Technical Program Abstracts
The ESW 2022 Technical Program will incorporate these papers
Best Practices to Consider when Creating and Streamlining a Company Electrical Safety Standard
Christopher J. Watson
OSHA, NFPA-70E, EN-50110 and many other established governmental regulations require or encourage employers to establish, document, and implement electrical safety-related work practices, instructions, and procedures. These governmental regulations also require or encourage employers to provide training to the workers in regards to these electrical safety-related work practices, instructions, and procedures.
Challenge Accepted: Specialty PPE for Shock and Arc Flash Protection
This paper will explore specialty PPE for multiple challenges, arc flash, flash fire, chemicals and fire. Most arc flash PPE works well in multiple challenges but some environments need specialty PPE. Fire fighting applications, clean rooms, sterile environments, nuclear exposure all require specialty PPE that protects in multiple hazards. Data on such PPE to assist in chosing proper protection will be provided with ideas for other options when AHJ’s are faced with difficult choices. The paper will also introduce specialty standards which are dealing with these issues like ANSI/ISEA 203 and others.
Human Performance in Workplace Electrical Safety
Nehad El-Sherif and Mike Doherty
The concept of human performance in electrical safety and how that can be applied in a practical and pragmatic sense in everyday job planning will be discussed. Studies by high risk industries indicate that human error is often the root cause of incidents. This is certainly true in the electrical sector. Asking why five or six times what the true root cause of any electrical incident is a way to determine the corrective action plans that need to be implemented to ensure that it never happens again. Annex U, Human Performance and Workplace Electrical Safety, from CSA Z462-2015 will be referenced. This CSA 2015 Annex was sent as a Public Input (PI) to the NFPA 70E-2015 process and was accepted for the 2018 edition of NFPA 70E and is now in Informative Annex Q Human Performance and Workplace Electrical Safety.
Electrical Shock Hazards Beyond 50/60 Hz and DC
Lloyd B. Gordon, Joseph T. Bradley III, Jesse Liechty, and Tommy R. Martinez
The effects of shock from AC power frequencies (50 and 60 Hz) and from DC has been studied for a century and thresholds for safety are now clearly defined in worker safety standards. However, shock thresholds for other frequencies and waveforms are not clearly stated in our safety standards. This includes frequencies of sub-RF (1 Hz to 3 kHz) other than 50/60 Hz, RF (3 kHz to 100 MHz) and mixed waveforms, such as modulated DC. Of particular interest are 400 Hz, DC with significant AC ripple, and modulated RF. These waveforms are found in many commercial, industrial, and research applications, such as DC outputs of battery chargers, welders, etc., that may have a substantial 60 Hz ripple; modulated outputs of variable frequency drives for motors; inverters; and more. This paper will present what is known about such waveforms, both from shock studies, and from accidents. Material reviewed includes existing standards, studies on shock effects, and a review of several accidents. Fourier analysis of mixed frequency waveforms will be presented which shows the primary frequency components which will determine response by the nerves, muscles and heart. A focus will be placed on the thresholds for injury for DC created by rectification, with remnant 60 Hz ripple. Safe work practices for these various electrical hazards including Establishing an Electrically Safe Work Condition, types of meters to use, and issues with dielectric and arc-rated PPE will be discussed.
Wearable-based Monitoring System for Lineman in Power Utilities to Mitigate Workplace Health and Safety Risks
Fillipe Matos de Vasconcelos, Carlos Frederico Meschini Almeida, and Stéfano Regis Gualtier
The proposed work comprises wearable sensing devices attached to PPE (i.e., personal protective equipment) and tools to manage risks of lineman in power utilities. This proposal is a result of an R&D project with EDP Brazil and its contributions lies on the use of wearable sensing devices provided with IoT technologies, data analytics and a set of hardwares and softwares to deliver a solution aiming at the paradigm shift from incident to risk prevention. For the electric sector, no groundwork has been found in this subject. To achieve that, this work has monitored physical, physiological and environmental parameters such as ECG, PPG, SpO2, acceleration, electric field, GPS location, UV and temperature for each individual lineman, plus video footages for real-time support and supervision, in order to prevent unsafe acts and unfit health conditions. All of the monitored parameters were defined from studying the frequency and the severity of incidents and accidents associated with the most frequent tasks performed by lineman. The ultimate goal was enhancing readiness to respond to risks and resilience. The proposed methodology includes development of a mobile app and a cloud analytics platform for data acquisition supervision. These developments were based on a hardware agnostic approach, which allows further scalability, upgrades and addition of new devices from any manufacturers. As a result, the acquisition and processing of the proposed measurements have shown opportunities in managing time from tasks’ execution, in creating a remote real-time supervision; in enhancing support and training; in continuous improvements for working procedures through data collection and analyses; and, at last, in providing auditing capability of incidents and accidents based on automated clipping of video footages where unsafe acts or conditions are identified and recognized by the sensing devices.
Assessing the Electrical Risks in Electric Vehicle Repair
The rapidly growing number of electric vehicles raises the issue of electric work safety in workshops. Traditionally, electrical safety has not been an issue in the automotive industry and the aftermarket. However, modern passenger BEVs and HEVs utilize battery voltages of 300-800 volts, which causes potential electric shock risk for certain repair and maintenance activities. Additionally, the large short circuit current as well as the fire risk with toxic gas emissions pose a risk for service mechanics. Despite potential risks, severe accidents have not been recorded. As the number of vehicles increases and the car pool ages, repair activities become more common, which may result in accidents. In this paper, a comprehensive risk analysis for electric vehicle repair activities is carried out. The results can be used in developing and communicating safe working practices and regulations on electric vehicle repair activities.
Electrical Safety Worldwide
Lloyd B. Gordon and Jesse Liechty
Over the past 120 years, electrical safety design and safe work practice standards have evolved around the world. In some cases they are similar, and in other cases interesting variations have been observed. Numerous papers previously presented at this workshop, have discussed electrical safety programs and challenges in several countries, and IEEE associated electrical safety workshops have occurred in several countries, including the U.S., Canada, India, Brazil, and Costa Rica. The IEEE IAS Electrical Safety Committee has set goals to broaden involvement in electrical safety to embrace electrical safety worldwide. In addition, recent papers and discussions have brought forth the varying cultures on implementing electrical safety and how this likely affects safety performance. Electrical safety includes design and safe work practices in utility power, facility power, utilization equipment, and specialized equipment. We are most familiar with those in the U.S. and Canada, including, respectively, NESC, NEC, NFPA 70E, UL, and DOE Guidelines. However, there are numerous equivalencies outside the U.S. including, for example, IEC, TUV, ETL, and other similar standards, including many unexplored standards in Japan, Russia, Brazil, and China. Exploring and understanding electrical safety standards around the world is important so that we can share best practices from all countries, because there are multiple industries that operate worldwide (e.g., wind energy, chemical, transportation), and to increase communication and collaboration worldwide. This paper explores and summarizes the design and safe work practices of the top leading technological countries, including, at a minimum, the U.S., Canada, European Union, Brazil, Russia, Japan, and China. It will also discuss cultural differences that may affect electrical safety. Areas covered include utility and facility power, component and equipment standards, and specialized equipment, such as R&D and energy storage. The purpose will be to stimulate international collaboration and appreciation of the diversity worldwide, in electrical safety.
Design Considerations to Enhance Participant Engagement Around Electrical Injury Risk in Professional Training and Educational Resources
Anna H. L. Floyd and H. Landis Floyd II
Previous papers have illustrated how a person’s attitudes, social surroundings, and perceptions of control influence their perception of risk and their intention to engage in risk protective behaviors. Designing content with these three factors in mind can improve behavioral outcomes related to safety training and education. In this paper, we: 1) describe practical design and delivery considerations for professional training and educational resources to maximize participant engagement and knowledge acquisition around risk; 2 ) provide examples of techniques that can be used to enhance perceptions of risk; 3) include practical examples from training which addressed risk perceptions to contact with or exposure to hazardous electrical energy; and 4) illustrate how these considerations can impact safety training for engineers who design electrical systems, supervision of workers potentially exposed to electrical hazards and workers at risk for serious electrical injury.
NFPA 70E 2024 Proposed Changes
This presentation will cover the proposed changes to the 2024 edition of NFPA 70E. Attendees will learn about the Public Inputs as acted on by the NFPA 70E committee.
Hidden Danger: Reducing Residual Risk in your Electrical Safety Program
H. Landis “Lanny” Floyd II
Residual risk is the amount of risk, associated with a task or process, remaining after inherent risks have been reduced by risk controls. What if inherent risks are not completely identified? How do you know if the residual risk has been reduced to a level acceptable to the worker and to the organization? This paper will explore these and other questions to provide insight into methods to search for and expose opportunities for continual improvement to reduce worker exposure to hazardous electrical energy. The paper will discuss areas of potential hidden danger including management/leadership, facilities design, safe work practices, incident investigations, procurement, included workforce, and outsourcing
An Effective Means of Tracking Ground Sets
Recent editions of NFPA 70E require our risk assessments to “address the potential for human error and its negative consequences on people, processes, the work environment, and equipment relative to the electrical hazards in the workplace.” This case study will detail how a simple, 2-part tagging process to track grounds sets prevented a tired group of maintenance folks from energizing into a ground on the last night of a 12 day utility outage.
With all the effort, why are electrical fatalities not trending down?
An investigation of contributing factors
Diana V. Jones and David A. Pace
Occupational fatalities caused by electrocution remain an ongoing issue with fatality rates increasing over the past several years. OSHA accident reports for the years of 2011 through 2019 show 2019 had the second-highest number of electrical fatalities at 166 deaths and 2018 had the third-highest at 160 deaths. The highest number of electrical fatalities was in 2011 with 174 deaths. With significant electrical safety awareness, training, and education efforts by industrial, government, and private companies, why are electrical fatalities not trending downward year over year? This paper takes a look at the 2019 OSHA accident reports for installation, maintenance, and repair worker fatalities due to electrocution that occurred in industrial sites to gain a better understanding of the factors contributing to the incidents, the root cause of the fatalities, and how the incidents could have been prevented. The objective of this paper is to identify areas for electrical safety training and awareness improvement that will prevent these accidents in the future.
Single-Phase Arc Flash Incident Energy Computation
Kenneth Shu Yan Cheng and Nafeesa Mehboob
Single-phase arc flash has been a known safety concern; the incident energy released from single-phase AC arcs may also result in incurable burns just like three-phase AC arcs and DC arcs, which we are more familiar with. Although the latest CSA Standard recommends protecting against single-phase arcs, there are very limited tools available to estimate incident energy released from single-phase AC arcs. The objective of this paper is to share knowledge on single-phase AC arcs, such as the sustainability; the paper will also compare the accuracy of the various existing incident energy calculation methods against real-life laboratory test data. Should IEEE 1584, NFPA 70E and other standards consider the inclusion of single-phase AC arcs as a part of the arc hazard section, this paper will provide useful information.
Normal Operating Condition Examined
What constitutes a “Normal Operating Condition”? How is it obtained and what does it mean for electrical safety work practices? This paper will examine the application of 70E® Article 110.4(D) entitled “Normal Operating Condition”. It will provide an example of an abnormal equipment condition and recommendations for returning the equipment to a normal condition.
The Practice and Effectiveness of Equipotential Zone “EPZ” Grounding Safety Reality or Pipe Dream?
George T. Cole
Since 1994, OSHA regulations of 29CFR1910.269 subpart R and 1926.962 subpart V, requires temporary protective grounding to be placed in such locations and arraigned in such a manner that will prevent each employee from being exposed to hazardous differences in electric potential. This practice is commonly called Equipotential Zone or “EPZ” grounding. However, some debate exists as to the effectiveness of EPZ grounding with some employers preferring the continual use of bracket grounding practices, i.e. “Bracketed by Grounds” which is often referred to as “Working Between Grounds”. This paper will attempt to demonstrate the effectiveness of EPZ grounding when it’s properly established though a significant real-life electrical event where two workers were uninjured when the metallic equipment, they were in contact with had become unexpectedly energized at approximately 303 kVac during the preparation of live line bare-hand work. This potentially fatal incident emphasizes the importance of properly sizing temporary ground cables, using materials and parts specifically designed and rated to withstand the tremendous XL/R mechanical forces imposed during a fault. And the critical attribute for maintaining an overall low impedance of the temporary protective grounding system to ensure the operation of over current protection devices are not delayed. Applicable lessons learned related to the hazards of step and touch potential during this accident will be also be presented.
Using IEEE 1584-2018 to evaluate recommendations in table 130.7(C)(15)(a) NFPA 70E
Marcelo Valdes and Paul B. Sullivan
Current PPE selection practices focus on two methods to select PPE for tasks where a worker may be exposed to the electrical arc flash hazard. One is an arc flash hazard analysis via some method to estimate the potential severity of burn injury. The most common method used in commercial and industrial installation up to 15kV is IEEE 1584-2018. An alternate method thought to be very conservative but simple to use when arc flash incident energy analysis is not available is the Arc Flash PPE Categories for Alternating Current (ac) Systems table in NFPA 70E. The paper will present an analysis of the various entries in this table comparing them to Arc Flash incident Energy analyses using IEEE 1584-2018 for a range of fault current that may be applicable to each entry in the table and with the variable assumptions that would normally be used for analysis under those situations.
A Risk-based Approach for Arc Flash Sustainability for Systems <240V and >2000A
Kyle D. Carr, Zarheer Jooma, and John J. Whipple
The IEEE 1584-2018 IEEE Guide for Performing Arc Flash Hazard Calculations has seen a welcome improvement in calculation accuracy from the 2002 version. Empirical data used for the 2018 standard shows that below 250VAC certain arcs sustained while other arcs failed to sustain. The “<240V and <125kVA transformer” exception in the 2002 standard has been replaced by “≤240V (nominal) and <2000A (short-circuit current)” language, that appears to include a band of arcs that did not sustain during practical testing. Previously published papers suggested further research into this area, however, within the finite resources available to the 1584 working committee, not all requests could materialize. This paper investigates whether guidelines for arc sustainability (<250VAC equipment) match the empirical arc testing data available from IEEE, EPRI, and others while considering new developments and a better understating of arc physics. It uses recent data from studies performed at utilities and industry to determine the impact (if any) of a range of conservatism in the standard. The paper concludes by presenting a risk-based approach using NFPA 70E – 2021 for users who may be affected by conservative results and suggests areas where additional testing and research may benefit end-users.
Characteristics of a Workplace Electrical Fatality
Brett Brenner and Daniel Majano
According to the Occupational Health and Safety Administration, between 2011 and 2019, there were 1011 recorded electrical fatalities that occurred in the workplace. Of these fatalities, 32% occurred in occupations that can be considered electrical occupations. This paper reviews the commonalities involved in electrical occupation fatalities with a specific focus on the human factor involved in the fatality, the time of day the fatality occurred, and whether the fatality occurred on or near a weekend of federal holidays. By understanding the common trends within electrical occupation fatalities, the specific actions and behaviors that lead to fatalities can be addressed.
A Review on Arc-Flash Protective Systems for Industrial and Commercial Power Systems
Fernando V. Amaral, Sidelmo M. Silva, Claudio A. Conceição, and Braz J. Cardoso
Arcing faults has been one of the biggest challenges when it comes to electrical safety of personnel who maintain industrial and commercial power systems. Arc-flash phenomena differs significantly from bolted faults, and protective devices and methods must be carefully evaluated since they are often designed considering primarily bolted faults. This paper aims to review the literature related to the apparatus available for arc-flash protection in this kind of system. Applicable techniques are categorized, evaluated, and compared. The shortcoming of the existing view toward the arcing faults phenomenon and the potential road to the proposition and development of new alternatives are discussed.
Making the Business Case for Electrical Safety in the Workplace
Martin Aguilera and Wes Mozley
How do companies justify the cost of keeping industrial electrical systems safe? As an industry, we have made the delivery of electricity so safe that people tend to forget how dangerous it really is. Those of us who oversee electrical systems understand the hazards and protocols needed to keep both the end users and the personnel responsible for working on and maintaining the systems safe. But safety programs cost money and convincing management that safety programs are worth the cost can be a difficult task. Management may have misconceptions on the national standards requirements to keep electrical systems safe. Some perceived compliance issues are getting arc flash labels on everything is enough or purchasing PPE at 40 cal/cm2 and having that for all electrical work activities rather than an arc flash analysis. The necessity of establishing a program to maintain the equipment to the level that ensures those arc flash labels are accurate is not understood and therefore overlooked. Attitudes such as, “We’ve never had a serious electrical accident on our site,” contribute to an attitude of complacency that greatly increases the probability of an electrical incident occurring. How do we get management’s attention and focus on the importance of establishing and supporting a comprehensive electrical safety program? This paper focuses some strategies that can be used to develop the business case for electrical safety and educate management as to why it is in their best interest to support a comprehensive electrical safety program.
The impact – “Just an electrician”
Jennifer L Martin
How did I get here & how do I fit in? I am not an engineer, or a physicist, I am just an electrician. A question that many of us have had at our first IEEE IAS Electrical Safety Workshop. The truth? Never underestimate the impact an individual can have on another’s just like you or the electrical industry in general. The most highly recognized trailblazers that participate annually began the journey to the top as “just an electrician”. Thanks to the curiosity and dedication furthering the theoretical or practical understanding of the industry that is continually advancing is purely addictive. Together amongst some of the most respected pillars of the electrical industry, we evolve to the next chapter of our careers. Where will you be 5 years; 10 years from today? Will you be recognized by name within the standards committees, an electrical instruction or safety mogul?
AC Induction Conductive Suit – A new way of protecting linemen in the vicinity of energized parts
Eduardo Ramirez-Bettoni, Dr. Balint Nemeth, and Gábor Göcsei
Conductive suits are widely used by linemen while working barehand on live transmission lines. They offer protection against multiple electrical hazards. However, when the work must be conducted using de-energized working methods with temporary protective grounding (TPG) in the vicinity of the live conductors, inductive or capacitive coupling may result in dangerous voltages and currents. Several accidents reported by OSHA and other safety organizations have proved that de-energized work has a high level of risk due to AC induction. The main cause of the accidents is that disconnected circuits with AC induction present are assumed to be grounded and dead; working personnel often do not have the proper knowledge and PPE to assess and handle this kind of risk. A US electric utility in cooperation with the High Voltage Laboratory of Budapest and Electrostatics Ltd. developed an “AC induction protective suit”. It is a special conductive suit designed to protect workers against the electrical shock and thermal hazards produced by induced voltages and currents while working in de-energized lines in the vicinity of energized circuits. Based on the results of the field measurements, calculations and simulations the range of AC induced voltage and current for that utility was analyzed. The suit design was based on these physical values. Several detailed Laboratory tests were performed to validate the results and inspect prototypes. The research included extreme voltage, current, and duration. ASTM International has task force WK 70226 which is producing a new industry standard with requirements and test methods for AC induction suits. Based on the promising results of the field tests, a new product has been introduced on the market. The suits are being tested in the field for both overhead line and substation applications to gather experiences and effectively reduce the risk level, handling safety always as the priority.
The Invisible Injury & Sequela
Terry Becker and John Knoll
The electric shock hazard has been accepted by Journeyman Electricians as part of the job, a right of passage. Shock injuries have not been reported. If they have been reported they were fatalities. The American Electrician’s Handbook from 1942 to 1960 taught electrical workers to use their bodies as voltage detectors. All of this was and is unacceptable. Electrical injury statistics from multiple sources in Canada and the USA clearly indicate that electric shock injuries and fatalities are still occurring at an alarming high rate. Thousands of shocks are still not reported. Shock is an invisible injury to electrical workers. Short term immediate effects are well known and documented. The long-term effects related to shock sequela have been discussed but have not been a priority, Doctors cannot study what is not reported. Sequela is real, but electrical workers are not aware. The long-term effects can be psychological, neurological, and physical. Two research centres have placed focused on sequela from shock, the St. Johns Rehab Electrical Injury Program in Ontario, Canada and the University of Chicago, Chicago Electrical Trauma Rehabilitation Institute (CETRI), but their efforts have limited notoriety. John Knoll is a Journeyman Electrician, a Professional Electrical Contractor from Edmonton, Alberta and has been impacted by sequela related to multiple shock injuries in his career. An overview of the sequela due to shock, the efforts of the two institutes related to researching and treating the sequela and John’s story will be presented.
Health and Safety Effects of Electromagnetic Field Exposure and Field Intensity Calculation Methods
Albert Marroquin and Tanuj Khandelwal
The exposure to electromagnetic fields can cause electrocution hazards by electromagnetic induction and capacitive coupling effects. However, the long-term exposure to electromagnetic fields is a health and safety concern. This presentation will discuss the most common sources of electromagnetic fields which include overhead transmission and distribution conductors and from underground cable raceway installations. The fundamental physical principles of electromagnetics will be discussed along with scientific analysis of the effect of their intensity on the human body. The presentation elaborates on the methodology which can be used to determine the intensity of the magnetic fields in electrical facilities for worker exposure and for the public and individual with medical conditions in public electrical system installations such as in city underground cable systems. This presentation will provide valuable insights to safety professionals and managers about the hidden hazards of electricity and explain how these hazards can be mitigated with conductor installations designed with consideration of the field exposure limits.
Accidents of Electrical Origin, a Detailed Analysis of Statistics in Brazil
Edson Martinho, Danilo Ferreira de Souza, and Sergio Roberto Santos
Accidents caused by the use of electricity are responsible for many deaths and injuries of People and animals in the world and damage they cause to buildings and their electrical installations. Although there is a lot of knowledge available on how to make electrical installations safer, many countries lack data on accidents of electrical origin, which makes it difficult to implement effective public policies to reduce the risks of accidents caused by electricity. Developing countries, such as Brazil, have difficulties in obtaining, processing, and sharing reliable data on accidents of electrical origin. This work presents data analysis on accidents of electrical origin in Brazil between 2016 and 2020, using information obtained from different sources, such as government agencies and the Google LLC alert monitor. The analysis of these data points to an average annual increase in fatal accidents of electrical origin, most of which are caused by electric shock, followed by lightning and fires caused by overload or short circuits. The analysis also includes the details of the data such as age group, location of the accident, and cause. The work will also make a comparison with data from other countries to identify possible relationships between the level of development and causes of accidents.
Addressing Misconceptions to Reduce Touch and Step Voltage Hazards at Power Systems
In the event of a fault, hazardous touch and step voltages may develop that can injure personnel or the public. A grounding analysis is performed by engineers to design a substation, generation, or industrial site’s grounding system to reduce these voltages to survivable levels. Several misconceptions allow inaccurate data to drive under-design for new grounding systems. These misconceptions also result existing systems exceeding their design as power systems faults increase, protection schemes change, and infrastructure ages. This paper provides a reference for identifying data that will affect the accuracy of a grounding system analysis, with reference to IEEE Std 80. Common misconceptions will be discussed and case studies highlight hazardous scenarios. Additional guidance is provided for determining when existing systems may require evaluation to maintain best practice for personnel and public safety.
Why Be Concerned About Electrical Safety and What Impact It May Have on Business Cost
Anytime a person must work on or near an electrical piece of equipment in which the connections are exposed and energized, there is a serious electrical shock hazard. This applies to both qualified and non-qualified electrical people. If the electrical connections are not exposed, there are no electrical shock hazards. If the electrical connections are not energized, there are no electrical shock hazards. It is only under this special condition of exposed and energized electrical connections that these hazards are present. That is when we need to be concerned about shock and potential arc flash hazards. This paper will examine the three major concerns about electrical safety when working on or near exposed and energized electrical connections: 1) Personal Safety, 2) Safety of Coworkers and Others Nearby, and 3) Compliance with Regulations. At the end, this paper will look at the potential cost impact on the company, from a business perspective, should it choose not to follow good electrical safe work practices for just one item.
Safety Considerations While Working at a Private or Public Utility
Tom Zampell and Frank Gonzalez
Both Private and Public utilities are now contracting with firms to perform, Operations, Maintenance, and Testing where the contractor will isolate the equipment, perform the tasks, and then restore facility to operations. The industry publications for creating an electrically safe work condition to perform work are, NFPA 70E 2021 which does not cover “installations under the exclusive control of an electric utility” and IEEE C2 2017 which “Applies to the: Public, Utility workers (Employees and Contractors), and Utility Facilities”. IEEE C2 provides a great deal of information but by no means does it provide the detailed information to safely perform work, in the place of experienced utility trained employees. This paper will start to explore the safety issues while working at private and public utilities that are not covered under any of the referenced documents. It is true the host company per OSHA 29 CFR 1926.950 (Subpart V Electric Power Transmission and Distribution), Information transfer 1926.950(c) items which are related to safety that are identified in this section are to be provided to the contractor. What it does not cover are site specific conditions that need to be identified, verified, and understood prior to starting to switch/operating equipment to make isolation possible and the creating an electrically safe work condition. This paper plans to identify procedures and items necessary to perform work for Private and Public Utilities safely.
Human Performance: Enhancing How Safety is Managed
Lessons from DOE Human Performance handbook can be applied to modern safety management systems. Particularly in handling incidents, near misses, and good catches, Human Performance strategies can be applied for organizational learning and safety improvement. The presentation focuses heavily on the work of Todd Conklin, Sydney Decker, James Reason and other thinkers in the “Safety Differently” movement. Lessons from that movement can be easily extracted and applied to an organization’s approach to electrical safety.
Arc-Flash PPE – A Simplified Table Method for Medium Voltage
Remi Halle and Marcelo Valdes
A challenge faced by employers and workers is determining the appropriate rating of arc flash personal protective equipment (PPE) for medium voltage equipment when an engineering calculations have not been performed. Tables are included in some standards to select arc flash PPE for specific equipment type and medium voltage ranges. The use of these tables requires the workers to evaluate the fault current and fault clearing time. When a PPE must be selected for an unplanned even, determining these values easily on a work site is difficult. This paper discusses of a proposed PPE selection table based on readily accessible upstream protection rating or settings. The method does not require the user to calculate the available fault current or determine fault clearing times.
Advancing the Risk Assessment Practices for Structures Protection Against Lightning
Lightning flashes to ground may cause injury to persons and damages inside to commercial, industrial and residential structures. The lightning risk depends on the dimensional and environmental characteristics of the structure as well as on lightning ground flash density in its location. The can determine the need of protection measures. The standard IEC 62305-2 proposes a method to calculate the probable average annual loss in a structure due to lightning flashes. The risks described by the standard are related to the loss of : – human life (R1), – public service (R2), cultural heritage (R3), – economic value (R4). This general method allows to estimate for all situations, from the simplest to the most complex, the protection measures needed to decrease the risk to an acceptable level. Therefore, it presents some difficulty of application due to the multitude of coefficients to be used and the assessment of the risk has to be made practically using a software that assists in selecting the various parameters. The aim of this paper is to define a simplified approach as reduction of the IEC method assuming selected reference types of buildings in urban environment in a way that allows to limit the variable coefficients to consider. Its purpose is to provide a very simple procedure for the evaluation of the lightning risks R1 and R3 that allows selecting suitable protection measures to limit the prospected risk below the tolerable value and suggesting an additional criterion to safeguard the service continuity in strategic buildings. A synthetic overview presents the design criteria for the arrangement of the air termination system and the down-conductor system. This paper deals with some cases study that allow to confirm the efficacy of the simplified approach that certainly it is useful for a preliminary design.
Effective Electrical Safety Training, Pre and Post Pandemic Paradigms
Thomas Sandri and Jeremy Presnal
Electrical safety training for the Qualified Worker has traditionally been implemented through classroom or on-the-job or a combination of the two. Although CBT (computer based training) has been in place for some time in industry for most general awareness course requirements, the technology and approach had not gone very far for the type of critical safety training, such as QEW. These types of training are traditionally delivered as in-person, instructor led programs, due to the level of competency and proficiency required. This paradigm has served well, and most industry standards and regulations consider classroom and on-the-job training to be the most effective types of training delivery because they facilitate interaction and important dialogue between employees and trainers. In 2020, however, we began to see a paradigm shift as COVID-19 pandemic forced organizations across almost every industry to utilize some form of remote initiatives to keep team members engaged while ensuring their safety and well-being, especially industries with essential workers. Learning & Development (L&D) has played a pivotal role in managing the challenges of remote environments, providing convenient opportunities to support and empower learners with flexible online and virtual training. With the initial rush to remote work and instruction past us, the future remains uncertain and L&D managers are actively seeking ways to improve and sustain their digital learning efforts for the longer term. This paper will explore the paradigm shift from in-person classroom to online, virtual, and blended training. will address obstacles and challenges along with the value in applying the Universal Design for Learning (UDL) educational framework and set of principles for maximizing learning opportunities. And finally, we will review the pre and post pandemic electrical safety training paradigms to get a better glimpse of what the future holds.
Simplifying Arc-Flash Risk Analysis in Complex Overhead Structures
Marvin Antony Devadass, Satish Shrestha, and Greg Pagello
The primary standards for Arc Flash risk analysis at high voltage overhead equipment, OSHA and NESC, suggest table lookup methods that are derived from ArcPro software. These tables assume that working distance is less than the flashover distance in air and arcs occur between phase and ground. At structures that contain different types of equipment or multiple lines or tap-off, the table lookup methods are inadequate to assess the magnitude of the hazards. On the other hand, IEEE Std. 1584-2018 is limited to 3-phase systems up to 15.0 kV and are applicable to smaller conductor gaps than that are common in overhead structures. In 2011, EPRI published the research report “Arc Flash Issues in Transmission and Substation Environments Results from Tests with Long Arcs” based on tests, observations on arc behavior and numerical analysis of arc energy. This report includes details on arcs caused by means other than flashover such as phase-to-phase arcs, elongation of arcs away from axial direction, effect of gap between conductors on incident energy, and the travel of arcs along conductors away from source. The knowledge of these findings has presented a challenge to electricians, linemen and engineers in arc-flash risk analysis. The physical layout of various equipment and conductors, position of workers and ergonomics need to be accounted for. This paper describes the development of procedures, practices and tools for properly collecting the necessary site-specific information, analyzing the arc-flash risks for each possibility, documenting details, and finally creating templates based on observed patterns to simplify the process for day-to-day work.
Temporary Protective Grounds – Two different types
Eric Stromberg and Dennis Neitzel
NFPA 70E uses the term “temporary protective grounds.” Within this one term, however, are two different types of grounds for two different purposes: 1) Grounds (bonding jumpers) that are there to dissipate static charges, or there to prevent inductive build-up of voltage when near another energized line, and 2) Grounds (bonding jumpers) that are there in case a system gets re-energized from its source and must be able to carry the fault current of the system such that the overcurrent protection will clear. NFPA 70E, Section 120.5(8), starts off with the words “Where the possibility of induced voltages or stored electrical energy exists, ground all circuit parts and circuit conductors before touching them.” The second sentence describes circuit conductors being energized by coming into contact with another source of electrical energy. These are two different concepts that are in the same paragraph. The first, is what this paper refers to as “Temporary Grounds.” Temporary Grounds are for the draining of static, preventing recharging due to induction, or preventing the recharging of capacitors. The second, however, refers to what is known in the industry as “Personal Protective Grounds.” These are engineered for the maximum fault current and must withstand the energy involved while the overcurrent protective device is clearing. The understanding of the differences between these two types of grounding is necessary to ensure the proper application, and testing, of the temporary protective grounds. Temporary grounds, as described in this paper, do not require periodic testing and they do not have to be engineered to withstand fault currents. Personal Protective Grounds, on the other hand, must be engineered for the specific location and must be tested on a periodic basis to ensure their integrity.
Hazard Risk Assessment for the Home Office
In 2020 COVID-19 had us redefine our work environment. Previously, Monday through Friday, much of our waking time was spent in the office or in the field. Now, and in the future, many will continue to work from home. Conducting a Job Hazard Analysis (JHA) or ‘Risk Assessment’ of our residence has become even more relevant. This paper takes a comprehensive look at residential electrical hazards including circuit breakers, receptacles, grounding, lighting and light levels.
Since its inception in 1992, the ESW has established itself as the industry’s premier electrical safety conference. Click Here to Register Now