Fault current and fuse protection

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: Fault current and fuse protection

Originally posted by charlie:
Gentlemen, you are correct. NFPA 70E and OSHA have placed engineers in an untenable position. :eek:
Just realize I was the ONLY Professional Engineer on the 70E Tech Committee that spoke from this position. I wasn't the only PE, but I was the only PE that routinely sealed designs. I know most of the other PEs personally and have a good idea what their actual job functions are. Several of them have been my clients. At the moment, there are NO PEs that speak from the "Design Professional" position on the 70E TC.

This is one of the biggest reasons I believe the Standards Council needs to recognize "Design Professional" as a separate "Interest" from "Users."
 
Re: Fault current and fuse protection

Originally posted by don_resqcapt19:
This has to be addressed some how. If the engineers can't provide reasonably correct incident energy numbers, then how can the worker select the correct PPE? How can anyone tell a worker that Level 3 or 4 PPE is suitable when you really don't know what the incident energy is? Given what has been discussed in this thread, I can't imagine any engineer ever putting his or his firm's name to an incident energy calculation.
Don
You're right of course Don. We need a means to reasonably determine the maximum incident energy regardless of the maximum available fault.

Unfortunately, those of us engineers with the responsibility of making the computation don't have the research resources to establish a reasonably reliable maximum incident energy scenario that would receive "recognized practice" status, and those who do have the research resources don't [usually] have the responsibility.
 
Re: Fault current and fuse protection

Proposal for the next 70E:
Delete all existing text, and replace with "thou shalt not work on or near energized equipment".
Substantiation: It is not possible to obtain reasonably accurate fault current data to calculate the incident energy. Without accurate incident energy it is not possible to select appropriate PPE. Work on or near energized equipment is not permitted without proper PPE. There is no available method to correctly select PPE, therefore work on or near energized equipment shall not be permitted.
Don
 
Re: Fault current and fuse protection

Don,

I realize your post may be a little tongue-in-cheek, but you make a great point.

My own belief is that this trade will advance by leaps and bounds when everyone unifies and refuses to work on anything live. (with the life safety exceptions of course.) That is probably a fantasy, but as you said in the other forum, human life will still be lost needlessly as long as live work continues.

I think there are a few main causes to the problem of electrical workers putting themselves in danger. We have become so used to having the convenience of electricity, that even the shortest interuption is seen a major event. The biggest reason, IMO is economic. The value of money, trade and commerce is put way above the value of human life in our society.

Furthermore, employers put pressure on their employees, even threatening them with being fired, if they don't work live. Employees see it as being "macho" for working on live equipment.

I don't know what the solution is, but it's going to take a lot of effort to overcome this dangerous mindset in this industry.
 
Re: Fault current and fuse protection

LOL Don,

Make that Proposal - seriously. You would be surprised how well received it might be. It would certainly simplify my life. We came close in the Proposal stage of the 2004 cycle to do just that. There has been a finely drawn line on the issue.

There are those who wish to require de-energizing period. I'll confess I'm not one of them. There were others that wanted to recognize a FR100 rating for PPE. I didn't go along with that one either, although I was more concerned about simple blast from both percussion and hearing at that point than just flash. You can theoretically get up to FR100 rated masks which retain reasonable visual acuity and, with proper layering, hoods and clothing. I'd still be extremely concerned about dexterity deterioration with FR100 gloves.

It is my opinion, no matter which "side" someone took, worker safety was the genuine concern. It is just some felt loss of continuity of service also had dire safety implications.
 
Re: Fault current and fuse protection

Bob,
I recently talked with a rep from one of the companies that market 100 cal/cm^2 suits. He told me that if you are exposed to an incident with energy anywhere near that level all their suit does is let you have an open casket in place of a closed one without the suit. None of the suits really provide any protection from the blast, and that is not yet addressed in 70E.
Don
 
Re: Fault current and fuse protection

Yeah that sounds about right.

Edit Add: I also forgot to mention you start having severe shrapnel issues at that level. You still may not get an open casket.

[ March 22, 2005, 12:05 PM: Message edited by: rbalex ]
 
Re: Fault current and fuse protection

Forgive my casual and possibly oversimplified observation.

It seems that the reg's do just what Don so sarcastically put it.

Live work has been so restricted by calc's and such, that it might have well been forbidden.

I know this only applies to a worker and employer who choose to follow the rules.

Don, I like the "10 Commandment" wording :D
 
Re: Fault current and fuse protection

Larry,
I really think that most live work can and and should be avoided. There are very very few times when it is really required that you work hot. The most common reason something must be worked hot is troubleshooting.
Don
 
Re: Fault current and fuse protection

That reminds me of a paper that NEMA put out some time ago about working hot. The upshot is that thou shalt not work hot. :D
 
Re: Fault current and fuse protection

I guess I should mention the IEEE/NFPA Joint Task Group:
NFPA and IEEE Begin Joint Arc-Flash Research Program to Improve Electrical Safety Standards

PISCATAWAY, N.J.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Jan. 20, 2005--The National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) and IEEE have agreed to collaborate on an initiative to gain deeper insight into arc-flash phenomena and the hazards they pose for those working on or near electrical equipment operating at or above 50 volts. The data and information generated by this research and testing program will go to strengthen electrical safety standards and code processes.

The first phase of the program will result in a plan to define new information needed regarding arc-flash events and what research is required to obtain it.

The plan is expected to be delivered by mid 2005. The agreement between the two organizations sets up a steering committee that will, in part, seek funding from industry and government sources to carry out the plan.

The joint program will evaluate existing test protocols and create new ones, as necessary, to understand how arc-flash energy can affect the human body and clothing.

This energy includes hot gases and other characteristics, including pressure, acoustic and electromagnetic energy, such as ultraviolet, infrared and x-ray radiation.

The program will also look at other factors, including how energy varies with distance from the arc and how energy transfers from an arc to its surroundings in ways that might cause injuries.

"The initiative defined in this landmark agreement between the IEEE and the NFPA is designed to give the industry more effective tools for dealing with arc-flash events," says Judy Gorman, Managing Director of the IEEE Standards Association.

"From the IEEE's perspective, it will give us the technical foundation to take our arc- flash standard to a new level. The data generated will help us guide further testing and create more accurate arc-flash engineering calculations that can then be used in designing safer equipment and work environments."

From the NFPA's perspective, Bob Vondrasek, NFPA Vice President, Codes and Standards Operation, says the two organizations agreed to collaborate for the good of industries concerned about arc flash.

"As the two primary bodies involved in arc-flash standards," he continued, "we established the commitment and trust to conduct a program to look deeper into arc-flash events. This to will enable the NFPA to give workers updated tables and references they need to protect themselves from arc-flash hazards when they work with live equipment at different electrical loads."

The research and testing plan to be developed by the steering committee will include test protocols, specifications for test instruments, and instrument placement relative to an arc.

Test protocols may include those that account for arcing time, working distance, frequency, voltage, current, AC/DC bus spacing, electrode gap and placement, and enclosure size, shape and grounding, among other factors.

"This will be a practical program with extensive testing to compare and verify physics-based calculations against empirically derived calculations," says Bruce McClung, Co-chair of the IEEE 1584 Working Group.

"It will be based on real-world data and consider such factors as how the equipment orientation in an enclosure and enclosure openings affect the energy released in an arcing fault. This will help us provide guidance for reengineering safer electrical equipment and systems that reduce the potential for arc flash."

According to Ray Jones, Chair of the NFPA 70E Working Group, "This program should have a huge payoff in preventing injuries. It will yield standards for the industrial, commercial and utility electric power industries that more closely reflect arc-flash and arc-blast experience in the workplace. These standards will allow the industry to take steps to prevent or mitigate hazards and help workers protect themselves against the possibility of injury."

The NFPA-IEEE initiative builds on existing standards, especially:

IEEE 1584(TM), "IEEE Guide for Performing Arc Flash Calculations", which identifies ways to determine arc-flash hazard distance and the incident energy workers can be exposed to when they work on or near electrical equipment.

NFPA 70E, "Standard for Electrical Safety in the Workplace", which is a national, consensus standard that addresses the full range of electrical safety issues, including arc-flash hazards. The standard covers work practices, equipment maintenance, special equipment requirements and installation requirements needed for personnel safety.
You will note there is still nothing concretely mentioned about defining a basis for practically determining maximum incident energy criteria. Actually this is a problem 70E mentions in Appendix D:
D.1 introduction Existing knowledge about arc flash exposure at voltage levels above 600V is limited?
I personally believe that this is an understatement. Appendix D basically documents how much we don?t know at all ? even below 600V.

It would be grossly unfair of me though to say it is being ignored ? we just haven?t gotten to the point that we understand the phenomena well enough to truly establish a consistent ?working model.?

The perceived need to ?work live? will continually be out there. Since I no longer have the ?inside scoop? I can?t speak about the current trends either. When I left, the closest thing to a consensus I can describe is that there was a goal to make management aware enough of their employee safety responsibilities that they could not validly claim ignorance should an incident occur. Obviously, we are still short of that goal.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top