We follow 70E at our facility. Following a recent training session on arc flash and electrical safety I realized that we aren't "completely" following 70E, and some changes to our procedures need to be made.

What I am running into is management that wants proof that OSHA stands behind the tennants of 70E.

The only thing that I have been able to find is a reference in 1910 subpart S saying that OSHA refereces 70E. Does that mean that they enforce it as well?

It is my understanding that at this moment OSHA can not fine you for non-compliance with 70E.

But if there is an accident 70E can be used against the company.

As far as I know this is just a standard like NFPA 70 and it doesn't mean diddly unless it is adopted by the local/state government.
I don't think the federal government accepts other people's standards. They have 535 folks in DC who write that kind of thing themselves and they don't like outsiders encroaching on their turf.

At our training sesion on 70-E we were told exactly what iwire stated. 70-E kicks in when the s^#t hits the fan.

Since none of us are lawyers, you may want your managers to have the corporate attorneys read and interpret Part 1910, Subparts 1910.5 and 1910.6 to determine “Applicability of standards” and “Incorporation by reference.”

Actually the original 70E was developed by the NFPA upon the request of OSHA.
Don

I would be curious what the force of law is if it isn't actually passed by congress.
Anything goes until it gets ruled on in court I guess.

OSHA dosent really write the standards, they take industry standards like the NFPA 70E, change the wording to make it enforcable, and publish it as an OSHA standard.

The upcoming release of the new OSHA electrical standard is based on the 2004 NFPA 70E. The person who was the chairman of the 70E commitee now works for OSHA, probally to help with the release of enforcement of the new proposed standard.

Big Ed, there is a video on the internet of David Wallace from OSHA discussing OSHA's viewpoint of enforcement and compliance of the 70E, you should be able to find this video with a quick google search.

NFPA 70E Standard for the Electrical Safety Requirements for Employee Workplaces
http://www.mt-online.com/articles/100470e.cfm

NFPA 70E is incorporated into OSHA by reference. In the event of an incident OSHA would typically cite you under the General Duty Clause. i.e. the employer has a responsibility to provide a workplace free from recognized hazards.

There was an initiative to re-write the 1910 and 1926 electrical standards but this has been put on hold and they are focusing on 1926 Sub Part V and 1910.269 High Voltage standards.

NFPA 70E is not incorporated by reference in OSHA 1910/1926. It is a consensus standard. In a nutshell, industry consensus standards, such as NFPA 70E, can be used by employers as guides to making the assessments and equipment selections required by the standard. Similarly, in OSHA enforcement actions, they can be used as evidence of whether the employer acted reasonably.

Let's not try to split hairs here.

The primary OSHA statute is Part 1910 of the "Code of Federal Regulations." Subpart S, Appendix A, is a list of standards theat "may be useful" in complying with the 1910 requirements.

NFPA 70-E is but on of many standards on this list.

Now, what that means to me is that if your practice is different from what 70-E calls for, you ought to be prepared to litigate for years, and convince a dozen complete strangers, that your opinion is better than what that nice "government expert" offers.

I would say that you ignore NFPA 70-E at your own peril.

As for the "consensus standard" issue, I think that particular canard was put to rest by the Veeck case. Once a standard is adopted as law, law it is ... no matter how it was written. On the "down" side, you get to obey it. On the "plus" side, the "author" can kiss his copyright priveledges good-bye.

70-E is certainly referred to in the OSHA Statute. If I were asked to pass judgement on whether this made it 'adopted by reference,' I would say "Yes." You can be sure that every standards group would argue for a more definitive means of "adoption."

John,
That case is only "law" in the three states of the 5th District, however it can be cited in any case. I think that the fact that all NFPA documents can be read online for free was a response to that case and if and when the isssue is revisted by another District, I would expect that the online availability of the NFPA documents would have some bearing o the outcome of the case.
Don

The Veeck case was appealed to the US Supreme court. After agreeing to hear the case, the Supremes let the ruling of the Appellate court stand.

While perhaps not as definitive as the Court formally saying "We rule the same way," this is certainly more definitive than had the Court declined to hear it at all.

I sure would hate to be the one to argue to a future Court that the issue was not settled in the Veeck case.

I can certainly see that the next effort by the code-writing groups will be to try to muddy the waters; that is, they will try to argue that their codes were somehow adopted "by reference" without actually becoming part of the law. They might even attempt to place language in the codes to this effect. Again, I would not want to be the one to argue that point.

The code bodies are trying to have it both ways; they want everyone to adopt their "model" codes ... yet retain control over them. That's why the Veeck decision is so critical.

Likewise, there have been several instances of such organisations being manipulated for the commercial advantage of one of their members. At least two of these cases have been addressed by the US Supreme Court .... to the distress of the code groups!

With all these problems, the simple fact remains that the OSHA statute does mention 70E by name, if only as a resource to be consulted. One must consider this when one chooses to deviate from 70E.

John,
The Supreme Court refused to hear that case.

Thank you, Don, I stand corrected. With all the other parties filing briefs in the case, I thought a 'writ" had been granted. I thought wrong.

OOPS.

You are correct in that the ruling is binding only in that one Federal district. I think the Solicitor Generals' brief would prevail in any other district, though. Not a challenge I'd want to make.

John,
I agree that it would make it a very difficult case to win, but the writer of the ANSI article seems to think that it will be revisted in a different district and maybe result in a conflicting opinion that would bring the Supreme Court into it.
Don