Electric shocks can result in terrible injury and even death. With his wealth of knowledge and experience, Chris Halliday provides guidance to help manage incidents and prevent recurrences.

An electric shock, particularly an electrocution, can be a traumatic event – especially for those on site.

Staff may have to conduct a rescue and perform CPR, may feel guilty for allowing the incident to occur or may have contributed to it – not to mention the possibility of losing a mate/colleague.

Many people will be affected: supervisors and safety officers investigating the incident, senior managers visiting the family with the bad news, and colleagues and other staff appearing in court. Most important, the family and close friends of the victim will suffer considerable grief. Such emotional trauma may linger for many years and never fully abate.

Incidents can be expensive – not only from a personal perspective but for the business. It will experience downtime and lost production, potential fines by the state regulator, loss of reputation in the business community and damage to branding.

Obviously it is better to prevent accidents by having all the workplace health and safety matters in hand, such as:

• procedures and work instructions;
• training and assessment;
• qualified staff;
• authorisations;
• safety committees;
• staff consultation;
• toolbox talks;
• audits by supervisors and independent experts;
• coaching;
• a no-blame culture;
• incident investigation and reporting; and crucially
• an excellent safety culture.

The proper management of minor incidents or near misses is vital. It should be remembered that individuals, managers, chief executives and board members may be held accountable and can be personally fined for their actions or lack thereof.

Planning
If things go wrong, it pays to have staff that can expertly investigate incidents to prevent any recurrences, provide facts to a coroner (for an electrocution) and mount a defence in court (in the event of prosecution by the regulator or a civil action by a relative).

Planning includes having in place investigation procedures, appropriately licensed and competent investigators, suitable equipment such as maintained and calibrated test instruments, and other basic equipment such as insulated gloves, torches, raincoats, camera, video camera, voice recorder, etc.

Investigation team
The investigation team may be one person for minor incidents or a full complement including a lead investigator (perhaps a safety person or manager), electrical staff and a subject-matter expert called in specifically.

There must be electrical staff involved, as a safety person or a non-electrical manager will not fully understand the electrical issues.

I was asked to comment on a recent electrical incident report that was written by someone with an inadequate understanding of the issues. Also, there was insufficient involvement of electrical staff. The report was garbage.

Investigation process
The investigation should be carried out as soon as possible, as things can change.

I investigated one incident about 12 months after the event. The coroner was somewhat critical of my report because of the long interval. My report was sound and based on the evidence available at that time, but the investigation was far too late.

The purpose of the investigation was two-fold. First, and most important, the investigation sought to ensure the site was safe and to prevent further incidents (even though no one had received a shock in the meantime). Second, the client needed to mount a defence for a civil case likely to follow the coroner’s findings.

Note-taking, sketches, photos, videos and test results are important in helping to determine the causes of an incident, and in writing the report. They also important for a coronial inquiry, or for a prosecution or civil case.

AS5388 Forensic Analysis provides considerable guidance when dealing with electrocutions, even though its focus is on criminal events. Preservation of evidence removed from the scene as part of the investigation is included in the Standard.

Once all the evidence is collected, a detailed analysis is required to determine the obvious causes – and the not so obvious causes. Some of this is carried out on site as the investigation progresses. Test results need to be analysed ‘on the fly’, and other testing will be determined from this.

Some form of root-cause analysis is required in establishing the not so obvious causes, and the simplest form is the ‘Five Whys’. Repairs may be needed to neutralise all possible causes.

Legal requirements and issues
The overriding legal responsibility is first of all to make the site safe.

This will allow emergency services personnel to do their job and will prevent anyone else from being hurt. Preservation of life is paramount, so onsite hazards must be effectively managed.

The second legal responsibility is to ensure that evidence is not disturbed until the appropriate authorities have investigated. If the authorities don’t investigate, the evidence may need to be kept in case it is needed for a civil action.

The third legal responsibility is to report to the appropriate authorities. This may include verbal advice as soon as the incident has occurred, and written reports/forms that meet official timelines.

State-based authorities may prosecute for incidents that occur in the workplace if an employer has not complied with all requirements. The authority is likely to review such things as risk assessments, policies, procedures, work instructions, training records, authorisations, qualifications, audit results, maintenance records, etc.

A death will require consideration by the coroner, and evidence, reports or testimony will be included in the coroner’s review. Civil action may result if a relative or de facto seeks compensation.

All relative documentation and evidence may be subpoenaed if court action is proposed. Failure to keep such evidence is likely to be regarded as an offence.

AS/NZS3000 (Wiring Rules) and any Standard called up in the Wiring Rules is a legal requirement. Electricians who fail to comply with the Wiring Rules are therefore breaking the law – for example, cutting earth electrodes off where the ground is too hard. Such action leaves the electrician open to prosecution and could cause an electrocution in the premises.

Technical matters
A good understanding of all electrical technical matters is important. The effects of electricity on the human body, how the multiple earthed neutral system works (most electricians don’t seem to understand this, let alone a non-technical person on the investigation team), the limitations of test equipment, the requirements of the Wiring Rules and any Standard called up by them are just some of the technical issues the investigation team will need to know.

Continuing professional development is important for investigators. Attendance at conferences and subscription to e-newsletters and trade magazines such as Electrical Connection will help.

Post-investigation review
Some form of post-investigation review is highly recommended. It could be simply considering your individual performance on the way back from the incident, or a formal review in a corporate office with all those involved.

Aspects to consider include:

• How could the investigation be improved?
• Was the investigation timely?
• Were all issues dealt with?
• Were conclusions correct and appropriate?
• Were suitable solutions and recommendations offered?
• Were all underlying causes identified using root-cause analysis?
• Has counselling been provided for those on site, workmates and/or family and friends?

I was involved after a person was ‘locked on’ to the door handle of the rear screen door of a house. The incident was put down to lightning striking a power pole more than 100m away.

No measures had been offered to prevent a recurrence, such as warnings not to touch metalwork during storms, or retrofitting equipotential bonding so the concrete floor and door handle are at the same potential.

However, lightning is unlikely to have caused a significant step and touch voltage at that distance.

An in-depth investigation found the more likely cause to be a light fitting affected by a leaking roof. Current made its way to the door handle via the water-affected path.

There was more to this issue: whoever took the initial call failed to find out, or didn’t record, that the person had been ‘locked on’, and the initial investigator also failed in this respect.

Clearly, the initial investigator did not identify the cause of the incident, provide options to minimise risks or analyse underlying causes.

A formal post-investigation review should deal with these matters. However, such a review should not seek to place blame, as its role is to improve future investigations.

Conclusion
Electrical incidents do occur, but all are preventable. It pays to be prepared if an incident does occur by having investigation procedures and trained people in place with suitable equipment available. The investigation may be carried out by an individual or a team with additional expertise called in as required.

The investigation should be carried out as soon as possible as the conditions will change. Notes, sketches, photos, video and test results will be important evidence to help develop a hypothesis and determine the cause of any incident.

Legal issues include making the site safe, preserving evidence and notifying authorities. The Wiring Rules and associated standards form legal requirements and are to be complied with.

An understanding of electrical technical issues is essential to any electric shock investigation. These issues include the effects of current on the human body (or animal if involved), the multiple earth neutral system operation, limitations and use of test equipment, Wiring Rules or other requirements, etc.

A post investigation review is essential to ensure safety and process improvement.

All in all, there is a lot to consider when investigating an electrical incident and it pays to be prepared.

Disclaimer: This article is written on behalf of the Institute of Electrical Inspectors, although the views expressed are not necessarily those of the institute. Any information in this article is given in good faith and is not all-encompassing. Likewise the author is not a legal practitioner, although legal issues are discussed. Investigators should make their own decisions based on legislative requirements, Standards, codes of practice, risk assessment, knowledge, etc. Otherwise seek further assistance.