This annex alone justifies the purchase cost of NFPA 70E, even though it’s just three pages. Arguably, the core of it is Table F.3. If you can grasp the thinking behind — and application of — Table F.3 you can make your safety program extremely effective.
Annex F begins with an introduction to risk management, in a concise format:
- Six risk management principles that can readily be applied to electrical safety. For example, risk management takes human and cultural factors into account [F.1].
- Six elements included in the risk management process. For example, risk assessment and risk treatment.
- A list of three elements involved in the part of risk management that is risk assessment. For example, identifying sources of risk.
It includes Figure F.1, which is a process flow diagram that shows the sequence of the six steps of the risk management process.
It also gives an overview of Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) risk management, which uses the same logical, systematic process but with more focus and more narrowly defined terminology. Note: This is OHS, not OSHA.
This is followed by describing the relationship to an Occupational Health and Safety Management System (OHSMS) [F.2]. A key point to understand here is that risk management is iterative. That is, it follows the plan-do-check-act cycle, which is followed by a review of results and then an update to the plan if needed. That update results in another cycle (iteration) of plan-do-check-act.
There’s a little text in F.3 to introduce Table F.3. That table shows you the hierarchy of risk control methods. The goal is to use the highest one in the table first, then move on down the list and finally implement PPE if still needed. The highest one is elimination, and the example given in the table is, “Conductors and circuit parts in an electrically safe working condition.” This condition is defined in Art. 100, and the process for creating it is covered in Art. 120. If the phrase “Lockout/Tagout” came to mind, you’re thinking along the correct lines.
One mistake that is commonly made is jumping straight to personal protective equipment (PPE). The other five steps can reduce the likelihood and/or severity of the danger. PPE, by contrast, doesn’t reduce the likelihood or severity of the danger. It is your last line of defense, intended to protect you from whatever danger is left after you utilize the other measures.
Another factor to consider with PPE is that it must be stored correctly, used correctly, and used consistently. These requirements fully depend upon a lack of human error on the part of the person in the field making decisions in real time and perhaps while distracted or under stress. Engineering controls (No. 3 in the hierarchy) can significantly reduce the likelihood of, for example, electrical contact or arcing faults, and there are normally multiple levels of review involved under conditions that are not field conditions.
Annex F next looks at hazard-based risk assessment [F.4]. The information resulting from such an assessment is useful when designing, specifying, and purchasing electrical equipment. This brief discussion is followed by a look at task-based risk assessment [F.5]. One of the methods it identifies is the use of checklists.
You can choose from many different risk assessment methods. F.6 provides guidance on how to choose a method or combination of methods. Supplementing this is Figure F.6, which is an example of a qualitative two by two risk assessment matrix. Put in simpler terms, for each potential risk you weigh both the likeliness the harm will occur and the severity of the harm if it does.
This annex closes with performing risk assessment for batteries [F.7]. Figure F.7 is a flow chart to help guide you through this process.
