Global Arc Flash Safety Standards: Electrical Safety Industrial & Utilities Regulatory Compliance

www.e-Hazard.com

"Globalization is good for me!" Keep saying it (even if you don´t believe it). Workers around the world have benefited from innovations in arc flash protective clothing systems. The first arc flash protective material which shed chryolite and aluminum was from Australia and New Zealand. The largest manufacturer of arc flash face shields manufacture in the US (Paulson Manufacturing). The largest manufacturer of treatment chemicals for cotton flame resistance operates in France (Rhodia). Austria is the largest manufacturer of flame resistant (FR) rayon (Lenzing). Aramid fibers are made in several countries including France (Kermel) Japan (Conex), US (Nomex-Kevlar), Germany (Twaron). Modacrylic, the most common fiber for high visibility flame resistance, is made in China and Japan (Kaneka). These companies are interdependent. Modacrylic is used in blends with meta-aramids, like Kermel or Nomex, and blended with Para-aramids like Twaron or Kevlar in common fabrics. Flame resistant cotton is gradually disappearing in favor of FR cotton/ nylon blends which are among the most popular arc-rated, materials for arc flash safety today. Even as FR materials manufacture has become global. Electrical safety work practice standards and test method standards have done the same.

History of Arc Flash and PPE

Multinational corporations are causeing electrical safety work practice standards to become more global by taking best practices from one part of the world and transplanting them. When safety standards are global, the corporations can have the same training, engineering, and PPE standards in more countries. Multinational corporations, by international law, cannot have lower safety standards in another country without repercussions. Those companies and their workers win.

The arc flash hazard was publically recognized in the 1980´s in Ralph Lee´s paper "The Other Electrical Hazard: Electric Arc Blast Burns," IEEE Transactions Industrial Applications, May/June 1982. But clothing´s role in arc flash injuries was not fully understood until several companies worked with ASTM International to research the electric arc hazard and clothing. Their conclusion was that FR clothing made a significant difference in worker survivability in electric arc by removing ignition and decreasing percentage body burn.

In 1994, the OSHA (Occupational Health and Safety Administration) promulgated a standard which changed the face of electrical safety for utilities in the US. The OSHA 1910.269 "apparel standard" brought clothing to the forefront for electric arc requiring that worker clothing exposed to arc flash not ignite or melt. Only FR clothing (now more commonly called arc-rated clothing) would adequately protect workers and meet both requirements consistently.

Arc Flash Statistics

The linked chart graphs the decline in fatalities from U.S. electrical accidents which could have an arc component since 1994. Currently, 80% of the electric utilities in the US wear arc-rated clothing. The OSHA "standard", with ASTM arc test method research, began a revolution. In 1995, National Fire Protection Association´s (NFPA) 70E first required the idea of an "arc flash boundary" based on Ralph Lee´s paper. In 2000, this little used standard added task based tables which made arc-rated clothing the choice for most electrical tasks. This minor change is a little used standard changed the face of electrical safety all over the world. The ease of use of the "task tables" put compliance within reach to smaller companies who had little or no engineering support and started a tidal wave of compliance. The use of arc-rated clothing and voltage rated gloves in electrical tasks in the workplace has helped to contribute to a 57% decline in electrical fatalities in the US since the introduction of these standards and partial acceptance of NFPA 70E.

It used to be believed that these incidents would be less common and severe in EU (European Union) electrical systems due to differences in distribution. However, the severity is equally prominent, though some EU electrical designs are more intrinsically safe than their US counterparts. US adoption of these systems is increasing with the arc flash awareness. This is changing.

When the ASTM F1959 standard was complete, the IEC adapted it to be IEC 61482-1. Method A (most of the research still occurs using the ASTM standard in Canada). The IEC 61482-1 Method B is used in the EU and either method is acceptable. The IEC 61482-1 Method B originated from the CENELEC (European Committee for Electrotechnical Standardization) group as an EU-grown option in the early 1990´s.

Some confusion still exists regarding the differences between the methods, but they are both helpful in eliminating flammable clothing materials. The IEC 61482-1 Method B standard (also called the box method) brings slightly more arc plasma cloud and molten metal to the garment but it exposes less total area and has only two levels of exposure. The standards are functional equivalents on evaluating 1-2 layered and light weight systems. The ASTM method is still more commonly used for two reasons: 1) It can bring almost unlimited energy to the garment as the garment is arc-rated so it is preferred for exposures >20 cal/cm²; 2) it is more precise by giving an arc rating. The IEC 61482-1 Method B has only two levels.

Most high visibility vests and lightweight materials for hotter climates cannot pass one of the two IEC Method B levels. At low levels both methods are comparable but for high level exposures and measurement of energy, the ASTM standard is currently superior.

Work Practice Standards

There are currently four common work practice standards for general electrical safety

US

• NFPA 70E (Substantial update in 1995. Clothing added in 2000. Industrial Work ONLY

• NESC (National Electrical Safety Code) – Added Work Practices in 1995. Generation, Transmission, & Distribution Work ONLY.

• OSHA legal requirements are much like EU Directives, very generic except in high voltage.

Canada

• CSA Z462 (Basically NFPA 70E used in Canada. Industrial Work ONLY

• ULC-S801, Electric Utility Workplace Electrical Safety for Generation, Transmission and Distribution (NEW for Canada).

• OHSA legal requirements are much like EU Directives, very generic and differ by province.

EU

• Depends on the EU Directives generic legal requirements to guide industry

• Germany´s ISSA (International Social Security Association) offers several free document guides including, Guideline For Selection Of Personal Protective Clothing When Exposed To The Thermal Effects Of An Electric Arc is a good guide to the 2003 state of affairs but has no task based recommendations. A new, more up-to-date version is in the process beginning next year.

South Africa

• SABS standard in process of negotiation with NFPA or writing own standard.

On the engineering side, IEEE/NFPA collaborative partnership is seeking to raise $6.5M USD to improve the calculation of arc flash energy in IEEE 1584 with help from Dr. David Sweeting (AU) and other scientists in the US. EPRI (Electric Power Research Institute) is simultaneously working on a similar project for high voltage and utility applications not covered by the IEEE/NFPA scope. ArcPro Software, developed by Ontario Hydro (Canada) in early 1990´s has data to support from 480V through 12,500V at press time. Other test work is being compared to the ArcPro Arc Physics Model. Engineering out the hazard is fine IF it works but avoiding PPE when a potential hazard is still in the workplace is not the best course of action especially when arc-rated clothing is commonly available and affordable and apparent in its effectiveness in preventing fatalities. The EU standards for electrical equipment make newer equipment more intrinsically safe than the same equipment in the US BUT the incidents still happen and legacy equipment or poor practices are usually to blame.

Safety requires a multi-pronged approach including hazard recognition, elimination or control and protection. All three are important. Arc flash is its initial stages of recognition in industry. Ignoring arc flash was long justified as part of doing the job. Or arc flash hazards were considered to be eliminated by some magical engineering control like Lock Out/Tag Out or special equipment designs. Most companies now recognize the hazard is too difficult to eliminate completely and reduction is the most realistic goal.

The PPE option is too simple to implement to continue to ignore it. Engineering may reduce the hazard and should continue to be a focus, but failing to prevent clothing ignition while waiting on an engineering solutions incurs too much risk. Improvement in arc-rated clothing´s comfort, protection, cost and durability has made refusing to use arc-rated clothing suspect. But the wider acceptance of arc-rated FRC has brought the impostor companies and cheap copies out of the woodwork. Clothing and PPE should meet one of the following standards to be state of the art:

PPE Specifications and Standards

Clothing (Arc Rated)

• ASTM F1506

• IEC 61482-2

Rainwear (This is for arc-rated rainwear. Rainwear passing this standard will NOT melt)

• ASTM F1891

Hoods, Faceshields, and Goggles (The EN166 di-electric standard with a 1000V test makes a blanket statement that 8mm polycarbonate has been found adequate to protect from short circuit in low voltage but this is based on old research using no burn prediction model or calorimeter and allows clear face shields which protect from only 2 cal/cm² arcs even in 40 cal/cm² hoods. This is being abandoned worldwide. Our IEC committee has a working group looking to address this issue. Clear faceshields have little protection from arc flashes.)

• ASTM F2178

Fall Protection Exposed to Electric Arc

• ASTM F887

Blankets for arc flash protection

• ASTM F2676-09

Hotstick Shields for arc flash protection

• ASTM F2522-05

Testing for all the above standards is available from ArcWear.com

The worst of globalization is when standards are:

• misused for instance claiming clear faceshields protect from electric arc by using the shock portion of EN 166

• claimed for counterfeit products such as a report from a company in New South Wales recently shipped products to Brazil from Asia claiming to be 88/12 FR cotton when it was actually regular FR cotton (We have seen these types of shipments that weren´t even flame resistant and this test report was falsified by a company name change.)

• companies with inadequate basic product safety standards produce an arc rated product which has issues with irritants as reported in Australia last year

Take great care and verify prices that appear too good to be true. Local importers of flame resistant materials must be MORE than order-takers. They must have the quality control in the homeland and verify the plant operation overseas or stay out of this business. End users should check their quality control.

Here are some questions to ask:

1. Do you have verification that the standard you claim will fully protect for my hazard (EN166 actually has only a shock test, NO arc basis. Flame resistance tests may not show what happens in an arc flash. Require arc testing information. Even videos of tests can be deceiving if unintentional,(huh?) ask for objective measured data.)?

2. Do you verify flame resistance on-site when products arrive for cut and sew or shipping?

3. Do you use proven companies for your flame resistant fabrics or are you buying from brokers who can deceive you on quality?

4. Do you have in-house expertise to distinguish between different fibers or do you use an outside lab periodically to verify the products?

At its best, globalization combines research, innovation, and learning from other cultures. Every culture has strengths and weaknesses which can be enhanced by another viewpoint. Globalization helps to create better products at better prices for the betterment of all of us. So, say it again, now that you believe it, "Good globalization is good for me!"

Hugh Hoagland consults on and teaches electrical safety with his company www.e-Hazard.com and is an active researcher and tester in electric arc and PPE in his company ArcWear.com . You may reach him by e-mail at hugh@e-hazard.com or by phone in the US at 502-314-7158.