Moving from Training to Compliance
Practical methodology to monitor worker compliance to electrical safe work practices
IEEE Copyrighted Material Paper No. ESW 2014-33
978-1-4799-2098-3/14/$31.00 ©2013 IEEE
978-1-4799-2098-3/14/$31.00 ©2013 IEEE
|
Robert S LeRoy
Electrical Safety and Compliance Consultant Lakeland, Florida 33813 www.robertsleroy.net |
Tim McCoy
Electrical Inspection Supervisor Chevron Oil Company, SJVBU Bakersfield, CA 93308 |
Abstract: The focus on training workers to be aware of and have respect for electrical hazards has dramatically increased in recent years. Employers both large and small recognize their responsibility in providing timely and appropriate information in combating this toxic workplace substance. Fatalities and injuries due to electrical contact are on the decline mainly, in this author’s opinion, due to this increased awareness. Statistics on arc flash injuries are much less exacting or conclusive. After workers demonstrating in a training environment the correct work practices and understanding it could be assumed then that workplace electrical injuries would have a more timely and marked decline. Although many employers have experienced some decline in incident rates, such has not yet been the case industry wide. Nor have these declines become permanent absent rigorous processes to monitor compliance effectiveness and react with timely adjustments. Skilled and experienced electrical workers tend to express a work culture that is convenient, comfortable and consensual.
Consent is given by default where there is an absence of a communicated standard or supervised and monitored guidelines. This paper will explore the discoveries, challenges and proposed remediation efforts in one large company’s endeavor to control all activities on or near energized exposed electrical hazards that
may be encountered
Index terms – NFPA 70E Standard for Electrical Safety in the Workplace, monitoring electrical safe work practices, effective training, workplace culture, host employer, contract employer
I. Introduction Establishing a Global Electrical Safety Program (ESP) and Initial Training
Recent statistical updates suggest electrical fatalities in the workplace are on the decline. [1] [2] Less conclusive data presently exists on the injury rates and fatalities due to arc flash exposures. Looking back on the time when the US OSHA became law in 1971 [3] what was absent then and present now was not the availability of a skilled workforce but rather a workforce that functioned under accepted safe work practice boundaries. OSHA established those guidelines for both worker and employer and industry standards such as NFPA 70E have provided practical means to ensure compliance.
Progression towards a safer work environment began with the employer established electrical safe work practice policies and continued with worker training of their responsibility to follow those guidelines while performing unsupervised work tasks. Sadly for decades this critical process stalled, as there existed no tools to first measure training effectiveness and more importantly to monitor worker compliance during the performance of his/her duties after training has occurred. Left to their own creative devices, the march toward changing the electrical culture and workplace safety around exposed electrical hazards moved in slow motion.
To embrace change a progression of steps must be followed.
1. Acknowledge the need
a. Own the culture
b. Establish the guidelines
2. Acquire the knowledge
a. Train for the expectations
b. Provide positive mentoring
3. Apply the solution
a. Monitor the process
b. Document the effectiveness
Imagine your worksite were over hundreds of square miles involving nearly 100 electrical workers from within the company and hundreds more from contractor business partners. Exposure to electrical shock and arc flash hazards are from a combination of enclosed disconnects and switches and over 50,000 miles of overhead lines ranging in voltage from 480 volt to 12,500 VAC. What new and innovative processes and tools could be created to measure electrical hazard understanding and gauge compliance in such a vast and unsupervised environment? If the culture grants permission and permission drives actions, the culture must first be unveiled and targeted processes be put in place to accelerate advancement to change unaccepted work practices.
Every multi-site or multi-national company knows that to control liability and reduce risk global benchmarks must be established within their corporate structure. It is equally common knowledge that establishing any corporate policy is a painful task met with statements such as, “That won’t work here,” or “You are emphasizing items we don’t have and forgetting these of much greater importance.” Each site, business unit and global region affected must modify the corporate benchmark to ensure local and regional compliance by accessing their facilities for any increased exposure to electrical hazards not adequately addressed in the general corporate documents. The goal, as stated in 2012 NFPA 70E, “to direct all activities on or near energized electrical conductors or parts that is appropriate for the electrical hazards”, must be met wherever the work may be taking place. [4] For the company, which is the model upon which this paper references, this was accomplished beginning in 2008 by a team of corporate-wide “Safety Advisors”. The final version was accepted in 2009 by appropriate management and a process of training all affected workers began in early 2010.
The corporate electrical safe work practice policy closely followed the NFPA 70E 2012 version although during its development the 2009 NFPA 70E was the most current version that existed. Two additional requirements were included not commonly used in the low voltage arena. For easier application of shock protection boundaries a default of 3 M (10’) safe area would be established wherever possible around any exposed and energized part or conductor greater than 50 volts. Additionally wherever there is an electrical exposure greater than 50 volts, a second person is required whose sole responsibility is to observe the work performance and appropriately react should anything abnormal occur. The second person, called an electrical standby person, did not necessarily have to be another electrical worker but must be trained to know where and how to turn off the electrical power, appropriate methods of release and emergency response. This was due to the chief architect of the corporate document, a member of the NFPA 70E committee, sensing the pulse of the industry and need for greater work practice control. The opportunity of establishing a global corporate policy was chosen to, in the words of the great hockey player, Wayne Gretsky, “Go to where the puck will be, not where it currently is.” [5] In the context of safe work practices, proactively head to where the industry is going rather than waiting until it becomes required.
A training company was selected that had extensive existing experience with the new global electrical policy. This company had written a training curriculum and book to the company policy and was involved in rolling out the training to business units in Africa beginning in 2008 during the policy development process. US facilities began implementation after corporate acceptance as an Operational Excellence standard in early 2010.
Initial training involved two of the essential components (i.e. targeted and measured) with the monitoring piece to be added after sufficient training had concluded. The training was conducted in the classroom with PowerPoint driven lecture based on the company specific ESP and book, scenario based examples using the NFPA 70E hazard risk matrix tables and hands-on equipment supplied by the training provider. These included all essential arc flash PPE up to Category 4, commonly used meters, 480 volt combination starters and a specially designed training aid to show operation of a drawout type circuit breaker and potential points of applying protective grounding. The measurement of learning gains was determined by verbal response and demonstrated skills proficiency with the training equipment provided.
Those potentially exposed to energized hazards and requiring training on the company ESP for this business unit within the company were:
• All electrical workers (instrumentation and power)
• All process control electrical workers (called auto-techs short for automatic control technicians) that could be exposed to 120 volts during their job assignments
• Instrumentation electrical workers
• Operators that were experienced and responsible for Lockout/Tagout (LOTO) activities to act as electrical standby persons as required
• Representatives from all electrical contract business partners who would then be responsible to ensure their own workers were trained and aware of the host employer’s safe work practice requirements.
Approximately 250 persons received the initial training, which ended in early 2011. New hires or persons reassigned to duties requiring this training receive it as needed. The corporate requirement requires refresher training for all at a 3 year cycle unless “supervision or monitoring indicates an earlier need.” Supervisory oversight is continually given but no measurable process had yet been developed to ensure safe work practice compliance beyond observation when possible and review of job documents, such as the JHA (Job Hazard Analysis) likely after the task performance. A more in-depth monitoring and assessment process began in January of 2013.
The benchmark of effective training considers three interrelated components. It must be targeted to the topic, measured for understanding and monitored for compliance. Recent IEEE-ESW papers have highlighted the importance of management support in establishing an overall safety culture even in the face of uncertain economic times. NFPA 70E places firmly on the shoulders of the employer the responsibility to monitor safe work practice compliance on a timely basis. The 2012 NFPA 70E, similar to its energy supply standard counterpart, the OSHA CFR 1910.269, establishes the need to monitor understanding and compliance on at least an annual basis. The workforce is any company’s greatest asset and like other assets must be well constructed and appropriately maintained. Equipment maintenance requires gathering baseline and operational data to make prudent decisions on any necessary action. So also the workforce, if it is regarded as the most critical of company assets, requires being given the guidelines around which electrical work is to be performed and measurable tools put in place to monitor operational effectiveness.
II. Gathering the Data Develop and implement Assessment Tools
Safety audits can be a painful process. Past successes are not celebrated while any deficiency is spotlighted as a potential challenge to meeting the overall goal.
Assessment tools in the form of detailed checklists were developed involving the elements upon which the workers had initially been trained, showed verbal understanding and demonstration of skills proficiency. Two sets of forms were to be utilized as the host employer (company) must direct all activities for their own workers and only set the safety boundaries under which their electrical business partner contract workers must perform. In other words, to direct all activities the company must provide direction to their own electrical employees on what is to be done (i.e. technical performance) and how it is to be accomplished (i.e. safe work practices). For the business partners the direction is confined to the safe work performance.
The forms to be utilized were developed with the assistance of key electrical supervisory personnel within the company. Point values were assigned to each step to measure the outcome for each worker assessed. Individual action plans were to be determined based upon a numerical result.
The following action matrix is automatically in place for all company employees and suggested to the business partners as being both diligent and prudent. No employee is immediately removed from any future work assignments as a result of the assessment findings. Those actions are solely left up to company policy, collective bargaining agreements and the severity of any training gaps uncovered by the assessment.
11 assessment forms for host company supervision and employees:
• 2 for selection and inspection of PPE, tools and equipment
o Low voltage work o High voltage work
• 1 utilizing the company SOP process/JHA techniques
• 7 task specific forms following company approved SOP’s
• 1 assessment auditing the company
o Adherence to 2012 NFPA 70E employer requirements and compliance to oil company specific ESWP
5 assessment forms for electrical contractor business partners:
• 4 forms for electrical workers/supervision o Selection and inspection of PPE, tools and
equipment
ƒ Low voltage work
ƒ High voltage work
o Utilizing the company SOP process/ JHA techniques
o Determining work plan where no SOP exists
• 1 assessment auditing company/management
o Adherence to 2012 NFPA 70E employer requirements and compliance to oil company specific ESWP
Where 100% is always the goal, any score less than that value is met with appropriate timely and documented action.
(See Fig. 1)
< 100 but > 80:
• immediate coaching,
• re-assessment within 60 days
< 80 but > 60:
• immediate coaching,
• re-training in areas of weakest proficiency
(determined by supervisor) within 30 days, • re-assessment within 60 days after re-training
< 60:
• immediate coaching,
• re-training in all areas within 30 days,
• re-assessment within 15 days after re-training
Fig. 1 Monitoring documentation and action points
Workers are initially trained to the company electrical safe work practices (ESP/ESWP/NFPA 70E) and show documented understanding and skills proficiency. This is the foundation, or pinnacle in this graphic (see Fig. 1) which becomes the standard by which future assessments are compared. Any scores noted less than 100% always leave room for potential injury or incident. Unless ongoing supervision and monitoring on at least an annual basis is accomplished the percentage of compliance less than 100% for any given worker is never really known.
The first pass of assessments for the company workers began January 2013 and ended August 2013. Fifty seven (57) company power electricians working on either low voltage or overhead line work were assessed using the measured matrix of competencies. Five (5) employees were trained as on-site assessors to continue monitoring on a periodic basis. The second pass of assessments will commence beginning September 2013 adding those that were either not available for the first pass and the instrumentation and controls workers exposed to above 50 volts. Optimally all electrical workers will be assessed 4 times per year to start then tapering to annually in 2015 and thereafter.
Five (5) business partner companies (electrical contractors) were assessed May – July. Their workers were assessed using a formula of 20% of the workforce, a minimum of six (6) workers if a larger firm or all workers if the number were less than six (6). Only by coincidence, fifty seven (57) contract electricians were also assessed. Their tasks and hazard exposures were potentially identical to those of the oil company (host employer) employees.
The assessment of the company employees began with a session where the assessment program and purpose was explained and more importantly how the results would be tabulated and viewed by their supervision. It had been on average over 2 years since they had received their initial training in the company ESWP. Most were long time electrical workers with an average time in the trade of well over 20 years. Not unexpected most participants were concerned any result could be negatively used in their performance reviews. Although how a company uses any gathered data is always an employee concern it was explained this is more an audit of the company and its performance in preparing the worker and worksite for safe work rather than of the workers themselves. It is much like a gap analysis to discover any holes in the process and fill that gap with knowledge and understanding before it is filled with an accident or worse. The action plans determined from the results, explained in Section III, were clearly conveyed yet most were nervous during their personal assessment process. For the company workers the assessor immediately coached any items scoring less than the desired 100% to regain the desired level of competency and compliance.
For business partners (electrical contractors) the assessment process was slightly different. The process was designed to uncover any gaps in preparation, understanding or compliance reflecting any employer deficiency in training, monitoring or controls. The employer must take any appropriate action necessary determined by the results although often the assessor would by necessity and availability interject ideas through questions on individual topics. The results of the business partner workers and company assessment were then collated and given to the host employer (company) for developing their own effective action plans and follow-up.
For comparison and the purpose of this paper the following assessment findings were considered to be most directly related between the host and contract employers.
Company: aka Host Employer
Company worker assessment data:
Note: For the company employees the purpose of the assessments were to primarily identify areas of weakness and immediately coach to a higher level. Values extrapolated from assessment notes.
57 workers assessed, (all scores averaged)
• Selection and inspection of PPE, tools and equipment o Low voltage work – 70%
o High voltage work – 81%
• Utilizing the company Electrical Safety
Program/Electrical Safe Work Practices and Job Hazard Analysis process – 85%
• Determining Safe Operating Procedure applicability and recognizing the need for an Energized Electrical Work Permit – 87%
Host company score as compared to 2012 NFPA 70E
requirements: - 90%
Note: Mainly due to lack of monitoring process/personnel in place, which was completed as part of these findings, initiating this project/report. As was done with the company workers, any deficiencies were immediately addressed and remediated at the appropriate levels.
Business partners: aka Contract Employers
Business partner assessment data:
For the business partner workers the purpose of the assessments was to identify gaps that the employer must address to ensure safety
57 workers assessed, (averaged score)
• Selection and inspection of PPE, tools and equipment o Low voltage work – 41% o High voltage work - 73%
• Utilizing the company Electrical Safety
Program/Electrical Safe Work Practices and Job Hazard Analysis process – 79%
• Determining Safe Operating Procedure applicability and recognizing the need for an Energized Electrical Work
Permit – 42%
Business partner company score as compared to 2012 NFPA 70E requirements: - 59.6%
Note: Five (5) companies were included in this scoring. Values
ranged from 78% to 42% with an average overall of 59.6%
By viewing the bar graph (see Fig. 2), comparisons can be drawn on host employer and their worker’s and contract employer and their worker’s retention, understanding and compliance to NFPA 70E and best industry practices for safe work performance.
Fig. 2 Comparative Assessment
Nothing is acknowledged until it sees the light of reality. Objective and measurable assessments determining levels of seen or spoken responses when compared against accepted standards provide a clearer understanding of worker compliance to electrical safety programs as practiced in the field.
III. Results
“Without a vision the people perish” [6]
The old proverb quoted above, although from a religious source, has application and importance in the business realm. Without clear guidance (i.e. regulations, standards, best practices, company policies) upon which to gauge performance workers are left to their own devices. All too often the results are much less than desired.
Given the similarity in both numbers assessed and tasks performed between the host and contract employers the comparison of results would then be significant to determine:
• Electrical safety programs in place,
• Documented qualification processes and methodology,
• Training and procedures delivered prior to work assignments and most importantly,
• Monitoring processes in place to ensure understanding and compliance and used to determine refreshertraining cycles.
As was noted earlier, the host company ESP and ESWP were thoroughly drafted and rigidly enforced. The qualification process and delivery of pre-assignment training was very rigorous and inclusive of all affected persons. Two areas were identified as deficient when compared to 2012 NFPA 70E guidelines:
• Processes/personnel for ongoing monitoring/tracking of electrical safe work practices and
• Inconsistent application of electrical job hazard analyses tools and processes.
The monitoring piece is now in place and trending methodology will be used to determine necessary training modifications and monitoring processes.
The host company utilizes an “Energy Wheel” or “See It” tool as a mental trigger to the user when filling out the Job Hazard Analysis forms. (see Fig. 3). Hierarchy of Controls is then applied in the mitigation or avoidance conclusions based on the analysis.
Fig. 3 Host Company Hazard Identification Tool
Hierarchy of Controls after identification of hazards:
1. Remove the energy source
2. Prevent the release of energy
3. Protect from the release
4. Use “Stop Work Authority”
Even with the use of this tool, inconsistencies were noted between each worker’s application stemming from either past experience, personal comfort/discomfort, or what appears most obvious to them. Modified formats of the JHA are being considered to alleviate the discrepancies and achieve greater overall analysis consistencies.
It bears note that the host company’s existing processes and controls have resulted in a relatively low number of electrical near-misses and incidences to date. As this data is now tracked as overall incidences and near-misses, increased attention will be afforded the archiving process to better determine increases and decreases in these areas. It was anecdotally reported that a marked decrease in overhead line encroachment near-misses resulted by the establishing of overhead line clearance training for all workers and swift action on any violations noted. It is further expected that the training to and awareness of host employer ESP/ESWP will result in similar results. What is interesting to note is that smaller yet equally as consequential results from non-compliance to ESP/ESWP at lower voltage levels was rarely noticed or reported until the detailed objective and measurable monitoring processes were put in place.
When compared to their contractor business partners varying levels of ESP/ESWP conforming to NFPA 70E guidelines was noted. Qualification processes were less vigorous and preassignment training less extensive. Written guidelines for workers to follow while performing the work were also much less stringent. These generally followed the pattern of the larger the company the more like the host employer and NFPA 70E and the smaller the company the less like the host employer and NFPA 70E.
A common theme emerged where these smaller companies had ESP/ESWP documents that followed NFPA 70E guidelines but no effective training had occurred where proficiencies were documented with any objective or measurable terms. Workers acknowledged getting their company’s “safety book” but most could not cite specific requirements that would be expected if used on a daily basis. Common areas of non-compliance, which would have a high consequence, were:
1. Use of company developed SOPs.
2. What to do if electricity could not be turned off.
3. Values for arc flash protection.
4. Cycles of testing required for insulated rubber gloves.
5. Basic inspection and testing of 1000 volt rated meters.
Monitoring processes personnel were significantly less, and in one case missing altogether. JHA results were also less consistent and inclusive of all hazards.
Auditing results of all groups indicated a higher level of awareness and proficiency on all tasks where the higher the voltage of qualification the higher level of awareness, skill and proficiency that was demonstrated. This is both settling and troubling at the same time.
Settling in that in the higher voltage exposure areas of uninsulated overhead lines, workers are well trained and work performance rigorously controlled. These workers can be good mentors to those working at lower voltage levels in job hazard analysis and safe work practices when their work practices are observed or taught.
Troubling in the fact that when these same workers were given the low voltage safety assessment as a pre-requisite to their higher voltage work level (these workers may be performing tasks at 120 volts, 480 volts and 12,500 volts at any time on any given day) that they were just as likely to skip inspection and testing steps as those who only work at 120 volt levels. An inverse relationship exists where a higher level of comfort is assumed as the voltage level decreases. Skilled and experienced electrical workers tend to express a work culture that is convenient, comfortable and consensual.
Convenience is achieved when work practices are modified to meet environmental or work site anomalies. Being comfortable is every worker’s desire no matter the task at hand. Supervisors or safety managers have often heard a worker express displeasure at wearing unfamiliar protective equipment, as it is uncomfortable. Most have heard the follow up responses, “If I have to wear this arc shield I am unsafe because I can’t see” or “These insulted gloves are too bulky to do the work safely”, etc. There is some measure of truth to these statements. Workers must be familiar with, skilled in the use, and confident in all the personal protective equipment (PPE) that is to be utilized. Truer still is often the speed bump in this road to safety is not that PPE is incorrect for a specific task but rather that the work practice, the task itself, needs to change to comply with accepted safe work practices. The initial question in any electrical JHA should not be “why must I turn off this circuit?” but rather “why can’t this circuit be turned off?”. Eliminating the electrical hazard whenever possible should always be the goal. Unfortunately experience or historical expectations of leaving the circuit energized are expressed as “I’ve always done it this way” (aka comfortable), “It is easier to leave it energized” (aka convenient).
Consent is given to these work practices by default where there is an absence of a communicated standard or supervised and monitored guidelines. In fact, consent is embraced where controls are not communicated. But communication is not sufficient to ensure compliance. Compliance is achieved by:
1. Establishing expectations
2. Ensuring understanding (documentation)
3. Auditing and monitoring application
IV. Conclusion Lessons Learned
When protecting workers, the responsibilities of a host employer and contract employer are identical. Employers must identify the hazards expected to be encountered, train employees to identify, analyze and avoid injury when working on or near the hazard and provide protection to them while exposed to that hazard.
More assessing is required to perhaps prove using the scientific method what every manager, supervisor and worker already knows. People work to their level of comfort and strength.
Action items:
1. Identify modifications that can be implemented in upcoming refresher training that will be more lasting in the students’ memory
2. Utilize the same assessment forms in the training to establish a clearer and documented baseline for comparison.
3. Continue assessments to include all affected persons within the host company and differing samples of workers from the company’s business partners.
4. Integrate monitoring methods into hand held devices for better field use and real-time reporting.
5. Train and monitor assessors to more quickly identify any deficiencies and provide immediate and effective remediation.
Leaders lead with vision and direction while managers use processes and procedures to guide to a desired end. Documents such as NFPA 70E and CSA Z462 are increasingly utilized by leading managers and supervisors in establishing clear paths to achieve a cultural change. This change will only be realized as managers embrace the idea that “certified, skilled, experienced and qualified” electrical workers must be given clear expectations of safe work performance no matter the cost. The days of electrical ‘heroes’ that violate every rule to attack an emergency have generally come to an end. It is widely recognized that even in the face of an electrical emergency there remains nothing more urgent than worker safety.
Yet it is in the times of normal operation, where the mundane activities of maintenance rule, that work practices must be more thoroughly monitored. When procedures are collectively developed, clearly communicated and consistently enforced the workplace culture will move toward change.
“The man who says, “You can lead a horse to water but can’t make him drink,” just doesn’t know horses. If you salt down the oats
they’ll drink all the water they can find.” [7]
Effective change comes from within. Internally driven, it is both lasting and infectious. Our task, as leaders in electrical safety, is to find the right combination of salt and oats.
V. Acknowledgement
Special thanks to the San Joachin Valley Base Business Unit of Chevron Oil Company along with their electrical business partners for their proactive undertaking and cooperation of such an expansive project. Through their dedication and passion for electrical safety this project became a reality. This thorough look at electrical safety programs, application processes and their personnel’s work habits have resulted in measurable data upon which definitive actions can be positively made.
Additional thanks to Jeffery (Jeff) Grovom, Consultant and Instructor of Electrical Safety, Codes, Controls and Instrumentation for NTT Training Inc. and past Montana Electrical JATC (IBEW/NECA). His guidance and knowledge in codeveloping and editing assessment procedures and forms as well as conducting many of the worker assessments was invaluable in the success of this project.
It is the sincere hope of all involved that these findings can be utilized as a substantiation by any company, large or small, to undergo similar frank and honest assessments of their own electrical culture and practices.
VI. References
[1] Cawley, James C. P.E., “Occupational Electrical Injuries in the
US, 2003-2009” IEEE Paper No. ESW-2012-24
[2] OSHA Fact Book, 2008
https://www.osha.gov/as/opa/OSHAfact-book-stohler.pdf
[3] OSHA 29 CFR 1910,
https://www.osha.gov/osha40/timeline.html
[4] 2012 NFPA 70E, 110.3 (A) [5] Gretzky, Wayne
http://www.quotationspage.com/quotes/Wayne_Gretzky/
[6] Book of Proverbs, Holy Bible, KJV, Proverbs 29:18
[7] Allen, T.R., (grandfather and namesake of author, Robert S.
LeRoy), from his homegrown Kentucky wisdom
978-1-4799-2098-3/14/$31.00 ©2013 IEEE
VII. Vitae
Robert S. LeRoy is an independent electrical safety and compliance consultant and former Director of Electrical Programs at NTT Training, Inc. He has 41 years experience in the utility, industrial and commercial electrical systems and equipment. During his nearly 20 years with Lakeland Electric, Lakeland, Florida utility generating facility Mr. LeRoy was an active member and leader of the utility’s voluntary emergency response team as first response to chemical, fire and medical emergencies. Responding to countless emergency situations has given him a passion for safety and perspective on the role of human behavior in averting these events. He has conducted over 350 classes in NEC, NFPA 70E, NFPA 70B/NETA, 1910.269, NESC Grounding and Bonding and Hazardous Locations to thousands of students worldwide.
As a master electrician, IAEI NCPCCI-2B Electrical Inspector and a member of NFPA, IAEI, ASSE and IEEE he assists clients in the utility, oil and gas, manufacturing and aviation industries in gap analysis for compliance to electrical safety regulations and procedures, develops a well-trained electrical workforce and provides monitoring tools to measure compliance and training effectiveness. Mr. LeRoy has worked with several international clients to adapt US based NFPA electrical standards (NEC, 70B electrical maintenance practices and 70E electrical safe work practices) and melds with local country regulations or international client requirements for acceptance and use in countries as diverse as Japan, Indonesia, Singapore, Saudi Arabia, Mexico, Central and South America, Africa (Nigeria and Burundi), Canada, and Kazakhstan. Mr. LeRoy has conducted accident reports and forensic installation and work practice studies to assist clients in identifying any deficiencies and develop processes and procedures to remediate any gaps to establishing a safer work environment.
He can be reached at:
Robert S LeRoy
Cell: 1 863.944.3369 rleroy01@gmail.com
http://www.linkedin.com/pub/robert-s-leroy/45/350/230 www.robertsleroy.net
Tim McCoy is Electrical Inspection Supervisor for the Chevron Oil Company, San Joachin Valley Business Unit, Bakersfield, CA. His career encompasses all aspects of electrical work from being a journeyman lineman, C-10 Electrical Contractor, Electrical inspector and effective electrical instructor. He carries several certifications including: Certified Electrical Safety Inspector and Certified Electrical Inspector ICC/IAEI. Mr. McCoy has taught Overhead Powerline Safety for over 23 years to company and contractor employees working on or near overhead powerlines establishing work practices which have resulted in reduction of incidents and near-misses. Additionally he is the secretary of the SW Section, Central California Chapter of the IAEI.
Mr. McCoy can be reached at:
Tim McCoy
Electrical Inspection Supervisor
Base Business
Chevron North America Exploration & Production
San Joaquin Valley Business Unit
Bakersfield, CA 93308
Tel 661 392-2633
Tmccoy@chevron.com
Consent is given by default where there is an absence of a communicated standard or supervised and monitored guidelines. This paper will explore the discoveries, challenges and proposed remediation efforts in one large company’s endeavor to control all activities on or near energized exposed electrical hazards that
may be encountered
Index terms – NFPA 70E Standard for Electrical Safety in the Workplace, monitoring electrical safe work practices, effective training, workplace culture, host employer, contract employer
I. Introduction Establishing a Global Electrical Safety Program (ESP) and Initial Training
Recent statistical updates suggest electrical fatalities in the workplace are on the decline. [1] [2] Less conclusive data presently exists on the injury rates and fatalities due to arc flash exposures. Looking back on the time when the US OSHA became law in 1971 [3] what was absent then and present now was not the availability of a skilled workforce but rather a workforce that functioned under accepted safe work practice boundaries. OSHA established those guidelines for both worker and employer and industry standards such as NFPA 70E have provided practical means to ensure compliance.
Progression towards a safer work environment began with the employer established electrical safe work practice policies and continued with worker training of their responsibility to follow those guidelines while performing unsupervised work tasks. Sadly for decades this critical process stalled, as there existed no tools to first measure training effectiveness and more importantly to monitor worker compliance during the performance of his/her duties after training has occurred. Left to their own creative devices, the march toward changing the electrical culture and workplace safety around exposed electrical hazards moved in slow motion.
To embrace change a progression of steps must be followed.
1. Acknowledge the need
a. Own the culture
b. Establish the guidelines
2. Acquire the knowledge
a. Train for the expectations
b. Provide positive mentoring
3. Apply the solution
a. Monitor the process
b. Document the effectiveness
Imagine your worksite were over hundreds of square miles involving nearly 100 electrical workers from within the company and hundreds more from contractor business partners. Exposure to electrical shock and arc flash hazards are from a combination of enclosed disconnects and switches and over 50,000 miles of overhead lines ranging in voltage from 480 volt to 12,500 VAC. What new and innovative processes and tools could be created to measure electrical hazard understanding and gauge compliance in such a vast and unsupervised environment? If the culture grants permission and permission drives actions, the culture must first be unveiled and targeted processes be put in place to accelerate advancement to change unaccepted work practices.
Every multi-site or multi-national company knows that to control liability and reduce risk global benchmarks must be established within their corporate structure. It is equally common knowledge that establishing any corporate policy is a painful task met with statements such as, “That won’t work here,” or “You are emphasizing items we don’t have and forgetting these of much greater importance.” Each site, business unit and global region affected must modify the corporate benchmark to ensure local and regional compliance by accessing their facilities for any increased exposure to electrical hazards not adequately addressed in the general corporate documents. The goal, as stated in 2012 NFPA 70E, “to direct all activities on or near energized electrical conductors or parts that is appropriate for the electrical hazards”, must be met wherever the work may be taking place. [4] For the company, which is the model upon which this paper references, this was accomplished beginning in 2008 by a team of corporate-wide “Safety Advisors”. The final version was accepted in 2009 by appropriate management and a process of training all affected workers began in early 2010.
The corporate electrical safe work practice policy closely followed the NFPA 70E 2012 version although during its development the 2009 NFPA 70E was the most current version that existed. Two additional requirements were included not commonly used in the low voltage arena. For easier application of shock protection boundaries a default of 3 M (10’) safe area would be established wherever possible around any exposed and energized part or conductor greater than 50 volts. Additionally wherever there is an electrical exposure greater than 50 volts, a second person is required whose sole responsibility is to observe the work performance and appropriately react should anything abnormal occur. The second person, called an electrical standby person, did not necessarily have to be another electrical worker but must be trained to know where and how to turn off the electrical power, appropriate methods of release and emergency response. This was due to the chief architect of the corporate document, a member of the NFPA 70E committee, sensing the pulse of the industry and need for greater work practice control. The opportunity of establishing a global corporate policy was chosen to, in the words of the great hockey player, Wayne Gretsky, “Go to where the puck will be, not where it currently is.” [5] In the context of safe work practices, proactively head to where the industry is going rather than waiting until it becomes required.
A training company was selected that had extensive existing experience with the new global electrical policy. This company had written a training curriculum and book to the company policy and was involved in rolling out the training to business units in Africa beginning in 2008 during the policy development process. US facilities began implementation after corporate acceptance as an Operational Excellence standard in early 2010.
Initial training involved two of the essential components (i.e. targeted and measured) with the monitoring piece to be added after sufficient training had concluded. The training was conducted in the classroom with PowerPoint driven lecture based on the company specific ESP and book, scenario based examples using the NFPA 70E hazard risk matrix tables and hands-on equipment supplied by the training provider. These included all essential arc flash PPE up to Category 4, commonly used meters, 480 volt combination starters and a specially designed training aid to show operation of a drawout type circuit breaker and potential points of applying protective grounding. The measurement of learning gains was determined by verbal response and demonstrated skills proficiency with the training equipment provided.
Those potentially exposed to energized hazards and requiring training on the company ESP for this business unit within the company were:
• All electrical workers (instrumentation and power)
• All process control electrical workers (called auto-techs short for automatic control technicians) that could be exposed to 120 volts during their job assignments
• Instrumentation electrical workers
• Operators that were experienced and responsible for Lockout/Tagout (LOTO) activities to act as electrical standby persons as required
• Representatives from all electrical contract business partners who would then be responsible to ensure their own workers were trained and aware of the host employer’s safe work practice requirements.
Approximately 250 persons received the initial training, which ended in early 2011. New hires or persons reassigned to duties requiring this training receive it as needed. The corporate requirement requires refresher training for all at a 3 year cycle unless “supervision or monitoring indicates an earlier need.” Supervisory oversight is continually given but no measurable process had yet been developed to ensure safe work practice compliance beyond observation when possible and review of job documents, such as the JHA (Job Hazard Analysis) likely after the task performance. A more in-depth monitoring and assessment process began in January of 2013.
The benchmark of effective training considers three interrelated components. It must be targeted to the topic, measured for understanding and monitored for compliance. Recent IEEE-ESW papers have highlighted the importance of management support in establishing an overall safety culture even in the face of uncertain economic times. NFPA 70E places firmly on the shoulders of the employer the responsibility to monitor safe work practice compliance on a timely basis. The 2012 NFPA 70E, similar to its energy supply standard counterpart, the OSHA CFR 1910.269, establishes the need to monitor understanding and compliance on at least an annual basis. The workforce is any company’s greatest asset and like other assets must be well constructed and appropriately maintained. Equipment maintenance requires gathering baseline and operational data to make prudent decisions on any necessary action. So also the workforce, if it is regarded as the most critical of company assets, requires being given the guidelines around which electrical work is to be performed and measurable tools put in place to monitor operational effectiveness.
II. Gathering the Data Develop and implement Assessment Tools
Safety audits can be a painful process. Past successes are not celebrated while any deficiency is spotlighted as a potential challenge to meeting the overall goal.
Assessment tools in the form of detailed checklists were developed involving the elements upon which the workers had initially been trained, showed verbal understanding and demonstration of skills proficiency. Two sets of forms were to be utilized as the host employer (company) must direct all activities for their own workers and only set the safety boundaries under which their electrical business partner contract workers must perform. In other words, to direct all activities the company must provide direction to their own electrical employees on what is to be done (i.e. technical performance) and how it is to be accomplished (i.e. safe work practices). For the business partners the direction is confined to the safe work performance.
The forms to be utilized were developed with the assistance of key electrical supervisory personnel within the company. Point values were assigned to each step to measure the outcome for each worker assessed. Individual action plans were to be determined based upon a numerical result.
The following action matrix is automatically in place for all company employees and suggested to the business partners as being both diligent and prudent. No employee is immediately removed from any future work assignments as a result of the assessment findings. Those actions are solely left up to company policy, collective bargaining agreements and the severity of any training gaps uncovered by the assessment.
11 assessment forms for host company supervision and employees:
• 2 for selection and inspection of PPE, tools and equipment
o Low voltage work o High voltage work
• 1 utilizing the company SOP process/JHA techniques
• 7 task specific forms following company approved SOP’s
• 1 assessment auditing the company
o Adherence to 2012 NFPA 70E employer requirements and compliance to oil company specific ESWP
5 assessment forms for electrical contractor business partners:
• 4 forms for electrical workers/supervision o Selection and inspection of PPE, tools and
equipment
ƒ Low voltage work
ƒ High voltage work
o Utilizing the company SOP process/ JHA techniques
o Determining work plan where no SOP exists
• 1 assessment auditing company/management
o Adherence to 2012 NFPA 70E employer requirements and compliance to oil company specific ESWP
Where 100% is always the goal, any score less than that value is met with appropriate timely and documented action.
(See Fig. 1)
< 100 but > 80:
• immediate coaching,
• re-assessment within 60 days
< 80 but > 60:
• immediate coaching,
• re-training in areas of weakest proficiency
(determined by supervisor) within 30 days, • re-assessment within 60 days after re-training
< 60:
• immediate coaching,
• re-training in all areas within 30 days,
• re-assessment within 15 days after re-training
Fig. 1 Monitoring documentation and action points
Workers are initially trained to the company electrical safe work practices (ESP/ESWP/NFPA 70E) and show documented understanding and skills proficiency. This is the foundation, or pinnacle in this graphic (see Fig. 1) which becomes the standard by which future assessments are compared. Any scores noted less than 100% always leave room for potential injury or incident. Unless ongoing supervision and monitoring on at least an annual basis is accomplished the percentage of compliance less than 100% for any given worker is never really known.
The first pass of assessments for the company workers began January 2013 and ended August 2013. Fifty seven (57) company power electricians working on either low voltage or overhead line work were assessed using the measured matrix of competencies. Five (5) employees were trained as on-site assessors to continue monitoring on a periodic basis. The second pass of assessments will commence beginning September 2013 adding those that were either not available for the first pass and the instrumentation and controls workers exposed to above 50 volts. Optimally all electrical workers will be assessed 4 times per year to start then tapering to annually in 2015 and thereafter.
Five (5) business partner companies (electrical contractors) were assessed May – July. Their workers were assessed using a formula of 20% of the workforce, a minimum of six (6) workers if a larger firm or all workers if the number were less than six (6). Only by coincidence, fifty seven (57) contract electricians were also assessed. Their tasks and hazard exposures were potentially identical to those of the oil company (host employer) employees.
The assessment of the company employees began with a session where the assessment program and purpose was explained and more importantly how the results would be tabulated and viewed by their supervision. It had been on average over 2 years since they had received their initial training in the company ESWP. Most were long time electrical workers with an average time in the trade of well over 20 years. Not unexpected most participants were concerned any result could be negatively used in their performance reviews. Although how a company uses any gathered data is always an employee concern it was explained this is more an audit of the company and its performance in preparing the worker and worksite for safe work rather than of the workers themselves. It is much like a gap analysis to discover any holes in the process and fill that gap with knowledge and understanding before it is filled with an accident or worse. The action plans determined from the results, explained in Section III, were clearly conveyed yet most were nervous during their personal assessment process. For the company workers the assessor immediately coached any items scoring less than the desired 100% to regain the desired level of competency and compliance.
For business partners (electrical contractors) the assessment process was slightly different. The process was designed to uncover any gaps in preparation, understanding or compliance reflecting any employer deficiency in training, monitoring or controls. The employer must take any appropriate action necessary determined by the results although often the assessor would by necessity and availability interject ideas through questions on individual topics. The results of the business partner workers and company assessment were then collated and given to the host employer (company) for developing their own effective action plans and follow-up.
For comparison and the purpose of this paper the following assessment findings were considered to be most directly related between the host and contract employers.
Company: aka Host Employer
Company worker assessment data:
Note: For the company employees the purpose of the assessments were to primarily identify areas of weakness and immediately coach to a higher level. Values extrapolated from assessment notes.
57 workers assessed, (all scores averaged)
• Selection and inspection of PPE, tools and equipment o Low voltage work – 70%
o High voltage work – 81%
• Utilizing the company Electrical Safety
Program/Electrical Safe Work Practices and Job Hazard Analysis process – 85%
• Determining Safe Operating Procedure applicability and recognizing the need for an Energized Electrical Work Permit – 87%
Host company score as compared to 2012 NFPA 70E
requirements: - 90%
Note: Mainly due to lack of monitoring process/personnel in place, which was completed as part of these findings, initiating this project/report. As was done with the company workers, any deficiencies were immediately addressed and remediated at the appropriate levels.
Business partners: aka Contract Employers
Business partner assessment data:
For the business partner workers the purpose of the assessments was to identify gaps that the employer must address to ensure safety
57 workers assessed, (averaged score)
• Selection and inspection of PPE, tools and equipment o Low voltage work – 41% o High voltage work - 73%
• Utilizing the company Electrical Safety
Program/Electrical Safe Work Practices and Job Hazard Analysis process – 79%
• Determining Safe Operating Procedure applicability and recognizing the need for an Energized Electrical Work
Permit – 42%
Business partner company score as compared to 2012 NFPA 70E requirements: - 59.6%
Note: Five (5) companies were included in this scoring. Values
ranged from 78% to 42% with an average overall of 59.6%
By viewing the bar graph (see Fig. 2), comparisons can be drawn on host employer and their worker’s and contract employer and their worker’s retention, understanding and compliance to NFPA 70E and best industry practices for safe work performance.
Fig. 2 Comparative Assessment
Nothing is acknowledged until it sees the light of reality. Objective and measurable assessments determining levels of seen or spoken responses when compared against accepted standards provide a clearer understanding of worker compliance to electrical safety programs as practiced in the field.
III. Results
“Without a vision the people perish” [6]
The old proverb quoted above, although from a religious source, has application and importance in the business realm. Without clear guidance (i.e. regulations, standards, best practices, company policies) upon which to gauge performance workers are left to their own devices. All too often the results are much less than desired.
Given the similarity in both numbers assessed and tasks performed between the host and contract employers the comparison of results would then be significant to determine:
• Electrical safety programs in place,
• Documented qualification processes and methodology,
• Training and procedures delivered prior to work assignments and most importantly,
• Monitoring processes in place to ensure understanding and compliance and used to determine refreshertraining cycles.
As was noted earlier, the host company ESP and ESWP were thoroughly drafted and rigidly enforced. The qualification process and delivery of pre-assignment training was very rigorous and inclusive of all affected persons. Two areas were identified as deficient when compared to 2012 NFPA 70E guidelines:
• Processes/personnel for ongoing monitoring/tracking of electrical safe work practices and
• Inconsistent application of electrical job hazard analyses tools and processes.
The monitoring piece is now in place and trending methodology will be used to determine necessary training modifications and monitoring processes.
The host company utilizes an “Energy Wheel” or “See It” tool as a mental trigger to the user when filling out the Job Hazard Analysis forms. (see Fig. 3). Hierarchy of Controls is then applied in the mitigation or avoidance conclusions based on the analysis.
Fig. 3 Host Company Hazard Identification Tool
Hierarchy of Controls after identification of hazards:
1. Remove the energy source
2. Prevent the release of energy
3. Protect from the release
4. Use “Stop Work Authority”
Even with the use of this tool, inconsistencies were noted between each worker’s application stemming from either past experience, personal comfort/discomfort, or what appears most obvious to them. Modified formats of the JHA are being considered to alleviate the discrepancies and achieve greater overall analysis consistencies.
It bears note that the host company’s existing processes and controls have resulted in a relatively low number of electrical near-misses and incidences to date. As this data is now tracked as overall incidences and near-misses, increased attention will be afforded the archiving process to better determine increases and decreases in these areas. It was anecdotally reported that a marked decrease in overhead line encroachment near-misses resulted by the establishing of overhead line clearance training for all workers and swift action on any violations noted. It is further expected that the training to and awareness of host employer ESP/ESWP will result in similar results. What is interesting to note is that smaller yet equally as consequential results from non-compliance to ESP/ESWP at lower voltage levels was rarely noticed or reported until the detailed objective and measurable monitoring processes were put in place.
When compared to their contractor business partners varying levels of ESP/ESWP conforming to NFPA 70E guidelines was noted. Qualification processes were less vigorous and preassignment training less extensive. Written guidelines for workers to follow while performing the work were also much less stringent. These generally followed the pattern of the larger the company the more like the host employer and NFPA 70E and the smaller the company the less like the host employer and NFPA 70E.
A common theme emerged where these smaller companies had ESP/ESWP documents that followed NFPA 70E guidelines but no effective training had occurred where proficiencies were documented with any objective or measurable terms. Workers acknowledged getting their company’s “safety book” but most could not cite specific requirements that would be expected if used on a daily basis. Common areas of non-compliance, which would have a high consequence, were:
1. Use of company developed SOPs.
2. What to do if electricity could not be turned off.
3. Values for arc flash protection.
4. Cycles of testing required for insulated rubber gloves.
5. Basic inspection and testing of 1000 volt rated meters.
Monitoring processes personnel were significantly less, and in one case missing altogether. JHA results were also less consistent and inclusive of all hazards.
Auditing results of all groups indicated a higher level of awareness and proficiency on all tasks where the higher the voltage of qualification the higher level of awareness, skill and proficiency that was demonstrated. This is both settling and troubling at the same time.
Settling in that in the higher voltage exposure areas of uninsulated overhead lines, workers are well trained and work performance rigorously controlled. These workers can be good mentors to those working at lower voltage levels in job hazard analysis and safe work practices when their work practices are observed or taught.
Troubling in the fact that when these same workers were given the low voltage safety assessment as a pre-requisite to their higher voltage work level (these workers may be performing tasks at 120 volts, 480 volts and 12,500 volts at any time on any given day) that they were just as likely to skip inspection and testing steps as those who only work at 120 volt levels. An inverse relationship exists where a higher level of comfort is assumed as the voltage level decreases. Skilled and experienced electrical workers tend to express a work culture that is convenient, comfortable and consensual.
Convenience is achieved when work practices are modified to meet environmental or work site anomalies. Being comfortable is every worker’s desire no matter the task at hand. Supervisors or safety managers have often heard a worker express displeasure at wearing unfamiliar protective equipment, as it is uncomfortable. Most have heard the follow up responses, “If I have to wear this arc shield I am unsafe because I can’t see” or “These insulted gloves are too bulky to do the work safely”, etc. There is some measure of truth to these statements. Workers must be familiar with, skilled in the use, and confident in all the personal protective equipment (PPE) that is to be utilized. Truer still is often the speed bump in this road to safety is not that PPE is incorrect for a specific task but rather that the work practice, the task itself, needs to change to comply with accepted safe work practices. The initial question in any electrical JHA should not be “why must I turn off this circuit?” but rather “why can’t this circuit be turned off?”. Eliminating the electrical hazard whenever possible should always be the goal. Unfortunately experience or historical expectations of leaving the circuit energized are expressed as “I’ve always done it this way” (aka comfortable), “It is easier to leave it energized” (aka convenient).
Consent is given to these work practices by default where there is an absence of a communicated standard or supervised and monitored guidelines. In fact, consent is embraced where controls are not communicated. But communication is not sufficient to ensure compliance. Compliance is achieved by:
1. Establishing expectations
2. Ensuring understanding (documentation)
3. Auditing and monitoring application
IV. Conclusion Lessons Learned
When protecting workers, the responsibilities of a host employer and contract employer are identical. Employers must identify the hazards expected to be encountered, train employees to identify, analyze and avoid injury when working on or near the hazard and provide protection to them while exposed to that hazard.
More assessing is required to perhaps prove using the scientific method what every manager, supervisor and worker already knows. People work to their level of comfort and strength.
Action items:
1. Identify modifications that can be implemented in upcoming refresher training that will be more lasting in the students’ memory
2. Utilize the same assessment forms in the training to establish a clearer and documented baseline for comparison.
3. Continue assessments to include all affected persons within the host company and differing samples of workers from the company’s business partners.
4. Integrate monitoring methods into hand held devices for better field use and real-time reporting.
5. Train and monitor assessors to more quickly identify any deficiencies and provide immediate and effective remediation.
Leaders lead with vision and direction while managers use processes and procedures to guide to a desired end. Documents such as NFPA 70E and CSA Z462 are increasingly utilized by leading managers and supervisors in establishing clear paths to achieve a cultural change. This change will only be realized as managers embrace the idea that “certified, skilled, experienced and qualified” electrical workers must be given clear expectations of safe work performance no matter the cost. The days of electrical ‘heroes’ that violate every rule to attack an emergency have generally come to an end. It is widely recognized that even in the face of an electrical emergency there remains nothing more urgent than worker safety.
Yet it is in the times of normal operation, where the mundane activities of maintenance rule, that work practices must be more thoroughly monitored. When procedures are collectively developed, clearly communicated and consistently enforced the workplace culture will move toward change.
“The man who says, “You can lead a horse to water but can’t make him drink,” just doesn’t know horses. If you salt down the oats
they’ll drink all the water they can find.” [7]
Effective change comes from within. Internally driven, it is both lasting and infectious. Our task, as leaders in electrical safety, is to find the right combination of salt and oats.
V. Acknowledgement
Special thanks to the San Joachin Valley Base Business Unit of Chevron Oil Company along with their electrical business partners for their proactive undertaking and cooperation of such an expansive project. Through their dedication and passion for electrical safety this project became a reality. This thorough look at electrical safety programs, application processes and their personnel’s work habits have resulted in measurable data upon which definitive actions can be positively made.
Additional thanks to Jeffery (Jeff) Grovom, Consultant and Instructor of Electrical Safety, Codes, Controls and Instrumentation for NTT Training Inc. and past Montana Electrical JATC (IBEW/NECA). His guidance and knowledge in codeveloping and editing assessment procedures and forms as well as conducting many of the worker assessments was invaluable in the success of this project.
It is the sincere hope of all involved that these findings can be utilized as a substantiation by any company, large or small, to undergo similar frank and honest assessments of their own electrical culture and practices.
VI. References
[1] Cawley, James C. P.E., “Occupational Electrical Injuries in the
US, 2003-2009” IEEE Paper No. ESW-2012-24
[2] OSHA Fact Book, 2008
https://www.osha.gov/as/opa/OSHAfact-book-stohler.pdf
[3] OSHA 29 CFR 1910,
https://www.osha.gov/osha40/timeline.html
[4] 2012 NFPA 70E, 110.3 (A) [5] Gretzky, Wayne
http://www.quotationspage.com/quotes/Wayne_Gretzky/
[6] Book of Proverbs, Holy Bible, KJV, Proverbs 29:18
[7] Allen, T.R., (grandfather and namesake of author, Robert S.
LeRoy), from his homegrown Kentucky wisdom
978-1-4799-2098-3/14/$31.00 ©2013 IEEE
VII. Vitae
Robert S. LeRoy is an independent electrical safety and compliance consultant and former Director of Electrical Programs at NTT Training, Inc. He has 41 years experience in the utility, industrial and commercial electrical systems and equipment. During his nearly 20 years with Lakeland Electric, Lakeland, Florida utility generating facility Mr. LeRoy was an active member and leader of the utility’s voluntary emergency response team as first response to chemical, fire and medical emergencies. Responding to countless emergency situations has given him a passion for safety and perspective on the role of human behavior in averting these events. He has conducted over 350 classes in NEC, NFPA 70E, NFPA 70B/NETA, 1910.269, NESC Grounding and Bonding and Hazardous Locations to thousands of students worldwide.
As a master electrician, IAEI NCPCCI-2B Electrical Inspector and a member of NFPA, IAEI, ASSE and IEEE he assists clients in the utility, oil and gas, manufacturing and aviation industries in gap analysis for compliance to electrical safety regulations and procedures, develops a well-trained electrical workforce and provides monitoring tools to measure compliance and training effectiveness. Mr. LeRoy has worked with several international clients to adapt US based NFPA electrical standards (NEC, 70B electrical maintenance practices and 70E electrical safe work practices) and melds with local country regulations or international client requirements for acceptance and use in countries as diverse as Japan, Indonesia, Singapore, Saudi Arabia, Mexico, Central and South America, Africa (Nigeria and Burundi), Canada, and Kazakhstan. Mr. LeRoy has conducted accident reports and forensic installation and work practice studies to assist clients in identifying any deficiencies and develop processes and procedures to remediate any gaps to establishing a safer work environment.
He can be reached at:
Robert S LeRoy
Cell: 1 863.944.3369 rleroy01@gmail.com
http://www.linkedin.com/pub/robert-s-leroy/45/350/230 www.robertsleroy.net
Tim McCoy is Electrical Inspection Supervisor for the Chevron Oil Company, San Joachin Valley Business Unit, Bakersfield, CA. His career encompasses all aspects of electrical work from being a journeyman lineman, C-10 Electrical Contractor, Electrical inspector and effective electrical instructor. He carries several certifications including: Certified Electrical Safety Inspector and Certified Electrical Inspector ICC/IAEI. Mr. McCoy has taught Overhead Powerline Safety for over 23 years to company and contractor employees working on or near overhead powerlines establishing work practices which have resulted in reduction of incidents and near-misses. Additionally he is the secretary of the SW Section, Central California Chapter of the IAEI.
Mr. McCoy can be reached at:
Tim McCoy
Electrical Inspection Supervisor
Base Business
Chevron North America Exploration & Production
San Joaquin Valley Business Unit
Bakersfield, CA 93308
Tel 661 392-2633
Tmccoy@chevron.com
Back to Articles Page
