neta handbook series ii - safety vol 1-pdf

SAFETY

HANDBOOK

Published By

SERIES IIVOLUME 1

TDE Tony Demaria Electric, Inc.Sponsored by

SAFETY H

AN

DBO

OK VO

LUM

E1 SERIES II Published by N

ETA - The InterN

ational Electrical Testing Association

Safety V1 Cover.indd 1 2/6/14 11:08 AM

TDE TONY DEMARIA ELECTRIC

SAFETY • QUALITY • SATISFACTION

“Work satisfaction is when people like where they work, who they work with, and are pleased with the work they perform.” – Tony Demaria

One of Tony Demaria Electric’s (TDE) main commitments is to achieve

both customer and employee satisfaction.

• Our human resources, energy and ingenuity determine the true wealth of our company’s capabilities •

In addition to being a full service testing company, TDE provides the following training: NFPA 70E • Electrical Testing • Customized Safety and Technical Training

(310) 816-3130 www.tdeinc.com

SAFETY HANDBOOK

VOLUME I

Published by InterNational Electrical Testing Association



“Working safe is accomplished by qualified workers following procedures and using common sense.” – Tony Demaria

Tony Demaria Electric (TDE) is a leader in electrical industry improvements on safety and testing.

Working safe is: • Following policies and procedures •

• Training to policies and procedures • • Auditing to ensure that policies and procedures are followed •

The safest way for you to perform switching and racking is remotely • Visit our website for ideas

In addition to being a full service testing company, TDE provides the following training:

NFPA 70E • Arc Flash Training • Safe Electric Practices • Customized Safety and Technical Training




“Create quality by continuously upgrading policies & procedures and verifying compliance.” – Tony Demaria

Tony Demaria Electric’s (TDE) commitment to produce quality work has ensured long lasting relationships with many of our customers.

• Develop quality through policies and procedures •

• Train personnel to follow these policies and procedures • • Audit personnel to assure they are following the policies and procedures •

• Constantly reviewing the above and improving them •

In addition to being a full service testing company, TDE provides the following training: Electrical Safety for Qualified Workers • Electrical Safety Refresher for Qualified Electrical Workers


NOTICE AND DISCLAIMER

NETA Technical Papers and Articles are published by the InterNational Electrical Testing Association. Opinions, views, and conclusions expressed in articles herein are those of the authors and not necessarily those of NETA. Publication herein does not constitute or imply any endorsement of any opinion, product, or service by NETA, its directors, officers, members, employees, or agents (hereinafter “NETA”).

All technical data in this publication reflects the experience of individuals using specific tools, products equipment, and components under specific conditions and circumstances which may or may not be fully reported and over which NETA has neither exercised nor reserved control. Such data has not been independently tested or otherwise verified by NETA.

NETA makes no endorsement, representation, or warranty as to any opinion, product, or service referenced in this publication. NETA expressly disclaims any and all liability to any consumer, purchaser, or any other person using any product or service referenced herein for any injuries or damages of any kind whatsoever, including, but not limited to, any consequential, special incidental, direct, or indirect damages. NETA further disclaims any and all warranties, express or implied including, but not limited to, any implied warranty or merchantability or any implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose.

Please Note: All biographies of authors and presenters contained herein are reflective of the professional standing of these individuals at the time the articles were originally published. Titles, companies, and other factors may have changed since the original publication date.

Copyright © 2013 by InterNational Electrical Testing Association, all rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, without permission in writing from the publisher.


3050 Old Centre Avenue, Suite 102, Portage, Michigan 49024

269.488.6382

www.netaworld.org

SAFETYHANDBOOK

VOLUME I

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Safety, Shock, and Arc-Flash Notes from the NETA Safety Committee ............................5Tony Demaria, Tony Demaria Electric

Volt Meter Training Mandate: NFPA 70E ...................................................................6Paul McKinley, Power Testing and Energization, Inc.

Arc-Flash Slide Rule Calculator Safety and Reliability ..................................................................................................40Tony Demaria, Tony Demaria Electric

How to Improve Safety ................................................................................................42Mose Ramieh III, Tony Demaria, Gary Donner, Craig Corey, Rick Bynon, Lyn Hamrick and Jim White NETA Safety Committee

Major Arc-Flash + Good Practices = No Injuries ...........................................................44Joe Rochford, High Voltage, Gallatin Steel

Hazards of Establishing and Electrically Safe Work Condition.......................................47Tony Demaria and Dean Naylor, Tony Demaria Electric Inc. and Mose Ramieh Power Generation & Testing

From the Brink of Disaster Lessons for Electrical Safety and Reliability ..................................................................................................51H. Landis “Lanny” Floyd, Dupont


3050 Old Centre Avenue, Suite 102, Portage, Michigan 49024

269.488.6382www.netaworld.org

SAFETYHANDBOOK

VOLUME I

TABLE OF CONTENTS CONTINUED...

Look For a Way To Get Hurt, A Shocking Challenge .................................................55Dan Brown, Shermco Industries

Working in Extreme Summer and Winter Weather ....................................................58Lynn Hamrick, Shermco Industries

Additional Safety Features ..........................................................................................61 Jim Bowen, Powell Electrical Manufacturing Co.

NETA Accredited Companies ......................................................................................63

In the future each quarterly issue of NETA World will have an article on Electrical Safety. The focus will be topics regarding shock and arc flash and will be written by different members of the NETA Safety Committee. NFPA 70 E, Article 130, Working On or Near Live Parts, will be the primary referenced document. The goal for each issue is to select a specific small part of Article 130, and discuss it. Wish us luck and skill.

At the March Power Test Conference in New Orleans, the Tues-day morning safety panel provided some interesting dialogue. The goal, of course, was to share good safety ideas to take back to the workplace. The room was crowded and there was standing room only in the back. The attendees were an excellent cross-section of electrical personnel from industrial facilities, utilities, and testing companies.

BOTH SESSIONS WERE STARTED WITH THREE QUESTIONS:1. How many of you use NFPA 70E, at least in part?

(Approximately 90% answered yes.)

2. Is 70E difficult to understand? (Approximately 90% answered yes.)

3. Is 70E difficult to implement? (Approximately 100% answered yes.)

The percentages are not exact, but you get the idea. It is an ac-cepted fact that 70E is an important document to follow and vio-lating its contents could lead to injuries and financial loss. Since it is accepted that 70E is important and difficult, what is a person/company to do?

According to the attendees, training is a critical tool. When you are done training, do more training. It was discussed that most in-juries today are caused by personnel violating a clear, established company safety rule. Is it possible we do not do enough training? A good discussion followed on how difficult it is to change human behavior.

It was brought up during the panel discussion that approximate-ly 20 percent of electrical fatalities and serious arc- flash injuries are the result of improper use of a voltage meter. These injuries are not all happening to the new and young. Many of the personnel involved in the incidents were older and experienced.

WHEN IS THE LAST TIME YOUR COMPANY HAD EXTENSIVE AND COMPREHENSIVE TRAINING ON1. the types of voltmeters (voltage detectors or voltmeters, analog

or digital, high or low impedance, etc.)?

2. the advantages and disadvantages of each type?

3. the hazards of each type?

Another problem is changing human behavior. It is very diffi-cult! A powerful tool here is consequences. Without the employer enforcing consequences for not following safety procedures, you do not have a safety program. There should be positive conse-quences for good behavior and negative consequences for poor behavior.

How do you monitor behavior? One way is by having a written JHA (job hazard analysis) at the start of each day and job. Manage-ment can review these at the end of the day or week. Regular on-site safety checks are also a part of management’s encouragement for a safe workplace. It shows that managers really care about safety.

Several people mentioned that they thought 70E was written by and for engineers. It seems too complicated and too complex. There were many heads nodding in agreement. The panelists sug-gested using a risk matrix with the JHA prior to NETA WORLD Summer 2008 www.netaworld.org starting a job. Several types of risk matrices were provided as handouts. There are several advan-tages of using a risk matrix. It provides a written documentation of a thought process. It also allows qualified, experienced personnel to use their talents in providing for a safe job.

A simplified example is: 70E says wear a 40 cal suit to open a switch. A risk matrix says use a rope.

Keep working hard on your safety program. Read and study our quarterly articles, and you will be rewarded with less injuries and better crew morale.

SAFETY, SHOCK AND ARC FLASH - NOTES FROM THE NETA SAFETY COMMITTEE

Report on the Safety Panel Discussions at the March 2008 Power Test Conference by Tony Demaria, Tony Demaria Electric, Inc.

5Safety Handbook

I. VOLTAGE TESTING EVOLUTION Printed in the AMERICAN ELECTRICIANS’ HANDBOOK

and taken from Electrical Engineering which endorsed testing for voltage by touching and tasting.

AMERICAN ELECTRICIANS’ HANDBOOK – page 38, – Measuring, Testing and Instruments.

Section 90. Electricians often test for the presence of voltage by the conductors with the fingers. This method is safe where the voltage does not exceed 250 volts and is very convenient for the locating of a blown-out fuse or for ascertaining whether a circuit is or not is alive. Some men can endure electrical shock without discomfort where others cannot. Therefore this method is not feasible in some cases. Which are the outside wires and which is the neutral wire of 110-220 volts; three wire systems can be determined in this way by noting the intensity of the shock that results by touching different pairs of wires with the fingers. Use this method with caution and be certain that the voltage does not exceed 250 volts before touching the conductors. (This and several paragraphs that follow are taken from Electrical Engineering.)

Section 91. The presence of voltage can be determined by “tasting.” This method is only feasible where the pressure is but a few volts… Where the voltage is very low, the bare ends of the conductors constituting the two sides of a circuit are held a short distance on the tongue. If a voltage is present, a particular mild burning sensation results which will never be forgotten after one has experienced it. The taste is from the electrolytic composition on the liquids on the tongue which produces a salt having taste.

1913 Edition With evolving knowledge, technology and standards, it is

necessary to continually update the industries codes and standards - electricity and evolving new electrical equipment and test equipment will evolve in the decades to come. What was acceptable in the beginning is no longer acceptable with higher voltages and energy levels that electrical personnel work with today. This also applies to “electrical safety” in the work place.

The OSHA, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, ACT was signed into law in 1970 by President Nixon. OSHA DOES NOT WRITE CODES OR STANDARDS. At that time OSHA did not have an electrical safety standard, so they adopted Article 110 – Electrical Installation Requirements from the NFPA 70 as their

“electrical safety standard.” This particular article specifically applies to requirements for electrical installation only. There was no industry wide recognized formal requirement for “electrical safety for personnel.”

OSHA contracted with the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) in 1978 to write a “Standard for Electrical Safety in the Workplace.” The first edition was published by the NFPA in 1979 labeled volume 70E, now commonly referred to as NFPA 70E. Part 4 of the 70E standard was Article 110 of the NFPA volume 70 that remained in the standard until the 2009 edition, at which time it was deleted.

Like the National Electrical Codes’ first edition, published in 1897, that started as a small pamphlet, and has grown to the 2008 edition of 822 pages; the NFPA70E will likewise continue to grow as long as there is electricity, evolving technology and new equipment.

With the multitude of volt meter accidents and individuals receiving injury from energized circuits and equipment, the NFPA 70E committee deemed that volt meter training shall be “mandatory.” Volt meter training is listed under a “qualified person.” In an NFPA 70E 2004 video, it is said that a person in not considered qualified unless they can read and understand a one line diagram. The same principle applies with the new mandate of volt meter training; unless an individual has had volt meter training and can interpret the voltages indicated on the device, etc. … they are not qualified to perform in an “energized” or “de-energized” condition.

II. ROCKY FLATS, COLORADO – VOLT METER MISAPPLICATION

A fatality occurred at the Department of Energy facility at Rocky Flats outside Denver, Colorado in which an electrician applied a 500 volt electronic class meter to a 2400 volt power system and was engulfed in an electrical energy fireball and died from burns 31 hours later.

The Department of Energy Rocky Flats facility outside of Denver, Colorado had a primary distribution system which consisted of 2400 volts and 480 volts. The majority distribution voltage was 480 volts. Electricians normally performed routine maintenance and task on only 480 volt systems and equipment systems.

VOLT METER TRAINING MANDATE: NFPA 70 E

PowerTest 2009 By Paul McKinley, POWER Testing and Energization, Inc.

Safety Handbook6

7Safety Handbook

There was a 2400 volt system that supplied power to ventilation exhaust fans, which ran continuously, sometimes weeks, months and years without interruption or shutdown. The electricians did not normally have access to the 2400 volt system or equipment. They had little or no experience or training pertaining to 2400 volts system and equipment.

With the idea of saving electrical energy, an efficiency study indicated that the negative pressure required inside the facility did not require all the 2400 volt, 125 horsepower exhaust motor fans be running at the same time. To save money and power, a program was implemented that required the regular shutdown of the ventilation fans for maintenance and conservation of electricity.

One issue that was overlooked in the efficiency study was that the fuses supplying the 2400 volt 125 horsepower ventilation motors were not designed for frequent stopping and starting. Therefore, there was a series of fuse failures when re-starting the motors.

As a result, electrical craft personnel, who only had 480 volt experience, were now required to change the 2400 volt fuses as necessary. The electrical personnel were not given any formal training pertaining to the 2400 volt system, and 2400 volt motor and motor contactor controls.

After a scheduled shutdown of one of the ventilation fans and motor, upon attempting to restart the motor, it failed to start. An electrician was asked to change the fuses on the 2400 volt motor that would not start. The electrician was limited in his experience, knowledge and training concerning the 2400 volt system. The majority of his electrical experience was pertaining to 480 volt systems and lower voltages. He had never worked on voltages over 480 volts before this change in operation procedure regarding the ventilation exhaust fans. The electrician was so unfamiliar with the 2400 volt system that he had to ask direction to the switchgear room that controlled the exhaust fan equipment.

Safety Handbook8

Equipment rated 600 volts or less normally has the line side source voltage labeled L1, L2 and L3 for three phase equipment. The electrical source of power for equipment and components is normally connected to the top of the electrical components. There are some exceptions, but the general practice and application of electrical power is that it is normally connected to the top of the equipment.

Equipment with voltage classifications greater than 600 volts does not have design requirements or standards that mandate the source of electrical power be supplied to the top of the equipment. Therefore, an electrical power source can be supplied from the top or the bottom.

The 2400 volt motor contactor was an older design. It had what is referred to as a live front design. This means that through a series of interlocks, when the compartment door is opened the motor contactor is disconnected from the electrical power source and the conducting components are de-energized but directly exposed. This particular cubicle was below another compartment and the electrical source of power was connected to the bottom side of the motor contactor. The power source was labeled – LINE SIDE – but it was marked in a manner that one could not see it unless they viewed it from close to the floor looking up under the motor contactor. The motor starter power source was not readily visible.

With the cabinet door open, the electrician disabled the interlocks and connected the motor starter back on the energized bus. This energized the components directly in front of him with 2400 volts. It is thought that the electrician thought the fuses were de-energized. It is believed that he proceeded to check the 2400 volt energized circuit phase-to-phase with a 500 volt rated electronic class volt meter on the lowest resistance scale of his meter. It was determined that he was checking the conductors supplying the motor to determine if there were any short circuits or open circuit to the motor.

This would have been equivalent to short circuiting the 2400 volt conductors phase-to-phase, which would have allowed the maximum amount of current flow. From other accidents and investigations, if the circuit would have been verified on a voltage

selection of the meter, it would not have generated the intense fireball explosion it did, due to the internal impedance of the measuring device. The fault current would have been limited by the internal impedance of the meter.

As he applied the 500 volt electronic class multi-meter to two of the energized phases, it produced a phase-to-phase short circuit and engulfed him in a fireball of heat. He was burned over the vast majority of his body. Paramedics said that they could not find a place on his body to inject morphine due to the extent of his burns. The electrician died 31 hours later from burns produced by the fireball of electrical energy.

No formal training, misapplication and not understanding his multi-meter application cost him his life.

Technically speaking – because he had never received formal training – he was considered “unqualified” to be performing the task he did. The electrician was working alone in a high-energy hazardous environment with no support or qualified supervision. Additionally he was not wearing personal protective equipment that could have saved his life.

The investigation of the accident determined the following:

• The company did not supply or have a voltage-indicating device at their facility that was designed and rated to test for potential of 2400 volts

• The company did not supply individuals with personal protective equipment

9Safety Handbook

• Company supervision sent an individual to perform a task in which he not been trained and was “UNQUALIFIED” to perform the task of working on 2400 volt equipment

• The electrician used an electronic class, 500 volt rated multi-meter on an energized 2400 volt system

• The system design was a standard engineering design

• The 1200 amp main circuit breaker supplying the 2,400 volt bus was the closest protective device up stream and operated per design

• The protective relays operating the main circuit breaker were tested and found to operate correctly and operated within their correct operating times

• It was determined that the fireball generated by electrical energy reached temperatures of 10,000 degrees Centigrade by analyzing the scorched tile on the floor. (The energy produced by an “Electrical Power Arc” can produce temperatures as high as 20,000 degrees C.)

• Supervision of the electrician did not have an electrical background and did not understand the hazard of working alone or working in electrical high-energy circuits.

Summary:The individual in question, died at the hospital 31 hours later

from third degree burns, not from electrocution.

A lawyer for the deceased family filed lawsuits against the following:

• Department of Energy (DOE) • Fuse Manufacturer

• Prime Contractor for the DOE • Multi-Meter Manufacturer • Switch Gear Manufacturer

With such an attitude by the legal profession of the above incident, it becomes apparent that action should be taken by the prudent employer to protect one’s employee, themselves, their company, their equipment and product as much as reasonably possible from accident that may occur. This is even more important when OSHA has now mandated that individuals must be trained to their level of risk when working on or near potentially energized circuits.

It appears that once again, the legal profession was looking for the deep pockets, as some of the companies brought into the lawsuit had no responsibility or liability for the accident.

The Primary Contractor at the facility was held liable for the following reasons:

• The Primary Contractor did not supply a voltage indicating device to their employee that would indicate 2400 volts

• The Primary Contractor did not supply any personal protective equipment for the hazardous tasks the electrician was performing

• The Primary Contractor did not provide formal and documented training necessary to qualify their employee to perform routine tasks

• The Primary Contractor did not have procedures for performing the task of changing power class fuses and verifying that a circuit is completely de-energized.

• The Primary Contractor permitted their electrical personnel to work alone in a hazardous - high-electrical energy task

Safety Handbook10

• The Primary Contractor was using non-electrical multi-craft supervision (that is individuals who had no concept of the hazards of high-electrical energy sources) to direct the job tasks of the electrical personnel.

Note: Most non-technical personnel do not conceptually understand that high electrical energy circuits have potential that can produce violent explosions and temperatures that can reach levels that are four times hotter than the surface of the sun. The temperatures generated by the electrical power arc can ignite one’s clothing at distances up to ten feet by radiant energy alone and has the ability to vaporize metal. Therefore, non-electrical supervision should not be used to supervise electrical personnel in high electrical energy situations.

Evaluating the incident from a personnel safety and liability point of view, the incident could have been adverted by two actions:

• The use of a Power Class Volt Meter by trained – “certified” (knowledge skills) and “qualified” (performance skills) – individuals could have prevented the accident

• Initial and continual training of the potential hazards when working on high electrical energy circuits should be implemented

The training should consist of:

• Systems which employees routinely perform maintenance and job tasks

• Procedures for verifying whether an electrical circuit and components are free from potential

• Formal and documented training in the use of high electrical energy / high potential test equipment and application

• There is presently state of the art voltage indicating and measuring devices for the testing of potential on high electrical energy circuits. The indicators and measuring devices provide a “numerical value” that can be read to determine whether voltage is present or not. Some state of the art voltage indicators and measuring devices can indicate voltages as high as 100 kV RMS phase-to-ground, or phase-to-phase with either digital or analog indication

• There is presently a specialized meter that has been designed to indicate voltage up to 100-kV RMS phase-to-phase, or phase-to-ground. The Ross “Hi Z” meter is designed to only indicate voltage with scales to give one adequate indication of the voltage level present. The lowest scale will indicate as low as 250 volts RMS with provision for capacitance tap indication. The meter has a “high impedance” feature that has been provided to prevent damage to the meter and protect personnel should the meter be accidentally misapplied

• In addition, the Ross “Hi-Z” meter will not operate unless extension handles are connected to provide mandatory adequate working clearances. An external testing device for verifying the correct operation of the meter is provided at 400-hertz that is

outside the influence of the 60-hertz magnetic field produced by power systems. The Ross “Hi-Z” meter has been designed to test voltage only, to eliminate the possibility of misapplication on other functions

With today’s technology and state of the art testing devices, it is prudent that test equipment designed specifically for testing high electrical energy circuits be used to verify circuits and components are energized or de-energized. Older methods for determining the presence of potential are still available, but their time has passed with present technology and only state of the art measuring devices should be used.

For the safety of those who work on High Electrical Energy Circuits:

• Individuals should be formally Certified (knowledge skills and Qualified (performance skills) to use voltage indicating devices

• The most state of the art voltage test equipment should be made available to those whose work require that voltage must be verified on high electrical energy circuits

III. IDAHO NATIONAL ENGINEERING LABORATORY (INEL) – VOLT METER “PHASING” MISAPPLICATION

In 1985, the training department of the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory (INEL), Westinghouse Idaho Nuclear Company (WINCO) Facility, outside of Idaho Falls, Idaho, contacted American Power System Institute (APSI) to develop a High Voltage Electrical Safety Program for their facility.

The request came after an accident at the WINCO facility where three individuals were injured to various degrees when attempting to phase 2 three phase 2400 volt systems together using a volt meter that was not designed for, nor rated for, the 2400 voltage level. Their volt meter was rated for general application below 1000 volts on low energy circuits, not on industrial/utility high energy power systems.

Rod Remsburg, the director of the WINCO Training Department, was the individual who requested the training. Rod said later, after the training, that APSI was the first outside contractor that they brought in to do any type of training. Up until that time, WINCO had done all of their training internally.

The premise and guideline for the training was that it would be a “High Voltage – High Energy Electrical Safety Program.” The development of the electrical safety training was based upon present industrial and utility standards with personal field experience and practices. It was found that there was “no formal training” for certification and qualification pertaining specifically to industrial and commercial High Voltage – High Electrical Energy Systems Safety. There was no formal training to neither “qualify” nor “certify” individuals with on-the-job, hands-on training incorporated with classroom lecture.

11Safety Handbook

The APSI High Voltage Electrical Safety Training was based upon classroom lectures which gave individuals a knowledge base and hands-on qualification performance; based on actual performance of routine Electrical Craft and Technical Tasks. The training was different in that it formally incorporated both classroom lecture and field task performances, which provided an individual with Certification and Qualification.

The training objectives for the High Voltage – High Electrical Energy Training came from practical field experience. Individuals who worked with High Voltage needed to be aware of the invisible hazards and risks that are always present. Special emphasis was given to the unseen hazards of electricity that existed at high voltage levels, that do not exist at low voltage levels; that is, 1000 volts and below. The objectives emphasized that routine

Safety Handbook12

tasks that were performed at low voltage levels could be fatal at higher voltage levels.

Because the training had a practical application of the hazards and risks that individuals needed to know in their every day job tasks, the training at large was well received and very successful. Unknown to APSI, when the subject of phasing was covered, it explained the details and reason for the accident that occurred at the WINCO facility.

The APSI High Voltage – High Electrical Energy training was continued at the INEL facilities until approximately 1991. During that time, enhancements and modifications were continually made to address the INEL’s specific concerns pertaining to electrical safety.

There were several issues of concern that came up during the training sessions.

• Volt Meter Misapplication – It was determined that 100 percent of the time, electrical personnel, craftsmen and technicians were misapplying their voltage measuring instruments when checking for the presence of voltage. The training was further enhanced to cover the various types and rating of voltage measuring devices, their proper use and application. Up to this time, there was no industry formal training specifically for High Voltage Volt Meters, their rating use, and specifically their application at High Voltage levels.

• Grounding indoor switchgear was an issue. It was addressed and a formal procedure was written and incorporated into the Electrical Safety Training.

• Protective clothing and insulated tools were basically not in use at this time. Guide lines and procedures were written regarding their use.

• Working Alone – It was common practice at most facilities for an individual to work alone. Individuals would work alone in situations where they were exposed to high voltage and high electrical energy systems with no one to back them up. There were additional electrical safety issues that were addressed when it was learned that individuals were not being trained in hazardous, high risk environments and conditions.

By 1991, the APSI High Voltage – High Electrical Energy Safety Training was being taught at the INEL to electrical engineers, supervisors, foremen, craft personnel and electronic personnel – virtually anyone who faced a risk of electrical shock at any voltage level.

Congress Steps In Because of all of the electrical accidents and fatalities that had

occurred, there were congressional hearings held on the subject of “electrocutions and the number of fatalities.” The outcome of those hearings was that the government mandated through the Code of Federal Regulation, Title 29; that as of January 1, 1991, “all individuals who were exposed to and faced a risk of electrical shock, had to be trained at a minimum to their level of risk” (CFR

Title 29, Subpart S, 1910.132). Electrical Safety Training was no longer optional.

Additionally, it was determined that individuals who faced a risk of electrical shock needed to be qualified. The Code mandated that there were three basic issues that individuals had to be trained in to be considered qualified:

1. Skills and techniques necessary to distinguish exposed energized parts2. Skills and techniques necessary to determine nominal voltage levels3. Know approach distances of exposed live parts

By the time the federally mandated electrical safety training had come, January 1, 1991, the APSI High Voltage – High Energy Electrical Safety Training was already fulfilling these requirements. In addition to the minimum training requirements, the APSI training required successful classroom instruction and knowledge skills to pass a difficult electrical safety test. If they did not pass, they were required to take the class over again, and could not work on any electrical systems until they passed.

Incorporated into the classroom training was required successful on-the-job performance training as well. Individuals had to take high voltage measurements (15 kV class), phase-to-phase, phase-to-ground, and phase-to-neutral, and then record them. Additionally, individuals had to (1) perform calculation and take (2) voltage measurements, then determine if two, three-phase electrical systems could be safely connected together. This task is performed hundreds of times a week around the country, is called “phasing.”

The following were classroom performance tasks and on-the-job performance tasks which were taught in the APSI class. The training provided instruction for procedures and tasks to do the following:

1. Determine voltage class and nominal voltage levels by evaluating the size and class of insulator bushings, or determine the distance from an energized part to ground, i.e. phase-to-ground

2. Teach performance skills to distinguish the difference between exposed energized and de-energized parts

3. Knowing the voltage class and nominal voltage, how to determine safe working clearances for different voltage levels and determine the distance from an energized parts to ground, i.e. phase-to-ground

4. Teach procedures to practically keep a safe distance from exposed energized parts, and know text book and standard clearance requirements

5. Individuals were taught how to select the proper type and rating of volt meters to be used on any system

6. Properly assemble, disassemble and store a high voltage meter

7. How to inspect and determine if a volt meter is safe to use

13Safety Handbook

NOTE: Ross Engineering, in Campbell, California – donated a Hi-Z® Analog Volt-Meter and Hi-Z® Digital Volt-Meter for the training sessions. The volt meters have a high voltage rating of 50,000 AC RMS volts, and a low scale of 50 mV AC RMS; perfect for measuring system voltage and any induced voltage. In each training session, each individual had to assemble the volt meter, take and record voltage measurements up to 15,000 volts and then disassemble and properly store the meter. This was done in each electrical safety class. And without exception, everyone had to pass a knowledge base examination and successfully perform voltage measurements on a high voltage-high energy system.

NOTE: If an individual did not pass the written and performance test, they could not work on electrical systems until they successfully passed the class.

1. How to test and verify a volt meter proper operation before they applied it to a potentially energized system.

2. Individuals were taught that they must know what voltages to expect by using their knowledge skills before a voltage measurement is ever taken.

3. Individuals were taught where the contact points were for taking phase-to-phase, phase-to-ground and phase-to-neutral voltage measurements to determine if system and/or induced voltage are present.

4. Individuals were taught how to know the difference between system voltage and induced voltage.

5. Individuals were to take and record voltage measurements, phase-to-phase, phase-to-ground, phase-to-neutral and ground-to-neutral.

6. Individuals were taught they should know and be able to explain any voltage that was indicated on their volt meter – any voltage.

7. If voltage was present, individuals were taught how to determine if it was system voltage or static induced voltage in preparation for applying Personnel Safety Grounds.

8. Individuals were taught how to use standard transformer nameplate information to determine short circuit calculations for two reasons.

• When grounding, determine that the proper ground conductor size is adequate for short circuits

• When changing protective devices out (i.e. primarily fuses), verify that the fuse has the correct interrupting rating

IV. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY (DOE) 1999 – VOLT METER TRAINING MANDATE – 16 HOURS

Since 1985 the DOE has had a policy that if training is not documented “it never happened.” One of the first things that the DOE accident investigation teams look for are the following:

• Was the individual/s qualified to be performing the work they were doing?

• Had adequate training been given to the individuals?

• Was there an electrical safety program implemented?

• What codes and standards were they working under?

• What procedure were they doing to be performing the work they were doing?

• Were they wearing all the proper Personal Protective Equipment?

• Was the Personal Protective Equipment rated for the available Arc Flash level?

• Where is the documentation?

This is not new, but has been evolving at government facilities since 1970 when President Nixon signed the OSHA ACT. Government facilities, contractors and subcontractors working at government sites have been slowly embracing the new standards and codes.

In 1999, the Department of Energy determined a “formal volt meter” training course was needed. They contracted to have a standard electrical volt meter training course developed for their facilities to standardize the material and objectives that would be taught at their facilities. The material they felt needed to be covered would require 16 hours minimum for the training.

Some DOE facilities added the volt meter to their electrical training requirements. Other facilities’ electrical safety committees agreed that electricians should not work on electrical systems or use volt meters unless they had attended the training and passed with a minimum of 80 percent passing grade.

Some non-government facilities have also seen the need for formal documented electrical safety and “volt meter” and have it mandated that re-training/refresher/update training be required on a three year cycle.

The NFPA 70E was first published in 1979, and has continually evolved with more stringent requirements with every new publication; it will continue to evolve for the next decades, the same as the National Electrical Code which was first published in 1897. There is a government and industry standard for formal volt meter training of sixteen (16) hours since 1999. It is not something new to the industry.

V. THE 16-HOUR VOLT METER TRAINING OBJECTION – “WHAT CAN BE TAUGHT REGARDING VOLT METERS FOR 16 HOURS?”

There is a prevailing industry attitude of those who are not familiar with the energy levels at which they work of “What can be taught on Volt Meters for 16 hours,” or “We have never had to have this type of training before, why are we required to have it now?” Some have openly stated that they do not believe in the new electrical safety rules and it is all a waste of time. Generally, these are the ones who are careless and have the accidents.

Safety Handbook14

VI. ONE HUNDRED PERCENT (100%) – VOLT METER MISAPPLICATION

One of the reasons that the Department of Energy mandated volt meter training is the critiques that came from the classes verified a serious need for volt meter training. A volt meter questionnaire was given at the end of each volt meter training session.

After the individual learned how the manufacturers limit their volt meter use, to date one hundred percent (100%) of the individuals have acknowledged their volt meter, some scores and hundreds of times.

EXAMPLE:

WARNING:

• 10 AMP RANGE IS UNFUSED.

• TO AVOID DAMAGE OR INJURY:

– USE ONLY IN PROTECTED CIRCUITS WHICH CAN NOT EXCEED EITHER 20 AMPS OR

– 4000 VOLT AMPERES

The definition of a protected circuit is defined as a circuit being protected by either a fuse or circuit breaker. The above manufacturer’s instructions are that their volt meter should not be used on circuits that have circuit protection greater than 20 amps. In other words, if one used the voltage device on a circuit with circuit protection greater than 20 amps or more, it is a misapplication as defined by the manufacturer.

Additionally, it one uses a volt meter on a circuit that has a volt amp source greater than 4000, it is a misapplication of their testing device. It has been observed that 4800 volt-amps is a rating that manufactures use not only to rate their meters but also the accessories for the met.

EXAMPLE:

One of the largest manufacturers once rated and limited the use of their volt meters to 4800 volt amps, but also had an accessory probe rated for 28,000 volts AC and 40,000 DC for the same device. The probe was made of plastic with a high voltage rated wire and connection with a small gage wire with an alligator clip for connection to ground. The probe was designed for electronic circuits which needed a high voltage but very low ampere rating. This manufacture has since discontinued supporting the use of their high voltage accessories but has contracted with another company to supply the high voltage probes.

The 4800 VA limited use of the meter means that if one uses the meter to check the voltage on the secondary of a 5 KVA transformer, they have in fact misapplied the meter.

Fortunately, there have not been more volt meter accidents than have happened. It is common practice to check commercial and industrial electrical systems with multi-meters with no repercussions but it still a misapplication. To reflect back to times that I have personally checked the secondary of 480 volt, 1000 and 2000 KVA secondary’s directly to the terminals is a frightening remembrance.

Because every test instrument is a potential for liability to the manufacture, the instruction books are written very stringent to protect the manufacturers. For liability purposes, the manufacturers have limited the use of their voltage detecting device to protect them from liability in the event of injury or death. Once again, for the manufacture, every instrument is a potential liability and the instruction book clearly states from most manufacturers that you “Read and understand the instructions of this device before use.” or simply “Read first.” It is observed that some manufacturers’ have not changed their product, but they have updated and changed their instruction book to a higher degree of instructions to protect themselves from liability.

15Safety Handbook

VII. NFPA 70E – THE VOLT METER QUALIFICATION TRAINING MANDATE

NOW comes the NFPA – The NFPA 70E, as of January 1, 2009, now mandates volt meter training be required to qualified an individual to test for an energized or de-energized condition, select a meter rated for the voltage being tested and know its characteristics and be qualified to properly use it.

The Volt Meter Training has been a government / industry mandate in place for over a decade.

NFPA 70E, Article 110.6.D.1.e states the following:

Employees shall be trained to select an appropriate voltage detector and shall demonstrate how to use a device to verify the absence of voltage, including interpreting indications provided by the device. The training shall include information that enables the employee to understand all limitations of each specific voltage detector that may be used.

To break that down in simpler terms:

• Employees shall be trained to select an appropriate voltage detector, and

• shall demonstrate how to use a device to verify the absence of voltage, (i.e. verify an energized or de-energized condition) emphasis added

• including interpreting (any) indications provided by the device (i.e. able to explain any voltage indicated by the voltage device – a direct contact voltage indicator that provides a number indication) emphasis added

• the training shall include information that enables the employee to understand all limitations of each specific voltage detector that may be used.

VIII. VOLT METER TRAINING OBJECTIVES – NETA RECOGNIZED COURSE – 16 HOURS

OSHA now mandates minimum electrical training requirements for Volt Meters through the NFPA 70E consensus standard. The same course that was developed and approved by the Department of Energy has been submitted to NETA and is now recognized for 16 hours toward a NETA Techs required 48 hours of training required every 36 months. By default, it has become the consensus standard for full volt meter training and qualifications.

The following are the “objects” that are covered in the course. Certification for Volt Meters – Performance Training Objectives:

1. STATE ten (10) purposes of volt meter training

2. STATE the first thing that should be done before using a volt meter

3. STATE the first thing a volt meter instruction book instructs an individual to do before they use the volt meter

4. DEFINE the duty cycle of a volt meter

5. STATE how to tell the difference between a power class and electronic class volt meter

6. STATE the voltage level that is considered by OSHA to be considered a safe voltage level

7. STATE two minimum electrical safety training objectives that OSHA requires for non-electrical personnel and unqualified individuals

8. STATE and EXPLAIN the relationship between the (1) Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), (2) NFPA 70 and NFPA 70E

9. STATE the most recent definition of a qualified person per OSHA on the CFR 29 definition

10. STATE the most recent definition of qualified person the in the (NFPA 70E 2009 edition)

11. STATE the three (3) minimum requirements that OSHA mandates for an individual to be considered qualified when working around energized circuits, components and electrical systems

12. STATE how to determine an electrical systems’ class of voltage

13. Pertaining to Volt Meters, STATE the value of knowing the Class of Voltage of electrical equipment?

14. DEFINE the term “Nominal Voltage” of an electrical system

15. STATE and DEFINE the three (3) NFPA 70E “shock boundaries”

16. STATE the “Limited-shock boundary (NFPA 70E) clearance for the following voltages: 600 Volt; 5,000 Volt; 15,000 Volt; 25,000 Volt and 35,000 Volt CLASS of voltages.

a. Voltage phase-to-phase, Fixed Equipment Movable Exposed;

Safety Handbook16

17. STATE how to determine the standard Nominal Voltage of an electrical system.

18. DEFINE and STATE the difference between Nominal Voltage, Voltage Class and Operating Voltage

19. DEFINE the term Capacitance Voltage of an electrical system

20. STATE two (2) types of Capacitance Voltage on an electrical system

21. DEFINE the term Induced Voltage

22. DEFINE the difference between electrostatic and electromagnetic coupling pertaining to induced voltage

23. STATE how to tell the difference between system voltage and induced voltage

24. STATE what determines the VA capacity of Capacitance Voltage and Induced Voltage

25. STATE how Capacitance Voltage and Induced Voltage can be lethal when touching or taking voltage measurements to determine an energized or a de-energized condition

26. LIST a minimum of 5 sources of voltage can be energize a circuit after it is de-energized and locked-out and tag-out by its normal source of voltage

27. STATE and DESCRIBE the three (3) most common misapplications of volt meters

28. STATE how to safely protect an individual using a volt meter should a shot circuit occur in the meter and/or the volt meter test leads

29. STATE and DESCRIBE the three (3) types of categories of voltage indicating devices

30. STATE and DESCRIBE the three (3) mandatory rules for using voltage-measuring devices

31. STATE the five (5) ways that manufactures rate their voltage-measuring devices

32. STATE the purpose of the fuses inside of a volt-meter

33. STATE the minimum standard interrupting rating of a power class fuses and circuit breaker

34. STATE two (2) definitions of low voltage indicating devices

35. DEFINE a high impedance voltage measuring device

36. DEFINE a high electrical energy voltage measuring device

37. STATE how the International Electromechanical Committee (IEC) standard has become the default standard for volt meters in the United States

38. STATE how the UL 61010-1 Standard and the IEC 61010-1 presently relate to each other

39. STATE the four (4) IEC/UL standard category rating of a volt meter

40. STATE the transient test voltage of an IEC/UL Category I, II, III and IV volt meter

41. STATE the application of an IEC/UL CAT I, II, III and IV Voltage Measuring Device

42. STATE the three (3) default definitions of a High Energy Electrical Circuit

43. STATE the Code of Federal Regulations General Requirement before any electrical circuit, electrical system or electrical components may be worked on

44. STATE the three (3) types of generic direct current circuits

45. STATE the minimum number of checks and test that must be performed on a direct current (DC) circuit to determine if it is energized or de-energized condition

46. STATE the three (3) types of generic single phase circuits.

47. STATE the minimum number of checks and test that must be performed on a single phase alternating current (AC) circuit to determine if it is energized or de-energized.

48. STATE the minimum and optional number of checks and test that must be performed on a three phase alternating current (AC) circuit to determine if it is energized or de-energized.

49. STATE the last thing that MUST be done after testing a voltage de-energized condition

50. STATE four (4) instances that a generic proximity static indicating device will indicate zero (0) voltage, when the electrical system voltage is energized with full system voltage

51. STATE the three (3) preferred characteristics of a power class voltage-indicating device to determine if an electrical circuit or components is completely de-energized

52. When referencing the phase-to-phase voltage of a three (3) phase electrical system as 100 percent, STATE the percent voltage that will be indicated between two (2), three (3) phase electrical systems that have a thirty 30 and 60 degree phase shift between all three phases

53. DEFINE and EXPLAIN the term PHASING as applied to connecting two (2), three (3) phase electrical systems together

54. When performing PHASING, DETERMINE/CALCULATE (1) the magnitude difference between the two systems, (2) the phase angle difference between the two systems and (3) the ground location on each system using a volt meter

55. STATE the minimum recommended number of voltages measurements that should be performed when performing a phasing test to connect two (2), three (3) phase electrical systems together;

17Safety Handbook

56. STATE the parameters for magnitude differences, phase angle differences and ground locations differences to take the responsibility to authorize connecting the two systems safely together

57. STATE what makes you qualified to use a volt meter and verify a de-energized condition and/or trouble shoot an electrical circuit or system

58. STATE how to evaluate any volt meter and determine it maximum voltage AC/DC use

59. LIST the eight (8) items that a qualified individual should verify before using a volt meter

KNOWLEDGE AND PERFORMANCE SKILLS 60. CALCULATE the following voltages that will be indicated on a volt meter when testing the following transformer terminals. Transformer is connected Delta/wye, wye neutral is solidly grounded, and voltage nameplate rating 12,470/4160/1385 volts. All measurements are taken with a high impedance volt meter.

Transformer terminals are the following: H1, H2, H3, x1, x2, x3 and x0

• H1 to H2 = x1 to x2 = H1 to x1 = • H2 to H3 = x2 to x3 = H1 to x2 = • H3 to H1 = x3 to x1 = H1 to x3 = • H1 to H0 = x1 to x0 = H1 to x0 = • H0 to x0 = x0 to Gnd = H1 to Gnd =

61. CALCULATE the following voltages that will be indicated on a volt meter when testing the following transformer terminals. Transformer is connected Delta/delta, ungrounded, the voltage nameplate rating is 7200/480 volts.

All measurements are taken with a high impedance volt meter.



62. CALCULATE the voltages that will be indicated on a volt meter when testing the following transformer terminals. Transformer connection is Wye/wye, 4160/2400 volts. Wye primary neutral is grounded.

All measurements are taken with a high impedance volt meter.



IX. VOLT METER DEFINITION – TECHNICAL AND NON-TECHNICAL

The technical definition of a volt meter is a device for determining voltage / potential / electromotive force and its magnitude.

One lineman defined a volt meter as:

“A device used for testing voltage to verify what the tester should already know before they put the volt meter to the test.”

…i.e. A qualified tester should be able to determine an energized or de-energized condition and be able to explain “any” voltage that is indicated by the device.

Technically, if one is not able to do that, they are not qualified to verify a circuit/equipment is free of all potential for safety purposes.

X. TYPES OF VOLT METERS There are a variety of volt meters and potential measuring/

indicating devices presently in the market today. Each category of voltage detecting devices has its own characteristics and usage. The characteristic of each voltage detecting device must be understood when selecting the appropriate device for testing/measuring power systems voltages.

1. POWER CLASS VOT METERS OR VOLTAGE INDICATING DEVICES:

Power class volt meters are categorized into two (2) voltage categories – 1000 volts and below and greater than 1000 volts. Source Volt-Amps is greater than 4800 VA.

2. LOW VOLTAGE VOLT METERS By default low voltage for volt meters is considered 1000 volts and below; this is a European standard from the IEC standard for volt meters. Technically 600 volts and below in the US is considered low voltage.

Therefore, Power Class volt meters for electrical power systems must be rated at least 1000 volts and above, but a minimum rating of the voltage tested.

3. ANALOG VOTAGE INDICATORS An instrument that detects voltage and produces a mechanical movement of the indicating device. These types of meter are available for both AC and DC. Some meters are manufactured to verify voltages of over 1000 Volts AC RMS (e.g. Simpson, Triplett). These meters are rated for general laboratory usage and NOT designed for electrical power circuits.

Safety Handbook18

4. PROXIMITY AUDIO / INDICATING LIGHT VOLTAGE DETECTOR An instrument that detects voltage by the electrostatic or

electromagnetic field produced from the AC system. The device provides a light and/or audible sound and/or when voltage is present. This type of voltage detector does NOT provide a specific number indication. This type of volt meter operates with AC.

A proximity detector is recommended with both audio and a light indication to verify each is working. The more upscale detectors of this type also have a sensitivity adjustment.

5. DIGITAL VOLTAGE INDICATORS An instrument that detects an electrostatic field of voltage and

provides a digital display of the magnitude of voltage that is present. It is designed to verify both AC and DC voltage. Low voltage (600 volts and less) digital meters are limited to the voltage that it can detect due to the manufacturer’s maximum voltage rating.

Special probes are available to detect higher voltages but are not recommended on electrical “power” distribution systems. High Voltage Digital Volt Meters are available for electrical power and high energy distribution systems.

6. DIRECT CONTACT TYPE NEON An instrument for detecting the presence of an AC voltage, with

respect to ground, by direct contact between the detector and the energized conductor. It is used and activated on AC circuits. For some instruments, the lowest voltage that can be reliably detected is 2400 volts and is not recommend for voltages below 2000 volts.

The detecting of the voltage is accomplished with a neon tube connected to one side of a forked contact terminal. The neon tube is illuminated by the capacitance between the electrode and ground.

The above device, when screwed together is approximately 11 inches long, is designed for direct contact and a neon light next to the contact point and is rated for 2400 volts. The industry is evolving, standards and codes are evolving and volt meters are evolving.

7. LOW IMPEDIENCE VOLT METERS A volt meter with a low enough internal impedance that will short

circuit the capacitance voltage to ground on an ungrounded electrical system and indicate zero volts to ground on each phase of a three phase ungrounded system with full potential present phase-to-phase.

This type voltage detector is generally a spring connected plunger with a coil attracting the plunger to indicate the presence of voltage. It is not designed as a precession instrument but provides a general indication of the voltage that is present, such as 120, 277, 480 and up to 600 volts AC or DC. An example would be a Square D “Wiggins,” Knopp and some Ideal voltage detectors. Some Ideal voltage detectors can be low impedance or high impedance. The instruction book will provide that information.

WARNING: These types of devices are designed for intermittent duty only and have a duty cycle that ranges from 1 to 4 up to 1 to 40 times on versus off.

8. HIGH IMPEDANCE – POWER CLASS VOLT METERS

A meter with an internal impedance high enough that it will not short circuit the capacitance of a system or it will not shift the ground reference on ungrounded electrical systems. Most electronic and electromechanical volt meters are high impedance.

Generally, a volt meter with an internal impedance of 400 ohms or higher is considered a high impedance volt meter, because it will not short circuit the capacitance of the system or shift the ground reference of an ungrounded system.

19Safety Handbook

9. HIGH ENERGY, HIGH VOLTAGE INDICATING DEVICE A specifically designed single function instrument for direct

contact to electrical conducting components that will provide personnel with an indication of a number (either mechanical or digital) that is designed to protect personnel from meter failure, test lead failure or misapplication within the rating of the meter.

The Ross Hi-Z volt meters are rated as high as 100,000 volts AC RMS designed for high electric utility and industrial electrical systems, and are classified as a high impedance meter.

The Ross Hi-Z Power Class Volt Meter is the ultimate in power class safety volt meters in the marketplace today. Its voltage rating range is from 100,000 volts AC RMS, to 25 AC RMS, and can read the electrostatic voltage field in the air produced by florescent light ballast; a remarkable design and capability.

Pacific Gas and Electric (PGE) in the 1960s asked Ross Engineering to design a safety power class volt meter for servicing their utility system. By design, it is a rugged meter and has many safety features for misapplication. Its safety design is to protect the user and the meter.

One of the largest multi-meter manufacturers in the world once had a high voltage probe for their meters rated at 28,000 volts AC RMS or 39,000 volts DC, but only rated for a source application of a maximum of 4800 VA. Because of the long history and success of the Ross Hi-Z volt meter, this company is now contracting with ROSS to manufacture their high voltage probes with capabilities of mounting their meters on the same.

XI. RECOMMENDED TYPE OF POWER CLASS VOLT METER

The industry at large, including volt meter manufacturers, has seemed reluctant to establish a fixed value for what would be considered an electrical power circuit, and it appears they will not being doing so anytime time soon. When referring to electrical utility power systems, industrial power circuits or commercial distribution systems, power class volt meters should be viewed in two (2) categories.

First, they should be viewed in a voltage category which would be designated 1000 volts and below for low voltage meters and greater than 1000 volts for high voltage applications.

Second, would be the VA/KVA source that is being tested. Some manufacturers have limited the use of their volt meters to a maximum 4800 VA source and circuit protection greater than 20 amperes.

DEFINITION OF AN INDUSTRIAL POWER CLASS LOW VOLTAGE METER

The following definition was taken directly from one of the traditional volt meter manuals which were the manufacturers’ recommendation in the 1970s. As mentioned previously, the manufacturers have avoided and have yet to define what an industrial power class circuit or high energy circuit is when using their voltage indicating device on an industrial, commercial or electric utility distribution system.

A low voltage power class volt meter is defined as the following, has the following characteristics and has instructions for proper use for personnel and personal protective equipment.

Safety Handbook20

1. Use a volt meter that is designed to indicate voltage only;

2. Use a volt meter that has a voltage rating equal to or greater than the voltage that is being tested;

3. Ensure that OSHA working clearances are maintained when using test equipment;

4. If working clearances are not maintained, personal protective equipment must be worn.

ADDITIONAL INDUSTRY RECOMMENDATIONS: (not part of the previous manufacturers’ recommendations.)

5. Use Analog or Digital volt meters that have been designed for the purpose of direct contact;

6. Analog meters should ALWAYS USE A SCALE THAT WILL INDICATE AN APPROXIMATE MID-SCALE DEFLECTION;

7. The volt meter should be tested on a known energized circuit or test device BEFORE and AFTER testing a potentially energized circuit;

8. Use recommended personal protective equipment as needed, i.e. hardhat, colored glasses, face shield and appropriate clothing (rated for the appropriate Hazard Risk Category);

9. Use rubber protective equipment as needed of the appropriate class;

10. Have a standard written procedure for testing and verifying the presence of voltage for an energized or de-energized condition.

• Primary Voltage Testing should always be performed with a volt meter that is designed for direct contact and provides a numerical number for interpretation.

• Secondary Voltage Testing - using static voltage testing devices - should only be used when there is no or will be no contact by the tester or personnel to voltage or verify the absence of voltage after primary testing has been performed.

While questioning one of the sales engineers for the largest multi-meter manufacturers in the marketplace, it was asked why their company did not manufacture a single function “safety volt meter” that was rated for electrical power distribution systems. His response was that they did not make marketing decisions based on thousands or tens of thousands of meters but millions of sales of meters. He continued and said that our company products are “market driven” and until the market place requires such a voltage detecting device, they would continue to sell volt meters in the form of multi-meters.

From a safety perspective, the industry should make it known to manufactures that the industry is moving more toward the safety of individuals in personal protective equipment and test equipment and should also follow the trend. Until the electrical industry starts requiring economical safety voltage devices, it appears that the manufacturers will continue to market “generic multi-meters” for voltage detecting, troubleshooting and verifying

an energized or de-energized condition. A single function high impedance volt meter will 100 percent eliminate the possibility of being on the incorrect function, such as resistance or current, and prevent function misapplication.

In the volt meter questionnaire given at the end of the volt meter classes that have been taught, one of the questions asked is:

“What percent do you use your multi-meter to test for?”

(1) resistance – average between 4 to 7 percent

(2) current – less than 2 percent

(3) voltage – average 92 percent

Without exception, the responses have been between 87 percent to 100 percent of the time an individual uses their multi-meters to test for voltage.

XII. IEC 61010-1 EUROPEAN / UL 61010-1 UNITED STATES - VOLT METER STANDARDS

It was in the late 1980s that the industry began to have an interest in the standards to which volt meters were manufactured and that interest continues to grow. The number of standards and organizations that put their seal of approval on equipment also continues to increase as well; such as following:

NRTL: National Recognized Testing Laboratory

IEC: International Electromechanical Commission

UL: Underwriters Laboratories Inc. CSA: Canadian Standards Association CE: Conformance European (Communaut Europenne or Conformit Europenne)

TUV; TUVRheinland - Germany

TUV: TÜV SÜD America’s NRTL

ISO: International Organization for Standardization – ISO is the world’s largest developer of standards

ETL: Originally a mark of ETL Testing Laboratories, now a mark of Intertek Testing Services

The list is not complete and continues to grow.

The largest manufacturer of volt meters originally started using the IEC 1010 standard then the IEC 61010, and has evolved to the current IEC 61010-1, which seems to be a universal standard. The standard is modified by country and presently the US is using the UL 61010-1 standard. The standards and revisions have changed so much that it is most difficult to trace the standard that is used for each volt meter. The easiest way to match the volt meter to the standard is by the instruction book that came with it.

The IEC 61010-1 standard is for low voltage multi-meters, that is 1000 volts and less. It also uses the term electronic in the standard, basically putting it in the electronic usage category. The standard does have four (4) categories of usage which are outlined in the images and charts that follow.

21Safety Handbook

Safety Handbook22

Over voltage installation categories. IEC 1010 applies to low-voltage (less than 1000 volt) test equipment.

CATEGORY RATING – commonly called “CAT Rating” is DEFINED as the ability of a volt meter to withstand a voltage transient (spike) applied through a specific value of resistance.

Notice that the testing and rating of the volt meter is for voltage transients or surges, i.e. spikes and the meter being on the correct function and scale.

When verifying the voltage of a large KVA transformer’s secondary terminals, there is NO overcurrent or short circuit protection on the secondary. The closest overcurrent or short circuit protection is on the primary of the transformer. The tester can be exposed to tens of thousands of short circuit amps without protection at the voltage level at which they are exposed to.

There have been fatalities in the above example caused by the volt meter leads short circuiting to ground or phase to phase. This brings up another common question, “What are the ratings of the volt meter leads?” Generally, the meter test leads are a component that is overlooked or ignored.

There is a trend in the industry to use meter test leads that are fused. This is not a fix but provides a new level of safety protection that has not been there in the past. There are companies that have available test leads that are double insulated with an insert for fuses rated for 1000 volts and have a short circuit interrupting rating of 50,000 amperes. Without exception, the question arises “What if the fuse is blown?” Good question. The answer is that per procedure and standard when taking voltage measurement the technician is required to test the instrument immediately before the test and immediately after the test.

The following are some photos of some of the meter leads and fuses.

MATCHING THE VOLT METER TO THE STANDARD IT IS BUILT TO IN RELATIONSHIP THE MANUFACTURER’S INSTRUCTIONS

There are two (2) factors which should be considered when evaluating a volt meters’ rating and use, which are the following:

• First, one has to decide which testing organization/s that is acceptable to you as an individual and/or a company (such as IEC, UL, CSA, TUV, etc.). The organization’s logo should be clearly marked on the voltage sensing/indicating device. If not, it means that typically the device has not been built and tested to a recognized testing organization’s requirements and standards.

NOTE: Fluke has stated in one of their promotional videos that, “just because a voltage testing instrument has a specific labeling and rating, does not mean that it has truly been built and actually tested to the labeling standard and approving organization.

The “labeling” organization of test instruments should be one that is recognized and has proven track record; the individual and/or company must decide which testing organization/s that they personally recognize and use as their standard of acceptance.

ONCE the “labeling organization” is determined, the standard to which it has been built and tested is available.

23Safety Handbook

• Second, there is the manufacturer’s instruction book that comes with each voltage indicating device. For detailed approval of selecting a volt meter: (1) the standard to which the device has been built and tested, and (2) the manufacturer’s instruction should be used.

• Generally, there is some disclaimer in the manufacturer’s instruction book to “always use and understand the information in the instruction book before use,” or sometimes just the simple phrase “Read First.”

• Some manufacturers rate their multi-meter devices for a CAT I, II, III or IV, indicating that it has been built and tested to the IEC 61010 standard.

It should be noted that some devices coming from outside the US do not require any recognized standard at all. Be aware and always look for at least a recognized standard to which it has been labeled.

When purchasing or provided with a voltage indicating device, an instruction book or copy of the instruction book should be included with the instrument. Reading and understanding the information in the instruction book and verifying with written records this has been done as required makes individuals/companies compliant and reduces liability should there be an accident.

XIII. VOLT METER - PHASING (CONNECTING TWO, THREE PHASE SYSTEMS TOGETHER) VOLT METER “PHASING” DEFINED

Volt meter phasing is defined as using a volt meter for determining if two (2), three (3) phase electrical systems can be safely connected together by verifying the two (2) systems’ phases are correctly connected together, such as, closing a tie breaker on a secondary selective system.

The volt meter is used to determine the following:

• On a secondary selective system - two (2), three (3) systems are verified that the correct phase from one system will be connected to the correct phase on the other system, that is:

– A phase of system number one (1) will be connected to A phase of system number two (2), and

– B phase of system number one (1) will be connected to B phase of system number two (2), and

– C phase of system number one (1) will be connected to C phase of system number two (2).

• The volt meter verifies that the phase angle displacement of the two (2) systems is determined to make a decision if the angle difference between the two systems is within safe acceptable limits to connect the two (2) systems together.

• The volt meter indications verify that the location of ground is electrically the same on both systems.

Phasing and Synchronizing are not the same. Synchronizing has generators involved while phasing pertains to existing electrical systems and no generators.

In the history of phasing, there have been many accidents due to those performing this action not being qualified or knowledgeable enough to even know the type and rating of volt meter to use. The history of phasing has been with what is called “glow sticks” using a neon indication, phase rotation meters and volt meters not rated for the system voltage. Today, all of the previous are inadequate and unacceptable methods of performing phasing.

It is highly recommended that phasing always be performed at the equipment that will be used to connect the two systems together at their rated voltage. Phasing should be performed at primary voltage, not through potential transformers or voltage transformers. Primary phasing is always recommended.

SITUATIONS WHEN VOLT METER PHASING SHOULD BE PERFORMED

Phasing is performed hundreds of times a week around the country. There are many times that phasing should be performed; however, because of a lack of understanding of the value of phasing, phasing is not performed. Fortunately, many of the times that phasing should be performed and is not, it just happens to be correct with no incident. 100% safety requires 100% accurate rules and 100% compliance. The following are conditions in which phasing should be performed.

1) INITIAL CLOSING OF AN ELECTRICAL LOOP

• Outdoor pole mounted switch.

• Outdoor metal clad or metal enclosed switch.

• Primary underground cable replacement.

2) INITIAL CONNECTING OF SUBSTATION TRANSFORMER SECONDARIES

Secondary Selective distribution systems.

Safety Handbook24

3) SECONDARY NETWORKING DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMS

4) TRANSFORMER REPLACEMENT – TRANSFORMER IS OPERATING IN PARALLEL WITH ONE OR MORE DIFFERENT TRANSFORMERS

Three phase transformers have a NEMA and ANSI phase displacement and terminal designations which are to standardize the transformer winding for the purpose of paralleling. There have been cases where transformers have been rewound and the phases coming out of the secondary have been internally transposed, sometimes referred to as rolled. In such cases, the primary phase conductors can be changed to correct the incorrect phasing on the secondary of the transformer.

Phasing should be performed when replacing transformers, new or rewound, and connecting them to an existing system.

Transposing any two (2) conductors on a three (3) phase system will reverse motor rotation.

Some transformers directly from the factory have transposed phase conductors internally and phase rotation and phasing has not been standard.

5) SWITCH GEAR REPLACEMENT / ADDITION

Metal clad switch gear has its bus arrangement totally enclosed; therefore, before connecting the bus to another system, the system should be phased with the one to which it is to be connected.

6) SECONDARY UNDERGROUND CABLE REPLACEMENT

If a primary cable fails in an underground system, there is the possibility that the phases can be rolled during splicing and replacement.

If more than one phase is replaced, the circuit should be phased before connecting the systems together.

7) SECTIONALIZERS

Phases on sectionalizers should be phased before operating the sectionalizer for the first time.

25Safety Handbook

8) NETWORK SECONDARIES

Secondaries of network systems should be treated as closing a loop system for the first time and should be phased.

9) THE INITIAL CONNECTION OF AN UNINTERRUPTABLE POWER SUPPLY (UPS)

Three phase uninterruptible power supplies that are connected to a system for the purpose of back up protection should be phased before connecting the two systems together for the first time.

10) ADDITIONAL ALTERNATE FEEDS FROM DIFFER-ENT SOURCES

Systems that have alternate feeds should be phased before connecting the two together. This is the same as paralleling two systems together. The phases must be the same when being connected together.

11) PORTABLE TRANSFORMERS

Portable transformers connected to an existing system should be phased before paralleling the systems together.

12) PARALLEL FEEDERS

Before connecting of parallel feed either by hard wiring connection or through a switch, the phases should be phased.

13) TIE SWITCHES OR TIE CIRCUIT BREAKERS

Tie Switches or Tie Circuit Breakers for the purpose of connecting two systems together or transferring loads from one circuit to another must be phased.

ALWAYS USE THE 100% SAFETY RULE WHEN PHASING!!!

See Addendum 1 for full expo on the 100% electrical safety rule!

NOTE: There was an incident where an electric utility had just completed a 15 kV distribution loop. They were at the last switch to be closed and complete the loop. Three individuals walked the line physically and gave the okay to close the loop. They closed the switch which should have had static and voltage difference but exploded on two phases. One of the distribution lines went behind a building and all three thought it was the same coming from behind the building. In fact, two of the three phases were rolled behind the building. None of the three individuals walked the line behind the building or they would have found a transposition. 100 percent safety requires 100 percent verification. In this case, there was a 100 percent agreement, but it was 100 percent incorrect. They committed the unpardonable sin in the electrical industry – they ASSUMED.

THIRTY DEGREE (30°) PHASE SHIFT IN A DELTA / WYE TRANSFORMATION

There is a thirty degree (30°) shift in all Delta / Wye and Wye /

Safety Handbook26

Delta connections. The thirty degree (30°) phase shift is between the primary phase-to-phase voltages and phase currents and the secondary phase-to-phase voltages and phase currents.

ANSI standard voltage and current phase displacement in a Delta / Wye or Wye / Delta transformation is such that the secondary phase-to-phase voltage and phase current lags the primary phase-to-phase voltage and phase current by an angle difference of thirty degree (30°) difference.

When phasing two (2), three (3) phase systems together at the same voltage and frequency with a thirty degree (30°) phase displacement, it will produce a voltage difference of approximately 52% between the same phases on the two systems.

FOR EXAMPLE: If taking voltage measurements between “A” phase of one system to “A” phase of a second system and 52% of Phase-to-phase Voltage is indicated, there is a thirty degree (30°) phase shift between the two systems. (See graphs on previous page)

FIFTY-TWO PERCENT(52%) PHASING RULE

When the voltage indication of two (2) different systems is equal to 52% of the phase-to-phase system voltage when comparing the same phase, it is an indication that there is a phase displacement of thirty degrees (30°) between the two systems.

• DO NOT CONNECT, I.E. PARALLEL, THE TWO SYSTEMS TOGETHER.

• THE TWO SYSTEMS SHOULD NOT BE CONNECTED TOGETHER.

When there is a phase displacement between two systems that have a sixty degree (60°) or one hundred twenty degree (120°) phase shift, the voltage indication between the same phase of each system, will have a voltage indication equal to the phase-to-phase voltage of each system. This phase-to-phase voltage indicates that there is either a sixty degree (60°) or one hundred twenty degree (120°) phase shift.

CALCULATING PHASE ANGLE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN TWO (2) ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS

Law of Cosines There are situations when phasing two (2), three (3) phase

systems together that the angular displacement between the two (2) systems must be calculated to determine if it is safe to connect the systems together.

The following math formulas are provided to determine the angular displacement between two (2) three (3) phase systems.

The law of cosines states that:

• Let a, b and c be the lengths of the legs of a triangle opposite angles A, B and C. Then the law of cosines states:

27Safety Handbook

Solving for the cosines yields the equivalent formulas

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/lcos.html

Safety Handbook28

When phasing two (2), three (3) phase systems together, by using the type (4) formula, the: • Phase displacement can be determined, and/or

• The voltage magnitude difference between the two (2) systems can be determined.

Depending upon the difference between Phase Displacement and Voltage Magnitude – it can then be determined if the two sys-tems can be safely phased together.

A 100 Percent Safe Rule for Phasing two (2), three (3) phase systems together is: • The phase displacement between the two (2) systems is zero

degrees (0°) and

• There is zero (0) (no) magnitude difference between the two systems.

– This is not normally the case. There are several factors that can affect the voltage difference between two (2) systems.

A Safe Rule for connecting two (2), three (3) phase systems together is that:

• The phase angle displacement not be greater than ± 2.9°,

• The nominal voltage difference not be greater than ± 5% of normal operating voltage or not over 10% voltage difference, and

• The location of the ground reference must not be greater than 5% difference.

Recommended method for phasing two (2), three (3) phase systems together.

• The preferred and recommended method of phasing two systems together is with an analog or digital volt meter, that is, one that will provide a NUMBER for circuit evaluation.

• There are presently analog and digital volt meters that will safely indicate up to over 100,000 VAC RMS.

REMEMBER: When phasing – the larger the voltage difference the larger the arc across the circuit breaker. If the system has zero (0) volts, there should be NO ARC.

FACTORS that will produce a voltage difference between two (2), three (3) phase systems when comparing the same phase.

There are several situations that will cause a difference of potential between two (2), three (3) phase systems. For the individual who is responsible for the “approval” to connect two systems together, it is mandatory that they understand what will produce a voltage difference between two (2) systems and be able to correct that potential difference if necessary before closing the “Final Connecting Device” in a loop, Network or Secondary Selective System.

1. The two (2) systems to be paralleled or connected together can have different Primary Voltage Sources that will cause a voltage difference on the secondary of the two systems.

2. The Transformer primary taps can be on different taps.

3. Transforms Impedances can be different.

4. Power Circuit Breakers can have different Impedances.

5. System Impedance can be different to the location of the Power Circuit Breaker.

6. Loading of the two (2) systems can be different. Open circuit voltage will produce the highest voltage while a fully loaded circuit causes the voltage to decrease to lowest voltage under normal operating conditions.

7. Phase displacement is different between the two (2) systems.

8. Power Factor of the two systems is different.

9. Different Connections can produce a phase displacement, such as Delta/Wye or Wye/Delta connection.

29Safety Handbook

Safety Handbook30

PHASE ROTATION METERS AND PHASE SEQUENCE INDICATORS

A Phase Rotation Meter (PRM) is a small three (3) phase motor. Reversing any two (2) leads will reverse the direction.

It is not recommended to use “phase rotation meters” on “phase sequence meters” for phasing.

Phase Rotation Meters general have a voltage rating of only 600 VAC.

Phase Rotation Meters do not indicate any Phase Displacement. A good understanding is mandatory to correctly interpreting the indications. The following are examples: WARNING: It is not recommended that Phase Rotation Meters be used to phase two (2), three (3) system together. Both indications can be the same and the system can be totally out of sequence with each other.

31Safety Handbook

Safety Handbook32

/McKinley

PHASING TWO (2) ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS

SUBJECT: VOLT METER Equipment and System Information Phasing Two (2), Three (3) Phase System Together

1. Company who owns the Equipment

LOCATION OF THE EQUIPMENT

2. City 3. ST 4. ZIP

4. Substation Name and Identification

5. Circuit Name and/or Identification

6. Equipment Name and Identification

VOLTAGE METER VERIFICATION

VM1 Manufacturer’s Name

VM2 Meter Model / Style Number

VM3 Meter Serial Number

VM4 Maximum AC RMS Voltage Rating

VM5 Maximum DC Voltage Rating

SYSTEM VOLTAGE VERIFICATION

SM1 Voltage Classification of Equipment

SM2 Operating Voltage of System

VOLT METER AND SYSTEM VOLTAGE VERIFICATION

VS1 Does the Volt Meter have a higher voltage rating than the Operating Voltage of the System? (Yes or NO)

(If the answer is not yes – stop the procedure and use a Volt Meter that has the correct voltage rating.)

PERSONAL PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT (PPE)

PPE Are you wearing REQUIRED appropriate PPE? Do not proceed unless answer is YES!

33Safety Handbook

/McKinley

PHASING VERIFICATION and PROCEDURE FORM

Verify that the Volt Meter is operational before tests Do not proceed unless answer is YES!

System Ground Test

T E S T

Phase to Ground System Voltage

Percent Voltage

System #1 System #2

Expected Voltage

Actual Voltage

Expected Voltage

Actual Voltage

1. A Phase-to-ground

2. B Phase-to-ground

3. C Phase-to-ground

Test # 11 through # 13 determines that ground is in the same location on both systems. The reading should be within 5 percent of all indications.

Systems Voltage Magnitude

4. A Phase to B Phase 100%

5. B Phase to C Phase 100%

6. C Phase to A Phase 100%

Tests # 14 through # 16 determine that the magnitude differences of the two systems are within

acceptable limits. The reading should be within 5 percent of all indications.

Phase Displacement between the two systems

7. Phase A1 to Phase A2

8. Phase B1 to Phase B2

9. Phase C1 to Phase C2

Tests # 17 through # 19 determine the phase displacement & voltage magnitude between the 2 systems.

A safe general rule for phasing is that the phase displacement should not be greater than 2.9 degrees out of phase, i.e. not greater than an overall phase displacement of 5.8 degrees. Plus or minus 2.9

degrees phase displacement is also equal to 5 percent of normal operating voltage.

TECH #1 Date

TECH #2 Date

Safety Handbook34

XIV. SUMMARY – VOLT METER TRAINING 1. Knowledge of electricity has been evolving since the late 1800s

when Edison discovered electricity; along with it, equipment, codes and standards have followed as well. There are good reasons to embrace a mind set to follow the new codes and standards – ultimately it is for our personal and the public’s safety.

2. There has been a government and industrial consensus standard for volt meter training that has been in place for the last decade. It is a good model that would benefit the electrical industry at large to adopt and follow so we are all on the same page.

3. In 1978, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) contracted with the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) to develop an “Electrical Safety Standard for Personnel in the Workplace.” That standard, the NFPA 70 E, as of January 1, 2009, now mandates not just volt meter training, but the ability of an individual to select rated equipment and be able to interpret any voltage that will be indicated by the device and establish either an energized or de-energized condition.

4. A good definition of a volt meter is that it is a voltage measuring device that should verify what the tester already knows.

5. One needs to know and understand the difference between a power class and electronic class volt meter.

6. Because the IEC 61010-1 standard is the default standard to which volt meters are rated, one should be familiar with the IEC 61010 and the UL 61010, and the know the application and use of the different CAT (category) ratings.

7. The manufacturers’ instruction should always be read, understood and followed.

8. Electrical phasing should be understood when connecting two (2), three (3) phases together.

9. Because electrical and non-electrical companies are seeing the large potential in dollars for electrical safety training, they are endeavoring to get into the electrical safety arena and neither they or their employee are qualified to conduct such training. The standard for electrical safety training and volt meter training should be set so high that only qualified companies and instructors can teach the subject for compliance.

10. Influence volt meter manufacturers to build Power Class volt meters for all voltage levels.

ADDENDUM 1 – THE 100 PERCENT (100%) ELECTRICAL SAFETY RULE

The 100 percent (100%) Electrical Safety Rule is a procedure that has evolved from field tailgate meetings to being adopted and written into government and industrial electrical safety procedures. It comes from an old lineman and is just simply:

• “If it is not grounded – it is not dead” To polish it up somewhat – If an electrical circuit or equipment is not tested de-energized

and grounded – it shall be treated as energized. Or ALL circuits are considered energized until positively proven de-energized.

So how do we get there? Simply put, observe and put into practice the following:

• No switching, load shedding, isolating, lock-out – tag-out, or any type of electrical work shall be performed unless two (2) equally qualified individuals are in 100 percent agreement of the switching, isolating and procedure of the work to be performed and the sequence in which it should be performed.

If there is not 100 percent agreement between the two (2), a third equally qualified and knowledgeable individual or group of individuals shall be consulted until there is 100 percent agreement by all parties involved.

(By default, this rule mandates that no one shall work alone in high voltage, high energy or hazardous situations – two are always checking and verifying what the other is doing for their safety.)

• No electrical work is performed until:

• The circuit is verified to be de-energized, and

• The circuit MUST be GROUNDED as necessary.

A simple rule but it is ALWAYS good to have someone check and verify what you are doing. Additionally, if there is an accident or injury, there is someone to help and/or call for assistance.

The individual at Rocky Flats, Colorado was working alone in a basement, not qualified, misapplying his volt meter, etc. If someone would have been with him and simply asked, “What are you doing?” it could have saved his life.

All the written rules, regulations and procedures can be 100 percent correct, but there is always the human factor in implementing them and putting them into practice. It is just good practice to require individuals double check each other in performing any type of work with high voltage, high energy and hazardous conditions.

NOTE: There was an incident where an electric utility had just completed a 15 kV distribution loop. They were at the last switch to be closed and complete the loop. Three individuals walked the line physically and gave the okay to close the loop. They closed the switch which should have had static and voltage difference but exploded on two phases. One of the distribution lines went behind a building and all three individuals thought it was the same coming from behind the building. In fact, two of the three phases were rolled behind the building. None of the three individuals walked the line behind the building or they would have found a transposition. 100 percent safety requires 100 percent verification. In this case, there was a 100 percent agreement, but it was 100 percent incorrect. They committed the unpardonable sin in the electrical industry – they ASSUMED. 100 percent rules require 100 percent verification.

35Safety Handbook

ADDENDUM 2 – VOLT METER USAGE QUESTIONNAIRE

POWER TESTING AND ENERGIZATION VOLT METER Training – Certification and Qualification – Questionnaire

Safety Handbook36

37Safety Handbook

ADDENDUM 3 – FPE – ACCEPTABLE DAMAGE – BULLETIN 2502

FEDERAL PACIFIC ELECTRIC – Acceptable Damage – Bulletin 2502 KILOWATT – CYCLES COMPARED to EXPLOSIVE YIELDS

Mr. Richard Harris 11 May 1996 AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL TRAINING SERVICES Nashville TN 37222

Dear Richard,

In a phone conversation a couple of weeks ago, we discussed low-voltage ground faults and respective damage levels. I mentioned that there was a publication by Federal Pacific Electric Company {bulletin 2502 Ä Ground Fault Protection for Grounded Systems} that related fault damage in units of “kilowatt-cycles”. In this bulletin, a section titled “ACCEPTABLE DAMAGE” provides numerical relationships. Proposed was a comparison of arcing electrical-fault thermal and mechanical destruction to that of a hand grenade. I discovered some interesting results.

A hand-grenade explosive yield equates to about 16,000 KW cycles, figured as follows:

The average hand grenade contains about 2 ounces of high explosive; i.e., Trinitrotoluene (TNT).

Therefore: 2 ounces x 28.5 grams/ounce = 57 grams

The equivalent energy release for TNT is 4680 joules/gram, so:

57 grams x 4680 joules/gram = 266.7 kilojoules

Given that a joule is equal to 1 watt • second, with 60 cycles/second, then:

266.7 kJ x 1 W•s/J • 60 cycles/s = 16,000 kW cycles

This magnitude is listed in the FPE publication as being well past the ‘Upper Limit of Acceptable Damage’ region; i.e., above 10,000 kW • cycles {ó6000 kW • cycles is listed as “Limited Damage”; 2000 kW • cycles equates to “Minimal Damage”.} Now, let me offer a typical scenario. Above 10,000 kW • cycles, it is likely that damage will extend to burning through metal enclosures, and spread to other sections or equipment. Visualize a generic 800-ampere 480Y/277-volt feeder protected by a molded-case breaker (e.g., Westinghouse type NB). Add an 18,000-ampere available bolted-fault current, an arc current at 20% of bolted-fault value, a 100-volt arc potential, and 3/4-second (45-cycle) clearing time:

100 V • (20% of 18,000 A) • 45 cycles = 16,200 kW • cycles

Hence, such a fault approximates the ruinous proficiency of a hand grenade. Except in some health-care facilities, ground-fault protection is not a Code requirement for this circuit rating. Based on published time-current curves, the breaker could take up to 60 seconds to clear a 3600-ampere through fault (20 % of 18,000 amps through an NB breaker). The resultant energy level is 1,296,000 kilowatt-cycles; that is, corresponding to tossing in a few more grenades, or how about some Claymore mines?? Stored energy, indeed...

Before this exercise, I had very limited insight as to how messy hand-grenade detonations could be. Based on examination of fault incidents, I have knowledge of comparable electrical failures. I hope this information may prove illuminating to others in discussing this latent but most vicious hazard.

Best Regards,

Scott Falke

(Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory LLNL Livermore, California)

Safety Handbook38

ADDENDUM 4 – VOLT METER MANUFACTURERS’ INSTRUCTIONS, LABELING, LISTING AND RECALLS

VOLT METERS – MANUFACTURERS’ INSTRUCTION BOOK, LABELING AND LISTING OF EQUIPMENT AND INSTRUMENTS MEMORAMDUM CORRECTION/RECALL Manufacturers’ Instruction Book

In research, it has been noted that the way manufacturers correct the short comings of their volt meter instructions is to rewrite their instruction books for the same device; therefore, the same volt meter can have different instruction books and revisions for the same device. With the advent of liability and lawsuits, it appears that manufacturers are rewriting their instruction book for liability purposes. This is just another reason to follow the manufacturers’ instructions.

The end user should have the original instruction book that came with the meter and keep abreast of recent revisions and corrections. This can usually be done by visiting the manufacturer’s website.

Labeling and Listing of Equipment and Instruments Labeling

The “labeling” of test equipment is the acceptance of a product that has been tested to their standards and passed. Labeling would be from organizations such as UL, IEC, TUV, CSA, etc. If the product passes their test, the manufacturer is authorized to print the organization’s logo on their meter signifying that it has been tested to their specific test requirements and passed.

Listing In the case of Underwriters Laboratory UL, it is then “LISTED”

in what is called the “WHITE BOOK” and sometimes has additional instructions on how to use the meter. These additional instructions are to be followed the same as the manufacturer’s instructions.

Memoramdum Correction RecallSometimes the manufacturer will have a defect in their meter

design or manufacturing process, the manufacturer will issue a “MEMO” to those who purchased their meter. The problem is that if you are not on their mailing list, generally a physical mailing list and/or email address, you will not receive the memo. If you feel this is important enough, it would be good to get on their mailing list.

ADDENDUM V - SUMMARY OF MANUFACTURERS INFORMATION

It is a maze to try to follow and match the volt meter to a specific standard due to the revisions and updates. It is difficult to match the meter to the correct standard and revision it was built to. There are many revisions of the same instruction book with yearly updates, revisions, new editions and new materials added. The rule for the correct instruction book is to start with the instruction book that came with the meter and standard that relates to a specific device, then look for any revisions that may have been issued. While it can be a maze, the internet has made it much easier to locate the pertinent information.

39Safety Handbook



“Working safe is accomplished by qualified workers following procedures and using common sense.” – Tony Demaria

Tony Demaria Electric (TDE) is a leader in electrical industry improvements on safety and testing.

Working safe is: • Following policies and procedures •

• Training to policies and procedures • • Auditing to ensure that policies and procedures are followed •

The safest way for you to perform switching and racking is remotely • Visit our website for ideas

In addition to being a full service testing company, TDE provides the following training:

NFPA 70E • Arc Flash Training • Safe Electric Practices • Customized Safety and Technical Training




“Create quality by continuously upgrading policies & procedures and verifying compliance.” – Tony Demaria

Tony Demaria Electric’s (TDE) commitment to produce quality work has ensured long lasting relationships with many of our customers.

• Develop quality through policies and procedures •

• Train personnel to follow these policies and procedures • • Audit personnel to assure they are following the policies and procedures •

• Constantly reviewing the above and improving them •

In addition to being a full service testing company, TDE provides the following training: Electrical Safety for Qualified Workers • Electrical Safety Refresher for Qualified Electrical Workers


A Preview of a Presentation Scheduled for the PowerTest Conference March 2009 in San Antonio, Texas

First, here is the good news. We all like happy and successful stories. Our electrical industry has seen a substantial decline in electrical injuries in the last 10 years.

This is due to:

1. Increase in general safety awareness

2. NFPA 70E and the people behind 70E

3. Attorneys and large court settlements

As good as 70E is, it is difficult to understand and implement under the vast number of variable site conditions we experience in the field. It is the task of each type of industry and each site to adopt the excellent provisions of 70E to its electrical hazards.

No one will question that zero injuries is the goal of safe electrical work practices. It is the journey to this goal that provides the challenge. The arc-flash calculator presented here can be part of that journey. It is designed to give you, the worker, a tool that can be used at the job site to assist in determining what PPE is needed. This is in addition to your daily Job Hazard Analysis (JHA) and Energized Work Permit (EWP) and to be used in conjunction with them. It is not easy and requires experienced, trained personnel.

The calculator was developed to address the needs found in industrial facilities, specifically the petrochemical industry. In these types of industries, the transformer and switchgear feeding the electrical equipment is large and usually easy to identify. The transformer nameplate frequently can be read to find its impedance. Since there are many motors, it is common to have a large motor current contribution to any short-circuit fault conditions.

The math used to determine the fault current at the secondary of transformers under these conditions is basic algebra, and the principles are easy to understand. Why perform this task which is time consuming and difficult to remember, when an inexpensive slide rule can do it for you quickly and accurately? (See figure 1)

The transformer primary current is considered to be an infinite bus, which it usually is not, but this will give a conservative short-circuit current. As you probably know, finding the maximum fault current is only part of the process, and it is the easy part at this point. If only life could always be this simple.

Turn the slide rule over and let the real work start. (See figure 2.) The next step is to determine how long this fault is going to

continue. How reliable are the original devices and what is their condition? When will the upstream protective device open? Parts of 70E suggest two clearing times to work with 0.1 second (6 cycles), or 2 seconds (120 cycles). The 0.1 second time is based on instantaneous overcurrent relays and the clearing time of a five cycle circuit breaker. The 2 seconds is more arbitrary and is usually a very long time for a fault to continue. Even though by the end of 2 seconds most systems exhaust themselves or blow clear, there are well documented cases of arcs being sustained for minutes or longer. In these cases the arc-flash level is frequently low, and it would be unusual for someone not to remove themselves from the arc-flash within two seconds. However, there may be situations where a person can not leave the arc-flash area quickly. So beware!

This topic of clearing time could fill volumes, let alone articles, but you must start somewhere. Therefore, 0.1 second and 2 seconds will be used for the following calculations.

Due to differences in clearing time, we understand there can be a large variation in incident energy as expressed in calories/cm2 and, therefore, the flash-protection boundary. This presents a dilemma for the knowledgeable technician. There have been some excellent papers delivered at the recent IEEE Electrical Safety Workshops (ESW) and the NETA PowerTest & Safety Conferences regarding the importance of the maintenance and testing of relays and circuit breakers. Many facilities are realizing that maintenance not only gives enhanced reliability but has a strong safety component.

Prior to the introduction of this calculator there were probably 100+ ways to assist in figuring arc-flash protection. Some of them are the tables and labels of 70E, IEEE 1584, E-Tap, SKM, COOPER Busman, etc. Now, there are 101+ ways. So what does this mean to you?

ARC-FLASH SLIDE RULE CALCULATOR

PowerTest 2009 by Tony Demaria, Tony Demaria Electric, Inc.

NETA Safety Committee

www.netaworld.org Winter 2008-2009 NETA WORLD �

Safety with Arc-Flash

Arc-Flash Slide Rule/CalculatorA Preview of a Presentation Scheduled for the PowerTest ConferenceMarch 2009 in San Antonio, Texas

F irst, here is the good news. We all like happy and successful stories. Our electrical industry has seen a substantial decline in electrical injuries in the

last 10 years.

This is due to:1. Increase in general safety awareness2. NFPA 70E and the people behind 70E3. Attorneys and large court settlements

As good as 70E is, it is difficult to understand and implement under the vast number of variable site conditions we experience in the field. It is the task of each type of industry and each site to adopt the excellent provisions of 70E to its electrical hazards.

No one will question that zero injuries is the goal of safe electrical work practices. It is the journey to this goal that provides the challenge. The arc-flash calculator presented here can be part of that journey. It is designed to give you, the worker, a tool that can be used at the job site to assist in determining what PPE is needed. This is in addition to your daily Job Hazard Analysis ( JHA) and Energized Work Permit (EWP) and to be used in conjunction with them. It

is not easy and requires experienced, trained personnel.

The calculator was developed to address the needs found in industrial facilities, specifically the petrochemical industry. In these types of industries, the transformer and switchgear feed-ing the electrical equipment is large and usually easy to identify. The trans-former nameplate frequently can be read to find its impedance. Since there are many motors, it is common to have a large motor current contribution to any short-circuit fault conditions.

The math used to determine the fault current at the secondary of trans-formers under these conditions is basic algebra, and the principles are easy to understand. Why perform this task which is time consuming and difficult to remember, when an inexpensive slide rule can do it for you quickly and accurately? (See figure 1)

The transformer primary current is considered to be an infinite bus, which it usually is not, but this will give a conservative short-circuit current. As you probably know, finding the maximum fault current is only part of the process, and it is the easy part at this point. If only life could always be this simple.

Turn the slide rule over and let the real work start. (See figure 2.) The next step is to determine how long this fault is going to continue. How reliable are the original devices and what is their condition? When will the upstream protective device open? Parts of 70E suggest two clearing times to

Figure 1 (front side of calculator)

INSTRUCTIONS: 1. FIND THE TRANSFORMER kVA RATING ON THE “TRANSFORMER kVA” LINE.2. SLIDE THE SLIDER UNTIL THE TRANSFORMER LINE-TO-LINE VOLTAGE CORRESPONDS TO THE TRANS-

FORMER kVA.3. SLIDE THE CLEAR SLIDER LINE OVER THE TRANSFORMER (IMPEDANCE LINE) AT THE PERCENT OF MO-

TOR LOADING ON THE TRANSFORMER.4. READ THE TRANSFORMER SHORT-CIRCUIT CURRENT ON THE SHORT-CIRCUIT CURRENT SCALE.

480V Transformer Fault Calculator

by Tony DemariaTony Demaria Electric, Inc.

Safety Handbook40

Here are some approximations, questions, and speculations. Probably less than one percent of the switchgear in the developed world has arc-flash labels. In the next 10 years maybe 10 percent will have labels. After those 10 years, how accurate will those labels be? Will the fuse be the same size or will the circuit breaker have the same setting? Has the circuit breaker received any maintenance or lubrication? Will the motors be on the same circuits? Who performed the calculations for the label? Where did they get the short-circuit information, and who decided exactly where to stick that label? It is going to be an interesting development, and most of what we know about arc-flash protection will probably change.

This is not an article against labeling. Organizations and companies providing this valuable service are to be applauded for their difficult and expensive work. The labeling information provided could save your life.

The point being made is that your life is depending on the accuracy of data and guess work. You are the person who makes the final decision on how you use that information.

One of the advantages of having the ability to perform part of the calculations in the field gives you the option to just say no. The hazard may be too great.

If you decide to proceed with the work, will it be energized or de-energized? Most of the technicians reading this article perform very little energized work compared to just a few years ago. The main electrical hazard most of us are exposed to today is the process of de-energizing and re-energizing. Here is a simplified list of the hazards to assess and mitigate;

1. If energized, what voltage rated precautions and PPE are needed?

2. If switching is required, can I remote switch, remote rack, use longer hot sticks or a rope?

3. If grounding is required, where do I need to apply grounds and how is it accomplished?

These questions are partly answered by sound engineering calculations and by experienced, trained people making judgment calls. This brings us to the final decision on our calculator. What PPE will I wear and what will be my body position in relation to the work? In some cases of low incident energy and minor hazards, the process and decisions may be short and simple.

When there are higher fault currents and longer times, it may be beneficial to use a risk matrix to arrive at your conclusions. The matrix may be a mental process or a very formal written procedure. Using a risk matrix has been discussed in recent NETA articles and at the 2008 PowerTest and Safety Conference. This topic, “how to arrive at a quantifiable arc-flash hazard and how to protect myself from that energy,” will be discussed on Wednesday morning, March 11, 2009 , at a seminar titled Arc-Flash Calculations Simplified. Every seminar participant will receive a complimentary completed calculator.

See you in San Antonio at the PowerTest 2009 Conference.

Tony Demaria worked for the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power in substation maintenance prior to starting his own company. He has owned and operated Tony Demaria Electric for over 25 years, specializing in maintenance and testing of switchgear and large motors for industrial facilities. Tony Demaria Electric is a NETA Accredited Company, and Tony serves as Chair of the NETA Safety Committee.

NETA WORLD Winter 2008-2009 www.netaworld.org�

Figure 2 (back side of calculator with sections left blank)

SLIDE CHART NOTES:• The purpose of this slide chart is to aid in the assessment of risk before doing any work. It is also intended to demonstrate how important it is to correctly establish the true operating

time of the protective device that you are betting your life on.• To aid in correctly determining the clearing time of the protective device, you must consider the equipment’s condition, age, maintenance history, and environment.• You should not rely on the up stream device operating fast enough to provide back up protection because the arc impedance may reduce the fault current to a value that is too low to

cause the upstream device to operate.• Do not blindly trust labels. Do a quick system assessment to attempt to validate the information on the label.

SHORTCIRCUIT

CURRENT IN AMPS

Cal/Cm2

AT 18 INCHESBASED ON

0.1 SECOND CLEARING

TIME

FLASH PROTEC-TION BOUNDARY

DISTANCE IN FEETBASED ON 0.1

SECOND CLEARING TIME

MINIMUMPPE

LEVEL

Cal/Cm2

AT 18 INCHESBASED ON 2 SEC-

ONDS CLEARING TIME

FLASH PROTECTION BOUNDARY

DISTANCE IN FEETBASED ON 2 SECONDS

CLEARING TIME

MINIMUMPPE

LEVEL**70E

Level

8,000 2.2 2.1 0 46 13.3 N/A12,000 3.1 2.8 0 67 16.6 N/A16,000 4 3.4 1 87 19.6 N/A20,000 5 3.9 1 107 22.2 N/A24,000 5.9 4.3 1 127 26.6 N/A28,000 6.7 4.7 1 146 26.8 N/A32,000 7.6 5.1 1 165 28.9 N/A36,000 8.5 5.5 2 184 31 N/A40,000 9.4 71 2 202 32.8 N/A44,000 11 5.5 2 215 34.6 N/A48,000 12 5.5 2 233 36.4 N/A52,000 13 6.1 2 250 38 N/A

*Disclaimer: This slide chart is not intended to replace training on the selection and use of proper electrical PPE or risk assessment. This slide chart provides only approximate short circuit current values and arc flash energy. It does not replace rigorous engineering. Use this information at your own risk.

© 2008 Tony Demaria Electric

work with 0.1 second (6 cycles), or 2 seconds (120 cycles). The 0.1 second time is based on instantaneous overcurrent relays and the clearing time of a five cycle circuit breaker. The 2 seconds is more arbitrary and is usually a very long time for a fault to continue. Even though by the end of 2 seconds most systems exhaust themselves or blow clear, there are well documented cases of arcs being sustained for minutes or longer. In these cases the arc-flash level is frequently low, and it would be unusual for someone not to remove themselves from the arc-flash within two seconds. However, there may be situations where a person can not leave the arc-flash area quickly. So beware!

This topic of clearing time could fill volumes, let alone articles, but you must start somewhere. Therefore, 0.1 second and 2 seconds will be used for the following calculations.

Due to differences in clearing time, we understand there can be a large variation in incident energy as expressed in calories/cm2 and, therefore, the flash-protection boundary. This presents a dilemma for the knowledgeable technician. There have been some excellent papers delivered at the recent IEEE Electrical Safety Workshops (ESW) and the NETA PowerTest & Safety Conferences regarding the

importance of the maintenance and testing of relays and circuit breakers. Many facilities are realizing that mainte-nance not only gives enhanced reliability but has a strong safety component.

Prior to the introduction of this calculator there were probably 100+ ways to assist in figuring arc-flash protection. Some of them are the tables and labels of 70E, IEEE 1584, E-Tap, SKM, COOPER Busman, etc. Now, there are 101+ ways. So what does this mean to you?

Here are some approximations, questions, and specula-tions. Probably less than one percent of the switchgear in the developed world has arc-flash labels. In the next 10 years maybe 10 percent will have labels. After those 10 years, how accurate will those labels be? Will the fuse be the same size or will the circuit breaker have the same set-ting? Has the circuit breaker received any maintenance or lubrication? Will the motors be on the same circuits? Who performed the calculations for the label? Where did they get the short-circuit information, and who decided exactly where to stick that label? It is going to be an interesting development, and most of what we know about arc-flash protection will probably change. 41Safety Handbook

The mantra of Safety can be a daunting challenge. The broad implications of the word cross every boundary of our daily lives, from not falling down in the shower to navigating rush hour traffic on the way to work. Then, if you are a safety professional, like those of us quoted in this article, your job is to ensure that electrical workers negotiate the inherently hazardous landscape of industrial electricity without incident. We all see safety as a journey we continually travel....

SO WHY IS THIS SEEMINGLY SIMPLE WORD SO CHALLENGING?

Gary Donner, IEEE Fellow, notes that the first thing we must understand is that people see the world through their personal filters which comprise a lifetime of experiences. These preconceived ideas affect our ability to work safely because we may not recognize something as hazardous. Haven’t we all heard the phrase “I’ve been doing electrical work for twenty years, and I’ve never had a (fill in bad situation here).” The other item that Gary points toward as a hurdle to safety dovetails with the previous comment. Workers are typically injured doing highfrequency, low-risk tasks. During this “routine work people tend to operate in autopilot.

SO HOW DO WE BEGIN TO ADJUST THESE FILTERS, PROTECT OUR PERSONNEL DURING ROUTINE TASKS, AND IMPROVE SAFETY?

Historically, electrical workers (and their training) concentrated on the hazard of electrocution (shock). Lynn Hamrick is quick to point out that a shock-hazard analysis is fairly straight forward. The worker must know the highest voltage level of the electrical hazard and apply the requirements associated with the limited approach boundaries. A significantly more challenging feat is to perform an arcflash hazard analysis. One must also know the fault current and fault clearing time associated with the hazard and then apply those values to a set of complex equations to determine the flash protection boundary and the incident energy at a selectable working distance. It would be impractical to expect most qualified workers to be able to determine these values in the field.

This industry has made big improvements in safety, notes Tony Demaria. Increased knowledge and quantification of electrical hazards by the worker and leadership have led to a decrease in the amount of energized work performed and the manner in which workers conduct themselves around energized equipment. Our

increased knowledge, understanding, willingness, courage, and ingenuity have given us fewer incidents and injuries.

Initially, Tony thought that 70E was the answer to all electrical hazard problems. When he could not find the answer to a particular situation quickly and simply, he was frustrated (and sometimes angry). Jim White was the man who helped Tony adjust his “filter.” Jim pointed out that 70E was not the only way to solve these electrical hazard problems and explained what 70E is and what it is not.

Jim White states, first, that 70E is a consensus standard made up of 47 members from such organizations as NETA, OSHA, IBEW, NJATC, American Petroleum Institute, Edison Electric Institute, and the Canadian Standards Association, to name just a few. It is a diverse cross-section of the electrical industry, and viewpoints can vary greatly among the different members.

The 70E started out as a compilation of the safety-related portions of the NFPA 70 National Electrical Code in 1976. Electrical Safety-Related Work Practices were added by OSHA’s request and used by OSHA to develop Subpart S, 29CFR1910.331 through .335. The 70E was used primarily as a vehicle to assist OSHA and shares language with these regulations. Until the 2009 cycle, the 70E was an immature document, growing and adding new information so quickly that it was inconsistent in wording and style.

Craig Corey noted during the 2008 PowerTest Conference Safety Panel discussion that everyone was attempting to implement, train, and ultimately use 70E to maintain a safe work environment for employees. Craig says, “I had been one of those safety professionals to whom the previous editions of 70E were wonderful engineering references, but not very helpful as a field resource.” It was filled with important and detailed information but was difficult to understand. During the panel discussions, both audience and speakers wanted a document that testing technicians could understand, implement, and apply to make their daily work tasks safer.

Around the same time as the 2008 PowerTest Conference, members of NFPA 70E committee were working to produce the 2009 edition. During the 2009 cycle the 70E committee recognized that there were shortcomings in the way the document was developed and moved to correct as many as possible during one cycle. As member of the Word and Phrase Task Group (W&P

HOW TO IMPROVE SAFETY

NETA World, Spring 2009 Issue

By Mose Ramieh III, Tony Demaria, Craig Corey, Gary Donner, Rick Eynon, Lynn Hamrick, and Jim White –

NETA Safety Committee

Safety Handbook42

TG) Jim White recognized the 70E was being used in court as standard industry practices and that there were areas that 70E was unclear or inconsistent. An example is the phrase “working on or near,” which is used by OSHA in its regulations; this phrase was changed to be clear as to the specific hazard. If shock hazard was the concern the committee used “working within the limited-approach boundary.” If arc flash was the concern, then it became “working within the flash-protection boundary.” The use of jargon was eliminated as much as possible by removing words such as “hot” and “live” and using “energized” in their place.

Everyone involved in this article agrees that the NFPA 70E 2009 is a significant improvement. However, the standard is not easily interpreted in part because of the NFPA Manual of Style (the legalese format), and 70E is not the silver bullet for every situation that a worker may encounter in the field.

So how do we increase understanding and plan for the unexpected situations? The Safety Committee offers four thoughts: train, analyze, get creative, keep it real.

1. Training

a. Turn it off. Electrically safe equipment is the safest method to conduct all work.

b. Repeat the basics daily! A qualified worker is expected to know the limited-approach boundary to 480 volts. Do you? What about your workers?

c. As the safety leader, communicate — in plain English — when and how work is to be done inside the limited-approach boundary.

d. Bring in a trainer if you are unsure or uncomfortable in this role.

2. Analyze Job Hazards

a. The more you discuss a job the more clearly you will see all the hazards. This may never be more important than during routine tasks.

b. Get input from everyone involved. Don’t allow your “filters” to miss something that other may see as a hazard.

c. Be mindful of the little things. When it gets cold outside, do your workers have FR coats?

3. Get Creative

a. Think you have to remove covers to conduct an IR survey? Utilization of IR windows eliminates this routine hazard.

b. Tired of putting on that 40 Cal suit to rack out a circuit breaker? Remote racking is not only safe but requires a lot less physical work.

4. Keep it real.

Rick Eynon is eager to point out that the 70E tables and those engineered labels on the switchgear are developed in a place that does not exist… a perfect world. In a perfect world

circuit breakers trip in cycles, not seconds, when under fault conditions. All of us routinely visit plants where equipment has not been tested in years and occasionally decades. This lack of maintenance dramatically (exponentially) impacts the available fault. The longer things like old grease, damaged mechanisms, and unresponsive relays delay the circuit breaker open cycle, the more energy is released.

Anyone attending NETA’s PowerTest conference who is interested in the topic of safety should plan to attend the entire Safety Track. Those that attend the Arc-Flash Calculations Simplified presentation on Wednesday morning will be presented with a free short-circuit ampere calculator slide ruler. For those unable to attend the PowerTest Conference — stay tuned to upcoming NETA World articles for information on how to perform calculations, understand 70E, and build your safety program.

Tony Demaria worked for the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power in substation maintenance prior to starting his own company. He has owned and operated Tony Demaria Electric for over 25 years, specializing in maintenance and testing of switchgear and large motors for industrial facilities. Tony Demaria Electric is a NETA Accredited Company, and Tony serves as Chair of the NETA Safety Committee.

43Safety Handbook

ABSTRACT - This case study will describe a major 43 cal/cm2 arc flash fault

at a 3,000 amp, 34.5 kV, Motor Operated Air Break (MOAB) Switch that destroyed the switch and the nearby 3,000 amp, 34.5 kV breaker. There were no injuries due to the procedures to operate the devices remotely from a nearby control house.

I. Introduction

II. Discussion of Events

A. Substation arrangement

B. Failure Point

III. Root Causes

IV. Equipment Training

V. Conclusions

VI. Acknowledgements

VII. Vita

I. INTRODUCTIONIn the process of starting up a static VAR system in a mid-

western steel plant, a 3000 amp, 34.5 kV, Motor Operated Air Break (MOAB) switch developed an arcing fault after the breaker was closed and current began to flow into the static VAR capacitor bank. The center phase arcing horn of the MOAB stationary connection began glowing and making a hissing sound. Within a matter of a couple of minutes, a large arc flash began at the MOAB and immediately traveled down the connection cables to the bushings on the 3000 amp, 34.5 kV breaker about 15 feet below it. A very large white flash and loud noise was observed at the time of the fault. A large 5 pound porcelain piece of the bushing from the breaker was found about 70 feet away. The main substation yard tripped on differential protection and under voltage protection.

II. DISCUSSION OF EVENTSA. Substation Arrangement

The static VAR system provides filtering for an arc furnace operation. It is supplied by two 129 MVA transformers connected in parallel in order to meet the needs of the arc furnace transformers. There is a Main Control house for operating the various breakers in the yard. There is also an Auxiliary Control house for operating just the equipment for the static VAR system. The observer was located at the Main Control house doorway and the two team

associates performing the switching operation were inside the Auxiliary Control house. The observer was about 120 foot away and the switching team associates were about 150 foot away at the time of the arc flash incident. Standard switching practices require that these devices be operated from the Auxiliary Control house and not locally at the breaker. Figure 1 shows the view from the observer perspective.

B. Failure PointThe initiation of the arc flash began at a loose connection on the

center phase of the MOAB arm. The contact blade had failed to fully engage causing the loose connection. (Figure 2)

MAJOR ARC FLASH + GOOD PRACTICES = NO INJURIES

PowerTest 2009 Joe Rachford, Process Manager High Voltage

Gallatin Steel

Figure 1

Figure 2

Safety Handbook44

The arc flash then propagated quickly down the cables to the top of the bushings for the breaker. The bushings overheated and exploded sending porcelain pieces across the substation yard. (Figure 3)

There was also secondary damage caused to a maintenance truck parked nearby the breaker at the time of the fault. A piece of porcelain penetrated the corner of the door panel. If there had been a team associate standing there at the time, he could have received a potentially fatal injury from the flying porcelain pieces. (Figure 4)

III. ROOT CAUSESDuring the Failure Analysis, there were two primary root causes

that were identified. During the previous week, the MOAB control box had failed and burned up the drive motor. Initially, it was felt that the motor failed as a result of an internal gearbox failure as the mechanism could not be moved by hand. The original MOAB

control boxes were no longer being manufactured. The product line had been sold to a new company and a new control box was now being made that was functionally the same but slightly different from a dimensional perspective. Previous failures showed that the cost to repair the old unit was more than the cost of a new unit. So the decision was made to change the entire MOAB control box with a spare box. (Figure 5)

Because of the dimensional differences with the MOAB control box, it was difficult getting the internal limit switches set for full open and full close. The end result is the limits were set on the very edge of the correct range. After the arc flash failure, it was later determined that the linkage arm to the MOAB switch parts was intermittently jamming. So despite the fact that the MOAB was operated several times after it was changed, when it was closed for the final time before energizing, the linkage jammed and the blades of the MOAB were not fully engaged. (Figure 2) This was also determined to be the original failure mode of the failed MOAB drive motor that led to the decision to replace the entire MOAB control box.

This condition of not fully engaging the MOAB arm blades caused a loose connection, which began arcing as soon as current started flowing to the capacitor bank of the static VAR system. The observer heard a loud hissing noise and he saw the arcing horn of the MOAB blades turn cherry red. Within a few seconds, he reported seeing a large flash and hearing a loud noise. He immediately ducked into the Main Control house for safety.

In summary, the arc flash was initiated by an incomplete closure of the MOAB blade arms due to a combination of misadjusted limit switches and a binding linkage arm.

IV. EQUIPMENT TRAININGSince one the of the root cause issues was identified as a

maintenance adjustment problem, the equipment manufacturer was contacted to do an onsite operating and maintenance training

Figure 3

Figure 4

Figure 5

45Safety Handbook

for all High Voltage qualified people in the plant. The training consisted of 4 hours of classroom instruction on how the equipment is designed to operate. That was followed by 4 hours of hands on training with a demonstration piece of equipment. This allowed the technicians to make the critical adjustments on the switch and directly see the results of the changes made. Each person also received a manual with all of the operating and maintenance procedures listed.

V. CONCLUSIONSAn arc flash event can happen at any time. When it does happen,

it can move large distances in a very quick time period. Distance is definitely your friend when it comes to protecting people from injury against an arc flash event. It is critical to have switching procedures that keep people out of harm’s way when large power devices are being operated.

VI. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSRecognition needs to be given to the High Voltage team

associates at Gallatin Steel who routinely perform switching operations on a power distribution system knowing that it has very high arc flash potential. Following proper safe job procedures is what keeps them from injury.

VII. VITAJoe Rachford is the Process Manager High Voltage Systems and Facilities Maintenance, Gallatin Steel Company located in Ghent, Kentucky.

Joe Rachford has been in his current position since 2001. Mr. Rachford is responsible for all power distribution systems from the incoming 345 kV lines down to the 480-volt distribution breakers. In addition, he has recently taken over the Facilities Maintenance group, which handles all of the general maintenance of the plant. He has been working in an electrical engineering maintenance position in the steel industry for 43 years.

He holds a BSEE from the University of Cincinnati and a MS Management degree from Purdue University. He is a member of IEEE, International Electrical Testing Association (NETA), and a Life Member of American Iron and Steel Technology (AIST). He holds one patent and has presented several technical papers to IEEE, NETA and AIST.

Safety Handbook46

SAFETY

HANDBOOK

Published By

SERIES IIVOLUME 1

TDE Tony Demaria Electric, Inc.Sponsored by

SAFETY H

AN

DBO

OK VO

LUM

E1 SERIES II Published by N

ETA - The InterN

ational Electrical Testing Association

Safety V1 Cover.indd 1 2/6/14 11:08 AM



“Work satisfaction is when people like where they work, who they work with, and are pleased with the work they perform.” – Tony Demaria

One of Tony Demaria Electric’s (TDE) main commitments is to achieve

both customer and employee satisfaction.

• Our human resources, energy and ingenuity determine the true wealth of our company’s capabilities •

In addition to being a full service testing company, TDE provides the following training: NFPA 70E • Electrical Testing • Customized Safety and Technical Training


When working around electrical equipment, the preferred working condition includes the equipment being put in an electrically safe work condition or turned off, locked out, and tagged out. This is stated in both OSHA and NFPA 70E requirements. Unfortunately, there are electrical hazards which must be dealt with while achieving this electrically safe work condition. These hazards could involve switching, equipment racking, voltage testing, and applying grounds to assure an electrically safe work condition. This paper will focus on the safety requirements associated with placing equipment in an electrically safe work condition.

COMMON SENSEAs a precursor to this discussion, it has been noted by some

that OSHA and NFPA 70E requirements can be confusing and cumbersome. It has been said that “Common sense is the knack of seeing things as they are, and doing things as they ought to be done.” It is time to apply some common sense to electrical hazards. Here are some common sense ideas for electrical safety that are unfortunately, not so common.

1. Distance is your friend. The farther you are away from the hazard, the safer you will be and the less PPE you will be required to wear.

2. Bigger equipment is usually more dangerous.

3. When removing equipment covers, removing a household light switch does not typically require an arc-flash suit for protection but removing the cover from an industrial substation typically does.

4. Shock–related PPE requirements and arcflash related PPE requirements should be determined separately and added together.

With regard to electrical safety, to do things as they ought to be done means distancing yourself, and others, from the shock and arcflash hazards while establishing an electrically safe work condition. In order to do this, the whole process needs to be thought through and planned ahead of time. Before equipment is turned off, check the condition of the gear. Are there any panel meters or voltage indicators present? Do they appear to be working properly? Are the correct panel lights lit? In what order should the equipment be shut down? Can the loads be turned off remotely or further upstream or downstream where the hazards may be lower? Are there any additional hazards that could be introduced by turning this equipment off? If an action is likely to cause an arc-flash event, then how do you avoid injury?

Frequently, many people use the last method that should be applied. That method is to suit up in arc-flash protective clothing including leather gloves and face shield or flash-suit hood. PPE should always be a last resort when implementing a safety policy. In any unsafe situation, the goal is to remove the hazard so that the use of PPE is minimized.

DISTANCEWhen turning equipment on or off, there are several options.

There are engineered options such as using computer control to operate breakers from a distant operations center. Mimic panels can be used to operate the equipment from outside of the protection boundaries or outside of the room. There are aftermarket options that attach onto the front of the switchgear and will operate switches while allowing the operator to stand away from the switchgear.

When none of these options are available, there is also an old tried and true rope-andpulley system (See Figure 1). This is not known or used by many people. It does not work for all applications but excels in switching load interrupter switches, many medium-voltage starters, and many older style OCBs. Using the rope and pulley system, a rope is attached to the operating handle or pull ring and run through a pulley(s), if necessary. In this way the operator can stand away from, and to the side of, the equipment while operating the equipment. This method is inexpensive, easy to set up, and available to everybody. This can be seen being demonstrated on a motor starter in the Fall 2010 issue of NETA World Magazine in Tony Demaria’s article, Safety and Medium Voltage Starters.

If you must stand in front of the equipment to operate it, there are a few other things you can do to mitigate being injured. Stand to one side of the equipment being operated and always wear protective gloves. When wearing a face shield and balaclava instead of a full hood, face the equipment to avoid collecting a fireball inside the shield. Arc-rated blankets can be used to redirect the blast as well.

Racking out a breaker before you work on it is strongly advised and usually the only way to provide adequate separation from a hazard and establish an electrically safe work condition. Unfortunately, racking out equipment can be very hazardous. Again, there are many methods that can be used to distance yourself from the hazards. Some equipment may have builtin, electrically-operated racking mechanisms that will allow the operator to rack-in or rack-out the equipment while maintaining a safe distance. There are also many aftermarket products or robots

HAZARDS OF ESTABLISHING ANELECTRICALLY SAFE WORK CONDITION

NETA World, Spring 2011 Issue

By Tony Demaria & Dean Naylor, Tony Demaria Electric, Mose Ramieh, III, Power Generation & Testing

47Safety Handbook

which may be employed to rack breakers either at the end of a long control cord, or remotely via wireless control. Some of the remote racking devices come with a remote camera, or may be fitted with one at a later date.

If you must rack the breaker out locally, there are additional things to remember. Use closed door racking whenever possible. Wear the proper arc-flash rated PPE and stand to the side, if at all possible. If using a hand crank, use an extension on the crank handle to increase your distance from the equipment and possible arcing location. You can weld an additional section onto your factory-furnished crank handle (See Figure 2). Even an additional few feet can drastically reduce the incident energy exposure. As an example, a 42 cal/cm2 exposure at 36 inches on medium-voltage switchgear can be reduced to 21 cal/cm2 at 72 inches.

SHOCK BOUNDARIESThe next task that must be accomplished is to open covers in

order to test for absence of voltage. This seemingly easy task can introduce additional hazards. The cover can slip and fall into the gear. There may be loose hardware that is leaning against the cover that could fall when the cover is moved. PPE will be necessary for this task when crossing the shock or arc-flash boundaries.

First, a determination of the shock-related PPE requirements should be performed. This involves identifying the voltage to be worked on and the shock boundary to be applied. The shock boundaries are voltage dependent boundaries and vary by system nominal voltage. They are outlined in NFPA 70E, Table 130.2(C) and in IEEE C2, Table 441-1. These are defined as the Limited, Restricted, and Prohibited Approach Boundaries and are considered the distance from exposed, energized conductors. The distances stated in these tables are irregular and may be difficult to memorize. NFPA 70E, Table 130.2(C) lists 14 voltage ranges in five columns, or up to 70 distances. We believe that over 90 percent of the electrical workers in the U.S. and Canada have not studied these standards and could not tell you these distances from memory for every voltage level presented in these tables. Further, they could not tell you the definitions of Limited, Restricted and Prohibited Boundaries. The following is an example of a way that your company can create a safety policy that will cover the great majority of electrical workers for shock protection. It uses common sense, and promotes an easy way to memorize the distances. Keep in mind that this is an example of a safety policy for shock protection only.

1. When working on or near exposed, energized, fixed circuits up to 750 volts, you should wear voltage-rated gloves and use voltage-rated tools, if you are going to get closer than three feet six inches. If there is a possibility that you might fall into the hazard, you should also wear voltage-rated sleeves. No part of the unprotected body should get closer than your arms can reach. A hard hat and electrical face shield should also be used to prevent contact in tight areas.

2. When working on or near exposed, energized circuits over 750 volts to 15 kV, you should wear voltage-rated gloves, voltage-rated sleeves and voltage-rated tools if you are going to get closer than five feet. No part of the unprotected body may get closer than your arms can reach. A hard hat with an electrical face shield must be worn.

3. Any other voltages or situations should require specialized personnel who are qualified for the higher voltages.

These distances should apply when the covers are off and before the circuits have been deenergized, locked out, tested, and grounded, if necessary. The arc-flash boundary applies any time there are exposed, energized conductors as well as any time anyone is interacting with the equipment in such a manner that could cause an electric arc. This interaction includes operating and racking breakers, removing covers, voltage testing, and applying grounds.

OPENING DOORS & COVERSWhen opening hinged covers, care should be taken not to

position yourself so that you are in the path of the arc flash or blast. Keep the door between yourself and the exposed conductors until the cover has been fully opened with no incident. When removing a cover without hinges, get some help to remove the

Figure 1: Medium-Voltage Load Interrupter Switch Operation with Rope and Pulley System

Figure 2: Factory Racking Handle With Two Foot Extension Welded On

Safety Handbook48

cover. Suction cups can be very helpful when removing covers without handles. Make sure the suction cups are placed on a clean, dry, flat surface. These cups are very inexpensive and can be used to avoid dropping the cover into the equipment. Lean the cover out slowly at first and listen for any unexpected noises. Any scraping against the cover from loose parts, or the hissing or crackling of ionized air is a warning sign that more trouble could be coming. This should be investigated before continuing with the task.

VOLTAGE TESTINGIn order to test for voltage, the live-dead-live method should

always be employed. Panel meters or auxiliary voltage indicators may be used as additional verification. Do the panel meters that you looked at before de-energizing the equipment show an absence of voltage now? Have the voltage indicators that were lit beforehand been extinguished? Even with these checks, it is necessary to use a tested meter to check the circuit. Shock-related PPE and arcflash related PPE are necessary if crossing the shock or arc-flash boundaries, respectively.

When testing medium-voltage equipment, the meter should be attached to a hot stick. As a general recommendation, use a measuring device designed for the job and the voltage level. Do not select test equipment based on price alone. Using a hot stick will allow you to distance yourself from the hazard while performing the test. Always extend the hot stick to the fullest length that is practical. Always test all three phases. Start with the voltage range setting for the expected voltage, then gradually lower the voltage range setting to the minimum range to confirm that there is no voltage present. A contact-making meter should be used even after a proximity tester has indicated an absence of voltage in order to test for trapped charge, since proximity testers do not respond to dc voltage. Always use gloves rated for the full system voltage for this task when crossing either the restricted or prohibited approach boundaries. Test all three phases-to-ground as well as phase-to-phase.

GROUNDINGNow that absence of voltage has been verified, grounds may

be applied. Grounds should always be used when working on equipment that has high fault current capacity., once again, the goal is to protect yourself and others from the hazard.

With this in mind, there is another way to apply grounds remotely. Grounding and test devices have been around for some time, but they are not in common use. They are a common sense approach to applying grounds safely. However, it is imperative that the grounding and test device be tested for insulation integrity and the correct stab position chosen for the ground cables. Some cubicles may be energized on the top stabs and others on the bottom stabs. This is especially typical in tie breakers. Using a grounding device with the wrong side grounded could lead to catastrophic damage.

The grounding device may be inserted into a cubicle and then operated remotely from system controls or mimic panels or,

if necessary, from a robot operator. Keep in mind, if it needs to be racked into the cubicle, this should also be done remotely, if possible. If not, follow the same precautions as discussed earlier for racking equipment out.

If grounding cables or clusters must be applied manually, use a hot stick. Remember again, distance is your friend. When applying ground sets, assume the circuit is energized even after the circuit has been voltage tested and verified to be de-energized. This means wear the appropriate PPE for the hazard. This is common sense as many an experienced electrician can relate a story of applying grounds and having the unfortunate experience of touching an energized conductor with the ground cluster. Not a pretty picture! The good news is, if the grounding cluster has been sized properly and is being installed correctly, it usually trips the upstream breaker with possible damage to equipment. Once again, use hot sticks at the longest practical lengths and position your body so that you are not in the line of fire. Don’t stand in the path of the hazard!

SUMMARYBy thinking through and planning each step, the process of

establishing an electrically safe work condition can be done safely and without exposing yourself to unnecessary hazards. Once the equipment is de-energized, locked out, tagged out, tested for voltage, and grounded, if necessary, an electrically safe work condition has been established. Now that this has been done safely and the electrical hazards have been removed, the original work task(s) may begin.

Tony Demaria worked for the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power in substation maintenance prior to starting his own company. He has owned and operated Tony Demaria Electric for over 25 years, specializing in maintenance and testing of switchgear and large motors for industrial facilities. Tony Demaria Electric is a NETA Accredited

Company, and Tony serves as the NETA Safety Committee Chair.

Dean Naylor completed the NJATC Apprenticeship in Baton Rouge, LA before earning his degree in electrical engineering at the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga. He has 20 years of electrical experience in electrical system operating, installation, maintenance, analysis and testing. He is a member of IEEE 1584 and 1814 Committees as well

as a Certified Maintenance and Reliability Professional and a NETA Level III Technician.

49Safety Handbook

Mose Ramieh, III has ten years of experience in the electrical power field. He is certified as a Level II Thermographer, a NICET Certified Level III Electrical Testing Technician, and a NETA Certified Level IV Technician. His expertise covers industrial and utility power systems from 480 volts to 161 kV and all controls associated with these systems .

Safety Handbook50

Engineering advancements throughout the 20th century enabled tremendous benefits to modern society and our way of life. Sometimes the evolution of technology advancements outpaced development of understanding and knowledge in how to apply new technology safely. Unfortunately, high profile disasters exhibiting gaps in managing risks, including Texas City (1947), Flixborough (1974), Three Mile Island (1979), Bhopal (1984), Chernobyl (1986), Challenger (1986), Piper Alpha (1988), Texas City (2005) and Deepwater Horizon (2010) have been so severe to garner international attention. These high profile industrial/technical disasters were investigated with exceptional rigor to help assure identification of the contributing causes that resulted in high losses in human life, impact on the environment, and billions of dollars in property losses and liability damages. The lessons from these disasters have had wide impact on codes, standards, and regulations impacting systems design, reliability and maintenance systems, safety management, and operating discipline. Beyond their initial investigations, these disasters spawned numerous third party articles and books to further advance understanding of how these events occurred and what can be done to prevent them. How effectively have we applied these lessons to maintenance of critical electrical equipment and electrical safety in the workplace? This paper explores opportunities to apply key learnings from these disasters to compliment widely recognized best practices in managing electrical systems maintenance and personnel safety in the workplace.

First, it may be useful to share a bit of background on DuPont, the oldest Fortune 500 company. French immigrant Eleuthère Irénée du Pont founded the company in 1802 to make black powder to supply gunpowder and explosives used in farming, mining, and construction in the expanding United States. For nearly 150 years, the manufacture of explosives was the primary business of the DuPont Co. This was an inherently hazardous business. In 1818, a massive explosion destroyed much of the powder mills, killed or injured more than half of the employees and injured Mrs. du Pont. This catastrophe solidified E.I. du Pont’s philosophy in safety management. His words, “We must seek to understand the hazards with which we live,” became the foundation of the company’s approach to managing the design, construction, and operation of facilities for manufacturing highly hazardous materials. In the early 20th century, the company began diversifying into chemicals, which like gunpowder and explosives,

involve inherently hazardous materials and manufacturing processes. In the mid 1980s, an effort began to apply experience in managing safety of inherently highly hazardous processes to the unique hazards of electricity. That effort continues today and is the focus of this paper – applying lessons from high profile disasters to the unique hazards of electricity.

During the 20th century, the combination of emerging technologies and machines and processes brought together massive quantities of energy and hazardous materials.

Energy densities took on massive scale, and when something went wrong, the consequences were far reaching. Very detailed investigative reports are available for each of these disasters. Hundreds of books have been written that expand on the official reports. Documentary films have been produced on some of these disasters. It is not possible to capture the full breadth and depth of the lessons learned within the scope of this paper. However, we will see there are ways we can help assure that the full scope of these lessons are applied to electrical safety. Electrical accidents seldom involve more than one or two victims and typically do not generate such attention. But the lessons from the disasters that receive extensive scrutiny can be applied to electrical safety. It is critical that those of us involved in electrical safety understand this, as it can help accelerate improvements and change in how equipment and systems are designed, how electrical hazards are managed, and in changing cultural beliefs and attitudes on risks and consequences of electrical accidents. The key learning or learnings noted with each are only a small selection from the hundreds of recommendations developed form the investigation of each of these events.

1937 – NEW LONDON SCHOOL DISASTEROn March 18, 1937, a natural gas leak caused an explosion that

destroyed a public school building in New London, Texas. The explosion killed more than 295 students and teachers. Of the 640 people in the building at the time, only 130 escaped without injury. The area was rich in oil and natural gas resources and the school district was one of the wealthiest in the US. Built in 1932, the original plans called for a central boiler for heating the building; however, the school board opted to install 72 gasfired heaters instead. In 1937, the school board cancelled its contract with the natural gas supplier and tapped into a waste gas line from a local refinery. The waste gas was odorless and colorless, and leaks went

FROM THE BRINK OF DISASTER: LESSONS FOR ELECTRICAL SAFETY AND RELIABILITY

NETA World, Summer 2011 Issue By H. Landis “Lanny” Floyd, DuPont

51Safety Handbook

undetected. Although some students had been complaining of headaches, no action was taken. It is believed that a switch on an electric sander caused a spark that ignited the gas-air mixture. This disaster led to worldwide standards requiring mercaptan additives to all natural gas supplies. The strong odor makes leaks quickly detectable. Decades later, the renowned news anchor Walter Cronkite, who as a young reporter was on site, commented that he never covered a news event that was more disturbing.

A key learning: The hazard (much like electricity) could not be detected with human senses.

1947 – TEXAS CITY EXPLOSION On the morning of April 16, 1947, the worst industrial disaster

in the US began unfolding in Texas City, Texas. A small fire on board the SS Grandcamp, loaded with ammonia nitrate escalated to involve nearby refineries, chemical plants and the explosion on April 17 of a second vessel, the SS High Flyer, also loaded with ammonia nitrate. Within a 24 hour period, nearly 600 people were dead, more than 100 missing and never accounted for, 3500 people injured, 1519 houses destroyed, more than 2500 people homeless, major port facilities destroyed, a Monsanto chemical plant destroyed, and total property losses exceeded $700 million in 1947 dollars. Adjusted to 2011, the property financial loss alone exceeded $6.9 billion.

A key learning: The first responders on board the SS Grandcamp and the disaster response team at the port did not understand the hazard and its potential for catastrophe.

1972 – EASTERN FLIGHT 401 On December 29, 1972, Eastern Airlines flight 401 from New

York to Miami crashed in the Florida Everglades. With 176 people on board, 101 were killed. The Lockheed L1011 Tristar was the first wide body jet crash in the US, and at that time it was the deadliest crash of a commercial flight in the US. In preparation for landing, an indicating light for the front landing gear did not illuminate, and the flight was diverted to give the crew time to investigate. The plane was put on autopilot while the flight crew, including the captain, first officer, second officer and an engineer from Eastern began investigating the problem. While investigating the landing gear situation, it is believed a control was accidently bumped, sending the plane into a gradual, imperceptible descent. There were no ground lights in the Everglades to give visual warning of the planes close proximity to the ground. The investigation team coined a new phrase, CFIT – controlled flight into terrain. Preoccupation with the nose landing gear indicator malfunction distracted the four highly qualified, competent crew and they failed to notice and respond to six different altitude warning alarms.

A key learning: Qualification and competency alone will not prevent errors having catastrophic consequences. Highly qualified persons can and will make mistakes that put themselves and others at high risk.

1974 – FLIXBOROUGH, ENGLAND EXPLOSION On June 1, 1974, an explosion at the Nypro chemical plant

in Flixborough, England killed 28 and injured 36 workers. An additional 53 people in the surrounding community were injured. The explosion occurred on a weekend when there was minimal staff on site. If it had been during the week, it was estimated that more than 500 workers would have been killed. 1500 buildings within a mile radius were damaged. Plant maintenance personnel had modified the plant process piping by building a 20 inch diameter bypass line around an out of service reactor. A crack developed in the bypass line, creating a vapor cloud that ignited, exploded, and destroyed the plant facilities. Fires burned for 10 days.

Key learnings included: The importance of minimizing inventories of hazardous materials, the need for documented procedures, and the need for engineering analysis of plant designs and modifications.

1976 – SEVESO, ITALY DISASTERThe largest exposure of dioxins to human and animal populations

occurred on July 10, 1976, in Seveso, Italy. Within a few days of a leak at a chemical plant, more than 3300 farm animals had died. Subsequently, more than 80,000 animals were slaughtered to prevent dioxin from entering the food chain. 220,000 people were monitored for long term health effects. In 1982, the European Union passed extensive industrial safety regulations, known as the Seveso Directives.

A key learning: Nearby residents, political authorities, and public health officials were unaware of the presence of a hazard.

1979 – THREE MILE ISLANDThe worst accident in the history of the US commercial nuclear

industry occurred on March 28, 1979. The #2 unit at Three Mile Island generating station near Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, suffered a partial meltdown. A series of minor equipment malfunctions, coupled with human error, resulted in a major accident. Although there were no casualties directly related to this incident, it halted any further development of commercial nuclear power generation in the U.S.

A key learning: The reactor operators were not trained to operate the reactor under abnormal conditions.

1984 – BHOPAL CATASTROPHE The Bhopal disaster is considered the world’s worst industrial

catastrophe. The official immediate death toll was 2259. Government agencies estimate more than 15,000 subsequent fatalities and 558,125 injuries from a leak of a toxic chemical, methyl isocyanate, from a Union Carbide chemical plant. The leak occurred on the night of December 2-3, 1984. Contributing factors included hidden failures in safety systems due to inadequate maintenance, lack of an emergency response plan, and storage of large quantities of highly hazardous materials in a heavily populated area.

Safety Handbook52

A key learning: Hidden failures in engineering controls critical to safety can have catastrophic consequences.

1986 – CHALLENGER EXPLOSION At 11:39AM on January 28, 1986, 73 seconds into its flight, the

space shuttle Challenger exploded, killing all seven crew members. The disaster was captured live on national TV news. The Rogers Commission, appointed by President Reagan identified flaws in NASA safety management systems that contributed to the disaster. Most disturbing was the finding that maintaining schedule had taken priority over flight safety in decision making processes.

A key learning: Top management had created a culture that allowed cost and schedule to override safety concerns

1986 – CHERNOBYL NUCLEAR DISASTER The accident that occurred on April 26, 1986, at the Chernobyl

nuclear power plant in the Ukraine is considered the worst nuclear power plant accident in history. There were 56 deaths onsite. More than 350,000 people were relocated from the nuclear contaminated areas. It is estimated that 4000 deaths will result from increased cancer risk due to radiation exposure. The investigation found flaws and deficiencies in every aspect of the facility. The poor quality of operating procedures and instructions put a heavy burden on the operating crew, creating high degree of vulnerability to human error.

A key learning: The safety culture did not include understanding of the risks associated with the hazards, not only at the Chernobyl plant, but throughout the Soviet design, operating, and regulatory organizations for nuclear power that existed at that time.

1988 – PIPER ALPHA EXPLOSION The explosion of the Piper Alpha offshore gas platform on July 6,

1988, is the worst offshore oil disaster in terms of lives lost and impact on the industry. 167 workers were killed. At the time of the disaster, Piper Alpha accounted for 10 percent of North Sea gas production. The fire burned for three weeks before being extinguished by a team under direction of Red Adair. The government inquiry made 106 recommendations for change in safety procedures, all which became standard in the oil and gas industry.

A key learning: Lack of coordination of multiple maintenance activities compromised emergency safety systems

1999 – INSTITUTE OF MEDICINE REPORTThis is not a singular incident as are the other disasters noted

in this paper; however, this study has brought great attention to the prevalence of human error in critical situations. In 1999, the US National Academies Institute of Medicine issued a landmark report on patient safety in the US healthcare systems. The report, titled To Err is Human, stated that 98,000 avoidable deaths occurred annually largely due to human error, making medical errors the 5th leading cause of death in the US. The report cited deficiencies in safety management systems spanning, government oversight, communication processes, incident reporting and

sharing practices, equipment designs, team management, planning processes, education, and licensing.

A key learning: Highly qualified and competent personal can and will make mistakes that place others in jeopardy.

2005 – TEXAS CITY EXPLOSION On March 23, 2005, an explosion at a refinery in Texas City,

Texas, killed 15 workers and injured more than 170. The US Chemical Safety Board recommended the company commission an independent panel to investigate the safety culture and management systems. The panel was led by former US Secretary of State James W. Baker III. The panel’s principal finding was that management had not distinguished between occupational safety (i.e., slips-trips-and-falls, driving safety, etc.) and process safety (i.e., design for safety, hazard analysis, material verification, equipment maintenance, process upset reporting). The metrics, incentives, and management systems focused on measuring and managing occupational safety while ignoring process safety.

A key learning: The company had confused improving trends in occupational safety statistics for a general improvement in all types of safety.

2010 – DEEPWATER HORIZON EXPLOSION On April 20, 2010, an explosion on the deep water oil platform,

Deepwater Horizon, killed 11 workers, injured 17, and caused the largest offshore oil spill in US history. The platform sank on April 22. This event will likely spawn significant changes in government regulations and industry standards. Initial findings point to deficiencies in risk management and safety management systems.

EMERGENCE OF SAFETY MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS STANDARDS

The high profile disasters in the 1970s and 1980s set the stage for the movement to identify best practices and establish standards for effective safety management systems to minimize risk to workers, the public and the environment. Some companies had already developed proprietary safety management standards that align with or go beyond industry standards that have since emerged. The first consensus standard addressing these needs appeared in 1995, with the publication of ISO 14001, Environmental Management Systems. In 1999, a collaboration of international safety organizations published OHSAS 18001, Occupational Safety and Health Management Standard. A similar standard, ILO Guidelines for Occupational Safety and Health Management Systems was published by the International Labour Organization in 2001. Implementation of these standards includes rigorous certification processes, similar to the ISO 9000 quality certification process. More recently, ANSI Z10 Occupational Health and Safety Management Systems, and CSA Z1000, Occupational Health and Safety Management were first published in 2005 and 2006 respectively. These two standards are well harmonized with each other and with the other safety management systems standards noted above, but can be applied without the rigorous certification requirements.

53Safety Handbook

LINKING NFP A 70E 2009 AN D CSA Z462-2008 TO SAFETY MANA GEMENT SYSTEMS

Continuing its evolution since first published in 1979, the 2009 edition of NFPA 70E and the first edition of CSA Z462-2008 for the first time made reference to safety management systems standards. The referenced management systems standards focus on the strategic levels of management policy and implementation processes to help establish management commitment and support necessary for planning, implementing, and assuring sustainable and continuous improvement in safety performance. Better understanding the role of safety management systems in planning and implementing changes in an electrical safety program may be one of the most critical factors in the success of the electrical safety program, no matter what stage of implementation or its level of maturity. An organization just beginning to apply the requirements of NFPA 70E or CSA Z462, an organization that has a mature safety management system and electrical safety program, but hasn’t assessed integration effectiveness, and the organization that has a mature integration of the electrical safety program may all benefit from a critical review of their electrical safety programs and safety management systems. Unique to CSA Z462-2008 is Annex A, “Aligning Implementation of Z462 with Occupational Health and Safety Standards.” A key statement in Annex A underscores the importance of collaboration and integration:

The most effective design and implementation of an electrical safety program can best be achieved through a joint effort involving electrical subject matter experts and safety professionals knowledgeable in safety management systems. This collaboration can help assure proven safety management principles and practices applicable to any hazard in the workplace are appropriately incorporated in the electrical safety program. This annex provides guidance on implementing CSA Z462 within the framework of CSA Z1000 and other recognized or proprietary comprehensive occupational safety and health management system standards.

WHERE TO GO FROM HERE Those who have been involved in the development and

implementation of NFPA70E and CSA Z462 need to take on the challenge and educate ourselves on safety management systems and how effective electrical safety programs are dependent on integration within these systems. We need to actively seek ideas outside the box of electrical safety, learn how management of other hazards is continually improving and translate these learnings to the unique hazards of electricity.

H. Landis “Lanny” Floyd II received his BSEE from Virginia Tech and joined DuPont in 1973. For the past 25 years, his responsibilities have largely focused on electrical systems reliability and electrical safety in the construction, operation, and maintenance of DuPont facilities worldwide. He is currently Principal Consultant, Electrical Safety & Technology. He has published or

presented more than 100 technical papers, magazine articles, tutorials and workshop presentations on electrical safety and electrical technology. He is an IEEE Fellow, a professional member of American Society of Safety Engineers, a member of NFPA NEC panel 1 and 70E Task Group on Maintenance Requirements, a member of CSA Z462 Technical Committee, a board director of Electrical Safety Foundation International, a Certified Safety Professional, a Certified Maintenance & Reliability Professional, and a registered professional engineer in Delaware.

Safety Handbook54

I challenge you to do this – go to work and look for a way to get hurt today. Really. Look for a way to hurt yourself. Don’t ignore anything. Find a way that you could get injured and then write it down. Then look for another one.

Every day workers head out to their jobs to make a living for their families, unaware of what they are facing. It does not matter what your career path or your trade is. There is something out there that will bite you if you don’t pay attention. Electricity seems to be getting a lot of attention lately because of the arc-fl ash hazards and the severity of the injuries sustained if exposed to one. On the other hand, shock is still the most common hazard that workers face today.

Whether you are in the electrical industry or you are the receptionist in an offi ce building, the possibility of electric shock exists and you are exposed. Many electricians expect to get shocked while in the performance of their duties. They say “It is just part of the job.” But it isn’t. There are safeguards in place that can keep you from getting shocked. Job hazard analysis, job safety assessments, pretask plans, whatever you call it, it means the same

thing. You are trying to identify the hazards to which you are being exposed in order to mitigate them. If you can not eliminate the hazard, you need to take special precautions and select the proper protective equipment to keep yourself safe so you can return home at the end of the day.

There are approximately 4,000 nondisabling injuries sustained in the workplace each year that are reported. That works out to nearly 20 each day. Add to that the other 16 to 18 per day that receive disabling injuries and you have over 7,500 workers that are injured at work each year with electrical-related injuries. That could come from shock, arc-fl ash burns, injuries sustained from arc blast, as well as other secondary injuries such as falls, concussions, lacerations, and broken bones. Some of these don’t even fall into the category of electrical injuries but are a result of the exposure.

Over the past four years of talking to electricians in the fi eld, nearly all of them have, at one time or another, admitted to receiving an electric shock. But when pushed to answer the question as to whether or not they reported it, very few have done so. This is absolutely unacceptable. Each of the electricians that I

LOOK FOR A WAY TO GET HURT - A SHOCKING CHALLENGE

NETA World, Summer 2011 Issue By Don Bown, Senior Training Specialist, Shermco Industries

55Safety Handbook

have spoken to admitted to getting shocked, but not reporting it for fear of reprisal from their supervisor, being heckled by their co-workers, or not seeming to be macho.

Most of these shocks happen while the electrician is troubleshooting electrical systems.

It is impossible to measure voltage and current while the power is turned off , so troubleshooting is done while the system is energized. The problem occurs when the electrician gets to the location only to fi nd out that a critical system is not operating, a production line is down, or another worker creates a distraction because the other worker wants to watch what the electrician is doing. All of these create an unsafe atmosphere in which the electrician sometimes forgets to follow safe work practices. Instead of getting the proper safety equipment, he or she is pressured into just getting it back on line no matter what it takes. This leads to performing the work unprotected and under pressure, and not necessarily thinking about the task at hand.

It only takes one little distraction to make a mistake and the result can be devastating. Maybe it is contact with live parts that results in an electrical burn. Maybe it results in falling off a ladder. Or even worse yet, it results in the inability to release the energized part and a fatality occurs. Whatever the case, it is something that can be avoided. Taking the extra minute to put on the protective equipment needed to do the job safely and setting up a safe work zone can, and will, result in your safety.

Something as simple as putting on rubber insulating gloves, using the proper tester for checking voltage, and using insulated tools can go a long way in preventing an electric shock. Don’t let pressure or poor work practices get you hurt. If you are training another worker, make sure that both of you have the proper protective equipment as well as the proper tools and test equipment. In some instances electricians think low voltage means low hazard. Systems below 600 volts are oft en considered to be low risk situations; therefore, PPE is not going to be required. Ask the three workers that were sent to the hospital aft er the accident in the picture below how low risk 480 volts really is!

None of them had any PPE on except a hardhat. You can see the burns on the wall and the melted ski mask on the floor along with the smoke damage on two of the three hardhats. Now try to imagine the burns to their hands and faces. All three spent time in the hospital because they neglected to wear the proper PPE. This is one time that they won’t be going home after work.

In addition to their injuries, what are some of the other impacts due to this type of incident? First, there has to be an investigation into the accident. There has to be additional down time to the motor control center to make repairs, and that means other equipment will be down as well. Lost production, lost revenue, increased insurance costs, worker’s compensation claims, hospital expenses, other employees having to do additional work to cover the lost time of the three workers – all these are the result of not

wearing the proper protective equipment. If the correct PPE had been worn, much of this would not have happened.

Now let’s look at the impact on the families of these workers. These three men were providing for their families. There is no dad at home to play with the children. An unnecessary burden is now put on the rest of the family, just because someone took a shortcut and didn’t choose to work safely. Think of the impact that you have on others working with you. If you get hurt, you hurt yourself and your family. If you cause someone else an injury, you impact their families as well.

Don’t be that person that says “it will only take a minute” or “I’ve been doing this for over 20 years and I know what I am doing.” Look for a way that you can get hurt today, and a way that you might hurt someone else while at work. Take the time to look for the hazards and find another way to do the job. At the end of the day, we all want to go home to our families.

Arc-Flash in Motor Control Center

Damaged Hardhats and Cold Weather Gear

Safety Handbook56

Don Brown has been involved in the electrical industry for over 35 years – 15 of those specific to electrical testing. He was a master electrician, safety consultant, and business owner. He has consulted for companies such as Intel, Air Liquide, Bell Helicopter, and Chesapeake Energy. Don now serves Shermco Industries as a Senior Training Specialist.

57Safety Handbook

WORKING IN EXTREME SUMMER WEATHERLiving and working in extreme summer weather presents

challenges. The combination of high temperatures, humidity, and radiant heat can result in extremely dangerous conditions for workers. Because of this, one must ask the question: When do you stop work due to summer weather conditions? This article will provide information associated with working in extreme summer weather conditions. It will also provide recommendations that both the employer and the employee should consider for working safely during the summer months.

Four environmental factors affect a worker’s level of heat stress: temperature, humidity, radiant heat (such as from working directly in the sun), and air flow. Perhaps more important to a worker’s level of heat stress are personal characteristics such as age, weight, fitness, medical condition, and acclimatization to the heat.

In an effort to better describe heat stress, the figure below is provided. The heat index was developed as a combination of temperature and relative humidity to provide an apparent temperature of the combined environmental factors.

The body reacts to high temperature exposure by circulating blood to the skin to increase skin temperature and allow the body, through convection, to give off its excess heat through the skin. Unfortunately, when physical labor diverts blood to the muscles, less blood is available to flow to the skin and release the heat. Sweating is another means the body uses to maintain a stable internal body temperature. However, sweating is effective only if the humidity level is low enough to permit evaporation. If the body cannot get rid of the excess heat, it will store it. Performing

physical work in a high heat index may lead to serious health problems, such as heat exhaustion and heatstroke.

Heat exhaustion is the most common heat stress ailment. Heat exhaustion happens when a worker sweats a lot and does not replenish the fluids and salts. The simple way to describe the worker is wet, white, and weak. Heatstroke is the most serious heat stress ailment, but is less common. Heatstroke is caused by the failure of the body to regulate its core temperature. Sweating stops and the body cannot get rid of excess heat. Victims will die unless they receive proper treatment promptly.

Not only can high temperatures and humidity be hazardous to workers, they can also adversely affect the equipment the worker is using. Based on a simple sampling of electrical test equipment, typical operating temperature ranges were - 4 to +122° F (-20 to +50° C), with equipment storage temperature ranges of -13 to +149° F (-25 C to +65° C). Typical humidity limitations are 90 percent at 104° F (40° C).

Based on the information associated with heat index, combined with the physical limitations of the test equipment, I recommend limiting worker exposure to summer weather conditions by restricting outside work anytime the heat index is above 104° F. It should be noted that working in direct sunlight could add up to 15° F to the heat index.

Additionally, other work rules and recommendations should be considered when working in extreme winter weather conditions. One of the more complete lists of suggested work rules and recommendations can be found on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention web site (www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/heatstress/). On this website, the following National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) recommendations are provided:

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR EMPLOYERS Employers should take the following steps to protect workers

from heat stress:

• Schedule maintenance and repair jobs in hot areas for cooler months

• Schedule hot jobs for the cooler part of the day

• Acclimatize workers by exposing them for progressively longer periods to hot work environments

• Reduce the physical demands of workers

WORKING IN EXTREME SUMMER AND WINTER WEATHER

NETA World, Fall 2011 Issue By Lynn Hamrick, Shermco Industries

Safety Handbook58

• Use relief workers or assign extra workers for physically demanding jobs

• Provide cool water or liquids to workers –Avoid drinks with caffeine, alcohol, or large amounts of sugar.

• Provide rest periods with water breaks

• Provide cool areas for use during break periods

• Monitor workers who are at risk of heat stress

• Provide heat stress training that includes information about:

– Worker risk

– Prevention

– Symptoms

– The importance of monitoring yourself and coworkers for symptoms

– Treatment

– Personal protective equipment

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR WORKERS Workers should avoid exposure to extreme heat, sun exposure,

and high humidity when possible. When these exposures cannot be avoided, workers should take the following steps to prevent heat stress:

• Wear light-colored, loose-fitting, breathable clothing such as cotton. o Avoid nonbreathing synthetic clothing

• Gradually build up to heavy work

• Schedule heavy work during the coolest parts of day

• Take more breaks in extreme heat and humidity

–Take breaks in the shade or a cool area when possible

• Drink water frequently. Drink enough water that you never become thirsty

• Avoid drinks with caffeine, alcohol, and large amounts of sugar;

• Be aware that protective clothing or personal protective equipment may increase the risk of heat stress

• Monitor your physical condition and that of your coworkers

Extreme summer weather conditions can result in heat stress, which can be extremely dangerous, particularly with outdoor workers exposed to direct sunlight. To enhance worker safety in these summer conditions, work planning and work rules should be implemented to limit worker exposure by restricting outside work anytime the heat index is above 104° F (40° C).

WORKING IN EXTREME WINTER WEATHERLiving and working in Iowa in the winter presents some

challenges. The combination of low temperatures, wind, and snow can result in extremely dangerous working conditions for workers. Because of this, one must ask the question: When do you stop work due to winter weather conditions? This article will provide information associated with working in extreme winter weather conditions. It will also provide recommendations that both the employer and the employee should consider for working safely during the winter months.

Extreme cold weather is a dangerous situation that can bring on health emergencies in susceptible people, such as outdoor workers and those who work in an area that is poorly insulated or without heat. Excessive exposure to cold is referred to as cold stress. In an effort to better describe cold stress, the figure at left is provided from OSHA Bulletin 3156 (1998).

For Iowa, the temperature and wind conditions presented with OSHA’s cold stress equation are probably appropriate. However, what constitutes cold stress and its effects can vary across different areas of the country. In states that are relatively unaccustomed to winter weather, near freezing temperatures are considered factors for cold stress. Whenever temperatures drop decidedly below normal and as wind speed increases, heat can more rapidly leave your body. These weather-related conditions may lead to serious health problems such as hypothermia or frostbite.

The victims of hypothermia are unable to notice the symptoms; therefore, their survival depends on coworkers’ ability to identify symptoms and to seek medical help. Warning signs of hypothermia can include complaints of nausea, fatigue, dizziness, irritability, or euphoria. Workers can also experience pain in their extremities (hands, feet, ears, etc.) and severe shivering. Workers should be moved to a heated shelter and seek medical advice when appropriate.

Not only can cold temperatures be hazardous to workers, cold temperatures can also adversely affect the equipment they are using. Based on a simple sampling of electrical test equipment, typical operating temperature ranges were - 4 to +122° F (-20 to +50° C), with equipment storage temperature ranges of -13 to +149° F (-25 C to +65° C). Additionally, operating temperature ranges for laptop computers are even more restrictive at 14 to +122° F (-10 to +50° C) due to their LCD screens.

59Safety Handbook

Based on the information presented with OSHA’s cold stress equation, combined with the physical limitations of the test equipment, I have recommended limiting worker exposure to winter weather conditions in Iowa by restricting outside work anytime the outside temperature is below 10° F. As stated above, this may not be appropriate for other areas of the country that are not accustomed to working in the winter weather conditions similar to those of Iowa.

Additionally, other work rules and recommendations should be considered when working in extreme winter weather conditions. One of the more complete lists of suggested work rules and recommendations can be found on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention web site (www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/coldstress/). On this website, the following National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) recommendations are provided:

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR EMPLOYERS Employers should take the following steps to protect workers

from cold stress:

• Schedule maintenance and repair jobs in cold areas for warmer months

• Schedule cold jobs for the warmer part of the day

• Reduce the physical demands of workers

• Use relief workers or assign extra workers for long, demanding jobs

• Provide warm liquids to workers

• Provide warm areas for use during break periods

• Monitor workers who are at risk of cold stress

• Provide cold stress training that includes information about:

– Worker risk

– Prevention

– Symptoms

– The importance of monitoring yourself and coworkers for symptoms

– Treatment

– Personal protective equipment

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR WORKERS Workers should avoid exposure to extremely cold temperatures

when possible. When coldenvironments or temperatures cannot be avoided, workers should follow theserecommendations to protect themselves from cold stress:

• Wear appropriate clothing

– Wear several layers of loose clothing. Layering provides better insulation

– Tight clothing reduces blood circulation. Warm blood needs to be circulated to the extremities

– When choosing clothing, be aware that some clothing may restrict movement resulting in a hazardous situation

• Make sure to protect the ears, face, hands and feet in extremely cold weather

– Boots should be waterproof and insulated

– Wear a hat; it will keep your whole body warmer. (Hats reduce the amount of body heat that escapes from your head.)

• Move into warm locations during work breaks; limit the amount of time outside on extremely cold days

• Carry cold weather gear such as extra socks, gloves, hats, jacket, blankets, a change ofclothes, and a thermos of hot liquid

• Include a thermometer and chemical hot packs in your first aid kit

• Avoid touching cold metal surfaces with bare skin

• Monitor your physical condition and that of your coworkers

Extreme winter weather conditions can result in cold stress which can be extremely dangerous, particularly with outdoor workers and those who work in an area that is poorly insulated or without heat. To enhance worker safety in these winter conditions, work planning and work rules should be implemented to limit worker exposure by restricting outside work anytime the outside temperatures are substantially below normal temperatures. Additionally, appropriate clothing recommendations should be implemented to mitigate the effects of the winter conditions.

Safety Handbook60

Our clients specify several optional features to enhance the overall safety of the switchgear for the individual electrical technician. This technical brief will highlight some of these features so that others might benefit from the collective experience.

Three of these topics that were discussed at a PCIC Safety Workshop are:

SHUTTER LABELS The simplest enhancements to add to a switchgear line-up

are shutter labels. The shutter label indicates the destination of the top and bottom stabs to the technician performing testing or grounding on a vertical section. The shutter is the moveable guard that drops in front of the breaker stabs as the breaker is racked to the disconnected position. The labels are decals mounted on the shutters in front of the circuit breaker stabs. The labels identify whether the stabs are Load Side, Line Side, Bus Side A, or Bus Side B.

Tasks often require an electrical technician to open the shutters on an energized cell. Whether the shutters need to be opened to perform insulation testing of a motor feeder or to insert a ground and test device, it is important that the technician be given visual confirmation of which set of stabs is energized. Yes, the safe-work practice requires that the stabs be checked for voltage prior to hooking up the test equipment, but this simple label offers a valuable confirmation to the technician in the field that has proven to be effective.

SHUTTER LOCKS The shutter mechanism is the last level of protection between the

stabs and a person doing work in the cell. By padlocking the shutter closed, you protect technicians from mistakenly opening a shutter on an energized set of stabs. Our existing shutter mechanisms have a set of holes to allow the shutters to be padlocked in the closed position. We also have an optional design that brings a bar from the shutter mechanism to the very front of the cell. This extension design allows the shutter to be the primary point of lockout/tagout.

Once again this is something that is covered by the plant’s safe-work practices. Every safe-work practice assumes everything is energized before you touch a conductor, but we had a case recently of a individual getting electrocuted on an energized stab while doing preventative maintenance. The lead technician was performing preventative maintenance on a secondary selective system. He had performed the proper isolation and lockout procedure. As planned, he had left a load side CPT energized via a

downstream emergency generator to provide station service power for the shut down. The technician was going down the line-up cleaning all the breaker stabs when he mistakenly went into the cubicle with the load side stabs energized and was killed when he came in contact with the stabs.

Because of other work going on, the group required access to the cubicle so they had to be able to leave the cubicle door unlocked. A simple lock and tag on that particular set of shutters would have prevented the technician’s mistake. There is a pair of 3/8” holes through the moving and fixed portion of the shutter mechanism that permit the locking of the shutter. This locking mechanism also proves to be useful with any main-tie-main system. The shutter lock is the best system available for protecting people when the switchgear has a tie cubicle and half of the system is out of service for maintenance. The shutter lock is also a very effective point for locking out the breaker and cell.

CELL LOCKS The most discussed topic when drafting a site lockou/tagout

procedure is where to place the locks on metal-clad switchgear. Locking out the cell is replacing locking out the circuit breaker due to the increased safety. Locking out the cell assures that a spare breaker cannot be racked in and mistakenly energize downstream loads. A cell lock allows full access to the breaker out of the cell on the floor for maintenance purposes while people continue to work under their lockout/ tag/out on downstream loads. The cell lock absolutely prevents any breaker from being racked onto the stabs.

In all cases the shutter labels, shutter locks, and cell locks can play an important part in how the switchgear is operated. Every site has different skill levels and site procedures that determine when and if these features should be incorporated into the site safety program.

Jim Bowen graduated from Texas A&M University in 1976 with a BSEE. He has worked for SIP Engineering as a power engineer and for Exxon in all facets of electrical engineering in the petrochemical process. He held the position of regional engineer for Exxon Chemicals Europe for three years. In January of 1997, Jim joined Powell Electrical Manufacturing Company as Technical Director, providing leadership, training, and mentoring to both internal and external electrical communities.

ADDITIONAL SAFETY FEATURESNETA World, Winter 2011-2012 Issue

By Jim Bowen, Powell Electrical Manufacturing Co.

61Safety Handbook

NETA Accredited Companies Valid as of January 1, 2014

For NETA Accredited Company List Updates Visit www.netaworld.org

For additional information on NETA visit netaworld.org For additional information on NETA visit netaworld.org

Ensuring Safety and ReliabilityTrust in a NETA Accredited Company to provide independent, third-party electrical testing to the highest standard, the ANSI/NETA Standards.

NETA has been connecting engineers, architects, facility managers, and users of electrical power equipment and systems with NETA Accredited Companies since1972.

United StateSAlAbAmA

AMP Quality Energy Services, LLC 4220 West Schrimsher SW, Site W1 PO Box 526 Huntsville, AL 35804(256) 513-8255 [email protected] Rodgers Utility Service Corporation 4614 Commercial Dr. NWHuntsville, AL 35816-2201(256) 837-8400 Fax: (256) [email protected] D. Peterson

ArizonA

ABM Electrical Power Solutions 3602 East Southern Ave., Suite 1 & 2 Phoenix, AZ 85040(602) 796-6583www.abm.com Jeff Militello

American Electrical Testing Co., Inc. 12566 W. Indianola Ave.Avondale, AZ 85392(480) [email protected] Madaglia

Electric Power Systems, Inc.557 E. Juanita Ave., #4Mesa, AZ 85204 (480) 633-1490 Fax: (480) 633-7092www.eps-international.com

Electrical Reliability Services 1775 W. University Dr., Suite 128Tempe, AZ 85281(480) 966-4568 Fax: (480) 966-4569www.electricalreliability.com

Hampton Tedder Technical Services 3747 West Roanoke Ave. Phoenix, AZ 85009(480) 967-7765 Fax:(480) 967-7762 www.hamptontedder.com

Southwest Energy Systems, LLC 2231 East Jones Ave., Suite A Phoenix, AZ 85040(602) 438-7500 Fax: (602) 438-7501 [email protected] www.southwestenergysystems.com Robert Sheppard

Western Electrical Services, Inc.5680 South 32nd St. Phoenix, AZ 85040(602) 426-1667 Fax: (253) 891-1511carcher@westernelectricalservices.comwww.westernelectricalservices.com Craig Archer

CAliforniA

ABM Electrical Power Solutions720 S. Rochester Ave., Suite AOntario, CA 91761 (951) 522-8855 Fax: (909) 937-6798www.abm.comBen Thomas

Apparatus Testing and Engineering 7083 Commerce Cir., Suite H Pleasanton,CA 94588 (925) 454-1363 Fax: (925) [email protected] (Jerry) Carr

Apparatus Testing and EngineeringPO Box 984Folsom, CA 95763-0984(916) 853-6280 Fax: (916) [email protected] James Lawler

Applied Engineering Concepts1105 N. Allen Ave.Pasadena, CA 91104(626) 398-3052 Fax: (626) [email protected] Castonguay

Electrical Reliability Services5810 Van Allen WayCarlsbad, CA 92008 (760) 804-2972 www.electricalreliability.com

Electrical Reliability Services6900 Koll Center Pkwy., Suite 415 Pleasanton, CA 94566 (925) 485-3400 Fax: (925) 485-3436 www.electricalreliability.com

Electrical Reliability Services10606 Bloomfield Ave.Santa Fe Springs, CA 90670(562) 236-9555 Fax: (562) 777-8914www.electricalreliability.com

Hampton Tedder Technical Services 4571 State St.Montclair, CA 91763 (909) 628-1256 x214 Fax: (909) [email protected] Tedder

Industrial Tests, Inc.4021 Alvis Ct., Suite 1Rocklin, CA 95677(916) 296-1200 Fax: (916) 632-0300 [email protected] Poole

3

2

1

4

5

6

12

11

10

9

8

7

17

16

15

14

13

18

For additional information on NETA visit netaworld.org

Pacific Power Testing, Inc.14280 Doolittle Dr.San Leandro, CA 94577 (510) 351-8811 Fax: (510) 351-6655steve@pacificpowertesting.comwww.pacificpowertesting.comSteve Emmert

Power Systems Testing Co. 4688 W. Jennifer Ave., Suite 108Fresno, CA 93722 (559) 275-2171 x15 Fax: (559) [email protected] Huffman

Power Systems Testing Co.6736 Preston Ave., Suite ELivermore, CA 94551(510) 783-5096 Fax: (510) 732-9287 www.powersystemstesting.com

Power Systems Testing Co.600 S. Grand Ave., Suite 113Santa Ana, CA 92705-4152(714) 542-6089 Fax: (714) 542-0737 www.powersystemstesting.com

POWER Testing and Energization, Inc. 731 E. Ball Rd., Suite 100Anaheim , CA 92805(714) 507-2702 www.powerte.com

Tony Demaria Electric, Inc. 131 West F St.Wilmington, CA 90744(310) 816-3130 x111Fax: (310) [email protected] Demaria

ColorAdoElectric Power Systems, Inc.6753 E. 47th Avenue Dr., Unit DDenver, CO 80216(720) 857-7273 Fax: (303) 928-8020 www.eps-international.com

Electrical Reliability Services7100 Broadway, Suite 7E Denver, CO 80221-2915(303) 427-8809 Fax: (303) 427-4080 www.electricalreliability.com

Magna IV Engineering96 Inverness Dr. East, Unit REnglewood, CO 80112(303) 799-1273 Fax: (303) [email protected] Aric Proskurniak

Precision Testing Group5475 Hwy. 86, Unit 1 Elizabeth, CO 80107 (303) 621-2776 Fax: (303) [email protected] Glenn Stuckey ConneCtiCut

Advanced Testing Systems 15 Trowbridge Dr.Bethel, CT 06801 (203) 743-2001 Fax: (203) [email protected] www.advtest.com Pat MacCarthy

American Electrical Testing Co., Inc.34 Clover Dr.South Windsor, CT 06074(860) 648-1013 Fax: (781) 821-0771 [email protected] Poulin

EPS Technology29 N. Plains Hwy., Suite 12Wallingford, CT 06492(203) 679-0145 www.eps-technology.com

High Voltage Maintenance Corp.150 North Plains Industrial Rd.Wallingford, CT 06492(203) 949-2650 Fax: (203) 949-2646 www.hvmcorp.com

Southern New England Electrical Testing, LLC3 Buel St., Suite 4Wallingford, CT 06492(203) 269-8778 Fax: (203) 269-8775 [email protected] Asplund, Sr.

floridAC.E. Testing, Inc. 6148 Tim Crews Rd.Macclenny, FL 32063(904) 653-1900 Fax: (904) [email protected] Chapman

Electric Power Systems, Inc.4436 Parkway Commerce Blvd.Orlando, FL 32808(407) 578-6424 Fax: (407) 578-6408 www.eps-international.com

Electrical Reliability Services11000 Metro Pkwy., Suite 30 Ft. Myers, FL 33966 (239) 693-7100 Fax: (239) 693-7772 www.electricalreliability.com Industrial Electric Testing, Inc.201 NW 1st Ave.Hallandale, FL 33009-4029(954) 456-7020 www.industrialelectrictesting.com

Industrial Electric Testing, Inc.11321 West Distribution Ave.Jacksonville, FL 32256(904) 260-8378 Fax: (904) 260-0737gbenzenberg@bellsouth.netwww.industrialelectrictesting.com Gary Benzenberg

Industrial Electronics Group850369 Highway 17 South PO Box 1870Yulee, FL 32041(904) 225-9529 Fax: (904) [email protected] E. Teal

GeorGiAElectrical Equipment Upgrading, Inc. 21 Telfair Pl.Savannah, GA 31415(912) 232-7402 Fax: (912) [email protected] Miller

Electrical Reliability Services2275 Northwest Pkwy. SE, Suite 180 Marietta, GA 30067(770) 541-6600 Fax: (770) 541-6501 www.electricalreliability.com

19

34

27

2820

35

21

36

29

22

37

30

23

38

31

24

39

32

25

26

40

41

33

65


Electrical Testing, Inc.2671 Cedartown Hwy.Rome, GA 3016-6791(706) 234-7623 Fax: (706) 236-9028 [email protected]

Nationwide Electrical Testing, Inc.6050 Southard TraceCumming, GA 30040(770) 667-1875 Fax: (770) [email protected] B. Bagle

illinois

Dude Electrical Testing, LLC 145 Tower Dr., Suite 9Burr Ridge, IL 60527(815) 293-3388 Fax: (815) [email protected] Dude

Electric Power Systems, Inc.23823 Andrew Rd.Plainfield, IL 60585(815) 577-9515 Fax: (815) 577-9516 www.eps-international.com

High Voltage Maintenance Corp. 941 Busse Rd. Elk Grove Village, IL 60007 (847) 640-0005www.hvmcorp.com

PRIT Service, Inc. 112 Industrial Dr. PO Box 606 Minooka, IL 60447(815) 467-5577 Fax: (815) 467-5883 [email protected] Hageman

indiAnA

American Electrical Testing Co., Inc. 4032 Park 65 Dr.Indianapolis, IN 46254(317) 487-2111 Fax: (781) 821-0771 [email protected] Canale

Electrical Maintenance & Testing Inc. 12342 Hancock St.Carmel, IN 46032 (317) 853-6795 Fax: (317) [email protected] K. Borst

High Voltage Maintenance Corp.8320 Brookville Rd., #EIndianapolis, IN 46239(317) 322-2055 Fax: (317) 322-2056 www.hvmcorp.com

iowA

Shermco Industries2100 Dixon St., Suite CDes Moines, IA 50316(515) 263-8482 [email protected] Hamrick

Shermco Industries796 11th St. Marion, IA 52302(319) 377-3377 Fax: (319) [email protected] Hamrick

louisiAnA

Electric Power Systems, Inc.1129 East Hwy. 30Gonzalez, LA 70737(225) 644-0150 Fax: (225) 644-6249www.eps-international.com

Electrical Reliability Services14141 Airline Hwy., Building 1, Suite XBaton Rouge, LA 70817(225) 755-0530 Fax: (225) 751-5055www.electricalreliability.com

Electrical Reliability Services9636 St. Vincent, Unit AShreveport, LA 71106(318) 869-4244www.electricalreliabilty.com

Electrical Reliability Services121 E. Hwy108Sulphur, LA 70665(337) 583-2411 Fax: (337) 583-2410 www.electricalreliability.com

Tidal Power Services, LLC8184 Hwy. 44, Suite 105 Gonzales, LA 70737 (225) 644-8170 Fax: (225) 644-8215darryn.kimbrough@tidalpowerservices.comwww.tidalpowerservices.comDarryn Kimbrough

Tidal Power Services, LLC 1056 Mosswood Dr.Sulphur, LA 70663 (337) 558-5457 Fax: (337) 558-5305steve.drake@tidalpowerservices.comwww.tidalpowerservices.com Steve Drake

mAine

Electric Power Systems, Inc.56 Bibber Pkwy., #1Brunswick, ME 04011(207) 837-6527www.eps-international.com

Three-C Electrical Co., Inc.72 Sanford DriveGorham, ME 04038(800) 649-6314 Fax: (207) [email protected] Cialdea

mArylAnd

ABM Electrical Power Solutions 3700 Commerce Dr., #901- 903 Baltimore, MD 21227(410) 247-3300 Fax: (410) 247-0900www.abm.com Bill Hartman

ABM Electrical Power Solutions4390 Parliament Pl., Suite QLanham, MD 20706(301) 967-3500 Fax: (301) 735-8953 www.abm.com Frank Ceci

Harford Electrical Testing Co., Inc. 1108 Clayton Rd.Joppa, MD 21085 (410) 679-4477 Fax: (410) [email protected] Biondino

42 49

43 50 58

44

51

52

59

45

60

46

54

53

62

63

61

47

48

55

57

56

66


High Voltage Maintenance Corp.9305 Gerwig Ln., Suite BColumbia, MD 21046(410) 309-5970 Fax: (410) 309-0220 www.hvmcorp.com

Potomac Testing, Inc.1610 Professional Blvd., Suite ACrofton, MD 21114(301) 352-1930 Fax: (301) 352-1936 [email protected] Bassett

Reuter & Hanney, Inc.11620 Crossroads Cir., Suites D - EMiddle River, MD 21220 (410) 344-0300 Fax: (410) 335-4389 www.reuterhanney.comMichael Jester

mAssAChusettsAmerican Electrical Testing Co., Inc.480 Neponset St., Bldg. 6Canton, MA 02021-1970(781) 821-0121 Fax: (781) 821-0771 [email protected] A. Blizard

High Voltage Maintenance Corp. 24 Walpole Park South Dr. Walpole, MA 02081(508) 668-9205 www.hvmcorp.com

Infra-Red Building and Power Service152 Centre St.Holbrook, MA 02343-1011 (781) 767-0888 Fax: (781) 767-3462 [email protected] www.infraredbps.comThomas McDonald Sr.

Three-C Electrical Co., Inc.40 Washington StreetWestborough, MA 01581(508) 881-3911 Fax: (508) 881-4814 [email protected] Cialdea

miChiGAnDYMAX Service Inc.46918 Liberty Dr. Wixom, MI 48393 (248) 313-6868 Fax: (248) 313-6869 www.dymaxservice.comBruce Robinson

Electric Power Systems, Inc.11861 Longsdorf St.Riverview, MI 48193 (734) 282-3311www.eps-international.com

High Voltage Maintenance Corp. 24371 Catherine Industrial Dr., Suite 207Novi, MI 48375 (248) 305-5596 Fax: (248) 305-5579 www.hvmcorp.com

Northern Electrical Testing, Inc.1991 Woodslee Dr.Troy, MI 48083-2236(248) 689-8980 Fax: (248) 689-3418 [email protected] www.northerntesting.comLyle Detterman

POWER PLUS Engineering, Inc. 46575 Magallan Dr.Novi, MI 48377(248) 344-0200 Fax: (248) 305-9105 [email protected] Mancuso

Powertech Services, Inc.4095 South Dye Rd.Swartz Creek, MI 48473-1570(810) 720-2280 Fax: (810) 720-2283 [email protected] www.powertechservices.com Kirk Dyszlewski

Utilities Instrumentation Service, Inc.2290 Bishop Circle EastDexter, MI 48130 (734) 424-1200 Fax: (734) [email protected] www.uiscorp.comGary E. Walls

minnesotA

DYMAX Holdings, Inc.4751 Mustang Cir.St. Paul, MN 55112(763) 717-3150 Fax: (763) 784-5397 [email protected] www.dymaxservice.com Gene Philipp

High Voltage Service, Inc.4751 Mustang Cir.St. Paul, MN 55112(763) 717-3103 Fax: (763) 784-5397www.hvserviceinc.comMike Mavetz

missouri

Electric Power Systems, Inc.6141 Connecticut Ave.Kansas City, MO 64120(816) 241-9990 Fax: (816) 241-9992 www.eps-international.com

Electric Power Systems, Inc.21 Millpark Ct.Maryland Heights, MO 63043-3536 (314) 890-9999 Fax:(314) 890-9998 www.eps-international.com

Electrical Reliability Services348 N.W. Capital Dr. Lees Summit, MO 64086 (816) 525-7156 Fax: (816) 524-3274 www.electricalreliability.com

nevAdA

ABM Electrical Power Solutions6280 South Valley View Blvd., Suite 618Las Vegas, NV 89118(702) 216-0982 Fax: (702) 216-0983 www.abm.com Jeff Militello

Control Power Concepts353 Pilot Rd, Suite BLas Vegas, NV [email protected] Fettig

Electrical Reliability Services6351 Hinson St., Suite BLas Vegas, NV 89118 (702) 597-0020 Fax: (702) 597-0095 www.electricalreliability.com

65

66

67

69

68

70

85

71 78

72

79

73

80

74

81

75

76

77

82

84

83

64

67


Electrical Reliability Services1380 Greg St., Suite 217Sparks, NV 89431 (775) 746-8484 Fax: (775) 356-5488 www.electricalreliability.com

Hampton Tedder Technical Services 4920 Alto Ave.Las Vegas, NV 89115 (702) 452-9200 Fax: (702) 453-5412 www.hamptontedder.comRoger Cates

new hAmpshire

Electric Power Systems, Inc.915 Holt Ave., Unit 9Manchester, NH 03109 (603) 657-7371 Fax: (603) 657-7370 www.eps-international.com

new Jersey

American Electrical Testing Co., Inc. 50 Intervale Rd., Suite 1Boonton, NJ 07005(973) 316-1180 Fax: (781) 316-1181 [email protected] Somol

Eastern High Voltage11A South Gold Dr.Robbinsville, NJ 08691-1606(609) 890-8300 Fax: (609) 588-8090 [email protected] www.easternhighvoltage.comJoseph Wilson

High Energy Electrical Testing, Inc.515 S. Ocean Ave.Seaside Park, NJ 08752(732) 938-2275 Fax: (732) 938-2277 [email protected] www.highenergyelectric.com Charles Blanchard

Longo Electrical-Mechanical, Inc.1625 Pennsylvania Ave.Linden, NJ 07036(908) 925-2900 Fax: (908) [email protected] Longo

Longo Electrical-Mechanical, Inc.One Harry Shupe Blvd., Box 511Wharton, NJ 07855(973) 537-0400 Fax: (973) [email protected] Longo

M&L Power Systems, Inc.109 White Oak Ln., Suite 82 Old Bridge, NJ 08857(732) 679-1800 Fax: (732) 679-9326 [email protected] Bagle

Scott Testing Inc.1698 5th St.Ewing, NJ 08638(609) 882-2400 Fax: (609) 882-5660 [email protected] Sorbello

Trace Electrical Services & Testing, LLC293 Whitehead Rd.Hamilton, NJ 08619(609) 588-8666 Fax: (609) 588-8667 [email protected] Vasta

new mexiCo

Electric Power Systems, Inc. 8515 Cella Alameda NE, Suite A Albuquerque, NM 87113 (505) 792-7761 www.eps-international.com

Electrical Reliability Services8500 Washington Pl. NE, Suite A-6Albuquerque, NM 87113 (505) 822-0237 Fax: (505) 822-0217 www.electricalreliability.com

new york

A&F Electrical Testing, Inc.80 Lake Ave. S., Suite 10Nesconset, NY 11767 (631) 584-5625 Fax: (631) 584-5720 [email protected] Kevin Chilton

A&F Electrical Testing, Inc.80 Broad St., 5th FloorNew York, NY 10004 (631) 584-5625 Fax: (631) 584-5720 [email protected] www.afelectricaltesting.com Florence Chilton

American Electrical Testing Co., Inc. 76 Cain Dr.Brentwood, NY 11717 (631) 617-5330 Fax: (631) 630-2292 [email protected] Schacker

Elemco Services, Inc.228 Merrick Rd.Lynbrook, NY 11563 (631) 589-6343 Fax: (631) 589-6670 [email protected] O’Brien

High Voltage Maintenance Corp.1250 Broadway, Suite 2300New York, NY 10001 (718) 239-0359 www.hvmcorp.com

HMT, Inc.6268 Route 31Cicero, NY 13039 (315) 699-5563 Fax: (315) 699-5911 [email protected] Pertgen

north CArolinAABM Electrical Power Solutions3600 Woodpark Blvd., Suite GCharlotte, NC 28206(704) 273-6257 Fax: (704) [email protected] Goins

ABM Electrical Power Solutions5805 G Departure Dr. Raleigh, NC 27616(919) 877-1008 Fax: (919) 501-7492 www.abm.com Rob Parton

91

92

99

86 93 100

87

94 101

8895 102

89 96 103

90

97

104

98

105

106

68


ELECT, P.C.7400-G Siemens Rd. PO Box 2080 Wendell, NC 27591 (919) 365-9775 Fax: (919) [email protected] W. Tyndall

Electric Power Systems, Inc.319 US Hwy. 70 E, Unit EGarner, NC 27529(919) 322-2670www.eps-international.com

Electrical Reliability Services6135 Lakeview Road, Suite 500Charlotte, NC 28269(704) 441-1497www.electricalreliability.com

Power Products & Solutions, Inc.12465 Grey Commercial Rd. Midland, NC 28107 (704) 573-0420 x12 Fax: (704) 573-3693 [email protected] www.powerproducts.biz Ralph Patterson

Power Test, Inc.2200 Hwy. 49Harrisburg, NC 28075 (704) 200-8311 Fax: (704) 455-7909 [email protected] Walker

ohioCE Power Solutions, LLC4500 W. Mitchell Ave.Cincinnati, OH 45232 (513) 563-6150 Fax: (513) 563-6120 [email protected] Harris

DYMAX Service, Inc.4213 Kropf Ave. Canton, OH 44706 (330) 484-6801 Fax: (740) 333-1271 www.dymaxservice.comGary Swank

Electric Power Systems, Inc.2601 Center Rd., #101Hinckley, OH 44233 (330) 460-3706 Fax: (330) 460-3708 www.eps-international.com

Electrical Reliability Services610 Executive Campus Dr.Westerville, OH 43082 (877) 468-6384 Fax: (614) [email protected] www.electricalreliability.com

High Voltage Maintenance Corp.5100 Energy Dr.Dayton, OH 45414 (937) 278-0811 Fax: (937) 278-7791www.hvmcorp.com

High Voltage Maintenance Corp.7200 Industrial Park Blvd. Mentor, OH 44060 (440) 951-2706 Fax: (440) 951-6798 www.hvmcorp.com

Power Services, LLC998 Dimco Way, PO Box 750066Centerville, OH 45475 (937) 439-9660 Fax: (937) 439-9611 [email protected] Beucler

Power Solutions Group, Ltd.670 Lakeview Plaza Blvd. Columbus, OH 43085(614) [email protected] www.powersolutionsgroup.comStuart Spohn

Power Solutions Group, Ltd.425 W. Kerr Rd.Tipp City, OH 45371 (937) 506-8444 Fax: (937) 506-8434bwilloughby@powersolutionsgroup.comwww.powersolutionsgroup.com Barry Willoughby

oklAhomA

Shermco Industries1357 N. 108th E. Ave.Tulsa, OK 74116 (918) 234-2300 [email protected] Harrison

oreGon

Electrical Reliability Services4099 SE International Way, Suite 201 Milwaukie, OR 97222-8853(503) 653-6781 Fax: (503) 659-9733 www.electricalreliability.com

Taurus Power & Controls, Inc.9999 SW Avery St.Tualatin, OR 97062-9517 (503) 692-9004 Fax: (503) 692-9273 [email protected] www.tauruspower.comRob Bulfinch

pennsylvAniA

ABM Electrical Power Solutions710 Thomson Park Dr.Cranberry Township, PA 16066-6427 (724) 772-4638 Fax: (724) [email protected] (Pete) McKenzie

American Electrical Testing Co., Inc. Green Hills Commerce Center5925 Tilghman St., Suite 200Allentown, PA 18104(215) 219-6800 [email protected] Munley

Burlington Electrical Testing Co., Inc.300 Cedar Ave.Croydon, PA 19021-6051(215) 826-9400 x221 Fax: (215) [email protected] P. Cleary

Electric Power Systems, Inc.1090 Montour West Industrial Blvd. Coraopolis, PA 15108 (412) 276-4559www.eps-international.com

Electric Power Systems, Inc.2495 Boulevard of the Generals Norristown, PA 19403 (610) 630-0286www.eps-international.com

EnerG Test204 Gale Lane, Bldg. 2 – 2nd FloorKennett Square, PA 19348(484) 731-0200 Fax: (484) [email protected] Bleiler

High Voltage Maintenance Corp.355 Vista Park Dr.Pittsburgh, PA 15205-1206 (412) 747-0550 Fax: (412) 747-0554 www.hvmcorp.com

107 115 123

108

116

124

109

117

126

125

110

118

127

128

111

112

119

129113

120

130114

121

122

69


Longo Electrical-Mechanical, Inc.1400 F Adams RoadBensalem, PA 19020(215) 638-1333 Fax: (215) [email protected] Longo

North Central Electric, Inc. 69 Midway Ave.Hulmeville, PA 19047-5827 (215) 945-7632 Fax: (215) 945-6362 [email protected] Messina

Reuter & Hanney, Inc.149 Railroad Dr. Northampton Industrial ParkIvyland, PA 18974 (215) 364-5333 Fax: (215) 364-5365 [email protected] Michael Reuter

south CArolinA

Power Products & Solutions, Inc.13 Jenkins Ct.Mauldin, SC 29662(800) 328-7382 [email protected] www.powerproducts.bizRaymond Pesaturo

Power Solutions Group, Ltd.135 Old School House Rd. Piedmont, SC 29673 (864) 845-1084 Fax: (864) [email protected] www.powersolutionsgroup.com Frank Crawford

tenneseeElectric Power Systems, Inc.146 Space Park Dr.Nashville, TN 37211(615) 834-0999 Fax: (615) 834-0129 www.eps-international.com

Electrical & Electronic Controls6149 Hunter Rd.Ooltewah, TN 37363 (423) 344-7666 x23 Fax: (423) [email protected] Michael Hughes

Power & Generation Testing, Inc.480 Cave Rd. Nashville, TN 37210 (615) 882-9455 Fax: (615) 882-9591 [email protected] Ramieh

texAsAbsolute Testing Services, Inc.6829 Guhn Rd.Houston, TX 77040(832) 467-4446 Fax: (713) 849-3885 [email protected] www.texasats.comRichard Gamble

Electric Power Systems, Inc.4100 Greenbriar Dr., Suite 160 Stafford, TX 77477(713) 644-5400www.eps-international.com

Electrical Reliability Services1057 Doniphan Park Cir., Suite AEl Paso, TX 79922 (915) 587-9440 Fax: (915) 587-9010 www.electricalreliability.com

Electrical Reliability Services1426 Sens Rd., Suite 5 Houston, TX 77571 (281) 241-2800 Fax: (281) 241-2801 www.electricalreliability.com

Grubb Engineering, Inc.3128 Sidney BrooksSan Antonio, TX 78235(210) 658-7250 Fax: (210) [email protected] Robert D. Grubb Jr.

National Field Services649 Franklin St.Lewisville,TX 75057 (972) 420-0157 www.natlfield.comEric Beckman

Power Engineering Services, Inc.9179 Shadow Creek Ln.Converse,TX 78109 (210) 590-4936 Fax: (210) 590-6214 [email protected] R. Engelke

Saber Power Systems9841 Saber Power LaneRosharon, TX 77583(713) [email protected] Taylor

Shermco Industries33002 FM 2004Angleton , TX 77515(979) 848-1406 Fax: (979) [email protected] www.shermco.com Malcom Frederick

Shermco Industries1705 Hur Industrial Blvd. Cedar Park, TX 78613 (512) 267-4800 Fax: (512) [email protected] Ewing

Shermco Industries2425 E. Pioneer Dr.Irving, TX 75061(972) 793-5523 Fax: (972) 793-5542 [email protected] Widup

Shermco Industries12000 Network Blvd., Bldg. D, Suite 410San Antonio, TX 78249(512) 267-4800 Fax: (512) [email protected] Kevin Ewing Tidal Power Services, LLC4202 Chance Ln.Rosharon, TX 77583(281) 710-9150 Fax: (713) 583-1216 [email protected] www.tidalpowerservices.com Monty C. Janak

utAhElectrical Reliability Services3412 South 1400 West, Unit AWest Valley City, UT 84119 (801) 975-6461 www.electricalreliability.com

Western Electrical Services, Inc.3676 W. California Ave.,#C-106Salt Lake City, UT 84104rcoomes@westernelectricalservices.comwww.westernelectricalservices.com Rob Coomes

131 138 146

132

139

147

133

140

148

134

141 149

135

142

150

151

152

153

136

143

137

144

145

70


virGiniA

ABM Electrical Power Solutions814 Greenbrier Cir., Suite E Chesapeake, VA 23320(757) 548-5690 Fax: (757) 548-5417www.abm.comMark Anthony Gaughan, III

Electric Power Systems, Inc.827 Union St. Salem, VA 24153 (540) 375-0084 Fax: (540) 375-0094www.eps-international.com

Potomac Testing, Inc.11179 Hopson Rd., Suite 5 Ashland, VA 23005 (804) 798-7334 Fax: (804) 798-7456 www.potomactesting.com

Reuter & Hanney, Inc.4270-I Henninger Ct.Chantilly, VA 20151 (703) 263-7163 Fax: (703) 263-1478 www.reuterhanney.com

wAshinGton

Electrical Reliability Services2222 West Valley Hwy. N., Suite 160 Auburn, WA 98001 (253) 736-6010 Fax: (253) 736-6015 www.electricalreliability.com

POWER Testing and Energization, Inc.22035 70th Ave. SouthKent, WA 98032 (253) 872-7747 www.powerte.com

POWER Testing and Energization, Inc.14006 NW 3rd Ct., Suite 101Vancouver, WA 98685(360) 597-2800 Fax: (360) 576-7182 [email protected] www.powerte.comChris Zavadlov

Sigma Six Solutions, Inc.2200 West Valley Hwy., Suite 100 Auburn, WA 98001 (253) 333-9730 Fax: (253) 859-5382 [email protected] White

Taurus Power & Controls, Inc.6617 S. 193rd Pl., Suite P104Kent, WA 98032(425) 656-4170 Fax: (425) 656-4172 [email protected] Lightner

Western Electrical Services, Inc.14311 29th St. EastSumner, WA 98390(253) 891-1995 Fax: (253) 891-1511dhook@westernelectricalservices.comwww.westernelectricalservices.comDan Hook

Western Electrical Services, Inc.4510 NE 68th Dr., Suite 122 Vancouver, WA 98661 (888) 395-2021 Fax: (253) 891-1511 [email protected] www.westernelectricalservices.comTony Asciutto

wisConsin

CE Power Solutions of Wisconsin, LLC3100 East Enterprise Ave.Appleton, WI 54913(920) 968-0281 Fax: (920) 968-0282 [email protected] Fulton

Electrical Energy Experts, Inc.W129N10818, Washington Dr.Germantown,WI 53022 (262) 255-5222 Fax: (262) 242-2360 [email protected] www.electricalenergyexperts.com William Styer

Electrical Testing Solutions2909 Green Hill Ct.Oshkosh, WI 54904(920) 420-2986 Fax: (920) [email protected] www.electricaltestingsolutions.comTito Machado

Energis High Voltage Resources, Inc. 1361 Glory Rd.Green Bay, WI 54304(920) 632-7929 Fax: (920) [email protected] www.energisinc.comMick Petzold

High Voltage Maintenance Corp.3000 S. Calhoun Rd.New Berlin, WI 53151 (262) 784-3660 Fax: (262) 784-5124 www.hvmcorp.com

155

154

156

157

158

159

160

161

162 168

169

163

164

165

166

167

71


canada

Magna IV Engineering200, 688 Heritage Dr. SECalgary, AB T2H1M6 Canada(403) 723-0575 Fax: (403) 723-0580 [email protected] Virginia Balitski

Magna IV Engineering1005 Spinney Dr.Dawson Creek, BC V1G 1K1 Canada(780) 462-3111 Fax: (780) [email protected]

Magna IV Engineering1103 Parsons Rd. SW Edmonton, AB T6X 0X2 Canada(780) 462-3111 Fax: (780) [email protected] Balitski

Magna IV Engineering106, 4268 Lozells AveBurnaby, BC VSA 0C6Canada(604) 421-8020

Magna IV Engineering8219D Fraser Ave. Fort McMurray, AB T9H 0A2 Canada (780) 791-3122 Fax: (780) 791-3159 [email protected] Virginia Balitski

Magna IV Engineering1040 Winnipeg St. Regina, SK S4R 8P8 Canada(306) 585-2100 Fax: (306) 585-2191 [email protected] Frostad

Magna Electric Corporation 3430 25th St. NECalgary, AB T1Y 6C1 Canada (403) 769-9300 Fax: (403) 769-9369 [email protected] www.magnaelectric.com Cal Grant

Magna Electric Corporation3731-98 StreetEdmonton, AB T6E 5N2 Canada(780) 436-8831 Fax: (780) [email protected] Granacher

Magna Electric Corporation1033 Kearns Crescent, Box 995Regina, SK S4P 3B2 Canada(306) 949-8131 Fax: (306) 522-9181 [email protected] Heid Magna Electric Corporation851-58th St. EastSaskatoon, SK S7K 6X5 Canada(306) 955-8131 x5 Fax: (306) [email protected] Wilson

Magna Electric Corporation1375 Church Ave.Winnipeg, MB R2X 2T7 Canada (204) 925-4022 Fax: (204) [email protected] www.magnaelectric.comCurtis Brandt

Orbis Engineering Field Services Ltd. #300, 9404 - 41st Ave. Edmonton, AB T6E 6G8 Canada(780) 988-1455 Fax: (780) [email protected] Lorne Gara

Pacific Powertech Inc.#110, 2071 Kingsway Ave. Port Coquitlam, BC V3C 1T2 Canada(604) 944-6697 Fax: (604) 944-1271 [email protected] Josh Conkin

REV Engineering, LTD3236 - 50 Ave. SE Calgary, AB T2B 3A3 Canada(403) 287-0156 Fax: (403) [email protected] Nicholas Davidson, IV

BrUSSelS

Shermco IndustriesBoulevard Saint-Michel 47 1040 Brussels, Brussels, Belgium+32 (0)2 400 00 54 Fax: +32 (0)2 400 00 32 [email protected] Paul Idziak

chileMagna IV EngineeringAvenida del Condor Sur #590Officina 601Huechuraba, Santiago 8580676 Chile +(56) [email protected] Fuentes

PUerto rico

Phasor EngineeringSabaneta Industrial Park #216 Mercedita, Puerto Rico 00715 (787) 844-9366 Fax: (787) 841-6385 [email protected] Rafael Castro

172

181

173

182

174

183

175

176

177

178

184170

179

185

186

171

180

REV 01.14

72

ABOUT THE INTERNATIONAL ELECTRICAL TESTING ASSOCIATION

The InterNational Electrical Testing Association (NETA) is an accredited standards developer for the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) and defines the standards by which electrical equipment is deemed safe and reliable. NETA Certified Technicians con-duct the tests that ensure this equipment meets the Association’s stringent specifica-tions. NETA is the leading source of specifications, procedures, testing, and requirements, not only for commissioning new equipment but for testing the reliability and performance of existing equipment.

CERTIFICATIONCertification of competency is particularly important in the electrical testing industry. Inherent in the determination of the equipment’s serviceability is the prerequisite that individuals performing the tests be capable of conducting the tests in a safe manner and with com-plete knowledge of the hazards involved. They must also evaluate the test data and make an informed judgment on the continued ser-viceability, deterioration, or nonserviceability of the specific equipment. NETA, a nationally-recognized certification agency, provides recognition of four levels of competency within the electrical testing industry in accordance with ANSI/NETA ETT-2000 Standard for Certification of Electri-cal Testing Technicians.

QUALIFICATIONS OF THE TESTING ORGANIZATIONAn independent overview is the only method of determining the long-term usage of electrical apparatus and its suitability for the

intended purpose. NETA Accredited Companies best support the interest of the owner, as the objectivity and competency of the testing firm is as important as the competency of the individual technician. NETA Accredited Companies are part of an independent, third-party electrical testing associa-tion dedicated to setting world standards in electrical maintenance and acceptance testing. Hiring a NETA Ac-credited Company assures the customer that:

• The NETA Technician has broad-based knowledge — this person is trained to inspect, test, maintain, and calibrate all types of electrical equipment in all types of industries.

• NETA Technicians meet stringent educational and experience requirements in accordance with ANSI/NETA ETT-2000 Standard for Certification of Electrical Testing Technicians.

• A Registered Professional Engineer will review all engineering reports

• All tests will be performed objectively, according to NETA specifications, using cali-brated instruments traceable to the National Institute of Science and Technology (NIST).

• The firm is a well-established, full-service electrical testing business.

Setting the Standard

neta handbook series ii - safety vol 1-pdf

Documents

procedures training

policies procedures

following training

following policies

technical training

quality work

service testing company

qualified electrical