A well-developed safety program, in this case an electrical safety program (ESP), is crucial for protecting the most important part of any corporation; employees. The ESP must involve all levels of employees in order to identify and correct issues. The goal of the ESP should be to proactively address workplace hazards which is a more effective approach than reacting to injuries and fatalities caused by those hazards. An employer is required by NFPA 70E, Standard for Electrical Safety in the Workplace to implement and document an overall ESP that directs activity appropriate to the risk associated with electrical hazards. For those who need to start an ESP, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration identifies 10 steps to help get the ball rolling: Always set safety and health as the top priority – assure employees that getting them home safely is a priority. Lead by example – make safety part of your interaction with employees and practice safety yourself. Implement a reporting system – encourage reporting of any safety issue without fear of reprisal. Provide training - train employees on how to identify and control hazards. Conduct inspections - Inspect the workplace with employees and ask for about their concerns. Collect hazard control ideas - Ask employees for improvement ideas and follow up on their ideas. Implement hazard controls – Task employees with choosing, implementing, and evaluating their solutions. Address emergencies - Identify foreseeable emergency scenarios and develop what to do in each case. Seek input on workplace changes - Before making significant changes, consult with employees to identify potential issues. Make improvements - Set a regular time to discuss safety and health and identify ways of improving the program. An ESP must also be documented. Once you've started down the path with the above 10 steps, NFPA 70E lists specific items that must be part of an ESP. Remember that a standard is a minimum set of requirements and much more can be included. An ESP may be more effective when it is implemented as part of an overall occupational health and safety management system. NFPA 70E requires that the following items be addressed by an ESP: Inspection – Safety relies on verifying that that newly installed or modified electrical equipment or systems complies with applicable installation codes and standards prior to being placed into service. Condition of Maintenance – Electrical safety is greatly impacted by the condition of maintenance of electrical equipment and systems. Awareness and Self-Discipline – Employees must be instilled with an awareness of the potential electrical hazards and the self-discipline to control their own safety when working around electrical hazards. Principles – The EPS must identify the principles upon which it is based. Controls – The EPS must identify the controls by which it is measured and monitored. Procedures – Procedures detail the tasks to be conducted. Documented procedures must be in place before work is started by employees exposed to an electrical hazard. Risk Assessment Procedure – Procedures for shock and arc flash risk assessments procedures must documented. Job Safety Planning and Job Briefing - Before starting each job that involves exposure to electrical hazards, a job safety plan and a job must be conducted. Incident Investigations – Elements for electrical incident investigation must be included and should address incidents that do not result in injury. Auditing – A method for auditing the ESP, as well as field audits of employee performance of tasks must be included. It is always a good idea to begin with a basic program then let it grow. Continuous improvement is important. By achieving modest goals, monitoring performance, evaluating outcomes, and implementing improvements, higher levels of safety can be achieved. By using NFPA 70E and visiting the OSHA web page at www.osha. gov/shpguidelines, you should be able to develop a well-thought out electrical safety program. The main goal of a safety program is to prevent workplace injuries and fatalities. Remember, electrical safety doesn't only affect the employer and the employee, but the employee's family burdened with the suffering and financial hardship cause by injuries and fatalities. For additional information and resources related to NFPA 70E, check out our blog series on NFPA Xchange.

Section 130.5(H) has specific requirements for equipment labels when there are electrical hazards present. For some reason, users of NFPA 70E, Standard for Electrical Safety in the Workplace have trouble applying Exception No. 1 (compliance with a previous edition) and the requirement that the data be reviewed for accuracy within 5 years. Looking at these as two separate issues may help those who are confused on applying the rules. The exception applies to the information on an existing label. The intent is not to require replacement of labels when electrical safety is not affected. The exception assumes that the applied label complied with a previous edition of the standard. For example, a previous edition of the standard required only an incident energy or HRC on the label. A subsequent edition required the arc-flash boundary. The current edition uses PPE categories. If nothing else has changed in the electrical system, these labels would not need to be replaced. Depending on how your facility handles electrical safety there may be reasons to change the label to the current labeling method for consistency or due to your written safety procedures. A qualified person has been trained to understand how to apply the appropriate safety procedures for any affixed, compliant label. Notice that the exception is applicable upon adoption of the current standard. It is not based on a 5-year review. The 5-year review applies to all evaluated equipment. A review is not required to occur once every five years. It is required that a review not exceed five years. You are responsible for being aware of changes in the electrical system at your facility. It is your responsibility to conduct a review whenever a modification may change or increase the electrical hazards that an employee might be exposed to. If distribution equipment is modified the day after the labels were applied, it would be necessary to conduct a review that next day. The review may be conducted within 5 years of the last review when no known changes to the electrical system have occurred. This of course, assumes that you have conducted proper equipment maintenance, purchased the exact replacement fuse or circuit breaker for the system, and did not install auxiliary power equipment for power outages. Another point of confusion is what is required as part of this review. The word review was chosen to be exactly that. It does not require that an entire risk analysis or re-calculation be performed within five years. You must review the systems to which the risk assessment was based on. If proper maintenance has been performed, no overcurrent devices were replaced, no new risks are present based on new equipment tasks, etc., then a note could be added in the file that the review revealed no changes in the electrical system have affected electrical safety. If equipment was not maintained, if the replacement circuit breaker specifications are different, or if the utility swapped out the facility transformer, there may be concern. A new risk assessment should be conducted to verify or change the label information. As usual, all this is necessary to protect the employee from injury. Anything that effects their safety must be addressed in a timely manner. Hopefully, the label and risk assessment reviews are just another area where you go beyond the minimum requirements of the standard. For more information on 70E, read my entire 70E blog series on Xchange.  Want to keep track of what is happening with the National Electrical Code (NEC)? Subscribe to the NEC Connect newsletter to stay informed of new content. The newsletter also includes NFPA 70E information such as my blogs. Next time: A host employer is responsible for the safety of contract employees.

People tend to get hung up on whether or not it is safe to work on a specific piece of electrical equipment. Often the hang up is caused by an attempt to classify a task as electrical work or non-electrical work. Working on electrical equipment or performing non-electrical work are really just terms. When it comes to electrical safety the task being performed does play a role in the steps to be taken in protecting the employee. However, the electrical hazard is really the issue. What doesn't change, regardless of what the assigned task is considered, is whether or not the employee is exposed to an electrical hazard.  Consider the exposure to electrical hazards without classifying a set of tasks as electrical or non-electrical. An equipment label indicates that the restricted approach boundary is 2 feet, 2 inches, the limited approach boundary is 5 feet and the arc-flash boundary is 14 feet. An employee is removing the bolts to open the enclosure although the equipment is not yet placed into an electrical safe work condition. Another employee who will do a thermography scan and a maintenance worker assigned to vacuum out the equipment are standing 4 feet away. Another worker is standing 2 feet away ready to establish an electrically safe work condition after the thermography scan is completed. Another worker is painting the ceiling 10 feet away. There will be exposed electrical hazards when the enclosure is opened. What does 130.2 require? It requires that an electrical equipment be placed in an electrically safe work condition whenever the exposed voltage will be above 50 volts or when someone is interacting with equipment that increases the likelihood of an arc-flash unless the exposure is justified. Section 130.3 requires that employees be protected when working while exposed to electrical hazards. What exposed hazards will put each of these employees at risk? Start with the employee unbolting the enclosure's cover. This employee will be within the restricted approach boundary during the removal of the cover. Not only will the employee be inside the arc-flash boundary at that time but will be interacting with the equipment in such a way to increase the likelihood of an arc-flash. The employee who is responsible for establishing the electrically safe work condition is also within all three boundaries. The thermography and maintenance employees are within the limited approach boundary as well as the arc-flash boundary. What of the worker whose back is to the equipment while painting the ceiling? That worker is within the arc-flash boundary and may not know what is occurring behind her.  There are so many things that I would do differently, but this blog is to illustrate a point. NFPA 70E®,Standard for Electrical Safety in the Workplace® does not deem a task as electrical or non-electrical work. It requires that all employees be protected from electrical hazards. There are specific requirements on how to do so based on the boundary being crossed. Who is permitted to cross a specific boundary and what should occur upon doing so is also addressed. It does not matter if an employee's title is mechanic, electrician, maintenance worker, technician, contractor, or painter. NFPA 70E uses the terms qualified and unqualified person. All five employees are at risk of being injured by an arc-flash. Two of the employees are at increased risk of being shocked (electrocuted) and two more are exposed to a shock hazard.  How you classify a task at your facility is semantics when it comes to electrical safety. What will be your justification for the painter's injury following an arc-flash incident? That she was not working on the electrical equipment will not be acceptable. It will not matter that the thermographer was doing something deemed non-electrical when the arc-flash occurred. Is the injury different because the employee removing the cover is a technician when he is electrocuted due to a loose, energized wire? If you want to get hung up on an electrical term, make ithazards. Adequately protect all employees performing any task around any electrical hazard. Even better, don't expose an employee to an electrical hazard. For more information on 70E, read my entire 70E blog series on Xchange.  Want to keep track of what is happening with the National Electrical Code® (NEC®)? Subscribe to the NEC Connect newsletter to stay informed of new content. The newsletter also includes NFPA 70E information such as my blogs. Next time: Arc-flash label replacement and risk assessment reviews.

With the number of electrical contact fatalities in the workplace being relatively flat since 2012 (average 146 fatalities with a range of 134 to 156), I decided to look into what the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) database provides for the electrical parts contributing to these fatalities. Perhaps if more of us have knowledge of who and what are involved in electrocutions we can further reduce the number of fatalities.  The 1980-1992 data from the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) National Traumatic Occupational Fatalities Report (May 1998) shows a high of 582 electrical contact fatalities in 1981. An average of 411 fatalities occurred over those dozen years with the construction industry accounting for a majority of the fatalities. The most frequent victims were linesmen, laborers, electricians and painters. Thirty-three percent of the electrocutions occurred at less than 600 volts. Of these low-voltage electrocutions, 54% occurred at household voltage levels (120-240 volts). Fatalities at all voltages were caused by: direct worker contact with an energized powerline (28%); direct worker contact with energized equipment (21%); boomed vehicle contact with an energized powerline (18%); improperly installed or damaged equipment (17%); conductive equipment contact with an energized powerline (16%). Over 60% of the electrical contact fatalities occurred by contact with overhead power lines. The BLS database shows an annual average of 269 electrical contact fatalities between 1992-2010 with a high of 348 in 1994. Although listed differently, the construction industry still suffered the most fatalities over this period. The three leading causes of electrical contact fatalities were: contact with overhead power lines (43%), contact with wiring, transformers, or other electrical components (16%) and contact with electric current of machine, tool, appliance, or light fixture (10%).  The BLS lists an annual average of 152 fatalities between 2011-2017 with a high of 174 fatalities in 2011. Once more the construction industry suffered the most fatalities. Recording of the fatalities and the equipment involved changed in 2011. Now power lines, transformers, and convertors are included in one category which accounted for 59% of the fatalities, followed by building electrical wiring (15%) and power cords, electrical cords, extension cords (10%) and switchboards, switches, fuses (8%).  An encouraging note from this data is that there has been an annual decrease of 76% in electrical contact fatalities since 1982. Which not surprisingly began to decrease after the issuance and increased use of the first edition (1979)  NFPA 70E®, Standard for Electrical Safety in the Workplace®®. A discouraging statistic is that nearly 60% of the annual fatalities over 40 years have consistently been through contact with overhead wires. I looked through available NIOSH case studies to find out who the victims were. Electricians, linesmen, painters, grounds keepers, roofers, and tree trimmers are common victims. A majority of their fatalities involved the use of a ladder. Other victims include well drillers, dump and cement truck drivers, and boom truck operators. Most of these involved parking near or beneath overhead power lines then raising a portion of the truck. It is disturbing that awareness of the work area could be a simple way to cut electrocutions in the workplace nearly in half. Standard for Electrical Safety in the Workplace as its title suggests, is for all employees who might be exposed to electrical hazards while performing their assigned tasks. However, many employers and employees tend to believe that it is written only for those in the electrical industry. This may be one reason for so many overhead power line fatalities occurring even though NFPA 70E has requirements specifically covering this scenario. Fatalities are occurring in trades that may be mistaken in the belief that an electrical safety program does not apply to them. It is foreseeable that employees from these other trades will be exposed to electrical hazards. A field, yard, roadway or rooftop is their work environment. Federal law mandates that an employer furnish to each of his employees' employment and a place of employment which are free from recognized hazards that are causing or are likely to cause death or serious physical harm to his employees. If you are not in an “electrical trade” what does your employer do to ensure your electrical safety at your workplace? For more information on 70E, read my entire 70E blog series on Xchange.  Want to keep track of what is happening with the National Electrical Code® (NEC®)to the NEC Connect newsletter to stay informed of new content. The newsletter also includes NFPA 70E information such as my blogs. Next time: Where are the employees who are exposed to electrical hazards? Please Note: Any comments, suggested text changes, or technical issues related to NFPA Standards posted or raised in this communication are not submissions to the NFPA standards development process and therefore will not be considered by the technical committee(s) responsible for NFPA Standards development.  To learn how to participate in the NFPA standards development process and submit proposed text for consideration by the responsible technical committee(s), please go to www.nfpa.org/submitpi for instructions.

Reply to this statement if you are capable of being truthful to yourself. I have always followed my electrical safety training. Unfortunately, for majority of us, the honest answer is no, I have not always followed my safety training. For some of us it may have been when working on a 120-volt circuit. For others it may have been a 13.8 kV system. It really doesn't matter what the voltage, current or incident energy was. Nearly 25% of the electrical contact fatalities occur at or below 220 volts. Most of us work on electrical systems that have the capacity to kill. A fatality has probably been recorded for the type of electrical system you work on. It would be surprising to meet someone who did not know that contact with electricity can be fatal. Yet, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, since 2003 there has been an annual average of 186 electrocutions in the workplace. The first question is why do we put ourselves at risk of becoming a fatality? We have been trained to recognize and avoid electrical hazards but still we put ourselves at risk. We know that our death is a potential outcome of performing the task the way we intend to do the work. We know that the circuit should be deenergized regardless of voltage or incident energy. If energized work is justified, we know we should get the appropriate tools and use the correct personal protective equipment. However, at some point in our career we do not shut off the system or take the trip out to the truck to get the proper gear. The next question is why do we decide to risk our life? Over my career, the most common answer is that we can't be bothered: we can't be bothered to shut the system down; we can't be bothered to walk downstairs to the panelboard; we can't be bothered to take the time necessary to correctly don the protective gear; we can't be bothered to come back tomorrow to finish up the work; we can't be bothered to take time to explain to our employer that being at risk is wrong; we can't be bothered to forego accepting a job that puts us at risk, and/or we can't be bothered to protect ourselves when a task will only take a few moments.  So, we justify risking our lives to ourselves: the disconnect is too far away; I know what I am doing; they will not let me shut the production line down; the protective gear makes it difficult to work; I have never been injured doing it this way; I shut it off so it must be off; my shift is done in a few minutes; I won't make a mistake; I've been shocked before; it's only 277 volts, and/or if I don't do it someone else will. Unfortunately for many of us, we justify putting a paycheck ahead of our life. Sometime during our career, many of us have put ourselves at risk of becoming a fatality regardless of our safety training. We may have done so with no adverse consequence. In that case no one is the wiser. No harm, no foul? We may have taken a risk and ended up with a temporary injury or some time away from work. Were we rewarded for being a hero who took an undue risk or were we tagged as an employee who violated the rules? Worse yet, some have risked their life and lost. Was the consequence of becoming a fatality and its impact on their family considered when they justified ignoring their safety training?  No one alive can know the answer to that question. For more information on 70E,read my entire 70E blog series on Xchange.  Want to keep track of what is happening with the National Electrical Code® (NEC®)? Subscribeto the NEC Connect newsletter to stay informed of new content. The newsletter also includes NFPA 70E information such as my blogs. Next time: What is causing electrical contact fatalities? Please Note: Any comments, suggested text changes, or technical issues related to NFPA Standards posted or raised in this communication are not submissions to the NFPA standards development process and therefore will not be considered by the technical committee(s) responsible for NFPA Standards development.  To learn how to participate in the NFPA standards development process and submit proposed text for consideration by the responsible technical committee(s), please go to www.nfpa.org/submitpi for instructions.

Electrical safety in the workplace is not as clear cut as many would like. It would be easier if boxes could be checked and safety would be achieved. However, a detailed step-by-step checklist is not possible. Although the basic concept of not being exposed to an electrical hazard is the crux of electrical safety, the organization, management, and employee have a substantial impact on achieving that goal. There are signs throughout the system that may point to problems needing to be addressed to bring things back in line. The organization should review a program or process if personal ownership has taken a back seat to numerous, inefficient, or cumbersome processes. Another problem indicator at the organization level could be that no one is assigned ownership for high risk tasks. It is not uncommon for a risky behavior to become the norm (standard operating procedure) when a bad outcome does not occur for the situation. It is also not a good sign for the organization when a program or procedure is developed then put on the shelf as a job well done. Electrical safety is a continual process. Those in a supervisory role affect the safety culture of a business. A supervisor who is not on-site may not be aware of conditions affecting safety or of the attitude of employees. This can also lead to the supervisor being unaware of how employees perceive the risks associated with assigned tasks and how those risks are managed. Completion of a task without an adverse outcome, when undue risk is taken, tends become the basis for continuing current practices. The supervisor may use this flawed performance indicator as justification for existing risk management strategies. Lastly, another sign of weakness at the supervisory level is when delegation is lacking. Personal ownership goes a long way in maintaining a safety culture. An employee is at risk during the course of a normal workday and as such their performance is critical to an organization's safety culture. This is also the level where human performance issues are prevalent. Employees start considering their work activities as routine after time on the job. They may self-impose production pressures when no quota is conveyed by the organization. An employee may make risky judgments without taking the time to fully understand the situation in order to meet an unwarranted production goal. Some employees may take pride in their ability to work through or with levels of risk that could have been mitigated or eliminated. Such actions without an adverse outcome become the basis for continuing that practice. Employees may not communicate the risks associated with their assigned task effectively up the company. They may assume that the next level of supervision knows or understands the risk involved. Worse than this, employees may assume that are insufficient resources to manage the risk. Lastly, another indicator of a safety culture weakness is that problem reporting is not transparent. This leads to employees who are not willing to report a high-risk condition. There are many more indicators that an organization's safety culture is not as solid as perceived. Oversight of the organization's culture is necessary in order to positively affect safety. All organizational levels must be proactively involved with establishing and maintaining an electrical safety program. Otherwise, indicators such as I have pointed out could be a starting point for an incident investigator. Want to keep track of what is happening with the National ElectricalCode®(NEC®)? Subscribeto theNEC Connect newsletterto stay informed of new content. The newsletter also includes NFPA 70E information such as my blogs. Next time: Can you be honest with yourself? Please Note: Any comments, suggested text changes, or technical issues related to NFPA Standards posted or raised in this communication are not submissions to the NFPA standards development process and therefore will not be considered by the technical committee(s) responsible for NFPA Standards development. To learn how to participate in the NFPA standards development process and submit proposed text for consideration by the responsible technical committee(s), please go towww.nfpa.org/submitpifor instructions.