Occupational Safetf

Electric
Arc Hazard Understanding assessment and mitigation
By H. Landis Floyd II and Daniel R. Doan

HISTORICALLY, ELECTRICAL HAZARDS were Electric arcs are extremely hot—second only to
viewed primarily as electric shock or electrocution the laser as the most intense heat source on earth.
hazards. Electric shock entails passage of electric cur- Temperatures in the arc can reach 35000 °F (Baliga &
rent through the body. A shock victim generally makes Pfender, 1975; Brown & Cadick, 1980). People with-
contact with an energized conductor or ottierwise in several feet of an arc can be severely burned.
becomes part of the electrical circuit. While addressing Electric arcs can be caused by human, environmen-
the electric shock hazard is important—^it is the cause tal and equipment-related factors. The events are
of most fatal injuries from electrical energy (Cawley & actually multiple energy events, with intense blast,
Homce, 2003, 2006)—it has masked another electrical mechanical and acoustic energy accompanying the
hazard associated with the intense radiant and con- intense thermal energy.
vective energy released during an electric arc flash In 1980, Brown and Cadick described safe electri-
event. A person need not make physical contact with cal work practices that included the use of personal
an energized conductor or be part of the electrical dr- protective clothing to protect against arc flash haz-
cuit to be injured by arc flash. The victim may be sev- ards. In 1982, Lee published a theoretical model for
eral feet away from energized conductors or estimating the risk of injury to personnel who may
equipment and be severely injured by the intense ther- be exposed to an electric arc. This work led to the
mal energy transfer produced by an electric arc. introduction of arc flash hazard discussions in tech-
Arc hazards are not new. They have been present in nical forums, regulations, codes and standards.
industrial and commercial facilities since die begin- By the early 1990s, the extreme thermal and blast
ning of electrification in the late 19th century. What is hazards of arcing faults in electrical systems were
relatively new is the evolution in the science and tech- recognized as uniquely different from ihe hazard of
nology necessary to understand and manage the haz- electric shock. Doughty, Floyd & Neal (2000) con-
ards. Much has been learned ducted laboratory testing of high-energy electric
H. Landis Floyd tl, P.E., is a principal over the last 2 decades. arcs, which led to refinements in arc hazard analysis
consuitant in eiectrical safety and technology Arc flash events are usually and risk assessment, and in methods to assess pro-
for DuPont in Wilmington, DE. He holds a B.S. short occurrences that typically tective clothing performance in arc flash exposures.
in Electrical Engineering from Virginia Polytech- last less than 0.5 seconds. Many Jones, Liggett, Capelli-ScheUpfeffer, et al. (2000)
nic Institute & State University. Floyd is a profes- different events can initiate an designed and conducted tests involving equipment
sional member of ASSE's Philadelphia Chapter, arc flash, such as a tool falling and work scenarios commonly found in industrial
a member of the National Fire Protection onto an energized conductor, a environments. Thermal energy impinging on a sur-
Association (NFPA), a member of the board of worker touching an energized face, or incident energy, was commonly measured in
directors of the Electrical Safety Foundation conductor thought to be de- units of calories per square centimeter (cal/cm^).
International and a fellow of the Institute of energized, voltage testing with As the body of knowledge and understanding of
Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE).inappropriate instruments or arc flash grew, efforts emerged to change federal reg-
Daniel R. Doan, P.E., is a consultant in operation of a switch that is ulations and building codes, modify electrical equip-
electrical safety and technology for DuPont in internally damaged. Most of ment design, apply circuit protection, develop safe
Wilmington, DE. He holds B.S. and M.S. these events occur faster than work practices, train personnel in the utility, indus-
degrees in electrical engineering from Massa- the unaided human eye can trial and commercial work environments, and devel-
chusetts Institute of Technology. Doan is a perceive. High-speed photog- op and apply PPE. Technologies to further mitigate
senior member of IEEE, a member of the raphy of laboratory simulations arc flash hazards were brought to market, including
IEEE 1584 standards committee and member of arcing faults has provided current limitation, metal cladding, venting to redi-
of the lEEEINFPA Arc Flash Hazards Researchimages of how these events can rect arc blast forces and arc-resistant designs.
and Testing Planning Committee. engulf workers in a ball of fire. The work to expand understanding of these haz-
18 PROFESSIONAL SAFETY JANUARY 2007 [Link]
ards continues. Neal and Parry (2005) are among An SH&E professional without a strong back-
those advancing research in other components of the ground in electrical technology may feel intimidated
energy transfer in arc flash events. In 2004, National by electrical technology and electrical technologists.
Fire Protection Association (NFPA) and the Listitute As a result, electrical safety may be delegated to the
of Electrical and Flectronics Engineers (IEEE) estab- electrical experts. However, although electricians,
lished a multimillion dollar collaborative research technicians and electrical engineers may be expert in
project to further study the phenomena of electric electrical technology and work practices, they may Abstract Over the
arcs. This collaboration is expected to advance pro- not be expert in regulatory compliance issues, risk past 15 years, the evo-
tection against arc flash hazards related to heat, pres- assessment and safety management. lution in regulations,
sure, sound, toxicity and other medical effects. Further progress is not possible without the codes and standards,
as well as the basic
strategic involvement of safety professionals.
The SH&E Professional's Role understanding of arc
The safety professional is best positioned in
According to Floyd, Andrews, CapeUi-ScheU- hazards, have elevated
the general techniques of hazard analysis and
pfeffer,etal. (2001): the importance and
risk assessment to significantly impact and
priority of managing
The safety professional's role is critical to accelerate changes for improving electrical
and mitigating these
improve the safe use of electricity. Electrical inci- safety, serving as the "electrical safety con-
hazards in the work-
dents do not have to result in injury or death. science" to owners, managers, electrical
place. This article dis-
Every health effect, including death, amputa- experts and the workers most at risk to electri-
cusses arc flash hazard
tion, bum, crush, blast, blindness, hearing loss, cal injuries. "Are we aware of current stan-
mitigation and
brain injury, is unnecessary. Engineering, scien- dards—and what are they?" "Are we using
explains the need for
tific and recordkeeping experience over the last available technology—^how do you know?"
SH&E professionals to
10 years has shown that electrical incidents are "How are we staying current in developments
understand and apply
not random or rare. Occupational safety profes- impacting electrical safety—are we sure?"
appropriate regula-
sionals are uniquely positioned to respond to "Considering serious electeical accidents are
tions and standards,
every imintendonal workplace exposure to elec- relatively rare, how do we measure the quali-
implement hazard
trical energy as a potentially fatal or environ- ty of our electrical safety program?" are just a
assessments, evaluate
mentally threatening scenario. few examples of how to exercise that con-
mitigation options,
science (Floyd et al. 2001).
and design and imple-
ment controls to
Relevant Regulations, Regulatory Requirements reduce/eliminate risks.
& Relevant Codes & Standards
Codes & Standards Several U.S. regulations, codes and standards are
relevant in implementing an arc flash hazard mitiga-
Regulations
tion program (see sidebar at left). With respect to arc
•OSHA General Duty Clause
flash hazards, cxirrent language in OSHA regulations
•OSHA 1910.132, Personal Protective Equip-
is not descriptive about arc hazard assessment and
ment for General Industry
mitigation/control. The requirements are clear that
•OSHA 1910.269, Electric Power Generation,
employers must assess the workplace for hazards and
Transmission and Distribution
enable employees to recognize and avoid such haz-
•OSHA 1910.335, Safeguards for Personnel
ards, and must implement mitigation and control
Protection
measures to protect employees from these hazards.
Consensus Standards Currently, NFPA 70E-2004, Standard for Electrical
•NFPA 70E, Standard for Electrical Safety in Safety in the Workplace, provides the most compre-
the Workplace hensive guidance for general industry to accomplish
•IEEE/ANSI C2, National Electrical Safety OSHA objectives relative to electrical hazards
Code (NFPA, 2004). For electric utility workers, the appli-
•IEEE 1584, Guide for Performing Arc-Flash cable standard is ANSI/IEEE C2, National Electrical
Hazard Calculations Safety Code (ANSI/IEEE, 2007). The 2007 version of
•ASTM F-1506, Standard Performance this standard was expanded to require assessment
and implementation of a protective clothing system.
ASTM F-1891, jecification for IEEE Standard 1584, Guide for Performing Arc
Flash Hazard Calculations, provides the technical
•ASTM F-1958, Standard Test Method for basis for several commercial arc hazard analysis
Determining the Ignitability of Non-Flame- software programs available today (IEEE, 2002). To
Resistance Materials for Clothing by Electric support tiie technology evolution in personal pro-
Arc Exposure Method Using Mannequins tective clothing and equipment, American Society
•ASTM F-1959, Standard Test Method for for Testing and Materials (ASTM) has published test
Determining the Arc Thermal Performance standards to quantify how well clothing materials
Value of Materials for Clothing perform when exposed to arc flash and flame. These
•ASTM F-2178, Determining the Arc Rating standards have enabled manufacturers of flame-
of Face Protective Products resistant clothing to rate their products for arc
flash applications.
[Link] JANUARY 2007 PROFESSIONAL SAFETY 19
 Arc Hazard Terms
Arc blast: force of plasma and fire from worked on or near has been disconnected
an electric arc. from energized parts, locked/tagged in
Arc flash hazard: danger associated with accordance with established standards, test-
the arc flash (e.g., the possibility of radiation ed to ensure the absence of voltage and costs for a person seriously
bvims, inhalation of vapors, temporary groimded if determined necessary. injured by electrical energy was
blindness, hearing damage, lung damage, Flash hazard analysis: study investigat- $12.8 million (in 1991 dollars).
barotrauma and injury from projectiles). ing a worker's potential exposure to arc Doan, et al. (2004) estimate
Arcing fault current: current that flows flash energy, conducted for the purpose of the total cost of implementing
during a short circuit in which an arc is injury prevention and the determination of an arc flash protective clothing
present. The impedance of the arc reduces safe work practices and the appropriate lev- by considering three options:
the fault current to a level below the bolted els of PPE. 1) do nothing, 2) achieve mini-
fault current. Flash hazard boundary: boundary with- mum compliance and 3) apply
Barotrauma: injury from pressure caused in which arc flash PPE is required. protective measures based on
by acoustic or vibratory forces during an arc Incident energy: total arc energy, both state-of-the-art hazard analysis
blast. radiant and convective, that is actually methods. This comparison is
Bolted fault current: current that flows received per unit area, in calories per square sunmiarized in Table 1.
during a short circuit in which the phases centimeter. This is an ideal comparison
are directly connected with no appreciable Plasma: a collection of charged particles based on the assumption that aU
impedance. During a bolted fault, no arc is that exhibits some properties of a gas but recommendations are followed.
present. differs from a gas in being a good conductor In practice, human error and
Bum, first-degree: bum involving only of electricity and in being affected by a mag- other factors can increase injury
the outer layer of skin. The skin is usually netic Held. frequency and overall costs with
red, and some swelling and pain may occur. PPE: clothing and equipment designed either method. The cost compar-
Bum, second-degree: bum involving to mitigate the effects of hazards to which ison is based on a workforce
both the first and second layers of skin. In workers might be exposed. with respor\sibility for approxi-
these bums, the skin reddens intensely and Qualified person: individual who has mately 10,000 pieces of electrical
blisters develop. Severe pain and swelling skills and knowledge related to the con- equipment, and nearly 1 million
occiir, and the chance for infection is present. struction and operation of the electrical electrical switching or trouble-
Bum, third-degree: bum involving all equipment and installations and has shooting tasks eadi year. PPE
the layers of skin. This is the most serious received safety training on the hazards costs are calculated based on
type of bum. Fat, nerves, muscles and even involved. workers' exposures and typical
bones may be affected. Areas may be Working near: any activity inside the PPE costs for different protec-
charred black or be dry and white in limited approach boundary of exposed, tion levels. Analysis costs are
appearance, and infection may occur. If energized electrical conductors or circuit estimated at $200 per piece of
nerve damage is substantial, tiiere may be parts that are not put into an electrically safe equipment for detailed analysis.
no pain at all. working condition. Finally, injury costs are based on
Electric arc: flow of current between two Working on: coming in contact with average medical costs for actual
electrodes through ionized gases and exposed, energized electrical conductors or bum injuries, with the highest
vapors. It is started by flashover or the circuit parts with the hands, feet or other average of $400,000 for cases
introduction of some conducting material body parts, or with tools, probes or test where clothing could be ignited
between energized parts. equipment, regardless of the PPE an indi- and the worker burned over a
Electrically safe work condition: state in vidual is wearing. large portion of the body.
which the conductor or circuit part to be
Implementation Choices
Estimating Frequency of Arc Flash Incidents As noted, an employer's choices range from doing
& Cost of Program Implementation nothing to achieving minimum compliance to imple-
Cawley and Homce (2006) provide the most com- menting a state-of-the-art program with arc hazard
prehensive analysis of occupational electrical injuries. analysis as the basis for a full range of controls. The
Their research revealed that from 1992 to 2002,29,046 do-nothing approach is out of step with current regu-
nonfatal occupational electrical injuries occurred from latory requirements and electrical safety knowledge. It
electric shock, and 18,360 from electrical btims. Doan, is also likely the most costly choice in the long term.
Floyd and Neal (2004) evaluated the lost workday fre- A common question about developing an arc
quency for one global science and technology compa- flash hazard protection program is, "Can you pro-
ny and determined that the number of arc flash events vide a simple chart to show what PPE to wear in var-
with the potential for serious injury was equivalent to ious work tasks?" While an approach that is based
3% of all lost workday injuries. primarily on providing PPE provides an improved
While serious electrical injuries are relatively measure of safety, it does not provide opportunities
infrequent compared to other causes of occupational to identify, reduce and possibly eliminate hazard
injury, the cost of evaluation, treatment and rehabili- exposure and risk.
tation is significantly higher than average. Wyzga One option provided in NFPA 70E-2004 is based
and lindroos (1999) report that a study of injury on tables that Ust common tasks and note appropri-
costs in one large utility found that electrical injuries ate protective equipment for each task. These tables
accoimted for less than 2% of all injuries in the com- can be useful, but they can also be misapplied. The
pany, yet accounted for 28% to 52% of total injury explanatory footnotes accompanying the tables
costs. Their study reported that the lifetime medical must be diligently appUed. These notes explain that
20 PROFESSIONAL SAFETY JANUARY 2007 [Link]
 Cc»st Comparison: IVIitigation Strategies
Method PPE costs Analysis costs Injury costs Total costs
the electrical system must No arc flash PPE 0 0 $20,800 $20,800
have certain specifications Two hazard level PPE $1,570 $100 $6,150 $7,820
for the tables to be applica-
ble. The user must be sure Detailed analysis $835 $2,000 $150 $2,985
that the electrical system Note. Comparison is in U.S. $1,000 of average 5-year costforexample companyforthree mitigation options.
meets these requirements,
and an electrical system
study may be required to en-
sure that the requirements in
the notes are met.
An approach based on a
Arc Fiasii incident Comparison
detailed arc hazard assess-
ment is one that can help Case 1 (1999) Case 2 (2003)
identify where exposure Equipment Drawout power drcuit breaker Drawout power drcuit breaker
potential exists; eliminate the Voltage 480 V 480 V
hazards completely through
engineering design changes No. of people within 6 1
or administrative controls; arc flash boundary
reduce the frequency of po- No. of people necessary 1 1
tential arc flash events; within arc flash boundary
reduce the magrutude of Estimated incident energy 75 cal/cm2 50 cal/cm2
energy release; and helps to
PPE rating 25 cal/cm2 100 cal/cm2
ensure that PPE is appropri-
ately rated for exposures. PPE selection method Company-developed task table Hazard assessment using
IEEE 1584 methods
Two Case Histories Injuries 4 lost workdays 1 Brst-aid case
The authors were involved
in the investigations of two incidents involving actual Planning & Preparing
and potentially severe arc bum injuries. The equip- for an Arc Hazard Assessment
ment, work activity and energy release were sinrular in Implementing an effective arc flash mitigation
both cases, but the outcomes were quite different. program begins with top management commitment.
Aspects of the two incidents are summarized in Table Electrical engineering design and consulting firms
2. In Case 1, a loose piece of metal contacted an ener- and engineering services from manufacturers of elec-
gized bus and created an arc flash that burned four tric power equipment are generally good sources for
workers. In Case 2, a worker switched on a drcuit conducting these assessments. The amount of work
breaker that was internally damaged and shorted to and cost associated wiU depend on the availability
ground. The resulting arc flash could have burned the and quality of engineering design documentation for
worker and a backup worker nearby. the facility's electrical power system.
In Case 1, control measures were limited to the Arc flash assessment studies should be conduct-
use of PPE that had been chosen using a company- ed by someone familiar with power system analysis
developed selection table based on technology software. Most commercially available programs
known at the time. From information available in feature a module that extracts information from the An approach based
standards published after 2000, the protective cloth- power system design and protection analysis need- on a detailed arc
ing was not rated for the energy exposure. ed to perform^ the arc hazard assessment. The docu- hazard assessment
The much-less-severe outcome in Case 2 was pri- ments and information needed include: helps to ensure that
marily because of the implementation of a state-of- •power system single line drawings; PPE is appropriately
the-art arc hazard assessment and implementation •power system protection coordination study if rated for exposures.
of a fuU range of control measures. The electrical available;
safety program in place for Case 2 included an arc •utility short circuit data and protective device
flash hazard mitigation program based on a detailed information;
arc hazard assessment. Based on the results of the •system operating conditions, such as normal
study, engineering design changes were made to operating switch positions, tie conditions if present
reduce incident energy for many exposures; equip- or possible, parallel feeds from transformers;
ment was labeled witii warnings and specific PPE •information on transformers induding imped-
requirements; administrative controls were imple- ance, ratings and grounding method;
mented to restrict the ntunber of people working •information on cables including type, size and
within arc flash hazard boundaries; and protective approximate length;
clothing was specifled to match or exceed predicted •manufacturer, model, trip unit and settings of
energy transfer for specific tasks and equipment. In circuit breakers;
addition, electricians, operators, supervisors and •manufacturer, type and size of fuses;
managers were trained on hazard awareness and the •information on motors larger than 100 horse-
need for these control measures. power;
[Link] JANUARY 2007 PROFESSIONAL SAFETY 21
 Figure 1
Electrical Equipment Sorted by
Hazard Categories & Incident Energy
3,000 existing primary fuse is sized at 50 A or
65 A,tiheincident energy at the second-
ary wiU be high.
2,500 •Low-voltage power circuit breaker
settings are all turned to maximum. The
settings of switchgear circuit breakers are
2,000 critical to reducing or limiting the arc
flash energy. The "short time" settings on
IS the breaker trip unit are especially impor-
0 tant. If these are set to the maximum,
1,500 then the incident energy wiU be high.
•Low-fault current due to long cable
a lengths. Long cable lengths decrease the
1,000 fault current that will flow during an arc
incident. Protective devices such as
fuses and circuit breakers take more
500 time to trip when they sense lower fault
current; the longer time means higher
incident energy.
Once the arc flash hazard assessment
0 is complete, the incident energy values
(0-1.2) can be used to determine PPE require-
ments for the tasks. Equipment labeling
NFPA 70E HRC (cal/cm2) and training are required so workers
know how to apply the information in
•equipment type (motor control center, panel, or their daily work. Workers responsible for operating
switchgear) for equipment being studied;
and maintaining the electrical system must be familiar
•working distance for the task being studied at
with the effects of their work on the arc flash incident
each piece of equipment.
energy. For example, if a process upset occurs, and the
This information is entered into a modeling soft- worker changes out a fuse to a larger size (because no
ware to find the three-phase short ciraiit current value
fuse of the existing size was available quickly), then
at each piece of equipment. Then, the arc flash hazard
s/he needs to understand that the equipment's arc
calculations can be performed, using IEEE 1584 equa-
tions for the best available estimate of the incident flash energy has been changed and may be higher.
energy for each piece of equipment. Results should be
Electric arcs
reviewed for data input errors. Very high-energy Applying Control Measures to Reduce Risk
are extremely
points—those above 40 cal/cm^—should be studied The arc hazard assessment enables informed and
carefully. Low-voltage switchgear (transformer sec- factual decisions on the design and implementation of
hot. People within
ondary equipment) is almost always above 20 a fuU range of controls. ANSI/AIHA ZlO-2005, Occu-
several feet of
cal/cm2, usually above 40 cal/cm^ and sometimes pational Health and Safety Management Systems,
an arc can be
above 100 cal/cm^. Low-voltage switchgear results provides a hierarchy of controls applicable to any haz-
severely burned.
below 20 cal/cm^ should be checked for errors. ard in the workplace (ANSI/AIHA, 2005). Table 3 lists
Doan and Sweigart (2003) siunmarize arc flash recognized control measures and examples of possible
hazard studies at more than 30 industrial facilities. applications to arc flash hazards. This is not a com-
They found that about 10% of equipment wiU be plete Ust of how each control could be actualized, and
assessed at more than 40 cal/cm^ for normal exposure measures may vary based on industry, faciUty age and
tasks such as switching and maintenance (Figure 1). other considerations. The hierarchy provides a way to
The hazard levels referred to in the figure are based on identify the most effective measures to reduce risks
the hazard categories determined by NFPA 70E. The assodated with hazards in the workplace.
hazard/risk category (HRC) numbers 0 through 4 cor- At the time of this writing, it is the authors' obser-
respond to the arc flash inddent energy possible to the vation that the use of personal protective dothing is
worker for different tasks and equipment, up to 40 too often the only control measure being addressed.
cal/cm^. Currently, NFPA 70E does not designate SH&E professionals need not be expert in the elec-
HRC above 4 or energy above 40 cal/cm^. trical technology aspects of these control measures.
The 10% of equipment with high energy (over 40 By engaging experts in electrical technology and
cal/cm^) is of particular concern because of the high work practices, SH&E professionals can facUitate
risk to workers and certain chance of clothing igni- discussion about and identification of mitigation
tion. These high-energy points are often due to con- solutions aUgned with aU control measures.
ditions in the power system such as:
•Primary fusing on a substation transformer high- To Learn More
er than needed. Example: 1,000 kVA transformer at 35 Ten years ago, few artides and resources addressed
kV primary voltage has fuU load amps around 16 A; the topic of arc flash hazards and mitigation. Today,
typical primary fusing should be sized at 25 A. If the articles on this topic are common in electrical and safe-
22 PROFESSIONAL SAFETY JANUARY 2007 [Link]
 Table 3
Manufacturing Technologies/Processes
& Mutually Exclusive Alternatives Tested
Control measures Application examples
(from ANSl/AIHA Z10-2005) for arc flash hazards
1) Elimination •Establish expectation that working on or near energized electrical equipment hav-
ing potential for arc flash hazard is an exception and not routine (NEPA 70E-2004,
article 130.1).
•Establish high level of approval for any work on or near energized electrical equip-
ment having potential for arc flash hazard [NFPA 70E-2004, article 130.1(A)].
2) Substitution of less-hazardous •Current-limiting fuses and circuit breakers to limit magnitude of arc flash energy;
system or equipment high resistance grounding to limit frequency of high energy arcs in 480 V power sys-
tems; "smart" networked equipment that allows troubleshooting without opening
enclosures (Doughty, Neal, Macalady, et al., 2000; Gregory, Lyttle & Wellman, 2003;
Blair, Doan, Jensen, et al., 2001).
3) Engineering controls •IP20-compliant shrouding on terminal blocks and devices to minimize possibUity
of tool or metallic object initiating an arc flash event.
4) Warnings •Labels as required by National Electrical Code article 100.116.
5) Administrative controls •Redesigned switching, troubleshooting and operating procedures that reduce
exposure and risk.
6) PPE. •Clothing and equipment rated for arc flash exposures, selected to perform for pre-
dicted exposures (NFPA 70E-2004, article 130.7).

ty publications. Manufacturers and suppliers of elec- ANSI/Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers
tric power equipment and PPE frequently host semi- (IEEE). (2007). National electrical safety code. ANSI/IEEE C2.
New York: Author.
nars as well. Two credible sources of information are Baliga, B.R. & Pfender, E. (1975). Fire safity related testing of elec-
NFPA and IEEE, both of which are standards devel- tric cable insulation materials. Duluth, MN: University of Minnesota.
opment organizations with no commercial interests in Blair, D.D., Doan, D.R., Jensen, D.L., et al. (2001, Nov./Dec.).
electrical equipment or personal protective dothing. Integrating networks into motor control systems. IEEE Industry
Applications Magazine, 7(6), 18-25.
NFPA conducts seminars to aid implementation of Brown, T. & Cadick, J. (1980). Operations and safety for elec-
safe work practices described in NFPA 70E-2004 (visit trical power systems. Chemical Engineering, 145-148.
[Link] for more information). IEEE hosts the Cawley, J.C. & Homce, G.T. (2003). Occupational electrical
Electrical Safety Resource Center at [Link] injuries in the United States, 1992-1998, and recommendations for
safety research. Journal of Safety Research, 34(3), 241-248.
[Link]/esrc/[Link]. Cawley, J.C. & Homce, G.T. (2006). Trends in electrical injury,
Another resource is the IEEE IAS Electrical Safety 1992-2002. Conference Record of the 2006 IEEE IAS Petroleum and
Workshop, sponsored by the IEEE Industry Applica- Chemical Industry Technical Conference, USA, 325-338.
tions Society. This annual forum aims to advance the Doan, D.R., Floyd, H.L. & Neal, T.E. (2004). Comparison of
methods for selecting personal protective equipment for arc flash
electrical safety culture to enable sustainable im- hazards. IEEE Transactions on Industrial Applications, 40(4), 963-969.
provement in eliminating electrical incidents, Doan, D.R. & Sweigart, R.A. (2003). A summary of arc-flash
injuries and fatalities. It targets two areas: 1) advanc- energy calculations. IEEE Transactions on Industry Applications,
ing the application of state-of-the-art knowledge and 39(4), 1200-1204.
Doughty, R.L., Floyd, H.L. & Neal, T.E. (2000). Predicting
practices; and 2) stimulating innovation in creating inddent energy to better manage the electric arc hazard on 600-V
the next generation of safe work practices, technolo- power distribution systems. IEEE Transactions on Industrial Appli-
gy and management systems. Information is avail- cations, 36(1), 257-269.
able at [Link]/cmte/ias-esw. Doughty, R.L., Neal, T.E., Macalady, T.L., et al. (2000). The
use of low-voltage current-limiting fuses to reduce arc-flash ener-
gy. IEEE Transactions on Industry Applications, 36(6), 1741-1749.
Conclusion Floyd, H.L., Andrews, J.J., Capelli-Schellpfeffer, M., et al.
Arc hazards are present in many industrial and (2001). Electrical safety: State of the art in technology, work prac-
commercial workplaces. Left unassessed and uncon- tices and management systems. Proceedings of the 2001 ASSE
Professional Development Conference, USA.
trolled, their consequences can be significant. The Gregory, G.D., Lyttle, I. & Wellman, CM. (2003). Arc flash
most effective stiategy is to implement a state-of-the- calculations in systems protected by low-voltage circuit breakers.
art program with arc hazard analysis as the basis for a 7EE£ Transactions on Industry Applications, 39(4), 1193-1199.
full range of controls. Such an approach can help an IEEE. (2002). Guide for performing arc flash hazard calcula-
organization identify where exposure potential exists; tions. IEEE 1584. New York: Author.
Jones, R.A., Liggett, D.R, Capelli-Schellpfeffer, M., et al. (2000).
elirninate hazards through engineering design or Staged tests increase awareness of arc flash hazards in electrical
administrative controls; reduce the frequency of equipment. IEEE Transactions on Industry Applications, 36(2), 659-667.
potential arc flash events; Umit the magrutude of ener- Lee, R.H. (1982). The other electrical hazard, electric arc blast
gy release; and better ensure that PPE is appropriately bums. IEEE Transactions on Industrial Applications, 1A-1B{3), 246-253.
National Fire Protection Association (NFPA). (2004). Standard
rated for exposures. • for electrical safety in the workplace. NFPA 70E. Quincy, MA: Author.
Neal, T.E. & Parry, R.F. (2005, May/June). Shrapnel, pressure
References and noise. IEEE Industry Applications Magazine, 11(3), 49-53.
ANSl/AIHA. (2005). Occupational health and safety manage- Wyzga, R.E. & lindroos, W. (1999). Health implications of glob-
ment systems. ANSI/AHA ZlO-2005. Fairfax, VA: Author. al electrification. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 888,1-7.
[Link] JANUARY 2007 PROFESSIONAL SAFETY 23