NFPA and its Implications on Electrical Inspections

1 NFPA and its Implications on Electrical InspectionsPresented by:Martin RobinsonCEOIRISS, Inc. Incident PyramidFatalityDisabling InjuriesRecordable Injuries1stAid CasesNear-miss IncidentsHazardous Tasks110000010100100010000 Commonly used update to the Safety Pyramid: Heinrich, 1931 Arc Flash PyramidData derived from research by CapSchell, Inc. FatalityIncurable Burns Over of BodyArc Flash Incidents162085 Burn InjuriesArc Flash Incident PyramidFatalityDisabling InjuriesRecordable Injuries1stAid CasesNear-Miss IncidentsHazardous Tasks110000010100100010000162085 ComparisonGeneral EHSArc FlashNear-Miss :Fatality10000: 185 : 1 Near Miss :Disabling Injury10000: 185 : 6 Injury :Fatality1000: 120.

2 1 Established 1896 World s Leading Advocate Of Fire PreventionOver 300 Codes And StandardsWorldwide InfluenceExpert Consensus To Create StandardsNEC (NFPA 70) National Electric CodeNFPA 70B Recommended Practice For Electrical Equipment MaintenanceNFPA 70E Standard For Electrical Safety In The WorkplaceNational Electric Code (NEC) NFPA 70 Established 1897 by efforts of Insurance, Architectural, Electrical and allied interestsElectrical Design, Installation & InspectionNOTto address Maintenance or Workplace SafetyNFPA 70B Recommended Practice for Electrical Equipment Maintenance Recommended Practice for Electrical Equipment Maintenance NFPA 70B To address preventative maintenance of Electrical systems and equipment used in industrial-type applications with the view of reducing loss of life and property.

3 Committee established 1968 Enhanced Focus on Safety Importance of Baseline Performance Data How to Apply RCM (Reliability Centered Maintenance)2006 Edition Recommended Practice for Electrical Equipment Maintenance NFPA 70B Reorganization of document, including grouping of related topics plus consolidation of testing information New material on emergency preparedness and Electrical system and equipment restoration New recommendations on how to conduct outsourcing of Electrical equipment maintenance New information on failure modes effects and criticality analysis (FMECA)2010 Edition Why an Effective Electrical Preventive Maintenance (EPM) Program Pays DividendsChapter 4.

4 Dependability can be engineered and built into equipment, but effective maintenance is required to keep it dependable. Testing and Test MethodsChapter 11: (previously Chapter 21) (Infrared Inspections ) can reduce typical visual examinations and tedious manual Inspections and are especially effective in long-range detection situations. Infrared Inspections of Electrical systems are beneficial to reduce the number of costly and catastrophic equipment failures and unscheduled plant shutdowns. Testing and Test MethodsChapter 11: Up to Quarterly where warranted by Loss Experience New Installation Environmental Changes Changes in operational or Load ConditionsInspection Cycles Calls for Maximum Possible Loading Chapter 11.

5 But 70B, 70E and OSHA 1910 all call for an electrically safe work condition whenever possibleOpen For Direct View of ComponentsNFPA 70E Standard for Electrical Safety in the Workplace Standard For Electrical Safety in the WorkplaceNFPA 70E To assist OSHA in developing Electrical safety standardsCommittee Established 1976 Draw heavily from Aspects of 70E and NEC in a rare revision of Subpart S 2007 OSHA stated that it will: Fundamental Principal Upon Which 70E and OSHA are BasedNFPA 70E Eliminate the Hazard Reduce the Risk by Design Apply Safeguards Implement Administrative Controls Use PPEC ontrol Risk Wherever Practical: Workers Exposed to Energized Electrical Conductors or Circuit Parts Risk-Increasing Behavior Reason to Believe that Equipment Could Experience a Sudden Change in StateWhen is 70E Applicable?

6 NFPA 70 EMetal Clad Switchgear 1 kVto 38 kVExposedRisk-IncreasingHazard /RiskRemoval of Bolted CoversYesYes4 Opening Hinged Covers YesYes3CB Operationwith Enclosure Doors OpenYesYes4CB Operation with Enclosure Doors ClosedNoYes2 Performing Thermography Outside the Restricted Area YesNo3 Reading a Panel Meter While Operating a Meter SwitchNoNo0 NFPA 70 EHazard/Risk CategoryClothing DescriptionMin. Arc Rating0 Non-melting, flammablematerials ( , untreated cotton, wool, rayon, or silk, or blends of these materials) with fabric weight of less than oz/yd2n/a1 Arc-ratedFR shirt & FR pants or FR coverall4 cal/cm22 Arc-ratedFR shirt & FR pants or FR coverall8 cal/cm23 Arc-ratedFR shirt & pants or FR coverall, and arc flash suit selected so that the system arc rating meets the required minimum25 cal/cm24 Arc-ratedFR shirt & pants or FR coverall, and arc flash suit selected so that the system arc rating meets the required minimum40 cal/cm2 Table (C)

7 (11) The collective experience of the task group is that in most cases closed doors do not provide enough protection to eliminate the need for PPE for instances where the state of the equipment is known to readily change ( , doors open or closed, rack in or rack out). -70E: (C)(9) FPN No. 2IR Window and Ultrasound Port Cost Benefit AnalysisElectrical Panel Removal Man-hours 3 Man Live Electrical RCM Team consists of: 2 x Electrical Engineers: 2 x Electricians for panel removal 1 x RCM Engineer (Contracted)Suit up for Live Works30 Minutes 2 x Electricians 1 x RCM EngineerPanel Removal 30 minutes 2 x ElectriciansInfrared Scan10 Minutes 1 x RCM EngineerPanel Refit 30 minutes 2 x ElectriciansMove to Next Panel AllTime For Live inspection 1 hour 6 minutes(excludes PPE Suit-up Time)NFPA 70 EExample of Category 3 or 4 PPECost Analysis of Energized RCM Survey Removing PanelsOperationMan HoursTotal Man HoursRate ($/hr)

8 TotalCover $125$ $150$ $125$ Engineer Waiting $150$ Waiting $125$ Costs PerInspection of 1 Electrical Panel = $ Manpower Costs PerInspection of 1 Electrical Panel = $ HoursTotal Man HoursRate ($/hr)TotalRCM Engineer PPE $150$ PPE $125$ Costs PerPPE Suit-up As Per NFPA 70E = $ Analysis of Energized RCM Survey Using IR WindowsOperationMan HoursTotal Man HoursRate ($/hr)TotalCover Removal00$125$0 RCM $150$ Replacement00$125$0 RCM Engineer Waiting Time00$150$0 Electrician Waiting Time00$125$0 Manpower Costs PerInspection of 1 Electrical Panel = $ of IRISS VPFR 75 (3 inch diameter) 1 Manpower Costs PerInspection of 1 Electrical Panel = $ HoursTotal Man HoursRate ($/hr)TotalRCM Engineer PPE Suit-up00$150$0 Electrician PPE Suit-up00$125$0 Manpower Costs PerPPE Suit-up As Per NFPA 70E = $ Year Cost Benefit AnalysisExample shows a saving of nearly $3, over a 5 year period (91%)

9 For 1 cable compartment in a Medium Voltage Electrical PanelPeriodCumulative Cost Without IR WindowsCumulative Cost Using IR Windows$ Savings Per InspectionTotal % SavingYear 1$ $ $ $1, $ $1, 3$1, $ $1, 4$2, $ $2, 5$3, $ $2, Analysis For Paper Mill Scenario:PaperMill X currentlyhave150piecesofprimaryswitchgea rthattheyinspectannually(duetointrusiven atureoftheinspection).TheRCMinspections( UltrasoundandInfrared)arecurrentlycomple ted ENERGISED inlinewiththerequirementsofNFPA70E&70B.( fullPPEandStrictguidelinesonhowinspectio nsarecompleted)Inspectioniscompletedby2 PlantElectricians(requiredforpanelremova l) (3weeks)Cost Analysis of Energized RCM Survey Removing PanelsOperationMan HoursTotal Man HoursRate ($/hr)TotalCover $125$18, $150$2, $125$18, Engineer Waiting $150$22, Waiting $125$3, Costsof 150 Electrical Panels = $66, Manpower Costs PerInspection of 1 Electrical Panel = $74, HoursTotal Man HoursRate ($/hr)

10 TotalRCM Engineer PPE $150$ PPE $125$ Costs PerPPE Suit-up As Per NFPA 70E = $ Days,2 suit-ups per day (42 total dress-outs = hrs)$8, Analysis of Energized RCM Survey Using IR WindowsOperationMan HoursTotal Man HoursRate ($/hr)TotalCover Removal00$125$0 RCM $150$2, Replacement00$125$0 RCM Engineer Waiting Time00$150$0 Electrician Waiting Time00$125$0 Manpower Costs PerInspection of 1 Electrical Panel = $2, of IRISS VPFR 75 IR Windows and VP12 UltrasoundPorts=$28, 1 Manpower Costs PerInspection of 1 Electrical Panel = $30, HoursTotal Man HoursRate ($/hr)TotalRCM Engineer PPE Suit-up00$150$0 Electrician PPE Suit-up00$125$0 Manpower Costs PerPPE Suit-up As Per NFPA 70E = $0 Example shows a saving of $332, over a 5 year period (89%)