top of page

Are There Alternatives to an Arc Flash Analysis?

  • Writer: Jeff Kershner
    Jeff Kershner
  • 2 days ago
  • 3 min read

You were told you needed an arc flash analysis, you got a quote—and it's significant. What are your options?


It's a common scenario, and, understandably, decision-makers may explore other paths forward, from avoiding the expense to trying other methods. But do these alternatives truly align with OSHA requirements? And more importantly, do they adequately protect your workers from risk?


Let’s walk through the most common so-called "alternatives" to arc flash analyses and why relying on them can backfire.


Option 1: Do Nothing


Reality: This creates compliance gaps and legal exposure.


Skipping an arc flash analysis may seem like a way to cut costs, but it opens the door to serious risk. Per the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), employers must provide a workplace free of known hazards, and safety standards must be followed by both the employer and employee. 


If a tragic accident occurs, OSHA will conduct an investigation. Not having completed an arc flash analysis could mean that an employer did not carry out due diligence in identifying hazards and protecting employees. Consequences may include:


  • Fines or violations made public (including local news and safety publications)


  • Loss of credibility with employees and on review sites like Glassdoor


  • Legal liability, including lawsuits and medical expenses


  • Potential shutdown of operations due to damaged equipment or unsafe conditions


Skipping the arc flash analysis is essentially relying on luck. This approach may work—until it one day spectacularly backfires.



Think you don't need an arc flash analysis because your crew never works with the power on? Actually, the verification of the absence of voltage is energized work.




Option 2: Use the Table Method


Reality: Requires more data and calculations than people assume.


Many companies try to use the tables in NFPA 70E [See Arc Flash PPE Category Method 130.7(C)(15) on pg. 33 of the 2024 edition] to select PPE instead of commissioning a formal arc flash analysis. 


The assumption is that the table method is a low-cost alternative. The caveat is that it is not easy to interpret and apply.


To utilize the table method correctly, you must verify specific conditions, including fault current, clearing time, and system configuration, using specific procedures and calculations. 


You must also not assume that the equipment type or nominal voltage will be enough to know how to apply the table method.


Using the table method incorrectly will likely result in overestimating or underestimating the hazard:


  • Overestimation = Workers wear excessive PPE that slows them down and increases fatigue.


  • Underestimation = Workers wear insufficient PPE, putting them at real risk.


In short: the table method is not a shortcut. It’s a tool to use properly and within limits. For more details on the table method, review our article Shortfalls of the Category Method Instead of Incident Energy Calculations to Determine Arc Flash PPE 



Option 3: Just Wear Maximum PPE


Reality: It’s impractical, and still doesn’t guarantee protection.


Some companies try to address the hazard by having workers wear high-level PPE, like a 40-calorie arc flash suit, for all energized work. While better than wearing no protection, this approach has downsides:


  • Workers may be significantly overdressed for most tasks, which impairs movement, reduces awareness, and affects decision-making.


  • It can increase heat stress and discomfort, especially in warm environments.


  • It’s not always sufficient—some equipment may present more than 40 cal/cm² of incident energy.


This approach also assumes all work will be performed under ideal conditions, with workers always suiting up correctly and consistently. That’s not a guarantee.



Option 4: Rely on Contractors


Reality: You’re still responsible for their safety.


A common belief is that if all electrical work is done by outside contractors, the business doesn’t need to conduct an arc flash analysis. But that’s not the case.


If contractors are working on your site, you are still responsible for their safety. OSHA and NFPA 70E make it clear: building and equipment owners share accountability. Relying on contractors doesn’t eliminate the need for hazard identification.



NFPA 70E 2024 Employer Responsibilities:

110.5(A) Host Employer Responsibilities

(1) The host employer shall inform contract employers of the following:

(1) known hazards that are covered by this standard, that are related to the contract employer's work…

130.5(H) Equipment Labeling

The owner of the electrical equipment shall be responsible for the documentation, installation, and maintenance of the marked label.




The Bottom Line


There’s no real substitute for an arc flash analysis. Whether you’re responsible for maintenance, safety, or engineering, an arc flash analysis is the foundation for meeting your obligations under OSHA—and for keeping your people safe.


If you come across unlabeled equipment or don't know the potential incident energy, you have two options:


  • Perform a proper analysis.


  • Or suit up conservatively (but inefficiently).


For any energized work that doesn't meet the criteria for "normal operation," relying on assumptions or visual inspection isn’t enough. The safest path forward is one backed by qualified professionals, accurate data, and the right engineering tools.


bottom of page