It is hard to imagine but the 2024 revision cycle for NFPA 70E is well underway. Thinking about the evolution of this important electrical safety standard which was first published back in 1979 (I was still in college) I have had discussions with various individuals about its trajectory. Let me explain.

The standard originally began with the intent of clarifying OSHA requirements to protect electrical workers in the field and was written from the workers perspective. Over time, more and more administrative requirements have been added as well as more technical details. The discussion that I have had with many people over time is about their concern that NFPA 70E may be getting too slanted towards a management perspective and too complicated for use by the electrical worker.

This week’s question:

Since first introduced in 1979, do you believe NFPA 70E has become:
• Too administrative
• Too technical
• Both too administrative and technical
• Neither - It is a Good balance as is

Your thoughts are encouraged and welcome!

Personally, when first introduced to NFPA 70E back in 2005, I have to admit it was a little confusing to me due to my background in the electric utility industry.

For example, common OSHA terms used in the electric utilities such as MAD, clearances, enclosed spaces, etc. were non-existent in 70E and yet new and strange words associated with "boundaries" such as prohibited, restricted, limited and flash boundaries and terms like incident energy, working distance, HRC, etc. were used throughout the standard, to name just a few differences.

However, over time as I continued my training in, use of and exposure to 70E, I developed a deeper understanding and practical use of this very important electrical safety standard and how it relates to both the OSHA standards and other NFPA codes and standards, such as the NEC and 70B. And even it's application to certain areas within electric utilities, especially in generation plants, even though we're technically "not covered" per article 90.2(B).

Nearly two decades later in 2021, I'm much more comfortable with 70E and it's contents. However, one of my biggest frustration regarding 70E is with the revisions every three years. Just when I start becoming quite accustomed to the articles and tables by number, the new version pops into the picture and changes the numbering and the contents of the articles and tables (not everything), so the learning curve starts all over again. I certainly agree with updating the contents and information (most of the times) but the renumbering of familiar articles from the previous edition was and is a little frustrating to this 'old dog'.

However my NUMBER ONE GRIPE with 70E isn't about the standard but with NFPA itself and primarily resides with their bad business decision to stop providing their customers with pdf copies of their standards and forcing us to their new and not so user friendly Link online platform. NFPA under the leadership of Jim Pauley is focused on nothing more than greater financial profits while claiming they're a "non-profit" organization which is nothing more than duplicity in my opinion.

I'll stop there because the topic of NFPA pdfs is covered by another post by Jim but I couldn't resist venting a little about NFPA's foolishness.

Not targeting you at all here, but speaking for the everyman electrician here, it shouldn't take 20 years to get comfortable with a safety standard. IMHO this code was written by rich engineers at large companies for rich engineers at large companies. It was not written for the benefit of the actual everyday workers. We can barely use it it's so complex. Most companies do not have and cannot afford a full time EHS Director. To that I am sure many would reply, "well how can you afford not to? so many people will get injured if you do not". And to that I would reply doesn't mean we now magically can afford it because we *should* be able to afford it. A fully trained EHS director's salary at a company of 7-10 employees cuts into the bottom line enough to the point that everyone's pay goes down significantly, not just the owners'. Without competitive pay staffing goes to hell because no one (good) will want to work there.

Nor do companies of this size have even the wherewithal to spend the time and labor doing calcs, slowing production for "work permits" (Yeah I'm going to get a work permit from the sole owner of the machine shop I'm servicing the press brake at who also is a struggling small business who needs to run 18 hrs/day to compete with the big guys. Very realistic)

This was written so a bunch of engineers could pat eachother on the back.

The only barely redeeming thing I've found is maybe Informative Annex H. That appears to have been written by someone with at least a grain of common sense as far as making a USEFUL (gasp) product. Again IMH-non-rich-engineer-who-works-at-a-giant-company-O this whole book could be condensed to about 5 pages, if they just kind of used the next-size-up-rule more and just had us be over-protected some of the time. Doesn't have to be this complex. Just require hot suits for everyone everywhere the second a 120 panel is open. Boom, I just took care of maybe 30 pages of the book.

I'd like to get you in a 70E class 1000cal because I think I could get you comfortable with the whole 70E topic. I think a company's 70E program starts with arc flash labels, and if it's not labelled then we use the PPE Categories method from 70E. I totally agree that the requirement for an Energized Electrical Work Permit to work on anything energized is too much. We should be allowed to work on energized equipment if we've determined it's safe to do so using the appropriate PPE. I grew up in an industry where production was foremost.
If you're in DE or MD I encourage you to take Capital Electric Supply's 5-hour 70E class which is State-approved for CEUs and I believe that with your energy about the topic you'd enjoy the class.
John M