarding the integrity of your electrical system’s components cuts down on maintenance time, prevents costly replacements and can eliminate unforeseen outages and downtime.
Many firms around the country provide these studies. An infrared (thermal) electrical inspection survey can help:
• Maintain the integrity of your facility’s electrical system
• Reduces electrical fire hazards
• Provide uninterrupted power to tenants/clients/employees
• Detect faulty connections/overloaded circuits
• Provide a snap shot in time of the condition of mechanical systems, motors, bearings, etc.
• Preventative or predictive maintenance programs save money by reducing: pre-mature equipment failure
o emergency overtime
o overnight shipment of parts
o insurance premiums (many insurance companies give discounts for performing regular infrared inspections)
o loss of revenue due to downtime
Themograms (the thermal images of your systems)
Actual digital photographs
Operating data documentation
Measurement determinations
Inventory of inspected equipment and uninspected equipment
And, of course, recommended corrective actions
Infrared Thermography is an excellent investment in facility maintenance and worker safety. Smart management!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)