NFPA 70E requires the electrical safety program to identify the controls by which it is measured and monitored 110.1(F). You could read this to mean such identification is just a documentation exercise. With that meaning to (mis)guide you, the electrical safety program loses its real-world value.
Article 90 says the purpose of NFPA 70E is “to provide a practical safe working area for employees relative to the hazards arising from the use of electricity” [90.1]. You can see this concept undergirding the standard as you read through it from there.
The reason those controls are identified is so you will make use of them on a regular basis. You can see examples of such controls in Informative Annex E, section E.2 “Typical Electrical Safety Program Controls.” Eight are listed.
Consider number 3. “Procedures are to be used to identify the electrical hazards and to develop job safety plans to eliminate those hazards or to control the associated risk for those hazards that cannot be eliminated.”
This example is a bit vague. It does not say who is to use the procedures or how often. Do you use the procedures for each job or just one out of 10? With a documentation exercise mentality, you do the minimum to satisfy the paper requirement. But with the mentality based on 90.1, everyone who “touches” the job in some way uses the relevant procedure(s) to determine what hazards may be present and how to eliminate those hazards. Or if a given hazard can’t be eliminated, determine how to control the risk (in an effective way) of that hazard.
While the who and the when are vague, there is no vagueness about the requirement to use procedures to do the identification and protection. The idea is to make the identification and protection process methodical and complete. If this were done on a “wing it” basis, many people would be put at unnecessary risk.
If there’s not, for example, a procedure for verifying deenergization, then Becky might forget to test her meter before and after taking the measurement — and Joe might not even know to do that.
A good way to use E.2 is for your team to have a weekly discussion on each of the eight. This would take eight weeks to complete, but it would be a very productive eight weeks from a safety perspective.
About the Author
Mark Lamendola
Mark is an expert in maintenance management, having racked up an impressive track record during his time working in the field. He also has extensive knowledge of, and practical expertise with, the National Electrical Code (NEC). Through his consulting business, he provides articles and training materials on electrical topics, specializing in making difficult subjects easy to understand and focusing on the practical aspects of electrical work.
Prior to starting his own business, Mark served as the Technical Editor on EC&M for six years, worked three years in nuclear maintenance, six years as a contract project engineer/project manager, three years as a systems engineer, and three years in plant maintenance management.
Mark earned an AAS degree from Rock Valley College, a BSEET from Columbia Pacific University, and an MBA from Lake Erie College. He’s also completed several related certifications over the years and even was formerly licensed as a Master Electrician. He is a Senior Member of the IEEE and past Chairman of the Kansas City Chapters of both the IEEE and the IEEE Computer Society. Mark also served as the program director for, a board member of, and webmaster of, the Midwest Chapter of the 7x24 Exchange. He has also held memberships with the following organizations: NETA, NFPA, International Association of Webmasters, and Institute of Certified Professional Managers.