Page 38 - OHS, June 2021

TRAINING: ELECTRICAL SAFETY
i
i
n
t
i
t
i
s
p
s
p
o
o
s
s
s
s
i
i
b
b
l
l
e
t
e
t
o
r
o
r
e
e
p
p
l
l
a
a
c
c
e
t
e
t
h
h
e
h
e
h
a
a
n
n
d
d
-
-
h
h
e
e
l
l
d
t
d
t
e
e
s
s
t
t
i
i
n
n
g
p
g
p
r
r
o
o
c
c
e
e
s
s
s
w
s
w
i
i
t
t
h
a
h
a
n
d
Why Would an AVT Be Safer?
Hand-held voltage test instruments and AVTs both satisfy the requirements in NFPA 70E for testing for absence of voltage. Both methods test for phase-to-phase and phase-to-ground voltage at the point of work. Both the hand-held tester and the AVT confirm proper operation with a known voltage source. The main differences are in how the steps in the testing process are achieved:
■ An AVT enables testing before doors, panels or covers are removed, while a hand-held tester requires physical access to circuit parts during testing.
■ Engineered with layers of requirements for fail-safes, an AVT automates a safety procedure and provides a consistent process which is less susceptible to human performance errors that are typical with hand-held testers.
■ An AVT is permanently mounted and hardwired to the test point, the AVT produces reliable results, even in places that are difficult to test with hand-held testers.
An AVT makes a more efficient process possible. While the hand-held testing process typically requires 10 to 20 minutes for a qualified person to complete properly, utilizing an AVT replaces it with a process that takes seconds and requires only the push of a button. In addition, the AVT can be integrated with other safety and controls, physically preventing access to an enclosure, control room or work area, until the absence of voltage has been confirmed. AVTs make it possible for both electrical and non- electrical workers to confirm absence of voltage without exposure to hazards.
What’s Wrong with Hand-Held Testing?
Voltage testing is critically important, and no one tool or procedure will ensure electrical safety in every situation. Hand- held testers, such as digital multimeters, will continue to be necessary, and facilities cannot discount the need for vigilance and improvement in all processes that require them. The AVT is designed to make one important, frequently performed process safer. The automated process subtracts all-too-common human factors from situations like:
■ A process is interrupted, or a worker is distracted and accidentally skips a vital step.
■ A worker repeatedly performs the process several times a day and becomes complacent.
■ Time pressures or lack of negative consequences over time leads to improper or no PPE use.
There’s also one crucial difference between an AVT and manual testing that seems obvious but can often go overlooked: an AVT is built into the system to test exactly what it’s designed to test. When using hand-held testers, the equipment tested may or may not have been designed with the need for voltage testing in mind, with each piece of equipment (or particular installation of it) posing unique challenges that an experienced person must be aware of and remember in order to perform the test properly.
e
n
g
i
n
e
e
e
e
r
r
e
s
e
s
o
o
l
l
u
u
t
t
i
i
o
o
n
n
.
A
.
A
n
a
n
a
b
b
s
s
e
e
n
n
c
d
permanently mounted tester designed to test for of absence of voltage, but unlike the traditional hand-held tester, the AVT completes the test without exposure to hazards.
e
n
g
i
n
c
e
o
e
o
f
v
f
v
o
o
l
l
t
t
a
a
g
g
e
t
e
t
e
e
s
s
t
t
e
e
r
(
r
(
A
A
V
T
V
T
)
i
)
i
s
a
s
a
Electrical hazards exist throughout the workplace and impact workers who aren’t trained electricians or electrical contractors for a number of logical reasons.
difffferent, with multiple work processes operating independently or in tandem—some of them requiring multiple steps and continual repetition of vital, but still repetitive, tasks.
It’s is very common for people to fail to verify aspects of important situations. Safety professionals, however, can’t simply cite human nature for cutting corners and call it a day. Safety training and protocols are designed to empower employees to take the time, every time, to protect themselves and others. Yet, electrical shocks and burns are still occurring in an alarming number of cases to workers who weren’t there to perform electrical work but were carrying out other tasks. That’s one reason so many safety experts want to prioritize the prevention of workplace injuries with design practices. Processes and PPE can—and do—protect people, but addressing risk during the design of a system is a more effective way to reduce risk and mitigate hazards workers face.
Engineering for Safer Testing Outcomes
One place facilities are examining the risk of human error is in the mitigation of electrical incidents. When establishing an electrically safe work condition, the traditional method of verifying an absence of voltage relies on a manual process with a hand-held tester. To perform that test safely, a qualified person relies on additional layers of procedure, expert knowledge and proper use of equipment, including PPE. Each item on that list is a place where a human may, despite proper training and experience, make a mistake.
If any step in the process exposes a worker to electrical hazards, then it isn’t a question of whether that risk should be addressed, but how. The Hierarchy of Controls provides clear categories of risk mitigation strategies ranked in order of effectiveness. PPE and administrative controls, such as safety procedures, are at the bottom of the inverted pyramid. They are the least prioritized because although they control the risk— the hazard is still there. At the top of the hierarchy are design- related controls. These controls alter the process or equipment in a way that either eliminates the hazard, substitutes it for a lesser hazard or utilizes engineering controls to reduce exposure to the hazard.
For the verification of an electrically safe working condition,
34 Occupational Health & Safety | JUNE 2021
www.ohsonline.com