I was surprised (OK, not really) to find that there are still companies that either do not have an electrical safety program or they just reference NFPA 70E (without having developed their own program).

So here is this week’s question:

Do you know of companies that presently do not have a formal electrical safety program?

Yes
No
Sort of – They use NFPA 70E but have no plan of their own.

Great Question! One thing I run into more than I should is when a client believes all they need for their electrical safety program is to buy a copy of NFPA 70E and follow it. The view it as the rule book so why create their own. These types of discussions often become quite interesting. Anyone else run into this?

I don't know of any industrial facilities like that. I do know of contractors and commercial businesses like that though.

I agree most mid sized and larger companies are pretty good at getting it right. These were a couple of very small almost mom and pop type industrial companies.

:roll: I have had a long discussion with a church, They had a Main service of well over 2000 amperes fed by utility transformers with very low impedance,, A 200 ampere circuit breaker failed, apparently due to a fault that exceeded its ratings. I made a rough calculation of the short circuit current and it probably exceeds a fault requiring CAT 4 clothing. The put a label on the main gear, stating "do not service while energized", They do not have panic hardware, or two means of escape, from the main service area that includes the gear and other panel boards. It is hard to convince lay people that these facilities with large equipment is no longer a simple easily serviced item, Oh well, I am seeing houses now with double an even triple 200 ampere panel boards :?: .

I have run into this situation a few times. It is also usually a very small company or commercial entity that has one person doing it all. They become quite upset when the evaluate the cost of setting up the program for 1 or 2 people, the study, labels etc.

The typical argument about the cost of the consequences of not doing anything is brought up and they counter with, they are barely keeping up financially, if this burden is added to their weak bottom line, it will be difficult.

For some they have said - not their problem, they hire a contractor. That leads into another interesting conversation....

Hello all!
I haven't posted in quite a while but this particular topic prompted me.

I spend a large amount of time teaching and consulting (developing electrical safety programs) for many types of organizations including manufacturing, construction, governmental organizations (so far several cities, one county and a regional airport) , property management companies, water districts and through the UCSD Extension to many safety professionals. In my spare time (that's a joke!), I work for an engineer (I am a Licensed Master Electrician and Commercial Inspector) doing coordination studies and arc flash studies all over Southern California.

I have found that there are many, many organizations that still (I have been directly involved in this since 2006) have outdated safety cultures, defective safety programs, misunderstandings about what it is and how to deal with it, or even non-existent programs. Usually their first response or action comes after an injury (my involvement hasn't followed any deaths) and investigation by one of the OSH agencies (state or federal) with subsequent citation and legal troubles. It is amazing sometimes.

That said, I have experienced a significant increase in the number of companies and other organizations that are now addressing the issue. But the number is still almost insignificant to the total number of entities that are not or at least have not to this date. Many of the larger entities are creating documents (like "Energized Electrical Work Permits" that are just checklists) for defense purposes and not really implementing the actions that would effectively bring their personnel to a point of really grasping and recognizing the hazard.

It is almost painful to see an "Electrical Safety Program and Lockout/Tagout Program" presented to me for review contained all on one page! And still to find contradictions within it! (Confusing statements such as, "Under no circumstances is energized work allowed", this from an electrical contractor. And then two lines later have the statement " When pushing a fish tape into a "live" (sic) panel, only nylon fish tapes shall be used.)(Huh?)

Well, in the end, I maintain a positive outlook about this and most assuredly progress is being made.

I have three large US / international clients. Two do not have proper electrical safety programs or rules that are understood and enforced at all their plants. One does have a world class corporate directed electrical safety program. Every maintenance worker in these plants has had arc flash training. The companies without the electrical safety programs do not have the same employee compliance with arc flash standards as the company with the safety program. Depending which of their facilities I visit, workers either ignore electrical safety requirements or don't quite understand or remember them. The next plant may be much more strict with enforcement of no hot work or require electrical hot work permits for working in de-energized, electrically safe equipment. Basically, a permit for any electrical troubleshooting or repairs. It's all over the place. Same for labeling arc flash. Some are very good. Some are very suspect and some still have no labels or are partially labelled.

Your experience with multi-location companies mirrors mine. It almost seems that adherence to a good electrical safety program it is a result of the personality and perseverance of an individual, local leader. Not any corporate or entity wide policy.

Many of them, as I said in my previous post, go through the machinations and seem to be addressing it, but lack any enforcement record. (that, it seems to me is the only real "proof" of administrative involvement and enforcement)

All of us are humans and have, or will, almost without exception, take(n) short-cuts at tasks that we have performed many times or are comfortable with. Therein lies much of the problem. We are not perfect, and in the pursuit of our daily lives we make errors that put ourselves and others at risk. "Whistling past the graveyard" is how I describe this attitude. Not a bad person, just distracted from the task at hand, or in a hurry, and it gets worse the more regularly we perform the task. It seems that even many of those who have had minor, or not so minor, incidents such as shock or arc flash burns don't believe that their very life and well-being is at risk.

Hi Folks

I really don't think I am saying anything that has not already been mentioned. Not to be negative, here in Canada companies just do not get it unfortunately. Trying to convince OHS, maintenance supervisors, etc that electrical safety is no different than lockout, fall protection, confined space, etc. it needs to be incorporated into the companies/ organizations overall OHS amagement system. Not just a so called awareness session that people perceive as training! Or better yet lets do an arc flash assessment, put up labels that none of their electricians can interpret the information. Lets not even talk about their PPE program. One hardhat/ faceshield for an entire electrical dept, same deal with rubber insulaing gloves with leather protectors, one pair for everyone. I have to agree with the previous post, lack of enforcement likely as a result of lack of management involvement is a good part of this problem

actually I do not know any companies with these programs

Of course most retailers, commercial building operators and many industries that do not maintain or "operate" their own power distribution system, probably do NOT have an electrical safety program. A surprising realization for many safety experts that the world isn't focused on their specialty (??).

That is true.
When I get into a conversation with organizations like those as well as manufacturers and others, who don't have a program, the usual statement from them is "I don't have to have one, I contract all of that out". Well the defect in that statements' logic is that under the multi-employer exposure concept they can be held equally (actually if they have deep pockets, more) liable for the actions of persons who are employees of the contractors or the contractors themselves.
It's surprising to them, and quite often they dispute it until they consult their own insurance broker or provider. Then dawns' light shines into their narrow view of responsibility.