Beware of the NFPA 780 Simplified Lightning Risk Assessment

Beware of the NFPA 780 Simplified Lightning Risk Assessment - E&S Grounding Solutions

The de facto standard for Lightning Protection in the US is NFPA 780: Standard for the Installation of Lightning Protection Systems.   Its Lightning Risk Assessment tool can be found in NFPA 780 Annex L and is broken down into two versions: the first is called the “Simplified Risk Assessment” and the other is the “Detailed Risk Assessment.”


The Simplified Lightning Risk Assessment is an extremely conservative assessment tool, using only very broad and generalized factors of risk for your site. You will know if you are using the Simplified Risk Assessment if you only need to answer five questions about your facility: location, construction materials, content value, occupancy, and if there are any environmental consequences to a shutdown of your facility. The resultant risk from the simplified assessment will almost certainly be above the default risk tolerance, thereby almost always ending up making a recommendation for your facility to install a full NFPA-Compliant Lightning Protection System.

This is why the NFPA 780 Simplified Lightning Risk Assessment is preferred by many Lightning Protection System Installation Firms, because it will nearly always assess that the customer’s risk is above the tolerable risk limit. This is a conflict of interest for the Installation Firm who are highly motivated to sell you costly Lightning Protection Systems.

 

New call-to-action

 

Instead, you should insist on using the NFPA 780 Detailed Lightning Risk Assessment. This will require answering dozens and dozens of complex questions about your facility; however, you will get a much more balanced and realistic calculation of your facility’s actual risk of lightning damage. If you are rightly concerned about a conflict of interest between an analysis and the sale of products, a third-party engineering firm, such as E&S Grounding Solutions, who are hired as electrical engineers working directly for your firm, will prevent a conflict of interests as they are not only incentivized, but ethically obligated, to provide a fair and accurate Lightning Risk Assessment on behalf of their customer.

Avoid the uncertainty and risk of not knowing if your facility really needs to install an expensive lightning protection system the risk of unnecessarily installing a Lightning Protection System — use a third-party electrical engineering firm to conduct an independent Detailed NFPA 780 Lightning Risk Assessment.

See services page Risk Assessments: Lightning Risk Assessments (esgrounding.com)

Access to FEMA LIGHTNING MAP here.

 

Let's Talk! Schedule a FREE Phone Consultation Today.

Wherever you're located, learn how good a fit we are for your project.

 



ground wire, main panel, ground, neutral, bond, Bonding Above-Grade Grounding & Earthing Systems, neutral-to-ground, Neutral and Ground separation

Related Posts

Why separate the ground bar from the neutral bar in a sub-panel? - E&S Grounding Ask the Experts

Why separate the ground bar from the neutral bar in a sub-panel?

Russ asked: How can I correctly separate the ground bar from the neutral bar in an electrical sub-panel?The Answer:

Read More
Can i tie the neutral and ground together?

Can i tie the neutral and ground together?

Installing (or not installing) a neutral-to-ground bond in your electrical panel is an especially important decision that impacts the electrical safety of the entire facility and all the people that...

Read More
What is the difference between neutral and ground wires? - E&S Grounding Ask the Experts

What is the difference between neutral and ground wires?

Raymond asked:What is the difference between neutral and ground wires?

Read More
Do I need a grounded conductor in my subpanel if all my loads are all 220v? - E&S Grounding Ask the Experts

Do I need a grounded conductor in my subpanel if all my loads...

Jack Asked:Do I need a grounded conductor (neutral) in my subpanel if all my loads are all 220v (i.e. 2-phase)?

Read More