May
21

The Evolution of Electrical Safety and NFPA 70E

Examining significant changes in the 2018 edition of the standard

It’s that time of year again — when the days start to get a little bit longer and for those of us up north, a little warmer, too. It is also that magical time every three years when we get to celebrate the latest revision of NFPA 70E, Standard for Electrical Safety in the Workplace, hitting the bookshelves and digital marketplaces in its various forms.

The 2018 edition of NFPA 70E seems to be everywhere you turn in the electrical industry as companies dive in and get to work on updating safety programs to the newly revised requirements. The good news is that safety directors need not panic, as there were few changes that substantially shift the concept of safe work practices around electrical equipment. Many of the revisions in this cycle were aimed more at a continued effort made over the course of the last few cycles. For instance, there’s the hierarchy of risk control methods, an increased emphasis on preventive maintenance for personnel safety, and Art. 120, which was entirely rearranged to follow a more logical progression for establishing an electrically safe work condition.

Many of the more significant changes, though, have happened within Art. 130: the idea of risk assessment and the importance of accurately assessing what hazards to employee health exist when performing tasks in the field; old tables are gone, and new tables with increased usability for the NFPA 70E user have surfaced; and material that lived within the Annex is now incorporated within the document. Let’s break these revisions down, and look at the potential impact they will have on how electrical professionals approach electrical safety.

The hierarchy of risk control methods

The concept of a hierarchy of risk control methods is by no means new. It has been a concept within OSHA and was also in an informational note in previous editions of NFPA 70E, which has provided guidance on how employees are protected from hazards in the workplace. However, for the 2018 cycle, a section was added within Art. 110 for the risk assessment procedure to require preventive and protective measures to be implemented in accordance with the following hierarchy:

  1. Elimination
  2. Substitution
  3. Engineering Controls
  4. Awareness
  5. Administrative Controls
  6. Personal Protective Equipment (PPE)

This requirement comes in the form of Sec. 110.3(H)(3). Again, this is not a new concept, but is new to the requirements of NFPA 70E. The addition of this hierarchy mirrors a shift in the attitude toward electrical safety. For years, electrical contractors across the country have been adopting a “No Live Work” policy. As nice as it might be to dream of a world where there is never energized work being performed, the reality is at times there simply is no other option. Imagine trying to troubleshoot a roof top HVAC unit without being able to check voltage and current levels. It would be difficult, if not impossible, to say the least.

So, what does this mean for risk assessment procedures going forward? Simply put, it means that all other possibilities must be exhausted prior to an employee being exposed to a hazard. In other words, dressing up in an arc flash suit is the absolute last resort for protecting employees from arc flash hazards. This should come as refreshing news, since the tests that arc-rated PPE must pass allow for a 50% probability that the clothing will allow enough thermal energy to pass through and cause a second-degree burn.

The purpose of NFPA 70E is to provide a practical safe working area for employees relative to hazards arising from the use of electricity. With this in mind, it helps to simplify the process of risk assessment and follow the hierarchy of risk control methods. The priority is to de-energize equipment. This eliminates the need to expose employees to electrical hazards because the hazard is no longer present. It should be noted, too, that during the process of establishing an electrically safe work condition, one of the steps includes verifying the absence of voltage; the hazard cannot be considered eliminated until after it has been proven that voltage has been removed and operation of the test instrument has been confirmed. This might mean that an employee would need to dress in appropriate PPE to perform this test because until it has been verified that the hazard is gone, it must be assumed that one still exists. However, even this process has seen new and innovative technology emerge and aims at protecting employees from ever having to be exposed to an assumed potential hazard. Permanently mounted absence of voltage testers are emerging to assist employees in verifying the hazard has been removed, without being exposed to a hazard during the verification process.

The Risk Assessment Procedure might also lead what was previously thought to be “justified” energized work to become unjustified during the planning process. For example, as a matter of preparing for the worst and hoping for the best, often it is necessary to develop an alternative plan just in case an unforeseen and catastrophic event occurs. Think about this for a moment: How would we care for patients in the ICU wing of a hospital if energized work were to cause an unexpected shut down of the system? If a back-up plan can be determined for when the system has an unplanned shutdown, it makes sense to implement this plan first and never expose employees to the hazard. This hierarchy now requires that elimination of the hazard to be the priority, and your well-crafted back-up plan just became the first step in ensuring safe work practices.

Re-organization of Art. 120

Previous editions of NFPA 70E had all the right pieces for establishing an electrically safe work condition, but it needed a little tweaking for all the requirements to fall into the right order. The technical changes within Art. 120 are relatively minor in the grand scheme of things, with the exception of permission to use the aforementioned permanently mounted test device for verification of absence of voltage. However, by re-arranging the order in which tasks are listed in Art. 120, the process for establishing an electrically safe work condition is easier to implement.

Previously, the Article started out with the section on verification of an electrically safe work condition. This was leading to some confusion as users of NFPA 70E were jumping around Art. 120 to find the different requirements they needed (as they were following the steps outlined in Sec. 120.1). With the new arrangement, however, Art. 120 is reorganized to increase usability and to provide a more logical flow with the following section layout:

• Section 120.1 (Lockout/Tagout Program)

• Section 120.2 (Lockout/Tagout Principles)

• Section 120.3 (Lockout/Tagout Equipment)

• Section 120.4 (Lockout/Tagout Procedures)

• Section 120.5 (Achieving an Electrically Safe Work Condition)

Now all the requirements for each of these important topics can be found in one place. In addition to reorganizing the requirements that belong in Art. 120, certain requirements were removed and relocated to other sections of NFPA 70E as appropriate. For example, lockout/tagout training and auditing requirements were moved into Art. 110 under the appropriate sections that deal with training and auditing.

The continued evolution of risk assessment

Assessing the amount of risk of injury or damage to health that an employee will face during any given task can be a monumental undertaking; until only a few cycles ago, it was almost impossible. Then something amazing happened. The evolution of risk assessment, in my opinion, is the number one indicator that a fundamental shift in the safety culture of our industry is taking place. Only a few short years ago, certainly at times throughout my career, the attitude toward performing energized work was cavalier at best. I can remember as an apprentice being asked to perform work in switchgear that was energized. I had no PPE, no justification for performing energized work, and certainly no formal risk assessment procedure. The guidance from my journeyman was simply: “Don’t drop your wrench or touch any of the bus bars over here. This stuff is expensive, and takes a long time to get. And, oh yeah, it will hurt, A LOT!”

Fast forward to today, and the procedures in place would never have allowed a conversation like that to take place. However, only with a significant change in the way our industry views safety can we appropriately and accurately assess the risk associated with given tasks and take the necessary steps to minimize our exposure to hazards. The concept of risk assessment has forced employees and employers to be honest with themselves and with each other about what could happen if a wrench is dropped or
accidental contact is made with energized components. The days of such a “macho” attitude of invincibility have given way to more informed discussions about how bad it could be and whether it is worth the risk.

The latest evolution in the risk assessment arena is a major shift in the approach to minimizing the worker’s exposure to hazards. In earlier editions of the standard, the PPE Category method contained a table that specified whether arc flash PPE was required based upon a list of common tasks. However, with the addition of the hierarchy of risk control methods being included in the requirements, now the appropriate method to protect the worker might not be PPE. In fact, PPE must be the last resort for protection. In addition, there was nothing to specify whether additional measures were required to protect workers from equipment that had undergone an incident energy analysis; many users wanted to use a hybrid of the PPE Category “Yes/No” table and the values determined for incident energy — a practice that NFPA 70E specifically prohibited.

This confusion was discussed at length by the committee, and the result is a new Table 130.5(C). This table now applies to either method employed for arc-flash risk assessment. However, it should be noted that this table no longer tells the user whether arc flash PPE is required. Rather, this new table helps in determining if additional measures are needed to protect workers by specifying whether an arc flash is likely to occur for given tasks. This process works in parallel with the hierarchy of risk control methods as well, which is why the table no longer specifies a need for PPE. Per the hierarchy, PPE is only to be used after the other five methods have been exhausted.

One more important distinction about this table is that it does not end the risk assessment procedure. This table is only an estimate of the likelihood of an arc flash occurring, as opposed to the former table, which specified that for some tasks PPE was not required. The risk assessment procedure can still determine there is a need to take additional steps to protect employees, even though Table 130.5(C) lists the likelihood of an arc flash as a “No.”

Let’s look at the example of performing thermal imaging during a maintenance inspection. Per the table, the process of removing the equipment covers does pose an increased likelihood of causing an arc flash; however, once the covers are removed and the thermography is performed outside the restricted approach boundary, the likelihood of occurrence changes to “No.” But does that mean there is no situation where an arc flash could injure the thermographer?

Let’s consider a motor control center (MCC) with automatic control features. If the covers are off and the motor starters are being operated through automatic means, an arc flash hazard might still exist and must be accounted for in the protection of the worker performing the thermography. Unfortunately, there is no “easy” button when it comes to electrical safety, but being armed with knowledge of how the risk assessment procedure is intended to protect workers will go a long way in reducing loss and injury due to electrical incidents.

An increased emphasis on maintenance

The need for proper maintenance of electrical equipment is not a new idea. However, this is one of those areas where the equipment in question is often an “out of sight, out of mind” situation until it fails. There is even equipment where the common course of action is to “set it and forget it.” Equipment failure is the indication that it needs attention, like a light bulb. The maintenance issue continues to surface through risk assessment procedures; however, it is becoming an ever-increasing cog in the personnel safety wheel. If the safety of employees depends on proper operation of certain electrical components, how can it be known whether equipment will operate if there is no record of maintenance?

In the 2015 edition of NFPA 70E the concept of “Normal Operation of Equipment” was added to justified energized work. This included tasks such as operation of SWD/HID circuit breakers to turn on and off lights in a warehouse or jogging a motor starter in an MCC. Normal operation has very specific conditions that must be met for a normal operating condition to exist. The equipment must meet the requirements outlined in Sec. 130.2(A)(4), including the need to be properly installed and maintained. This thrusts maintenance firmly into the forefront when it comes to what is considered “Normal Operation” of equipment.

In addition to the normal operation requirement, the evolution of the risk assessment procedure is also pushing maintenance to the top of the priority list. After all, if all my assumptions and calculations are based on specific operating parameters of given equipment, it is very important that the equipment work as advertised. The only way to be certain that this will happen is to ensure that equipment has been properly maintained and the maintenance documented. Documentation is crucial to track the history and accurately assess what level of risk the future holds.

Honorable mentions

With so many things going on in the evolution of electrical safety, it becomes difficult to spend meaningful time discussing them all in one place. But there are a few additional changes worth noting:

• Two new steps in establishing an Electrically Safe Work Condition.

• Release stored electrical and mechanical energy.

• PPE conformity assessment

• Annex H PPE table incorporated into the requirements.

• Risk assessment must account for human error.

This is by no means meant to be a complete list of all the changes within the 2018 edition of NFPA 70E. By starting a conversation about some of the more important concepts in electrical safety, we can continue to support the shift in attitude of an entire industry segment. At the end of the day, we are all after the same thing. Everyone wants to go home in one piece. Evolving standard work practices take time and buy in from those affected. Only by spreading this message of a revised electrical safety culture can we ever hope to work in a field where nobody gets a ride in an ambulance due to taking an unjustified risk.

P3 strives to bring you quality relevant industry related news.

See the origial full article at: http://www.ecmweb.com/safety/evolution-electrical-safety-and-nfpa-70e?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ECMMostRecent+%28Electrical+Construction+%26+Maintenance%29&sfvc4enews=42&Issue=ECM-01_20180517_ECM-01_154&cl=article_1_b&NL=ECM-01

Continue reading
  646 Hits
646 Hits
May
14

What Is Electrical Grounding?

Electrical grounding or “Grounding” originally began as a safety measure used to help prevent people from accidentally coming in contact with electrical hazards. Think of your refrigerator. It is a metal box standing on rubber feet with electricity running in and out of it. You use magnets to hang your child’s latest drawing on the metal exterior. The electricity running from the outlet and through the power cord to the electrical components inside the refrigerator are electrically isolated from the metal exterior or chassis of the refrigerator.

If for some reason the electricity came in contact with the chassis, the rubber feet would prevent the electricity from going anywhere and it would sit waiting for someone to walk up and touch the refrigerator. Once someone touched the refrigerator the electricity would flow from the chassis of the refrigerator and through the unlucky person possibly causing injury.

Grounding is used to protect that person. By connecting a green ground wire from the metal frame of the refrigerator, if the chassis inadvertently becomes charged for any reason, the unwanted electricity will travel through the wire back to your electrical panel, and tripping the circuit-breaker stopping the flow of electricity. Additionally, that wire must be connected to something that is in turn connected to the earth or ground outside. Typically this connection is a grounding electrode, such as a ground rod.
Grounding and Earthing

A typical grounding electrode

The process of electrically connecting to the earth itself is often called “earthing”, particularly in Europe where the term “grounding” is used to describe the above-ground wiring. The term “Grounding” is used in America to discuss both below-grade earthing and above-grade grounding.

While electrical grounding may have originally been considered only as a safety measure, with today’s advances in electronics and technology, electrical grounding has become an essential part of everyday electricity. Computers, televisions, microwave ovens, fluorescent lights and many other electrical devices, generate lots of “electrical noise” that can damage equipment and cause it to work less efficiently. Proper grounding can not only remove this unwanted “noise”, but can even make surge protection devices work better.

P3 strives to bring you quality relevant industry related news.

See the origial full article at: http://www.esgroundingsolutions.com/about-electrical-grounding/

Continue reading
  681 Hits
681 Hits
May
07

Best States for Energy

Energy Rankings: Measuring states' energy infrastructure

Energy represents one-third of the weight in ranking the Best States for infrastructure. This subcategory evaluates three major metrics: renewable energy usage, reliability of power grids and the average cost of electricity. Metrics were evaluated using the most recent data from the Department of Energy. Most of the energy consumed in the U.S. comes from fossil fuels, including petroleum, coal and natural gas, while about 10 percent of energy consumption comes from renewable sources. In 2016, 29 percent of all energy usage was in transportation, while 6 percent came from the residential sector and just 4 percent from the commercial category, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

Oregon, which ranks No. 1 in energy, comes in third for infrastructure. Five of the top 10 states for energy also rank in the top 10 Best States overall: Iowa, Minnesota, Washington, Nebraska and North Dakota. And West Virginia, which is the worst state for energy, is also one of the poorest-performing states overall, coming in at No. 47. Montana, however, falls in the bottom half of states for infrastructure despite being top 10 states for energy.

Best States for Energy

Energy Rank State Electricity Price Power Grid Reliability Renewable Energy Usage
#1 Oregon 13 17 1
#2 Washington 2 25 2
#3 South Dakota 28 6 4
#4 Nebraska 17 1 10
#5 Iowa 10 15 6
#6 North Dakota 15 3 11
#7 Montana 14 30 5
#8 Nevada 7 5 15
#9 Arizona 34 2 21
#10 Minnesota 32 14 12

Power Grid Reliability

The Department of Energy measures the number of minutes of power outages each customer experiences on average every year. Excluding major events, customers in both Nebraska and Arizona experienced less than an hour of power outages in 2016. With 439 minutes – or more than seven hours – of hours of power outages in 2016, West Virginia was the No. 50 state in reliability of power grids, far exceeding No. 49 Maine's nearly four and a half hours, or 264 minutes. The Southeast had the greatest power disturbance by far, with an average of more than two hours per customer, while the average for the Great Plains region was only 86 minutes.

Best States for Power Grid Reliability

 

P3 strives to bring you quality relevant industry related news.

See the origial full article at: https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/rankings/infrastructure/energy

Continue reading
  730 Hits
730 Hits
Apr
30

Century-Old Contractors Power America’s Past and Future

oldest contractors intro 1 12

Some of the nation’s oldest electrical contracting companies have discovered the secrets to staying in business and evolving to satisfy their customers’ changing needs.

One-hundred years ago, less than 35% of U.S. homes were powered by electricity. During this golden age of opportunity, trail-blazing electricians founded their own electrical contracting companies in American cities nationwide. Oftentimes, these entrepreneurs opened their doors with little more than a dream, a storefront, and a passion for electrification. Some of these business ventures eventually disappeared from the industry, but others stood the test of time — and are still standing today.

oldest contractors intro 2 12

Succeeding in the electrical construction market for a century or more requires lots of determination — and a little bit of luck, says Fred Sargent, who retired from Sargent Electric after many years of leading the company.

“Once a company is within striking distance of reaching its 100-year mark, its owners and managers begin to eye that as a goal for the company and a legacy of their tenure,” Sargent says. “A contracting business equals the contracts it has in effect. Finding new business opportunities that will sustain its operation is a fundamental requirement.”

oldest contractors intro 3 11

Seven Secrets to Staying in Business for 100 Years or More

Some of the nation’s oldest electrical contracting companies have been able to stay in business for at least a century by adapting to changes in the industry and embracing new markets. Here are some of their strategies for not only surviving for 100 years, but also for planning for future growth and expansion.

  1. Adapt to customers’ changing needs. By keeping its customers at the forefront of its business plans, Sargent Electric can prepare its teams for the projects and technologies of the future. “Most of the emerging trends in our industry favor contractors that are providing full-service solutions for their customers, able to go wherever the customer needs them, and with the flexibility to work in a variety of team structures and contracting models,” says Rob Smith, president of the company.
  2. Train your workforce. Cache Valley Electric fosters a company culture that builds loyalty, camaraderie, and common purpose, treats each employee as irreplaceable, and invests in advanced training. “This training doesn’t just grow their value within our industry — it also builds their own sense of self-worth and accomplishment,” says Nate Wickizer, CEO of the company.
  3. Invest in technology. Hawkins Electric Service has strived to stay on the leading edge of technology through use of 3D modeling and GPR robotics on new construction projects. In addition, the field workforce uses iPads loaded with project management software and advanced equipment to troubleshoot underground faults.
  4. Treat your customers with respect, honesty, and fairness, according to the third-generation leaders of Hawkins Electric Service, who were always taught to “do the right thing.”
  5. Serve your community. At Hawkins Electric, the company’s executives and employees have made a strong commitment to the community through monetary, material and labor donations. In addition, the company executives are active in leadership roles in industry associations and encourage their employees to do the same.
  6. Secure repeat contracts. As Hawkins looks to solidify its regional presence and expand geographically, the contractor is focusing on building trusting and nurturing relationships with its industry partners.
  7. Network with other contractors. For the last 35 years, H.B. Frazer has served as a member of the Federated Electrical Contractors, which includes 37 other contractors, including Guarantee Electrical, OESCO, and Cache Valley Electric. These companies work together on joint ventures for clients both in the United States and abroad. “Being a Federated contractor is a great opportunity to meet and grow our business and learn from one another,” says Bill Holleran, president of H.B. Frazer.

Notable Changes Over the Last 100 Years

Rob Smith, president of Sargent Electric, shares three ways his company and the electrical industry has changed since his business first opened its doors.

  • More reliable and safer solutions at a lower cost.
  • Improved electrical safety for the end-user and owner/ operator of the facilities and for the electricians who make it all happen.
  • Innovations through all aspects of the supply chain, which reduces labor hours and costs. Also, the shift from building in the field to assembling advanced components and preassemblies boosts productivity.

Early Years of Electrification: A Timeline

1752: Ben Franklin ties a kite to a string during a thunderstorm.

1800: The first electric battery was founded by Alessandro Volta.

1821: Michael Faraday first discovered electro-magnetic rotation.

1826: Georg Ohm created Ohm’s Law.

1837: Thomas Davenport invented the first electric motor.

1878: Joseph Swan invented the first incandescent light bulb, which burned out quickly, and Thomas Edison founded the Edison Electric Light Co.

1879: Thomas Edison invented the first long-lasting incandescent light bulb, which could be used for at least 40 hours without burning out.

1882: Thomas Edison opened a power station, which could power 5,000 lights.

1883: Nikola Tesla invented the Tesla coil.

1893: The Westinghouse Electric Co. used AC current to light the Chicago’s World’s Fair.

1936: The Rural Electrification Act was aimed at providing electricity to farms in America.

1942: About half of the American farms had electricity.

 

P3 strives to bring you quality relevant industry related news.

See the origial article at: http://www.ecmweb.com/construction/century-old-contractors-power-america-s-past-and-future

Continue reading
  729 Hits
729 Hits
Apr
23

Electrical grounding technique may improve health outcomes of NICU babies

A technique called "electrical grounding" may moderate preterm infants' electromagnetic exposure in the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) and improve their health outcomes, according to Penn State College of Medicine researchers.

Image result for premature baby in incubator

Equipment in the NICU produces low-frequency electromagnetic fields that can have subtle yet measurable effects on the autonomic nervous system, the system that regulates involuntary body functions. Preterm infants may be especially vulnerable to these effects.

Previous research in adults has shown that exposure to electromagnetic fields can affect the vagus nerve, a key component of the autonomic nervous system which regulates the body's internal organs during rest. Previous research also has shown that electrical grounding, which reduces the electrical charge to the body, can improve the functioning of the autonomic nervous system and the vagus nerve, producing improved vagal tone.

Vagal tone, which is measured by analyzing heart rate variability between inhalation and exhalation, is a valuable indicator of health. An earlier study performed with colleagues at Penn State found that low vagal tone in preterm infants is a marker of vulnerability to stress and a risk factor for developing necrotizing enterocolitis, an intestinal disorder that can have severe consequences. Strengthening vagal tone may reduce inflammation, guard against the development of necrotizing enterocolitis and offer protection from a variety of other conditions that can affect preterm infants.

Additionally, a separate study involving preterm infants in the NICU revealed that when the incubator's power was switched off, thereby eliminating the electromagnetic source, the vagal tone of the infants improved. But until this Penn State study, published in a recent issue of Neonatology, no other research had directly evaluated the effect of electrical grounding on vagal tone in preterm infants in the NICU.

To evaluate the connection between electrical grounding and vagal tone in preterm infants, the researchers conducted a prospective observational study that included a total of 26 preterm infants who were between six and 60 days old and in the NICU at Penn State Health Milton S. Hershey Medical Center between October 2012 and January 2014.

"Preterm babies in the NICU have a lot of health challenges due to the immaturity of their lungs, of their bowel and of all their organs, so we decided to look at how electrical grounding could help improve vagal tone and mitigate some of those challenges," said Dr. Charles Palmer, professor of pediatrics and chief of newborn medicine at Penn State Children's Hospital. "Anything we might do to improve the babies' resilience would be good."

After measuring the environmental electromagnetic levels in and around the incubators, the researchers electrically grounded the babies by connecting an electrode wire from the infants' incubators or open cribs to the ground. Twenty of the 26 infants were measured for both skin voltage -- the voltage measured between the patient's skin and electrical ground -- and heart rate variability -- to assess vagal tone -- before, during and after grounding. Six of the infants were measured only for skin voltage.

"When we looked at the signal on the skin, it was an oscillating signal going out at 60 hertz, which is exactly the frequency of our electrical power. When we connected the baby to the ground, the skin voltage dropped by about 95 percent and vagal tone increased by 67 percent," Palmer said. After grounding, vagal tone returned to the pre-grounding level.

"What we can conclude is that a baby's autonomic nervous system is able to sense the electrical environment and it seems as though a baby is more relaxed when grounded," Palmer said. "When tied to our previous work, which found that vagal tone was an important risk factor for necrotizing enterocolitis, this new finding may offer an opportunity to protect babies even further."

A limitation of this study is the sample size, and further research is needed, said Palmer.

"If more research confirms our results, it could mean, for example, redesigning incubators to ground babies and cancel out the electrical field," he said.

Palmer also said that more study is needed to evaluate the long-term effects on preterm infants of exposure to low-frequency electromagnetic fields in the NICU.

 

P3 strives to bring you quality relevant industry related news.

See the origial article at: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/08/170803120627.htm

 

Continue reading
  833 Hits
833 Hits