Electrical Arc Flash Safety - Can You Afford Not To Invest?

Zarheer Jooma (Pr. Eng), e-Hazard

Nobel Prize Laureate, Albert Schweitzer states that ‘as we acquire more
knowledge, things do not become more comprehensible, but more mysterious’
while Socrates said, ‘the more I learn, the more I learn how little I know’. Often
when the topic of electrical arc flash is discussed the people most affected by
the topic brush it aside. Famous last words such as ‘It’s not going to happen at
my workplace’ or ‘I already have the correct personal protection equipment’ are
quite common. Accredited training on electrical arc flash safety and
reassessment of personal protective equipment is now more critical than ever
before. This statement is indeed a bitter pill to swallow in light of the numerous courses and
conferences hiding behind the veil of CPD accreditation which has failed to impress even the
simplest of minds. In addition, let’s not forget that when recession got its foot in the doorway,
training went hurling out of the closest window.

In order to understand why the end user should ensure that they are trained and able to
independently reassess existing arc flash resistant protective equipment and clothing, it is important
to look at the history of arc rated clothing in South Africa. Historically the electrical worker was at
the mercy of garment retailers who were clothing experts but not necessarily experts in the field of
electrical arc flash hazards. These companies turned to the SABS short circuit test laboratory to
verify the performance of their protective clothing.
The SABS then setup the protective clothing in front of a panel and created an arc, if the garment
didn’t burn or break open, it was considered fit for use. The SABS did no wrong, as it was the only
tool available to test arc rated clothing and in all fairness does provide a sense of comfort when
compared to no test at all.
Since then, technological advances and ongoing research yielded improved understanding of testing
methodologies and identified key variables which should be measured. Since the SABS short circuit
lab tests could not measure such variables, South African tests were fruitless by today’s standards.
The arc flash standards working group together with the SABS agreed in 2008 that the short circuit
lab is not equipped to perform the relevant tests on arc rated clothing and it is financially infeasible
to invest in such testing.
This implied that most protective clothing sold from almost a decade ago to as recently as 2008
offered no guarantee of performance in an electric arc flash. Many of these garments could have
failed had it been exposed to an electrical arc flash. Sounds a little like playing a game of Russian
roulette and it is exactly what it was, or rather ‘is’ as these garments are still in use.
Independent training should offer an in-depth understanding of protective clothing characteristics,
testing and certification requirements.

Let’s now assess the second claim ‘It’s not going to happen at my workplace’. A top 40 listed
company, renowned for its technological advancements in the international arena suffered an
electric arc flash related fatality early in 2009. A second company, also listed in the top 40,
experienced two arc incidents in an eighteen month window. Accidents occur not because they are
pre-empted, but rather due to the fact that systems and people are fallible. The classic Heinrich
textbook model for industrial accident prevention is shown in Figure One:
 1
Fatality
2
Major
0
Inciden
30
Property Damage,
ts Near Miss,
0
or Close Call.
15
Recognized Hazard, Unsafe Conditions and Practices
00
Figure One: Heinrich textbook model for industrial accident prevention

In the late 1970s, Bird and Loftus worked with Heinrich to upgrade this pyramid into a Domino
model. Later Jeffrey W. Vincoli published literature which would ultimately form the basis of
modern day loss causation analysis techniques. This literature is relevant as it states that accidents
can occur due to factors beyond an individual’s control. Most companies nowadays take cognisance
of recognised hazards and a mere 1500 combined unsafe hazards, conditions and practices will lead
to a fatality. Analysing the pyramid and combining it with the well known Swiss cheese model, it is
one hazard which will pass through all the controls and result in a fatality. Most often, the person
involved in the incident was either not aware of the hazard, underestimated the risk or suffered
from a bout of complacency. Electrical arc flash training should identify all possible hazards which
could pass through the controls, even if the end user is aware of these hazards; repetition is the best
form of reinforcing behaviour. Bear in mind that the last control measure is the ability to distinguish
right from wrong and is placed solely on the electrical operator, they make the final decision.

Employers should invest in their people who form the backbone of the country’s economy.
Although it is often difficult to distinguish between the good, the bad and the sometimes downright
ugly courses, companies should research courses and speak to previous course attendees before
signing on the dotted line. The employer can only reap great rewards if they invest in their last
control.

References

1. Electrical Arc Flash and Workplace Safety Training Course, Hugh Hoagland and Zarheer Jooma,
http://www.e-hazard.com, 2009

2. Incident Causation Models, Sara Stewart, HSEP Certificate Programme at the University of New
Brunswick, (Date not published)

3. Models for Accident Investigations, Michael D. Harvey PhD., 2007

About the author

Zarheer Jooma (Pr. Eng.) is the convener of SANS 724, the first South African National Standard
dedicated to electrical arc flash safety. He consults to clothing manufacturers and facilitates
international arc testing and certification. He provides the only internationally accredited training on
electrical arc flash safety to Africa and the Middle East at present.