Electrical Safety Concerns

Discussion created by Steve Benton on Nov 14, 2019
Latest reply on Dec 12, 2019 by Steve Benton

Like • Show 1 Like1
Comment • 20

I thought that I would open up a discussion where viewers of this thread could share what they perceive to be the greatest electrical safety concern that they encounter or perhaps the most frustrating electrical safety issue that never seems to get resolved.

Having been in the electrical field some 37 years I can say with great confidence that the electrical safety culture IS changing. In some organizations the change in safe behaviors is astounding, other organizations...eh, not so much.

Lets's examine where we currently are in a cultural safety revolution, shall we?

Outcomes

20 Replies

cdafd Nov 14, 2019 11:48 AM
Power taps/ strip outlets
Like • Show 2 Likes2
Actions
twm22columbia Nov 14, 2019 12:07 PM
Undoubtedly for me, working hot on low voltages (120/240 or 208) when it's not necessary. I see qualified and unqualified people with an attitude of "it's only 120V" every month. I'm not talking about necessary energized tasks, but those where it's not necessary to work hot. I also hear, "I'm not working ON the circuit, but next to it". In these cases, someone will work on a de-energized panel but with hot, upstream feeders
Like • Show 1 Like1
Actions
chiefns830 Nov 14, 2019 12:45 PM
I guess this is true of all professions:
- A few good EC's
- Many mediocre EC's
- A few bad EC's that should not be operating (my opinion)
Last week I had an overhead feeder span whereby the electrician attempted to get a permit using only 3-wires. I would not allow the permit. Upon calling the electrician, he told me, "Yeah I know it's wrong...but I had to try to get the permit through that way first..."

It's one thing not to have the knowledge. People can learn. But it's another thing if one knows that it's wrong, and attempts it anyway. These are the people that I consider to be a danger to the public. I will stop talking now.
Like • Show 1 Like1
Actions
- brianbaughman @ chiefns830 on Nov 15, 2019 10:28 AM
  That's where I bring out the cruel tape measure!
  Like • Show 1 Like1
  Actions
rcramereleceng Nov 14, 2019 6:15 PM
Wire landing (mostly for Industrial Control Panels).

If anyone has seen a solidly built Panel where all the wires turn at 90 Degrees, zip tied where the wire bundles are in a straight line, terminated with crimp connectors or ferrules, labeled (per the Drawing), etc., it's not because the Assembler (or the Engineer providing oversight) is a perfectionist - it's Code.

I can explain why:
IF a wire were to become loose - it is to remain in position, i.e. not pop-out toward you whether it's the Terminal under scrutiny or giving wires a tightness check and the nearby wire tries to reach out and touch someone. Some people over-tighten wire connections not realizing that they are cutting the wire (referred to as guillotining). Loose connections occur by temperature swings (expansion/contraction) from assembly to Full Load, and back to ambient.

The wires need to be "trace-able". If they're all cobbled up, it's an indicator that there were changes along the way and the wiring was done in haste. And it only goes downhill from there with the excuse that: "I'm not going to fix so-and-so's sloppy work!" or the one that bites me every time: "It's been like that since day one!"

Crimp connectors and/or ferrules are awesome. The only Code reference is; 'to follow the Manufactures recommendations from the Manuals for installation'.

Clearly, THE most important feature of a wire is the Label where the Wire # corresponds to the Drawing. There is a Drawing in every Panel right? -There has to be - it's the most important feature - right? And for those ready to jump on this topic, Ground is a Green (or Green with a Yellow stripe) wire that doesn't require labeling.

Let's review OSHA's number one 'root-cause' of Electrical injury or damage to equipment [Safety] - it's proper documentation (i.e. the Drawing). And bringing this all the way back around - the wire label (all wires have a label right?) matches the schematic.

I would like to recognize Nick Sasso who is a regular contributor on this Forum where he made a comment on another thread: " Electricity can be wrong, and still work. "
1 person found this helpful
Like • Show 3 Likes3
Actions
sbrown172 Nov 14, 2019 7:23 PM
The most prevalent problems I’ve encountered in 30 years.
1-Back-stab receptacles, due to looseness of connection and overheating conductors and loss of connection. Have yet to determine if WAGO type connectors will soon join the ranks.
2-What appears to be a problem with the manufacturing of cord ends that supply power to appliances (ie: window air conditioners, space heaters especially) as well as RV power cord ends. As they have shown evidence of excessive interior heating and degradation and initiating fires. Is it a defect in the crimping of conductors to the blades of a plug or should the conductor size be increased due to this method of joining the conductors to blades?
Like • Show 2 Likes2
Actions
brianbaughman Nov 15, 2019 10:26 AM
3 biggest issues I see.

1. The proper installation of appliance cords on dryers and ranges. Too many unqualified persons install these cords on the appliance, and many do not know that the bonding jumper has to be removed where a 4-wire cord is being installed.

2. Optional Standby generator installations. It's not rocket science, but too many EC's struggle with generators.

3. Service Rated ATS's. Just look at all the posts in this forum!
Like • Show 1 Like1
Actions
milt.werner Nov 16, 2019 1:35 PM
For me 25 plus years of inspection/plan review/certification of health care facilities, the greatest electrical safety cultural concerns were [ electrical safety concerns was caused some facilities to be "red tagged"(immediate removal of electric meter) by the state's office of electrical safety]. To me the most significant cultural change was the regulations that had the most effect on electrical safety in health care facilities.

Regulatory overload occurs when too many, and too detailed, regulations swamp health care facilities. The effects of these regulations are reduced compliance, less innovation, and increased uncertainty. Simplifying and clarifying the regulatory codes would go a long way toward improving safety. Specifically, regulators can eliminate rules that are no longer needed and keep rule books shorter with clear compliance priorities.

Compliance:
- Regulators often try to address a wide range and situations by writing very detailed “command and-control,” or prescriptive, codes and rules.
- The length and legalistic language of the regulations make it hard for health care facilities to decipher if, or how, these rules apply to them.
- The rules that do apply directly often fail to capture the complexity of the problems health care facilities face.
- Even if there has been full regulatory compliance, something bad happening in an health care industry or a specific facility often spurs even more rules and exceptions, further increasing the complexity of, and difficulty of complying with, the parts of the regulatory code applicable to each situation.
- When the facility staff no longer see regulations as a means of promoting safety, they are less likely to comply; when they do comply, they often focus on passing inspections, rather than improving safety.
- Workers who see an increasing number of regulations as irrelevant to their jobs become less motivated to comply with any of the rules or codes.
Innovation:
- When there are too many rules or codes, particularly command-and-control rules, health care facilities may respond by becoming rigid and reactive. Instead of anticipating and addressing safety concerns, hospitals become so preoccupied with following the rules or codes that they fail to pursue innovative solutions to improve safety. The failure to innovate leads to more mistakes, which spurs more regulations, less innovation, less safety, more mistakes, another round of rules, and so on.
- When something unexpected happens, reactive facility managers are less capable of solving problems. Instead, they simply wait for inspectors to tell them what to do.
- Financially, it often is more cost-effective for firms to invest in legal experts, to ensure regulatory compliance at the lowest possible cost, than in experts who can find the best solutions to the facility specific challenges.
- Attempting to comply with too many rules is harder for small facilities. Large health care facilities manage by complex internal procedures and can dedicate resources to compliance. Small facilities without internal bureaucracies must be as flexible as possible and cannot arrange their operations around rigid external rules.
Uncertainty:
- The sheer volume of codes, standards, and rules on the books today creates uncertainty; but the situation is made much worse by the fact that no codes, standards, and rules ever is “final.” Particularly when regulators use command-and-control techniques, there will be more codes, standards, and rules that change more often.
- Uncertainty often leads to paralysis. Health care facilities delay investments, even in safety improvements, so as to see what regulators will do next. A health care facility might not install a new safety system because regulators might later specify a different, though not necessarily better, technical standards and codes.
- When large health care associations lobby to have their procedures adopted as codes or rules, small facilities bear a disproportionate compliance cost. This reduces competition and innovation, both in general and in the realm of safety.
Like • Show 0 Likes0
Actions
chiefns830 Nov 16, 2019 7:56 PM
Speaking as a 25+ year electrical guy, I agree 100% with Milt Werner, once again.

It's not just health care, Milt. It's everything. I've noticed in NEC - and from serving there - (Article 250) that certain Public Inputs tend to be "theoretical" in nature and not at all practical. This leads to confusion in the industry. Take for example the code that states an equipment grounding conductor SHALL NOT be used as a grounding electrode conductor. This little gem that I'm speaking of is 2017 NEC 250.121. Then in the next breath is an exception that says you can do it. It's mind-boggling. Read it when you have time. Then please take a red magic marker and completely X out the exception.

Basically to paraphrase the exception it stating that, "you can do it as long as it complies with the rest of Article 250." Again, mind-boggling. I can think of no real-life situation where this can apply, although I've been told that "it might be possible." Nobody can give me a diagram or a sketch. I'm just a dumb electrician and inspector and the panel doesn't like it when I employ common sense arguments to resolve what I find to be errors or problems.

Codes such as this (there are many others) confuse "good" engineers, contractors, electricians, etc... I've tried to tell the panel how this is BAD CODE, however it seems when these public inputs come from one certain engineer (who shall remain nameless) they tend to always be rubber-stamped as acceptable even though they are 97.6% theoretical and not very practical at all. Some contractors will take a chance on that exception and install something so wrong, it only makes things worse for the inspector in the field, and the job as a whole.

Unless NFPA shakes up some of the code panels with new blood, I believe the electrical codes will continue to get worse and worse. This is especially true with Article 680 - but don't get me started on that one or I will never shut up. My opinion is that a large part of the problem is some people that write the codes, many of which are so far removed from the field... that they can't tell good code from bad. We need more "hands-on" people writing the codes, people that actually DO plan review and inspections, and the people WHO SWEAT, and not so much the elitists. After the meetings are through, you won't find me hanging out at the bar with any of them (and I'm not talking about people who post here).
Like • Show 2 Likes2
Actions
david.austin Nov 20, 2019 11:54 AM
Right now I am seeing that the biggest area of confusion among our combined workforce, electricians/mechanical maintenance techs/operators, is in understanding when a hazard exists and when it does not regarding operations of properly installed and maintained circuit breakers, switches, and MCC devices - I feel they do know when to be cautious, but today with changes being put into place from old procedures based upon the 2004 edition of 70E to new procedures based upon 2018, it opens up the floor for a lot of questions.
Like • Show 1 Like1
Actions
rrgaudreau Nov 28, 2019 8:09 PM
I have to agree with Nick Sasso. The NEC, unfortunately is looking more and more like it was written by lawyers and is getting longer and longer every code cycle.
As to the code panel members, maybe there are too many manufacturers being represented, and maybe more "real folks from the field " need to be represented to lend a bit more common sense to the endeavor.
And as far as industrial electrical issues, plant electricians who make "midnight revisions " in control panels but don't document those changes are my pet peeve.
Like • Show 0 Likes0
Actions
- Steve Benton @ rrgaudreau on Dec 2, 2019 7:46 AM
  Richard, I agree that undocumented changes are an unnecessary thorn in the side of the next guy that comes along. I would add that undocumented changes or temporary "fixes" are one of my peeves as well!
  Blessings,
  Like • Show 0 Likes0
  Actions
  - rcramereleceng @ Steve Benton on Dec 10, 2019 11:30 AM
    Well that's very interesting how we describe OSHA's [Electrical] #1 root cause of Death and Dismemberment as a pet peeve.
    
    I'm not being critical Steve, I'm merely thinking out loud. When Training sessions start out, your Question is often an ice breaker for the Trainer to 'feel out' the crowd. I have always found it ironic when the lecture and test questions turn us into the 'Trainers' for the people who hadn't found the time or luxury to attend the session.
    Like • Show 0 Likes0
    Actions
    - Steve Benton @ rcramereleceng on Dec 10, 2019 2:04 PM
      Robert, I'm afraid you've lost me here.
      Like • Show 0 Likes0
      Actions
rcramereleceng Dec 10, 2019 5:26 PM
What is your greatest Electrical Safety concern?

Many of us have put this into our own words (i.e. "peeve", or "midnight revisions", "proper instructions", etc.) yet -

wouldn't (shouldn't) OSHA's #1 root cause of death and dismemberment be our collaborated concern? Yes! it is. We all say it in our own way (thru regulation verbiage, plan review, circuits, procedures, etc.). As some Trainers have started out a training session; "what bugs you the most?" is flipped back on us - proper documentation. And this includes revising Drawings/Schematics etc. when changes are made as well as throwing the Manuals into Electrical Panels for immediate reference.

I throw this out from time to time; what is the #1 (most important) Safety Component in Electrical Equipment? Many responses are; the Disconnect, the E-Stop PB, the HMI, The RED Light, Light Curtains, and so on. In my opinion, the #1 most important piece of Safety Equipment in Electrical Enclosures is -
the Print Pocket [as required by NFPA-79 (2018) 11.4.8 ] to hold the Drawings and Reference Manuals.
Like • Show 0 Likes0
Actions
rrgaudreau Dec 10, 2019 5:48 PM
Mr. Cramer. you hit the nail right on the head! Documentation that's correct and out in field where it can be readily referenced is #1. An electrician that's using the documentation at his disposal, which includes not only accurate schematics, but also electrical safety literature for the equipment being worked on, is the best start to working safely.
Like • Show 0 Likes0
Actions
Steve Benton Dec 11, 2019 8:42 AM
I really like the direction that this discussion has been heading for a number of reasons. Those that have skin in the game can greatly appreciate the value of having all of the available information at your disposal prior to working on or near energized electrical equipment. That information can and does come in many forms. Accurate up-to-date electrical drawings, hazard data, manufacturers operating manuals, experience operators familiar with the history of the equipment...have you ever been asked to problem solve a complicated piece of equipment or system and when you ask what the problem is the reply is "it wont work"? Let's be honest, how often have you asked for equipment documentation and the documentation provided was readily available, legible, and accurate? Most employers do not budget time and financial resources for such activities, the expectation is that maintenance personnel should be in the facility fixing things rather than at a desk creating or updating drawings.
We can and do change our electrical safety culture by making a difference one day at a time.
Like • Show 0 Likes0
Actions
rrgaudreau Dec 11, 2019 9:10 AM
Steve, I had to laugh at your remark about troubleshooting a system/machine when it "just doesn't work!". Boy does that bring back memories! Prior to my retirement, as the Plant Electrical Engineer, one of my goals was to make as much machine/process literature available online on our plant wifi system. That way a maintenance tech could have access to a myriad of digital based manuals for just about any machine/system in the facility.
I experienced quite a bit of pushback from managment but ultimately it came to fruition. Being able to get your hands on information when needed is key, not only to maximize plant uptime, but also to enhance safety!
Like • Show 1 Like1
Actions
chiefns830 Dec 11, 2019 2:46 PM
"Let's be honest, how often have you asked for equipment documentation and the documentation provided was readily available, legible, and accurate?"

Steve, you left out the part about providing "microscopic" info:

I already get "illegible" but now a few have taken a turn to microscopic.

!!!
Like • Show 1 Like1
Actions
- Steve Benton @ chiefns830 on Dec 12, 2019 7:34 AM
  Like • Show 0 Likes0
  Actions

Electrical Safety Concerns

Outcomes

Related Content

Recommended Content