by , on June 29, 2012
Arc Flash and Safety Newsletter banner
In This Issue
Updated 2012 Classes
May Survey Results
June Survey Question
OSHA Fines this Month
Q&A: Medical Alert Bracelets
Arc Test Dates
Electrical Safety News
Arc Flash Study Training
Z462 Comparisons
Safety Article
F1891-12 Available
LV 2012 Video Testimony
2012 NFPA 70E Changes Video
Team Members
Q&A: HRC 2 – 8 cal/cm2 – Annex H





Walls FR



Superior Glove

Superior Glove 


Milliken Logo

e-Hazard Trainer Speaking Events

e-Hazard Trainers including Hugh Hoagland, Bill Shinn, Lee Hale, Drake Drobnick, Al Havens, Daleep Mohla and others speak at events all over the world. Here are some events where you can find us:


Portland, OR
June 17 – June 21, 2012     
Hugh Hoagland

Lenzing Seminar
Salzburg, Austria
July 8 – July 12
Hugh Hoagland 

28th Annual National VPPPA Conference 

Anaheim, CA

August 19 – August 23, 2012

Hugh Hoagland


Los Alamos, NM

October 8 – October 12, 2012

Hugh Hoagland

FISST Safety Show

Sao Paulo, Brazil

October 3 – October 10, 2012

Hugh Hoagland

National Safety Council 

Orlando, FL    October 21- October 26, 2012

Hugh Hoagland

Upcoming Classes

NFPA 70E 2012 Electrical Safety in the Workplace


  NFPA 70E-2012 CLASSES 



Knoxville, TN

June 26, 2012


Greensboro, NC

June 29, 2012


Torrance, CA

July 24, 2012


Evansville, IN

August 2, 2012


Louisville, KY


August 6, 2012

Deerfield, IL

August 14, 2012


Tucson, AZ

August 14, 2012


Atlanta, GA

August 28, 2012

Tentative / August:

Deer Park, TX

(call for details)


Decatur, AL

October 9, 2012

Louisville, KY

December 3, 2012


Phoenix, AZ

January 22, 2013




 Louisville, KY

August 7, 2012


Louisville, KY

December 4, 2012




LV HV Train the Trainer

 Louisville, KY

August 6-9, 2012


LV HV Train the Trainer

Louisville, KY

December 3-6, 2012



Click here to view e-Hazard training calendar.

2012 NSC Expo
 National Safety Council Congress & Expo
October 21-26, 2012
Orlando, FL
Featured Product
NEW ArcSuspender with arc tested clips
Arc Flash Suspender Detail
Arc Flash Suspender
Featured Product
Dickie's Electrician's Belt
Featured Product

Carhartt Electrician's Belt

Our Sponsors



Milliken Logo


Superior Glove



Walls FR

Updated 2012 Classes
LV Book Cover  
Over 350 trainers have been through the Low Voltage (LV) and High Voltage (HV) Train the Trainer course with e-Hazard, and are qualified to teach using e-Hazard materials.  More trainers use e-Hazard training materials than all our competitors combined. 
Come to a class or attend our  Train the Trainer course and experience the e-Hazard difference.  Competitors welcome.
 Low Voltage & LV Refresher
 High Voltage & HV Refresher
LV & HV Train the Trainer
 Operator’s Class
OSHA 10 Hour
We also schedule on-site custom  classes at your place of employment.  E-Hazard can design a training program around your company’s unique electric safety program needs. We’ve designed specific training for several industries around the country and around the world including petrochemical, waste management, welding, automotive, communications, military, metals and much more.
Quick Links
Newsletter Archive

JUNE 2012

Dear ArcLetter Member,


The ArcWear™ Electric Arc and Safety Newsletter provides a quick update on Arc Rated and Flame Resistant Clothing issues and news from OSHA and standards committees. The newsletter is FREE, reaches over 14,000 people and will bring you up to date on the issues that surround flame resistant clothing for flash fire hazards and the electric arc. For previous newsletters or to sign up, visit or

May Survey Results:  Detailed Hazard/Risk Analysis Done at Your Facility?

Has a detailed engineering Hazard / Risk Analysis been completed at your facility? 
May 2012 Survey Results
Survey-taker’s various comments:


Our system analysis confirms by color coding our single line diagrams what level of protection is required where you are working. This is measured by available fault current at that location.

Completed 5kV and 480V analysis and labels of our extensive mainline system in Canada and the US in 2007 and will complete resulting mainline arc reduction by end of 2013. Completion of smaller, 480V remote sites complete by 2014.

The arc flash study did not take into consideration 120/208 panels with transformers under 125kva.   All electricians are required to wear coveralls with a 8.2 calory rating and PPE equal to or greater than the labels on electrical equipment.

We are in the process of calculating the arc flash energy levels for all of our panel assemblies below 600V down to 120V. We plan to add arc flash & shock protection labels down to 120V. All equipment 600V and above is already studied and labelled.

Ignorance is bliss and the management feels that they would only get a first time warning if something happens. They do not want to spend money on something that has no return.

We are waiting for the analysis report (and have been for some time now) and the recommendations regarding labels and scope of equipment.

We have had a survey done on part of the plant and labels have been attached to what was surveyed. However, the majority of the plant has not been completed.
We have not completed the Arc Hazard Assessment or the Hazard/Risk Analysis either.
For our company, the Hazard/Risk Analysis is based on task and is done when the energized work permit is issued. How can the Hazard/Risk be determined for any task?
Management has been pushing this subject around on back burners since I started here 7 years ago. I have told my boss that I believe we need an analysis to comply but he feels that his approach w/ tables is good enough and you know how far you get trying to tell your boss something!
Big Bucks, though…and keeping it up to date is also a decent chunk of change.
Everything greater than 1.2 cal/cm2 is labeled in our facility. Much of the equipment less than 1.2 is labeled as well.
A complete arc flash evaluation has been completed a few years ago by an outside consultant, but we haven’t had the manpower to keep it up to date.
Our system is dynamic enough where IE values can easily change between categories. We are in a climate zone where heat stress can have an impact on daily tasks in the summer months. Our electricians are trained to get latest IE and PPE requirements for each MCC off our company intranet. A second peice to that is we do not allow electrical contractors or non qualified personnel in the arc flash boundary. We plan to apply lables by end of 2nd Q


June Survey:  
Do you set-up barricades as required in NFPA 70E 2012?
130.7E Alerting Techniques
(2) Barricades.  Barricades shall be used in conjunction with safety signs where it is necessary to prevent or limit employee access to work areas containing energized conductors or circuit parts.  Conductive barricades shall not be used where it might cause an electrical hazard.  Barricades shall be placed no closer than the limited approach boundary given in Table 130.4(C)(a) and Table 130.4(C)(b).

Fines by OSHA on Electrical Hazards

Most citations include electrical hazards. 


Fuse used
Click here to see the citations and our commentary.

Q&A:   Medical Alert Bracelets?

Fuse used

 A customer asked about arc-rated Medical Alert Bracelets…

I don’t know of any.  I have tested many heavy plastics though, and rarely have seen an ignition at 8-12 cal arc levels.  They would also be covered by a glove in most applications so they should be of little risk.


The AHJ (Authority Having Jurisdiction) has the right to allow critical items which cannot be arc rated for use in arc flash potential situations.  It is best practice to evaluate these items but they may be used if the AHJ determines the need outweighs the risk.

Note from Bill Shinn / Partner:  My 2 cents would be that the bracelet is relatively small and even if it did melt, it would not cause a life threatening injury.  I would not worry about that item.  Also tell the person to wear it on the wrist he does not write with.

 Email e-Hazard or ArcWear with a question!

ArcWear™ Arc Testing Dates
ArcWear™ Testing
 Jun 25-29
July 16-20
Aug 13-17
Sept 17-21
Oct 29-Nov 2
Nov 26-30
Dec 10-14
Jan 14-18

ASTM F1959, ASTM F2178, ASTM F887 fall protection arc testing and mannequin testing are scheduled at the Kinectrics Lab in Toronto on the dates above.   

Ship materials or clothing to:   
Hugh Hoagland
13113 Eastpoint Park Blvd.
Suite E
Louisville, KY
PH: 502-333-0510
We must receive materials or clothing one week before the test date for sample preparation, or make arrangements to ship to the lab in Canada. New and non US/Canadian Customers must make payment before test date.  Testing is offered on a first come/first served basis with priority for consulting customers.
  • $100 per material for prep/washing and cutting panels; ($200 for items arriving less than 7 days before test date to cover preparation overtime)
  • $200 for shipping a signed hard-copy report internationally

No guarantee is made of when testing will occur; we do all in our power to test within one month of receipt.  

All testing is performed at Kinectrics High Current lab in Toronto, Canada.  Kinectrics is an ISO 17025 accredited lab by the Standards Council of Canada.
Click here to visit Arc Test Data.
Click here to visit past Arc Flash Articles.


Electrical Safety News
OSHA Penalizes Raani Corp of IL $473K
06-21-2012 11:32:45 AM

Raani Corp of Bedford Park, IL, a manufacturer of health-care items, over-the-counter pharmaceuticals and household and salon products, was cited for 14 safety violations, including 6 willful violations. An employee suffered severe chemical burns in Nov 2011, with an investigation determining that the company failed to call 911 to seek medical treatment and neglected to wash […]…»

OSHA Proposes Penalties of $64.6K to Vivid Image of WI
06-21-2012 11:32:24 AM

Vivid Image of Theresa, WI, which employs 3 workers, was cited with 12 safety violations following the death of one worker and hospitalization of another in Nov 2011 due to exposure to the chemical toluene. Included in the serious safety and health violations was failure to develop and implement a written hazard communication program, […]…»

Home Depot in NY Cited by OSHA for $51.4K
06-21-2012 11:32:03 AM

OSHA proposed $51,480 in penalties to the Home Depot in Sarasota Springs, NY, for workplace safety standard violations. Included in the repeat violations was failure to keep the required working space around 8 electrical equipment panels free from storage, consequently restricting employee’s access to circuit breakers in case of emergency. Serious violations involved missing […]…»

OSHA Proposes Fines of $52.6k to NY Wal-Mart
06-21-2012 11:31:34 AM

Wal-Mart of Cobleskill, NY, faces fines for workplace safety standards violations, including the lack of a protective fitting and strain relief for an electrical conduit entering a control box. Click here to read the OSHA News Release dated 6/7/12.…»

OSHA Proposes $52.5k Fines to MT Electrical Contractor for Electrocution
06-21-2012 11:30:56 AM

OSHA cited PAR Electrical Contractors Inc. of Billings, MT, for safety violations resulting in the electrocution of an employee who was working on a power line in December 2011. The serious violations involved exposing workers to electrocution hazards while working in close proximity to energized parts without approved insulating safeguards, and failing to discontinue power […]…»

OSHA Proposes $81k Fines to MA Electrical Contractor
06-21-2012 11:30:24 AM

OSHA cited Interstate Electrical Services of North Billerica, MA, for willful and serious violations following an arc blast in November 2011 in which several workers were seriously burned at a jobsite when equipment came into contact with an energized part of an electrical panel. An energized electrical panel was not effectively guarded to prevent workers from […]…»

OSHA Proposes $64.4k Fines to OH Steel Products Company
06-21-2012 11:29:41 AM

Brown-Campbell Co. of Maple Heights, OH, was cited for safety and health violations, including failure to provide protective clothing for employees exposed to metal sparks, lack of establishing a lockout/tagout program to control the use of hazardous energy, failure to have a properly rated electrical disconnect box, and failure to close an unused opening in […]…»

OSHA Proposes $156.7k Fines to AR Food Company
06-21-2012 11:29:18 AM

Pinnacle Foods Group LLC of Fayetteville, AR, was cited for serious safety & health violations, including failure to adhere to process safety management standards, ensure that lockout/tagout procedures are followed, provide appropriate personal protective equipment to prevent skin contact with and inhalation of ammonia, repair or maintain defective electrical equipment, and adhere to OSHA’s Emergency Response […]…»

OSHA Proposes $78.5k Fines to MS Galvanzing Co.
06-21-2012 11:26:15 AM

AZZ Inc, dba as AZZ Galvanizing Services of Richland, MS, was cited for safety & health violations including failure to conduct inspections of lockout/tagout procedure and protect employees from live electrical parts and hot surfaces; flexible cords used as permanent wiring and unapproved electrical cords in wet locations; failing to use electrical equipment properly and provide adequate […]…»

Arc Flash Injuries at OH Electric Department
06-21-2012 11:23:02 AM

Two employees of Cuyahoga Falls Electric System were injured in an arc flash while working on customer’s equipment on-premises. Click here to read the article from FallsNewsPress dated 6/10/12.…»

Arc Flash Study Training Following Low Voltage Class in Torrance, CA

E-Hazard will be conducting a  Low Voltage Qualified NFPA 70E Electrical Workplace Safety course in Torrance, CA, on Tuesday, July 24th.  


Following will be two days of Arc Flash Study training by our sponsor, SKM Systems Analysis:


SKM Systems Analysis, Inc. is proud to present a two-day managerial arc flash course on how to conduct and review an arc flash study to maintain worker safety.  Attendees will receive insight on how to review a safety program and mitigate unknown issues before they arise.  The course will cover what needs to be done before, during, and after an arc flash study has been completed.  All attendees are encouraged to participate in the course discussions and to share their existing safety program.

Click here to view details about the SKM Arc Flash Study course.

Z462 Comparison of 1st & 2nd Editions
The 2012 Edition of CSA Z462 was released as Canada’s 2nd Edition Workplace Electrical Safety Standard.  To help with a better understanding of the important changes, ESPS Electrial Safety Program Solutions created a document to compare the differences betweeen the 1st to 2nd edition.
Click here to link to the document.
Fuse used

Random Inspections Increase Safety
A recent study completed by Harvard Business School environmental management expert, Michael Toffel, finds that companies undergoing random workplace safety inspections resulted in workplace injuries declining by about 9% in the 4 years following the date of inspection compared with injury reports during the same time period in firms that were not inspected.  The cost of the injuries reported – including medical treatment and missed work – fell by 26%.  The investigators found that the inspections had no effect on employment, total earnings, sales, or the suvival of the company.
Do you perform random safety inspections?
Click here to read the concise article in Science News.

NEW F1891 ASTM Standard Available

F1891 – Standard Specification for Arc and Flame Resistant Rainwear has been revised to F1891-12 developed by Committee F18.65, ASTM BOS Volume 10.03.  This specification establishes applicable test methods, minimum physical and thermal performance criteria, a suggested sizing guide, and suggested purchasing information for rainwear for use by workers who may be exposed to thermal hazards of momentary electric arcs and open flames.


Click here to purchase the Standard from ASTM.

 ASTM International Logo

Low Voltage 2012 Video Testimony

One of e-Hazard’s graduates of the ‘Train the Trainer‘ course utilizes our Low Voltage Qualified NFPA 70E video in his many training sites.  The following is his testimony:


Even though I work for the North Carolina Community College System, I rarely teach in a college setting.  The setting I teach in is most always on a manufacturing site – -either in a conference room, training room, lunch room — wherever the company has a place suitable for a class.  I typically start all my classes with an introduction of myself along with some brief background information including hobbies and spare time activities. I then ask the attendees to do the same, stating name, what they do at the company, how long they have been there and what they do when they are not at work. It’s always fun to hear what the guys (and occasionally the ladies) do away from work and usually someone learns something about someone else they didn’t know. I then talk about the basic structure of the class, breaks, and agenda. It is then that I mention that I have brought along another instructor – so I introduce Hugh and e-Hazard. I “roll the tape” (start the DVD) and let Hugh start the class. The DVD is very well done, but if left to run on it’s own lasts a bit over 2 hours.


There is a tremendous amount of information crammed into that time so I frequently stop the DVD and introduce a concept or talking point before Hugh gets to it, or I will allow Hugh to do the talking and I will stop and review that concept before moving on. I have found that the back and forth between Hugh and myself serves to reinforce important points and slows the pace down in order for students to think and ask questions before they get lost in the next slide(s). They are also listening to 2 different voices with different teaching styles so their engagement level stays high during the entire duration of what turns into a 7 hour class (excluding lunch). I have done close to 2 dozen classes using this method and the evaluations come back with consistently high marks for satisfaction. More importantly, many line technicians and electricians come up afterwards to personally thank me for the class. I always ask them if there is a “habit” that they intend to add to their working procedures. I’ve had a number of “crusty” (both young and old) electrical workers leave the class with a new appreciation for the hazards they face every day and solutions for their protection. That’s the reason that we do what we do.



Ron S 

North Carolina Community College System

Regional Safety Trainer – East


  Fuse used

2012 NFPA 70E Changes Video

If you’re interested just in an update on the 2012 NFPA 70E changes, we put together a video to discuss these issues.

Cost of webinar video is $25.00.NFPA 70E 2012 Electrical Safety in the Workplace

Click here to register for the video.

ArcWear / e-Hazard Team Members
This month Bill Shinn / Partner spent several weeks in Busan, South Korea, to audit and train at an Alcoa Extrusion Mill.
Most members of the office staff volunteered (with some family members, too) to pack over 2300 meals for Kids Against Hunger.   These nutritious meals will be shipped to Haiti to feed orphans and students.


Burn Up The Myth   

HRC 2 – 8 cal/cm2 – Annex

Fuse usedQ. Scott wrote:  Our daily-wear PPE — which is rented — has tags that say HRC 2. Annex H indicates we could have a PPE category up to 12 cal/cm². Are our HRC 2 shirts and pants OK to use for this 12 cal/cm² category system? We have exposures from 8.2 – 11 cal/cm2 that we are trying to determine what we need to do.

A. Scott, maybe — but we need to do a little more work on this one. Annex H was created to allow for technology advancement in PPE and the results of studies where the calories of exposure have been calculated.

Check in your shirts and pants for the ATPV label; it will indicate the protection value of the shirt or pants. You’ll find the majority of the shirts available today with an HRC 2 label on the pocket or belt loop on the pants to be around 8 cal/cm² range. There are manufacturers that have shirts with a 9.6 – 11 cal/cm² rating and there are a FEW on the market which are 12 or greater but these arent’ the run of the mill rentals.  DriFire is one of those with a single layer 12 cal/cm². The heavy duty denim pants vary from about 12.4 to as high as 25 cal/cm².

To use this 12 cal/cm² clothing system listed in Annex H, all the components need to be rated for your facilities’ exposures up to the 12 cal/cm² limit.

You indicated you have exposures at 8.2 cal/cm² from your study. We’ll assume your shirts have an ATPV rating of 8.7 cal/cm² and the pants you have are rated for 12.4 cal/cm². Arc rated face shields are generally 12 cal/cm²; some are rated 8-10 cal/cm². Check the face shield; the value will be stamped on the shield. Balaclava’s are generally rated at 12 cal/cm² but some are less; check yours to see what you have. Class 00 voltage rated gloves with heavy duty leather protectors are generally allowable up to 12 cal/cm²; they actually test higher but for this issue we have the hands protected.

If all the components have a rating above the calculated 8.2 cal/cm² that you know from the study, then you can use these components for the 8.2 cal/cm² exposures at your facility.

On the 11 cal/cm² exposures, you’ll need to again verify all the components are equal to or above the 11 cal/cm².  Now if your shirts are not, more options for you.  Most of the fabric makers are doing layered testing of their fabrics and these can be found on their websites. has some published tests of a Brand X shirt over a Brand Y t-shirt but ArcWear doesn’t sell clothing.  This data is a public service so use with caution. There are shirts available that have an HRC 2 label on them that have an actual value of 11 cal/cm².

For the 11 cal/cm² exposure you could change to a different shirt manufacturer that has an 11 cal/cm² shirt or maybe a layered approach as long as the specific shirts, coats, t-shirts have been tested as a system.   8 and 8 do not necessarily equal 16. It might, but it must have been tested as a system. You’ll also need to check the face shield and balaclava to make sure they are both rated for the 11 cal/cm2 exposure. There are some balaclava’s and face shield available that indicate HRC 1 so you’ll need to verify what you have.

With this method, you may already have what you need for these exposures or maybe you can add an 11 cal/cm² smock coat; lots of options to combat this issue. This method is becoming very popular since the 2012 edition of 70E was published as a lot of smaller and medium sized facilities have incident energy exposures in the 8.1 to 12 cal/cm² range and technology has advanced to higher levels of protection in pretty darn comfortable shirts.

When I’m on a job site I use a shirt that is rated 9.7 cal/cm2, pants rated 18.4 cal/cm², Class 0 gloves that I know have been tested to 40 cal/cm² and my face shield and balaclava are both rated at 12 cal/cm².

Hope this helps,

Lee Hale / Partner

Our newsletter is sponsored by many companies around the world.  If you have ideas for articles or have questions, don’t hesitate to write.


Hugh Hoagland

13113 Eastpoint Park Blvd. Suite E
Louisville, KY 40223
Office: 502-333-0510


Hugh Hoagland
About author:
Hugh Hoagland is the foremost tester of clothing and PPE exposed to electrical arcs and is an arc flash expert. Read more about Hugh.

Leave a Reply