The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) mandates that companies provide an electrically safe workplace for all personnel. To define what this means, OSHA turns to the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) and its NFPA 70E standard.

NFPA 70E continues to evolve as new thinking on electrical safety is introduced. The latest edition, NFPA 70E 2012, has changed significantly from the 2009 edition of the standard, and to help you understand how 70E 2012 impacts your company, D.L. Steiner has prepared this summary of its most notable updates.

Audits—NFPA 70E 2012 requires that companies now conduct regular audits of their entire electrical safety program at specified time intervals.

Worker performance must now be audited at least annually to verify that qualified workers are complying with 70E standards (Article 110.2[D][1][f]).

Formal audits of the company electrical safety program must now be completed on a frequency not to exceed three years (Article 110.3[H][1]). This includes fieldwork to verify that the safety program is being followed. If it isn’t, training must be changed.

Electrical safety audits and their results must now be documented.

Electrical Safety Training—NFPA 70E 2012 contains two important new mandates related to safety training:

• A facility’s electrical workers must now undergo retraining in electrical safety at a minimum of every three years (Article 110.2[D)][3][d]).
• The documentation for electrical safety courses must now contain course content, as well as the date of the training and the names of the people who were trained (Article 110.2[E]).

Safety Practices—NFPA 70E includes procedures for managing risks associated with working near electrical energy. Some of these have changed noticeably for 70E 2012.

Previously, NFPA 70E required the electrically safe work condition (exposed conductors disconnected from power source, locked and tagged, tested for zero voltage, grounded, if necessary) whenever a worker worked within the limited approach boundary for exposed energized conductors. For 70E 2012, the electrically safe work condition is required, even if energized conductors aren’t exposed but the worker interacts with equipment in a way that increases the risk of injury due to an arc flash (Article 130.2).

Earlier NFPA 70E editions required an energized electrical work permit whenever a worker worked inside the limited approach boundary of live electrical equipment that couldn’t be placed in the electrically safe work condition. 70E 2012 requires the permit for work performed within the arc flash boundary of exposed energized electrical conductors (Article 130.2[B] [1]; Informative Annex J).

The 2009 edition of 70E contained a lockout/tagout procedure that permitted electrical workers to de-energize a circuit without applying locks or tags (Article 120.2[D][1], 2009 edition). This procedure conflicted with OSHA electrical safety standards and has been removed from 70E 2012.

Arc Flash Hazard—In previous 70E editions, arc flash hazard analysis included establishing the arc flash protection boundary and selecting the PPE (personal protective equipment) required to work safely in the presence of the arc flash hazard. Under 70E 2012, arc flash hazard analysis includes establishing the incident energy level at the working distance, plus establishing the arc flash boundary and selecting PPE (Article 130.5).

The default 4′ arc flash protection boundary of earlier 70E editions has been removed from 70E 2012. This boundary is now specified in inches for each unique situation and comes from one of two task tables: Table 130.7(C)(15)(a) for AC and Table 130.7(C)(15)(b) for DC. These tables also list the fault current, clearing time, and working distance of protective devices in the heading of each table section. This eliminates searching table endnotes to verify that a task fits within established limits.

Under 70E 2012, electrical systems of 240 Volts or less with a transformer rated 125 kVA or less are no longer exempt from the arc flash hazard analysis mandate (Article 130.5). For guidance assessing the arc flash hazard of these systems, see IEEE 1584.

Labeling—Previously, electrical equipment safety labels could include the information of either incident energy or required PPE level. NFPA 70E 2012 mandates that these labels contain more extensive safety information (Article 130.5[C])—

• At least one of the following: (1) available incident energy;(2) minimum arc rating of clothing; (3) required PPE level; (4) highest HRC (hazard risk category) for the equipment
• Date of arc flash hazard analysis
• Nominal system voltage
• Arc flash boundary

PPE—70E 2012 makes significant changes to the way PPE is used:

• The 2* Category has been deleted.
• Incident energy calculation method for selecting PPE—The balaclava (sock hood) must be worn with a face shield if the back of the head is within the arc flash protection boundary (Article 130.7[10][b][1]).
• Incident energy calculation method for selecting PPE—An arc flash hood must be used if the anticipated incident energy exposures exceeds 12 calories/cm2 (Article 130.7[10][b][2]).
• Table method for selecting PPE— The balaclava and face shield must be worn if the task table indicates Category 2 (Table 130.7[C)][16]).

New DC Information—NFPA 70E 2012 includes two new tables for assessing electrical hazards while working with DC voltages.

• Table 130.4(C)(b) lists approach boundaries for protection against shock while working with DC electrical conductors or circuit parts.
• Table 130.7(C)(15)(b) lists the arc flash hazard risk category classifications of different tasks performed on DC equipment. Previously, NFPA 70E did not cover DC equipment in any detail.

NPFA 70E 2012 is a major step forward in workplace electrical safety, but it will no doubt raise questions not addressed by the information we’ve provided. For help interpreting this new standard to ensure your company complies with its mandates, please contact D.L. Steiner.

Think for a moment about how much your facility pays annually for utilities: electricity, natural gas, etc. Now, think about taking one-fourth of an equivalent amount of money—and simply throwing it out the window!

Sure, this notion sounds crazy. But even in today’s cost-conscious world, that’s still essentially what American business does when it comes to the use of energy dollars. Recently compiled data by the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (www.llnl.gov) shows that nearly one-fourth of the energy consumed by U.S. commercial and industrial firms in 2010 ended up as “rejected”—wasted and nonproductive—energy.

How much benefit would it be if your company could save even a portion of these lost energy dollars? Unless yours is different than most, my guess is significant. For this reason, plus because energy in all its forms isn’t getting any cheaper, projects that improve energy efficiency or reduce consumption only make good sense for the firm wanting to be more competitive in 2012.

How much benefit would it be if your company could save even a portion of these lost energy dollars? Unless yours is different than most, my guess is significant. For this reason, plus because energy in all its forms isn’t getting any cheaper, projecA great way to cut consumption and save money is to make use of incentives offered by many utilities. Here are a few from the electric utility side:s that improve energy efficiency or reduce consumption only make good sense for the firm wanting to be more competitive in 2012.

• AEP Ohio’s gridSMART® initiative rebates up to 50% of project costs for improvements like more efficient motors and HVAC equipment. Its Express Program pays up to 100% of costs for small-business energy efficiency projects. There is even a retroactive program with partial rebates for projects completed as far back as January 1, 2009.

  As a member of the gridSMART Solutions Provider network, D.L. Steiner will be happy to help you take advantage of these great programs. Give us a call.

• The Efficiency Smart program by American Municipal Power, Inc. (AMP) offers industrial/commercial customers with annual usage of 20,000 to 500,000 kWh rebates for improvements that provide permanent usage reductions. These include lighting, HVAC, motors/drives, compressors, and refrigeration units. AMP also offers a custom program for those who use more than 500,000 kWh/year.
• The Ohio Rural Electric Cooperatives (OREC) offers reimbursement of 50% (up to $5,000) to its industrial and commercial clients who complete energy audits.

Check with your utility companies or contact D.L. Steiner for the energy efficiency rebates available to you. Refocusing on the basics is another path to savings. For example, how good is your power factor? Do you have a good control system to help you avoid demand charges?

By far the most effective tool for getting more from your energy dollars is the professional energy audit. An energy audit inspects and analyzes energy flows at your company to identify where energy inputs can be reduced without negatively affecting output. It prioritizes these to help you know which provide the greatest energy savings. D.L. Steiner offers several different levels of energy audits, depending on your need:

• Energy assessments, also known as “walk-through” or “one-day” audits,” that (1) compare your facility’s current energy consumption with reference standards for similar operations to determine “good,” “average,” and “bad” performance and (2) identify your facility’s most obvious areas of energy inefficiency and waste.
• Standard audits, intermediate-level audits that use data collection, interviews, facility/system studies, on-site measurement and testing, and engineering calculations to identify ECMs (energy conservation measures) appropriate for your company and the economic factors related to their implementation.
• Investment-grade audits (IGAs) that use in-depth data collection, comprehensive measurement and verification (M&V), and extensive engineering analysis to quantify the risks/rewards of energy projects—especially large capital ones—so stakeholders can be confident of the ROI before committing funds to these efforts.

As a certified energy manager (CEM), I’ve come to appreciate the value of “measure before doing.” The key to a successful energy audit is using M&V techniques that accurately determine how much energy the various initiatives will save. D.L. Steiner conducts our audits according to the International Performance Measurement and Verification Protocol (IPMVP). IPMVP is the recognized standard for reliability in energy savings claims.

Regardless of how well your company does on the energy efficiency scale, chances are good its rating could be even better—maybe by as much as 25%—for a real boost to your bottom line. Contact D.L. Steiner today for more on how we can help you save energy and reduce your energy costs in 2012.

These two energy values aren’t the same thing, and they aren’t necessarily equal. Another type of energy present within the electrical system, reactive power (kVAR) counteracts working power (kW), causing it to be used less efficiently. In practice, the more kVAR you have in your system, the more apparent power (kVA) your utility must provide to supply the working power (kW) you need to run equipment.

As mentioned, power factor is the ratio of kW to kVA. The closer these values are to a 1:1 ratio, the closer you are to an ideal power factor of 1.0 and efficient power usage.

Figure 1—Less kVAR, Better Power Factor

Conversely, the more kVAR your system has, the greater the ratio between kW and kVA (0.90:1, 0.85:1, etc.) and the poorer the power factor.

Figure 2—More kVAR, Poorer Power Factor

Your utility tracks the kW you use and the kVA it must supply, and from this, it can calculate your power factor. If your power factor is below a certain level (e.g., 95%, or 0.95), the utility probably charges you a power factor penalty fee. Depending on your facility, this monthly penalty can be substantial. The good news is that power factor can be corrected to improve your kW-to-kVA ratio, which, in turn, can reduce your kW load and eliminate your power factor penalty fees.

When companies consider power factor correction, they typically think in terms of adding capacitor banks to decrease kVAR. Often, however, another excellent source of power factor correction is already installed within their plants: the synchronous motors running their processes. If your facility has synchronous motors, you may presently have all the equipment you need for better power factor and lower monthly electric costs!

Unlike induction motors that are by nature reactive, or “lagging,” synchronous motors can be set to operate in a “leading” mode that enables them to perform essentially the same function as capacitor banks, creating capacitive energy to counteract system kVARs and permit more efficient kW usage. For the production facility with (a) power factor problems and (b) synchronous motors on hand, this approach is an excellent alternative. But before you start adjusting synchronous motor settings, following are seven guidelines you should keep in mind to ensure a better, more effective project outcome.

• Complete a power quality analysis of your electrical system—Power quality analysis helps identify any harmonic, transient, and grounding issues that could impact power factor correction results. It also helps reconcile your facility’s power factor ratio with the one reported by your electric utility.
• Check your motor types—This is more than just verifying induction motors vs. synchronous motors. Some synchronous motors can be adjusted to no more than a 1.0 (unity) power factor mode, while others can be adjusted to a leading mode of 0.80 or more. For power factor correction, you need synchronous motors that can be set to a leading mode.
• Evaluate motor loading—If synchronous motors are under a full load, they may not be able to run in the leading mode, even if they have that capability. Remember, the lead is where the power factor correction is. To put motors in the lead, you may need to do some load shifting.
• Examine the motor controller—This involves determining how difficult it is to adjust the controllers in order to place the motors in the lead. If the process is too complicated, you may need to consider other options.
• Verify the magnitude of the power factor correction need—Setting your synchronous motors in the lead may reduce—but not eliminate—your power factor problem. For a total solution, you may also need to consider stationary, static, or climatic power factor correction equipment along with the synchronous motor adjustments.
• Perform preventive maintenance (PM) prior to adjusting the motors—Preventive maintenance ensures the motors and related equipment are in peak condition and operating correctly so that if a problem occurs after the adjustments are made, the equipment will shut down properly to protect itself.
• Meter motor operations—After synchronous motors have been placed in the lead, they need to be monitored to ensure they are performing as expected. If your electrical system doesn’t have the built-in metering capabilities for this, setting up a temporary metering installation is a wise investment.

In many cases, placing synchronous motors in the lead solves power factor problems without adding equipment to the system. It also eliminates related issues such as increased maintenance and decreased reliability. Additionally, when you factor ina typically better ROI than that of installing capacitors, the synchronous motor option is worth considering.

In many cases, placing synchronous motors in the lead solves power factor problems without adding equipment to the system. It also eliminates related issues such as increased maintenance and decreased reliability. Additionally, when you factor ina typically better ROI than that of installing capacitors, the synchronous motor option is worth considering.

But synchronous motor adjustments aren’t something you do as an isolated event. By following a few practical tips before and during motor adjustments, you’ll ensure this solution is as effective as it can be to deliver the power factor correction results you’re expecting.

For more information on how you can implement effective power factor correction using synchronous motors, contact D.L. Steiner, Inc.

First, understand that an electrical lockout/tagout program is not an option. Electrical lockout/tagout falls under workplace electrical safety and the overall electrical safety program mandated by OSHA and the NFPA. What’s more, NFPA 70E stipulates this program should be a documented program. Each facility should have an electrical lockout/tagout program, and this program needs to be on paper, not just in peoples’ heads. If you aren’t comfortable developing and documenting your lockout/tagout program, enlist the services of a knowledgeable professional.

Along with this, realize that an effective electrical lockout/tagout program isn’t simply your mechanical lockout/tagout program with the word electrical substituted for the word mechanical. Electrical lockout/tagout has a specific goal—the electrically safe work condition. The electrically safe work condition is a unique safety plan that must address the standards NFPA 70E has mandated:

• The conductor or circuit part has been disconnected from energized parts.
• It has been lock/tagged according to established standards.
• It has been tested to verify that voltage is absent.
• It has been properly grounded, if this is deemed necessary.

For a complete electrical lockout/tagout program, lockout/tagout procedures should be developed for each piece of equipment whose circuitry may be accessed by maintenance personnel. Naturally, the details of these procedures will vary, but all should state what the procedure is intended to accomplish. Additionally, they should specify that only a qualified electrical worker is authorized to perform the electrical lockout/tagout. Like the electrical lockout/tagout program, itself, these procedures should be documented.

Related to this is accessibility. To make proper use of the electrical lockout/tagout program and procedures, workers must have ready access to these documents. In this situation, redundancy is not a bad thing. Post or store your program/procedures in as many places as is practical so your personnel can easily find them: online, file cabinets, special notebooks, local work areas, etc. Remember, though, if you change a document in one location, make sure you also update it in all locations.

Ensure your electrical lockout/tagout program is comprehensive. Setting up a program for simple lockouts/tagouts—one worker, one piece of equipment—is not too difficult. Establishing a program that effectively addresses complex lockouts/tagouts— ones that involve multiple personnel and many forms of energy (hydraulics, steam, etc.), or ones that extend across shifts—is a different matter. Who is responsible for the entire lockout/tagout operation? How are the various types of energy coordinated during the lockout/tagout? How are shift changes handled? To be complete, your electrical lockout/tagout program should answer these and other similar questions.

An electrical lockout/tagout program must include certain tools and training to make it workable. Electrical maintenance workers should be trained in both electrical lockout/tagout and general electrical safety so they can recognize their responsibilities while on the job. They also require an adequate supply of electrical locks and tags that are for their personal use only (i.e., no “community” locks and tags). Additionally, they need access to the necessary personal protective equipment (PPE), and they need to understand when they must use the PPE (e.g., when pulling a cutout or a large breaker) and when they can remove it (e.g., after an electrical circuit has been de-energized, tested, locked, and tagged).

Finally, an electrical lockout/tagout program is not a one-time, static event. Because your electrical system and electrical safety practices continually change, your electrical lockout/ tagout program should be audited yearly to ensure it is adequate for the present state of your electrical system and that it aligns with the most recent OSHA requirements for electrical safety. Again, if you aren’t comfortable conducting this audit yourself, contact a professional.

D.L. Steiner will be happy to assist you in setting up a standards compliant electrical lockout/tagout program. Contact us today for more information.

What is a demand charge? It is the amount the electric utility charges your facility for supplying electricity at the rate it requires (demands) in order to operate. This demand rate is expressed in kW. As your facility reaches certain kW rate levels (these are set by your utility), the cost you pay per kW increases. The rule is the higher the kW demand rate, the greater the per-kW demand charge. Your utility monitors your kW demand rate, typically in 15- or 30-minute intervals, to track your peak kW demand for the billing period. It then calculates your demand charge for the period based on this peak rate.

If there are times during the period when your kW demand jumps significantly, the demand charge on your electric bill can be very costly. Additionally, at certain times of the year, exceeding your facility’s maximum kW service level (defined in your utility contract) can send your monthly demand charge through the roof! Why is this the case for both situations? Because the utility has to allocate additional resources to meet increased demand (e.g., start a backup generation plant or purchase power from another supplier).

If your facility can control electrical operations so that its kW rate is smooth, consistent, and as low as possible—without frequent or large spikes in kW demand—it will realize two benefits: (a) reduced electric charges and (b) increased electrical capacity without upgrading your electrical system. The latter comes primarily through reviewing your processes to see if any can be staggered so they don’t run at the same time. In some cases, this has no impact on operations and helps you avoid having to add new distribution equipment in order to handle the electrical load.

To determine if your facility is a candidate for saving money through electrical demand control, look at the demand charges on your electric bills for the past half-year to year. Are your demand charges excessive compared to your kWh usage? The best way to gauge this is by looking at your load factor (also listed on your bill). During regular production operations, if your facility’s load factor is below 80% and varies widely from month to month, this indicates a lack of electrical demand control. Developing and implementing a demand control program can enable you to smooth out electrical demand, allowing you to avoid spikes in the kW rate and higher demand charges

There are many techniques for controlling electrical demand to help your facility minimize its demand charges. These range from manual to automatic— but all involve a metering system to measure and monitor what’s happening inside the electrical system. This information enables you or the electrical system’s controller equipment to take appropriate actions to avoid reaching the more costly kW demand levels. In a future newsletter, we’ll discuss a few of these methods, plus their pros and cons.

For answers to your questions on controlling demand to lower electric costs, contact D.L. Steiner, Inc.

While most companies recognize the value of energy management, their success addressing the issue varies. Properly controlling a power system is often seen as too time consuming, inefficient, and expensive to be practical. Much of this perception stems from the past, when adequate monitoring equipment just wasn’t available:

• Monitoring devices were limited and analog based.
• The information they provided had to be gathered manually.
• These devices couldn’t be interconnected to collect and analyze preand post-fault system data, or to assess power factor.

As a result, power system management and maintenance functions were performed unnecessarily or not in time to prevent costly malfunctions.

Power Management Basics and Benefits

What is power management? Basically, it is “optimum continuity of power”—ensuring the highest quality power is available where needed, when needed, in the right amount, at the best cost, at all times. Effective power management is closely tied to an energy management program, or systematic approach to monitoring and controlling energy resources.

At the heart of the energy management program is the power monitoring system, also known as the power monitoring and control system (PMCS). A well-designed power monitoring system provides:

• Usage monitoring to track and analyze power consumption: kW, amps, Volts, etc.
• Power monitoring to protect the distribution system (via relays, power breakers, and other devices) against power outages, fault conditions, overloads, and downtime.
• Quality monitoring to track and analyze harmonics and disturbance data.
• Power factor status monitoring.

A well-planned, ongoing energy management program based on a modern power monitoring system offers these and other benefits:

• Correction of electrical equipment problems beforehand to prevent power outages and damage to distribution system components.
• Analysis of the power supply (source and quality) and demand patterns to develop appropriate
• load management strategies.
• Optimization of the distribution system to improve phase imbalances and maximize power availability.
• Automated billing for accurate cost allocations by area, process, etc.

Power Management System Components

At the heart of the power monitoring system and energy management program are the energy management system components, the hardware and software used for power monitoring and control.

Monitoring, control, and protection devices: The meters, trip units, relays, and other devices that control the source and flow of power, monitor power quality, protect the distribution system against overloads, etc.

Computer networks: Digital interconnects of various protocols that link the monitoring, control, and protection devices to a centralized computer(s) so system data can be collected and analyzed in real time.

Energy management software: Programs that collect data from the monitoring, control, and protection devices via the computer network and report this information in a graphical manner on the central computer display(s). Typically, such software can be customized to meet specific reporting needs.

In some cases, the energy management system components include programmable logic controllers (PLCs). These are often used as supervisory devices in control and gateway applications.

Implementing the Power Management Program

Getting a power management program off the ground involves planning and execution. The process begins by establishing program goals and strategies: What level of monitoring and control is needed? What analysis is to be performed (power quality, allocation usage reduction, etc.)? What are the desired system comparison-forecasting capabilities?

Goal setting is followed by reviewing and, if necessary, developing the distribution system’s single-line diagram. This drawing helps identify the best locations for placing the energy management components needed to accomplish program goals.

Next is the design and implementation (or upgrading) of an adequate power monitoring system. At this stage, all necessary monitoring, control, and protection devices are installed at predetermined locations.

The energy management system’s computer network links all devices together. Sometimes, a network suitable for energy management may already be in place (i.e., it was installed previously for purposes other than energy management). In such a case, network installation may not be a major task or expense.

Once the system hardware is in place, energy management software can be installed. This includes:

• Designing and setting up the power system monitoring “forms”: the computer screen displays used for data presentation and analysis.
• Defining monitoring, control, and protection devices within the software database.
• Establishing the communication link between all system hardware and software components.

At this point, the system can now be commissioned. Commissioning involves reviewing all energy management system hardware and software to ensure proper operation and coordination between components.

Finally, facility personnel are trained in energy management program operations. This includes such areas as using the system equipment, daily and weekly energy management procedures, data interpretation, preventive maintenance, and appropriate responses to specific situations.

Power Management Today and Tomorrow

A power management program to the level discussed here represents a significant investment to hire a consultant, plan the program, install equipment, and train personnel. Is the effort worth it? Naturally, results vary. But for most plants, the payback from cost savings, power system integrity, load monitoring/balancing, preventive maintenance, and allocations capability makes the answer a definite “yes.”

It’s important to remember that the most certain factor about the energy market is it will continue to change. And no one can predict exactly how these changes will shape tomorrow’s energy picture. An effective power management system can make dealing with these unknowns a whole lot easier.

There is no doubt that wearing gloves is clumsy and makes the electrical worker’s job more difficult. It is not surprising, then, that D.L. Steiner, Inc. is often asked whether or not workers are required to wear their gloves when working on a de-energized panelboard, control panel, or PLC cabinet. The answer to this question has three parts.

Part One: an Observation to Clarify the Situation

What is being considered here is a cabinet in which the local switch has been turned to the off position in order to isolate the internal components from the feed voltage supply. This is not the same as a cabinet or panel that has been completely isolated from its power source. When a cabinet has been removed from all voltage and appropriately locked out and tested for the absense of voltage, no shock or arc-flash hazard remains. In the case of a cabinet where a local switch has merely been turned off, however, a line-side voltage is still present, even though the internal components are de-energized, having been isolated from the voltage by an integrated isolating switch. So in such a case if the internal components are free from dangerous voltage, are gloves still needed?

Part Two: Questions to Guide Action

Gloves needed inside the Restricted Approach Boundary

This question is answered with a question – two questions actually. The first involves shock protection: What is the Restricted Approach Boundary? Simply put, this is the distance (which varies with voltage) where qualified workers must restrict their approach to energized electrical conductors over 50 Volts, unless using proper personal protective equipment (PPE) and voltage-rated tools (see NFPA 70E, section 130.2[C] for an explanation). Answering this question goes a long way in determining “Are gloves still needed?”

Consider the Restricted Approach Boundary to be a protective bubble that extends around energized components. The line voltage determines the size of this protective bubble. If workers are working on components sufficiently removed from the exposed energized conductors so that hands will not be placed within the Restricted Approach Boundary, there is no requirement to wear insulating gloves. Conversely, if electrical workers’ hands will “penetrate” or are likely to penetrate the protective bubble, they definitely face a shock hazard and should be wearing insulating gloves of an appropriate voltage rating.

The simplest situation for determining to glove or not to glove is when 120/240 Volts feeds the equipment. In this case, the Restricted Approach Boundary is “avoid contact” (see NFPA 70E, Table 130.2[C] for a complete listing of boundary dimensions with their corresponding voltages). If electrical workers are careful to avoid contact with energized components, they can work on adjacent de-energized components without wearing insulating gloves.

If the feed voltage is 480 Volts, the Restricted Approach Boundary grows to one foot. Workers can work on de-energized components that are more than one foot from the energized conductor without wearing protective gloves. But if their hands will or are likely to encroach the boundary, insulating gloves of the appropriate rating must be worn.

Is that all there is to it? Not quite. So far this discussion has only considered gloves as a protection from the hazard of electrical shock. But they are also intended to protect from a second electrical hazard, namely, arc-flash. Since we know there is a Restricted Approach Boundary for electrical shock; there is also an Arc Flash Protection Boundary. This naturally leads to the next key question: What is the Arc-Flash Protection Boundary? Whenever workers enter this boundary, they have placed themselves within an area that, should an arc-flash incident occur, could result in severe and damaging burns. These burns most frequently afflict the hands, because these body parts are typically closest to the potential arc source and therefore must vulnerable to arc burns.

By definition, the Arc Flash Protection Boundary is “the distance from a prospective arc source within which a person could receive a second degree burn if and arc flash were to occur.” (NFPA 70E Art. 100). Consequently, any worker who crosses this boundary is at risk of third degree burns and death.  The NFPA 70E requires that workers wear appropriate PPE (including gloves) as a thermal barrier. Thermal hand protection may be in the form of leather gloves, arc-rated gloves, or rubber insulated gloves with leather protectors depending on the particular circumstances involved (see NFPA 70E, Table 130.7[C][10] for PPE requirements in the vicinity of arch flash hazards).

PPE must be worn within the Arc Flash Protection Boundary

This question is not easy to answer, as it is not directly related to voltage levels or any single factor, but instead involves a combination of electrical conditions. The clearest indication of this boundary occurs when an arc-flash hazard analysis has been performed on the electrical equipment in question. In such a situation, each electrical device will have an electrical hazard label identifying the Arc-Flash Protection Boundary for that device. On some pieces of equipment with very low levels of arc-flash potential energy, workers may find the Arc-Flash Protection Boundary to be small enough to permit them to work on portions of the de-energized cabinet without wearing gloves. Typically, however, the Arc-Flash Protection Boundary will be large enough that gloves are required while working on de-energized components within the cabinet.

When an arc-flash hazard analysis has not been performed, NFPA 70E stipulates a default boundary of four feet in some situations when the voltage to a device is between 50 and 600 Volts (see NFPA 70E 130.3[A][1] for the conditions that create these situations). Obviously working in a cabinet or bucket in the presence of a live feed a four-foot boundary will require workers to wear gloves to protect their hands, even when working on de-energized electrical components within that equipment.

Knowing both the Restricted Approach Boundary and the Arc-Flash Protection Boundary helps workers properly protect their hands from the dangers of shock and arc-flash. In most cases, workers will discover that this protection involves wearing either leather gloves or rubber insulating gloves with leather protectors.

Part Three: An Option to Consider

Anyone who has ever worn voltage-rated gloves, with their bulky leather protectors, realizes just how clumsy such attire can be. When a delicate touch is needed, workers are tempted to forego protective gloves and risk injury from shock or arc-flash by doing the work barehanded. This leads us to yet anotherquestion: Is there no other solution? Yes, there is!

It’s a fundamental fact: when workers’ hands, or other body parts, will be placed within a Restricted Approach Boundary or an Arc-Flash Protection Boundary, they need protection. The most typical protection is to wear gloves; however, an acceptable alternative is to place guards on the conductors so that workers cannot make accidental contact with energized components. With such guards in positions, the equipment is now touch-safe, and the need to wear protective gloves is removed. Much of the newer electrical equipment, in fact, is being manufactured with touch-safe guards already in place, making them easier to maintain and repair when these services are required.

Workers should not gamble their safety by failing to use front-line protection from the hazards of electrical shock and arc-flash. Following the guidelines presented above will help electrical workers accurately determine when glove use is essential to protect against serious hand injury.

When the 2009 edition of NFPA 70E was released, electrical safety auditing became part of the electrical industry’s best practices. Certainly, it will be one criterion OSHA will use to judge whether an employer is doing what it needs to provide a workplace that is “free from recognized hazards that are causing or are likely to cause death or serious physical harm to his employees;” [OSHA General Duty Clause]

NFPA 70E Article 100.7 (H) says: “An electrical safety program shall be audited to help ensure that the principles and procedures of the electrical safety program are being followed. The frequency of audit shall be determined by the employer, based on the complexity of the procedures and the type of work being covered. Where the audit determines that the principles and procedures of the electrical safety program are not being followed, appropriate revisions shall be made.”

Let’s take a look at some of the implications that arise from this new standard raises for American industry.—implications that must be addressed if a company wants to remain OSHA compliant..

Auditing is mandatory. The little word shall is crucial. The clearest conclusion we can draw from this paragraph is that the NFPA did not intend auditing as an optional exercise. No employer can afford to ignore a regular audit of their electrical safety program. (You do have a documented electrical safety program, don’t you?)

Audit frequency is flexible. With the exception of the need for annual auditing of the lockout/tagout procedure [(NFPA 70E article 120.3 (C) (3)] a company is free to set what it considers to be an appropriate frequency for its electrical safety audit. The frequency of audit is determined by “the complexity of the procedures and the type of work covered.” This seems to beg for a progressive auditing plan. Electrical procedures would be prioritized and scheduled for auditing according to the established priority. Lockout/tagout would be audited yearly, other procedures audited every other year or some other appropriate interval. Still other procedural audits might be triggered by programmed events, such as plant shutdown or the release of new safety standards.

The NFPA 70E itself is revised on a 3-5 year schedule. The release of a new revision of the NFPA 70E standard should automatically trigger an audit of the electrical safety program. Each company should ask itself, “Are our previously compliant procedures now out of phase with the new standard?” Remember that safety standards have no grandfather clause. Just because a procedure was compliant under the 2004 (or earlier) edition of NFPA 70E does not mean that it will remain acceptable under the newer 2009 edition. The changes to NFPA70E must be reflected in corresponding changes to an employer’s electrical safety policy.

As an example of how changes in NFPA 70E can influence your safety policy, the 2009 edition now requires electricians to wear an arc-rated faceshield when working within the flash protection boundary of HRC category 1 equipment. Companies that did  their arc flash analysis under the 2004 edition and have included a PPE list on their equipment labels would now find their category 1 labels to be inaccurate and in need of revision. A proper audit would have picked up this discrepancy and promoted compliance with the new standard.

Auditing is focused on behavior. It is important to remember that the electrical safety audit is not intended to investigate the employer’s policy on paper, but to examine whether the electricians and technicians who are doing the work are actually using the policy in practice. It is important that company auditing of its electrical safety policy investigate the controls by which the policy is monitored and enforced.

Auditing profits from independent eyes. Although the bulk of auditing can and should be accomplished in-house, there is a very real need for employers to have an independent auditor periodically examine its electrical safety program. Familiarity may breed contempt, but familiarity also breeds myopia. It is easy to overlook significant gaps in the electrical safety program by being so close to the project. Fresh unbiased eyes will see what may otherwise be overlooked. In addition, it is difficult for a person involved with the day-to-day management of operations to keep abreast of the latest in electrical safety standards and best practices. Periodically bringing in a safety professional to look over your electrical safety policy is simply an effective way to help ensure that a company remains both safe and compliant to the electrical safety standards..

Auditing is not comfortable, nor easy. Yet it is an essential part of an effective electrical safety program. After all, safety is the goal and auditing helps us do the best job we can of providing an electrically safe work place.

An unsuspecting electrician opens an electrical panel only to discover that he has let loose a lethally dangerous explosion—light flashes so bright that it permanently damages eyes, heat that is 4 times the surface of the sun incinerates clothing and flesh, molten shrapnel bores upon him with bullet-like speed, and a blast wave that throws him like a rag doll with a pressure wave of hundreds or thousands of pounds per square inch.

Approximately 2000 workers will be admitted to hospital burn units this year due to thermal burns from arc flash or arc blast accidents. These accidents will result in nearly one fatality every day. Although electrical injuries are relatively rare (1 in 494 lost time accidents are electrical in nature) they nevertheless result in a disproportionate number of fatalities as 1 in 20 industrial fatalities are as a result of electrical accidents.

Most of those killed or injured workers were unaware of and unprepared for the level of hazard they were facing. Because of the immensity of the risk, responsible employers recognize the need to facilitate electrical safety through performing arc flash hazard analysis on their electrical equipment.

It costs a bunch. I just don’t see that it is worth the cost and bother.

It has been estimated that an arc flash accident may cost the employer as much as a million dollars or more. Lost production, equipment repair or replacement, lawsuits, skyrocketing insurance premiums and OSHA fines can add up in a hurry. Arc flash hazard analysis is a form of risk management whose relatively small investment provides protection against the potentially huge costs of an arc flash accident.

My equipment is all installed according to the NEC. Doesn’t that guarantee that it is safe?

The NEC is intended to provide equipment installations that are safe from electrical hazards to workers in their normal working configuration. However, electricians and maintenance technicians by definition work on electrical equipment under abnormal circumstances—when they are broken, damaged, or in need of maintenance. These are the times that electrical arc flash accidents are most likely to occur. That is why OSHA asked the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) to produce a standard providing for the safety of the worker exposed to electrical hazards. It is this standard, the NFPA 70E, that requires an arc flash hazard analysis before workers unknowingly expose themselves to potentially lethal hazards.

Hey, there’s no law that says I’ve got to do an arc flash study, is there?

It is true that OSHA regulations do not specifically require an arc flash hazard analysis. It is also true that the NFPA 70E is a consensus standard, not a law. However, OSHA can and does impose fines on companies that ignore the standards of the NFPA 70E. OSHA regulations require employers to provide workplaces that are “free from recognized hazards that are likely to cause death or serious physical harm to employees.”¹ More specifically OSHA requires that “Safety-related work practices shall be employed to prevent electric shock or other injuries [emphasis added] resulting from either direct or indirect electrical contacts. . . .”² OSHA tells employers WHAT to do, that is provide electrical safety, and the NFPA 70E is the handbook telling us HOW to accomplish it. Here is what the NFPA 70E has to say about arc flash hazard analysis: “An arc flash hazard analysis shall determine the Arc Flash Protection Boundary and the personal protective equipment that people within the Arc Flash Protection Boundary shall use.”³

The NFPA also calls for equipment labels that identify the level of hazard the electrical worker may be expected to encounter: “Equipment shall be field marked with a label containing the available incident energy or required level of PPE”⁴ An effective arc flash hazard analysis identifies these necessary pieces of information for electrical worker safety. It’s not an option, it’s the law!

¹29 CFR §1903.1

²29 CFR §1910.333

³NFPA 70E-2009 Article 110.8(B)(1)(b)

⁴NFPA 70E-2009 Article 110.3(C)

The state of Ohio electric energy production and distribution is one of both great challenge and also considerable opportunity.

Electrical Marketplace Confusion

It is obvious that Ohio electric power is in a state of flux. In 1999 Senate Bill 3 was signed into law. This law sought to establish in Ohio a competitive marketplace for electrical energy sales. In the transition period, it provided for a five-year market development period lasting from Jan. 1, 2001 to Dec. 31, 2005. During that time, rates were frozen in order to allow a competitive wholesale market to take shape.

The competitive market did not develop as expected. As the end of the market development period neared, the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (PUCO) became concerned about the limited number of competitive electric suppliers and the low degree of market activity. They feared that this response was an indication that an immediate shift to market-based rates in 2006 would not be in the best interest of customers.

They set out to minimize the effects of rate “sticker shock” upon the unsuspecting electrical customers by gradually transitioning customers to market-based rates. The PUCO required Ohio’s electric utilities to develop rate stabilization plans (RSPs). These plans were intended to eliminate market uncertainty and provide customers with stable, predictable rates. For the most part, the Rate Stabilization Plans were initiated Jan. 1, 2006 for a three year period and are due to come to an end on Dec. 31, 2008 (The RSP of Dayton Power & Light ends in 2010).

Throughout this period, the shift toward competitive marketplace for electricity supply has struggled. There appears to be a marked lack of enthusiasm on the part of the electric utilities to embrace the competitive concept. AEP Ohio commented in a 7/6/2006 news release, “We believe that a move to competitively bid market-based rates would be detrimental to our customers.” Indeed, on the PUCO’s own website there is a very telling notice, “No Competitive Retail Electric Service providers are currently enrolling customers in Ohio.”

Even as the shift to competitive market based electricity sales has caused uncertainty ANOTHER Senate Bill has compounded the problem. On May 1, 2008 S.B. 221 was signed into law. The impact of S.B 221 is in several areas. First, it is in many ways a backing away from a strict market-based electrical sales. It establishes a kind of hybrid system with both regulated rates and market-based rates.

Secondly, S.B. 221 is intended to provide PUCO with the power to stabilize rates after the official Rate Stabilization Program draws to conclusion in December 31, 2008.

Thirdly, it establishes a powerful impetus for utility usage of renewable energy resources. S.B. 221 requires that by 2025 25% of electricity sold by electric distribution utilities and electric services companies be from “alternative energy sources”. Alternate energy sources include renewable energy resources and advanced energy sources. Renewable resources are electrical energy generated through wind, solar, and hydroelectric power. Advanced energy sources are sources of recovered energy such as usage of waste heat for electric generation, improvements to real and reactive power, and peak demand reductions.

Utility Goals for 2025

These goals will be gradually phased in beginning in 2009 continuing through 2025. The utility company’s progress will be monitored by the PUCO and financial penalties will be assessed if it is determined that a utility has not made sufficient progress. Funds from these penalties will be deposited in the “advanced energy fund” to provide financing for alternative energy projects.

Alternative Energy Resource Opportunities

Electrical rates can be expected to rise in a predictable manner. Ohio utilities AEP Ohio, Duke Energy and FirstEnergy have filed Electric Security Plans. These plans, when accepted by PUCO, establish their rates for the next three years. AEP Ohio, for example, forecast an approximate 15% raise in rates per year over three years.

Although the rates will be predictable over the next three years, S.B. 221 puts considerable pressure upon the utilities to find adequate sources of Renewable and Advanced Energy Sources. Some of those sources may be found from the utility customers themselves. Opportunities exist for customers to capitalize on these opportunities. As the pressure on the utilities increases as the years close on 2025 we can expect the opportunities in the area of renewable resources to multiply. The following advanced energy resources will be worth monitoring.

Distributed Generation. – Net metering is a scheme of distributed generation where a customer has their own small renewable generating equipment to provide a part of their own electrical needs. The generating equipment is hooked to the system and metered in such a way that the customer pays the net cost of the difference between total electrical consumption and the customer supplied power. During times of low electrical consumption the excess power is fed back into the grid and at that point the customer essentially “sells” power back to the utility. Before S.B. 221 the tariffs set by the utility for net metering schemes were limited to 1% of customer’s peak electrical usage. That cap has been eliminated by the new law.

Cogeneration is an energy thermodynamic efficiency scheme where a heat engine or power station simultaneously provides both heat and electrical power. A boiler that produces heating may be tapped so that the excess heat provides power for small electrical generating equipment.

Power Factor Correction provides increased power efficiency by correcting an imbalance between the real and reactive power.

Peak Demand Reduction programs must be implemented by distribution utilities beginning in 2009.

The significance of these Alternative Energy Resources may not be immediately apparent. Any improvement in the area of alternate energy resources on the part of a utility customer reflect back upon the utility. The utility may be able to use these improvements as part of the utility improvement programs.

Government Incentives

Currently incentives by the utilities themselves to invest in these Alternate Energy Resources are largely non-existent. This should change as the implementation of S.B. 221 rolls forward. As pressure on the utilities to meet their established quotas of alternative energy resources grows, we can also expect incentives by the utilities to expand as well. In the mean time, companies should consider investigating governmental incentives for involvement in alternate and renewable energy resources. Proactive preparation in these areas should position forward-looking companies for the increasingly “green” industrial environment.

State of Ohio Incentives: Companies who are interested in investing in alternate or renewable energy technologies should look to the Advanced Energy Fund for assistance. Currently the Ohio Department of Development (www.odod.state.oh.us) has three programs to assist in development of alternative energy projects.

The Distributed Energy Resources Notice of Funding Available seeks applications for grants to cover a portion of costs of projects in the area of distributed energy resources such as: industrial heat recovery, biomass or landfill methane for electric generation.

The Manufacturing Facilities’ Energy Efficiency Notice of Funding Available seeks applications for grants to cover a portion of projects in the area of improving manufacturing efficiency in areas of lighting, HVAC, geothermal, motor efficiency, power factor correction and cogeneration.

The Renewable Energy Program Notice of Funding Available seeks applications for grants to cover a portion of projects in the area of implementing renewable energy projects in the area of solar electric, wind electric, and solar thermal systems for commercial, industrial, institutional and governmental entities.

The Advance Energy Job Stimulus Fund T his bond-funded program creates an Advanced Energy Job Stimulus Fund that is administered through a public process managed by the Ohio Air Quality Development Authority (OAQDA). The Fund will award grants and loans to a portfolio of advanced energy projects that serve to attract new investment to Ohio, build upon Ohio’s manufacturing strength, advance energy technology development toward commercialization and prepare Ohio’s workforce for the future.

The fund will consist of $150 million advanced energy money (over three years) seeking to increase the development, production and use of advanced energy technologies in the state, and is divided in the following manner:

• $66 million for clean coal technology projects administered through OAQDA’s Ohio Coal Development Office (OCDO) (reviewed by the Technical Advisory Committee and approved by OAQDA); and
• $84 million for non-coal-related projects in three $28 million annual appropriations administered by OAQDA (reviewed by the Development Finance Advisory Council, approved by the OAQDA and brought before Controlling Board for final approval).

As a general guideline, grants may range from approximately $50,000 to $250,000 based on the size and scope of the entire project and the jobs, investment and other. Projects presenting outstanding value propositions for Ohio may be considered for significantly higher awards.

• Additionally, five percent of the fund may be set aside for small grant awards (generally in the range of $50,000) to support disruptive technologies with significant potential for success, even if they are in earlier stages of development.

Loans may range from approximately $1 million to $2 million. For highly qualified applicants, loans could be structured a number of ways including below market rates, subordinate collateralized positions with participating financial institutions and/or varying principal payments for a specified period of time.

Tax Exemption. Ohio has other incentives such as certain tax exemptions. The State of Ohio exempts certain property from real and personal property taxation, sales tax and use tax. The exemption applies to property used in renewable energy conversion, thermal efficiency, waste heat recovery, and the conversion of solid waste to energy. See http://www.odod.state.oh.us/taxreform.htm.

Federal Incentives: The Federal government offers substantial incentives for projects involved in alternate or renewable energy.

Federal Loan Guarantee Program. The Federal government offers loan guarantees for large projects that employ advanced technologies that avoid, reduce or sequester emissions of air pollutants or greenhouse gases in the area of coal-based power generation, industrial gasification, and advanced coal gasification facilities. See http://www.lgprogram.energy.gov/press/092208.pdf.

Tax Incentive Assistance Project. On October 2, 2008 President Bush signed into law legislation that extended the Energy Efficiency Tax Incentives that had expired in 2007. Tax incentives exist that support a variety of alternative energy resource development projects. See http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=products.pr_tax_credits.

It may be too soon to jump onto the alternative or renewable energy resource bandwagon. The regulations from S.B. 221 have barely had time to implemented. The time is coming, however, and it may be very soon that action will be required. In the meantime the prudent businessperson will carefully investigate his/her opportunities and be prepared to join the wave before it washes over us.

Update 1/12/2009: The PUCO has failed at this point to approve AEP Ohio’s Electrical Security Plan (ESP). Consequently, the anticipated rate hikes have not taken effect and the 2008 rates will continue into 2009 probably through February.