Electric Shock Injuries from Static Electricity Discharges
Copyright Material IEEE
Paper No. ESW2011--17
H. Landis Floyd II, PE, CSP, CMRP, Fellow IEEE
DuPont
P.O. Box 80723 Wilmington, DE 19880 USA
H.L.Floyd@ieee.org
Abstract: Most people are aware of electrostatic discharges
(ESD) at two extremes - the annoying shock from static
accumulation from sliding across an automobile seat or
shuffling across a carpet, and the highly dangerous and
destructive energy discharge in lightning strikes. Between
these two extremes are static discharges from manufacturing
operations that can cause shock injuries. Hazards of static
electricity in industrial and manufacturing operations are
generally viewed as a potential ignition source in flammable and
explosive environments, or destructive to semiconductor
electronic devices, but not as a source for shock injury.
Measures to control the static electricity shock hazard and
safeguard people are not addressed in the most visible and
applied standards addressing electrical safety in the workplace.
This paper describes manufacturing and other industrial
scenarios in which the potential for injury from static electricity
discharges exist, and discuss methods to prevent, control, and
protect personnel from injury.
I. Introduction
Headlines: Worker in film manufacturing plant dies from an
electric shock received from an electrostatic discharge [1]. Is
this possible? Protecting workers from electric shock injuries
due to electrostatic discharges is not addressed in NFPA 70E,
Standard for Electrical Safety in the Workplace or in NFPA 77,
Recommended Practice on Static Electricity. Workplace
hazards from static electricity are generally considered in terms
of ignition of explosive or flammable environments [2]. It is also
widely recognized that static discharges can damage or destroy
semiconductor devices [3]. The shocks received after scuffling
feet across a carpet, or sliding across an automobile seat on a
low humidity day are annoying, but do not present a serious
electric shock exposure. These discharges typically involve
voltages in the range of 20,000 volts and energies of 60
millijoules. Elementary school science experiments frequently
include demonstrations of Van de Graaff generators with
thousands of volts, with no danger. On the other end of the
spectrum, lightning is an electrostatic discharge phenomena
that is well respected as being dangerous to people. An
atmospheric lightning strike can be 100 million volts, with 500
megajoules of energy. Somewhere between the annoying
carpet shocks and atmospheric lightning strikes lies a threshold
above which the electrostatic discharge creates a hazardous
electric shock exposure.
II. Recent reported incidents
In November 2009, a manufacturing plant in Virginia reported
two electric shock injuries from electrostatic discharges. The
978-1-4673-1059-8/11/$26.00 ©2011 IEEE
two workers suffered soft tissue injuries from involuntary violent
muscular reaction from electrostatic discharges in a high speed
web manufacturing operation. The investigations noted
multiple deficiencies in static electricity mitigation measures.
Electronic static eliminators were defective, humidity control
was not operating and procedures for manually discharging
static energy accumulation were not being followed.
In May 2010, the news media in Louisville, Kentucky reported a
fatal electrocution from a static discharge form a high speed
film manufacturing operation in the Louisville area. At the time
this paper was written, the Kentucky Bureau of Labor had not
released investigation details.
In the summer of 2010, the author received a report of a worker
on a wind generator tower receiving an electric shock injury
form an electrostatic discharge from the turbine blades. The
investigation discovered that the normally grounded blades
were not grounded due to a failure in the lightning protection
system. The ungrounded blades had accumulated a static
charge, apparently either from dust blown across the blades, or
from atmospheric electrical charge.
III. How Static Electricity is Generated, Stored and
Causes Injury
Static electricity can be generated in several ways, including
mechanical stress (piezoelectric effect), heat induced
(pyroelectric effect) and electrostatic induction (when an
electrical charged object is brought close to a neutral object).
The triboelectric effect, or contact induced charge separation
when different materials rub together, is the most common
cause of static electriCity in every day life and in industrial and
manufacturing operations. Liquid flowing though a pipe, dust
conveyed in a pneumatic tube and non conductive material
moving across rollers are common examples of scenarios
capable of generating static electricity via the triboelectric effect.
The energy that can be stored is determined by the capacitance
characteristics of the object or system exposed to the
generated voltage. For example, the human body is typically
modeled as a 100 picofarad capacitor. 35,000 volts is generally
considered the maximum static charge on the human body,
because potentials higher than this are bled off due to corona
discharges. Using these variables, the maximum static energy
stored on a person can be calculated.
2
E=Y2CV
Where E= energy in joules, C= capacitance in farads and
V= potential in volts.
 12 3 2
E= % (100 X10- farads) (35 x10 volts)
E= 61 millijoules
Modeling electrostatic discharge energy in industrial processes
is a difficult challenge, and beyond the scope of this paper. The
two variables that determine severity of the shock exposure are
potential and capacitance. Recent literature has identified high
speed web handling processes as an area of concem in which
there is potential for high voltages and high capacitive storage
of energy [4). Trends in increasing production speeds will
augment this exposure scenario. The anecdotal report of an
ESD injury from an ungrounded wind turbine blade is from an
industry that is growing rapidly, which means potentially
increasing exposure to this scenario. All this points to the need
to address these and similar exposures in existing workplace
safety standards.
High voltage in itself may not be hazardous, unless the energy
storage capacity is greater than 5000 mJ (5 Joules). The
potential injury consequences from exposure to electrostatic
discharges are the same as those from exposure to energy
from an electric power system and include the following:
• Reaction to the shock such that the victim is exposed
to other hazards, such as falling, caught in machinery,
or contact with electrical energy form the power
system
• Soft tissue and musculoskeletal injuries from the
violent muscle contraction caused by electrical
stimulus
• Neurological trauma
• Limb amputation as a result of cellular injury from
electroporation, or the cell rupture caused by the
electrical field impressed on the cell membrane.
• Death due to ventricular fibrillation
IV. Review of Regulations and Standards
OSHA publication 3075, Controlling Electrical Hazards notes
that shocks can occur from static electricity and states that
under certain circumstances the shock can be severe [5).
NFPA 70E-2009, Standard for Electrical Safety in the
Workplace is silent on the shock hazards of electrostatic
discharges. The hazard of electrostatic discharges seems to
be outside the scope of NFPA 70E, considering this statement
in article 90.1 Purpose: The purpose of this standard is to
provide a practical safe working area for employees relative to
the hazards arising from the use of electricity [6). The
electrostatic exposure is not from the use of electricity, but
rather an undesirable byproduct of a manufacturing process.
NFPA 77-2007 Recommended Practice on Static Electricity has
this statement as part of its scope in Article 1.1.2: This
recommended practice does not apply directly to shock hazards
from static electricity. However, application of the principles set
forth in this recommended practice can reduce such shock
hazards to personnel [7).
IEC 60479.2 Effects of current on human beings and livestock­
Part 2: Special aspects, states that an electrostatic discharge
with energy greater than 5000 mJ is a direct serious risk to
human health [8). By comparison, as little as 0.2 mJ may
present an ignition hazard, and the energy needed to damage
semiconductor electronic devices is between 2 and 1000
nanojoules [3).
IEC 60065 Audio, video and similar electronic apparatus -
Safety requirements states that consumer products cannot
discharge more than 350 mJ into a person [9).
V. Recent Advancements in Understanding the
Hazard
Most of the literature addressing electrostatic discharges and
people discuss discharges from rather than tQ people. In 1998
Shelton noted that progressing technology in high speed film
and web processing operations were resulting in faster
production speeds with increased shock risk to people from
electrostatic discharges [3). In 2007 the National Safety
Council issued a bulletin titled Shock Treatment: Preventing the
Unseen Dangers of Static Electricity. The bulletin included this
statement: "Very large ESD (electrostatic discharges) events­
those typically greater than 80,000 volts - are extremely
dangerous. Such sparks can knock a person to the floor and
cause injuries. These high ESD voltages often are found in and
around high-speed web processing equipmenf' [10).
At the 2009 IEEE lAS Electrical Safety Workshop, Gordon and
Cartelli noted in their paper, A Complete Electrical Hazard
Classification System and Its Application, that the US
Department of Energy Electrical Safety Handbook (1998) had
established 10 Joules as the threshold for capacitor shock. It
was also noted that one laboratory had lowered this to 5 Joules
[11). This correlates to the 5000 mJ limit established in IEC
60479.2.
VI. Limitations of Safe Work Practices Common in
Power Systems
Most of the safe work practices proven to help safeguard
people form electric shock hazards from electric power systems
are not effective for protection from exposure to electrostatic
discharges. The concept of creating an electrically safe
working condition does not apply in the same way as it does
where the energy source is from a power system. For example,
consider a large roll of film that has been removed from the
production line. Assuming that it has an electrostatic charge,
the energy source cannot be locked out. The material is an
insulator, so grounding does not discharge the voltage, as
grounding would on a conductor. For insulators, touching a
charged surface may only discharge the potential in close
proximity to the grounded spot.
VII. Methods to Control Static Electricity
Prevention of static energy accumulation and discharges in
conductive components of piping and conveying systems is
addressed in detail in NFPA 70, National Electrical Code and
NFPA 77. Mitigation and control of static electricity associated
with conductive components involves permanent bonding and
grounding of components such as structural steel, fixed piping
and pneumatic tubes, and temporary bonding of temporary or
portable objects such as fuel trucks and hand carried
containers of flammable liquids.
Mitigation and control of static electricity involving non
conductive materials require different measures also described
in NFPA 77. These measures include application of ion
generators to neutralize static charges, maintaining humidity
above 65% relative humidity so that accumulated static charges
are discharged to the atmosphere, application of antistatic
agents to insulating materials, and inductive neutralizers that
include fixed and portable grounded wands and brushes
incorporated in the manufacturing process. Each of these
measures necessitates maintenance, monitoring, and training
to help maintain and assure effectiveness.
VIII. Conclusion and Recommendations
Although the flammable ignition and semiconductor damage
risks are well defined and addressed in industry standards,
there is generally a high tolerance for allowing personnel
exposure to electrostatic discharges. The variables and
scenarios that can lead to serious injury consequences are not
well documented. Frequent experiences with low energy carpet
shocks tend to create an under appreciation for the potentially
serious exposures.
There is little data to help quantify how many InJunes are
attributable to electrostatic discharge injuries, however the
number is likely small compared to the injures from power
system exposures, None the less, the hazards are real and the
injuries are preventable. Attitudes towards injury potential to
people tend to be guided by commonly held beliefs that static
shocks are at worst annoying. Recognized standards are
limited to addressing hazards of ignition, not injury, from static
discharges. There is a gap between the two prominent
standards relevant in North America, NFPA 70E and NFPA 77.
NFPA 70E is silent on the shock hazards of static electricity and
NFPA 77 mentions but does not go in depth in addressing
shock hazard to people.
It would seem logical that the expert resources supporting
workplace electrical safety also have knowledge of electrostatic
discharge hazards. Toward that end, the following efforts could
help close the gap:
1. Some type of coordination could be established
between NFPA 77 and NFPA 70E to close the gap
within the context of NFPA standards
2. An Annex in NFPA 70E could summarize best
practices to control and prevent shock exposures from
electrostatic discharges in the workplace
3. A complimentary reference to the proposed NFPA
70E annex could be added to NFPA 77
We need to change the electrical safety culture with respect to
electrostatic discharges. While most electrostatic discharges do
not present a serious shock hazard, some scenarios do.
Electrical safety experts need to be knowledgeable of this
potential and recognized industry standards need to provide
comprehensive treatment of the electrostatic discharge
hazards, including ignition of flammable and explosive
environments, damage to electronic devices and shock injury to
people.
IX. References
[1] Lex18.com, Woman Shocked Last Week Dies, (retrieved
May 12, 2010) (www.lex18.com)
[2] Kassebaum, J.H., and Kocken, R.A., "Controlling Static
Electricity in Hazardous (Classified) Locations", IEEE
Transactions on Industry Applications, vol. 33, no. 1,
January/February 1997, pp 209 -215
[3] Guide to Prevent Damage For Semiconductor Devices by
Electrostatic Discharge (ESD), Renesas Electronics
Corporation (formerly NEC Corporation), Document No.
C11892EJ1V11FOO (1st edition), July 1997
[4] Shelton, S., A Practical Guide to Controlling Electrostatic
Charges on Film Webs, proceedings of the 1998 Polymer
Lamination and Coating Conference, Technical
Association of the Pulp and Paper Industries
[5] OSHA 3075, Controlling Electrical Hazards, (retrieved
October 15, 2010) (www.osha.gov/Publicationsl3075.html)
[6] NFPA 70E-2009 Standard for Electrical Safety in the
Workplace, National Fire Protection Association, Quincy,
MA.
[7] NFPA 77-2007, Recommended Practice on Static
Electricity, National Fire Protection Association, Quincy,
MA.
[8] IEC 60479.2, Effects of current on human beings and
livestock - Part 2: Special aspects, International
Electrotechnical Commission
[9] IEC 60065, Audio, video and similar electronic apparatus­
Safety requirements, International Electrotechnical
Commission
[10] Shock Treatment: Preventing the Unseen Dangers of
Static Electricity, 2007, National Safety CounCil, Itasco, IL
[11] Gordon, L.B. and Cartelli, L., A Complete Electrical Hazard
Classification System and Its Application, 2009 IEEE lAS
Electrical Safety Workshop, February 2-6, 2009, st. Louis,
MO
X. Vita
H. Landis "Lanny" Floyd II received his BSEE form Virginia
Tech and joined DuPont in 1973. For the past 25 years, his
responsibilities have largely focused on electrical systems
reliability and electrical safety in the construction, operation and
maintenance of DuPont facilities worldwide. He is currently
Principal Consultant, Electrical Safety & Technology and is
responsible for improving management systems, competency
renewal, work practices, and the application of technologies
critical to electrical safety performance in all DuPont operations;
and the application of this knowledge and experience to
electrical safety products DuPont brings to the marketplace. He
has published or presented more than 100 technical papers,
magazine articles, tutorials and workshop presentations on
electrical safety and electrical technology. He is an IEEE
Fellow, a professional member of American Society of Safety
Engineers, a member of NFPA NEC panel 1 and 70E Task
Group on Maintenance Requirements, a member of CSA Z462
Technical Committee, a board director of Electrical Safety
Foundation International, a Certified Safety Professional, a
Certified Maintenance & Reliability Professional, and a
registered professional engineer in Delaware.