Hello Group,
Any advice on how your clients or plants are handling the requirement to document a safety plan for each job that involves exposure to electrical hazards?

I work in a fairly large industrial plant. We have about 60 multicraft technicians and 2 or 3 electricians onsite on a given shift. My plant does have an extensive are flash study and our production floor equipment is all less than 1.2 cal @ 18 inches. I can see documenting a job plan with the electricians prior to planned work. My issue is with how to handle equipment troubleshooting situations. I would need to gather 10 to 20 job briefings a shift if we stop and document one each time panels are opened to troubleshoot production equipment. I am leaning toward the electrical safety SOP covering troubleshooting safety practices in less than 1.2 cal panels and not trying to crank out a repeat form every time we have to measure a fuse or relay in a control panel.

Thanks for any info or opinions.

There is a currently popular but stupid idea out there right now to have everyone do some sort of "take two" (from the video) or sometimes called a is a kr of a but it is not the same as a real, detailed jsa where you have a planning meeting to look at the safety hazards of a particular task similar to a hazop. Instead it's just a spur of the moment thing where everybody pencil whips a jsa/jha. There is no benefit or proven science behind it. It's a popular feel good thing with the safety generalists and it is directly the opposite of a real hazard analysis required by OSHA. This was pointed out in the public inputs during the 2018 development cycle but fell on deaf ears. Most of these are generic attempts and a waste of time.

Consider the hot work permit, also required by OSHA. When implemented correctly all that it is in reality is a checklist of things to look for that could become hazards. For instance one of the items on the list is looking for flammable within 25 feet. It does not say REMOVE them, just identify and take steps to protect them. This is much more productive.

A better approach is to have a checklist of electrical telltale hazards. For instance look for burn/char marks or liquids on the surface of or coming out of a cabinet. Feel for heat, smell for ozone or burned insulation. Look for tripped overcurrent protective devices. These are all indications of electrical equipment which is not operating under normal conditions so extra caution needs to be taken. If you have a crew and this sort of thing is a group exercise, it tends to reduce the likelihood of injury.

I have a file FULL of contractor badges, safety training sheets, etc., on my truck. I do several contractor safety training procedures per month, on top of real training. Some are done really well. I can honestly say Williams (oil and gas service company) does one of the best. DuPont is a paperwork nightmare and a safety joke despite being put up on a pedestal which might have been deserved 20 years ago. Many of my customers have never heard of arc flash or dont understand it. And many have done arc flash hazarc analysjs but less than 1% have done an electrical risk assessment. And the abive field analysis js NOT a risk assessment, and neither is IEEE 1584. Risk assessments are a totally different effort that is done in an office. Safety generalists keep trying to substitute a field hazard identification which is what 70E is pushing for and calling that a risk assessment which it isn't. HAZOP, structured what if, what if, etc...those are risk assessments. The Robot Industry Association RIA standard has one of the best that is easily adopted to electrical tasks.

Hi All,
I have been wrestling with this topic also, Article 110.1(I) Job Safety Planning and Job Briefing. Is it the standards intent that this would equally apply to diagnostic/troubleshooting and repair/maintenance activities including all the requirements of the "Job Safety Plan" and "Job Briefing"? It seems a bit unworkable when it comes to diagnostics/troubleshooting activities? If we have in fact met the training requirements of 110.2(A), "Electrical Safety training", and the employee is truly a qualified person per 110.2(A)(1) it would seem like the worker was adequately prepared for most troubleshooting task. I understand that each job would have to be considered on an individual bases due to equipment design or condition. For example if a bolt on cover had to be removed some additional thought would have to be given to the task.
Thanks in advance for any insights you can share,
Jerry