Are There Alternatives to an Arc Flash Analysis?
- Jeff Kershner
- May 26
- 5 min read
Updated: May 29
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, a decision-maker may explore other paths forward, from avoiding the expense to trying other methods. However, these alternatives may not provide the same level of safety, compliance, and risk mitigation as a proper arc flash analysis.
It's a matter of asking: Do these options 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 consider their pros and cons.
Option 1: Do Nothing
Reality: This is unsafe, noncompliant, creates legal exposure, and is morally indefensible.
Choosing to skip or delay an arc flash analysis may seem like a budget-conscious decision, but it’s a dangerous one that exposes your workers and your business to serious, and entirely preventable, harm.
OSHA requires all employers to assess the workplace for hazards, including the risk of electrical arcs. The assessment must evaluate:
The nature and presence of electrical hazards
The likelihood and severity of potential injuries
The mitigation measures in place to reduce those risks to an acceptable level
According to OSHA’s General Duty Clause, employers must provide “a place of employment that is free from recognized hazards that are causing or are likely to cause death or serious physical harm.”
Electrical hazards are recognized hazards. An arc flash analysis identifies the arc flash hazard associated with each piece of equipment so that appropriate measures can be implemented to protect employees, such as labeling the hazard and training the employees.
When an incident occurs, OSHA will investigate. In multiple interpretation letters, OSHA has indicated that NFPA 70E demonstrates that arc flash is a recognized hazard and there is a feasible means of mitigating the risk. Additionally, OSHA has stated that it may “use NFPA 70E to support citations for violations relating to certain OSHA standards.”
If an arc flash analysis was never performed, that investigation could quickly escalate into citations, fines, and even criminal liability. Beyond financial consequences, the real cost could be:
Shutdown of operations due to damaged equipment or unsafe conditions
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
Permanent damage to your company’s safety culture and reputation
Skipping the analysis is a gamble with lives, livelihoods, and even the company itself. Hoping nothing happens isn’t a strategy. It’s a failure of leadership.
If you are responsible for electrical safety, don’t wait. A timely arc flash analysis (at least every 5 years per NFPA 70E) is not optional; it’s the right thing to do.
Think you don't need an arc flash analysis because your crew never works with the power on? Actually, the Lock Out, Tag Out procedure (LOTO), which includes verification of the absence of voltage, is energized work and can increase the likelihood of encountering an arc flash hazard.
Option 2: Use the Table Method
Reality: Requires data and complex calculations, and has limitations you can’t ignore.
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.
Even if used correctly, the table method is intentionally conservative and may lead to unnecessary PPE use or reduced productivity.
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 method also fails to provide situational awareness. Workers assume they're protected when in fact, the actual risk could be higher or different from what the PPE accounts for. It also assumes all work will be performed under ideal conditions, with workers always suiting up correctly and consistently. That’s not realistic.
Option 4: Rely on Contractors
Reality: You’re still responsible for their safety and the condition of your electrical system.
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, conducted by a licensed professional engineer. 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).
Every day that passes without a proper arc flash analysis increases the risk of costly hazards, injuries, and unplanned downtime. And none of that is necessary.
For any energized work that doesn’t meet the criteria for "normal operation," relying on assumptions or visual inspection isn’t enough.
The safest and most responsible path forward is backed by qualified professionals, accurate data, and engineering-grade solutions.
Don’t wait for an incident to realize what should have been done. Schedule your arc flash analysis, implement mitigation recommendations, and keep your workers protected—because lives, productivity, and compliance depend on it.
Useful Resource: OSHA Recommended Practices
