1

I-Gard Workplace Electrical Safety - What the New Language Means for You

Workplace Electrical Safety- What the New Language Means for You
Andrew Cochran
May 12, 2015
President, I-Gard

The recent changes to NFPA 70E and CSA Z462 have the potential if not the intent to change the way we
approach workplace electrical safety programs.
Annex 0 states, the facility manager, owner or employer should choose design options that eliminate
hazards or reduce risk and enhance the effectiveness of safety related work practices.
The typical approach to workplace electrical safety has been to conduct an arc flash study after the
installation is complete, calculate the incident energy levels, post warning signs and labels and purchase
appropriately rated PPE, job done.
Now just compare the actions taken and ask yourself did this reduce risk or eliminate the hazard and the
answer is NO. The risk is the same, the hazard is the same. Yes, steps were taken to inform personnel of
the hazard level and steps were taken to provide PPE to protect personnel from the hazard once it occurs
but none of these actions reduce the risk or eliminate the hazard. In effect, our standard approach to
electrical safety is misguided and backwards.
The new language in NFPA 70E and CSA Z462 reflects the
hierarchy of risk approach outlined in ANSI Z10 which
clearly indicates that the most effective approach to
workplace safety is to:

Eliminate the risk,

Substitute the risk for a lower level,

Engineering Controls,

Warnings,

Administrative Controls and

PPE.

Maximum effectiveness is achieved if the risk assessment is conducted during the design phase of the
project as promoted in NFPA 70E and CSA Z462 O.2.1, Employers, facility owners, and managers who
have responsibility for facilities and installations having electrical energy as a potential hazard to employees
and other personnel should ensure that electrical hazard risk assessments are performed during the design
of electrical systems and installations.

Download more papers from I-Gards Technical Library: www.i-gard.com

2015, I-Gard Corporation | Toll Free: 1 888-737-4787 | sales@i-gard.com | www.twitter.com/i_gard

I-Gard Workplace Electrical Safety - What the New Language Means for You

Hazard and risk are not the same thing. A hazard is something with the potential to cause harm and causes
damages whether that is to the equipment, processes or personnel. Risk is the likelihood that the event will
occur and result in damages. An effective electrical safety program must reduce the likelihood (reduce the
risk) and mitigate the hazard (substitute the hazard for a lower level).
Elimination of the hazard means addressing the likely causes and contributors to the hazard and
eliminating or controlling these factors.
Consultants, facility managers, maintenance personnel were asked the following questions, What in Your
Opinion is the Leading Cause of Arc Flash Incidences and What is the Best Means to Minimize the Arc
Flash Hazard and the summarized responses are tabulated below:
What in Your Opinion
is the Leading Cause of Arc Flash Incidences?

What is the Best Means

to Minimize the Arc Flash Hazard?

3-phase faults

73

High Resistance Grounding

Optical Detection
Labels
PPE

10
16
16
31

Ground Faults

507

High Resistance Grounding

Optical Detection
Labels
PPE

161
78
80
188

In-Line Faults

57

High Resistance Grounding

Optical Detection
Labels
PPE

7
18
4
28

Phase-to-Phase Faults

377

High Resistance Grounding

Optical Detection
Labels
PPE

44
77
70
186

The results clearly indicate the need for a greater level of understanding of risk mitigation but also some
level of optimism as 50% of the respondents recognized that ground faults are the leading cause of arc
flash incidences.
Empirical data suggests that there are generally three types of faults in industrial power systems:
Ground faults accounts for 98% of the total electrical faults control or eliminate ground faults and 98% of
arc flash accidents simply never happen.
Phase-to-phase faults are less than 1.5% of the total, and are usually the result of line-to-ground faults
that aren't cleared. Three-phase faults are less than 0.5% of all faults. Most of these are man-made; in
other words, they are accidents caused by improper operating procedures.

Download more papers from I-Gards Technical Library: www.i-gard.com

2015, I-Gard Corporation | Toll Free: 1 888-737-4787 | sales@i-gard.com | www.twitter.com/i_gard

I-Gard Workplace Electrical Safety - What the New Language Means for You

When designing or specifying a grounding system for an industrial or commercial operation for voltages of
1000V and below there are three basic choices ungrounded, solidly grounded or resistance grounded and
by far the most common practice in North America is solidly grounded.
When deciding which type of grounding system to specify or operate the decision has typically come down
to two related factors electrical reliability and electrical safety. We want to operate in a safe manner and
also minimize interruptions as much as possible. The new language in Annex 0 highlights a third factor
did you consider risk when designing or specifying the grounding system?
Absent ground faults, any of the three options are reliable and safe but ground faults are a reality in any
electrical system and so the question becomes how reliable and safe is my grounding choice when a
ground fault occurs? Does the grounding system decision affect the likelihood of experiencing an arc flash
incident?
The ungrounded system was often chosen for industries due to enhanced process continuity as the
system would continue to operate under a single ground fault condition. The issue however was the
inability to simply or effectively locate the ground fault and the damage operating with an active fault could
create. During a ground fault on an ungrounded system, the arcing nature charges the system
capacitance. When the arc extinguishes (possibly due to AC waveform zero crossover), the charged
system cannot dissipate the charge, so it holds it. When an arc re-strikes, more charge is added to the
system. This continues until the insulation breaks down at the weakest point in the system.
The concern over the safety aspect of ungrounded systems when experiencing a ground fault is noted in
IEEE 242-1986 Recommended Practice for Protection and Coordination of Industrial and Commercial
Power Systems.
Clause 7.2.5 has a number of notes on ungrounded systems: A second ground fault occurring before the
first fault is cleared will result in a phase-to-ground-to-phase fault, usually arcing, with current magnitude
large enough to do damage, but sometimes too small to activate overcurrent devices in time to prevent or
minimize damage.
Ungrounded systems offer no advantage over high-resistance grounded systems in terms of continuity of
service and have the disadvantages of transient over-voltages, locating the first fault and burn-downs from
a second ground fault. For the reasons, they are being used less frequently today than high-resistance
grounded systems, and existing ungrounded systems are often converted to high-resistance grounded
systems by resistance grounding the neutral.
Solidly grounded is the most common choice for electrical distribution in North America. However,
reliability and safety are both impacted when the system is subject to a ground fault. A ground fault of
sufficient magnitude will trip the over-current protection and isolate a process. For this reason, most relays
are set to the maximum and this is when safety and reliability are impacted. An arcing fault may not be of
sufficient magnitude to be detected by and trip the over-current device until the arc fully develops and it
becomes destructive and possibly deadly.

Download more papers from I-Gards Technical Library: www.i-gard.com

2015, I-Gard Corporation | Toll Free: 1 888-737-4787 | sales@i-gard.com | www.twitter.com/i_gard

I-Gard Workplace Electrical Safety - What the New Language Means for You

In the IEEE 141-1993, Recommended Practice for Electrical Power Distribution for Industrial Plants section
7.2.4, it states that, The solidly grounded system has the highest probability of escalating into a phase-tophase or 3-phase arcing fault, particularly for the 480 and 600V systems. A safety hazard exists for solidly
grounded systems from the severe flash, arc burning, and blast hazard from any phase-to-ground fault.
The high-resistance grounding of low voltage power distribution systems in North America became more
prevalent in the early 1970s for continuous process industries that required process continuity but also
wanted to eliminate the safety hazard of transient over-voltages and burn downs due to a second ground
fault prevalent in an ungrounded distribution system.
NFPA 70E states in Annex 0, A great majority of electrical faults are of the phase-to-ground type.
High-resistance grounding will insert an impedance in the ground return path and will typically limit the fault
current to 10 amperes and below (at 5kV nominal or below), leaving insufficient fault energy and thereby
helping reduce the arc flash hazard level. High resistance grounding will not affect arc flash energy for lineto-line or line-to-line-to-line arcs.
By choosing high-resistance grounding on your electrical distribution system of 480V to 5kV you control the
ground fault to the point where 98% of arc flash accidents simply never occur if the first fault is cleared
before a second fault occurs. You have eliminated the hazard, reduced the frequency and likelihood, you
have taken action and lowered the probability of ever having to deal with the arc flash hazard and in the
process increased the electrical reliability of the system.
There are a number of technologies being offered to tackle the arc flash hazard. We will review these and
ask 3 simple questions:

Does the application of this technology lower the probability of an arc flash?

Does the application of this technology lessen the impact of an arc flash?

Does the application of this technology protect personnel in the event of an arc flash?

The technologies being reviewed include arc detection relays, current limiting fuses, remote actuators,
remote racking, arc resistant switchgear, infrared monitoring and maintenance switches.
An arc develops in milliseconds and leads to the discharge of enormous amounts of energy. The energy
discharged in the arc is directly proportional to the square of the short circuit current and the time the arc
takes to develop, i.e. energy = I2t
The damage resulting from the arc depends on the arcing current and time. Of these two factors time is the
most easily controlled and managed. Rules of thumb for different arc burning times are:
-

35ms or less No significant damage to persons or switchgear. Can be returned to use after
checking for insulation resistance.

Download more papers from I-Gards Technical Library: www.i-gard.com

2015, I-Gard Corporation | Toll Free: 1 888-737-4787 | sales@i-gard.com | www.twitter.com/i_gard

I-Gard Workplace Electrical Safety - What the New Language Means for You

100ms Small damage to switchgear that requires cleaning and possibly some minor repair.
Personnel are/could be at risk of injuries.

500ms Catastrophic damage to equipment and personnel is likely to suffer serious injuries.

The goal of arc mitigation technology is to protect personnel and property. To effectively accomplish this we
must first detect the arc and then cut the flow of current to the arc in as short of a time as possible. As noted
above the target is to achieve a total reaction time of 100ms or less, from detection of the arc to isolation of
the circuit.
Current-limiting fuses are often used in the design of electrical distribution systems to
protect electrical equipment under high available short-circuit conditions (NEC 110.10).
They are able to protect the equipment from the significant thermal damage and
magnetic forces associated with high short-circuit currents by actually reducing the
current that flows and the time that it flows if the available arcing current is within the
operating range of the fuse and if the fault is downstream of the fuse. Under these
specific operating conditions the fuse keeps the current from reaching its peak during the
first cycle. Since they can react so quickly, the current is driven to zero in as little as
cycle, or even less.
An arc is accompanied by radiation in the form of light, sound and heat. Therefore, the presence of an arc
can be detected by analyzing visible light, sound waves, and temperature change.
The burning of the arc heats up the ambient air causing it to expand and create a
measurable increase in pressure inside the switchgear. In Europe it has become
common practice to use the combination of light and pressure as positive indicators
of an arc. The arc detection pressure sensor has an operating time between 8ms
and 18ms and when combined with a circuit breaker with an operating time between
35ms and 50ms we can achieve our goal of 100ms or less.
However, many older circuit breakers operate closer to 80ms and these require
to be paired with a faster acting arc detection device. Arcs produce light at
intensity levels that excess 20,000 lux. This can be detected through special
arc detection optical sensors connected to a relay system that has a typical
operating time under 1ms and is the fastest arc flash detection technology
currently available. The operating time is independent of the fault current
magnitude since any current detector elements are used only to supervise the
optical system.
With optical arc protection technology installed, the relay operating time is essentially negligible compared
to the circuit breaker operating time and the cost is low since current transformers are only needed on the
main breakers. Again, if we sum up the circuit breaker operating time and the optical arc detection time we

Download more papers from I-Gards Technical Library: www.i-gard.com

2015, I-Gard Corporation | Toll Free: 1 888-737-4787 | sales@i-gard.com | www.twitter.com/i_gard

I-Gard Workplace Electrical Safety - What the New Language Means for You

are well below the goal of 100ms regardless of the age and speed of the circuit breaker and have mitigated
the damage to a reasonable level.
An energy-reducing maintenance switch is a device that has been
designed specifically to be used by personnel only while they are
required to perform work on energized electrical equipment and this
device is not intended to be continuously active. The basic energyreducing maintenance switching design is one that incorporates an
additional electronic control circuit that may be separate from the
normal instantaneous or short time protection circuits in the trip unit.
The purpose of the separate control circuit is to allow the electrical
worker, on demand, to switch-in a system that will trip the overcurrent protective device in a time that will
provide a minimum possible arc. As a result of the fast tripping time, this energy-reducing maintenance
switching design yields lower arc flash energy levels should an arc flash incident occur while energized
work is being performed on that device.
Arc resistance switchgear is designed to contain the hazard and vent the
destructive energy away from personnel. The potential of damage to the
equipment remains in the event of an arc flash but less so than in non-arc
resistant switchgear as the damage is likely contained to a single cubicle.
Similarly there remains the potential for process interruptions as the switchgear
is inspected and possibly repaired- but again this is likely less than in non-arc
resistant switchgear and personnel are isolated from the hazard as long as the
door was closed when the arc flash occurred.
By permitting the automatic racking of the circuit breaker from a remote location,
remote racking systems move service personal outside the arc flash protection
boundary, increasing safety from arc flash hazards and thus reducing the need for a
full-body arc flash hazard suit.
Likewise, remote switching ensures that personnel are outside the arc flash boundary
when conducting their maintenance work ensuring their safety in the event of an arc flash.
Neither affects the frequency or severity of the hazard and the consequential impact on
equipment damage and process interruptions but both ensure a lower risk of injury to
personnel.
The application of Infrared (IR) Thermography enables maintenance
personnel to perform scans faster given that they do not need to remove
switchgear side panels. This lessens the likelihood of an arc flash event
occurring due to accidental contact with live bus. However, if an arc flash
occurs due to an escalating ground fault while scanning is being conducted, the

Download more papers from I-Gards Technical Library: www.i-gard.com

2015, I-Gard Corporation | Toll Free: 1 888-737-4787 | sales@i-gard.com | www.twitter.com/i_gard

I-Gard Workplace Electrical Safety - What the New Language Means for You

maintenance personnel are in real danger.

With reference to the revised language in NFPA 70E Annex O, the facility manager, owner or employer
should choose design options that eliminate hazards or reduce risk and enhance the effectiveness of safety
related work practices and with the intent of reducing the probability of an arc flash, then limiting the hazard
impact and of course protecting personnel, the technology review would suggest the following:
Technology

Reduces
probability
of an arc
flash

Reduces
Impact of
the arc flash
hazard

Protects
personnel in
the event of an
arc flash.

High Resistance
Grounding
Current Limiting
Fuses
Arc Reduction
Maintenance Switch
Optical Arc Detection
Relays
Remote Switching

Remarks

Reduction by design
Under specific operating
conditions
Manual operation required
Fast Automatic operation to
limit incident energy

Remote Racking
IR Windows and
Scanning
PPE Clothing

Checks only focused areas

Protects only from thermal
energy

If we are serious about workplace electrical safety as we claim to be, then the new language provides the
necessary guidance on the steps we must take and in what order. First we reduce the risk and we must
wherever possible eliminate the hazard. Technology is available to achieve both goals.
Whenever possible select high-resistance grounding to eliminate 98% of all arc flash incidents from ever
occurring. Employ infrared windows to avoid accidental contact eliminating perhaps 1% of all incidences.
Choose an arc flash reduction technology such as current limiting fuses and dedicated arc detection relays
(pressure or optical) or implement a maintenance program that employs the arc reduction maintenance
switch but make sure to turn it on and off. Additional control methods such as arc resistant switchgear,
remote racking and remote switching can then be considered.
A safer workplace can be achieved when we change our approach by conducting a risk assessment during
the design phase of a project. Only then do we move forward and conduct the arc flash study, define the
risk and quantify the hazard. Next and most importantly, employ elimination technology, lower the hazard
level by employing mitigation technology, redo the study, re-quantify the risk and hazard levels and then
and only then post the warning labels, purchase the appropriate PPE and conduct the awareness training.

Download more papers from I-Gards Technical Library: www.i-gard.com

2015, I-Gard Corporation | Toll Free: 1 888-737-4787 | sales@i-gard.com | www.twitter.com/i_gard