It is currently Tue Nov 30, 2021 5:34 pm



Post new topic Reply to topic
Author Message
ekstra   ara
 Post subject: NESC studies greater/less than 1000V
PostPosted: Thu Apr 03, 2008 8:39 am 

Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 4:23 am
Posts: 25
Location: Canton, OH
Hello,

I am new to the forum. I have conducted many arc flash studies for industrial clients in the past. I am now beginning work on my first for a Utility based on NESC requirements.

NESC 410 states "The effective arc rating of clothing or a clothing system to be worn at voltages 1000V and above shall be determined using Tables 410-1 and 410-2 or performing an arc hazard analysis." Most of the analysis involves 12.47kV distribution circuits, switchgear and padmount transformers. For those areas I am going to conduct a engineering study based on IEEE 1584 calculations to determine the incident energy. NESC 410, Exception 2 states "For secondary systems below 1000V, applicable work rules required by this part and engineering controls shall be utiliized to limit exposure. In lieu of performing an arc hazard analysis, clothing or a clothing system with a minimum effective arc rating of 4 cal/cm^2 shall be required to limit the likelihood of ignition." Based on my experience with conducting arc flash studies for industrial clients I know the IE levels and PPE required at <1000V can be much higher than the arc rating of 4 cal/cm^2 the NESC requires. What has been the approach of others for areas less than 1000V? Have you conducted the full blown engineering study or have you simply required workers to wear clothing with ratings of 4 cal/cm^2?

All of the workers that could be exposed to hazards are experienced linemen with several years of experience and are exposed to constant training. I believe the NESC, NEC, NFPA, and OSHA would determine these employees as "Qualified Workers".

Any thougts??


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Apr 03, 2008 10:22 am 
Sparks Level

Joined: Sun Dec 23, 2007 1:44 pm
Posts: 348
Location: Charlotte, NC
Steve,

Welcome to our state of Confusion!

I agree with all you say except that I do not plan use 1584 for the overhead 12.47 kV and up distribution analysis. We are using ArcPro for those portions of the systems especially since ArcPro seems to be the basis for the calcs in Table 410-1. I am still in some of a quandry about the gear/transclosures/padmount...etc. issue though. I too believe that calcs for the <1000 volt portions are more necessary than for the >1000 volt areas. I am not comfortable at this point with just putting workers in 4 cal. clothing per the NESC.

They would definitely be termed qualified personnel, but we do make mistakes on occasion.

Alan


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Apr 03, 2008 11:32 am 

Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 4:23 am
Posts: 25
Location: Canton, OH
Thanks for the reply Alan! I'm debating between purchasing the ARC Pro software or sticking with the software my company uses (EDSA). I've tested EDSA against the Duke software for voltage less than 69kV they are very close. Over 69kV the reults don't make much sense to me.

I heard from SKM that in their next release they will include a NESC calculation output option similar to how you can choose between IEEE 1584 and NFPA 70E.

Here's a few more items to bounce off everyone regarding NESC arc flash studies:
Do you provide the approach boundaries and flash protection boundaries on the labels? Instead of a Hazard Risk Category (0,1,2,3,4) on the labels are you using the 4-cal, 8-cal, and 12-cal systems per Table 410-1? Are you applying the lables to outdoor padmounted gear? How are you handling the labeling for overhead distribution? What about outdoor substation disconnects, voltage regulators, breakers, etc.......

Lot's of questions I know.......................Any and all thoughts are greatly appreciated!

Steve


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 09, 2008 8:52 am 

Joined: Wed Dec 12, 2007 6:54 am
Posts: 9
The utility I represent will not be using labels to identify the hazard at a given location.

For most utilities this would be impractical due to the very large number of locations involved.

In addition, utility systems are dynamic in that the source and circuit configurations may and do change (even from day to day), which will impact the value of the arc hazard at a given location.

We are still determining our approach and are participating in the two EPRI studies (transmission and distribution systems)


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Aug 14, 2008 7:19 pm 

Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2008 5:00 pm
Posts: 10
Location: Wisconsin
Arcpro for systems > 1000 volts (use the table since it reflects Arcpro results) and IEEE 1584 <1000 volts. The 4 cal exception is poor advice and will be changed either in the next code cycle or sooner. Arcpro tells you how to handle multi-phase or arc in a box situations. If you don't normally do utility work get someone who does, otherwise you'll make mistakes that you won't be able to recognize.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Aug 14, 2008 8:13 pm 
Sparks Level

Joined: Sun Dec 23, 2007 1:44 pm
Posts: 348
Location: Charlotte, NC
Tables in the NESC

Sorry, but I do not agree with using the tables in the NESC as they are extemely coarse and do not do a good job of modelling a system. I do agree that the 4 cal stuff for <1000 volts should not be used!

Alan


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Sep 25, 2008 11:49 am 
Sparks Level

Joined: Sun Dec 23, 2007 1:44 pm
Posts: 348
Location: Charlotte, NC
01/01/09

For Jim,

Would be interested on hearing your thoughts on the "deadline". I know of one major NC IOU that is taking the position that they only have to start by then. I also understand that APPA has asked the NESC folks for a clarification on the intention of the 01/01/09 date.

After all it only says "is performed" not is or has been completed

Thanks,
Alan.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Sep 25, 2008 12:04 pm 
Plasma Level
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2007 5:00 pm
Posts: 1628
Location: Scottsdale, Arizona
January 1, 2009 - actually I have not heard of any ruling or interpretation. I have been busy training lots of utilities for this and many of them are trying to hit the actual date - several are in quite a panic about it. Many also realize that it will be very difficult to meet the date so they just want it to be in progress in case they have to show their efforts to someone.

I believe the literal interpretation of the phrase:

"Effective as of January 1, 2009, the employer shall ensure that an assessment is performed to determine potential exposure to an electric arc..."

means: Done by January 1. Except what is the meaning of "is" - does "is" mean "in progress" or "was"?

I would be curious if anyone in the forum has heard of a ruling on this?

_________________
Jim Phillips, P.E.
Brainfiller.com


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Oct 22, 2008 9:45 am 

Joined: Tue May 27, 2008 2:42 pm
Posts: 10
NESC Update on 4Cal/cm^2

I heard at a conference that there was a update to the 4 Cal/Cm^2 value in NESC. Is this published and has anyone else heard about it?

As far as Arc Flash boundaries, we are including it because I am pointing out if they would decide to hotstick and they are beyond the boundary then they are ok in 1.2 Cal/Cm^2. I do not believe they are required for utilities (thanks Jim), But I think they are good information, it is important to point out how fast the incident energy goes.

One last point, has anyone addressed face protection with utilities. I am getting a lot of push back on face shields but an 8 cal blast would be VERY dangerous for lungs!


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Oct 22, 2008 11:16 am 
Plasma Level

Joined: Mon Jun 02, 2008 11:58 am
Posts: 1103
Location: Charlotte, NC
andrewh wrote:
One last point, has anyone addressed face protection with utilities. I am getting a lot of push back on face shields but an 8 cal blast would be VERY dangerous for lungs!


Show them this 8.4 Cal/cm2 arc flash, might change thier thinking

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sw3n89Ml73A


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Oct 22, 2008 11:18 am 
Plasma Level

Joined: Mon Jun 02, 2008 11:58 am
Posts: 1103
Location: Charlotte, NC
GPD_Steve wrote:
I believe the NESC, NEC, NFPA, and OSHA would determine these employees as "Qualified Workers".

Any thougts??


Only the Employer can deem an employee "Qualified" , no one else can, but you had better be able to justify it (In my experience, most linemen know more and are safer than the rest of the electrical world, but there are exceptions)


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Oct 22, 2008 11:27 am 

Joined: Tue May 27, 2008 2:42 pm
Posts: 10
Thanks Zog. I find those videos very useful in getting my point across. I hadn't see this one. When I have presented I have told the audience to go to youtube and enter arc flash. There are a couple good ones with interviews of survivors of acidents too.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 12 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 7 hours


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
© 2019 Arcflash Forum / Brainfiller, Inc. | P.O. Box 12024 | Scottsdale, AZ 85267 USA | 800-874-8883