HRC Tables Vs.

Incident
Energy Calculations
The decision on
which approach to
take is not always
obvious.

Arc flash events pose extreme danger to those Vi/orking near energized equipment.

By Michael Woodruff, AF Services, LLC

hy perform an arc flash study, label the equipment, and

require employees to wear personal protective equipment
(PPE)? Many companies want an arc flash study to meet the
OSHA requirement to provide employees a safe workplace.
Additionally, it just makes good business sense, considering
the expense of an accident in lost production time, insur-
ance costs, facility damage, and liability claims.
When it comes to arc flash studies, there are two basic approaches. However, the
decision on which one to use is not obvious when you consider the trade-offs. Key
documents to help in this decision process include NFPA 70E 2012, "Handbook for
Electrical Safety in the Workplace," and IEEE-1584 2002, "Guide for Performing Arc
Flash Hazard Calculations." Unfortunately, neither one of these completely answers
all questions. Before selecting an approach, you must start with a basic understand-
ing of arc flash severity — so let's start with a quick review.

Arc flash 1 0 1 . The severity of an arc flash is determined by the magnitude ofthe
incident energy a worker is exposed to during an arcflash.The magnitude of incident

20 H l f i M January 2014 • www,ecmweb,com

 Table 130.7(C)(15)(a) for Panelboards Rated >240V and up to 600V
Task Performed on Energized Equipment
Perform infrared thermography and other non-contact inspections outside the restricted
approach boundary
CB or fused switch operation with covers on
CB or fused switch operation with covers off
Work on energized electrical conductors and circuit parts, including voltage testing
Work on energized electrical conductors and circuit parts of utilization equipment fed
directly by a branch circuit of the panelboard
This data is a small portion of the massive table shown in the actual NFPA 70E standard.
energy is determined by three factors:
• Distance from the source.
• Fault current available at the point
of work.
• Clearing time of the protective
device.
Ensuring accuracy of these factors is
critical to determining a valid severity
level. Variations of any of these factors
can result in significant changes in the
available incident energy. For example,
it is not unusual for a 2x change in fault
current to result in a lOx change in clear-
ing time. A decrease in fault current can
increase the clearing time, thus increas-
ing the arcflashthreat. That is why it is so
common for systems with low fault cur-
rent to have higher arc flash threats than
similar systems with high fault currents.
Table vs. caiculation method. NFPA
70F contains two ways to accomplish an
arc flash study: one is based on the haz-
ard/risk category (HRC) table; the other
requires calculating the incident energy at
each piece of equipment. The goal of both
approaches is to define the arcflashsever-
ity, flash boundary, and required PPE.
NFPA 70E paragraph 130.5 states: "An
arc flash hazard analysis shall determine
the arc flash boundary, the incident en-
ergy at the working distance, and the per-
sonal protective equipment that people
within the arc flash boundary shall use."
It goes on to say, "The arc flash hazard
analysis shall be updated when a major
modification or renovation takes place.
It shall be reviewed periodically, not to
exceed five years, to account for changes
in the electrical distribution system that
could affect the results of the flash hazard
analysis... The arc flash hazard analysis
shall take into consideration the design
of the overcurrent protection device and
its opening time, including its condition
of maintenance."
Fxception: The requirements of
130.7(C)(15), and 130.7(C)(16) shall be
permitted to be used in lieu of determin-
ing the incident energy at the working
distance.
The NFPA 70E paragraph requires the
calculation of incident energy and then
relaxes the requirement in the Exception,
allowing the use of the 130.7(C) tables.
The calculation of incident energy,
performed in accordance with IEEE-
1584, is based on the actual equipment
in the system. These calculations also
define the distance to the point where
the incident energy is below 1.2 cal/cm^
— establishing an arc flash boundary.
The table approach lists an approach
boundary for different types of equip-
ment, which frequently does not match
the HRC levels listed. To use the bound-
aries listed, assumptions must be made
for the clearing time and short circuit
current. Typically, these assumptions
basically amount to a best guess because
the necessary data is not available to
make accurate determinations.
The table approach (see HRC Table
Highlights on page 23) also provides
a group of tables that can be used to
determine the PPE requirements based
on the voltage, type of equipment, and
task being performed — none of which
are key factors in determining incident
energy. The values contained in these
tables were identified by a task group
using their collective experience and
estimated exposure levels.
The HRC tables list a severity level
Hazard/
Risk Category
1
0
1
2
2
for each task listed. The use of HRC is
intended to only be used with the tables
such that it is known that the severity
levels are estimates at best.
The Table above shows a section of
the 130.7 Tables for PPE. This section
addresses panelboards, which are com-
mon in most all electrical systems. Each
section of Table 130.7(C)(15)(a) begins
with a listing of conditions and the
potential arc flash boundary. Let's take a
look at some examples:
Panelboards or other equipment rated
at greater than 240V and up to 600V.
• 25kA short circuit current, maxi-
mum
• 0.03 fatdt clearing time, maximum
• 18-inch working distance, mini-
mum
• Potential arc flash boundary with
exposed energized conductors: 2 feet,
6 inches
600V motor control center
• 65kA short circuit current, maxi-
mum
• 0.03 fault clearing time, maximum
• 18-inch working distance, mini-
mum
• Potential arc flash boundary with
exposed energized conductors: 4 feet,
5 inches
600V motor control center
• 42kA short circuit current, maxi-
mum
• 0.33 fault clearing time, maximum
• 18-inch working distance, mini-
mum
• Potential arc flash boundary with
exposed energized conductors: 13 feet,
9 inches
600V switchgears and switchboards
• 35kA short circuit current, maximum
www.ecmweb.com • January 2014 E C G M 21
 • 0.5 fault clearing time, maximum
• 18-inch working distance, mini-
mum
• Potential arc flash boundary with
exposed energized conductors: 19 feet,
5 inches
Observations regarding the HRC
table include:
• The table has no HRC greater than 4
(40 cal/cm'). Actual calculations find that
the incident energy is frequently greater
than 40 cal/cm^ for switchboards con-
nected directly to electric utility service
transformers.
• The table has no 3 or 4 HRCs for
switchboards and panelboards, which are
common throughout industry.
• What is the basis of changing the
clearing times and the setting the short
circuit currents for same and different
equipment? These are two key param-
eters in incident energy and are set with
no justification.
• There is no instruction on how
to determine these critical parameters
before using this table.
• The potential arc fiash boundaries
rarely match the HRC levels.
In many situations, the tables are
conservative, requiring more PPE than is
typically defined by the incident energy
calculations. The switchboard section
is a major exception to the conservative
listings. Switchboards are commonly con-
nected directly to the electric utility trans-
former, resulting in a higher fault current.
Thus, they may have a more severe hazard
level than listed. A mislabeled switchboard
that's actually an HRC 3 or HRC 4 could
result in serious injuries to anyone work-
ing on this equipment.
The lack of HRCs for incident energy
levels greater than 40 cal/cm^ in Table
130.7 creates a serious issue. Paragraph
130.7(A), Informational Note No. 3 states:
"When the incident energy exceeds 40
cal/cm- at the working distance, greater
emphasis may be necessary with respect
to de-energize before working within the
limited approach boundary of the exposed
electrical conductors or circuit parts."
NFPA 70E doesn't tell users when such
a situation may exist. Also note that Infor-
mational Notes are explanatory material
that isn't intended to be enforced. This
paragraph doesn't take into account that
switchboards connected directly to elec-
tric utility service transformers Irequently
have incident energy levels much greater
than 40 cal/cm'—withboundary levels in
excess of 360 inches (30 feet). Equipment
with these excessive levels of incident en-
ergy needs to be identified and labeled as
"Do Not Open While Energized."
Paragraph 130.7(C)(15) states that
if the system has a "greater than the as-
sumed maximum short circuit current
capacity or with longer than the as-
sumed maximum fault clearing times,"
an incident energy analysis approach
is required. Users cannot determine
the fault currents or clearing times

REGISTRATION NOW OPEN!

^ 2014 March 3-6, 2014
P@WERTEST C o N FEREN C
Hyatt Regency Denver
Denver, Colorado ^

2014 Electrical Maintericifiiti and Safety Event''

www.powertest.org • 888-300-6382 (NETA)

22 E C s M January 2014 • www.ecmweb.com

without doing a detailed analysis. Thus,
they generally assume the levels fall
within the listed maximum levels. This
provides for a significant risk potential
in the hazard rating. As previously
reviewed, the risk level can be worse
if the fault currents are less than the
maximum, resulting in the clearing
times increasing significantly.
The actual incident energy for a
majority of panelboards and MCCs will
be less than the level in the HRC table.
This results in employees wearing un-
necessary PPE (especially if the table is
at HRC 3 or 4). The increased PPE can
be a source of discomfort and reduced
visibility — potentially sufficient to
distract the worker from the tasks and
increase the possibility of an accident.
The calculation approach provides a
more accurate definition of the arc flash
severity level by calculating the actual
incident energy at the equipment. It also
provides an opportunity to determine
minor or major changes that could be
incorporated to mitigate the existing arc
flash hazard. The system model devel-
oped as part of the detailed analysis can
be updated with additions, removals, or
changes made to the power system with
minimal effort while maintaining the
accuracy of the hazard level. ECsM
Woodrujf is an eiectricai safety consuitant
with AP Services, LLC, Goodyear, Ariz. He
can be reached at mii<e@arcflashservices.com.
HRC Table Highlights
The severity is determined by:
• Distance from the source
• Fault current avaiiable at the point of work
• Clearing time for protective devices
— Not the task being performed
— Not the type of equipment being serviced
The HRC tables in 2012 NFPA 70E provide maximum fault current levels and maxi-
mum clearing times.
• Lower fault currents can increase the incident energy as the clearing time increases;
thus, maximum levels are not appropriate.
• Clearing times vary by fuse versus breaker, manufacturer, breaker settings, and
magnitude of the fault current
• The tables require the user to make assumptions, which can result in injuries.
The HRC tables assign the flash boundary based on equipment type and assumed
fault current.
• In the 2009 version of the standard, the typical flash boundary was 4 feet
• In the 2012 version, the flash boundaries can be up to 19 feet 5 inches for an HRC
of 1 or 2.
The most critical condition of greater than 40 cal/cm^ is not listed anywhere in the
HRC tables.
• This is a critical level that must be addressed; it is the most dangerous arc flash level.
• This is a common level found in many pieces of equipment fhat provide the first
level of protection in the facility.
HRC tables only provide a means of placing labels (that have questionable accuracy)
on the equipment

Helping you save money,

no matter what you drive.
No matter what business you're in, you could save with Progressive Insurance.
To learn more about Progressive, and see why we are the #1 Truck Insurer in
America, please visit ProgressiveCommercial.com.

Call for a Free Quote

1-888-375-7908
Find an Agent
ProgressiveCommercial.com
7/ PROGRE55IIÍE
COMMERCIAL

Progressive Casualty Ins. Co. S affliialËS. Available in mosT states. No, 1 truct from SNL Financial's 2011 national written premium data, D5P(X156O,BA {03n3)

Circle 34 on Reader Service Card or visit freeproductinfo.net/ecm

www.ecmweb.com • January 2014 ECsM 23

© 2014 Penton Media, Inc. All rights reserved.